FREEPOST Planning Services NATIONAL GRID MID W CONNECTION Shirehall Abbey Foregate Shrewsbury SY2 6ND
9th February 2015
Your ref;
Dear Mr Lee,
RE: APPLICATION BY NATIONAL GRID FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE MID WALES ELECTRICITY CONNECTION
STATUTORY CONSULTATION UNDER S42 AND S47 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008
I refer to your letter of 22nd January in respect of the above consultation. As you are aware this council has been working with the National Grid team in identifying the impacts of this planned project for Shropshire.
Shropshire Council has the status as of a prescribed consultation body under Regulation 9 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended).
As part of the S42 consultation this work has included liaison with the Shropshire Councillors whose divisions are impacted by the proposals, stakeholder representatives and consultation with internal specialists. We also have established links with Powys and the two Councils are collaborating to ensure information is shared about the project between England and Wales.
In drawing this response together these are a number of areas where further work is required to enable a thorough and objective consideration of the impacts of the proposal and these are outlined further throughout this consultation response.
This project has been developed over a number of years with initial community consultation on route corridor options taking place in 2011. Shropshire Councils position on this project was first set out its response to National Grids informal consultation on route corridor options which ran between March and June 2011.
A Summary of the Key Points
Shropshire Council:
Notes the National Grid position that it will look carefully at the outcome of the inquiry into Powys windfarms and if it’s established that there is no longer a need for a connection then it would not be built. Considers the impact of the proposed high voltage pylons and transmission lines, newly introduced to this part of Shropshire for the first time, to severely impact on the local landscape character, potentially for many generations to come. Identifies the following 3 pinch points of the route as highly vulnerable to environmental impacts:
1. Llanymynech environs
2. Maesbury Marsh to the crossing of the A5 and featuring the canal environment
3.The Tee point at Berghill
Notes National Grid’s preference for use of the T pylon in Shropshire over that of low height lattice pylons. However the Council believes more work is needed on the effect of pylon colour, comparison of impacts of angle pylons for both designs and an assessment of a number of current uncertainties regarding the untested T pylon before a final decision is made on its use in Shropshire. Does not consider the cumulative traffic and transport effects have been adequately established particularly given the likely overlap between this and wind farm projects in Mid Wales – a “worst case” scenario should be evaluated as part of the Environmental Statement having regard to these cumulative impacts. Requires a comprehensive impact mitigation scheme consisting of both on- site and off-site environmental and community mitigation measures to address all identified significant adverse effects. When loss of vegetation, hedges and trees cannot be avoided, requires such loss to be re-instated or, where this is not possible, as close to the loss as practicable and in any case avoiding the appearance of a swathe of landscape change along the route. Advises National Grid that some natural assets, such as ancient semi- natural woodland and ancient trees are irreplaceable Requires the essential elements of any planting scheme to be demonstrably deliverable either by Requirement or Planning Obligation or a form of legal agreement, and maintainable over the life of the project Is concerned that impacts are defined separately within the consultation material making a cumulative assessment of these difficult Is concerned that where impacts or policy considerations pull in different directions it is difficult to see how these have been objectively assessed That detailed evidence of the Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of alternative designs including T pylon, low height lattice are not evaluated against any alternative Issues concerning the transmission via 132kV on wooden poles as an alternative to 400Kv has not been explained as part of the consultation
2 process or evaluated in detail having regard to the Social, Environmental or Economic impacts. Seeks the establishment of a Community Impact Mitigation Fund to address uncertain and intangible impacts, as well as those impacts not capable of mitigation through other means. It would directly focus on delivery to the communities most affected by the development and experiencing loss of amenity. Requests that National Grid work with the Council to promote local skills, training employment and business opportunity to the mutual benefit of our community and National Grid. Requests that should changes to the route be required following consultation, that these are considered alongside a back check review of corridor options where this may result in an improved alignment and where localized undergrounding solutions might thereby become justifiable. Seeks potential health risks, and general community well-being and amenity, is a consideration of the Environmental Statement and is properly evaluated and mitigated. Is highly concerned that the tourism and visitor economy so vital to Shropshire is severely compromised by the proposed overhead line. There is little indication of how this has influenced the design and route alignment, and what mitigation is proposed. Has significant concerns over the potential impact to the setting of historic assets and potential for direct impacts to known and unknown archaeological assets. Has concerns over the implications for flood risk in particular a view that the infrastructure required to construct the wind farms will contribute to more surface water run-off and exacerbate flood events particularly at the confluence of the River Severn and River Vyrnwy.
Overview of Shropshire Council’s Position regarding the Mid Wales Connection project to date
Cabinet Report 15th June 2011
The Councils Cabinet considered a report on the strategic issues and impacts at that time. Cabinet resolved that the impact of a 400kv overhead line connection was considered to be significantly detrimental and totally unacceptable to Shropshire Council which would object on these grounds to an overhead line solution.
As the project developed the route corridor was selected and further refined and a decision taken by National Grid to underground a section of the proposed line through Mid Wales in the Meifod valley but no undergrounding is proposed through Shropshire.
While Shropshire Council has continued to work with National Grid to identify the impacts of the scheme, the fact that no undergrounding in Shropshire is a significant disappointment for Shropshire Communities.
3 Shropshire Council also set out a number of key issues raised by members and in representations received by local communities and interested parties at that time for National Grid to consider in its 2011 response. These issues are set out below for information (not all will fall within National Grids remit as promoter of this scheme):
The integrity and validity of TAN 8 promoting wind farm development was criticized by a number of speakers and in particular the fact that Shropshire was not consulted on this document and nor were the strategic infrastructure implications considered when TAN 8 was published. The efficiency of wind turbines as a means of providing a reliable and sustainable contribution to the nations power supply was questioned. Visual impact and impact on the landscape of pylons – in particular the 400kv 45m design. The implications for flood risk in particular a view that the infrastructure required to construct the wind farms will contribute to more surface water run-off and exacerbate flood events particularly at the confluence of the River Severn and River Vyrnwy. That the consultation process is flawed and divisive setting one community against another. In addition the project news brochure titled “Mid Wales Connection” is believed by some to have been misleading and inadequate. That National Grid has failed to evaluate the alternative options placing too great an emphasis on the economic cost of providing the connection That potential health risks have not been properly evaluated or considered That tourism and the visitor economy play a key role in Shropshire and this would be compromised if an overhead line solution is promoted That the Government is not looking at the issue of energy generation holistically and there is inadequate coordination between energy generation and transmission projects That the benefit arising from any planning obligation should the development affect Shropshire should go to the communities most affected. Adverse impact on a low wage economy That traffic concerns have not been properly assessed That the IPC process has not been properly explained
Motion to Council passed by Shropshire Council in respect of the cumulative impact of Windfarms in Mid Wales 28th February 2013
At the meeting of full Council on 28th February 2013 Members supported a Motion expressing their deep concerns as to the potential detrimental impact in Shropshire of the cumulative effect of the proposed wind farms in mid-Wales. In particular:-
The impact on our communities and environment of a high voltage 400kv overhead line crossing Shropshire; The impact of construction traffic on communities along the prospective route
4 It was noted then that the Council's Officers and Members will continue to engage in the due planning processes for both the high voltage connection and for the mid-Wales Wind Farms to ensure that the interests of Shropshire communities are fully and effectively represented via the active participation of Officers and Members in such processes.
The Council also considered that the number of wind farm proposals coming forward is a direct response to the subsidies which exist to support such renewables. While it was acknowledged that Government policy supports renewable energy in principle the subsidy mechanism will inevitably incentivise development types which may otherwise be uneconomic.
It was resolved that the Planning Services Manager wrote to Ed Davey, then Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change seeking a review of the mechanism for subsidising inland wind farms and that consideration be given to alternative renewable energy solutions where the overall costs (social/economic &environmental) and wider sustainability of the scheme is given priority.
Scoping Response 30th May 2014
In National Grid’s letter of 30th May 2014 Shropshire Council’s response was sought in respect of the documentation before the Secretary of State for a scoping opinion which identified the information the applicant will include in the Environmental Statement (ES) supporting the application for an Order granting Development Consent. National Grid asked in particular whether the Council had any comments on the scoping report and provided the statutory 28 days for the Council to comment on this.
I draw your attention in particular to the key issues raised in Shropshire Council’s comments in respect of the following points:-
an outline of the main alternatives considered and the reasons for selecting a preferred option; where cumulative development methods used or proposed to be used to predict impacts and the significance criteria framework used; where cumulative development has been identified, how applicants intend to assess these impacts in the ES; Where uncertainty remains, the applicant should provide as much detail as possible or assume the worst case (e.g. maximum dimensions of a building or of the applicants’ scoping exercise; and an outline of the structure of the proposed Environmental Statement
Effectiveness of the Consultation Process
It is acknowledged National Grid has sought to provide a thorough S42 consultation in line with its Consultation Strategy, and that it has prepared a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) in line with regulatory requirements. In support of this, Shropshire Council provided comments on early draft versions of both the SoCC and Consultation Strategy in September 2014. Whilst a number of areas were highlighted for potential improvement (length of consultation; number and location of information events;
5 importance of providing fit-for-purpose and appropriately targeted documents; and encouraging the use of photo montages to support landscape and visual impact information), the Council were broadly supportive of National Grid’s overall proposed approach to this consultation.
In assessing the adequacy of the S42 consultation, it is acknowledged that National Grid has followed its Consultation Strategy closely in terms of the type and number of consultation events held and the availability of information. What appears less clear, and has been highlighted in discussions with affected Parish Councils, is the clarity on the status and importance of this stage of consultation; this is discussed in more detail below. In addition, as acknowledged by National Grid, at this stage the PEIR provides the main context for consultation with landowners, local communities and technical specialists. Whilst there is an understanding that this can only provide a preliminary basis for comments given that this work will lead to a more detailed Environmental Statement (ES), it is unclear if and how further comments will be sought when this more detailed assessment work is published.
Clearly local residents, parish councils and key stakeholders each have an opportunity to respond directly to the S42 consultation and this response is not intended to capture or replicate those views. Nevertheless the Local Authority has engaged with communities at key stages be they larger public meetings or smaller stakeholder groups and sought to articulate these in previous consultation responses.
Although National Grid has sought to engage effectively as this project has developed there are still questions about the effectiveness of the approach. At a meeting with parish and Shropshire Council representatives held on 27th January a number of stakeholder views were expressed. While these views are not a formal response of the Council as to the Adequacy of Consultation, they nevertheless point to some important issues as follows:-
There is some confusion as to the consultation strategy adopted by National Grid and a lack of clarity about the status of each consultation round despite the various stages of consultation outlined in the PEIR. Feedback received from some residents and parish councils is that some local residents may be of the view that they have already made comments given the lengthy nature of the project gestation and the various rounds of pre-application consultation. Given the different planning procedures that apply under the 2008 Planning Act it is understandable that local residents may believe that they have already commented in previous rounds of pre application consultation at Stage 1 (strategic optioneering) Stage 2 – selection of substation siting areas and route corridor, Stage 3 - Draft route and Preferred Substation Site and now stage 4 - proposed connection and alignment. The PEIR refers to the fact that National Grid is committed to multi-stage consultation and although a consultation strategy has been submitted as part of this round of consultation it may not be clear to some residents that this is a formal stage of pre application consultation rather than the informal consultation stages that have preceded this.
6 There is a perception of “consultation fatigue” in some quarters, communities may consider that they have already responded to consultation on the proposal in the previous rounds and so not considered it necessary to engage with the S42 consultation
The visual material and photomontages is a useful medium for describing potential impacts although not all of this is accurate in terms of its presentation of the scheme impacts. Colour attributed to pylon type and relative emphasis to the associated wire scape clearly affect the overall impact. In addition the selection of 15 out of 75 possible viewpoints is too few and should include a selection of receptors i.e. roads, residential areas, and public rights of way. Additional 3 D modelling around pinch points would also be beneficial.
There is a sense that comments made have little weight in the overall assessment of the application. This would apply most to those impacted greatest by the Stage 4 consultation who may consider that their comments have to date had little impact on the shape or design of the proposal, as the scheme remains a 400kv overhead line (albeit with a potential choice over pylon design) proposed to pass through their locality.
It is acknowledged both the community newsletter and main consultation documentations attempt to balance the need to provide focussed consultation material with the need to be accessible to a wide audience. However, it would have been particularly beneficial for the Newsletter to provide more information on the next steps for this proposal, and in particular the ability (or not) of local communities to input at a later stage and/or participate in the examination process. There is clearly scope for confusion given this is a new process to most people concerned and different from the normal planning process. Whilst the newsletter acknowledges that the planning process for applying for development consent will allow further opportunities for people to make their comments to the determining bodies for consideration it is not made clear how this can happen, and whether the Planning Inspectorate are able to give consideration to specific comments made earlier on the process.
The Councils response has had regard to the environmental and technical information submitted as part of the S42 consultation. For ease of reference the substance of the response follows the headings used in the National Grid presentation material with particular reference to the Preliminary Environmental Information report.
There are a number of substantive concerns about the project which arise from the impact of the scheme at pre-application stage, during construction and throughout the life of the scheme. One of the key difficulties is in quantifying the true impacts of the scheme during the construction phase having regard to the cumulative effect of this when and if the causally related windfarms are also being developed.
Inherent Conflicts
It is noted that National Grid has obligations which can pull in different directions, i.e.
7
to offer a connection to the transmission system made by any new generating stations and also under S9 of the Electricity Act to "develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical supply. The requirement under S38 of electricity act duty to have regard to natural and historic assets in the development of transmission projects.
These objectives of providing an economic and efficient electricity distribution system to the nations residents, regulated by OFGEM through a business planning and price control regime can be in direct conflict with the specific impacts on local communities. Add to this that in a sparsely populated area the advocates for local landscape impacts will be fewer. It is more than mitigating a scheme in accordance with representations received; it is the principle of safeguarding landscape, heritage or other environmental assets for their own sake.
Key Risks
It is accepted that discussions are ongoing with National Grid regarding a range of EIA topics, however this response is made on the basis of the Section 42 consultation material, and comments are therefore as follows:
National Planning Statement (NPS) EN-1 para. 4.2.4 requires that
‘…significant effects, including any significant residual effects taking account of any proposed mitigation measures or any adverse impacts of those measures have been adequately assessed’, and also compliance with the EIA directive. While the S42 consultation is accompanied by a significant body of technical data and survey information the interpretation of this data is incomplete at this stage, constraints are mapped and it appears, assessed independently of one another leading to questions about how this should be interpreted.
NPS EN-1 para 4.2.5 and 6 require the consideration of cumulative effects including in combination with other projects. Given the Mid Wales & Shropshire 400kv connection will not proceed unless there is a requirement arising from planned wind farm developments it is necessary to assess the potential cumulative traffic impacts of this with other projects both during construction and after. The Mid –Wales & Shropshire Connection project is some 49km in length including additional associated works such as substations, there is a risk that individual reporting of impact on an area by area basis (e.g. for public rights of way, transport, visitor economy) does not provide an adequate picture of the impact of the scheme as a whole.
Some of the issues inevitably overlap; consider for example the transport impacts during the construction phase and whether National Grid has the ability to assess the impacts of these through the Environmental Statement in combination with planned windfarm projects. There has to a “worst case scenario” position given these projects are likely to be running concurrently and it is these impacts that should be assessed having regard to related factors i.e. visitor economy. If mid wales and Shropshire becomes associated
8 with the adverse impacts of construction traffic and development through a protracted period – the Mid Wales scheme has a construction time frame of 2.5 years alone (para 5.7.5 PEIR) – this could have lasting adverse impacts on those who visit these or travel through them en route to destinations on the Welsh coast.
In order for the project to be able to demonstrate that ‘good design’ according with section 4.5 of NPS EN-1, it is suggested that information will need to be provided in the DCO application as to the design process and evolution. It is acknowledged that engagement has taken place with National Grid over a number of years; however it is of concern that up to the stage of S42 consultation little of this has focussed on the detailed alignment of the transmission route or design of associated infrastructure, including construction access and arrangements, or on mitigation. Without this aspect of pre- application engagement, there is a risk that areas of concern regarding impact on communities and the environment may endure upon submission of the DCO.
In addition the information submitted at this stage does little to explain how the scheme might be visually mitigated. It is of concern that the public have not in general been consulted on mitigation that might address impacts of the scheme.
Inevitably the issues that can be agreed by the Council and National Grid as Common Ground may be more limited than might otherwise be the case. The mitigation of many impacts during construction is likely to depend on the implementation of Construction Management Plans. These are not yet available and the PEIR makes statements that impacts will be mitigated but not necessarily how.
It is therefore suggested that in order for PINs to make an assessment of the adequacy of mitigation, it will be necessary for Construction Management Strategies or Plans to be available to set out the specifics of how impacts will be managed. This is consistent with the advice contained in e.g. NPS EN-1 paragraph 5.2.18, which states that ‘the applicant should include appropriate mitigation measures as an integral part of the proposed development’.
Purpose of the S42 response
This is a delegated officer response from Shropshire Council submitted in accordance with delegations in the Council’s Constitution, and following consultation with the Planning & Housing Portfolio Holder, Local Members, Parish Councils colleagues from Powys County Council and in house specialist officers.
In accordance with PINs guidance, this response seeks to provide input and advice to National Grid on the nature and impact of proposals and the content of the S42 consultation documentation including the project proposals, requirements and obligations, and the preliminary environmental information
In line with the Planning Inspectorate’s advice the Council has liaised and coordinated with the other Councils affected by the proposals in order to seek to provide coordinated responses. Liaison with other organisations including Natural Resources Wales, the
9 Environment Agency Natural England and English Heritage has also taken place through National Grid organised thematic group meetings.
Although the NPSs EN-1 and 5 form the primary policy against which the Mid Wales & Shropshire Connection Project will be assessed by PINs, and these documents include a range of policies relevant to this project, NPS EN – 1 paragraph 4.1.5 also makes it clear that the Planning inspectorate – previously (IPC) ‘may consider both important and relevant to its decision making… Development Plan Documents or other documents in the Local Development Framework’. It is important therefore that National Grid considers local policy both in the planning and design of its project and also in impact assessment.
The Council has not undertaken an assessment of the relevant sections of policy in the NPSs that need to be considered and compliance assessed, however it is noted that these documents cover all issues as set out in the Council’s response as set out below. Local Policy
Paragraph 1.1.19 of the PEIR states:-
“detailed information, such as the methodologies being used to gather baseline information, and planning policy background, have been specifically excluded in order to maintain the focus and conciseness of the report. However, this information will be included within the forthcoming ES and information on the baseline methodologies can be found in the EIA”.
Whilst the principle of keeping information succinct is broadly supported, it should not come at the expense of potentially important contextual information.
It is considered that the Local Plan provides an additional layer of development policy relevant for consideration here National Grid’s consultation documentation is incomplete as the planning policy context for Shropshire has evolved of the lengthy gestation period of the project.
The local policy consists of the Shropshire Council Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011) and the emerging Site Allocation and Management of Development (SAMDev) plan which is under examination.
The SAMDev Plan also includes a suite of Development Management Policies. It is anticipated that the plan will be adopted before the Development Consent Order application is submitted. The link below refers to the latest position regarding the SAMDev plan examination. http://shropshire.gov.uk/planning-policy/samdev-examination/
EIA Approach and Method
While the documentation seeks to assess impacts on individual locations and localities, it does not adequately assess the cumulative impacts taken together along the length of
10 the route, e.g. sum total of hedgerow removed or total area of tree cover affected, or number of rivers and brooks crossed, PROW diverted, impact on bridleways and equine uses, nor the impact of traffic and pollution associated with the wind farm developments themselves which will impact Shropshire.
Taken together with the proposed mitigation works (details of which are yet to be seen), an assessment can then be made of adequacy of mitigation and residual impact.
The opening statement states that mitigation is ‘typically’ used to reduce effects of ‘higher’ significance. This is questioned, as we expect mitigation to be provided for all significant effects and not just those of ‘higher’ significance. This statement implies that impacts of significance that is not considered ‘higher’ may be disregarded and go unmitigated.
Cumulatively along the 49km length and in combination with its other associated infrastructure, this could result in significant unmitigated impacts. Furthermore the principle or scope of offsite (outside the “redline” mitigation is not considered).
The conclusions as to levels of impact seem in a number of instances to be inadequate or possibly premature as they are not based on the detailed assessment that will be required... There does not appear to be an assessment of the project’s alignment with relevant Local Plan policies, and although NPS EN-1 states the relevance of Local Plan etc., no assessment seems to have been included of the project’s alignment with local planning policy.
Document Navigation and Legibility:
The documentation is large and complex, and as such makes review difficult, which may be an issue for those not from a planning background, even though the documentation includes a non-technical summary.
It is suggested that navigation could be aided, particularly when reviewing paper copies, by colour differentiation on front covers / titles / numbers. In addition it might make review efficient and easier if for example the text for individual topic areas is presented alongside their associated figures and appendices and in a single document.
Furthermore a review of the documentation appears to introduce some “pinch points” where environmental constraints coincide (we have highlighted three in particular in the summary above). Overlaying constraints within the presentation material would highlight where these pinch points exist.
It is acknowledged that with a project of this size that there will be errors, however problems with cross references etc. have made review of the documents somewhat more difficult and time consuming and additionally where issues could have in combination affects across topic areas there is no evaluation as to how these issues have been weighed up to determine the proposed scheme design.
11 Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)
National Grid confirms that information in the PEIR report is preliminary with the intention to seek comment on it for consideration in project design and further assessment (para 1.1.1) and that the PEIR has been produced for consultation with land owners and statutory consultees.
The responses made at this stage represent an opportunity for scheme design, to provide comment on the information submitted and analysis of it where appropriate.
Paragraph 1.1.6 of the PEIR confirms that the Statement of Community Consultation will set out in further detail how NG intends to publicise and consult on the PEIR. Comments above refer to some of the issues and concerns arising from the consultation process to date
Further, at 1.1.15 there is reference to the Planning Inspectorates advice note states purpose of PEIR is to:-
"enable the local community to develop an informed view of the project” it is not expected to replicate the ES and “information must provide clarity to all Consultees"
The fact that there remain questions about the effectiveness of the consultation process suggests that the PEIR may not have been entirely successful in this regard.
Background to the proposed development and scheme evolution
The PEIR confirms that the needs case was updated in 2012, over two years ago and yet there remains uncertainty over the future of projects that generate the need for this transmission connection including the conjoined wind farm inquiry heard in 2014 and for which decisions are awaited.
There is no discussion here of the alternative to the 400kv transmission i.e. More than one 132 loop, or the assessment undertaken to discount this as an option. Clearly 132kv where carried on lower timber poles can have less visual impact than say a single 400kv transmission. The social, environmental and economic grounds for not pursuing an alternative (which may well have mitigated the concerns of communities and stakeholders) should be explained here. Section 3 of the PEIR sets out Alternatives and project history and at paragraph 3.3.4 confirms that:-
“alternatives were discounted based on an appraisal of major environmental designations”....there is no reference here about social or economic considerations. Paragraph 3.4.11 refers to landscape and visual sensitivities in the Vyrnwy Valley to justify the proposed undergrounding of a section here. It is not clear how these sensitivities have been quantified.
At paragraph 5.2.8...some adverse effects are identified and are unavoidable but mitigation beyond that proposed through scheme design is absent.
12 Design Commentary
There is currently insufficient information in order to assess cumulative impacts and advise as to the appropriateness of the design, design quality or the need for further mitigation. Further detail as to the nature of the proposals is required, including for example proposals for:
The nature of the modification works that may be required to the access roads and whether these are temporary or permanent, plus proposals for reinstatement and landscaping from prominent receptors. The impacts of the vehicle movements and construction phase on the health and amenity of residents of Shropshire cannot be simply dismissed as low significance just because they will be for a temporary period as the timescales for some of the project phases are potentially extensive hence more consideration needs to be given to mitigation and where appropriate redesign of the works. The report in section 15 seems to conclude that there will be minor to negligible significance but the detailed work to come to this conclusion has not yet been undertaken and indeed is proposed as part of the Environmental Statement. The nature of ‘management’ proposals for public rights of way, including proposed diversion or alternative routes, safe access and protection measures for users etc. Plans and specifications are needed for the protection of trees, hedgerows, and any other environmental features within the construction zone that are to be retained. The corollary of this is that clearer, more specific information must also be provided regarding the arboricultural impacts of the proposals. For example, whether tree and hedgerow pruning or removal is required and, in the case of hedgerow removal, whether it is temporary or permanent to be reinstated following work. Details of drainage proposals during construction and operation to ensure protection from flooding, appropriate consenting and also avoidance of impact on biodiversity. The content of Construction Management Strategies and Plans to set out how environmental impacts would be mitigated Firm proposals will be required for consultation with the Council prior to submission of the DCO as to the timing of the implementation of the mitigation works in each location to ensure timely impact. Tree protection to new planting but not for landscape features, hedgerows and trees to be retained. This information will be needed to assess whether impact mitigation will be achieved. Adequacy of details for the Teeing in point and the information submitted is inadequate to determine the visual impacts of this. Measures will be needed to ensure safe passage for all during what we understand may be a 30 month construction period.
Any archaeological implications of ground disturbance arising from the associated infrastructure generally across the scheme need to be assessed and appropriate mitigation put forward.
13 Pylon location and limits of deviation
Pylon design
It is considered that the mixing of existing lattice towers with the proposed new ‘T’ pylons within the same local landscape could compound and potentially increase visual impact, particularly around the teeing in point. It is therefore preferable to have a single type of pylon in any one area.
Page 2 of Project News Autumn/Winter 2014/15 (delivered to all local properties) says of T-pylons:-
"Effective in more open landscapes as the majority of the pylon is seen against the sky".
This is in direct conflict with page 25 of the Overview (to which we are directed by Question 4 in the Consultation Feedback Form) which says:-
"The T-pylon has a modern monopole design and can be suitable in more open and flatter landscapes, where the majority of the pylon would be seen against the surrounding landscape".
This merely emphasises the difficulty of making an informed decision about a pylon type that does not yet exist in the UK and which may yet have production difficulties.
Low Height (L12) or T Pylons are proposed for the section of line through Shropshire. Paragraph 2.10 of the PEIR confirms that the eastern section through Shropshire is approximately 23km in length. Approximately 66 are required and average pylon height is 41.5 m for L12 lattice. The range is between 29.3m and 44.4m so for and average height of 41.5m most are closer to 44.5m which seems little different to a conventional L8 Pylon. In this respect it is difficult to establish whether the low height offers much advantage, this will depend on a detailed analysis of the line within its context viewed from key receptor locations.
The T Pylon design offers a slightly lower average height within the eastern section at 38m high so the height reduction is more likely to be beneficial in distant views. Against this the design, being new, with a solid monopole and wirescape concentrated at the top of the structure, is more likely to draw the eye, whereas a traditional lattice design is intended to be visually permeable particularly when viewed against landscape rather than sky.
Colour is an important consideration with both designs but particularly the more solid T Pylon and it is recommended that National Grid undertakes further works here to present the impacts of alternative colours on both pylon types.
The Council also has concerns over the uncertainty of anticipated performance of the T Pylon as it is still being developed and has yet to be deployed in the UK. It is understood that a number of test pylons are shortly to be erected at the National Grid test centre in Nottingham, for the purposes of contractor training rather than as an aid to evaluating its
14 impact in the landscape. Nonetheless it would be of interest to a number of Statutory Bodies to have the opportunity to see these T pylons before any final decisions are made on pylon type.
In particular, the design and appearance of individual pylons changes in accordance with whether if it has to withstand the forces generated by changes in direction. It is noted that the proposed route alignment now contains a number of turning points, some of higher angle than others. In these situations it would be useful to compare directly the shape of both the low height lattice and T Pylon, and whether the insulators hang vertically or are necessarily horizontally inclined. This may or may not have a bearing on the overall choice of pylon type but may affect pylon position and mitigation required at each point.
It so happens that the changes in direction are most noticeable at, or near, the 3 pinch points identified by the Council.
With a suggested 50m limit of deviation – the impacts of the route cannot at this stage be accurately confirmed. Consideration should be given to the need for future resilience of the lines, in terms of ensuring continuity of supply. Care should be taken so far as possible in siting the lines so as to minimise future pruning and other tree works required to keep the lines clear.
Mitigation
Current proposals are considered inadequate to achieve appropriate mitigation of impact or to provide adequate justifications for the conclusions included in the PEIR. Further discussion and liaison with National Grid is requested to discuss in advance of submission of the DCO application to develop and agree mitigation proposals across a range of issues, as set out further below.
Landscape and visual effects
Landscape and visual effects during are significant considerations. National Grid’s documentation correctly presents Landscape and Visual effects separately. However for the sake of brevity, the Council’s response is combined.
The Route Corridor and Impacts arising
Drawings indicating the September 2013 draft route with baseline alignment (in blue) and S42 consultation revisions are included in the PEIR. These drawings also indicate Pylon numbers and locations.
As stated previously it would have been helpful to have access to different constraints information in a GIS format earlier in the process. Some of this information has been supplied by National Grid but without it the task of assessing different impacts within the route upon one another is very difficult. It is therefore difficult to make an objective assessment of these based on the PEIR documentation because it is presented separately and sometimes at different scales.
15 Sheet 3 of 8 The S42 route alignment is pulled further south of Llanymynech although the route north east passing Beechfield Farm remains unchanged. It is difficult to cross reference the impact of the route on different factors, in this case for example on the well-established equine uses in the area.
Comment: no significant change when viewed from B4398 although the relationship between the Pylon route, the meanders of the river and public rights of way should be assessed to weigh up the relative impacts.
Sheet 4 of 8 Very minor deviation between 2013 and S42 consultation alignment as proposed route passes between Pant and Maesbrook.
Comment: Pylon 83 now proposed further north west than 2013 consultation arising in a “kink” in the line. Deviations of this nature need to be checked having regard to their impact from key receptors to ensure that the changes do not introduce visual discordance.
Sheet 5 of 8 From Pylon 90 – the S42 route deviates south from the 2013 consultation corridor north of Woolston. The deviation brings the route further east of the scheduled monument at Bromich Park but much closer to the line of the canal adjacent to Aston Locks. The line then threads a route to the north west of the Golf course between Aston Park, the listed house sitting within landscaped grounds.
Comment: There are a number of constraints here that create make choices difficult for an overhead line. There are historic and natural environment constraints pulling in different directions, the resultant effect on route alignment being a significant change in direction creating an S shape through these various constraints which itself could have an adverse visual impact. It is considered that although this section of the proposed route is remote from populous areas there are nevertheless a number of technical constraints impacting on the route having regard to historic & natural environment, visitor economy (canal) and leisure uses.
Sheet 7 of 8 Here the S42 route is aligned north of the 2013 route passing to the western side of the “Ironworks” and running adjacent to the access drive of this developing business and visitor attraction. There is a change in direction at pylon 100 as opposed to pylon 103 in the 2013 consultation which brings this change in direction closer to the A5 trunk road. The overhead line also crosses the A5 at this point emerging from parkland to the south and this consequently is a highly prominent location where the line will be visible.
Comment: This along with sheet 6 together create a pinch point of constraints where the impacts of an overhead line will have a significant impact on a number of statutory designations and other constraints.
Sheet 8 of 8
16 A deviation is proposed close to the Teeing in point brining the line round in an arc north west away from Berghill Farm.
Comment: Again, while this is accepted as mitigating the impacts of the line against the farm, it nevertheless creates a potentially discordant relationship when viewed from the north east at a point where there is visitor economy activity associated with various canals and associated infrastructure. Furthermore the impacts associated with the teeing in point are not clear within the S42 consultation information and further details are requested in advance of DCO submission. It is understood that this will include a section of undergrounding and two associated cable sealing end compounds to allow one circuit to pass under the other. This will lead to a localised concentration of wirescape and infrastructure which will require careful mitigation planning. It is also understood that there may be a need for a temporary diversion of the existing line to facilitate these works. This will involve a need to erect temporary pylons and consequently add to a concentration of construction activity in this sensitive locality.
In summary there appear to be a number of constraints highlighted above throughout the route corridor that would benefit from further modelling. It is suggested that National Grid undertakes 3D modelling to illustrate the impact of the scheme with alternate pylon options having regard to the particular constraint locations identified above.
The Proposals for the existing Shrewsbury Substation near the village Uffington will be subject to localised impacts around this site during construction and thereafter. The residual impacts upon completion of the work is unlikely to be significant but will clearly depend on the mitigation measures put forward through landscaping and other means.
Methodologies
The methodologies proposed for use are generally considered appropriate and the photomontages included to date are clear and well presented, although these do not always capture the impact of multiple constraints.
Mitigation and Impact Assessment:
As identified previously the main areas of concern relate to the need for development of mitigation measures. Without this information, assessment or agreement as to resultant levels of impact is not possible.
It is noted that NPS EN-1’s para. 5.9.23 and EN-5 para 2.8.11 provide advice in respect of the potential for impact mitigation through offsite planting. This will be relevant throughout the route corridor and in particular having regard to views from Llanymynech Hill and key vantage points within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and at all pinch points described in this response.
The Council is aware that there is currently some debate over the intention of the NPSs in this regard as it implies that offsite planting is achieved only through voluntary agreements with landowners.
17 However the Council anticipates that much of the identified landscaping will be required to mitigate the significant adverse effects of the scheme (should these be identified in the ES)? In this case the Council would expect a comprehensive scheme, encompassing a range of environmental measures extending beyond planting if necessary, and a scheme that at essential locations identified by the EIA process, is deliverable.
Furthermore in this regard, some measures may need to be either secured through the Development Consent Order as Requirements (planning conditions) or by way of planning obligations made under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Where there is uncertainty of impact and / or effects are of a less tangible nature and where landscaping measures have limitations the Council would like to explore the potential for establishing a Community Impact Mitigation Fund. Nationally, this is becoming a more widely considered mitigation measure for major projects as it is capable of addressing impacts that otherwise would not be, or could not be, addressed by other means. Whilst it has similarities with the concept of Community Benefit it is specifically used to address impacts of the scheme on local communities. Whilst the Council may also pursue Community Benefit, this would be sought from Government to address the wider notion of the community reward for hosting nationally required infrastructure.
The Council look forward to working with National Grid, stakeholders, other Statutory Bodies and landowners to identify both voluntary and required environmental and community mitigation.
Adequacy of information and further information requirements
The consultation material supplied requires further work as set out above, including 3D modelling, further photomontages, detail/clarification in respect of design, mitigation and restoration proposals, and further consideration and reporting of impacts, including cumulative impacts. This information should be provided prior to submission of the DCO application, along with meaningful opportunity for consultation and discussion with the Councils affected.
Historic Environment
This section of the PEIR has been prepared incorporating advice from the Councils Historic Environment team, and includes assessment of impacts on historic buildings, archaeology and historic landscapes from construction through to decommissioning once redundant. The PEIR cites relevant national historic environment policies and guidance documents, and sets out what methodologies will be followed to undertake further more detailed assessment work.
Section 5.8 of NPS EN-1 includes relevant guidance, including at paragraph 5.8.8 which states that where there is potential for heritage assets with an archaeological interest, appropriate desk assessments should be carried out and where this is insufficient to assess that interest, ‘a field evaluation’ should be carried out. In addition ‘where proposed development will affect the setting of a heritage asset, representative
18 visualisations may be necessary to explain the impact.’ This is to enable PINs to assess the significance of assets and the effects on them, taking into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance. This section also points out the need to have regard to relevant local authority plans (relevant policies can be accessed via the council’s website www.shropshire.gov.uk).
We are aware that this assessment work remains ongoing and that the results will be provided to the Council for consideration in due course. It is unclear at this stage how the fuller environmental information currently being gathered will be used to check that the conclusions of this earlier report were robust.
The PEIR explicitly recognises the need for an adequate assessment of the potential impacts of the proposals on the historic environment.
The PEIR further recognises that archaeological remains are present within the route corridor which are not currently recorded within the Shropshire Historic Environment Record and it is understood that these have been identified through a field reconnaissance survey. At present, however, the information available to us about the features which have been identified is not sufficient to enable us to comment further on their likely significance and thereby the adequacy of proposed assessment and mitigation options.
The adopted EIA methodology for assessment of the historic environment is, if combined with the outstanding surveys and assessments set out in the Historic environment section of the report, likely to be sufficient to address the Councils concerns raised in the response to the scoping report. However, this relies on completion of the additional surveys which should include assessment of the impacts of temporary works including access works. Given the passage of time it is however there is concern that this can be provided within a timescale that will enable findings to influence design and mitigation, or for preparation of the final Environmental report.
In theory the collected data for the initial desk-top assessment of impacts on built heritage should be adequate; however we have concerns that all the collected information may not have been used in the assessment process.
Because the archaeological evaluation of areas affected by the construction and associated works has not yet been completed, it is difficult to adequately assess the impact on archaeological significance and thereby whether the proposed mitigation measures are adequate. In particular, we would like greater clarification of what mitigation measure might be applied in the event that non-designated archaeological remains of likely national significance are identified during the field evaluations.
Similarly, whilst the preliminary assessment of likely indirect impacts on the settings of assets has identified a range of receptors where the effects are likely to be of a higher magnitude, the identified further assessment work is required before we will be able to provide more detailed comments. We would, however, reiterate that the assessment of impacts needs to be robust and follow the relevant national guidance.
19 Once the additional survey and fieldwork has been completed, the impact assessment needs to be revised to take account of the findings and also in combination with other development in the locality. This then needs to inform the development of mitigation proposals, including design and micro-siting, as appropriate. This should be the subject of consultation and agreement with the Council.
Whilst the Historic Environment section of the PEIR report sets out a wide range of mitigation measures, these need to be reviewed to include further survey and assessment that is needed to inform agreement of specific mitigation proposals.
Specifically the proposed mitigation strategy needs revision once more information has been obtained on the significance of affected heritage assets and any effect on their setting has been assessed. The Council cannot therefore comment meaningfully on mitigation proposals at this time but would welcome further discussion with National Grid and its consultants in these areas.
Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
The Council’s Ecology & Biodiversity officers have reviewed the S42 consultation material and comment as follows. We would generally agree with the methodologies as outlined in the PEIR but more details should be provided.
Although a substantial amount of data has been collected concerning biodiversity there are still surveys that have yet to be completed. Much of the data that is presented in the PEIR has not been analysed in a rigorous fashion in order to assess the impacts of the options chosen and it is unclear from the document about how ecological considerations have influenced choices concerning cable routes and undergrounding versus overhead options. At paragraph 1.4.8 of the PEIR there is reference to date to the assessment being a desk based exercise there are surveys outstanding and results awaited which could therefore affect scheme design.
The detail of the proposed mitigation measures is not sufficient to determine if the measures are adequate to alleviate the potential impacts identified.
Non-statutory designated sites and species
The information within the consultation documents does not include the full results of all surveys for protected species, nor does it provide a detailed interpretation of the results or assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development. In addition the information on the mitigation measures that are proposed lacks sufficient detail to determine whether they are adequate to reduce the scale of any potential impacts.
Details of the mitigation being proposed are not clear. For example the PEIR document does not mention the mitigation of hedgerow removal.
In order to determine if the proposed development is likely to result in significant effects on receptors or that the mitigation proposed is adequate to alleviate impacts, details of
20 what re-instatement would occur in terms of species composition and habitat management regime are required.
As standard the mitigation for the scheme should include a detailed construction management plan including details of the timing of vegetation clearance, pollution control and protection of biodiversity during the construction work. Information should be provided on how the areas of habitat restoration or mitigation planting will be maintained in the long term, post construction.
Methodology
The surveys reported within the documents have broadly been undertaken in accordance with relevant published guidance. However the method for assessment does not explain in sufficient detail how significant impacts will be identified and therefore, which effects require mitigation.
While some general information on mitigation has been provided some survey information is still awaited so the full extent of mitigation required is not clear. As mitigation is proposed within the PEIR it is assumed that some of the impacts are deemed to be significant.
Habitats
There are a number of places along the route where more species-rich habitat may be affected. It is stated that the surveys indicate the majority of habitats in the eastern OHL are intensively farmed and are of limited botanical interest. However, marshy grassland and semi-improved grassland have been found and many of the hedgerows will be important and may support a valuable ground flora.
It is not clear whether phase 2 surveys been carried out in these areas to inform appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures. It is also not clear which water courses will require culverting and if this will be temporary or permanent. Where there will be temporary or permanent impacts on water courses crossed by the route these should be identified and appropriate mitigation proposed. The majority of water courses and the flood plain form part of Shropshire’s Environmental Network (see below).
Trees and hedges
Detailed comments on these habitats are provided separately below. Where valuable (species-rich or good ground flora) hedges are to be effected then translocation rather than replacement should be considered and details included in the Construction Management Plan
Great crested newts
21 The normal recommended distance for a major application is to investigate all ponds within 500m of the development boundary. The distance of 300m is likely to be sufficient for less damaging operations, but consideration should be given to looking wider when hedges or other vegetation likely to be used for commuting/foraging, with clear connections to ponds further away, are going to be disturbed or permanently destroyed. Have all sites with GCN present (whether determined by conventional survey or eDNA) been surveyed to give population estimates?
Reptiles
Reptiles are very under recorded in Shropshire; therefore absence of records cannot be used to suggest absence of reptiles. It seems unlikely that there is no suitable habitat along the entire Eastern section for reptiles.
Bats
Currently trees have been classified following a ground level assessment into BCT Guideline categories within and 50m away from the project boundary. How does this relate to maintenance and safety distances for trees? Trees with medium to high potential should have climbing or bat activity surveys before the planning decision is made, if they are to be felled or lopped. The PEIR states that 6 trees were identified having the potential to support bat roosts (7.3.169). However, in 7.3.165 it states that 14 veteran trees are present – it seems unlikely that these would not have bat potential. I assume more detail will be provided in the ES. The Shropshire Bat Group should be contacted for further bat information along the route.
Aquatic invertebrates/Plants
Any impacts on Luronium natans and other features of the Montgomery Canal should be clearly addressed in the ES to inform the HRA screening and allow development of appropriate avoidance/mitigation measures. The impacts expected on water courses are not treated in detail, for example crossings for construction traffic and installation of overhead lines.
Other mammals
It is not clear if these species would be affected by the development during construction and long term maintenance/use.
Baseline Conditions
It is noted that the Shropshire Wildlife Trust (SWT) was consulted but was the Shropshire Ecological Data Network (Shropshire’s LRC) consulted via the SWT?
International Sites
Montgomery Canal Morton Pool and Pasture
22 Cole Mere (Ramsar)
On what basis was 2km chosen as a search area for these sites. The need to consider Natura 2000 sites would depend on pathway e.g. the surface water catchment, distance pollution would travel within the Montgomery Canal, distance any emissions or dust might travel (to catchment, not just site). Please note that the catchment for Cole Mere includes the catchment for the Shropshire Union Canal, as there is an overflow from the canal into the mere.
Any HRA would need to consider if there were any likely significant effects on Cole Mere. The entire route within Shropshire triggers Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones for SSSIs (including some Natura 2000 sites) – should Natural England be listed in 7.6.4?
Shropshire’s Environmental Network Information and a map of this is available at http://shropshire.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity-and-ecology/biodiversity-and- planning/
Shropshire’s Environmental Network is covered by policy CS17 in the Shropshire Core Strategy. Development should not have a significant adverse impact on Shropshire’s environmental assets and should not create barriers or sever links between dependant sites. Protection and where possible enhancement of the network and the aftercare of mitigation and enhancement works should be addressed in the ES.
Mitigation
The PEIR states that ‘It is not yet possible to quantify all likely effects, list all mitigation measures and report on detailed residual effects. This exercise will be carried out during the process of EIA, and will be reported in the ES. This is a report of preliminary information and some surveys and assessments are continuing.’
Full details of the impacts, their location and significance, the proposed avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, and enhancements should be consulted on prior to the submission for ecological management should be consulted on prior to the submission for Development Consent, to ensure that the proposals are appropriate to the scale of impact identified within the assessment material and that they form part of an integrated landscape and ecological strategy.
Detailed mitigation and method statements will be required for the legally protected and priority species and habitats which are present and may be affected by construction works. The effects on local designated wildlife sites will also need further consideration and mitigation measures to protect these important sites.
With the exception of the issues relating to European Sites, there is the potential that Section 106 contributions or further mitigation may be required.
23 It should be pointed out that in the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ embodied in the Chartered Institute of Ecological and Environmental Management (CIEEM’s) EIA Guidance and in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) avoidance of impacts is always to be preferred to specific mitigation measures. This is partly because the effectiveness of mitigation measures cannot always be guaranteed.
The PEIR lacks any truly quantified information regarding habitat loss locally or cumulatively (either permanent or temporary) that will be caused by the proposed development. For this reason, it is difficult to be sure that the mitigation measures that are proposed in outline only will be sufficient to ensure no net biodiversity loss. It is considered that some form of biodiversity offsetting is likely to be necessary to compensate for residual impacts that cannot be mitigated adequately.
Arboricultural Comments – Section 3 of the PEIR
The survey and analysis undertaken to date is welcomed, further more detailed results are to be presented in due course, through the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Statement. Our records indicate that there are currently no Tree Preservation Orders or Conservation Area designations affecting any of the trees or hedgerows within the OEHL and SS sections of the proposed development.
One of the main requirements of the surveys is that in the case of hedgerows it allows an assessment of their historic, archaeological, landscape and wildlife values, such that it can be judged whether or not the hedgerows would meet the criteria for ‘importance’ defined within the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. (Although planning permission overrides the need to deal with hedgerows under the Regulations, knowledge of whether any given hedgerow would be deemed ‘important’ assists an informed and proportionate treatment of that hedgerow during the planning and development processes). We assume the Hedgerow Evaluation Grading System (Clements & Toft, 1992) used in the PEIR to assess the hedgerows is analogous to the more recent procedure prepared on behalf of the Steering Group for the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for Ancient &/or Species- rich Hedgerows - the Hedgerow Survey Handbook (DEFRA, 2002). In any event, it would appear that the hedgerows are indeed capable of being assessed against the criteria within the Regulations from the information gathered to date, because initial findings from the PEIR (Section 7.3.164) suggest ‘a number’ (undefined) of hedgerows within the EOHL may be ‘important’.
In the case of trees, one of the main requirements of a survey is that it allows an assessment of potential arboricultural impacts of development (including above-ground and below-ground effects on trees and their roots). The tree survey thus far is based upon an extended phase 1 habitat survey methodology, supplemented with further visual inspection of those trees identified as potential bat roosts. However, when assessing the arboricultural implications of development, Local Planning Authorities are generally guided by the British Standard 5837: 2012 – Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. This Standard includes the concept of a Root Protection Area (RPA), which is a design tool indicating the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability. The protection of the roots and soil structure is a priority within the RPA and ideally no construction activities would occur
24 within it. The PEIR (Section 7.3.162) states that a number of broadleaf woods, including 1 species-rich Ancient Semi-natural Woodland (ASNW), 14 veteran trees (Section 7.3.165) and 6 trees with potential for bat roosts (Section 7.3.169) may be affected within the EOHL.
The exact nature and impact of the works (for example, tree pruning / removal or temporary / permanent hedgerow removal) has not been specified within the PEIR.
The Tree / Hedge Removal Plans show the location of trees and hedges that ‘may’ be affected, but do not specify the type of work required, nor do they highlight the most important arboricultural features, such as ASNW, veteran trees, bat roosts trees and ‘important’ hedgerows.
It is recommended that the following additional arboricultural information should be provided prior to determination:
BS5837: 2012 compliant tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment for those trees and hedges that may be affected by development (considering potential effects within their canopy spread and / or RPA, whichever is the greater). The Arboricultural Impact Assessment should be used to quantify the residual effects of the proposed development, taking account of mitigation and proposed enhancement. Detailed schedule of tree works including any necessary removals and facilitation pruning required to enable development. Tree Protection Plan identifying those trees and hedges to be removed and those to be retained, and showing how retained trees and hedges are to be protected from damage during any approved development. Arboricultural Method Statement detailing how any works required within, or that may affect, the RPA of retained trees and hedges are to be designed, implemented and monitored so as to avoid causing damage to those trees and hedgerows. Landscape Planting Plan providing details (species, numbers, locations, type of planting stock and means of planting, protection, support and early-years’ maintenance) of the trees, shrubs and hedges to be planted to compensate for those lost to development; and those to be planted to restore, recreate, enhance or connect habitats where appropriate.
Further information is also required on possible mitigation of arboricultural impacts through, for example, micro-siting of pylons, access routes and visibility splays, location of temporary sites (office / welfare facilities / storage / parking) and timing of works so as to avoid ecologically sensitive periods. Such information should include identification of the impacts and, where appropriate, analysis of alternative options to choose the best solution.
It will be necessary to consider impacts and mitigations not just of the line of the cables itself, but also of all the work access routes, for example lane widening and visibility splay works that may require tree / hedgerow pruning or removal.
25
Water Quality and Resources including Flood risk
Impact assessment needs should be based on appropriate baseline information and current ground conditions.
Proposals should be discussed with the Council, and consents sought as appropriate, regarding the detail of any proposed temporary or permanent works affecting ordinary watercourses, ensuring that the proposals meet the requirements of Shropshire Council’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy including the requirement for the protection of biodiversity interests.
There is insufficient information on proposed mitigation measures, and therefore at present it is not considered that the conclusions in the PEIR are adequately substantiated.
A draft Construction Environment Management Plan should be discussed and agreed with the Councils prior to the submission of the DCO. This will be important in respect of a range of potential environmental impacts, including noise, air quality, drainage, biodiversity etc.
Geology, Soils and Contaminated land
At this stage there is insufficient clarity over the exact location of the works to enable a view on the impact of ground conditions and potential contamination. There will need to be adequate controls in place during construction to adequately manage and contain any chemicals, oils etc. used on the construction sites to avoid environmental impact from spillages and storage. Similarly the methods and materials of construction for the temporary access roads will need to take account of land issues. Shropshire Council holds significant data on potentially contaminated land within Shropshire and it would have been helpful to have discussed the proposals in more detail before submitting the PEIR. Consideration will also need to be given to any private water supply abstractions in the area and the impact that the construction and operations may have on such supplies. Until the detailed site investigations have been undertaken there is little meaningful comment that can be made.
Air Quality and Emissions
The PEIR assesses in outline the likely significant effects on air quality that may occur during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development.
However in terms of air quality impact it does not appear to take account of the cumulative impact of vehicle movements from this project and the wind farm developments nor has any consideration been given to road sections (such as the A483) where detailed investigation have been undertaken due to concerns over current air quality levels.
26 With the exception of the need to use the most up to date available air quality information and the need to ensure that cumulative impact assessments takes account of all relevant planned and consented developments in the local area, the methodology is acceptable. A preliminary desk-based air quality impact assessment has been carried out in order to predict possible air quality effects on receptors arising from construction and decommissioning of the proposed development. Current air quality conditions are considered.
With regard to air quality there would be the potential for an impact from road vehicles associated with the construction phase where they pass close to dwellings particularly on routes where Shropshire Council has concerns over air quality impacts from current use and further discussions are necessary to scope out further assessments and potentially modelling for both air quality and noise associated with vehicles from the construction phases.
A draft Construction Environment Management Plan should be discussed and agreed with the Councils prior to the submission of the DCO. This will be important in respect of a range of potential environmental impacts, including noise, air quality, biodiversity etc. Furthermore a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), or similar document together with Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMP) should be put in place to manage operations during the construction period of the project. These plans should include best practice mitigation measures and control procedures to manage the release of dust and other emissions to air to acceptable levels. Where noise could impact upon the amenity of the area it is requested that building work is restricted to 7.30am - 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am - 1pm on a Saturday with no building work taking place on Sunday or Bank Holidays. The management plan should also contain details of how residents will be informed of any works taking place in the locality in order to ensure that individuals are given prior notice to any noise which may be unavoidable during the project.
A Construction Traffic Management Plan should also be implemented during the construction phase to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are implemented in relation to construction traffic which should include limiting traffic numbers or movements and therefore associated emissions to air from vehicles.
The above advice should be taken into account when determining the application
The approach to impact assessment is appropriate. The impacts at relevant receptors are assessed against appropriate guidelines to determine their significance. Although the cumulative impacts are considered in light of other planned developments, as stated elsewhere in this report the PEIR provides an incomplete picture, as it misses a number of other planned or consented developments in the Mid Wales area.
Based on the preliminary information it is not possible to fully consider noise and air quality impacts without further detailed discussion and at this stage it is not possible to rule out the need for further quantitative assessment (i.e. dispersion modelling) should be required.
27 Electric and Magnetic Fields
During the initial discussions on the project it was highlighted that given the proximity to dwellings and some of the uncertainties regarding technical design and impacts this topic should be the subject of a specific Health Impact Assessment.
Public Rights of Way PRoW
We are unable to provide a comprehensive response to PRoW issues at this stage. A further meeting between the Local Access Forum and National Grid is due to take place on 24th February and the outcome of that meeting will provide further information relevant to the S42 response.
As a general point while comments in relation to impact on and information relating to Public Rights of Way are included in this section, it is noted that the PEIR includes assessment information for PROW in a number of chapters, including on transport and socio-economics as well as landscape in relation to views. This makes the assessment of potential effects on PROW, which cumulatively along the length of the scheme may be significant, difficult to review and understand.
The information presented in the PEIR appears to be inadequate as it does not include mapping, information or assessments of potential impact on a number of consents and planned projects in the vicinity of and along the line of the proposed route appears to be missing from plans, and impact assessments and cumulative impact assessments.
A number of these points link directly to the visitor economy section below. Furthermore the Council supports a Local Access Forum drawing together key stakeholder groups focussing on access and rights of way issues. The S42 consultation was discussed at the meeting of 5th February where it was agreed that further work and consultation between this group and national grid would be beneficial as a means of drawing together the issues that arise from different user groups.
Plans variably show the public rights of way in the vicinity of the route alignment, but there is inadequate evaluation of these in terms of whether they are long distance footpaths or promoted locally as walks or indeed any assessment of how well used these paths are. Furthermore this should reference the use of bridleways as it is evident, particularly in the vicinity of Pant and Llanymynech that there are well established and well used equine uses.
The nature of the proposed ‘management’ works affecting the PROW and Recreational Routes is not yet defined and therefore it cannot be established where mitigation would be required although this is clearly an important factor for different user groups and the broader visitor economy issues outlined above.
Traffic and Transport
The consultation response from Shropshire Council has been prepared by Council Officers.
28
The impacts arising from the construction phase of the project are referenced at paragraph 1.4.24 and set out in Section 13 of the PEIR. This makes reference to the suitability of road network for construction and distribution.
The scale and implementation timeline of this project will, if consented, have a significant impact having regard to the level of construction works and associated traffic movements, across an area of the western part of Shropshire bordering onto the County of Powys. Indeed that has been reflected in on-going discussions with both effected neighbouring highway authorities and National Grid leading up to the submission of the S42 Consultation.
At the last joint meeting held, both highway authorities raised concern relating to the lack of information and detail coming forward. Shropshire Council, as the local highway authority, recognise therefore that the PEIR document and specifically Chapter 13 is a step forward in the process of assessing what is a complex issue within the construction phasing of the project.
Whilst the highway authority is generally content with the methodology within Section 13 of the PEIR document, the absence of the traffic count information within Section 13 together with any initial assessment of the current traffic flows on the highway network, make it extremely difficult to consider the construction traffic impact on the various routes affected. In particular the implications on the more sensitive lower order roads, where there are defined highway carriageway and hedge line constraints, lack of passing places, horizontal and vertical alignments issues together with assessing the integrity of those roads to cater for the anticipated volume, size and weight of the construction traffic.
The anticipated construction traffic movements need to be assessed against the background traffic flows which will enable a more comprehensive assessment of both the suitability of those routes and localised improvements and maintenance works required.
Although the traffic information has only recently been made available to Shropshire Council, the time frame to meet the consultation deadline of the 9th of February means that the highway authority are unable as part of this response to assess its contents and how therefore the traffic impacts upon the identified routes.
It is suggested therefore that a meeting is convened between Shropshire and Powys highway authority’s and National Grid’s representatives as soon as practicable to assess the information available and how that information is to be considered/used to inform the project design and further assessment.
An important matter raised during discussions prior to the Section 42 submission, relates to the material requirements during the construction period i.e. the importation of materials such as road stone and concrete and where this material would be sourced. This is briefly mentioned within Section 13 of the PEIR but is considered to be of high importance. This will be an important factor in the final construction traffic assessment to demonstrate where this material will be sourced during the phases of the construction period and how those traffic movements will be assigned to the local and strategic
29 highway networks. As previously advised during our last joint meeting, meaningful dialogue needs to take place regarding the availability of material at the various sources and what impact that would have on those material source providers in terms of current planning consents, output restrictions etc.
In addition to the above, the construction traffic movements and particularly HGV’s cannot be treated in isolation associated with each individual element of the development. Again this is briefly highlighted in Section 13 of the PEIR but is of high importance. Section 13 therefore rightly acknowledges that the construction traffic impacts will amalgamate over the local highway network and therefore need to be seen as a combined effect.
This project therefore also needs to be considered in association with planned Wind Farm projects to assess the potential “worst case” cumulative impact in terms of construction traffic or traffic redistribution impacts needs to be modelled. The highway authority recognises that Section 13 of the PEIR document sets out a number of areas that require further assessment and it is clear that construction phasing of the project and associated traffic implications is a very complex matter.
Socio Economic Including Tourism – Comments on Chapter 14 of the PEIR Report
Paragraph 1.4.25 of the PEIR refers to the fact that tourism assessed through desk based study. A copy of the questionnaire is included for reference but there is no data, analysis or assessment of what the survey revealed. It is of particular interest as to how the visitor economy would be affected not only by the project if implemented but more particularly the potentially significant effects of the protracted construction phase. This could be compounded by the cumulative impact of this with other projects.
Furthermore it is not possible to isolate visitor impacts at the border with Wales, the Montgomery canal for example is as important to the local Welsh Economy as it is to that in Shropshire.
Additional Mitigation Measures to address impact of negative perceptions
In addition to the negative impacts on tourism which are identified there are likely be short and long term impacts on visitor numbers because of negative perceptions outside Shropshire arising from the project and affecting a much wider area of Shropshire.
The perceptions of prospective visitors may be that Shropshire has been spoilt, that there is disruption because of the works etc. Prospective visitors may not differentiate between different parts of Shropshire; they may be under the impression that the visual impact and any disruption caused by the Mid Wales Connection is far greater and more widespread than in reality. It is therefore recommended that mitigation measures are proposed beyond scheme design to address this e.g. Communication & a Public Relations plan which includes ‘external to Shropshire’ destination Public Relations.
30 Walking routes
The report identifies the national trails and long distance/county trails for mitigation but does not specifically identify other promoted routes. There are for example at least four promoted walk routes around Llanymynech and Route 27 of The Shropshire Way follows the Montgomery Canal and therefore runs parallel to much of the Mid Wales Connection Pylon route. See links below for links to walks routes.
Given the investment that has gone into these routes and the increased use of these routes as a consequence they should be specifically identified (along with the national and long distance trails) for mitigation measures. http://www.shropshirewalking.co.uk/keywordsearch.php?s=Llanymynech http://www.shropshirewalking.co.uk/downloads/Offas-Dyke-A-Foot-in-Both-Camps.pdf http://www.shropshirewalking.co.uk/shropshire-way/route.php?route=27
Visitor Survey The following comments relate to the Visitor Survey carried out by National Grid and the points in the Preliminary Environmental Information report Chapter 14 which refer to it:
Paragraph 14.3.4 64% of visitor survey respondents were concerned about the impact of pylons and related construction on the landscape – we do not know from the Socio Economic report what form their concern might take. It would be interesting to see the full survey analysis & report – see also points below.
Paragraphs 14.3.4 and 14.3.7 80% said no difference in activity, 88% said no difference in spend. Without seeing the full survey results these statistics are difficult to analyse but that seems to leave 20% who believe they would be affected in terms of activity and 12% in terms of spend - a worst case scenario in which 12% do not spend in the area? The report states that there should be no significant impact on tourism. A 12% reduction in visitor spending is a major impact on tourism and a 20% change in activities undertaken could also result in major impact. To put this in some sort of context Visit England’s current target is 5% increase in visitor spending per year. Shropshire Borderlands (North Shropshire & Oswestry) has the same target which for this area is quite challenging.
Paragraph 14.3.7 80% of respondents state that the presence of the development would not deter them from visiting the area again. National Grid say in the report that there would not be a significant impact on tourism. Again without seeing the actual survey results this is difficult to assess but potentially leaves 20% of visitors who would be deterred from visiting. A drop of 20% in visitor numbers would have a very serious impact on the area’s tourism economy. A 20% reduction in visitors for a single business could affect the viability of the business.
The following are some general comments about areas of particular concern along the route. These comments are for the purpose of affirming the issues as most of these are
31 identified in the Socio Economic Report for mitigation measures with the exception of the British Ironwork Centre which we suggest should be added to the list in 14.2.20.
Llanymynech
Development of Llanymynech Heritage Area over several years and involving many partners has created a unique site which attracts visitors for its walking, heritage and wildlife interest. It also provides a valued amenity and source of pride for the local community. It is a key component of the tourism development of this part of north Shropshire situated on both Offa’s Dyke national trail and the Montgomery Canal. The site will realise even more potential as more of the Montgomery Canal is restored to water. The visual impact of the Mid Wales Connection on the site and the panoramic views from the hilltop could be very damaging to visitor perceptions of the area as scenic, heritage-rich, green with landscape and scenery being top factors that people say they enjoy most on holiday and associate with Shropshire. The village of Llanymynech is just starting to respond to increasing visitor numbers and future opportunities with an apparent improvement in the quality and availability of the food and drink offer. The positive social and economic effects could be curtailed or limited by the Mid Wales Connection routing. Visitor businesses in the area could be severely damaged by the disruption of the works.
Main concerns in respect of the visitor economy Visual impact impairs enjoyment of the landscape - particularly on and from the Heritage Area and canal Disruption and negative impact of the works on visitors perceptions, on ease of getting about, on tourism businesses (visitors, suppliers) and on the villages Montgomery Canal
The route appears to run more or less parallel to the line of the Montgomery Canal. The Montgomery is subject of a well-supported and long term project to return the canal to full navigation. The Montgomery canal partnership has been awarded the first phase of development funding for a project which will restore a further length of canal between Pryce’s Bridge and Crickheath Bridge. The bid for the full funding will be submitted by September. This is another key component of tourism development for the area.
The canal is seen as primarily a recreational and tourism amenity attracting staying visitors as well as more day visitors. The canal towpath also forms part of the Shropshire Way long distance footpath. The landscape and scenic qualities of the area are its primary appeal to the visitor. The Montgomery links to the Llangollen branch of the Shropshire Union canal which in turn links to Ellesmere and to the Pontcysyllte World Heritage site. Although not on the proposed Mid Wales Connection route these locations form part of a touring area based on outdoor heritage and scenic landscape the development of which represents the main potential for increasing the value of tourism to this part of Shropshire. Keeping the scenic, tranquil qualities of the Montgomery canal is critical to maintaining its character.
Main concerns in respect of the visitor economy
32 Visual impact and effect on enjoyment of the landscape Short and long term effects of negative PR outside Shropshire arising from the project and affecting a wider area Maesbury Marsh
As for Montgomery plus impact on small businesses (Canal Central, Navigation Inn) which service both visitors and residents in an area where services and facilities are thinly spread.
Main concerns in respect of the visitor economy Visual impact impairs enjoyment of the landscape - particularly on and from the Heritage Area and canal Disruption and negative impact of the works on visitors perceptions, on ease of getting about, on tourism businesses (visitors, suppliers) and on the village. Short and long term impacts on visitor numbers because of negative PR outside Shropshire arising from the project.
St Winifred’s Well, Woolston
Links to the bestselling Brother Cadfael novels by Ellis Peters make this an important niche tourism site, currently a holiday cottage owned and managed by the Landmark Trust Effects of negative PR on a small heritage site and tourism business. West Felton
Aspirations identified in the Parish Plan to develop their tourism assets – small heritage sites of the castle and church, canal side environment. Visual impact and effect of the pylon route on future potential and tourism appeal where this is part of strategic planning. Aston Locks and Queens Head
The Montgomery Canal Restoration Heritage Lottery Bid includes development of new nature reserves with paths, signage & interpretation. The visual impact of Mid Wales route needs to be considered. A potential future development of caravan and leisure facilities could result in a significant increase in visitor spending in the area, including a wider area. Visual impact and effect of the pylon route on future potential and tourism appeal where this is part of strategic planning. British Ironwork Centre (report does not currently identify BIC as a tourist attraction)
As an emerging visitor attraction the routing of the pylons through this site has high negative visual impact. It is one of the most open parts of the route visible from the A5
33 and throughout the approach to the business. Detrimental impact on visitor business and development potential as visitor attraction has to be considered likely. Visual impact and effect of the pylon route on current and future potential and tourism appeal Noise and Vibration
The PEIR assesses potential noise and vibration of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the various components on the proposed development.
The PEIR identifies potential impacts based on a combination of desk-based and site- based survey techniques for the construction and decommissioning of the proposed development and the operation of the proposed substation and overhead line. However it is noted that the findings with respect to Noise and Vibration have not been carried forward to the Preliminary Conclusions section. It is recommended that this topic is included in the Conclusions section of the Environmental Statement.
Construction Noise
The study area for construction noise effects should include all residential receptors within 150m of the proposed overhead line and cable routes. The assessment of construction noise has been predicted using method provided by British Standard 5228. Whilst this may be a good generic indicator for construction sites there needs to be consideration of the potential impact of traffic-related noise during construction particularly for premises adjacent to the temporary access routes where the predicted vehicle movements may entail significant traffic increases over some prolonged periods. The method of assessment and impact determination should be specified.
The construction traffic assessment for noise sensitive properties in Shropshire indicates a negligible effect. The assessment considers there to be a negligible effect from construction activities for overhead line installation and removal of existing lines although construction compounds may give rise to noise concerns during the construction phase of the project. This general conclusion cannot be accepted until access routes and detailed construction phasing is known and then site specific assessment of potential noise impact can be considered. This would also support any ‘fine-tuning’ of detailed project planning in respect of access to the construction areas for the overhead line construction.
Once the route and pylon design has been further detailed consideration of the potential impact of vibration from piling should be undertaken including a preliminary assessment of ground conditions and the potential for geotechnical anomalies enhancing vibration impact.
Where poured foundations are being proposed the establishment of mobile concrete batching facilities should be considered to reduce transport distance and also reduce the period of disturbance and this operation is likely to result in a large short term traffic flow and this could have significant impact particularly for dwellings along the temporary
34 access routes. In addition where temporary access road are proposed the surface construction should take account of noise minimisation opportunities.
Overhead line operation noise
A desk based assessment of sensitive receptors within 200m of the centreline of the proposed overhead line route has been undertaken, by the use of aerial photography. The assessment includes predicting noise from the overhead lines in both dry and wet conditions as highest noise levels generated by the overhead line generally occur during rain. British Standard 4142 is proposed to be used to assess overhead line noise in dry conditions using 5 minute spot measurements taken along the proposed route and night- time ambient background level. . It should be noted that the version of BS4142 used has recently been significantly updated and many of the comments in this section are now of limited validity. It is suggested that further scoping discussions are undertaken prior to the design of the more detailed site specific assessments
Information cannot however be found in the assessment that refers to noise effects due to surface grease or other substances on the conductors. If there is the likelihood that grease used on the conductor could lead to this noise, or any other substances such as dust accumulation over time then information on and a commitment to conductor cleaning or replacement should be provided.
On the basis of the assessment provided, mitigation measures are not considered to be required in Shropshire in respect of noise, however given the recent changes to the BS4142 assessment regime and the need for further detailed site specific assessments once construction decisions have been made the Council reserves its position in respect of potential noise impacts.
Review of Scheme Design in light of Feedback received
National Grid state that after the consultation it will review the proposals in light of feedback received and ongoing assessments to see if there are ways of improving them. Should the feedback indicate a change to the proposed alignment might be beneficial; the Council would like assurance that, if justified, a complete back check of the relevant segment of route is undertaken such that alternative corridors or alignments previously considered may be compared against any new proposed alignment.
This might particularly affect pinch points, for instance the location of the Tee point, where for example an alternative southerly connection point may reduce the number of pylons needed, thus reducing costs and / or potentially justifying a localised stretch of undergrounding to offset the impacts that discounted the option in the first place...
With the number of transmission schemes now coming forward in the UK increasing, and with it an apparent increase in the proposed use of undergrounding for both transmission and distribution networks, the costs of this technology may well be reducing making options for localised sections more justifiable in both financial and planning terms.
35 We trust that National Grid will consider the points raised in this S42 response carefully in its review of the proposal and scheme design prior to finalising its proposals.
Yours sincerely
Ian Kilby Planning Services Manager
36