The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Planning Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN Emailed to: [email protected]

FAO Mr Hefin Jones

25 July 2019

Dear Sir/Madam

Location: Southampton to Pipeline Project

Proposal: Notification from Esso of acceptance of their DCO application (by the Planning Inspectorate) and deadline for registering as a Interested Party

Following the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance of an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Southampton to London Pipeline, Borough Council requests to be registered as an Interested Party at the Examination. Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) is a host Borough and also landowner affected by the development. Meads, a public open space owned by the Council is a key parcel of land required to be used to enable the pipeline to go under the .

Runnymede Borough Council is not a unitary authority and therefore a number of matters, such as Highways, Transport and Archaeology fall within the remit of County Council (SCC). Esso’s discussions with SCC have not been shared with RBC and therefore RBC are now making enquiries as to SCC’s position.

This letter provides a summary of the main aspects of the proposal which RBC is presently in a position to confirm that it agrees and/or disagrees, together with an appropriate explanation, in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 8.3. The response below is an initial response as the Council is currently reviewing the detailed documentation submitted with the DCO application and therefore the Council reserves the right to make further written representations during the examination should it be required. The issues raised will be the subject of detailed written representations and a Local Impact Report which will be submitted during the examination process. Having now recently received an initial draft RBC is actively engaged with Esso in compiling a Statement of Common Ground.

RBC has engaged positively and proactively with Esso and this has gained momentum as resources have allowed. Throughout discussions, RBC has considered the impact of the project on communities that appear to be directly affected along with the wider impacts across the Borough. Whilst RBC notes that the proposed development will deliver a significant national benefit to the South East, the anticipated local impacts during construction must be addressed

Runnymede Borough Council, Civic Centre, Station Road, , Surrey, KT15 2AH Tel: 01932 838383 Fax: 01932 838384 DX 46350 Addlestone www.runnymede.gov.uk for which RBC consider greater clarity is needed and specifically details as to how impacts might be mitigated.

The matters referred to in this representation are based upon the representation submitted in February 2019 in response to the route design consultation. The Examination Panel and therefore invited to consider both representations to be read together. For information purposes, the examination panel is advised that RBC received a draft Statement of Common Ground on Friday 5th July 2019. RBC disagrees with the proposed content and this is under active negotiation. RBC will continue to discuss its concerns and we are optimistic that there will be progress in reaching a final document that fairly addresses RBC’s current concerns. . Compulsory acquisition of the land and rights in the DCO

RBC object to the compulsory acquisition of the land and rights in the Order. RBC consider that the applicant has failed to take adequate steps to acquire the land and rights by negotiation, and that there can only be a compelling case for the acquisition of the rights if appropriate measures are provided to mitigate the adverse effects of the implementation of the scheme. Esso have not been forthcoming in identifying what mitigation and compensation is offered.

Highways and Transportation • RBC are seeking the advice of SCC on traffic impacts from the construction of the project. This includes the impact of construction vehicles on the condition of highways within the Borough. We understand that SCC have concerns regarding the current proposed DCO which removes a number of powers currently held by SCC. RBC supports SCC in any objection raised on this point. RBC is not satisfied that the provisions in the DCO are sufficient to ensure that such works will be carried out without significant disruption to the local road network and inconvenience to residents.

• RBC notes Articles 9, 10, 12 and 15 of the DCO contain extensive provisions permitting alterations to works in streets in the Borough. Although there is provision for approvals to be obtained from the highway authority, no provision is made for engagement with the Borough as to the manner and timing of the exercise of these powers. In particular, the Borough seeks provision to be made for consultation with the Borough prior to the temporary stopping up of streets and public rights of way in its administrative area, and prior to the exercise of the traffic regulation provisions in Article 15.

• RBC anticipate a high level of activity in delivering housing within the Borough at the same time proposed for the construction of the Pipeline. This anticipated development coincides with other developments taking place in Surrey Heath and and the Council has recognised that there will be a cumulative impact on the A320 corridor. The Council has published a study developing a package of mitigation measures which address and \ or minimise the impact of the growth to enable the delivery of the developments. The Council is actively pursuing a funding bid with the Housing Infrastructure Fund which includes details of the capacity issues on the A320.

• The information provided in Esso’s Environmental Statement (ES) is generalised and non- location specific. RBC seek assurance that the construction of the Pipeline will not result in any significant impacts (ref. capacity and congestions) on the transport network in accordance with paragraph 108 of the NPPF, particularly when viewed against the background identified in the A320 corridor study.

• Officers request that the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) sets out how the local authority will be kept informed of when and where works are taking place.

• Employees travelling to the site by car and the impact on the availability of on street parking where there are no public car parks available, is expected to be covered in the CoCP including

2 details of where residents should be directed in the event of a complaint. Similar parking considerations relate to residents of streets which are temporarily severed.

The condition of the highways is expected to deteriorate as a result of additional HGV traffic and as a result of overrunning of the carriageway edges and verges. The applicant is required to conduct road condition surveys to identify where construction traffic has caused damage and the applicant will be expected to rectify this.

Flooding and Drainage

Runnymede has historically suffered several flood events and RBC welcome the approach taken by Esso to follow good practice guidance. However, RBC will be seeking the views of the EA and LLFA as to whether the measures proposed are appropriate e.g. soil stockpiling within floodzone 3, as suggested by the Applicant. Furthermore, RBC will seek advice on whether the identified risk is accurate and any proposed mitigation proportionate. The Chertsey Meads, owned by the Council, which is said to be critically required to enable the pipe to be laid across the River Thames, is vulnerable to flooding. Verbally RBC has been advised construction works on the Meads would take place in the summer at a time when seasonal flood risk is low. This has other implications (discussed below). RBC requires clarification as to how these impacts will be mitigated.

Green Belt (Saved policy GB1)

RBC understands that the impact of the Project on the Green Belt will be temporary during the construction period only. As limited details are available on the construction plan RBC reserve the right to comment further on the impact as more information becomes available.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

• The proposed route crosses or is adjacent to Areas of Landscape Importance (Saved Local Plan policy NE8); Local Sites of Nature Conservation Importance; Queenwood Golf Course. SNCI (south of Stonehill Road) and Chertsey Meads. SNCI. In addition, Emerging Policy EE9: Biodiversity. Geodiversity and nature Conservation states that the Council will seek net gains in biodiversity, through creation/expansion, restoration, enhancement and management of habitats and features to improve the status of priority habitats and species.

• The proposed route crosses several Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs) including but not limited to Chertsey Meads and Foxhills Golf Course. Emerging policy EE11 Green Infrastructure sets out that the Council seeks to avoid further fragmentation of Green Infrastructure and would seek development to contribute to Green Infrastructure assets. Runnymede considers that the applicant should commit to restoring and enhancing those BOAS affected by the Pipeline construction. Where this is the Council requestsa financial contribution to offset the impact to Chertsey Meads which is within the Council’s ownership.

• Officers encourage the applicant to commence a dialogue with Surrey Wildlife Trust regarding these issues. Officers anticipate that in managing the impacts, the Construction Code of Practice (CoCP) and Ecological Management Plan will set out the approach and Officerswelcome early site of this in relation to Chertsey Meads specifically.

• The Meads is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, the eastern half being a Local Nature Reserve.It is also protected as a Queen Elizabeth II Field via the "Fields in Trust" organisation. It is one of the very few River Thames flood plain meadows left in the lower reaches of the river. The site supports an ecosystem which includes many species of wild flowers and grasses which characterise such flood plains as well as many increasingly rare plants due to the serious loss of river flood plain habitat resulting from their drainage and 3 development. RBC has been working hard with its Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group, the Surrey Wildlife Trust, local residents and other experts for many years, to not only maintain this rare habitat but to improve it. The site was previously designated with SSSI status, and all parties are working towards getting the site up to this level of nature conservation again. It is vital that damage to the site is avoided or minimised (in the sense that none of the recent progress to the site to bring it back toward SSSI status is reversed so that the Site once handed back remains as a minimum no worse off than the current position).

• The Outline Construction Environmental Plan (page 28) details with regards to the Chertsey Meads “Turf would be stripped, stored and reinstated above the trench for an approximate distance of 125m between approximate grid references TQ 05958 66596 to TQ 05997 66480”. Given the disruption to open public space and consequent impact on the use of the Meads, RBC request that there should be a commitment from Esso to restore and enhance the land for the reasons given above. Alternatively the ground should be left to re-seed naturally from the existing surrounding vegetation and compensation is sought for this impact.

• RBC lack confidence that Esso have sufficiently identified the risk to ecology and that the proposed mitigation is sufficient. Reference is made in the OCEP to the River Bourne and that trenchless digging will be used as a construction method to avoid impact on the water ecology. RBC has not received any evidence to support this assertion.

• With specific reference to the DCO, RBC notes that Article 29 contains broad powers to alter land in respect of which temporary possession is taken, for example by removing vegetation. This is of particular concern in respect of the exercise of powers relating to public open spaces, including those which provide recreational opportunities. Although Article 29(4) makes provision for restoration of the land to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner, this provision only takes effect when possession is given up. The Borough seeks amended provisions to provide for the prior agreement with respect to the nature of the alterations to be made to the land, and the provision for reinstatement, to ensure that any public open space which is temporarily possessed is returned promptly to a condition which aligns with the Council’s objectives for the land.

• RBC considers that there is a lack of commitment to ecological monitoring where the proposed works may result in a loss of habitat.

Chertsey Agricultural Show and PRoW ()

• Within Chapter 13 (People and Communities) Esso accept that there will be significant disruption and visual impact caused by the construction works if construction coincided with the Chertsey Agricultural Show. Esso also accept that there would be some impact to the users of the Thames Path albeit for a limited time. The proposed mitigation as stated in paragraph 13.6.6 and referenced in table 3.7 of the Outline Construction Environmental Plan states “The project would work with the Chertsey Agricultural Show to limit impacts to the Show at Chertsey Meads and along Mead Lane”. Esso consider there is no further mitigation of relevance to this assessment. RBC disagree. The works could negatively impact on tourism and a local community event of historical significance. Esso has failed to reassure RBC that every effort would be made to avoid impact on the Show and where this is not possible, what measures could reasonably be undertaken by them to mitigate any impact. For example, Esso acknowledge that one car park will be closed which limits accessibility. Will Esso provide a means for alternative transport or contribution to cover the cost or compensate for reduced attendance and loss of revenue as a result of the negative impact of this? This requires a collaborative and pro-active approach to resolve to the satisfaction of both parties.

4 • The requirements in Schedule 2 do not make express provision for the management of impacts on open spaces and their recreational use. Such provision, subject to RBC’s prior agreement, is essential to ensure that the impact of the works on open space is minimised in terms of physical and temporal extent. This is particularly the case in respect of land which provides alternative recreational opportunities to use of the SPA. Neither the CEMP (Requirement 6) nor the LEMP (Requirement 12) would appear to be suitable mechanisms for addressing this specific issue. A further Requirement should be imposed to address this. The requirement should prevent temporary possession from being taken of open space unless and until an action plan has been agreed with RBC in respect of the interference with that open space, including its reinstatement.

RBC will continue to work with the applicant on these matters.

Noise

RBC acknowledge that Appendix 13.3 Noise and Vibration Technical Note identifies that there will be a negative noise impact during installation to residential properties in Addlestone and Chertsey, including the potential for night time working on some critical phases. Esso consider that in practice the number of properties experiencing effects would be low and limited to a short period of time. RBC support the view that the Contractors will be required to submit a Noise and Vibration Management Plan as part of the CEMP and RBC request that details and a customer contact number are provided to minimise additional burden being placed on the Local Authority in dealing with queries/complaints about noise.

Archaeology

RBC is unaware of any local fieldwork being undertaken to investigate the potential direct effects on archaeology in the proposed development area. An Archaeological Mitigation Strategy has been put forward and RBC are seeking the advice of SCC as to its adequacy. Wherearchaeological work is required, a written scheme of investigation must be agreed with SCC. RBCalso suggest that Historic should be included. If remains of high significance are discovered during the construction phase, RBC would welcome the opportunity to discuss how the findings could be publicised across the community.

Ancient woodland

The route of the pipeline runs adjacent to Fan Grove Ancient woodland and the Order limits cross the 15m buffer around the woodland, just North of Road.

The applicant has provided insufficient information to satisfy the RBC that the works would be in accordance with paragraph 175 of the NPPF. While the Framework recognises that there may be instances where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss of any habitat, RBC request that the applicant consider whether there is an opportunity to avoid any impact. Where this is not possible, RBC request that a means of mitigation is clearly identified and referenced in the DCO. RBC request that reference is made to the “Planning for Ancient Woodland” document published July 2019 by the Woodland Trust.

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

The proposed Order limits cross a number of existing footpaths in the Borough and one bridleway as shown in the maps below. RBC reserve its right to comment further on the impacts of the construction phase on PRoW.

5

6

Cumulative effects

In addition to the identified housing development drive and upgrade of the A320, the Borough is potentially host to three additional major infrastructure projects in the lead up to and potentially during the proposed pipeline installation period. These include the River Thames Scheme, the impacts of the proposed Heathrow Expansion and potentially the Southern Rail Extension from London to Heathrow. RBC seeks assurance from Esso that the cumulative effects of these projects have been assessed as part of the pipeline project and their potential effects avoided or mitigated.

In conclusion, mitigation and, where necessary, compensation, is the only way, in RBC’s view, that many of the issues can be addressed. RBC continues to discuss the proposals, but as highlighted in this representation there remain many significant and material issues where greater clarity and detail is required.

If you have any queries please contact the Case Officer Lucy Rees on 01932 425242 quoting the planning application number RU.19/0951.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Rees

Lucy Rees Assistant Development Manager

We take your privacy seriously and only process your data in line with the data protection law. To learn more about how we comply with GDPR and, as a result, care for the security and privacy of personal data we collected from you, view our privacy notice at www.runnymede.gov.uk/privacystatement

Sign up to our planning alerts service at www.runnymede.gov.uk/planningalerts

7