Application Acknowledgement

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR DECISION

6th SEPTEMBER 2016

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The applications within this report have been submitted for determination under the Town and Country Planning Acts and associated legislation.

All applications within this report are “Delegated” to this Committee but can be moved “Non-Delegated” by a Member of the Committee under the terms adopted for the Scheme of Delegation approved by Council, 16th May, 1994. Any such motion needs to be accepted by a majority of Members of the Committee present (Council, 8th August, 1995). All applications left as Delegated will be decided by the Committee and will not be subject to confirmation by Council.

The application plan numbers also refer to files for the purposes of background papers.

Jason Hipkiss

Planning Manager

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:

2016/0354 Mr Jon Cooper Centrica Mr Richard Turner Distributed Generation Ltd RPS Planning and Development WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Roosecote Charles Wilton 29/04/2016 01229 876553 STATUTORY DATE: 11/08/2016

LOCATION:

Former Roosecote Power Station, Rampside Road Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Town & Country Planning under regulation 5 (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011- Screening opinion in relation to a proposed gas-fired electricity generating plant

SAVED POLICIES OF THE LOCAL PLAN:

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Proposal is not considered to be EIA development. Whilst the development site area exceeds 0.5 hectares and is therefore Schedule 2 development, it is likely to only have an environmental impact of local significance.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

1. Background

1.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations, also known as the EIA Regulations, and recently updated in 2011, form part of the development control system in England and relate to certain types of development. The Regulations evolved from a European Union Directive and give planning authorities a means of ensuring that they can take account of the environmental

Page 1 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016 implications of individual developments in their decisions on planning applications. The Regulations also place a number of responsibilities on planning authorities, which relate to the different stages of the EIA process.

1.2 Only certain types of development are subject to the Regulations, and the process by which this is determined is called 'screening'. A developer can ask the planning authority to give a screening opinion prior to submitting their application, or the Authority can adopt a screening procedure during the consideration of it. This is purely a technical exercise, and there is no formal requirement to consult third parties.

1.3 The Regulations include two lists of different types of development projects, Schedules 1 and 2.

1.4 1.4 Schedule 1 identifies major projects for which EIA is mandatory (e.g. integrated industrial chemical plants, large scale thermal and nuclear power stations).

1.5 The second list, called Schedule 2, categorises the types of proposals for which EIA may be required, and cites an area threshold for each category above which a screening opinion should be carried out. Under this legislation, only a development in Schedule 2 that exceeds the threshold and is likely to have ‘significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location’ would require the submission of an Environmental Statement.

2. Site

2.1 The application site comprises an area of vacant land which was formerly occupied by the Roosecote Power Station including gas works, fuel tanks, pumping house and ancillary operational buildings, prior to it being demolished in 2015. The total application site comprises an area of 0.6 hectares.

2.2 The site is located between the coast to the west and substantial industrial development, namely Roosecote Substation to the north, Salthouse Pool waste water treatment works to the North West, Rampside Gas Terminal to the south and undeveloped land to the east. The Site is accessed via a private road some 500m in length off the A5087 (Rampside Road).

2.3 A public right of way runs to the west of the site as part of the Cumbria Coastal Way (CCW). The CCW is separated from the site in parts by small trees and scrub. Beyond the CCW, further west, Roosecote Sands is characterised by sand dune scrub and dense salt marsh plants.

2.4 The built up area of Roose is approximately 600m from the proposed development.

3. Proposal

3.1 The proposed development is described on the submitted application form as “development of a gas-fired reserve electricity generating plant”. The applicant refers to the proposed development as a gas-fired energy reserve facility within the accompanying Planning Statement and associated reports.

Page 2 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

3.2 The proposed gas-fired energy reserve facility comprises the following:

 A main engine hall, having a maximum footprint of 54m by 28m, and a maximum height of 14m. The engine hall building is proposed to house up to five small gas engines. Attached to the engine hall will be up to five stacks, to a maximum of 30m in height. The engine hall building is proposed to be of steel clad construction with a pitched roof and central ridge;

 Installation of ancillary plant and infrastructure on hardstandings to include:

o A gas skid, comprising 8m x 24m and at a height of 9m. o An 11kv transformer, which is situated behind a protective wall of 19m by 9m, and at a height of 9m. o An electrical switch-room of 8m by 10.5m, and 3.5 m high. o 5 no radiators which are 5m by 16m, and 4.5m high. o Water and oil tank (each being 3m by 5m, and 4m high);

 3 m high open mesh steel panel security fence with double site access gates, covering a 315m perimeter.

 2 no car parking spaces

3.3 The facility will have a direct connection into the local gas network.

3.4 The radiators are to be located along the eastern side of the development within the application site, and the engine hall on the western side, with the chimneys along the western edge of the engine hall. The electrical switch-room and transformer are proposed to be sited on the northern side of the application site, with car parking in the north-eastern corner.

3.5 Proposed lighting will comprise passive infrared sensor activated Light Emitting Diode (LED), and will be mounted on buildings at a height of 10m, to provide visibility for security and maintenance purposes.

3.6 The proposed development is to be managed remotely, and for the majority of the time, will be unmanned. Routine maintenance checks will however need to be undertaken intermittently.

3.7 The facility will be operated as a highly flexible ‘peaking plant’ to respond quickly to peaks in demand, and will be limited to operating 1,500 hours per year.

3.8 The facility will have an output of up to 50MW.

4. Assessment

4.1 The development does not fall within Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

Page 3 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

4.2 It is considered that the proposed development falls under Schedule 2, 3(a) which relates to ‘industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water’. The proposed development does exceed the relevant indicative threshold in column 2 of the table. The site area covered by the development is approximately 0.6ha; slightly larger than the 0.5ha threshold in the column 2.

4.3 Section 3 of the EIA Regulations contains the selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 development, which are grouped in to three main categories:

1) the characteristics of development; 2) the location of development; and 3) the characteristics of the potential impact.

4.4 With regard to category 1):  the characteristics of the proposed development are not, in themselves, likely to give rise to any significant environmental effects because: o the proposed development in terms of its size in context with the existing industrial setting is relative and appropriate; o the cumulative impact of the proposed development together with the approved energy storage facility (B12/2016/0372) will not result in significant environmental effects; o the thermal output of the development does not exceed 50MW; o the use of natural resources, production of emissions, and nuisances, are not likely to be of a scale to generate significant environmental effects.

4.5 With regard to category 2) the location of the proposed development is not, in itself, particularly likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. The site itself is not in an environmentally sensitive geographic area (in terms of protected and designated areas), it is however within 150m of Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary potential Special Protection Area (pSPA), Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Morecambe Bay Ramsar Site. The site is also notified at a national level as South Walney & Piel Channel Flats SSSI.

4.6 The applicant has submitted a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening report which has confirmed that the proposed development would not result in significant effects on designated sites. Natural England is in agreement with the conclusions of the HRA. The proposed mitigation is sufficient and the continued management of the mitigation site would provide some benefits to the SPA featured species, as specific habitat would be provided and managed.

4.7 With regards to category 3) the characteristics of the potential impact of the proposed development are not, in themselves, particularly likely to give rise to signifcant environmental effects because: a) the extent of the potential effects of the development is important and signficant at a local scale. In terms of the impact to the District however, this is not signficant; b) the lack of any potential trans frontier impacts;

Page 4 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016 c) the magnitude of the potential impacts are important and signifcant at a local scale in terms of the change to character and setting and visual setting. In terms of the impact to the District however, this is not signficant; and d) the potential impact would be experienced for the duration of the facility’s lifetime, including construction and operation. Once the operational life of the facility has come to an end, the land would be restored to its former use. Therefore the local impact is not permanent.

4.8 Given the considerations outlined above, the proposals are unlikely to give rise to significant environmental effects, and it is considered that the proposal would not necessitate an EIA.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the following reasons I consider that based upon the submitted information an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for this development. a. The site is not within a ‘sensitive area’ as defined in regulation 2(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 b. Whilst the development site area exceeds 0.5 hectares and is therefore Schedule 2 development, it is likely to only have an environmental impact of local significance as assessed against Section 3 of the EIA Regulations 2011.

Page 5 of 75

C Revision: L ET

TL E T ra c k Pond PBP-G-0005 Drawing Number: Drawing Water W E Refuse Tip Project Number: Project 70019332 S

Pond

Sand Pit Roosecote Sub Station

y r

n i

o l

Path (um)

Ponds

P ipelin e ) m (u h t a P 75

M of S Roosecote Power Station 6 Page

T r a c k

C 22/04/16 UPDATED IN LINE WITH RPS COMMENTS B 10/03/16 SITE RE-POSITIONED TO CLIENTS S lo T REQUIREMENTS r p a i c n k g A 26/02/16 FIRST ISSUE m a s o W n n B r ai Rev Date Description By Chk App y Dr FOR PLANNING

Westbrook Mills Godalming Tel: 44-(0)1483-528400 Pond Surrey GU7 2AZ Fax: 44-(0)1483-528989

Client:

in Dra CENTRICA M e an Hi gh W a te r Site/Project: ROOSECOTE GAS ENGINE PROJECT

Roosecote Sands Title:

OVERALL SITE PLAN

Drawn: DGC Checked: RB Designed: RB Approved: BS Date: 26/02/2016 Scale: AS SHOWN A1 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: 70019332 PBP-G-0005 C

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:

2016/0354 Centrica Distributed RPS Planning And Generation Ltd Development

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Roosecote Charles Wilton 29/04/2016 01229 876553 STATUTORY DATE: 11/08/2016

LOCATION:

Former Roosecote Power Station (Land at), Rampside Road Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Development of a gas-fired reserve electricity generating plant

SAVED LOCAL PLAN POLICIES:

POLICY A12

The area shown on the proposals map around the North and South Morecambe Gas Terminal is one of special character related to its suitability for the generation and transmission of energy. Development proposals that are not related to an energy industry in the area or are contrary to the interests of an energy industry in the area will be refused.

POLICY D1

The Borough’s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is a demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere. Where necessary development is permitted any adverse effect on the rural character of the surroundings should be minimised subject to the development’s operational requirements.

POLICY D2

Development harmful to the distinctive character of designated County Landscapes, as indicated in the Proposals Maps, will not be permitted. Development justified on grounds of need that cannot be located elsewhere will be permitted provided that it is sited to minimise environmental impacts and meets high standards of design.

Page 7 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

POLICY D9

Development which may affect a European site, a proposed site or a Ramsar site will be subject to the most rigorous examination. Development not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, that is likely to have significant adverse effects on the site (either individually or in combination with other plans or projects), and which would affect the integrity of the site will not be permitted unless the authority is satisfied that there is no alternative solution; and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the development or land use change.

POLICY D10

Proposals for development or land use changes affecting nationally important nature conservation interests will be subject to special scrutiny. Where development may have a significant adverse effect on the nature conservation interest or integrity of an SSSI it will not be permitted unless the need for development outweighs both the value of the site itself and considerations of the national policy to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the national network of such sites. In the National Nature Reserve and Foulney Island Bird Sanctuary particular regard will be paid to the individual site's importance. In exceptional circumstances where development is permitted the council will use planning conditions and obligations to ensure the protection and enhancement of the site’s nature conservation interest.

POLICY D11

Development and land use changes which may have a significant adverse effect on an interest of local importance (i.e. Proposed and Statutory Local Nature Reserves and Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites and the Wildlife Sites set out in Para. 5.3.16) will not be approved unless the need for the development clearly outweighs the nature conservation value of the site.

POLICY D21

In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of this plan….Development proposals in the countryside shall respect the diversity and distinctiveness of local landscape character.

POLICY D28

Development proposals will be expected to include a survey of existing landscape features and a landscaping scheme of a professional standard must be submitted with applications where deemed appropriate.

POLICY D55

The Council will not permit development that is likely to cause unacceptable harm to an interest of significant environmental importance by increasing levels of pollution through emissions into the air or adversely increasing odour levels.

Page 8 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

POLICY D56

The Council will refuse permission for development that in its opinion is likely to adversely affect the quality of surface, underground or coastal water as a result of the nature of the surface or waste water discharge, or give rise to pollution problems resulting from the disturbance of contaminated land. The Authority will support initiatives that lead to improvement in surface water quality.

POLICY D57

Developments will not be permitted which in the opinion of the Council pose an unacceptable risk to the quality of groundwater. Areas subject to different levels of risk and protection are shown on the Proposals Map.

POLICY D58

New development within the vicinity of residential areas, schools, hospitals and offices must not generate noise above the existing background levels, as measured in accordance with the positions, times and methods agreed beforehand with the Authority.

POLICY D60

Developments giving rise to occasional noise levels above background, which are permissible under the other policy criteria of this Plan, will be required to show to the planning authority’s satisfaction that adequate measures have been taken to provide reasonable noise attenuation by design and/or screening and that adequate publicity is given beforehand of when noisy activities may occur.

POLICY F4

New development will be permitted if foul sewers and sewage treatment works of adequate capacity and design are available or will be provided in time to serve the development. The proliferation of small private package sewage treatment plants and other types of discharge direct to watercourses within sewered areas will not be allowed. The use of septic tanks will, in consideration with the Environment Agency, only be considered if connection to the mains sewerage is not feasible and only then if ground conditions are satisfactory and the plot of land is of sufficient size to provide an adequate subsoil drainage system.

POLICY F6

Proposals for new development involving sites in excess of 0.4 ha must be accompanied by details of all land drainage arrangements. These must be designed so as to ensure that there is no deleterious effect on adjoining occupiers of land, important wildlife habitats or watercourses in the vicinity.

POLICY F11

The floor levels of all new development must be at least 7 metres above Ordnance Datum

Page 9 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

POLICY G13

For the quiet enjoyment of recreation activities such as walking, cycling and horse riding the Borough Council will protect the following designated routes from development taking place on; or in the immediate surroundings where an interesting or visually pleasing view would be adversely affected: - The Cistercian Way - Haematite Trail - Cumbria Coastal Way - Public Footpaths - Any existing right of way joining the rights of way network.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The proposal is for a gas-fired energy reserve facility which will generate up to 50 megawatts (MW) of electricity to provide security to the local electricity distribution network, to meet times of peak demand. The proposed development is to be sited on previously developed land which is within a countryside location, and within 150m of Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SCA) and Ramsar Site and Duddon Estuary Ramsar site and SPA.

Key considerations include the impact on the designated sites, landscape and visual impact, effect on biodiversity, particularly protected species – Great Crested newts, impact on flood risk and drainage and residential amenity (in terms of air quality, noise impacts and risk of contamination).

The proposed development is in accordance with the saved policies of the Local Plan, with the exception of saved policy F6 in respect of drainage. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that this can be dealt with by way of a pre-commencement condition. Further conditions will be applied to any approval made by the Local Planning Authority to mitigate against any potential adverse impacts arising from the proposed gas-fired reserve facility.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

Development advertised on site and in the local press.

The Occupiers of North Terminal, South Terminal, Barrow Onshore Terminals, Rampside Road, Nos. 1-4 Moorhead Cottages, Centrica rps ltd, Rampside Road, nos. 1, 2, 3 Rooscote Farm, Dungeon Lane, nos. 19, 21, 22, 24, 18, 20, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34,36, 38, 40,42, 44 Dowie Close , Roose Sand Quarry, Rampside Road, nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,15, 17 Liddle Close, Furness Cavaliers F C Rampside Road, 16, 18 Stoneham Close all informed.

Page 10 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

CONSULTATIONS:

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 16/05/16

Do not advise against the granting of planning permission on safety grounds.

The proposed development site which you have identified currently lies within the consultation distance (CD) of at least one major hazard site and/or major accident hazard pipeline; HSE needs to be consulted on any developments on this site.

The proposed development is within the consultation distance of a major hazard pipeline (pipeline -4249805_ Hydrocarbon Resources Limited 6837_1114 Centrica RPS Ltd), the applicant should contact the pipeline operator.

There is at least one unidentified pipeline in this Local Authority Area

The details HSE have on record for these pipelines is as follows: • 4249802_ Hydrocarbon Resources Limited South Morecambe Terminal Trunkline • 4249805_ Hydrocarbon Resources Limited North Morecambe Terminal Trunkline • 4249808_ Hydrocarbon Resources Limited Calder to Rivers Onshore Terminal • 6837_1114 Centrica RPS Ltd16 Feeder Barrow / Roosecote

Cumbria County Council, Emergency Planning Officer 19/05/16

“Centrica Ltd covered by the provision of the COMAH 2015 Regulations. There are no objections to the proposed development but it should be noted that the proposed development is situated within the Public Information Zone of the site and in liaison with the site operator and in liaison with the HSE special arrangements are made for residents/business premises in this area and particular attention is paid to ensuring that people are aware of the appropriate action to take in the event of an incident at the site.

It should be noted that the proposed development is situated within the potential inundation area for Harlock and Poaka Beck Reservoirs. These Reservoirs fall under the Water Framework Directive and is included within a site specific emergency planning.

Accordingly I would be grateful if you could, in the event of the application being approved, advise the applicant to liaise with this office to allow for further discussion.”

Cumbria County Council, Historic Environment Officer 25/05/16

No objections

Environmental Health 2/06/16

Noise: I have reviewed the ‘Noise Impact Assessment’ report prepared by RPS for Centrica (Ref: JAE8536, dated 29/04/16) and can comment on this aspect. A BS 4142 assessment has been carried out and has indicated that noise from the peaking plant is ‘unlikely’ to result in an adverse impact during the daytime, evening or night-time and has therefore been defined as a low significance of impact. Furthermore, the absolute noise level assessment showed that noise from the site will fall below the WHO guideline levels

Page 11 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016 for onset of sleep disturbance effects. I also take note that the ‘peaking plant operation’ will result in, at most, a 1 dB increase in ambient noise in the night-time at Dungeon Lane and Dowie Close, whereas a 3dB increase would only just be perceivable to the human ear, this does not account for tonal noises respectfully.

Air Quality: I have reviewed the air quality assessment report prepared by RPS (Ref: JAP8966, dated 26th April 2016) and can comment on this aspect. I initially liaised with representatives from RPS regarding the scope of this report and highlighted the ‘combined effects’ from other potential sources of ‘upcoming’ developments. It is important to note that this facility will be regulated by an existing ‘Environment Agency Part A1 Permit’ under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010) which will require a ‘substantial variation’ application being submitted.

Based on the predicted concentrations at nearest receptors, the effects are deemed to be ‘not significant’, with no predicted exceedances of any objectives or standards at the point of maximum impact or at modelled discrete receptors. I am also satisfied that cumulative effects of upcoming developments in the general vicinity have been taken into account.

Under the ‘Habitats Regulation Assessment’ report, it concludes that the maximum nitrogen deposition PC is below 1% of the critical load range at all sites therefore the impacts can be screened out as ‘insignificant’. Furthermore, the maximum acid deposition PC does not exceed 1% of the Critical Load Function at any of the sites and the impacts can also be screened out as ‘insignificant’. Natural England should be further consulted for comments regarding this assessment.

Land Quality: I have reviewed the ‘Desktop Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment’ prepared by RPS (Ref: JER6876, dated April 2016) and the ‘Ground Investigation’ report (Ref: JER5069, dated May 2012) and can now comment on the application further. I am aware that RPS and ENTEC have previously carried out extensive work in this area with regards to the existing new biomass power plant application (6/2012/8000) that has since been withdrawn. The assessment identified that whilst the adjacent land use historically harboured potential sources of contamination, the previous phases of investigation and intrusive investigation indicate the absence of significant contamination that would pose a risk to human health associated with a commercial end use. The assessment identified that the controlled waters sensitivity of the Assessment Site was high and the Environment Agency should be consulted on this application for further comment.

Ground Gas: The risk from ground gas was considered to be low to moderate and previous reports have stated that a characterisation 2 is defined requiring a gas membrane to a minimum 1200DPM to be incorporated into the foundations. It should be noted that previous monitoring for this site has been inadequate although enough information is available to determine the application.

Conditions:

Noise: I recommend that the following shall apply:

Page 12 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

1.Before development is commenced, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority making provision for a Construction Method Statement to control any adverse impact of the construction stage of the development upon the amenity of the public and nearby occupiers. The Construction Method statement condition is attached to this email.

Furthermore, to protect residential amenity I would recommend: 2. Construction Phase: Limited Hours of piling operations to: 8:00am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday ONLY

Limited Hours of noisy construction works to: 7:00am - 7:00pm Monday to Friday 8:00am - 1:00pm Saturday No noisy activities on Sunday or Bank Holidays. 'Noisy Construction' is defined as audible or perceived at any noise sensitive dwelling.

3.Noise from the development must not cause the existing background noise level (measured as the LA90(10 minutes) to be exceeded at any neighbouring noise sensitive locations. Tonal noise will result in a 5dB addition to that noise (Definition in: Appendix E “Noise Procedure Specification, Publication 140”, The Engineering Equipment and Materials User Association). [Note: the noise is measured 3.5m from any reflective surface, other than the ground, at a height of between 1.2 and 1.5m.]

Ground Gas: To protect human health and the structure as per CIRIA C665 Guidance Characterisation Situation 2, I would recommend one of the following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the build:

a) Reinforced concrete cast in situ floor slab (suspended, non suspended or raft) with at least 1200g DPM. b) Beam and block or pre cast concrete slab and minimum 2000g DPM/ reinforced gas membrane. c) Possibly underfloor venting or pressurisation in combination with a) and b) depending upon build. n.b. all joints and penetrations should be sealed and inspected by a suitably qualified technician.

Land Quality: To protect human health I would recommend the following conditions:

1. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, that was not previously identified, it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and Field Investigations shall be carried out. Where required by the Local Planning Authority, remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development.

Page 13 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

2. No soil material is to be imported to the site until it has been tested for contamination and assessed for its suitability for the proposed development. A suitable methodology for testing this material should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the soils being imported onto site. The methodology should include the sampling frequency, testing schedules, criteria against which the analytical results will be assessed (as determined by the risk assessment) and source material information. The analysis shall then be carried out as per the agreed methodology with verification of its completion submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The applicant submitted further information in relation to a Piling Risk Assessment on 8th August 2016, in response to the Council querying the potential risk that piling, as a method of construction could have on the existing aquifer, potentially creating pathways for contaminants. This information was issued to Environmental Health on 8th August, and a response was provided on 10th August as follows:

Environmental Health, 10/08/16

‘I have read the Piling Risk Assessment document this morning which is for both applications 2016/0354 & 2016/0372.

The protection of ground water and controlled waters at large exists with the environment agency, therefore it is imperative that they are consulted on this risk assessment by our planning department. I have noted that the risk assessment is on our portal but I cannot confirm if we have consulted the EA on this document.

Can you confirm if you have sent this document directly to the EA. The officer is likely to be a Mr Peter Bardsley’.

Natural England, 21/06/16

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) Internationally and nationally designated sites

The application site is in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’).

The application site is within 150m of the Morecambe Bay & Duddon Estuary potential Special Protection Area (pSPA), Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Morecambe Bay Ramsar site1.This site is also notified at a national level as South Walney & Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Please see the subsequent sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features.

Page 14 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have Conservation objectives for each European site 2. The Conservation Objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

Further information required Natural England notes that the HRA has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority.

In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, it is Natural England’s advice that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site. Your authority should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out.

Natural England advises that there is currently not enough information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out in terms of noise disturbance and air and water quality. We therefore recommend you obtain the following information to help undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment:

Noise disturbance In terms of assessing noise disturbance impacts form the proposal on SPA/Ramsar birds we advise that an assessment of background levels need to be presented and a contour noise map to show the predicted noise levels from the proposed development during the construction phase.

The adjacent saltmarsh is used as a high tide roost for a number of SPA/Ramsar species including redshank, curlew and widgeon which is located 150m from the application site. If noise levels from the proposed development are significantly higher than the current background levels mitigation measures (e.g. acoustic hoarding) would need to be incorporated into the proposed development to reduce the impacts on this roost.

Air Quality The Air Quality assessment submitted calculates that modelled N deposition will be 1.1% of the Critical Load (CLo). Although this is above the significance threshold of 1% it is assumed that an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency (EA) will be required? If this is the case then the EA, who are the expert authority in terms of Air Quality, will do a thorough assessment of impacts at the permit stage and will be able to advise on relevant modifications that will bring the deposition rates down to below threshold. It is advisable that the applicant applies for the permit at a similar time to planning permission in order to twin track the process and so that your authority can rely on the expertise of the EA in determining the Air Quality impacts from this proposal.

Page 15 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Water quality A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be conditioned and approved prior to any works starting at the site. This CEMP should include the measures which will be put in place to protect the adjacent designated site during the construction phase of this development. Appropriate pollution prevention guideline measures should be incorporated into this document.

A finalised Drainage Strategy should be conditioned and approved prior to any works starting at the site to ensure adequate surface water controls and appropriate foul water drainage solutions are in place to minimise any contaminates entering the designated site.

SSSI Our comments regarding the potential impacts upon the South Walney & Piel Channel Flats SSSI coincide with our comments regarding the potential impacts upon the European sites, and are detailed above.

Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy.

You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted.

Biodiversity enhancements

This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife and your authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

Page 16 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

The applicant submitted further information via 2 separate letters responding to Natural England’s comments on 18th July in respect of the noise impact on birds arising from piling methods and further clarification in respect of air quality impacts. Additional information was also submitted including a Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy and figures associated with the proposed construction noise relating to the piling methods.

Natural England provided a formal response after considering this additional information as follows:

Natural England – 1/08/16

Additional information was received direct from Cushman and Wakefield on 19th July 2016 regarding our request to yourself for additional information dated 21 June 2016.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. The advice in this letter is to assist your authority when considering the application against relevant environmental legislation including:

• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) • The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) • Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended) • Internationally and nationally designated sites

The application site is within 150m of a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’).

The application site is within 150m of the Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which are European sites, and also listed as Morecambe Bay Ramsar site1 and notified at a national level as South Walney & Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Please see the subsequent sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features.

In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

European Site – Further Information Request Natural England notes that the HRA has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority. The assessment concludes that you can rule out the likelihood of significant effects arising from the proposal, both alone and in- combination.

Page 17 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

However, on the basis of the information provided Natural England advises that there is currently not enough information to rule out the likelihood of significant effects. Natural England therefore advises that your authority should not grant planning permission at this stage.

Natural England advises that the information and evidence gaps could potentially be resolved with additional information formally submitted by the applicant in order to amend the proposal. This would then provide an opportunity for your authority to repeat the screening to check for the likelihood of significant effects of the project as submitted (i.e. with all new information provided as part of the proposal).

Natural England recommends that any information gaps should be met by the formal submission of information, so that the project as a whole, i.e. as submitted with all information and measures to protect the European site, can be screened to check whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out.

Natural England advises that the following information should be requested from the applicant, in order to screen the project to check for the likelihood of significant effects;

• Noise Disturbance

The letter dated 18th July 2016 from RPS provided noise contour maps showing the effects of hammer piling and auger piling. Although auger piling is considered not to have any likely significant effect on the notified features of the protected sites, the same cannot be said for drop hammer piling. Natural England agrees with the conclusion of RPS in that if drop hammer piling is employed, a commitment to appropriate mitigation will have to be made by the developer before planning permission is granted to be able to rule out any likely significant effects on over-wintering birds. This mitigation would be in the form of acoustic hoarding, which must be utilised when the drop hammer is in operation during the sensitive period from September to April inclusive. The following additional information / advice is provided to incorporate into your assessment;

• Water Quality – Drainage Strategy

A finalised Drainage Strategy should be conditioned and approved prior to commencement of construction works to ensure adequate controls are in place to minimise any contaminates entering the designated site;

The Flood Risk Assessment provided indicates that surface water drainage will be via a three chamber interceptor and concrete culvert into Salthouse Pool utilising the existing surface water drainage system, and incorporate an oil interceptor and automatic penstock valve at the site boundary in case of incident. Consultation with the Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council has revealed no issues or concerns with regard to this plan, and that no surface water attenuation is required.

The Flood Risk Assessment also states foul sewage is to be dealt with via a septic tank. Natural England recommends the connection of foul sewerage to the mains sewer, however if this is not possible, then we advise that the package treatment plant or septic tank must conform to Environment Agency requirements and discharge consent obtained. Environmental permitting guidance can be found here.

Page 18 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

• CEMP

The proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) referred to in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment provided by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff should be conditioned and approved prior to the commencement of construction works, and should include measures for the control and management of dust, surface water run-off, waste and pollution to protect the surface water drains and adjacent designated site during the construction phase of this development. Appropriate pollution prevention guideline measures should be incorporated into this document.

• Great Crested Newts

Although Great Crested Newts are a notified feature of the Morecambe Bay SAC, the SAC population is 8km from the proposed development and therefore any newts found within 500m of the development site are considered to be a separate population. There is therefore no need to comment further on the Great Crested Newt Strategy that has been provided at this time, except to say that our standing advice for protected species provided in the link below should be followed.

• Air Quality

Natural England is satisfied with the Air Quality Assessment, and understands that the developer will apply for a permit from the Environment Agency.

SSSI site – Further Information Required

Our comments regarding the potential impacts upon the SSSI coincide with our comments regarding the potential impacts upon the Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and are detailed above. Should the application change, or if the applicant submits further information relating to the impact of this proposal on the SSSI, Natural England will be happy to consider it.

If your Authority is minded to grant consent for this application contrary to the advice relating to the SSSI contained in this letter, we refer you to Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), specifically the duty placed upon your Authority, requiring that your Authority;

 Provide notice to Natural England of the permission, and of its terms, the notice to include a statement of how (if at all) your authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice, and  Shall not grant a permission which would allow the operations to start before the end of a period of 21 days beginning with the date of that notice.

Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

Page 19 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Further clarification was sought from Natural England to fully understand the points which were raised in their letter.

Natural England 01/08/16

“To further clarify our response to Charles Wilton, our position on both applications is that the council must obtain a commitment in writing to the utilisation of acoustic hoarding during the sensitive period from September to April if and when the drop hammer piling is used. This commitment is essential for the planning authority to be able to rule out any likely significant effects on the protected features of the designated site, which in this case are over-wintering birds, and be able to complete their assessment under the Habitats Regulations and issue planning approval.

I would presume that this written agreement would be something you could obtain fairly quickly from the developers of both proposals and submit to the planning authority to enable them to approve the schemes without further delay, subject to conditions (drainage strategy and CEMP).

Environment Agency 31/05/16

The proposed development will be acceptable if the following measures are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission.

Water Quality Condition The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reasons To prevent pollution of the water environment.

Advice to LPA The Flood Risk Assessment indicates that a septic tank will be provided for foul drainage but does not indicate the ultimate point of discharge. Treated foul sewage (effluent) should not be discharged direct to ground. Where effluent disposal is to land this should be via the form of a properly designed and sized drainage field. Design and construction requirements for a drainage field can be found in The Building Regulations 2000, Drainage and Waste Disposal - Approved Document H 2002 Edition.

The drainage field must be designed and built to meet the requirements of the British Standard 6297:2007 Please see the following guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules-small-sewage-discharge-to-theground.

Page 20 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Flood Risk Management With reference to the latest version of flood map, the proposal would be classified as an essential infrastructure development in Flood Zone 2. We would recommend that the Finished Floor Levels are raised to a minimum of 7.25m AOD (above ordnance datum) to allow a minimum freeboard of 600mm. This recommendation is to allow improved mitigation against the possible effects of climate change and wave overtopping for the lifetime of the development; noted as 20 years as per e-mail conversation with Daniel Percival on 14 April 2016, included in Appendix D of submitted FRA reference RCEF40257-002R / April 2016/ compiled by RPS.

Advice to LPA We advise the Applicant to subscribe to the Environment Agency's Flood Warning service if not already done so. The Environment Agency does not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of flood emergency response procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to users covered by our flood warning network.

The Technical guide to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 9) states that those proposing developments should take advice from the emergency services when producing an evacuation plan for the development as part of the flood risk assessment.

In all circumstances where warning and emergency response is fundamental to managing flood risk, we advise local planning authorities to formally consider the emergency planning and rescue implications of new development in making their decisions.

Regulated Industry Advice to LPA / Applicant The proposed development site is currently subject of an EPR permit regulated by the Environment Agency for the former Roosecote Power station, a gas fired combined cycle gas turbine, permit: BM4406IU, which is understood to have been removed from the site along with associated infrastructure. We have held preliminary discussions with the applicant relating to substantial variation of the permit to permit the proposed changes to take place and, to date, an application has not been received. A revised permit will address issues relating to emissions from the varied plant. We ask to be consulted on the details submitted for approval to your Authority to discharge these conditions and on any subsequent amendments/alterations.

The Environment Agency were re-consulted in response to the additional Piling Risk Assessment information provided by the applicant and provided the following response:

Environment Agency, 17/08/16

We have reviewed the submitted document ‘Piling Risk Assessment, Land at the Former Roosecote Power Station, Roose, Barrow’ Ref JER6876 by RPS dated August 2016.

Page 21 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

The report provides a description of the site conditions with respect to the potential for groundwater contamination; and undertakes an assessment of piling risk and impact with respect to pollution prevention. We are satisfied that the report and its recommendations and conclusions are valid and acceptable. We agree with the conclusion of the review that, with the adoption of well established procedures, the use of bored or driven piles is unlikely to generate an unacceptable impact.

Electricity NW, 08/06/16

We have considered the above planning application submitted on 18/05/2016 and find it has no impact on our Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or other ENW assets.

Any requirements for a supply of electricity will be considered as and when a formal application is received.

Cumbria County Council Highways, 13/06/16

Access to the site will be from the A5087 via a junction that already has planning permission. The proposal is for B2 use industrial use but there will be little traffic generation after construction because there are no employees. It is considered that the traffic generated during construction will be unlikely to have a material effect on existing highway conditions on the A5087. There is sufficient useable service space well away from the highway which is adequate for operational and construction purposes.

Cumbria County Council Lead Local Flood Authority, 13/06/16

We recommend that this application is refused because the drainage detail supplied is not sufficient to support a full planning application.

A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. Part of the site is within Flood Zone 2 and the EA should be consulted about this. The site is not considered to be at risk of flooding from off site sources of surface water.

The ultimate discharge destination is to Salthouse Pool via existing surface water infrastructure. Salthouse Pool is a tidal watercourse which discharges into the sea, this means that standard S1 of the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems can apply as the water body that can accommodate uncontrolled surface water discharges without any impact on flood risk from that surface water body. The proposed development is likely to be largely or wholly occupied by hardstanding but no attenuation is required because of the discharge location.

The above factors do go a long way towards mitigation of the impacts of development but the FRA is not the final drainage design. I would draw your attention to the table at 2.14 of the linked document for a description of what detail regarding drainage should be expected from an applicant at each stage of a planning application in order to secure the requirements of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance. A detailed drainage layout should be submitted in support of a full planning application. No Sustainable Drainage components have been considered. The developer should investigate the full range of SuDS components, to determine which are suitable for the site and use them if appropriate or explain why they are not appropriate if that is the case. No maintenance details have been provided.

Page 22 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Our recommendation is as follows.

Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of surface water drainage

The applicant submitted a Sustainable Drainage Strategy on 8th August, which was submitted to Cumbria County Council LLFA who responded as follows:

Cumbria County Council Highways and Lead Local Flood Authority, 18/08/16

We have previously recommend that this application is refused because the drainage detail supplied is not sufficient to support a full planning application, this is still the case. The applicant states that it is impossible to provide full details prior to full planning consent because energy projects are usually granted planning permission without knowledge of the footprint of the proposed building for example and this approach has been accepted by Barrow Borough Council. Such an approach is at odds with our guidance on flood risk, we consider that the linked document provides the benchmark for what should be considered reasonably practicable.

We have requested the final drainage design, a detailed drainage layout, Sustainable Drainage components and maintenance details.

The applicant considers that the drainage information that has been provided is sufficient to demonstrate that an appropriate drainage strategy can be achieved for the proposed development. We do not agree. This is certainly not correct in terms of Sustainable Drainage for which no commitment has been provided. The details provided are not even of the standard for which outline permission should be awarded (see table 2.14 in the guidance document). Outline planning permission can be awarded where the principle of development is agreed but the detail s are not known but ought to include a preliminary layout which should include elements of Sustainable Drainage and sure knowledge that the drainage system is capable of carrying water to the ultimate drainage destination, which is not the case at present.

Our recommendation is as follows.

Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of surface water drainage.

If you are minded to approve this application with conditions then the following conditions may mitigate.

CONDITION 1: Prior to the commencement of any development, an assessment of the predicted post development 1 in 100 year flow in the existing drainage system (from the development site to the discharge point into a water body that can accommodate uncontrolled surface water discharges without any impact on flood risk from that surface water body) and an assessment of the flow capacity of the existing drainage system (inclusive of any improvements or repairs required to bring the system up to this standard and how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any improvements or repairs as identified must be completed prior to the commencement of any development.

Page 23 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased on site or elsewhere

CONDITION 2: Prior to the commencement of any development, a sustainable drainage system, providing benefits in terms of flood risk management and water quality, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions, and compliant with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved.

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere and that priority is given to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

CONDITION 3: Clear arrangements must be in place for ongoing maintenance of the drainage system over the lifetime of the development. The drainage system must be designed for ease of maintenance. In this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved.

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere.

There is also potential for a significant amount of heavy goods traffic during the construction phase. We suggest the following condition which would give the applicant more freedom to manage their traffic and allow them to make progress than asking for a CTMP.

CONDITION 4: The total number of laden heavy goods vehicles leaving the site shall not exceed 30 on any day and be scheduled for arrival/departure at a rate not exceeding approximately one trip per 20 minute period. A record of all laden heavy goods vehicles leaving the site each day shall be maintained by the operator at all times and access to this record shall be afforded to the Local Planning Authority on request.

Reason: To keep to acceptable levels the impact of lorry traffic on the amenity of local residents and other road users. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD8

The applicant subsequently revised the drainage strategy to seek to provide additional Sustainable Urban Drainage features on site, and provided further information on 19th August. This was provided to CCC as LLFA and additional comments were received on 23rd August.

Page 24 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Cumbria County Council Highways and Lead Local Flood Authority, 23/08/16

We are told that an approach has been agreed between Barrow Borough Council and the developer which may be in line with how other energy projects are delivered through the planning process but is not in line with the guidance we consider is reasonably practicable when considering flood risk. As our role is only to provide technical advice on drainage (and other matters of interest to Cumbria County Council) for the benefit of the decision maker at the LPA our advice is based on the guidance we recognise. It is for the decision maker at the LPA to decide how such advice fits with any agreed approach between those parties. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries or require clarification to assist in this regard.

We have requested the final drainage design, a detailed drainage layout, Sustainable Drainage components and maintenance details.

The applicant has considered the site constraints and can commit to the incorporation of a swale to the southern edge of the development. This sustainable drainage component will facilitate both run off and passive infiltration as well as providing biodiversity benefits. It is shown on a preliminary drawing intended as a sketch only. No maintenance details have been provided. There is also the issue that there is currently no working outfall as the existing system has been shown to be heavily silted.

We can comment that this submission is much improved over the previous submission and had it been outline it may have been appropriate to recommend approval.

As a full planning application however, our recommendation remains as follows.

Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of surface water drainage.

If you are minded to approve this application with conditions then the following conditions may mitigate.

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased on site or elsewhere

Page 25 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere and that priority is given to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere.

Reason: To keep to acceptable levels the impact of lorry traffic on the amenity of local residents and other road users. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD8

OFFICERS REPORT:

1. SITE AND LOCALITY

1.1 The Application Site comprises approximately 0.6 Ha of land which sits within land associated with the former Roosecote Power Station. The Site is situated to the east of the shoreline adjacent to existing industrial development to the north-west (wastewater treatment) and south (gas terminals) with a sand extraction site to the east and electricity substation to the north.

1.2 The built up areas of Roose and Barrow-in-Furness are situated to the north and north west respectively, with the built up edge of Roose being approximately 600m from the Proposed Development at its closest point.

Page 26 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016 1.3 The Site is currently vacant industrial land surrounded by a tall boundary fence. Parts of the land within the fence comprise scrubby grassland and brambles but the Application Site itself is predominantly levelled and clear of any significant vegetation. The Site is a raised platform covered in crushed demolition arisings, following the demolition of the former Roosecote Power Station in March 2015.

1.4 There are no Public Rights of Way crossing the land or in close proximity to the Application Site with the exception of a public footpath that passes along the shoreline to the west (Cumbrian Coastal Way). In general, public access is very restricted between the A5087 and the shoreline, due to the presence of the industrial land and the gas terminals.

1.5 Access to the Site is via the existing private access from the adopted highway - Rampside Road (A5087).

2. PROPOSAL DETAILS

2.1 The proposed development is described on the submitted application form as ‘development of a gas-fired reserve electricity generating plant’. This gas-fired energy reserve facility will provide up to 50 MW to support the provision of power demand on the local distribution network during peak periods.

2.2 The proposed facility includes a main engine hall, having a maximum footprint of 54m by 28m, and a maximum height of 14m. The engine hall building is proposed to house up to five small gas engines. Attached to the engine hall will be up to five stacks, to a maximum of 30m in height. The engine hall building is proposed to be of steel clad construction with a pitched roof and central ridge.

2.3 The proposal also includes for the installation of ancillary plant and infrastructure to be situated on hard standings. The proposed development is to be enclosed by a 3 m high open mesh steel panel security fence with double site access gates, covering a 315m perimeter.

2.4 The ancillary plant and infrastructure includes: • A gas skid, comprising 8m x 24m and at a height of 9m. • An 11kv transformer, which is situated behind a protective wall of 19m by 9m, and at a height of 9m. • An electrical switch-room of 8m by 10.5m, and 3.5 m high. • 5 no radiators which are 5m by 16m, and 4.5m high. • Water and oil tank (each being 3m by 5m, and 4m high)

2.5 The facility will have a direct connection into the local gas network.

2.6 The radiators are to be located along the eastern side of the development within the application site, and the engine hall on the western side, with the chimneys along the western edge of the engine hall. The electrical switch-room and transformer are proposed to be sited on the northern side of the application site, with car parking in the north-eastern corner.

2.7 Proposed lighting will comprise passive infrared sensor activated Light Emitting Diode (LED), and will be mounted on buildings at a height of 10m, to provide visibility for security and maintenance purposes.

Page 27 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

2.8 A CCTV system is also proposed to be provided which will monitor the perimeter fence for trespassers.

2.9 The applicant notes within the Planning, Design and Access Statement that the layout and elevation details are indicative only, and are based upon the ‘worst case’ maximum design parameters that may be required for the proposed development. The final detailed design of the proposed development can be dealt with by a carefully worded planning condition.

2.10 The proposed development will also provide for 2 car parking spaces with an associated concrete access road and hardstanding.

2.11 The proposal will use the existing access into the former Roosecote Power Station site, a private highway, located off Rampside Road (A5087).

2.12 The proposed gas fired energy reserve facility is designed to provide flexible back-up power at short notice, to enable it to respond quickly to peaks in energy demand. This facility will therefore not be used for base load operation and will only be switched on when required. It is estimated that the facility will be limited to 1,500 hours running per year, and this will normally be on weekdays between 8am and 8pm.

2.13 The facility will be un-manned although will require routine maintenance through an attended site visit once a week.

2.14 The application is accompanied by the following documents:

• Planning, Design & Access Statement (DAS) (April 2016) • Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (April 2016) • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (April 2016) • Noise Impact Assessment (April 2016) • Air Quality Assessment (April 2016) • Habitats Regulations Assessment – Stage 1 Screening Report (May 2016) • Preliminary Ecological Report (PEA) (May 2016) • Desk top study and Preliminary Risk Assessment (April 2016)

2.15 During the processing of the application the following documents were submitted: • Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy – July 2016 • Correspondence from RPS clarifying position on air quality and nutrient-n deposition – 18th July 2016 • Correspondence from RPS responding to Natural England re: potential noise disturbance and associated figures– 18th July 2016 • Email correspondence confirming commitment to acoustic piling technique dated 1st August 2016 • Piling Risk Assessment, August 2016 • Sustainable Drainage Strategy – 8th August 2016 • Correspondence from RPS in relation to Sustainable urban drainage and landscape impacts – 19th August 2016 • Planting Plan, August 2016 • Proposed Surface Water and SuDS outfall route, Drawing No: SK1, Revision B

Page 28 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

3. RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1 1977/0936 – Erection of 150 Megawatt gas turbine powered electricity generating station, approved subject to conditions 23/01/1978

3.2 1990/0640 – Extension and alteration to existing power station, approved subject to conditions 16/08/1990

3.3 1990/1053 – Installation of buried 10inch diameter gas oil pipeline, approved subject to conditions 14/02/1991

3.4 2004/0642 – Notice of application for Hazardous Substances consent for the storage and use of substances covered by the planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations, approved with conditions 03/08/2004

3.5 2006/1254 – Erection of a replacement perimeter fence, approved 04/12/2006

3.6 2013/0803 – Installation of an underground 132kV electrical cable, approved subject to conditions 10/03/2014

3.7 2014/310 – Application for prior notification of proposed demolition (gas above ground installation, administration and workshop building, main turbine building and fuel oil tanks, approved 20/06/2014

3.8 The planning history of the site confirms the previous use of the site as a former gas powered station, which was approved in 1978 and has recently been demolished (under the prior notification application) between 2014 and 2015. There have also been a series of planning applications related to the former Roosecote generating station, including an extension to the power station in 1990.

3.9 A planning application has also been submitted for an energy storage facility on land to the west of the application site. This is considered under planning application B12/2016/0372, and was approved with conditions on 18th August 2016.

4. RELEVANT POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

4.1 There are no saved policies which are specific to gas-fired energy reserve facilities. Notwithstanding this, the following policies are applicable to the application site:

4.2 Saved Policy D1, given the application site sits outside the defined built-up area and as such is within the defined countryside area. This policy remains relevant in terms of its first sentence, which seeks to protect the character of the countryside for its own sake, although the remainder has been considered not to be in accordance with the NPPF. This benefits from the NPPF core principle – ‘recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’ (paragraph 17).

Page 29 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

4.3 Saved policies D2, D9-D11 confirm that development which is harmful to the character of County Landscapes, Ramsar sites and nationally and locally important nature conservation interests will be subject to special scrutiny. The proposed development is situated to the east of Morecambe Bay and to the north of Duddon Estuary. Morecambe Bay is a Ramsar Site, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Duddon Estuary is a Ramsar Site and Special Protection Area (SPA).

4.4 Saved policy D12 confirms that development which would significantly adversely affect protected species will not be permitted, and if permission is granted, the Council will impose conditions to safeguard the species.

4.5 Saved Policy G13 seeks to protect designated routes (including public footpaths) from development taking place on; or in the immediate surroundings where an interesting or visually pleasing view would be adversely affected.

4.6 Saved Policy A12 – whilst not directly applicable to the application site, this policy confirms that land in the immediate locality of the site is appropriate for energy-generating uses.

4.7 The application site is within Flood Zone 2, as such saved policy F8 is applicable which confirms that the Council will not approve new development within areas at an unacceptable risk from flooding, unless the development can be permitted for social or economic reasons, and in such cases, mitigation measures will be required.

4.8 There are a suite of national and international obligations and policies which aim to reduce reliance on fossil fuels/reduce harmful emissions on a path to a low carbon economy. Whilst the proposed development is not for renewable energy, the proposed facility is complementary to the renewable energy agenda by providing back-up energy at times of peak demand, and/or limited supply.

4.9 NPPF paragraph 93 confirms the role that planning has in minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. NPPF Paragraph 98 states that local authorities should approve applications for renewable energy schemes if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

4.10 National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) confirms the need to achieve security of energy supply to meet demand at all times (Paragraph 2.2.20) and decentralised energy systems should be promoted to reduce carbon emissions and increase energy security (Paragraph 3.3.29), recognising the need for fossil fuel power during short periods when renewable energy output is too low to meet demand (Paragraph 3.3.11).

4.11 National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Generating Infrastructure (EN-2) does not apply as the proposed development is for a maximum of 50MW, and NPS EN-2 relates to energy generators over 50MW.

Page 30 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5. PLANNING ISSUES

5.1 Countryside location and Principle of use

5.2 Landscape and visual impact

5.3 Biodiversity

5.4 Flood Risk and Drainage

5.5 Contaminated Land

5.6 Heritage and Archaeology

5.7 Amenity

5.8 Traffic

Countryside location & Principle of Use

5.9 The proposed development is for a gas-fired energy reserve facility which, according to the applicant, will ‘support the shift towards the delivery of low carbon energy generation’. There is a need for the development to complement renewable electricity generation and the proposed facility has the ability to be able to respond quickly to short term variations related to local demand and fluctuations in renewable energy output.

5.10 Paragraphs 5.5.1-5.5.2 of the Local Plan state the following:

“Energy production is already a major characteristic of the Borough and the extent to which this sector may change or grow over the Plan period poses important environmental issues.

The Roosecote area on the south-eastern side of Barrow is the focus for these activities. Roosecote Power Station… [has] land adjacent to them where there is potential for…expansion or for the development of other industries that would utilise their energy.”

5.11 The site is located within a previously developed site situated within the defined countryside area. Saved Local Plan policy D1 seeks to protect the character of the countryside for its own sake and Paragraph 17 of the NPPF confirms that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Whilst the site is within the countryside area, it is a brownfield site having previously been occupied by the Roosecote Power Station. The surrounding area is characterised by existing industrial and energy-related development, including the Rampside Gas Terminal, Wastewater Treatment Works and an existing sub-station.

Page 31 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.12 Whilst the proposed development does not directly provide renewable energy, it will provide a complementary role to renewable energy generation as it provides a back-up which will only operate when renewable energy sources have been unable to generate sufficient energy. This is supported by the National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) which confirms that there needs to be a safety margin of spare capacity to cater for fluctuations in supply or demand. EN-1 also confirms the importance of fossil fuel power stations in providing reliable energy supply, and in meeting an important role in the shift towards a low carbon economy. Where power stations need to be constructed and operated, this must be done in line with climate change goals (Paragraph 3.6.1).

5.13 The applicant has confirmed that a site selection exercise was undertaken to identify potential suitable sites for the proposed development. This considered areas of high energy demand and capacity; proximity to gas and electrical connections; land outside Green Belt, AONB and other environmental designations and a preference for using previously developed land. Whilst details of the discounted sites has not been provided, the applicant notes that no sequentially preferable sites were available, and the application site fulfilled the necessary criteria. The application site is located within an area that imports large amounts of electricity during peak periods of demand, and there is capacity within the local Distribution Network to receive the energy generated by this facility when this is required.

5.14 The site is also previously developed and is located within an existing industrial context. This provides assurance that the development would not be out of keeping in the locality, and as such should not have a greater detrimental impact on the protection of the character of the countryside in which it is proposed to be sited.

5.15 Furthermore, whilst the site is not allocated for a specific use within the Development Plan, it directly abuts land identified as having specific potential suitability for uses related to the generation and transmission of energy (Policy A12), and therefore could be seen as being appropriate for energy generation uses. This strengthens the acceptability of the scheme in this location.

5.16 The applicant has proposed design mitigation to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the countryside location. This includes a suggestion to use muted colours, potentially grey for the proposed stacks, to minimise the visual impact of the proposal, and a series of biodiversity enhancements including a Wildlife Retention Area which will provide habitat for Great Crested newts. These proposals are welcomed and taken on their own merits could be seen to enhance the existing biodiversity of the application site, and will be conditioned appropriately.

5.17 On this basis, it is considered that the principle of the proposed development in this location is in accordance to both Local and National Planning Policy in respect of its Countryside designation.

Page 32 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.18 The site sits within National Character Area 7: West Cumbria Coastal Plain. This NCA has a strong industrial history associated formerly with mining and more recently with the power industry but is also characterised by a varied natural landscape, including an open coastline of mudflats.

5.19 The development also falls within the local landscape character area sub type 2d Coastal Urban Fringe, as defined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance & Toolkit (CLCGT), and as such has the ability to directly affect this sub-type.

5.20 Within the CLCGT the Coastal Urban Fringe (2d) is noted as comprising ‘low lying flat land [with] urban influences linked to tourism development, derelict buildings and major transport routes’ and having ‘strong man-made landforms on coastal edges’. The vision for the sub-type seeks to enhance, restore and improve the landscape quality which includes for the positive development and management of old industrial sites, which reflect historic and/or biodiversity value. The Toolkit also notes the potential risk that energy infrastructure could have on landscape character, particularly in terms of the less developed parts of the coastal urban fringe.

5.21 The CLCGT provides guidelines for development within the Coastal Urban Fringe and states the following:

‘Minimise the impact of major developments such as large scale wind energy, roads, pylons, masts and offshore infrastructure by careful siting in less sensitive areas, maximising screening from public view and following high standards of design and landscape treatment. Open and exposed sites and those that affect key views should be avoided, especially where development would become the dominant feature.’

5.22 The proposed development lies adjacent to three other landscape sub-types: Urban Area (00), Intertidal Flats (1a) and Low Drumlins (7a), and as such the proposal could indirectly affect these character areas.

5.23 The CLCGT does not characterise the Urban Area (00) but the applicant has confirmed that the main characteristics of the sub-type are:

‘Post - industrial use, derelict industrial buildings, disused land partially re-vegetated by ruderal species, high level of fly-tipping and continued industrial use’.

5.24 Sub-type 1a – Intertidal Flats lies immediately to the west and southwest of the application site. It comprises ‘predominantly flat and open topography’ and has ‘significant ecological interest,... [providing an] important roosting and feeding ground for wading birds and wildfowl’. Intertidal Flats is also a County Landscape designation, and therefore Policy D2 applies.

5.25 Sub-type 7a – Low Drumlins lies to the east, north east and south east of the site, and comprises tracts of farmed drumlins which have a strong agricultural pattern.

Page 33 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.26 The applicant has considered the impact that the development will have on the local landscape character areas in which it is located. The proposal is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVIA) which confirms the potential construction and operational impact which the proposed development will have on the landscape character areas as follows:

5.27 The appraisal notes that the impact on the character of the West Cumbria Coastal Plain (the NCA) would not result in any significant landscape effects, given that the development is proposed to be located within a part of the Coastal Plain which is already industrial in nature. It suggests that there would be a negligible adverse effect during construction and once operational on the character of the NCA.

5.28 In terms of impact on the Coastal Urban Fringe (2d) the applicant considers the character area to have a low sensitivity to change due to the already high level of industrial development and post-industrial derelict land. During construction there would be a negligible adverse effect and a minor adverse effect once operational.

5.29 Sub-type Urban Area (00) has a low sensitivity to change in light of recent residential development and proximity to industrial and post-industrial uses. The proposed development is considered to have a negligible adverse effect upon the Urban Area (00) during the construction phase and a negligible adverse effect once operational.

5.30 Sub-type Intertidal Flats (1a) has a low sensitivity to change due to its close proximity to derelict land and low level of public accessibility. The LVIA notes that there would be no direct changes to the character of this sub-type albeit that industrial development would be increased within the adjacent sub-type which would cause some perceived changes to the character of the Intertidal Flats. This is deemed to have a negligible adverse effect on the Intertidal Flats during construction and once operational.

5.31 Sub-type Low Drumlins (7a) has a low sensitivity to change due to the presence of heavy industry in the western part of the sub-type and landscape disturbance created by access roads and sand extraction. The LVIA confirms that there would not be any direct changes to this sub-type but the proposed development would be perceptible from some parts of this sub-type area. The LVIA concludes that there will be a negligible adverse effect upon the sub-type through the construction period and once the proposed development is operational.

5.32 The LVIA also considers the cumulative impact that the proposed development and the proposed energy storage facility (reference: B12/2016/0372) will have on landscape character and visual receptors. This concludes that there would be a minor adverse effect on sub-type 00 Urban Area and a negligible adverse effect upon the NCA, Coastal Urban Fringe, Intertidal Flats and Low Drumlins.

5.33 In summary, the LVIA concludes that there will be at most, a minor adverse effect upon the Coastal Urban Fringe, given that the proposed development is sited directly within this sub-type. The other character areas will be indirectly affected and as such, the development will only have a negligible adverse effect on these areas, including intertidal flats which is a landscape of County importance.

Page 34 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.34 The LVIA has considered the potential impact that the proposed development would have on landscape character. Given that there is a negligible to minor adverse effect recorded, when considering the scheme in isolation, and when combined with the energy storage facility (B12/2016/0372), it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy D1 and Policy D2, which relates to the Intertidal Flats being a designated County Landscape.

5.35 With regards to visual impact, the appraisal has considered the impact during the construction phase as well as once the development is fully operational through appraising a series of viewpoints, including existing residential areas and Public Rights of Way, which are considered to have a high sensitivity to change, and highways, which are considered to have a low sensitivity to change.

5.36 The outcome of the visual impact assessment is provided within the table below:

View point Impact during Impact once Construction Operational Residential Biggar Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Barrow Island Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Salthouse Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Roose Gate1 Moderate adverse Major adverse effect effect in the upper floors of the southernmost residential properties Yarlside Moderate adverse effect Moderate adverse effect Roose Minor adverse effect Moderate adverse effect Roosecote Minor adverse effect Moderate adverse effect Leece Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Peasholmes Lane Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Roads A5087 – Rampside Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Road effect effect Dungeon Lane Negligible adverse Negligible adverse effect effect Peasholmes Lane Negligible adverse Negligible adverse effect effect Roa Island Road Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Mawflat Lane Negligible adverse Negligible adverse effect effect Public Rights of Cistercian Way Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Way Cumbria Coastal Way Major adverse effect Major adverse effect Westfield Greenway Major adverse effect Major adverse effect Cavendish Dock Trail Major adverse effect Major adverse effect South Walney Nature Minor adverse effect Minor adverse effect Reserve Table 1: Summary of visual impact assessment

1 This is an error within the LVIA report, and relates to the residential development off Redshaw Avenue/Dowie Close. Page 35 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.37 Table 1 confirms that for the majority of viewpoints, the impact of the proposed development during construction and once it becomes operational will have a negligible to moderate adverse effect. There are four viewpoints identified above (in bold) however for which the proposed facility will generate a major adverse effect upon some visual receptors which are classed as having a high sensitivity. The report defines a ‘major adverse’ impact in respect of views as being ‘where the proposed changes would form a major part of the view, or would be uncharacteristic, and would alter valued views’.

5.38 This includes Redshaw Avenue/Dowie Close which is a new residential development lying to the north of the application site.

5.39 Properties off Dowie Close which have views to the south are already heavily influenced by the existing level of industrial development which is adjacent to the application site, including the waste water treatment works, electricity sub-station and the gas terminals. The proposed development is considered to cause a medium change to the view south of the southernmost residential properties in Dowie Close. Notwithstanding this, the applicant notes that these properties already have ‘a heavily disturbed view containing numerous industrial elements’. The LVIA concludes that there will be a major adverse effect in the upper floors of these properties.

5.40 Three Public Rights of Way (PRoW) have also been identified as having major adverse effects arising from the proposed development which would occur during the construction phase as well as once the scheme is fully operational.

• The Cumbria Coastal Way has close range views over the application site. Whilst footpath users generally have views orientated away from the site, towards the coast, the proposal will ‘introduce an additional level of disturbance’, and create a medium change to the views. Notwithstanding this, users of the footpath already have some close range views of the various industrial components adjacent to the application site.

• Westfield Greenway is an accessible linear path from Rampside via Westfield Point to Cavendish Dock, and allows for clear views over the application site, including close range views where the path passes the gas terminals and electricity substation. Views are therefore already heavily influenced by the existing industrial development. The LVIA notes that the proposed building and stacks would form an obvious element amongst the existing industrial development.

• Cavendish Dock Trail is a footpath/cycleway around the eastern edge of Cavendish Dock which links to the Westfield Greenway and to the footpath/cycleway along the Cavendish Dock sea wall. The application site can be seen in filtered views through the boundary fence in views to the east. Views are already heavily influenced by existing industrial development. The LVIA notes that the proposed building and stacks would form an obvious element amongst the existing industrial development.

5.41 The LVIA concludes that ‘the proposed development would feature as an obvious change to views for some close range visual receptors and would constitute a major adverse effect upon some that are considered to have a high sensitivity. However, the proposed development would not appear out of character in the views that are heavily influenced by the existing levels of industrial development visible in close range.’

Page 36 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.42 The LVIA has also considered the cumulative impact that the proposed development and the now approved energy storage facility (reference: B12/2016/0372) will have on visual receptors. This concludes that there would be a major adverse combined effect from the Cavendish Dock and South of Dowie Close viewpoints.

5.43 Consideration is needed to establish whether the major adverse impact upon the views outlined above is in accordance with planning policy. Policy G13 seeks to protect the Cumbria Coastal Way and other public footpaths listed above from development which could adversely affect an ‘interesting or visually pleasing view’. In light of this, the Council requested that the applicant consider introducing further mitigation measures, in addition to the biodiversity areas proposed, to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development on the Cumbria Coastal Way.

th 5.44 The applicant submitted further information on 19 August 2016 (correspondence and Planting Plan) stating that they would provide additional landscaping, over and above that already provided by the established and vegetated bund to the western perimeter of the wider site (currently in Centrica’s ownership, but outside of the application red line). This would provide additional screening of the proposed development from the Cumbria Coastal Way.

5.45 It is also noted that the energy storage facility (application: B12/2016/0372) was approved with conditions on 18th August 2016. This facility screens out a proportion of the proposed development (with the exception of the proposed stacks), when reviewing the proposal from the Cumbria Coastal Way.

5.46 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy G13, given that suitable mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed development, through the use of muted colours and the addition of further ‘strategic planting’ along the western perimeter of the wider site. It is also acknowledged that the proposal already sits within an existing industrial context and is in part, to be screened by the recently approved energy storage facility. The landscaping mitigation and design elements will be enforced by planning condition.

5.47 The Council also has to establish whether there will be significant adverse impact on residential amenity, particularly for those residential properties within Dowie Close which will have their views affected due to the scheme. It is noted that this will be limited to upper-floors only, which, by their nature, are less frequently occupied during the day, and main living areas would therefore not be impacted upon. On balance therefore, it is considered that the proposed scheme will not create an unreasonable adverse effect on residential amenity, particularly given that these properties already experience a view influenced by the existing industrial context.

5.48 Paragraph 97 of the NPPF also confirms that planning policies should ‘maximise renewable and low carbon development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts’.

5.49 At the same time, NPPF Paragraph 65 states that local planning authorities should not refuse permission for buildings which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design.

Page 37 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.50 The proposed development by its nature will promote high levels of sustainability, given that the purpose of the scheme is to complement renewable technologies. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development would be designed to minimise the impact on the landscape, through the use of muted colours (potentially grey) to allow the proposed stacks to blend in with the skyline. The applicant has provided a commitment to provide additional planting along the wider site’s western boundary to mitigate the visual impact on the Cumbria Coastal Way. There are also biodiversity benefits arising from the development, as the applicant has noted within the great crested newt mitigation strategy that a Wildlife Retention Area will be implemented as part of the proposals.

5.51 On balance, and given the need for the development to complement renewable energy, it is considered that the adverse effects can be outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development, which will be secured by condition.

Biodiversity

5.52 The application site is situated approximately 147.5m to the east of Morecambe Bay, a Ramsar Site, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and 3.45km to the north of the site lies the Duddon Estuary Ramsar Site and SPA. Morecambe Bay is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (notified as the South Walney & Piel Channel Flats).

5.53 Saved policy D9 confirms that development which could affect a Ramsar site will be subject to the most rigorous examination, and unless development is directly connected with, or necessary to the management of the Ramsar site, further consideration of the proposed development is required to determine if the proposed development is likely to result in significant effects upon the designated sites.

5.54 The applicant has submitted an assessment to inform the screening under the Habitats Regulations to assist the Council in determining whether there is potential for effects upon the sites of European importance, prior to granting planning permission. There are four designated sites within 2km of the proposed development which require consideration under the Habitats Regulations:

• Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC); • Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA); • Morecambe Bay Ramsar; • Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary pSPA

5.55 The proposal is also within 3.45km of Duddon Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Duddon Estuary Ramsar.

5.56 Morecambe Bay is of European importance given that it is a staging area for migratory waterfowl, including internationally important numbers of passage ringed plover, supports a wide range of internally important birds as well as species and populations occurring at levels of international importance, including Great crested newts. Duddon Estuary is a designated Ramsar site as it supports nationally important number of the rare natterjack toad, nationally important numbers of waterfowl, assemblages of internally important birds and species/populations at level of international importance.

Page 38 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.57 The assessment confirms that the proposed development is not directly connected to or necessary for the management of the designated sites, and as such, further consideration of the project is required under the HRA process.

5.58 The proposed development has been screened by the applicant through the submission of a HRA Screening Assessment to identify whether potential effect pathways between the scheme and the designated sites are likely to result in significant effects upon the designated sites.

5.59 Natural England has reviewed the HRA Screening Assessment and noted that as a competent authority, it is the Council’s responsibility to produce the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), but the authority can adopt the HRA to fulfil its duty. As such, the Council will adopt the HRA for the purposes of this planning application.

5.60 The assessment confirms that likely significant effects (LSE) could result during the construction, operation and decommission of the proposed development. These are summarised within table 5 of the applicant’s HRA Screening Assessment. The assessment notes that the greatest risk of impacts from the proposed development on the designated European sites is as follows:

Air Emissions

5.61 During the construction of the development, there is a risk of fugitive dust emissions arising from earthworks, vehicular movements and spoil removal. This is considered to be non-significant given that the application is site is predominately vacant, and no significant demolition works are required.

5.62 Once operational, the gas-fired energy reserve facility will emit combustion gases from the stacks, including Nitrogen Oxide (NOx). The proposed gas engines will be designed to comply with the EU Directive limits. Significant effects resulting from the emissions is either in relation to nitrogen nutrients (N) leeching into the ground, or through the deposition into the ground of NOX which can contribute to the acidification of habitats.

5.63 In terms of nitrogen (N) deposition, it has been determined that this is below 1% of the Critical Load for the Duddon Estuary SPA/Ramsar and therefore is not significant. For Morecambe Bay SAC this is 1.1% of the Critical Load, which slightly exceeds the 1% significance level. Notwithstanding this, the assessment goes on to state that there is scope for minor variance within the Environment Agency ‘Air Emissions Risk Assessment for your Environmental Permit’ methodology, and as such, it is considered that the air quality impacts from increased nutrient-N deposition is not significant.

5.64 The assessment confirms that the air quality impacts from increased NOx are not significant. This is just above 1% Critical Level for Morecambe Bay SAC but the applicant confirms that there is scope for minor variation within the air emissions risk assessment. In terms of acid deposition, this is less than 1% of the Critical Load, and as such, is not a significant impact of the proposed development.

Page 39 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

Disturbance

5.65 The HRA screening assessment confirms that there are no direct impacts of noise and visual disturbance arising from the proposed development on the Duddon Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, given that it is more than 3km from the application site.

5.66 During the construction phase, the assessment confirms that there is a potential for noise disturbance to birds, as a result of CFA piling, which would generate noise of 85- 90dBA measured at 10m from the source. The applicant confirms that this would be attenuated to levels below which would likely cause disturbance to birds within the Morecambe Bay SPA.

5.67 Once operational, the proposed development has been estimated to create no increase in ambient noise levels during the day, and if the plant was required to operate during the night (at times of peak demand/low supply), this would result in a very small increase (maximum 1dBA) in ambient noise levels. It is considered that once operational, there will be no impact on estuarine birds within the Morecambe Bay SPA.

5.68 The screening assessment concludes that there are no likely significant effects for any SPA or SAC qualifying feature (i.e. habitats or species) arising from the construction and operation of the proposed development.

5.69 The screening assessment has also considered the potential combined effect of anticipated projects which are likely to come forward within the vicinity of the proposed development, and which have the potential to affect the designated sites. This includes application B12/2016/0372, which has now been approved, for an energy storage facility, and a photovoltaic (PV) installation at Peasholmes Lane (EIA screening opinion – BSS/2015/0473). The assessment concludes that if this was to be constructed simultaneously with the proposed development, there would be no likely significant effect.

5.70 The assessment confirms that if the energy storage facility and gas-fired reserve facility applications were to be approved, the construction period of both schemes has the potential to overlap which would result in additional noise output of 3 dB. Notwithstanding this, any noise produced from both projects is not expected to cause disturbance to birds within the SPA. It concludes that even in combination with other projects, there will be an absence of potential effects upon designated sites.

5.71 The screening assessment has therefore concluded that the proposed development will not have significant effects upon the designated sites once the proposed development is operational, and that no further assessment of the project is required under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

5.72 Notwithstanding this, Natural England requested that additional information was submitted in relation to the potential impact of noise disturbance on over-wintering birds, noting the following:

“The adjacent saltmarsh is used as a high tide roost for a number of SPA/Ramsar species including redshank, curlew and widgeon which is located 150m from the application site. If noise levels from the proposed development are significantly higher than the current background levels mitigation measures (e.g. acoustic hoarding) would need to be incorporated into the proposed development to reduce the impacts on this roost”.

Page 40 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

th 5.73 Additional information was issued within correspondence dated 18 July 2016 and the applicant provided noise contour maps to show the effects of hammer piling and auger piling. In light of this, Natural England has advised that a commitment is made by the developer that appropriate mitigation (acoustic hoarding) will be adopted if drop hammer piling is utilised.

st 5.74 The applicant has confirmed via email correspondence on 1 August 2016 as follows:

‘I can confirm that the applicant is willing to accept an appropriately worded condition requiring the utilisation of an acoustic screen during the sensitive period from September to April, if the drop hammer piling method is to be used’.

5.75 Natural England also queried the air quality assessment, and the potential for likely significant effects arising from the modelled N Deposition being 1.1% of the critical load. It was noted within their correspondence that this would be considered via the Environmental Permit process by the Environment Agency, and that no further information would be required at this stage.

5.76 It is considered that this is sufficient to enable the Council to screen the proposed development under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations and can confirm that the likelihood of significant effects arising from the proposal can be ruled out.

5.77 The proposed development is therefore in accordance with saved Policy D9.

5.78 The application is also supported by a Preliminary Ecological Assessment which confirms that the proposed development is to be located on an area of spoil, hardstanding and species-improved neutral grassland. The area of species-improved grassland has been categorised as having a high ecological value, although the proposed development will not have an impact on the area of grassland within the highest diversity (to the south and east of the PEA survey area). The PEA therefore recommends compensation for the loss of these habitats, to ensure that the remaining grassland (which is not to be developed) within Centrica’s ownership should be retained, protected, enhanced and managed for wildlife, within a future Wildlife Retention Area.

5.79 The PEA notes the potential for the following species:

• Badgers – as such recommends that a pre-construction survey for badger is undertaken 8 weeks prior to any construction period (including enabling works); • Otters – whilst the application site has limited potential to support otter, the PEA recommends that construction works are carried out under an otter method statement; • Bats – recommends that areas of semi-improved grassland are retained and enhanced, and consideration should be made for foraging and commuting bats within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); • Barn Owl – recommends retention and management of grassland within the Wildlife Retention Area; • Other bird species – o Oystercatchers were observed displaying breeding behaviour in areas of the spoil, as such it is recommended that wintering bird surveys and summer breeding bird surveys are undertaken, involving monthly transect surveys to ascertain breeding bird assemblages.

Page 41 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016 o During the construction phase, any vegetation clearance works should be carried out outside of the breeding bird season (March-October inclusive). If this is not possible, breeding bird surveys and checks should be undertaken by an appropriately competent person. • Reptiles – o Habitat manipulation (gradually making habitats unsuitable) should be implemented. o A Precautionary Method of Working (PMoW) should be produced to ensure that best practice methods are adopted. o Vegetation removal should be carried out during the reptile active period; o Hibernacula should be dismantled by hand; o Enhancement measures should be carried out in areas not affected by the proposals; in particular in the Wildlife Retention Area.

• Amphibians o Natterjack toads are known to occur within the Duddon Estuary Ramsar, and as such there is potential for these species to be present within the survey area. The PEA recommends consultation with relevant stakeholders (including Natural England) to ascertain the need for a targeted natterjack survey. o eDNA testing confirmed the presence of GCN in a pond within 500m of the survey area.

Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy

5.80 Additional GCN surveys were recommended following the PEA, and GCN surveys were undertaken in June 2016.

5.81 The presence of a small GCN population was established in ponds 2 and 15. Pond 2 is 208 m away from the site boundary, and pond 15 is 386m away.

5.82 The 2016 GCN Mitigation Strategy recommends that given there is minimal habitat lost within 250-500 m from the ponds, that a Natural England Development Licence is not required, and instead, that works can proceed under a detailed Method Statement.

5.83 The GCN Mitigation Strategy advises the following: • Site preparation works to be undertaken between September – October 2016 to ensure that any features suitable for GCN hibernation and refuge are dismantled during the active season; • Tool Box Talk to be provided to all site operatives by experienced ecologists; • An experienced ecologist to be on site during vegetation clearance works, and pre- commencement of works, areas to be finger-tip searched by the ecologist; • All activities to cease if GCN found within working area when an ecologist isn’t present; • Smooth newts, palmate newts, common frogs and common toads found within working area to be removed by hand to areas of scrub away from working areas; • Dismantling of spoil to take place during April-October inclusive under ecological supervision;

• If GCN are found during dismantling of spoil, all works to stop, adequate cover to be provided and GCN will be allowed to move off on their own accord. If large

Page 42 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016 numbers of GCN are found, then all works will cease and the risk to GCN will be reassessed. • Vegetation clearance to be undertaken during the GCN active season (April- October inclusive) will be removed in two stages; • Vegetation clearance to be undertaken during hibernation (November-March inclusive) will be removed in one cut to ground level, and no ground works will be undertaken. • To compensate for the permanent loss of habitat, Centrica plc have set aside an area of land which will be managed for GCN. This mitigation land is 2.5 times the area of grassland that will be lost as a result of the proposed development as well as the proposed development in application B12/2016/0354. The same quantity of land will be set aside even if one development is implemented. • The mitigation land will be managed for GCN for 20 years. • 4 large hibernaculas will be created within the mitigation land, following the standard design from Natural England, and straw bales will be placed around the work area to channel the GCN.

5.84 Natural England has confirmed that they have not assessed the GCN Mitigation Strategy for impacts on protected species, and instead, the Council should apply NE’s Standing Advice to the application. The Council has reviewed the Standing Advice and can confirm that the GCN Mitigation Strategy is in accordance with the Standing Advice.

5.85 Natural England has no objections to the proposed development, now that the applicant has submitted additional information with regards to noise impacts, and a commitment to install suitable acoustic screening if drop hammer piling is used.

5.86 The proposed development is therefore deemed to be in accordance with saved Local Plan Policies D12 and D13, subject to appropriate conditions and monitoring. Planning conditions will be attached to any planning permission that may be granted to ensure the mitigation measures are adhered to.

Flood Risk and Drainage

5.87 The western portion of the application site is located within Flood Zone 2, with the remaining part falling under Flood Zone 1. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been undertaken to support the planning application. This confirms that the application site is considered to be at a low risk of flooding. The application site comprises land which is raised to 6.5m, and therefore, for the purposes of the Sequential Test within the NPPF, the application site is considered to fall within Flood Zone 1. Accordingly, the FRA concludes that the exceptions test is not applicable.

5.88 The applicant has discussed the proposals with the Environmental Agency who has recommended that the site is raised above 6.65m AOD to counteract the risk of flooding during a 1 in 200 year plus climate change event. The applicant originally proposed raising finished floor levels to 7.00m AOD in order to mitigate for the 1 in 200 year event, in addition to the present day 1 in 1000 year event.

5.89 As part of the consultation process the Environment Agency has recommended that the finished floor levels should be raised higher, ‘to a minimum of 7.25m AOD (above ordnance datum) to allow a minimum freeboard of 600mm…to allow improved mitigation against the possible effects of climate change and wave overtopping for the lifetime of the development; noted as 20 years.’

Page 43 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.90 The applicant will submit additional plans to account for this change by way of condition.

5.91 In terms of drainage, surface water run-off from the proposed development will be collected by a series of drains before discharging to Salthouse Pool (a tidal watercourse which discharges into the sea) via the existing surface water infrastructure within the former power station site. There will be no increase in flood risk as a result of the proposal.

5.92 Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has objected to the application, and recommended that the application is refused on the grounds that the applicant has not submitted a final drainage design for the proposed development. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has provided the following additional information to allay CCC’s concerns.

At present, the site is occupied by hardstanding surfaces which will remain post development. Therefore existing surface water run-off rates from the site will be maintained post development as there will be no increase in surface water run-off from the proposed development.

A drainage and CCTV survey was undertaken on 21st – 22nd July 2016 to determine the capacity and condition of the existing drainage system within the former Power Station site. The survey identified that the existing surface water infrastructure comprises a 1000 mm diameter surface water sewer that is located to the west of the site. A 525 mm diameter surface water sewer is identified to the north west of the site. The aforementioned pipes are shown to discharge into a 1300 mm diameter surface water sewer, located adjacent to the north western corner of the site, which is identified to flow in a northerly direction prior to discharging into a three chamber interceptor. As identified within the Flood Risk Assessment, the outflow from the interceptor runs through a concrete culvert before discharging into Salthouse Pool immediately to the south east corner of the United Utilities waste water treatment plant.

The CCTV survey identified that a number of the pipes within the existing surface water network are heavily silted (potentially due to the site not being in use and hence regular maintenance works being undertaken) therefore prior to the installation of the new drainage system, the existing system will be cleaned and will required maintenance for the lifetime of the proposed development.

5.93 The applicant has considered the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDs) as part of the scheme and considered that a lined permeable paving system could be installed within the proposed car parking spaces. This will enable surface water to infiltrate through the porous paving, prior to discharging through a piped network to the adjacent filter drain system. th 5.94 CCC as Lead Local Flood Authority responded on 18 August and regards the information submitted by the applicant as insufficient in meeting their standard requirements, and require the submission of additional information including a preliminary layout including elements of sustainable drainage as well as confirmation that the drainage system is capable of carrying water to the drainage destination. Notwithstanding this, the LLFA has suggested conditions if the Council is minded to approve the application.

Page 44 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

th 5.95 Further correspondence from the applicant on 19 August confirmed that they can commit to the provision of a swale to the southern edge of the development. The location is confirmed within drawing no: SK1 Rev B ‘Proposed surface water and SuDs Outfall route’, and sits just beyond the southern perimeter of the application red line boundary, although still within the applicant’s wider ownership.

5.96 CCC as LLFA has reviewed the additional information and noted that whilst the incorporation of a swale was welcomed, the drainage detail still falls short of CCC’s requirements, but if minded to approve, various conditions (as noted in LLFA’s comments) must be added to the consent.

5.97 Natural England has also confirmed that a finalised drainage strategy should be conditioned and approved prior to commencement of construction to ensure that adequate controls are in place to minimise contaminates entering the designated sites.

5.98 It is considered that the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a satisfactory drainage design can be achieved which can be controlled by a pre- commencement condition. The applicant has confirmed that the detailed drainage cannot be provided at this stage, given that the final design of the proposed development is still to be agreed.

5.99 The proposed development therefore complies with Saved Policies F8-F11 in relation to flood risk. It is considered that the application does not comply with saved policy F6 as details of all land drainage arrangements have not been provided at this time. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to provide the necessary information to address CCC’s concerns, but there are outstanding issues still to be resolved. The Council considers that this can be dealt with by way of appropriate pre-commencement conditions.

Contaminated Land

5.100 The applicant has submitted a Desk-top Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment, given the potential for contamination related to the previous power station use on the site. The report confirms that the risk of potential contamination is limited. The primary risk relates to an area in the east of the wider site which was historically used to deposit asbestos stripped from the former coal boilers. This is located 10 m from the northern boundary of the application site, and has been capped with inert waste and soil.

5.101 The application site is also considered to have high groundwater sensitivity, given the underlying bedrock is classified as a Principal Aquifer and there is a shallow groundwater table. The desk-top study confirms that the potential for contamination is limited.

5.102 Given that the proposed gas-fired energy reserve facility may be constructed using piling methods, the applicant was asked to consider the potential for the piling to create pathways for contaminants. The applicant submitted a Piling Risk Assessment on 8th August 2016 which considers this issue further. The assessment confirms that a bored pile foundation solution is recommended, and that well established procedures should be adopted to ensure that unacceptable impacts do not arise. This includes the use a quick set concrete to reduce the loss of grout to the environment during installation.

Page 45 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.103 The Piling Risk Assessment was provided as additional information to Environmental Health and the Environment Agency. Environmental Health stated that the Environment Agency would need to consider the report given that they are responsible for considering the protection of ground water. The Environment Agency confirmed the following:

“The report provides a description of the site conditions with respect to the potential for groundwater contamination; and undertakes an assessment of piling risk and impact with respect to pollution prevention. We are satisfied that the report and its recommendations and conclusions are valid and acceptable. We agree with the conclusion of the review that, with the adoption of well established procedures, the use of bored or driven piles is unlikely to generate an unacceptable impact”.

5.104 The Desk-top study also considers the risk of ground gas to human health, given the presence of potential ground gas sources identified from ground investigation. The assessment concludes that the risk of ground gas to human health is low to moderate, as the proposed development will only be attended on an ad-hoc basis and the design of the building will ensure high levels of ventilation.

5.105 The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Saved Local Plan Policies D56 and D57.

Amenity

5.106 The application site is located approximately 400 m from the closest residential properties in Dowie Close.

5.107 The submitted Noise Impact Assessment confirms that the proposed development will result in a maximum 1dB increase in ambient noise during night time and no increase in ambient noise levels during daytime and evening periods. The noise level change is considered by the applicant to be unnoticeable and as such would not affect the quality of life for residents.

5.108 Furthermore, the proposal is expected to operate primarily during peak periods of electricity demand which is daytime and early evenings. The facility will only operate at night when there is a grid emergency.

5.109 Environmental Health has been consulted on the application and confirm no objections to the proposals. They have however recommended that amenity is safeguarded through planning conditions to limit the hours of construction, and to ensure that once operational, the noise from the development does not exceed the existing background noise level at neighbouring noise sensitive locations.

5.110 The proposed development therefore complies with saved policies D58 and D60 of the Local Plan.

Page 46 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

5.111 An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted with the application. It confirms that the risk of dust impacts during the construction process will be low. Once the facility is operational, it will generate Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) through the combustion of the gas engines within the plant. The predicted concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) are below the relevant air quality standards and the impacts are estimated to be negligible to slight adverse. Overall, the air quality assessment concludes that the air quality effect of the proposed development is considered to be ‘not significant’ overall.

5.112 The proposed development will also require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. This is being applied for separately. The Environment Agency has confirmed that they are satisfied with the air quality assessment as well as Environmental Health.

5.113 The proposal therefore complies with Policies D55, D58 and D60.

Heritage and Archaeology

5.114 The applicant considers the impact that the proposed development has on nearby heritage assets. A short statement is provided within the submitted Planning, Design and Access Statement. This confirms that there are two archaeological records within 500m of the application site, and four Grade II listed buildings within 1km (within New Farm, off Rampside Road).

5.115 The applicant confirms that there are no designated or undesignated heritage assets within the site, and the potential for the proposed development to impact on buried archaeological remains within the site is negligible. It is also considered that there would not be an adverse impact on the setting of the four listed buildings.

5.116 The Council’s Historic Environment officer has been consulted on the application and confirms no objection to the proposal.

5.117 The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy D22.

Traffic

5.118 In terms of traffic generation, the proposed development is expected to generate a maximum of 30 HGV movements per day during the construction period, and it is not expected that this would create an adverse impact upon the operation of the local highway network. The applicant has also confirmed that a Traffic Management Plan will be provided and will be implemented during the construction process. Once operational, the facility will be unmanned and operated remotely. Occasional servicing/maintenance of the facility would be required which will have a negligible impact on the highway network.

5.119 Cumbria County Council (CCC) Highways has confirmed no objections to the proposal in terms of highways impacts. They have suggested the inclusion of a planning condition to limit the number of heavy goods vehicles to a maximum of 30 per day (during the construction period). Notwithstanding this, it is considered that this condition is not justified given that the methods of construction will be covered by a separate planning condition relating to the construction management plan. Page 47 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The applicant confirms that there is ‘a growing need for new plant which can respond quickly to local demands and provide a secure supply of energy’. The proposed gas fired energy reserve facility will be able to respond rapidly to the short term variations in local energy demand and complement renewable energy technologies.

6.2 The application site is within 150m of the Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary potential Special Protection Area (pSPA), Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Morecambe Bat Ramsar site and South Walney & Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and is within the Countryside area.

6.3 The site comprises previously developed land, having formerly been occupied by the Roosecote power station, and is to be sited adjacent to existing industrial development including gas works, sewage works and an electricity substation. The development proposal is to be sited on spoil, created following the demolition of the power station, and a small element of semi-improved grassland will also be affected. The accompanying Preliminary Ecological Appraisal confirms that this grassland is not particularly species- rich, and that any loss will be mitigated through the provision of a Wildlife Retention Area in close proximity to the application site.

6.4 The Wildlife Retention Area will also allow for the safeguarding of Great Crested newts which have been recorded less than 300m from the application site.

6.5 In terms of visual and landscape impact, the site’s sensitivity to development is greatly reduced due to the adjacent industrial development which exerts a strong influence over the site. The supporting Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has confirmed that there will be a major adverse effect upon some visual receptors during the construction of the facility and once it is fully operational.

6.6 The LVIA confirms a major adverse effect from three Public Rights of Way, including the Cumbria Coastal Way. The applicant has sought to mitigate the impact though the use of muted colours in the design, including the use of grey for the proposed stacks, to blend in with the sky, and green for the main building, to merge in with the existing landscape. The applicant has also committed to providing additional strategic planting along the wider site’s western perimeter (still within the applicant’s ownership), which will strengthen the existing 2.5m bund. This will be secured through an appropriately worded condition.

6.7 It is considered therefore that the design of the proposed facility along with the additional landscaping strip will provide for adequate cover to mitigate against the adverse effect on the Cumbria Coastal Way, and the proposal can be seen to comply with Policy G13.

6.8 It is considered that there will not be a detrimental impact on residential amenity for those properties affected at Dowie Close given that these properties already overlook an industrial landscape, and the main living spaces will not be adversely affected.

Page 48 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

6.9 The applicant has prepared a Habitats Regulations Screening Assessment, which has been adopted by the Local Planning Authority, to consider the potential impacts of the proposed development on the designated sites. This has confirmed that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the European sites. The greatest potential risk is through the construction process, in terms of the impact of piling creating noise disturbance to over-wintering birds within the SPA. The applicant has provided a written commitment to ensuring that should drop hammer piling be used, acoustic hoarding will be utilised during the sensitive period of September to April inclusive, to mitigate against any likely significant effect. Natural England is satisfied that this commitment alongside suitably worded conditions ensures that significant effects can be ruled out.

6.10 There are no concerns in relation to highways, given that the facility is unmanned and will only require occasional maintenance. Construction traffic will be controlled by a suitably worded condition in relation to a construction management plan.

6.11 In terms of flood risk and drainage, the proposal will be raised with finished floor levels ‘to a minimum of 7.25m AOD (above ordnance datum) to allow a minimum freeboard of 600mm…to allow improved mitigation against the possible effects of climate change and wave overtopping for the lifetime of the development; noted as 20 years.’ The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal.

6.12 Cumbria County Council Lead Local Flood Authority has objected to the scheme on the basis that detailed drainage information has not been submitted. The applicant submitted a Sustainable Drainage Strategy on 8th August in order to address these concerns. This has been considered by the LLFA and has been determined to not be detailed enough to satisfy their original objection, and the proposed drainage solution is not currently suitable due to the silting. Notwithstanding this, and in line with the Environment Agency consultation response, it is considered that the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the final drainage scheme will be acceptable. Given this, detailed drainage information can be dealt with by condition.

6.13 The proposed development is considered not to create an adverse effect upon residential amenity, during the construction process and once operational. Planning conditions will be added to the consent which limit hours of construction, and ensure that any noise from the development does not exceed the existing background noise level at neighbouring sensitive locations.

6.14 The proposal will also comply with the necessary air quality standards, and the applicant has confirmed they will apply for a variation to the Environmental Permit, which is currently in place for the former Roosecote Power Station. The potential for groundwater contamination is limited and will be mitigated through the use of a bored pile foundation solution to ensure that unacceptable impacts do not arise. This will be secured by way of a condition.

Page 49 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 6 September 2016

RECOMMENDATION:

Decision a) in relation to the Habitats Regulations that

the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site

that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment

Justify your conclusions regarding the likelihood of significant effects:

Whilst the proposed development is within 150m of the SPA, any potential significant effects are mitigated through the use of acoustic hoarding during the sensitive period (September to April inclusive) to rule out any likely significant effects on over-wintering birds, and there are no air or water quality concerns arising from the development. a) In relation to the EIA Regulations

The proposed development is not within a ‘sensitive area’ as defined in regulation 2(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Whilst the development site area exceeds 0.5 hectares and is therefore Schedule 2 development, it is likely to only have an environmental impact of local significance as assessed against Section 3 of the EIA Regulations 2011. b) That planning permission be granted subject to the standard duration limit and the following conditions

To be provided as an addendum to the Committee report to be issued in the additional information booklet.

Page 50 of 75

C Revision: L ET

TL E T ra c k Pond PBP-G-0005 Drawing Number: Drawing Water W E Refuse Tip Project Number: Project 70019332 S

Pond

Sand Pit Roosecote Sub Station

y r

n i

o l

Path (um)

Ponds

P ipelin e ) m (u h t a P 75 of M S

Roosecote Power Station 51 Page

T r a c k

Westbrook Mills Godalming Tel: 44-(0)1483-528400 Pond Surrey GU7 2AZ Fax: 44-(0)1483-528989

Client:

in Dra CENTRICA M e an Hi gh W a te r Site/Project: ROOSECOTE GAS ENGINE PROJECT

Roosecote Sands Title:

OVERALL SITE PLAN

Drawn: DGC Checked: RB Designed: RB Approved: BS Date: 26/02/2016 Scale: AS SHOWN A1 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: 70019332 PBP-G-0005 C

© Copyright Parsons Brinckerhoff CHAIN LINK FENCE HT. 2.2m PLUS BARBED WIRE HT. 0.5m 8.05 6.48 7.18 7.79 6.76 c 6.54 6.44 7.48 2016 RPS Group 6.46 7.51 6.45 6.86 6.74 6.38 7.22 7.88 6.49 7.26 PALISADE FENCE HT. 1.9m 6.41 6.87 Notes 7.58 6.82 7.10 7.79 6.70 6.90 7.02 7.33 7.49 7.81 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s

6.73 7.29 7.39 ETL RS 6.80 7.10 appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of that 6.43 6.80 7.26 6.43 6.60 7.0 6.49 BL 7.07.04 6.83 7.00 appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than 6.59 6.46 6.43 RS 6.40 GP COMS 6.75 6.97 6.51 Water 6.43 6.58 by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. GY 5.59 6.27 6.38 6.55 6.62 5.61 6.41

This drawing illustrates a sketch proposal only and as 7.05 6.0 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct 6.38 6.38 6.30 GP scale. Only written dimensions should be used. such is subject to detailed site investigation including RS 6.49 5.50 RS

6.39 6.40 6.39 6.51 ground conditions/contaminants, drainage, design and RS RS RS RS 6.36 6.55 6.51 6.48 6.38 planning/density negotiations. The layout maybe based 6.55 LEVEL OF POWER LINE 6.50 18.18

upon an enlargement of an OS sheet or other small 6.55 MH 6.46 6.44 6.50 6.43 NO ACCESS TO BOUNDARY scale plans and its accuracy will need to be verified by 6.58 6.48 6.48

6.59

6.52 survey. Full risk analysis under the CDM Regulations 6.41 6.54 6.0 SCRUB

6.55 has not been undertaken. 6.44 MK

6.46 6.65 6.48 6.0 7.06 6.35 6.59 SCRUB

6.52

5.88 6.50 6.12 6.39 6.43 MH NO ACCESS TO BOUNDARY 5.97 5.76 6.28 The assumed existing surface water outfall routes are 6.54 6.22 6.27 LP 6.23 6.48 LEVEL OF6.0 6.33 6.45 POWER LINE 6.27 6.36 6.49 5.97 6.45 20.71 5.53 6.24 6.41 6.21 5.64 6.24 based upon information presented on: 6.28 6.27 6.42 6.22CONC 6.35 MH 6.43 6.296.27 6.45 6.44 6.41 6.44 P17 6.31 6.13 5.61 6.46 5.65 PYLON 5.90 RPS Milton Keynes Topographical Survey JKK6716 01 - 06 6.22 6.51 6.496 6.38 6.45 6.22 6.29 6.24 EP 6.46 6.47 6.18 6.50 6.39

6.23 CHAIN LINK FENCE HT. 2.3m 6.16 PLUS BARBED WIRE HT. 0.5m RPS Newark Surface Water Drainage Layout NK016883_SK0300 A 6.25 6.83 6.99 6.57 GRAVEL 5.66 5.64 6.97

HT 4m 6.57 6.41 6.39 7.0 6.45 KO 6.98 Information is illustrative only, a full drainage survey of the existing HT 4m 6.32 6.60 6.14 6.11 6.40 WILLOW 6.52 KO 5.64 7.14 6.46 6.45 6.44 6.23 7.08 7.02 6.28 6.17 6.16 6.28

5.65

6.21 6.21 6.92 6.54 6.0 6.82 P surface water network will be required prior to detailed drainage 5.64 6.46 5.66 6.35 6.99 6.40 HT 6m 6.28 WILLOW 7.12 6.84 6.36 6.82 5.71 designs being completed. 6.48 7.16 5.65 6.31 6.69 7.14

5.68

6.43 6.37 6.33 6.88

6.0 6.0 7.22 7.08 7.0 6.51 5.69 7.15 6.28 6.46 6.10 6.44 7.0

6.36 6.23 6.26 6.22

Drainage proposals for the new buildings are: 6.22 6.26

6.44 6.27 6.63 7.03 6.34 7.55 HT 4m 6.77 6.59 - Connect into existing surface water system WILLOW 5.68 SCRUB 6.48 6.93 6.46 SCRUB 7.08 6.80 HT 4m 6.42 5.89 6.53 WILLOW 6.11 LP 7.79 6.43 6.55

- Un-restricted outfall has been agreed with LLFA as the outfall is 6.15 6.34 5.72

PALISADE FENCE HT. 2.75m 7.14

7.46 7.04 6.22 6.49 6.25 6.18 6.93

6.20 6.28 ultimately to the sea and as such there is no increase in flood risk 6.47 7.0 6.21 6.23

6.33 6.06 6.94 6.10 5.83 7.97 7.57 6.94 Assumed route6.51 of existing 6.10 HT 2m 6.53 6.43 7.78 6.97 STAY HAWTHORN 7.51 6.32 6.37 5.81 6.13

6.52 Existing surface KO 6.78

surface water outfall 5.94 6.67 6.95

KO 6.06 5.92 7.92 7.0

6.47 SENSOR 6.22 6.10 BALAST 6.0 6.52 6.94

6.06

6.52 waterER6.10 interceptor5.79 GY 6.25 6.08 6.26 EP 6.88

6.28 6.18 6.18

6.28 6.62 through concrete culvert 6.11 6.15 6.92 7.89 SENSOR CONC. SLOPE 7.21

RAILING HT. 1.1m Roosecote Sub Station 6.23 7.05

- 5.94 6.59 6.36 7.0 6.15 6.50 6.45 7.02 6.04 6.21

6.51 6.24 6.48 7.96

6.02 - 6.70 WIRE MESH FENCE HT. 2.6m - 7.27 into Salthouse Pool 4.82 6.20 7.60 INTERCEPTOR

- PLUS BARBED WIRE HT. 0.5m 6.38

- 6.55 6.09 7.90 6.71 6.61 6.97

5.88 NilGY6.14 Info6.19 -

7.0 6.24 6.29 7.87

6.02 6.24

6.28 6.03 8.0 7.97 6.43 LP P 7.02 6.55 6.19 6.27 6.67 VP 6.37 6.05 6.26 6.28 6.24

6.23

ER SV MH 6.28 6.62 HARD STANDING - GY

5.89 7.36 6.19 6.99 7.95 8.0

BALAST 6.20 6.88 6.30 5.93 6.52 6.54 6.13 Ex MH CONC 7.83 7.72 6.55 6.76 7.88

DP 6.31 5.81P MW 1300mm Ø 6.05 MH S 6.96 7.64 6.30 6.56 VP 6.28 6.30

6.28 6.29 8.49 6.28 6.70 MK 6.23 7.02 7.63 6.27 6.40 7.78 IL 2.51 - MH 6.71 7.0 8.04 BALAST 6.02 7.00

7.70 AV 6.30 6.76 6.69

6.27

6.32 6.22 7.90 6.54 PRELIMINARY 6.29 6.24

FH 6.20 6.30 KO 6.25 LP

6.29 6.39 6.49 6.29 6.17 8.0 8.73

6.31 7.09 6.19 5.82 6.25 7.81 7.81 SV

6.46 6.90 8.31

6.06 MH S 6.74 AV 7.0

6.0 7.83 6.30

6.29 6.25 6.31 6.93

6.23 7.10 Ex MH 9.0

7.0 6.31 6.57 P12 8.04 7.0 9.01 - 6.19 6.21 6.897 6.96

SCRUB 6.34 6.24 6.29 6.31 7.84 6.72 6.28 6.34 7.94 IL 3.31 6.25 6.30 6.32 6.31

6.59 6.42 6.25 6.61 8.73 7.03 6.24 ROUGH TARMAC 6.65 6.37 LP 7.66

300mm Ø SCRUB 8.16 6.09 7.89 6.30 6.25

7.77 6.36 6.32 6.71 Drain 6.80 - 7.95

- 6.32 6.43 6.28 6.24 PALISADE FENCE HT. 2.6m 6.27

6.67 GY 6.19 6.33 6.32 6.81 9.02 6.23 IC 6.25 6.16 Route of Existing Surface Water Outfall, Diameter, and Levels informed 6.56 6.16 6.38 KO 6.72 6.32 6.13 6.33 6.15 6.21 6.88 7.14 P1 6.75 - MH S CCTV 6.34 7.75 6.19 6.15 6.34 8.073 6.17 6.20 8.43 6.27 375mmIC Ø 6.31 6.16 MH S KO 6.69 6.18 6.18 6.13 6.48 6.31 6.27 MH S TAP 6.17 6.55 by CCTV Survey provided. 6.86 6.37 GRASS 6.20 6.36 6.30 6.25 P 6.35 8.19 7.84 6.34 LP 6.33 IC MH S 6.71 MH F PEBBLES 6.33 6.22 LP 9.29 5.89 Ex MH 6.34 MH F Ex MH MH S 6.31 MH S 6.32 6.45 6.44 6.81 6.32 6.73 9.15 MH 7.06 6.31 MH F IC 6.19 6.36 6.32 6.37 5.78 6.37 6.28 6.27 6.31 6.38 6.37 IC 7.57 7.50 GRASS 6.36 6.42 ER MH S KO 6.32 6.36 6.26 MH F MH S 6.38 6.19 6.64 7.84 MH S 6.46 MH F MH Outfall Illustrated to surface water infrastructure in adjacent EFR 6.35 6.32 MH F 6.40 6.34 8.77 6.78 DUCT 6.30 6.23 6.64 DUCT CONC 6.41 6.31 6.28 6.42 6.42 GRASS

7.87 6.38 DUCT MH F KO 6.73 IL 3.48 6.32 IL 3.35MH S LP 6.30 6.60 6.25 6.37 6.34 MH 6.21 MH F 6.33 6.37 6.99 8.33

6.19 6.34 6.39 6.34 8.0 Facility. Drainage Designs in EFR Area should allow for additional 6.29 MH S MH F P3 6.25

6.70 BARRIERS 6.70 6.34 6.18 6.30 IC KO 6.891 6.79 HT. 0.6m 7.0 6.34 6.33 TW 6.38 6.29 6.46 6.0 6.31 6.13 6.55 7.65

6.50 MH 7.58 MH S 6.29 7.00 6.70 6.47 6.43 7.0

7.70 6.89 6.23 6.38 8.03 6.30 7.0 P2 6.27 6.21 6.30 GY 6.48 6.43 6.41 6.63 9.24 5.85 6.04 - 6.20 9.0 MH F TAP 6.90 6.40 6.44 inflow from Gas Fired Plant. Subject to detailed design including 6.35 6.37 6.50 6.323 GY 6.84 MH S LP KO 6.30 6.45 7.04 6.33 6.30 6.26 6.60P 6.39 6.22 5.70 6.31 KO MH 6.19 6.29 6.77 8.55 6.28 LP FLAG POLES 6.36 7.77 6.43 CB TANK 6.17 6.26 6.29 6.21 6.69 BALAST 6.41 6.37 6.18 6.23 6.37 6.40 6.326.326.34 MH S MH S 6.19 6.72 6.17 BRICK PATH 6.31 6.45 1300mm6.27 Ø 6.38 6.21 DUCT 6.31 P 6.51 6.38 6.52 CONC 6.24 KO 6.97 IC 7.67 investigation of ex manhole. Alternative connection location may be MH 6.91 6.53 6.38 6.36 FRENCH DRAIN 6.45 6.78 6.27 TANK 6.85 6.71 6.34 6.21BRICK 6.32 6.88 CABIN 9.62 6.28 6.44 6.57 GY 6.37 8.18 6.23 6.78 P KO 6.25 6.30 6.27 6.45 LADDER 6.51 6.31 MH 6.21 6.74 7.25 6.62 - 6.34 6.20 6.44 IC 7.94 MH F 6.29 6.21 6.36 6.38 6.50 MH S 6.27 6.38 6.30 LP 7.00 6.21 6.79 8.91 6.55 6.32 6.84 6.33 6.39 KO 6.41 TANK 6.29 viable subject to detailed site levels analysis. 6.41 DP 6.81 6.73 6.08 FH 6.22 KO 6.90 CABIN SV 7.13 6.24 6.35 6.82 6.24 RS 6.31 6.47 6.44 LP 6.39 IC 6.18 7.0 LP 6.25 6.58 HT 8m 7.00 KO KO 6.40 6.52 7.77 6.52 6.23 6.30 KO 6.69 5.71 PE 6.23 6.37 MH FIR SV 6.37 6.18 6.17 6.81 TURN- 6.68 7.91 6.41 PE's LADDER 6.33 6.49 6.54 7.30

6.30 7.04 6.71 6.25 6.52 HT 8m MH 6.43 6.15 LP STYLE LP 6.59 6.24 6.32 MH F 6.93 MH 6.17 6.25 6.79 7.28 8.40 6.26 6.61 KO 6.76 P FIR 9.38

6.35 6.28 6.26 DP 6.87 6.76 6.56 6.27 IC 6.346.21 6.77 6.26 6.31

6.74 6.42 6.36 ACU CB 7.80 6.55 6.36 BRICK 6.31 6.87 6.63 6.53 6.26 HT 6m 7.0 FRENCH DRAIN

SV 6.30 6.87 BRICK 6.24 6.65 6.84 6.61 HT 10m 6.24 6.54 CABIN 6.23 6.14 FIR AV FL 6.907.0 6.37 6.29 P FIR 6.32 6.41 6.30 6.32 6.50 RAMP P HT 8m MH F 6.25 6.58 6.57 PE 6.28 6.56 7.12 6.45 6.27 - SV 6.47 6.90 6.74 6.22 6.79 FIR BALAST 7.00 6.50 7.12 6.24 6.62 7.20 SV 6.34 6.83 GY 6.58 6.68 8.06 CONC 6.36 7.90 6.31 FH KO RS 7.53 8.75 5.87 PEBBLES MH TW 6.18 IC 6.38 6.11 MH S 9.86 6.32 6.59 6.84 SV 6.11 7.91 6.83 6.21 6.36 6.33 6.53 6.85 6.82 KO 7.10 5.58 6.35 6.20 7.30 6.26 I/R HT. 1.1m LP GY 6.84

7.08 6.62 6.36 DUCTS 6.20 6.26 7.38 7.01

6.11 6.75 6.41 6.29 6.08 6.19 LP 7.41 6.27 6.79 7.0 6.49 6.25 6.24 6.29LP GRASS IC 8.21 6.0 6.32 6.20 6.80 6.86 6.85 6.25 CONTAINER 6.27 6.89 6.17 7.28 HT 6m 6.91 LP 7.60

6.24 GY 6.29 P 7.02 8.0 7.0 6.31 6.13 FIR 7.15 HT 4m - 6.30 7.36 9.23 MH F SV 6.20 GY SVs IC BALAST 6.14 CCTV 6.21 7.25 RS 7.74

MH F 6.30 KO MH F 6.47 6.23 7.52 6.86 6.75 IC

6.70 6.586.58 SV 6.49 6.18 6.64 7.26 7.0 6.17 LP 6.34 RAMP 6.25 6.19 7.28 7.65 7.76 6.26 KO FL 6.84 PEBBLES MH S 6.18 7.36 6.74 SV 6.56 MH S 6.11 6.50 DP 6.54 6.22 6.29 7.03 P 6.91 7.74 5.60 6.16 6.23

6.21 6.37 6.94 6.22 6.81 8.47 MH F 6.13 RE 9.0 6.13 RS 7.40 7.49 7.0 6.82 7.28 KO 6.38 6.09 BRICK PATH 6.69 7.75 6.35 KO BT 6.21 6.34 7.65 6.216.25 6.26 6.26 MH F 6.31 6.13 6.13 FH 6.24 6.95 6.27 GY GY 6.34 7.79 Assumed route of 6.30 7.48 6.28 KO KO 6.33 BALAST SV 6.36 SV 6.13 6.69 6.83 7.55 9.69 6.22 SV 6.22 6.44 7.32 8.04 6.996.99 6.24 6.05 6.25 6.85 P 6.22 6.29 RS 6.19 7.03 HT 4m 6.31 6.16 6.16 6.23 RE ER 7.12 6.29 6.19 6.75 MH S 6.26 FH 7.44 MH S 6.06 6.65 7.56 6.12 PALISADE HT. 2.3m 6.37 7.23 MK 6.02 existing surface6.32 6.29 6.03 GY 6.29 6.18 6.28 P LP 7.93 6.31 6.20 6.25 7.36 6.81 CABLES 8.93 6.42 6.26 GY LP 6.34 7.54 MH S 6.43 6.83 6.25 SV GY 7.82 6.50 6.17 6.06 MH S SV

5.65 6.22 6.34 6.29 6.30 6.38 7.29 7.66 6.57 7.0 6.20 6.92 6.61 6.97 10.05 6.57 6.28 8.30 6.30 AVs 6.18 6.24 VP RAMP 6.61 7.05 7.61 7.36 water outfall MH F DP PLANTING HT. 2.0m6.24 6.68 7.69 7.85 HT 4m 7.89 6.37 6.39 6.19 6.22 6.31 6.32 6.11 6.11 SV 7.0 6.59 6.73 6.09 6.31 8.24 DP 6.40 6.92 7.80 7.72 MH KO 6.18 9.47

6.72 6.23 6.25 DP RS 6.23 6.89 8.12 8.43 7.03 6.37 MH F 6.05 6.12 6.56 RE BALAST 7.93 LP 6.27 6.18 GY 6.34 SV 6.18 6.37 6.31 7.03 8.06

6.29 6.09 6.19MH PEs 6.66 6.52 7.47

6.42 P 6.10 GY 6.70 MH F 6.62 7.15 6.10 8.03 GY LADDER 6.86 8.0 7.53 TAC 6.77 6.51 6.68 8.13 8.80 6.23 6.20 HIGH LEVEL 6.10 MH S GY

6.21 6.17 6.24

- 6.20 BRICK MH S WALKWAY 6.64 STEPS DP 6.49 6.43 8.06 BHMK 6.30 6.31 RS PLANTING HT. 2.0m 6.18 6.82 BALAST Car Park 6.84 8.65 5.72ER KO6.21 6.18 6.18 6.97 8.0 6.19 6.32 8.06 6.77 8.20 10.0 6.30 MH S LP 8.28 8.55 6.67 6.32 KO FH 6.11 7.60 GY 7.08 KO TARMAC PATH 6.23 GY 6.59 RS 6.14 6.14 6.32 7.28 8.84 10.07 6.19 6.27 SV 6.31 6.43 6.45 LP 6.69 6.22 6.63 6.15 PE P 6.25 6.16 TARMAC 6.33 MH 6.90 KO IC DP AV P11 6.17 KO 6.35 SCRUB 6.28 GY MH S 8.48 9.28

6.0 6.19 6.67 6.20 6.16 AV

7.0 6.72 ACU EMERGENCY 6.19 KO 6.58 6.63 6.76 6.91 LP 8.184 8.91 7.05 7.0 SV 6.41 6.25 P 6.08 SF 8.19 7.83 6.09 6.13 6.51 8.12 LP SHOWER 6.38 6.36 7.02 8.30 8.78 - 6.24 6.41 6.28 7.70 13.49 6.55 IC 6.22 BT

6.36 6.31 6.30 6.17 6.54 7.21 HT 4m

6.38 6.20 FL 6.22 P 6.45 7.0 8.34 9.0 6.24 6.10 6.34 GY MH S MH 6.20 6.40 8.74 10.44 6.28 6.09 6.37 GY 9.54 Sloping masonry 6.35 7.93 6.25 6.39 9.20 9.38 6.26 6.17 DP 6.22 GY DP 6.37 6.45 6.70 6.85 8.52 6.46 6.28 5.78 CONC. 6.18 6.36

6.55 6.41 GY 6.44 6.96 IC 6.27 BALAST 6.58 8.00 9.04 BORE HOLEMK GY 6.25 6.25 DP 6.54 9.54 6.60 6.19 9.88 6.66 6.55 6.39 P 6.50 6.64 7.06 8.51 9.46 LP 8.25 6.31 8.15 MH- F GROUND DRAIN MH S 6.31 8.74 KO 6.15 6.23 6.33 9.03 10.28 6.21 7.69 MK 6.30 9.14 9.33

6.24 Path (um) ACU BRICK 6.18 6.79 7.00 6.49 6.17 6.26 6.60 6.90 8.31 8.47 8.86 9.03 6.26 KO 6.44 6.49 6.72 9.76 MH HT 8m 6.51P LP 6.29 6.17 MH S MH S DP 7.78 BT 10.17

MW 6.31 PE 6.28 6.37 6.69 LP 8.58 9.16 IC 6.27 6.25 6.39 8.97 9.32 6.21 6.35 ER 6.99 9.65 10.20 6.49 MH 7.73 6.16 6.75

6.29 6.18 FH HT 6m 6.68

6.45 8.13 - 6.44 HT 8m 6.24 6.38 6.57 9.34 9.36 6.16 6.24 6.85 8.65 6.50 6.02 8.0 8.04 8.20 10.09 6.12 MH S TARMAC 6.35 MH S 8.76 SILVER BIRCH 6.13 7.77 SV 8.12 KO 6.42 6.27 6.31 6.35 6.71 8.44 9.50 6.41 5.99 - 6.41 6.39 GY 6.82 8.31 9.72 10.19 6.20 7.07 6.31 RAILING HT. 1.2m 6.60 KO 6.54 7.62 HAZEL 6.30 6.38 8.17 6.17 6.29 6.88 9.78 6.06 6.21 7.99 6.84 FH 6.35 6.36 DP GY 10.18 GL 6.32 6.30 7.50 GY 6.20 6.93 9.94 5.98 6.50 6.20 6.26 6.38 8.57 10.22 6.28 6.41 8.19 6.66 6.37 9.0 6.82 7.50 8.0 HT 2m 10.03 6.68 6.65

- 6.49 GY 6.55 WILLOW 8.67 10.39

6.33 SV 7.94 6.14 6.26 6.26 6.34 6.83 7.0 6.38 DP 7.46 7.84 7.78 6.33 6.30 7.78 10.50 GY MH F 8.73 6.29 7.15 7.87 9.08 7.79 6.33 8.0 P BRICK 6.40 6.32 FL 6.15 7.45 6.76 GRASS 7.88 6.24 6.36 6.39 6.49 8.43 8.20 11.07 MH P P 6.76 6.43 6.42 6.24 7.98 Ex MH 6.34 7.0 P9 6.37 7.96 6.22 6.23 SV LADDER 7.0 6.66 6.53 MH S 6.186.201 MH S 7.01 8.76 7.98 HT 8m 6.14 6.24 6.83 MH 6.45 6.29 6.33 MH P4 6.58 7.69 HT 2m 9.53 11.0

P5 6.23 6.35 6.70 6.97 7.36 6.21 7.67 6.69 GY 6.659 WILLOW

5.83 MH 6.17 6.43 7.19 8.36 6.34 6.68 7.73 7.63 MK 6.24 P 6.87 6.42

P 6.75 MH S 6.54 8.26 7.66 MH 6.64 6.63 P 6.76 7.55 6.205 6.49 6.54 6.76 6.27 8.06 6.38 6.46 CONC - 6.22 7.55 9.21 6.0 6.25 MH S 6.52 8.71 6.51 P 7.95 IC 6.49 7.59 6.20 P DP 6.63 7.62 7.93

6.45 - MH 6.14 6.78 6.86 6.17 6.43 6.48 7.57 10.07 6.47 IC 6.27 6.83 6.38 P MH F 6.37 GY 10.0

HT 4m TARMAC FOOTPATH 6.72 6.78 6.47 6.46 FL 6.46 6.49 6.21 6.22 6.90 6.26 6.41 8.0 7.66

Assumed route of 6.90 6.38

6.20 5.79 6.55 6.82 6.60 8.02 8.70 Nil Info 6.24 6.60 CB SV 6.30 6.58 6.41 FH 8.0 6.14 IC 6.94 8.19 - IC 5.77 LP 6.74 P 6.47 6.56 8.63

6.41 6.60 HT 4m 6.55 7.51 MH 6.46 7.51 - 6.10 6.47 P 6.58 6.74 6.72 6.44

Parking Bays- potential area6.55 of HT 4m 6.46 6.29 6.19 6.73 6.71 IC 7.61 9.58 6.60 6.37 8.05

HT 4m 6.49 6.85 6.48 7.71 7.33 POSS' MH P 6.58 P 7.23 6.29 AV - 6.55 10.00 6.38 6.54 6.411 6.60 P MH S 7.63

6.28 6.84 6.48 HT 4m RS GY 6.50 7.0 6.19 6.67 6.53 8.0 7.28 6.33 P91 7.15 7.17 IC 6.29 HT 4m 6.36 GY 8.34 RE 10.66 - 6.54 Pipeline 6.78 6.39 6.24 7.10 6.55 HT 4m 6.72 6.84 6.64 6.46 8.38 7.28 permeable paving, subject to detailed 6.44

- P 7.67 6.28 7.0 P 7.52 8.66 IC 7.37 10.57

6.45 7.45 RS 6.27 6.71 6.54 6.55 7.17 existing surface 6.76 6.35 6.45 7.30 7.39

HT 4m 6.38 IC 6.46 7.04

6.17 5.69 HT 4m 6.85 WIRE MESH FENCE HT. 2.5m 9.0 6.73 6.50 P 6.19 6.30 PLUS BARBED WIRE HT. 0.5m 7.51 7.29 6.11 6.62 IC 7.71 7.43 6.72 7.30 7.42 MK GY 6.48 8.34 7.11 - drainage designs. 6.41 6.42 7.0 7.49 7.30 7.38 - HT 4m POSSIBLE MH HT 4m 6.69 7.98 7.87 7.0 7.11 7.48 7.85 - GY 6.19 MH S 7.01

6.18 MH S 7.21 7.07 RE 6.40 6.30 AV 6.23 6.47 6.55 LP 6.91 9.30 6.82 6.74 7.54 6.49 TW 7.47

6.13 6.26 Path (um) HT 4m 7.43 7.44 LP 6.06 6.49 6.68 MK MK GRASS KO 7.02

6.27 6.99 MK 6.20 SENSOR 7.35 1300mm Ø 6.49

6.21 MH S MH S 6.07 6.88 6.27 CONTAINER BALAST 6.88 7.0 7.29 ER 6.67 AV 6.22 6.51 6.20 6.73 6.55 BRICK PATH 6.45 8.13 7.29 6.47 7.28 6.31 6.45 6.48 HT 2m - 6.38 6.84 6.0 HT 4m 7.94 8.0 6.94 7.09 6.35 6.46 6.97 6.88 - PILLBOX SV 6.80 6.56 7.07 MW 7.0 1.1PR 6.30 6.78 B1 6.18 6.42 7.06 8.13 6.14TW 6.42 7.49 7.00 MK 6.87 water outfall 6.91 6.21 6.51 6.70 GRASS 6.36 SV 7.53 6.80 9.153 8.00 7.74 6.76 BT 8.0 9.09

5.72 6.69 6.55 6.40 6.80 7.11 6.08 7.06 6.41 7.32 6.69 6.47 ER 6.12 5.73 7.48 BRICK PATH 7.69 6.95 GAS 6.79 - MH S 8.69 MH S 7.09 7.09 6.69 GY 6.29 5.67 6.12 6.42 BOTTLE 6.59 7.0 LP 6.89 GY 7.70 P 6.96 6.22 6.51 6.46 6.42 6.83 6.89 6.12 CAGES SV 7.41 6.52 6.91 6.45 9.64 6.08 6.69 7.06 6.61 6.60 6.67 6.53 6.21 6.34 6.85 6.31 6.25 CPS IC 6.83 6.55 6.44 6.31 6.44 7.14 7.29 6.36 6.48 6.33 6.08 6.55 6.22 Ex MH 6.61

HT 4m 6.37 6.21 CONC 6.59 6.62 6.41 6.10 6.83 7.17 5.05 6.50 6.53 6.52 8.08 BALAST 4.97 6.58 6.48 6.27 6.70 ER 6.53 7.41 6.21 6.46 6.71 6.18 6.67 6.37 8.48

FH 5.30 6.31 7.15 FL 7.00 6.75 6.43 6.52 7.74 6.26 BALAST 6.73 6.61 6.45 6.60 6.07 HT 4m 7.20 MK 6.40 6.42 6.40 TW 6.36 7.0

6.93 6.48 6.48 Nil Info

4.70 MH S DP 6.54 6.53 5.71 7.16 7.0 6.48 6.72 8.0 6.18 6.69 6.43 RE MH S 6.44 IC BRICK 6.59 6.86 6.50 6.24 6.14 SM - 6.32 6.37 GY 8.06 6.36 HT 8m 6.16 6.45 7.19 6.32 6.44 6.54 5.72 6.43 GY 6.47 6.45 6.23 6.68 6.33 HAZEL 6.34 6.30 7.0 IC 6.21 6.61 6.68 6.52 6.63 6.24 6.29 6.67 8.00 6.53 6.28 MH 6.15 7.12 6.54 6.45 6.17 KO 6.35 6.37 6.86 5.98 Roosecote Power Station 6.25 6.22 6.46 6.41 LP 6.24 6.28 6.09 TARMAC FOOTPATH 4.51 6.18 7.23 6.34 6.36 6.36 6.20 7.92 6.14 GRAVEL 6.38 6.24 7.0 5.65 6.37 6.63 6.53 6.46 6.28 6.26 6.41 6.43 6.32 6.48 6.55 7.36 MH S 6.20 STEPS 6.60 MH STONE WALL 6.66 6.15 6.39 6.44 6.21 - 6.24 6.26 6.39 7.91 6.18 7.69 6.23 BALAST HT 8m 6.51P LP 6.29 6.17 6.19 6.38 6.79 6.71 MW 6.31 IC MH 7.19 6.13 CONTAINERS HT 8m 6.29 6.49 6.50 6.21 8.0 MH S 6.12 6.82 6.34 6.13 6.33 4.39 6.20 6.41 5.99 7.16 6.67 6.28 6.55 6.42 HAZEL 6.31 RAILING HT. 1.2m

6.25 6.32 6.34 6.06 6.21 GL 6.10 5.98 6.37 6.73 6.41 6.82

6.18 7.19 6.36 6.46 6.51 6.61 6.33 6.28 Pipe to swale 6.29

6.80 5.69 5.68 6.24 6.43 7.25 5.65 6.46 Ex MH 6.34 5.63 6.27 6.27 B Swale extended and outfall altered. 17/08/16 AR AG 7.22 6.73 HT 8m 6.24 6.14 6.24 6.83 - P5 6.38 6.00 6.75 6.53 6.21 6.14 6.34 6.53 6.34 5.83 MK 6.16 7.10 6.70 4.39 7.25

ROOSECOTE SANDS MH - 6.205 6.27 Route Unknown 6.51 6.0 7.14 6.22 6.19 6.85 6.48 6.45 MH 6.20 6.14 7.12 6.83 6.47

6.24 subject to levels TARMAC Assumed route of 6.21 6.20 6.22 Nil Info 5.79 6.24 GY 6.30

Ex MH 6.14 5.77 6.20

6.78 6.39 6.10 6.19 Parking Bays- potential area of 6.37 A AR 6.29 6.18 Swale and filter drain added 16/08/16 AG TARMAC ROAD MH S 7.88 6.16 6.0 7.17 6.50 6.53 6.28 6.84 6.70 6.21 Assumed route of - 6.33 7.04 7.74 permeable paving, subject to detailed 6.37 6.78 4.29 - 6.43

6.79 6.46 existing6.47 surface 6.27 6.17 5.69 6.42 6.71 GY 6.44 7.14

7.07 IL 3.64 FH 6.11 drainage designs. PEBBLES 6.32 6.64 6.23 6.18 GY 6.38 6.21 6.29 6.31 6.26 6.82

6.80 MK 6.45 6.27 LP 6.06 6.13 6.49 Rev Description Date Initial Checked

7.0 6.81 existing6.26 surface 6.47 AV 6.07 6.22 ER SCRUB 6.36 6.38 6.0 6.84 7.12 SV water- outfall 6.14 6.32 6.46 SV 6.36 5.68 6.73 6.76 6.45 6.08 5.72 6.37 6.16 6.16 4.27 - 6.12 MH S 5.73

GY GY 6.29 5.67 6.12

6.36 6.99 6.10 7.0 6.47 PIPES 6.83 6.37

FRENCH DRAIN 6.21 6.08 CHAIN LINK FENCE HT. 2.4m water outfall 6.42 PLUS BARBED WIRE HT. 0.5m 6.21 GY 6.08

6.27 6.38 7.15 LP 6.41 6.10 6.83 7.02 7.03 - 6.0 6.77 6.07 6.18 FH 6.44 6.46 5.71 6.15 - 6.18 6.47 6.14 GY 5.59 LP 6.38 6.37 CABLE TRAY 5.72 For guidance only. Do not scale off this drawing BALAST 6.22 HT 2m 7.06 4.25 - 6.24 5.69 7.00 MW 6.32 6.14 6.09 WILLOW Drainage Runs Indicated are Illustrative 6.44 6.69 5.65 6.32 6.79 7.79 STEPS STEPS 6.14 6.27 6.46 MH S 6.20 6.36 7.96 6.44 HT 4m 7.03 6.37 5.61 6.84 6.47 6.38 6.79 6.13 6.23 6.25 6.84 6.52 6.33 6.82 6.32 6.18 6.10 6.44 6.74 6.28 Pipe to swale MH 6.08 6.52 6.80 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.68 7.09 5.59 6.14 6.21 6.40 6.81 - 6.41 Route Unknown 6.16 Only. Subject to Detailed7.01 Designs 4.25 6.24 subject to levels 6.50 5.56 6.76 6.45 GY 6.78 1:20 - 0 200mm 400mm 600mm 800mm 1000 1200 1400 5.64 LP 6.16 TARMAC ROAD MH S 6.0 7.05 6.05 6.79 6.45 6.22 Track 7.09 6.74 6.27 6.12 6.48 6.21 6.80 6.32 6.49 6.38

6.50 6.32 5.68 CPS Ex MH6.26 6.16 6.16 6.18 Including Site Levels Analysis.7.07 GY 6.33 6.21 GY 1:100- 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 6.45 6.27 6.0 5.70 6.75 4.23 7.85 5.59 LP 6.26 5.69 6.31

6.32 Drainage Runs Indicated are Illustrative 6.44 5.59 6.37 STEPS 6.36 6.14 6.56 6.35 6.69 5.61 6.25 6.84 Nil Info 5.59 6.08 7.88 6.84 6.55 6.36 6.81 Only. Subject5.56 to Detailed Designs 6.46 6.52 6.22 5.64 - 6.25 6.32 6.80 6.68 6.46 Including Site Levels Analysis. 6.0 5.70 6.24 MH S 6.35 5.59 6.17 1:50 - 0 1m 2m 3m 4.17 6.62 P8 GY 6.25 6.39 6.49 6.30

RE 6.388 6.40 6.26 6.80 6.0 5.54 7.22 7.0 6.40 7.88 6.35 FH RE 6.26 5.54 6.08 MH S 6.28 6.36 6.29 1:5 - 0 100mm 200mm 300mm Ex MH 6.29 6.51 6.39 6.61 6.27 5.69 5.58 6.33 6.18 6.29 6.82 SVs 5.53 6.36 7.0 7.89 GY 6.38 5.51 6.11 6.18 7.95 6.33 6.46

5.69 - 6.45 LP 6.43 6.81 5.50

5.58 5.53 6.33 6.11 MH 6.76 LP 6.54 5.54 5.55 6.84 6.50 6.33 RE 5.49 6.28 6.0 ER IL 3.87 5.59 5.51 6.11 5.57 5.43 6.46 MK 6.61 6.39 5.70 5.65 CP 6.79 6.51 6.40 6.42 6.81

5.50 6.38 6.32 6.16 6.42 STEPS 6.43 6.21 6.84 6.64 6.30

5.55 6.36 6.34 5.44 6.21 6.48 GY 6.80 6.40 5.39 5.54 1300mm Ø 6.30 5.50

6.40 6.36 6.36 6.38 TANK 5.67

5.64 5.52 5.49 6.37 6.0 5.59 5.51 5.49 6.20 6.0 ER 7.36 5.59 6.49 6.40 6.35 6.45 6.38 6.33 6.09 5.43 GY 6.04 6.45 - 6.40 6.25 GRASS GY 6.40 5.43 5.51 6.15

5.57 5.57 6.18 6.84 6.21

8.06 6.30 6.37 6.15 8.0 7.90 5.65 7.99 FH 5.53 6.44 5.52 6.47 5.51 5.54 6.76 6.65 STEPS

6.02 6.43 5.56

6.40 6.78 6.67 6.37 6.0 5.33 6.24 6.38 6.41 6.11 6.37 6.0 WIRE MESH FENCE HT. 2.6m MH S 5.34 PLUS BARBED WIRE HT. 0.5m 6.31 5.55

6.41 6.77 6.20 6.43 6.40 6.13 6.51 5.51 6.22

6.42 5.43 - 6.48 6.15 MK

6.30 5.50 6.30 5.44 CCTV- 6.79 6.20 GAS PIPE 5.39 - 6.44 6.06 6.40 6.48 5.49 6.18 5.36 5.47 6.49 6.14 5.62 6.18 6.36

6.41

6.54 6.19 7.0 5.45

5.50 7.26 6.45 6.18 Pipe to swale5.28

6.38 BALAST 6.46 7.90 6.0 6.44 6.15 5.52 6.24 8.17 6.32 PE6.0 5.52 6.22 6.63 6.42 GL 5.53 subject to levels LP STEPS 5.40 6.19 5.49 6.20 7.86 6.65 MK 6.83 6.73MK 6.42 5.28 5.51 6.04 6.71 6.48 5.50 5.40 6.42 8.0 GY 6.20 6.36 IC 6.13 6.09 6.44 6.35 MH 6.33 6.32 6.83 6.44 5.47 6.19 6.38 6.26 5.35 6.23 5.23 6.31 6.44 6.20 6.25 6.18 525mm Ø 6.79 6.17 6.04 6.45 5.36 6.42 Oil Interceptor & 6.19 MARSHY GROUND

6.40 6.15 5.28 6.82 CPS 6.0

5.43 5.51 MH S 6.44 6.54 6.34 6.82 6.62 6.24 6.60 6.0 LP MH Pen Stock 5.97 6.18 6.84 6.70 6.40 5.36 5.35 6.40 5.37 6.44 ER 6.37 6.27 6.22 P 6.21 6.35 6.16

6.78 BALAST 6.45 6.47

5.17 ER 8.0 Ex MH 5.94 5.33 6.70 6.0 6.12 5.53 6.80 6.10 5.23 MH

7.0 8.08 6.80 6.22 CCTV 7.01

6.65 6.46

5.54 6.77 6.12 6.47 6.20 6.22 7.0

8.17 5.25 6.0 5.51 Sloping masonry 6.0 6.24 STEPS 6.18 IL 3.86 STEPS

5.16 5.86 5.82 6.12 Track 6.81 - 5.18 6.24 6.37 6.56 6.0 5.08 7.06

7.87 6.45 PE 7.24 6.60 6.35 6.43 6.12 7.28 6.66 6.41 6.0 5.33 5.15 6.03 6.69 6.24 6.62 GY 5.14 5.16 6.50 6.21 6.19 6.37 6.0 7.08 6.11 6.61 6.41 6.12 5.34 6.35 FH MK 6.0 7.48

6.46 5.07 6.52

6.70 6.43 6.12 5.02 5.97

6.20 5.0 Pipe to swale CONC 5.08 6.0 6.68 6.82 6.49 6.79 5.07 6.87 7.27

- 6.57 subject6.33 to levels 6.83 6.40 6.89

4.98 6.17 7.0 7.05

5.51 7.0 6.56 6.43 6.10

6.78 6.0 8.20 1000mm6.62 Ø 6.46 5.88 7.49

7.14

6.42 5.43 6.43 6.82 LP

6.15 8.0 6.19 6.13 6.42 6.69 6.0

8.23 5.00 7.76 6.36 4.92 Swale 7.05 6.30 5.0 4.95 Highfield House, 5 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park, 4.97 6.81 6.46 7.27

6.42 8.0 6.70 6.47 6.43 6.0 Drain 7.27 6.79 4.91 4.89 7.05 6.52 4.87 MK 6.77 LP 5.0 6.33 7.45 6.44 6.81 5.85 7.38 6.49 GAS OIL IC 6.81 4.87 4.92 6.18 - Birmingham B32 1AF 6.60 6.62 7.25 5.36 5.47 LINE 8.01 6.57 8.33

6.18 6.78 P6 6.0 6.36 7.75

5.0 6.965 6.41 6.57 6.30 6.0 2x300Ø 7.66 T: E: F: 6.19 6.74 4.80 6.85 7.04 0121 213 5500 [email protected] 0121 213 5502 7.59 8.0 6.80 4.79 6.77 5.94 7.21 Pipe to swale 6.88 4.78 6.46 5.28 8.23 4.79 6.17 6.99 7.60 6.83 7.42

6.44 6.19 7.0 - 6.82

PE6.0 5.52 6.22 4.71 6.84 6.79 8.0

6.36 4.72 6.90 MH 7.0 7.23

subject to levels LP 5.0 6.07 6.19 SENSOR 4.68 7.00 8.41 6.83 SCRUB MK 6.97 8.82 9.38 8.14 6.56 7.40 6.89 6.78

6.70 LP

4.60

6.93 4.59

5.28 6.48 6.94 6.82 6.87 FRENCH DRAIN 6.24 6.42 7.12 6.42 6.84 9.0

Proposed connection to 10.0

6.20 6.36 6.89 - 7.0 6.85 IC 7.0 6.0 6.95 Assumed route of 7.28 6.44 6.79 6.44 6.35 MH 4.50 7.88 7.68 9.12

5.47 6.91 MK 7.06 7.0 existing Mh from swale subject

5.35 6.31 6.33 6.65 Client Centrica Distributed

6.20 5.23 6.0 4.40 6.56 6.84

6.52 existing surface 7.07 7.0 6.25 7.22 7.0 5.0 9.83

4.40

8.0 8.14 6.74 - 6.84 to levels. Capacity to be 8.0 6.42 Oil Interceptor & 6.19 6.78 6.85 7.13 6.94 6.93 6.79 water outfall 6.94 7.07 8.81 FRENCH DRAIN Generation Limited

6.73 6.83

6.15 5.28 6.82 MH

6.34 SENSOR 7.19

8.0 confirmed6.72 as6.81 part of detailed 7.21 9.87 7.47 6.71 7.0 7.0

6.0 LP Pen Stock

6.86 6.81

MH 6.91 VP 7.22 7.0 6.40 5.37 6.44 6.81 9.0 8.00 MH 7.03 6.81 6.38 6.71 designs

6.27 6.22 6.80 8.75

6.37 6.72 LP 6.16 6.47 6.59 6.82 7.21 10.0

IC 10.71

5.17 7.96 6.88 6.80 6.72 6.83 6.77 7.0 11.0

Ex MH 7.22 8.0

6.12 6.84 MH 6.85 6.94 5.23 6.92 9.0 10.62 7.92 6.58 6.10 7.32 ER 6.80 6.62 6.22 6.96 9.48 6.75 10.22

Nil Info MH Swale 6.81 7.0 6.12 7.0 6.47 6.20 6.22 7.38 5.25 6.88 6.84 8.06 6.67 6.36 6.94 7.12 Project Roosecote Power Station 6.79 11.23 6.93

6.64 6.89 7.06.73

6.86 7.0 10.16

5.16 7.19 8.87 7.0 11.16 new Mh 6.78 10.0 8.02 6.88 7.08

PE 6.0 5.08 7.66 7.12 MK HT 6m 8.0 Gas Fired Plant 6.12 7.00 WILLOW 6.74 6.86 7.17 7.19

6.62 6.85 6.76

5.15 6.75 9.0 7.64 11.0 6.21 6.19 6.73 7.0 10.20 6.50 7.19 8.95 6.41 6.30 6.12 6.61 GRASS 7.37 11.64

MK 6.0 6.98 7.0 11.36

5.07 6.71

7.81 6.71 SCRUB 10.0

7.18

5.97 7.0

6.12 5.02 7.79 6.76 5.0 Pipe to swale 8.0 6.0 7.0 6.87 7.33 10.39

7.75 6.86 6.82 6.77 8.94 5.07 7.03 6.67

6.86 11.28

6.33 7.68 7.34 7.19 9.0 subject to levels 11.0

6.57 11.82

6.85 Drain

6.40 6.85 7.0 6.65 Title Proposed Surface Water and 6.17 6.24

4.98 7.48 6.85 7.0 7.73 6.42 7.44 6.10 7.0 7.64 10.13

6.43 7.83 6.79 7.0 5.88 7.78 8.0 9.24 11.92

7.77 6.93 6.61 11.40

6.43 6.82 LP 6.99 7.72

7.0 SuDS Outfall Route

6.79 7.48 6.42 6.69 6.0

5.00 Mean High Water 10.0

4.92 8.06 7.00 7.06 11.88 9.0 Swale 7.0 7.70 5.0 6.81 6.46 SENSOR 9.25 9.97 6.76 6.63

8.0 7.05

6.0 6.08 7.94

6.62 7.76 7.0 7.71 7.27 11.0 7.93 6.65 4.89 SCRUB 11.48 6.34 11.67

P7 6.89 7.09 4.87 6.33 10.0 5.0 8.116 8.50 6.81 7.70

5.85 7.69 7.06 9.44 10.06 4.87 4.92 7.74 8.0 6.61

7.08 9.22 11.73

6.62 7.12

9.0 11.46 P6 7.94 7.0 8.22 Status Drawn By PM/Checked by 6.0 7.72 10.37

6.965 6.57 6.30 11.62 4.80 6.0 6.85 PRELIMINARY OP AR 4.79 6.77 5.94 6.17

6.82 Job Ref Scale @ A2 Date Created

4.71 6.84 6.79

4.72 6.90 MH 7.0 5.0 6.07 AAC4928 1:1250 03/08/2016 4.68 7.00 6.56 LP 4.59 Drawing Number Rev

Proposed connection to 6.82 6.87 FRENCH DRAIN 6.24 6.42 7.12

7.06.89 7.0 6.0 6.95 7.28 SK1 B 6.79 4.50 existing Mh from swale subject 6.91 MK 7.06

6.65 Extract 1:500 6.56 6.84

7.07 7.0

7.22 Page 52 of 75 7.0

4.405.0 rpsgroup.com/uk

6.84 to levels. Capacity to be 8.0 6.85 7.13 7.07 confirmed as part of detailed 6.73 FRENCH DRAIN 6.83 c 2016 RPS Group

N 18.5m Notes 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of Pond this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used. DW

RAMPSIDE ROAD Legend

Track

Site boundary

Roosecote Sand Pit Ownership boundary

(Dis)

Potential isolated shrub strengthening

Refuse Tip

ETL

Track

ETL Track Pond Water

Refuse Tip

El Sub Sta

Pond Sewage Works

Tk Trough

Roosecote Sub Station Sand Pit

Collects

Drain

Pond

Sloping masonry

Path (um)

Ponds

Pipeline Rev Description Date Initial Checked

Path (um)

Foot Bridge Roosecote Power Station

Track

Pond 20 Western Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SH Flood Gate FB T: +44(0)1235 821 888 E: [email protected] F: +44(0)1235 834 698

Sloping masonry

Track

Drain

WB MLW Client . Conveyors Track

Drain Project Centrica Baloo - Peterborough Pond Sand Pit

Pond Title Planting Plan Mean High Water

Marsh Status Drawn By PM/Checked by Pond Roosecote Sand Pit

Roosecote Sands

Roosecote Sands DRAFT AVG RT Job Ref Scale @ A3 Date Created OXF9463 1:3,000 Aug 2016

Figure Number Rev

Sand .. -

Sand

0 30 60 Flare Stack rpsgroup.com/uk m © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2016 License number 0100031673 O:\9463 Centrica - Baloo\Tech\Drawings\9463-0032-03.dwg Page 53 of 75 O:\9463 Centrica - Baloo\Tech\Drawings\9463-0032-03.dwg C Revision: PBP-G-0006 Drawing Number: Drawing Project Number: Project 70019332 75 of 54 Page

C 22/04/16 UPDATEDINLINE WITHRPS COMMENTS B 10/03/16 SITE RE-POSITIONED TO CLIENTS REQUIREMENTS A 04/03/16 FIRST ISSUE

Rev Date Description By Chk App FOR PLANNING

Westbrook Mills Godalming Tel: 44-(0)1483-528400 Surrey GU7 2AZ Fax: 44-(0)1483-528989

Client: CENTRICA

Site/Project: ROOSECOTE GAS ENGINE PROJECT

Title:

SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS

Drawn: DGC Checked: RB Designed: RB Approved: BS Date: 04/03/2016 Scale: AS SHOWN A1 Sheet: 2 OF 2 Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: 70019332 PBP-G-0006 C

C 22/04/16 UPDATEDINLINE WITHRPS COMMENTS B 10/03/16 SITE RE-POSITIONED TO CLIENTS REQUIREMENTS A 04/03/16 FIRST ISSUE

Rev Date Description By Chk App FOR PLANNING

Westbrook Mills Godalming Tel: 44-(0)1483-528400 Surrey GU7 2AZ Fax: 44-(0)1483-528989

Client: CENTRICA

Site/Project: ROOSECOTE GAS ENGINE PROJECT

Title:

NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS

Drawn: DGC Checked: RB Designed: RB Approved: BS Date: 04/03/2016 Scale: AS SHOWN A1 Sheet: 1 OF 2 Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: 70019332 PBP-G-0006 C

C 22/04/16 UPDATEDINLINE WITHRPS COMMENTS B 10/03/16 SITE RE-POSITIONED TO CLIENTS REQUIREMENTS A 04/03/16 FIRST ISSUE

Rev Date Description By Chk App FOR PLANNING

Westbrook Mills Godalming Tel: 44-(0)1483-528400 Surrey GU7 2AZ Fax: 44-(0)1483-528989

Client: CENTRICA

Site/Project: ROOSECOTE GAS ENGINE PROJECT

Title:

SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS

Drawn: DGC Checked: RB Designed: RB Approved: BS Date: 04/03/2016 Scale: AS SHOWN A1 Sheet: 2 OF 2 Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: 70019332 PBP-G-0006 C

C 22/04/16 UPDATEDINLINE WITHRPS COMMENTS B 10/03/16 SITE RE-POSITIONED TO CLIENTS REQUIREMENTS A 04/03/16 FIRST ISSUE

Rev Date Description By Chk App FOR PLANNING

Westbrook Mills Godalming Tel: 44-(0)1483-528400 Surrey GU7 2AZ Fax: 44-(0)1483-528989

Client: CENTRICA

Site/Project: ROOSECOTE GAS ENGINE PROJECT

Title:

NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS

Drawn: DGC Checked: RB Designed: RB Approved: BS Date: 04/03/2016 Scale: AS SHOWN A1 Sheet: 1 OF 2 Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: 70019332 PBP-G-0006 C

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:

2016/0537 Mr Dan Wilson

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Newbarns Jennifer Dickinson 13/07/2016 01229 876375 STATUTORY DATE: 14/09/2016

LOCATION:

33 Hollow Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Removal of existing extension and store and replacement with a kitchen extension and store to rear and side of existing house.

SAVED LOCAL PLAN POLICIES:

POLICY B14

Extensions to the rear of dwellings will not be permitted where they adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of sunlight or privacy or by the creation of an overbearing impact or excessive level of enclosure.

POLICY B15

Where privacy is to be protected through distance, a minimum of 21 metres will be required between the facing windows of habitable rooms of different homes. Exceptions to this policy may be made for the facing windows of ground floor habitable rooms, where adequate screening exists and also in cases where normal standards of separation cannot be achieved and existing standards will not be eroded by accepting distances of less than 21 metres.

The use of obscure glazing in habitable room windows will not be an acceptable measure to overcome the provisions of this policy if this is deemed to provide a sub-standard level of accommodation.

POLICY D21

In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of this plan.

Page 58 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street and plot patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark buildings and other townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context and street pattern or the scale, height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings and development which constitutes over development of the site by virtue of scale, height or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

A representation concerning impact on light to the neighbouring property has been received.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The occupiers of 36, 38 Valley Drive, 31, 33, 35 Hollow Lane all informed.

The Occupier, 35 Hollow Lane, Barrow-in-Furness – dated 22.8.16

“Planning approval committee

With reference to planning application B21/2016/0537 at 37 Hollow Lane Barrow-in- Furness LA13 9JD after having reviewed the application my comments are as follows:

a) Having reviewed the Development Control document for the proposed rear extension at section 3 it doesn’t mention any reference to an extension to Lounge it only mentions an extension to the existing kitchen and store. When I’ve reviewed the plans it’s proposing to extend the existing Dining Room and make this into a Lounge so I would have expected the Lounge to have been mentioned in section 3 otherwise it would be misleading.

b) Having reviewed the plans I’ve noticed it’s proposed to extend the existing dining room and make this into a Lounge which will be 150mm from the edge of my boundary. Having looked at the existing properties in Hollow Lane which have been extended to the rear they have only been extended as far as the existing Kitchen (circa 3000mm from the rear of the property) which I assume is the standard building line. However, I note the proposed extension is a further 1500mm across the whole of the rear of the property (not just the kitchen) making it 4500mm compared to 3000mm which have had previous planning approval. My observation with the proposed rear extension going out a further 1500mm further across the whole of the rear (not just the kitchen area) than previous approved extension is that it doesn’t align with the building lines of the existing properties which have had planning approved. My objection with this proposed extension is that with it being extended to 4500mm (a further 1500mm) and not 3000mm in line with the existing approved extensions it will remove a significant amount of light from my dining room at the rear of my property which the proposed extension will overlook. I would like the rear extension to be only 3000mm from the rear of the property which is in line with previously approved planning application.

Page 59 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

Can you please take into consideration my observations and objection at bullet point a) and b) above when considering the proposed planning application at 37 Hollow Lane Barrow-in-Furness LA13 9JD”.

The Occupier, 35 Hollow Lane, Barrow-in-Furness – dated 23.8.16

“Apologies my mistake the email below should all refer to 33 Hollow Lane (the occupants who are proposing to extend their house) it hasn’t anything to do with number 37.

In addition to the above I would also like the planning committee to note with the proposed extension being 4500mm across the whole of the rear it would make it 50% greater across the whole of the rear than any other extensions which have been approved previously i.e. normally 3000mm have been approved which is in line with existing kitchen building line.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Building Control

“Building regulation approval required.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

1. SITE AND LOCALITY

1.1 The site is a semi detached property positioned on the north eastern side of Hollow Lane. It currently has a rear kitchen extension and side store.

2. PROPOSAL DETAILS

2.1 The proposal is for the erection of a replacement rear extension, store and decking. The rear extension will extend out from the rear of the host property by 4.5m across by 7.2m set in 150mm from the boundary to the south and 1.62m from the boundary to the north. The roof is proposed to be a flat roof with two roof lanterns. The height of the roof is proposed to be 3.5m with the height of the lanterns extending a further 0.5m.

2.2 The replacement store is positioned alongside the property to the rear of the existing garage/store in a L shape. It is on virtually the same footprint as the existing store with a flat roof to the height of 2.2m.

2.3 The decking area is to be positioned next to the proposed extension extending out by 3m to the rear at its maximum across the width of the proposed rear extension. The height of the decking from ground level will be 0.6m.

3. RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1 There is no planning history on WebGIS for this property.

Page 60 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

4. RELEVANT POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

Policy B14 – Impact of rear extensions Policy B15 – Privacy Policy D21 – Design

4.1 The NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development and identifies that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

5. PLANNING ISSUES

Impact on Residential Amenity

5.1 When assessing the impact of a proposal it is necessary to consider what development could be undertaken without the need for planning permission. In this instance the property is an attached property and therefore an extension could be erected extending out by 3m from the rear elevation without the need for planning permission. The consideration therefore is the additional impact from the 1.5m element of the proposal.

5.2 In the representation from the neighbour the issue of impact on lighting to the property at 35 Hollow Lane from the proposed extension is raised. The ‘sun on ground’ indicators show there should be no impact on sunlight to this neighbour from the proposal due to the position to the south of the host property. In terms of daylight, there are also indicators that show that this should not be impacted by the proposal.

5.3 An additional test can be carried out which considers a 45º angle to the neighbour’s window. Whilst we do not have a policy requiring this, it is a useful guide. For skylight to be affected the proposal would need to fail the test in both plan view and elevation form. This proposal passes this test.

5.4 In proposals such as this application it can be the case that the extension could impact on the neighbour to the north and it is important for us to consider the impact to all neighbouring properties. The window arrangement to the neighbour is they have 2 windows serving the kitchen; one in the side elevation facing the site and one in the rear elevation. Accordingly, the ‘sun on ground’ indicators have been prepared for the rear extension and the side extension which could affect this neighbour. Due to the set back from the northern boundary of 1.6m of the rear extension this ensures there is minimal impact to the side kitchen window and there should be no impact to the rear kitchen window from both the rear and side extensions.

5.5 The nature of the site to the rear is that the ground slopes away from the rear elevation. As part of this proposal an area of decking is included extending out from the rear extension by a maximum of 3m. There is existing decking on site which is approximately 0.4m in height. This proposal includes decking to a height of 0.6m which is slightly higher than the existing decking, however due to its position further from the rear elevation of the neighbouring property this should have less impact than the existing decking. A boundary fence between the neighbouring properties to a height of 2m can be erected without the need for planning permission and this is considered acceptable to protect privacy between neighbouring properties.

Page 61 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

5.6 When considering the impact on privacy from both the side and rear extensions there are no openings proposed facing towards either neighbour and therefore privacy is protected. This can be conditioned accordingly to ensure this is protected in future. The property to the rear of the site is set approximately 27m away which is in excess of the 21m required to protect privacy in the local plan policy B15.

Impact on Visual Amenity

5.7 The host property is a mixture of brick and render. The rear extension is shown as being faced in brick and the side extension is to be rendered. This is considered acceptable when considered against the host property arrangement. The position of the extensions to the side and rear will not be visible in the wider street scene due to the adjoining garages of the neighbouring properties and therefore the flat roof arrangement is also considered acceptable due to its minimal impact on the locality. The design is therefore in accordance with policy D21 of the Local Plan.

Representation

5.8 In terms of the issues raised by the representation, the application form has now been updated to include reference to the lounge which is understood to be proposed by the affected neighbour as referred to in the representation. The issue of the additional 1.5m in the length of the extension has been considered above along with the impact on light to the neighbouring properties from the extension.

Policy

5.9 Policy B14 seeks to protect neighbours from the impact of rear extensions. Whilst there will be minimal impact to the side kitchen window of the neighbour to the north of the proposal (31 Hollow Lane), this is considered acceptable due to the two windows that serve the affected room. The proposal is longer than what could be erected without the need for planning permission the additional impact of the length of the proposal is considered acceptable and creates no additional impact to an extension that could be erected under permitted development outside the control of the Local Authority. It is therefore not considered to create an overbearing impact or excessive level of enclosure.

5.10 National planning policy is in favour of longer rear extensions as is reflected in the neighbour consultation scheme which permits extensions up to 6m from the rear elevation of attached dwellings under a notification scheme.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The application accords with both local and national policies and is considered acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Page 62 of 75

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

2. The development shall be carried out and completed in all respects in accordance with the hereby approved plans and drawings shown as 33HOL/16/02, 03, 04, 05 Rev. A, 06 Rev. A, 07, 08 Rev. A, 09 Rev. A, 10 Rev. A, 11, 12 and defined by this permission, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), there shall be no variation without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure that the development is carried out only as indicated on the drawings approved by the Planning Authority.

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including walls, doors, and windows, of the extension hereby permitted shall be of the same type, colour, and texture as those used in the existing building.

Reason

To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development, and to minimise its impact upon the surrounding area.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the north or south facing elevations of the permitted extension without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or perceived overlooking.

Page 63 of 75

Page 64 of 75 Page 65 of 75 Page 66 of 75 Page 67 of 75 Page 68 of 75 Page 69 of 75 Page 70 of 75 Page 71 of 75 Page 72 of 75 Page 73 of 75 Page 74 of 75 Page 75 of 75 PLANNING COMMITTEE

6th September 2016

INDEX

Page App. No. Address Description

1 2016/0354 Former Roosecote Town & Country Planning under regulation 5 Power Station (Land at), (Environmental Impact Assessment) Rampside Road, Barrow Regulations 2011- Screening opinion in relation to a proposed gas-fired electricity generating plant. 7 2016/0354 Former Roosecote Development of a gas-fired reserve electricity Power Station (Land at), generating plant. Rampside Road, Barrow 58 2016/0537 33 Hollow Lane, Barrow Removal of existing extension and store and replacement with a kitchen/lounge extension and store to rear and side of existing house.