Scoping Opinion Proposed Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm

SCOPING OPINION

PROPOSED

MYNYDD MYNYLLOD WIND FARM,

DENBIGHSHIRE AND GWYNEDD,

WALES

August 2010

independent impartial inclusive

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 5

Background...... 5

Commission’s Consultation ...... 6

Structure of the Document ...... 7

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 9

Applicant’s Information ...... 9

Commission’s Comment ...... 12

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS...... 17

General Comments on the Scoping Report...... 17

Topic Areas ...... 19

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION ...... 31

Appropriate Assessment ...... 31

Health Impact Assessment...... 31

Other Regulatory Regimes ...... 32

Climate Change, National Policy Statements and EIA Regs...... 32

Applicant’s Consultation ...... 34

APPENDIX 1...... 1

APPENDIX 2...... 2

APPENDIX 3...... 6

PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT...... 8

100819_EN0100028_202289

ES Indicative Contents...... 9

Balance ...... 9

Physical Scope ...... 9

Temporal Scope...... 10

Baseline ...... 10

Identification of Impacts and Method Statement ...... 11

Cross References and Interactions ...... 14

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms ...... 14

Summary Tables...... 14

Bibliography...... 15

Non Technical Summary...... 15

Consultation...... 15

100819_EN0100028_202289

Executive Summary

This is the Infrastructure Planning Commission’s (the Commission’s) Scoping Opinion (the Opinion) in respect of the content of the environmental statement for a potential wind farm at Mynydd Mynyllod by ScottishPower Renewables UK Limited (the Applicant), within the local authorities of Denbighshire and Gwynedd County Councils in North Wales (the Proposal).

This report sets out the Commission’s Opinion on the basis of the information provided in the Applicant’s report entitled ‘Request for an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion’ (July 2010) (Scoping Report). This Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the Applicant.

The Commission has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The Commission is satisfied that the topics identified in the Scoping Report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009.

The Commission draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topics in this Opinion. The main potential issues identified are:

The Scope of the Development:

• The degree of allowable flexibility given towards the proposed design envelope and ability to assess the maximum potential adverse effects of the proposal; and

• The need to clearly identify and describe the proposal and any development subject to separate application procedures such as off-site road improvements and grid connections.

The Scope of the EIA:

• The need to identify and describe the physical scope of the baseline assessment. The ES should ensure the baseline data is comprehensive and sufficient to enable consideration of all potential significant impacts including but not exclusive to; water, terrestrial ecology, hydrology/hydrogeology, cultural heritage and noise;

• The need to consider the assessment as a whole and not as a series of unconnected specialist reports, considering any inter-relationships; and

• The need to consider the cumulative effects with other developments in area.

100819_EN0100028_202289

The Potential Impacts:

• The visual impacts on areas of landscape and historical significance;

• The traffic impacts including those relating to the movement of abnormal loads;

• Any noise impact arising from the construction and/or operation of the proposed development and any cumulative effects with other developments in area;

• The impacts on drainage and peat deposits;

• The impact of on-site borrow pits, including the quantity of material removed; and

• The impacts of the Proposal on any adjacent and nearby European, International and nationally designated sites.

Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as being scoped out by the Commission.

100819_EN0100028_202289

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 On 12 July 2010, the Commission received a Scoping Report submitted by the Applicant under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (the EIA Regs) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm. This Opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the Scoping Report.

1.2 The EIA Regs enable an Applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the Commission to state in writing its formal opinion (a ‘scoping opinion’) on the information to be provided in an environmental statement (ES).

1.3 The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 development under the EIA Regs as being an installation for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farm). An EIA is not mandatory for Schedule 2 development but depends upon the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the likelihood of significant environmental effects and the scale of the proposals.

1.4 In submitting the information included in their request for a scoping opinion, the Applicant is deemed to have notified the Commission under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regs that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm. The proposed development is determined to be EIA development in accordance with Regulation 4. The Applicant has not requested a screening opinion from the Commission.

1.5 Before adopting a scoping opinion the Commission (or the relevant authority) must take into account:

- ‘the specific characteristics of the particular development; - the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; - the environmental features likely to be affected by the development’. (EIA Regs 8 (9))

1.6 This Opinion sets out what information the Commission considers should be included in the ES for the proposed Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm. The opinion has taken account of:

i the EIA Regs; ii the nature and scale of the proposed development; iii the nature of the receiving environment; and

100819_EN0100028_202289

iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental statements.

1.7 The Commission has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees. It has carefully considered the matters addressed by the Applicant and has used professional judgement and experience in order to come to this Opinion. The Commission will take account of relevant legislation and guidelines when considering the ES. The Commission will not be precluded from requiring additional information in connection with the ES submitted when considering any application for a development consent order (DCO).

1.8 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the Commission agrees with the information or comments provided by the Applicant in their request for a scoping opinion from the Commission. In particular, comments from the Commission in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the Commission on submission of the application that any development identified by the Applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project or development that does not require development consent.

1.9 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regs 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 and of its possible effects on the environment; iii. such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make.

1.10 The Commission considers that this has been provided in the Applicant’s Scoping Report.

Commission’s Consultation

1.11 The Commission has a duty under Regulations 8(6) of the EIA Regs to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is given at Appendix 1. The list of respondents, with copies of those comments is given at Appendix 2, to which reference should be made.

1.12 The ES submitted by the Applicant must also demonstrate consideration of points raised by the statutory consultees. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the statutory consultees and how they are considered in the ES.

1.13 Any subsequent consultation responses, received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments, will be forwarded to the Applicant

100819_EN0100028_202289

and should be given due consideration by the Applicant in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the Document

1.14 This document is structured as follows:

Section 2 The Proposed Development;

Section 3 EIA Approach and Topics;

Section 4 Other Information;

Appendix 1 Consultation Bodies;

Appendix 2 Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies;

Appendix 3 Presentation of the Environmental Statement.

100819_EN0100028_202289

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Applicant’s Information

The following information is taken from the Applicant’s Scoping Report. The Commission does not accept responsibility for the accuracy of this information.

The Existing Site

2.1 The proposed site is located approximately 5km south west of Corwen in North Wales and to the south of the A494. The existing site use differs between the eastern and western parts of the site. In the east, the site is predominately covered by grazed farmland with some commercial forestry areas, mainly Coed Gaerwan and Coed Y Fron, with a large proportion of the site registered common land. The western part of the site is managed moor land used predominantly for the purpose of shooting. The location of the proposed site boundary is shown in Figure 2 in the Scoping Report. However, this may change subject to the EIA and the design of the wind farm (paragraph 1.4).

2.2 The proposed site area measures approximately 626ha and includes the hilltop of Mynydd Mynyllod. Development within the site includes Tyfos Farm, Tyos-isaf and Branas Isaf and a disused Quarry (as shown in Figure 2). The site contains a number of lakes/ponds and associated streams which generally flow towards the River Dee to the south east of the site, including the watercourse known as the Nant Llyn Mynyllod which connects the water body Llyn Mynyllod to the River Dee (as shown in Figure 2 in the Scoping Report). Mynydd Mynyllod and Llyn Mynydd are Wildlife Trust sites.

2.3 The typography of the site is characterised by valley floors and undulating forests and grazed agricultural land. The slopes of Mynydd Mynyllod and the area to the west of Llyn Mynyllod have gentle gradients, whilst the eastern area of the site has localised steep gradients. The main part of the site ranges between 300mAOD and 380mAOD.

2.4 The site comprises private landholdings of four local landowners. Areas within the site boundary are within the Countryside Council for Wales’ Tir Gofal scheme to reduce grazing stock and apply appropriate husbandry to promote biodiversity in the area. An unclassified B road running past Tyfos Farm to the south east of the site provides road access to part of the site. Footpaths and bridleways are located within the site boundary.

2.5 The Scoping Report states that there are no ecological statutory designations at the international and national level within the proposed

100819_EN0100028_202289

site boundary (paragraph 4.22) or any national or international landscape designations (paragraph 4.9).

The Surrounding Area

2.6 Braich Ddu wind farm (3 turbines), which is owned and operated by Cornwall Light and Power, is located immediately to the north of the proposed site. The turbines are 60m to hub height (80m to blade tip).

2.7 Ecologically designated sites are identified at paragraph 4.22 of the Scoping Report with Figure 3 of the Scoping Report showing some of these sites in relation to the proposed site. European designated sites located adjacent and near to the site include:

• the River Dee and Lake Bala Special Area of Conservation (SAC) located 0.5km to the south; and

• Berwyn Special Protection Area (SPA) and Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC located approximately 4.5km to the south of the site.

2.8 Nationally designated areas located near the site include:

• Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee) SSSI located 0.5km to the south; and

• Caerau Uchaf and Cors Y Sarnau SSSI’s located 3km to the west.

2.9 Snowdonia National Park generally lies to the west whilst the Clywydian Range AONB is approximately 15km to the north east of the site.

2.10 Large population centres are located at Bala 7km to the south west of the site and Ruthin approximately 16km to the north of the site. Smaller population centres are located at Corwen 5km north east and Llandrillo 4km to the south east.

Description of the Development

2.11 The proposed development comprises a wind farm with a generating capacity of up to 75MW (a range of 30 to 75MW is suggested). The Scoping Report states that at present the number and generating capacity of the proposed turbines are unknown (paragraph 3.1). However, the indicated turbine capacity is between 1.3 to 3MW with up to 25 turbines (paragraph 1.5 of the Scoping Report).

2.12 The maximum dimensions of the proposed turbines are set out in Table 2 of the Scoping Report (page 7). The turbines would have a maximum hub height of 70 – 110m and rotor diameter of 80 – 120m, giving a maximum height to blade tip of approximately 110 – 160m. No indicative turbine layout has been provided.

100819_EN0100028_202289

2.13 The main elements of the development are set out at paragraph 3.12.

• Up to 25 turbines and turbine foundations; • Fenced substation and switchgear compound; • Power cables linking the turbines to a control building, laid underground in trenches; • Stone tracks within the site giving access to turbine bases and control building; • Borrow pits for sourcing local materials for tracks; • Steel lattice or tubular tower anemometer masts; • Site access; • Forestry works; and • Development relating to road widening and habitat creation for mitigation or enhancement.

Connection to the Grid

2.14 An application has been made to SP Manweb which is likely to require a new distribution overhead line or cable circuit to connect the wind farm to a substation. The environmental information relating to the grid connection is expected to be provided by SP Manweb / NGET in a separate application. The Applicant intends to include a high level assessment of the grid connection location and required infrastructure in the ES for the wind farm.

Access

2.15 A new access route to the site for construction vehicles will be formed from the public road network. No indication is provided of the proposed access point or route to the site. No indication is provided of the proposed on-site access tracks.

Construction

2.16 Construction is expected to take 18-24 months, with the wind farm expected to have an operational life of 25 years. The anticipated timescale for commencement of construction is not provided.

2.17 No details have been provided on the construction methods, workforce number, methods of delivery of materials to site, routes for transporting materials including abnormal loads, frequency and number of deliveries or working hours.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Commission’s Comment

2.18 In line with best practice and case law, the proposed development will need to be defined in sufficient detail in the ES to enable a robust assessment of the adverse and positive impacts to be undertaken.

2.19 The dimensions and siting of the proposed development should be clearly described in the ES, with appropriate justification. It will also be important to consider choice of materials, colour and the form of the buildings and structures. Lighting proposals should also be described.

2.20 The Commission accepts that some limited flexibility might be required within any DCO that may be granted and acknowledges the advice in the draft NPS (EN-3). However, whilst the Commission acknowledges that it may be necessary for design parameters to be sufficiently flexible to allow for minor variations in the scheme design, such parameters should not be so great that any variations would effectively constitute a material departure from the scheme design assessment in the EIA or result in a different assessment outcome. The ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within the proposed parameters would not result in significant effects not previously identified.

2.21 The Scoping Report states that the details of the turbine design and layout have not yet been determined and will be guided by the findings in the EIA and feedback from consultation (paragraph 3.10). However, the maximum dimensions of the proposed turbines are detailed in Table 2 with an indicative number of 15 to 25 turbines. If the Applicant intends to adopt the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach to the assessment, the Applicant should ensure that the maximum potential adverse effects of the Proposal are assessed (worst case). The EIA needs to provide a clear rationale for all parameters of the ‘Rochdale Envelope’. In this regard, all known details should be provided in the ES including a detailed description of the proposal e.g. indicative turbine locations, completed geotechnical surveys, cable route(s) and sub-station, on-site access etc.

2.22 The EIA should be carried out on the basis of the maximum adverse scenario (the worst case) in terms of environmental impacts. The Applicant should note in defining the ‘worst case’ for the Proposal it will be required to apply different environmental parameters. It does not always necessarily follow that the worst case for one receptor is the worst case for another. Care will need to be taken in preparing and demonstrating the worst case and consultation on this issue should take pace between the Applicant and the statutory consultees and any other relevant stakeholders.

2.23 The ES should provide a clear description of the ‘development’ as required in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations and use the basis of this description to inform the baseline for assessment. With this in mind, the

100819_EN0100028_202289

Applicant’s attention is drawn to the description of the maximum height to blade tip stated in Table 2 of the Scoping Report. Based on the maximum hub height of 110m and the maximum rotor diameter of 120m the maximum stated height is 160m. The ES should clearly identify the correct maximum dimensions and any design parameters used in the EIA.

2.24 The Commission notes the Applicant’s comments regarding the consideration of the broad approach to the number and height of turbines but omits to include turbine locations, access tracks, location of the anemometer mast, and on-site cable routes.

2.25 The Commission recommends the ES should include a clear description of all the aspects of the development, including timescales for the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, including:

• Land use requirements; • Site preparation; • Operational requirements including the main characteristics of the production process and the nature and quantity of materials used, as well as waste arisings and their disposal, and maintenance activities; • Emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation etc).

2.26 In terms of decommissioning, the Commission acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption, materials can be re- used and the site can be restored or put to a suitable new use. The Commission encourages consideration of such matters in the ES, especially as the Scoping Report states that a fresh application may be made to extend the life of the wind farm or replace the existing turbines as an alternative to decommissioning the wind farm at the end of the anticipated operational life (paragraph 3.20).

2.27 The position regarding ‘associated development’ differs between England and Wales. A DCO in England and in limited circumstances in Wales, may grant development consent not only for development for which consent is required for the NSIP but also for ‘associated development’. In Wales, other than in those limited circumstances, development which would in England fall within the legal definition of ‘associated development’ as set out in Section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot be examined by the Commission. The Commission would only be able to examine development comprised within the NSIP itself. The Commission recommends that the Applicant should distinguish between development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Nonetheless, the Applicant should note that all development proposed should be assessed as part of the EIA.

2.28 Off-site development is proposed to cover road widening and removal of vegetation to allow for access for turbine delivery and associated vehicles and to allow for habitat creation as part of the potential mitigation and/or enhancement measures proposed (paragraph 3.12). However, no indication has been provided of where any off-site development will be located, neither is there any indication of proposed off-site grid connections.

2.29 The Commission considers that the ES should contain information on how the materials will be transported to site including; abnormal loads and the frequency of deliveries, and the proposed construction methods.

2.30 The Commission notes the location of the River Dee and Bala Lake (Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegrid) SAC and Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee) SSSI. Clarification should be provided in the ES of the proximity of the SAC and SSSI to the proposed site development. Whilst the Scoping Report states that the SAC and SSSI are located approximately 0.5km to the south of the site at paragraph 4.22, Figure 1 shows the SAC and SSSI boundary being immediately adjacent to the proposed site boundary (i.e. less than 0.1km) and Figure 2 shows the site boundary to include part of the SAC and SSSI, where the River Dee runs adjacent/within the proposed site boundary.

2.31 The Commission notes that the designated Ramsar site Llyn Tegid is within the River Dee and Bala Lake (Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegrid) SAC and that the River Dee discharges into the designated Dee Estuary / Aber Afon Dyfredwy SAC, SPA, SSSI and Ramsar sites. The Commission also notes the reference to the Berwyn International Bird Area in the Scoping Report (paragraph C1) and the identification of the Migneint-Arennig-Dduallt SAC, SPA and SSSI as shown in Figure 3.

2.32 The Commission recognises that the process of EIA is iterative and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. There may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. Once submitted, the application should not change in any substantive manner. It should be noted that if the development changes substantially during the EIA process the Applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion

2.33 The ES must contain and set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the Applicant and provide an indication of the main reason for the Applicant’s choice, taking account of the environmental effects (Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 18). The reasons for the preferred choice should be made clear and the comparative environmental effects of each option identified in the ES. Items for consideration under

100819_EN0100028_202289

alternatives should include the consideration of the site selection, design criteria, consideration of alternative designs and components to be presented in the ES.

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS

General Comments on the Scoping Report

3.1 The scoping report (section 5: Draft Outline of the Environmental Statement) sets out the proposed format of the ES: A single A3 document combining text and A3 illustrations and a separate A4 Non- Technical Summary. The Scoping Report refers to a confidential annex within the ES with the intention to restrict circulation to CCW and RSPB and other parties agreed by both these organisations. The Applicant should note that the ES should be a single, stand-alone document. The Applicant should also note that the Commission is an open organisation and, subject to complying with any statutory obligations, any information provided to the IPC may be put on its website even if the Applicant considers that the information is confidential. The Commission’s openness policy is published on its website. The IPC is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and any information provided to us may be released under these provisions following receipt of a relevant request(s).

3.2 The Scoping Report refers to a separate Planning Statement which the Commission notes will not be part of the ES. The Commission notes that the ES should be a single stand alone document and should include all appendices as well as any photographs or photomontages.

3.3 The description of the proposed topics which will be set out in Chapter 6 of the ES are listed. On the basis that any information which the Applicant wishes to refer to in the ES will be made available and included in the ES, the Commission is satisfied with the approach proposed for the format.

3.4 The Commission recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified for each environmental topic and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available.

3.5 The Commission recommends that the study area for the EIA should include at least the whole of the application site. For certain topics it will need to be wider. Where appropriate, it should be extended to include any off-site development which may be subject to a separate application procedures. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and, where this is not the case, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given.

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.6 The Commission recommends that the baseline data is comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date. Surveys needed to inform the EIA which are not fully defined or provided within the scoping report will need to be addressed. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies.

3.7 The Commission considers that the assessment should consider all phases of the use – construction, operation and decommissioning. Within the specialist topic sections only some of the topics mention the decommissioning phase, such as Traffic, Transport and Access and Socio-economic. The Commission recommends consideration of such matters in all relevant topics of the ES. The methodology should use up to date regulations and guidance to undertake the assessment and the methodology should be agreed with the relevant consultees. Where this is not the case, a reasoned justification should be given in the ES.

3.8 The Commission welcomes the identification of the nature, magnitude, duration, reversibility and significance of the effects and considers that a standard defined terminology should be used (Section 5 of the Scoping Report).

3.9 The Commission recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the development can be approached in a number of ways but considers that it would be helpful, in terms of ease of understanding and in terms of clarity of presentation, to consider the impact assessment in a similar manner for each of the specialist topics. The Commission welcomes the proposed use of a common format (see Section 5 of the Scoping Report).

3.10 Where appropriate, mitigation should be identified in the ES. The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. The application itself will need to demonstrate how the mitigation would be delivered, and only mitigation which can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the EIA. Mitigation should be discussed and agreed with the appropriate consultees.

3.11 The Commission agrees with the Applicant’s proposal to identify other wind farm developments in the area when assessing the cumulative and sequential effects of landscape and visual amenity (paragraph 4.15 to 4.19). However, the Commission recommends that consideration is also given to the cumulative impact of other non-wind related development within the local area. This should be determined in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3.13 and the effects of any off-site development relating to the application, for example grid connections and road works.

3.12 The Scoping Report does not generally refer to cumulative or combined effects within each of the topic areas (excluding landscape and visual amenity). The inter-relationship between specialist topics should not be overlooked, indeed this is a requirement of the Regulations. There is no

100819_EN0100028_202289

detail provided as to how the interactions between topic areas will be assessed. The Commission considers that details should be provided as to how interactions will be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole. The Commission would refer the Applicant to Appendix 3 of this opinion which sets out a description of cumulative and combined impacts. It is suggested that this approach should be considered.

3.13 The Commission recommends that other major development in the area should be taken into account through consultation with the local planning authorities on the basis of major developments that are :

• built and operational; • under construction; • permitted application(s), but not yet implemented; • submitted application(s) not yet determined, and if permitted would affect the proposed development in the scoping report; and • identified in the Development Plan (and emerging Development Plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited.

3.14 The Applicant may wish to consider the implications of Clocaenog Wind Farm (cumulative impact) on the proposal.

3.15 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as being scoped out by the Commission.

3.16 Reference should be made to Appendix 3 regarding the presentation of the environmental statement.

Topic Areas

General Comments

3.17 The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in an ES.

3.18 Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations sets out the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development which should include ‘in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors’ (paragraph 19).

3.19 Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the Commission

100819_EN0100028_202289

considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration.

3.20 Part 2 sets out the minimum requirements and is included below for reference:

Schedule 4 Part 2

• a description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development; • a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects; • the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment; • an outline of the main alternatives studies by the Applicant and an indication of the main reasons for he Applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects; • a non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

3.21 The scoping report has considered the environment under the following topics (as outlined in paragraph 5.4 of the Scoping Report):

• Landscape and Visual Amenity; • Ecology and Natural Conservation; • Ornithology; • Hydrology and Hydrogeology; • Cultural Heritage; • Noise; • Transport and Traffic; • Local Communities, Land Use and Ownership, Tourism and Recreation, Aviation, Socio-economics, Telecommunications and Television, Shadow Flicker, Safety, Air and Climate, and potentially Deforestation if this is required.

3.22 The Commission is satisfied that the topics identified in the scoping report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the EIA Regs.

3.23 Each of the specialist topics are considered in turn below. It should be noted that the general points made above and elsewhere in this opinion are not repeated under each of the specialist topics. However, the Applicant should ensure that such issues are addressed fully before the ES is submitted to the Commission. Consideration should also be given to the scoping responses, copies of which are provided in Appendix 2.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Landscape and visual amenity (paragraph’s 4.4 to 4.20 and Appendix A of the scoping report)

3.24 The Commission advises that the ES should make use of photomontages to illustrate the proposal. The location and number of viewpoints should be discussed and agreed with the relevant local planning authorities. Particular reference should be made to the comments from CCW and relevant local planning authorities (Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion).

3.25 The Commission notes that a LANDMAP area was provided with the scoping report. The ES should demonstrate use of all LANDMAP datasets.

3.26 The ES should describe the timescales to be applied to the assessment of effects during construction, operation and decommissioning. The baseline year assumed for both the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) study area and the cumulative assessment should also be described.

3.27 The scoping reports cumulative LVIA only includes consideration for other wind farms in the area, either constructed, consented or within the planning system. Cumulative assessment should be in accordance with the Commission’s comments above at paragraph 3.13.

3.28 The LVIA should specify what infrastructure and ancillary components of the scheme are included in the assessment. These should include the on-site substation, access tracks, transformers, working compounds and borrow pits. The LVIA should also clarify the duration of these features or structures, such as temporary features only required for the duration of the construction works. The LVIA will also need to take into account any landscape and visual impacts related to any necessary off-site road works and grid connections. The LVIA should clarify the location of these off-site features. The baseline assumptions for these off-site road works and grid connections should be identified and cross-referenced to the traffic, transport and access topic in the ES.

3.29 The Commission welcomes the approach to agreeing viewpoints with stakeholders and considers that a plan should be provided in the ES showing the location of the chosen sites.

3.30 The Commission notes the proposed assessment of sequential viewpoints of the development including cumulative effects with other wind farms on local roads and PROW. Sequential viewpoints should also be assessed for the public roads and all PROW within and beyond the site boundary. These viewpoints should be agreed with relevant stakeholders, including CCW and the local planning authorities. The Commission recommends that the routing of the new access roads

100819_EN0100028_202289

should be carefully assessed in order to best accommodate the change into the landscape.

3.31 Views from and into the Snowdonia National Park and Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should be addressed as well as from other agreed sensitive receptors. Particular consideration should be given to comments made by Snowdonia National Park, please refer to Appendix 2. Impacts on any historical features of interest, i.e. scheduled ancient monuments and listed buildings, should be addressed and appropriate cross reference made to the section on archaeology and cultural heritage.

3.32 The Commission requests that careful consideration should be given to the form, siting and use of materials and colours in terms of minimising the adverse visual impact of any proposed structures. The potential impacts associated with movement, sound, and shadow flicker should be taken into account.

3.33 The Commission recommends that the Applicant carefully considers the potential impact of alternative layouts on key receptor locations. Justification should be provided in the ES for the layout selected.

3.34 The ES should consider the impact of installing aviation obstruction lighting to some or all of the wind turbines, if required (see the Civil Aviation Authorities’ consultation response in Appendix 2).

Ecology and natural conservation (paragraph’s 4.21 to 4.28 and Appendix B of the scoping report)

3.35 The Commission recommends that the proposals should address fully the need to protect and enhance biodiversity. The assessment should cover habitats, species and processes within the site and its surroundings. The Commission draws attention in particular, but not exclusively, to comments made by the Forestry Commission Wales regarding trees and woodland on-site, CCW on protected species, and Denbighshire County Council regarding local consultation perspective (see consultation responses in Appendix 2).

3.36 The potential impacts on sites of local or regional nature conservation importance should be addressed as well as European, International and Nationally designated sites including habitats and species listed in the Ceredigion and Gwynedd Local Biodiversity Action Plans.

3.37 The Commission recommends the Applicant considers the use of drawings or figures to aid understanding of the relative importance of the designated sites referred to in the Scoping Report (SSSIs and SACs).

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.38 The Commission would wish to be assured in the ES that the surveys are all relevant and up to date. The Commission considers that great care should be taken to ensure the assessment is undertaken against a consistent baseline. Where baseline surveys are not consistent this should be explained.

3.39 It is unclear whether the off-site road works or grid connections would be included within the cumulative ecological assessment. The ES should consider the ecology and nature conservation impacts arising from all off-site works.

3.40 The assessment should take account of noise and air quality (dust) impacts and cross reference should be made to these specialist reports.

3.41 The extent of aquatic ecology surveys that will be undertaken and the duration over which the assessment will be carried out should be described in the ES. Appropriate cross reference to the section on Hydrology should be made.

3.42 The effects on two Wildlife Trust sites and CCWs Tir Gofal scheme should be addressed, especially during the construction and operational phase. Attention is drawn to comments raised by Gwynedd Council (provided in Appendix 2) regarding the potential development of operational management plans to demonstrate suitable mitigation measures for operational activities.

3.43 Reference should be made to appropriate mitigation measures in line with specific industry guidance. The ES should include a detailed description of all the measures that will be implemented to avoid, mitigate and if necessary, compensate for any significant adverse effects on the environment.

3.44 Consideration should be given to the monitoring of impacts over both construction and operational phases of the development and during decommission of the site.

3.45 The Commission’s comments on peatland assessment are set out below.

Ornithology (paragraph’s 4.29 to 4.34 and Appendix C of the scoping report)

3.46 The Applicant is referred to the ecologically designated sites identified by CCW for consideration of ornithological impacts (see CCW’s comments in Appendix 2).

3.47 The Commission considers that it would be useful to compile all existing survey data and present it in uniform manner to allow for

100819_EN0100028_202289

effective and transparent analysis with a plan identifying the physical survey areas. It would also be useful to provide from this data analysis indications of distribution, population and variation.

3.48 The Commission considers that great care should be taken to ensure that the assessment is undertaken against a consistent baseline. Where baseline surveys are not consistent this should be explained and justified in the ES.

3.49 Reference should be made to appropriate mitigation measures. Consideration should be given to the monitoring of impacts over both the construction and operation phases of the development and during the decommissioning of the proposal.

Traffic, Transport and Access (paragraph’s 4.35 to 4.36 and Appendix D of the scoping report)

3.50 The traffic assessment undertaken in the ES should clearly identify how the expected vehicle movements (including abnormal loads) will vary over the anticipated construction period. Assumptions made to derive the traffic forecasts should be clearly explained.

3.51 The ES should assess the suitability of the proposed access roads to be used by the abnormal loads and construction vehicles and appropriate cross-reference should be made to the hydrology, hydrogeology and geology topic.

3.52 In terms of road transport, no indication is given as to any proposed agreement with the local authorities and Welsh Assembly Government. The Commission would expect on-going discussions and agreement, where possible, with such bodies.

3.53 The Applicant is referred to the issues raised by Welsh Assembly Government and Gwynedd Council (please refer to Appendix 2).

3.54 The Commission considers that the impacts on existing users of PROW (walkers, cyclists and horse riders) should also be considered and, in this regard, cross reference should be made to the section on socio-economic impacts. The Commission recommends that the potential for impacts on users of PROW over the wider area, including any off-site road works relating to the proposed development away from the main site, should be addressed.

3.55 The ES should consider the potential impacts from increased traffic movement on local roads and access roads, particularly with regard to air quality and noise. The proposed wind farm site lies within/adjacent to sensitive areas that includes European, International and National designated sites. Air quality and dust levels should be considered not only on-site but also off-site along access roads and local footpaths.

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.56 Any proposed new roads should consider sustainable drainage systems to ameliorate increased surface water run-off.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology (paragraph’s 4.37 to 4.43 and Appendix E of the scoping report)

3.57 It will be important to carefully justify the physical extent of this assessment and ensure that potential impacts on downstream users in all river catchments are considered. These users will include abstraction points, anglers, livestock, water supplies and recreational users. The ES should assess any potential impact on current licensable and deregulated activities. If any abstractions on-site are required as part of the DCO application, the cumulative effect should be considered.

3.58 The ES should investigate the effect of the proposal on surface water run-off and the potential impact on local water courses and any groundwater regimes, both during construction and operation.

3.59 The Commission encourages consultation with the EA Wales and the drainage engineers at Gwynedd and Denbighshire Council on the potential need and scope of a Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA). The FCA should cover fluvial impacts and the potential impacts on adjacent landowners and the effect of tree felling on surface water runoff (see EA Wales’ comments, Appendix 2).

3.60 The Commission recommends that the potential effects of changes to the hydrological regime on water courses running from Mynydd Mynyllod, Nant Llyn Mynyllod and the stream running through Coedydd Branas which discharge into the River Dee SAC should be considered. Sediment disturbance should be carefully assessed, particularly in view of the importance of the River Dee SAC. Cross reference should be made to the specialist section on ecology and nature conservation.

3.61 The location of infrastructure within the development site should have regard to the location of underground services i.e. water supply from the local reservoir potentially running through the site and any other infrastructure relating to the nearby abstraction points. Consultation with Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) is recommended. The Applicant should also note the comment by the EA Wales that one abstraction license lies within the site boundary. The impact of the development on these water resources should be assessed.

3.62 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to comments made by the Welsh Assembly and EA regarding borrow pits and their request for additional information to fully assess the impact of the excavation activities (refer to Appendix 2).

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.63 Mitigation measures should be addressed and the Commission advises that reference should be made to other regimes, such as safety cases from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and pollution prevention from the EA. On-going monitoring should also be addressed and agreed with the relevant authorities to ensure that any mitigation measures are effective.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology (paragraph’s 4.45 to 4.49 and Appendix F of the scoping Report)

3.64 The Commission welcomes the Applicant’s approach to considering archaeology and historical landscape issues under this topic heading. However, the Applicant may wish to reflect the full extent of the assessment by including archaeological investigations within the topic heading.

3.65 The ES should provide up-to-date information on the scheduled monuments and historical features assessed. The assessment should include a full desk based review, not only consulting the sources quoted (paragraph 4.46 of the scoping report) but including Cadw, the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments Wales, the National Library, and the Local Records Office.

3.66 Justification should be provided in the ES for the choice of study area, not only having regard to on-site activities but also any off-site activities not included in the DCO application that could potentially have a cumulative effect. Consideration should therefore be given as to scope of the study area and extent to which the identification and assessment of cultural heritage settings are effected, both in isolation and in combination with other known developments.

3.67 The Commission would recommend consultation with the local archaeological trusts, Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust, Gwynedd Archaeological Trust and Cadw to agree a methodology of investigation and any appropriate mitigation strategies required.

3.68 Consideration should be given as to how any impacts will be monitored through the construction, operational and decommissioning phase.

Noise (paragraph’s 4.50 to 4.57 and Appendix G of the scoping report)

3.69 Noise impacts may arise from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the turbines and the transportation of construction materials including abnormal indivisible loads to the site. The scoping report provides an assessment methodology for construction and operational noise impacts on local sensitive receptors.

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.70 The Commission welcomes the proposed involvement of the relevant local authorities’ Environmental Health Departments in agreeing the methodology for assessing noise levels, both during construction and operation. The choice of noise receptors should be agreed between the parties, if possible, including consideration of the receptors located within and near to the development site, where appropriate.

3.71 Whilst a cumulative assessment is stated to take into account the potential for cumulative effects with other wind farms adjoining the development, the extent of the study area is not defined (paragraph G.10).

3.72 The Commission considers it very important to establish an appropriate and agreed baseline, in view of the other proposed developments within the area and the implications of works taking place at all sites concurrently.

3.73 The ES should make clear the assessment rationale for predicting operational noise. The assessment should clarify the indicative numbers, type (design and technology) and layout of turbines upon which the noise predictions will be based. At present, the Applicant has not provided a clear indication of this information which may have a bearing on the assessment results.

3.74 Information should be provided on the proposed vehicle flows, including heavy goods vehicles, along each of the identified access roads during the construction and operation phases. Information should also be provided on the type of equipment and construction materials to be used during the construction phase.

3.75 Noise impacts on people should be specifically addressed including any likely noise disturbance at night and other unsocial hours such as at weekends and/or public holidays, where during the construction or operational phase or both. Noise levels off-site along roads and PROW, should be addressed.

3.76 The Commission recommends that the ES should have regard to the impact of heavy engineering activities on known or potentially unstable ground conditions.

3.77 The noise assessment should take account of the traffic assessment and consider vibration impacts along the route identified from point of entry through to the site during the construction phase and along access routes during operation.

3.78 The noise and vibration assessment should also provide information to inform the ecological assessments, both terrestrial and aquatic and cultural heritage and archaeology.

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.79 Consideration should be given to monitoring noise complaints during construction and operation. Once operational, noise sources should be identified to mitigate noise nuisance.

Socio-economic (paragraphs 4.58 – 4.63 and includes Local Communities and Employment, Appendix H; Landuse and Ownership, Appendix I; and Tourism and Recreation, Appendix J)

3.80 The Scoping Report refers to ‘socio-economic’ impacts at paragraphs 4.58 to 4.63 and includes: Employment; Land use and Tourism & Recreation. The Commission welcomes this broad approach.

3.81 The ES may wish to consider the extent of the study area, include the expected corridors for transport and grid connection (within the context of cumulative assessment and combined effects).

3.82 The Commission considers that the availability of an appropriate workforce should be addressed in the assessment. Given the other anticipated wind farm developments within the area, it is important that the combined effects of the developments should be assessed in respect of the availability of construction workers and any impact increased employment opportunities may place on any local services and the local community such as accommodation, schools and health facilities.

3.83 The proposal has the potential to affect a wide area. The Applicant may wish to consider the potential effects beyond the site boundary, both positive and negative. The Commission notes that it is the Applicant’s intention to ensure the development ‘co-exists with the existing use of agriculture’ (paragraph 4.61 of the scoping report) described as grazed farming and managed moorland for the purpose of shooting.

3.84 The Commission recommends that the ES should take account of the location and potential impact on PROW, including footpaths, bridleways and byways. A clear indication should be given as to how the development will affect the existing amenities/facilities and what mitigation would be appropriate in the short and long term, including stopping up or diverting of PROW. The Commission recommends that consultation is undertaken with the Public Rights of Way officers at Denbighshire and Gwnydd County Council to agree any necessary mitigation measures. Cross reference should be made to any visual impacts on PROW identified in the landscape and visual section.

3.85 The potential impacts on any recreational activities in the area, including Snowdonia National Park should be addressed.

3.86 Any third party or common land identified within the proposed development area as being required for the proposal should be

100819_EN0100028_202289

included and sufficiently addressed prior to submitting a DCO application.

Aviation (paragraph’s 4.64 – 4.66)

3.87 The Commission notes the comments on the potential interference with military and civil aviation operations primarily through effects on radar systems and height of the turbines with the location of military low flying areas (paragraph 4.64 – 4.66). The Applicant is referred to the comments and requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority (see Appendix 2).

3.88 CAA and the Ministry of Defence should be consulted to ensure the extent of the study area and heights of turbines do not interfere with NATS operational infrastructure. This should be confirmed in the ES.

3.89 Consideration should be given to extent of the study area to ensure all relevant airfields are consulted.

Telecommunications and television (paragraphs 4.67)

3.90 The extent of the study area for telecommunications and any combined or cumulative impacts should be defined and assessed in the ES (paragraph 4.94).

Other Issues to be considered in the ES

Air Quality and Climate Change

3.91 The Applicant may wish to consider how the ES will address air quality and climate change. The ES should identify a sufficient study area in consultation with the local planning authorities and stakeholders such as the EA Wales as appropriate. The ES should address both of these topics and cross refer to other topic areas where appropriate in the ES.

Effects on Utility Infrastructure

3.92 The ES should refer to all types of utility infrastructure that has been identified within and in the vicinity of the site, the potential impacts, duration and mitigation proposed. The Applicant is referred to the comments raised by The Health and Safety Executive (Appendix 2). The assessment of this topic should cross refer to the specific hydrology report regarding the existing water infrastructure within and near the site boundary;

Health and Safety

100819_EN0100028_202289

3.93 Other health and safety considerations include ice throw and shadow flicker.

Peat Assessment

3.94 The Commission recommends the Applicant should consult with all relevant statutory consultees on peat sampling and monitoring techniques (please refer to the CCW’s consultation response and associated published guidance, Appendix 2 of the Opinion).

3.95 The opportunity to halt deterioration of existing degraded peat and/or to restore active peat forming vegetation should be considered, along with the presumption to avoid disturbance and/or destruction of peat resources where possible. Where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, such impacts should be minimised in consultation with CCW.

3.96 Consideration should be given to the assessment of the release of carbon through disturbance and/or destruction of the peat.

3.97 Appropriate cross reference to the hydrology and ground conditions assessments should also be made.

100819_EN0100028_202289

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION

Appropriate Assessment

4.1 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) and the need to include information identifying European sites to which the Habitats Regulations applies or any Ramsar site which may be affected by a proposal (Regulation 5(2)(g)). The information to be submitted should be sufficient to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site if required by Regulation 48(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994.

4.2 The report to be submitted under Reg 5(2)(g) of the APFP with the application must deal with two issues. The first is to enable a formal assessment by the competent authority, of whether there is likely significant effect. The second, should it be required, is to enable the carrying out of an appropriate assessment.

4.3 When considering aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the development for example; flora, fauna, soil, water, air and the inter relationship between these, consideration should be given to the designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed development including

• the River Dee and Lake Bala Special Area of Conservation (SAC) located 0.5km to the south; and

• Berwyn Special Protection Area (SPA) and Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC located approximately 4.5km to the south of the site.

(Further attention should be drawn to CCW response in Appendix 2):

4.4 Further information with regard to the Habitats Assessment process is located within the pre-application IPC Guidance Note 2 available via the Commission’s website.

Health Impact Assessment

4.5 The Commission agrees with the Health Protection Agency that the proposal could have potential health impacts. The Commission considers that the ES should acknowledge the potential health impact associated with the electric and magnetic fields. The ES should provide an analysis of these impacts.

4.6 The Promoter may wish to consider the preparation of a separate Health Impact Assessment Report (HIA) to address the potential long

100819_EN0100028_202289

term effects of the proposed scheme on human health and wellbeing. The Applicant is referred to the comments of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Health Protection Agency (Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion).

Other Regulatory Regimes

4.7 The Commission recommends that the Applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES. The Applicant should ensure that all relevant authorisations, licences, permits and consents that are necessary to enable operations to proceed are described in the ES. Also it should be clear that any likely significant effects of the proposed development which may be regulated by other statutory regimes have been properly taken into account in the EIA.

4.8 It will not necessarily follow that the granting of consent under one regime will ensure consent under another regime. For those consents not capable of being included in an application for consent under the Planning Act 2008, the Applicant should note that a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the design or plan is acceptable and likely to be approved by them will be required by the Commission before making an application for development consent to the Commission. This is in accordance with draft policy guidance in Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) Applicants are encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from Applicants about progress in obtaining other permits, licences or other consents and confirmation that there is no obvious reason why they will not subsequently be granted will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the Commission.

Climate Change, National Policy Statements and EIA Regs

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS EN-1)

4.9 The draft Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) policy sets out the Government’s policy for delivery of major energy infrastructure and provides a framework for decisions to be taken by the Commission.

4.10 The Commission is bound to have regard to the NPSs, which establish the policy framework within which it operates. The NPSs remain in draft and have been subject to scrutiny and debate and further consultation. The weight to be placed upon the NPSs before they are designated will depend upon the stage reached in the process towards designation and will be a matter to be addressed by the Commission when the application is considered.

100819_EN0100028_202289

4.11 The draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 2.1.1: ‘It is important to note that the planning system is not the vehicle for delivering all aspects of Government energy and climate change policy; there are many aspects that will not be relevant to IPC decisions or decisions by local authorities.’

4.12 It continues at paragraph 2.1.5: ‘Given that the Government policies that underlie the NPSs have been set in accordance with the Transitional Plan and carbon budgets, the IPC does not need to assess individual applications in terms of carbon emissions against the budgets.’

4.13 Paragraph 17(c) of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations includes a number of factors some of which might be anticipated to have an impact upon climate change (‘expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development’1 ).

4.14 Paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires the Environmental Statement to include “A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.”

4.15 Part 2 of the schedule requires the Applicant to provide information that could relate to the consideration of climate change: ‘The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment’2.

4.16 The Commission requires the Applicant to address the effects of climate change on the proposals (adaptation) and how the proposals have provided the means to reduce its impact on climate change (mitigation), for example through amelioration of greenhouse gas emissions.

4.17 The Commission considers that the ES will need to set out the parameters for climate change assessment and address the cumulative effect on local and regional environmental control standards (i.e. Local Authorities Air Quality Management Areas). This information should be dealt with in the ES under a number of specialist topics and taking into account specific references in the relevant draft NPSs. The Applicant may care to consider whether it would be helpful if this information was also collated into one section in order to better understand how the cumulative impacts have been addressed.

1 Para 17 (c) Sch 4 2 Para 26 Sch 4

100819_EN0100028_202289

4.18 The ES should set out clearly the way in which climate change and the potential significant effects relating to the development have been addressed.

Applicant’s Consultation

4.19 It is recommended that the Applicant provides preliminary environmental information3 to the local authority when presenting it with the draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for comment under s47 of the Planning Act 2008.

4.20 Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the Applicant intends to consult on the preliminary environmental information. Where consultation responses have resulted in important changes affecting the EIA, such comments could usefully be reported and considered. This reporting could also assist the Applicant in the preparation of its consultation report required to be submitted with the application for development consent.

3 For an explanation see under ‘Interpretation’ in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 SI2263

100819_EN0100028_202289

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF CONSULTATION BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

100819_EN0100028_202289

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF CONSULTATION BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION

LIST OF CONSULTEES

The Welsh Ministers Welsh Assembly Government

The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive

The Relevant Strategic Health Betsi Cadwalader University Health Authority Board

The Relevant Fire and Rescue North Wales Fire and Rescue Authority Authority

The Relevant Police Authority North Wales Police Authority

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Llandrillo Community Council Relevant Community Council Cynwyd Community Council Llandderfel Community Council Llanycil Community Council Y Bala Town Council Corwen Community Council Llangywer Community Council Cerrigydrudion Community Council Llangwm Community Council Ysbyty Ifan Community Council Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant Community Council Llangynog Community Council Ceiriog Ucha Community Council

100819_EN0100028_202289

Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog Community Council The Environment Agency Environment Agency Wales

The Equality and Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission Commission

The Commission for Sustainable Sustainable Development Development Commission

Royal Commission On Ancient and Royal Commission On Ancient and Historical Monuments Of Wales Historical Monuments Of Wales

The Countryside Council for Wales Countryside Council for Wales

The Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority

The Relevant Highways Authority Gwynedd County Council Transport and Street Care Department

Denbighshire County Council Highways and Infrastructure Department

The Rail Passengers Council Rail Passengers Council

The Disabled Persons Transport Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Advisory Committee Committee

The Coal Authority Coal Authority

The Office Of Rail Regulation Office Of Rail Regulation

Approved Operator Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd

100819_EN0100028_202289

The Gas and Electricity Markets OFGEM Authority The Water Services Regulation OFWAT Authority The Relevant Waste Regulation Gwynedd County Council Highways & Authority Municipal Department Denbighshire County Council Planning & Public Protection Service The British Waterways Board British Waterways Board

The Health Protection Agency Health Protection Agency

The Relevant Local Resilience forum North Wales Resilience Forum

The Crown Estate Commissioners Crown Estate Commissioners

The Forestry Commission Wales Forestry Commission Wales

RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS

Health Bodies under the Acquisition Betsi Cadwalader University Health of Land Act 1981 s.16 Board Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust Anglesey and Gwynedd Local Public Health Team

Electricity Distributors With CPO ECG (Distribution) Limited Powers EDF Energy (IDNO) Limited Energetics Electricity Limited ESP Electricity Limited Independent Power Networks Limited SP Manweb Plc The Electricity Network Company Limited

100819_EN0100028_202289

Electricity Transmitters With CPO National Grid Powers Licence Holder (Chapter 1 Of Part 1 NATS En Route plc Of Transport Act 2000) Public Gas Transporter British Gas Pipelines Limited Energetics Electricity Limited Energetics Gas Limited ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd ESP Pipelines Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited Fulcrum GTC Pipelines Limited Energy House Independent Pipelines Limited Intoto Utilities Limited National Grid Gas Plc (NTS) National Grid Gas Plc (RDN) Northern Gas Networks Limited Quadrant Pipelines Limited Scotland Gas Networks Plc Southern Gas Networks Plc SP Gas Limited SSE Pipelines Ltd The Gas Transportation Company Limited Energy House Wales and West Utilities Limited Utility Grid Installations Limited

Water and Sewage Undertakers Dee Valley Water Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) Severn Trent

Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group

100819_EN0100028_202289

Railways Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd BRB Residuary Limited

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (s.43)

Local Authority (s.42) Snowdonia National Park Authority Gwynedd Council Denbighshire County Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Conwy County Borough Council Flintshire County Council Wrexham County Borough Council Powys County Council Ceredigion County Council

NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES Welsh Language Board Trafnidiaeth Canolbarth Cymru (TrACC) Cadw

100819_EN0100028_202289

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY 9 AUGUST 2010 AND COPIES OF REPLIES

100819_EN0100028_202289

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY 9 AUGUST 2010

Health and Safety Executive Civil Aviation Authority Countryside Council for Wales North Wales Local Resilience Forum TraCC Environment Agency Wales Gwynedd Council Conwy County Borough Council The Coal Authority Snowdonia National Park Authority Scottish and Southern Energy Pipelines Health Protection Agency Welsh Assembly Government Forestry Commission Wales Cyngor Cymuned Llanycil Cyngor Cymuned Llandderfel Denbighshire County Council Health and Safety Executive Conwy County Borough Council

100819_EN0100028_202289

From: [email protected] To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: RE: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request Date: 13 July 2010 12:29:02

Good afternoon Laura

Received.

Regards

Ian Sharrock Risk Communications Policy Unit Chief Scientific Advisor's Group Desk 5 - 4S3 Redgrave Court Tel: 0151 951 3486, VPN 523 3486 [email protected]

From: Laura Allen [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of IPC Scoping Opinion Sent: 12 July 2010 16:04 To: NSIP Applications Subject: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find attached an electronic copy of the EIA scoping consultation request for Mynydd Mynyllod wind farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales.

<<100712_EN010028_ letter to prescribed consultees (email).doc>> A hard copy letter has also been sent to Miss Vilja Gatrell.

Kind regards, Laura

Laura Allen EIA and Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Direct Line: 0303 444 5054 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

The IPC gives advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). The IPC takes care to ensure that the advice we provide is accurate. This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should note that IPC lawyers are not covered by the compulsory professional indemnity insurance scheme. You should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required.

We are required by law to publish on our website a record of the advice we provide and to record on our website the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. We will however protect the privacy of any other personal information which you choose to share with us and we will not hold the information any longer than is necessary.

You should note that we have a Policy Commitment to Openness and Transparency and you should not provide us with confidential or commercial information which you do not wish to be put in the public domain.

**********************************************************************

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

***********************************************************************************

***************************************************************************************************************** Please note : Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications and may be automatically logged, monitored and / or recorded for lawful purposes by the GSI service provider. Interested in Occupational Health and Safety information? Please visit the HSE website at the following address to keep yourself up to date www.hse.gov.uk Or contact the HSE Infoline on 0845 345 0055 or email [email protected] *****************************************************************************************************************

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** From: [email protected] To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: mynnydd response Date: 09 August 2010 13:48:01 Attachments: mynnydd response.doc

Good afternoon, attached is the response for Mynnydd as requested. Ahard copy with Welsh translation is in the post. I fyou wish for an electronic copy of the Welsh version, please let me know. kind regards

Vee ***************************************************************************************************************** Please note : Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications and may be automatically logged, monitored and / or recorded for lawful purposes by the GSI service provider. Interested in Occupational Health and Safety information? Please visit the HSE website at the following address to keep yourself up to date www.hse.gov.uk Or contact the HSE Infoline on 0845 345 0055 or email [email protected] *****************************************************************************************************************

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** Chief Scientific Adviser’s Group Building 3.3 Redgrave Court Merton Road Bootle Merseyside L20 7HS

Your ref: 100712-EN010028-164800 HSE: email: [email protected] Mr David Cliff Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

9th August 2010

Dear Mr Cliff

PROPOSED WIND FARM AT MYNYDD MYNYLLOD,DENBIGHSHIRE/ GWYNEDD (“the project”) PROPOSAL BY SCOTTISH POWER RENEWABLES (“the applicant”) INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (“the EIA Regulations”)

Thank you for your letter of 12th July 2010 regarding the information to be provided in an environmental statement relating to the above project.

There is little for HSE to comment on at this stage however, there are some observations that it would seem sensible to pass on to Scottish Power Renewables.

Major hazards sites, pipelines and explosives within the vicinity of the proposed development

HSE has taken the opportunity to check its records to establish whether the proposed development would fall within HSE’s consultation distance (CD) for a major hazard installation or pipeline. We can confirm that according to our records this is not the case. However, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) hold complete records of pipelines which run through their areas so the promoter should contact the LPA (Denbighshire and Gwynedd) to establish whether any pipeline passes through or near (within the ConsultationDistance) the proposed development, if it does then HSE would need to be consulted for its advice. The proposed development does not impinge on the separation distances of any explosives site licensed by HSE Design Standards

As well as satisfying general UK health and safety legislation (i.e. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and supporting regulations) the promoter should consider providing a summary of the design standards that will be specified at the wind turbine procurement stage. For example the relevant standards include EN 61400-1:2005 (Wind Turbines – Design Requirements), EN 50308:2004 (Wind Turbines – requirements for design, operation and maintenance), EN 62271-200:2004 (High- voltage switchgear and control gear). In particular, HSE would prefer any high voltage switch gear to be at a separate level to the entry point for each turbine. Likewise the promoter should consider providing details of the various EU product safety Directives that the turbines will be certified (“CE-marked”) in accordance with, for example the Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC). We would expect each turbine to be equipped with an access lift complying with the same Directive in view of the access height to the nacelle. The guidance in Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS22 and Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 8 also set out other relevant issues.

Electrical Safety

The proposed design and future operations must comply with the Electrical Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, as amended. Generators, distributors, their contractors and others have defined duties in order to protect members of the public from the dangers posed by the electrical equipment used. HSE enforces the safety aspects of these regulations. If you have any doubts about the particular application of these regulations in terms of either the operation or construction of substations, overhead lines or underground cables, please contact Mr J C Steed, Principal Specialist Inspector (Electrical Networks), either at [email protected] or Rose Court GSW, 2 Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HS.

I hope this is useful. HSE looks forward to receiving the formal s42 consultation from the promoter in due course when the plans are sufficiently developed.

Please note any further electronic communication on this project can be sent direct to the HSE designated e-mail account for NSIP applications the details of which can be found at the top of this letter. Alternatively hard copy correspondence should be sent to Miss Vilja Gatrell at: 4S3 Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle Merseyside L20 7HS Tel; 0151 951 4607

Yours sincerely

Penny Taylor Risk Communications Policy Unit From: IPC Scoping Opinion To: Amy Cooper; Subject: FW: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request Date: 14 July 2010 14:46:38 Attachments: 100712_EN010028_ letter to prescribed consultees (email).doc 20100713MynyddMynyllodScopingIndependentPlanningCommission.pdf

From: Smailes Baggy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:31 AM To: IPC Scoping Opinion Subject: FW: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request

Dear Mr Cliff,

Please find attached Civil Aviation Authority comment related to the subject application.

Mark Smailes 0207 453 6545

Off Route Airspace 5 Directorate of Airspace Policy CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE

From: Laura Allen [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of IPC Scoping Opinion Sent: 12 July 2010 16:06 To: Smailes Baggy Subject: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request

Dear Mark,

Please find attached an electronic copy of the EIA scoping consultation request for Mynydd Mynyllod wind farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales.

<<100712_EN010028_ letter to prescribed consultees (email).doc>> A hard copy has also been sent to ORA5 at Directorate of Airspace Policy at CAA House.

Kind regards,

Laura Allen EIA and Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5054 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

**********************************************************************

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

***********************************************************************************

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** Directorate of Airspace Policy

Infrastructure Planning Commission (via e-mail)

13 July 2010

Reference: ERM/DAP/Wind/MynyddMynyllod

Dear Sirs

Proposed Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Turbine Development – Scoping Opinion Comment

Thank you for your recent correspondence relating to the proposed Mynydd Mynyllod wind turbine development. You sought related Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) scoping opinion comment. I trust the following is useful.

Like any wind turbine development, the proposed subject development has the potential to impact upon aviation-related operations; the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI – now the Department for Energy and Climate Change)-sponsored document ‘Wind Energy and Aviation Interests’ and Civil Air Publication 764 refer1. The related need to establish the scale of the potential impact of the Mynydd Mynyllod development (or indeed any other wind turbine related proposal) is evident.

The best means by which to initiate the aviation related consultation process is via the completion and submission of an associated aviation pre-planning proforma in line with the process described within the aforementioned DTI guidance document. To date I can find no record of the submission of a pre- planning proforma in respect of a development under the title of ‘Mynydd Mynyllod’.

Notwithstanding the comment above and without wishing to pre-empt any formal investigation initiated through submission of the pre-planning enquiry, I have studied the information provided and can advise that I do not believe that the CAA would wish to make any site-specific observations. However, more generically, I must highlight that all parties should be aware that:

There might be a need to install aviation warning lighting to some or all of the associated wind turbines should development proposals be progressed:

o The need to install such lighting to any individual turbine becomes legally mandated should the maximum blade tip height (ie above ground level) be 150m or more (the UK Air Navigation Order Article 219 refers).

o Where the maximum blade tip height is less that 150m, the potential lighting requirement is highlighted in anticipation of any concerns expressed by other elements of the aviation industry, ie the operators. For example, if the Ministry of Defence (MoD) or a local aerodrome had suggested such a need, the CAA would wish, in generic terms, to support such a claim. We would do so if it could reasonably be argued that the structure(s), by virtue of their location and nature, could be considered a significant navigational hazard. That said, if the claim was clearly outside credible limits (ie the proposed turbine(s) was/were many miles away from an any aerodrome or it/they were of a height that was unlikely to effect even military low flying) the Authority would play an 'honest-broker' role. Whilst responsibility for establishing further lighting related comment rests with the

1 These documents are available at http://www.bwea.com/pdf/Wind-Energy-and-aviation-interim-guidelines.pdf and http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap764.pdf respectively. Please note that after a full review CAP 764 was re- issued on 12 February 2009.

Civil Aviation Authority CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE www.caa.co.uk Telephone 020 7453 6545 Fax 020 453 6565 [email protected] developer, I should highlight that, in isolation, if the turbines were of a height of less than 150m the CAA would not make any related case or recommendation for aviation lighting.

International aviation regulatory documentation requires that the rotor blades, nacelle and upper 2/3 of the supporting mast of wind turbines that are deemed to be an aviation obstruction should be painted white, unless otherwise indicated by an aeronautical study. It follows that the CAA advice on the colour of wind turbines would align with these international criteria. That said, as with the potential need for lighting, in isolation, the CAA would make no special case for marking.

There is a civil aviation requirement in the UK for all structures over 300 feet high to be charted on aviation maps. Should this development progress and the 300 feet height be breached, to achieve this charting requirement, developers will need to provide details of the development to the Defence Geographic Agency.

The number of pre-planning enquiries associated with windfarm developments has been significant. It is possible that the proliferation of wind turbines in any particular area might potentially result in difficulties for aviation that a single development would not have generated. It is, therefore, not necessarily the case that, because a generic area was not objected to by the aviation industry, future, similarly located potential developments would receive the same positive response. There is a CAA perceived requirement for a co-ordinated regional wind turbine development plan, aimed at meeting renewable energy priorities, whilst addressing aviation concerns and minimising such proliferation issues.

The relative perspectives of both the MoD and NATS should be established and any related concerns addressed.

Due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it would also be sensible to establish the related viewpoint of local emergency services air support units.

Any associated Environmental Impact Assessment (or similar) should mention and, where applicable, address the issues highlighted.

Whilst none of the above negates the need, where applicable, for planning authorities to consult in accordance with Governmental requirement associated with the safeguarding of aerodromes and other technical sites, I trust that this information and guidance is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further input or clarification of any point.

Yours sincerely,

{original signed}

Mark Smailes Off Route Airspace 5

2 From: Sarah Wood To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Re: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request Date: 14 July 2010 15:12:30

Many thanks Laura Sarah

>>> "IPC Scoping Opinion" 12/07/10 16:02 >>> Dear Mannon,

Please find attached an electronic copy of the EIA scoping consultation request for Mynydd Mynyllod wind farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales. <<100712_EN010028_ letter to prescribed consultees (email).doc>> I have copied in Sarah for her information.

Kind regards, Laura

Laura Allen EIA and Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

> Direct Line: 0303 444 5054 > Helpline: 0303 444 5000 > Email: [email protected] > Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure > > The IPC gives advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). The IPC takes care to ensure that the advice we provide is accurate. This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should note that IPC lawyers are not covered by the compulsory professional indemnity insurance scheme. You should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required. > > We are required by law to publish on our website a record of the advice we provide and to record on our website the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. We will however protect the privacy of any other personal information which you choose to share with us and we will not hold the information any longer than is necessary. > > You should note that we have a Policy Commitment to Openness and Transparency and you should not provide us with confidential or commercial information which you do not wish to be put in the public domain. > > >

********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes. ***********************************************************************************

********************************************************************** Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes. ********************************************************************** From: Mannon Lewis To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: David Hatcher; Sarah Wood; Subject: Re: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request Date: 14 July 2010 15:08:55

Dear Laura,

Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request

Thank you for your consultation regarding Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm. The officer dealing with your case will be David Hatcher (Senior Casework Conservation Officer). [email protected] 01352 706654

Kind regards

Mannon

Mannon Lewis Arweinydd Tim Gwaith Achos/Casework Team Leader Rhanbarth y Gogledd/North Region Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru/Countryside Council for Wales Rhanbarth y Gogledd/North Region Llys y bont Parc Menai Bangor LL57 4BN Ffon/Tel: 01248 672564 Ffacs/Fax:01248 679259 e-bost/e-mail: [email protected] Ar y Wê/Web site: http://www.ccw.gov.uk

>>> "IPC Scoping Opinion" 12/07/10 16:02 >>> Dear Mannon,

Kind regards, Laura

Laura Allen EIA and Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes. From: David Hatcher To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: [email protected]; Laura Allen; [email protected]; [email protected]. uk; [email protected]; Subject: FAO David Cliff Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm (your ref 100712_EN010028_164800, CCW ref 1431109) Date: 09 August 2010 15:06:01 Attachments: 1431009 Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm IPC 09 Aug 2010, Scoping Report CCW Response.pdf

FAO David Cliff

Hello Mr Cliff

Re: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm (your ref 100712_EN010028_164800, CCW ref 1431109)

Please find attached CCW's response to your scoping advice request.

We would be grateful if you could acknowledge its receipt.

If you have any queries or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me using the information below or by e-mail

Regards Dave

Dr. David Hatcher

Swyddog Gwaith Achos/ Casework Officer North Region

Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru / Countryside Council for Wales Glan y Nant Uned 19 Unit 19 Parc Busnes Yr Wyddgrug Mold Business Park Ffordd Wrecsam Wrexham Road Yr Wyddgrug Mold Sir Fflint Flintshire CH7 1XP CH7 1XP

Ffon / Phone: 01352 706600. Enquiry line number: 0845 1306229 E-bost / E-mail [email protected] Ar y Wê / Web site: http://www.ccw.gov.uk

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti- virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. ********************************************************************** Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes. ********************************************************************** CADEIRYDD/CHAIRMAN: MORGAN PARRY PRIF WEITHREDWR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE: ROGER THOMAS Anfonwch eich ateb at/Please reply to: Dr David Hatcher Rhanbarth y Gogledd – Swyddfa’ r Wyddgrug Ffôn/Tel: 01352 706600 Ffacs/Fax: 01352 752346 North Region – Mold Office Ebost/Email: [email protected] Glan y Nant, Uned 19 / Glan y Nant, Unit 19 Parc Busnes Yr Wyddgrug / Mold Business Park Ffordd Wrecsam / Wrexham Road Yr Wyddgrug / MOLD Sir Y Fflint / Flintshire CH7 1XP David Cliff Ein cyf/Our ref: DH/SJ03.4/1431009 Case Leader on behalf of the IPC Eich cyf/Your ref: 100712_EN010028_164800 Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN 9th August 2010

FAO: David Cliff By E-mail only to: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1999 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (EIA) REGULATIONS 2009 PLANNING ACT 2008

PROPOSAL: WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCOPING REQUEST LOCATION: MYNYDD MYNYLLOD, DENBIGHSHIRE & GWYNEDD, NORTH WALES

Thank you for your e-mail, letter and scoping report received on 12th of July 2010 seeking the Countryside Council for Wales’ (CCW) comments on the information that should be included in an Environmental Impact Assessment for the above proposed development.

In discharging its functions under Section 130 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) champions the environment and landscapes of Wales and its coastal waters as sources of natural and cultural riches, as a foundation for economic and social activity, and as a place for leisure and learning opportunities. CCW aims to make the environment a valued part of everyone’s life in Wales.

Please note that our comments are without prejudice to any comments we may wish to make when consulted on any subsequent planning applications or on the full Environmental Statement. At the time of any planning application there may be new information available which we will need to take into account in making a formal consultation response. These comments include those matters CCW consider will need to be taken into consideration as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The EIA for this development should include sufficient information to enable your authority to determine the extent of any environmental impacts arising from the proposed scheme on protected species and other nature conservation, countryside and landscape interests. Our

1431009 Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm IPC 09 Aug 2010, Scoping Report CCW Response.DOC detailed comments are included in the attached Annex I. However, we would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the following points:

This proposal is for a large scale development outside the boundary and 5km buffer of SSA A (See ref to Welsh Assembly Government TAN 8, 2005, below). As such and in the proposed location it is likely to have widespread landscape impact and greatly increase the cumulative impact of the developments to be built in the SSA. CCW will work with the developers to explore if it is possible to mitigate these and other impacts via the EIA process. However, in this case it appears that it may not be possible to reduce impacts to an acceptable level. Unless impacts can be reduced to such a level, CCW would be likely to object to the scheme.

As the granting of permission for this development would represent a deviation from national and local policy, full justification for this deviation should be provided in the Environmental Statement.

CCW are of the view that the impacts of grid connections and transport links should be covered in the EIA for the proposed development as they both have the potential for significant impacts on landscape and nature conservation interests beyond the boundary of the proposed development and outside of Strategic Search Areas.

As there are few other wind farms of this scale and size, in particular in relation to the height of the proposed turbines, there is little data available on which to base any assessment of impacts, in particular in relation to birds and bats. It will therefore be important that the EIA is based on comprehensive, sound ecological surveys and that these are followed up with appropriate monitoring programmes and contingency plans to address this issue.

CCW would welcome liaison meetings with the applicant to discuss this proposal prior to the completion of the environmental statement to ensure that all relevant potential impacts are addressed.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information or clarification regarding this matter. We would be grateful if you could inform CCW of your Authority’s decision.

Yours faithfully

Dr. D. R. Hatcher Senior Conservation Officer: Casework North Region Casework Team

Encl.

Annex I: CCW Scoping advice for Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm CCW Guidance Note Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales. cc: Laura Allen - Laura Allen, IPC – [email protected] Mr Peter Wells, Senior Ecologist, ARUP – [email protected] Richard Cole, Soltysbrewster – [email protected] Ron Loveland, Welsh Assembly Government – [email protected] Rosemary Thomas, Welsh Assembly Government – [email protected] Ms. Vicki Turkington, Scottish Power Renewables. ANNEX I: THE COUNTRYSIDE COUNCIL FOR WALES’ (CCW’s) SCOPING ADVICE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR THE PROPOSED WINDFARM AT MYNYDD MYNYLLOD, DENBIGHSHIRE & GWYNEDD, NORTH WALES.

1 SCOPING FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should include sufficient information to enable the planning authority to determine the extent of any environmental impacts arising from the proposed scheme on ecological and landscape interests and the public’s access to the countryside. The impacts evaluated should include: direct and indirect; secondary; cumulative; short medium and long term; permanent and temporary; positive and negative, and construction (including impacts of construction site access) operation and decommissioning phase impacts on the nature conservation resource, landscape and public access.

2. GUIDANCE

We recommend that the EIA make reference to the latest policy guidance including the following documents:

2.1 National Documents

Welsh Assembly Government (March 2002). Planning Policy Wales. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Welsh Assembly Government (September 2009). Technical Advice Note 5 - Nature Conservation and Planning. National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff.

Welsh Office Circular 11/99: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Welsh Assembly Government (2005). Technical Advice Note 8 – Planning for Renewable Energy. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Welsh Assembly Government (2005). Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 01/2005 Planning for Renewable Energy. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2010). A Low Carbon Revolution - WAG Energy Policy Statement

Department of Energy and Climate Change Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative Effects of Onshore Wind Farms Phase 2 Report – 2nd Draft, July 2009

2.2 Local Documents

Denbighshire County Council’s Interim Planning Guidance Note no. 1. of the 27th February, 2007, On Shore Wind Farms (Jointly produced Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) for Denbighshire CC and Conwy CBC but not yet adopted by Conwy CBC).

Note: This document is not referred to in the applicant’s scoping report. Gwynedd Councils UDP Policy C27 - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Schemes,

Snowdonia National Park’s Eryri Local Plan incorporating Minerals and Waste 1993 – 2003 (November 1999)

Snowdonia National Park’s Local Development Plan (Timetabled for adoption in 2010)

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The entire scheme should be described in detail. This description should cover construction, operation and decommissioning phases and include detailed, scaled maps and drawings as appropriate.

We would expect the description to include:

The purpose and physical characteristics of the proposals; Location, development size and configuration of the development including flexibility of the site layout and details of the connection to the National Grid; Land use requirements and other physical features of the project; Procedures for good working practices; Resource use, including waste, minerals and energy; Identification of appropriate pollution contingency and emergency measures; Timing of all works and contingency plans should slippage in the programme occur; Details of noise and dust levels; Details of construction works including methodology, location and extent of construction sites, construction access/working corridors and stock piling sites; Quantity and content of any discharges from the development site; Identification of pollution contingency and emergency measures; Details of source, type and quantity of any filling material required; Details of the disposal of any surplus material e.g. material displaced from constructing bases or access roads. Maintenance requirements of structures. Maintenance of any habitats within the site; Details of access routes/transport links, alterations to traffic flows, including the type and frequency of vehicles, noise and dust levels; Identification of appropriate contingency plans for any emergency incidents on the site.

CCW recommend that the decommissioning phase is also included within the scope of the EIA, so far as this might be practical, since when turbines or other structures pass their useful life it would be expected that they will be removed from the site and recycled or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

We note that in excess of 65ha of the land area within the proposed development area boundary is Access Land as designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This is not mentioned in the Existing Land Uses section of the scoping report (Sections 3.14 to 3.17) If any of this land is to be included in the scheme it should be identified in the Environmental Statement, which should also include descriptions as to how Access Land issues will be dealt with.

3.1 Ancillary development

Projects such as this bring with them their own related developments, often referred to as ancillary development. These may be constructed and operated by a different developer and could be assessed as a separate project, but are inextricably linked to the original project. The cumulative impacts of the project and ancillary development could potentially be significant. If however, the ancillary development is not included in the assessment, the Environmental Statement may not identify such a degree of adverse impact. By not including the ancillary development the assessment would therefore not fully reflect the environmental impacts of the whole project.

Information on ancillary development associated with the project, which may be controlled by another developer, should be obtained where possible at the scoping stage. This information will enable potential indirect and cumulative impacts and impact interactions arising from that development to be considered as early as possible in the Environmental Assessment. If insufficient information is available to allow an assessment, this should be reported in the Environmental Statement to ensure that it is considered as part of the decision- making process.

Types of ancillary development that should be considered where possible in the Environmental Assessment include:

access roads; grid connection (overhead lines or buried cables); electricity sub-stations; quarries or borrow pits for the supply of materials; construction compounds; disposal sites.

Failure to consider the impacts of ancillary development linked to this proposed development is likely to render the EIA incomplete as it will not have considered all associated impacts of the proposal.

3.2 Illustrations within the Environmental Statement

Any maps, drawings and illustrations that are produced to describe the project should be designed such that they can be overlaid maps, drawings and illustrations produced for other sections of the EIA such as biodiversity. For example, it is particularly important that turbine locations can be shown in relation to vegetation and peat survey maps.

3.3 Layout of turbines

Appropriate illustrations should be included in the Environmental Statement to confirm the locations of each turbine. If turbines of different heights will be deployed the height of each turbine should be clearly shown. 4. DESCRIPTION OF BIODIVERSITY

The EIA must include a description of all the existing natural resources and wildlife interests within and in the vicinity of the proposed development, together with an assessment of the significance of any likely impacts.

For Information: We note that the Scoping Request, Appendix B Section B4 Relevant Legislation and Guidance, cites the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). These regulations have now been superseded by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010).

4.1 The Site and Its Environment

The assessment should include a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the development; including the flora, fauna, soil, water, air and the inter relationship between these. Of particular relevance to this scheme are:

4.1.1 Statutory Nature Conservation Sites

The EIA should consider the likely impacts on statutory nature conservation sites within and in the vicinity of the proposed development. These include the following:-

European Sites:

Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt Special Protection Areas (SPA) Berwyn SAC Berwyn SPA The River Dee and Bala Lake SAC

National Sites:

Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Berwyn SSSI Afon Dyfrdwy (River Dee) SSSI

Digital boundaries for statutory sites may be obtained from CCW’s website (www.ccw.gov.uk).

4.1.2 Local and/ Regional Sites:

Denbighshire County Council’s Mynydd Mynyddlod and Llyn Mynyddlod local wildlife site

4.2 European sites (SAC and SPA) and Ramsar sites

Specific information about these sites including citations explaining the reasons for their notification, maps showing the extent of the notified site, and their conservation objectives are available from CCW’s website (http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting- our-landscape/special-sites-project.aspx). These will be needed in order to consider and assess the impacts of the scheme, and provide the determining authority with the relevant information so that they may assess the proposals in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations’).

General information about European sites and Ramsar sites is available on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s (JNCC) website (www.jncc.gov.uk). Some details are also given regarding the notified features of sites. However, you should be aware that this information may not be accurate and therefore we would advise against relying on it. We would advise reliance on the original legal documentation for the notification of such sites. CCW can provide this information on request.

4.2.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment

Under the Habitats Regulations (see section 4.1 above), Competent Authorities (as defined under Regulation 7) such as Local Planning Authorities, before deciding to give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which has the potential to affect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, any European site/s (SAC, SPA),

Proposed developments likely to significantly affect European sites (SAC, SPA), either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, require special consideration by the competent authority (likely to be the IPC in this case) under Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations. As a matter of Government policy, this also applies to Ramsar sites. Competent authorities may only permit proposals where they will not adversely affect the integrity of European sites or Ramsar sites.

The process of the Local Planning Authority’s/DECC’s/IPC’s special consideration of development proposals likely to affect European sites (& Ramsar sites) is known as Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and it takes into account the conservation objectives of the site(s) concerned. It is an additional requirement to Environmental Impact Assessment, however, the information contained within the Environment Statement may be of relevance and be used in the HRA. The HRA process is a two stage process, the first stage being a ‘test of Likely Significant Effects’ to establish whether the proposals are likely to result in significant effects on European sites or Ramsar sites. If this establishes that significant effects are likely, or that there is uncertainty as to whether or not significant effects are likely to result, then the second stage – an appropriate assessment – will be required.

CCW recommends that sufficient information is provided in support of an application for these proposals in respect of both the EIA and HRA processes. This should include all of the measures that will be implemented to prevent damage to the European sites and/or Ramsar sites specified above.

We would refer you to the following document for guidance and information on assessing projects under the Habitats Directive:

David Tyldesley and Associates for the Countryside Council for Wales (September 2008). Assessing projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance for Competent Authorities.

An electronic copy of this document may be supplied by CCW (the relevant district or casework team handling this case) upon request. In the case of this proposed development, we perceive potential risks to the bird population features of the Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt and Berwyn SPA’s. This is because the site might have a role in providing a ‘stepping stone’ for such species. To substantiate this view, ecological linkage has been demonstrated for hen harrier (CCW Contract Science Report no 879). Clearly therefore such linkages need to be assessed.

Consideration should also be given to any potential impacts on the The River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, particularly those from drainage water and its effect on the SAC’s water quality during the development phase of the scheme. Members of the SAC/SSSI’s otter population may also use the water courses, ponds and surrounding land for foraging, dispersal and/or raising young. This view is substantiated by the results of a survey by Phil Morgan (Morgan, P. L., (2004), Current and Potential Distribution, Condition and Breeding Success of the Otter (Lutra lutra) in the River Dee Catchment, CCW Review of Consents Report No. (6), 2004), which identifies ponds and wooded areas likely to be used by otters.

4.3 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Full information about each SSSI can be provided by CCW. Documents available include:

Citation – which detail the reasons why the site has been notified; List of Potential Damaging Operations – listing the operations that could potentially damage the site; Map – showing the extent of the notified site; Site Management Statement – setting out the management required to maintain the notified features of the site;

Full details should be provided of the likely impacts of the proposals on the notified features of these sites and their significance, along with comprehensive information about the measures that will be put in place to (in order of priority):

i. avoid damage to SSSI or their features; ii. mitigate for any unavoidable damage to SSSIs; and iii. compensate for any unavoidable SSSI damage that cannot be mitigated for.

4.4 Non-statutory Nature Conservation Sites (Eg. Local Wildlife Sites)

The EIA should consider the potential effects of the proposed development on sites of local or regional nature conservation importance (Eg. Local Wildlife Sites).

Our records show that the proposed development area includes the following local wildlife sites:

Mynydd Mynyddlod and Llyn Mynyddlod (Denbighshire CC) Nant Llyn Mynyllod (Denbighshire CC) Mynydd Mynylliod (Gwynedd Council)

Full details of the boundaries, extent and nature conservation interest of such sites should be obtained from the relevant local authorities.

If non-statutory nature conservation sites are likely to be affected by the proposed development, the Environmental Statement should include all of the measures that will be implemented to ensure that there will be no overall loss of the local nature conservation resource.

4.5 Biodiversity Issues in the Wider Countryside

We would recommend that the developer consults the local authority Ecologist/Biodiversity Officers on the scope of the work to ensure that regional and local biodiversity issues are adequately considered, particularly those habitats and species listed in the relevant Local Biodiversity Action Plans. In addition, other species listed under Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) are important for the conservation of biological diversity in Wales, and it is expected that these species would also be considered within the EIA. Information about habitats and species listed under S.42 of the NERC Act may be found on the Wales Biodiversity Partnership website (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk)

4.5.1 Other Organisations

CCW would expect the developer to contact other relevant people/organisations for biological information/records relevant to the site and its surrounds. These include:

Cofnod, the North Wales Biological Record Centre North Wales Wildlife Trust the RSPB; Environment Agency Wales’ relevant Biodiversity Officer local ecological interest groups (bat groups, mammal groups, badgers groups, ornithological societies etc). These should include:-

Clwyd Bat Group Clwyd Badgers groups Clwyd Ornithological Society Gwynedd Bat Group Gwynedd Badger Group Wales Raptor Study Group: North Wales

The Natural History Museum’s website offers a useful list of nature societies that may also help in this respect (http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/library/digital- library/nature-societies-online/).

4.5.2 Key Habitats

A Phase I survey of the site should be undertaken to describe and map the key habitats of the site and species of particular importance. This should be undertaken in accordance with the NCC Phase 1 survey guidelines (NCC (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey. NCC, Peterborough) and should be undertaken and completed during the summer to ensure the best chance of identifying the habitats present.

We would suggest that Jonathan Rothwell at our Bangor headquarters is contacted for any Phase 1 survey data that we may hold for this area ([email protected]). However, we would recommend that a new survey is completed because our information may not be based on individual field inspection due to access refusal or may not have been obtained at the most appropriate time of year. The Phase 1 survey should be mapped on an Ordnance Survey basemap and the uses of land adjacent to the site should also be shown on the map.

CCW also recommends that an NVC survey to sub-community level is undertaken of any key habitats that are identified on the site (Eg. areas of acid grassland which have a suppressed cover of ericoids, flushes, marshy grasslands, bogs etc) as this will assist in determining their value and potential management requirements to achieve biodiversity gains. These should be identified and mapped so that any land management scheme can be aware of their potential.

With the botanical information collected for the site and its surroundings, the EIA should consider the potential effects of the proposals on habitats listed under S.42 of the NERC Act 2006 as considered to be of importance for the conservation of biodiversity in Wales (including local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats). The Environmental Statement (ES) should detail the measures that will be put in place to ensure that the overall nature conservation resource will be conserved and enhanced.

4.6 Protected Species

It should be noted that in many cases, no proactive survey work will have been undertaken to survey for species and the absence of records for a site should not be taken to indicate the absence of species of interest, but is more likely to reflect a lack of information.

4.6.1 Birds

The Environmental Impact Assessment should consider the potential impacts of the proposals on birds, in particular those that are:

Notified features of statutory nature conservation sites within or in the vicinity of the proposed development (See references to SPA features in Section 4.2.1 above); Legally protected through the provisions of Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (including those listed on Schedule 1 of the Act); Listed on the relevant local Biodiversity Action Plans; Listed as priority species for Wales under Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; and Listed on the Welsh red and amber lists of birds of conservation concern.

Desk study information and an initial walkover survey should be used to assess the potential of the site and surrounding land to support birds encompassed by the above. This should also guide more specific survey work. Ornithological surveys should follow the guidance set out in:

Survey Methods For Use In Assessing The Impacts of Onshore Windfarms on Bird Communities (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2005). Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds (Natural England Technical Information Note TAN069)

It should be noted that these guidance documents are intended to cover all scenarios and are just guidance. They are not presenting a set of mandatory prescriptions, all of which have to be adhered to in all instances. Each proposal should be considered individually. We would expect surveys to be scoped to ensure relevance to each particular site and circumstances, and follow best practice for the surveys that are deemed necessary. We would also expect any variation in survey methodology and level of effort from that recommended in the guidance to be justified and discussed and agreed with CCW in advance.

An assessment of the wind farm’s potential effect on birds should thoroughly consider each of the three potential risks for each bird species that uses the site:

1. Displacement through indirect loss of habitat if birds avoid the wind farm area and surrounding land due to turbine operation and maintenance/visitor disturbance; 2. Death through collision or interaction with turbine blades; 3. Direct or indirect habitat degradation or loss through the construction of wind farm infrastructure or land use change that may happen as a result of improved access to the site with the construction of new tracks.

Special attention should be paid to: raptors wildfowl and waders etc

More detailed survey, using vantage point watches as appropriate, should include:

Breeding bird survey; Bird movement survey to include specific periods as appropriate – migration, breeding season, wintering.

In the case of Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, in February 2010 CCW were consulted by ARUP the applicant’s consultant, on scoping proposals for bird surveys. The proposals in the scpoping report largely comply with our recommendations but we would like to clarify the following points:

Main report under Ornithology, para 4.30 – it should be noted that the red kite is still a qualifying feature of the Berwy SPA and therefore any assessment should also consider impact on this species

Main report, Ornithology, para 4.30 and Appendix C para C.2 – Reference is made to the Berwyn SPA but not to the Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt SPA. In our previous advice to ARUP we indicated the development site may have a role in linking these two sites, citing CCW’s contract Science report 879 as evidence of this. Reference should therefore be made to Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt SPA and the possibility of any potential impact upon it in the environmental statement.

In Appendix C, para C.2 – The methods description appears to comply with the Natural England guidance mentioned above but no reference is made to it. We believe it would be helpful to make reference to this guidance in the environmental statement.

In Appendix C, para C12 – We would refer the applicant to our earlier scoping advice and re-iterate that in our view the breeding wader survey should start in April rather than May so that early breeding attempts will not be missed. To comply with the standard Brown & Shepherd wader surveying method, surveys should start in April. It should also be noted that the Brown & Shepherd method does not give accurate nest locations, so the surveyor may wish to consider trying to map breeding wader nest locations more accurately, particularly if they find high numbers, which may then have a significant bearing on the assessment of the proposed development.

In Appendix C, para C.13 – This states that surveys for curlew will be undertaken close to dawn and dusk. This method would seem more applicable to snipe. We would therefore seek clarification as to which species this paragraph refers to. If the applicant’s consultant considers that there may be a potential impact on snipe, dusk or dawn visits should be made on all three occasions during the breeding season.

In Appendix C, para C.14 – As noted above, this site may have a role in linking the raptor populations of the Berwyn and Migneint SPAs. Therefore for this particular proposal, the ornithological assessment should consider the movements of raptors (especially hen harrier) between these SPAs. This may require additional hours of View Point watches. It should seek to establish; whether there such birds are routinely flying backwards and forwards between the two SPA on a regular basis, via the development location; whether this movement would be disrupted by the proposed wind farm; and if so could this disruption be considered a significant effect.

4.6.2 Other Protected Species

The site should be comprehensively assessed for its potential to support protected species such as bats, great crested newts, otters, badgers, water voles and reptiles.

We therefore advise that surveys should be carried out to assess if and to what extent the site supports such species. These should be undertaken by suitably qualified, experienced and where necessary, licensed surveyors in accordance with published guidance, where this exists, and best practice.

4.6.2.1 Bats

Research indicates that bats are affected by wind turbine developments and there is increasing evidence that a number of bat species are present at upland sites. We would refer you to Natural England’s interim guidance on ‘Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines’ (May 2008) and the Eurobats guidance. Therefore, we recommend that desk studies and field surveys are undertaken to establish:

The presence of known roosts within the development site and within 2km of the development site; Whether there are any known key bat flight lines from roosts within 2km of the development towards the development site; and Bat flight-lines through the development site and bat foraging areas within the development site identified by new baseline surveys. The significance of any roosts within the development site and within 2km of the development site identified by new baseline surveys;

All surveys for bats should be carried out in accordance with ‘Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines’ (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007) and English Nature’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004), and should be undertaken in favourable weather conditions (ie. avoiding cold, wet and windy weather). Survey methodology used must provide a good baseline and be repeatable in post-development monitoring.

Activity surveys should identify specific species and record flight behaviour, the height above ground that observed bats were seen, and the proximity of observed bats to landscape features used as commuting corridors. Frequency division and time expansion equipment must be used.

Bats and their roosts are legally protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). Developments likely to compromise the legal protection afforded bats will invariably require a licence from the Welsh Assembly Government to do so lawfully. Further details about the legislation afforded bats (a European Protected Species) and the relevant licensing provisions are provided in Appendix 1.

If bats or their roosts are likely to be affected by the proposed development, the Environmental Statement will need to include comprehensive details of the all the mitigation that will be put in place to maintain the favourable conservation status of the population(s) concerned. This should follow guidance provided in English Nature’s ‘Bat Mitigation Guidelines’ (2004) and JNCC’s ‘Bat Worker’s Manual’ (3rd Edition, 2004).

4.6.2.2 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus)

Surveys for great crested newts should follow the guidance provided in English Nature’s ‘Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines’ (2001). We would take this opportunity to draw your attention to the appropriate period for surveying ponds for the presence of great crested newts (mid-March to mid-June).

Great crested newts are a European Protected Species. The animals themselves and the places they use to rest and breed are legally protected under the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended). Appendix 1 provides details of the legislation and licensing provisions concerning great crested newts. If great crested newts are likely to be affected by the proposed development, full details will need to be provided of all the mitigation that will be implemented to maintain the favourable conservation status of the population(s) of newts concerned.

4.6.2.3 Otters (Lutra lutra)

Otters are a European Protected Species. Therefore, in addition to the protection afforded to otters as members of the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC/SSSI population, the animals themselves and the places they use to rest and breed are legally protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010). Appendix 1 provides details of the legislation and licensing provisions concerning otters. If otters are likely to be affected by the proposed development, full details will need to be provided of all the mitigation that will be implemented to maintain the favourable conservation status of the population(s) of otters concerned. In addition, depending on the specific nature of any likely impact on otters, a licence may be required under a license Section 53 (2) (e) of the above Regulations. the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) is the appropriate authority responsible for issuing such licenses. 4.6.2.4 Badgers (Meles meles)

The legal protection and relevant licensing provisions for badgers is explained in Annex 2.

We recommend that surveys are carried out to establish the presence of badger setts within the site and within the vicinity of the site. If the legal protection afforded badgers is likely to be compromised by the proposed development, full details of all the mitigation that will be implemented should be provided in the Environmental Statement and a licence from the Countryside Council for Wales will be required.

For guidance on developments affecting badgers, we would refer you to:

Badgers: A Guide for Developers (CCW, 2005) Problems with Badgers? (RSPCA, 1994)

4.6.2.5 Water Voles (Arvicola terrestris)

The legal protection afforded water voles is explained in Annex 3. We would recommend that surveys are carried out in appropriate conditions to ascertain the extent to which water voles use the site and are likely to be affected by the proposed development. If they are likely to be affected by the proposals, the Environmental Statement should detail all of the mitigation measures that will be implemented.

For information and guidance on developments affecting water voles, survey and mitigation measures, we would refer you to the following:

Water Voles and Development (CCW, 2009) Water Vole Conservation Handbook 2nd Ed. (Strachan, R.& Moorhouse, T., 2006)

4.6.2.6 Reptiles

Common lizard (Lacerta vivipara), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), adder (Vipera berus) and grass snake (Natrix natrix) are frequently encountered in Wales. Legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take these species.

Where reptiles may be present, we strongly recommend that surveys are be conducted at the appropriate time of year (April-June & September) and in appropriate conditions to establish the extent to which reptiles may be present within the site. If reptiles are likely to be affected by the proposals, the Environmental Statement should include comprehensive details of all the mitigation that will be put into place to safeguard the population(s) concerned.

4.6.3 Species listed under S.42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

The EIA should also consider the potential effects of the proposals on species listed under S.42 of the NERC Act 2006 as species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in Wales. Some of these may have been covered above. Additional survey work may be required in this respect. If any such species are likely to be affected by the proposals, the Environmental Statement should detail all of the measures that will be put in place to conserve and enhance the populations of the species concerned. Details of species listed under S.42 of the NERC Act may be found on the Wales Biodiversity Partnership website (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk).

4.6.4 Peat

CCW regards the potential damage to peatland habitats as a key issue. Please see attached our Position Statement on Peat Conservation in Wales (6 January 2010).

Development on peat has the potential to cause damage to it through direct disturbance or indirectly through the effects of changes to site hydrology leading to drainage, drying out and subsequent oxidation of peat. The maintenance and integrity of peatland habitats depends upon the maintenance of the functionality of the underlying peat that supports them. We would hope that consideration would also be given to assessing carbon balance in terms of the benefit of the development in relation to the release of carbon through the disturbance and/or destruction of peat.

We refer the developer to Cranfield University for their national soils data and other sources of soils data which may be helpful (Eg. published soils maps). The EIA should be based on comprehensive survey information concerning the extent, depth and condition of peat deposits across the site. In order to obtain all of the relevant information, the developer may need to commission their own surveys. Peat depth maps showing the extent and depth of peat deposits should be produced so that they can be overlaid Phase 1 habitat survey maps.

We would refer the developer to CCW’s Guidance Note ‘Assessing the impact of wind farm developments on peatlands in Wales’ (January 2010) for information and guidance on assessing the impacts of wind farms on peat and peatland habitats.

In general, we would expect that disturbance and/or destruction of peat would be avoided as far as possible, and where it was not possible, such impacts would be minimised. We would also recommend that opportunities to halt the deterioration of existing degraded peat and/or to restore active peat forming vegetation are exploited as part of a strategic environmental management plan for the site.

4.6.5 Site Hydrology

The EIA will need to assess how the proposed construction and engineering works will impact on any streams and wetland habitats present on and off the site. However, the scope of any such hydrological studies is beyond the scope of our letter and we would recommend that advice is sought from the Environment Agency. We suggest that, if appropriate, a detailed survey of site hydrology is undertaken. This will indicate areas of likely habitat conservation value, give a steer on which areas should be avoided and also help to target potential enhancements. It should be the aim of the proposals to ensure no net change in runoff rates but in addition we feel the EIA should identify and address:

1. What are the potential impacts on any of the streams during construction and how they will be avoided? 2. What changes to the run-off regime might occur and how any adverse effects on the streams or surrounding habitats will be avoided (for example, through use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) principles or using a matting/web material etc. for road construction). 3. What physical changes to the site drainage (due to construction of turbine bases, infrastructure, roads etc.) are likely and how any adverse effects on the water balance, both in the streams in the wetland habitats, will be prevented. This will need to consider winter and summer conditions.

CCW are aware that additional advice on this may be provided by the Environment Agency

4.7 POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

With respect to nature conservation interests that could be affected by the scheme, it is only possible at this stage to advise on general mitigation measures. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue in greater detail as the scheme progresses. In order of priority, the scheme should seek to:

i. avoid damage to interests within the area that will be affected by the proposed development; ii. mitigate any damage that cannot be avoided; and iii. compensate for any unavoidable damage that cannot be mitigated for.

The Environmental Statement should include a detailed description of all the measures that will be implemented to avoid, mitigate and if necessary, compensate for any significant adverse effects on the environment. These measures should be relevant and proportionate to the nature and scale of the likely adverse impacts. Such measures could include ensuring that disposal of any excavated soil/rock is not stored or spread over sensitive habitats, the micro siting of turbines, moving location of access roads, and changing the timing of construction to avoid sensitive periods for protected species (Eg. breeding season).

With reference to Strategic Search Areas, TAN 8 states that:

“there could be opportunities to enhance, extend or re-create habitats of wildlife and landscape interest. These opportunities should be grasped”. “With such extensive application sites there will very often be opportunities for developers to mitigate for any potential ecological damage and preferably enhance current wildlife habitats”

Similar aspirations are included in Denbighshire County Council’s Interim Planning Guidance Note no. 1. On-Shore Wind Farms. CCW may seek site enhancements for biodiversity; proposals for biodiversity enhancements within the Environmental Statement may be accepted prior to determination but must be a statement of intent for measures that will be implemented. This should include broad statements/prescriptions on habitat enhancements for restoration of individual habitats in poor/degraded condition and proposed enhancements to benefit protected and/or priority species.

4.3 MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE DURING AND POST CONSTRUCTION

Whilst the current red kite population trend in Wales gives no reason to worry that windfarms are having an impact on red kite populations, a recently recorded collision highlights the need for continued and further research. It is therefore important that monitoring and surveillance programmes form a part of any wind-farm proposal. In view of this we recommend that details of such programmes, covering all protected species likely to be affected by the scheme, relating to both construction and operational phases, are included in the development proposals.

Monitoring must be linked to appropriate contingency plans. It may be necessary to amend construction procedures if the monitoring programmes identify adverse impacts linked to construction or post construction activities and CCW would wish to be consulted in such an event. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is in the process of developing generic guidance on this subject.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS

The EIA must include a description of all the existing landscape interests within and in the vicinity of the proposed development. This should be done using CCW’s LANDMAP methodology (available from the LANDMAP website www.landmap.ccw.gov.uk). LANDMAP is an all-Wales GIS based landscape resource where landscape characteristics, qualities and influences on the landscape are recorded and evaluated into a nationally consistent data set. LANDMAP comprises five spatially related datasets known as Evaluated Aspects, the five layers are the Geological Landscape, Landscape Habitats, Visual & Sensory, Historic Landscape and Cultural Landscape. All information is managed through a Geographical Information System and associated Collector database.

Most layers of LANDMAP data for the Gwynedd and Denbighshire areas are available. However, for any that are not, or if the developer experiences difficulty in getting data from the LANDMAP website, it should be possible for the data to be obtained by contacting Jill Bullen in our Bangor headquarters. CCW would expect any Environmental Statement to demonstrate use of all available data sets in the Landscape and Visual Assessment for any wind farm application. CCW recommends that the impacts of any development proposals on the landscape character of the area and its visual effects are assessed against the findings of this study.

While we note that the scoping report makes some reference to LANDMAP, it does not appear to be giving it the level of emphasis that CCW would expect.

There are particular characteristics associated with wind farm developments that are sources of impact on landscape character and visual amenity:

Frequent location in elevated/exposed sites which are often highly scenic and exposed to view over a wide area; Movement of turbine blades attracts attention; Sound of the turbines can attract attention; Shadow can add to the sense of movement; Colours of turbines, particularly if they catch the sun can increase their visual prominence.

Such issues should all be addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment and visual appraisal of the scheme in addition to specific site issues such as:

Development infrastructure – substation, cabling, ancillary buildings, working compounds, borrow pits and sediment settling ponds should all be considered in the assessment, even if ‘temporary’ (ie. only for the duration of construction works). The removal and disposal of any excavated materials such as soil or rock; Creation of new access tracks and re-profiling of existing ones; Transmission route connections to the main power grid; it is important that a landscape assessment of the connection route from the wind-farm development to the power grid is included for consideration, particularly given the potential for other wind-farms in the near and wider vicinity.

Please Note:-

This proposal is for a large scale development outside the boundary and 5km buffer of SSA A (See ref to Welsh Assembly Government TAN 8, 2005). As such and in the proposed location it is likely to have widespread landscape impact and greatly increase the cumulative impact of the developments to be built in the SSA. CCW will work with the developers to explore if it is possible to mitigate these and other impacts via the EIA process. However, it appears that it may not be possible to reduce impacts to an acceptable level. Unless impacts can be reduced to an acceptable level, CCW would be likely to object to the scheme.

5.1 Protected landscapes in the vicinity

The EIA should consider protected landscapes in the vicinity of the proposals including:

Snowdonia National Park Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural beauty (AONB) Proposed extension area of the Clwydian Range AONB

It is vital that the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) utilises appropriate viewpoints to consider the impacts of the proposals on these protected landscapes as there is potential for it to be visible from a wide area surrounding it.

CCW has recently been asked by the applicant’s landscape consultant to consider a preliminary list of view points. We have a number of concerns regarding the locations of these and will be conveying our suggested additions and changes to the consultant in the near future.

5.2 Other considerations

The landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) study should also address the following aspects of the project:

The removal and storage/disposal of any excavated materials such as soil or rock; Re-profiling of existing access tracks and creation of new access tracks; Development infrastructure – substation, cabling, ancillary buildings, working compounds, borrow pits and sediment settling ponds should all be considered in the assessment, even if they are “temporary” (i.e. only for the duration of construction works). Connections to the main power grid; it is important that a landscape assessment of the connection route from the wind-farm development to the power grid is included for consideration, particularly given the potential for other wind-farms in the vicinity. 5.3 Photographs and photomontages

We would also recommend that both wireframes and photomontages are produced for each viewpoint. The views in photographs and photomontages taken to assist with this process should be representative of that observed from each viewpoint and not partially obscured by structures such as buildings, pylons, telegraph poles etc. It would be helpful to have a second set of photos/photomontages included in the ES that superimpose the turbines from this development, and others that already exist or are presently in consideration in the planning process. We welcome the inclusion of a Preliminary Zone of Theoretical Visibility map (Figure 5) in the applicant’s scoping report. It would also be helpful include a similar map that shows the theoretical visibility to turbine hub height.

5.4 Historic Landscapes

The EIA should consider the presence of historic landscapes in the area and the potential impact that the proposed development may have on these. In accordance with Planning Policy Wales and the guidance in the ‘Guide to good practice on using the register of landscapes of historic interest in Wales in the planning and development process’ 2nd Ed. (CADW, 2007), an ASIDOHL would be expected for any development which is of such a scale it would have more than local impact on an area on the Register. Copies of this publication may be obtained from CCW if required.

A number of such landscapes in the area of the proposed scheme are listed below but the likely level of impact on these, or others, will have to be properly assessed.

Dyffryn Tanat / Tanat Valley Y Berwyn / Berwyn Gorllewin Mynydd Hiraethog / West Denbigh Moors Y Bala a Glannau Tegid / Bala and Bala Lakesides

6. WIDER ISSUES

6.1 Cumulative impacts

In assessing the potential impacts of the proposed development on ecological and landscape interests, the EIA should consider the potential cumulative impacts of this wind energy development along with:

Other wind energy developments in the area that already exist or have planning permission; and Proposals for other wind energy developments in the area that are in the public domain (ie. those that are presently under consideration in the planning system).

We would refer the developer to your authority and the relevant local planning authorities for comprehensive information in this respect. We would also draw their attention to the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s guidance on assessing cumulative impacts (See Section 2.1 above for document details).

6.2 Recreational interests The EIA should address impacts affecting key recreational users that use any public rights of way (public footpaths, bridleways, Access Land etc) including any nationally recognised and local routes that traverse the application site or land near to it. The EIA should take regard to TAN 8 with respect to distance from turbines to public rights of way (Appendix C, para 2.25- 2.27).

With regards to bridleways, horse riders and wind turbines, the British Horse Society Guidance recommends a minimum of 200m separation between turbines and bridleways, with ideally 3 times the height of the turbine separation.

We would recommend that you liase with the Public Rights of Way officers at the relevant local authorities regarding public rights of way and the potential impacts of this proposal on local routes.

6.4 Co-operating with other wind farm developers in the area

We would strongly encourage the developer and their advisers to work with the developers (and their advisers) of any other proposals or schemes in the vicinity in obtaining and sharing survey information, designing layouts, providing sufficient information about cumulative impacts, and developing surveillance and monitoring plans for construction and operational phases of the development.

6.5 Period between planning permission and commencement of construction works

If several years may elapse between the granting of planning permission and the commencement of construction works, we would recommend that appropriate ecological field surveys are undertaken during this period to repeat and update those undertaken to inform the EIA and inform the developer of any change of circumstances, for example, with respect to protected species. We recommend that this aspect is covered in the Environmental Statement for the proposals.

6.6 Deviation from policy

If the granting of permission for this development deviates from national and/or local policy, full justification for this deviation should be provided in the Environmental Statement. APPENDIX 1: EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPECIES - LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION

European Protected Species include: Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) Common otter (Lutra lutra) all British bats Dormouse (Muscardiunus avellanarius)

All European Protected Species and the places they use to rest and breed are legally protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 – the Habitats Regulations. The Habitats Regulations transpose the requirements of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) into UK law.

Under Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations: - A person commits an offence if he or she: (a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protected species; (b) deliberately disturbs1 animals of any such species; (c) deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal; or (d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

1. Disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely: (a) To impair their ability (i) to survive, breed or reproduce, or to rear or nuture their young, or, (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or (b) to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

Under S.9(4)(b) and (c) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended):- A person commits an offence if he/she intentionally or recklessly disturbs any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; or obstructs access to any such structure or place.

Where the legal protection afforded European protected species under the Habitats Regulations is likely to be compromised by a proposed development, the development may only proceed under a licence issued by the National Assembly for Wales (NAW). Under Regulation 53(2) of the Habitats Regulations, NAW may issues licences for the purposes of:

‘preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.’

1 For further information on this offence, please refer to “Disturbance and protected species: understanding and applying the law in England and Wales: A view from Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales.” CCW, Bangor http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/policy/070912conservationdisturbanceen.doc Furthermore, a licence can only be issued by NAW if the following two conditions are also met:

That there is ‘no satisfactory alternative’ (Regulation 53(9)(a)), and that ‘the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’ (Regulation 53(9)(b)).

In addition, Regulation 9(5) of the Habitats Regulations confirms that all competent authorities, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the provisions of the Habitats Directive so far they may be affected by the exercise of those functions. APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATION CONCERNING BADGERS

Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Legal protection makes it an offence to:

wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so; intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett.

Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it. If the proposed development is likely to compromise the legal protection afforded badgers, a licence will be required from the Countryside Council for Wales. APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION CONCERNING WATER VOLES

Water voles are now fully protected the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation it is illegal to:

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild water vole (Section 9(1)); Possess or control any live or dead water vole or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal (Section 9(2)) Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any structure or place which any wild water vole uses for shelter or protection (Section 9(4)(a)); Intentionally or recklessly disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose (Section 9(4)(b)); Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place which any wild water vole uses for shelter or protection (Section 9 (4)(c)).

There is no licensing provision for ‘development’. The Wildlife and Countryside Act provides a defence against the above offences where the action is the incidental result of an otherwise lawful operation and could not have reasonably been avoided (Section 10(3)(c)). All reasonable efforts must be made to avoid committing an offence. CCW Guidance Note

Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales.

14 January 2010

Countryside Council for Wales Maes y Ffynnon Penrhosgarnedd Bangor LL57 2DW Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Aims of this guidance 1.2. Introduction to the upland peatland resource 1.3. Overview of potential impacts of windfarm development for peatlands

2. THE BIODIVERSITY AND CARBON CONTEXT

2.1.Biodiversity 2.2. Carbon

3. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON PEATLAND HABITATS & PEAT

4. METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCE

4.1. Peatland habitat characterisation and evaluation 4.2. Peat depth assessment 4.3. Hydrological impacts 4.4. Peat mass stability 4.5. Earth science and palaeoecology 4.6. Carbon loss and carbon gain

5. MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

5.1. Mitigation measures 5.2. Compensation measures: Habitat Management Plans

6. MONITORING

7. FURTHER ADVICE AND GUIDANCE FOR CCW STAFF

8. REFERENCES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Aims of this guidance

The aims of this guidance are to identify the main impacts posed by windfarm developments for peatland habitats, and to guide CCW’s input to the scoping and all subsequent phases of environmental assessments and associated case-work. It should be used to indicate to developers the issues/topics that we would expect to be covered in windfarm impact assessments. CCW’s underpinning Position Statement on peat in Wales should be read in conjunction with this technical guidance. This guidance has a strong upland emphasis, reflecting the dominant deployment to-date of terrestrial windfarms in Wales. This guidance does not consider landscape issues.

This guidance has been prepared by Pete Jones, with significant inputs from Carol Fielding, Rob McCall, Peter Minto, Ken Perry and Sandra Wells. Its production follows a CCW training workshop in May 2008 to develop common approaches and key guidance to aid

1 assessments of windfarm impacts across Wales. Feedback on this guidance will be gratefully received.

1.2 Introduction to the upland peatland resource

Rainfall, temperature, topography, and past land-use have combined to favour the widespread development of blanket bog in Wales. It occurs widely above 300 m and is most prevalent on upland plateaux, broad ridges and gentle slopes – similar circumstances to those favoured for wind-farm development. Yeo (1997) and Jones et al. (2003) provide recent overviews of the resource; the latter also provides up-to-date distribution maps and a breakdown of habitat extent across each of the 24 Welsh Local Biodiversity Action Plan areas. Upland fens (primarily soligenous flushes) are also widespread in the uplands, and are often associated with peat and blanket bog. Many existing and planned windfarms include areas of peatland habitat, or at least peat.

The Welsh blanket bog resource is of critical significance in both a UK and wider European context. Welsh mires reflect much of the overall variation in the character of the resource across the UK, the only major omission being the hyper-oceanic mires of northern Scotland. Wales is also significant in a biogeographic context; this habitat is absent across much of the equivalent latitudinal range in England, with good quality examples scarce until north of the Peak District. Blanket mire in the south of Wales (including the successor counties of Glamorgan and Gwent) lies close to its southern limit in NW Europe. Our mires provide the major locus for a restricted but specialised range of plants and animals, and with other upland habitats play a key role in terms of ecological connectivity.

Welsh blankets bogs have already been very heavily impacted by man, and ongoing loss and degradation is occurring. Of the original estimated resource of c. 70,600 ha, just 22,600 ha of the remaining 54,600 ha is considered to represent the less modified blanket bog category of the Phase I habitat classification. The surviving resource remains vulnerable to a range of impacts, including climate change and atmospheric deposition, as well as obvious site management effects such as drainage, grazing regime and burning. Windfarm infrastructure has the potential to add further pressures to already stressed systems.

1.3. Overview of potential impacts of windfarm developments for peatlands.

Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peat and peatland habitats is critical given the importance of peatland habitats as a nature conservation resource, their wider environmental role in terms of carbon storage and sequestration, and their particular sensitivity to the construction and existence of infrastructure typically associated with windfarms. These topics are considered in detail in section 4.

Potential impacts of wind farm developments on peatland habitats include direct habitat loss through construction of windfarm infrastructure, and habitat modification or even loss primarily due to adverse changes to hydrology. Direct immediate habitat loss due to access tracks, turbine bases, permanent crane pads etc is straightforward to quantify, but requires good quality data for accurate assessment – see below. Damage caused by altered hydrological regimes is less easily quantified, but in the long-term this may lead to more widespread habitat deterioration and so must be a key focus of impact assessment.

As well as its importance as a nature conservation resource, peat has an important role in carbon sequestration and storage. Losses caused by wind farm construction alone could, unless carefully planned and sited, wholly negate the carbon savings associated with renewable energy generation for a period of years - a serious time lag because of the need to meet government targets for 2010 and 2020, and in the context of climate change research

2 that suggests a threshold effect and the urgency of immediate carbon reductions. In some cases carbon peat losses could continue for the life of the development, as a result of poor design and damage to hydrology.

Given the importance and sensitivity of peatland habitats, CCW’s position is that windfarm developments should avoid impacts to peat as far as possible through, inter alia, careful siting of infrastructure based on accurate survey and site assessment. Operational decisions about whether particular impacts are tolerable will depend on many factors, including site status, the importance of the peatland features, likely significance of impact, potential benefits offered by Habitat Management Plans (section 5.2) and the adequacy of mitigation. Each of these topics is considered further below.

Assessment of each main category of impact is described further in section 4.

2. THE BIODIVERSITY AND CARBON CONTEXT.

2.1. Biodiversity

The main wetland habitat types encountered on windfarm sites are blanket bog and upland fen. Blanket bog is a globally confined resource and a priority habitat under the UKBAP. Annex 1 of the EU Habitats & Species Directive contains ‘active blanket bog’ which is afforded priority habitat status and includes areas which still support a significant area of vegetation that is normally peat forming, as well as areas that are temporarily at a standstill (after fire for example). Upland fen is represented primarily by soligenous flushes and springs, with topogenous fen scarce. Soligenous fens may occur on peat, or on shallower organic soils with a significant mineral content. Upland fens (soligenous and topogenous forms) are now included as BAP priority habitats. Both habitats are thus ‘habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity’ as defined under section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Blanket bog is well represented within Local Biodiversity Action Plans in Wales, upland fens less so. Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5 ‘Nature Conservation and Planning’ (2009) confirms that BAP habitats (and species) can be a material consideration in the planning process (Welsh Assembly Government, 2009, section 6.5); Environment Strategy Wales outcomes 19, 20 and 21 are also highly relevant to the protection of the non-statutory resource. Articles 1 and 10 of the Habitats and Species Directive are also relevant to the conservation of blanket bog outside the protected sites series. The definition of favourable conservation status (Article 1) requires the natural range and area covered by the habitat to be stable or increasing and the specific structures and functions necessary for its long-term maintenance to be in place; in this context, the presence of upland peat can be regarded as a key indication of natural range. Article 10 of the Directive (covering ecological coherence and connectivity functions) is especially applicable to blanket bog as our only extensive and locally continuous peatland habitat.

2.2. Carbon

Peat plays an important role in carbon storage, and active mire vegetation can add to this store through peat growth and subsequent carbon sequestration. The carbon storage function of peats in Wales is very significant; peat soils contain 30% of the soil carbon resource of Wales despite possibly occupying only 3% of the land surface (ECOSSE, 2007). The annual carbon fixing potential of peats in Wales is relatively modest on a unit area basis, but significant in total, particularly in relation to other forms of semi-natural vegetation in the Welsh uplands. Furthermore, there is huge potential for switching many peatland areas from net sources to net sinks of carbon.

3 The balance between net C sequestration and emission is easily disrupted, and any losses caused by construction overlap alone could negate carbon savings from wind energy generation for a period of time. This is a serious issue because of the need to meet government targets for 2010 and 2020, and in the context of climate change research that suggests a threshold effect and the urgency of immediate carbon reductions. In some cases peat carbon losses could continue for the life of the development, as a result of poor design and damage to hydrology. Climate change will further damage the resilience of peatlands as a natural ecosystem resource, and thus potential sink for carbon.

The Climate Change Act set out targets for a 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2050 and established the Committee on Climate Change to set 5-yearly budgets from 2009 onwards. Wales’ contribution to the proposed emission reductions will be achieved through delivery of the One Wales commitment to a 3% per annum reduction in those Welsh emissions outside of the EU ETS. The means to deliver these reductions has been set out in the draft Welsh Climate Change Strategy programme of action, that was consulted on in summer 2009. In the consultation, ‘soil carbon conservation’ and ‘the role of sinks in achieving emission reduction’ were both identified by WAG as ‘key challenges’ within the mitigation measures proposed for the agriculture and land use sector. Clearly the protection of peat and the restoration of actively sequestering peatland ecosystems are important to addressing them. The management of peatlands was also identified as important for adaptation, as exemplified in the draft strategy by reference to the restoration work being undertaken on the Migneint. Furthermore, a recent (2009) report by the Sustainable Development Commission identifies the protection of ‘all significant carbon stores’ as one of the six priorities for action across Wales.

The Climate Change Act gives WAG and Welsh Ministers the power to require reporting authorities such as CCW to produce an assessment of both the impacts of climate change and the way in which they will consider the need for adaptation. The production of this guidance is a component of CCW’s response to the delivery of both the One Wales and WAG Climate Change Strategy in terms of mitigation within the land use sector, and also the requirement of the Climate Change Act for reporting authorities such as CCW to consider the impacts of climate change and the need for adaptation.

3. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON PEATLAND HABITATS AND PEAT.

Potential impacts on peat and peatland habitats should be a key part of windfarm Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Annex IV of the EIA Directive (Council Directive 85/337/EEC) requires that developers should outline the main alternatives (to a development at a particular site) considered, and provide ‘a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment’. To enable this, EIA should commence early in the design process and through iteration achieve as far as possible the removal of adverse impacts. Peat and peatland habitats are of sufficient significance to merit mapping and assessment as part of the suite of primary constraints to scheme design. EIA in this context should be based on a consideration of all of the factors considered under section 4 below and include detailed assessment of the impact of trackways, turbine bases and associated infrastructure. EIA should clearly demonstrate the extent to which impacts on peat and peatland habitats have been taken into account. In practice, this requires assessment of the whole peatland resource within the application area (and not just the layout imprint).

Impact assessments should reflect the fact that peatland habitats represent a particularly sensitive receptor. Habitat composition and condition is dependent on the integrity of the living mire surface and underlying peat profile, and natural hydrological processes. Even

4 relatively minor changes in hydrological regime have the potential to cause or contribute to further degradation in what are often already stressed systems, and may even switch peatlands from net sinks to net sources of carbon.

Afforested peatlands may retain significant semi-natural habitat interest, but even where heavily modified still represent an important potential conservation resource. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership Upland Ecosystem Group is currently considering targets for the restoration of bog on areas of peat currently under other land-cover types, and future policy and guidance development is likely to reflect the growing importance attached to peat and its restoration for biodiversity and other ecosystem benefits. Consequently, impact assessment should cover impacts on the surviving habitat resource as well as the implications of windfarm development for future habitat restoration.

Habitat and peat depth mapping should be used to inform a final design iteration that minimises any overlap of windfarm infrastructure on peat. Based on the criteria set out in this guidance, the impact of any residual overlap must be clearly described in terms of the character and significance of what will be lost and the impact in terms of adjacent habitat and the wider peatland unit. The latter aspects should include a detailed site-specific assessment of hydrological and resultant ecological impacts through the design lifetime of the site, and also the wider environmental implications in terms of carbon. References to the use of best practice (in mitigating impacts) should be fully supported by evidence relating to the actual long-term efficacy of such techniques in comparable peatland situations.

The issue of habitat loss is a key area of concern because of the very limited potential which is believed to exist for the development of new peat profiles and areas of peatland habitat1. Furthermore, whatever potential does exist may reduce over time due to the contracting climatic envelope conducive to bog development. The Welsh peat resource is estimated to represent only 3% of the land surface, less than the equivalent UK figure of c. 7%, and given its importance yet relatively modest extent and often localised distribution in Wales, the argument for avoiding impacts on peat as far as possible is clear. This is reflected indirectly in TAN 8 which states (para 2.4) “Not all of the land within the SSAs may be technically, economically and/or environmentally suitable for major wind power proposals”. It may therefore be appropriate in some cases to object to a scheme because of the inclusion and siting of particular turbines. The Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement on renewable energy requires minimization of impacts which again would support an objection to a particular part of a scheme and to require agreement on micro-siting or removal of turbines. The draft National Position Statement on Renewable Energy (DEC, 2009) also highlights the sensitivity of peat.

Habitat loss resulting from all forms of windfarm infrastructure should be regarded as permanent. Even if ‘cut & fill’ type tracks were removed, insufficient stock-piled peat would be left on-site after c. 20 years operation to re-profile them. Tracks constructed as floating roads will be regarded as resulting in permanent loss of underlying habitat because of the inherent uncertainty associated with restoration following track removal.

Excavated mass concrete foundations left in-situ post de-commissioning are unlikely to develop a functional peat profile and given they are unlikely to be removed should again be regarded as representing a permanent loss of habitat.

Alternative methods and processes in carrying out the development should clearly be part of the EIA and in the case of wind turbines on or adjacent to peat, including afforested peat, should include the net balance between losses of carbon through peat loss and degradation,

1 Note that recovery of semi-natural bog vegetation from non-mire vegetation is classed as restoration and not habitat creation.

5 and gains as a result of compensation restoration and management. The former should be a consideration in the development of compensation measures.

4. METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCE

Impact assessment should begin with characterisation and evaluation to develop a thorough understanding of the peatland resource. This requires reliable information on the character of the surface vegetation (see section 4.1) and the underlying peat (section 4.2) and is essential to identify the habitat resource likely to be affected by windfarm development. Information relating to the direct imprint of the development is only one aspect of the assessment - hydrology and hydro-ecology (section 4.3) and peat mass stability (section 4.4) must also be examined in detail to determine wider-scale impacts in relation to scheme design. Assessment of impacts on carbon flux and storage (section 4.6) represent another critical area. The full range of criteria outlined in this section should be used to inform scheme siting and design at a range of scales, for example by helping to rule out layouts or schemes with significant adverse impacts on biodiversity and carbon due to peat loss/degradation, and through using more detailed iterative studies to identify ways in which impacts can be avoided and mitigated through design of specific elements of the scheme.

4.1. Peatland habitat characterisation and evaluation

This should be performed at least to Phase I level, but with the important caveat that forms of bog dominated by graminoids or ericoids are still recognised as peatland habitat where present on ~0.5 m of peat. Failure to do so has been a common pitfall of many site assessments in Wales (and elsewhere). Peat depth measurements should be undertaken at frequent intervals, and ideally at the same time as the habitat mapping to ensure that depth is tested at habitat boundaries. This is important because characterisation as bog (sensu Phase I) is to an extent conditional on the presence of 0.5 m or more of peat. It is preferable that surveyors record actual depths (rather than < or > 0.5 m), even if only to the nearest 10 cm. One important reason for this is that vegetation obviously referable to blanket bog (i.e. with frequent Eriophorum vaginatum and sphagna) can occur on shallower peats (to around 35 cm) and such habitat should still be mapped as bog2 – see Table 4.1. Section 4.2 offers an outline methodology for assessing peat depth.

Table 4.1. Summary table to guide decisions on habitat classification based on peat depth and simple vegetation markers.

Eriophorum vaginatum Occasional or rare Frequent Tall Junci & Sphagna Infrequent Frequent Frequent Infrequent Peat < 0.5 m Heath or acid Modified bog or acid grassland flush E. vaginatum Acid flush Bog Peat > 0.5 m Bog variant, depending on context.

In many cases Phase I habitat maps will need to be supplemented with target notes or sub- mapped to describe vegetation to National Vegetation Classification (NVC; Rodwell [ed], 1991) plant community/sub-community level; these include:

to describe and quantify habitat quality; where vegetation on deep peat falls outside the perceived core range of blanket bog vegetation in the UK;

2 Shallow peats may have resulted from comparatively recent (within the 20th. century) peat cutting or erosion and may thus be a poor reflection of the potential for deep peat formation at any given location.

6 at critical locations where access tracks, turbines, crane pads and other high impact structures are planned; where re-siting or design could eliminate or minimise impacts on peatland habitats; to enable the selection of compensation sites comparable with impacted sites.

Descriptions to community level should be based on the NVC whilst also employing the expanded suite of ombrogenous and related mire communities described recently for Wales by Turner (2006). Table 4.2 provides a synopsis of the main NVC communities and Turner additions recognised to-date in Wales.

Table 4.2. Synopsis of the main NVC communities and additions recognised to-date in Wales from predominantly upland peatlands. With the possible exception of U6, all of these communities are potentially peat forming.

Community name Distribution / Comments abundance M1 Sphagnum auriculatum Rare A localised feature of intact and usually high quality mires. (denticulatum) bog-pool community M2 Sphagnum cuspidatum / Widespread, but This bog-pool and bog hollow community indicates high recurvum (fallax) bog pool often localised and stable water tables (especially where S. cuspidatum is community and of small prominent) and is a valuable component (and indicator) of extent microtopographic differentiation into hummocks and hollows. M3 Eriophorum angustifolium Widespread but Occurs commonly as a stage in the recovery of eroded wet bog-pool community rarely extensive peat and can thus be taken as indicating natural recovery and a comparatively intact hydrology. Also an important bog-pool element, especially in the south. M4 Carex rostrata – Sphagnum Widespread , but Mostly a community of soligenous zones within blanket recurvum (fallax) mire less common in mire, and thus a valuable component of habitat south heterogeneity in response to variations in hydrological regime. A key element of upland fens, often with a ‘poor- fit’ to the NVC. M6 Carex echinata – Widespread and The main form of soligenous mire in the Welsh uplands and Sphagnum recurvum often abundant now covered by the upland fens priority habitat type. (fallax)/auriculatum (denticulatum) mire. (Turner, 2006) M6 Eriophorum vaginatum Probably Vegetation transitional between soligenous fen and bog. variant widespread – mainly upland M15 Scirpus cespitosus – Erica Widespread – M15 on peat is usually a product of past adverse tetralix wet heath. often abundant management, but is of significant intrinsic value and often shows evidence of recovery back to bog M16 Erica tetralix – Sphagnum Localised A localised component of wet heath on peat and of compactum wet heath significant intrinsic value. M17 Scirpus cespitosus – Widespread in M17 becomes more prevalent at lower altitudes and in the Eriophorum vaginatum blanket west and at west. M17, 18 and 19 are the key components of the bog mire lower altitudes plane proper on the least modified bogs. M18 Erica tetralix – Sphagnum Widespread, but M18 generally marks out areas of deep wet peat on cols and papillosum raised and blanket rarely extensive saddles. mire. M19 Calluna vulgaris – Widespread and M19 is the natural climax community of undrained bogs Eriophorum vaginatum blanket extensive in the across much of Wales, particularly at moderate-high mire. north. altitudes.

7 M20 Eriophorum vaginatum Widespread in Over-grazing and burning have led to the widespread blanket and raised mire. the north dominance of M20 in the north. M25 Molinia caerulea – Widespread in M25 replaces M20 as the dominant community of modified Potentilla erecta mire south and west bogs in mid and south Wales, with burning, sheep grazing and atmospheric deposition all implicated as causal agents of its development. M25 Eriophorum vaginatum Probably Marked by frequent Eriophorum vaginatum within a variant (Turner, 2006) widespread in context of overall dominance by Molinia. Such mires are south and mid likely to offer better potential for the restoration of Wales. reasonable quality bog than Molinia monocultures alone. Survey during the Eriophorum flowering period (May to July) is strongly recommended to prevent over-mapping of M25 (Figure 4.1). Nodum 19 (Turner, 2006) Widespread at Vegetation with frequent Eriophorum vaginatum and medium-low exhibiting the characteristic graminoid-ericoid-sphagna altitudes blend of M17-19, but with Sphagnum recurvum and/or S. subnitens in place of the core oligotrophic Sphagna of these communities. U6 Juncus squarrosus – Northern Highly modified peatland vegetation, but with an often Nardus stricta acid grassland appreciable cover of oligotrophic Sphagna. Can recover to bog under appropriate management, and may be an important ‘matrix’ element linking together blocks of less strongly modified bog.

Habitat evaluation. Evaluation of habitat quality and importance has been a weak-point of many windfarm Environmental Statement (ES) submissions to-date. The main reasons for this are (i) failure to recognise the full extent of peatland habitat as a result of mis-classification, (ii) the tendency to adopt classic blanket bog vegetation (e.g. M19) as the ‘benchmark standard’ of habitat quality in areas of Wales where other often modified but nonetheless valuable forms of peatland vegetation prevail, and (iii) the tendency to regard localised pockets of bog and fen as inferior.

The first issue can only be resolved by careful and accurate habitat mapping by experienced surveyors. Habitat mapping should be undertaken to community/sub-community level for all turbine locations and track crossings. Assigning polygons to multiple communities should be avoided in such cases, unless the vegetation represents a genuine mosaic of intermixed communities/sub-communities.

Habitat quality should be assessed on a site-specific basis using the Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) guidance developed for upland habitats by JNCC (JNCC, 2009) as a basis. Attributes which may be used to support judgements of quality within the specific context of blanket bog are summarised in Table 4.3.

Habitat evaluation should take full account of biogeographical variations in the composition and quality of the blanket mire resource. For example, forms of modified bog are especially prevalent in mid and south Wales (Figure 4.2), and the ambient nitrogen deposition regime3 is likely to place inevitable restrictions on the representation of the core oligotrophic Sphagna associated with good quality peat-forming mires.

3 For this and other reasons, assessments should make reference to the ambient N deposition regime and how it compares with the published critical load for blanket bog. The web-based Air Pollution Information Service (APIS) tool (www.apis.ac.uk) provides loading estimates for total N and other atmospheric pollutants for each 5 km square across the UK.

8 Figure 4.1. Modified blanket bog on 70 cm of peat with dominant Molinia caerulea and frequent/locally abundant Eriophorum vaginatum. Rhondda, Glamorgan, August 2007.

Table 4.3. Summary of some key attributes of habitat quality. Attributes marked ++ are highly desirable. * Oligotrophic Sphagna may be especially sparse in parts of mid and south Wales.

Attribute Positive / negative Presence of surface patterning into hummocks and hollows ++ > 10 % cover of oligotrophic Sphagna (mainly S. papillosum, S, capillifolium and S. ++ cuspidatum)* No one ericoid or graminoid present at > 50% cover + M2, M17-M19 the predominant vegetation cover ++ > 10% cover of any Sphagna + Absence of drains, absence of functional drainage + Absence of readily visible bare peat (> 10 x 10 cm patches) in > 50 % of ‘sample’ points. + Presence of bog markers (e.g. Eriophorum vaginatum, classic bog hepatics such as Mylia and + Odontoschisma) within M25 or U6 swards Water table level moderate to high ++

Viable areas of active blanket mire in such contexts are of significant value even where ericoids and oligotrophic Sphagna are sparse or absent.

Habitat extent and continuity are important attributes of quality and both issues have a bearing on habitat viability. However, viability is also strongly related to the hydrotopographic context of the peatland. For example, a relatively small block of habitat located within a topographic hollow is likely to be more viable than a larger block of peat on a moisture shedding slope.

9 Figure 4.2. Distribution of 1 km squares with blanket bog in Wales. This map records the presence of blanket bog and whether the majority cover is modified (blue) or un-modified (red), but not its extent. Blanket bog does occur in 1 km squares additional to those presented in this figure. Data derived from Habitat Survey of Wales (1979-1997). Analysis by Dr Jane Stevens, CCW.

Although a large coherent block of bog is likely to be more resilient to hydrological impacts and climate change than multiple small blocks, scattered blocks of bog vegetation separated by acid grassland are encountered widely in Wales and often reflect variations in the underlying bedrock topography; they should not be under-valued in Environmental Statements.

Erosion is often symptomatic of degradation, but with the important caveat that some forms of plateaux type erosion may be very long-standing and apparently natural features. Most erosion features are now technically restorable, and the significance of erosion as a negative attribute of habitat quality should be kept in perspective in habitat evaluation.

The hydrotopographic context/s of the peatland should be noted as this has some bearing on sensitivity to hydrological changes and is also a criterion employed in SSSI selection. Habitat evaluation may include consideration of the extent to which sites meet minimum standards for notification, but it is important to recognise that the selection guidelines (JNCC, 1994) are now relatively dated, particularly in terms of the priority given to modified and relatively patchy expanses of mire in southern Britain. Evaluation of habitat in terms of its local importance should utilise the recently published Wildlife Sites Wales Guidance (Wales Biodiversity Partnership, 2008). It is important to note that even relatively small expanses of modified bog may be of significance, particularly edge-of-range examples in areas with a relatively limited representation of this habitat. Assessment of habitat viability should recognise that even small tracts of bog are likely to be viable in the long-term4 given

4 The long-term influence of climate change remains uncertain, but favourable management will aid habitat resilience.

10 appropriate management and the general trend of improvements in air quality. Habitat evaluation should, in general, be underpinned by an appreciation of NERC duty emphasis on the conservation of ‘habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity’; Environment Strategy Wales outcomes 19, 20 and 21 underpin conservation of the non-statutory resource.

The consequences of windfarm construction and operation for long-term habitat quality should be assessed in detail, and hydroecological impacts are considered in section 4.3. Additional impacts occurring during or after construction are listed in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4. Additional impacts on peatland habitats and species which may result from windfarm construction.

Issue Comments and requirements for assessment Construction impacts beyond Windfarm construction offers the potential for vehicle damage or the immediate infrastructure soil disturbance on adjacent habitat. Whilst many areas can be left footprint. to re-vegetate naturally, impacts on sensitive habitats, notably peatlands, require specific assessment as part of the EIA. Construction method statements should also include specific provision for such impacts. Impacts resulting from Re-worked peat exposed on track batters, around turbine bases, ineffective or inappropriate crane pads and borrow pits will be prone to erosion and oxidation. restoration of peat batters and Measures to prevent this need to be identified. other areas of exposed peat. Dust emissions from access The core oligotrophic mire communities are particularly sensitive to tracks during construction and dust. Fill and surface dressings derived from limestone or other subsequent use. calcareous rock-types should not be used, and appropriate dust suppression practices adopted during both construction and use. Habitat fragmentation and Trackways impose a dry-land barrier to the movement of wetland connectivity species, but the effects have been all but ignored in most assessments to-date. Alterations to grazing regime Access tracks will be used by grazing stock with the result that localised changes in grazing pressure may result. Alterations to the grazing regime may influence the quality of the habitat for a wide range of species, include key-stone taxa such as curlew.

Afforested peatlands Conifer plantations cover over half of the peat area occurring within the TAN 8 Strategic Search Areas (SSA) in Wales. Afforested peatlands will already be impacted by shading and drainage, but the prospects for vegetation recovery can be good given recent advances in restoration practice5. This suggests that impact assessments for peatlands under forestry should be subject to the same set of protocols as un-afforested mires.

4.2. Peat depth assessment

Accurate and thorough determination of the extent and variation in depth of peat deposits within application sites is necessary as it underpins all other assessment requirements. Standard sources of mapped information resulting from the British Geological Survey (as drift edition maps) or Soil Survey of England & Wales provide an indication of peat distribution, but should only be used as a guide in planning field survey. Soil maps prepared by the Forestry Commission in advance of planting programmes are generally of higher quality, but still require corroboration and to-date are not available in digital format for FC holdings across Wales.

5 www.peatlands.org.uk provides a useful but not yet exhaustive gateway to relevant projects in the UK.

11 Formal mapping and characterisation of peat using the standard Soil Survey Methodology is unlikely to be warranted. Characterisation of the degree of peat humification according to the Von Post (H1 – H10) scheme (Annex I) is more relevant as this parameter shows some correlation with saturated hydraulic conductivity (a measure of how fast water moves through the peat); it is also quite easy to assess from field examination of peat retrieved from auger sampling. This is worth undertaking at selected auger hole locations (and particularly along the proposed alignment of access tracks) in order to gain a qualitative understanding of peat permeability.

Probing to determine peat depth is an acceptable methodology, but this should be ‘calibrated’ periodically with hand-augering to ensure that what ‘feels’ like peat actually is6. Probing can be undertaken with bamboo canes but these are prone to splitting and may cause injury – solid high density polyethylene or aluminium rods (the latter available from B & Q) are preferable. Insulating tape or scribe marks can be used to mark 10 cm intervals. Locations of depth probing and augering should be recorded using a GPS.

Peat depth data should be presented either as open (i.e. contours only) or closed colour shaded peat depth contour maps (with assessment points marked) or (more usually) as coloured circles indicating specific depth classes according to the suggested scheme below.

Depth range(cm) Colour codes 0 – 50 Blue or green > 50 – 100 Yellow >100 – 150 Orange > 150 - 300 Red >300 Purple

The analytical method employed for the production of contoured representations of peat depth should be clearly stated, and raw peat depth data provided in an Annex with NGRs to at least 8 but preferably 10 figures (excluding 100 km identifier).

Peat depth measurements should be recorded in the vicinity of all planned windfarm infrastructure. Transects of peat depth measurements laid at right angles to access track alignments are highly desirable to inform re-siting. However, when assessing the appropriateness of any peat depth mapping undertaken in relation to the resource and the impacts, the ES needs to demonstrate that impacts on peat have been avoided or minimised. It is unlikely this can be achieved if measurements are only provided for the immediate vicinity of proposed windfarm infrastructure. For this reason, sufficient peat depth data should be collected to provide an understanding of the overall distribution of peat within the application site.

4.3. Hydrological impacts

Introduction Impact assessment should address both water quantity and water quality and consider surface water resources as well as groundwater and peat hydrology. The Environment Agency should review all surface- and groundwater impacts, but in practice CCW usually leads with detailed guidance and feedback on peat hydrology. Peat hydrology is a critical issue in the context of

6 Depth probing is a reliable method given that peat soils are comparatively soft and underlain usually by stiff gritty podzolic horizons overlying consolidated drift. However, soft silty inorganic deposits can ‘masquerade’ as peat when tested using depth probing alone.

12 this guidance because most assessments to-date of the hydrological and hydro-ecological consequences of windfarm developments in Wales have been qualitative in nature and based largely on opinion, with very little use of field-derived quantitative information from the application site or related sites to support claims of absence of or insignificant effect. Furthermore, most assessments fail to link predicted changes in peat or wider site hydrology to resultant changes in bog or fen habitat quality. It is worth noting that very little is known about the long-term effects of various forms of floating and ‘cut and fill’ type tracks on blanket bog hydrology (Lindsay, 2009). Consequently, judgements of little or no impact should be regarded with considerable caution, unless supported by a substantial body of site- specific evidence and, ideally, evidence for comparable impacted sites subject to long-term monitoring.

Hydrological impact assessment is a technical subject area and specialist advice7 should be sought in assessing EIAs for sites with a significant peat cover.

Potential impacts for water quantity and water quality resulting from windfarm development are wide ranging, but include the following:

damage to peat including peat drainage; long-term disruption of natural flow paths within and on top of the peat body; entrance of sediment into watercourses via dust or suspended in run-off; changes in runoff regime; creation of new drainage pathways as a result of windfarm infrastructure (chiefly tracks and cable trenches); concrete spillages and leachate from concrete residues entering the water environment from construction areas (wind turbine foundations, crane pads, substation compounds and lay down areas); chemical spillages during refuelling / maintenance of plant; erosion of exposed ground and track surfaces, producing silt- or particulate peat-laden runoff which enters local watercourses;

Only the first two points will be considered further in this guidance.

Hydroecological impacts Blanket bog and fen require a high and stable water table regime sustained by rainfall. The development of peat is critical to this requirement, not least because its inherently low permeability prevents free drainage. However, recent work has demonstrated the inherent heterogeneity of blanket peat in terms of its hydraulic properties. Point to point variation in hydraulic conductivity (a measure of the rate of water movement within saturated media) is one element of this, together with the relatively recent discovery of the role and frequency of peat pipes – macropores which permit the rapid movement of water through the peat profile.

Windfarm construction involving infrastructure development on or adjacent to peat is likely to result in a range of hydroecological impacts as summarised in Table 4.5.

Impact assessments for windfarms involving the deployment of infrastructure on or directly adjacent to peat should include a quantitative site-specific assessment of the impact of the development upon hydrological regimes in terms of water levels within adjacent peats, water movement within the peatland unit, and the likely effects of changes in either attribute upon mire quality, carbon storage and the potential for C sequestration. Suggested information needs for this assessment are summarised in Table 4.6. It is important that habitat survey and

7 HQ support is available for CCW staff.

13 evaluation (include peat depth assessment) should be used to help scope the requirement for detailed hydrological assessment.

Table 4.5. Overview of the main consequences of wind-farm infrastructure for peat hydrology. Note that wider hydrological implications for streamflow are not considered here.

Activity Potential impacts Potential consequences ‘Cut & fill’ tracks Increased drainage from adjacent Lowered water tables and oxidative wastage peat into road base and, potentially, of adjacent peat leading to sloping surface drift or fractured surface bedrock and accelerated drainage. Shrinkage of peat exposed during construction. ‘away’ from track edges is also possible. Impeded drainage from adjacent peat Wetter conditions on upslope slide, drier on down slope. Severed or impeded cross-track flow. Implications for wider hydrological regime of peat body. ‘Floating’ roads Loading reduces hydraulic Wetter conditions on upslope slide, drier on conductivity of peat beneath track, down slope. Reduced cross-track flow has leading to reduced cross-track flow. wider implications for the hydrological Loading may result in collapse of regime of the peat body. peat pipes. Impeded surface flow on upslope Wetter conditions on upslope slide, drier on side, loss of surface water inputs down slope. Loss or degradation of mire pool downslope. / soakway features downslope. Formation of ripples due to peat Localised raising of peat above water table, displacement. leading to changes in vegetation quality and possibly peat oxidation and erosion. Turbines Increased drainage into void during Lowered water tables and oxidative wastage construction, or shrinkage cracks of adjacent peat leading to turbine bases post construction and infill. sloping surface and accelerated drainage. Shrinkage of peat ‘away’ from the edge of infrastructure is also possible.

The confidence attached to hydroecological impact assessments will depend to a large degree on the effort invested in site investigation.

Table 4.6. Summary of suggested information needs for hydro-ecological impact assessment.

Information need Description and relevance to impact assessment Existing water table Any infrastructure development on deep peat should be informed by an regime and the degree to assessment of water table conditions during winter and summer, even if which it has been only a walk-over survey initially to determine variations in ground wetness affected by current and set within the climatic context of the year. Such assessments should be past site management referred to a standardised terminology (ideally that of Table 4.7). More quantitative evaluations of baseline hydrology can be undertaken using dipwells equipped with data-loggers. Saturated hydraulic This important parameter determines the rate at which water moves conductivity (k) of peat through peat. It varies spatially and with depth. Some appreciation of it is and how it varies essential to understand the likely hydrological effects of trackways. Any spatially and with depth modelling work will be highly dependent on k values. Surface peat layers in intact less modified mires may be highly conductive (high k values) and thus highly sensitive to alterations in hydraulic gradient. Depth of peat Peat depth influences the cross-sectional area available for water flow, and presumably also provides a larger volume in which pipe development may occur.

14 Slope / topography Topographic gradients influence the direction and rate of surface and groundwater movement and must, therefore, be a material consideration in terms of windfarm design. Detailed topographic data can be acquired relatively easily and are invaluable for modelling (see below). Effect of loading on peat Floating trackways cause loading of underlying peats, with consequent (& other soil type) reductions in the value of k. The effect of this on both water levels and mechanics water flow should be assessed for both static (no load) and worst-case (i.e. cranes) vehicle loadings. Distribution (in relation Macropores enable the rapid movement of water within the peatland. Cut to infrastructure) and & fill tracks represent an essentially homogenous intrusion into what may functionality of be a heterogeneous (in terms of water flow) peat profile. This may result macropores (peat pipes) in retention of water on the upslope side of tracks and dehydration on the downslope, or drainage into the track base. Cross-track continuity between macropores is highly desirable, but difficult to engineer. Ground Penetrating Radar provides a cost-effective means of detecting peat pipes (Holden et al, 2002). Track type (cut & fill or Both main types of track are usually based on a stony or gravel matrix. floating), structural Knowledge of the hydraulic properties of consolidated tracks and adjacent composition, location in cable-runs will be needed to assess likely changes in flow regime in relation to peat body and adjacent peats. The likelihood of flow being routed down the length of topography. trackways/cable runs should be assessed and measures to ‘force’ flow at right angles to the track (such as periodic cross-track bunds) examined. Hydroecological Typical communities of the mire plane require a high and seasonally stable requirements of proximal water level regime within the range c. –15 to –2 cm relative to the peat mire communities surface. Modified bog vegetation needs a similar regime for restoration and to minimise carbon loss. The surface of bog hollows typically exhibits some vertical movement in response to changes in water table level – water levels are likely to lie in the range +5 to –5 cm. Nature of hydrological Blanket bog is likely to be relatively isolated from any underlying interaction between peat groundwater contact, but there may be some exchange of water between and underlying deposits overlying peats and drift soil pipes (Figure 4.3) and water within superficial layers of bedrock. Tracks and in particular turbine bases may extend into these layers and thus alter patterns of water movement. Current rainfall regime Given the importance of rainfall to mire hydrology, ES submissions should of site place the findings of hydrological impact assessment within the specific context of current average rainfall and also likely future trends in rainfall. Effect of climate change Climate change is likely to reduce the viability of some areas of bog, and on bog hydrology and may also result in increased sensitivity to hydrological impacts. The effects condition over lifetime of of climate change should be taken into account in impact assessment and windfarm. consideration of compensation measures.

Modelling Numerical models can be used to predict the response of mire water tables to changes in boundary conditions, in this case tracks. This approach has not been used widely to-date in windfarm impact assessments, but should be considered where there is a significant overlap of development infrastructure and peat. Model runs should include an assessment of how water tables respond to a typical 30 day summer drought.

Models based on topographic criteria offer a potentially cost-effective means of examining the influence of trackways and drainage infrastructure (Lane et al, 2004).

15 Table 4.7. Terms employed by Shaw & Wheeler (1991) to describe water table position relative to peat surface level for different water table depth ranges.

Term V. Low Low Moderate High V. High Water table depth range (cm); - = < - 25 -25 to –10 -9 to + 1 +1 to +9 > + 10 below soil, + = above soil (flooded)

Figure 4.3. Soil pipe (arrowed) at base of drift below a blanket peat profile, Migneint, Gwynedd.

4.4. Peat mass stability

Mass movement of peat (peat slides) has been reported rarely in the Welsh uplands, but the likelihood of it occurring can be increased by a range of activities associated with windfarm construction. Peat slides describe the downhill mass movement of peat and range from minor displacements of peat, to more extensive flows of peaty debris – the latter are commonly referred to as ‘bog bursts’. The prominence of peat slides within the particular context of windfarms and their construction owes much to the recent (2003) infamous Derrybrien bog- slide in Co. Galway (Eire) (Lindsay & Bragg, 2004). Peat slides result in a range of direct habitat impacts, including drainage associated with cracks within the peat body and exposed peat faces, and also wastage of peat. Wider environmental effects include the inwash of particulate peat to adjacent watercourses, or in the worst cases blockage of natural drainage features. Some of the key factors which increase the risk of peat slides are summarised in Table 4.8 (based in part on Land Use Consultants & Mott McDonald , 2006).

Peat stability assessments should be considered in all cases where developments involve the construction of tracks and turbines on peat. In the future, the Infrastructure Planning Commission may instruct applicants to assess the risk of ‘landslide connected to any

16 development work’ (DEC, 2009). A detailed best practice guide is provided by The Scottish Executive (2006), and some of the key factors to consider are listed in Table 4.8.

Peat stability analysis should focus on both blanket and flush peats. The latter can be especially prone to movement because of their occurrence on slopes, the focussed nature of water movement, and the often less consolidated character of the peat. Mass failure of flush systems has been observed in Wales.

Table 4.8. Identification of some key factors of significance for peat slides.

Factor Significance Peat thickness Peat instability is more likely where deposits exceed 1 m thickness, although slides on shallower deposits are known. Slope Slope provides a gravitational driver for slides. Rainfall Intense rainfall can cause significant and relatively rapid increases in pore water pressure and this is believed to be a significant trigger mechanism for slides. Context within peat body Peat at the edge of the main peat body may be especially susceptible to movement, especially where adjacent to breaks of slope. This is relevant to many developments where track crossings have been routed towards the edge of the peat body to minimise wider hydrological effects. Surface & sub-surface Drains create steep hydraulic gradients and cause localised zones of peat hydrology weakness. Peat pipes enable the rapid transfer of water within the peat body, and can result in temporary surcharging of some areas with water during or after intense rainfall. Alterations to both surface and subsurface hydrology are likely to result from windfarm construction. Surface loading Excavated peat and imported road base material may each contribute to this.

4.5. Earth science and palaeoecology

Welsh upland peatlands are a key resource for palaeoecological studies of vegetation and landscape development, and the nature of human influence on each. The latter aspect has been of particular importance in a Welsh context, with studies of Welsh blanket mires in particular revealing the significance of prehistoric cultures as an agent in the initiation of blanket peat development. Many key studies of European or even global significance have been undertaken in Wales, often on non-statutory sites. It is obviously preferable that direct impacts to sites which have played a role in the development of palaeoecology are completely avoided, and Caseldine (1990) provides a valuable though now dated gazetteer of investigated sites.

Any impact on peat is likely to have deleterious consequences for the associated palaeoecological/environmental archive, which requires stable anoxic conditions for its preservation. Damage to the surface morphology of peat, particularly in relation to surrounding Quaternary landforms, may also reduce the geomorphological interest associated with sites. Impact assessment in such contexts should focus on the issues identified in Table 4.9.

Deep well preserved ombrogenous peats probably represent the most sensitive receptor in this context, particularly if these are represented by highly localised deposits at sites with an otherwise thin or non-existent peat cover. Extended impacts (e.g. tracks) cutting across extensive sequences of peat represent another key sensitivity. Site assessment by trained palaeoecologists should be considered in both contexts, and collection of ‘rescue cores’ by staff competent in the use of analytical sampling and storage techniques considered as a last resort.

17 Table 4.9. Summary of potential windfarm impacts and consequences for palaeoeecological and wider earth science features.

Potential impact Potential consequences Increased drainage Loss or degradation of the palaeoecological/environmental archive. Loss of recent (post-industrial revolution) history within near-surface peats possible at some distance from point of disturbance due to extended drainage effects. Fossilisation of accumulating sequences due to cessation of peat growth. Peat excavation Irreversible loss of the archive. Degradation of adjacent peat profile. Infrastructure Interruption of soil catena’s. placement on or Interruption of natural zonations between earth science features. adjacent to peat Mass displacement of peat leading to loss or severe disruption of peat stratigraphy. Compression of palaeo-ecological/environmental archive – differential destruction of archive components.

4.6. Carbon loss and carbon gain

Changes in peat carbon balance resulting from windfarms will arise from direct losses associated with the excavation of peat from trackways, turbine bases and associated infrastructure, and indirect losses caused by the wider disturbance to hydrological regimes adjacent to these and other structures. A methodology for calculating carbon loss and any carbon gain resulting from compensation was published in June 2008 by the Scottish Executive (Nayak et al., 2008). The method requires a range of input variables which should, ideally, be based upon site specific measurement and evaluation. Where this has not been undertaken, values are available in the literature relating to net C sequestration, peat carbon content and peat bulk density. While this is the most up-to-date and comprehensive methodology available, a recent critical review (Lindsay, 2009) has proposed a range of alternative values for some of the default values employed in the carbon calculator, and consideration should be given to their adoption where appropriate to a given site. The Scottish methodology provides a useful and partly populated worksheet structure for undertaking these calculations of carbon loss and gain.

Impact assessments should separate carbon savings associated with wind energy production from the carbon balance of the peatland pre and post impact. This is because carbon balance calculations focussed on peatland function will help provide an overall integrated measure of the impact of the scheme, as well as opportunities for reducing impacts. For example, iterative use of the carbon calculator may help identify how specific changes to the scheme layout could halt or contribute to reductions in C loss resulting from peat loss and degradation. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to consider using carbon balance calculations to help identify compensation targets for peat restoration. Gains resulting from renewable energy generation should be kept separate from these exercises because renewable energy production does not represent appropriate ‘like-for-like’ mitigation for carbon losses caused by impacts on habitat extent and function.

Irrespective of whether a Habitat Management Plan delivers net sequestration, EIAs should estimate how much carbon loss in the form of particulate and dissolved organic carbon

18 fractions is likely to occur as a result of construction and windfarm operation8, and also assess the impact of these emissions upon receiving headwaters.

5. MITIGATION, AND COMPENSATION

5.1. Mitigation Measures

The EIA should examine ways in which the impact of trackways, turbine bases and associated infrastructure can be avoided or minimised. Where avoidance of some damage is not possible, opportunities for mitigation and compensation will be an important part of the EIA – key measures are identified in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Summary of key mitigation and compensation measures.

Broad Options for mitigation Options for compensation impact Habitat loss Habitat loss should be minimised. Very limited potential for genuine compensation by habitat creation. Examine piling construction methodologies as an alternative to bulk excavation of foundations. Restoration of extended areas of bog in comparable contexts should Minimise infrastructure overlap with peat. at least match that lost through development. Minimise construction / area of permanent crane pads. Conifer removal and hydrological restoration beyond imprint of key- Minimise carbon loss through use of excavated holes and over a sufficient area to peat for compensatory restoration – i.e. by restore viable areas of bog. placing peat in permanently anoxic contexts such as peat dams and infilled grips. Habitat Minimise track overlap with peat. Restore connectivity elsewhere on- fragment- site or in comparable nearby sites, ation for example by restoring semi- natural ericoid dominated vegetation on intervening tongues of dry ground, or by restoring bog vegetation on highly modified intervening peats, including afforested peat. Habitat Minimise infrastructure overlap with peat. Restore areas of degraded bog degradation elsewhere within the application site Employ best-practice construction and or on comparable sites nearby, restoration methodologies throughout. including afforested peat.

Follow advice of Nayak et al (2008) in stock- Areas of bog restored through piling peat. Avoid protracted storage, as far as compensation should be possible phase compensation ditch-blocking commensurate with worst-case with peat removal. assessment of habitat loss and damage. Minimise width of peat batters on floating roads. Top-off with a milled surface to avoid erosion- probe peat sods, and reseed with an acid grassland/ericoid mix within a biodegradable stabiliser mat.

8 Elevated DOC and sediment load have been noted in streams downgradient of windfarm construction on peat – see Grieve & Gilvear (2008).

19 5.2. Compensation measures: Habitat Management Plans

Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) are a key element of windfarm developments and represent an important compensatory mechanism for habitat loss and degradation. They also have the potential to make significant contributions to national and Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets for blanket bog and fen conservation and restoration. HMPs should have delivery of favourable condition (or at least favourable management) for peatland features as their main objectives. Habitat Management Plans should cover the application site and any separate compensation areas. The latter, which must be under the long-term control of the developer, should be considered in cases where the application site itself offers insufficient opportunity for compensation through restoration. This may include afforested sites, though in such cases compensation would be better aimed at securing early removal of conifers and subsequent hydrological repair.

Habitat management plans should address each of the causal factors which contribute to unfavourable condition, as summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2. Summary of key factors to be addressed in Habitat Management Plans for windfarm developments.

Factor Key issues for HMP to address Grazing Development of more mixed (i.e. not exclusively sheep dominated) regimes, following Glastir high level prescription guidance for stocking rates and periodicity. Fire Prevent further fires Erosion Prevent further gulley erosion, undertake restoration of eroded areas. Drainage Block drains Off-road vehicle Prevent unlawful vehicle access. Consider provision of alternative sites for damage / other recreational off-road use. recreational damage. Afforestation Pre-harvest removal of conifers from locations with potential for the restoration of semi-natural bog vegetation. Avoidance of key-holing in preference to larger-scale deforestation to both maximise potential for bog restoration and led to potential improvements in turbine efficiency. Graminoid dominance Domination by graminoids (chiefly Molinia caerulea and Eriophorum vaginatum) is the main symptom of degradation in Welsh blanket bogs. Measures to open up the graminoid cover such as mowing and graminicide application, followed by re-seeding, could be trialled much more widely, and in a variety of contexts (see Anderson et al, 2006).

Conifer plantations account for a significant proportion of the SSA land area in Wales and include substantial areas of afforested peat. Afforestation has profound impacts on peat (Anderson, 2001), including its ability to sequester and retain carbon, but there is nevertheless significant potential for restoring previously afforested peatlands. Indeed, windfarm developments which include areas of afforested peatland could achieve net gains for peatland biodiversity by (i) reducing the need for additional infrastructure through use of existing forest tracks, and (ii) removal of trees from areas defined as both offering good potential for peat restoration and improved windflow for turbines. The benefits of achieving double-wins for carbon through both peat restoration and enhanced turbine efficiency are obvious, and the significance of afforested peat will increase as climate change reduces the environmental envelope suitable for peat growth.

20 6. MONITORING

Post-construction impacts on peatland features should be evaluated, but the term monitoring is in some respects inappropriate given that in this context it may not relate to conservation objectives, nor lead to a management response. The term is nevertheless retained because of its widespread use by developers.

There is a particular need for the windfarm industry to adopt common and comparable practices relating to both vegetation and hydrological monitoring. There is also a need to coordinate effort to ensure monitoring across a representative series of sites such that best practice can be identified and key lessons learnt. Lack of information concerning the nature of hydrological impacts in particular hampers predictions of effect and also the development of best practice, particularly in terms of road construction on deep peat.

Vegetation monitoring should be undertaken to determine trends in the composition and condition of vegetation in relation to two main impacts, namely key structures such as trackways, and changes in management resulting from HMP implementation. A variety of methods can be used for this purpose – examples are listed in Table 6.1.

Hydrological monitoring should be considered to assess the impact of trackways and also hydrological repair actions (Table 4.1). Dipwell installations are cheap and easy to monitor – more specialised approaches should be informed by expert advice.

The monitoring activities identified in Table 6.1 are neither exhaustive nor necessarily applicable to every site.

Table 6.1. Summary of possible approaches to vegetation and hydrological monitoring

Monitoring Purpose Method Sampling Where within site activity interval Condition To assess habitat Relocatable grid layouts, Every 3 to 6 assessment of condition in with assessment conducted years habitat features relation to site- in grid cells. specific performance indicators, informed by JNCC’s common standards methodology Repeatable digital To provide a Photographs taken at fixed At least every 3 At locations where photography at general record of points and along fixed years HMP / relocatable points habitat condition in bearings, ideally using the infrastructure relation to site same focal length and in impacts are likely impacts/restoration. similar weather conditions to be registered. and at the same time of year. Surveillance of To provide more Permanent plots, At least every 3 habitat features in detailed measurement of rooted years relation to information on frequency / cover specific impacts trends in the abundance. cover/abundance of key indicator species in relation to site impacts and restoration.

21 Water table To assess changes Plastic slotted dipwells Every two Spanning tracks behaviour pre and in hydrological installed along transects up (ideal) to four and infilled post impact / regime as a result and downslope of weeks. Hourly if ditches. restoration. of windfarm tracks/infilled ditches. automatic. infrastructure, and Manual dip measurement to assess success of or automated loggers. ditch blocking May need to consider earth anchors to avoid ‘mire breathing’ effects. Dipwells should be levelled to a common datum. Runoff Weirs with data-loggers Continuous Areas of focussed runoff downgradient of tracks / blocked ditches. Rainfall A local rainfall Manual: Standard 127 mm To coincide with At an average site record is highly diameter Snowdon-type water table elevation – desirable for rain gauge (manually read) measurements. protected from interpretation of with large storage bottle (c livestock. hydrological data £120). Automatic: IH pattern or Daily, or hourly comparable automated to coincide with gauge (c. £350). automatic water level loggers. Runoff chemistry To monitor Water sampling with At least monthly. Down-gradient of D/POC/inorganic analysis undertaken by impacts/restoration nutrient export to accredited laboratories sites. headwater streams with experience of peat in relation to site water chemistry impacts and restoration.

7. FURTHER ADVICE AND GUIDANCE FOR CCW STAFF

Key sources of advice have been referred to throughout this guidance. There is an urgent need for properly controlled and reported case studies examining the long-term consequences of windfarm infrastructure on peat hydrology and habitat condition, and this needs to feed into the development of best practice. Experience gained in Scotland is being reviewed and fed into best practice guidance on floating road construction (due 2010), but a distillation of experience gained across the UK is also needed to take into account key biogeographical variations in the character of the blanket bog resource.

Specialist case-work officers and conservation officers in CCW have considerable experience in assessing windfarm impacts on peat. Specialist support is also available at HQ for peatland ecology and hydrology (PSJ) and carbon (RMcC) and for hydrological issues also via CCWs Hydrological Advice Framework Agreement (2009-2013). The latter includes contractors with specialist knowledge of assessing hydrological impacts on terrestrial wetlands, and researchers with specific expertise in blanket bog hydrology and peat carbon flux.

22 8. REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, P., Ross, S., Eyre, G, Longden, K. (2006). Restoration of Molinia-dominated blanket mires. Countryside Council for Wales Contract Science Report No. 742, CCW, Bangor.

Anderson, R. (2001). Deforesting and Restoring Peat Bogs: A Review. Forestry Commission Technical Paper No. 32, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Burton, R.G.O. & Hodgson, J.M. (1987). Lowland Peat in England and Wales. Soil Survey Special Survey No. 15, Harpenden.

Caseldine, A. (1990). Environmental Archaeology in Wales. Archaeology Department, St. David’s College Lampeter. pp.197.

Climate Change Act. (2008). HMSO

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009). Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). November 2009.

Grieve, I & Gilvear, D. (2008). Effects of wind farm construction on concentrations and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon and suspended sediment from peat catchments at Braes of Doune, central Scotland. Mires and Peat, 4, Article 03.

Gunn, J., Labadz, J.C., Dykes, A.P., Kirk, K.J., Poulson, S.J. & Matthews, C. (2002). Blanket Bog Hydrology at Mynydd Hiraethog SSSI: an investigation of peat properties and hydrology and assessment of effects of proposed wind farm construction. CCW Contract Science Report No. 501, Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Holden, J., Burt, T.P. & Villas, M. (2002). Application of ground penetrating radar to the identification of subsurface piping in blanket peat. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 27: 235-249.

JNCC (1994). Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs: Bogs. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 36 pp.

JNCC (2009). Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Upland Habitats, Version July 2009, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Available to download from: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/CSM_Upland_jul_09.pdf

Jones, P.S., Stevens, D.P., Blackstock, T.H., Burrows, C.R., & Howe, E.A. (2003). Priority Habitats of Wales – a Technical Guide. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Land Use Consultants & Mott McDonald (2006). Casework Guidance Note for Wind Farms on Peatland – Issues Report. Report prepared for Scottish Natural Heritage, November 2006.

Lane, S.N., Brookes, C.J., Kirkby, M.J. & Holden, J. (2004). A network-index based version of TOPMODEL for use with high-resolution digital topographic data. Hydrological Processes, 18, 191-201.

Lindsay, R. (2009). Peatlands and carbon: a critical synthesis to inform policy development in peatland conservation and restoration in the context of climate change. Report to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

23 Lindsay, R. & Bragg, O.M. (2004). Wind Farms and Blanket Peat. The Bog Slide of 16th. October 2003 at Derrybrien, C. Galway, Ireland. Report to V.P. Shields & Son, Loughrea.

Nayak, D.R., Miller, D., Nolan, A., Smith P. & Smith J. (2008). Calculating Carbon Savings from Wind Farms on Scottish Peat Lands – A new Approach. Scottish Executive, June 2008. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/25114657/0

Reynou-Wilson, F. & Farrell, C.A. (2008). Peatland vulnerability to energy-related developments from climate change policy in Ireland: the case of windfarms. Mires and Peat, 4, Article 08.

Rodwell, J.S. [ed]. (1991). British Plant Communities: Volume 2 Mires and Heaths. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Scottish Executive (2006). Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments: best practice guide for proposed electricity generation developments. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. December 2006. www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/161862/0043972.pdf

Shaw, S.C. & Wheeler, B.D. (1991). A Review of the Habitat Conditions and Management Characteristics of Herbaceous Fen Vegetation Types in lowland Britain. Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield.

Sustainable Development Commission (2009). Low Carbon Wales: Regional Priorities for Action. SDC, November 2009.

Turner, A.J. (2006). Guidelines to NVC Community Definition for the M17/M18/M21/M2 Nodum 19 Complex in Wales. Internal report, Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Wales Biodiversity Partnership (2008). Wildlife Sites Guidance Wales: A Guide to Develop Local Wildlife Systems in Wales. WBP.

Welsh Assembly Government (2005). Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Welsh Assembly Government (2009). Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Welsh Assembly Government (2009). Climate Change strategy - Programme of action consultation.

Yeo, M.J.M. (1997). Blanket mire degradation in Wales. In: Tallis, J.H., Meade, R., Hulme, P.D. (eds) Blanket Mire Degradation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges. pp. 101-117. British Ecological Society Mires Research Group.

24 Annex I. The Von Post system of recording humification (adapted from Burton & Hodgson, 1987).

Von Post Characteristics. Humification Decomposition status in italics. Comments about water/peat refer to the score characteristics of the material when squeezed. H1 Undecomposed. Yields only clear colourless water. H2 Mostly undecomposed – plant structures still quite distinct. Yields yellow-brown but almost clear water. H3 V weakly decomposed, plant structures distinct. Yields turbid brown water but no peat. H4 Weakly decomposed, plant structures distinct. Yields muddy, dark, turbid water but no peat. H5 Moderately decomposed – plant structures becoming indistinct. Yields much turbid brown water and c. 10% of peat volume. H6 Strongly decomposed – plant structures somewhat indistinct , but clearer after squeezing. Yields one-third of the peat and muddy water. H7 Strongly decomposed – plant structures indistinct but visible. Yields c. one half of the peat and strongly muddy water. H8 V strongly decomposed – only resistant plant structures visible. Yields two-thirds of peat, little free water. H9 Almost completely decomposed, nearly all of the peat extruded. No free water. H10 Completely decomposed - all of the peat extruded. No free water.

25 From: David Hatcher To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: Laura Allen; Subject: FAO David Cliff Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm (your ref 100712_EN010028_164800, CCW ref 1431109) Date: 11 August 2010 10:39:31 Attachments: Assessing the Impact of Windfarm Developments on Peatlands ~ CCW Guidance Note v8, 14 Jan 2010. PDF A Position Statement on Peat Conservation in Wales, v. 6 Jan 2010.PDF LANDMAP Guidance Note 3 using LANDMAP for LVIA of onshore wind turbines June 2010.PDF

FAO David Cliff

Hello Mr Cliff

Re: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm (your ref 100712_EN010028_164800, CCW ref 1431109)

In my rush to get our response to you by your deadline I left out an attachment referred to in the text. Please now find this - the peat guidance -attached.

I have also attached two other documents that might be useful. These are:

LANDMAP Guidance Note 3 using LANDMAP for LVIA of onshore wind turbines June 2010

LANDMAP is a Geographical Information System based landscape assessment system that we have referred in the landscape section of our response. and

CCW's position statement on peat conservation in Wales (6th Jan 2010)

Please do contact me if you have any queries on this matter

Regards Dave

Dr. David Hatcher

Swyddog Gwaith Achos/ Casework Officer North Region

Ffon / Phone: 01352 706600. Enquiry line number: 0845 1306229 E-bost / E-mail [email protected] Ar y Wê / Web site: http://www.ccw.gov.uk

Dr. David Hatcher

Swyddog Gwaith Achos/ Casework Officer North Region Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru / Countryside Council for Wales Glan y Nant Uned 19 Unit 19 Parc Busnes Yr Wyddgrug Mold Business Park Ffordd Wrecsam Wrexham Road Yr Wyddgrug Mold Sir Fflint Flintshire CH7 1XP CH7 1XP

Ffon / Phone: 01352 706600. Enquiry line number: 0845 1306229 E-bost / E-mail [email protected] Ar y Wê / Web site: http://www.ccw.gov.uk

6 January 2010

Vision: Peat soils in Wales support a semi-natural vegetation cover which is valued as a biodiversity resource and for its role in maximising the protection and ongoing accumulation of soil carbon. Summary of key points

Peat soils in Wales occupy an area of c. 70,600 ha. Semi-natural mire vegetation accounts for the majority of this resource, a significant proportion of it degraded. More heavily modified peat under forestry, grassland and arable management makes up the remainder: very little of this so-called archaic resource is likely to be currently peat forming, but restoration could yield significant improvements in terms of C sequestration and storage.

Peat performs a range of critical ecosystem functions, including carbon storage and sequestration, regulation of runoff and downstream flood-peaks, nutrient regulation and retention. Welsh peat soils contain 30% of the soil carbon stock but amount to only 3% of the Welsh land area.

Peat supports a critically important biodiversity resource, including four UK BAP priority habitats (blanket bog, upland fen, lowland fen, lowland raised bog) and a wide range of priority species dependent on these habitats. Ambitious and challenging targets for these habitats are being developed which involve restoring modified examples to favourable condition and which also extend to restoring semi- natural peatland habitats from heavily modified precursors.

The Welsh peat resource remains under pressure from adverse land-use and, increasingly, piecemeal development. Furthermore, many of our semi-natural mires remain in unfavourable condition and thus, inter alia, more susceptible to climate change. As a result of these and other pressures, this position statement sets out key principles relating to the protection and restoration of peat in Wales – these can be summarised as follows.

Stronger specific protection for peat to reduce further loss of what must be regarded as a non-renewable resource.

The requirement for effective support and incentives for the management / restoration of peat and habitat cover types which maximise C retention, the potential for sequestration, and the delivery of other ecosystem benefits, whilst also contributing to the delivery of WES Outcome 21.

That development and land-use on peat which compromises its long-term viability as a carbon storage/sequestration resource should be avoided as far as possible; in practice this means working towards the gradual replacement of non-native vegetation with semi-natural mire habitats.

A commitment to support and actively seek and promote peatland restoration projects throughout Wales, ensuring an appropriate balance between those with a predominantly biodiversity emphasis, as well as often larger-scale initiatives with a whole ecosystem focus.

Supporting and where necessary commissioning research to support land management and restoration decisions and future priorities.

Overall, there is significant potential in Wales for securing sustainable and economically viable management of the peatland resource, with consequent gains for biodiversity and a wide range of ecosystem services, including soil (peat) carbon. 1. PURPOSE AND LAYOUT OF THIS POSITION STATEMENT

1.1. Peatlands are one of the critical environmental resources of the Welsh landscape. They store 30% of the soil carbon resource, despite occupying an estimated 3% of the Welsh land surface, and provide the essential physical template for an important component of our biodiversity, the peat-forming mires. They also deliver a wider range of ecosystem services relating to water quality and flood regulation, and carbon sequestration. Peatlands contribute much to the landscape character of Wales, and preserve a unique record of how our environment has developed and our role within it. Despite the many pressures affecting the peatland resource, there is significant potential in Wales for securing sustainable and economically viable management of the peatland resource, with consequent gains for biodiversity and a wide range of ecosystem services, including soil (peat) carbon. This Position Statement outlines both the challenges and opportunities ahead by firstly defining and describing the significance of peatlands, and then identifying a series of key principles and actions relevant to the protection, management and restoration of the peatland resource, its biodiversity and its critical functions.

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.

2.1. Peat is composed of the partially decomposed remains of plants. It develops under waterlogged anoxic soil conditions which result in the inhibition of decomposer organisms. It is very widespread in Wales, partly as a result of our wet climate, but also because our undulating and predominantly glaciated landscape bears an extensive cover of often impermeable drift, both of which are conducive to peat formation.

2.2. Peat is a key biodiversity resource because it provides the essential physical template for a wide range of mire and other semi-natural habitats. It also contributes significant ecosystem services through carbon storage and sequestration and the regulation of water quality, runoff and river flows. Despite these evident benefits, peat is under significant threat in Wales. Until recently, adverse or inappropriate land-use constituted the main pressure (chiefly drainage, over-grazing and intensification, burning and afforestation – see Yeo [1997]), but piecemeal development through renewable energy provision and, more locally, quarrying and open-cast mining have emerged as fresh threats in the new Millennium. These pressures bear most acutely on the significant resource of peat which remains un-protected by designation. However, insufficient resources mean that the designated component is not, in many cases, receiving the scale and intensity of management effort necessary to restore good condition and ongoing peat growth. Inevitably, this means that the ecosystem benefits associated with peat are not being fully realised. Climate change introduces an additional imperative because the optimum climatic envelope for the growth of rain-fed peat (the main type) in Wales is likely to contract. While there is considerable uncertainty about the severity and rate of change, mires in good condition will be more resilient and offer the best means of adaptive mitigation.

3. THE WELSH PEAT RESOURCE – DEFINITION, EXTENT AND LAND COVER.

3.1. The pedological definition of peat is more than 40 cm of organic material within the upper 80 cm of the profile, or more than 30 cm where resting directly on bedrock or extremely stony material (Avery, 1980). Various estimates of the total extent of peat in Wales are available, but the figure most commonly used (c. 70,600 ha ~ 3% of the land area of Wales) is based on the 1:250,000 soils map resulting from the Soil Survey of England and Wales National Soil Map programme (Rudeforth et al, 1984). This figure is based on mapping at soil association level and does not include peat soil series nested within mineral or organo-mineral soil associations – as a result it may under-estimate the total extent of Welsh peat.

3.2. Mapping of mire habitats based on the Phase I survey methodology is to an extent conditional on the presence of deep peat (over 0.5 m thick). Using this methodology, the habitat cover of Welsh peatlands (based largely on the Habitat Survey of Wales) is separable into three broad categories:

Near-natural mire habitat1 which is both protective of the underlying peat-resource and either currently peat forming, or with the potential to become so given appropriate management (43,990 ha) – this includes some quite severely modified soligenous mires for which no modified category was available for mapping and which would also include examples on shallow peat; Modified mire and related semi-natural vegetation (including wet and dry heath and marshy grassland) which to some degree is protective of the underlying peat resource, but which requires restoration to become fully protective and peat-forming (35,100 ha). Other habitats and land-cover types on peat, including forestry, arable and improved grassland, which at best are incompatible with on-going peat growth and in many cases are contributing to ongoing degradation of the underlying peat resource. Forestry accounts for most of this resource (12,375 ha), the vast majority of it conifer and a significant amount within the Assembly estate.

3.3. The sum of these categories exceeds the estimate for total peat area. This is probably because significant areas of flush habitat are on shallow peat, but as stated above soil mapping may also have under-estimated the resource. For these reasons, accurate determination of how much peat is now occupied by land cover types other than mire is difficult, but is estimated to be of the order of at least 15,000 ha, based on the forested resource and the peat soil inventory work of Burton & Hodgson (1987) and Lindsay & Immirzi (1996).

3.4. The majority of the Welsh peat resource is (or would naturally be) upland blanket bog and associated areas of soligenous fen and both occur widely in Wales, albeit with significant regional and local variations in condition. Lowland peat in Wales is much more localised (Burton & Hodgson, 1987; Jones et al, 2003) and with a few very notable exceptions confined to relatively small expanses of wetland within often intensively managed catchments.

4. THE IMPORTANCE OF WELSH PEATLANDS

4.1. Carbon and peat growth

4.1.1. Peat accumulates at a relatively slow rate (up to 1 mm per year) and much of our resource developed during climatic periods more favourable to peat growth than today. Furthermore, some of the specific conditions which led to the initiation of peat growth, including prehistoric deforestation and unconstrained floodplain and river development, could not now be replicated. Thus while active peat growth is still occurring on the better quality mires (see 4.2.4), the underlying peat profile must be regarded as a non-renewable resource. Even degraded peat profiles are significant because peat growth (once restored) is aided greatly by an underlying profile which aids water retention on the living surface.

1 Including mire in poor as well as favourable condition. 4.1.2. Peat soils contain 30% of the soil carbon resource of Wales despite occupying only 3% of the land surface (ECOSSE, 2007), and the total carbon stock amounts to 121 Mt – almost ten times the total net annual emissions from Wales. Carbon storage is likely to be the most significant ecosystem service provided by degraded (currently non peat-forming) peatlands across many parts of Wales. Preventing further attrition of the carbon store by erosion and oxidation, and the subsequent release of dissolved and particulate organic carbon, is a valid objective in itself, even where the prospects for ensuring renewed sequestration are less certain.

4.1.3. The extent to which Welsh peatlands are actively sequestering carbon is a complex subject to address because of the (i) comparative paucity of studies employing net ecosystem carbon balances where both the atmospheric and water born fluxes of carbon have been measured at the same time (Limpens et al, 2008), (ii) lack of replicated studies across a wide range of peat condition types and land-use practices, and (iii) inherent difficulty associated with ‘scaling-up’ small-scale studies to predict landscape scale processes. The consensus in the literature is that near natural mires are generally likely to be a net sink (albeit sometimes only small) of carbon, but this can be easily disrupted by adverse land management.

4.1.4. Near-natural mires with the best potential for carbon sequestration in Wales amount to 29,200 ha2. Carbon accumulation rates probably lie in the range 14 – 30.5 g C/m2/yr, giving a range of sequestration rates for the near-natural resource of between 4088 t C/yr to 8906 t C/yr with the likely figure being in the lower part of that range for most situations.

4.1.5. It is difficult to estimate what area of the modified mire resource is likely to be currently peat-forming. The stark warning offered by Holden et al (2006) is that ‘many upland peatlands in England and Wales may be close to the tipping point between carbon source and carbon sink’. This means that the full ecosystem service potential of Welsh peatlands remains a long way from being realised – worse still, much of the resource may actually be contributing to the (carbon) problem.

4.1.6. Despite this, cost-effective management support would be sufficient to both safeguard existing soil C stocks, and also convert a significant proportion of our habitat resource on peat soils to a net GHG sink. This represents an obvious priority for action in Wales. If it is assumed that reasonable restoration effort could restore active peat formation (at a reduced rate of say 10 g C/m2/yr) across 75% of the modified mire resource, this could add a further 2600 t C/yr.

4.2. Biodiversity.

4.2.1. The Welsh peat resource amounts to just 3% of our land area (less than the equivalent UK figure of 7%), but supports more or less the full spectrum of peatland habitats found in the UK. These range from species-rich fens fed by calcareous groundwater to acidic rain-fed bogs and include tiny patches of flush and fen located within highly managed lowland landscapes, as well as expansive blankets of upland peatland. Despite their modest extent, Welsh peatlands support a disproportionately rich ecological resource as measured by habitats, plant communities, species, and their collective significance for nature conservation. Our best quality mires compare favourably with equivalent examples elsewhere in the British Isles or north-west Europe, and the Welsh protected sites series includes 12 SAC, 15 NNR and 138 SSSI for which peatland features figure as principal reasons for designation.

4.2.2. The Welsh peatland resource lies close to the southern oceanic limit of what is globally a boreal habitat. The blanket bogs of the central and southern Welsh uplands lie close to the European geographical limit of this globally scarce habitat, and it is absent across much of the

2 This is the sum of the unmodified topogenous fen and bog resource in the lowlands and uplands. equivalent latitudinal range in England, with good quality examples scarce until north of the Peak District. Our mires provide the major locus for a restricted but specialised range of plants and animals, and with other upland habitats play a key role in terms of ecological connectivity.

4.2.3. All of the main wetland habitat types encountered on Welsh peatlands are listed as ‘habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity’ as defined under section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Each has suffered significant losses, due largely to agricultural intensification, development pressure and afforestation. Adverse management of the surviving resource remains widespread and climate change represents a fresh threat, especially for mires already damaged by drainage, fragmentation and marginal loss. Protection and favourable management are thus key priorities. Ambitious targets for achieving favourable condition for priority habitats and species are embodied in the Wales Environment Strategy, and the Welsh Assembly Government, through the Wales Biodiversity Partnership, has developed a new framework for BAP delivery. Targets for peatland habitats in Wales are currently under review as part of this process, and will focus on bringing a very significant proportion of the semi-natural habitat resource into favourable condition. Significantly, the definitions for all our priority peatland types include degraded examples of mire habitat, and the plans also include targets for the restoration of mire from areas of non-mire vegetation on deep peat.

4.2.4. The distribution of peatland habitats is dependent on a range of interacting environmental factors, including topography, hydrology and underlying geology, which dictate which habitats occur where. These considerations severely limit opportunities for habitat re-creation. Furthermore, peatland development was, in many cases, initiated under environmental conditions which would now be hard to emulate in our highly managed landscape. Both issues leave in-situ conservation of the resource that remains as the only option, with a necessary emphasis on conservation and restoration rather than habitat creation.

Further information on the importance of the Welsh peatland habitat resource is provided in Annex I.

4.3. Water quality

4.3.1. Peatlands dominate the headwater catchments of the majority of our rivers. Degraded peat in particular is a potent source of dissolved organic carbon and there is good evidence for improvements in water quality and reductions in DOC release following restoration, particularly gulley and ditch blocking (Wallage et al, 2006; Moors for the Future Partnership, 2008). Temperature, water table position, pH and external nutrient supply have all been implicated as causal agents of DOC release, the last arising from cultural eutrophication and atmospheric sources.

4.3.2. Existing lowland wetlands offer significant potential for nutrient retention, though this must be balanced against the ecological and conservation consequences of eutrophication. However, wetland restoration on our heavily modified floodplains could deliver significant ecosystem benefits in terms of both water quality and quantity.

4.4. Water quantity

4.4.1. Runoff and baseflow from peat dominate the headwater hydrology of many of our river systems, and may contribute as much as 25% of the flow for those rivers with a short passage from the uplands to the sea. Peat performs a complex role in the regulation of runoff to headwater streams (Holden, 2005), due in no small part to the often contradictory effect of key controls and processes (Holden, 2009). However, artificial drainage can result in increased flood peaks downstream by providing routes for the rapid transmission of water from the bog to headwater streams, and ditch blocking has been shown to be highly effective as a means of reducing runoff (O’Brien et al, 2007).

4.4.2. Lowland mires perform an analogous function, but because of their topographic context also offer the potential for flood storage. Lowland mires within the original natural flood zone of our river systems represent some of our most heavily modified lowland wetlands and now occupy just 3% of the total floodplain area with improved grassland being the single- most extensive land-cover type (66%) (Jones et al, 2009). The potential for floodplain wetland habitat re-creation is thus huge and offers significant potential for biodiversity (habitat expansion and the creation of wetland corridors) and flood risk management.

4.5. Scientific and cultural significance.

4.5.1. Welsh peatlands are an important resource for many branches of environmental science, and have contributed to our understanding of environmental and ecological processes and our impact upon them. Many Welsh peatlands served as key study sites during the development of ecological science in the last century, and their role as critical research sites continues with current work examining carbon flux processes and their relationship to climate, hydrology and land management. Major carbon flux projects utilising Welsh study sites are currently underway led by Bangor University and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and the current UK PopNet research programme at Lake Vrynwy is one of the largest concerted terrestrial ecology research programmes in north-west Europe. Several peatland sites under CCWs direct management have emerged as especially critical as a research resource, notably Cors Fochno, Cors Caron and Cors Bodeilio.

4.5.2. Peat preserves a unique record of plant and animal remains and inorganic deposits laid down throughout the development of the profile. This record of sometimes many millennia provides a key resource for palaeoecological studies of vegetation and landscape development, and the nature of human influence on each. The latter aspect has been of particular importance in a Welsh context, with studies of Welsh blanket mires revealing the significance of prehistoric cultures as an agent in the initiation of blanket peat development. More recently, palaeoecological techniques have enabled detailed reconstructions of past climatic conditions and are of significance in aiding understanding of the nature, scale and pace of environmental change and also the stability of key habitat features. This work can offer valuable insights into predictions of how the landscape is likely to alter as a result of climate change.

4.5.3. Welsh peatlands have been heavily utilised by man. Historically they served as an important source of fuel and food and their usage is closely bound to the social and demographic history of Wales. Peatlands also help define the landscape character of many parts of Wales, with our blanket bogs in particular offering wild open expanses of semi- natural habitat throughout the upland core of the country.

5. KEY PRINCIPLES

5.1. Securing better protection for peat.

5.1.1. The recent (July 2009) National Assembly for Wales inquiry into carbon reduction from land use in Wales acknowledged the preservation of carbon in peatland soils as ‘an extremely important issue’. The Climate Change Act set out targets for a 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2050 and established the Committee on Climate Change to set 5-yearly budgets from 2009 onwards. Wales’ contribution to the proposed emission reductions will be achieved through delivery of the One Wales commitment to a 3% per annum reduction in those Welsh emissions outside of the EU ETS. The means to deliver these reductions has been set out in the draft Welsh Climate Change Strategy programme of action, that was consulted on in summer 2009. In the consultation, ‘soil carbon conservation’ and ‘the role of sinks in achieving emission reduction’ were both identified by WAG as ‘key challenges’ within the mitigation measures proposed for the agriculture and land use sector. Clearly the protection of peat and the restoration of actively sequestering peatland ecosystems are important to addressing them. The management of peatlands was also identified as important for adaptation, as exemplified in the draft strategy by reference to the restoration work being undertaken on the Migneint. Furthermore, a recent (2009) report by the Sustainable Development Commission identifies the protection of ‘all significant carbon stores’ as one of the six priorities for action across Wales, while at a Spatial Plan area level ‘protecting all significant soil carbon stores’ emerges as one of the top two priorities for central and north-west Wales.

5.1.2. The Climate Change Act gives WAG and Welsh Ministers the power to require reporting authorities such as CCW to produce an assessment of both the impacts of climate change and the way in which they will consider the need for adaptation. The production of this guidance is a component of CCW’s response to the delivery of both the One Wales and WAG Climate Change Strategy in terms of mitigation within the land use sector, and also the requirement of the Climate Change Act for reporting authorities such as CCW to consider the impacts of climate change and the need for adaptation.

5.1.3. Soil policy development in Wales is active and the Welsh Soils Action Plan Consultation Document (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008) outlines a range of proposed actions to augment the protection and appropriate management of soils within existing and developing mechanisms. The wider environmental significance attached to organic (peat) and organo-mineral soils is a key element of this, and the ECOSSE project series demonstrates a significant commitment to quantifying and understanding this resource and how it is likely to be affected by land management and climate change.

5.1.4. In spite of the above, stronger explicit protection for peat soils in particular is an area where Wales could take a lead. The relatively confined nature of peat soils in Wales (3% of the land area compared to c. 7% across the UK as a whole) makes such an approach tenable and the almost complete absence of an extractive peat industry eliminates significant liability in terms of compensation.

CCW will pursue and support measures to increase the level of protection afforded to peat soils through policy development, regulation and incentive mechanisms.

5.1.5. Designation as SSSI provides effective protection for c. 40,200 ha (57 %) of the Welsh peat resource, of which c. 29,200 ha occurs within the SAC series. Activities which would prove damaging to peat are covered by a range of notifiable potentially damaging operations and whilst relating primarily to biological features, conservation objectives prepared by CCW and partners are both protective of the underlying peat profile, and generally consistent with encouraging the ongoing accumulation of peat.

Through direct management, land management agreements and enforcement, CCW will ensure the protection of peat within the SSSI series and support management to encourage its ongoing accumulation. 5.2. Developing and directing effective support and incentives for the management / restoration of peat and peatland habitats.

5.2.1. Carbon protection and management features as one of the objectives of the planned high tier element of Glastir. The targeting of all or a significant part of the Welsh organic soil resource would amount to only ~3% of the Welsh land area, whilst also providing significant overlap with other proposed scheme objectives, notably biodiversity, water quality management and water quantity management (flood mitigation). Sustainable land management offers the potential for multiple gains in terms of economic viability and also biodiversity, soil carbon, water quality and water quantity.

CCW will advise the Welsh Assembly Government on the location of priority peatland areas for high-tier targeting, and on the formulation of prescriptions to both safeguard the peat resource and deliver biodiversity and ecosystem service outcomes.

5.2.2. Other measures for securing appropriate management/restoration are severely resource limited. Partnership approaches represent a key way forward here in helping to spread the cost burden and through involvement of different sectors of expertise. This approach also lends itself to stakeholder engagement and the development of relatively large-scale initiatives. In the uplands, progress to-date in Wales has been relatively modest, with the RSPB project at Vrynwy and the Upper Conway project led by the National Trust being among the very few projects of any size to focus on bog restoration. There is huge scope for expanding this effort. Further initiatives covering the Migneint and Berwyn, a major project for the graminoid dominated bogs of the Elenydd and wider Cambrian area, and measures to restore the degraded uplands of the south Wales coalfield and Brecon Beacons deserve to figure as national priorities for Wales.

5.2.3. In the lowlands, peat restoration is almost entirely focussed on National Nature Reserves/SSSI and is tightly constrained by other land-use interests. Significant external funding has enabled adoption of an alternative model for the Anglesey & Lleyn Fens LIFE project, which will employ advocacy and catchment land management measures to seek more sympathetic management practices within and adjacent to wetlands and their wider catchments. This approach needs to be extended and a commitment made to developing and pursuing a comprehensive programme of lowland wetland restoration projects ranging from ecosystem level approaches which also deliver solutions for flood risk and water quality issues, to wider-scale efforts to secure favourable management for fragmented sites.

In the context of the wetland vision described below, CCW will work with its partners to develop further collaborative projects enabling wetland restoration, and leading to the delivery of key Environment Strategy outcomes. Our work will focus on a combination of large-scale ecosystem level projects and regional/national projects which focus on the resolution of issues common to many wetlands sites.

CCW will continue to influence the development of strategic mechanisms such as Water Level Management Plans, River Basin Management Plans, Shoreline Management Plans and Catchment Flood Management Plans, to ensure delivery of biodiversity and wider environmental gains. 5.2.4. At the ecosystem level, there is particular scope for exploring a range of approaches which demonstrate the ‘wise use’ of wetlands concept, including the use of paludiculture3 at certain specific locations.

CCW will support the development of wetland restoration pilot schemes to demonstrate the feasibility of restoration and its associated ecosystem benefits, particularly in terms of carbon, water quality and water quantity.

5.2.5. The recently formed Upland and Lowland Wetland Ecosystem Groups established under the Wales Biodiversity Partnerships BAP delivery programme have a key strategic role to play in developing definitive targets for priority peatland habitats, identifying priority areas and sites for restoration and developing work plans for funding and delivery. The development of wetland visions at spatial scales varying from national (England) to a plethora of regional and more local scales in both England and Scotland have proved an effective means of focussing effort and attracting resources. This approach needs to be adopted in Wales to provide a shared agenda for wetland restoration achieving multiple environmental benefits.

Through the lowland wetland and upland ecosystem groups, CCW will coordinate the preparation of a wetland vision for Wales. This will identify priority areas and mechanisms for delivering restoration, assess the wider ecosystem benefits and establish synergies between partner bodies.

5.2.6. Accreditation of peatland restoration for carbon offsetting offers another potential funding and incentive route. Powys County Council is currently examining the feasibility of including Welsh projects in a new UK scheme.

CCW will support the development of an accredited peatland restoration element of a UK carbon offsetting scheme.

5.3. Land-use pressures.

Development 5.3.1. Development pressure remains a significant threat to peatland habitats in Wales. Proposed and existing windfarm developments affect many upland sites in Wales. CCW supports the development of appropriate renewable energy provision at the right locations (CCW, 2008) and also accepts the likelihood of localised environmental impacts. Many existing and proposed developments exert significant pressure on peat through overlap of windfarm infrastructure, although TAN 8 has served to focus this pressure on the non- statutory resource. Peat outside the statutory site series but supporting BAP habitat is afforded some protection by the NERC duty (section 42) and this should be a prime consideration in assessing impacts on this resource. Peat outside the statutory series which is archaic (i.e. supporting highly modified essentially non-mire habitat) is still an important resource but is not specifically protected4. Impacts on this component of the peat resource should still be subject to formal EIA because of its significance for carbon (both as an existing store and for its sequestration potential) and habitat restoration. The potential for the latter is very significant in Wales, even on ostensibly highly modified peat surfaces, and its significance is likely to increase given the finite nature of peat, the very limited scope which exists for the expansion of peat onto surfaces which do not currently support it, and the growing importance attached to peat as a carbon storage and sequestration resource.

3 Paludiculture involves the cultivation of a crop on soils sufficiently wet to ensure net carbon sequestration whilst also yielding a harvestable product which can be used as a biomass or fodder crop. 4 Peat extraction for consumptive use is covered by Minerals Planning Guidelines – this issue relates more to peat in situ. In addition to giving detailed guidance on topics requiring assessment, CCWs internal draft guidance on assessing windfarm impacts on peat (CCW, 2010) establishes the following three key principles which will also apply to all forms of development, namely;

(i) that peat should be avoided wherever possible, (ii) that impacts on peat will require detailed assessment as part of an EIA, including assessment of the whole peatland resource within the application site, and (iii) that compensation for loss or degradation of peat should demonstrate equivalence by taking the form of peat restoration elsewhere within the development site, or as close to it as possible.

5.3.2. Compensation for damage to peat should be commensurate with the anticipated nature and scale of damage. Calculations of carbon losses caused by peat loss and degradation have a part to play in this process, but carbon savings associated with wind power generation are not in this specific context regarded as an equivalent form of compensation. Based on thorough impact assessment, careful planning of windfarm siting and design coupled with effective mitigation and compensation actually has the potential to deliver positive gains for biodiversity and soil (peat) carbon whilst also contributing to renewable energy targets.

CCW will encourage adoption of these principles in any future review of TAN 8; furthermore, CCW considers that peat merits recognition as one of the primary constraints influencing the location and design of development proposals.

Wider land-use 5.3.3. Peat soils bearing vegetation outside the definition of semi-natural (including conifers, improved grassland and arable) is an important resource because (i) it is potentially restorable peatland habitat, and (ii) its stored carbon resource. As with modified peatland with a semi- natural vegetation cover, habitat restoration in such cases can achieve triple gains by improving biodiversity quality (and thus contributing to BAP and WES targets for habitat expansion), increasing the security of the carbon store, and enabling ongoing/renewed C capture. The significance of specific locations for each of these three ‘functions’ is heavily dependent on context, and there is a need for significant further research to determine over what timescales the most highly modified peatlands can be restored to net C sinks. However, there is much less uncertainty over two key areas. Firstly, modern restoration techniques can now be applied successfully in even the most modified situations. Peatland heavily modified by forestry does represent a significant challenge (Anderson, 2001), but even here there are significant gains to be made. Secondly, even if net C sequestration is not attainable in the short-medium term, restoration to improve the security of carbon stocks is itself a valuable additional outcome to biodiversity gain. This is an important consideration; peat soils under forestry (for example) contain more carbon than the tree crop (1710 as opposed to 21 T C/ha) but are subject to carbon loss and there is clearly value in slowing or preventing this. The possibility of expanding the cover of semi-natural peatland habitats (or related habitats which would be protective of the underlying peat resource) in such heavily modified contexts is widely acknowledged (see for example Woodlands for Wales, 2009), but there remains debate over the extent to which this should be pursued.

CCW considers that the wider ecosystem benefits of peat are best realised through the conservation and expansion of semi-natural habitats on peat, notably, where technically feasible, mire (i.e. peat-forming or at least peat ‘protecting’) vegetation. This statement underpins the need for significant additional effort to restore extant but modified peatlands throughout Wales, and expansion of the semi-natural habitat cover of peat currently under forestry, improved grassland and arable where this can deliver tangible biodiversity and wider ecosystem gains in relation to alternative or continuing forms of landuse.

CCW will work with FC and other partners to identify priority areas for peatland restoration which are currently under other forms of land-use, including forestry. Overall, spatial planning combined with the use of appropriate support mechanisms offers considerable scope for delivering both biodiversity and soil carbon gains and economically viable landuse.

5.3.4. Increased emissions of methane following rewetting of degraded peat have been reported widely and while more research is needed to determine the timescales and patterns of release, the effect is likely to be finite or even relatively short term (Natural England, 2008). Such effects need to be kept in perspective given the relatively limited evidence base relating to emission amounts and timescales set against the importance of both improving the security of the peat carbon store, and enabling long term carbon sequestration through peat growth.

Environmental change

5.3.6. Climate change will reduce the optimal climatic envelope for peatlands, with the rain- fed bogs being at particular risk because of their obligate dependence on rainfall quantity and seasonal distribution. Peatlands in favourable condition are likely to be more resilient to climate change, and in the next few decades we have a finite window of opportunity for attempting to solve some of the more intractable issues affecting the condition of our mires. Critically, now is the time to repair the hydrology of sites affected by past drainage, thus providing opportunities for renewed peat formation and the development of a spongy living surface better able to cope with seasonal drought. Fortunately, this coincides with a general trend of improvement in air quality, though impacts resulting from development pressure remain significant locally.

CCW is committed to the principal that favourable management and ultimately condition offer the best means of adaptive mitigation for our mires.

5.3.7. Sea-level rise and increased seasonal flooding figure among the key consequences of climate change, with low lying land on coastal and river floodplains especially susceptible. Wetlands can help mitigate these effects and would once have been a key habitat component of these landscapes, but now occupy only 3% of the combined coastal and river floodplain area in Wales. There is substantial scope in these contexts for the creation of new wetlands and restoration around the margins of existing wetlands, thus delivering biodiversity and flood storage benefits and also improvements in water quality.

CCW will work with partners as part of the wetland vision action to identify and promote key areas for floodplain restoration. This will contribute directly to River Basin Management Plan objectives and also help deliver improved habitat connectivity along our main river systems.

Consumptive use of peat

5.3.8. Extraction of peat for horticultural and other uses has all but ceased in Wales, but the demand for consumptive use of peat imported from elsewhere in the UK and Ireland remains strong.

CCW will support national measures to improve and promote alternatives to peat. CCW will support LBAP and other initiatives to reduce the demand for peat.

CCW will not use peat on its own estate and as far as possible will stipulate the use of alternatives on the estate it rents and by grant-aided partners.

6. Research and survey

6.1. Reference has already been made to the need for further research involving net ecosystem carbon balances for peatlands under a range of management scenarios and at differing scales and degradation states. The specific case of drained peatlands supporting forestry is an area in particular need of C flux research (Strack [ed], 2008), and so too the viability of achieving large-scale biodiversity and carbon gains on the heavily modified graminoid dominated bogs of central and south Wales. This work needs to feed into detailed guidance which can be used to help identify and prioritise areas for restoration and also to identify the extent to which other ecosystem benefits might be delivered.

6.2. CCWs ongoing Peatland Survey Programme is quantifying and evaluating the Welsh lowland peatland resource to plant community level and performs a key role in supporting site protection, management, restoration and monitoring.

6.3. The long-term effect of windfarm infrastructure on and adjacent to peat requires urgent research, not least because there is very little peer reviewed evidence to test the veracity of claims that floating roads and other forms of trackway have an insignificant effect on peat hydrology and biodiversity. The effects of habitat fragmentation caused by windfarm infrastructure also remain unquantified.

6.4. Climate change will result in a contraction of the climatic envelope available for active peat formation. The magnitude and distribution of this effect is currently being modelled through the EA Quest programme, but needs further development to support decisions on the management of peatlands.

CCW will support and where necessary commission research to support land management and restoration decisions and future priorities.

CCW will support further work to quantify the wider ecosystem benefits of peatland management and restoration, with particular emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions and hydrological processes.

6.5. Critical to the effective protection of peat soils is a strong evidence base relating to their distribution and condition. The National Soil Resource Inventory5 provides a strategic dataset based on soil association mapping at 1:250,000 scale, but further resources are available, including mapping of soil series (for parts of Wales only), high quality maps prepared by the Forestry Commission for parts of their estate, data on peat depth and distribution collected by the renewable energy sector, data resulting from further ECOSSE programs, and information collected by a range of research and public institutions, including CCW. Collation and syntheses of these data is critical to effective spatial planning, including the development of habitat networks, and also to aid assessment of development and other land use impacts. The Partnership Project on Peat coordinated by DEFRA provides an ideal forum for pooling these data and identifying key gaps in knowledge.

5 Based on the Soil Survey of England and Wales. CCW will contribute to the pooling of data relating to the distribution and condition of peat soils, and to the acquisition of new survey and research information which improves our knowledge of the distribution, condition, functionality and management needs of the Welsh peat resource.

7. References

Anderson, R. (2001). Deforesting and Restoring Peat Bogs: A Review. Forestry Commission Technical Paper No. 32, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Avery. 1980. Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 14.

Climate Change Act. 2008. HMSO

Colls, A.E.L. (2006). The Carbon Consequences of Habitat Restoration and Creation. Ph.D Thesis, University of East Anglia.

Countryside Council for Wales (2010). Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales. CCW Guidance Note. CCW, Bangor.

ECOSSE, (2007). Estimating Carbon in Organic Soils Sequestration and Emissions Scottish Executive & Welsh Assembly Government. Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh.

Holden, J. (2005). Peatland hydrology and carbon release: why small-scale process matters. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Ser A, 363, 2891-2913.

Holden, J. et al (2006). Vulnerability of Organic Soils in England and Wales. DEFRA Project SPO532.

Limpens et al (2008). Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from local processes to global implications – a synthesis. Biogeosciences Discussions, 5; 1379-1419.

National Assembly for Wales. (2009). Carbon Reduction from Land use: Fifth report of the Sustainability Committee’s Inquiry into Carbon Reduction in Wales. July 2009.

Natural England (2008). Submitted comments on the Committee on Climate Change Workplan, May 2008. Natural England, June 2008.

O’Brien, H. et al (2007). Review of Blanket Bog Management and Restoration. Technical Report to DEFRA, Project No. CTE0513.

Strack, M, (ed). (2008). Peatlands and Climate Change. International Peat Society, Finland.

Sustainable Development Commission (2009). Low Carbon Wales: Regional Priorities for Action. SDC, November 2009.

Thompson, D. (2008). Carbon Management by Land and Marine Managers. Natural England Research Report No. 26.

Wallage, Z.E. et al (2006). Ditch blocking: an effective treatment for reducing dissolved organic carbon loss and water discolouration in a drained peatland. Science of the Total Environment, 367: 811-821. Welsh Assembly Government (2008). The Welsh Soils Action Plan Consultation Document.

Welsh Assembly Government (2009). Climate Change strategy - Programme of action consultation.

Annex I. Supporting information on the significance of Welsh mires for biodiversity

Blanket bog is by far the most widespread and abundant of our peatland habitats, amounting to a total hectarage of c. 56,200 of which c. 32,000 ha was classified as modified by the Habitat Survey of Wales. The habitat is most widespread in mid and north Wales, occurring predominantly on plateux areas, broad ridge-tops and gentle slopes, but it is also occurs widely as less expansive deposits at lower altitudes. Blanket bog is a key aspect of the landscape character of much of upland Wales, and is the culmination of multiple phases of bog initiation in relation to past climate change, landscape evolution and human activity, chiefly deforestation. As our most expansive peatland type, blanket bog is important in displaying some of the features associated with landscape-scale and comparatively un- fragmented wetlands, now all but absent from our much more impacted lowland mires. These include extensive uninterrupted areas of wet peatland, and natural zonations of vegetation in relation to variations in peat depth, topography, hydrological conditions and also bog development. The habitat composition of Welsh blanket bogs is conservative because of the dominant environmental influence of peat development under ombrotrophic conditions. Despite this, our bog resource is relatively varied and includes the most southerly examples of good quality sub-montane climax bog vegetation in the UK (M19), as well as important areas of good quality active blanket mire vegetation referable to the mire plane and bog-pool communities M1, M2, M3, M17 and M18.

Welsh blankets bogs have already been very heavily impacted by man, and ongoing loss and degradation is occurring. Of the original estimated resource of c. 70,000 ha, just 22,600 ha of the remaining 54,600 ha is considered to represent the less modified blanket bog category of the Phase I habitat classification. The surviving resource remains vulnerable to a range of impacts, including climate change and atmospheric deposition, as well as obvious site management effects such as drainage, grazing regime and burning. Windfarm infrastructure has the potential to add further pressures to already stressed systems, hence the need for careful assessment and, where impacts to peat habitats are identified, the implementation of measures to protect and enhance these habitats.

Lowland raised bogs support a similar flora to blanket mires, but are generally strongly confined in their development by topography and hydrology. They develop as the accrual of peat gradually raises the living surface of the mire above the influence of relatively enriched ground- or surface water. Drainage and the nibbling away of marginal peat through peat cutting and agricultural reclamation has damaged all our sites, and the steep marginal hydraulic gradients which have resulted threaten the viability of some of our best sites. Although heavily modified, the Welsh site series is internationally significant for the range and quality of different site types and habitat elements.

Fens are widespread and include pockets of peat in ground hollows and valley bottoms, as well as flush systems on sloping ground. Fens are fed by surface and or groundwater as well by rainfall, and consequently support a varied flora which relates to gradients in hydrochemistry and hydrology. Fens fed by water from limestone or other calcareous catchments are very localised in Wales and support a characteristically species-rich flora and invertebrate fauna, though management neglect is widespread. The potential stock of this habitat in Wales is naturally limited by the occurrence of suitable geological and hydrological conditions, and all examples are worthy of protection. So-called ‘poor-fens’ support an often bog-like flora because of the influence of water derived from ‘acidic’ or at least less calcareous rock types coupled with the generally dominant influence of rainfall – many are likely to represent former bogs heavily modified by peat cutting. Current re-appraisal of these habitats by CCW indicates significant variation within the series which is not adequately represented in the SSSI series. Poor fens support a rather under-rated biodiversity and provide key refugia for a wide range of acid mire specialist species.

Upland fen is represented primarily by soligenous flushes and springs, with topogenous fen scarce. Soligenous fens may occur on peat, or on shallower organic soils with a significant mineral content. Upland fens (soligenous and topogenous forms) have recently been added to the BAP priority habitat list.

The invariable signature of modified mires is an enhanced cover of graminoids, chiefly on our bogs Eriophorum vaginatum (especially in the north) and in the case of fens as well Molinia caerulea (mid and south Wales for the upland peats, and throughout the country on lowland and ffridd sites). The core oligotrophic Sphagnum flora on unmodified bogs will also be diminished, but elements of surface topography such as hummocks and hollows can remain. Habitat evaluation can downplay the significance of modified and degraded mires and while this exercise is vital to ensure protection of the best of the resource, its also important to appreciate that modified mires preserve many of the critical biodiversity and ecosystem service features of intact mires and can usually, with modern techniques, be restored. Useful in this respect is the palaeoecological record which charts the varied fortunes of our peatlands over time, with many passing through episodes of retarded peat growth and species loss. Their recovery often depended on changes in climate and local hydrological conditions, processes we can now emulate to an extent through site restoration and patience!

Peatlands are of significance wherever they occur, not least because they demonstrate the potential which existed at least at some point for peat development. Localised and even highly isolated patches of peat offer refugia for obligate bog specialists, such as Eriophorum vaginatum and a range of bog liverworts, which may otherwise be absent from large tracts of our landscape and local floras. Indeed, the importance attached to even modest areas of ostensibly quite degraded peatland has grown through CCWs analysis of connectivity networks and the realisation that much of our landscape represents a virtually impermeable barrier to many of our key peatland species. Stepping stones are thus critically important. Fortunately, as our many small basin mires demonstrate, habitat viability often depends more on hydrology and context than patch size. All of these arguments underline the need for robust in situ conservation of peatland habitats throughout their range and are consistent with Articles 1 and 10 of the Habitats and Species Directive. The definition of favourable conservation status (Article 1) requires the natural range and area covered by the habitat to be stable or increasing and the specific structures and functions necessary for its long-term maintenance to be in place; in this context, the presence of peat can be regarded as a key indication of natural range. Article 10 of the Directive (covering ecological coherence and connectivity functions) is especially applicable to blanket bog as our only extensive and locally continuous peatland habitat.

The case for the conservation of all areas of semi-natural peatland habitat in Wales is clear and enshrined in the NERC duty, the ‘section 42 biodiversity lists and action Wales’, Environment Strategy Wales outcomes 19 to 21 and TAN 5. The case for peatlands which no longer support semi-natural mire habitat is also strong, and relates both to the prevention of any further or additional damage, as well as the restoration of semi-natural mire habitat. The reasons for this are summarised below.

Heavily modified peat retains significant potential for restoration, and further advances in techniques are likely. Restoration of modified peatlands may contribute significantly to the integrity of adjacent semi-natural peatland – for example through improved hydrological conditions and enhanced connectivity. The peat resource is both finite and highly constrained; significant expansion of peatland habitats (i.e. ‘new’ peatlands) is highly unlikely, leaving restoration of the peat resource where it actually occurs as the best option. Restored peatlands are likely to deliver significant ecosystem benefits. By the same token, permitting further degradation of modified mires will lead to wider environmental impacts, and will make restoration all the harder. Current and the trajectory of future policy development is raising the profile of peat and is likely to result in greater value being placed on heavily modified peat. LANDMAP Information Guidance Note 3

Using LANDMAP for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Onshore Wind Turbines

June 2010

1. Introduction 1.0.1 Guidance note 3 provides advice on how LANDMAP should be used within the Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) process for onshore wind farms and their surrounding infrastructure. This is a revised guidance note replacing earlier versions of May and November 2008. Readers should be aware that this is a guidance note on how to use LANDMAP information as part of the landscape chapter of an EIA. It is not exhaustive as to what should be included in the landscape chapter; it is the responsibility of developers to ensure they meet all the requirements of the landscape section.

1.0.2 Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) supports an integrated approach to the assessment of the impacts of wind farms together with their associated infrastructure, e.g. access roads, grid connections etc. CCW is in the process of developing and testing an approach to using LANDMAP in the landscape and visual impact assessment of power lines, this is being developed and agreed with other stakeholders. This guidance note therefore relates primarily to onshore wind energy developments and the infrastructure within the development site boundary. A separate note will be written in time specifically for electricity power lines.

2. Policy Context 2.1 CCW’s Landscape Remit and Wind Energy

2.1.1 The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is the Government's statutory advisor on sustaining natural beauty, wildlife and the opportunity for outdoor enjoyment in Wales and its inshore waters. Our landscape remit is defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as: ‘the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in Wales and of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in Wales, both in …National Parks…areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere’ 1

2.1.2 CCW has been asked by the Welsh Assembly Government to support the expansion of renewable energy and facilitate the delivery of Government targets2. In assisting the UK Government meet the EU Renewable Energy Directive, CCW and its partners have stated that “we strongly support the need for a large increase in renewable energy and recognise its global benefits in addressing the causes of climate change… It is imperative that the UK manages this revolution in its energy infrastructure – for the national good – whilst continuing to meet statutory obligations on nature conservation and the environment, minimising local adverse environmental impacts where they arise and building public confidence in

1 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900043_en_16#pt7-pb2-l1g130 2 WAG – CCW Remit letter 1st March 2010, Paragraph 15

Page 1 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 renewable energy developments”3.

2.1.3 In line with the Hampton Review and the UK and Welsh Assembly Government’s wishes to ensure regulation of the private sector is efficient and effective, CCW will adopt a ‘proportionate’ approach, where the assessments we ask for are in line with the scale of the expected environmental impacts. We will seek to provide authoritative and easily accessible advice and we ‘recognize that a key element of [our] activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection.’ 4

2.1.4 The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 states that an EIA may be required for “development likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location” which in relation to the generation of energy from renewable sources is likely where there are more than 5 turbines or the hub height, or height of any structure exceeds 15 metres.5

2.1.5 One component of an EIA is assessing landscape and visual impacts and LANDMAP is formally recognised in Planning Policy Wales (2002) as the starting point for landscape assessments in Wales. All EIAs in Wales should therefore include an assessment of LANDMAP information as part of their ES on landscape and in particular, it should be used to inform the baseline conditions.

2.2 Planning Policy for Onshore Wind Energy

2.2.1 In the context of wind farm developments three types of areas have been identified in the Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8 on Renewable Energy (2005) as having differing status (points 1-3 below). However, LANDMAP information should still be used in all three of the TAN 8 contexts below (Welsh Assembly Government 2005, Annex D, section 8.4) to assist in avoiding, minimizing and compensating for impacts.

1) National Parks (NPs) and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs),

TAN 8 states “There is an implicit objective in TAN 8 to maintain the integrity and the quality of the landscape within the National Parks / AONBs of Wales i.e. no change in landscape character from wind turbine developments.”

The WAG Policy Statement on National Parks and National Park Authorities in Wales (2007) states "In line with WAG’s policy on major developments within the Welsh Parks- and as set out in TAN 8 – there should be no significant change in landscape character as a result of wind turbine development within National Parks (or the AONBs). In conjunction with this, it is an aim of WAG that, where feasible, transmission cables should be under-grounded.”

2) Areas within and immediately adjacent to Strategic Search Areas (SSAs)

TAN 8 Strategic Search Areas (SSAs) are considered the most appropriate locations for large scale wind farm development (Welsh Assembly Government, 2005). Within the SSAs landscape change has been accepted, and the creation of ‘wind farm landscapes’ in these areas acknowledged by Government as an outcome of delivering renewable energy targets, “within (and immediately adjacent) to the SSAs, the implicit objective is to accept landscape change i.e. a significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development”.

However, given the height of turbines, the visual impacts of a windfarm inside an SSA, may well affect the character of areas some distance away. Such issues arise most clearly where SSAs are close to

3 Statement from members of the Government’s Renewable Energy Deployment Environmental Issues Project Board 4 http://www.bis.gov.uk/Policies/better-regulation/improving-regulatory-delivery/assessing-our-regulatory-system 5 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0337:20090625:EN:PDF 4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0035:EN:HTML

Page 2 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 National Parks and AONBs. An example is the Hirwaun Inquiry, 2008, where large wind turbines sited within 8km of the National Park boundary were considered to be unduly intrusive.

3) Other areas outside the SSAs.

TAN 8 states that “in the rest of Wales outside the SSAs, the implicit objective is to maintain the landscape character i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development”.

Whilst “most areas outside SSAs should remain free of large wind power schemes”, wind farm schemes may be proposed on urban/industrial brownfield sites (up to 25MW), as smaller community based schemes (generally less than 5 MW) or as part of the re-powering and/or extension of existing wind farms. The LVIA should help determine if the “environmental and landscape impacts are acceptable” (TAN 8 2.11-2.14).

2.2.2 The Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement (MIPPS) 01/2005 states that “renewable energy projects should generally be supported by local planning authorities provided environmental impacts are avoided or minimised” (12.8.6). However the requirement in MIPPS that "developers will need to be sensitive to local circumstances, including siting in relation to landform and other planning considerations" (12.8.11) means that LANDMAP data will be valuable in understanding and avoiding or mitigating the impact of developments.

2.2.3 Good design principles and micro-siting is relevant in all instances to minimise the landscape and visual impacts of wind farms. When impacts have been minimized (in accordance with advice in MIPPS) the issue of whether the residual impacts are acceptable will have to be decided on a case by case basis.

3. LANDMAP Information 3.0.1 LANDMAP (CCW, 2008) is a complete all-Wales GIS based landscape resource where landscape characteristics, qualities and influences on the landscape are recorded and evaluated into a nationally consistent data set. LANDMAP comprises five spatially related datasets known as the Geological Landscape, Landscape Habitats, Visual & Sensory, the Historic Landscape and the Cultural Landscape, each is detailed in the LANDMAP methodology chapters (2008).

3.0.2 Each of the five spatial layers are divided up into discrete geographical units (polygons in GIS) referred to as aspect areas. Each mapped aspect area is distinctly defined by its recognisable landscape characteristics and qualities. The Collector survey describes the elements, features, landscape qualities and landscape characteristics associated with each aspect area, together with an evaluation score for each aspect area and management recommendations.

3.1.3 Each Collector survey records information from the unique perspective of the LANDMAP layer concerned, with each LANDMAP layer being produced independently. Therefore, when key characteristics are referred to across several layers for the same geographic area this should reinforce the value of their importance. In assessing each layer uniquely it can be gauged more clearly which aspects of the landscape character and qualities are sensitive and therefore require sensitive site design to help protect those qualities. The role of an assessment is to ascertain the direct or indirect effect of the development on these elements.

4. LANDMAP in the EIA process 4.1 Why use LANDMAP in an EIA?

4.1.1 In Wales, LANDMAP is the formally adopted approach for landscape assessment and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales (Welsh Assembly Government, 2002) Section 5.3.13. “CCW’s LANDMAP information system methodology is an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making the landscape assessments needed to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in this field…they can help inform supplementary planning guidance on landscape assessment.”

Page 3 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 4.1.2 The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment have produced Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002) (hereafter referred to as GLVIA). In the guidelines they explain “It is the primary responsibility of landscape professionals carrying out assessments to first ensure that the approach and methodology adopted is appropriate for the particular development to be assessed. Secondly, they should ensure that, for each development proposed, the application of the method to the case in hand results in an assessment that is in accordance with the requirements of the current legal and planning framework” (Pg 4, 1.11). The planning framework in Wales advocates the use of LANDMAP as an information source.

4.1.3 All five LANDMAP layers should be used. This is supported by the GLVIA guidelines which state that “It is important for landscape assessments to consider the ecological, historical or cultural associations that contribute to the character and importance of a landscape. Habitats and wildlife have a visible effect on the appearance and also the appreciation and value of landscape, and planning policies for nature conservation and landscape are generally linked through a common approach to land use. Historic associations are often more intangible. However, there are also numerous interrelationships between landscape and cultural heritage and it is important that these links are not overlooked” (GLVIA, Pg 28, 3.26)

4.1.4 The GLVIA goes on to state that LANDMAP is the method of mapping and evaluating the rural landscape in Wales and is an important starting point in investigating the landscape resource (pg 70, Box 6.2). LANDMAP offers a landscape information resource for Baseline Conditions and evaluation information for the Assessment stages in an ES

4.1.5 LANDMAP takes a whole landscape approach that is defined by a structured and consistent methodology which includes classification, mapping, objective and subjective descriptive landscape information. The methodology is replicable and the results are easily interpreted. “Landscape impact assessment...includes a combination of objective and subjective judgements, and it is therefore important that a structured and consistent approach is used” (GLVIA, Pg 11, 2.11)

4.1.6 In an ES it is important to define the relative value of the landscape in a local, regional, national or international context in relation to particular features, characteristics, qualities or functions of the landscape. Having comparative landscape evaluations provides additional information to aid the assessment of the sensitivity of the landscape. “The loss of landscape elements, features or characteristics will be given greater weight if they are identified as being of high value or importance. Thus, effects on landscape areas or characteristics recognised for their national importance are likely to be of more significance than effects on areas or characteristics of local importance” (GLVIA, Pg 94, 7.43). TAN 8 (Annex D Section 4.3) states that to identify the landscape value of an area, existing information on landscape value derived from LANDMAP should be mapped. The concentration of outstanding and high evaluation scores in a given area can be significant. However, it does not immediately mean suitability or unsuitability for a particular development; it is the underlying information from which this evaluation is derived and the sensitivity of the site that must be judged. This richness of information and full landscape perspective cannot come from the use of the Visual and Sensory aspect alone.

4.2 Scoping

4.2.1 This determines the scope and level of detail of the environmental statement and ensures that all relevant issues are addressed in the EIA. A formal scoping opinion may be requested, as a statutory consultee on landscape, CCW’s role is to provide advice relevant to the assessment following a formal request for advice and help.

4.2.2 It is very important that existing landscape resources, the LANDMAP Guidance Note 3 and the GLVIA (2002) are highlighted at the scoping stage, when the information and methodologies to be used in the environmental statement are determined, effective engagement can facilitate this.

4.2.3 An early review of information from the existing landscape resource in Wales (LANDMAP, Page 4 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 LANDMAP Landscape Character Area assessments and Seascape assessments, see section 7) is important at the scoping stage as these can help define study areas and the scope of additional landscape assessment work needed to provide the necessary baseline detail for the development application concerned. LANDMAP should be used as the framework for the LVIA assessments and as the start for the detailed assessment work. However additional landscape assessment work is likely to be needed to provide the necessary further detail for the proposal concerned.

4.2.4 Omissions at the scoping stage may undermine the validity of the ES. If LANDMAP has not been included or has been used in a very limited way in the ES an assessment would need to be made to ascertain whether the applicant has provided sufficient information on the environmental effects to enable an informed decision. A holding objection pending further information using LANDMAP could be made because there is not enough information for CCW to assess the possible effects.

4.2.5 “An ES is not necessarily rendered invalid if it does not cover all the matters specified in the scoping opinion or directive, or because an applicant fails to provide further information when required to do so. However, if it is deemed that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information on the environmental effects to enable the regulatory authority to make an informed decision, the planning application is likely to be refused” (GLVIA, Pg 26, 3.16)

4.3 Environmental Statement (ES)

4.3.1 Within the EIA process, key stages relevant to the use of LANDMAP include: gathering baseline information relevant to the potential effects of the proposal on the landscape and visual resource, predicting and describing the potential effects of the proposal and defining ways of mitigating any adverse effects.

4.3.2 LANDMAP will be particularly relevant in setting the ES baseline conditions where the existing landscape and visual resource is identified, described, classified and evaluated. LANDMAP information will provide a structured and consistent core of baseline information, onto which any additional detail can be added.

4.3.3 LANDMAP information can be used further in the ES to inform the assessment of significance of impacts as well as helping to justify the final proposed site layout over any possible alternatives considered in the process.

Page 5 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 5. LANDMAP and geographical area to assess 5.0.1 As an indication, CCW would expect the initial search area for the study to extend to 35km from the boundary of the wind farm. Written justification should be included in the ES if the study area is to be reduced from this starting point explaining the basis for the reduced area.

5.0.2 Once this search area is defined, aspect areas at Level 3 should be considered for all five layers for:

• The area defined by the proposed development site boundary • The immediate environs to the site boundary, effectively the adjacent aspect areas

And in addition:

• Where “likely significant effects” are anticipated, these should be judged for each individual LANDMAP layer. Further guidance for each layer is given in the section that follows.

5.0.3 The “likely significant effects” will be determined by the sensitivity of the site and surrounding landscape, as well as the size of the turbines and their positioning. This approach will result in a study boundary whose shape is set according to the anticipated impacts. This is more effective in targeting analysis and interpretation of information than a specific distance (radii) from the proposed development (DECC, 2009). The final identification of aspect areas to assess in detail for each layer may form an asymmetrical shape, with the refined study area drawn in closer to the site boundary where “likely significant effects” are minimal and extending out where sensitivity and potential “effects” may be higher.

5.0.4 Overlaying aspect area boundaries with Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for turbine blade tip and hub height can help identify the number of turbines visible within each aspect area, providing further focus on areas where higher sensitivity may occur. Differences in landform and visibility may lead to geographic “islands” of aspect areas, which are more sensitive to the development, being identified. These “islands” may be significantly separated from the aspect areas that relate to the site boundary and environs. This is acceptable and reflects appropriate and proportional judgement and assessment of the study area in identifying distant areas of concern or interest.

5.0.5 It is very likely that the area to be investigated for each of the five LANDMAP layers will be different as each will have its own sensitivity, and landscape response, to the direct and indirect effects of the proposal. It is not possible to be prescriptive about any set radii out from the site boundary for any of these layers; it is the purpose of each individual ES to determine appropriate assessment areas.

5.0.6 Those aspect areas within which the development is proposed, and those adjacent, are those most likely to undergo change. However, distant aspect areas with views, or where the site serves as a background, may also be affected. Whilst this will normally be an issue for the Visual and Sensory layer, other qualities such as those in historical and cultural landscapes may also be affected at a distance.

5.0.7 Following the approach, set out in this guidance note, will result in a refined and informed list of aspect areas for detailed analysis. The aspect areas identified for further investigation through this approach will require the Collector survey information to be opened and analysed for each aspect area in order to inform “likely significant effect”, however this filtering process will result in a much reduced list of aspect areas.

5.0.8 Informed judgements of “likely significant effects” will be crucial in filtering the scale and appropriateness of the assessment. Determining relevant LANDMAP aspect areas to assess further should be based on professional judgement and assessment of the information on a case by case basis and should be tailored to the unique circumstances of each proposal and its landscape setting.

Page 6 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 6. Guidance for each LANDMAP layer 6.1 Geological Landscape and Landscape Habitats

6.1.1 The first filter for these two layers within the search area will be to identify those level 3 aspect areas that are within the site boundary and all aspect areas immediately adjacent to this boundary. For each Geological Landscape aspect area identified as adjacent to the site boundary, refer to question 2 in the associated Collector survey. If a special or functional relationship is positively recorded with another aspect area that has not already been identified then include this additional aspect area. This process refines the number and suitability of aspect areas to be considered in the second filter.

6.1.2 In determining aspect areas which may be significantly effected by the development proposal it is advised that thematic maps are produced using the LANDMAP evaluation information. For the Geological Landscape this should include the overall evaluation (Collector survey question 33) and the rarity/uniqueness evaluation criteria (Collector survey question 31). For the Landscape Habitats layer, this should also include the overall evaluation (Collector survey question 45) and the connectivity/cohesion evaluation criteria (Collector survey question 42). Attention should be focused on the outstanding and high aspect areas for further assessment for “likely significant effects”. It may be helpful to refine the thematic evaluation maps to show only the aspect areas recorded as outstanding and high.

6.1.3 Additionally overlaying the ZTV maps with the identified outstanding and high aspect areas within this refined area for each of these two layers, should highlight the aspect areas where the development is visible; any aspect areas which do not have sight of the proposed development can be excluded at this stage (note that this does not include the process for cumulative impact assessment of other wind farms). Potentially affected aspect areas are thus further filtered.

6.1.4 Once the revised potentially affected areas have been identified, assessors should use the Collector survey information for each aspect area to determine likely significant effect of the development proposal taking into account the following comments for each layer.

6.1.5 As part of this process, specific to the Geological layer it will also be important to assess the influence of landform in shaping the visually experienced landscape. “Likely significant effects” may be higher where visible wind turbines and associated infrastructure may have a detrimental effect on the perceived scale and experience of the landform. Wind turbines may diminish the apparent scale of the landform, and in such cases repositioning of the turbines can make a significant reduction in their impact. As well as seeking to minimise skyline visibility, the impact on landscape features such as rock exposures should also be minimised.

6.1.6 The ecological assessment of the ES will thoroughly cover the nature conservation baseline for habitats and species. The landscape and visual impact assessment should consider the contribution of habitats and land use in the wider landscape by using the Landscape habitats layer. Landscape diversity, contrast and seasonal change can be attributed to the patterns of semi natural habitats and land use cover, often forming recognisable tracts of landscape. “Likely significant effects” may be higher where the direct effects of the wind farm impact detrimentally upon these landscape characteristics, it is therefore most likely to be within and close to the site boundary where these effects will be greatest.

Page 7 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 Figure 1 Geological Landscape and Landscape Habitats Assessment Process

Page 8 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 6.2 Visual & Sensory

6.2.1 Aspect Areas at Level 3 should be considered for the area defined by the site boundary and all aspect areas immediately adjacent to this boundary. In addition, the whole area from which the development is visible where “likely significant effects” are anticipated, should also be considered. It is likely that this will extend significantly from the site boundary, depending on the sensitivity of the surrounding landscape.

6.2.2 As an indication, for turbines greater than 100m in height, CCW would expect the study search area to extend to 35km from the boundary of the wind farm. Therefore the LANDMAP Visual & Sensory layer should be mapped to 35km to show aspect areas within the study area.

6.2.3 It is advised that the Visual & Sensory overall evaluation is mapped, (Collector survey question 50) as well as the scenic quality and character evaluation criteria (Collector survey questions 46 and 48) to help identify aspect areas which may experience “likely significant effect”. Attention should be focused on the outstanding, high and moderate aspect areas for further assessment. Aspect areas with an outstanding or high overall evaluation score, or aspect areas with a moderate overall evaluation score but an outstanding or high evaluation in either scenic quality or character evaluation criteria, could be starting points for the assessment of significant effect.

6.2.4 By overlaying the ZTV map with the identified aspect areas, the aspect areas from where the development is potentially visible can be highlighted; any aspect areas which do not have sight of the proposed development can be excluded at this stage (note that this does not include the process for cumulative impact assessment of other wind farms). Care should be taken at this stage to ensure that the potential visibility of the surrounding infrastructure (access roads etc.) is taken into account and included as this may not be apparent from the ZTV maps.

6.2.5 The aim should be to minimise landscape effects and to design the windfarm so that it either achieves the best landscape fit, or that there is no significant change or no landscape change at all, as appropriate to the location of the wind farm within Wales (see section 2.2). Aspect areas may be highly sensitive if they feature significant receptors, therefore “likely significant effects” cannot be based upon the evaluation score alone. The assessor must judge the receptors relevant in the study area and if the aspect areas that are associated with these receptors have not yet been included then they need to be identified and included in at this stage.

6.2.6 Once the revised potentially affected aspect areas have been identified, then the Collector survey information should be fully assessed for relevant information on key landscape characteristics, rarity, landscape pattern and scale, settlement patterns and qualities such as wildness, remoteness and tranquillity.

6.2.7 For proposals in coastal landscapes, CCW have mapped the land-sea inter-visibility of Wales and characterised a resulting suite of ‘seascape units’, with major coastal headlands acting as division points. The assessment of Welsh seascapes is at a regional scale but provides relevant additional contextual baseline information. The full report and seascape characterisations are published on-line at: http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/seascapes/seascape-assessment-of- wales.aspx

Page 9 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 Figure 1 Visual & Sensory Assessment Process

Page 10 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 6.3 Historic Landscape and Cultural Landscape

6.3.1 The Historic and Cultural assessment in the ES will map and assess individual Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest, Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. It should also ascertain whether an ASIDOHL assessment should take place. The Historic Landscape layer in LANDMAP maps aspect areas of historic landscape character as defined by dominant historic land use, pattern and period. It sets the landscape context and extent of influence for these historic patterns and features. As with other aspects, LANDMAP maps all areas of Wales consistently in the historic landscapes aspect, and includes criteria-based evaluations. However in those parts of Wales covered by the Registered Historic Landscapes, an additional level of detail is provided through historic landscape characterisations published on-line by the respective local Welsh Archaeological Trust.

6.3.2 LANDMAP aspect Areas at Level 3, or 4 if available, should be considered for the area defined by the site boundary and all aspect areas immediately adjacent to this boundary. In addition, the whole area from which the development is visible where “likely significant effects” are anticipated. The historic landscape characterisations can be taken as equivalent to a ‘Level 4’ level of detail to be considered where ‘likely significant effects’ are anticipated. It is most likely that these effects will occur within 10 kilometres of the site boundary; however, this may need to be revised upwards to 15 km for taller turbines, e.g. those over 100m in height. In all cases the appropriate distance must be determined on a case by case basis.

6.3.3 In determining aspect areas which may be significantly effected by the development proposal, it is advised that thematic maps are produced using the LANDMAP evaluation information. For the Historic Landscape this should include the overall evaluation (Collector survey question 40). Given that the majority of cultural aspect areas are evaluated overall as outstanding or high this is not the most effective determinant to refine the study area, assessors are guided towards using the rarity and group value evaluation criteria (Collector survey questions 33 and 35) as they may highlight aspect areas particularly sensitive to change. Attention should be focused on the outstanding and high aspect areas for further assessment for “likely significant effects”. It may be helpful to refine the thematic evaluation maps to show only the aspect areas recorded as outstanding and high.

6.3.4 The second filter involves overlaying the ZTV maps with the identified outstanding and high aspect areas within this refined area for each of these two layers. This should highlight the aspect areas where the development is visible; any aspect areas which do not have sight of the proposed development can be excluded at this stage (note that this does not include the process for cumulative impact assessment of other wind farms). This process refines the number and suitability of aspect areas to be considered in detail.

6.3.5 Once the revised potentially affected areas have been identified, assessors should use the Collector survey information for each aspect area to determine likely significant effect of the development proposal, taking into account the following comments for each layer.

6.3.6 Beyond features on the ground that are most likely to be affected by the development “likely significant effects” may be higher where the positioning of individual wind turbines may have a detrimental effect on the setting of historic landscapes (where setting is important) or where key vistas are important. The Historic Landscape classification can aid the identification of relevant aspect areas which may be particularly affected e.g. designed landscapes.

6.3.7 Although turbines may be seen at a distance they may not compromise the cultural interest (as cultural interests can be modern or contemporary as well as ‘historical’ or well-established). It is likely that “significant effects” will be close to or adjacent to the site boundary but this must be determined on a case by case basis. The assessment should assess the effects on the cultural essence of the landscape as set out in the Collector survey summary description.

Page 11 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 Figure 1 Historic Landscape and Cultural Landscape Assessment Process

Page 12 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 6.4 Potentially affected aspect areas

6.4.1 The GLVIA (2002) and DECC (2009) deal with direct and indirect effects and cumulative landscape effects. They also provide guidance upon sensitivity, magnitude and significance for landscape effects for evaluating adverse and beneficial effects. Therefore this information will not be reproduced here but the application of these approaches would follow for aspect areas identified through the process as “revised potentially affected areas”.

6.4.2 The LANDMAP Collector survey information for the identified aspect areas should be interrogated in full to assess the baseline resource and inform the assessment of landscape character sensitivity and visual sensitivity and value. In the assessment of the potential effects, landscape capacity (landscape sensitivity and value) can inform the judgement of significance and likely significant effects.

7. Using LANDMAP aspect areas, LANDMAP character areas & Seascape units 7.0.1 Aspect areas for each LANDMAP layer should be used as the basis for identifying the baseline resource and the potentially affected aspect areas, remembering that effects will be unique to the perspective of each layer and the aspect areas therein; the aspect areas themselves can be used as reporting units for sensitivity.

7.0.2 Some planning authorities have produced character areas based upon the five LANDMAP layers. These will be of a coarser landscape scale and will encompass the aspect areas defined in the five LANDMAP layers. Using the landscape character assessments for the LVIA is an attractive option in reducing the number of areas to assess sensitivity for, but these may not be at an appropriate scale to establish sensitivity for a development and may not adequately identify variations within a local area. If assessments use the character areas then the refined “list” of aspect areas to investigate further could be translated into the corresponding LANDMAP character areas.

7.0.3 The character area assessments do vary in scale, detail, geographical coverage, written presentation and GIS content, and thus are not necessarily the easy option to use for large study areas which extend over more than one authority. Therefore judgement must be made as to the appropriate reporting units.

7.0.4 Where no landscape character areas have been defined and consultants wish to report at a coarser scale, LANDMAP aspect areas can be used as a basis for deriving them. The Visual and Sensory aspect areas are normally the starting point but they should be refined by other aspect areas as appropriate.

7.0.5 The landscape units defined in the Regional Character Map of Wales are identified at a coarser scale again to the LANDMAP character areas and will be too coarse for the specifics of an ES.

7.0.6 The Seascape Assessment of Wales characterises the Welsh coast into 50 regional seascape units detailing the character and qualities of each unit. It also assesses the sensitivity and capacity of each seascape unit to offshore renewable energy developments.

7.0.7 Whilst this guidance note focuses on onshore wind energy the Seascape Assessment of Wales provides a valuable information resource in determining the potential effects of onshore wind energy developments on seascape character and qualities for developments that are in close proximity to the coast, or seascape units from which onshore developments are visible.

8. LANDMAP and Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 8.0.1 A Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (CLVIA) should describe and assess any additional impacts and significant cumulative effects of a potential wind energy development (wind turbines and associated infrastructure) on the landscape when considered in conjunction with other existing, consented or proposed wind energy developments, and potentially other non-energy developments. Readers are referred to the CCW guidance on Assessing Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact of Wind farms in Wales (2010). Page 13 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 9. Accessing LANDMAP Information 9.0.1 The LANDMAP website hosts information on LANDMAP and access to all quality assured LANDMAP Information. There are two ways in which you can access LANDMAP data from the website: by viewing it in the on-line GIS, or by downloading the data (from the download section) onto your computer. The Web and Software Guidance (2009) document provides advice on how to use both of these options and is available from the website http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our- landscape/landmap.aspx

9.0.2 An edited LANDMAP dataset can be made that is particular to the requirements of the ES. This can be done using the LANDMAP Collector LINK software programme, freely available from the LANDMAP website. This allows users to select which questions in each LANDMAP layer are most applicable and to export this as a set sub for analysis.

10. References & Further Information Cadw (2007) Guide to Good Practice on Using the Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales in the Planning and Development Process, 2nd (revised) edition http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/old-hl/historic-landscapes.aspx Clark, J., Darlington, J. & Fairclough, G. (2004) Using Historic Landscape Characterisation. English Heritage & Lancashire County Council http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/a4report.pdf?1273242628 Countryside Council for Wales (2008) LANDMAP Methodology Chapters. Countryside Council for Wales Policy Research Reports http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/landmap/landmap-methodology.aspx

Countryside Council for Wales (2008) Energy & Natural Heritage. Countryside Council for Wales Policy Position Statement http://www.ccw.gov.uk/environmental-change/idoc.ashx?docid=e5a33b04-23df-4372-bd6d- 9fd36a5406a5&version=-1

Countryside Council for Wales (2009) Web and Software Guidance. LANDMAP Guidance http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/landmap/accessing-landmap- information.aspx

Countryside Council for Wales (2009) Welsh seascapes and their sensitivity to offshore developments. Policy Research report No. 08/5 http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/seascapes/seascape-assessment-of- wales.aspx

Countryside Council for Wales (2010) Assessing Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact of Windfarms in Wales Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative Effects of Onshore Wind Farms. Entec Phase 2 Report 2nd draft. The Landscape Institute & the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 2nd Edition. SPON Press (not on-line) Scottish Natural Heritage (2007) Visual Representation of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Siting and designing Wind farms Scottish Natural Heritage. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A317537.pdf

Page 14 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Assessing the Cumulative Effect of Onshore Wind Energy Developments. Draft for Consultation Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, (statutory instrument 1999/293) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990293.htm Welsh Assembly Government Circular 11/1999 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) http://wales.gov.uk/docrepos/40382/epc/planning/403821/660124/11_99.pdf;jsessionid=21J1LYhTvfTq139m38MR9ScV5KNfpnkm 0Fl427JWn8HDJqCQw9dx!-704087660?lang=en Welsh Assembly Government (2002) Planning Policy Wales http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/ppw2002/?lang=en Welsh Assembly Government (2005) Technical Advice Note 8: Renewable Energy http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/tans/tan8/?lang=en

11. Contact Jill Bullen LANDMAP Wales Coordinator Countryside Council for Wales Welsh Assembly Government Rhodfa Padarn, Llanbadarn Fawr Aberystwyth, SY23 3UE Tel: 01970 631165 e-mail: [email protected]

Page 15 of 15 LANDMAP, LVIA Guidance Note 3 Final 17/06/10 From: Neil Culff To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: Neil Culff; Subject: Re: Proposed wind farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire/Gwynedd Date: 16 July 2010 11:35:19

To whom it may concern.

Further to your letter dated 12 July 201, ref 100712_EN010028_164800.

There are no comments to be made by North Wales Resilience Forum.

Regards,

Neil Culff Cyd-drefnydd Fforwm Gwydnwch Lleol Gogledd Cymru Local Resilience Forum Co-ordinator - North Wales

Gwasanaeth Tân ac Achub Gogledd Cymru / North Wales Fire and Rescue Service Symudol / Mobile 07884 068 032 Ffôn / Tel 01492 863667

Am archwiliad diogelwch tân yn y cartref, yn rhad ac am ddim ffoniwch 0800 169 1234, e-bostiwch cfs@nwales- fireservice.org.uk neu ymwelwch â www.gwastan-gogcymru. org.uk.

For a free home fire safety check, please call 0800 169 1234, e-mail [email protected] or visit www.nwales- fireservice.org.uk.

Neil Culff Cyd-drefnydd Fforwm Gwydnwch Lleol Gogledd Cymru Local Resilience Forum Co-ordinator - North Wales

Gwasanaeth Tân ac Achub Gogledd Cymru / North Wales Fire and Rescue Service Symudol / Mobile 07884 068 032 Ffôn / Tel 01492 863667

Am archwiliad diogelwch tân yn y cartref, yn rhad ac am ddim ffoniwch 0800 169 1234, e-bostiwch cfs@nwales- fireservice.org.uk neu ymwelwch â www.gwastan-gogcymru. org.uk.

For a free home fire safety check, please call 0800 169 1234, e-mail [email protected] or visit www.nwales- fireservice.org.uk.

**********************************************************************

Cyfrinachedd: Mae’r neges e-bost hon ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gyda hi, yn breifat ac fe allent fod yn cynnwys gwybodaeth sy’n gyfrinachol neu’n gyfreithiol-freintiedig. Os byddwch yn derbyn y neges hon trwy gamgymeriad, a fyddech mor garedig â rhoi gwybod inni a chael gwared arni o’ch system ar unwaith.

Ymwadiad: Fe allai e-bostio trwy’r We fod yn agored i oedi, rhyng-gipio, peidio â chyrraedd, neu newidiadau heb eu hawdurdodi. Felly, nid yw’r wybodaeth a fynegir yn y neges hon yn cael cefnogaeth GTAGC oni bai fod cynrychiolydd awdurdodedig, yn annibynnol ar yr e-bost hwn, yn hysbysu ynghylch hynny. Ni ddylid gweithredu o ddibynnu ar gynnwys yr e-bost hwn yn unig.

Monitro: Bydd GTAGC yn monitro cynnwys e-byst at ddiben atal neu ddarganfod troseddau, a hynny er mwyn sicrhau diogelwch ein systemau cyfrifiadurol a gwirio cydymffurfiad â’n polisïau.

Gwasanaeth Tân ac Achub Gogledd Cymru Parc Busnes Llanelwy, Sir Ddinbych. LL17 0JJ

**********************************************************************

Confidentiality: This email and any files transmitted with it, are private and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this message in error, please notify us and then immediately remove it from your system.

Disclaimer: Internet email may be subject to delays, interception, non-delivery or unauthorised alterations. Therefore, information expressed in this message is not endorsed by NWFRS unless otherwise notified by an authorised representative independent of this email. No action should be taken in reliance on the content of this email.

Monitoring: NWFRS monitors email traffic content for the purposes of the prevention and detection of crime, ensuring the security of our computer systems and checking compliance with our policies

North Wales Fire and Rescue Service St Asaph Business Park, Denbighshire. LL17 0JJ **********************************************************************

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** From: Ann Elias To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire/Gwynedd (Ref. 100712-EN0100028-164801) Date: 19 July 2010 15:00:59

Dear Sir,

Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire/Gwynedd (Ref. 100712-EN0100028-164801)

I refer you your letter dated 12th July regarding the above application.

I would confirm that Regional Transport Plan for the TraCC region sets out the following in regard to wind farm developments

1. 1.1 Wind farms

7.4.1 The UK Government’s commitment to greatly expand the production of wind energy has been backed by mandatory targets for the supply industry and, for Wales, planning advice in Welsh Assembly Government’s Technical Advisory Note 8 (TAN 8). It is estimated that the additional output required may equate to 4,000 onshore turbines and a large proportion of these are expected to be in mid Wales. Within the TraCC area alone there is currently a declared interest in installing over 500 turbines rated at a total of 1200 MW. 7.4.2 Wind farm developments will, collectively, constitute the largest ever engineering infrastructure project in Wales and the resulting new or extended sites will inevitably be concentrated at upland rural locations that have good wind characteristics, but poor access. The Welsh Assembly Government commissioned a study of access routes to proposed wind farm sites in Powys (Capita, October 2008) and this highlighted the problems arising from transporting “abnormal load” components. There would be daily disruption to travellers and roadside communities and, over five years or more, a considerable cumulative impact on highway surfaces and structures. The accompanying forestry clearance, the construction of turbine bases and off-road tracks, the installation of electricity grid components and connections will also generate a significant increase in the number of HGV movements on the Trunk and County Road networks. 7.4.3 The combination, scale and complexity of these transport movements is still being assessed and some of the practical problems that would inevitably arise have been considered by multi-agency groups. It is not yet clear how these developments will be accommodated but there is a desire to minimise their adverse impacts and to maximise local benefit. As the issues around this important topic are still evolving the RTP has not included a completed strategy for wind farms but it is intended that the affected transport consortia, Welsh Assembly Government and other agencies will continue to develop a common policy during 2010.

TraCC considers that these issues should be considered and assessed via the EIA that supports the application, the Welsh Assembly Government are still preparing the ‘strategic traffic management plan’ and TraCC and its constituent authorities are working with them to identify practical management solutions associated with an accumulative impact of this magnitude.

Yours faithfully,

Ann Elias BSc (Hon) Dip TP, MRTPI, IPROW TraCC Mid Wales Transport Consortium RTP Projects and Programmes Officer Phone 01970 633539 Mobile 07779 318607 [email protected] or [email protected] Canolfan Rheidol Rhodfa Padarn Llanbadarn Fawr Aberystwyth Ceredigion SY23 3UE

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

-- Ymwadiad:

Er y cymerir pob gofal posib i sicrhau cywirdeb unrhyw wybodaeth a chyngor a roddir yn yr ohebiaeth hon, ni dderbynnir atebolrwydd am unrhyw golledion a all godi o unrhyw gamgymeriadau sy'n gynwysedig ac fe'ch atgoffir o'r angen i chi ofyn am gyngor proffesiynol eich hun.

Bwriedir y neges ebost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau iddi, at sylw'r person(au) y'i danfonwyd atynt yn unig. Os nad chi yw'r derbynnydd y cyfeiriwyd y neges hon ato ef neu hi, neu'r person sydd gyfrifol am drosglwyddo'r neges hon iddo ef neu hi, mi ddylech hysbysu'r anfonwr ar eich union. Oni bai mai chi yw'r person neu gynrychiolydd y person y cyfeiriwyd y neges hon at ef neu hi nid ydych wedi eich awdurdodi i, ac ni ddylech chi, ddarllen, copio, dosbarthu, defnyddio na chadw’r neges hon nac unrhyw gyfran ohoni.

O dan y Ddeddf Amddiffyn Data 1998 a Deddf Rhyddid Gwybodaeth 2000 gellir datgelu cynnwys y negest ebost hon. Disclaimer:

While reasonable care is taken to ensure the correctness of any information and advice given in this correspondence no liability is accepted for losses arising from any errors contained in it and you are reminded of the need to obtain your own professional advice.

The information in this email and any attachments is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or person responsible for delivering this information to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this email may be disclosed. From: Laura Allen To: Amy Cooper; Subject: FW: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request Date: 20 July 2010 16:36:35 Attachments: dps1.rtf

From: Hemsworth, Deborah [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:19 PM To: Laura Allen Cc: Jones, Emyr; Thomas, Gareth Subject: RE: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request

Hi Laura, Thanks for your consultation on the above. I've attached our response above and will send you a formal reply in the post. Kind regards, Debbie Hemsworth

Planning Liaison Officer Environment Agency Wales Llwyn Brain Ffordd Penlan Parc Menai Bangor LL57 4TW

Tel: 01248 484068

From: Jones, Emyr Sent: 12 July 2010 16:13 To: Hemsworth, Deborah; Thomas, Gareth Cc: Read, Meryl Subject: FW: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request

Deb/Gareth – attached consultation for a windfarm. It covers an area which is in both Gwynedd and Denbighshire so either of you could take the lead on this. Note deadline for response is 9th August – need to send an electronic response before then.

Also response needs to be filed on the O drive. I don’t have access to this? Do either of you / Meryl?

Thanks Emyr

Emyr Jones TL Planning, Development and Flood Risk [email protected] 7 26 4093 or 01248 484093

From: Laura Allen [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of IPC Scoping Opinion Sent: 12 July 2010 16:00 To: Jones, Emyr Cc: Birch, Simon J Subject: Mynydd Mynyllod Wind Farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales - Scoping Consultation Request Click here to report this email as spam.

Dear Emyr,

Please find attached an electronic copy of the EIA scoping consultation request for Mynydd Mynyllod wind farm, Denbighshire and Gwynedd, Wales.

<<100712_EN010028_ letter to prescribed consultees (email).doc>> I have copied in Simon for his information.

Kind regards, Laura

Laura Allen EIA and Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Direct Line: 0303 444 5054 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

***********************************************************************************

Gall yr wybodaeth yn y neges hon fod yn gyfrinachol, ac yn gyfreithiol freiniol. Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhoddwch wybod ar unwaith i’r sawl a’i gyrrodd, os gwelwch yn dda. Yna dilëwch hi, a pheidiwch â gyrru copi at neb arall. Bu inni fwrw golwg ar yr e-bost hwn a’i atodiadau, rhag bod feirysau ynddo. Serch hynny, dylech chwilio unrhyw atodiad cyn ei agor. Efallai bydd rhaid inni ryddhau’r neges hon, ac unrhyw ateb iddi, i sylw’r cyhoedd pe gofynnid inni tan y Ddeddf Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, y Ddeddf Gwarchod Data neu at ddibenion ymgyfreithio. Y mae’n bosib hefyd y darllenir negesau ac atodiadau e-bost a yrrir at unrhyw gyfeiriad Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd, neu a dderbynnir oddi yno, gan rywun arall na’r gyrrwr a’r derbynnydd. Hynny at ddibenion busnes. Os ydym wedi gyrru gwybodaeth atoch, a chithau’n dymuno’i defnyddio, yna ddarllenwch ein telerau a’n hamodau, os gwelwch yn dda. Gellir eu cael trwy ein galw ar 08708 506 506. Am ragor o wybodaeth ynghylch Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd Cymru, ewch at www.asiantaeth-amgylchedd.cymru.gov. uk. **** Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about Environment Agency Wales at www.environment-agency.wales.gov.uk

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** Mr David Cliff - Case Leader on Behalf of Our ref: NT/2010/111309/01-L01 the IPC Your ref: Infrastructure Planning Comission 100712_EN010028_164800 Temple Quay House (2 The Square) Temple Quay Date: 20 July 2010 Bristol Avon BS1 6PN

Dear Mr Cliff

PROPOSAL BY SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 PROPOSED WIND FARM AT MYNYDD MYNYLLOD, DENBIGHSHIRE/GWYNEDD.

Thank you for your EIA Scoping consultation letter of 12th July 2010. The letter was received on 12th July 2010.

Environment Agency position We have reviewed the scoping report submitted and have further comments to make in respect of Biodiversity, Flood Risk, Water Quality and Water Resources to ensure that the Environmental Statement will appropriately address the environmental issues we consider are of most importance for this proposal.

Our technical comments detailing the information we consider should be provided in the environmental statement are provided below. They are entered under the appropriate heading from the Scoping Report for your convenience.

Technical comments and advice Ecology and Nature Conservation (Habitats and Protected Species).

There is no mention of reptile surveys being undertaken in relation to this project. We advise that this be undertaken in conjunction with the other proposed survey work and advice from the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) be sought in relation to any impact on reptiles.

Environment Agency Llwyn Brain, Ffordd Penlan, Parc Menai, Gwynedd, Bangor, LL57 4DE. Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk Cont/d.. As mentioned in the report the proposed site is close to the Berwyn SPA and associated SAC and the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC. What is not mentioned is the proximity to Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt SPA (and SAC), which is around 10km away. CCW’s opinion should be sought in relation to the need to under take Habitats Regulations screening for this site as well as the aforementioned Natura 2000 sites

Hydrology/Hydrogeology Flood Risk/Surface Water drainage

Section E of The Scoping Opinion appears to have covered most of the issues that we would need looking at from a flood risk point of view including the impact (either permanent or temporary) on existing surface water run-off.

The proposed positions of the turbines and any vegetation clearance that will be required should be included. There are four areas of forest on the location map - Coed Gaerwen, Coed y Fron, Llechwedd Uchaf and Coed Tyfos Isaf. The EIA should consider whether any of the turbines or the necessary infrastructure (permanent or temporary)are likely to be placed within these areas of existing tree cover. If so, the number of trees which are likely to be felled and the effect this may have on surface water run-off should also be included.

Water Quality

In addition to the assessment methodology set out in Section 4.37-4.43 ‘Hydrology and Ground Conditions’ and Appendix E ‘Hydrology/Hydrogeology’ of the scoping report we would also expect the following information to be incorporated into the EIA:

- A map identifying water features in the area, including springs and water supplies (from surface water and groundwater); - Consideration of the relationship between the location of the turbine and the likely catchment area for each of these water features; - If the turbine is likely to be in the catchment for any of these then the reduction in recharge to the system and potential effects of this (such as loss of supply) should be considered; - Should a potential impact on the water balance be identified then the Environment Agency will require proposals for monitoring water features and mitigation plans for any loss.

A method statement is required detailing the design and construction methods of any proposed tracks and turbines (including foundation design) and the pollution prevention measures that will be put in place to minimise impacts to the water environment.

We also note that borrow pits are proposed on site. We would request that additional information is provided within the Environmental Statement on the likely depths of excavation of these pits and whether excavation below the water table is required.

Cont/d.. 2 Information will also be required on the locations of any compounds and the foul drainage arrangements required during site construction and operation.

Water courses running from Mynydd Mynyllod, Nant Llyn Mynyllod and the stream running through Coedydd Branas both discharge into the Dee which is a riverine SAC. Discharges or washings from the construction site into these watercourses and Llyn Mynyllod should be avoided.

Water Resources

The consultants should be aware that there is one licensed abstraction within the proposed site boundary. This is for Licence WA/067/0003/003 at 302350 339500 and is for a hydropower scheme. Removal of water upstream of this abstraction may result in derogation of this abstraction.

Environmental permitting and other regulation Permits may be required for abstraction of water for construction purposes: Temporary licence - more than 20m3/d of water for a period of less than 28 consecutive days. Full licence - more than 20m3 /d of water for 28 consecutive days or more. Our National Permitting Service should be contacted regarding this on 08708 506506.

The comments we set out above are without prejudice to future decisions we make regarding any applications subsequently made to us for our permits or consents for operations at the site.

Yours sincerely

Mrs DEBORAH HEMSWORTH Planning Liaison Officer

Direct dial 01248 484068 Direct fax 01248 670561 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End 3

From: Ceri Thomas To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Proposed wind farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire / Gwynedd Date: 09 August 2010 15:59:32 Attachments: mvmt11.doc

Response from Conwy County Borough Council enclosed. Hard copy in post.

Ceri Thomas

Uwch Swyddog Cynllunio, Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Conwy

Senior Planning Officer, Conwy County Borough Council

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. "Mae'r neges e-bost hon ac unrhyw ymgysylltiadau yn gyfrinachol, ac wedi eu bwriadu ar gyfer yr un sy'n cael ei h/enwi yn unig. Gallent gynnwys gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw'r neges hon wedi eich cyrraedd ar gam, ni ddylech ei chopio, ei rhannu na dangos ei chynnwys i unrhyw un. Cysylltwch efo Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Conwy ar unwaith. Nid yw'r Cyngor na'r un sydd wedi anfon y neges yn derbyn unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am feirysau, a'ch cyfrifoldeb chi yw sganio unrhyw ymgysylltiadau. Mae’r Awdurdod yn monitro’r defnydd o e-bost/ rhyngrwyd a chynnwys y rhain i ddibenion busnes. " "This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not copy, distribute or show the content to anyone but should contact Conwy County Borough Council at once. Neither the Council nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses, and it is your responsibility to scan any attachments. The Authority monitors e-mail/internet usage and content for business purposes" **********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** Gwasanaethau Rheoleiddio'r / Regulatory Services Pennaeth Gwasanaeth / Head Of Service Phillip A Rafferty Rheoli Datblygu / Development Control Rheolwr Rheoli Datblygu / Development Control Manager - Phil Hardwick Civic Offices, COLWYN BAY, LL29 8AR Swyddfeydd Dinesig, BAE COLWYN, LL29 8AR

Gofynnwch am / Please ask Infrastructure Planning Commission Ceri Thomas FAO Mr D Cliff for: Temple Quay House 01492575391 Temple Quay 01492512637 Bristol [email protected] BS1 6PN Ein Cyf / Our Ref: ENQ/18262 Eich Cyf / Your Ref: 100712_EN010028_164800 Dyddiad / Date: 09/08/2010

Site Land at Mynydd Mynyllod, Proposal Erection of Windfarm Denbighshire (Scoping Opinion)

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter dated 12 July 2010 regarding the above matter.

As a neighbouring planning authority, Conwy County Borough Council considers it important that the landscape and visual impacts are adequately addressed, and notes that paragraphs 4.15 – 4.18 of the Scoping Report identify the issue of cumulative effects. It is important that such considerations encompass proposals that are currently subject to the planning process (such as that at Mwdwl Eithin near Cerrigydrudion) as well as those which have planning permission.

The Scoping Report acknowledges that effects on the settings of cultural and archaeological features will be considered in conjunction with the landscape and visual impact methodology. It is important that consideration is given in this respect to the designated Mynydd Hiraethog historic landscape and also to the setting of the A5 as a historic route.

The Scoping Report does not include a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (STV) drawing. I understand that Soltys Brewer Consulting consulted Denbighshire County Council on the 6th July on the proposed viewpoints, enclosing a ZTV drawing. However, I did not receive that drawing until the 6th August (following my enquiries with Denbighshire County Council), and I am not therefore in a position to assess the adequacy of the proposed viewpoints within the requested response period. My initial assessment is that the selection of a single proposed viewpoint in Conwy does not adequately reflect either the extent or the significance of the anticipated visual impact.

I would therefore be grateful if you would therefore extend the period for making responses until 27th August, in order to enable further assessment in the light of the additional information recently received.

Yours faithfully

P A Hardwick Development and Building ControlPrif Manager Switsfwrdd / Main Switchboard: 01492 574000 www.conwy.gov.uk/planning www.conwy.gov.uk/cynllunio Ni ddylid cyflwyno dogfennau llys drwy ffacs Fax not to be used for serving proceedings

DC01 (Enq – Adhoc letter) Version 1 From: IPC Enquiries To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: FW: PLANNING APPLICATION: 100712_EN010028_164800 - Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire Date: 27 July 2010 11:00:30 Attachments: Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire.pdf

From: Debra Roberts [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The Coal Authority-Planning Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:30 PM To: IPC Enquiries Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION: 100712_EN010028_164800 - Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire

Dear David

Further to your letter 12 July 2010, please find attached, as requested, our comments on the above planning application.

Should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards

Deb Roberts Technical Support Officer

Email Sent For and On Behalf of:

Miss Rachael A. Bust B.Sc.(Hons), MA, M.Sc., LL.M, AMIEnvSci., MIPSM, MRTPI Deputy Head of Planning and Local Authority Liaison

The Coal Authority - Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department 200 Lichfield Lane, Berry Hill, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG ℡ Planning Enquiries: 01623 637 119 Planning Email: [email protected] Website: www.coal.gov.uk/services/planning

Save resources, think before you print

______This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

********************************************************************** 200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries)

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.coal.gov.uk/services/planning

Mr David Cliff – Case Leader on behalf of IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission

[By Email: [email protected]]

26 July 2010

For the Attention of: David Cliff

Dear David

PLANNING APPLICATION: 100712_EN010028_164800

Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire

Thank you for your consultation letter of the 12 July 2010 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the above planning application.

I have reviewed the proposals and confirm that The Coal Authority has no observations or specific comments.

Yours sincerely

Miss Rachael A. Bust B.Sc.(Hons), MA, M.Sc., LL.M., AMIEnvSci., MIPSM, MRTPI Deputy Head of Planning and Local Authority Liaison

In line with Government led initiatives the Coal Authority is committed to the delivery of efficient, high quality services supported by information technology. To support this we prefer communication in electronic format wherever possible.

From: CRCE IPC Consultations To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: CRCE IPC Consultations; Rob Orford; James Stewart-Evans (Nottingham); David Russell; Peter Davies; Edwin Huckle; Stephen Morton; Chris Johnson; Subject: FAO David Cliff - Proposed Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod Denbighshire/Gwynedd Date: 05 August 2010 11:00:04 Attachments: HPA Response Letter 100805.pdf

Dear David Cliff

Your Ref: 100712_EN010028_164800 Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod

Please see attached an electronic copy of the HPA response to the EIA Scoping Report for the Wind Farm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire/Gwynedd. A hard copy of this letter will be sent out to you.

Kind regards Carol

Carol Walsh Administrative Officer CRCE IPC Consultation Coordination Team Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards Health Protection Agency Chilton Didcot Oxon OX11 0RQ

Tel: +44 (0) 1235 822849 Email: [email protected]

************************************************************************** The information contained in the EMail and any attachments is confidential and intended solely and for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). It may not be disclosed to any other person without the express authority of the HPA, or the intended recipient, or both. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. This footnote also confirms that this EMail has been swept for computer viruses, but please re-sweep any attachments before opening or saving. HTTP:// www.HPA.org.uk **************************************************************************

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

From: Nurton, Clive (ESH - SE&ID) To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: Griffiths, Rhodri (ESH - SE&ID); Subject: SCOPING RESPONSES TO THE IPC - BURBO BANK OFFSHORE WINDFARM AND MYNYDD MYNYLLOD ONSHORE WINDFARM PROPOSALS Date: 04 August 2010 14:47:36 Attachments: IPC Burbo Bank Scoping Letter.doc IPC Mynydd Mynyllod Scoping Letter.doc

<> I attach the Welsh Assembly Government responses to the two consultations. Signed copies are in the post. <>

Regards

Clive Nurton

Welsh Assembly Government Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru Manager, Energy and Steel Policy Rheolwr, Polisi Ynni a Dur Energy Wales Ynni Cymru Cathays Park Parc Cathays Cardiff Caerdydd CF10 3NQ

Tel - Ffon: 029 20825357 Fax - Ffacs: 029 20825137 E-Mail -E-bost: [email protected]

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/ or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

From: Williams, Kay To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: Siddons, Richard; Taylor, Kevin; Subject: Proposed Windfarm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire Date: 05 August 2010 15:48:01

Your ref 100712_EN010028_164800 Our ref. IPC 08/10

FAO David Cliff (Case Leader)

Proposed Windfarm at Mynydd Mynyllod, Denbighshire Applicant Scottishpower Renewables

Dear Mr Cliff

I refer to your recent letter in respect of the above proposal and would advise that the scoping opinion document makes no reference to trees or woodland; the site boundary map includes a substantial amount of woodland, some of which has received grant funding from Forestry Commission Wales.

As the government department responsible for protecting and expanding UK forests and woodland, Forestry Commission Wales would ask that any Environmental Statement relating to this project contains reference to the protection and future management of trees within the project area.

Please contact me should you need further information

Yours sincerely

Kay Willliams

Kay Williams Regulatory Case Manager Rheolwr Achos Rheoliadol Grants and Regulations Wales Grantiau a Rheoliadau Cymru Direct Dial / Deialu Uniongyrchol: 0300 068 0060 IP Extn / Est. Protocol Rhyngrwyd : 80060 Fax / Ffacs: 0300 068 0301 Mobile / Symudol: 07789923677

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

100819_EN0100028_202289

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

An environmental statement is described under the EIA Regs as a statement:

‘(a) that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the Applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but

(b) that includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4’. (EIA Regs regulation 2)

The EIA Regs Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in an ES. Part 2 sets out the minimum requirements and is included below for reference:

Schedule 4 Part 2

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 SI 2264 set out the requirements for information which must be provided as part of the DCO application. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information (this is defined in Regulation 2 of the EIA Regs) need not be replicated or included in the ES.

The Commission advises that the ES should be laid out clearly with a minimum amount of technical terms and should provide a clear objective and realistic description of the likely significant impacts of the proposed development. The information should be presented so as to be comprehensible to the specialist and non-specialist alike.

The Commission recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.

100819_EN0100028_202289

ES Indicative Contents

The Commission emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regs sets out the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development which should include ‘in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors’ (paragraph 19).

The content of the ES should include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regs. This includes the consideration of ‘Alternatives’ which the Commission recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES.

Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the Commission considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration.

Balance

The Commission recommends that the ES should be balanced, with matters which give rise to a greater number or more significant impacts being given greater prominence. Where few or no impacts are identified, the technical section may be much shorter, with greater use of information in appendices as appropriate.

The Commission considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering combined and cumulative impacts.

Physical Scope

In general the Commission recommends that the physical scope for the EIA should be determined in the light of:

• the nature of the proposal being considered; • the relevance in terms of the specialist topic; • the breadth of the topic; • the physical extent of any surveys or the study area; and • the potential significant impacts.

Therefore, the Commission recommends that the study area for the EIA should include at least the whole of the application-site embracing all off-site development and for certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The study area for each specialist topic

100819_EN0100028_202289

should be clearly defined and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts in accordance with good practice.

The Commission considers that the study areas should be agreed, wherever possible, with the relevant statutory consultees and local authorities.

Temporal Scope

The assessment should consider:

• environmental impact during construction works; • environmental impacts on completion/operation of the development; • environmental impacts a suitable number of years after completion of the development in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals; and • decommissioning.

In terms of decommissioning, the Commission acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption, materials can be re-used and the site can be restored or put to a suitable new use. The Commission encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

The Commission recommends that these matters should be set out clearly in the ES and that the suitable time period for the assessment should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees.

The Commission considers that the duration of effects should use a standard terminology, which should be defined.

Baseline

The Commission recommends that the baseline should describe the position from which the impacts of the proposed development are measured. The baseline should be chosen carefully and, where possible, be consistent between topics.

The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although the Commission considers that care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date. The Commission recommends that the baseline environment should be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys. Wherever possible the baseline should be agreed with the appropriate consultees.

For each of the environmental topics, the data source(s) for the baseline should be set out together with any survey work undertaken with the dates.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Identification of Impacts and Method Statement

Legislation and Guidelines

In terms of the EIA methodology, the Commission recommends that reference should be made to best practice and any standards, guidelines and legislation that have been used to inform the assessment. This should include guidelines prepared by relevant professional bodies.

In terms of other regulatory regimes, the Commission recommends that relevant legislation and all permits and licences required should be listed in the ES where relevant to each topic. This information should also be submitted with the application in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 SI No. 2264.

In terms of assessing the impacts, the ES should approach all relevant planning and environmental policy – local, regional and national (and where appropriate international) – in a consistent manner.

Assessment of Effects and Impact Significance

The EIA Regs require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20). Therefore, the Commission considers it is imperative for the ES to define the meaning of ‘significant’ in the context of each of the specialist topics` and for significant impacts to be clearly identified.

The Commission recommends that the criteria should be set out fully and that the ES should set out clearly the interpretation of ‘significant’ in terms of each of the EIA topics. Quantitative criteria should be used where available. The Commission considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact interactions.

Potential Environmental Impacts

The Commission considers these under Section 3: the EIA Topic Areas of this opinion.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Impact Inter-actions/Combined Impacts

Multiple impacts on the same receptor should be taken into account. These occur where a number of separate impacts, eg. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.

The Commission considers that the combined effects of the development should be assessed and that details should be provided as to how interactions will be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole.

Cumulative Impacts

The ES should describe the baseline situation and the proposed development within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.

Other major development in the area should be identified beyond the proposal itself including all the associated development. The Commission recommends that this should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities on the basis of major developments that are:

Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and have been taken into account as part of the assessment.

Associated development

The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is associated with the proposed development site to ensure that all the impacts of the proposals are assessed.

The Commission recommends that the Applicant should distinguish between development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Alternatives

The ES must set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the Applicant and provide an indication of the main reasons for the Applicant’s choice, taking account of the environmental effect (Schedule 4 part 1 paragraph 18).

Matters should be included, such as inter alia alternative design options and alternative mitigation measures. The justification for the final choice and evolution of the scheme development should be made clear. Where other sites have been considered, the reasons for the final choice should be addressed.

The Commission advises that the ES should give sufficient attention to the alternative forms and locations for the off-site proposals, where appropriate, and justify the needs and choices made in terms of the form of the development proposed and the sites chosen.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures may fall into certain categories: namely avoid; reduce; compensate or enhance; and should be identified as such in the specialist sections (Schedule 4 part 1 paragraph 21). Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may benefit more than one topic area.

The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment should be taken into account as part of the assessment.

The application itself will need to demonstrate how the mitigation would be delivered, and only mitigation which can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the EIA.

It would be helpful if the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions proposed within the development consent order. This could be achieved by means of describing the mitigation measures proposed either in each of the specialist reports or collating these within a summary section on mitigation.

Trans-boundary Effects

The Commission recommends that consideration should be given in the ES to any likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State of the European Economic Area. In particular, the Commission recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and sea and to potential impacts on migratory species.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Presentation

The Commission recommends that all paragraphs in the ES should be numbered. This is for ease of reference. Appendices must be clearly referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered. All figures and drawings should be clearly referenced.

Cross References and Interactions

The Commission recommends that all the specialist topics in the ES should cross reference their text to other relevant disciplines. Interactions between the specialist topics are essential to the production of a robust assessment. The ES should not be a collection of separate specialist topics, but a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal and how these impacts can be mitigated.

As set out in EIA Regs Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 23, the ES should include an indication of any technical difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the Applicant in compiling the required information.

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms

The Commission recommends that a common terminology should be adopted. This will help to ensure consistency and ease of understanding for the decision making process. For example, ‘the site’ should be defined and used only in terms of this definition so as to avoid confusion with, for example, the wider site area or the surrounding site.

A glossary of technical terms should be included in the ES.

Summary Tables

The Commission recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the Applicant may wish to consider the use of tables to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation. This would include the EIA topics, combined and cumulative impacts.

A table setting out the mitigation measures proposed would assist the reader and the Commission recommends that this would also enable the Applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Order.

The ES should also demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this opinion and other responses to consultation. The Commission recommends that this may be most simply expressed in a table.

100819_EN0100028_202289

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references.

Non Technical Summary

The EIA Regs require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regs Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 22). This should be a summary of the assessment in simple language. It should be supported by appropriate figures, photographs and photomontages.

Consultation

The Commission recommends that any changes to the scheme design in response to consultation should be addressed in the ES.

It is recommended that the Applicant provides preliminary environmental information to the local authorities.

Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the Applicant intends to consult on the preliminary environmental information (this term is defined in the EIA Regs under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’). This preliminary information could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with s47 of the Planning Act, this could usefully assist the Applicant in the EIA process – for example the local community may be able to identify possible mitigation measures to address the impacts identified in the preliminary environmental information. Attention is drawn to the duty upon Applicants under s50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.

Environmental Management

The Commission advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan (EMMP) and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation.

100819_EN0100028_202289