Comments on Statements of Case Made to Planning Inspectorate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comments on Statements of Case made to Planning Inspectorate Transport and Works Act - Morlais Demonstration Zone - TWA/3234121 October 2020 Snowdonia Canoe Club Endorsed by Canoe Wales - the National Governing Body for Paddlesport in Wales. This document has been prepared by Snowdonia Canoe Club (SCC) in support of our objection to the granting of a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) to Menter Môn for their Morlais Demonstration Zone (MDZ) project. With the support and endorsement of Canoe Wales (CW), our national governing body, this, alongside our Statement of Case (SoC), should be taken as a representation on behalf of the global sea kayaking community. We wish it to be understood that neither SCC nor CW are opposed to the development of tidal power in the seas around Anglesey. The aim of our intervention is to ensure that the impact of the Morlais proposal on sea kayaking is properly considered in the planning and consenting process. This is not yet the case. Contents Menter Môn Morlais Statement of Case 2 MMC194 ES Chapter 15 - Shipping and Navigation (revised) 3 MMC196 Navigational Risk Assessment (Addendum) 5 MMC193 - Supplementary Kayak and Sailing Activities Assessment 6 SOC001 - Royal Yachting Association 8 SOC002 - Isle of Anglesey County Council 10 SOC003 - Dŵr Cymru 11 SOC004 - Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 12 SOC005 - Maritime and Coastguard Agency 13 SOC006 - Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 13 SOC007 - M Llewellyn 13 SOC008 - Natural Resources Wales 14 SOC009 - Roberts TS 15 SOC010 - North Wales Wildlife Trust 15 SOC012 - Trinity House 15 SOC013 - ORTHIOS ECO PARKS 17 Annexes Review of the Morlais Project Shipping & Navigation Chapter 15 Navigation risk assessment Addendum - Morlais Demonstration Zone Document Ref MOR- MCO-DOC-001 Scoping the socio-economic significance of sea kayaking on Anglesey Page | 1 Menter Môn Morlais Statement of Case Neither Snowdonia Canoe Club nor Canoe Wales have the competency to address issues related to the conduct of the Inquiry so we make no general comments on the Menter Môn Statement of Case (SoC). We only make the observation that the plethora of documents, coming out at different times has made it very difficult to grasp exactly what is being proposed and how the various elements fit together. The exact location of the tidal energy devices (TEC) is of great interest to Snowdonia Canoe Club as we are concerned with the potential for kayaks to be swept onto emergent infrastructure and TECs. Thus far we have been considering the ‘worst case scenario’ presented in Chapter 7 Metocean Conditions and Coastal Processes as the basis for our assessment of navigational risk which in turn determines the impact on socio-economics of sea kayaking. However, we are aware that a phased approach to deployment has been developed and linked to an Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP). We have been unable to locate any details or maps of the location and scale of the phases. It has been brought to our attention that maps available on https://www.morlaisenergy.com/navigation/ may represent the phases. The image on the following page has been extracted from this webpage as it appears to represent what maybe proposals for a Phase 1 deployment. If this is correct then it appears that Phase 1 maybe six TEC just south west of South Stack as indicated below. If this is the case we would like to point out that South Stack race is used by kayakers on the ebb and these devices look as if they could be in, or close, to the run out from the race (as indicated in Figure 8 in the SCC SoC). We would need to see some modelling of drift of swimmers and kayaks from the race to be sure that this location is not going to pose a risk to sea kayakers. Using the same logic as the EMMP we would also suggest close monitoring of changes to hydrodynamics around the arrays with particular attention to changes to overfalls and eddies to better understand impacts on metocean conditions and by extension on recreational vessels as suggested in Recommendation 4 in the report ‘Hydrodynamic effects of Morlais Development Zone’ presented as Annex 3 to the SCC SoC. At the same time as Morlais submitted it’s Statement of Case (SoC) a series of new documents were released. Three of these are of direct relevance to the issues raised by the sea kayaking community and we provide detailed comments with supporting evidence for these here and treat them as part of the SoC. Nevertheless, we note that at least one of these is a Chapter in the ES and should have more properly been made available for public consultation. Our general observation is that the issues we have previously raised are now acknowledged within the ES but our actual concerns have not in any way diminished. Indeed they have increased as it has become apparent that decision-making by project management is based on the belief that undesirable impacts simply won’t occur, rather than due consideration and respect for the opinion of others and in the case of disagreement, the provision of robust evidence to support claims that impacts will be negligible. We now have serious doubts as to the capacity of Menter Môn to successfully monitor and control a project of this scale and complexity. Page | 2 MMC194 ES Chapter 15 - Shipping and Navigation (revised) Snowdonia Canoe Club (SCC) has previously commented on Chapter 15 - Shipping and Navigation in our Objection and again in our SoC and have had several exchanges with Menter Môn and their consultants regarding sea kayaking activities and navigation risks. SCC has reviewed this latest revision to Chapter 15 and the associated Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) (see below). The observations we present in our SoC on Navigation are unchanged and we do not repeat them here but confine our comments to the new material in Page | 3 the revised Chapter 15. A detailed evaluation of Chapter 15 is provided in the reports annexed to this document. The main points we have identified are: ● There is a lack of UK guidance on the navigational and shipping environmental assessment requirements appropriate to inshore projects in areas heavily used by other vessels - expectation is that the developer and stakeholders should work together to come to agreement on routes and acceptable risks and mitigation. It has not proved possible to reach agreement for many reasons including Covid restrictions. This leaves us at an impasse. We suggest a way forward on this would be to go back to the start and for Morlais to invite a number of the local sea kayak guides to participate in an participatory Hazard workshop and to seek to form a navigational stakeholder group to monitor and advise as the project develops. ● Sea kayakers have expressed concerns to the Morlais Project with respect to a risk of loss of life. The Project has responded that the NRA has assessed the risk to unpowered recreational vessels for all identified hazards and device types and found them all to be ALARP. However, we found that Morlais deviated from the International Marine Organisation (IMO) formal safety assessment methodology they said they were using. The method used by Morlais is not able to properly rank hazards and determine where to prioritise risk control options for the navigational aspects of the project site. ● The risk assessment in Chapter 15 of the Morlais Environmental Statement (Ch.15) indicates that Morlais calculate a tolerable risk of a fatality to a member of the public some 10,000 times higher than acceptable in the Health & Safety Executive guidance, Reducing Risks, Protecting People (HSE). This needs further justification before it can be considered acceptable. ● There are no mitigation measures proposed by Morlais which reduce the risks to sea kayakers. We have repeatedly advised that the only mitigation proposed, installation of grab chains and ladders, will increase rather than reduce risk to life as well as entice people into danger. We wish to add that providing access to the public to OREI is also counter to MCA Guidance to Mariners which advises that they should only be accessed in controlled circumstances by trained personnel. ● There are discrepancies between the severe consequences of any interaction between fixed surface breaking elements and an unpowered recreational vessel between the NRA and Chapter 15. The NRA accepts that a worse credible accident with an unpowered vessel could be fatal while Chapter 15 indicates the same accident results in a minor injury. Likewise the risk factor for a single fatality at a frequency of once in every 10 years is halved when passed through the software used to perform the risk assessment. There is no transparent reasoning provided for these reductions in the calculation of risks to life. ● For the Navigational Risk Assessment to be credible, Marico need to provide a simple credible fault tree analysis starting from a sea kayaker surfing in the most affected tide race off Holy Island and ending at a fatal interaction with a surface breaking element of the Morlais Project. Expert professional sea kayaker input Page | 4 should be used to help determine credible frequencies for the various steps in the fault tree. ● The inclusion of a worse credible hazard outcome in the Marico Navigational Risk assessment (NRA) significantly changes the risk outcomes as described in Chapter 15. It is concluded that Chapter 15 is misleading and should be extensively rewritten and reissued. ● We have determined that the risk of a fatal accident to an individual calculated in the Marico Navigational Risk Assessment is 1000 times higher than tolerable under HSE guidelines in Reducing Risks, Protecting People (HSE).