Scoping Opinion Proposed Southampton Biomass

SCOPING OPINION

PROPOSED

SOUTHAMPTON BIOMASS

POWER STATION

November 2010

independent impartial inclusive

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 6

Background...... 6

Commission’s Consultation ...... 7

Structure of the Document ...... 8

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 10

Applicant’s Information ...... 10

Commission’s Comment ...... 14

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS...... 18

General Comments on the Scoping Report...... 18

Topic Areas ...... 20

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION ...... 36

Appropriate Assessment ...... 36

CHP Readiness ...... 36

Health Impact Assessment...... 37

Other Regulatory Regimes ...... 38

Climate Change National Policy Statements and EIA Regs...... 38

Applicant’s Consultation ...... 40

APPENDIX 1...... 2

APPENDIX 2...... 2

APPENDIX 3...... 6 2

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Executive Summary

This is the Infrastructure Planning Commission’s (the Commission’s) scoping opinion (the Opinion) in respect of the content of the environmental statement for a proposed biomass power station within the Port of Southampton in Hampshire by Helius Energy plc. Helius Energy intends to develop and construct a 100 MW biomass power plant capable of handling between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of biomass fuel per year. It is anticipated that, if commercially available, up to 200,000 tonnes of fuel may be sourced locally.

This report sets out the Commission’s opinion on the basis of the information provided in Helius Energy’s report entitled ‘Environmental Assessment Scoping Statement (September 2010)’. The Opinion is based upon the proposals as currently described by the Applicant.

The Commission has consulted on the scoping report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this opinion. The Commission is broadly satisfied that the topics identified in the scoping report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009.

However, the Applicant is required to identify the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment. In particular, the ES has omitted to cover and should consider the following additional effects and environmental aspects for the proposal:

• waste, storage and transportation of; • environmental nuisance (noise nuisance; vermin and bird control; light; litter and dust); and • bio-security.

The Commission draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topics in this opinion. The main potential issues identified are:

• air quality impacts – arising from the discharge from the power plant stack, use of conveyors and from traffic emissions during construction and operation; • landscape and visual impacts – including the visual impact of the proposed plant and its stack; skyline effects and disruption and interruption of views from high amenity and natural landscape value areas such as the New Forest National Park; • ecological impacts – including the impacts of air and water discharges and the effects of other emissions including noise, dust and light on protected habitats, protected species and other important species;

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

• land contamination – the possibility of land and works on the proposed site causing harm to human health or polluting controlled waters; • flooding – the possibility of the proposed site flooding, or causing other sites to flood; thereby causing damage, interruption to generation and fuel integrity or leading to contamination of ground or surface water; • traffic impacts – caused by movement of materials and abnormal loads during construction and from operational phase lorry movements required to supply the plant with fuel and other materials and to remove waste from the site; • noise impacts – including construction, traffic and possible operational noise; and • other impacts – impacts on the area’s cultural heritage including buried archaeological remains.

Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as being scoped out by the Commission. The Commission’s opinion is that the majority of environmental aspects and impacts should be scoped in to the ES (rather than a number being scoped out as proposed in the Scoping Report). Full details of the Commission’s opinion are set out in Section 3.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 On 16 September 2010, the Commission received a scoping report submitted by (the Applicant) under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (the EIA Regs) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station, Hampshire. This scoping opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the scoping report.

1.2 The EIA Regs enable an Applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the Commission to state in writing its formal opinion (a ‘scoping opinion’) on the information to be provided in an environmental statement (ES).

1.3 The proposals fall within Schedule 2 development under the EIA Regulations as being a thermal power station with a heat output of less than 300MW. An EIA is not mandatory for Schedule 2 development but depends upon the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the likelihood of significant environmental effects and the scale of the proposals.

1.4 In submitting the information included with their request for a scoping opinion, Helius Energy plc have notified the Commission under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station in Hampshire. The proposed development is determined to be EIA development in accordance with Regulation 4.

1.5 Before adopting a scoping opinion the Commission (or the relevant authority) must take into account:

- ‘the specific characteristics of the particular development; - the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; - the environmental features likely to be affected by the development’. (EIA Regs 8 (9))

1.6 This opinion sets out what information the Commission considers should be included in the ES for the proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station. The opinion has taken account of:

i the EIA Regs; ii the nature and scale of the proposed development;

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

iii the nature of the receiving environment; and iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental statements.

1.7 The Commission has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees. It has carefully considered the matters addressed by the Applicant and has used professional judgement and experience in order to come to this opinion. The Commission will take account of relevant legislation and guidelines when considering the ES. The Commission will not be precluded from requiring additional information in connection with the ES submitted with that application when considering any application for a development consent order.

1.8 This opinion should not be construed as implying that the Commission agrees with the information or comments provided by the Applicant in their request for an opinion from the Commission. In particular comments from the Commission in this opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the Commission on submission of the application that any development identified by the Applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project or associated development, or development that does not require development consent.

1.9 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regs states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:

i. a plan sufficient to identify the land; ii. a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; iii. such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make.

1.10 The Commission considers that this has been provided in Helius Energy’s scoping report.

Commission’s Consultation

1.11 The Commission has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regs to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is given at Appendix 1. The list of respondents, with copies of those comments is given at Appendix 2, to which reference should be made.

1.12 The ES submitted by Helius Energy must also demonstrate consideration of points raised by the statutory consultees. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the statutory consultees and how they are considered in the ES.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

1.13 Any subsequent consultation responses, received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments, will be forwarded to the Applicant and should be given due consideration by the Applicant in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the Document

1.14 This document is structured as follows:

Section 2 The Proposed Development;

Section 3 EIA Approach and Topics;

Section 4 Other Information;

Appendix 1 Consultation Bodies;

Appendix 2 Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies;

Appendix 3 Presentation of the Environmental Statement.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Applicant’s Information

2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the site and surroundings prepared by the Applicant in the Scoping Report. The Commission has not verified this information.

Background

2.2 The scoping report provides an overview of the proposed Southampton Biomass Plant project which comprises a biomass fuelled electricity generating plant; processing and fuel store; boiler house; turbine building; cooling assembly together with ancillary buildings, structures, plant and equipment; as well as other engineering and building works.

The proposed site

2.3 The proposed biomass plant site is located in the Freemantle Ward within the city of Southampton, Hampshire. The site is in a dockland and light industrial setting with the nearest residential building being approximately 125 metres from the site’s northern boundary across a railway line and a wide dual carriageway road.

2.4 The site, of approximately 8 ha, lies to the north of Southampton’s Western Docks, approximately 1.5 km from the centre of Southampton. The site is bounded on the south-west by West Bay Road; on the north-west and north-eastern sides by railway lines and on the southeast by open air vehicle storage areas.

2.5 The potential plot is on previously developed land which has a hardstanding surface. The only remaining building on the site is an electrical substation which will be removed as part of the development.

2.6 Road access to the site is via a private system of internal port access roads from Dock Gate 20. The M271, which allows direct access to the M27, is approximately 1.5 km from Dock Gate 20 via the A35. Access to the site can also be gained through Dock Gates 8 or 10 both of which link to the national road network.

The surrounding area

2.7 The site lies to the north-west of Southampton City centre within the perimeter of the western dock. The western dock is bounded on the south-west side by the River Test and to the north-east side by a railway line.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

2.8 Farther south-west of the proposed site, across the River Test, is the village of Marchwood; whilst over the railway line, continuing north-east of the site is the A3024, a three-lane dual carriageway and, farther north-west, residential suburbs of Southampton. Dock areas run for approximately 2 km to the south-east of the site and dock areas and light industrial estates are the predominant land uses for approximately 2 km to the north-west of the proposed area.

2.9 There are four sites internationally designated as nature conservation areas within 5 km of the proposed biomass plant. These are:

• Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site; • Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC); • The New Forest SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site; and • The River Itchen SAC.

2.10 There are nine Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within, or close to, a 5 km radius of the proposed development. The sites, most of which are component parts of one of the international sites referred to above, are as follows:

• River Test SSSI; • Lower Test Valley SSSI; • Eling & Bury Marshes SSSI; • The New Forest SSSI; • Southampton Common SSSI (not also covered by an international designation); • Dibden Bay SSSI (not also covered by an international designation); • Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI; • Lee-on-Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI; and • River Itchen SSSI.

2.11 With regard to local nature conservation designations, the Chessel Bay Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is approximately 4.4 km north-east of the potential site whilst the Netley Common LNR is more than 5 km southeast of the site.

Description of the development

2.12 The proposed power station will generate 100 MW of electricity by burning biomass fuel comprising virgin wood fibre, recycled wood, energy crops, other biomass material, solid recovered fuel, residues from cereal processing and oilseeds. It is anticipated that these fuels will be supplied as logs, loose material, chips, pellets or briquettes. The plant will utilise between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes (as delivered) of biomass materials per year.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

2.13 The majority of the fuel will be delivered through the Port of Southampton’s bulk handling terminal and transferred to the site via a purpose-built conveyor. Paragraph 1.5 of the Scoping Report indicates that this structure is permitted development falling within Class B Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995).

2.14 It is anticipated that up to 200,000 tonnes of fuel per annum may be sourced locally if suitable supplies are commercially available. This fuel will be delivered to the site by road or rail.

2.15 Storage will be provided on site for up to 10 days fuel usage representing a capacity of approximately 250,000 m3. This volume will be provided by a main fuel store and two smaller silos.

2.16 The boiler that will be used on site is of a circulating fluidised bed type. This boiler will produce high temperature, high pressure steam with a total rating of approximately 360 MWthermal. The steam will be directed through a turbine which will turn an electrical generator to produce up to 800 GWh per annum of electricity.

2.17 Exhaust gasses will exit the boiler and pass through a flue gas cleaning system before being vented to the atmosphere via the system stack which has a provisional height of 100 metres. Bottom and fly ash will be recovered and recycled as building material or soil conditioner, where possible, or disposed of to landfill.

2.18 The proposed plant will also be able to operate in CHP mode in which it will be possible to export heat or steam to local users. If no suitable commercial applications of this type can be found prior to scheme construction, the plant will be made CHP ready.

2.19 Spent steam from the turbine will be condensed and recycled to the boiler. The condensing system will either be evaporative hybrid cooling towers or air-cooled condensers. Water for evaporative cooling and ancillary purposes will either be drawn from the River Test or via the potable water main. Following use, the water will be discharged from the site either via an existing culvert to the River Test or via Southern Water’s sewerage system.

2.20 Raw water for the boiler make-up will be potable water from the mains supply. This will be demineralised and fed to the boiler to produce steam. To maintain suitable boiler water quality a proportion of water will be bled from the system (blow-down) and either re-used on site or discharged from the plant via a suitable outlet.

2.21 Electricity generated by the scheme will be exported to the electrical grid through underground cables connecting to the 132kV overhead 12

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

lines running adjacent to the site. The scoping report indicates that this connection will be accomplished “at either Tower SM8 located approximately 353m east of the site or Tower SM9 located approximately 80 metres north-west of the site”. However, the plans submitted with the application show connections at un-named towers which are 15 metres north of the site and 80 metres north-west of the site.

Access

2.22 Lorries delivering fuel sourced in south or central England are expected to travel to the port, and arrive at Dock Gate 20, via the M271 and the A35 roads and return the same way.

2.23 As stated above, it is envisaged that access to the proposed plant to deliver the bulk of the fuel required will be accomplished via conveyor from the port’s bulk handling terminal.

Traffic generation

2.24 During the construction phase of the proposed plant, it is anticipated that there will be an average of twenty to forty lorry movements per day.

2.25 Under normal circumstances it is anticipated that the majority of the plant feedstock will be delivered by ship. However, in exceptional situations, such as the closure of the port, all the plant feedstock could be delivered by road. This, worst case, would result in the fuel being delivered by 105 lorries per day (210 lorry movements) or up to 9 vehicles (18 movements) per hour during the anticipated delivery times of 07:00 to 19:00.

2.26 In addition to the above, it is envisaged that four lorries (8 movements) per day will be required to remove ash from the plant. An additional two vehicles (4 movements) per day are expected to be required for incidental site deliveries which may be required during the plant’s operational phase.

2.27 In total, under a worst case scenario, 111 lorries (222 movements) per day, equivalent to 10 lorries (20 movements) per hour, can be expected when the plant is operating.

Employment

2.28 At the peak of construction there is expected to be approximately 250 people engaged in on-site construction activities. An operational workforce of approximately 14 full time equivalent personnel is expected.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Construction

2.29 The construction and commissioning period for the project is expected to be approximately 36 months. It is expected that, subject to receipt of necessary consents and permits, construction activities will commence in the winter of 2012.

Commission’s Comment

2.30 The Applicant should ensure that the description of the proposed development that is being applied for is as accurate and fixed as possible, as this will form the basis for the ES. The dimensions of the proposed development, such as the maximum heights of buildings and other structures, should be clearly described in the ES, with appropriate justification and sufficient explanation. The maximum built coverage both overall and within particular zones of the proposed development should also be clearly set out in the ES. It will also be important to consider choice of materials, colour and the form of the buildings and structures in keeping with the current setting. Lighting proposals should also be described.

2.31 In line with best practice and case law, the proposed development will need to be defined in sufficient detail in the ES to enable a robust assessment of the adverse and positive impacts to be undertaken.

2.32 Whilst the Commission acknowledges that it may be necessary for design parameters to be sufficient to allow for minor variations in the scheme design, such parameters should not be so great that any variations would effectively constitute a material departure from the scheme design assessed in the EIA or result in a different assessment outcome. The ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within the proposed parameters would not result in significant effects not previously identified. The EIA should be carried out on the basis of the most likely design(s) and should identify the worst case in terms of environmental impacts.

2.33 The Rochdale envelope principle (see R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew (1999) and R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (2000)) is an accepted way of dealing with such uncertainty. Where some limited flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known the Applicant should assess the maximum potential adverse impacts the project could have to ensure that the project as it may be constructed has been properly assessed. The Commission notes that this approach should be applied to identify the worst case in terms of the consideration of the potential combined impacts as well as the impacts of the individual parameters. This is because it does not always follow that the worst case impact on one receptor is the worst case impact on another. Care will need to be taken in preparing and demonstrating the worst case and therefore it

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

will be important to identify the various scenarios as precisely as possible.

2.34 The Commission notes that the process of EIA is iterative and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. There may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. Once submitted, the application should not change in any substantive manner.

2.35 It should be noted that if the development changes substantially during the EIA process the Applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion.

2.36 Any infrastructure required off-site should be considered as part of an integrated approach to environmental assessment.

2.37 As stated in 2.21 above, there is a discrepancy between the text in the scoping report and the submitted plans regarding the location of the potential grid connections for the proposed biomass plant. In developing the scheme it will be necessary to resolve this discrepancy so that the description of the development accurately matches the plans to be submitted with the application. The Applicant will need to identify how and by what means the project will connect to the 132 kV grid infrastructure and to assess this.

2.38 The Commission recommends the ES should include a clear description of all the aspects of the development, including timescales, at the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, including:

• Land use requirements; • Site preparation; • Operational requirements including the main characteristics of the production process and the nature and quantity of materials used, as well as waste arisings; • Emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, residues etc).

2.39 The Commission considers that the ES should contain information on how material and components will be transported to site and the proposed construction programme and methods.

2.40 In terms of decommissioning, the Commission acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption, materials can be re-

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

used and the site can be restored or put to a suitable new use. The Commission encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

2.41 The Commission considers that the ES should contain information on the main alternatives studied.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS

General Comments on the Scoping Report

3.1 The scoping report (section 10: Proposed Structure of the Environmental Statement) sets out the planned format of the Environmental Statement. The Commission notes that the ES should be a stand alone document and should include all appendices as well as any photographs or photomontages. On the basis that such information will be made available and included in the ES, the Commission is satisfied with the approach proposed for the format.

3.2 The description of the ES in the scoping report includes a preliminary format for the document’s chapters. The Commission recommends that all phases of development should be addressed in the EIA. As outlined in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regs paragraph 17(a) the ES should include a description of the development, including the physical characteristics during the construction and operational phases. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the ‘Description of the Project’ should include a description of the proposed construction programme (and any preliminary works), location of the temporary construction compounds to be included in the DCO application and approach to transporting abnormal loads onto the site.

3.3 The Commission recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given.

3.4 The Commission recommends that the baseline data is comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date. Surveys needed to inform the EIA are not always fully defined or provided within the scoping report and will need to be addressed. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies.

3.5 The methodology of assessment should use up to date regulations and guidance to undertake the EIA and should be agreed with the relevant statutory authorities. Where this is not possible, a reasoned justification should be given in the ES. The Commission would expect the Applicant to place high importance on liaising with key statutory consultees when preparing the baseline and the methodology of investigation to appreciate any potential changes to the baseline during

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

the proposal timeframe, and agree in advance the scope and level of detail for any investigations proposed.

3.6 The Commission considers that each assessment should consider all phases of use – construction, operation and decommissioning. The methodology should use up to date regulations and guidance to undertake the assessment and the methodology should be agreed with the relevant consultees. Where this is not possible, a reasoned justification should be given within the ES.

3.7 The Commission recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the proposals can be approached in a number of ways but considers that it would be helpful, in terms of ease of understanding and in terms of clarity of presentation, to consider the impact assessment in a similar manner for each of the specialist topics. The Commission recommends that a common format should be applied where possible but considers that the scope and the breadth of topic, the physical and temporal should be described and justified.

3.8 The Commission recommends that the inter-relationship between impacts should be considered and not just cumulative impacts (see Appendix 3 of this opinion).

3.9 The inter-relationship between specialist topics should not be overlooked, indeed this is a requirement of the Regulations. The ES should not be a series of separate reports collated into one document, but rather a comprehensive assessment drawing together the environmental impacts of the proposed development as a whole.

3.10 The Commission recommends that other major development in the area should be taken into account for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant consenting bodies on the basis of major developments that are:

• built and operational; • under construction; • permitted application(s), but not yet implemented; • submitted application(s) not yet determined; • projects on the IPC’s Programme of Projects; • identified in the relevant Development Plan (and emerging Development Plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited; and • identified in other policy documents, (for example in Wales the Technical Advice Notes which establish strategic search areas) as development reasonably likely to come forward.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.11 Reference should be made to Appendix 3 regarding the presentation of the environmental statement.

Topic Areas

General Comments

3.12 The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in an ES.

3.13 Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations sets out the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development which should include ‘in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors’ (paragraph 19).

3.14 Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the Commission considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration. Therefore, the Commission welcomes the Applicant’s approach to including Highways and Movement (Chapter 10 of the Scoping Report) within the proposed structure of the ES.

3.15 Part 2 sets out the minimum requirements and is included below for reference:

Schedule 4 Part 2

• a description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development; • a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects; • the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment; • an outline of the main alternatives studied by the Applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the Applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects (see comments of New Forest District Council in Appendix 2 on this subject); • a non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.16 The scoping report has considered the environment under the following topics:

• Land Use; • Air Quality; • Landscape and Visual Impact; • Ecology; • Historic Environment; • Geo-environmental / Geo-technical; • Flood and Site Drainage; • Highways and Movement; • Noise and Vibration; • Socio-Economics • Other Environmental Issues; and • Environmental Monitoring.

3.17 At section 10, the scoping report states that the proposed ES will be made up of the following parts:

• Part 1: Project Background; • Part 2: Site Context and Policy Background; • Part 3: Assessment of Environmental Effects (containing the same sections as the scoping report as listed above); and • Part 4: Conclusions.

3.18 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as being scoped out by the Commission.

3.19 The Commission is satisfied that, subject to the additional items discussed below, the scope proposed for the EIA in the scoping report at section 10 broadly encompasses all those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the EIA Regs.

3.20 However, the Commission does not consider that there is sufficient explanation within the scoping report to agree with the proposal to ‘scope out’ the topics identified in section 9 of the scoping report. Further information on the topics to be considered within the ES is provided in the paragraphs below.

3.21 The Commission recommends that an assessment of the environmental effects associated with the creation of nuisance and generation and elimination of waste be added as topics to the ES in accordance with Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 20(c) of the EIA Regs. This assessment should clarify the environmental effects of all environmental nuisances associated with the development and wastes to be generated, processed, stored and removed from the site (during and post construction) and identify impacts associated with relevant 21

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

traffic movements and routes. Environmental impacts associated with the disposal of construction waste and the disposal of operational residues should not be scoped out of the ES.

3.22 The ES should define and take account of all significant effects of any associated or ancillary elements of the proposed DCO application. In particular the ES should consider the environmental effects resulting from erection of perimeter fencing and safety lighting, biofuel conveyor system from the main harbour, or any odour, bird and vermin control facilities proposed.

3.23 The ES will need to identify and describe in detail the control processes and mitigation procedures for storing and transporting residual waste off site, and indeed if any pre-treatment is expected prior to being exported off site. All waste types, including the ash produced by the process, should be quantified, classified and assessed.

3.24 The Commission considers that given the potential effects of the proposed development upon water quality this should be dealt with as a separate chapter within the ES. The ES should also consider site water management in terms of water abstraction, use and discharge and the associated environmental impacts of these issues, including possible interruption or deterioration in the local water supply. In line with the comments of the Environment Agency (see Appendix 2), particular attention should be given to effects of the development on water resources in the area; the capacity and capability of the local wastewater treatment works and/or the George V Dock to accept site effluents and the impact of heated discharges on physical structures and the aquatic ecology and birdlife of the estuary.

3.25 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Health Protection Agency, the Forestry Commission, Marchwood Parish Council, Hythe and Dibden Parish Council and West End Parish Council (see Appendix 2) regarding the content and scope of the ES.

3.26 Potential environmental risks and impacts arising from the storage of materials on site should be assessed in the ES. In particular, storage of chemicals, potentially polluting liquids, the biomass fuels and any start- up or support fuel required will need to be addressed.

3.27 The ES should fully describe the connection of the proposed power plant to the 132 kV grid infrastructure. Any environmental impacts arising from this connection, for example its visual impact, emissions etc. should then be assessed.

3.28 Each of the specialist topics are considered in turn below. It should be noted that the general points made above and elsewhere in this opinion are not repeated under each of the specialist topics. However the Applicant should ensure that such issues are addressed fully before the 22

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

ES is submitted to the Commission. Consideration should also be given to the scoping responses, copies of which are provided in Appendix 2.

Land Use (sections 8.20 to 8.21 of the scoping report)

3.29 The Commission notes the inclusion of this section of the ES and advises that it should be fully cross-referenced with other topics, particularly those concerned with transport, land contamination, historic environment and landscape and visual impact.

3.30 It is the Commission’s opinion that a specific chapter relating to Planning Policy Context can be scoped out of the ES. However, the Applicant’s attention should be drawn to Appendix 3 of the Scoping Opinion - Legislation and Guidance, for further clarification on the approach to all relevant planning and environmental policy.

Air Quality (sections 8.22 to 8.31 of the scoping report)

3.31 Consideration should be given to local, national and internationally designated sites in proximity to the proposals. Several of these sites may be particularly sensitive to changes in air quality and this should be considered in the ES. For example, the proposed development site is in close proximity to Millbrook Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Southampton. It is also understood that NOx levels are exceeded at a number of local SSSIs.

3.32 The Commission welcomes the approach of using atmospheric dispersion modelling to assess the effects of pollutant emissions. Predicted pollutant concentrations should then be assessed against relevant European air quality limit values and National Air Quality Objectives (NAQOs).

3.33 The assessment should take account of all atmospheric emissions, including dust, gases and odours, from the proposed development alone and in-combination with other planned schemes or proposed activities (such as changes to traffic movements during and post construction) and other existing activities that are likely to have a cumulative impact on air quality. The inter-relationship with the ecological impacts, terrestrial, ornithological and aquatic sensitivity and interest should also be considered and cross-referenced in the specialist chapters of the ES.

3.34 With reference to the above, it is particularly important that potential air emissions from all loading and unloading operations (whether from road, rail or sea transport) and hopper and conveyor systems are included in the assessment of atmospheric emissions.

3.35 The proposed site lies within a sensitive ecological area that includes many surrounding national and European-designated wildlife sites. The 23

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

impacts on these sites should be carefully assessed. There is the need to consider potential related effects due to an increase in airborne pollution especially during construction and operation. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Natural England and Southampton City Council (see Appendix 2) regarding the terms of reference for the assessment of air pollution effects on designated sites.

3.36 The implications of stack height and dispersion of the discharge need to be clearly explained.

3.37 The Commission recommends that dispersion modelling considers a range of possibilities and seeks to ensure that the worst case is assessed, for example the worst case may occur as a short term impact or result from a particular fuel type. Proposed fuels which may give rise to potentially toxic substances in the air emissions from the prospective development will be particularly important to assess.

3.38 The impact of construction and operational activities on air quality and dust levels should be considered not only on site but also off site, having regard to relevant local sensitive receptors, including walkers along local footpaths, nearby residential properties, dock workers, docked ships and statutory and other locally designated habitats and species.

3.39 Consideration should be given to appropriate mitigation measures and to monitoring dust complaints.

3.40 The ES will need to describe the final abatement technologies chosen to mitigate against the potential environmental effects and provide the justification for the Applicant’s choices. Details of the abatement system being fitted to the installation should include its technology, operation, back-up systems, contaminant removal and waste arisings.

3.41 The Commission does not agree that the following air quality issues may be scoped out of the ES:

• emissions to air due to construction of the plant; • emissions to air due to construction and operational traffic movements; • nuisance impacts due to the deposition of dust and PM10 affecting sensitive receptors such as residents; and • odours due to on-site storage of materials.

3.42 Potential short term changes in odour and dust emissions during the construction phase should be addressed including the consideration of exhaust gases, from heavy plant and machinery within the site and along route corridors, and movement of earthworks (particularly

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

material identified within the contaminated land risk assessment). Odour and dust should be assessed during operation and decommissioning, especially impacts from the biomass conveyor and material storage area on adjacent sensitive receptors.

3.43 Impacts should be considered on human health in terms of both oral doses and inhalation of emissions. The attention of the Applicant is also drawn to the comments of Southampton City Council regarding the need to assess the possible health impacts of maize waste if this is to be used as a potential fuel (see Appendix 2).

3.44 Consideration should be given to monitoring of odour and dust during the operational life of the proposal. Systems and a management plan should be proposed to dissuade flying insects, gulls/scavenging birds and other vermin.

3.45 The Commission considers it important to establish an appropriate and agreed scope and baseline for health impacts. The Commission recommends consultation with the local Primary Health Trust, relevant local authorities and the Health Protection Agency.

Landscape and Visual Impact (sections 8.32 to 8.44 of the scoping report)

3.46 The current and proposed activities for the site make the area a dynamic environment that is subject to frequent change. The landscape and visual assessment should therefore consider the visual impact from key receptor views, taking into account the changing landscape character of the area surrounding the site. Skyline effects should also be considered.

3.47 The landscape and visual impact assessment should be based on terms of reference agreed with the relevant statutory authorities, including Southampton City Council, New Forest District Council, New Forest National Park Authority and Natural England. The views selected for assessment should also be agreed with these bodies.

3.48 The proposals will be for large structures. The Commission requests that careful consideration should be given to the form, design, siting and use of materials and colours in terms of minimising the adverse visual impact of these structures. Views from across the estuary should be included as well as night time views.

3.49 The visual impact assessment should consider the impacts of any lighting that is proposed and its proposed hours of use. Further consideration should be given to the height, type and size of earthworks and screening, tree planting, landscape works and phasing of works in the scheme.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.50 The visual impact of the stack and associated plumes will need to be considered. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) should seek to ensure that all potential sensitive receptors are considered. Given the height of the structures proposed, loss of daylight and sunlight to surrounding buildings and potential overshadowing should not be scoped out of the ES (see also the comments of Southampton City Council in Appendix 2 regarding this issue).

3.51 Cumulative and combined impacts should be considered, in particular the in-combined effect with any associated development e.g. grid connection, pumping station and any new port or rail infrastructure and cumulative impact with existing and proposed facilities.

3.52 The Commission would expect the landscape and visual assessment to refer also to other specialist topics within the ES including, in particular historic environment; highways and movement; socio-economics; ecology; air quality and dust and lighting.

3.53 The ES should demonstrate where early design intervention was considered to ameliorate adverse effects and enhance benefits.

Ecology (sections 8.45 to 8.68 of the scoping report)

3.54 The Commission recommends that surveys should be thorough, up to date and take account of other development proposed in the vicinity.

3.55 The scope, method, objectives and data analysis of the proposed ecological surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees. The comments of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Natural England, the Environment Agency and Southampton City Council in Appendix 2 are all relevant in this regard.

3.56 The Commission recommends that the proposals should address fully the needs of protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The assessment should cover all terrestrial and aquatic habitats, species (including birds) and processes within the site and its zone of influence. Particular regard should be given to the list of relevant designated sites identified within Natural England’s response (Appendix 2).

3.57 The assessment should take account of noise and vibration, water quality and air quality (including dust) impacts and cross reference should be made to these specialist reports. In line with the comments received from the Environment Agency (see Appendix 2), the impacts on ecology should be considered within a radius of 10 km rather than 5 km.

3.58 The construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the works should be addressed. The Commission recommends the need to

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

consider cumulative and combined impacts and advises this is particularly relevant in terms of assessing the impacts on ecology.

3.59 The potential impacts on designated sites particularly those with international, European and national status should be addressed as well as county, local and less than local level habitats. The Commission notes the possible need for an Appropriate Assessment in view of the development site’s location in relation to a number of internationally designated sites and the potential impacts on the species for which these sites are designated (see section 4 of this opinion).

3.60 The ES should address the risk of introducing invasive species from materials delivered to site during construction and operation. This includes the potential for introducing species from the ship structure, and ballast waters as well as the fuel itself.

3.61 The proposed development should consider the inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitat. Aquatic impacts must be addressed in the EIA and include all potential impacts of construction, operation and decommissioning including any required support works such as dredging or maintenance activities for the proposal.

3.62 If heated, contaminated or altered water is discharged to the aquatic environment, the impacts on fish, benthic ecology and feeding birds will need to be assessed within the ES. Potential changes to the physical, chemical, biological parameters and heavy metal loads in the aquatic environment should also be fully assessed. The assessment should also consider potential impacts on the migration of salmon, an interest feature of the River Itchen SAC.

3.63 The Commission recommends that the Applicant considers the implications of the discharge on compliance with statutory water quality standards applied to protected species and habitats, included within the EC Shellfish Waters Directive which applies to shellfish waters downstream and south of the proposals point of discharge. The potential impacts on relevant fish species should also be assessed including varieties known to be present in the area (see comments of the MMO in Appendix 2 for more detail).

3.64 The ecological assessments should consider combined and cumulative effects, with other effluent discharges, particularly other heated water discharges in this part of Southampton Water.

3.65 The Commission notes the intention to model combined effects for air and water and agrees this is necessary. It is expected that the Marchwood power station, the Marchwood incinerator, and any emerging schemes, be included in this combined assessment. Further information on combined and cumulative impact assessment is contained in Appendix 3. 27

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.66 The Commission recommends that the impact on all terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species should be assessed within the zone of influence. In particular, assessment consideration should be given to the in-combination effects of the discharge from this development and others on the receiving water body.

3.67 The Commission welcomes the fact that mitigation measures and potential enhancements are to be considered in the ES. This should be in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) with consideration given to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

3.68 The environmental effects of light spill could include construction activities and operation on land. The EIA will need to determine the impact of light pollution on biodiversity. This issue needs to be fully addressed within the ES including the provision of appropriate mitigation measures.

3.69 Ecological mitigation should seek to enhance biodiversity, not only to mitigate any adverse impacts. Measures to enhance the biodiversity should be linked to any landscape and design mitigation.

3.70 Environmental management plans for the site should address issues associated with species attracted to the operation particularly flying insects, gulls/scavenging birds, non-native aquatic species and vermin.

Historic Environment (sections 8.69 to 8.77 of the scoping report)

3.71 The setting of cultural heritage resources could be affected; this includes historic buildings, historic landscapes and archaeological sites and the Commission considers that these should be addressed in the ES.

3.72 The proposals are likely to have direct impacts upon the George V Dock and possibly also on the No. 7 Pumping Station at the dock (both of which are Grade 2 listed structures) and on their settings. Proposals should aim to avoid these features and mitigation should be presented to reduce or remove potential impacts. Other heritage assets that may be affected by the development should be considered i.e. Marchwood Admiralty Quay and Eling Hill (see New Forest District Council comments in Appendix 2).

3.73 Impacts on other areas should be considered, including any Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM), Scheduled Remains, Conservation Areas, Landscapes of Historic Interest and undesignated Cultural Heritage assets in the vicinity of the proposed development. There may also be indirect effects on these features during operation as a result of buildings, discharge arrangements and stack height. 28

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.74 The study area and heritage assets to be assessed should be informed by the landscape and visual assessment and be agreed with English Heritage, The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of England and the relevant Local Authorities (the comments of Southampton City Council and New Forest District Council in Appendix 2 are particularly relevant in this regard). Consideration should also be given to whether any local interest groups could provide any further information regarding the identification of cultural heritage assets.

3.75 The assessment should take account of plume visibility and the impact on the setting of heritage sites/features.

Geo-environmental / Geo-technical (sections 8.78 to 8.88 of the scoping report)

3.76 The Commission welcomes the approach of undertaking a ‘Phase 2’ intrusive investigation of the site for the proposed biomass plant. This study should include details of sources and pathways of contaminants and quantify effects on relevant receptors.

3.77 The terms of reference for the investigation, including the physical area and contaminants to be studied, should be agreed with the relevant statutory authorities and a suitable remediation strategy proposed.

3.78 The EIA should explore opportunities for in-site / ex-situ remediation of any hot spots of contamination encountered and describe mitigation methods for dewatering excavations.

Flood and Site Drainage (sections 8.89 to 8.98 of the scoping report)

3.79 The water and geo-environmental chapters of the ES should include the impacts upon the port waters, the estuary and the sea. This should include the effects upon hydrodynamics, erosion and scour, sediment disturbance and the effects of suspended sediments on designated sites and their interest features.

3.80 The ES will need to describe in detail the mitigation measures proposed to treat trade effluent. In particular, the ES should describe the size, characteristics and location of the sewage treatment plant on site and the intended point of discharge, either to controlled waters or via public sewer, if required.

3.81 The assessment should include consideration and modelling for thermal plumes and changes to water quality if either ‘once through’ or ‘hybrid solutions’ are adopted. Modelling should assess the impacts upon protected species, designated sites and their interest features. Reference should be made to the comments of the MMO and the 29

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Environment Agency (see Appendix 2) regarding the terms of reference for these studies.

3.82 The assessment should also include the impact of any proposed cooling water or other plant effluent discharges to the George V Dock and its structural and historic integrity. The possibility of such discharges disturbing and displacing long held historic and potentially contaminated sediments or leading to eutrophication of dock waters will be important considerations in this overall assessment.

3.83 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of PPS25 and in consultation with the EA and Southampton City Council (see comments in Appendix 2). The Commission advises that this assessment should take into account the latest climate change projections for the UK as detailed in UKCP09 at http://ukclimateprojections-ui.defra.gov.uk. The FRA should also consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the facility being out of operation during a flood and water effects on stored biomass and other materials..

3.84 The Commission recommends that the Applicant should discuss and agree an approach to water resources (potable and foul) with the appropriate regulatory authority prior to submitting an application for development consent.

3.85 The Commission would expect to see full consideration of the potential impacts on water quality addressed within the ES. It will also be required to consider in full and mitigate the potential impacts for any foul or other flows and trade effluent discharges from the site during construction, operation and decommissioning. Comprehensive coverage of these issues should be contained within the ES.

3.86 The effects of rainfall on the proposed site’s drainage capacity and surface water run-off, with all the prospective new structures in place, will need to be considered. The ES will need to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to adapt to changing climatic factors over the facility’s lifetime and ensure that no contaminated run-off enters the receiving water environment.

3.87 Cross-reference should be made to other specialist topics; i.e., impacts on ecology, historic environment, land quality and hydrology should be made clear within the ES.

Highways and Movement (sections 8.99 to 8.107 of the scoping report)

3.88 The ES will need to describe in detail the baseline condition of the local transport infrastructure and any improvement works necessary to provide safe and secure access to the facility.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.89 A traffic impact assessment based on the maximum number of vehicle movements expected should be carried out for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed project (this should include all transport movements including workforce transport and materials/commercial movements). This assessment should be carried out to the satisfaction of the local highways authority and the Highways Agency (see Appendix 2). The Commission would expect on-going discussions and agreement, where possible, with such bodies, particularly on issues regarding the data and methods to be used for this assessment.

3.90 The traffic impact assessment should take account of the capacity of relevant routes at peak loads under all pertinent transport scenarios. The assessment should also include impact assessments for all significant routes and junctions expected to be affected by the proposed development both independently and taken cumulatively with other existing or planned port operations (including commercial and leisure). Additionally, in line with the comments of Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council in Appendix 2, the traffic assessment should encompass impacts on the M271 and Junctions 3 to 4 of the M27.

3.91 The scoping report states that most of the biomass fuel required by the operation will be delivered by sea. The report does not explain how many ships will be required to meet this target and does not set out the current baseline conditions with regard to shipping and navigation.

3.92 The assessment methodology proposed does not take into account impacts associated with an increase in shipping. In particular the assessment will need to consider the environmental impacts this may have on any of the existing port operations including considerations of capacity and potential impacts on other port activities.

3.93 The scoping report states that “the delivery of fuel feedstocks to the site by rail may also be considered where commercially viable” (para 4.7, page 13). However, the scoping report gives little further insight into this issue. The Commission recommends that realistic options for the use of rail and its impacts are considered including impacts on existing rail operations and capacity (see also the comments of Southampton City Council in this regard).

3.94 The scoping report states that up to 200,000 tonnes of fuel per annum will be delivered to site via rail, road or a mixture of both. The report does not provide any further breakdown as to the likely percentage handling for each. The baseline for the ES should set out the current level of road, port and rail activity associated with the existing site. The ES should include other existing or planned local operations or access likely to be affected by increased transport activities within the network. Any modifications required to the existing infrastructure should be described and suitably assessed. 31

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.95 The ES will need to demonstrate sufficient investigations have identified the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the rail freight. Indirect impacts may include the inter-modal increase in traffic at the off-site rail freight terminals.

3.96 The effect of increased freight traffic along the rail line on nearby residents and commercial/industrial businesses should be considered, along with the effects on existing rail passenger services. Issues to consider include safety; the confirmation of suitable rail haulage certificates for hazardous and non-hazardous waste material; the likelihood of noise and dust being generated along the route and the degree of environmental control offered through the design of the rail wagons used.

3.97 The Commission considers it essential to also take account of materials to be removed from the site and to identify where any traffic movements would be routed and any control mechanisms for mitigation of potential environmental effects.

3.98 Mitigation measures should be considered such as a travel plan and sourcing materials so as to minimise transport. In addition, consideration should be given to maximising transport of materials and plant by sea, in all phases of the project, to minimise road transport.

3.99 The implications of increased transport movements and impacts on both air quality and on noise and vibration should be explained.

3.100 The ES should take account of the location of public rights of way, including footpaths, bridleways and byways. The assessment should clearly set out the impacts on these features and propose mitigation solutions where appropriate to demonstrate accessibility is not adversely impacted.

3.101 The assessment should also consider any impacts on pedestrian, equestrian, cycle movements, and local public transport, including any potential increase in demand for services in the vicinity of the proposal by construction workers and employees and any effect caused by the increased traffic movements on public transport timetables.

3.102 The impact of the proposed development on leisure-related transport activities, such as yachting, pleasure boating and other activities requiring water access, should be assessed within the ES.

Noise and Vibration (sections 8.108 to 8.115 of the scoping report)

3.103 The noise and vibration assessment should consider the environmental impacts during construction, operation and decommissioning. The impacts associated with the operational vibration from the plant and 32

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

noise from traffic associated with the construction and operation of the plant should not be scoped out of the ES. The assessment should be carried out in accordance with relevant British Standards and guidance and include the effects of vibration on sensitive structures, listed buildings and other relevant activities (residential, commercial and leisure) in the area.

3.104 The Commission recommends that the methodology and choice of noise receptors should be agreed with the relevant Environmental Health Department of the Council and with the EA.

3.105 Noise and vibration impacts on people should be specifically addressed and, in particular, any potential noise disturbance at night and other unsocial hours such as weekends and public holidays.

3.106 It will be particularly important to assess the noise and vibration impacts of loading and unloading activities including the operation of cranes, grabs, hoppers and conveyors.

3.107 Information should be provided on the types of vehicles and also on the type of plant to be used during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. All operational noise sources should be identified along with appropriate measures to mitigate noise nuisance.

3.108 The assessment should take account of the worst case scenario traffic impacts and consider noise and vibration impacts along designated access routes, especially during the construction and operational phases. The interrelationship of noise and vibration impacts with the ecological impacts, both terrestrial and marine, should also be considered.

3.109 Noise and vibration levels along the river frontage potentially affecting birds and fish should also be addressed.

3.110 The ES will need to address the impacts of any increased transport during unsocial hours on populated areas (residential and commercial) and the cumulative effect with other existing port and haulage users. Consultation on the transportation and disposal of waste by-products generated during and post construction, i.e., flue gas treatment residue, should be agreed with the relevant waste regulatory authority and local highways authority where appropriate. The assessment should also include any potential cumulative impacts caused by other relevant construction or operational activities within the port.

Socio-Economics (sections 8.116 to 8.117 of the scoping report)

3.111 Primary and secondary impacts should be considered. For example, the effect on local services should be considered, including the demand for additional services such as health services and schools. 33

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.112 Impacts on the local community should be considered. This should include the impact on the housing market, the impact on the tourist market and the impact on local culture and community facilities used for recreation, as well as the impact of an additional workforce.

3.113 The Commission recommends that the assessment should consider the types of jobs generated and this should be considered in the context of the available workforce in the area; this applies equally to the construction and operational phases.

3.114 The Commission recommends that the assessment criteria should be locationally specific and consider the potential significance of the impacts of the proposal within the local and regional context.

3.115 Appropriate mitigation measures should be identified, including an explanation of the alternatives considered and a justification for the preferred option.

3.116 The socio-economic impact assessment should assess the effects of the proposed development on other port-related businesses and services, particularly in terms of impacts on their commercial viability and operational flexibility.

Other Environmental Issues (sections 8.118 to 8.128 of the scoping report)

3.117 The proposal to undertake an aviation assessment for the prospective development is welcomed by the Commission. In this regard, the attention of the Applicant is drawn to the comments of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in Appendix 2, regarding the issues to be covered by this assessment and other relevant matters.

3.118 The ES should provide information on the fuel quality, properties and other material residues. The ES should also describe the transportation, containment and management of different fuel stocks during the operation of the proposed biomass plant. In carrying out the assessment, the Applicant should also outline the percentage of plant fuel which will be classified as waste; the quantity of fuel which will be obtained locally, regionally and nationally and the regions of the UK from which nationally-derived fuel will be sourced.

3.119 Waste management should be described together with details of how the site’s waste management plan will be implemented and monitored and how waste imported to the site as fuel will be managed. Consideration of the potential of waste-derived fuel to contaminate ash residues, thereby restricting reuse and disposal options, will also be an important factor.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

3.120 Based on the calculations presented in the Scoping Report the ES will need to demonstrate there is sufficient capacity in the proposed design to handle imports of waste during normal and abnormal conditions i.e., emergency or shut down periods for routine maintenance and during periods of increased or decreased waste generation.

3.121 The Scoping Report identifies several abatement technology options to control environmental effects of the processing plant. These include alternative air cooling technologies and wastewater discharge arrangements. The ES will need to explain the final abatement technologies chosen to ameliorate the potential environmental effects and demonstrate reasonable justification for the Applicant’s choices supported by appropriate evidence.

3.122 The ES will need to assess the health and safety aspects and risks (including fire risk) of the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed development. The terms of reference for this assessment should be agreed with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in line with their consultation response in Appendix 2.

3.123 Given the proximity to the proposed development site of a COMAH (Control Of Major Accident Hazards) registered operation and the Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre, where ammunition is stored, handled and loaded into ships, the Commission recommends that the risk of accident on site due to failure of plant or an incident on an adjacent site, and potential cumulative effects, should not be scoped out of the ES. Additionally, the Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the HSE on this issue (see Appendix 2). The Applicant must ensure that any environmental impacts arising from compliance with HSE requirements are addressed – this may include effects on staff safety and vehicle and plant movements.

3.124 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Forestry Commission (see Appendix 2) regarding the need to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed plant with reference to biosecurity and the sourcing of the fuel.

3.125 The ES should consider the effect of the proposed development on navigation within and around the port area. Terms of reference for this aspect of the ES should be agreed with the relevant statutory authorities including Associated British Ports, Southampton (see Appendix 2 for a copy of their consultation response).

Environmental Monitoring (section 8.129 of the scoping report)

3.126 The Commission welcomes the consideration of further studies and monitoring requirements in the scoping report. All monitoring plans developed should be described in the ES. 35

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION

Appropriate Assessment

4.1 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) and the need to include information identifying European sites to which the Habitats Regulations applies or any Ramsar site which may be affected by a proposal. The information to be submitted should be sufficient for the Commission to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site if required by regulation 61(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

4.2 The report to be submitted under Reg 5(2)(g) of the APFP with the application must deal with two issues. The first is to enable a formal assessment of whether there is likely significant effect and the second, should it be required, is to enable the carrying out of an appropriate assessment. The Scoping Report states that some of this information will be provided to the IPC “soon after” the submission of the Scoping Report sufficient to enable the IPC to “make an informed decision on the need for an Appropriate Assessment.” The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that it is for the Applicant to prepare the necessary information to accompany its DCO application. In particular IPC Guidance Note 2, at Paragraph 29 states:

“29 The IPC, or the Secretary of State in appropriate cases, must consider whether a project is likely to have a significant effect on designated European sites and if that is the case, it will require sufficient information within the application to enable the IPC or Secretary of State to carry out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations.”

4.3 Further information with regard to the Habitats Assessment process is located within the pre-application IPC Guidance Note 2 available via the Commission’s website.

CHP Readiness

4.4 In relation to the identification of matters to be included in the ES careful consideration and appropriate weighting should be given to the NPSs recommended detailed assessments to support applications, for example in connection with the feasibility for CHP.

4.5 In developing proposals for new thermal generating stations, developers should consider the opportunities for CHP from the very

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

earliest point and it should be adopted as a locational criterion1. Given how important liaison with potential customers for heat is, Applicants should not only consult those potential customers they have identified themselves but also bodies such as the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authorities and obtain their advice on opportunities for CHP. Further advice is contained in the 2006 BIS guidelines and Applicants should also consider relevant information in regional and local energy and heat demand mapping. Any application to obtain development consent for a thermal generating station under the Planning Act 2008 must either include CHP or contain evidence that the possibilities for CHP have been fully explored.

4.6 The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the Environment Agency’s comments (see Appendix 2) on the importance of utilising excess heat from the proposed plant.

4.7 Notwithstanding the above comments, the Commission notes that no firm proposals regarding the fitting of CHP to the proposed power station have been included in the scoping report and therefore the Commission has not provided a formal opinion on the information to be provided in an environmental statement with regards to any environmental effects arising as a result of the CHP. The Applicant should ensure that if CHP technology (and any associated pipe work) is subsequently incorporated into the proposed scheme all significant effects should be properly assessed. If the scope of the scheme changes as a result of incorporating CHP the Applicant may also wish to consider submitting a request for a further scoping opinion to obtain the Commission’s view.

Health Impact Assessment

4.8 The Commission considers that the proposal could have potential health impacts. The Commission advises that the EIA should assess the potential public health impacts arising as a result of the proposals. In particular the impact on health of construction and operations, emissions to air, emissions to water and emissions to ground including contaminated land should be considered. The ES should provide an analysis of these impacts.

4.9 The Commission considers that it would be a matter for the Applicant to decide whether or not to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment (HIA) or include one as a separate section within the ES and that an Applicant should have particular regard to the responses received from the relevant consultees regarding health. The methodology for any HIA, if prepared, should be agreed with the

1 Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), Department of Energy and Climate Change, October 2010 37

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.

Other Regulatory Regimes

4.10 The Commission recommends that the Applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES. The Applicant should ensure that all relevant authorisations, licences, permits and consents that are necessary to enable operations to proceed are described in the ES. Also it should be clear that any likely significant effects of the proposed development which may be regulated by other statutory regimes have been properly taken into account in the environmental impact assessment (EIA).

4.11 It will not necessarily follow that the granting of consent under one regime will ensure consent under another regime. For those consents not capable of being included, or not chosen to be included, in an application for consent under the Planning Act 2008, the Applicant should note that a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the design or plan is acceptable and likely to be approved by them would be welcomed by the Commission before a recommendation or decision on any application is made. This is in accordance with draft policy guidance in Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1). Applicants are encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from Applicants about progress in obtaining other permits, licences or other consents and confirmation that there is no obvious reason why they will not subsequently be granted will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the Commission.

Climate Change National Policy Statements and EIA Regs

Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS EN-1)

4.12 The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) sets out the Government’s policy for delivery of major energy infrastructure and provides a framework for decisions to be taken by the Commission.

4.13 The Commission is bound to have regard to the NPSs, which establish the policy framework within which it operates. The NPSs remain in draft and have been subject to scrutiny and debate and further consultation. The weight to be placed upon the NPSs before they are designated will depend upon the stage reached in the process towards designation and will be a matter to be addressed by the decision maker.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

4.14 The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 2.2.4:

‘Not all aspects of Government energy and climate change policy will be relevant to IPC decisions or planning decisions by local authorities and the planning system is only one of a number of vehicles that helps to deliver Government energy and climate change policy.’

4.15 It continues at paragraph 5.2.2:

‘The IPC does not, therefore need to assess individual applications in terms of carbon emissions against carbon budget…’

4.16 Paragraph 17(c) of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations includes a number of factors some of which might be anticipated to have an impact upon climate change (‘expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development’ 2).

4.17 Paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires the Environmental Statement to include “A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.”

4.18 Part 2 of the schedule requires the Applicant to provide information that could relate to the consideration of climate change: ‘The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment’ 3.

4.19 The Commission requires the Applicant to address the effects of climate change on the proposals (adaptation) and how the proposals have provided the means to reduce its impact on climate change (mitigation), for example through amelioration of greenhouse gas emissions.

4.20 The Commission considers that the ES will need to set out the parameters for climate change assessment and address the cumulative effect on local and regional environmental control standards (i.e. Local Authorities Air Quality Management Areas). This information should be dealt with in the ES under a number of specialist topics and taking into account specific references in the relevant draft NPSs. The Applicant may care to consider whether it would be helpful if this information was

2 Para 17(c) Sch 4 3 Para 26 Sch 4 39

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

also collated into one section in order to better understand how the cumulative impacts have been addressed.

4.21 The ES should set out clearly the way in which climate change and the potential significant effects relating to the development have been addressed.

Applicant’s Consultation

4.22 It is recommended that the Applicant provides preliminary environmental information4 to the local authority when presenting it with the draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for comment under s47 of the Planning Act 2008.

4.23 Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the Applicant intends to consult on the preliminary environmental information. Where consultation responses have resulted in important changes affecting the EIA, such comments could usefully be reported and considered. This reporting could also assist the Applicant in the preparation of its consultation report required to be submitted with the application for development consent.

4 For an explanation see under ‘Interpretation’ in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 SI2263 40

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF CONSULTATION BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF CONSULTATION BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION

SCHEDULE 1 LIST OF CONSULTEES

The Relevant Regional Planning Body1 South East England Regional Assembly The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive The Relevant Strategic Health South Central Strategic Health Authority Authority Natural England Natural England Natural England Natural England South East Regional Office The Historic Buildings and Monuments English Heritage Commission for England The Historic Buildings and Monuments English Heritage South East Commission for England Regional Office The Relevant Fire and Rescue Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, Authority Protection Department The Relevant Police Authority Hampshire Police Authority Relevant Parish Councils Hythe and Dibden Parish Council Marchwood Parish Council Totton and Eling Town Council Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council Chilworth Parish Council West End Parish Council Hound Parish Council The Environment Agency The Environment Agency The Environment Agency The Environment Agency Solent and South Downs Office The Commission for Architecture and CABE The Built Environment The Relevant Regional Development South East England Development Agency Agency The Equality and Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission Commission The Commission for Sustainable Sustainable Development Development Commission The Homes and Communities Agency HCA The Joint Nature Conservation Joint Nature Conservation Committee Committee

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency Maritime & Coastguard Agency The Marine Management Organisation Marine Management Organisation (English Waters) (MMO)

[The Marine and Fisheries Agencies2] The Marine Management Organisation Marine Management Organisation Regional Office (MMO) The Civil Aviation Authority Directorate or Airspace Policy The Highways Agency The Highways Agency The Relevant Highways Authority Southampton City Council The Relevant Highways Authority Hampshire County Council The Rail Passengers Council Rail Passenger Council The Disabled Persons Transport DPTAC Advisory Committee The Coal Authority The Coal Authority The Office Of Rail Regulation Office of Rail Regulation Approved Operator Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Approved Operator Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd The Gas and Electricity Markets OFGEM Authority The Water Services Regulation OFWAT Authority The Relevant Waste Regulation Southampton City Council Authority The Relevant Waste Regulation Hampshire County Council Authority The British Waterways Board The British Waterways Board Trinity House Trinity House The Health Protection Agency Health Protection Agency The Relevant Local Resilience forum Hampshire LRF Secretariat The Crown Estate Commissioners Planning and Consents Manager The Forestry Commission South East England Forest District Office Health Bodies under s16 of the Hampshire Partnership NHS Acquisition of Land Act 1981 Foundation Trust Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust South Central Ambulance NHS Trust Southampton City PCT Railways BRB Residuary Limited Harbour Associated British Ports: Southampton Harbour River Hamble Harbour Authority (Hampshire County Council) Harbour DP World Southampton

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Licence Holder (Chapter 1 Of Part 1 Of NATS En Route plc Transport Act 2000) Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group Water and Sewage Undertakers Southern Water Public Gas Transporter British Gas Pipelines Limited Public Gas Transporter Energetics Electricity Limited Public Gas Transporter Energetics Gas Limited Public Gas Transporter ES Pipelines Ltd Public Gas Transporter Fulcrum Pipelines Limited Fulcrum Public Gas Transporter GTC Pipelines Limited Energy House Public Gas Transporter Independent Pipelines Limited Public Gas Transporter Intoto Utilities Limited Public Gas Transporter National Grid Gas Plc (NTS) Public Gas Transporter National Grid Gas Plc (RDN) Public Gas Transporter Northern Gas Networks Limited Public Gas Transporter Quadrant Pipelines Limited Public Gas Transporter Scotland Gas Networks Plc Public Gas Transporter Southern Gas Networks Plc Public Gas Transporter SP Gas Limited Public Gas Transporter SSE Pipelines Ltd Public Gas Transporter The Gas Transportation Company Limited Energy House Public Gas Transporter Wales and West Utilities Limited Public Gas Transporter Utility Grid Installations Limited Public Gas Transporter Wales and West Utilities Ltd Electricity Generators With CPO Marchwood Power Limited Powers Electricity Distributors With CPO ECG (Distribution) Limited Powers Electricity Distributors With CPO EDF Energy (IDNO) Limited Powers Electricity Distributors With CPO Energetics Electricity Limited Powers Electricity Distributors With CPO ESP Electricity Limited Powers Electricity Distributors With CPO Independent Power Networks Powers Limited Electricity Distributors With CPO Southern Electric Power Distribution Powers Plc Electricity Distributors With CPO The Electricity Network Company Powers Limited Electricity Transmitters With CPO National Grid Powers Local Authority (S43) Local Authority Hampshire County Council Local Authority Southampton City Council

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Local Authority Test Valley Borough Council Local Authority Eastleigh Borough Council Local Authority New Forest District Council Consultation with Applicant The Applicant Helius Energy Plc

Non Statutory Consultees

National Park South Downs National Park National Park New Forest National Park Authority

1 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations was amended by The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2010. Regional planning bodies were replaced by responsible regional authorities as consultees in schedule 1. Responsible regional authorities are defined as follows:

(1) References in this Part to “responsible regional authorities”, in relation to a region, are to the following (acting jointly)—

(a) the regional development agency for the region, and (b) the Leaders’ Board for the region.

(2) But if during any period after the coming into force of this section there is no Leaders’ Board for a region, the references in this Part to “responsible regional authorities” are in relation to that period and region to be read as references to the regional development agency for the region. (s72 of The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009).

Please see table for Regional Development Agencies consulted.

2 The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 s23(2) amends the Planning Act 2008 s42.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY 28 JULY 2010 AND COPIES OF REPLIES

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY 21 October 2010

Associated British Ports Southampton Civil Aviation Authority E S Pipelines Eastleigh Borough Council Environment Agency Forestry Commission Fulcrum Pipelines Limited Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council – River Hamble Harbour Authority Health and Safety Executive Health Protection Agency Highways Agency Homes and Communities Agency Hythe and Dibden Parish Council Joint Nature Conservation Committee Marchwood Parish Council Marchwood Power Limited Marine Management Organisation Natural England New Forest District Council Northern Gas Networks Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council Scottish and Southern Energy Pipelines Ltd South Downs National Park Authority South East England Development Agency Southampton City Council The Coal Authority West End Parish Council

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Directorate of Airspace Policy

Ms Kath Haddrell (via e-mail) Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)

24 September 2010

Ref ERM/DAP/Planning/SouthamptonBiomassPlant

Dear Ms Haddrell

Proposed Southampton Biomass Energy Plant – Scoping Comment

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been asked by the Commission to provide scoping comment related to the proposed new Southampton Biomass Energy Plant. I hope the following is useful.

I gather that the maximum height of any development associated with the proposed development would be an unspecified number of cooling towers provisionally in the region of 100-106m high. That being the case1, I can advise that the various proposed structures would not formally constitute an aviation en-route obstruction. I have therefore few associated observations other than to highlight the eventual need for the relevant planning authorities to check any aerodrome-safeguarding requirement to identify any aerodrome specific safeguarding issues. To that end I note the close proximity of Southampton Airport and would anticipate a related need to establish an Airport-associated viewpoint. I note that the associated Scoping Report acknowledges the potential impact upon Airport-related operations (both in terms of physical safeguarding and radar-related issues) and the need for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to examine and, where applicable, address the potential local aerodrome issues.

Additionally:

• Lighting. Given that the cooling towers are likely to be some of the tallest structures in the immediate vicinity, I believe that it would be prudent to consider the need to equip the structures with aviation warning lighting. For background:

o In the UK, the need for aviation obstruction lighting on 'tall' structures depends in the first instance upon any particular structure's location in relationship to an aerodrome. If any structure constitutes an 'aerodrome obstruction' it is the aerodrome operator that with review the lighting requirement. For civil aerodromes, they will, in general terms, follow the requirements of CAP 168 - Licensing of Aerodromes.

o Away from aerodromes Article 219 of the UK Air Navigation Order applies. This Article requires that for en-route obstructions (ie away from aerodromes) lighting only becomes legally mandated for structures of a

1 Other that the cooling towers, it seems from the Scoping Report that any other associated new structure would not exceed a height of something in the region of 60m.

Civil Aviation Authority CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE www.caa.co.uk Telephone 0207 453 6545 Fax 0207 453 6565 [email protected] height of 150m or more. However, structures of lesser high might need aviation obstruction lighting if, by virtue of their location and nature, they are considered a significant navigational hazard.

o In the case in question, even if there proves to be no aerodrome related lighting requirement, I believe the ‘by virtue of their location and nature’ argument could hold true and therefore lighting may be required.

• At over 300ft high, there will be a requirement for the cooling towers to be promulgated and charted for civil aviation purposes.

• Due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it is important to establish the viewpoint of local emergency services air support units in respect of the power station and associated new structures.

• It is anticipated that the facility would not involve the flaring and venting of gas, either routinely or as an emergency procedure such as to cause a danger to overlying aircraft. If that is not the case parties are invited to use myself as an appropriate point of contact for any further related discussion.

I believe the EIA should acknowledge and, where applicable, address the issues highlighted above.

Whilst none of the above negates any aforementioned future need to consult in line with Government requirements associated with the safeguarding of aerodromes and other technical sites, I hope this information matches your requirements. Please do not hesitate to get in touch as and when you require any further comment or needs clarification of any point.

Yours sincerely

{original signed}

Mark Smailes Off Route Airspace 5

Continued (2 of 2 pages) From: Alan Slee To: Will Spencer; cc: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: RE: Scoping Consultation Request: Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant Date: 24 September 2010 14:51:55

Dear Will,

Environmental Impact Assessment, Southampton Biomass Energy Plant (439622, 112455: SO15 1HE) (100923_EN010035_260112)

Further to your communication to E S Pipelines Ltd, ESP Networks Ltd, ESP Pipelines Ltd, ESP Electricity Ltd and ESP Connections Ltd dated 24 September 2010 I can confirm that our businesses have no comments at this stage.

Regards,

Alan Slee Operations Manager

DD 01372 227567 Mobile 07766 802070 Fax 01372 386203

From: Will Spencer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 September 2010 11:06 To: Alan Slee Cc: IPC Scoping Opinion Subject: Scoping Consultation Request: Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached an electronic version of the scoping consultation request for Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant. A hard copy has also been sent to you in the post.

<<100923_EN010035_Letter_to_stat_consultees_260112 email.doc>> We look forward to receiving your response.

Kind regards

Will Spencer EIA and Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Direct Line: 030 3 444 5048 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

The IPC gives advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). The IPC takes care to ensure that the advice we provide is accurate. This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should note that IPC lawyers are not covered by the compulsory professional indemnity insurance scheme. You should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required.

We are required by law to publish on our website a record of the advice we provide and to record on our website the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. We will however protect the privacy of any other personal information which you choose to share with us and we will not hold the information any longer than is necessary.

You should note that we have a Policy Commitment to Openness and Transparency and you should not provide us with confidential or commercial information which you do not wish to be put in the public domain.

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

From: Wright, Tony To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant Date: 15 October 2010 15:14:03

For the attention of Kath Haddrell Your Reference 100923_EN010035_260112

Dear Ms Haddrell

Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant Proposal by Helius Energy plc

Thank you for your letter of 23 September 2010 consulting my Council on the draft scoping report for the intended environmental statement to be prepared in respect of the above project.

The applicants’ submission appears to be a very comprehensive scoping report. The report does, however, lack any acknowledgement of the issues likely to arise from the disposal of some 35,000 tons of ash per annum resulting from the combustion process. Paragraph 8.19, concerning the matters to be included in the environmental statement, would seem to be critical in this respect.

I would also like to suggest that the following bodies be added to the list of organisations to be approached in relation to the project, set out at paragraph 2.3 of the report:

BAA Southampton (owner and operator of Southampton Airport)

Eastleigh Borough Council

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this response to your request for comments.

Regards

Tony Wright

Planning Policy and Design Manager Regeneration and Planning Policy Unit Eastleigh Borough Council tel 023 8068 8245 fax 023 8068 8418

(our ref S3/SCC)

______Visit our website – www.eastleigh.gov.uk, email us - [email protected],

enews logo

______

This e-mail is subject to recording and/or monitoring. Any content or attachments are for the person to whom it is addressed, and may be confidential. If you get it by mistake, please email us back as soon as possible, and then delete it from your system; please do not pass it on to anyone else, or use the information in it.

We do our best to guard against viruses. If you get a virus, we cannot accept liability for any damage. You should carry out your own virus check before you open attachments.

Eastleigh Borough Council, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh, SO50 9YN. Telephone: 023 8068 8068, Fax: 023 8064 3952, Text: 07797 877001.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

IPC Our ref: HA/2010/110716/01-L01 SCOPING Your ref: 220710 The Infrastructure Planning Commission (Temple Quay House) Date: 14 October 2010 Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Sir/Madam

BIOMASS FUELLED ELECTRICITY GENERATING PLANT CAPABLE OF GENERATING APPROXIMATELY 100 MEGAWATTS (DECLARED NET CAPACITY) OF ELECTRICITY AND ASSOCIATED BIOMASS PROCESSING AND FUEL STORE, BOILER HOUSE, TURBINE BUILDING, COOLING ASSEMBLY, ANCILLARY BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT TOGETHER WITH OTHER ENGINEERING AND BUILDING WORKS.

SOUTHAMPTON PORT.

Thank you for your Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping consultation letter of 24 September 2010.

Environment Agency position:

We have reviewed the scoping report submitted and have further comments to make to ensure that the Environmental Statement will appropriately address the environmental issues we consider are of most importance for this proposal.

Our technical comments detailing the information we consider should be provided in the environmental statement are provided below.

Technical comments and advice:

4.0 The Development Proposals: Process Description

4.3 The Environment Agency would encourage the applicant to supply further information on where fuel will be coming from and what evidence there will be to show that it meets relevant sustainability requirements.

We also encourage the applicant to outline what percentage of fuel for the plant will

Environment Agency Colvedene Court (Wessex Business Park) Wessex Way, Colden Common, Winchester, SO21 1WP. Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk Cont/d.. be classified as waste and how much will be coming from England and Wales.

Potentially large volume of mains water will be needed for evaporative cooling, this is not in Southern Water's Water Resource Management Plan and not a sustainable use of freshwater in a water-stressed area.

If seawater is used the intake will need to be designed to prevent fish entrainment which would form part of an abstraction licence. If warm/process water is discharged to the estuary the impact on fish and ecology will need investigating.

Millbrook Sewage Treatments Work is close to its dry weather flow capacity and its ability to take process water needs investigation.

6.0 Baseline Conditions: Baseline Data

Ecology

6.15 This report has considered impacts for 5 km radius, we would have expected 10km for this size of combustion activity.

Flooding and site drainage

The site lies within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency’s Flood maps and is currently at risk from tidal inundation during a 0.1% tidal event. Any proposal put forward for this site must assess and manage this flood risk over its lifetime.

This will become particularly important due to increased flood risk faced by the development due to climate change. The current 0.5% (design) tide of 3.1mAOD is projected to rise to 3.6mAOD by 2070, assuming the proposal has a design life of 60years.

In terms of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25), the development will be treated as ‘More vulnerable as it is a waste management facility and both the sequential test and exception test must be applied . Waste must not be permitted to leave the site as floating debris or contained water / untreated effluent.

Consideration must also be given to the need for the facility’s operation during a flood and what the both the environmental and social economical impacts of the facility being out of operation will be. Will the flooding of this facility led the loss of electricity to the city during a flood?

As stated within the Scoping Statement, we are satisfied a flood risk assessment that addresses these concerns will be undertaken and submitted with any planning application.

PPS25 requires decision makers to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding by applying a flood risk 'Sequential Test'. We advise that the Sequential Test be carried out at an early stage of the application determination process.

Cont/d.. 2

8.0 Scoping the Environmental Statement:

Air quality Scoping

Within 8.22,8.23 and 8.24 we understand that abatement is being fitted to the installation, but it is not clear what the abatement will be designed to remove or what the waste from the abatement will be, we would therefore encourage the applicant to clarify this.

Ecology Scoping

8.45 We understand the impact on all terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species will be assessed within the zone of influence. In particular, assessment consideration should be given to the in-combination effects of the discharge from this development and others on the receiving waterbody.

8.47 Consideration must be given to the potential impact on identified habitats and species from all stages of development, including site clearance, construction, operation and decommissioning. We are pleased that mitigation measures and potential enhancement are to be considered. This should be in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) with consideration given to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

8.49 The scoping document refers to hydrological modelling being undertaken to assess the affect of heated water on ecology, including habitats and interest features of local Natura 2000 sites. These assessment should consider potential impacts on the migration of salmon, an interest feature of the River Itchen SAC.

It is recommended that the applicant also considers the implications of the discharge on compliance with statutory standards included within the EC Shellfish Waters Directive which applies to the shellfish waters just downstream of the likely discharge point, as well as the Water Framework Directive.

All assessments should consider in-combination, or cumulative effects, with other effluent discharges, particularly other heated water discharges in this part of Southampton Water. These issues will need to be considered before any environmental permits are issued but it would be wise to include this within the EIA as it may be relevant to determining whether to pursue an option requiring a direct discharge to the environment.

We note intentions to model in combination effects for air and water and agree this is necessary. We would expect both the power station and the incinerator to be included in the in combination assessment

Other comments:

The fundamental issue is plant efficiency. The plant is only a single pass turbine with no reheat. The efficiency of this arrangement overall is low. The use of the excess heat for other purposes is important and should be a much greater part of the submission. If the heat has to be rejected then this will be to the cooling towers and place more heat load on the river abstraction.

Cont/d.. 3

Environmental permitting and other regulation:

The applicant will be required to apply for an Environmental Permit (Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010). Please contact our National Customer Contact Centre on 08708 506 506 to initiate the process.

The comments we set out above are without prejudice to future decisions we make regarding any applications subsequently made to us for our permits or consents for operations at the site.

Yours faithfully

Miss Laura Bourke Planning Liaison Officer

Direct dial 01962764847 Direct fax 01962711712 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End 4

From: Woodcock, Matthew To: IPC Scoping Opinion; [email protected]; Subject: FW: Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant (ref: 100923_EN010035_260112 Date: 19 October 2010 11:11:51 Attachments: Port of Southampton Biomass Power Station - FC advice re EIA scoping 19 Oct 2010.doc

Cc: Mears, Steve; Tubby, Ian; Stride, John; Stephens, Patrick Subject: Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant (ref: 100923_EN010035_260112

FAO Kath Heddrell

Dear Sirs

thank you for seeking the Forestry Commission's advice re issues to be considered in Helios's Environmental Statement. Please refer to the attached letter.

Please note: Helios have been in discussion with my colleague, Steve Mears, in our Plant Health Division and hence the issues raised about biosecurity will not be new to them.

Please contact me if you have any queries or if we can be of further assistance

Yours faithfully

Matthew Woodcock Programmes Manager Forestry Commission - South East England Alice Holt Wrecclesham Farnham Surrey GU10 4LF

01483 326210 (Direct) 01420 23337 (Switchboard) 01420 22988 (Fax) 0777 1666 543 (Mobile) [email protected]

********************************************************************** Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes. **********************************************************************

FAO Laura Allen South East England EIA and Land Rights Adviser Alice Holt Infrastructure Planning Commission Wrecclesham Farnham, Surrey Temple Quay House GU10 4LF Temple Quay Bristol [email protected] BS1 6PN Tel: 01420 23337 Fax: 01420 22988 19 October 2010 Regional Director Your ref: 100923_EN010035_260112 Alan Betts

Dear Ms Allen

Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant

Thank you for seeking the Forestry Commission’s advice about issues which the proposers, Helius, should consider when preparing their Environmental Statement on this project.

The following are key issues which we recommend are considered:

1. Biosecurity:

It seems very likely that the proposed plant would obtain all, or most, of its’ fuel from biomass imported from other parts of the world. Island countries like the UK are vulnerable to pests and diseases imported from other parts of the world, Dutch Elm Disease being a particularly damaging example. However, the likely rise in temperature resulting from climate change and associated summer soil moisture deficit will both make our climate more suitable to pests and diseases from warmer climates and our trees more vulnerable (if they are stressed). There are already phytosanitary requirements in place, prescribed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC (the EU Plant Health Directive), for a range of wood types from a number of countries where listed pests are known to occur. However, we are becoming increasingly aware of new pests being reported from around the world and there is therefore a risk of introduction of these where they have not yet been regulated. Consequently a critical consideration should be: (a) the potential impact of pests and diseases being introduced to the UK; (b) the likelihood of their introduction; (c) the measures that would be taken to ensure such pests and diseases are not introduced, including monitoring and contingency planning. The Forestry Commission has a statutory role to assess (a) and (b), based on the material to be imported and the source. However, to guard against the unknown, it is essential that the third is addressed by the proposers. My colleagues in Forest Research will be able to provide further advice to Helios on these matters (contact Dr Joan Webber – 01420 22255)

2. Emissions: (Including carbon dioxide)

(a) What are they; (b) What are the potential impacts; (c) What will be done to prevent/minimise them; (d) Monitoring and contingency.

3. Efficiency:

Traditionally large power stations produce lots of heat which is often ‘disposed off’ through cooling towers. In many other countries this heat is used via district heating networks or by industries which require heat (47% of the UK’s carbon emissions result from heating). The increased pressure on our resources encourages us to use them as efficiently as possible. Hence we recommend the Environmental Statement explains: (a) the overall efficiency of the power station in converting the biomass into electricity and heat; (b) explains whether the heat can be used effectively (for instance Southampton has an established district heating system) and if so what proportion of the heat produced would be used and how; (c) explains how the use of biomass compares to the use of other fuels; and (d) explains the energy costs incurred in growing, harvesting, processing and delivering the biomass fuel in comparison to the same costs for alternative fuels (including fossil fuels).

4. Fuel supply:

Given the likely scale of the plant it seems unlikely that a significant proportion of the biomass fuel could be supplied from the UK. Hence we recommend that the Environmental Statement explains: (a) Where the fuel will be sourced from, including: i. What proportion could be supplied from local woods or businesses (e.g. local sawmills); ii. Whether there is the potential to use other sources of biomass – for instance the biomass arising from heathland maintenance; iii. The environmental benefits and disbenefits of local fuel supply; iv. The significance of these locally, nationally and internationally (b) The impacts, both direct and indirect, beneficial and damaging this would have on the source country/environment; (c) What proportion of the fuel could be obtained from UK sources and the benefits and disbenefits of this (including a breakdown of the forms of fuel).

We trust this information proves helpful, please feel free to contact us if you have any queries

Yours sincerely

Matthew Woodcock Programmes Manager

Your Reference: 100923_EN010035_260112 Date: 29/09/10

Kath Haddrell Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Madam,

Ref: 100923_EN010035_260112

Re: Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant.

Thank you for your request for information about Fulcrum Pipelines Limited’s pipes and equipment.

We can confirm that Fulcrum Pipelines Limited do not currently have any existing pipes or equipment on or around the above site address.

Please note that other Gas Transporters may have plant in this locality which could be affected by your proposed works.

If you have any future requests for information about our plant, please email these to us at [email protected].

If you have any queries regarding this letter, please contact your Fulcrum Advisor, Deborah Turner on 01709 844407, who will be happy to help.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Foster Head of Asset

Environment Department Elizabeth II Court West, The Castle Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UD Tel: 0845 603 5638 (General Enquiries) Laura Allen – sent by email 0845 603 5633 (Roads and Transport) Temple Quay House 0845 603 5634 (Recycling Waste & Planning) Temple Quay Textphone 0845 603 5625 Bristol Fax 01962 847055 BS1 6PN www.hants.gov.uk

Enquiries to Kristina King My reference

Direct Line 01962 846496 Your reference CONS/2010/0274 ___

D a t e 21 October 2010 E ma i l [email protected]

Dear Laura Allen,

Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant (`the project`) Proposal by Helius Energy PLC (`the Applicant`) Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 SI 2263 (`the EIA Regulations) at Port of Southampton

Thank you for consulting me on the above application.

The County Council as a local planning authority has no comments to make at this stage and considers that the appropriate areas have been covered in the Scoping Opinion.

Yours sincerely,

Kristina King Development Control Officer

Certificate No FS 21845

Director of Environment Stuart Jarvis BSc DipTP FCIHT MRTPI

Call charges and information apply see www.hants.gov.uk ONEOFF.DOC

Infrastructure Planning Commission Temple Quay House Temple Quay Harbour Master River Hamble Harbour Master's Office, Shore Road, Bristol Warsash, Southampton BS1 6PN Hampshire SO31 9FR

Telephone 014 8 9 5 7 6 3 8 7 Fax 01489 580718 www.hants.gov.uk/hambleharbour

Enquiries to Graham Horton My reference

Direct Line 01489 576387 Your reference 100923_EN010035_260112

D a t e 29 September 2010 E -ma il [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for inviting the River Hamble Harbour Authority to comment on the proposed Port of Southampton biomass energy plant scoping report.

We do not wish to make any comments on this report.

Yours Sincerely

Graham Horton Environment and Development Manager On behalf of the River Hamble Harbour Authority

Director of Culture, Communities and Rural Affairs Yinnon Ezra MBE, MA, FRSA

Chief Scientific Adviser’s Group Building 3.3 Redgrave Court Merton Road Bootle Merseyside L20 7HS

Your ref: 100923_EN010035_260112

HSE: email:[email protected]

Ms Kath Haddrell EIA &Land Rights Advisor Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

21st October 2010 Dear Ms Haddrell

PROPOSED SOUTHAMPTON BIOMASS ENERGY PLANT (‘the project’) HELIUS ENERGY PLC (‘the applicant’) INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (‘the EIA Regulations’)

Thank you for your letter of 23rd September 2010 regarding the information to be provided in an environmental statement relating to the above project.

Helius Energy plc state, in paragraph 9.8 of the scoping report, that the proposed site is not located in close proximity to any registered Hazardous Installations and for this reason the examination of potential hazards and risks to the proposed scheme from neighbouring activities and from the proposed scheme on neighbouring activities has been ‘scoped out’. This statement is incorrect the development is within the consultation distance of the hazardous installation Usborne Fertilizers at the Port of Southampton and the explosives site of Associated British Ports.

As a result of the fact that the proposed development is within consultation distances there are some observations and comments that it would seem sensible to pass on to Helius Energy plc.

Major Hazards' sites and explosives site within the vicinity of the proposed development

Explosives sites

From the plans it is clear that the development falls within the consultation distance (CD) of the nearby explosives facility licensed by the HSE. Based on the information provided, the Explosives Inspectorate has considered the effect that the explosives operations allowed under the licence might have on this proposed development. Their conclusion is that whilst the probability of a major accident involving explosives is low, the consequences to people at the development could be serious. Should planning permission be granted for the development, the Explosives Inspectorate would review the explosives facility licence. This review may result in the facilities explosives capacity being significantly reduced, possibly putting its commercial viability in jeopardy. The licensee is Associated British Ports, Southampton.

Major Hazard sites

Our records show that the proposed development falls within HSE’s land use planning consultation zones around an existing hazardous installation at the Port of Southampton. Parts of the development fall within the outer and middle consultation zones and this may result in the HSE advising that permission should be refused for certain types of development. Helios Energy can obtain an early indication of HSE’s advice for different development types using the guidance published on our website http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/padhi.pdf.

Hazardous Substance Consent Any site needing to store or use hazardous substances at or above specific quantities must obtain consent from the Hazardous Substances Authority (HSA) in accordance with the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009. In this case the Hazardous Substances Authority (HSA) is Southampton City Council. The list of named substances and the controlled quantities can be found in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. HSE will normally advise that Hazardous Substances Consent is refused where the presence of the hazardous substance would be incompatible with the existing or proposed surrounding development.

Electrical Safety This project involves connections to the electrical power distribution systems and has an impact on existing generation, transmission and distribution assets. In light of that HSE offers the following comments. As well as satisfying general UK health and safety legislation (i.e. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and supporting regulations), the proposed design and future operations must comply with the Electrical Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, as amended. Generators, distributors, their contractors and others have defined duties in order to protect members of the public from the dangers posed by the electrical equipment used. HSE enforces the safety aspects of these regulations. If you have any doubts about the particular application of these regulations in terms of either the operation or construction of substations, overhead lines or underground cables, please contact Mr J C Steed, Principal Specialist Inspector (Electrical Networks), either at [email protected] or Rose Court GSW, 2 Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HS.

Construction, transport and general health and safety information The environmental statement should show how workplace transport accidents will be minimised as they are one of the most common causes of fatalities in industry. At the design stage of any new facility proper consideration should be given to designing out foreseeable risks, so far as is reasonably practicable (Regulation 11, Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007). Such risks will include those arising from the movement of vehicles and plant onto and around the site, inside buildings including materials reception (tipping) halls, sorting and storage areas.

It is vital that the design and layout of the proposed Biomass Power Station (site and buildings) ensures so far as is reasonably practicable, safe pedestrian/traffic segregation and safe traffic movement of vehicles and plant. In particular, the design should be reviewed to ensure proper consideration has been given to:

• optimising use of one-way traffic systems across the site; • eliminating or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reducing reversing (i.e. the number of reversing manoeuvres required, the time spent reversing, the distance reversed) via layout of traffic routes and accompanying working systems across the facility, but especially in the materials reception (tipping) halls; • effectively excluding non-essential pedestrians from high risk areas (such as materials reception bays, loading areas and sorting/inspection operations) where vehicles operate, and provide safe, segregated protected zones/refuges for essential staff that can resist vehicle impact. In particular, consideration should be given to tipping of random loads that are to be inspected in a segregated area with features that allow for safe visual inspection; • providing suitably marked, dedicated pedestrian walkways and crossing points, both inside and outside buildings; and • avoiding mixing different types of traffic e.g. delivery vehicles, shovel loaders, forklifts and private vehicles.

Further general guidance on reducing the risks associated with workplace transport can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport and in Workplace transport safety: an employers’ guide and Waste management: workplace transport site safety information sheet.

Wood pellets can give rise to wood dust which is flammable and explosive so any enclosed conveyers should have suitable explosion relief incorporated at appropriate intervals. This would also apply to any enclosed storage. Any electrical equipment should be suitably protected. (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002).

This development will attract the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. As the project will last more than 30 days notification on form F10 is required. This should be sent by the CDM coordinator as soon as practicable after they have been appointed by the client, to: F10 Scanning Centre, HSE c/o Central Dispatch, Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside L20 7HS.

I hope this information is useful. HSE looks forward to receiving the formal s42 consultation from the promoter in due course when the plans are sufficiently developed.

Please note any further electronic communication on this project can be sent direct to the HSE designated e-mail account for NSIP applications the details of which can be found at the top of this letter. Alternatively hard copy correspondence should be sent to Miss Vilja Gatrell at:

4S3 Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle Merseyside L20 7HS Tel. 0151 951 4607

Yours sincerely

Penny Taylor Risk Communications Policy Unit

From: Porter, Francis To: "[email protected]"; cc: IPC Scoping Opinion; Marriott, Hilari; Subject: Proposed Biomass Plant - Southampton Date: 13 October 2010 15:05:35

Scoping Opinion request by Helius Energy. 13th October 2010 IPC ref:- 100923_EN010035_260112

Luke,

Thank you for consulting the Highways Agency on the above proposal which has also been referred to us by the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

I am content with the structure and scale of the scoping statement document v4.0 and have one specific requirement in addition. For section 13.6 (construction) to include the prior notification of abnormal loads on trunk road routes to the H.A. and other affected highway authorities.

Regards,

Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers Highways Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

file:///P|/Southampton/Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant - Scoping.htm From: Wendy Dalton [[email protected]] Sent: 28 September 2010 16:05 To: IPC Scoping Opinion Subject: Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant - Scoping Dear Miss Allen

Thank you for your letter of 23 September 2010 regarding the Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to Government on UK and international nature conservation. Its work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological JNCC co-ordinates nature conservation advice at a UK level and advises UK Government on scientific and policy matters relating to nature conservation internationally. Within each UK country the separate statutory bodies are responsible for nature and landscape conservation these being: Natural England (NE), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, Northern Ireland (CNCCNI).

JNCC has responsibility for the provision of nature conservation advice in the offshore area. ‘Offshore’ is defined as beyond 12 nautical miles (nm) from the coastline to the extent of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS). Within territorial limits (<12 nm) nature conservation advice is the responsibility of the relevant country agencies.

This development proposal is not located within the offshore area, does not have any potential offshore nature conservation issues and is not concerned with nature conservation at a UK level; therefore JNCC does not have any comments to make on the consultation.

With kind regards

Yours sincerely

Mrs Wendy Dalton Business Support Officer JNCC Monkstone House City Road Peterborough

file:///P|/Southampton/Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant - Scoping.htm (1 of 2) [21/10/2010 10:23:30] file:///P|/Southampton/Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant - Scoping.htm

PE1 1JY

Tel: 01733 866884 E-mail: [email protected] features and sustaining natural systems. JNCC delivers the UK and international responsibilities of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage. • please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

______The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to Government on UK and international nature conservation, on behalf of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage. Its work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological features and sustaining natural systems.

JNCC SUPPORT CO. Registered in England and Wales, company no. 05380206. Registered office: Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY

This message has been checked for all known viruses by JNCC delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

file:///P|/Southampton/Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant - Scoping.htm (2 of 2) [21/10/2010 10:23:30]

Marine Environment Team PO BOX 1275 Newcastle upon Tyne NE99 5BN 0300 123 1032

[email protected]

Infrastructure Planning Commission Our ref: DC 9176 Temple Quay House Temple Quay Your ref: 100923_EN010035_260112 Bristol BS1 6PN FAO Kath Haddrell Date: 20 October 2010

Dear Kath

PROPOSED PORT OF SOUTHAMPTON BIOMASS ENERGY PLANT BY HELIUS ENERGY PLC (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009)

I am writing in reply to your enquiry dated 23 September 2010 requesting an opinion as a consultation body on the above proposed works.

The Planning Act and the Infrastructure Planning Commission’s (IPC) role cover projects at sea as well as on land. These projects are likely to also need a licence for articles or substances deposited in the sea under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) to protect the marine environment, human health and to minimise interference with other uses of the sea and/or consent under Part II of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA) to ensure safety of navigation. These consents may be deemed by the IPC as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO). From spring 2011, such projects will require a marine licence which will supersede the need for both FEPA and CPA consents. DCO’s issued by the IPC under the Planning Act may include a deemed marine licences for the projects that fall under its responsibility. As such the MMO is a statutory consultee for the IPC for marine projects.

The MMO will enforce the parts of a DCO that relate to a deemed FEPA licence and CPA consent or marine licence and will be responsible for dealing with any breaches of any conditions of those approvals.

This MMO has licensing responsibilities and other marine management functions it carries out such as planning, nature conservation and fisheries regulation and enforcement. This includes acting as a consultee on applications for DCO. The MMO is responsible for licensing functions in the English inshore and UK offshore waters (other than Scottish offshore waters).

The MMO will advise the IPC on the marine impacts of any large infrastructure project that has a possible impact on the marine area or those who use it. The consents issued by the IPC may include conditions (referred to as “requirements” in the Planning Act) to ensure the safety of navigation or to protect the marine environment and to safeguard the interests of other users of the sea. The MMO is responsible for advising on what these conditions should be and wishes to be consulted with again prior to any application being submitted to the IPC in order to inform their conditions. The MMO will be responsible for enforcing any conditions relating to the marine environment.

The objective of the EIA scoping procedure is to seek agreement from all key stakeholders on the assessment methodologies, including the scope of issues to be addressed and the method of assessment to be used during the EIA process. The exercise allows consultees to have an early input into the EIA process and to supply information that could be pertinent for the Environmental Statement.

As part of the scoping process, we have consulted our scientific advisers at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) and our district MMO office. In reaching a conclusion, full regard has been paid to their responses and to the information you provided in the Scoping Consultation Document.

I enclose with this letter a statement, which sets out the screening and scoping opinion.

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Adam Chumbley Marine Environment Team

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING COMMISSION (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009: SCOPING OPINION

Document reviewed: Environmental Assessment Scoping Statement, Southampton Biomass Power Ltd. Proposed 100MW Biomass Fuelled Electricity Generating Plant, Southampton Port, September 2010, Version 4.0, pp 1-101.

Description of the project

Helius Energy plc is seeking to obtain development consent under Section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 in respect of a biomass fuelled electricity plant capable of generating approximately 100 Megawatts (Declared Net Capacity) of electricity and associated biomass processing and fuel store, boiler house, turbine building, cooling assembly, ancillary buildings, structures, plant and equipment together with other engineering and building works. The proposed plant will be cooled by an intake of water from River Test, heated water will be discharged to the river. The proposed development falls within Schedule 2, Category 3(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. It is of a scale and nature that could give rise to significant effects and, therefore, the applicant has undertaken to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with the application for a Development Consent Order.

Our comments are limited to the potential impacts of the proposed development in the marine environment below MHWS.

Potential impacts of the project

As part of the project development and assessment process, the project team has carried out a scoping study to identify the key environmental issues and the need for specific investigations and other technical studies. The scope for the proposed environmental impact assessment (EIA), as presented in the report, has been determined by desktop and baseline field studies, consideration of the relevant development plans for the area including the saved policies from the Southampton Revised Local Plan (2006) and the Southampton Core Strategy (2010).

In general, the scoping document is comprehensive and includes the identification of all potential sources of environmental effects and an evaluation of likely duration in magnitude and significance. Most relevant receptors and pathways are considered, with the exception of potential effects on fisheries activities. The methodology proposed for the EIA is appropriate and based on best practice. It does include the assessment of cumulative and in-combination effects.

A range of data relating to the site and the surrounding area has been obtained as part of the Scoping Study. The main sources of this information have been site- specific surveys, desk top evaluation of published data and review of supporting information to other relevant development proposals.

No ecological field investigation has been carried out for the purposes of producing this Scoping Statement, although it is anticipated that the EIA process itself will involve a wide scope of fieldwork investigations. These fieldwork investigations are not detailed in the Scoping report, but it is stated that specialists with relevant professional expertise and experience will carry out the assessment of each topic to be included within the scope of the EIA. These specialists would be responsible for ensuring the methods they use are appropriate, reflect best practice, and can be justified within the decision making process. In addition to informing the design process, the acquired data will be used as a baseline against which the impacts of the proposals will be assessed. This information will be used to assess and compare potential impacts, establish potentially sensitive receptors and also to assist the formulation of mitigation strategies. I suggest that the methodology for the fieldwork investigations and the analyses of data and information are discussed and agreed in advance with Cefas and the MMO.

Modelling work will be undertaken by subject specialists to establish the likely spatial extent of the potential impacts. The modelling will include hydrological modelling to predict the likely spatial dispersion of heated water discharged into the River Test. Following completion of the modelling work to establish the likely Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the project, the ecological assessment will comprise a consideration of potential impacts upon features of biodiversity value within the ZOI. Potential impacts to be covered will include those resulting from effects on aquatic habitats and species, for example mudflats, benthic invertebrates and fish, resulting from changes in water quality, flow rates or temperature. As above, I suggest that the methodology for the fieldwork investigations and the analyses of data and information are discussed and agreed in advance with Cefas and the MMO.

For the purposes of establishing the baseline ecological environment and locating designated sites in the vicinity of the proposals for this Scoping Statement, an initial search area of around 5 km was set within which data was gathered. This search area will be expanded or contracted during the course of the subsequent EIA process depending upon the ZOI of the project emerging from the assessment process.

Nature Conservation

There are a number of designated sites of international, national and local importance for nature conservation in the vicinity of the subject site. These are:

The Solent & Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA, which includes 19 Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The SPA and Ramsar designation also overlies part of the adjacent and contiguous Solent Maritime SAC.

The Solent & Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA follows along the coastline of the River Itchen and into the River Itchen Estuary. The designated area also encompasses the Lee-on-the-Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI. To the southeast of the proposed site, the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA site is located on the opposite side of Southampton Water, at a distance of approximately 2.3 km, and stretches along the coastline of Dibden Bay and beyond. The designated area also encompasses the Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI.

The Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA sites include the coastal habitats comprising of intertidal flats, saline lagoons, shingle beaches, saltmarsh, reedbeds, damp woodlands and grazing marsh. These habitats support the internationally important numbers of overwintering and breeding waterfowl for which the site was designated as an SPA under the European Birds and Habitats Directives, as well as the important assemblages of rare invertebrates and plants that together with the ornithological interest warrant the designation as a Ramsar site due to being a wetland of international importance.

The Solent Maritime SAC is designated under the European Habitats Directive for its internationally important habitat complexes, including its estuaries that have a hydrographic regime that is unique in Britain and Europe and support sediment habitats and extensive estuarine flats with areas supporting eelgrass Zostera sp, green algae, sand and shingle spits. The site also qualifies for its SAC designation for its Spartina swards, Atlantic salt meadows, and a range of other habitats and species that are qualifying features under Annexes 1 and 2 respectively of the Habitats Directive but not primary reasons for site selection. The SAC is comprised of a number of component areas, including SSSIs.

The following coastal SSSI areas (whether component parts of international sites or not) fall either within or just outside of the initial area of search: River Test SSSI, Eling & Bury Marshes SSSI, Dibden Bay SSSI, Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI, Lee-on-Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI; and River Itchen SSSI. Information gathered from the Desk Study and field survey will be used to compile a Habitats Regulations Assessment Report which will inform the Competent Authority (The IPC) when applying the tests set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

The potential impacts of the project on the marine environment during the site clearance, construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the development might extend beyond the site boundary. The following potential impacts have been considered: accidental liberation during ground works of any residual soil or ground contamination on site from previous site uses, and mobilisation of such substance in surface or groundwater and transport to the estuary; the intake of water for use in the cooling towers from the River Test estuary; the discharge of heated water from the cooling towers into the River Test estuary; rogue or unintended discharges of pollutants into the River Test estuary during the operation of the biomass plant; accidental spillages of polluting substances on site during any phase of the development lifespan. In my opinion, these are relevant and should be included within the ES.

Fish and shellfish resources and fisheries

There is no reference to potential impacts of the proposed woks on the local fish and shellfish resources and the local fisheries operations. The site is within spawning grounds for sole and lemon sole. The inner part of Southampton Water, including the tidal rivers Hamble, Itchen and Test, is a designated bass nursery area. Class B shellfish beds of native oyster are located in The Solent.

Fisheries operations also take place in the proximity of the works. Several small boats operating from the Hamble, Hythe and Marchwood use gill nets to take small amounts of cod and whiting, and the others use nets for bass mullet and flatfish. Although a constant stream of marine traffic restricts fishing activities within Southampton Water, molluscs are harvested there, but most local fishing takes place outside. Native oysters are dredged from the Solent by up to 16 vessels and are cultivated around the entrance to Southampton Water. A mixture of dead shell (known as ‘culch’) is deposited in these areas to encourage the settlement of oyster spat, which come from surrounding beds in the Solent. Two or three boats using otter trawls and several smaller boats using gill nets take cod and whiting. Cuttlefish are taken in traps and by trawling from April to June. During the spring and summer, 3 vessels trawl for sole, plaice and bass, and the others use longlines, rod and line and nets for bass, nets for mullet and several boats set nets for flatfish. There are salmon and sea trout runs (but no commercial fishery) in the Rivers Test and Itchen. Whelks are also landed into this port.

The potential impacts of the proposed development on these fish and shellfish resources and fisheries, especially those related to the discharge of heated water to the River Test Estuary must also be addressed by the ES.

Conclusion

Our comments at this stage are limited to the information received on the potential impacts of the proposed development in the marine environment below MHWS.

The scoping document is comprehensive and includes the potential sources of environmental effects and an evaluation of likely significance. Most relevant receptors and pathways are considered, with the exception of potential effects on fisheries activities. The methodology proposed for the EIA is in my opinion appropriate and based on best practice.

While most the relevant risks seem to have been identified, we did not receive detailed information on the methodology of the studies to be undertaken to inform the EIA. Therefore, I may not necessarily agree with the methodology used in these studies or the conclusions of the EIA. I suggest that the methodology for the fieldwork investigations and the analyses of data and information are discussed and agreed in advance with Cefas.

Date: 20 October 2010

Our ref: IPC Southampton Biomass

Your ref: 100923_EN01035 260112

For the attention of Kath Haddrell South East Region Cromwell House Infrastructure Planning Commission nd 2 Floor Temple Quay House 15 Andover Road BRISTOL Winchester BS1 6PN SO23 7BT

Tel: 0300 060 4871 By email only – no hard copy, to [email protected]

Dear Ms Haddrell

Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 Scoping Report for Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant

Thank you for your letter of 23 September 2010 regarding the above. Case law1 and guidance2 has stressed the need for a full set of environmental information to be available for consideration prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to grant planning permission. Natural England therefore advises that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should give full consideration to:

1. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites). The development site is in proximity to the following designated nature conservation sites:

Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI Lower Test Valley SSSI Dibden Bay SSSI River Test SSSI Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI Southampton Common SSSI River Itchen SSSI Lee on-the-Solent SSSI Solent Maritime SAC River Itchen SAC Solent and Southampton Water SPA Solent and Southampton Ramsar Site The New Forest SSSI The New Forest SPA The New Forest SAC The New Forest Ramsar

Further information on the SSSIs can be found at www.natureonthemap.org.uk or by request from this office. The Environmental Statement should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within these sites and should

1 Harrison, J in R. v. Cornwall County Council ex parte Hardy (2001) 2 Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (April 2004) 1 | P a g e identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects.

European sites (e.g. designated SPAs) fall within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Government policy, stated in PPS9 and Ramsar Sites in England: A Policy Statement (DETR 2000)3, stipulates that Ramsar Sites be treated as if they are fully designated European sites for the purpose of considering development proposals that may affect them.

Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and (b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. In this case the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of a European site and in our view it is likely that it will have a significant effect on internationally designated sites and therefore will require assessment under the Habitats Regulations. We recommend that there should be a separate section of the Environmental Statement to address impacts upon European and Ramsar sites entitled ‘Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment’.

Natural England considers the Environmental Assessment Scoping Statement by Helius Energy, September 2010, to be comprehensive and note that a Habitats Regulations Assessment report is to be included in the application. Additional comments:

 Air quality is a topic to be examined in detail and we support the intention to include emissions from the new Marchwood Power Plant in the cumulative assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the proposed scheme. However, all other sources of emissions within the zone of influence should be included in the in-combination assessment of effects.

We are pleased to note that air pollution effects on biodiversity are to be considered separately from effects on human health.

For information, the UK Air Pollution Information System (APIS) http://www.apis.ac.uk/ gives current background concentrations for all key pollutants at each of the designated sites. The application will need to demonstrate that the proposed plant will not take any of the pollutants over their critical loads / levels at these sites.

 We note that the 5k baseline reaches the New Forest National Park and the outer boundary of the New Forest SSSI/SPA/Ramsar/SAC. Natural England will require potential impacts on the whole of the New Forest designated sites to be included in the assessment. (see also comments on landscape).

 Water supply intake sources are being investigated for this proposed development, and we recommend that the service provider and the Environment Agency be consulted on this. All water supply and discharge matters to and from designated sites should be discussed with the Environment Agency and Natural England, including whether additional consents/licences for abstraction/discharge are required/likely to be granted. It is not clear why sea water intake is not being considered.

 Effects on aquatic habitats and species, for example mudflats, benthic invertebrates and fish, resulting from changes in water quality, flow rates or temperature are to be included in the impact assessment. Please note that migratory salmon can be affected by effluent flumes. Migratory salmon are an interest feature of the River Itchen SAC. Shellfish waters should also be included.

3 http://www.ramsar.org/wurc/wurc_policy_uk_england.htm 2 | P a g e

2. Landscape Character and Designated Areas To ensure that the proposed scheme does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding countryside, we recommend that consideration should be given to the following aspects in the environmental impact assessment:  The potential impact of the scheme on the landscape character and visual amenity of the surrounding area.  The detailed design of the proposed improvements should seek to respect and enhance local character and distinctiveness, and use appropriate materials and designs in all new built features.  The development site is within 5k to the following designated area:

The New Forest National Park

We strongly recommend that the New Forest National Park Authority is consulted along with the New Forest District Council on this application, including with regard to the selection of viewpoints for assessment.

Landscape and visual impacts Natural England would wish to see details regarding local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site and any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects on the development, such as changes in topography.

The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. We strongly advocate the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2002. LCA provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed. Guidance on LCA, published by the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, is available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/wwo/sharinggoodpractice/cci/cci/guidance/Downloads/LCAfull.pdf

Natural England supports the publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management in 2002 (2nd edition). The methodology set out in this book (which was sponsored by the Countryside Agency, amongst others) is almost universally used in the procedures of landscape and visual impact assessment.

In order to foster high quality development that respects, maintains, or enhances, local landscape character and distinctiveness, Natural England would encourage all new development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the area, with the design and outlay of all elements of a proposed development reflecting local design characteristics and wherever possible using local materials. The Environment Impact Assessment process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit.

3. Local Wildlife Sites Local Wildlife Sites are identified by the County Council/Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and are of county importance for wildlife. The Environmental Statement should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife interests of local wildlife sites in the vicinity of this development. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. Contact the Council ecologist or the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust for further information.

3 | P a g e

4. Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 We strongly recommend that surveys for protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, water voles, badgers and bats) should be carried out within the area affected by the development.

If any protected species are found the Environmental Statement should include details of:  The species concerned;  The population level at the site affected by the proposal;  The direct and indirect effects of the development upon that species;  Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required;  Whether the impact is acceptable and/or licensable.

In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of year. Surveys should always be carried out by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants.

The great crested newt, dormouse and all species of bats are European protected species such that it is illegal to intentionally kill, injure or otherwise disturb them. If any of these species are found to be present you should also consult Natural England’s Wildlife Management and Licensing Unit in Bristol (Tel. 0845 6014523) about licensing implications before any work can proceed.

5. Other features of nature conservation interest, e.g. habitats and species identified within the UK and County Biodiversity Action Plans. Natural England advises that a habitat survey (analogous to Phase 2) is carried out on the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are present. The Environmental Statement should include details of:  Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys);  Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;  The habitats and species present;  The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether BAP priority habitat);  The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;  Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.

The development should avoid adversely impacting the most important wildlife areas within the site, and should if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.

6. How this development fits in with and contributes to, local sustainable development priorities, eg. renewable energy targets (locally and nationally); all opportunities for biodiversity enhancement of the site explored.

7. Cumulative and in-combination effects. The EIA should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out. To carry out the assessment of cumulative and in-combination effects, the following types of projects should be included. (Subject to the availability of information):

a. Existing completed projects b. Approved but uncompleted projects c. Ongoing activities d. Plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the consenting authorities

4 | P a g e

e. Plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

I trust these comments are helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any other information.

Yours sincerely

Val Pollard Adviser South East Region Western Area Team Natural England [email protected] 0300 060 4871

5 | P a g e

From: Lorraine Wheeler To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant Date: 06 October 2010 11:39:25

For the Attention of Kath Haddrell.

Dear Ms Haddrell,

Your Ref: 100923_EN010035_260112

Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant

Following receipt of a letter dated 23rd September from Laura Allen, my Council consider that it would like to be a consultee for the above proposal's Environmental Statement. My Council would also like to see a traffic impact assessment of the M271 and M27 Junctions 3 - 4.

I look forward to hearing from you further in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Lorraine Wheeler Clerk to Nursling & Rownhams Parish Council 3 Rownhams Close, Rownhams, Southampton. SO16 8AF Tel/Fax: 023 8073 6766 Email:[email protected]

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

From: Jane Griffin To: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant Date: 06 October 2010 15:02:26

I have read the scoping document, in particular the socio economic paragraphs, and have no comments to make.

Regards

Jane Griffin

Jane Griffin Planning and Infrastructure Policy Manager

SEEDA Cross Lanes Guildford GU1 1YA

01483 470197

Please consider the environment before printing this email. ______As a public authority, please note that all documentation held by SEEDA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. CONFIDENTIALITY: Information contained herein and attached to this email may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or attachment(s) or any information contained within them is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please forward to the sender and then remove it from your system. ______SEEDA is the Government funded agency responsible for the sustainable economic development and regeneration of the South East of England - the driving force of the UK's economy. ______This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. ______

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti- virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SERVICE Planning & Sustainability Southampton City Council Ground Floor Civic Centre Southampton SO14 7LS

Please ask for: Stephen Harrison Date: 20th October 2010 Direct Dial: 023 8083 4330

Ms. Laura Allen, Infrastructure Planning Commission, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

Your Ref: 100923_EN010035_260112

Dear Ms. Allen,

Biomass Plant at the Port of Southampton Response to the Helius Energy Plc Environmental Assessment Scoping Statement Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009

I refer to the above named Scoping Statement that was received by this authority on 27th September 2010. I note that the deadline for this response is 21st October.

Firstly, the Council is fully supportive of the broad principles behind delivering a Biomass plant at the Port of Southampton. The Council also agrees that the proposed development requires the need for a supporting Environmental Statement as triggered by Schedule 2 Category 3(1) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009.

Having reviewed the submission against the Regulations I have the following observations for your consideration as part of the planning process, and base this response upon the submitted topic list from Appendix A of the applicant’s Statement:

Land-use – Inclusion Agreed

Air Quality – Amendments Suggested

This is considered by the applicant to be a non significant issue during the construction phase. However, depending on the stage of construction it is currently anticipated that HGV movements will range on average from 20-40 movements per day. For this reason it is recommended that Air Quality (construction) issues are included in the scope of the EIA to consider the potential impact from traffic movements. As there are a number of references to the Millbrook Road AQMA in the scoping request the Council would expect the construction phase to result in an increase in localised road traffic that could worsen air quality in the stated AQMA. The provision of an Air Quality Monitoring Station may also be appropriately secured during the construction phase as part of the associated S.106 legal agreement negotiations.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP1(i) & SDP15 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9, CS10

1 Landscape & Visual – Inclusion Agreed

It is agreed that landscape and visual impact is a significant issue that should be included in the EIA. Paragraph 4.28 of the submission suggests that the development will be as high as many of the tallest buildings in the City. As part of the proposed visual appraisal - which it is understood from Helius will include a full landscape appraisal and photomontage modelling exercise - it would also be useful if the applicants compare the building heights with the existing dock cranes, Marchwood power-station (and incinerator) and other more familiar landmark buildings.

The Council’s planning team would also recommend that the applicants explore the possibility of including a living “green” wall as part of their proposals to assist in reducing the very obvious bulk and massing that will inevitably unfold from buildings with the dimensions listed at paragraph 4.28 of the submission.

As a marker at this stage the Council will also be looking to support a bespoke piece of landmark architecture, and will want assurances throughout the planning process that the indicative proposals submitted to date are simply that and not a proposed outcome. With this in mind the applicants are advised to take the advice given in the joint CABE and English Heritage guidance document relating to “Tall Buildings” (2003). This would include details of night time appearance with a full lighting specification provided for assessment. Only once the detailed design is unveiled will it be possible to fully evaluate the impact of the proposals on its wider context.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP6, SDP7, SDP9 & SDP17 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS1, CS9 & CS13

Ecology– Amendments Suggested

The Council broadly welcomes the contents of the Scoping Report as it relates to ecology issues, although it is considered that the emissions from both construction and operational traffic need to be reviewed in relation to potential impacts on European and Ramsar sites.

For information, a copy of the Bird Flight Path Study (which is referred to in the Scoping Report) is held by SCC.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP12 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9 & CS22

Historic Environment – Inclusion Agreed

The Council have a number of comments to make on both the scope for the heritage assessment work and issues associated with the setting of, and the proposed works to, the Grade II listed King George V Graving Dock.

Assessment Methodology – As outlined in Section 8.72 of the document, other than statutory designations, there are no nationally agreed criteria for the assessment of heritage assets within the EIA process. However, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 (HA 208/07) sets out quantifiable criteria for the assessment of heritage assets within infrastructure projects. It is strongly recommend that the heritage assessment for the Southampton Biomass Power Station is carried out using these guidelines as these give a “scoring system” for the assessment of potential direct, indirect and cumulative impact to heritage assets to a defined measurable standard.

Fuel Conveyor – Section 1.5 outlines that a conveyor will be constructed to transport biomass fuel pellets from the quayside to the site. The impact of the conveyor belt and any

2 support stanchions on the setting of the Grade II listed King George V Graving Dock will also need to be assessed due the protected status of the dock.

Grey Water Abstraction – Sections 3.2 and 6.45 of the document outline that, as part of the scheme, “ground water grey water abstraction equipment” would be located in the vicinity of the listed King George V Graving Dock. Any work affecting this structure or its setting, either directly or indirectly, will require very careful assessment as any work that negatively impacts on this may not be acceptable due to the status and historical and architectural importance of the structure. This also applies to any structure constructed to house pumping equipment to supply river water to the power station in the vicinity of either the dock or the associated listed pumping station.

Setting Issues for King George V Graving Dock – Section 6.45 of the document suggests that, although the potential impact of the statutorily and locally listed building within the vicinity of the development site will be assessed, this has already been compromised as they are within an area that is a “working dock where cranes, pylons, and large 20th century structures are already a feature of the setting”. The argument here would be that these features are part and parcel of the historic maritime infrastructure of the port and, arguably, have less of a visual impact than the scheme proposals. Only once the detailed design is unveiled will it be possible to fully evaluate the impact of the proposals on the setting of this listed dock.

Historic Landscape Issues – Section 6.46 of the document suggests that as the site has only been in existence since the 1930s there are no associated historic landscape issues. However, as the area in question (including George V dock) forms part of a designed industrial landscape which played an important part in the maritime history of Southampton, the impact on this also needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the potential impact of the development on the historic landscape of the area. In addition, the peat deposits which underlie the backfill and alluvium covering the site will also provide important information on the landscape history of the Test Estuary and should be sampled as part of any archaeological evaluation of the site.

Scope of Historic Environment EIA Section - Sections 8.69 - 8.77 outline the scope of historic environment assessment work to be carried out in advance of the development. Other than the points outlined above, it is agreed that the proposed level of assessment work and planning/legislative guidelines being proposed are acceptable. Section 8.77 of the Scoping Statement suggests that no archaeological fieldwork is appropriate at this stage of the process and that it would be more appropriate to carry out any invasive evaluation work once the proposals have been finalised. This is agreed.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – HE3 & HE6 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9, CS13(3) & CS14

Geo-technical/environmental – Inclusion Agreed

Flooding & Drainage – Inclusion Agreed

The Council agrees that flood risk should be identified as a significant issue for inclusion within the EIA. The following suggestions are made: • Section 6.67 refers to the Western Solent & Southampton Water SMP – since the North Solent SMP will (hopefully) be adopted towards the end of October it would be more appropriate to refer to this document; • Section 6.68 refers to the PUSH SFRA – this has been superseded by the SFRA2 which should be referenced instead. • Section 8.92 – it should be noted that the River Test & River Itchen are tidal along the Southampton frontage. • Section 8.95 refers to the UKCP09 – we would encourage seeking advice from the Environment Agency as to the most appropriate figures to use for future sea level rise.

3 Development Plan justification includes: Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9 & CS23

Traffic & Transportation - Inclusion Agreed

The Council agrees that traffic and transportation should be identified as a significant issue for inclusion within the EIA. The following suggestions are made (paragraph numbers relate to those in the report):

5.0 The following additional policies should be considered relevant in the Planning Policy Context: • Local Plan Policy SDP4 Development Access • PPG13 contains relevant national transport policies

6.70 The A35/A3024 is now the A33.

6.71 Whilst the statement is true in relation to access to the Port access, no consideration has been given to walking and cycling access between there and the Helius Energy Plant.

6.72 Ditto the comments in 6.71 for public transport. It is felt that the statement in relation to Millbrook station is misleading. This station may be physically very close to the plant, but there is no direct connection between the two.

8.106 The study needs to look at the proportional increases in both the AM and PM peak periods.

As part of the EIA it is hoped that the applicants will confirm that there is capacity within the existing rail infrastructure to accommodate any additional rail services serving the plan, particularly with the predicted growth in container movements that also use the same area within the port? There does appear scope to provide a rail siding directly into the plant, which would be necessary if this is an option. If this is the case, can it be confirmed that the existing layout of rail sidings would allow easy offloading of material to the conveyor supplying the plant? The TA should consider these issues. PPG13 supports the use of both water and rail access. It states that "In preparing their development plans and in determining planning applications, local authorities should… promote opportunities for freight generating development to be served by rail or waterways by influencing the location of development and by identifying and where appropriate protecting realistic opportunities for rail or waterway connections to existing manufacturing, distribution and warehousing sites adjacent or close to the rail network, waterways or coastal/estuarial ports" (paragraph 45 refers).

As a marker at this stage the Council submits that the merits of a Biomass Plant reliant on the port for the delivery of its product are different to one reliant on road for import. In order to satisfy the Core Strategy Policy CS9 it will be necessary to ensure that the proposed plant is a “port related development” and it is likely, therefore, that a S.106 will be recommended to reconcile this position (regardless of the reported local highway capacity). Any submission that is entirely dependent upon the highway network for the delivery of the plant’s biomass needs represents a departure from the current development plan.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP4 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9, CS18, CS19 & CS25

Emissions & Land – Inclusion Suggested

Paragraph 4.13 of the submission relates to the disposal of bottom ash. The applicants should fully explore other methods before disposing to landfill. As such, it is recommended that this issue is included within the EIA.

4 Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP1(i) Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9 & CS20

Noise & Vibration – Part Inclusion Agreed

Socio-Economic – Inclusion Agreed

It is recommended that to demonstrate good practice a Health Impact Assessment should form part of the EIA as required by adopted LDF Core Strategy Policy CS10.

In terms of job creation the 40 jobs proposed (following construction) is clearly welcomed. In order to satisfy Core Strategy Policy CS24 it will be necessary for the submission to explain how the job creation will be directly linked to the local labour market and skills set. It is envisaged that this can be secured through the associated S.106 Legal Agreement process.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS9, CS10, CS24 & CS25

Carbon Savings – Inclusion Agreed

Aeronautical Issues – Inclusion Agreed

Although Appendix A of the Statement neither includes nor excludes this issue it is clear from the text that this is a material significant effect that requires inclusion. The Council supports this conclusion in accordance with Local Plan Review “saved” Policy SDP19.

Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing – Inclusion Suggested

It is considered that daylight, sunlight and overshadowing (particularly the latter two) will be a significant issue and this should form part of the EIA. Our own initial studies on this, using a BRE sunlight availability protractor, suggest that the proposed development could cast some significant shadows across residential development to the north east of the site during the later afternoon of winter months – an assessment of this would allow a full understanding of the significance of the impact and, given the sensitivities of the receptors, provide evidence in defence (or not) of the proposal.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP1(i), SDP6, SDP7(v) & SDP9 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS1, CS9 & CS13

Arboriculture – Exclusion Agreed

As there are no trees or other significant vegetation on site the Council have no issue with the exclusion of tree issues from the EIA. However, the redevelopment proposals do present an opportunity for new tree planting, as part of the landscaping, to help soften the design. This could take the form of off-site planting that could be secured through the associated S.106 Legal Agreement process.

Development Plan justification includes: Adopted Local Plan Review (2006) “Saved” Policy – SDP12 Adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) Policy – CS13 & CS22

Hazards from Adjacent Sites – Exclusion Agreed

Other Matters

Paragraph 2.3 of the submission includes SEERA (but they no longer exist). The Council would also suggest that Eastleigh Borough Council and the New Forest National Park

5 Authority should be included. Further details will be provided in response to the submitted Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) following the Council’s Planning & Rights of Way Panel on Tuesday 26th October 2010.

Paragraph 5.39 of the submission may need to be updated to include the Government’s Planning Policy Statements – albeit it is recognised that the guiding documents are the National Policy Statements.

Similarly the Minerals & Waste Core Strategy is also a material consideration for this scheme.

Finally, one aspect that has not been assessed is the use of maize waste as a fuel. Depending upon the amount of this material to be imported there is the potential for this to be released into the atmosphere and this may cause some allergic reactions. It is the Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s opinion that this aspect of the application should be considered.

I trust that this information is of assistance, but should your require any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact Stephen Harrison on the above telephone number.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Lyons Planning & Development Manager

6 200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries)

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.coal.gov.uk/services/planning

Infrastructure Planning Commission

[By Email:[email protected]]

14 October 2010

For the Attention of: Laura Allen

Dear Laura

PLANNING APPLICATION: 100923_EN010032_260112

Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant

Thank you for your consultation letter of the 23 September 2010 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the above planning application.

I have reviewed the proposals and confirm that The Coal Authority has no observations or specific comments as the area is off the defined coalfield.

Yours sincerely

Miss Rachael A. Bust B.Sc.(Hons), MA, M.Sc., LL.M., AMIEnvSci., MIPSM, MRTPI Deputy Head of Planning and Local Authority Liaison

In line with Government led initiatives the Coal Authority is committed to the delivery of efficient, high quality services supported by information technology. To support this we prefer communication in electronic format wherever possible.

From: Laura Cooke To: IPC Scoping Opinion; cc: [email protected]; Subject: Proposed Port of Southampton Biomass Energy Plant Date: 20 October 2010 10:23:26

For the attention of Laura Allen

Your letter dated 23rd September 2010 was discussed by West End Parish Council’s Planning & Highways Committee at a meeting on 19th October 2010. Unfortunately one of our councillors, Prof. Tony Rest, is currently away as he would have a particular interest in this subject.

The Committee discussed the proposed project and agreed that they would like to know the type of equipment being used, details of the materials involved and subsequent pollution, if any. All of these would presumably be provided in the environmental statement.

Regards,

Laura Cooke

Clerk to West End Parish Council The Parish Centre, Chapel Road, West End, SOUTHAMPTON SO30 3FE

Tel. 023 80462371 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Panda Client Shield Anti Virus for the presence of computer viruses.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

An environmental statement is described under the EIA Regs as a statement:

‘(a) that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the Applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but

(b) that includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4’. (EIA Regs regulation 2)

The EIA Regs Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in an ES. Part 2 sets out the minimum requirements and is included below for reference:

Schedule 4 Part 2

• a description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development; • a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects; • the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment; • an outline of the main alternatives studies by the Applicant and an indication of the main reasons for he Applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects; • a non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 SI 2264 set out the requirements for information which must be provided as part of the DCO application. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information (this is defined in Regulation 2 of the EIA Regs) need not be replicated or included in the ES.

The Commission advises that the ES should be laid out clearly with a minimum amount of technical terms and should provide a clear objective and realistic description of the likely significant impacts of the proposed development. The information should be presented so as to be comprehensible to the specialist and non-specialist alike.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

The Commission recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.

ES Indicative Contents

The Commission emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regs sets out the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development which should include ‘in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors’ (paragraph 19).

The content of the ES should include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regs. This includes the consideration of ‘Alternatives’ which the Commission recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES.

Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the Commission considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration.

Balance

The Commission recommends that the ES should be balanced, with matters which give rise to a greater number or more significant impacts being given greater prominence. Where few or no impacts are identified, the technical section may be much shorter, with greater use of information in appendices as appropriate.

The Commission considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering combined and cumulative impacts.

Physical Scope

In general the Commission recommends that the physical scope for the EIA should be determined in the light of:

• the nature of the proposal being considered; • the relevance in terms of the specialist topic; • the breadth of the topic; • the physical extent of any surveys or the study area; and • the potential significant impacts.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Therefore, the Commission recommends that the study area for the EIA should include at least the whole of the application site embracing all offsite development and for certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The study area for each specialist topic should be clearly defined and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts in accordance with good practice.

The Commission considers that the study areas should be agreed, wherever possible, with the relevant statutory consultees and local authorities.

Temporal Scope

The assessment should consider:

• environmental impact during construction works; • environmental impacts on completion/operation of the development; • environmental impacts a suitable number of years after completion of the development in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals; and • decommissioning.

In terms of decommissioning, the Commission acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption, materials can be re-used and the site can be restored or put to a suitable new use. The Commission encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

The Commission recommends that these matters should be set out clearly in the ES and that the suitable time period for the assessment should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees.

The Commission considers that the duration of effects should use a standard terminology, which should be defined.

Baseline

The Commission recommends that the baseline should describe the position from which the impacts of the proposed development are measured. The baseline should be chosen carefully and, where possible, be consistent between topics.

The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although the Commission considers that care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date. The Commission recommends that the baseline environment should

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys. Wherever possible the baseline should be agreed with the appropriate consultees.

For each of the environmental topics, the data source(s) for the baseline should be set out together with any survey work undertaken with the dates.

Indications of Impacts and Methods Statement

Legislation and Guidelines

In terms of the EIA methodology, the Commission recommends that reference should be made to best practice and any standards, guidelines and legislation that have been used to inform the assessment. This should include guidelines prepared by relevant professional bodies.

In terms of other regulatory regimes, the Commission recommends that relevant legislation and all permit and licences required should be listed in the ES where relevant to each topic. This information should also be submitted with the application in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 SI No. 2264.

In terms of assessing the impacts, the ES should record such impacts in the context of all relevant planning and environmental policy – local, regional and national (and where appropriate international) – in a consistent manner.

Assessment of Effects and Impact Significance

The EIA Regs require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20). Therefore, the Commission considers it is imperative for the ES to define the meaning of ‘significant’ in the context of each of the specialist topics` and for significant impacts to be clearly identified.

The Commission recommends that the criteria should be set out fully and that the ES should set out clearly the interpretation of ‘significant’ in terms of each of the EIA topics. Quantitative criteria should be used where available. The Commission considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact interactions.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Potential Environmental Impacts

The Commission considers these under Section 3: the EIA Topic Areas of this opinion.

Impact Inter-actions/Combined Impacts

Multiple impacts on the same receptor should be taken into account. These occur where a number of separate impacts, eg. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.

The Commission considers that the combined effects of the development should be assessed and that details should be provided as to how interactions will be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole.

Cumulative Impacts

The ES should describe the baseline situation and the proposed development within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.

Other major development in the area should be identified beyond the proposal itself including all the associated development. The Commission recommends that this should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities on the basis of major developments that are:

• built and operational; • under construction; • permitted application(s), but not yet implemented; • submitted application(s) not yet determined, and • identified in the Development Plan recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited.

Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects the cumulative effects of which have been taken into account as part of the assessment.

Associated development

The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is associated with the proposed development site to ensure that all the impacts of the proposals are assessed.

The Commission recommends that the Applicant should distinguish between development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Alternatives

The ES must set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the Applicant and provide an indication of the main reasons for the Applicant’s choice, taking account of the environmental effect (Schedule 4 part 1 paragraph 18).

Matters should be included, such as inter alia alternative design options and alternative mitigation measures. The justification for the final choice and evolution of the scheme development should be made clear. Where other sites have been considered, the reasons for the final choice should be addressed.

The Commission advises that the ES should give sufficient attention to the alternative forms and locations for the off-site proposals, where appropriate, and justify the needs and choices made in terms of the form of the development proposed and the sites chosen.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures may fall into certain categories: namely avoid; reduce; compensate or enhance; and should be identified as such in the specialist sections (Schedule 4 part 1 paragraph 21). Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may benefit more than one topic area.

The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment should be taken into account as part of the assessment.

The application itself will need to demonstrate how the mitigation would be delivered, and only mitigation which can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the EIA.

It would be helpful of the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions proposed within the development consent order. This could be achieved by means of describing the mitigation measures proposed either in each of the specialist reports or collating these within a summary section on mitigation.

Trans-boundary Effects

The Commission recommends that consideration should be given in the ES to any likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State of the European Economic Area. In particular, the Commission recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and sea and to potential impacts on migratory species.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Presentation

The Commission recommends that all paragraphs in the ES should be numbered. This is for ease of reference. Appendices must be clearly referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered. All figures and drawings should be clearly referenced.

Cross Reference and Interactions

The Commission recommends that all the specialist topics in the ES should cross reference their text to other relevant disciplines. Interactions between the specialist topics is essential to the production of a robust assessment, as the ES should not be a collection of separate specialist topics, but a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal and how these impacts can be mitigated.

As set out in EIA Regs Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 23, the ES should include an indication of any technical difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the Applicant in compiling the required information.

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms

The Commission recommends that a common terminology should be adopted. This will help to ensure consistency and ease of understanding for the decision making process. For example, ‘the site’ should be defined and used only in terms of this definition so as to avoid confusion with, for example, the wider site area or the surrounding site.

A glossary of technical terms should be included in the ES.

Summary Tables

The Commission recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the Applicant may wish to consider the use of tables to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation. This would include the EIA topics, combined and cumulative impacts.

A table setting out the mitigation measures proposed would assist the reader and the Commission recommends that this would also enable the Applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Order.

The ES should also demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this opinion and other responses to consultation. The Commission recommends that this may be most simply expressed in a table.

101101_EN010035_256935

Scoping Opinion for Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references.

Non-technical Summary

The EIA Regs require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regs Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 22). This should be a summary of the assessment in simple language. It should be supported by appropriate figures, photographs and photomontages.

Consultation

The Commission recommends that any changes to the scheme design in response to consultation should be addressed in the ES.

It is recommended that the Applicant provides preliminary environmental information to the local authorities.

Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the Applicant intends to consult on the preliminary environmental information (this term is defined in the EIA Regs under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’). This preliminary information could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with s47 of the Planning Act, this could usefully assist the Applicant in the EIA process – for example the local community may be able to identify possible mitigation measures to address the impacts identified in the preliminary environmental information. Attention is drawn to the duty upon Applicants under s50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.

Environmental Management

The Commission advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan (EMMP) and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation.

101101_EN010035_256935