SCOPING OPINION Proposed the Isles Wind Farm

SCOPING OPINION

Proposed The Isles Wind Farm

August 2012

DOCUMENT RELEASE FORM

Project Title The Isles Wind Farm Project Ref EN010041 Document Title Scoping Opinion Document Ref 120802_EN010041_1324358 Status Issue

Document Release We confirm the document is approved for issue Name Signature Date Frances Author Russell/Hannah Nelson Case Leader Susannah Guest Sheila EIA Lead Twidle/David Price

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS ...... 14

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION ...... 26

APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF CONSULTEES

APPENDIX 2 – RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES

APPENDIX 3 – PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the Scoping Opinion (the Opinion) provided by the Secretary of State in respect of the content of the Environmental Statement for the proposed ‘The Isles Wind Farm’, an onshore development located in County Durham.

This report sets out the Secretary of State’s opinion on the basis of the information provided in E.ON Climate and Renewables report entitled ‘The Isles Wind Farm – Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report’ (June 2012). The Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the Applicant.

The Secretary of State has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the topic areas 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 (as amended).

The Secretary of State draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topic areas in this Opinion. The main potential issues identified are

• Landscape and visual; • Hydrology and hydrogeology, and • Ground conditions; peat habitats. Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State (SoS). In this instance, the SoS agrees that the following can be scoped out:-

• Operational air quality; • Further ecological assessment of white-clawed crayfish; • A Driver Distraction Study; • Operational traffic impacts; • The impact of shadow flicker during construction and operational phases of the development, and • Electromagnetic inference during the construction and decommissioning phases of the development.

The Secretary of State notes the potential need to carry out an assessment under the Habitats Regulations1.

1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 On 22 June 2012, the Secretary of State (SoS) received a scoping report submitted by E.ON Climate and Renewables (the Applicant) under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed ‘The Isles Wind Farm’. This Scoping Opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the Applicant’s Scoping Report.

1.2 In an email dated 22 June 2011 addressed to the SoS, the Applicant formally notified the SoS under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed development. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the proposed development is determined to be EIA development. The EIA Regulations enable an applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the SoS to state in writing their formal opinion (a ‘scoping opinion’) on the information to be provided in the environmental statement (ES).

1.3 The proposed development is an onshore wind farm. It falls within the description of a Schedule 2 development under the EIA Regulations as being an infrastructure project within the Energy Industry. 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 Before adopting a scoping opinion the SoS must take into account:

(a) the specific characteristics of the particular development; (b) the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; and (c) environmental features likely to be affected by the development’. (EIA Regulation 8 (9))

1.5 This Opinion sets out what information the SoS considers should be included in the ES for the proposed development. The Opinion has taken account of:

i the EIA Regulations

ii the nature and scale of the proposed development

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

iii the nature of the receiving environment, and

iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental statements.

1.6 The SoS has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion). The matters addressed by the Applicant have been carefully considered and use has been made of professional judgement and experience in order to adopt this Opinion. It should be noted that when it comes to consider the ES, the SoS will take account of relevant legislation and guidelines (as appropriate). The SoS will not be precluded from requiring additional information if it is considered necessary in connection with the ES submitted with that application when considering the application for a development consent order (DCO).

1.7 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the SoS agrees with the information or comments provided by the Applicant in their request for an opinion from the SoS. In particular, comments from the SoS in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the SoS (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 (NSIP), or associated development, or development that does not require development consent.

1.8 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:

(a) ‘a plan sufficient to identify the land; (b) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; and (c) such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make’. (EIA Regulation 8 (3))

1.9 The SoS considers that this has been provided in the Applicant’s Scoping Report.

The Secretary of State’s Consultation

1.10 The SoS has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regulations to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is provided at Appendix 1. The list has been compiled by the SoS under their duty to notify the consultees in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(a). The Applicant should note that whilst the SoS’s list can inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

1.11 The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and whose comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is provided at Appendix 2 along with copies of their comments, to which the Applicant should refer in undertaking the EIA.

1.12 The ES submitted by the Applicant should demonstrate consideration of the points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation bodies and how they are, or are not, addressed in the ES.

1.13 Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments will not be taken into account within this Opinion. Late responses will be forwarded to the Applicant and will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. The Applicant should also give due consideration to those comments in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the Document

1.14 This Scoping Opinion is structured as follows:

Section 1 Introduction Section 2 The proposed development Section 3 EIA approach and topic areas Section 4 Other information.

The Scoping Opinion is accompanied by the following Appendices:

Appendix 1 List of consultees Appendix 2 Respondents to consultation and copies of replies Appendix 3 Presentation of the environmental statement.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the proposed development and its site and surroundings prepared by the Applicant and included in their Scoping Report. The information has not been verified and it has been assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the proposed development and the potential receptors/resources.

The Applicant’s Information

Overview of the Proposed Development

2.2 The Isles Wind Farm would consist of 24 wind turbines and associated infrastructure. The design of the wind farm put forward in the Scoping Report consists of two clusters of wind turbines: a northern cluster comprising 7 turbines; and a southern cluster comprising 17 turbines. The generation capacity of the wind farm would be 63.5MW.

2.3 The wind farm would be connected to the National Grid from two substations, one at High Grindon, and the second at Carrsides Farm.

Description of the site and surroundings

The Application Site

2.4 The Isles Wind Farm is located in County Durham, approximately 1.5km to the east of Newton Aycliffe. The A1(M) runs in a northeast/south-west direction through the site. The A167 forms part of the western site boundary and the A689 is aligned to the north of the site. The East Coast Mainline runs through the site. The land available for the development is stated as covering an area of 1193ha.

2.5 The Railway Stell West SSSI, designated due to the last remaining fragment of typical fenland habitat, is located within the site boundary.

2.6 There are five Grade II listed buildings within the site boundary; Sawn Carr Farmhouse, Great Isles Farmhouse, and the former chapel, stables and barns that surround Great Isles Farmhouse. In addition, a Grade II listed railway bridge is located on the south eastern limit of the site boundary.

2.7 The land use of the site is mainly agricultural and used for arable and pasture farming. Several farms lie within the site boundary.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Small areas of woodland are located on the site. The River Skerne, Rushyford Beck and Woodham Burn flow through the site. A network of drainage ditches is also present. A number of tracks, footpaths and bridleways are located within the site boundary.

The Surrounding Area

2.8 There are a number of small and medium sized settlements close to the site, including Chilton, Bradbury, Mordon, Woodham, Rushyford and Preston Le Skerne. The larger settlements within the wider area include Newton Aycliffe (1.5km to the west), Bishop Auckland (5km to the northwest), Darlington (5km to the south), Durham (13km to the north) and Stockton-on-Tees (7km to the east). All distances stated are approximate.

2.9 The Yorkshire Dales National Park lies 28km southwest of the site and the North York Moors National Park 26km to the southeast. The North Pennies AONB is situated 22km to the west of the site.

2.10 Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site is situated approximately 14km to the north of the site. The Durham Heritage Coast is located approximately 20km to the north east of the site. The Scoping Report identifies a number of Registered Parks and Gardens within a 35km radius of the site. The closest are Hardwick Park (3km to the northeast), and Windlestone Hall (3km to the northwest).

2.11 National Cycle Routes 1 and 14 are located within a 15km radius of the site.

2.12 Within a 5km radius of the site boundary there are 164 designated heritage assets: 5 Scheduled Monuments, 156 listed buildings and 3 gardens on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. Of the listed buildings, two are Grade I; St Edmunds Church and St Andrews Church, eight Grade II*; St John the Evangelist Church, St Michael and All Angels Church, Windlestone Hall and clock tower, Middridge Grange Farmhouse, the magistrates court house, Little Chilton Farmhouse and a gothic gatehouse to Hardwick Park, and 146 are Grade II.

2.13 The Deserted Medieval Village of Preston Le Skerne is located immediately to the west of the site. The Conservation Areas of Sedgefield, Hardwick Hall, Mordon, Aycliffe Village and Bishop Middleham are within a 5km radius of the site.

2.14 The Newton Ketton Meadows SSSI is located 2km to the south of the site. The Scoping Report does not identify any internationally designated sites. Four County Wildlife Sites are located with 5km of the site.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Description of the Proposed Development

2.15 The wind farm would consist of 24 turbines with a generation capacity of 63.5MW. The design of the wind farm put forward in the Scoping Report consists of two clusters of wind turbines; a northern cluster of 7 turbines measuring 126.5m to tip and a southern cluster of 17 turbines measuring 100m to tip. The Scoping Report states that the tip heights may alter by up to 3m as the design of the scheme evolves in line with the environmental assessments. The hub heights would be 80m for the northern cluster and 60m for the southern cluster.

2.16 A substation would be located near High Grindon and connected by inter-connecting cable under the East Coast Main Line and A1(M) to a second substation in the northern cluster near Carrsides Farm.

2.17 Section 2.2 of the Scoping Report outlines the permanent components of the proposed development:

• three site entrances and internal access tracks • concrete foundations • watercourse crossings • control buildings • substations and interconnecting cables • hardstanding and crane pads • underground cabling connecting the turbines to the onsite substations.

2.18 The temporary components would include:

• Construction compounds at each of the three access points to include storage areas and welfare facilities.

2.19 In addition, subject to a separate planning application made to Durham County Council, there would be two permanent free standing anemometer masts, up to a height of 80m and constructed in steel lattice on concrete plinths. The Scoping Report also states that an application will be submitted to the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) for the grid connection consent and therefore this element will not form part of the draft DCO.

Proposed Access

2.20 Three access points are proposed as part of the development:

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

• Western access: from the A167 turning east into Carrsides Farm • Northern access: south of Bradbury, entering to the west of the East Coast Main Line • Southern access: from Elstob Crossing, turning west from Elstob Lane towards High Grindon.

2.21 Internal access tracks would be constructed on the site. These would be semi-permeable and constructed in locally sourced aggregate.

2.22 It is currently proposed that the turbines would be delivered to South Teesside Port via boat and the remainder of the journey by road. Three access routes are outlined in Figure 11.1 in the Scoping Report, and illustrate a ‘Green route’ via the A66 to the southern access; a ‘Yellow route’ via Sedgefield and Bradbury on the A689 to the northern access; and a ‘Yellow/blue route’ via the A689 and the A167 to the western access.

Construction

2.23 The Construction Programme is illustrated in Table 2.3 of the Scoping Report and is anticipated to last 12 months, taking into account of seasonal constraints

2.24 The construction of the development would involve a number of vehicles including HGV’s, abnormal load vehicles, cranes and cars for personnel movement.

2.25 The Scoping Report does not provide comprehensive details on the proposed construction methods of the development, although some details are set out within the Report:

• The materials that will be delivered to the site to construct the wind farm would include, inter alia, aggregate, geogrid, sand, cabling, formwork and reinforcing steel and concrete. • The construction vehicles would include HGV’s, LGV’s, cranes and personnel transport. • Construction activities are expected 07:00-19:00 on Mondays to Fridays; and 7:00-16:00 on Saturdays. Work outside these hours may be required to meet specific requirements. Operation and Maintenance

2.26 The Scoping Report states that consent will be sought for an operational period of 25 years.

2.27 No details of have been provided as to the activities or maintenance that will be required on site during the operational period of the development.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Decommissioning

2.28 The Scoping Report states that following the expiration of the operational consent, it is currently anticipated that all of the structures above ground and those underground within 1 metre of the surface would be removed and the land restored.

2.29 The Scoping Report states that two further options for decommissioning will be subject to further investigation:

• an application could be made to extend the operational life of the site using the existing equipment. • an application could be made to replace the existing equipment with new equipment. Alternatives

2.30 The Scoping Report states that alternatives are currently being considered for the following elements of the development:

• location of the turbines within the boundary • turbine parameters, such as rotor diameter, rating and tip height • location of permanent anemometer masts • design of water course crossings • positioning of access tracks • mitigation and enhancement options.

2.31 It is stated that justification for the final scheme will be presented within the ES. The Scoping Report indicates, at section 2.2, that the applicants are likely to define a micrositing request within the ES to allow for some flexibility in micro-siting of elements of the proposed wind farm after its consent and during its construction.

2.32 NPS-3 states that whilst it is for the applicant to specify the level of tolerance they are seeking, a tolerance of between 30m and 50m of elements of the required infrastructure is typical. However, there may be some circumstances where the SoS considers that the micrositing tolerance requested by the applicant is too great, and that on the evidence of the ES and its own assessment of the proposal, it is necessary to restrict either the overall tolerance for the scheme or the tolerance of specific elements of the proposal. The ES should therefore set out reasons for requesting the micrositing tolerance so that the SoS can take these into account when considering an application for a DCO.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

The Secretary of State’s Comments

Description of the Application Site and Surrounding Area

2.33 The SoS would expect the ES to include a section that summarises the site and surroundings and this would be in addition to detailed baseline information provided within topic specific chapters of the ES. This would provide the context of the proposed development, any relevant designations and sensitive receptors. This section should identify land that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development and any associated auxiliary facilities, landscaping areas and potential off site mitigation or compensation schemes.

2.34 Section 1.4 of the Scoping Report states that 1193ha of land ‘is available for development’. It is unclear whether this is the area of land within the red line boundary shown on Figure 1.2. Clarification of this should be provided within the ES.

2.35 The description of the application site and the surrounding area is supported in the Scoping Report by Figure 2.3 which illustrates the environmental constraints. A significant amount of the proposed site and surroundings is obscured by the Key. The land identified on the Figure focuses too closely on the proposed development area and does not illustrate the surrounding area. It is recommended that presentation of this Figure should be amended to ensure that the full extent of the proposed development site and constraints study area is visible. Please note that this may require the production of more than one Figure.

Description of the Proposed Development

2.36 The Applicant states within the Scoping Report that Stage 2 Consultation is currently ongoing, and reference is made to the consideration of alternatives as set out in Section 2.9. It is accepted that as a result of the ongoing consultation, the description of the proposal, the number of turbines and the layout of the site will evolve. The SoS notes the provision of turbine grid references at this pre-application stage and welcomes the intent to provide the same or higher level of detail within the ES for the eventual position of the turbines to be proposed within the DCO.

2.37 If a draft DCO is to be submitted, the Applicant should clearly define what elements of the proposed development are integral to the NSIP and which is ‘associated development’ under the Planning Act 2008 or is an ancillary matter. The Scoping Report states that a full description of the project’s elements will be provided within the ES.

2.38 Any proposed works and/or infrastructure required as associated development, or as an ancillary matter, (whether on or off-site)

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

should be considered as part of an integrated approach to environmental assessment. The temporary anemometer masts referred to in Section 2.3 which are subject to an application to Durham County Council must be assessed within the EIA.

2.39 The Scoping Report provides details on the anticipated height and dimensions of the turbines and permanent anemometer masts. Figure 2.2 shows the layout of the wind farm. Details of the dimensions of the foundation bases, crane hardstanding pads, compound areas or substation buildings should be included in the ES. Figure 2.2 illustrates the indicative location of the cable burial to facilitate the grid connection. The ES needs to describe all of the details of the development including the depth and methods of cable burial.

2.40 The location of the cables forming the DNO grid connection is provided in Figure 2.2. The Scoping Report states that the consent for the grid connection does not form part of the DCO but a desktop appraisal of constraints will be carried out for the cable corridor (Section 2.7). The SoS welcomes the approach that the ES would assess the cumulative impact of the grid connection with the proposed development. The assessment of the grid connection should be carried out making use of the most up to date information available.

2.41 The SoS recommends that the ES should include a clear description of all aspects of the proposed development, at the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, and include:

• Land use requirements • Site preparation and enabling works • Construction activities, processes and methods • Transport routes, within and outside of the site boundary • Operational requirements including the main characteristics of the production process and the nature and quantity of materials used, as well as any waste arising and methods of disposal • Maintenance activities including any potential environmental impacts • Emissions - water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation.

Flexibility

2.42 The SoS notes the comments in Section 2.2.1 that a more detailed project description will be provided within the Environmental Statement following the culmination of the design and environmental studies. The SoS welcomes that the proposals are

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

to be firmed up during the pre-application stages but encourages the description to be as accurate and firm as possible so that its environmental impact can be more accurately assessed.

2.43 It should be noted that if the proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to application submission, the Applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new Scoping Opinion.

Grid Connection

2.44 The Scoping Report states that an application will be submitted to the DNO for the grid connection consent and therefore this element will not form part of the draft DCO (Section 2.7).

2.45 The Scoping Report states that a high level overview of the grid connection corridor will be included in the ES, comprising a desktop appraisal of constraints. The assessment of the environmental impacts as a result of the grid connection should be comprehensive and based on the most up to date information available. If the assessment identifies significant constraints, further survey work should be programmed to ensure a full investigation of the impacts is carried out. It will be necessary to ensure that potential environmental impacts of the grid connection and potential cumulative impacts with the wind farm development are investigated. The ES should also outline the alternative connection points and cable routes that have been considered. It should also explain the reasons for the preferred option taking into account the environmental effects.

Proposed Access

2.46 The routes of the internal access roads are provided in Figure 2.2 and the ES should detail the dimensions and construction of these roads. It is stated that water course crossings would need to be constructed to allow access over water bodies on the site. Details of the design and construction methods of these crossings should be provided within the ES

Construction

2.47 The Scoping Report includes a construction timetable (Table 2.3) and anticipates a construction period of 12 months.

2.48 Section 2.4 of the Scoping Report provides limited details regarding the construction of the wind farm. Detailed information on the construction activities should be provided in the ES to enable a robust assessment of the potential environmental impacts. In accordance with best practice the Applicant should provide a draft Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) as part of the ES.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

2.49 The ES must consider how the site will be set up, including details of the construction of the site entrances and any initial road improvement works that will be required to facilitate the movement of the vehicles involved in the development. The ES must consider the siting of construction compounds (including on and off site), lighting equipment/requirements, parking considerations, and if applicable, the removal of the compounds following the construction of the development.

2.50 The ES must describe how each the wind farm elements will be constructed, both above and below ground. This will include the construction of the compound areas, internal access tracks and water crossings, crane pads and hardstanding areas, turbine foundations, cable burial and substation development.

2.51 The construction programme should clearly set out the number of anticipated traffic movements as well as the parking arrangements for construction vehicles and personnel involved within each phase of the construction programme. The number of workers and the hours of work should also be confirmed in the ES.

2.52 The SoS advises that the ES should identify the type and quantity of construction waste that would be produced as a result of the development, and how this would be disposed of. The environmental effects of all wastes to be processed and removed from the site should be addressed. The ES will need to identify and describe the control processes and mitigation procedures for storing and transporting waste off site. All waste types should be quantified and classified.

Operation and Maintenance

2.53 Information on the operation and maintenance of the proposed development should be included in the ES and should cover but not be limited to such matters as: the number of full/part-time jobs; the operational hours and if appropriate, shift patterns; the number and types of vehicle movements generated during the operational stage.

Decommissioning

2.54 Section 2.8 of the Scoping Report briefly outlines the main elements of the decommissioning process. It is acknowledged 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. The SoS welcomes that the processes and methods of decommissioning will be considered within the ES.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Alternatives

2.55 The SoS welcomes the Applicants approach to the consideration of alternatives as part of the iterative EIA process as detailed in Section 2.9 and expects that a clear justification of the design of the final scheme and turbine locations proposed to be presented in the ES.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS

Introduction

3.1 This section contains the SoS’s specific comments on the approach to the ES and topic areas as set out in the Scoping Report. General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided at Appendix 3 of this Scoping Opinion and should be read in conjunction with this Section.

3.2 Applicants are advised that the scope of the DCO application should be clearly addressed and assessed consistently within the ES.

ES Approach

3.3 The information provided in the Scoping Report sets out the proposed approach to the preparation of the ES. Whilst early engagement on the scope of the ES is to be welcomed, the SoS notes that the level of information provided at this stage is not always sufficient to allow for detailed comments from either the SoS or the consultees.

3.4 The SoS would suggest that the Applicant ensures that appropriate consultation is undertaken with the relevant consultees in order to agree wherever possible the timing and relevance of survey work as well as the methodologies to be used. The SoS notes and welcomes the intention to finalise the scope of investigations in conjunction with ongoing stakeholder liaison and consultation with the relevant regulatory authorities and their advisors.

3.5 The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under each of the environmental topics 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. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

3.6 The SoS advises that when assessing potential impacts, a worst case scenario should be used to ensure the full extent of the environmental impacts is examined.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Matters to be Scoped Out

3.7 The Applicant has identified in the relevant sections of the Scoping Report the matters proposed to be ‘scoped out’. These include:

• construction air quality • operational air quality • construction noise impacts • road traffic noise (construction, operation and decommissioning) • amplitude modulation of aerodynamic noise (AM) • low frequency noise • ecological assessment of reptiles, dormouse, odonata species (moths, butterflies and dragonflies), white clawed crayfish • tidal flooding • groundwater flooding • Water Framework Directive (WFD) compatibility appraisal during construction • operational traffic • Driver Distraction Study • shadow flicker during construction and decommissioning • electromagnetic interference during construction and decommissioning • air safeguarding issues during construction and decommissioning.

3.8 The Applicant also provides no details of a methodology for the assessment of vibration, despite the heading of section 5 of the Scoping Report. It appears that no assessment of vibration impacts is intended.

3.9 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the SoS. The SoS agrees that the following matters can be scoped out:

• Operational air quality can be scoped out of the ES as it is acknowledged that operational turbines do not give rise to direct emissions into the atmosphere, and it is anticipated that low numbers of vehicle movements would be involved in the maintenance of the wind farm and therefore vehicle emissions would remain at a low level. • Based on the previous survey results, no further ecological assessment of white-clawed crayfish is required.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

• Operational traffic impacts including traffic noise can be scoped out of the ES because it is anticipated that low numbers of vehicle movements would be involved in the maintenance of the wind farm during its operation. • A Driver Distraction Study can be scoped out of the ES as the Highways Agency has confirmed that the layout proposed does not pose a risk of driver distraction. • The impact of shadow flicker during construction and operation can be scoped out of the ES as the turbines would not be turning during these periods. • Electromagnetic inference during the construction and decommissioning phases of the development can be scoped out of the ES as the turbines would not be generating electricity during these periods.

3.10 If topics are scoped out prior to submission of the DCO application the ES should still explain the reasoning and justify the approach taken, in order to demonstrate that topics have not simply been overlooked.

3.11 For the avoidance of doubt, the following matters are not scoped out, as insufficient information has been provided in the Scoping Report, or survey information already provided requires updating:-

• air quality impacts including dust during construction and decommissioning • construction noise • road traffic noise during construction and decommissioning • amplitude modulation of aerodynamic noise (AM) • low frequency noise • vibration impacts during construction • ecological assessment of reptiles, dormouse and odonata species (moths, butterflies and dragonflies) • tidal flooding • groundwater flooding • WFD compatibility appraisal during construction • air safeguarding issues during construction and decommissioning.

ES Structure

3.12 Section 1.9 of the Scoping Report outlines the proposed structure of the ES. It is stated that a chapter for each EIA topic proposed within the Scoping Report will be included within the ES. This should be expanded to include Air Quality.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

3.13 The SoS recommends that the ES should also include a description of the proposed construction programme and methods within the Description of the Development.

Topic Areas

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (see Scoping Report Section 4)

3.14 The SoS welcomes the inclusion of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) carried out to a radius of 35km (Section 4.4) to aid in the production of a baseline for landscape and visual assessment. The SoS advises that the ES should describe the model used, provide information on the area covered and the timing of any survey work. The study area should be agreed with the relevant authority(ies). The SoS notes that further ZTVs may be required to identify areas in which cumulative visual impacts with other wind turbine developments in the area may be experienced.

3.15 All parameters, including the assumptions for the number and height of turbines used in the assessment should be clearly detailed and justified.

3.16 The ES should consider the visual impact of the development on residential receptors, providing a map to illustrate where the key residential viewpoints (individual properties and settlements) are, and an assessment of the visual impact.

3.17 The list of visual receptors for inclusion in the assessment (Section 4.1.3) should be expanded to include consideration of public rights of way in the area, including long distance paths and recreational routes. The SoS considers that the consideration of views from beyond the 15km radius proposed should be included where sensitive receptors may be affected, including, for example, views from within the North Pennies AONB, the North York Moors National Park and the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and any views form the Durham Heritage Coast.

3.18 The SoS advises that the list of viewpoints should be agreed in liaison with local planning authorities in the area including Durham County Council. Whilst the settings of cultural heritage assets should be considered in the cultural heritage assessment, the landscape and visual assessment should include consideration of the impact to views from Registered Parks and Gardens.

3.19 Consideration should be given in the assessment to both day and night time views, including the impact of any lighting.

3.20 Appropriate use of photomontages will help illustrate the views prior to development, upon completion and at an agreed future date where mitigation measures are fully established. Photos,

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

photomontages and wireframes should be presented in a clear and readable format that includes clear points of reference to allow the reader to identify and fully understand the potential effect of the proposed development. The locations and the timing of photographs and visualisations should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and should enable an assessment of the worst case scenario.

3.21 The Durham Carrs has been recognised as an important local landscape and careful consideration must be given to how the proposed development will impact upon this particular landscape character area.

3.22 The Scoping Report refers to a ‘cut off date’ (Section 4.4.5) to be agreed with Durham County Council for the inclusion of wind farm sites and layouts as part of the cumulative impact assessment. The SoS draws the Applicants attention to Appendix 3 which provides detail of the expected scope of the cumulative impact assessment.

3.23 The Applicants attention is drawn to the scoping response received from Natural England at Appendix 2

Noise and Vibration (see Scoping Report Section 5)

3.24 The background noise levels forming the environmental baseline were previously recorded in 2007 – 2008. The Scoping Report states that additional noise monitoring will be carried out at representative locations to supplement previously measured data. The SoS welcomes the Applicant’s intention to provide up to date survey results within the ES to ensure an accurate baseline is used within the assessment.

3.25 Information should be provided on the types of vehicles and plant to be used, and construction methods, including the requirement for any piling, during the construction phase. Once operational, noise sources generated should be identified and assessed. Where appropriate, effective measures should be provided to mitigate against noise nuisance.

3.26 Within the proposed assessment methodology (Section 5.5), it is not described how vibration impacts will be assessed. The presence and extent of vibration disturbance cannot be comprehensively assessed until the types of construction methods are finalised in the design process. The ES must describe how vibration will be assessed during the construction period and the potential environmental impacts it may cause to sensitive receptors.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

3.27 The ES should clearly describe how the significance of the noise and vibration impacts will be determined, in accordance with the stated methodology.

3.28 Noise and vibration impacts on people should be specifically addressed, including any potential noise disturbance at night and other unsocial hours such as weekends and public holidays. A plan showing the nearest residential properties, settlements and other noise sensitive receptors, including the location of the noise monitors should be provided within the ES.

3.29 The SoS welcomes that a site contact will be appointed to deal with noise complaints (Section 5.4.1). In addition to this, the ES should include a protocol of how noise and vibration complaints will be investigated. The SoS expects that such details would be included within a draft Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), to be submitted with the DCO application.

3.30 When considering cumulative noise impacts, the assessment should consider all forms of proposed development, not just wind farms.

3.31 Cross reference should be made to the traffic and transport, ecology and ornithology sections.

Ecology (see Scoping Report Section 6)

3.32 The SoS draws the Applicants attention to the comments made by Natural England (Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion).

3.33 The SoS agrees that updated ecological surveys will be required to complement those carried out since 2008, including habitat and protected species surveys (Section 6.2.2). All survey work should be agreed with Natural England and carried out in accordance with appropriate methods and guidance. The ES should demonstrate that the full extent of the site has been covered.

3.34 As stated above, the survey work should include an assessment of the presence of reptiles, dormouse and odonata species on the site unless detailed justification can be provided for their exclusion. Whilst the habitat conditions are not optimal, reptiles are protected species and therefore all efforts should be made to ensure no adverse impacts would occur as a result of the proposal. Survey work should also include amphibians, otter and water vole, given the nature of the site and the presence of watercourses / waterbodies.

3.35 The assessment methodology, including criteria for determining impact significance, should be agreed with Natural England and should be in accordance with established methods and best practice.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

3.36 The potential impacts on international and nationally designated sites should be addressed as well as county level habitats. Careful consideration should be given to the potential impacts upon the Railway Stell West SSSI which is located within the site boundary.

3.37 The assessment should take account of impacts caused by noise, vibration and air quality (including dust) receptors, and cross reference should be made to these sections.

3.38 The SoS recommends that the proposals should address fully the needs of protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The assessment should cover habitats, species and processes within the site and its surroundings, and take account of other development proposed in the vicinity, including the potential wetland restoration project on the Durham Carrs. The ES must demonstrate how the proposal could impact upon this area of potential ecological enhancement.

Ornithology (see Scoping Report Section 7)

3.39 It is noted that an extensive range of ornithological studies have been carried out over various parts of the site as the application boundary and site layout has evolved through the design process. The SoS is pleased to note that further survey work (listed in section 7.5.1) is currently in progress to ensure that an up to date baseline covering the whole extent of the site is established.

3.40 It is noted that there are sites designated under European legislation within the wider study area and the Applicant should consider the need for an Appropriate Assessment should survey results show the proposed development may have a likely significant effect on the conservation objectives of the sites.

Hydrology (see Scoping Report Section 8)

3.41 The proposed assessment methodology within the Scoping Report is not clearly or comprehensively described and Table 8.2 provides an inconclusive summary of the assessment details. The ES must clearly set out how the hydrological and hydrogeological surveys will be carried out and how potential impacts will be assessed, including reference to stated significance criteria.

3.42 The ES should comprehensively assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on local water resources. Any DCO application should be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment prepared in accordance with current guidelines, the methodology for which should be agreed with the Environment Agency. Climate change should be taken into account where appropriate.

3.43 Figure 2.2 illustrates that a number of water crossings would be built as part of the development. The design of the water crossings will need to be confirmed in the ES to enable the assessment of

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

potentially significant environmental effects relating, but not necessarily confined to hydrology and ecology. The ES must clearly describe the design and construction methods of the water crossings. The SoS welcomes the use of hydraulic modelling to examine the potential impacts on introducing these structures into the hydrological environment. The SoS recommends that the Applicant should liaise with the Environment Agency in the development of appropriate design solutions.

3.44 If it is necessary to install a drainage system as part of the development, the ES should assess the environmental impact during construction, operation and decommissioning. The ES should detail the location, design and construction methods of the drainage system and the impacts it will have on the existing hydrology of the site.

3.45 Potential impacts on the public sewer network should be addressed, including the need to address easements and impacts arising from vibration during the construction works.

3.46 The impact of hydrological change on Railway Stell West SSSI should be included within the hydrological assessment, and cross reference should be made within the ecological assessment where appropriate.

3.47 The ES must consider the potential impact of waste/substances discharging into water courses and ground water and detail any necessary mitigation measures. The Applicants attention is drawn to the Health Protection Agency’s comments within Appendix 2.

3.48 The ES should consider the impact of the development upon the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and ensure that appropriate mitigation is proposed during construction and operation to meet such objectives.

3.49 Mitigation measures should be addressed and the SoS advises that reference should be made to other regimes (such as Pollution Prevention Guidelines published by the EA). On-going monitoring should also be addressed and agreed with the relevant authorities to ensure that any mitigation measures are effective.

3.50 The SoS agrees that the ES should consider the cumulative effect of this development in combination with other development proposed within the area that has a potential to impact upon watercourses should be included within the assessment.

3.51 The ES should consider the interrelationships with other related topic areas, including ground conditions, hydrogeology, ecology and ornithology.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Ground conditions and hydrogeology (see Scoping Report Section 9)

3.52 The ES should provide a robust assessment of the impacts the development may have on the ground conditions at the site during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. This should extend to all of the wind farm components listed in Section 9.3.

3.53 Any surveys conducted for the purpose of the ground conditions section should consider the requirements of the archaeological assessment in the design of the survey methodology in order that the survey could meet the multiple purposes of the different environmental topic assessments. Constraints posed by existing below ground archaeological remains should also be taken into account in the design of any intrusive ground investigation.

3.54 It is noted within the Scoping Report that peat is present in the study area and therefore the impact of the development on of this important resource should be comprehensively assessed. The extent of the survey work should be agreed in liaison with Natural England and the Environment Agency.

3.55 The ES should identify the volume and quality of any peat likely to be affected, and should assess potential impacts on peat depth, peat erosion and changes in the hydrological conditions within the peat area in the short and long term. In defining the study area consideration should be given to potential direct effects through loss and disturbance and indirect effects through alterations to hydrogeological conditions.

3.56 The ES should describe the design and construction methods for turbine foundations, and should identify any requirement for drainage ditches and dewatering which may be required taking into account the ground conditions on the site.

3.57 Specific design solutions may be required to create stable foundations, access tracks, water crossings, compound areas and crane hardstanding pads. The ES should consider how these elements will be constructed and the impact this will have on the soil structure beneath.

3.58 The ES must state what will happen to the soil resources extracted as part of the construction of the wind farm. If they are to be removed from the site, this should be reflected within the traffic and transport assessment. If the soil is to be kept on site to aid the restoration following decommissioning, the ES must consider how they will be stockpiled and maintained to protect its quality.

3.59 Where changes in surface water flows are identified in the Hydrology assessment the impact on the peat resource in terms of

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

scour, erosion and hydrological conditions should be considered in the ground conditions section of the ES.

3.60 Cross reference should be made with the hydrology and archaeological aspects of the cultural heritage section.

Cultural Heritage (see Scoping Report Section 10)

3.61 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments made by English Heritage with regard to cultural heritage (see Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion).

3.62 The Scoping Report states that at present, the only archaeological assessment that will be carried out is desk based yet will be extended to field evaluation if deemed necessary. As described by English Heritage in their consultation response, there are sensitive elements of the site that may require a more detailed investigation to carry out a complete assessment of the impact to the archaeological resource.

3.63 The Applicant should agree the assessment methodology including the study area with the Durham County Archaeologist and English Heritage to ensure an appropriate level of assessment is carried out. Detailed methodologies, assessment and mitigation should be provided within the ES. The impact to the settings of cultural heritage assets should be comprehensively assessed.

3.64 Given the presence of peat on site the potential for archaeological preservation is high and therefore a thorough investigation of such assets is required.

3.65 The Scoping Report proposes that underground cabling will be used to connect the wind farm to the National Grid. A thorough investigation of the archaeological impacts as a result of the cabling works should be carried out.

Traffic, Transport and Access (see Scoping Report Section 11)

3.66 The SoS welcomes the development of the methodology for the assessment of transport impacts in liaison with the local highways authority and the Highways Agency, in relation to strategic roads.

3.67 It is stated within Table 11.2 that estimates of vehicle numbers generated by the development will be provided within the ES and care should be taken to accurately produce these information, which should state % HGVs and Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AILs). This should state assumptions as to the percentage of vehicles expected to use each access route and site entrance to allow for a clear illustration of the impact on the roads and settlements on each of the specified access routes.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

3.68 The proposed access routes as identified in Figure 11.1 should be carefully assessed to examine their capabilities of coping with the increase in traffic movements and the movement of HGV’s and abnormal loads. This should include an assessment of the movement of AILs and the capability of the existing road network to accommodate such movements. Where it is proposed to remove trees, hedgerows and other vegetation to allow abnormal load access, an assessment of the ecological and landscape impacts should be provided.

3.69 The ES must consider how the cables will be installed underneath roads, with particular reference to the A1 Motorway and the East Coast main line to ensure the integrity of these transport routes is maintained.

3.70 The Scoping Report states that data on road traffic accidents will be gathered and used to identify areas on the access routes where patterns of accidents are prevalent. The ES should describe methods that will implemented to mitigate against road traffic accidents.

Electromagnetic Interference, Air Safeguarding Issues and Shadow Flicker (see Scoping Report Section 12)

3.71 The SoS draws the Applicants attention to the comments made by the Health Protection Agency within Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion with reference to electromagnetic radiation,

3.72 The SoS draws the Applicants attention to comments made by NATS in relation to impacts on aviation interests which are contained at Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion. The ES should consider the impact of the development upon air safeguarding interests and NATS infrastructure.

3.73 With regard to electrical connections and safety, please refer to the Health and Safety Executives comments in Appendix 2.

3.74 The ES should identify on a plan properties that may have the potential to be affected by shadow flicker. The ES should consider the potential health impacts of shadow flicker, how the Applicant intends to mitigate against this, and outline a protocol for dealing with complaints relating to this.

Socio-economics (see Scoping Report Section 13)

3.75 The ES should carefully consider the impact upon the tourism economy, initially identifying key tourism locations within a local and regional context that could be impacted upon by the development and looking at the potential effects during construction, operation and decommissioning.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

3.76 The SoS recommends that the types of jobs generated should be considered in the context of the available workforce in the area, this applies equally to the construction and operational stages.

3.77 The SoS recommends that the ES should take account of the location of footpaths and any public rights of way (PROW) including bridleways and byways. The ES should clearly set out impacts on them including within the wider area.

3.78 A sentence relating to the proposed assessment methodology is written within ‘aspects to be scoped out of the assessment’ in Table 13.3 of the Scoping Report. It is assumed that this is an error and this text should be placed within the ‘summary of details’ section above. It is therefore assumed that no aspects are proposed to be scoped out of this section.

Air Quality and Dust

3.79 The Scoping Report proposed that construction and operational air quality should be scoped out of the ES. As discussed earlier, an assessment of impacts to air quality during construction should be included in the ES whilst the assessment of air quality during the operational period can be omitted. .

3.80 The ES must consider effects relating to potential airborne pollution including fugitive dust especially during site preparation, construction and decommissioning. The assessment should include an examination of the impacts upon residents within the local area. The ES should provide mitigation measures including a dust management plan to show how any air quality impacts will be mitigated against, and how dust complaints would be monitored.

3.81 The assessment should take account of the potential air emissions from vehicular movements that would be associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposal.

3.82 The ES should identify whether any Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) are located within the vicinity of the site or along the access routes, and assess how the proposal may impact upon the protection of these areas. The SoS considers that adverse change to air quality should be assessed in relation to compliance with European air quality limit values and AQMAs.

3.83 Cross reference should be made to the ecology and ornithology sections of this report as appropriate.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION

4.1 This section does not form part of the SoS’s opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. However, it does respond to other issues that the SoS has identified which may help to inform the preparation of the application for the DCO.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

4.2 The SoS notes that birds forming part of coastal and upland SPA designated populations may be affected by the proposed development. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to the Competent Authority (CA) to enable them to carry out a HRA if required. The Applicant should note that the CA is the SoS.

4.3 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (The APFP Regulations) and the need to include information identifying European sites to which the Habitats Regulations applies or any Ramsar site or potential SPA which may be affected by a proposal. The submitted information should be sufficient for the competent authority to make an appropriate assessment (AA) of the implications for the site if required by Regulation 61(1) of the Habitats Regulations.

4.4 The report to be submitted under Regulation 5(2)(g) of the APFP Regulations with the application must deal with two issues: the first is to enable a formal assessment by the CA of whether there is a likely significant effect; and the second, should it be required, is to enable the carrying out of an AA by the CA.

4.5 When considering aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed development; including 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.

4.6 Further information with regard to the HRA process is contained within Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10 available on the National Infrastructure Planning’s website.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

4.7 The SoS notes that a number of SSSIs are located close to or within the proposed development. Where there may be potential impacts on the SSSIs, the SoS has duties under sections 28(G) and 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the W&C Act). These are set out below for information.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

4.8 Under s28(G), the SoS has a general duty ‘… to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest’.

4.9 Under s28(I), the SoS must notify the relevant nature conservation body (NCB), Natural England in this case, before authorising the carrying out of operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. Under these circumstances 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent, and the SoS must take account of any advice received from the NCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. The NCB will be notified during the examination period.

4.10 If applicants consider it likely that notification may be necessary under s28(I), they are advised to resolve any issues with the NCB before the DCO application is submitted to the SoS. If, following assessment by applicants, it is considered that operations affecting the SSSI will not lead to damage of the special interest features, applicants should make this clear in the ES. The application documents submitted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(l) could also provide this information. Applicants should seek to agree with NE the DCO requirements which will provide protection for the SSSI before the DCO application is submitted.

European Protected Species (EPS)

4.11 The Applicant should also be aware that the decision maker under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has, as the CA, a duty to engage with the Habitats Directive.

4.12 The SoS considers that there is potential for the presence of EPS within the study area for the proposed development. Where a potential risk to an EPS is identified and before making a decision to grant development consent the CA must, amongst other things, address the derogation tests in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations. Therefore the Applicant may wish to provide information which will assist the decision maker to meet this duty. Where required the Applicant should, in consultation with Natural England, agree appropriate requirements to secure necessary mitigation.

4.13 If the Applicant has concluded (in consultation with Natural England) that an EPS licence is required the SoS will need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. It would assist the examination if the Applicant could provide with the application confirmation from NE whether they intend to issue the licence in due course.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

Health Impact Assessment

4.14 The SoS considers that it is a matter for the Applicant to decide whether or not to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment (HIA). However, the Applicant should have regard to the responses received from the relevant consultees regarding health, and in particular to the comments from the Health and Safety Executive in relation to electrical safety issues (see Appendix 2).

4.15 The methodology for the HIA, if prepared, should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.

Other regulatory regimes

4.16 The SoS recommends that the Applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES and that 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 ES.

4.17 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 PA 2008, the SoS will require a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the proposal is acceptable and likely to be approved, before they make a recommendation or decision on an application. The Applicant is encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from the Applicant about progress in obtaining other permits, licences or consents, including any confirmation that there is no obvious reason why these will not subsequently be granted, will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the SoS.

Transboundary Impacts

4.18 The Scoping Report does not consider whether the proposal is likely to have significant impacts on another European State.

4.19 Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations, which inter alia require the SoS to publicise a DCO application if the SoS is of the view that the proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another EEA state and where relevant to consult with the EEA state affected. The SoS considers that where Regulation 24

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm

applies, this is likely to have implications for the examination of a DCO application.

4.20 The Applicant should provide to the SoS as soon as possible any additional available information about potential significant transboundary effects and identify the affected state(s). In order to ensure the efficient and effective examination of applications within the statutory timetable under Section 98 of the Planning Act, it is important that this information is made available at the earliest opportunity to facilitate timely consultations, if required, with other EEA States in accordance with Regulation 24.

4.21 The ES will also need to address this matter in each topic area and summarise the position on trans-boundary effects of the proposed development, taking into account inter-relationships between any impacts in each topic area.

120802_EN010041_1324358_Scoping Opinion_issue

APPENDIX 1 List of Consultees

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION The Health and Safety Health and Safety Executive Executive The relevant Strategic NHS North of England Health Authority Natural England Natural England The Historic Buildings English Heritage and Monuments Commission for England The relevant fire and Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue rescue authority Service Cleveland Fire and Rescue Service The relevant police Durham Police Authority authority Cleveland Police Authority The relevant Parish Bishop Middleham Parish Council Council Bishopton Parish Council Bradbury and the Isle Parish Council Brafferton Parish Council Chiltern Town Council Coatham Munderville Parish Council Eldon Parish Council Ferryhill Town Council Great Aycliffe Town Council Great Stainton Parish Council Heighington Parish Council Middridge Parish Council Mordon Parish Council Sedgefield Town Council Spennymoor Town Council Stillington and Whitton Parish Council Windlestone Parish Council The Environment The Environment Agency Agency The Commission for CABE at Design Council Architecture and the Built Environment The Equality and Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission Commission The Homes and HCA Communities Agency The Commission for The Commission for Rural Communities Rural Communities The Civil Aviation Civil Aviation Authority Authority

Appendix 1

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION The Highways Agency The Highways Agency The relevant Highways Durham County Council Authority The Rail Passengers Rail Passenger Council Council The Disabled Persons DPTAC Transport Advisory Committee The Coal Authority The Coal Authority The Office of Rail Office of Rail Regulation Regulation Approved Operator Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd The Gas and Electricity OFGEM Markets Authority The Water Services OFWAT Regulation Authority The Relevant Waste Environment Agency Regulation Authority The British Waterways The British Waterways Board Board The Health Protection The Health Protection Agency Agency The Relevant Local County Durham and Darlington LRF Resilience Forum Relevant Statutory Undertakers Health Bodies (s.16 of the Acquisition of Land Act (ALA) 1981) Primary Care Trust NHS County Durham (PCT) NHS Darlington NHS Stockton on Tees NHS Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust Tees, Esk and Wear Valley County Durham and Darlington South Tees Hospitals City Hospitals Sunderland Ambulance Trusts North East Ambulance Service Relevant Statutory Undertakers (s.8 ALA 1981) Railways BRB Residuary Limited Universal Service Royal Mail Group Provider Licence Holder (Chapter NATS en Route plc 1 of Part 1 of Transport Act 2000) Water and Sewage Hartlepool Water Undertakers Northumbrian Water Public Gas Transports British Gas Pipelines Ltd Energetics Gas Ltd

Appendix 1

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd ESP Pipelines Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited GTC Pipelines Limited Independent Pipelines Limited LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited National Grid Gas Plc Northern Gas Networks Limited Quadrant Pipelines Limited Scotland Gas Networks Plc Southern Gas Networks Plc SSE Pipelines Ltd The Gas Transportation Company Limited Utility Grid Installations Limited Wales and West Utilities Limited Electricity Licence Energetics Electricity Limited Holders having CPO ESP Electricity Limited Powers Independent Power Networks Limited Northern Powergrid (North East) Ltd The Electricity Network Company Limited Electricity Transmitters National Grid Gas plc with CPO Powers The Crown Estate The Crown Estate Commissioners The Forestry The Forestry Commission – North East Commission Local Authorities (s.43) Cumbria County Council Darlington Borough Council Durham County Council Eden District Council Gateshead Metropolitan District Council Hartlepool Borough Council North Yorkshire County Council Northumberland County Council Richmondshire District Council Stockton on Tees Borough Council Sunderland City Council Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Non Prescribed Consultees

Note: the Prescribed Consultees have been consulted in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 3 ‘Consultation and notification undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate’ (April 2012).

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 2 Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY THE STATUTORY DEADLINE

Bradbury and the Isle Parish Council Civil Aviation Authority Cumbria County Council English Heritage Fulcrum Pipelines Great Aycliffe Town Council Hartlepool Water Health Protection Agency Health and Safety Executive Highways Agency Mordon Parish Council NATS National Grid Natural England Northumbrian Water Sedgefield Town Council Spennymoor Town Council Stockton on Tees Borough Council The Coal Authority Windlestone Parish Council

Appendix 2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Response of Bradbury and the Isles Parish meeting to Secretary of State In respect of The Isles Windfarm Proposal ref 120611 EN010041

1. STATUTORY CONSULTEES AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION

All Parish Councils and Parish Meetings whose areas fall within the red line, and also those Parish Councils abutting but outside the red line, should be made statutory consultees. Local Authorities which are many miles outside the affected area (Sunderland City Council) have been included on the consultation list showing either a lack of care or a lack of knowledge.

It is not known on what basis this distinction has been made but the local community feels strongly that all directly affected, or potentially affected, Parish Councils should be consulted.

The local community takes the duty of public consultation and engagement to be an absolute obligation on all parties at all stages of the submission of this proposal. We have therefore invited those excluded Parish Councils or Parish Meetings to contribute to this response.

The short amount of time to formulate the response is considered to be unreasonable bearing in mind the fact that most of the consultees are actually voluntary bodies giving up their time to represent their local communities as suggested by the Governments Big Society.

2. SITE SELECTION

The developer, in this instance E.ON, should be required to demonstrate, and justify, the reasons for selecting this site for turbine development. They should identify in detail the policies to which they have referred.

They should also explain what other considerations have led to the current proposal.

They should indicate what future flexibility in siting the turbines they wish to establish, through an officially approved micro-siting agreement.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 2 They should indicate what benefit in terms of power generation they anticipate from any turbines erected at this location. This should not be in terms of the number of homes that it is claimed would be supplied (the usual and completely irrelevant method used by most wind farm developers) but in actual terms of predicted power generation, allowing for intermittency of wind and predicting other factors, including CO2 reduction or increase as a result of the project.

3. ACCESS ROUTES AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Access routes in terms of existing and proposed new roads

Detailed information about proposed access routes for both construction and subsequent maintenance purposes should be given.

In the light of two recent accidents in Northumberland, a thorough assessment should be undertaken of the highway network that is proposed for use by ultra-heavy and extra-long vehicles. Local knowledge reveals that there are bends in the road, weight limit restrictions for some roads and essential services/utilities running under some of the proposed access route.

The Carrs are an unstable bog where the surface is only kept above water by pumping; to build the roadway for access would involve enormous amounts of materials and equipment to construct to a standard suitable to move cranes and turbines into position. This needs to be seriously considered.

Details of the cubic metres of concrete and pilings to be used for foundation and access routes should be accurately produced; plans for the significant spoils that would result from the construction of roads, crane pads and all related buildings as well as the turbine foundations should be made clear.

All proposed access routes should be fully investigated as the Isles area contains peat, and this would require detailed soil surveys to be carried out. Any extraction or loss of areas of peat should also be expressed in terms of CO2 increase and the balance of release if removing peat from the site.

It is certain that on the boggy land in the Carrs the structure of the temporary roads suggested in the scoping report would not be able to cope with the heavy transport required for installing wind turbines and that any access road identified over the Carrs would need to be modified. This would inevitably lead to additional peat being disturbed/removed. This needs investigation before the EIA is produced.

Any temporary access roads should be reinstated to their original standard and any spoil heaps removed from site or landscaped when road reinstated.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 3

Access Issues affecting homes

Structural surveys should be required on houses in Bradbury and elsewhere along the access route – especially any listed buildings. A number are known to have no foundations and certainly one is 17th century.

There should also be an indication of the time construction would be expected to take, and a prediction of the effects in terms of traffic management, road closures and general disruption to local services.

Construction issues affecting the Railway

The East Coast Main Line traverses the Carrs on an embankment effectively dividing the Bradbury Carrs from the Mordon and Preston Carrs.

Anecdotally the embankment is based on sheepskin bales on to which stone was tipped until stability was achieved.

The stability of the embankment is clearly related to water table levels as proved by a now-abandoned proposal by the Department of the Environment to turn off the Archimedes pumps which are in constant use to prevent flooding. The estimated saving of some £34,000 per year was easily overturned by the penalty, which was estimated at £1million per day if flooding was allowed and trains had consequently to be restricted to 50mph to prevent derailment by the “bow wave” effect on the track building up in front of them.

The creation of an access road some 3km long across the Carrs parallel to the railway would inevitably have a serious impact on the stability of the railway embankment, requiring reduced speeds at a time when the railway industry is considering increasing speeds along the East Coast Main Line by the investment of tens of millions of pounds in new trains and improved infrastructure.

Possible effects on the Water table

There should be a survey of impact on water tables, current water levels and effects further downstream (for example in Darlington and other areas where flood-risk is already a recognised problem) of changes in ground conditions and ability to absorb heavy rain fall.

Any proposed alteration to natural water courses should be avoided, as should damage to underground aquifers.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 4

The effect on the water table should be assessed before during and after construction of the turbines to assess the effects the turbines may have on the area and remedial action taken to retain the unique character of the area.

4. ISSUES OF LANDSCAPE AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

The EIA should deliver a full assessment of how the development would affect the landscape in both visual and residential amenity terms.

a) Landscape

b) Residential amenity

All Parish and Town Councils both within the red-line area and abutting it should be consulted to agree a list of affected homes with E.ON.

A survey of all houses within 3km as a minimum should be undertaken to assess the visual impact the turbines would have from differing windows in households having views of wind turbines.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 5

E.ON should be obliged to demonstrate that wind turbines would not have an “overbearing or oppressive effect” on any non-financially interested homes, particularly if any householder is housebound and confined to home 24 hours a day etc.

Particular consideration should be accorded to the Aycliffe School, which under the present proposal would be in close proximity to some of the proposed turbines and which houses young adults suffering from various levels of behavioural disorder.

Similarly, any effect on children, play areas etc in the area should be taken into consideration.

Also linked to residential amenity is the potential impact on footpaths and bridleways being used for recreational purposes by both local residents and visitors. Turbines should be sufficiently distant from footpaths and bridleways so as not to cause direct adverse effects through noise and flicker from rotating blades, and also not to pose a safety hazard through being within topple distance. In respect of horse riders, consideration needs to be given to BHS 2010 Guidelines.

c) Noise

We consider this to be a very technical aspect and can only comment as follows.

The rules governing this are laid out in ETSU R97, which with we cannot argue (but we note the publication in July 2012 of ‘Wind Turbine Noise Impact Assessment: Where ETSU is Silent’ by Richard Cox, David Unwin and Trevor Sherman, once again giving a detailed rationale for a reassessment of the now very out-of-date ETSU R97 guidelines). Nevertheless there are still areas of debate in such areas as correct measurement, interpretation, the issue of low-frequency sound and AM (amplitude modulation).

Moreover, when erecting microphones to monitor the noise at chosen receptor sites, E.ON should first agree a list of locations with both Parish Council representatives and Durham County Council officers to validate the positions etc.

E.ON should be required to provide funding for an independent noise expert to support the local communities, and to help them have confidence in the assumptions being made.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 6

There should be an agreement that all noise data collected by these methods would be shared promptly and in full with both DCC and all official consultees including Parish Councils etc.

d) Shadow Flicker

If the turbines are close to properties which lie to the north of the turbines, in an arc between north west and north east, there is the potential for shadow flicker. This can have an extremely disturbing effect on the residents, and would be a major issue in terms of turbine positioning.

5. VISUAL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Photomontage evidence

All consultee Parish and Town Councils and planning officers within DCC should be consulted to agree a list of affected viewpoints with E.ON.

Photomontages illustrating visual impact from this agreed list of viewpoints should be produced to recognised standards (Scottish Natural Heritage) or the newly introduced 3D system for recording and showing impact both towards and from any particular areas in and around the proposed windfarm.

In addition to photomontage evidence there should also be detailed ZVI (Zone of Visual Impact) projections to illustrate the visibility from any significant historic treasures such as listed buildings in the area including Durham Cathedral, as well as from various distances from the proposed site such as 5K, 10k and possibly 30k and beyond.

E.ON should also demonstrate the cumulative impact of the proposal in relation to other windfarms that already exist in the area.

Views from the Cleveland Hills (Roseberry Topping for example), the Kirk Merrington Ridge, the North Pennines AONB and other vantage points throughout the county should be taken into account to assess the full impact of this scheme.

The visual impact on visitors arriving in the County by train (East Coast Line) or road (A1M and possibly A19), or travelling through it, should be assessed.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 7

6. WILDLIFE IMPACT

a) Bird surveys

Extensive and detailed bird surveys should be carried out, normally covering two breeding seasons, though not restricted to breeding periods only. Details of winter foraging areas, migratory flight routes and night flying habits should be produced to Natural England standards. In each case the EIA should assess the impact of turbine construction, habitat loss or disruption, and turbine operation.

The cumulative effect of turbines in this area should be particularly taken into account in respect of migratory birds using this area as a passage route through the county to other destinations.

b) Other wildlife surveys Surveys similar to those for birds should be carried out for all wildlife, including prey which might not be considered as a stand alone issue but whose destruction would impact on the ecology of the area. Bats may be a very important consideration here.

All surveys relating to wildlife, flora and fauna should include the impact of access routes.

The habitat value and age of hedges (especially ancient hedges) and trees should be established, recognised and protected both on site and on access routes. Any proposal to remove hedges, particularly ancient hedges and trees, should be part of the statement.

c) SSSIs

Any impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is present within the site boundary (Railway Stell West SSSI) and is designated for its flora should be specified. The SSSI consists of a length of ditch beside the East Coast Main Line, and is considered by Natural England to be the last fragment of typical fenland habitat of the once extensive wetland of Bradbury, Morden and Preston Carrs. This should be protected at all times as should any other SSSI or Area of High Landscape Value in the area.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 9

d) Impact on open Carrs

This area is noted by DCC and E.ON as being unique to County Durham, so of particular concern is the access road planned for the northern site access across this area. Peat is known to be present and an analysis of the sub Page 8 structure of the Carrs should therefore be required to determine the amount and location of peat.

7. ARCHAEOLOGY

Impact on medieval villages in the area and sites of Roman and Viking interest should be fully assessed. This is an area in which ancient lakes are known to have existed and this aspect should also be considered.

In the event of identifying features of particular interest, advice should be sought from a suitably qualified professional archaeologist and, if so advised, full trenching etc should be done in advance of any construction work.

8. DECOMMISSIONING

Arrangements for decommissioning of turbines after 25 years including financial guarantees from E.ON should be specified. They should also define what would happen, should E.ON no longer own the turbines at a future date. Typically there is an obligation to take down any turbine following a defined period of inactivity – but the EIA should say what that period would be (for example, 6 months continuous inactivity).

Also, the consenting authority has the power to require a bond to be deposited by the developer to cover the costs in the event that the developer has gone out of business. Decommissioning Bonds were strongly recommended by Planning Counsel at the recent NOW Conference and should be built into any EIA.

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 10

9. ANALYSIS OF CLAIMED BENEFIT

Effectiveness – personal opinion of members of the group but your council may wish to request E.ON to assess the following in their EIA

1) Exactly how they calculate the amount of energy generated 2) How reliable or secure this is bearing in mind wind intermittency and the performance of nearby wind farms 3) What percentage of time nearby wind farms are not generating at all or generating below installed capacity because of no or insufficient wind 4) Whether they expect any substantially different performance from The Isles 5) How electricity generation during periods of low or no wind will be dealt with 6) How often they expect such periods to occur 7) What happens to such “back up” sources while the turbines are generating electricity 8) What emissions may result from this 9) Whether this is taken into consideration when calculating greenhouse gas emission savings

Bradbury and the Isles Parish Meeting Response ref 120611 EN010041

Page 1 of 2

Hannah Nelson

From: Windfarms [[email protected]] Sent: 06 July 2012 14:51 To: Environmental Services Subject: RE: Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear Sir/Madam,

Having reviewed the information provided, the appropriate consultees appear to have been involved and the relevant issues highlighted. I would also add the need to inform the Defence Geographic Centre [email protected] of the locations, heights and lighting status of the turbines and meteorological masts, the estimated and actual dates of construction and the maximum height of any construction equipment to be used, prior to the start of construction, to allow for the appropriate inclusion on Aviation Charts, for safety purposes.

Should you have any further questions please feel free to contact me, details below.

Yours Faithfully Neal Henley N R HENLEY Squadron Leader (RAF) Surveillance and Spectrum Management Directorate of Airspace Policy Civil Aviation Authority 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE Tel: 020 7453 6534 Fax: 020 7453 6565 [email protected]

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

Before Printing consider the environment.

This e-mail and any attachment(s) are for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e- mail, as well as any associated attachment(s) and inform the sender. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. Thank you.

Please note that all e-mail messages sent to the Civil Aviation Authority are subject to monitoring / interception for lawful business

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

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.

31/07/2012

Cumbria County Council

Environment The Lonsdale Building The Courts Carlisle Cumbria CA3 8NA T: 01228 221027 F: 01228 606755 E: [email protected]

Andrew Luke Environmental Services Planning Inspectorate Room 3/18 Temple Quay House 2 The Sqaure Bristol BS1 6PN

09 July 2012 Your reference: The Isles Wind Farm Our reference: The Isles Wind Farm

Dear Mr. Luke

Consultation on Scoping Opinion for The Isles Wind Farm, County Durham

Thank you for your letter dated 22 June 2012, which I received on 27 June 2012. I write to inform you that we do not consider the application to be of strategic significance to Cumbria and therefore Cumbria County Council will not be responding to the consultation in this instance.

Yours sincerely

Francesca McEnaney Planning Officer Spatial Planning Team

Serving the people of Cumbria cumbria.gov.uk

Mr Andrew Luke Our ref: Your NSIP/0032/00 EIA and Land Rights Adviser ref: The Planning Inspectorate Room 3/18 Telephone 0191 269 1237 Temple Quay House Fax 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

16 July 2012

Dear Mr Luke

The Isles Wind Energy Development proposal: pre-application consultation Infrastructure Planning - Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2009 Request for Scoping Opinion

Thank you for your letter of 22 June 2012 inviting English Heritage to comment on the scoping of the EIA in connection with the proposed Isles Wind Energy Development in County Durham. We are pleased to do so. We have discussed the revised planning proposal within our team in the North East and I offer the following comments.

The latest proposals now comprise the following key changes from the earlier options –

1. Essentially layout C, but with a reduced number of turbines (from 29 to 24) in slightly different locations. 2. Access roads, compounds (temporary) and electricity sub stations are now included. 3. The removal of turbines from the central area immediately west of the main railway line, and a greater concentration in the northern and southern sections which involves moving them further away from known, but non designated, deserted medieval village sites such as High Grindon. 4. The inclusion of viewsheds from Sedgefield, which contains a Grade I listed church and numerous other listed buildings, and a designated Conservation Area.

A fundamental remit of English Heritage is to protect nationally significant heritage assets from substantial harm. Whilst English Heritage broadly supports renewable energy in line with Government policy, we are aware that such developments can be challenging to these assets as well as to the wider historic environment. With this in mind, English Heritage has drawn up guidelines for planners and developers, Wind Energy and the Historic Environment, a copy of which can be downloaded from http://www.helm.org.uk . These guidelines are designed to be used alongside other current standard methodologies associated with the development of such proposals. Government policy in respect of the historic environment is now contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012. Paragraphs 128 and 129 require local planning authorities and developers to identify, describe and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be affected by a proposal. Paragraph 128 also advises that significance may additionally be derived from the setting of a heritage asset – either within a townscape or, as is the case with the present proposal, a landscape. Our guidelines on setting, in draft when we commented previously, have now been published and are downloadable from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/heritage- assets-draft/ .

In essence the EIA should, in its scope, clearly identify the location, nature, status and significance of all heritage assets within the area under investigation, or otherwise impacted upon by the proposals, define the setting of those assets, explain both the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed development upon them and where necessary their setting, and outline measures planned to minimise, avoid or compensate for those impacts.

We offer the following six comments that, we hope, will provide useful and relevant material for your consideration. 1. We note that the map provided shows locations of known heritage assets within the proposed area, and are pleased to see that both designated and non-designated assets are being taken into account. We consider it important for the developer to have regard to the decision-making tests that should apply to the determination of any planning application for such development. Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that any loss of significance affecting a grade II listed building ….should be exceptional. Paragraph 133 advises that where a proposal will lead to substantial harm to, or loss of, significance local planning authorities (or in this case the Secretary of State) should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Paragraph 134 advises that where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a heritage asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases local planning authorities or the Secretary of State should weigh the public benefit against the harm. In both cases a decision should be reached on whether or not any public benefit could be met in other ways. Listed Buildings With respect to those designated assets which are listed buildings, all are Grade II, and thus are of national importance and special interest. a. Great Isle Farm: this is the most recent building in a sequence dating from at least the 14th century. It is assumed that the fishponds and earthworks lying to the south east and recorded on the Historic Environment Record (HER) are associated with this site. They lie beyond the 500m buffer selected by E.ON. As they are considered to be part of the asset their overall significance needs to be defined. b. Swan Carrs Farm: no comments. Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) c. Preston le Skerne Deserted Medieval Village (DMV): This is seen in isolation and a 500m buffer has been placed around it. We feel that the surrounding fields need investigation as to whether, for example, contemporary ridge and furrow or field boundaries survive. In other words the site needs to be seen in terms of its broader context and hence its possible wider significance. 2. We feel that, given the potential height, and hence visibility, of the turbines, heritage assets from a wider area should be given consideration. There is no prescribed distance in our guidelines since this necessarily relates and responds in part to the topography of the landscape as well as intervening features such as trees, hedges or buildings. However, we feel that a distance of 3-5km should be adequate in the case of The Isles proposal. A buffer of 5km around the proposed site would include: a. St Andrews Church, Aycliffe Village – Grade I listed building (of exceptional interest) b. Hardwick Hall Park and Garden – Grade II* on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks & Gardens (of particular importance and more than special interest) c. Church of St Michael’s and All Angels, Bishop Middleham – Grade II* listed building d. Sedgefield and Hardwick Park Conservation Areas – the former containing two Grade II* listed buildings as well as moderate numbers of those listed Grade II. e. Many other Grade II listed buildings but, overall, the topography suggests that the majority of these may be unaffected. 3. The consultation document contains photomontages from various viewpoints around the proposed site. We note, however, that they do not necessarily or specifically identify the possible effects of the proposals upon heritage assets but instead illustrate the possible effects more from the perspective of local residents in specific villages. One viewpoint from at least the Preston-le-Skerne SAM would assist in determining the effects upon its setting. 4. Whilst the sites on the Historic Environment Record are first and foremost the remit of the Local Planning Authority, the presence of further DMVs at Grindon (within the proposed area), and Elstob to the south of the proposed area, plus a large amount of ridge and furrow, attests to the intense agriculture practised in the past. We recommend that surviving elements should be assessed by field survey, and possibly archaeological intervention, as part of the EIA. The nearby presence of cropmarks attests to further longer-term human activity making this southern section arguably more sensitive to development than other parts of the proposed area. 5. The geomorphological record from the Carrs indicates the presence of a glacial lake over much of the area about 8-10,000 years ago. This infilled with organic sediments over time and they retain evidence, from pollen and other biological proxies, of human activity around the basin. The records suggest that between 3m and 12m of peat were present in the 1970s. Whilst this will present some engineering issues the peats are an important aspect of the historic environment and assessment of their survival and quality is recommended. This type of landscape (large body of water plus slightly raised edge lands) was favoured by early hunter-gatherer communities as it provided fish and wild fowl as well as a degree of protection from large predators. The peats also lend themselves to preserving organic materials of human origin (see Star Carr in Yorkshire for example). There is no evidence of early people from this area but assessment of what could survive should be evaluated at least in part at the same time as geotechnical work was being undertaken – thus making efficient use of resources. 6. A significant amount of underground cabling will be required to link the turbines to the National Grid via the Norton-Darlington North 132kV overhead line. In addition there will be roads/tracks linking turbines, or groups of turbines. The effects of all of these upon the historic environment will need consideration although most will probably be in respect of the archaeology. The scheme will require working compounds during construction, and although their visual effects should be temporary, their impacts upon archaeology might be permanent and in consequence require careful assessment.

Although there are numerous matters that need consideration, especially in terms of the setting of heritage assets, our initial view is that no significant harm would be caused to the historic environment by the latest proposals. This would, of course, need confirmation through the preparation of appropriately detailed application documentation and careful consideration of heritage issues in the EIA. On present evidence we consider that the southern area is the most sensitive in relation to both designated and non-designated assets although the central section has its own sensitivities in respect of the peat and longer term evidence of human occupation.

We consider that the EIA should additionally focus on –

1. Effect of turbines on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument at Preston le Skerne DMV, including its landscape context. 2. Road construction (>14km) – impacts will/may vary, and it would be helpful to have geotechnical investigations looked at by an archaeologist/ palaeoecologist to determine potential for historic analysis. Could feed into (3) below in order to develop an understanding of the development of the landscape. 3. In association with (2) above, geoarchaeological investigations at proposed sites for the turbines too. 4. An assessment of archaeological potential, especially in the southern area on slightly raised and drier land

I trust the above information clarifies the English Heritage position for the Secretary of State.

Yours sincerely

Alan Hunter Planning Adviser: North East E-mail: [email protected]

Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Page 1 of 3

Hannah Nelson

From: Penlington, Graham [[email protected]] on behalf of &box_FPLplantprotection_conx, [[email protected]] Sent: 25 June 2012 09:41 To: Environmental Services Subject: RE: Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Thank you for asking Fulcrum Pipelines Limited to examine your consultation document for the above project.

We can confirm that Fulcrum Pipelines Limited do not have any interest in the consultative process regarding this project. Please note however that we are constantly adding to our underground assets and would strongly advise that we are consulted prior to any excavations.

Please note that other gas transporters may have plant in this locality which could be affected by your proposed works.

We will always make every effort to help you where we can, but Fulcrum Pipelines Limited will not be held responsible for any incident or accident arising from the use of the information associated with this search. The details provided are given in good faith, but no liability whatsoever can be accepted in respect thereof.

If you need any help or information simply contact Graham Penlington directly on 01142 804175.

To save you time, any future requests for information about our plant, can be emailed to [email protected]

Kind regards

Graham Penlington Fulcrum Pipelines

Tel: 0114 280 4175 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.fulcrum.co.uk

FULCRUM NEWS

NEW WEBSITE Our new website is now live. Take a look.

31/07/2012 Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Page 2 of 3

NEW SALES FORCE We've put in place a new network of experienced Business Development Managers. Find your BDM

From: Environmental Services [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 June 2012 17:52 To: &box_FPLplantprotection_conx, Subject: Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation

Dear Sir / Madam

Please see the link below to correspondence in respect of the Isles Wind Farm EIA scoping consultation.

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp- content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010041/1.%20Pre- Submission/EIA/Scoping/Scoping%20Background/120622_EN010041_% 20Letter%20to%20stat%20consultees%20(further%20to%20reg9% 20notification).pdf

Kind regards, Andy Luke Senior EIA and Land Rights Adviser National Infrastructure Directorate, The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN Direct Line: 030 3444 5049 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email:[email protected] Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate (Planning Inspectorate casework and appeals) Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure (Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning portal) Advice may be given about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required.

A record of the advice which is provided will be recorded on the Planning Inspectorate website together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate .

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

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.

31/07/2012

Page 1 of 1

Hannah Nelson

From: chris wingrove [[email protected]] Sent: 25 June 2012 16:38 To: Environmental Services Subject: 120611_EN010041 The Isles Wind Farm Dear Sirs,

Hartlepool Water(Anglian Water) has no plant within the area of interest, and does not consider that it will be any way affected by the proposed wind farm. Hartlepool Water therefore does not wish to comment further on the scoping report.

Regards,

Chris Wingrove Engineering Support 01429 858016

Anglian Water Services Limited (Trading as HARTLEPOOL WATER). Registered Office: Anglian House, Ambury Road, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 3NZ. Registered in England No 2366656 The information contained in this message is likely to be confidential and may be legally privileged. The dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure of this message, or its contents, is strictly prohibited unless authorised by Anglian Water. It is intended only for the person named as addressee.

Anglian Water cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message, and does not authorise any contract to be made using the Internet.

If you have received this message in error, please immediately return it to the sender at the above address and delete it from your computer.

Please consider the environment before printing this 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.

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

31/07/2012

Page 1 of 1

Hannah Nelson

From: Maylard, Kyle [[email protected]] Sent: 20 July 2012 10:59 To: Environmental Services Subject: The Isles Windfarm - EON Climate and Renewables - Highways Agency views Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: 2012 07 20 Response to Stage 2.pdf; 2011 08 12 Response.pdf; 2011 12 13 Response2.doc FAO Andrew Luke. Ref 120611_EN010041

Dear Andrew

I refer to your consultation of 22 June 2012 regarding The Isles Windfarm proposal in County Durham. The Highways Agency has been consulted directly by EON at both their Stage 1 and 2 Consultation stages. I attach copies of our responses to their consultations which set out our views on the proposals.

The outstanding information that we will need at the next stage of the development of the proposals will be a detailed Traffic Management Plan for the delivery of abnormal loads via the Strategic Road Network and details of the installation method of the proposed cable under the A1(M).

Regards

Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport.

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

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

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

31/07/2012

Our ref: NZ 314 277 Chris Bell Your ref: 617/001/SCOP Planning Manager North East 3 SOUTH Lateral Aecom 8 City Walk First Floor, Leeds LS11 9AT One Trinity Gardens Quayside Direct Line: 0113 283 4774 Newcastle upon Tyne 13 December 2011 NE1 2HF

For the attention of Shaun Edwards

Dear Shaun

THE ISLES WINDFARM PROPOSAL

Thank you for consulting the Highways Agency on the Driver Distraction Survey (DDS) and Transport and Public Access Plan.

In line with previous comments, ‘Spatial Planning Advice Note SP 12/09’ states that Turbines should be located at a distance of total height to top of the blade tip at its highest point plus 50 metres.

If the turbines are 100metres in height, I seek confirmation that they are located at a distance of 150 metres from the boundary of the A1(M); or, if they are 126.5metres in height, I seek confirmation that they are 176.5metres from the boundary of the A1(M).

The locations where this is a particular issue are:

On Layout A 7, 13, 14, 16 and 23 On Layout B 3, 4, 8, 15 and 20 On Layout C 10, 11 and 13 On Layout F 8, 10, 13, 15 and 18

In the course of consultation, should any other layout be formulated we would welcome being consulted there on and that they meet the height plus 50 metre standard.

In terms of Distraction the location of the turbines does not pose a particular hazard in any layout.

‘Spatial Planning Advice Note SP 12/09’ also seeks that a Construction, Maintenance and Decommissioning Plan is developed . Normally, for a wind turbine development, we would only require this where direct access is made from the SRN. However, the scale of this development will inevitably include multiple abnormal loads using the SRN. We

2011 12 13 Response2.doc Page 1 of 2

want to ensure the transportation of components on the SRN is co-ordinated such that it will not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the network. I trust this sets out the position of the Highways Agency. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely

Chris Bell Network Delivery and Development Email: [email protected]

2011 12 13 Response2.doc Page 2 of 2

Page 1 of 2

Hannah Nelson

From: nigel juggins [[email protected]] Sent: 19 July 2012 18:25 To: Environmental Services Cc: Kevin Byrne Subject: Re: Information considered should be provided in proposed Isles wind farm ES Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: NJ environmental impact asessment requirements for the Isles cp-1.doc http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy- Consents/Guidance/GenericScopingWind

Parish Meeting 2 The Old Mill Mordon Nr Sedgefield

County Durham The Planning Inspectorate Room 3/18 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN For the attention of:- Mr A. Luke Your Ref: 120611_EN010041

Re: Information considered should be provided in proposed Isles wind farm ES Dear Sir We thank you for identifying Mordon Parish Meeting as a consultation body to assist you with the compilation of your scoping opinion in respect of The Isles Wind Farm as proposed by Eon climate and Renewables.

Whilst the Mordon Parish Meeting contribution is attached, we feel it only right to inform you of the concerns of our immediate village community regarding both noise and health issues which may result from the close proximity of a wind farm, especially in view of the fact that there are so many emerging reports from experts in such matters.

Mordon village lies in the path of the prevailing wind of the proposed southern group of 17 turbines and as such would feel the maximum detrimental effects. It is our opinion that a 2km separation distance should be maintained between the village and the nearest turbine.

We have compiled our contribution using the best information we have, but feel there may be some omissions. With this in mind and as we have no expertise in many of these considerations, could we suggest in the absence of English generated input, that you take (where applicable) cognizance of the Scottish Generic Scoping Example (onshore wind) as detailed in the above link?

31/07/2012 Page 2 of 2

It is a cause for concern that there are some Parish Councils with whom E.ON has already (correctly) shared details of the proposal that have, for some unexplained reason, been excluded from the letter sent by the Planning Inspectorate to which we respond herewith. It is not known on what basis this distinction has been made but the local community feels strongly that all directly affected, or potentially affected, Parish Councils should be consulted.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Juggins Clerk to Mordon Parish Meeting 7/19/2012

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.

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

31/07/2012 Mordon Parish Meeting Information we consider should be provided in the Environmental Statement for the proposed Isles Wind Farm

1. STATUTORY CONSULTEES AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION

All Parish Councils whose areas fall within the red line, and also those Parish Councils abutting but outside the red line, should be made statutory consultees.

It is not known on what basis this distinction has been made but the local community feels strongly that all directly affected, or potentially affected, Parish Councils should be consulted.

2. SITE SELECTION Initial site Selection process is paramount Notwithstanding the “presumption in favour of sustainable deveelopment” and whilst wind potential and access to the grid are key to initial sieve- mapping exercises for site selection, environmental constraints other than landscape character should also be included in this initial site selection process. For example, areas of deep peat, watercourse crossings, wetlands and locations of protected species would be other examples of additional environmental constraints to be considered both from the outset and in the detailed design and layout. The applicant should be able to accurately demonstrate accord with Saved policies, Landscape Capacity Studies, adopted County Durham Landscape Guidelines and the emerging local Plan. The applicant should have due regard to the proposed to the size and location of the proposed development; how it will function; and its relationship with its immediate surroundings. e.g. Is the magnitude of the proposed project in terms of turbine numbers, turbine height and overall site footprint likely to have an impact on the character of the a unique historic landscape of the Bradbury Mordon and Preston Carrs? During operation it is likely to cause concern due to Noise ; Flicker; Health? Would the effect on immediate surroundings be overbearing, and would it impact on the character and appearance of a conservation area or its settings?

Would the inclusion of the proposed generating station be acceptable when considering the cumulative effect and relationship with existing and consented wind farms in the area? Is there possibility to mitigate to an acceptable outcome?

With regard to the above the developer, in this instance E.ON, should be required to demonstrate, and justify, the reasons for selecting this site for turbine development. They should identify in detail the policies to which they have referred.

They should also explain what other considerations have led to the current proposal.

Notwithstanding the potential impact of all of the turbines proposed to be installed on the Carrs, in particular an extensive review of the four turbines encompassed by the East Coast Mainline and the A1(M)should be undertaken as these would cause a disproportionate impact on all aspects of the proposal.

They should indicate what future flexibility in siting the turbines they wish to establish, through an officially approved micro-siting agreement.

They should indicate what benefit in terms of power generation they anticipate from any turbines erected at this location. This should not be in terms of the number of homes that it is claimed would be supplied (the usual and completely irrelevant method used by most wind farm developers) but in actual terms of predicted power generation, allowing for intermittency of wind and predicting other factors, including CO2 reduction or increase as a result of the project. 3. ACCESS ROUTES AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Access routes in terms of existing and proposed new roads

Detailed information about proposed access routes for both construction and subsequent maintenance purposes should be given.

The current proposal depicts two distinctly separated groups of turbines supported by individual sub stations. The current proposal also depicts an extensive cable runs over the Carrs area joining the two separated groups. The developer should investigate whether an alternative(less intrusive and more direct) route for the connection to the grid from the northern substation can be followed exiting at the north.

Any temporary access roads should be reinstated to their original standard and any spoil heaps removed from site or landscaped when road reinstated.

Access Issues affecting homes

Construction issues affecting the Railway

The East Coast Main Line traverses the Carrs on an embankment effectively dividing the Bradbury Carrs from the Mordon and Preston Carrs.

Anecdotally the embankment is based on sheepskin bales on to which stone was tipped until stability was achieved.

Possible effects on the Water table

Any proposed alteration to natural water courses should be avoided, as should damage to underground aquifers.

4. ISSUES OF LANDSCAPE AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

The EIA should deliver a full assessment of how the development would affect the landscape in both visual and residential amenity terms.

a) Landscape

E.ON should supply comprehensive information about the following issues: • Cumulative impact with other wind farms in the area and County Durham as a whole • Impact on “gateway into Durham”, both road and rail approaches • Whether locally sensitive areas (eg: Areas of High Landscape Value, areas further afield such as the North Pennines AONB, or locations of notable tourism interest) would be detrimentally affected and whether such local issues should, in this case, take primacy over national ones (see: Sea and Land Power and Energy v SoS for Communities and Local Govt http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1419.html and in particular paras 56 and 60) • Their interpretation as to how the Localism Act and NPPF may affect that decision • The adherence to the provisions of the NPPF and the Localism Act, all existing plans/policies and specific policies currently applicable in County Durham (which at present still include parts of the North East Regional Strategy and a number of saved policies from former District Council areas) and also the emerging County Durham Plan • The concerns expressed by the Local Authority during discussions regarding their previous wind farm application where the initial layout positioned turbines on the Carrs ,and which were subsequently removed from the submitted layout. n.b. The local authority stated: “As noted in previous discussions with the company, the wind farm as proposed would spread across two distinct landscapes; the Lowland Carrs and the surrounding lowland Plain. By effectively ignoring variations in landscape character the proposed layout is likely to dominate the local landscape more than if it respected it .We have long considered the Lowland Carrs landscape to be the more sensitive of the two landscapes – not so much because of its intrinsic sensitivity as a landscape, but because of the potential for development to dominate it as a character area given its relatively small size. The unique character of the Carrs landscape is recognised in the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan which contains a specific policy (E3)which seeks to conserve its historic character by ensuring that proposals ‘do not damage the character of the area’” b) Residential amenity

All Parish and Town Councils both within the red-line area and abutting it should be consulted to agree a list of affected homes with E.ON.

A survey of all houses within 3km as a minimum should be undertaken to assess the visual impact the turbines would have from differing windows in households having views of wind turbines.

Similarly, any effect on children, play areas etc in the area should be taken into consideration.

We consider this to be a very technical aspect and can only comment as follows.

Example calculations of the derivation of the predicted noise levels of the turbines should be provided in any assessment, together with the sources and justification for all data and assumptions

Eon will need to identify potential construction methods, which may cause disturbance to all local sensitive properties, such as the piling of foundations, and state how the disturbance of such works will be minimised or controlled.

E.ON should be required to provide funding for an independent noise expert to support the local communities, and to help them have confidence in the assumptions being made.

There should be an agreement that all noise data collected by these methods would be shared promptly and in full with both DCC and all official consultees including Parish Councils etc.

d) Shadow Flicker

5. VISUAL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Photomontage evidence

All consultee Parish and Town Councils and planning officers within DCC should be consulted to agree a list of affected viewpoints with E.ON.

E.ON should also demonstrate the cumulative impact of the proposal in relation to other wind farms that already exist in the area, or have been approved

The visual impact on visitors arriving in the County by train (East Coast Line) or road (A1M and possibly A19), or travelling through it, should be assessed.

6. WILDLIFE IMPACT

a) Bird surveys

The cumulative effect of turbines in this area should be particularly taken into account in respect of migratory birds using this area as a passage route through the county to other destinations.

All surveys relating to wildlife, flora and fauna should include the impact of access routes.

c) SSSIs

Any impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is present within the site boundary (Railway Stell West SSSI) and is designated for its flora should be specified. The SSSI consists of a length of ditch beside the East Coast Main Line, and is considered by Natural England to be the last fragment of typical fenland habitat of the once extensive wetland of Bradbury, Mordon and Preston Carrs. This should be protected at all times as should any other SSSI or Area of High Landscape Value in the area.

d) Impact on open Carrs

This area is noted by DCC and E.ON as being unique to County Durham, so of particular concern is the access road planned for the northern site access across this area. Peat is known to be present and an analysis of the sub structure of the Carrs should therefore be required to determine the amount and location of peat.

7. ARCHAEOLOGY

8. DECOMMISSIONING

9. ANALYSIS OF CLAIMED BENEFIT

Effectiveness – personal opinion of members of the group but your council may wish to request E.ON to assess the following in their EIA

Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Page 1 of 2

Hannah Nelson

From: ROSSI, Sacha [[email protected]] Sent: 25 June 2012 11:23 To: Andrew Luke Cc: Environmental Services; NATS Safeguarding Subject: NATS RESPONSE: Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Attachments: NATS Scoping and Enquiries.pdf; Maps and FAQs v.1.pdf Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of the correspondence referenced above.

Having considered the EIA, we would like to point out that while aviation and radar safeguarding are addressed in the document, no specific mention of NATS is made.

I attach some generic guidance which should assist developers in obtaining a preliminary view as to whether the proposed development is likely to have an impact on NATS’ infrastructure or not. The results of the self-assessment tool or pre-planning assessment provide valuable information and our advice is to include this in any scoping or impact assessment documentation.

Regards,

S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding

Mr Sacha Rossi ATC Systems Safeguarding Engineer

NATS Safeguarding 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, PO15 7FL

www.nats.co.uk/enviro/windfarms

From: Environmental Services [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 June 2012 17:53 To: NERL Safeguarding Subject: Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation

Dear Sir / Madam

Please see the link below to correspondence in respect of the Isles Wind Farm EIA scoping consultation.

Kind regards,

31/07/2012 Proposed Isles Wind Farm - EIA scoping consultation Page 2 of 2

Andy Luke Senior EIA and Land Rights Adviser National Infrastructure Directorate, The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN Direct Line: 030 3444 5049 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate (Planning Inspectorate casework and appeals) Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure (Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning portal) Advice may be given about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required.

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at Email [email protected] immediately. You should not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person.

NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system.

Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses or any losses caused as a result of viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services) Ltd (company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) or NATS Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218). All companies are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL.

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.

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

31/07/2012

NATS Safeguarding Corporate and Technical Centre 4000 Parkway Whiteley Fareham Hampshire PO15 7FL

℡: 01489 444687 : 01489 616274 |: [email protected] Þ: http://www.nats.co.uk

Wind Turbine/Farm Scoping Opinion Requests and Pre-Planning Enquiries

NATS have a policy of early engagement with developers, particularly in the area of wind turbines and wind farm developments. Since NATS is processing an unsustainable number of scoping opinion requests received from developers and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), the decision has been made to provide some clarification on this matter.

NATS have offered pre-planning services to developers since 2005, however, in 2010, it revised and launched its pre-planning consultancy service. This provides an early, yet formal indication to developers of the anticipated impact of their proposed development upon NATS’ infrastructure. The service subsequently allows developers and applicants to engage in dialogue with NATS in order to identify and discuss any potential mitigation. This allows identified solutions to be discussed and potentially agreed, at an early stage, before the formal planning process.

In order to promote a consistent nationwide approach, NATS has determined that all pre-planning enquiries and scoping opinion requests received from planning authorities or directly from applicants should be treated in the same manner. To this end we provide two options: our free self-assessment maps, and the chargeable pre-planning application.

As such we kindly request that developers and applicants use either of these tools to determine whether an impact on the NATS infrastructure is anticipated or not.

If your request is for scoping, we advise you to use our self assessment maps to determine whether a planned application is likely to have an impact. Instructions for using our maps are included below. Should a planned application fall within an area of radar coverage or other safeguarded zone, our advice would be to undertake our pre-planning assessment in order to engage with us early. Should an application fall outside the radar or other safeguarded zone, it is unlikely that NATS would object during the planning process.

Please note that NATS will continue to meet its statutory obligations and comment on all formal planning applications received by local planning authorities.

Scoping v7.doc Page 1 of 2

NATS Ltd, Registered in England 3155567 Registered Office: 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants. PO15 7FL

Instructions for the use of NATS self assessment maps.

To ascertain whether your development is likely to have an impact or not, you will need to use our self- assessment maps. You will also require a GIS/mapping package to plot your turbines (ARCGIS etc or GOOGLE “Forestry GIS” (fGIS™) which is freeware). All turbine heights are tip heights.

• You should be able to visualise your turbine(s) position(s) on the GIS map. For most packages you can create a text file with the NGR Eastings and Northings, to plot the turbine position.

• Download our self-assessment maps free from our website.

• Add the relevant map for the turbine height to the GIS map, i.e. the height equal to the turbine height, or just below it if the exact height is not listed. e.g. 60m map for a 60m turbine, 40m map for a 50m turbine, 80m map for a 90m turbine etc.

• You should now be able to see both the radar coverage map AND the turbine position.

• You can now determine whether your turbine is visible to radar. Ideally a radar will not cover the turbine’s position at all, or coverage will be at heights greater than the turbine height. For example, if you have a 60m turbine, ideally the radar will not cover that area at 60m. i.e. although there may be cover over that position at 100m and 80m, when selecting the 60m map, the cover is reduced leaving the turbine outside radar cover. Conversely if you have a 100m turbine, and the radar can see down to 100m over the turbine location, that turbine is visible to radar.

• By using the different maps, you should then be able to look at radar cover in different areas at different heights. This can be a useful tool for assessing a specific area and in some cases can be used to determine which positions are more likely to be an issue than others. It can also be used to determine a maximum acceptable turbine height. e.g a potential location is visible to radar at 120m and 100m but not 80m hence a 120m and a 100m turbine would be visible to radar (possible objection) whereas an 80m turbine would be acceptable.

Once you’ve assessed your turbine location against primary radar cover, the same must be done for secondary radar (SSR), navigation aids and radio stations by downloading and adding the SSR, AGA and NAV maps. These have 15km/15nm circles representing safeguarded areas for these assets. When you have carried out your self-assessment, you will have determined whether your proposed turbine(s) falls in an SSR/NAV/AGA safeguarded or radar cover area:

If the turbine is outside all these areas, it is unlikely that NATS would object as there should be no technical impact.

If your proposed development is within a safeguarded or radar cover area, while this does not automatically mean an objection, it is recommended that you take out our pre-planning assessment whereby NATS undertakes further studies and provides you with a formal statement on the turbine’s impact.

More information can be found on our website together with the application form for the pre-planning assessment. NATS Safeguarding

Scoping v7.doc Page 2 of 2

NATS Ltd, Registered in England 3155567 Registered Office: 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants. PO15 7FL

Information pack for wind turbine applicants

NATS En Route plc, Registered in England 4129273, Registered Office: 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants. PO15 7FL Maps and FAQs v.1.doc

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who are NATS?

NATS is the company that provides air traffic control (ATC) services in the UK. Our service is provided at 15 of the UK biggest airports and “en-route” i.e. in the airspace above the UK and over the north- eastern part of the Atlantic Ocean.

2. What is safeguarding?

In order to provide safe air traffic services, both NATS and aircraft rely on a number of ground based radars, navigation aids and communication stations. Radars are used by NATS and other agencies to monitor aircraft traffic, navigation aids are used by aircraft to navigate along their route and to land at airports. Communication stations are used by both ground based agencies (control towers and ATC centres) and aircraft to communicate with each other.

Safety is NATS' first and foremost priority and in order to provide a safe service and to meet the terms of the licence granted by the Civil Aviation Authority, this equipment needs to be continuously in operation and protected by any form of interference or disturbance.

3. What are the problems?

Common examples of interference that affect our infrastructure are:

• effects of wind turbines upon radar (radar shadows, false radar returns)

• degradation of radio and radar signals due to fixed obstructions or turbines

4. How is safeguarding done and how are problems prevented?

Safeguarding is ensured by legislation and processes designed to protect NATS’s infrastructure. For construction and fixed obstructions, all NATS assets are notified via maps lodged with Planning Authorities. The Planning authorities will consult NATS when a planning application that conflicts with safeguarding is received.

For wind turbines, the process is different because of the major impact a wind turbine can have on the NATS infrastructure. As such consultation with NATS is compulsory and planning authorities will consult NATS for all wind turbine planning applications over the whole of the UK territory.

NATS is a statutory consultee for all wind turbine planning applications in the UK.

Civil Aviation Publications CAP764 and CAP670 contain relevant information and are available on the Civil Aviation Authority’s website (www.caa.co.uk).

5. How can I find out if a wind turbine application is likely to be granted or objected to?

With respect to wind turbines, the safeguarded area encompasses the whole of the UK and consultation with NATS is mandatory. Planning authorities will consult NATS during the planning process, but applicants for wind turbines may wish to ascertain whether their application is likely to be objected to or not by NATS in advance of submitting for planning

In this case the options are to carry out a self-assessment (free of charge) or undertake a pre-planning assessment (chargeable).

Maps and FAQs v.1.doc

6. What are the NATS self-assessment and pre-planning assessment?

The self-assessment is a process whereby prospective wind turbine planning applicants can get a preliminary idea of whether their proposed application is likely to be granted or not, or whether it is advisable to request a pre-planning assessment. The service is free and relies on theoretical radar coverage maps for different obstacle heights. These are available on our website.

The pre-planning assessment is a chargeable service that NATS offers to prospective wind turbine applicants. This provides an opportunity for developers to gain a further insight into whether a proposed installation is likely to be objected to or not by NATS prior to submitting a planning application. In order to reach a decision, NATS carries out a range of studies and investigations to determine whether a wind turbine is likely to cause an impact on air traffic safety or not.

Where the turbine is anticipated to cause an issue, further work may be possible to determine whether any remedial action can be taken in order to grant permission subject to certain conditions being met.

7. Why has my application been turned down when there are other turbines nearby?

In order to consent or object to planned development, NATS has to consider a number of factors, these include but are not limited to:

¾ geographical position and line of sight shielding between obstruction and NATS equipment (this may vary over a few metres)

¾ specific equipment at the NATS site

¾ terrain features

¾ airspace class and use (distance and density of air traffic)

¾ signal levels and characteristics

¾ turbine characteristics

An additional important factor is the cumulative impact, in some cases a number of turbines are deemed to be acceptable but no more. Unfortunately in some cases this will mean that although a number of turbines are located in a specific area, a new application is turned down. This is because the effect is deemed to be tolerable, however an additional turbine would cause further degradation which would not be acceptable.

Another additional factor is the distance between turbines and the way radar processing treats radar returns from turbines that are lined up. In some cases these can be interpreted as a valid aircraft track (i.e. 2 turbines may be tolerable but a third one may cause 3 reflections to appear as an aircraft moving along its route and to bypass radar filtering).

Safeguarding Dept. NATS CTC 4000 Parkway Whiteley Fareham Hampshire PO15 7FL

℡: 01489 444687 : 01489 616274 |: [email protected] Þ: http://www.nats.co.uk

Maps and FAQs v.1.doc

Instructions for the use of NATS self assessment maps.

To ascertain whether your development is likely to have an impact or not, you will need to use our self-assessment maps. You will also require a GIS/mapping package to plot your turbines (ARCGIS etc or GOOGLE “Forestry GIS” (fGIS™) which is freeware). All turbine heights are tip heights.

• You should be able to visualise your turbine(s) position(s) on the GIS map. For most packages you can create a text file with the NGR Eastings and Northings, to plot the turbine position.

• Download our self-assessment maps free from our website.

• You should now be able to see both the radar coverage map AND the turbine position.

• You can now determine whether your turbine is visible to radar. Ideally a radar will not cover the turbine’s position at all, or coverage will be at heights greater than the turbine height.

For example, if you have a 60m turbine, ideally the radar will not cover that area at 60m.

i.e. although there may be cover over that position at 100m and 80m, when selecting the 60m map, the cover is reduced leaving the turbine outside radar cover. Conversely if you have a 100m turbine, and the radar can see down to 100m over the turbine location, that turbine is visible to radar.

e.g. a potential location is visible to radar at 120m and 100m but not 80m hence a 120m and a 100m turbine would be visible to radar (possible objection) whereas an 80m turbine would be acceptable.

Once you’ve assessed your turbine location against primary radar cover, the same must be done for secondary radar (SSR), navigation aids and radio stations by downloading and adding the SSR, AGA and NAV maps. These have 15km/15nm circles representing safeguarded areas for these assets. When you have carried out your self- assessment, you will have determined whether your proposed turbine(s) falls in an SSR/NAV/AGA safeguarded or radar cover area:

If the turbine is outside all these areas, it is unlikely that NATS would object as there should be no technical impact.

More information can be found on our website together with the application form for the pre-planning assessment.

Maps and FAQs v.1.doc National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

Land and Development Room 3/18 Vicky Stirling Temple Quay House Town Planner 2 The Square Land & Development Bristol [email protected] BS1 6PN Direct tel: +44 (0)1926 653746

SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO: www.nationalgrid.com [email protected]

09 July 2012 Our Ref: Your Ref: 120611_EN010041

Dear Sir/Madam

PROPOSED THE ISLES WIND FARM (the project) INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations)

I refer to your letter dated 22nd June 2012 in connection with the above proposed application. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, I would like to make the following comments:

National Grid gas infrastructure within the proposed are of works

National Grid has two high pressure transmission pipelines to the north of the proposed site of the Project and details of these pipelines are as follows:

• FM13 – Cowpen Bewley to Bishop Auckland • FM13 – Bishop Auckland to Yafforth

In addition there is a high pressure transmission pipeline located in close proximity to the west of the proposed site of the proposal:

• FM07 – Bishop Auckland to Sutton Howgrave

There are no electricity transmission or gas distribution assets within the area of the proposed works.

I enclose a copy of a plan showing the route of our gas pipelines in the vicinity of the proposed area of works.

Our underground pipelines are protected by permanent agreements with landowners or have been laid in the public highway under our licence. These grant us legal rights that enable us to achieve efficient and reliable operation, maintenance, repair and refurbishment of our gas transmission network. Hence we require that no permanent structures are built over or under pipelines or within

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000 National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

the zone specified in the agreement, materials or soil are not stacked or stored on top of the pipeline route and that unrestricted and safe access to any of our pipeline(s) must be maintained at all times.

The information supplied is given in good faith and only as a guide to the location of our underground pipelines. The accuracy of this information cannot be guaranteed. The physical presence of such pipelines may also be evident from pipeline marker posts. The person(s) responsible for planning, supervising and carrying out work in proximity to our pipeline(s) shall be liable to us, as pipeline(s) owner, as well as to any third party who may be affected in any way by any loss or damage resulting from their failure to locate and avoid any damage to such a pipeline(s).

The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing underground pipelines is contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s Guidance HS(G)47 “Avoiding Danger From Underground Services” (available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg47.htm ). All relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.

Our pipelines are normally buried to a depth of 1.1 metres or more below ground and further information may be found on the plans provided. Ground cover above our pipelines should not be reduced or increased. If it is planned to use mechanical excavators and any other powered mechanical plant it shall not be sited or moved above the pipeline. If it is planned to carry out excavation to a depth greater than 0.3 metres, embankment or dredging works the actual position and depth of the pipeline must be established on site with our representative and a safe working method agreed prior to any work taking place in order to minimise the risk of damage and ensure the final depth of cover does not affect the integrity of the pipeline.

The digging of trial holes to locate the pipeline must be carried out under the supervision of our on site representative. Excavation works may take place unsupervised no closer than 3 metres from the pipeline once its actual location has been confirmed. Similarly excavation with hand held power tools may take place no closer than 1.5 metres away.

Any construction traffic should either cross the pipeline using existing roads or at agreed crossing locations using agreed protective measures. Ground anchors for scaffolding stay wires should only be sited in the vicinity of the pipeline after the pipeline position has been confirmed on site with our representative and the ground anchor position agreed. The relocation of existing underground pipelines is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact.

Further details can be found in our “Specification for Safe working in the vicinity of National Grid high pressure gas pipelines and associated installations – requirements for third parties” T/SP/SSW/22 (available at http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/EBB14330-F1F0-4B5A- BDA3-DE7DF3482691/44260/Safeworkinginthevicinityofabove7barpipelines.pdf ).

We would request that the potential impact of the proposed works on National Grid’s existing gas transmission assets in the area is considered in any subsequent reports, including in the

Environmental Statement, and as part of any subsequent application. National Grid should be consulted at the earliest opportunity to discuss these proposals.

Further Advice

If we can be of any assistance to you in providing further information please do not hesitate to contact us at the address below.

National Grid Town Planner Asset Protection Team Land & Development National Grid House Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA

In addition, the following publications which are relevant to the issues outlined above are available from our web site:

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc, Electricity Act 1989 – Schedule 9 Statement, preservation of amenity A sense of place – Design guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines Development near overhead lines www.nationalgrid.com/uk/landanddevelopment

I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Vicky Stirling Land and Development (Submitted Electronically)

National Grid Assets Towers and OHL Substations and AGIs Cable and Accessories Gas Pipe and Accessories Gas Pipe Feeder Raster and OSMM

1 km 1 : 40007.3746312683 Background Mapping information has been Produced by UK\Vicky.Stirling 20:27 09/07/2012 National Grid UK Transmission. The asset position reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map by information represented on this map is the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The intellectual propery of National Grid PLC,Warwick controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Technology Park,Warwick,CV346DA Office.©Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey.National Grid Electricity - 100024241. National Grid Gas -100024886

http://tmap/t_landndev/commands/printadvanced/print_preview_landscape.asp 09/07/2012 Date: 19 July 2012 Our ref: 57251 Your ref: 120611_EN010041

The Planning Inspectorate EIA & Land Rights Customer Services Hornbeam House FAO Andrew Luke Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe BY EMAIL ONLY Cheshire CW1 6GJ

T 0300 060 3900

Dear Andrew

PROPOSED The Isles Wind Farm (the project) PROPOSAL BY E.ON Climate and Renewables (the developer) INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations)

Thank you for your consultation dated 22 June 2012which was received by Natural England on 22 June 2012.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Case law1 and guidance2 has stressed the need for a full set of environmental information to be available for consideration prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to grant planning permission. Natural England therefore advises that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should give full consideration to:

1. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) The development site is fully encompasses the following designated nature conservation site:  Railway Stell West SSSI

Further information on the SSSI and its special interest features can be found at www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk The Environmental Statement should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within this site and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects.

Natural England is aware that access tracks may run adjacent/near to Railway Stell West SSSI and therefore stand-off / buffer distances and any construction/operation impacts will need to be carefully evaluated including those that may affect the fenland flora and open water communities found in the ditch and its water quality/flow which will also need to be considered within the Hydrology section (8).

2. Designated Landscapes and Landscape Character

1 Harrison, J in R. v. Cornwall County Council ex parte Hardy (2001) 2 Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (April 2004) available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/sustainability environmental/environmentalimpactassessment/noteenvironmental/

Page 1 of 4 Landscape and visual impacts Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, such as changes in topography. The European Landscape Convention places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to consider the impacts of landscape when exercising their functions.

The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. We strongly advocate the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2002. LCA provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed. Guidance on LCA is available here.

Natural England supports the publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management in 2002 (2nd edition). The methodology set out is almost universally used for landscape and visual impact assessment.

In order to foster high quality development that respects, maintains, or enhances, local landscape character and distinctiveness, Natural England encourages all new development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the area, with the siting and design of the proposed development reflecting local design characteristics and, wherever possible, using local materials. The Environmental Impact Assessment process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit.

Heritage Landscapes You should consider whether there is land in the area affected by the development qualifying for conditional exemption from capital taxes on the grounds of outstanding scenic, scientific or historic interest. These are considered to be designated landscapes of national importance and the impact of your plan on these should be assessed where appropriate. An up-to-date list may be obtained at www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/lbsearch.htm and further information can be found on Natural England’s landscape pages here.

3. Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help encourage people to access the countryside for quiet enjoyment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways are to be encouraged. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be incorporated where appropriate.

Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails The EIA should consider potential impacts on access land, public open land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development.

4. Local Wildlife or Geological Sites The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. Local Sites are identified by the County ecologist, local wildlife trust or a local forum established for the purposes of identifying and selecting local sites; they are of county importance for wildlife or geodiversity. The Environmental Statement should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife interests of the site[s] identified above. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. Contact the County ecologist, local wildlife trust or Local Sites body in your area for further information.

Page 2 of 4

5. Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 We strongly recommend that surveys for protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats) should be carried out within the area affected by the development.

If any protected species are found the Environmental Statement should include details of:  The species concerned;  The population level at the site affected by the proposal;  The direct and indirect effects of the development upon that species;  Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required;  Whether the impact is acceptable and/or licensable.

In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of year. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants.

Natural England welcomes the proposals to update the ecological surveys to comply with current Natural England guidance and best practice (section 6.3.1 EIA Scoping Report) . We note from the consultation that previous surveys have been undertaken at different times and over different areas of the site and that it will need to be demonstrated that the entire site is fully covered. We welcome the proposals to update and ensure complete ornithological survey coverage of the site. In the meeting of 27 September 2011 we were satisfied that white-clawed crayfish was scoped out of the EIA.

6. Other features of nature conservation interest, e.g. habitats and species identified within the UK and County Biodiversity Action Plans. Natural England advises that a habitat survey (equivalent to Phase 2) is carried out on the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are present. The Environmental Statement should include details of:  Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys);  Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;  The habitats and species present;  The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether BAP priority habitat);  The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;  Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.

The development should avoid adversely impacting sensitive areas for wildlife within the site, and should if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.

Natural England have previously recommended that ornithological surveys should conform to Natural England guidance TIN069 Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds and that a full year of survey is undertaken across the site to update and complete the previous surveys which have been undertaken at different times and over different areas.

7. Contribution to local environmental initiatives and priorities, The Durham Carrs is correctly noted in section 7.2.2.1 as an area that has been previously targeted for wetland restoration. In addition, information about the Living Landscapes project should be sought from Durham Wildlife Trust.

Natural England welcome the discussions and site visits that have taken place in order to identify suitable enhancement opportunities on the site for birds and the associated Habitat Management Plan.

8. Cumulative and in-combination effects. The EIA should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are

Page 3 of 4 likely to result from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out. The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment. (Subject to available information):

a. Existing completed projects b. Approved but uncompleted projects c. Ongoing activities d. Plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the consenting authorities e. Plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in- combination effects.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.

For clarification of any points in this letter, please contact Colin Godfrey on 0300 060 1164. For any new consultations or issues, please contact [email protected].

We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service.

Yours sincerely

Deborah Hall Land Use Operations

Page 4 of 4

Leat House, Pattinson Road, District 15 Washington, Tyne and Wear, NE38 8LB, UK Telephone: +44 (0) 870 608 4820 Fax: +44 (0) 191 419 6768 Website: www.nwl.co.uk Direct Line: 0191 419 6731 E-mail: [email protected] Our Ref: Your Ref: 120611_EN010041

28 June 2012

FAO: Andrew Luke

Dear Mr Luke,

Subject: Scoping Opinion, The Isles Wind Farm.

Thank you for consulting Northumbrian Water on the above request for a scoping opinion.

In making our response Northumbrian Water assess the impact of the proposed development on our assets. We do not offer comment on aspects of planning applications that are outside of our area of control.

Having assessed the current proposed development against the context outlined above we would have no comments to make at this stage.

I trust this information is helpful to you, if you should require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Claire Megginson New Development

Northumbrian Water Limited Registered in England and Wales No 2366703 Registered office: Northumbria House Abbey Road, Pity Me, Durham, DH1 5FJ Council Offices Sedgefield Town Advice & Information Centre Council Sedgefield Co. Durham Lesley Swinbank MBA (Town Clerk) TS21 3AT Tel. Sedgefield 01740 621273 Fax: 01740 629445 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Andrew Luke Planning Inspectorate Room 3 / 18 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

18th July, 2012

Dear Mr. Luke,

The Isles Wind Farm: Environmental Impact Assessment

Sedgefield Town Council has been very involved with the County Durham Association of Local Councils working group in consideration of this development and fully endorses their response in respect of the above.

1. STATUTORY CONSULTEES AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION

All Parish Councils whose areas fall within the red line, and also those Parish Councils abutting but outside the red line, should be made statutory consultees.

It is not known on what basis this distinction has been made but the local community feels strongly that all directly affected, or potentially affected, Parish Councils should be consulted.

The local community takes the duty of public consultation and engagement to be an absolute obligation on all parties at all stages of the submission of this proposal.

2. SITE SELECTION

They should indicate what future flexibility in siting the turbines they wish to establish, through an officially approved micro-siting agreement.

3. ACCESS ROUTES AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

3.1. Access routes in terms of existing and proposed new roads Detailed information about proposed access routes for both construction and subsequent maintenance purposes should be given.

Any temporary access roads should be reinstated to their original standard and any spoil heaps removed from site or landscaped when road reinstated.

3.2. Access Issues affecting homes Structural surveys should be required on houses in Bradbury and elsewhere along the access route – especially any listed buildings. A number are known to have no foundations and certainly one is 17th century.

3.3. Construction issues affecting the Railway The East Coast Main Line traverses the Carrs on an embankment effectively dividing the Bradbury Carrs from the Mordon and Preston Carrs.

Anecdotally the embankment is based on sheepskin bales on to which stone was tipped until stability was achieved.

3.4. Possible effects on the Water table There should be a survey of impact on water tables, current water levels and effects further downstream (for example in Darlington and other areas where flood-risk is already a recognised problem) of changes in ground conditions and ability to absorb heavy rain fall.

Any proposed alteration to natural water courses should be avoided, as should damage to underground aquifers.

4. ISSUES OF LANDSCAPE AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

The EIA should deliver a full assessment of how the development would affect the landscape in both visual and residential amenity terms.

a) Landscape

b) Residential amenity

All Parish and Town Councils both within the red-line area and abutting it should be consulted to agree a list of affected homes with E.ON.

A survey of all houses within 3km as a minimum should be undertaken to assess the visual impact the turbines would have from differing windows in households having views of wind turbines.

Similarly, any effect on children, play areas etc in the area should be taken into consideration.

We consider this to be a very technical aspect and can only comment as follows.

E.ON should be required to provide funding for an independent noise expert to support the local communities, and to help them have confidence in the assumptions being made.

There should be an agreement that all noise data collected by these methods would be shared promptly and in full with both DCC and all official consultees including Parish Councils etc.

d) Shadow Flicker

5. VISUAL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Photomontage evidence

All consultees Parish and Town Councils and planning officers within DCC should be consulted to agree a list of affected viewpoints with E.ON.

E.ON should also demonstrate the cumulative impact of the proposal in relation to other windfarms that already exist in the area.

The visual impact on visitors arriving in the County by train (East Coast Line) or road (A1M and possibly A19), or travelling through it, should be assessed.

5.1. WILDLIFE IMPACT a) Bird surveys Extensive and detailed bird surveys should be carried out, normally covering two breeding seasons, though not restricted to breeding periods only. Details of winter foraging areas, migratory flight routes and night flying habits should be produced to Natural England standards. In each case the EIA should assess the impact of turbine construction, habitat loss or disruption, and turbine operation.

The cumulative effect of turbines in this area should be particularly taken into account in respect of migratory birds using this area as a passage route through the county to other destinations.

b) Other wildlife surveys Surveys similar to those for birds should be carried out for all wildlife, including prey which might not be considered as a standalone issue but whose destruction would impact on the ecology of the area. Bats may be a very important consideration here.

All surveys relating to wildlife, flora and fauna should include the impact of access routes.

c) SSSIs Any impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is present within the site boundary (Railway Stell West SSSI) and is designated for its flora should be specified. The SSSI consists of a length of ditch beside the East Coast Main Line, and is considered by Natural England to be the last fragment of typical fenland habitat of the once extensive wetland of Bradbury, Morden and Preston Carrs. This should be protected at all times as should any other SSSI or Area of High Landscape Value in the area.

d) Impact on open Carrs This area is noted by DCC and E.ON as being unique to County Durham, so of particular concern is the access road planned for the northern site access across this area. Peat is known to be present and an analysis of the sub structure of the Carrs should therefore be required to determine the amount and location of peat.

6. ARCHAEOLOGY

7. DECOMMISSIONING

8. ANALYSIS OF CLAIMED BENEFIT

Yours sincerely

Lesley Swinbank Town Clerk

DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES PLANNING SERVICES www.stockton.gov.uk Municipal Buildings, Church Road, Stockton on Tees. TS18 1LD Tel (01642) 526022 Fax (01642) 526048 DX 60611

Your Ref: 120611_EN010041 SBC App No. 12/1565/AAC Please ask for: Mr Andrew Glossop Direct line: 01642 527796 Email [email protected] Date: 20 July 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

Proposal: Consultation from Secretary of State regarding information for scoping opinion Location: The Isles Wind Farm, Bradbury, Co Durham

Thank you for the consultation on the Scoping for the EIA in respect to the above.

Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 it is considered that due to the scale of the proposed development and the environmental sensitivity of the geographical areas that are likely to be affected by the development, that tits impacts are likely to be significant. Due to the likely significance of the impact, under Schedule 2 and 3 of the above regulations it is considered that the development falls within the requirements for the proposal to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

In this regard, and from the perspective of an Authority adjoining the administrative area in which the wind farm is being proposed, it is requested that the EIA fully considers the developments impact on Transportation and Landscape and Visual matters relative to the administrative area of Stockton on Tees.

Transportation matters There are unlikely to be any highway objections to this proposal as the only routes affected within the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees are the A19, the A66 and the A689. The A19 and A66 are part of the Strategic Highway Network managed by the Highways Agency who will no doubt comment on the affects on their network. In terms of A689, any EIA should demonstrate the route to site is able to accommodate the proposed abnormal loads (height, length and width) as well as a clear indication of any hedgerows / verges etc (non highway land) that will be affected in order to allow a full understanding of the detailed impacts. It is suggested that the applicant confirms the route in advance with is confirmed in advance with the Highway Authority. Contd…………..

The Planning Inspectorate Room 3/18 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

In terms of construction phase, the number of HGVs and other traffic using this route should be identified as part of a Transport Assessment so that a view on these movements can be established.

Landscape & Visual Comments A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should be undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition taking current best practice into account. The exact methodology of the LVIA should be agreed with the determining authority, although our recommendations would be as follows;.

The extent of the study area for the Zones of Theoretical Visibility should be set at a radius 20km.

In addition to the viewpoints contained in the non-technical summary other Key Viewpoints could include views from vehicles travelling north and south along the A1and views from vehicles travelling to the north of the site on the A689. Viewpoints should also include sites to the eastern edge of Newton Aycliffe, within Bradbury, and to the south west of Sedgefield. These views must be assessed as described in section using computer generated wire frame 3D models. It is essential that the wire frame models are presented to the LPA prior to completion of the EIA to enable a selection of views to be developed into full photomontages which will support the EIA application. Photomontages should seek to demonstrate key views where more than one wind farm is visible from a single point.

Cumulative landscape and visual effects must be assessed as there are a number of existing and potential wind farms in the general area. Consideration must be given to illustrating all turbines: o At operational sites; o at approved sites, (including Moor House Darlington and Lambs Hill Stillington) o planning application sites and o scoping sites.

The photomontages should indicate operational sites and approved sites as the base line image and then bring forward the individual planning application sites and scoping sites. These should then be presented as a series of additional images indicating all possible scenarios associated with the potential sites.

I trust the above is sufficiently detailed although please contact Mr Andrew Glossop (01642 527796) should you need to discuss this matter further.

Yours faithfully

Head of Planning

UNCLASSIFIED 200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries)

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.coal.decc.gov.uk/services/planning

National Infrastructure Directorate The Planning Inspectorate

[By Email: [email protected]]

9 July 2012

For the Attention of: Mr Andy Luke – Senior EIA and Land Rights Advisor

Dear Mr Luke

The Isles Wind Farm Proposal

Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 SI 2263

Thank you for your consultation letter of 22 June 2012 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the EIA Scoping Opinion for the above proposal.

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.

The Coal Authority Response

The northern and north-western boundaries of the proposed application site fall within the defined coalfield, although the majority of the site is located off the coalfield.

The Coal Authority is pleased to note that the Scoping Report acknowledges the proximity of the site to the coalfield in Section 9. Table 9.1 demonstrates awareness of the range of issues to be considered should any wind turbines be proposed to be situated within the coalfield.

However, the proposed layout shown at Figure 2.1 in the Scoping Report indicates that all turbines would be located off the coalfield and, accordingly, no consideration of coal mining issues would be necessary. 1

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

In accordance with our consultation requirements, we look forward to receiving the planning application and Environmental Statement for comment in due course.

I trust this is acceptable, please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information or would like to discuss this matter further.

Yours sincerely

Mark Harrison

Mark E. N. Harrison B.A.(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

WINDLESTONE PARISH COUNCIL

7 Front Street, Bishop Middleham, County Durham. DL17 9AJ Telephone: 01740 652626 / 07825741495 Email: [email protected]

17th July 2012

FAO: Andrew Luke EIA and Land Rights Adviser on behalf of the Secretary of State The Planning Inspectorate Room 3/18 Temple Quay House 2 The Square BRISTOL BS1 6PN

Dear Mr Luke,

Environmental Impact Assessment of the Isles Wind Farm Proposal by EON Climate and Renewables

Thank you for your letter dated 22nd June 2012. Windlestone Parish Council have discussed the proposed development at length and have the following concerns/issues regarding the proposed wind farm which it feels should be included in any environmental statement produced:

Decommissioning Windlestone Parish Council feels that arrangements for decommissioning of the turbines after 25 years, including financial guarantees should be included in the statement. Confirmation should also be included on what would happen should EON no longer own the turbines at a future date. The Environmental Impact Assessment should also state what the timescale would be for removing the turbines after a period of continuous inactivity. Further, will a bond be paid to the consenting Authority to cover costs should the developer go out of business.

Access Routes Windlestone Parish Council would like confirmation that all surveys relating to wildlife, flora and fauna will extend to access routes. The Parish Council are also concerned that many roads in County Durham are not, and never have been designed to carry loads in excess of what might be expected from everyday farm traffic. As it is expected that the largest vehicles used in this development could measure up to 50 metres in length and weigh around 125 tons this raises the question as to whether the access routes will cross any ancient mine workings or sensitive geology.

The Parish Council would also like to see confirmation of what hedges and trees would be removed as part of the development both on site and across access routes.

Bird Surveys There should be extensive and detailed bird surveys carried out over two breeding seasons including the impact of the turbines on bird habitat. The survey should also include the impact of the destruction of flora and fauna on migration and hunting routes.

Wildlife Surveys Windlestone Parish Council feel that surveys similar to those carried out on birds should be conducted on all wildlife including prey which would not normally be considered as a stand alone issue, but whose destruction would impact on the ecology of the area. Bats in particular should be given important consideration.

Construction Windlestone Parish Council feels that details need to be confirmed on the amount in cubic metres of concrete and pilings which will be used for foundations and access routes.

Plans for significant spoils that will result from the construction of roads, crane pads and all related buildings as well as the turbine foundations should be detailed as these will have an environmental impact in terms of habitat loss.

Archaeological Issues It is important that the necessary Archaeological Surveys are carried out to determine the impact on medieval villages which could be affected by the development. The positioning of turbines in relation to listed buildings is an extremely important consideration.

Impact on Open Carrs Windlestone Parish Council has particular concerns in relation to the access road planned for the Northern part of the site. The impact of industrial development on the Carrs land which is unique to County Durham is a major concern.

SSSIs There should be consideration given to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is present within the site boundary and is designated for its flora (Railway Stell West SSSI).

Sub Structure There needs to be an analysis of the sub structure in order to determine the amount and location of peat.

Health Issues Windlestone Parish Council has concerns over issues relating to health. In particular noise levels and shadow flicker need to be given considerable thought. Both of these issues can have a very disturbing effect on residents.

In addition to the points raised above Windlestone Parish Council is concerned over the impact the development would have on County Durham as a whole. If located as planned, the development would be situated either side of the principal North-South road and rail routes in the East of England. Accordingly, the development would be seen by every traveller and tourist travelling to or from Scotland. As such this would deliver an impression of County Durham to those travellers. As County Durham is already the most turbine filled county in England, and as it is also a county imagined by many visitors to be a post-industrial desert, putting major wind turbines either side of that important county-traversing route would not do County Durham which is already the least prosperous county in England any favours.

On behalf of Windlestone Parish Council I would like to thank you for considering the points raised in this letter.

Yours sincerely

Karen Younghusband Clerk Windlestone Parish Council

(E-mailed 17th July 2012)

APPENDIX 3 Presentation of the Environmental Statement

Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2264) (as amended) sets out the information which must be provided for an application for a development consent order (DCO) for nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. Where required, this includes an environmental statement. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information need not be replicated or included in the ES. An environmental statement (ES) is described under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) 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 Regulations Regulation 2)

The purpose of an ES is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are fully considered, together with the economic or social benefits of the development, before the development consent application under the Planning Act 2008 is determined. The ES should be an aid to decision making.

The SoS 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 SoS recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.

ES Indicative Contents

The SoS emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law. The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in environmental statements.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations states this information includes:

‘17. Description of the development, including in particular—

Appendix 3

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; (b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used; (c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

18. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

19. 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 interrelationship between the above factors.

20. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from: (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

21. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

22. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.

23. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information’.

EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1

4.22 The content of the ES must include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regulations. This includes the consideration of ‘the main alternatives studied by the applicant’ which the SoS recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES. Part 2 is included below for reference:

Appendix 3

4.23 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 the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects, and • A non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the SoS 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 SoS 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 SoS considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering inter-relationships between factors and cumulative impacts.

Scheme Proposals

The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES which should support the application as described. The SoS is not able to entertain material changes to a project once an application is submitted. The SoS draws the attention of the applicant to the DCLG and the Planning Inspectorate’s published advice on the preparation of a draft DCO and accompanying application documents.

Flexibility

The SoS acknowledges that the EIA process is iterative, and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. For example, there may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. However, at the time of the application for a DCO, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes.

Appendix 3

It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.

The Rochdale Envelope principle (see R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew (1999) and R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (2000)) is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing development applications. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Rochdale Envelope’ which is available on the Advice Note’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known, the applicant should assess the maximum potential adverse impacts the project could have to ensure that the project as it may be constructed has been properly assessed.

The ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within any proposed parameters would not result in significant impacts not previously identified and assessed. The maximum and other dimensions 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 structures and of any buildings. Lighting proposals should also be described.

Scope

The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics 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. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and local authorities and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

Physical Scope

In general the SoS 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

Appendix 3

• the breadth of the topic • the physical extent of any surveys or the study area, and • the potential significant impacts. The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified for each of the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. This should include at least the whole of the application site, and include all offsite works. For certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance and best practice, whenever this is available, and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given.

Breadth of the Topic Area

The ES should explain the range of matters to be considered under each topic and this may respond partly to the type of project being considered. If the range considered is drawn narrowly then a justification for the approach should be provided.

Temporal Scope

The assessment should consider:

• environmental impacts during construction works • environmental impacts on completion/operation of the development • where appropriate, environmental impacts a suitable number of years after completion of the development (for example, in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals), and • environmental impacts during decommissioning.

In terms of decommissioning, the SoS 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, as well as to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account, is to encourage early consideration as to how structures can be taken down. The purpose of this is to seek to minimise disruption, to re- use materials and to restore the site or put it to a suitable new use. The SoS encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

The SoS 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 SoS recommends that throughout the ES a standard terminology for time periods should be defined, such that for example, ‘short term’ always refers to the same period of time.

Appendix 3

Baseline

The SoS 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, whenever possible, be consistent between topics. The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although it is recognised that this may not always be possible.

The SoS recommends that the baseline environment should be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys, and care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date.

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. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies and appropriate consultees, wherever possible.

The baseline situation and the proposed development should be described within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.

Identification of Impacts and Method Statement

Legislation and Guidelines

In terms of the EIA methodology, the SoS 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 SoS recommends that relevant legislation and all permit 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 APFP Regulations.

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 Regulations require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20).

As a matter of principle, the SoS applies the precautionary approach to follow the Court’s2 reasoning in judging ‘significant effects’. In other words

2 See Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretris van Landbouw (Waddenzee Case No C 127/02/2004)

Appendix 3

‘likely to affect’ will be taken as meaning that there is a probability or risk that the development will have an effect, and not that a development will definitely have an effect. The SoS 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 SoS 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 SoS considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact inter-relationships.

The SoS recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the proposed development can be approached in a number of ways. However it 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 topic areas. The SoS recommends that a common format should be applied where possible.

Inter-relationships between environmental factors

The inter-relationship between aspects of the environments likely to be significantly affected is a requirement of the EIA Regulations (see Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations). These occur where a number of separate impacts, e.g. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.

The SoS considers that the inter-relationships between factors must be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole. This will help to ensure that the ES is not a series of separate reports collated into one document, but rather a comprehensive assessment drawing together the environmental impacts of the proposed development. This is particularly important when considering impacts in terms of any permutations or parameters to the proposed development.

Cumulative Impacts

The potential cumulative impacts with other major developments will need to be identified, as required by the Directive. The significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). In assessing cumulative impacts, other major development should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant authorities on the basis of those that are:

• under construction • permitted application(s), but not yet implemented • submitted application(s) not yet determined • projects on the National Infrastructure’s programme of projects

Appendix 3

• identified in the relevant 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, and • identified in other plans and programmes (as appropriate) which set the framework for future development consents/approvals, where such development is reasonably likely to come forward. Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and how these have been taken into account as part of the assessment.

The SoS recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects, through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.

For the purposes of identifying any cumulative effects with other developments in the area, applicants should also consult consenting bodies in other EU states to assist in identifying those developments (see commentary on Transboundary Effects below).

Related Development

The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is related with the proposed development to ensure that all the impacts of the proposal are assessed.

The SoS 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.

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 SoS 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.

Appendix 3

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures may fall into certain categories namely: avoid; reduce; compensate or enhance (see Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 21); and should be identified as such in the specialist topics. Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may relate to more than one topic area. For each topic, the ES should set out any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects, and to identify any residual effects with mitigation in place. Any proposed mitigation should be discussed and agreed with the relevant consultees.

The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment and can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the assessment.

It would be helpful if the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions and/or requirements proposed within the draft 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.

The SoS advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation and may be adopted during decommissioning.

Cross References and Interactions

The SoS recommends that all the specialist topics in the ES should cross reference their text to other relevant disciplines. Interactions between the specialist topics is essential to the production of a robust assessment, as 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 Regulations 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.

Consultation

The SoS 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 (PEI) (this term is defined in the EIA Regulations under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’) 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

Appendix 3

preliminary environmental information (PEI). This PEI could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with Section 47 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 PEI. Attention is drawn to the duty upon applicants under Section 50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.

Transboundary Effects

The SoS 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 SoS recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and water and to potential impacts on migratory species and to impacts on shipping and fishing areas.

The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 12 ‘Development with significant transboundary impacts consultation’ which is available on the Advice Notes Page of the National Infrastructure Planning website

Summary Tables

The SoS recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the applicant may wish to consider the use of tables:

Table X to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation on the basis of specialist topics, inter-relationships and cumulative impacts.

Table XX to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion and other responses to consultation.

Table XXX to set out the mitigation measures proposed, as well as assisting the reader, the SoS considers that this would also enable the applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Development Consent Order.

Table XXXX to cross reference where details in the HRA (where one is provided) such as descriptions of sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or compensation measures, are to be found in the ES.

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms

The SoS 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

Appendix 3

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.

Presentation

The ES should have all of its paragraphs numbered, as this makes referencing easier as well as accurate.

Appendices must be clearly referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered.

All figures and drawings, photographs and photomontages should be clearly referenced. Figures should clearly show the proposed site application boundary.

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references. All publications referred to within the technical reports should be included.

Non Technical Summary

The EIA Regulations require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regulations 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.

Appendix 3