Rugeley B Power Station – EIA Scoping Consultation Response

March 2019

Brereton and Ravenhill Parish Council Comment Response The EIA must include Appropriate steps in respect of asbestos removal Asbestos removal predominately relates to the consented demolition works which do not form part of the Proposed Development. However, asbestos removal will be considered as appropriate in the EIA.

Appropriate mitigation measures for dealing with asbestos materials encountered during the Proposed Development will be identified in the Remediation and Reclamation Strategy. Appropriate steps to protect neighbouring land, including homes and other buildings and Noted, these receptors will be considered in all relevant assessments in the EIA. roads Predominantly through the assessments of Transport, Noise, Air Quality, Ground Conditions, Water Environment. Appropriate steps to ensure that material from the demolition does not enter the air or The consented demolition works do not form part of the Proposed Development. the River Trent Measures to ensure that unacceptable impacts do not occur during the demolition works are secured under Planning Permissions 18/01098/FULM and CH/18/268. Measures to ensure nature conservation is fully addressed and the need to consult Noted, nature conservation will be fully addressed in the EIA. Predominantly bodies with expertise in this field through the Ecology assessment.

Canal and River Trust Comment Response Ecology Request effects on the canal are included in the ES Ecology assessment and Potentially increased recreational usage of the canal will be considered in terms opportunities are considered for biodiversity enhancement. of ecology effects in the ES. Heritage The assessment should also include the undesignated heritage assets along the stretch Noted, the ES Built Heritage Chapter will consider all the designated and non- canal. designated built heritage assets along the canal that fall within the study area, including the Trent and Mersey Canal. The significance of these assets including any contribution made by their setting and the impact of the proposed development on that significance will be assessed. With regard to the specific views that might be affected, it is considered that a main Noted, the viewpoints suggested by the Canal and River Trust will be viewpoint to consider will be 100m west of Bridge 61, Church Bridge. The landscape considered. The built heritage team will work closely with the landscape team to falls away from the canal to the north while flanking vegetation, providing an open rural make sure that all key views from the Canal have been included.

view towards the site from the navigations outward perspective. Views to and from St John’s church and Church Bridge itself should be included. It is also recommended that a viewpoint 100 metres before Armitage Tunnel (passes underneath the A513) is included, there may be similar views over to the site from this point, which is a broader stretch of canal. Transport The proposed development both during construction and operation has the potential to The assessments to be carried out as part of the TA and ES will consider traffic significantly impact on the canal from increased traffic adjacent to the canal corridor, on impacts on the road network. The canal network is segregated from the road bridge crossings and on the towpath itself. network; however, it is acknowledged that some of the affected roads cross the canal, run parallel to the canal or have pedestrian/cycle access points to and In addition, any assessment should consider the wider impacts of increased traffic and from the canal which may require users to cross the road to continue their this should specifically include reference to existing canal crossings within the wider journey. vicinity of the site. The assessment of specific environmental effects in relation to either construction or development traffic will be carried out on affected links with reference to the canal/bridges and crossings where relevant.

Those environmental effects of most relevance in this instance are likely to be those of severance, pedestrian/cyclist delay and pedestrian/cyclist amenity. The document does not acknowledge waterborne traffic as a potential sensitive receptor The assessment of construction traffic will assume that all activity is carried out and subsequently does not identify the potential impacts to boat movements or by road. It is suggested that flexibility is retained for the potential movement of navigational safety which may be particularly affected during construction. The materials on and off site by water should an agreement be reached between the feasibility of utilising the waterway for freight/construction should also be included. developer and the Canal and Rivers Trust at the appropriate time.

It is proposed that such a statement is included in the CEMP. LVIA The approach to the Landscape and Visual Assessment appears reasonable, Para Para 14.3.5 notes that the Trent and Mersey Conservation Area is a notable 14.3.7 does mention the Trent & Mersey Canal, though this is only under the umbrella of feature, further within 14.3.6 it states that where there is potential intervisibility the 'The Way for the Millennium Footpath'. Whilst it appears that this footpath follows the this will be considered further as part of the LVIA. Viewpoints 3a,3b and 3c are towpath for much of the section through Rugeley it is considered that further specific from along the footpath. references to the Trent & Mersey Canal as a receptor should be included to ensure the assessment takes in all viewpoints along the canal corridor.

With regard to the specific views that might be affected, it is considered that a main view A view has been added into the assessment from this location which will show point to consider will be 100m west of Bridge 61, Church Bridge. The landscape falls the relationship between the site, bridge and church. away from the canal to the north with little flanking vegetation, providing an open rural view towards the site from the navigations outward perspective. Views to and from St View 5 has been taken from the church. The combined views should illustrate John's church and Church Bridge itself should also be included. the interrelationship between all the noted features.

It is also recommended that a view point 100 meters before Armitage Tunnel (passes A view from this location has been added to the LVIA assessment. The mature

underneath the A513) is included, there may be similar views over to the site from this woodland that flanks Borrow Pit lake does provide a robust screen towards the point, which is a broader stretch of canal. West of the Armitage Tunnel the canal is well site due to its elevated nature. buffered by vegetation aside of the A513 and reads as sitting lower in the landscape, and therefore this is likely to be less sensitive in terms of long ranging views towards the site, which would be obscured by existing landscape features.

Water Environment Advice is given regarding the need to ensure that impacts upon the canal and users (as The Trent & Mersey Canal (as well as any other sensitive controlled waters a sensitive receptor) are considered across all topics. receptors), including the presence of users of the waterway corridor, will be The response notably states: ‘The assessments should not only consider the ecological considered and accounted for in further detail as part of the ES Ground impacts to the canal network but also the potential impacts on land stability and users of Conditions Chapter. the waterway corridor’ As stated in Paragraph 13.2.29: ‘…a Remediation and Reclamation Strategy is being prepared and will be implemented prior to the commencement of the Proposed Development. Whilst some reference to land stability may be included within the baseline of the EIA, the Remediation and Reclamation Strategy will identify and mitigate any land stability issues associated with the Proposed Development.’ Due to the scale of the proposed development the works have the potential to impact on The water environment assessment will determine potential for any adverse the canal in this location. impacts to water receptors, including the Trent and Mersey Canal. Appropriate Due to their overall scale and nature the proposals have the potential to impact on the mitigation is to be provided where any significant adverse effects are identified. wider canal network. The trust would wish to be assured that the development would not Furthermore, as a WFD designated waterbody, the potential for deterioration or impact on the canal and would still allow for it to be enjoyed by residential, leisure and prevention of future improvement in the status of the Trent and Mersey Canal business users. (currently at Good Ecological Potential) will be assessed within a separate WFD Directive Assessment, which will be appended to the Environmental Statement. The assessments should not only consider the ecological impacts to the canal network These impacts will be assessed in the relevant chapters of the Environmental but also the potential impacts on land stability and users of the waterway corridor. Statement, with impacts on navigation considered within the water environment Consideration should be given to boaters, including leisure and residential moorings in assessment. the vicinity of the site It should be clarified that users of the Trent and Mersey Canal, boaters, both leisure Potential impacts on navigation will be considered in the water environment users and residential along with towpath users are sensitive receptors both during assessment contained within the Environmental Statement. construction and future operation of the site. In addition, residential moorings should be Impacts to residential moorings and towpath users will be considered within the afforded equal consideration as a sensitive receptor as dwelling houses. EIA as appropriate as residential receptors. In assessing the impact of the development, the EIA should also identify any The canal is not within the application site, thereby limiting opportunity for opportunities to improve the canal corridor to enhance biodiversity. enhancement. The WFD assessment will consider whether there will be any deterioration or prevention of future improvement in the ecological potential of the canal. Should any be identified then mitigation measures will be included, to ensure that achievement of WFD objectives is not adversely impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development both during construction and operation has the potential to The water environment assessment will determine any potential adverse impacts

significantly impact on the canal from increased traffic adjacent to the canal corridor, on to water receptors, including the canal. Appropriate mitigation is to be provided bridge crossings and on the towpath itself. where any such significant effects are identified. Furthermore, as a WFD designated waterbody, the potential for deterioration or prevention of future improvement in the status of the Trent and Mersey Canal (currently at Good Ecological Potential) will be assessed within a separate WFD Assessment, which will be appended to the Environmental Statement. The document does not acknowledge waterborne traffic as a potential sensitive receptor Potential impacts on navigation will be assessed within the water environment and subsequently does not identify the potential impacts to boat movements or chapter navigational safety, which may be particularly affected during construction.

CCDC AONB Comment Response The Scoping Opinion Section on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and the The LVIA will refer to all relevant policy documentation to include the AONB LVIA Methodology refers to appropriate guidelines (Guidelines for Landscape and Management Plan, where possible this will included the revised 2019-2024 Visual Impact Assessment’ (GVLI) Third Edition 2013) as a basis for assessment. management plan, unless as mentioned the submissions pre-dates the update.

Regarding data sources, reference should also be made to the AONB Management Plan 2014-2019 should be included and is available here: http://www.cannock- chase.co.uk/assets/downloads/74646AONBmanagementplan2014-19.pdf Please note that a the Management Plan 2019 – 2024 is due for publication in April 2019 and should be used as evidence unless the submission pre-dates it.

The plan ‘Planning Policy and Environment Designations’ indicates the AONB to the The AONB is shown within CCDC and LDC, a small section of the AONB was south of the site, however the AONB boundary is not accurate. The plan needs to be missing from within SDC (north west). The plan has since been updated to show amended to show the actual extent, across all districts, and the LVIA consider potential this extra area of AONB, the ZTV illustrates that are no views possible of the effects across all districts. proposed development s location. The plan has since been reissued to the AONB officer

The AONB Partnership would expect the EIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment GLVIA states at para 1.17 to assess a greater number of viewpoints within the AONB than those indicated on the That the emphasis is on the identification of likely significant environmental Planning Policy and Environment Designations Plan, which shows only 2 viewpoints on effects. This should embrace all types of effects and includes, for example, those the AONB boundary, directly adjacent to housing. The ZTV indicates areas within the that are positive/beneficial and negative/adverse, direct and indirect, and long AONB from where there would potentially be views of the development and there may and short term, as well as cumulative effects. Identifying significant effects be other viewpoint locations that don’t appear on the plan as it has been clipped. stresses the need for an approach that is in proportion to the scale of the project that is being assessed and the nature of its likely effects. Judgement needs to be exercised at all stages in terms of the scale of investigation that is appropriate and proportional. This does not mean that effects should be ignored or their importance minimised but that the assessment should be tailored to the particular circumstances in each case.

Cannock Chase DC Principal Landscape Officers has also requested a further viewpoint from Castle Ring – Scheduled Monument and highest point within the Chase with noted views over the Trent Valley. The AONB would be seeking reassurance that development would not include taller Development within the site has been kept to a height of no greater than 4 elements that would impact on the setting of the AONB, therefore if these are proposed storeys / 18m, this for the majority will be located within the northern end of the the Partnership would request consideration of a larger Study Area. Depending on the site. The development to the southern end of the site will be for the majority proposed heights of development it could also be appropriate to consider how the residential and to a height of 2.5 storeys – 12.5m. Once design freeze has been proposal may affect views towards the AONB. achieved then an updated ZTV will be run to establish this refined viewshed. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will need to demonstrate that potential The LVIA will be carried out in accordance with the principles of good practice set effects on the AONB and its setting have been fully assessed, including lighting, and out in the following published guidance produced by the relevant professional that any detrimental effects have been avoided or mitigated where possible. organisations concerned with landscape and visual assessment:  Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (2013), (GLVIA3), published by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment  GLVIA3 Statement of Clarification 1/13 (2013), published by the Landscape Institute  Natural England’s ‘Approach to Landscape Character Assessment’ (2014)  Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment (2011), published by the Landscape Institute

CCDC Conservation Comment Response General The potential for below ground archaeological remains is acknowledged however the Noted, the Introductory Chapters provide an overview and should be read in information about built heritage seems rather random; it needs to refer to the Rugeley conjunction with the remainder of the Scoping Report/Environmental Statement.

Power Station Development Brief SPD 2018. Para 2.24 of the Power Station SPD sets out the built heritage which needs to be considered. Consideration of Planning Policy compliance will be presented in the Planning Statement rather than the Environmental Statement.

Archaeology Ch.8 Archaeology: the view of SCC County Archaeologist is required to ensure that the The view of the Staffordshire County Council Archaeologist has been provided proposal to scope out archaeology from the EIA is acceptable, bearing in mind that para on their letter dated 8th February 2019, Ref. 19/00077/PREAPP 2.25 of the Power Station SPD states that there is potential for archaeological remains across the site based upon the HECA Addendum 2017 para 2.27. Built Heritage Ch.9 Built Heritage. Para 9.2 Planning Policy and Guidance Noted. The Legislative Context and Planning and Policy Guidance will be updated for the ES and further discussed. Para 9.2:Proposed Assessment Methodology: Noted, the Power Station SPD will be taken into consideration and addressed in the Methodology section of the ES Chapter.

CCDC Environmental Health Comment Response Air Quality The report has utilized Environment Agency permitting records to identify potential The EHO has since provided details of local processes and this along with odour sources of odour that may impact upon future development of the site and subsequently will be considered within the EIA. scoped out this issue. This exclude potential sources not regulated by the Environment Agency, including Environmental Permitted sites regulated by this authority. As such, the scope of the EIA should include odour as an issue for assessment. The scoping report states that air quality model verification will be based on latest It is accepted that the monitoring network is limited within the region of the site, monitoring data from Cannock Chase Council and Lichfield District Council. CCDC only which would indicate air quality is not of concern. AAC are continuing to liaise has limited monitoring in Rugeley, which will provide limited benefit. I would suggest that with Cannock Chase Council regarding air quality monitoring. the developer undertakes their own supplementary monitoring programme in advance for this purpose. Ground Conditions I have liaised with Lichfield DC in this regard, and can offer the following combined AECOM acknowledge there being no objection to the proposed assessment comment: The tiered assessment methodology and subsequent development of a methodology. CCDC, LDC and the EA have been, and will continue to be, reclamation and remediation strategy is noted. Review of previous site investigations engaged as appropriate notably in the interests of establishing further local has already identified several contaminated locations on the site, which will inform the knowledge in relation to key potentially contaminative sources identified as part process going forward. of the Ground Conditions baseline and subsequent assessment.

The implications for controlled waters will continue to be under the scrutiny of the Environment Agency post demolition, and their opinions should be sought on this application.

As per usual practice, the document confirms that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be implemented, which will mitigate potential impacts associated with land contamination during the construction phase. Noise It is noted that design and layout will be used to minimise the impact of existing and An assessment will be undertaken in line with the ProPG, BS8223:2014, and future noise sources upon future sensitive uses such as residential properties, which is BS4142:2014 to ensure acceptable noise levels are achieved both internal and welcomed. However the approach promoted in ‘ProPG: Planning & Noise – New within amenity areas. Residential Development’ (https://www.ioa.org.uk/publications/propg) is a useful for ensuring that sites where noise presents a potential limitation to development are suitably designed to address the issue. It is noted that a number of monitoring values are at a level where indoor and outdoor acoustic environment could be compromised if this is not addressed. As such, it is expected that the matter is addressed in the EIA and an acoustic design statement be provided for future residential development at the appropriate stage in the planning process. The use of artificial ventilation / closed windows should not be used if good design and layout can achieve the same goal. It is noted that the report is using the external amenity value of 55dB as an upper limit. Noted and these target levels would be considered as part of our assessment as This value should only be acceptable in extremis, and every effort should be made to a matter of course. achieve 50dBA. In this situation, although the site is exposed to road and rail noise, it is also a sizeable site and the use of design features to ensure optimal external amenity should not pose an obstacle to development.

CCDC Landscape Comment Response View points general seem appropriate however it is not possible to confirm Following fieldwork there have been slight adjustments to the viewpoint exact locations due to scale but some likely to be adjusted slightly to suite local locations. A revised plan will be reissued shortly following other conditions. additional viewpoints being added in regards conservation assessment. 3B & C from the canal will be blocked by the exiting topography to north of Views have been verified following a site visit and moved to alternative the canal locations along the canal. 4 – recommend move eastwards to high point in Ravenhill Park Viewpoint has been moved as suggested. 10 – views from Cherry Tree road/Gorse road but also consider open space An additional viewpoint - 10b has been added to the assessment from end of Gorse Road/Heather Close –latter forms part of Brereton Way open space. Would also suggest VP form Castle Ring SAM which is further SW, north of A viewpoint has been added from Castle Ring Cannock Wood, as this is the highest point on the Chase with long views over the Trent Valley It is also is a main visitor attraction/point on the Chase. In terms of photo montages, noted the proposed timescales, existing, following The LVIA will establish a baseline and phasing of both development and building (Year 0) and then Year 10. This would work well for a development that construction. Timescales will be clearly defined within the LVIA. is to be implemented in a very short time period ie 12 months however this development will take many years to implement. The proposals need to reflect Construction of development will be phased however, the wider site

this long term timescale as clearly year 10 will for some areas only just be landscape/GI will likely be implemented at different stages, for example completed. the proposed open space adjacent to the river, contains retained mature features from the outset that will provide mitigation to onsite activities Also should show at least year 25, when landscaping should be getting to a from views to the north. reasonable state of maturity. The phasing of both the GI and development will be clearly set out in the LVIA. Remediation works are likely to involve considerable excavation, stockpiling The detail will be informed by the remediation plan and phasing of and mounding of materials (CF Site A). Such works are likely to have construction. considerable visual effects and may be over a long period of time, dependant on phasing. This aspect needs to be covered within the process.

CCDC Policy Comment Response Chapter 2 The adopted Rugeley Power Station SPD para 2.24 sets out the list of Scheduled Noted, the Introductory Chapters provide an overview and should be read in Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings within close proximity of the site as well as conjunction with the remainder of the Scoping Report/Environmental Statement. other matters which need to be included as set out in paragraphs 2.23 to 2.28 of the SPD. Regard must be had to this as much of this information is missing from the scoping The Rugeley Power Station SPD will be referenced in the ES chapter and where report. It needs to be referenced and utilised. relevant it will be utilised.

However, consideration of Planning Policy compliance will be presented in the Planning Statement rather than the Environmental Statement. It would be worth mentioning in para 2.2.26 that small parts of flood zone 2 encroach on Noted – flood extents will be defined in the FRA the south of the railway embankment (See page 16 of the SPD). It is incorrect to state that there are no Special Areas of Conservation within the vicinity Noted, impacts on ecological sites will be addressed through the ecology of the site. The site lies within the Cannock Chase SAC 15km Zone of influence and as assessment. such this will need to be included within the EIA. There are several other SACs in the area including Cannock Extension Canal and Natural England will need to advise further on these in terms of any cumulative impacts which may need to be considered, including those relating to air quality. Landscape character needs to reference the evidence base both at County and District Noted, landscape character from a national level down to the site level level and also information relating to Cannock Chase AONB which includes a specific assessment will be included within the LVIA. Landscape Character Assessment and a management plan which is in the process of being updated (due to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of March 2019). Whilst the AQMAs are not located in close proximity to the site, there may be cumulative Noted, impacts on AQMAs will be considered through the Air Quality impacts arising which need to be taken into account for example on the sensitive assessment

ecological networks in the area including the SACs. The SPD contains other information which may potentially be of relevance to the EIA, Noted, more detailed aspects of baseline relevant to specific assessments are especially with regard to socio-economic aspects (health, housing, sport, recreation etc) set out as part of the baseline for that topic. and should be cross referenced. Chapter 3 Page 4 para 3.1.20 needs to contain reference to sport and recreation in addition to Noted, once known the description of the Proposed Development in the references on open space and play. Allotments also need to be referenced as does the Environmental Statement will include details on open space typologies approach to the existing landscape features of the site (see the Power Station SPD proposed. paras 4.39 – 4.42) However, consideration of Planning Policy compliance will be presented in the Planning Statement rather than the Environmental Statement. There should also be reference to on-site infrastructure which might be required for The EIA relates to an outline planning application and will assess the outline employment (for example certain types of employment might require on site lorry parking parameters. Specific detailed infrastructure would not be identified/proposed until and facilities (see para 4.14 of the SPD). the Reserved Matters stage. Any necessary infrastructure identified at the detailed design stage would be delivered within the proposed employment areas. However, consideration of Planning Policy compliance will be presented in the Planning Statement rather than the Environmental Statement. The document also needs to make reference to existing HS2 safeguarding area within Noted, the application and EIA are being prepared on the basis that the site is the Power Station site, which includes the existing internal access road from the A51, as not required for HS2. Should this situation change revisions to the EIA and well as an area surrounding the existing Power Station Grid Station and land to the application may be required. north. While HS2 seek to minimise their land take requirement, they have identified land they require and shown in the HS2 Bill plans published in July 2017. This may change later on in 2019, if an alternative power supply route to the north of HS2 can be identified. Chapter 4 Page 4.10 para 4.4.46 states that a threshold of 5km would not generate significant Noted, the 5km threshold has been applied for the purposes of identifying a cumulative impacts. However as mentioned earlier in this response this might not be the cross topic schedule of committed schemes. Where appropriate individual topics case in terms of air quality given recent case law relating to the Habitats Regulations will apply different thresholds for assessment purposes. and Special Areas of Conservation and the views of Natural England should be sought in this regard, as should the views of the SAC Officer (for Cannock Chase SAC). Meeting to be sought with SAC Officer to discuss further

Chapter 6 – Socio-Economics …Policy CP3 Design is also relevant, and the adopted SPD on Design, should also be Noted, Policy CP3 Design and Design SPD will be referenced. referenced and utilised Given the proximity of Rugeley Town centre to the site it is worth cross referencing to Noted, Policy CP11 Centre Hierarchy will be referenced. Policy CP11 Centres Hierarchy. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan needs to be referenced. Noted, it will be referenced. CCG should be consulted on this in any case Noted, CCG will be consulted. …Further consideration will be needed as to secondary education capacity in Rugeley. Noted, impacts on the provision of secondary education will be assessed in the socioeconomic assessment.

In addition to employment, there should also be consideration of matters relating to skills Noted, the chapter will consider impact on skills and training, diversification of and training, diversification of the local economy, a balanced portfolio of high quality the local economy, a balanced portfolio of high quality employment, and the employment, and the visitor economy (see Policy CP9). visitor economy. Chapter 7 – Air Quality In terms of the proposed assessment methodology the consultation to agree the scope Noted – both Natural England and Cannock Chase SAC have been consulted as (para 7.2.36) should also include Natural England and the Cannock Chase SAC officer part of the EIA Scoping process. due to potential cumulative impacts relating to Special Areas of Conservation. Chapter 10 - Ecology The reference to the SAC Guidance to mitigate (Para 10.2.37) is welcomed as this is In summary these points have been addressed by: omitted elsewhere in the scoping report. However, due to the scale and location of the Integrating biodiversity into the illustrative masterplan to achieve a net gain proposals further input will be required from the Cannock Chase SAC officer and Natural The application will be supported by an ecological assessment England. The views of Natural England will also be needed in terms of the 5km zone Opportunities to improve the habitat along the River Trent and drains on site cited in paragraph 10.3.1. should be considered The potential to increase access to the riverside will be considered in the context Regard needs to be had to paragraphs 4.43 to 4.46 of the Power Station SPD in the EIA of protected species constraints in relation to ecology and biodiversity. Consideration of how the physical barrier of the embankment should be addressed. Chapter 11 – Water Environment Re paragraph 11.2.9, this references an update to the SFRA being undertaken in 2014. Noted – this can be referenced in the FRA however it is unlikely that the outputs This is in the process of being updated again (joint commission between South of this updated SFRA can be used to inform the FRA due to application Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Tamworth and Stafford) and the work is due for submission preceding the SFRA completion date. completion in June 2019. Due regard will be made with regards the requirements of the Power Station Regard needs to be had to the Power Station SPD paragraphs 4.47 and 4.48 including SPD paragraphs 4.47 and 4.48, where required, in the FRA. the approach to the role of the railway embankment in terms of flood risk (and also in a wider context in terms of its role in open space / leisure and recreation – see the SPD). Chapter 14 – Landscape and Visual Information relating to Cannock Chase AONB which includes a specific Landscape This will be included, either based on the existing plan or the updated version. Character Assessment and a management plan which is in the process of being This will be dependent on submission dates of both the AONB management plan updated (due to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of March 2019). and Rugeley power station application.

Chapter 15 – Transport and Access Local Planning Policy 15.2.9/p.208: Noted, the policy referred to will be referenced. The document needs to make reference to the existing HS2 safeguarding area within the Power Station site, which includes the existing internal access road from the A51, as well as an area surrounding the existing Power Station Grid Station and land to the north. While HS2 seek to minimise their land take requirement, they have identified land they require and shown in the HS2 Bill plans published in July 2017. This may change later on in 2019, if an alternative power supply route to the north of HS2 can be identified.

Re HS2 (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill into Parliament: This hybrid bill is to authorise the next part of the HS2 railway network, known as Phase 2a. This will run between Fradley in the West Midlands and Crewe. National Grid were approached and confirmed this could be provided from the Rugeley Power Station sub- station. Rugeley Power Station Development Brief Consultation Document Paras 15.2.38- 41: Noted, this will be reflected in the submission. Brief reference to the ‘Consultation’ version of the SPD. Rugeley Power Station Development Brief Supplementary Planning Document Cannock Chase District Council & Lichfield District Council was in fact adopted 20 February 2018. The correct status of the SPD is referred to in 14.2.13 The following section of the Rugeley Power Station SPD, 2018, should be addressed in The assessment of construction traffic will assume that all activity is carried out the EIA: by road. It is suggested that flexibility is retained for the potential movement of “Opportunities and Constraints 2.93 materials on and off site by rail should an agreement be reached between the Consider the retention and utilisation of the existing rail freight facility as part of any developer and Network Rail at the appropriate time. development proposals, including a potential role in transporting demolition material; and Opportunity to introduce new bus routes to serve the area”. It is proposed that such a statement is included in the CEMP.

The county council’s public transport team will be consulted as part of the preparation of the Transport Assessment. SCC are arranging meetings to this end. Local Highway Network 15.3.1/p217: Noted As confirmed in 3.1.21, primary vehicular access to the Proposed Development in the west is anticipated to be achieved from the A51 utilising the existing Site access. In the east primary vehicular access is anticipated to be from the A513 utilising the Site access consented under planning permission 17/00453/FULM. Staffordshire County Council, as the Highway Authority, will need to make full comments on the adequacy of these proposals. Walking and Cycling 15.3.4 – 15.3.10 / p217: The section considers the baseline environment, a full review of how the site will The approach is very minimalistic and based on existing infrastructure identified in integrate with existing infrastructure will be included in the TA. County Council cycling leaflets. Bus Services 15.3.11-16/p218; Comment: This section considers the baseline environment. The county council’s public The statement that existing bus stops can serve the site is unrealistic in view of the transport team will be consulted as part of the preparation of the Transport distances involved, and assumes existing services are adequate to meet future needs. Assessment. The transport comments identify that the immediate area is not served by any bus services, the nearest being on in a northern direction are Rugeley Bus Station, located The nearest bus stops to the site are on the A513 within the vicinity of the The 1.2km from the Site, approximately a 16-minute walk (15.3.12) or on Brereton Main Pippins. Road. The strategy states that public transport must serve the site but says this can be achieved by local bus stops (350m) and the promotion of smarter travel choices. There The spine road through the site is intended to allow penetration by bus services are no bus services along Armitage Road or in the immediate vicinity of the Power thereby decreasing the distance that users will have to travel to bus stops.

Station site. The Rugeley Power Station Development Brief, 2018, Opportunities and Constraints Noted, this will be incorporated. 2.93: Identifies the “Opportunity to introduce new bus routes to serve the area”. This needs to be included. 15.3.16 states that access to Lichfield provides access to key leisure and employment Noted, this will be reflected in the submission. locations in “Solihull and major towns in Warwickshire via Coventry Railway Station”. There are no direct rail services from Lichfield to Solihull or Coventry. 15.5.3 ‘Mitigation’ measures, does make reference from the SPD to “delivered by either The county council’s public transport team will be consulted as part of the diversion of existing bus routes or provision of new bus route to better link the site with preparation of the Transport Assessment in order to derive an appropriate public key destinations.” However, diversion of existing bus routes would mean deleting transport strategy. services from Brereton Main Road, to the disadvantage of existing users. Table 15.1 Frequency of Local Bus Services (page 219 – there are two Table 15.1). Noted, the limitations in the existing bus service provision reflect the baseline The table is misleading as it gives the impression there is a high frequency bus service conditions. The table refers to peak hour operation, the title will be revisited to of 8 buses an hour throughout the day. Arriva 24 Rugeley-Brereton only operates off make this clearer. peak between 08.50 and 14.20 only. The 825 Stafford-Rugeley-Lichfield, is hourly other than half hourly in the am and pm peaks. As stated above, existing bus services are remote and distant from the application site. Rail Services 15.3.17/p219: Noted, options to explore access by all sustainable modes are being explored as The statement that the site benefits from being within walking distance of many transport part of the TA. hubs, including two stations, Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley, needs to be consistent with the SPD. 15.3.18 states Rugeley Town Railway Station is located c. 1.5km west of the development, accessed via a 25-minute walk or an 8-minute cycle, while 15.3.19 confirms Rugeley Trent Valley Station is c. 2km to the northwest, a 27- minute walk “which may not be seen as an attractive walking distance from the site.” Direct rail access to Stoke-on-Trent and Stone will no longer be possible from May 2019. Table 15.2 Frequency of Train Services p220: Noted, this will be reflected in the submission. There are no direct rail services to Derby as stated. No direct Stoke rail services will operate from Rugeley TV from May 2019. Rugeley Trent Valley station 15.3.22/p220: Noted. Options to explore access by all sustainable modes are being explored Parking at Rugeley Trent Valley station is limited to 20 spaces and there are existing as part of the TA. problems through lack of parking. There are no direct rail services to Liverpool. This issue needs to be addressed. Demolition works 2.2.6: The assessment of construction traffic will assume that all activity is carried out Network Rail have previously highlighted the potential for demolition material to be by road. It is suggested that flexibility is retained for the potential movement of removed by rail from the existing rail freight sidings, thereby avoiding additional road materials on and off site by rail should an agreement be reached between the traffic. There is no evidence that this has been considered and such measures need to developer and Network Rail at the appropriate time. be included.

Rugeley Power Station SPD, 2018, states: “Opportunities and Constraints: 2.93 It is proposed that such a statement is included in the CEMP. Consider the retention and utilisation of the existing rail freight facility as part of any development proposals, including a potential role in transporting demolition material; and opportunity to introduce new bus routes to serve the area”.

CCDC SAC Comment Response Air Quality The Cannock Chase District Council (CCDC) policy context for the consideration of The EIA will include assessment of impacts upon the relevant SACs. negative impacts to Cannock Chase SAC (CP13) is correctly noted in section 7.2.19 of the air quality chapter of the EIA Scoping Report. However the Lichfield District Council (LDC) policy context for the consideration of negative impacts to Cannock Chase SAC (NR7) is currently absent but should also be noted in this section.

The Cannock Chase SAC Team welcomes the applicants recognition that the proposed development has the potential to negatively impact upon the reasons of designation of Cannock Chase SAC via potential increasing the level of NOx deposition upon the site (during the demolition; construction and operational phase of the scheme).

However, no mention is made of Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC. The negative impact of increased atmospheric deposition on NOx should also be considered on this European Site in addition to Cannock Chase SAC.

Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC is designated on its ‘inland saltmarsh habitat’ (please see Joint Nature Conservation Committee UK SAC listings http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page- 1458) which is considered by Natural England as being sensitive to increased NOx deposition (please see ESCO: Supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features; Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC (http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6292877810335744)).

Whilst Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC lies approx. 8.6km away from the site of proposed development, it lies less than 75m from the A51. The A51 road is noted throughout the EIA Scoping Report as being likely to see increased traffic impact through the demolition, construction and operational phase of this development. Consideration must therefore be given in the future EIA as to the scale of the likely traffic increase (both HGV & Car) along the section of the A51 which runs adjacent to Pasturefields Saltmarsh. If the likely scale of increased Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is sufficient to meet or exceed the thresholds for likely negative impact (as set in the Wealden PINS determination: Case No Co/3943/2016 & further clarified in the Natural England’s: Approach to advising competent authorities on the assessment of road traffic

emissions under the Habitats Regulations, June 2018) then further assessment, sufficient to determine the scale of this impact, must be undertaken in the EIA. Based upon this information proportional mitigation must then be suggested in the EIA to allow the LPA to undertake and complete HRA.

The methodology of assessment detailed in para 6.5. should also be used in the assessment of NOx impacts on Cannock Chase SAC.

For further reference, the applicant is should consider the Site Improvement Plan For Cannock Chase SAC (17/10/2014) (http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4957799888977920) and the. ESCO: Supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features; Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC (link provided in para 6.4.). This information can then be considered in tandem with the critical N load/level (Kg N ha-1 year-1) of each habitat type (please refer to the Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website (http://www.apis.ac.uk/)); for Pasturefields Salt Marsh (which represents a unique habitat) the critical N load/level for costal salt marsh should be considered most applicable in absence of more habitat specific information. Ecology The LPA/s will need to undertake Habitat Regulation Assessment (inc. Appropriate This will be provided alongside the ES submission Assessment) for the impacts (alone and in combination) of the scheme on both Cannock Chase SAC & Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC. These assessments will need to occur and be concluded once the EIA is completed and provided to the authority/s & prior to the consideration of the development scheme. The developments potential impacts on Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC not currently Noted. Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC will be considered in the ecology recognised in EIA Scoping Report. Further consideration to impacts of atmospheric assessment of the ES chapter deposition on NOx to both SACs must occur in EIA; if impact is considered significant upon the reasons of designation of either SAC then appropriate mitigation should be delated in the future EIA Report to allow for LPA/s to complete HRA and AA as per Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is recommended that it is made clear in the future EIA Report how the developer This will be made clear in the ES chapter, and the process by which this will be proposes to mitigate fully for these [ecological] impacts. achieved is currently under investigation.

Coal Authority Comment Response There is no requirement for the application to consider coal mining legacy as part of their Noted Environmental Impact Assessment.

Environment Agency

Comment Response Ecology Recommend a phase 1 habitat survey is undertaken in the spring/early summer of the Atmos will undertake a survey in the spring/early summer with a focus on earlier golf courses and spoil heaps to identify flowering plants that may have been missed by flowering plant species of conservation interest. This will be done in the the late summer survey done in 2018. determination period and submitted as supplementary information. Request commitment to control the New Zealand pygmyweed in the ES chapter which This will be included in the ES chapter. will be done. Ground Conditions Relevant Extracts from 'Groundwater & Contamination' Section of EA letter response. It The baseline section of the scoping includes a summary of the information from is noted by the Environment Agency that the comments relate solely to the protection of the working Remediation and Reclamation (R&R) Strategy. Although the chapter ‘Controlled Waters’, matters relating to Human Health should be directed to the relevant may not directly reference all the specific reports (e.g. Jacobs), all the pertinent department of the Local Authority: available data/information provided to date by Engie (which includes work by Jacobs) has been considered as part of drafting the R&R Strategy and so are in The response summarises the sensitive controlled waters receptors (including the turn considered as part of the Scoping input. To ensure all more recent/ongoing potential for the current abstraction license to be acquired for future potable purposes work has been/will be covered AECOM have provided Ramboll with a list of the thereby introducing an SPZ as well). It goes on to acknowledge Chapter 13 is Ramboll reports received/considered to date as part of our work and have asked overview/generic at this stage stating the following: 'We are aware Chapter 13 briefly them to review and inform us if there is any further Ramboll information we mentions the available Ramboll site investigation findings to date, however, omits the should be considering, either based on historical or more recent/upcoming site earlier work produced by Jacobs and others altogether'. investigation in advance of our draft issue of the EIA inputs next month. All pertinent information received will be considered and transposed in to the ES The response summarises the outstanding permits and that work to surrender these is chapter. ongoing between the Environment Agency and Engie / Ramboll. The following is stated: ‘As a result of the complexity associated with contamination, we would be satisfied with AECOM acknowledges the ongoing work by Engie/Ramboll to surrender the discharging proposed conditions by phase, in order to allow a phased redevelopment to permits and confirms that all the relevant pertinent information made available in commence across this site. Finally, we understand from the EIA statement that the aim enough time will be incorporated into the ES chapter as appropriate. is to submit an initial remediation strategy for the site as part of the outline planning application, which clearly will need to incorporate all of the above issues and set a realistic timeline for them too’. Flood Risk and Drainage We confirm that the methodology proposed in the above documents are acceptable in Noted – a detailed site specific Flood Risk Assessment supported with hydraulic principle for evaluating flood risk subject to a satisfactory proposal being submitted modelling of the River Trent, will be submitted with the application which which demonstrates that the development is safe, taking climate change into demonstrates that the development is safe, taking climate change into consideration and increased flood risk does not occur as a result of the proposed consideration and increased flood risk does not occur as a result of the proposed development development Development proposals should give detailed consideration to fluvial flood risk to the No built development will be located within the floodplain. Initial modelling of the north of the site. Development should be located away from Flood Zone 3 and it is site indicates that Flood Zone 3 is not as extensive as that shown on the EA advised any applicant enters into early pre-application discussions with the Environment Flood Maps. Land located within the floodplain will remain as open space and/ or Agency to inform the detailed site proposals. water compatible uses. Any application will need to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The Hydraulic modelling, including climate change scenarios will be undertaken to FRA should include the following: inform the FRA, set proposed development levels and inform mitigation

 Hydraulic modelling to include flood outlines with and without the railway measures, if required. embankment. This shall take into account any existing channels, outfalls or other potential flow routes through the railway embankment; Mitigation measures for the proposed development, where required, will be  The latest climate change allowances; included within the FRA.  Should the modelling show that the embankment is integral to safe development of the site, and assessment of its structural integrity should be An outline surface water drainage strategy will be included within the FRA and undertaken, and remedial measures identified where necessary, to ensure the summarised in the Water Environment Assessment ES Chapter. development remains safe for its lifetime;  The required height of the embankment to provide the necessary level of flood protection for residential development, taking account of climate change;  An assessment of the impact on the site if the embankment is overtopped or breached (residual risk) and how this will be managed;  Potential mitigation measures including sequential site layout, floodplain compensation, raised floor levels etc for the existing situation and any other scenario; and  Surface water management.

The Environment Agency has advised that the development may require Environmental Noted – application for Environment Permits will be submitted, where required. Permits for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of designated main rivers. This will be in addition to obtaining planning permission. Water Environment Please note that the River Trent is a Salmonid River and considered to be an important The sensitivity of the River Trent will be considered in the water environment migratory route for both European Eel and River Lamprey. This means that the river is assessment contained within the Environmental Statement. Adequate mitigation particularly sensitive to both silt pollution and barriers to free fish movement (usually will be provided to ensure that any potential adverse impacts are avoided. For weirs). The EA therefore does not generally permit any works to the river bed or banks instance, measures to prevent silt pollution incidents during construction will be during the Salmonid fish spawning season 1st October to 31st May inclusive. Extra care outlined in a CEMP and Water Management Plan. will also be required to ensure that silt pollution incidents are prevented from entering any watercourses or the surface water network on site during the various phases of the development proposals. We would welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposals to enhance the It is anticipated that enhancements would be implemented as conditions on the habitats of the Brereton Brook the River Trent and the adjacent proposed Country Park. outline planning application. Consultation with the Environment Agency will be As the remediation of the land will provide an excellent opportunity to enhance these sought on enhancement proposals at that stage. watercourses for both biodiversity and WFD gains. The developers have identified mitigation measures such as dust suppression and Licensing and permit requirements will be considered in the water environment new/improved habitat in the form of newly created or altered waterbodies. assessment within the Environmental Statement.

If water is required for these purposes, then depending on the source of water and volumes required, they may require abstraction licences from us. A licence must be in place before abstraction takes place. It can take up to 4 months from receipt of a valid

application for a licence to be issued. There is no guarantee that a licence could be granted as it is dependent upon water resource availability. Any licence issued could contain conditions requiring abstraction to cease at times of lower flows As of 1 January 2018 dewatering works may also require an abstraction licence. Only emergency dewatering and small scale temporary dewatering will be exempt from this requirement. We support the use of water efficiency measures to minimise demand on water The water environment assessment within the Environmental Statement will resources resulting from the water requirements of new developments such as this. consider clean water provision based on requirements of local policies and/ or Drivers for water efficiency include: delivery of the objectives under the Water best practice. Framework Directive, reducing pressure on wastewater treatment capacity, adapting to the impacts of climate change and reducing energy use. We wish to see water efficiency measures incorporated into the development at the application stage We welcome the provision of SUDS for surface water drainage as a pollution prevention Severn Trent Water will be consulted with regards foul drainage from the Site as measure. We strongly advise early interaction with Severn Trent Water to ensure the part of a Utilities Assessment. The surface water drainage system, including the receiving sewage treatment works has capacity for connection to the existing foul provision of SuDS follows the SuDs hierarchy and will outfall to local drainage infrastructure. watercourses removing the need for connection to the Severn Trent Water system.

Using the outcomes of the Utilities Assessment, the water environment assessment within the Environmental Statement will consider foul drainage infrastructure provision. Consultation will relevant parties will also be described in the Environmental Statement.

Heritage England Comment Response This development could, potentially, have an impact upon a number of designated The ES will provide a thorough assessment of the likely effects of the proposed heritage assets and their settings in the area around the site. In line with the advice in development upon the significance of the heritage assets including their settings the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), we would expect the Environmental in the area around the site. Statement to contain a thorough assessment of the likely effects which the proposed development might have upon those elements which contribute to the significance of LPA conservation officers and the SCC county archaeologist will be consulted as these assets. part of the preparation of the application and EIA.

We would also expect the Environmental Statement to consider the potential impacts on non-designated features of historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest, since these can also be of national importance and make an important contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of an area and its sense of place. This information is available via the local authority Historic Environment Record (www.heritagegateway.org.uk) and relevant local authority staff.

We would strongly recommend that you involve the conservation advisers at Lichfield

District Council and the archaeological staff at Staffordshire County Council in the development of this assessment. They are best placed to advise on: local historic environment issues and priorities; how the proposal can be tailored to avoid and minimise potential adverse impacts on the historic environment; the nature and design of any required mitigation measures; and opportunities for securing wider benefits for the future conservation and management of heritage assets.

It is important that the assessment is designed to ensure that all impacts are fully understood. Section drawings and techniques such as photomontages are a useful part of this.

The assessment should also take account of the potential impact which associated activities (such as construction, servicing and maintenance, and associated traffic) might have upon perceptions, understanding and appreciation of the heritage assets in the area. The assessment should also consider, where appropriate, the likelihood of alterations to drainage patterns that might lead to in situ decomposition or destruction of below ground archaeological remains and deposits, and can also lead to subsidence of buildings and monuments. Conservation Principles is not an Advice Note but an over-arching philosophical The terminology that will be used in the Built Heritage Chapter will relate to the framework which informs all Historic England’s Guidance and the work of all terminology used by NPPF and the draft Conservation Principles conservation professionals. More relevant are the GPA Note 2 and GPA Note 3 which (https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/conservation- are referred to in paragraph 9.2.6. principles-consultation-draft.pdf), referring to significance in terms of heritage interest and not heritage values. However, the methodology for assessing the heritage interest follows Conservation Principles.

I am not entirely convinced of the need to scope out Archaeology, I presume this would Noted, according to Section 2.2.20 of Chapter 8 of the Scoping Report and the not preclude Staffs County from asking for any pre-comm archaeological works that they comments of the Staffordshire CC archaeologist, there remains the potential for think may be necessary? I am thinking about unexpected archaeological finds which previously unknown archaeological features (including paleoenvironmental have been found elsewhere alongside the historic line of the River Trent such as at remains) to be present in less developed areas of the proposal site. The County Catholme. Archaeologist is of the opinion that once a clearer idea of what is proposed for these areas is presented, that any archaeological mitigation, if deemed appropriate, could be picked up as a condition of consent.

Highways England Comment Response Ground Conditions The ‘Occupation Phase Mitigation Measures’ (paragraph 13.5.4) sets out that “spillages Paragraph 13.5.4 is clarified as follows. following road accidents would be routinely managed by Highways England who is

responsible for the maintenance of Highways England assets in the West Midlands ‘In addition, any spillages following road accidents would be routinely managed Region”. Whilst this is technically correct as far as the SRN is concerned, it is considered by Staffordshire County Council in their role as the local highway authority for the that the section should also identify Staffordshire County Council as the local highway surrounding highway network and any new road configurations related to the authority for the surrounding highway network. Proposed Development; Highways England who is responsible for the maintenance of Highways England assets in the West Midlands Region, notably that associated with the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England, will adopt any maintenance responsibilities associated with potential impacts and effects upon the wider SRN.’ Transport Unfortunately the geographical extent of the highway network to be subject to The proposed geographic scope of the assessment is summarised in Figure assessment within the EIA is not clear from the documentation provided. Environmental 15.1 of the ES scoping note. impacts are to be considered in accordance with DfT Circular 02/2013 paragraphs 45 – 48. The circular also notes that advice and standards for environmental assessment of This will be reviewed in light of the additional information requested by HE. development affecting trunk roads can be found in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges at http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/. Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges provides guidance as to scoping requirements, including geographical extent.

There is a requirement for a Transport Assessment (TA) to be prepared in accordance Noted, reference will be made to DfT Circular 02/2013 in preparation of the TA with DfT Circular 02/2013, paragraphs 21 to 44, Development Management. On behalf and ES. of the applicant, Mode Transport Planning contacted Highways England in December 2018 to ascertain Highways England’s advice as to the scope of the forthcoming TA.

Highways England responded in January 2019 requesting that as a first step, an Noted, this information will be provided shortly. evidence based approach to ascertain the likely degree of vehicular impact on the SRN and whether any assessment of the SRN will be required. This information has not been forthcoming to date; continued engagement on this is issue is recommended. This information, once agreed, will also inform the geographical extent of the EIA in terms of coverage of the SRN.

Paragraph 15.5.4 of the EIA Scoping report sets out that “There is also a potential Noted, mitigation will be provided in order to provide nil-detriment when the requirement for off-site highway capacity mitigation to be required as a result of the development proposals are considered relative to the forecast baseline traffic Proposed Development. The requirement, location and form of this mitigation will be conditions. identified as part of the assessment”. The recognition of this potential requirement is welcome.

LDC Conservation and Design Comment Response The only comment is on paragraph 9.2.8 I am unsure as to why the Historic England Noted, this advice note is mentioned for completeness. The most relevant to this

Advice Note on Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management would be assessment are GPA2 and GPA3. used. Conservation Principles is not an Advice Note but an over-arching philosophical The terminology that will be used in the Built Heritage Chapter will relate to the framework which informs all Historic England’s Guidance and the work of all terminology used by NPPF and the draft Conservation Principles conservation professionals. More relevant are the GPA Note 2 and GPA Note 3 which (https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/conservation- are referred to in paragraph 9.2.6. principles-consultation-draft.pdf), referring to significance in terms of heritage interest and not heritage values. However, the methodology for assessing the heritage interest follows Conservation Principles.

LDC Ecology Comment Response It is also important to establish whether protected species may be affected by the The EIA parameters has been developed and designed in order to minimise proposed development scheme at an early stage to allow this inform to be considered effects on protected and priority species. This has been informed by a suite of when planning the developments design and timescales of work. surveys. All surveys should be completed in accordance with Natural England’s Standing Advice Surveys broadly in accordance with guidance and deviations fully justified and for Protected Species and current best practice guidelines. accounted for in ES. Some surveys will be repeated in 2019 to ensure the data remains current. Requirement to display a measurable biodiversity net gain (20%) The intention is for 20% net gain to be achieved across the Site. Surveys must therefore be completed, impact assessments carried out and all mitigation An appropriate level of surveys has been completed to inform the scheme and compensation required to protect the species and its habitat incorporated into the design and prior to permission being sought. Some surveys will be repeated in scheme before preparation of final plans and/or permissions are sought. 2019 to ensure the data remains current and will be submitted in the determination period.

LDC Environmental Protection & Housing Comment Response General Whilst the EIA Scoping Report shows that issues such as noise, air quality and dust Email Response issued to LDC and CCDC on 20 February 2019 have been thoroughly considered, I would agree that to separate demolition works does

not seem appropriate. Notwithstanding the imminent amendments to the EIA Scoping Report I would Clearly dust will be a major concern at the demolition phase and whilst this scoping like to be clear that whilst the consented Demolition works are ongoing they do report references guidance on the assessment of dust from construction and demolition not form part of the proposed development which is to be subject to the outline sites, it then goes on to state that only construction phase dust and particulate matter will planning application. be considered. The guidance which is referenced clearly shows that the dust emissions from demolition are “large” by comparison with “medium” at the construction phase. Consideration of the Demolition works (as an independent project) both from a planning and environmental perspective was dealt with as part of the relevant Seemingly contradicting the above, the Scoping Report also states in section 7.4.42: “It planning applications and consents. This includes the identification of any is noted that as part of approved Planning Application 18/01098/FULM, a large part of measures required to address environmental effects. the site is currently being cleared. However, it is anticipated some minor ‘demolition’ works will be required and therefore this element has not been scoped out of the The Demolition works therefore comprise a committed development for the assessment”. This would suggest that demolition works will be considered, though they purposes of the upcoming EIA (the purpose of which is to assess the proposed are anticipating only minor works will remain. From my knowledge of the site in its outline development). The EIA will not therefore re-assess the consented and current state I would say that whilst works appear to be ongoing, it is very far from being ongoing Demolition works as they do not form part of the proposed development. in a state where the significant elements of demolition are complete. I would just confirm Indeed (as will be made clear in the update Scoping Report) the consented therefore, in agreement with your view, that the EIA should consider all works yet to go demolition works will be ongoing during the outline application process and the ahead in terms of demolition. great majority will be complete in advance of the commencement of the proposed development.

However, the EIA will include any consented Demolition works within the assessment where these are concurrent with the proposed development. This is to ensure that any cumulative effects are identified, assessed and, where necessary, appropriately mitigated. This is the same as the consideration of other committed schemes (see Table 4.2 in Chapter 4 of the EIA Scoping Report).

Please also note that the above relates only to the consented Demolition activities. Further demolition work is proposed as part of the proposed development (see paragraph 3.1.3 in Chapter 3 of the EIA Scoping Report). These proposed demolition works do form part of the proposed development and will be assessed as appropriate in the EIA.

Further to this clarification consideration will be given to the cumulative effects of Site Demolition works associated with Planning Application 18/01098/FULM and the extraction and management of Pulverised Fuel Ash, as these works are not anticipated to be completed prior to the commencement of the proposed development works.

Cumulative assessments will be made for both dust and noise and considered

within the respective noise and air quality assessments and the associated ES Chapters. Air Quality Clearly dust will be a major concern at the demolition phase and whilst this scoping See above report references guidance on the assessment of dust from construction and demolition sites, it then goes on to state that only construction phase dust and particulate matter will It is accepted that dust will be generated during any demolition / construction be considered. The guidance which is referenced clearly shows that the dust emissions phase, but this will be mitigated to a minimum through a Construction from demolition are “large” by comparison with “medium” at the construction phase. Environmental Management Plan, which will utilise mitigation measures set out within the air quality assessment / ES. Seemingly contradicting the above, the Scoping Report also states in section 7.4.42: “It As per the above comment, the cumulative impact of any remaining demolition is noted that as part of approved Planning Application 18/01098/FULM, a large part of works will be considered as part of the air quality assessment. the site is currently being cleared. However, it is anticipated some minor ‘demolition’ works will be required and therefore this element has not been scoped out of the assessment”. This would suggest that demolition works will be considered, though they are anticipating only minor works will remain. From my knowledge of the site in its current state I would say that whilst works appear to be ongoing, it is very far from being in a state where the significant elements of demolition are complete. I would just confirm therefore, in agreement with your view, that the EIA should consider all works yet to go ahead in terms of demolition. Ground Conditions For contaminated land, Anthony McNicol has been liaising on behalf of LDC and work is Noted ongoing there with the agents, their consultants and other local authorities / Environment Agency. I have nothing to add at this point.

Noise In terms of noise the scoping report appears to adequately address the areas to be Noted considered. I’ve not spoken to the chap from Air and Acoustics (see email you sent to be on 7th Feb) so assume they spoke to John Mills. I didn’t send this report to John but I’ve asked for some input just on the noise side and will forward that asap. I very much doubt there will be any issues there as whilst there are commercial uses adjacent to the site, they are across a road and any noisy aspects are on the other side of buildings.

Natural England Comment Response Air Quality Air quality in the UK has improved over recent decades but air pollution remains a The potential impacts on air quality will be considered for the SACs in the vicinity significant issue; for example over 97% of sensitive habitat area in England is predicted of the Site. to exceed the critical loads for ecosystem protection from atmospheric nitrogen deposition (England Biodiversity Strategy, Defra 2011). A priority action in the England

Biodiversity Strategy is to reduce air pollution impacts on biodiversity. The planning system plays a key role in determining the location of developments which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generation, and hence planning decisions can have a significant impact on the quality of air, water and land. The assessment should take account of the risks of air pollution and how these can be managed or reduced. Further information on air pollution impacts and the sensitivity of different habitats/designated sites can be found on the Air Pollution Information System (www.apis.ac.uk). Further information on air pollution modelling and assessment can be found on the Environment Agency website. Natural England Natural England advises that a habitat survey (equivalent to Phase 2) is carried out on Atmos will undertake a survey in the spring/early summer with a focus on earlier the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. flowering plant species of conservation interest. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at Ornithology surveys have been undertaken and will be assessed in the ES. appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are Additional surveys will be undertaken in spring 2019 to confirm the position and present. submitted as supplementary information.

Botanical survey – response in row above.

Invertebrate surveys – white clawed crayfish assessment and eDNA will be reported in the ES. Assessment of potential effects on invertebrates will be undertaken in the ES. Site masterplan design has been based on retaining and enhancing features of potential interest for species including invertebrates e.g. borrow pit lake, ornamental lake, large golf course and river, Brereton Brook. Proportionally, effects on invertebrates are considered to be low and no specific surveys are proposed. LVIA Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at Noted, landscape character plans will be include within the LVIA to include a a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans detailed assessment of the site and immediate landscape. or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the An assessment on site wide landscape features to include, landform, land use, development, such as changes in topography. vegetation, hydrology and recreational use will also be included with the LVIA. The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on Noted, this is set out in our methodology and will be included within the LVIA. local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. We encourage the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2013. LCA provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed. Natural England supports the publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Noted, GLVIA third edition is the industry standard.

Assessment, produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management in 2013 (3rd edition). The methodology set out is almost universally used for landscape and visual impact assessment. In order to foster high quality development that respects, maintains, or enhances, local The LVIA will include and define mitigation measures to reduce any adverse landscape character and distinctiveness, Natural England encourages all new effects arising from the proposed development. development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the area, with the siting and design of the proposed development reflecting local design characteristics and, The character, layout and siting of development will be set out in the Design and wherever possible, using local materials. The Environmental Impact Assessment Access statement that will be submitted as part of the application. Both the LVIA process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a and D&A will be cross referenced were required. high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit. The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other Noted, the LVIA will include a cumulative effects section within the LVIA. relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England advises that the cumulative impact assessment should include other proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the planning application.

The assessment should refer to the relevant National Character Areas which can be Noted, these will be included within the LVIA. found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page.

Network Rail Comment Response Transport Assessment should include consideration of the impacts of the proposal on The Transport Assessment will consider connectivity to both Rugeley railway Rugeley Town Railway Station and Rugeley Trent Valley Railway Station. Full stations and potential improvements to the existing situation as part of the developer funding for enhancements should be included in the proposal (either via S106 development proposals. This will include consideration of the potential or CIL) and agreed prior to any planning application submission. Discussion of the passenger numbers to be generated by the proposals. impacts of potential increased footfall at the railway stations should be undertaken with Network Rail and the TOC. The Cannock Chase District Integrated Transport Strategy 2013-2016 identifies improvements to Rugeley Town and Trent Valley Stations. Improvements to train stations to support Chase Line improvements are identified in the CCDC CIL Reg 123 list. Clarity will be sought as to what these improvements entail

The proposal includes a range of land uses that are anticipated to make CIL contributions and accordingly the development will therefore also provide monies towards station enhancements as part of this levy.

Construction works and access and egress from the site must not impact any Network The assessment of construction traffic will assume that all activity is carried out

Rail infrastructure assets. by road. It is suggested that flexibility is retained for the potential movement of materials on and off site by rail should an agreement be reached between the developer and Network Rail at the appropriate time.

It is proposed that such a statement is included in the CEMP.

SCC Flood Risk Comment Response Based on the proposals contained within chapter 11 of the report we are assured that An outline surface water drainage strategy, including provision of SuDS, based appropriate consideration will be given to flood risk associated with the development. We on local policy/ best practice requirements will be included within the FRA and anticipate an appropriately scaled, wholesome Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage summarised in the Water Environment Assessment ES Chapter. Strategy designed in accordance with the Non-statutory technical standards for SuDS (Defra, 2015), which will incorporate the following as stated within paragraph 11.5.8.  Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) will be incorporated into the design of the Drainage Strategy to limit the impact on flood risk by reducing the rate at which runoff from new hard areas discharges into receiving watercourses.  Attenuation of the discharge, as far as practicable, will be to equivalent Greenfield runoff rates as calculated in accordance with best practice for SUDS will be provided.  Storage for additional flows up to the 1 in 100 year return period including a 40% climate change allowance will be provided in SUDS features.  The suitability of the proposed SuDS treatment train for providing water quality treatment will be determined using the Simple Index Approach outlined in CIRIA C753 The SuDS Manual.

SCC Heritage and Rights of Way Comment Response Heritage 8.1.3 The information contained on the Heritage Gateway website is not necessarily up- A formal HER search has been undertaken. to-date and may not contain all the information regarding the archaeology/historic environment of the area that a formal search of the Staffordshire HER would have provided. 8.2.2 It is not clear here that many of these identified non-designated heritage assets are Noted, maps showing all the designated and non-designated heritage assets will actually located within the red line boundary of the proposed development, a map be produced. Further to the formal HER search, a complete list of the designated illustrating the location of these sites would have been a useful accompaniment. Also, and non-designated heritage assets within the study area will be prepared and this list is not complete, there are a number of sites of historic farmsteads located within included in the Built Heritage Chapter or the Archaeology Technical Note as the planning boundary identified on the HER, Rugeley ‘A’ power station is not included, relevant.

and a location map (and a wider search radius) would have served to illustrate the distribution of prehistoric sites located on the north side of the River Trent across from the proposed development site. 2.2.22 I would suggest that the extant power station buildings should be considered to Noted, the demolition of the existing power station buildings has been approved be of some importance- although not designatable- as has already been determined (as by the council as part of a separate application. A summary will be included in acknowledged in 2.2.24). the Built Heritage Chapter. 2.2.23 It is remiss not to mention or acknowledge the nearby Conservation Areas (such Both conservation areas are mentioned in para 9.3.4 of the Built Heritage as Trent and Mersey Canal and Mavesyn Ridware) here. Scoping Chapter. Paragraph 9.2.7 I would also recommend utilising the recently completed historic Noted. building recording report for the extant power station buildings to further inform the baseline. Transport We would comment that the parish council should encourage any developers to The Transport Assessment will consider connectivity between the site and the enhance the existing path network where possible in line with Staffordshire County wider area and will include an audit of existing routes and potential Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan. This could include: improvements to these. Given the nature of the surrounding route network this • the creation of public bridleways or the upgrading of public footpaths to bridleways to will comprise walking and cycling routes with surfacing in line with existing improve provision for horse riders and cyclists. infrastructure. • the creation and promotion of short circular walks to promote the health benefits of walking • the replacement of stiles with gaps (where there are no stock) or gates (where there are) in line with Staffordshire County Council’s Least Restrictive Principle for path furniture.

SCC Waste and Minerals Comment Response General The following matters should therefore be ‘Scoped In’ to the Environmental Statement: The Environmental Statement will provide details of the proposed PFA extraction  details of PFA including the location, depth and quantity; and re-profiling works. This will include information on anticipated volumes and  plans showing the changes to the levels, so that the re-reprofiling of the land to plans showing level changes. create the revised landform can be adequately assessed;  details of any residual stockpiles of ash and/or aggregate waste which could be The Environmental Statement will include details on the re-use of PFA and usefully processed as secondary aggregate and utilised in the construction of Demolition waste within the proposed re-development. the proposed development; and,  details of the disposal of PFA elsewhere in the event that there is a surplus of The Outline Waste Management Strategy will give consideration to the PFA (the PFA should be recycled of disposed of at an appropriately permitted management of residual PFA should disposal be required at a licenced facility. waste management facility). Although the current intention is that all PFA will either be used onsite or sold for re-use. The developer should ‘Scope In’ the site clearance waste; construction waste and the The Environmental Statement will include an Outline Waste Management operational waste for the housing and employment sites Strategy that will provide estimated quantities of anticipated waste arisings and potential management routes for site clearance, construction and operational

waste. The developer should demonstrate that the proposed development would not constrain Consideration will be given in the Planning Statement to the relationship of the any operational waste management facilities. site to surrounding land uses (including waste management facilities) The developer should provide evidence to address the Policy 3.2 of the Minerals Local The planning application will include evidence on Minerals Safeguarding and Plan and should have regard to The Coal Authority’s risk assessment guidance. prior extraction of viable minerals deposits. Ground Conditions Paragraph 13.3.2 of the EIA Scoping Report deals with ‘Coal Mining’ and explains that It should be noted that the Ground Conditions chapter assesses the potential the site is not considered to be a high risk for development in relation to coal mining. Our impact from land contamination both to the Proposed Development and also to records also indicate that there are no allocated or permitted coal mining sites in the surrounding receptors. Its remit does not extend to include waste and minerals. vicinity, however coal mining has taken place and the site is located in a ‘Coalfield Low Nonetheless commentary in response to the specific points raised in relation to Risk Area’. For more information refer to The Coal Authority’s risk assessment guidance the topic is provided below. and their interactive mapping. Paragraph 13.3.2 will be elaborated on as part of the ES chapter to clarify any further pertinent information in relation to the site being located in a ‘Coalfield Low Risk Area’.

Severn Trent Water Comment Response No objections to the proposals subject to the inclusion of the following condition; Noted - An outline surface water drainage strategy, including provision of SuDS,  The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans based on local policy/ best practice requirements will be included within the FRA for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and and summarised in the Water Environment Assessment ES Chapter. approved by the Local Planning Authority; and Detailed design of the drainage system will progress following granting of outline  The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details planning. before the development is first brought into use. This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution. There is a pumping station close to the site and any new development must not restrict Noted – this will be considered within the parameter plans and referenced in the our access to the Sewage Pumping Station. We will require free access to the pumping FRA and Water Environment Assessment ES Chapter. station at all times in order to complete any programmed routine maintenance tasks and also for any emergency visits in case of failure. Please note that due to the close proximity of the proposed new development the occupant may experience noise/ smell pollution. In order to minimise disruption to any future occupants, we would advise that all habitable buildings are constructed a minimum of 15m from the curtilage of the pumping station compound.