SCOPING OPINION Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
October 2015
Scoping Opinion for Proposed North west Coast Connections Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5
BACKGROUND ...... 5 THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S CONSULTATION ...... 6 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT ...... 7
2 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 8
INTRODUCTION ...... 8 THE APPLICANT’S INFORMATION ...... 8 THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S COMMENTS ...... 19
3 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS ...... 25
INTRODUCTION ...... 25 EU DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU ...... 25 NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS (NPS) ...... 25 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT APPROACH ...... 26 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT STRUCTURE ...... 28 MATTERS TO BE SCOPED IN/OUT ...... 29 TOPIC AREAS ...... 344
4 OTHER INFORMATION ...... 566
APPENDIX 1 – PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
APPENDIX 2 – LIST OF BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED
APPENDIX 3 – RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES
Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the Scoping Opinion (the Opinion) provided by the Secretary of State in respect of the content of the Environmental Statement for the Proposed North West Coast Connections Project, in the North West of England.
This report sets out the Secretary of State’s Opinion on the basis of the information provided in the National Grid (‘the applicant’) report entitled Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (September 2015) (‘the Scoping Report’). The Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the applicant.
The Secretary of State has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the topic areas 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 (as amended).
The Secretary of State draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topic areas in this Opinion. The main potential issues identified are:
• Effects on the statutory purposes of the Lake District National Park • Landscape and visual impact effects • Effects on ecology, and • Socio-economic effects, particularly in relation to effects on tourism.
Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State notes the potential need to carry out an assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations).
3
Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
1 INTRODUCTION
Background
1.1 On 18 September 2015, the Secretary of State received the Scoping Report submitted by National Grid under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed North West Coast Connections project (‘the proposed development’). This Opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the applicant’s Scoping Report.
1.2 The applicant has formally provided notification under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed development. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the proposed development is determined to be EIA development.
1.3 The EIA Regulations enable an applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the Secretary of State to state in writing their formal opinion (a ‘scoping opinion’) on the information to be provided in the environmental statement (ES).
1.4 Before adopting a scoping opinion the Secretary of State must take into account:
(a) the specific characteristics of the particular development; (b) the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; and (c) environmental features likely to be affected by the development’. (EIA Regulation 8 (9))
1.5 This Opinion sets out what information the Secretary of State considers should be included in the ES for the proposed development. The Opinion has taken account of:
• The EIA Regulations; • The nature and scale of the proposed development; • The nature of the receiving environment; and • Current best practice in the preparation of an ES.
1.6 The Secretary of State has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees (see Appendix 3 of this Opinion). The matters addressed by the applicant have been carefully considered and use has been made of professional judgement and experience in order to adopt this Opinion. It should be noted that when it comes to consider the ES, the Secretary of State will take
5 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
account of relevant legislation and guidelines (as appropriate). The Secretary of State will not be precluded from requiring additional information if it is considered necessary in connection with the ES submitted with that application when considering the application for a development consent order (DCO).
1.7 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the Secretary of State agrees with the information or comments provided by the applicant in their request for an opinion from the Secretary of State. In particular, comments from the Secretary of State in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the Secretary of State (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 (NSIP), or associated development, or development that does not require development consent.
1.8 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:
(a) a plan sufficient to identify the land; (b) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; and (c) such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make. (EIA Regulation 8 (3))
1.9 The Secretary of State considers that this has been provided in the applicant’s Scoping Report.
The Secretary of State’s Consultation
1.10 The Secretary of State has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regulations to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is provided at Appendix 2. The applicant should note that whilst the Secretary of State’s list can inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.
1.11 The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and whose comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is provided at Appendix 2 along with copies of their comments at Appendix 3, to which the applicant should refer in undertaking the EIA.
1.12 The ES submitted by the applicant should demonstrate consideration of the points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation bodies and how they are, or are not, addressed in the ES.
6 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
1.13 Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments will not be taken into account within this Opinion. Late responses will be forwarded to the applicant and will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. The applicant should also give due consideration to those comments in carrying out the EIA.
Structure of the Document
1.14 This Opinion is structured as follows:
• Section 1 – Introduction • Section 2 – The proposed development • Section 3 – EIA approach and topic areas • Section 4 – Other information.
1.15 This Opinion is accompanied by the following Appendices:
• Appendix 1 – Presentation of the environmental statement • Appendix 2 – List of bodies formally consulted • Appendix 3 – Respondents to consultation and copies of replies.
7 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
2 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the proposed development and its site and surroundings prepared by the applicant and included in their Scoping Report and its associated appendices. The information has not been verified and it has been assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the proposed development and the potential receptors/resources.
The Applicant’s Information
Overview of the proposed development
2.2 The project is proposed to address a need for reinforcement of the National Electricity Transmission System (NETS) in the North West of England. This is to accommodate the substantial amount of new generation capacity being promoted in the area, including from the proposed new Moorside Nuclear Power Station (‘Moorside’) and an offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea.
2.3 The proposed development is centred on a proposed new 400/132kV Grid Supply Point (GSP) at Moorside, from which new 400kV connections will be provided to the following:
• Northwards to a new extension to the existing Stainburn Substation to the east of Workington and on to an extension to the existing Harker Substation to the north of Carlisle; • Southwards to the Furness peninsula, where it would connect with a new 400/132kV GSP substation near to the existing Roosecote Substation; and • From the new substation at Roosecote the connection would pass under Morecambe Bay and then link with the Middleton Substation (currently under construction) near Heysham.
2.4 The Scoping Report identifies a Scoping Corridor which it is anticipated will include the extent of the development currently proposed. The following infrastructure/works are proposed within the Corridor:
• Permanent electricity transmission alignments and siting areas, including possible options for:
- 400kV transmission infrastructure (having regard to a range of technologies); and
- 132kV, 33kV, 11kV and 415V distribution infrastructure (owned and operated by Electricity North West); • Temporary 132kV alignments during the construction of the project;
8 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Tunnel head construction areas for a tunnel across Morecambe Bay; • A search area for a permanent ventilation and emergency access tunnel islet in Morecambe Bay; • Permanent and temporary access requirements; and • Temporary working areas, such as laydown and site offices.
2.5 There are other elements of the proposed development which are still being defined and which could be located outside of the Scoping Corridor. These include:
• The means of delivering construction materials and removing waste. This could include the use of ports or railway sidings. • A new 132kV connection (possibly underground) to an existing Electricity North West substation on the north west side of Barrow. • Additional permanent wooden pole (and possibly also steel lattice) trident lines between Lindal in Furness and Barrow, as well as between Sellafield and Egremont.
Description of the site and surrounding area
2.6 The site is located in the north west of England, within the administrative areas of the following:
• Cumbria County Council; • Carlisle City Council; • Allerdale Borough Council; • Copeland Borough Council; • South Lakeland District Council • Barrow-in-Furness Council • Lancashire County Council; and • Lancaster City Council.
2.7 The Scoping Corridor is illustrated in Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 2.7 to 2.18 of the Scoping Report. The final application site boundary is expected to be smaller than this Corridor.
2.8 The Scoping Report divides the Scoping Corridor into the following six distinct sections, the boundaries for which are those used in the Route Corridor Study (RCS) prepared by the applicant when refining the proposed route:
A. Moorside to Whitehaven; B. Whitehaven to Aspatria; C. Aspatria to Harker Substation;
9 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
D. Moorside to Silecroft; E. Silecroft to Lindal in Furness; and H. Lindal in Furness to Middleton Substation.
2.9 The sections are illustrated in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 of the Scoping Report and will be retained throughout the EIA to maintain consistency. The characteristics of the environment within and surrounding the sections are varied, with the key features summarised below.
2.10 The following European sites are located within the Scoping Corridor:
• Drigg Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC); • Duddon Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA); • Duddon Mosses SAC; • Morecambe Bay SAC, SPA and Ramsar site; • River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC; and • River Eden SAC.
2.11 A further four SPAs, nineteen SACs and three Ramsar sites are within 20km of the site. Other designations or features within/near the site include:
• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves, Marine Conservation Zones (one of which is ‘recommended’) and locally designated areas of nature conservation importance; • Scheduled Monuments, conservation areas, listed buildings, Registered Park and Gardens and other historic assets, including a World Heritage Site (WHS) and Heritage Coast; • Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), National Park and locally designated areas of seascape and landscape importance; • Public Rights of Way (PRoW), Coastal Path and National Cycle Routes and the wider highway network. • Air Quality Management Areas. • River Basin Districts and other watercourses. • Principal and secondary aquifers. • Areas of flood risk • Coastal areas within the North West England and North Wales Shoreline Management Plan;
2.12 Ecology surveys have identified the potential for, or records of, various protected species within or near the site. These include great crested newt, natterjack toad, reptiles, badgers, bats, dormice, otter/water voles as well as various invertebrates, breeding/non-
10 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
breeding birds and marine mammals (including harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and grey seals).
2.13 Land uses within/near the Scoping Corridor include Sellafield nuclear fuel production and processing facility, Heysham nuclear power station, colliery spoil tips, landfills, quarries, ports, commercial fishing, railway lines, agriculture, utilities infrastructure (including overhead electricity lines) and former mining areas.
2.14 Settlements near to the proposed development include Beckermet, Haile, Braystones, Middle Ehenside, Ehenside Farm and Greenmoor Side.
Alternatives
2.15 The main alternatives considered by the Applicant are described in Section 2.2 of the Scoping Report. This includes a summary of the Strategic Option Studies undertaken between 2009 and 2012, which were followed by a Route Corridor Study of two of the options. Consultation on a Proposed Route Corridor was undertaken in June 2015 and the project (together with its potential environmental effects) is being developed within this area.
Description of the proposed development
400kV infrastructure
2.16 A 400/132kV GSP substation will be constructed adjacent to the proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station. From here approximately 27km of new 400kV connection would be constructed to link with a new extension to the existing Stainburn Substation near Workington, with a further connection of approximately 52km to an extended Harker Substation to the north of Carlisle. The latter would also involve relocating the existing 400kV overhead line (known as the ZV line) to create sufficient safety clearances.
2.17 A separate 400kV connection of approximately 55km is proposed to extend in a southerly direction from the Moorside GSP substation. This would connect with a new 400/132kV GSP substation located near to the existing 132kV Roosecote Substation. From here the connection would pass through a tunnel head and under Morecambe Bay, ending at the extended Middleton Substation (currently under construction).
2.18 The detailed design and siting of the substations and their accompanying permanent access roads are subject to further study and consultation. Each substation would include shunt reactors, switchgear (air or gas insulated), steel support structures, welfare accommodation, ancillary buildings, backup diesel generator, oily water interceptor(s) and a low voltage electricity supply connection.
2.19 The siting, alignment and transmission technology (including whether it is above or below ground in some instances) have not yet been
11 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
determined and are subject to detailed technical design, assessment and consultation. At this stage the 400kV connection could comprise a combination of the following:
• Overhead lines supported by pylons; • Cable in tunnel; • Cable in duct, if appropriate in specific locations; and • Directly buried underground cables, if appropriate in specific locations.
2.20 The overhead line elements of the connection will comprise twin conductors, supported by either conventional steel lattice pylons, low height steel lattice pylons, T-pylons, or a combination of these. The pylon sizes vary but would be up to approximately 46.5 metres high and 31 metres wide (at their widest point).
2.21 Typically, where ground conditions and other constraints allow, the underground elements will be laid in groups of trenches approximately 2 metres wide and 1.8 metres deep. The cables may have to be routed deeper and further apart where a trenchless technique is required (such as Horizontal Directional Drilling) to avoid environmental constraints such as river crossings.
2.22 The group of trenches would have a total width of approximately 60 metres. Joints in the cables would be provided every 800 metres, where there would be an above ground box or a surface accessible link pit for the purposes of monitoring and testing of the cables. Cable Sealing End (CSE) compounds would be required where there is a transition between an overhead line supported on pylons and an underground cable.
Morecambe Bay tunnel and associated infrastructure
2.23 A tunnel for the connection would be constructed across Morecambe Bay between the Furness and Heysham peninsulas. The tunnel would be approximately 22km in length, have a minimum internal diameter of 5m and be situated approximately 25-35 metres below the sea bed. It is expected that the tunnel would comprise two sections divided by a permanent intermediate islet in the centre of Morecambe Bay.
2.24 The islet and the vertical access/egress shaft within it would be located near the mid-point of the tunnel, with the final location subject to bathymetric and geophysical studies (the current 3km search area for the islet is shown on Figure 2.17 of the Scoping Report). The islet would have a diameter of approximately 50 metres and the shaft would have a minimum diameter of 16 metres. It would be encircled by a protective layer of rock armour between 25m and 60m wide. It would also include navigational beacons, lighting and general warning equipment for ocean vessels, boats and leisure craft.
12 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
2.25 Both sections of the tunnel would terminate at the central islet shaft, to allow the disassembly and removal of the tunnel boring machines (TBM) used to construct the tunnel and to aid the installation of the cable. The shaft would also provide ventilation and a secondary means of egress for inspection personnel during an emergency. The shaft top on the islet would be constructed at a suitable level above the highest astronomical tide (HAT) to provide adequate protection from storm waves. Additional intermediate temporary shafts (with a diameter of approximately 6 metres) may be constructed along the tunnel route for emergency use, personnel refuge and evacuation. There will also be a series of emergency stations along the entire tunnel length.
2.26 A head house to accommodate ventilation plant, operational services, a shaft and access staircase would be at each end of the tunnel. These would be adjacent to the proposed GSP substation at Roosecote and adjacent to the Middleton substation. They would be up to 12 metres high and have a floor area of 30m x 40m.
2.27 It is currently estimated that 1.22 million tonnes of material would be excavated from the tunnel. The engineering characteristics of these arisings (e.g. plasticity, consistency and moisture content) will depend on the type of TBM used, the materials encountered during tunnelling and the various treatment systems used. The properties of the final arisings will determine their potential for re-use.
Electricity North West infrastructure
2.28 Works are proposed to existing electricity infrastructure that is owned and operated by Electricity North West. This includes:
• Diversions of 132kV overhead lines which pass close to the path of the 400kV line to create a safe working area. Short sections would either be put onto temporary wood pole trident lines or underground. Any underground cables which are no longer required after reconfiguration of the network would be removed. • Removal of 132kV overhead lines where the new 400kV connection introduces a new overhead line to a corridor. • Reconnection of terminated 132kV overhead lines. • Modifications to other lower voltage overhead lines, where these are crossed by the 400kV connection. • Modifications to existing 132kV substations as a result of the changes to the distribution network.
Access
2.29 A transport strategy is being developed for the project outlining the transport modes proposed for the delivery and movement of the equipment, plant, construction/waste materials, abnormal loads and
13 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
construction workforce. The aim of the transport strategy will be to minimise road traffic and HGV movements wherever appropriate.
2.30 The review of transport options will consider road traffic alongside and in combination with rail, via existing and potentially new rail infrastructure, and marine travel via deliveries to local ports (e.g. Barrow, Heysham, Workington).
Construction
400kV infrastructure
2.31 The plant/works involved in the construction of the 400kV line vary depending on whether the cables will be on pylons or underground. In all cases they could include:
• Construction compounds and site offices, possibly involving the importation of material to provide hardstandings; • Temporary access roads/tracks, although these may remain in place at the request of the landowner; • Widening of existing access from public highways; • Temporary infrastructure such as scaffolding and bridge structures in some locations (e.g. rivers);
2.32 The plant and works specific to the construction of overhead lines include:
• Temporary stone pads for plants such as cranes and piling rigs to construct new pylons (of varying size depending on the pylon type); • Clearance of the area around pylons, together with fencing (where appropriate) and a gated entrance; • Piled or excavated pylon foundations; • Mobile cranes to erect the pylons, HGVs to deliver pylon components and a machine to tension the cables;
2.33 The plant and works specific to the construction of underground cables include:
• A working area of approximately 100 metres wide along the route, although this could be reduced where practicable in response to environmental constraints; • Post and wire fencing on both sides of the working area; • Clearance of vegetation etc from the working area, removal of topsoil (which would be stored temporarily in the area) and site levelling; • Drainage improvement measures to address flood risk; • HGVs to deliver cable components and construction materials;
14 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Machinery to dig trenches or undertake Horizontal Directional Drilling; • Reinstatement works, including the removal of relevant infrastructure, replacement of soil, replanting/planting of trees/hedgerows; • Foundation works (concrete or piled) for Construction Sealing End compounds, substations and other electrical equipment; • Mobile cranes, scaffolding; and • Commissioning tests for the substations.
Morecambe Bay tunnel and associated infrastructure
2.34 There would be different construction methodologies for each of the components of the tunnel (tunnel heads/launch shafts, tunnel, permanent islet and temporary shafts). A summary of the plant/works potentially required to construct each of these is as follows:
Tunnel heads, launch shafts and associated tunnelling
• Construction compounds to house the various equipment/facilities involved including a segmental tunnel lining fabrication facility, storage/handing areas, main launch shaft, crane standing area, and spoil/water management facilities; • Tunnel boring machines (TBM); • Shaft excavation, with the potential for piling to a depth of approximately 150 metres in areas of unstable ground; • Excavation/development of a tunnel portal underground to initiate the TBM and begin installation of the tunnel segments; • Use of engineering explosives to excavate through rock at landfall locations; • Transportation of excavated soil out of the tunnel using a conveyor, rail or slurry pipes; • An advance rate of the TBM of approximately 20 metres per day; • Spoil storage, treatment, re-use and/or disposal at the surface as appropriate. Treatment facilities would be in temporary structures with typical dimensions of 15m (h) x 30m (w) x 60m (l).
Permanent Islet (four options)
• Conventional land based shaft sinking techniques adapted for offshore application. Excavation would occur within a caisson beneath the water level, with the shaft jacked down as the excavation progresses and with spoil removed by crane loading barges. The shaft would be surrounded with a revetment of rock armour to create a larger island footprint and an area for cable installation/ventilation/egress.
15 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Single prefabricated circular concrete caisson structure floated into position and sunk to the Bay floor by flooding or ballast. Dredging would be required to prepare the Bay floor and dry dock facilities may be required to assemble the caisson units. • Offshore upright cofferdam using pre-fabricated interlocking concrete tubular casings lowered to the Bay floor, possibly involving piling/boring. The shaft would either be sunk into the floor or the inside space would be filled to full height and a conventional caisson would be sunk into this. • Direct placement of a rock revetment on the Bay floor in a circular ring which would then be filled. The process would be repeated to the appropriate level, with the shaft sunk into the fill.
All options require extensive specialist marine works and involve a variety of large construction berths, jacked leg pontoons and supply vessels. The facilities required at local ports will be examined in detail as part of the developing design. The final methodology will be determined by the contractor however the EIA will consider the relevant worst case scenario on a topic by topic basis.
Temporary intermediate shafts along the tunnel
• On land, caisson shaft sinking methods would be used. • In the Bay, wet caisson shaft sinking methods adapted for over- water applications would be used. This would involve jack legged pontoons that would remain in place until the tunnel is complete. • All shafts will be removed and backfilled on completion of the tunnel.
Electricity North West infrastructure
2.35 The proposed new 132kV underground cables would be laid (together with an auxiliary communication cable) in trenches within a working area approximately 10 to 15 metres wide. The cables would have to be routed deeper and spaced further apart where trenchless techniques such as HDD or boring are required.
2.36 Joints in the underground cables would be required every 300 metres to 1 kilometre, subject to the number and severity of bends on the route. The joints would require an above ground kiosk or a surface accessible link pit together with an access track to facilitate for monitoring/testing.
2.37 Removal of existing 132kV overhead lines and use of temporary wood poles would use temporary access tracks, contractor’s compounds, offices and scaffolding. The dismantling process would be a reverse of the process described to install the 400kV overhead lines, with components cut into manageable sections for transportation where appropriate. Unless there is a compelling need for removal of all of the foundations these would be removed to approximately 1 metre
16 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
deep with the subsoil and top soil reinstated. The working areas and access tracks would be removed and the land returned to its previous condition (unless otherwise agreed with the landowner).
Operation and maintenance
400kV infrastructure
2.38 Annual inspections of overhead lines would be undertaken by helicopter or from the ground to confirm whether refurbishment works are required. Such works could include:
• Replacement of conductors and earth wire; • Replacement of insulators and steelwork that holds the conductors and insulators in place; • Painting or replacing the pylon steelwork; and • Replacement of pylon furniture (anti climbing devices, colour identification plates, danger of death notices, number plates).
2.39 The works would involve the use of light goods vehicles to carry workers and HGVs to deliver/remove materials and equipment. Temporary access tracks and scaffolding would be required in a similar manner to the construction stage.
2.40 Underground cables would be monitored using the installed fibre optic cables and the link pit or kiosks installed at the cable joints. If any cable repairs are required, the area would be accessed via temporary trackways.
2.41 CSE compounds and substations would be visited infrequently to monitor the underground cables and carry out periodic maintenance and checks on the electrical equipment. Any refurbishment and/or replacement works would use vans to carry workers and HGVs to deliver/remove materials and equipment. Temporary scaffolding may be required to protect any infrastructure.
Morecambe Bay tunnel and associated infrastructure
2.42 Maintenance of the tunnel and cable infrastructure would be kept to a minimum, with routine checking carried out by CCTV and remote operating systems.
2.43 There may be an occasional need to visit the islet for ongoing maintenance and inspection. Primary access for this would be along the tunnel through an electric self-propelled vehicle at each head house. There would be steel lockable doors at each head house and strict entry/exit procedures. The islet may also be accessed by boat.
2.44 The tunnel will include ventilation and climate control systems as well as means of draining condensate, accumulated moisture, water ingress and nominal leakage.
17 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Electricity North West infrastructure
2.45 Maintenance works for the existing 132kV network that is to remain should not change from their current requirements during and after completion of the proposed development. It would be similar to the maintenance required for the proposed 400kV overhead line, but as it would be owned and operated by ENW, there may be slight differences in how and when this maintenance is undertaken.
2.46 Maintenance of new underground 132kV cable infrastructure introduced by the proposed development would be similar to the maintenance required for the existing 132kV underground infrastructure.
Decommissioning
400kV infrastructure
2.47 The typical life expectancies for overhead line infrastructure range from approximately 80 years for the pylons, 60 years for the conductors and 40 years the insulators and their fittings. The overhead line may be removed if it is no longer required. This would involve the removal of the various fittings and dismantling of the pylons, with components cut into sections where appropriate/possible. Unless there is a compelling need for removal of all of the foundations these would be removed to approximately 1 metre deep with the subsoil and top soil reinstated.
2.48 Underground cables have a life expectancy of approximately 40-50 years, at which point they would need to be replaced (if they are still required), which would involve the excavation of a new trench alongside the existing to avoid excavation of the old cables. The old cables would remain buried in the ground unless there is a compelling need, in which case a similar method to the installation stage would be followed.
2.49 After the useful life of CSE compounds and substations (approximately 40 years), either replacements would be constructed or the various components would be removed, with the foundations removed to 1 metre deep (unless there is a compelling case for their complete removal).
Morecambe Bay tunnel and associated infrastructure
2.50 The tunnel has a minimum design life of 100 years. This can be extended using refurbishment works to both the electrical components and tunnel segments. The Scoping Report does not include proposals for decommissioning the tunnel.
Electricity North West infrastructure
2.51 The Scoping Report does not include proposals for decommissioning the new 132kV infrastructure.
18 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
The Secretary of State’s Comments
Description of the application site and surrounding area
2.52 The Secretary of State requests that the ES includes a section describing the characteristics of the site and surroundings for main development and associated development. This will provide the context for the proposed development and identify any relevant designations and sensitive receptors that could be affected by the proposed development as well as any associated auxiliary facilities, landscaping areas, and potential off-site mitigation or compensation schemes.
2.53 More detailed information on the environmental baseline conditions used in the assessment should be described in the individual technical assessment chapters.
2.54 The Secretary of State welcomes the use of figures in the Scoping Report to support the description of the application site and surrounding area. The figures provided within the scoping report are acceptable, although some features are not clearly legible. For the avoidance of doubt, the following approach is recommended for figures included as part of the ES:
• Inclusion of a single red line plan illustrating all land affected by the proposed works, including all temporary works, such as construction compounds, access roads and storage areas; • All figures should be printed in high resolution and all features should be clearly legible, including the base map features. • All features on figures should be labelled, identifying not only the location of certain designations, but also the relevant name (e.g. ‘Drigg Coast SAC’). • Electronic files should not be excessively large, it may also be appropriate to submit lower resolution electronic versions to facilitate easier downloading from our website.
2.55 The study area for the applicant’s ES should extend to consideration of likely transport routes and likely disposal sites, once this information becomes available. Specific comments in relation to study areas are highlighted within the Secretary of State's comments on topic areas below.
Description of the proposed development
2.56 The Scoping Report provides relatively detailed information on the characteristics of the majority of the development and the options currently being considered. The Secretary of State notes however, that some components of the development have not yet been defined. This has made it difficult for the Secretary of State and consultees to comment on the scope of the assessment required for these components. The applicant should therefore consider carefully
19 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
the scope of the assessments once greater detail on the components is available. It is advised that it will be essential to ensure ongoing consultation with relevant bodies as part of an iterative process.
2.57 The applicant should ensure that the description of the proposed development that is being applied for is as accurate and firm as possible as this will form the basis of the environmental impact assessment. The description of the development in the ES must also be sufficiently certain to meet the requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.
2.58 Any proposed works and/or infrastructure required as associated development, or as an ancillary matter, (whether on or off-site) should be considered as part of an integrated approach to environmental assessment.
2.59 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should include a clear description of all aspects of the proposed development, at the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, and include:
• Land use requirements. • Site preparation works. • Construction processes and methods, including the nature and quantity of materials used and the likely characteristics of any proposed scaffolding and road/bridge/water crossings. • Transport routes and accesses, including details of any proposed river, road and rail crossings. • Emissions, including water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat and electromagnetic radiation.
2.60 The environmental effects of all wastes to be processed and removed from the site should be addressed. The ES will therefore need to quantify/classify the wastes that are expected to be generated and describe the control processes and mitigation procedures for storing and transporting the waste off site.
2.61 The Secretary of State notes that a significant volume of material is predicted to be generated during the proposed tunnel excavation works. The ES should describe the characteristics of the works required for this, together with the type of plant/machinery involved. It should also explain how the expected volume of material has been predicted as this could affect the assumptions used in the assessment (e.g. on construction traffic).
2.62 The Scoping Report makes reference to the potential for dredging activities associated with the construction of the proposed development. The ES should describe the dredging requirements and the activities likely to be involved. The applicant should consult with the MMO at an early stage regarding the need for marine licences for
20 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
these and other proposed works and on how potential impacts on the marine environment should be assessed in the ES.
2.63 The Secretary of State notes that the proposed development could affect existing infrastructure, such as railway lines, roads, bridges, ports and electricity pylons. It is also possible that other infrastructure could be affected by the proposed development (e.g. gas/sewage/water/pipelines or public transport infrastructure). The applicant is therefore encouraged to consult with relevant bodies (e.g. the relevant statutory undertaker, highways authority or Network Rail) regarding any potential impacts on these assets and their users. This might include the potential for disruption or the need for other infrastructure to be redesigned or relocated. The methodology for any assessment required should be discussed and agreed with relevant consultees, together with the design and likely effectiveness of measures proposed to mitigate any significant adverse effects identified.
Flexibility
2.64 The Secretary of State notes that details of various elements of the proposed development have not yet been finalised. The Secretary of State welcomes that the proposals are to be firmed up during the pre- application stages but encourages the description to be as accurate and firm as possible so that its environmental impact can be more accurately assessed.
2.65 Where the details of the scheme cannot be defined precisely the EIA should assess the likely worst case scenario. The applicant’s attention is drawn to Advice Note 9 ‘Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ which is available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website and to the ‘Flexibility’ section in Appendix 3 of this Opinion which provides additional details on the recommended approach.
2.66 The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. At the time of application, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes.
2.67 The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES. It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to robustly assess a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.
2.68 It should be noted that if the proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to application submission,
21 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
the applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion.
Access
2.69 All access points under consideration for construction, operational and maintenance phases of the proposed development should be detailed in the ES. The ES should detail the environmental impacts of each option considered, including a worse-case scenario. The ES should also describe the anticipated type, nature and extent of any other works necessary to construct the accesses (e.g. demolition works, road widening, rail works, footpath/pipeline diversions and vegetation clearance).
Alternatives
2.70 The EIA Regulations require that the applicant provide ‘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 Appendix 3).
2.71 The Secretary of State notes that, other than the proposed tunnel under Morecambe Bay, a decision has not yet been made on the transmission technology choices for the connection. Paragraph 2.4.1 of the Scoping Report states that the connection could comprise a combination of the following:
• Overhead lines supported by pylons; • Cable in tunnel; • Cable in duct, if appropriate in specific locations; and • Directly buried underground cables, if appropriate in specific locations.
2.72 The ES should describe the design and assessment work undertaken to inform the final decision on the transmission technologies and describe the reasons for the choices made. This is supported by National Policy Statement EN-5 (see below).
2.73 The Secretary of State considers that the nature and scale of the proposed development means it has the potential to have significant landscape and visual impacts. Paragraph 2.8.4 of NPS EN-5 explains that ‘wherever the nature or proposed route of an overhead line proposal makes it likely that its visual impact will be particularly significant, the applicant should have given appropriate consideration to the potential costs and benefits of other feasible means of connection or reinforcement, including underground and sub-sea cables where appropriate’. The Secretary of State expects the ES to demonstrate consideration of these options (particularly as a way to mitigate significant impacts) and to include an explanation on the reasons for the options chosen.
22 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Construction
2.74 The Secretary of State notes and welcomes the summary information provided on the construction methodologies for the various development options being considered.
2.75 The Secretary of State considers that information on construction (for both the offshore and onshore project elements) including:
• Phasing of programme; • Construction methods and activities associated with each phase; • Measures proposed to mitigate potential adverse effects; • Waste storage and disposal arrangements; • Siting of construction compounds (including on and off site); • Lighting equipment/requirements; and • Number, movements and parking of construction vehicles (both HGVs and staff).
2.76 In light of the extensive quantity of excavated material to be generated during construction, the applicant should clearly describe where and how this will be disposed.
2.77 The Secretary of State notes that an Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan will be submitted with the ES. The contents of this should be discussed and agreed with relevant consultees, to ensure it addresses the potential construction impacts of the development.
Operation and maintenance
2.78 The Secretary of State welcomes the information provided on likely works associated with the maintenance of the proposed development. This information should also be provided in the ES, but with greater detail where there is potential for significant environmental effects (e.g. where additional temporary accesses or crossings may be necessary or where maintenance activities may be frequent). Such details should cover but not be limited to matters such as; the type/size of structures, number of staff, the frequency/duration of activities/works and the number and types of vehicle/boat movements.
Decommissioning
2.79 In terms of decommissioning, the Secretary of State 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. The process and methods of decommissioning should be
23 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
considered and options presented in the ES. The Secretary of State encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.
2.80 The Scoping Report describes the typical design life of the various components of the proposed development. The Secretary of State recommends that the EIA covers the life span of the proposed development, including construction, operation and decommissioning.
24 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS
Introduction
3.1 This section contains the Secretary of State’s specific comments on the approach to the ES and topic areas as set out in the Scoping Report. General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided at Appendix 1 of this Opinion and should be read in conjunction with this Section.
EU Directive 2014/52/EU
3.2 The Secretary of State draws the applicant’s attention to EU Directive 2014/52/EU (amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) which was made in April 2014.
3.3 Under the terms of the 2014/52/EU Directive, Member States are required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 16 May 2017.
3.4 It is noted that the EIA documents for the proposed development will address any changes to the existing EIA regulations. While transitional provisions will apply to such new regulations, the applicant is advised to consider the effect of the implementation of the revised Directive in terms of the production and content of the ES.
National Policy Statements (NPS)
3.5 Sector specific NPSs are produced by the relevant Government Departments and set out national policy for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). They provide the framework within which the Examining Authority will make their recommendations to the Secretary of State and include the Government’s objectives for the development of NSIPs.
3.6 The relevant NPSs, EN-1 and EN-5 for the proposed development set out both the generic and technology-specific impacts that should be considered in the EIA for the proposed development. When undertaking the EIA, the applicant must have regard to both the generic and technology-specific impacts and identify how these impacts have been assessed in the ES.
3.7 The Secretary of State must have regard to any matter that the Secretary of State thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include the draft NPS if the relevant NPS has not been formally designated.
25 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Environmental Statement Approach
3.8 The Scoping Report refers frequently to routine operation and maintenance. Whilst some information on likely maintenance activities has been provided in Chapter 2 of the Scoping Report the distinction between ‘routine’ and other forms of maintenance is not clearly established. The Secretary of States notes that it is typical for maintenance activities to be requested as part of the DCO application. The applicant should ensure that the ES includes an assessment of impacts associated with the maintenance works requested as part of any draft DCO including those that are classified as ‘routine’ or otherwise.
3.9 As described in NPS-EN 1, the Secretary of State will have to have regard for the statutory purposes of the Lake District National Park (LDNP) when considering any DCO application for this project. In doing so she is likely to have to draw on a number of chapters within the ES. The applicant may wish to consider providing a report which draws together the evidence within the ES to assess the potential effects of the proposed development on the statutory purposes of the national park.
3.10 The Secretary of State also recommends that the ES makes it clear how the Holford and Horlock rules have been taken into account in the development of the project and the assessment of its effects.
3.11 It is noted that the Scoping Report has been prepared by a number of different consultants. 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. This is particularly important when considering impacts in terms of any permutations or parameters to the proposed development.
3.12 The use of the future baseline is noted but the applicant is reminded that the ES must clearly explain how that baseline has been derived and what evidence supports it. The Secretary of State recommends that the future baseline is agreed with relevant consultees wherever possible.
3.13 The approach to dealing with inter-related effects, as described in paragraph 5.8.8 of the Scoping Report is not agreed. The Secretary of State is concerned that this would rule out inter-related effects on receptors if individual effects are not significant alone. This excludes the possibility of non-significant effects combining to cause a significant effect on a particular receptor. It also appears to contradict the approach described in paragraph 5.2.19 of the Scoping Report.
3.14 The information provided in the Scoping Report sets out the proposed approach to the preparation of the ES. Whilst early engagement on the scope of the ES is to be welcomed, the Secretary of State notes
26 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
that the level of information provided at this stage is not always sufficient to allow for detailed comments from either the Secretary of State or the consultees.
3.15 The Secretary of State suggests that the applicant ensures that appropriate consultation is undertaken with the relevant consultees in order to agree wherever possible the timing and relevance of survey work as well as the methodologies to be used. The Secretary of State notes and welcomes the intention to finalise the scope of investigations in conjunction with ongoing stakeholder liaison and consultation with the relevant regulatory authorities and their advisors. Some consultees have requested more information to clarify how and when they will be involved in the preparation of the environmental impact assessment. The applicant is advised to ensure consultees are adequately informed about how and when they will be asked to advise on the assessment.
3.16 The Secretary of State 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. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.
3.17 The Secretary of State recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the applicant may wish to consider the use of tables:
(a) to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation on the basis of specialist topics, inter-relationships and cumulative impacts; (b) to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion and other responses to consultation; (c) to set out the mitigation measures proposed, as well as assisting the reader, the Secretary of State considers that this would also enable the applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Development Consent Order; and (d) to cross reference where details in the HRA (where one is provided) such as descriptions of sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or compensation measures, are to be found in the ES
3.18 It is noted that the mitigation measures classed as ‘design mitigation’ and ‘good practice mitigation’ will be taken into account when the significance of effects on receptors is considered (Scoping Report paragraph 5.2.4). Where these measures are being relied on to avoid
27 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
significant effects it must be clear from the ES and the DCO that these measures will be delivered. The assessment should not rely on measures that are considered only ‘likely’ to be delivered rather than being guaranteed.
3.19 Paragraph 5.2.4 of the Scoping Report also states that effects that are deemed to be insignificant once design and good practice mitigation measures are taken into account will only be covered briefly in the text of the ES and will either be scoped out of the assessment or discussed briefly in an appendix. The Secretary of State recognises the potential benefits of this approach e.g. reducing the size of the ES but reminds the applicant of the importance to ensure sufficient information is provided to give confidence that the conclusions are robust.
Environmental Statement Structure
3.20 Chapter 20 of the Scoping Report sets out the proposed structure of the ES and notes that it is anticipated that the ES will be produced in five parts:
• Part 1: Introduction to the Environmental Statement and the project; • Part 2: Environmental topic chapters; • Part 3: Appendices; • Part 4: Figures; and • Part 5: Non-technical summary.
3.21 Table 20.2 of the Scoping Report sets out the proposed Contents list of the ES on which the applicant seeks the opinion of the Secretary of State.
3.22 The Secretary of State notes that from the ES Contents sheet (Scoping Report Table 20.2) that the EIA would cover a number of assessments under the broad headings of:
• Landscape and visual impact assessment; • Historic environment; • Terrestrial and avian ecology; • Traffic and transport; • Construction noise and vibration; • Operational noise and vibration; • Air quality; • Hydrology and flood risk; • Hydrogeology; • Geology and soils;
28 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Socio-economics, recreation and land use; • Waste and materials management; • Marine environment; • Project wide inter-relationship effects; and • Project wide cumulative effects.
3.23 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should include a description of the proposed construction programme and methods.
Matters to be scoped in/out
3.24 The applicant has the matters they propose to scope out in Chapter 19 of the Scoping Report. They are:
• Landscape and visual impact assessment
- Effects of construction traffic movements - Tunnelling activities - Routine maintenance of overhead lines, excluding pruning/vegetation clearance
- Routine maintenance of substations - Effects on Lancashire Landscape Character Areas and Seascape Character Units from the transmission of electricity and presence of underground cables
- Routine maintenance of underground cables - Effect on Heritage Coast and Landscape of County Importance (LoCI) from tunnel islet on landscape character and visual receptors
- Effects on landscape features such as trees from decommissioning of underground cables and infrastructure • Historic environment
- Effect on the Hadrian’s Wall WHS and registered parks and gardens from the disposal of tunnel waste, below ground tunnelling activities, electricity transmission infrastructure within the tunnel and decommissioning of the tunnel infrastructure and head houses
- Effect on all heritage assets from routine operation and maintenance of overhead lines, substations and underground cables and the tunnel (excluding settings effects due to presence)
- Effect on known and unknown archaeological assets from pruning/vegetation clearance for overhead lines • Terrestrial and avian ecology
- Effects on dormouse and water vole from construction traffic movements
29 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
- Effects on National Nature Reserves, dormouse, red squirrel and pine marten from tunnel construction, operation and routine maintenance
- Effects on otter, water vole, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates from presence and operation of overhead lines
- Effects on dormouse, otter, water vole, red squirrel, pine marten, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates from operation and routine maintenance of substations
- Effects on bats, dormouse, otter, water vole, red squirrel, pine marten, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, breeding birds and wintering birds • Traffic and transport
- Effects from the presence and operation of any project infrastructure (including routine maintenance)
- Effects from the decommissioning of the tunnel and underground cables (excluding decommissioning of tunnel heads) • Construction noise and vibration
- Structural damage from vibration impacts from construction or construction traffic movements • Operational noise
- Vibration from the operation of overhead lines, tunnel head houses and substations
- Noise and vibration from the operation of underground cables and routine maintenance of all project infrastructure
- Noise from transmission pylon fixtures and fittings (apart from conductors), 132kV and below distribution lines, operation of switchgear and auxiliary equipment in substations (apart from transformers) • Air quality
- Effects on local air quality from presence and operation of overhead lines, tunnel, substations, underground cables and routine maintenance of all project infrastructure and pruning/vegetation clearance around overhead lines • Hydrology
- Effects on flood risk receptors from changes in runoff rates and river flows from construction traffic movements
- Effects on all aspects of the water environment from the erection and connection of pylon structures, works to existing electricity infrastructure, operation of overhead lines and operation and routine maintenance of substations and the tunnel
30 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Hydrogeology
- Effects on groundwater (quality or quantity) from the operation of all project infrastructure and routine maintenance of overhead lines, substations, underground cables and the tunnel • Geology and soils
- Sterilisation of minerals sites, direct effects on minerals sites or loss of agricultural land from construction traffic movements, and erecting and connecting pylon structures
- Exposure to land contamination, degradation of land quality, effects on soil resources and agricultural drainage from the presence and operation of overhead lines, substations, tunnel, underground cables and the pruning/vegetation clearance around overhead lines
- Effects from ground gas ingress into buildings, degradation in land quality, effects on geo-conservation sites or minerals sites, loss of agricultural land, damage to soils and agricultural drainage, effects on land stability, effects on undeveloped land and built development from the presence and operation of overhead lines and the routine maintenance of substations, underground cables and the tunnel • Socio-economic, recreation and land use
- Effects on the delivery of allocated development sites from construction traffic
- Effects on local services during the operation of project infrastructure
- Effects (apart from effects on the local labour market) from routine maintenance of project infrastructure
- Effects from pruning and vegetation clearance and tunnel decommissioning (retention of subsurface section of the tunnel) • Waste and materials management
- Generation of waste from construction traffic movements - Generation of waste (other than metallic wastes) and effects of disposal of these wastes on disposal facilities from the erection and connection of 400kV pylon structures and 132kV pylon structures
- Generation of waste (other than metallic, concrete or potentially contaminated wastes) from dismantling and removal of existing electricity infrastructure
- Generation of waste from the presence of project infrastructure - Generation of waste (other than vegetation) from pruning/vegetation clearance around the overhead lines • Marine environment
31 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
- Effects on marine and estuarine physical processes and maritime archaeology from the construction, operation and decommissioning of overhead lines
- Effects on water and sediment quality, marine and estuarine benthic habitats and species (apart from salt marsh and Atlantic salt meadow), plankton, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, turtles and commercial fisheries from the operation of overhead lines
- Effect on marine and estuarine processes, maritime archaeology, commercial shipping and recreational navigation from the construction, operation and decommissioning of substations
- Effects on water and sediment quality, marine and estuarine benthic habitats and species (apart from salt marsh and Atlantic salt meadow), plankton, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, turtles, commercial fisheries and other marine users from the operation of substations
- Effects on water and sediment quality and plankton from the operation of the tunnel
3.25 In addition the Secretary of State has noted that the following topics have been also been scoped out in the text of Chapters 6 to 18 of the Scoping Report:
• Odour in construction (Scoping Report paragraph 12.4.6) • Effects on designated geo-conservation sites (Scoping Report paragraph 15.9.2)
3.26 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State does not agree that the matters discussed in the paragraphs below can be scoped out; other matters listed in paragraphs 3.24 and 3.25 above can be scoped out.
3.27 As noted above, it is not clear exactly which activities are covered under the heading of routine maintenance. The Secretary of State is of the view that in the absence of clarity on this point none of the effects associated with routine maintenance should be scoped out.
3.28 The Secretary is also of the view that as the project is still being developed and refined and may use newer technologies such as the T-pylon, it is premature to scope out any of the following:
• Landscape and visual effects
- Construction traffic movements • Terrestrial and avian ecology
- Any effects • Traffic and transport
32 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
- Effects during operation of any project element - Effects during decommissioning of any project element • Operational noise effects
- Noise from pylon fixtures and fittings - Operational switchgear noise - Standby generator noise (see comments below) • Hydrological effects
- Any effects other than construction traffic vehicle movements • Air quality
- Odour effects during construction - Effects on local air quality during operation of substations (use of standby diesel generators) • Geology and soils
- Sterilisation effects or loss of agricultural land resulting from the construction and presence of construction access roads, pylons/foundations and the construction laydown areas
- Damage to soils, agricultural drainage and ground stability from the presence and operation of underground cables
- Possible land contamination from the use of herbicides in vegetation clearance around overhead lines
- Effects on land stability - Effects on designated geo-conservation sites • Socio-economic, recreation and land use
- Deliverability of allocated development sites • Waste and materials management
- Any effects other than those linked to waste generated by construction traffic movements • Marine environment
- Any effects 3.29 It is noted that Scoping Report Chapter 9 and Appendix 9B are contradictory. Appendix 9B proposes that tunnel head decommissioning is scoped out, whereas Scoping Report paragraph 9.9.7 states that these effects are scoped in. The ES should be consistent.
3.30 The Secretary of State accepts that vibration can be scoped out during operation. It should be noted that this is based on the position described in the Scoping Report e.g. low predicted vibration from operational plant, overhead line and equipment, the proposed use of anti-vibration pads for transformers and reactors and maintenance of tunnel head house fans to prevent vibration from
33 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
imbalance. If, as the design of the proposed development is refined any of these measures cannot be implemented then vibration generated during operation should be covered in the ES.
3.31 Scoping Report paragraph 11.4.24 suggests that standby generator noise should be scoped out from further assessment on the basis that generators are only tested for a few minutes per week. In contrast, Scoping Report paragraph 12.1.4(3) states that generator operation is for one hour per week to prove reliability. The Secretary of State requires that the applicant consider the worst case noise effects associated with generator operation during a ‘typical’ emergency scenario.
3.32 Scoping Report paragraph 11.4.26 states that ‘for the time being’ tunnel head operational noise is scoped into the assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State considers that tunnel head operational noise should not be scoped out of the assessment.
3.33 The Secretary of State considers that the potential for construction odour effects to arise should be scoped in, unless otherwise justified, particularly in relation to the handling and storage of wet tunnelling wastes.
3.34 The Secretary of State considers that operational emissions from switchgear may be scoped out from the air quality assessment, based on the proposed use of switchgear that is guaranteed to have no, or minimal, leakage. The applicant should demonstrate the emissions performance of the proposed switchgear as part of their description of development within the ES and how its use is secured within the DCO.
3.35 Whilst the Secretary of State has not agreed to scope out certain topics or matters within the Opinion on the basis of the information available at the time, this does not prevent the applicant from subsequently agreeing with the relevant consultees to scope matters out of the ES, where further evidence has been provided to justify this approach. This approach should be explained fully in the ES.
3.36 In order to demonstrate that topics have not simply been overlooked, where topics are scoped out prior to submission of the DCO application, the ES should still explain the reasoning and justify the approach taken.
Topic Areas
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (see Scoping Report Section 6)
3.37 The Secretary of State welcomes the engagement with both statutory and non-statutory consultees described in the Scoping Report paragraphs 6.1.10 to 6.1.12 and Appendix 6B. It is strongly recommended that key aspects of the assessment methodology are
34 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
agreed with relevant consultees, particularly Natural England (NE) and the local authorities. Evidence of agreement from consultees should be included in the ES. Aspects to be agreed should include:
• The definition of the study area • Characterisation of the baseline environment • Receptors for visual effects • Viewpoints for consideration in the visual impact assessment • Methodology for assessment of effects on landscape character, seascape and visual amenity including criteria for determining the significance of effects
3.38 The applicant should take note of the comments from the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) group of local authorities regarding the physical extent of the study area, the method for determining significance and the selection of viewpoints (see Appendix 3 of this report). The applicant should also have regard to comments from these bodies and make efforts to agree their approach where possible.
3.39 The characterisation of the baseline environment is noted. National Landscape Character Assessment types are referred to for some sections of the connection (section B1 for example) but not for other sections of the connection. It is not clear why this is the case. The choice of evidence to inform the characterisation of the baseline environment will need be clearly presented and justified in the ES.
3.40 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to base the assessment methodology on various pieces of widely used guidance including the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (third edition) (GLIVIA3). The methodology in the scoping report presents descriptions of significant landscape and visual effects (at paragraphs 6.6.29, 6.6.30, 6.8.27 and 6.8.28) which result from the interaction of criteria for aspects set out in preceding Tables and Images. In some instances these criteria summarise the outcome of combining other Tables or Images. The resultant criteria for significance of effects are quite prescriptive, or do not appear to bear out the assumptions which precede them, for example text at 6.6.29 indicates that ‘Major’ landscape effects are those which would endure for more than 25 years, but the definition of ‘’substantial’ at Table 6.9 indicates a time scale of ‘10 to 25 years or more’. This approach appears to conflict with the advice in GLVIA3 to avoid over-reliance on matrices or tabular summaries when considering the significance of effects. The applicant will therefore need to have in mind that the outcome of the assessments which results from the application of criteria built up on a step by step basis, will need to be transparent and readily understood. The Secretary of State therefore welcomes mention of ‘professional judgement on the merits’, and ‘on a case by case basis’ …’rather than by formulaic application…’ at paragraphs 6.6.25 and 6.8.23 of the Scoping Report. The applicant’s attention is
35 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
also drawn to the comments from NE on this point (see Appendix 3 of this report).
3.41 The Secretary of State welcomes the use of the Scottish Natural Heritage and Landscape Institute guidance (Scoping Report paragraph 6.5.22). It is noted that the latest version is 2.1 rather than 2 but the link in the Scoping Report reference list (page 6-72) does link to version 2.1. The applicant is also encouraged to seek agreement from NE and the local authorities on how photomontages and wirelines should be undertaken.
3.42 It is noted that the landscape and visual impact assessment in the ES will have regard to the European Landscape Convention and to the nomination of the LDNP for WHS status but it is not clear how this will be approached in the ES. The methodology proposed in the Scoping Report does not appear to allow for a landscape of international importance to be assessed any differently to those of national importance. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the PPA group on this point in Appendix 3 of this report.
3.43 Table 6.2 of the Scoping Report indicates that ‘important National Trust properties (and their settings)’ will be deemed to be of national value. The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should make clear how it has been decided which are important and which are not important and whether this distinction applies to National Trust buildings, land or both. The Secretary of State recommends engagement and agreement with the National Trust before such assumptions are made in the assessment. Table 6.2 also lists landscapes of National, Local and Community Value. The applicant may wish to consider whether there are any landscapes or features that might be considered to be of regional or county value as well. Image 6.1 (which follows paragraph 6.6.18) refers to ‘Local Authority Level’ as a value. It is not clear if this is the same as ‘local’ in the 3rd line of paragraph 6.6.8 of the Scoping Report. The methodology applied and decisions taken relevant to the assessment, including those applicable to receptor value should be consistent and clear in the ES. The applicant should also take note of the comments from the PPA group on Table 6.2 (see Appendix 3 of this report).
3.44 Table 6.3 sets out factors to be considered in assessing landscape susceptibility in relation to pylon lines, and paragraph 6.6.15 states that this Table reflects the Holford Rules. However, it is not possible to ascertain exactly how the Holford Rules have been taken into account in the definitions, and the Secretary of State confirms that the ES should make clear how these Rules have been taken into account in route selection. The Secretary of State notes the reference at paragraph 6.9.3 to the Holford Rules in relation to mitigation that may be required. The applicant is also reminded of the previous comments on mitigation in this report, particularly the need to make clear that any mitigation relied on in reaching conclusions about the significance of effects in the ES will be delivered.
36 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.45 Table 6.4 provides criteria that refer to ‘the nature of the Project’ and ‘certain aspects of the development’. It is not clear why such language is used when the assessment will be of an actual proposal which will need to be sufficiently detailed in order for the assessment of significant effects to be undertaken.
3.46 The descriptions in Table 6.6, in particular, do not contribute very much to understanding of the approach to be taken in assessing the size or scale of change. Paragraph 5.49 of GLVIA3 provides some indicators which may be of use in refining these descriptions, and also in clarifying the difference between ‘level’ in Table 6.6 and ‘extent’ in Table 6.7.
3.47 The report does not make clear whether visual impact on individual properties rather only those in settlements, will be included in the assessment of effects, with reference to the wording at paragraph 6.8.1. The Secretary of State considers that visual impact experienced by individual properties which may be outside of settlements, should also be included in the assessment of effects, particularly due to the characteristics of the study area. The applicant should also take note of the comments from the PPA group on consideration of effects on residential properties (see Appendix 3 of this report).
3.48 Paragraph 6.8.11 of the scoping report appears to indicate that not all views from private residences may be considered of high sensitivity. If the applicant is to make such an assumption in the assessment, then the Secretary of State will expect to see full justification for this, as paragraphs 6.33 and 6.36 of GLVIA3 indicate that residents in their homes are likely to be receptors most susceptible to change.
3.49 If lighting is likely to be used during construction (as suggested by Scoping Report paragraph 6.9.6) then the effects of this should also be covered in the assessment. The effects of navigation and safety lighting on the islet in Morecambe Bay should also be considered in the ES.
3.50 The Scoping Report states that major and major to moderate effects will be considered significant but moderate effects will be considered individually (Scoping Report paragraph 6.8.26), ‘in terms of the constituent judgements influencing the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of predicted change to determine whether each effect is considered significant or not significant’. While this approach may be acceptable the ES will need to explain clearly why certain moderate effects are not deemed to be significant.
3.51 It is noted that a virtual model of the project components is being developed to assist the investigation of potential landscape and visual change at any position along the development (Scoping Report paragraph 6.5.24). It is not clear how this would be used in the ES assessment. If it is being used to assess environmental effects then
37 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
the basis of the assessment should be clearly explained. The applicant is also reminded that all supporting evidence for the ES must be in a form that can be published on the Planning Inspectorate website. If this model is not something that can be published on the website then it should not be used in the assessment of effects.
3.52 The Secretary of State welcomes the proposal to include the consideration of various inter-related effects. The Secretary of State is not content with the statement at Scoping Report paragraph 6.10.6 that it is not anticipated that any effects that could occur during more than one phase of the project would have the potential to collectively cause a greater effect on a receptor than the effect that would arise for each individual phase. The Secretary of State considers that if an effect occurs during more than one phase of the proposed development then it is likely that receptors will be exposed for a greater period of time, potentially leading to a greater level of effect. The ES should clearly explain the basis for reaching conclusions about the nature and significance of inter-related effects.
3.53 The scope of the cumulative assessment appears to be confined to considering only vertical infrastructure. In terms of effects on landscape character or visual amenity however it is not clear why cumulative effects with other types of infrastructure would not arise. The applicant is strongly encouraged to agree the projects to be included in the cumulative effects assessment with the local authorities and other relevant consultees. The applicant’s attention is also drawn to the comments from the PPA group and NE on the need to properly consider sequential effects. The Secretary of State agrees that sequential effects experienced by walkers and motorists should be given full consideration within the ES.
3.54 The Secretary of State welcomes the applicant’s intention to consider the inter-related effects on the socio-economic assessment. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the PPA group, the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) and Millom with and Wicham parish councils on the importance of landscape to tourism in the Lake District (Appendix 3 of this report).
Historic Environment (see Scoping Report Section 7)
3.55 The Scoping Report section 7.2 sets out three study areas relating to archaeology, built heritage and the historic landscape. Appropriate cross reference should be made between historic environment and landscape and visual sections of the ES, as well as to the maritime historic environment and historic seascape assessments.
3.56 The use of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) DMRB methodology Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, HA208/07 is proposed and is considered to be appropriate in the absence of an industry standard heritage assessment methodology. Should a best practice methodology be developed and adopted in the interim, the use of DMRB should be reviewed.
38 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.57 The proposed study area buffer for non-designated archaeological assets is 500m either side of the scoping corridor (i.e a 1km width study area). Whilst the buffer is appropriate to define an area of study for scoping purposes, the final ES buffer should ultimately be defined in terms of a distance from the Order Limits for the scheme.
3.58 The assessment should include an evaluation of historic landscape characterisation data for the LDNP. The applicant should assess the potential effect on the nominated Lake District WHS and on the Battlefield of Solway Moss, where applicable. The heritage valuation criteria for undesignated and unknown archaeological assets should include ‘assets that demonstrably form part of a WHS’ within the ‘very high value assets’ category. This is particularly pertinent in terms of the Hadrian’s Wall WHS. Any use of professional judgement in the determination of significance should be fully justified. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the LDNPA and the PPA group responses and Historic England’s comments in these respects.
3.59 The Secretary of State notes that field surveys are proposed but that no detail is given in relation to the nature and scope of field surveys to be undertaken. This information should be provided. Any such field surveys should be informed by desk studies and undertaken based on a recognised methodology agreed with the relevant local heritage officers, allowing sufficient time for further evaluation if necessary. The applicant should be aware that in determining locations for undergrounding, regard should be given to the NPS, EN-1 including the justification required if a significant heritage asset may be lost. The applicant’s attention is drawn to Historic England’s comments in this respect.
3.60 The Secretary of State welcomes the early engagement with stakeholders already undertaken and recommends that regular engagement occurs throughout development of the project, for example in agreeing any Written Schemes of Investigation. The Secretary of State considers that the list of consultees should include the LDNPA Historic Environment Advisor. In addition, given the potential for effects to extend up to 10km from the project, the applicant should consult with relevant consultees in Scotland including Dumfries and Galloway Council.
3.61 In relation to Scoping Report paragraph 7.1.6, the Secretary of State considers that LiDAR and/or aerial photographic data should be used to assess the potential for archaeological assets to be present in areas where there is no existing National Mapping Programme (NMP) data coverage (e.g. the Lake District). Data searches should include LDNPA historic environment record data (e.g. in relation to Romans in Ravenglass).
3.62 The applicant proposes distance based criteria beyond which data collection will not take place for built heritage and historic landscape assets. The Secretary of State emphasises that the assessment
39 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
should be based on the likelihood of an effect on an asset arising, rather than strict distance based assessment criteria.
3.63 The approach to assessment of additive and sequential effects on heritage assets should be clearly described. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from PPA group in this respect.
Terrestrial and Avian Ecology (see Scoping Report Section 8)
3.64 The Secretary of State welcomes the engagement with consultees described in paragraphs 8.1.10 to 8.1.12 of the Scoping Report. The applicant is strongly advised to agree the approach to gathering baseline data and the scope of the data to be gathered with relevant consultees, particularly NE, the local authorities and other relevant stakeholders.
3.65 Paragraphs 8.2.3 to 8.2.6 of the Scoping Report explain how the study area for field surveys for each receptor has been selected on a case-by-case basis. Paragraph 8.2.6 lists the cut-off distances for specific receptors but provides limited justification for these distances. The ES should clearly explain the reasoning behind the choice of cut-off distances and how they relate to the ecological zone of influence of the proposed development. The scope of the assessment must be sufficient to ensure that all the relevant receptors, including international and national sites have been covered. It is strongly advised that the applicant agrees the extent of the study areas with relevant consultees, particularly NE.
3.66 Chapter 13 of the Scoping Report (paragraph 13.2.6) states that the wider hydrological area of influence for the project will be used to identify all the statutory wildlife sites that could be dependent on surface water inflows which originate or flow through the scoping corridor. It is not clear how this approach links with the approach to defining the study area described in Chapter 8. The ES should contain an integrated assessment of effects on all wildlife sites, statutory and non-statutory which considers all the ecological effects related to the proposed development, including hydrological effects.
3.67 It is noted that the ecological impact assessment will be carried out in line with the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines. The Secretary of State is not entirely clear how ‘Key Ecological Receptors’ (KER) will be defined. Paragraph 8.5.63 describes how KERs will be defined but then goes on to say that consideration will be given separately to other ecological receptors that warrant mitigation but which do not qualify as KERs because they are of local or negligible value. This approach is contradictory, the Secretary of State considers that effects to a receptor that require mitigation are likely to be significant. The approach to determining whether effects on receptors are significant should be clearly explained in the ES and consistently applied.
40 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.68 NPS EN-1 paragraph 5.3.3 requires the ES to set out effect on species and habitats of principal importance. The applicant is reminded that the Secretary of State is obliged to have regard, in exercising their functions, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The information in the ES must therefore be sufficient to allow the Secretary of State to do this. The applicant should also note the comments from the PPA group and the LDNPA on this point (Appendix 3).
3.69 The proposed development has the potential to affect a number of national and European statutory wildlife sites. The PPA group has pointed out that a tributary of the River Ehen Special Area of Conservation (SAC) used by Atlantic salmon could be affected by the project (see Appendix 3 of this report). Atlantic salmon are both a qualifying feature of the SAC and a host for the freshwater pearl mussel which is the primary feature for which the SAC is designated. The PPG group advise that the River Ehen SAC should be considered in the environmental impact assessment. The applicant is strongly advised to agree which statutory wildlife sites should be included in the assessment with relevant consultees, particularly NE.
3.70 The Secretary of State notes the possible need for an Appropriate Assessment in view of the development site’s location in relation to various European sites, particularly the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (see Section 4 of this Opinion).
3.71 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the Environment Agency (EA) and the PPA group on invasive species and the need to ensure that the project does not inadvertently lead to their spread (see Appendix 3 of this report). The PPA group has also made some suggestions on how the proposed development could enhance biodiversity, which the applicant may wish to consider in light of the advice in NPS EN-1 that it should be shown how the project has taken advantage of opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity conservation interests.
Traffic and Transport (see Scoping Report Section 9)
3.72 The Secretary of State welcomes the development of the assessment of transport impacts in association with the stakeholder reference group outlined in Scoping Report paragraph 9.1.9. The Secretary of State would expect on-going discussions and agreement of detailed methodologies/modelling requirements, projects for inclusion in the future baseline, where possible, with such bodies, but particularly with the local highways authorities and with Highways England. Asset data and traffic flow data should be obtained from these organisations where relevant and available, for example the additional 05.00 - 07.00 morning peak flow information available for the A595 between Cockermouth and Sellafield, which should be taken into account and assessed. The applicant’s attention is drawn to Highways England’s comments in this respect.
41 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.73 Specific consideration should be given to the impact of proposed development traffic at any junction:
• On the A595 in Section A – Moorside to Whitehaven, • on the A595 and A66 in Section B – Whitehaven to Aspatria • on the M6 in Section C - Aspatria to Harker Substation, Carlisle • on the A590 in Section E – Silecroft to Lindal in Furness • on the A590 in Section H – Lindal in Furness to Middleton substation
3.74 The applicant should also consult with Highways England regarding potential stability issues on the A595 embankment at Low Moresby and on emergency planning arrangements including any implications, for construction traffic routeing.
3.75 The transport assessment should make clear the linkage with the air quality assessment; noise and vibration assessment; socio-economic assessment, in particular in relation to impacts on tourist traffic (in all transport modes); the workforce and accommodation strategies; and with the waste assessment and the disposal of tunnel excavation wastes.
3.76 The Secretary of State welcomes the consideration of use of alternative transport routes such as rail and marine as part of the applicant’s Transport Strategy. The potential for increased demand for rail capacity due to overlapping requirements of major developments in West Cumbria should be considered.
3.77 Given the potential for significant effects to arise in relation to transport, a full justification should be provided in relation to the final choice of material importation and waste disposal routes and these should be developed in consultation with the relevant highways authorities. Transport of spoil between rail freight facilities and disposal sites must be assessed. The Secretary of State welcomes the proposed provision of an outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), Waste Management Plan (WMP) and draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that outline the proposed construction traffic mitigation strategy as part of the application. The content of these documents should be agreed with the relevant highways authorities and apply to both the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed development. Consideration should be given to, amongst other things, the location of construction compounds and material holding locations, the phasing of any required transport mitigation, sustainable transportation of construction workers by non-car modes, timing of movements, restriction of haul routes and spreading highway demand. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the PPA group comments in this respect.
42 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.78 Scoping Report paragraph 9.5.26 incorrectly refers to use of criteria in “paragraph 2.5 of the IEMA (2015) Guidelines (Ref 9.22)” to determine receptor sensitivity. Scoping Report Reference 9.22 paragraph 2.5 is ‘Who’s who in EIA Practice?’ in the IEMA 2011 Special report on EIA practice in the UK. It is assumed that the correct reference should be to paragraph 2.5 of Scoping Report Reference 9.1 “The Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”, which lists potentially sensitive receptors. However, Reference 9.1 paragraph 2.5 does not assign sensitivity levels to particular receptors. The Secretary of State requires confirmation of both the correct methodological reference and the basis for assigning levels of receptor sensitivity. The Secretary of State also notes Highways England’s comments with regards to the applicability of thresholds for EIA as opposed to Transport Assessment and considers that the final Transport Assessment criteria should be agreed with the relevant highways authorities.
3.79 The Scoping Report paragraph 9.5.46 links halving or doubling of traffic flow (or its HGV component) with a significant change in pedestrian amenity. Scoping Report Table 9.24 provides magnitude of impact criteria based on ‘increase in traffic flows’. The Secretary of State requires that separate criteria are provided for increases in both total daily traffic flow and for HGV flows.
Construction Noise and Vibration (see Scoping Report Section 10)
3.80 The Secretary of State recommends that the methodology, choice of noise receptors and any noise and vibration management plans should be agreed with the Environmental Health Departments of the relevant local authorities.
3.81 Scoping Report paragraph 10.5.10 makes reference to the “2dB to 5dB” method for assessment of construction noise on non-residential receptors. It is assumed that this is a typographical error based on Section E.3.3 “Example Method 2 – 5 dB(A) change” of BS5228-1 and should read ‘5dB change method’.
3.82 It is unclear why noise impacts on non-residential amenity receptor locations such as public rights of way and areas for leisure activities are proposed to be considered in a Planning Statement, rather than in the ES (refer to Scoping Report paragraph 10.5.11). The Secretary of State considers that noise impacts on amenity areas should be assessed, in line with the public open space criteria set out within the BS5228-1 5dB change method or other relevant criteria.
3.83 The Secretary of State highlights that at Scoping Report paragraph 10.5.18, it is noted that the 3dB increase only relates to a situation where ambient noise levels exceed Category C (Note 2 in BS5228-1 Section E.3.2), rather than Category A or B.
43 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.84 Magnitude of effect criteria are set out in Table 10.4 of the Scoping Report. The criteria only apply to day time noise effects. The Secretary of State considers that evening and night-time magnitude criteria should also be applied and assessed given that the 24 hour works such as tunnelling and transitional jointing of underground cable will be undertaken. This should include any noise impact associated with night-time construction works relating to the rock islet in Morecambe Bay. The use of LAeq(10 hours) should be justified in light of the 12 hour measurement period used in the ABC method.
3.85 Scoping Report paragraph 10.5.23 states that “effects assessed as major will be considered to be typically significant for EIA purposes, while impacts assessed as moderate may be significant, based on professional judgement”. The Secretary of State notes that it is common practice in EIA to assume that moderate and major effects are significant. The applicant should ensure that the assessment does not artificially raise the thresholds of significance, given that the BS5228-1 ABC method Table E.1 Note 1 states that “a potential significant effect is indicated if the LAeqT noise level arising from the site exceeds the threshold level for the category appropriate to the ambient noise level”.
3.86 Scoping Report section 10.4 ‘Potential Effects’ states that construction traffic noise will be assessed in accordance with the DMRB. Scoping Report section 10.5 does not reference DMRB or criteria for the assessment of construction traffic noise. The Secretary of State considers that the relevant DMRB magnitude criteria for short-term effects should be adopted. Airborne vibration from changes in air overpressure should be assessed using the empirical method set out in DMRB.
3.87 Information should be provided regarding all vehicle type and plant assumptions used to inform the BS5228-1 assessment of construction noise and vibration.
3.88 The Secretary of State considers that the risk of vibration damage to buildings from tunnelling, trenching and roller/compactor use should be assessed. The applicant should adopt criteria similar to those used for other major infrastructure projects involving tunnelling in the UK.
3.89 The Secretary of State considers that the potential for structural damage to buildings should be considered in relation to the movement of materials and waste relating to tunnelling activities for properties within 20m of construction access routes. The likely construction haul routes should be agreed with relevant local authorities.
Operational Noise and Vibration (see Scoping Report Section 11)
3.90 Scoping Report Table 11.1 assumes that the worst case for operational noise and vibration from transmission plant occurs during
44 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
the night time. BS4142:2014 paragraph 8.1 states that the start and end of the night time period may be more important than the middle of the night for sleep purposes. Therefore the Secretary of State considers that the assessments scope should cover the daytime and evening periods as well.
3.91 Scoping Report Table 11.1 and paragraph 11.5.9 propose the use of 5 minute attended background monitoring to determine background baseline noise levels. No explanation is given for the proposed approach, which deviates from the current standard. The Secretary of State highlights that BS4142:2014 stipulates that new measurements should be undertaken in continuous measurements of not less than 1 hour daytime and 15 minutes night time. No detail is given in the Scoping Report with regards to noise monitoring locations or the likely number of monitoring positions. The Secretary of State requires that, as a minimum, attended monitoring is undertaken in relation to all proposed fixed installation locations (e.g. substations, tunnel heads). The Secretary of State agrees that given the very broad geographic range of the proposed development an assumption of LA90=30dB is generally acceptable in other locations although this should be agreed with relevant local authorities.
3.92 In light of the potential use of newer technologies such as the T pylon, it is not considered appropriate to scope out noise from pylon fittings including insulators. Any short duration localised noise of distinctive character should be reflected as an appropriate penalty in accordance with the approach set out in the BS4142:2014 methodology.
3.93 Operational switchgear noise, with its impulsive character should be considered in line with BS4142:2014 and any appropriate impulsivity penalty applied.
3.94 The assessment relies on the use of professional judgement in the determination of magnitude ratings (Scoping Report paragraph 11.5.28). Any use of professional judgement should be clearly identified and fully justified within the ES.
Air Quality (see Scoping Report Section 12)
3.95 The proposed overhead line route alignment falls within 500m of sensitive areas including national and European-designated wildlife sites (Scoping Report paragraph 12.3.24 and Appendix 12A). The impacts on the designated sites should be carefully assessed with appropriate cross referencing between the air quality and ecology chapters of the ES.
3.96 The proposed study area is the Scoping Corridor plus an additional 350m buffer either side (Scoping Report paragraph 12.3.1). Given that the study area discussed in Scoping Report paragraph 12.2.3 allows for assessment of effects up to 500m from the site entrance of construction compounds, the applicant should ensure that the study
45 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
area is sufficiently flexible to assess construction compounds placed within proximity to edge of the Scoping Corridor, where relevant.
3.97 Scoping Report paragraph 12.3.17 highlights that further monitoring may be required subject to the likely number and location of transport movements. The Secretary of State recommends that the monitoring methodology and choice of monitoring locations should be agreed with the relevant Environmental Health Departments of the local authorities. Similarly the modelling input data should be agreed with relevant local authorities prior to carrying out the assessment. Particular attention should be given to areas currently experiencing air quality issues such as the A590 through Ulverston and to the collation of existing data held by the local authorities. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the PPA Group Authorities comments in this respect.
3.98 Scoping report paragraph 12.5.32 relies on the use of professional judgement in the determination of significance. Any use of professional judgement should be clearly identified and fully justified within the ES.
Hydrology and Flood Risk (see Scoping Report Section 13)
3.99 The Secretary of State welcomes the clear explanation of the study area in section 13.2 but notes that the study area will be reviewed and possibly extended if necessary to reflect the final DCO application boundary. It is recommended that the extent of the study area be agreed with relevant consultees such as the EA and the local authorities.
3.100 The Secretary of State considers that the description of the future factors that will be considered in defining the future baseline is useful. However it is not entirely clear how these various factors will influence decisions relating to the baseline. In addition it appears that the baseline for assessing construction effects will be different from the baseline for assessing operational and decommissioning effects. This is because Water Framework Directive water bodies currently classed as moderate or lower in status will be assumed to be in good condition by 2027. The future baseline will need to be clearly defined and justified in the ES to allow the Secretary of State to understand how conclusions about the significance of effect on water receptors has been reached.
3.101 It is not clear whether surface water drainage networks have been included in the receptor types for the assessment (Scoping Report paragraphs 13.5.21 to 13.5.25). The Secretary of State advises that these should be included in the assessment. The applicant’s attention is also drawn to the comments from the PPA group on dealing with local flood risk (see Appendix 3 of this report).
3.102 The use of professional judgement in determining the magnitude of an effect is noted. While the use of professional judgement may be
46 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
acceptable it should be clearly identified and justified in the ES to give the Secretary of State confidence about the robustness of the assessment.
3.103 It is noted that the hydrology receptors will include European and national statutory wildlife sites. As stated above, the Secretary of State expects to see an integrated assessment for these sites which clearly identifies the effects of the proposed development, alone, inter-related and cumulatively with other developments.
3.104 The intention to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment is welcomed. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the EA on the potential confusion caused by the different river names used on OS maps and the Defra main river map (see Appendix 3 of this report). It is noted that the applicant does not propose to quantify the drainage impact of temporary aggregate-surfaced access roads and construction compounds used for the construction of the project (Scoping Report paragraph 13.6.18). While this may be acceptable the ES should clearly demonstrate, with reference to evidence, why the drainage impact of access roads and construction compounds would not add to flood risk. The applicant is strongly encouraged to continue to work with the Environment Agency, the local authorities, utilities providers and the appropriate non-statutory consultees to ensure that the approach and key data relevant for the assessment is robust and agreed. The applicant should also note the comments from the EA on the need to consider reservoir failure and the Area Benefitting from Defences (ABD) (see Appendix 3 of this report).
3.105 The Secretary of State finds the current description of how the future baseline will be established for cumulative effects in paragraph 13.9.4 of the Scoping Report confusing. The ES should clearly define the baseline that will be used in the assessment. If the future baseline includes, as this paragraph appears to state, projects that have yet to be constructed, then the ES must clearly explain what data has been included in the baseline and where it has been drawn from. The applicant is strongly recommended to agree the future baseline and the projects to be considered in the cumulative effects assessment with relevant statutory consultees including the EA and the local authorities..
Hydrogeology (see Scoping Report Section 14)
3.106 As described in the Scoping Report both the study area for the environmental impact assessment and the detailed assessment methodology is still being refined in response to the development of the project. The Secretary of State welcomes that the assessment will be undertaken iteratively, responding to new information about project design and the results of ongoing studies.
3.107 The Secretary of State notes that the description of the assessment in Chapter 14 is very high level with many points still to be resolved. The applicant should make efforts to agree the study area, baseline
47 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
data and assessment methodology (including the assessment of cumulative effects) with the EA, relevant local authorities and other appropriate consultees. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the detailed comments on the route sub-sections provided by the PPA authorities (see Appendix 3 of this report).
3.108 The commitment to consider targeted ground investigation and groundwater quality testing where limited information is available on higher sensitivity receptors is welcome. It is not clear however why this would not also be undertaken for all receptors. The applicant is reminded that the ES should contain sufficient information to give the Secretary of State confidence that the environmental impact assessment is robust.
3.109 Table 14.7 ‘Inter-topic effects’ is helpful in describing the type of inter-related effects that will be considered. The ES will need to clearly cross-reference the various chapters so it is clear how effects on groundwater have been taken into account in the assessment of the other topics listed in Table 14.7.
3.110 The approach to the assessment of cumulative effects on groundwater quality excludes the majority of projects from inclusion in the environmental impact assessment on the grounds that the UK contaminated land risk assessment framework will ensure that each individual development will not release contaminants at levels that could cause significant effects. This appears to exclude the possibility that multiple insignificant releases of contaminants could lead to a significant cumulative effect. The ES must be able to demonstrate that the assessment of effects on groundwater quality has fully considered the potential for cumulative effects. The Secretary of State welcomes the consultation with the county councils, the LDNP Authority and the EA on projects that could cumulatively affect groundwater quantity; the applicant is encouraged to keep working with these bodies. The applicant should also consult United Utilities with regard to possible cumulative effects with their projects.
Geology and Soils (see Scoping Report Section 15)
3.111 The Secretary of State acknowledges the practicalities of breaking the assessment down into a series of separate assessments for the following sub-disciplines:
• Land contamination; • Ground stability; • Geo-conservation; • Agricultural land and soils; and • Minerals protection.
The applicant should ensure that the inter-relationship between these aspects is also considered as part of the assessment.
48 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.112 The description of the additional baseline information required for the assessment is noted. Any gaps in the baseline information should be clearly explained and justified in the ES.
3.113 The Secretary notes that it is not envisaged that detailed ground investigations to inform the engineering design will have been undertaken prior to submission of the ES. The Secretary of State welcomes that preliminary ground investigations will be reviewed to identify areas of high risk or uncertainty, with targeted investigations undertaken to ensure that sufficient information is available to inform the EIA. In cases where investigations are to be undertaken following submission of the ES the reasons for this should be explained and the assessment should consider the potential worst case impacts and describe how the delayed investigations are secured through requirements in the DCO.
3.114 The Secretary of State understands that the applicants’ intended approach to the assessment for land contamination will only consider the effects of the proposals on pre-existing contamination in certain circumstances as follows:
• There is the potential for soil contamination to be disturbed, encountered or mobilised by activities associated with the proposed development, or for new receptors to be introduced that would alter the predevelopment level of risk. • The proposed development has the potential to alter the ground gas regime in any way, or introduces or alters receptors in a way that would alter the pre-development level of ground gas risk.
3.115 The justification for this approach is set out in paragraph 15.5.17 although it is lacking in detail particularly with regard to any applicable legislation. The consultation responses from the PPA group and the EA (see Appendix 3) also raise issues on the justification for the proposed approach. The Secretary of State considers that it will be important for the ES to explain how the approach described above has influenced the project design, including the location of pylon structures.
3.116 The assessment of existing land contamination should apply the precautionary principle with regard to ‘potential’ impacts. The assessment should consider the potential for both direct and indirect impacts on existing contamination. This should include the potential for the construction works to mobilise contaminants within likely affected areas (e.g. at Sellafield, Heysham and or within landfills or colliery spoil tips). In applying the precautionary principle the applicant should have regard to limits of deviation or micro-siting allowance included within the DCO.
3.117 The Secretary of State notes the proposed approach to the assessment of potential site contaminants to enter surface and ground water flows. Cross reference should therefore be made to the assessment of effects on hydrogeology, hydrology and flood risk. The
49 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
inter-relationship with other related effects (e.g. ecology, historic environment and socio-economics/land use) should also be assessed. The Secretary of State therefore notes and welcomes the information in Section 15.7 (and its associated tables) which describe in detail how the inter-relationship with other effects will be assessed.
3.118 The assessment of ground stability should consider the potential effects from any piling, shaft sinking or other underground works. Where piling works are proposed close to existing structures (e.g. buildings or bridges) the ES should assess whether these might be affected by changes in the stability of the land.
3.119 Paragraph 15.5.32 of the Scoping Report states that ground stability assessment will be restricted to abnormal issues associated with historical land uses and natural geo-hazards (e.g. peat slides).
3.120 The Secretary of State notes the different receptor sensitivities proposed for the assessment of potential effects on ground stability (as set out in Table 15.5 of the Scoping Report). The reasons for these differences should be clearly explained and justified in the ES.
3.121 The scope of the assessment of effects on geo-conservation (including methodology for the proposed desk study and targeted walkover surveys) should be agreed with relevant consultees.
3.122 The EA notes the potential for Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) to be ‘attracted’ to new structures in Morecambe Bay. The Secretary of State agrees with the EA that the ES should describe the methodology for dealing with such occurrences. Site investigations should also consider the potential for unidentified UXO to be discovered during construction.
3.123 The assessment of effects on agricultural land and soils should cross refer to the socio-economic/land use section of the ES.
3.124 The Scoping Report states that land currently occupied by existing 132kV distribution infrastructure (to be decommissioned) will be released for agricultural use or potential mineral extraction. It is argued that this will counter-balance, to an extent, the sterilisation effects of the construction phase. In these circumstances the ES should clearly describe the changes to the amount and quality of agricultural land to be released. The presence and type/quality of potential minerals extraction sites should also be described. The potential for effects and how they should be assessed should be discussed and agreed with relevant landowners and/or the minerals planning authority.
Socio-economics, Recreation and Land Use (see Scoping Report Section 16)
3.125 The Secretary of State welcomes the proposed consultation with local authorities and other prescribed or non-prescribed consultees to
50 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
further agree the detailed scope of the assessment, including in respect of potential cumulative effects. The consultation response from the PPA group provides a detailed commentary on the recommended approach in this regard (see Appendix 3). Copeland Council also comments on a site which should be included in the assessment.
3.126 The Secretary of State agrees with the approach to defining the study area, in terms of a Local Area of Influence and Wider Study Area and how these would vary for each of the potential effects (as described in Table 16.3 of the Scoping Report). In both cases the study area should be justified having regard to the characteristics of the potential impacts.
3.127 The proposed use of a future baseline in the assessment is welcomed by the Secretary of State. The means by which this will be established should be clearly explained.
3.128 The Secretary of State welcomes the comprehensive information provided in respect of the applicants’ bespoke assessment methodology. The Secretary of State notes the absence of published and recognised methodologies for predicting and assessing the effects of projects on socio-economics, recreation and land use. The assessment should where possible use a quantitative approach to assessing effects. However, where only qualitative criteria and/or professional judgement are possible the assessment and conclusions should be appropriately justified.
3.129 The Scoping Report notes the potential for effects arising from land take and severance. All elements of the proposed (including the construction works and working areas) should therefore be assessed in this regard. This should include the potential for the proposed development to sterilise the future use or development of the land. The owners and occupiers of such land should be consulted to determine the potential for effects and how they should be assessed. The amount of land (in hectares) that could be sterilised (including temporarily) by the development should be clearly stated in the ES. The ES should also identify the amount of land which the Scoping Report states could (following the decommissioning/removal of the existing 132kV infrastructure) be released for agricultural/minerals use. The ES should justify (with reference to site investigations, discussions with consultees and/or other evidence) the extent to which such land is suitable for re-use.
3.130 All receptors that could be affected by the proposed development (either directly or indirectly) should be included in the assessment. This should include residents, businesses (including farming units, current/future waste disposal and minerals extraction sites) as well as social and community infrastructure such as health care, education and recreation facilities.
51 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
3.131 The Secretary of State notes the comments raised by the LDNPA regarding the potential impacts of overhead pylons on socio- economics and recreation (including tourism). The applicant should discuss these concerns with the Authority and a description and assessment of the evidence for such impacts should be included in the ES. Attention is also drawn to the comments provided by Peel Ports regarding potential effects on the Port of Heysham (e.g. from shipping movements and dredging activities).
Waste and Materials Management (see Scoping Report Section 17)
3.132 The proposed tunnel beneath Morecambe Bay is likely to generate a substantial volume of waste. The ES must clearly explain how this waste will be handled and disposed of and the environmental effects likely to be associated with this. In particular, it should be clear how the predicted traffic movements associated with the tunnel construction have been incorporated into the transport assessment. Where details of the tunnel construction have not been decided the assessment should be based on a realistic worst case scenario which should be described and justified in the ES. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from Highways England in Appendix 3 of this report on the importance of understanding the logistics of the proposed development in order to assess the impact on the strategic road network.
3.133 The description of the factors that will influence the future baseline is noted. The applicant is reminded of the need to clearly explain and define the baseline in the ES and to provide evidence supporting any predictions about the nature of the future baseline.
3.134 The Secretary of State notes that the identification of other projects for inclusion in the cumulative effects assessment will be undertaken according to the guiding principles listed in paragraph 17.8.3 of the Scoping Report. The first principle states that other developments must generate its own significant effects with regard to waste and materials management. This appears to exclude the possibility that insignificant effects from the project could interact with insignificant effects from other developments to create significant cumulative effects. The Secretary of State is concerned that this approach may not provide a sufficiently robust assessment and strongly advises that the list of developments to be included in the cumulative impact assessment should be agreed with relevant consultees.
3.135 The commitment to ongoing consultation (Scoping Report paragraph 17.5.26) is welcomed. The applicant is encouraged to address the points raised by the EA and the PPA group in Appendix 3 of this Scoping Report through ongoing consultation with these bodies.
52 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Marine Environment (see Scoping Report Section 18)
3.136 The Scoping Report states that the potential marine impacts of the proposed development relate to the physical, biological and human environment. The Report describes the proposed scope of the assessment for each of these topics (and their sub-topics) in turn. The Secretary of State notes the dynamic and complex nature of the marine environment and therefore welcomes that the inter- relationships between the topic areas and over the lifetime of the development will be assessed. The inter-relationships with marine transport, biodiversity, the freshwater environment, landscape, archaeology, geology, socio-economics and recreation should be considered. Given the broad range of effects that will need to be considered the applicant may wish to consider splitting the marine environment assessment into more than one chapter in the ES.
3.137 The Scoping Report highlights the potential for the proposed development to give rise to changes to features within Morecambe Bay, Duddon Estuary and Ravenglass Estuaries as a result of physical processes such as tides, river flow, waves and suspended/seabed sediments. The potential for changes to water and sediment quality is also described. The characteristics of these changes and the means by which they have been predicted should be clearly described in the ES.
3.138 The Scoping Report states that the proposed study area for the assessment (as described in Section 18.2 of the Scoping Report) is based on professional judgement, based on the baseline characteristics and knowledge from similar infrastructure assessments. The ES should provide a robust justification for the study area based on the unique characteristics of the receiving environment in Morecambe Bay and the potential type and extent of impacts. The ES should also explain how the assessment accords with relevant and recognised professional guidance.
3.139 The ES should describe and justify the modelling and monitoring methodologies used in the assessment, including the predicted zones of influence and impact pathways. The full geographic extent of potential effects should be carefully considered and site specific surveys and background data which are relied upon in the assessment should be appended to the ES. Models should be adequately calibrated, validated and sensitivity tested against any assumptions used. Data collection to inform the modelling should be agreed with the Marine Management Organisation, NE and other relevant stakeholders and attention is drawn to the comments from NE provided in Appendix 2 of this Opinion.
3.140 The ES should assess the range of sediment types likely to be affected by the proposed scheme; the behaviour (formation, movement and dispersal) of fluid mud layers over the spring-neap tidal cycle; the behaviour of mobile sand and other geomorphological features over time; sediment processes such as volume, elevation,
53 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
erosion and accretion; and the effect on existing dredge disposal and aggregate dredging, including that which may occur as a result of obtaining construction materials for the development locally.
3.141 Potential changes due to natural variations in marine and coastal processes (e.g. during extreme weather events and as a result of climate change) should be considered. The Secretary of State requires that full justification is provided in the ES for the climate change scenarios adopted and any assumptions or limitations encountered. Sensitivity testing should also be undertaken, for example in terms of how different assumptions on climate change could affect the impacts on coastal processes or on surface/ground water run-off.
3.142 The Scoping Report notes the potential for the proposed development to affect a variety of species in the marine environment (e.g. fish/shellfish, marine mammals, turtles and plankton) as well as various habitats (e.g. benthic, inter-tidal, sub-tidal, saltmarsh and estuaries). The potential impacts on these receptors (e.g. through disturbance, loss, displacement or barrier effects) are not clearly described within the scoping report. The assessment should consider impacts resulting from changes in water and sediment quality, noise and vibration (both above and below sea level) as well as direct impacts from species and habitat loss. The conclusions of the assessment should be described and justified with reference to relevant significance criteria.
3.143 The Secretary of State notes the possible need for an Appropriate Assessment, due to the proximity of the proposed development to various European sites.
3.144 The assessment should consider the potential for any of the proposed new offshore structures to provide new habitats and or ecological enhancement opportunities.
3.145 Given the location and scale of the proposed works there is potential for significant effects on commercial/recreational fisheries and the shipping industry during construction and operation (e.g. due to disturbance of the fishing stock or disruption to navigation routes). The applicant should consult with relevant bodies (e.g. the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, commercial fisheries, ferry/shipping operators and port/harbour authorities) as well as other users of the marine environment to agree the potential effects, how they should be assessed and/or the need and likely effectiveness of measures to mitigate potential significant adverse effects. The assessment should cross refer to the effects described in the socio- economic section of the ES.
3.146 The chapter states that the potential cumulative effects on the marine environment will be undertaken. Very limited information is provided on the methodology for the assessment. The methodology should be agreed with relevant consultees and clearly described and justified in
54 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
the ES. The projects to be included within the assessment should also be discussed and agreed with relevant consultees such as the MMO and the EA and should include both onshore and offshore projects that could affect the physical, biological and human aspects of the marine environment. The cumulative impact of these projects should also be taken in to account in any modelling to be undertaken.
3.147 The Secretary of State notes and welcomes that the assessment of effects on marine water quality will be linked with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance assessment to be submitted with the DCO application. There should be clear cross-referencing where information in the WFD assessment is relied upon. The recommended approach to dealing with the requirements of the WFD is described in further detail in Section 4 of this Opinion.
55 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
4 OTHER INFORMATION
4.1 This section does not form part of the Secretary of State’s Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. However, it does respond to other issues that the Secretary of State has identified which may help to inform the preparation of the application for the DCO.
Pre-application Prospectus
4.2 The Planning Inspectorate offers a service for applicants at the pre- application stage of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process. Details are set out in the prospectus ‘Pre-application service for NSIPs’1. The prospectus explains what the Planning Inspectorate can offer during the pre-application phase and what is expected in return. The Planning Inspectorate can provide advice about the merits of a scheme in respect of national policy; can review certain draft documents; as well as advice about procedural and other planning matters. Where necessary a facilitation role can be provided. The service is optional and free of charge.
4.3 The Planning Inspectorate encourages applicants to share with us some of their most important application documents in draft form during the pre-application period. This allows us to give advice about any aspects that may need clarification prior to submission and to highlight any procedural omissions. It also helps us to understand more about the proposed application and to prepare for the submission so that we can deal with the application in a timely manner. If a draft DCO is to be submitted, the applicant should clearly define what elements of the proposed development are integral to the NSIP and which is ‘associated development’ under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) or is an ancillary matter.
4.4 The level of pre-application support provided by the Planning Inspectorate will be agreed between an applicant and the Inspectorate at the beginning of the pre-application stage and will be kept under review.
Preliminary Environmental Information
4.5 Consultation forms a crucial aspect of environmental impact assessment. As part of their pre-application consultation duties, applicants are required to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). This sets out how the local community will be consulted about the proposed development. The SoCC must state whether the proposed development is EIA development and if it is, how the applicant intends to publicise and consult on PEI. Further
1 The prospectus is available from: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/application-process/pre- application-service-for-applicants/
56 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
information in respect of PEI may be found in Advice Note 7: Environmental Impact Assessment: Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping.
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
4.6 The Secretary of State notes that European sites may be located within or in the vicinity of the proposed development. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to the Competent Authority (CA) to enable them to carry out a HRA if required. The applicant should note that the CA is the Secretary of State.
4.7 The applicant’s attention is drawn to The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (The APFP Regulations) and the need to include information identifying European sites to which the Habitats Regulations applies or any Ramsar site or potential SPA which may be affected by a proposal. The submitted information should be sufficient for the competent authority to make an appropriate assessment (AA) of the implications for the site if required by Regulation 61(1) of the Habitats Regulations.
4.8 The report to be submitted under Regulation 5(2)(g) of the APFP Regulations with the application must deal with two issues: the first is to enable a formal assessment by the CA of whether there is a likely significant effect; and the second, should it be required, is to enable the carrying out of an AA by the CA.
4.9 When considering aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed development; including flora, fauna, soil, water, air and the inter-relationship between these, consideration should be given to the designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed development.
4.10 Further information with regard to the HRA process is contained within Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10 available on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website.
Plan To Agree Habitats Regulation Assessment Information
4.11 A Plan may be prepared to agree upfront what information in respect of Habitats Regulations the applicant needs to supply to the Planning Inspectorate as part of a DCO application. This is termed an Evidence Plan for proposals in England or in both England and Wales, but a similar approach can be adopted for proposals only in Wales. For ease these are all termed ‘evidence plans’ here. The applicant’s intention to produce an evidence plan is noted and welcomed.
4.12 An evidence plan will help to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations. It will be particularly relevant to NSIPs where impacts may be complex, large amounts of evidence may be needed or there
57 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
are a number of uncertainties. It will also help applicants meet the requirement to provide sufficient information (as explained in Advice Note 10) in their application, so the Examining Authority can recommend to the Secretary of State whether or not to accept the application for examination and whether an appropriate assessment is required.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
4.13 The Secretary of State notes that a number of SSSIs are located close to or within the proposed development. Where there may be potential impacts on the SSSIs, the Secretary of State has duties under sections 28(G) and 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the W&C Act). These are set out below for information.
4.14 Under s28(G), the Secretary of State has a general duty ‘… to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest’.
4.15 Under s28(I), the Secretary of State must notify the relevant nature conservation body (NCB), NE in this case, before authorising the carrying out of operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. Under these circumstances 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent, and the Secretary of State must take account of any advice received from the NCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. The NCB will be notified during the examination period.
4.16 If applicants consider it likely that notification may be necessary under s28(I), they are advised to resolve any issues with the NCB before the DCO application is submitted to the Secretary of State. If, following assessment by applicants, it is considered that operations affecting the SSSI will not lead to damage of the special interest features, applicants should make this clear in the ES. The application documents submitted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(l) could also provide this information. Applicants should seek to agree with the NCB the DCO requirements which will provide protection for the SSSI before the DCO application is submitted.
European Protected Species (EPS)
4.17 Applicants should be aware that the decision maker under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has, as the CA, a duty to engage with the Habitats Directive. Where a potential risk to a European Protected Species (EPS) is identified, and before making a decision to grant development consent, the CA must, amongst other things, address the derogation tests in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations. Therefore the applicant may wish to provide information which will assist the decision maker to meet this duty.
58 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
4.18 If an applicant has concluded that an EPS licence is required the ExA will need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. The decision to apply for a licence or not will rest with the applicant as the person responsible for commissioning the proposed activity by taking into account the advice of their consultant ecologist.
4.19 Applicants are encouraged to consult with NE and, where required, to agree appropriate requirements to secure necessary mitigation. It would assist the examination if applicants could provide, with the application documents, confirmation from NE whether any issues have been identified which would prevent the EPS licence being granted.
4.20 Generally, NE are unable to grant an EPS licence in respect of any development until all the necessary consents required have been secured in order to proceed. For NSIPs, NE will assess a draft licence application in order to ensure that all the relevant issues have been addressed. Within 30 working days of receipt, NE will either issue ‘a letter of no impediment’ stating that it is satisfied, insofar as it can make a judgement, that the proposals presented comply with the regulations or will issue a letter outlining why NE consider the proposals do not meet licensing requirements and what further information is required before a ‘letter of no impediment’ can be issued. The applicant is responsible for ensure draft licence applications are satisfactory for the purposes of informing formal pre- application assessment by NE.
4.21 Ecological conditions on the site may change over time. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure information is satisfactory for the purposes of informing the assessment of no detriment to the maintenance of favourable conservation status (FCS) of the population of EPS affected by the proposals. Applicants are advised that current conservation status of populations may or may not be favourable. Demonstration of no detriment to favourable populations may require further survey and/or submission of revised short or long term mitigation or compensation proposals.
4.22 In England the focus concerns the provision of up to date survey information which is then made available to NE (along with any resulting amendments to the draft licence application). This approach will help to ensure no delay in issuing the licence should the DCO application be successful. Applicants with projects in England or English waters can find further information in NE’s NSIP and licencing guidance note2.
2 ‘WML-G36 (03/14) NSIP and EPS mitigation licensing’ (July 2015), available by contacting the Consents Service Unit ([email protected])
59 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
4.23 In England or English Waters, assistance may be obtained from the Planning Inspectorate’s Consents Service Unit (please see paragraph 4.25 below for further information).
Consents Service Unit
4.24 The Consents Service Unit (CSU) works with applicants on a number of key non-planning consents associated with nationally significant infrastructure projects in England and English Waters. The Unit’s remit includes 12 non-planning consents, including EPS licences, environmental permits and flood defence consents. The consents covered are set out in Annex 1 of the CSU 'Prospectus for Developers'3and the service is free of charge and entirely voluntary.
Other Regulatory Regimes
4.25 The Secretary of State recommends that the applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES and that 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 ES.
4.26 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 in an application for consent under the PA 2008, the Secretary of State will require a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the proposal is acceptable and likely to be approved, before they make a recommendation or decision on an application. The applicant is encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from the applicant about progress in obtaining other permits, licences or consents, including any confirmation that there is no obvious reason why these will not subsequently be granted, will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the Secretary of State.
Water Framework Directive
4.27 EU Directive 2000/60/EC (the Water Framework Directive) establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. Under the terms of the Directive, Member States are required to establish river basin districts and corresponding river basin management plans outlining how the environmental objectives outlined in Article 4 of the Directive are to be met.
3 Available from: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/CSU-Prospectus.pdf
60 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
4.28 In determining an application for a DCO, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the applicant has had regard to relevant river basin management plans and that the proposed development is compliant with the terms of the Water Framework Directive and its daughter directives. In this respect, the applicant’s attention is drawn to Regulation 5(2)(l) of the APFP Regulations which requires an application for an NSIP to be accompanied by ‘where applicable, a plan with accompanying information identifying-… …(iii) water bodies in a river basin management plan, together with an assessment of any effects on such sites, features, habitats or bodies likely to be caused by the proposed development.’
4.29 The applicant’s intention to provide a separate Water Framework Directive assessment which draws on the evidence from separate chapters of the ES, is welcomed as it is likely to be of assistance to the Examining Authority should the application be accepted for examination.
The Environmental Permitting Regulations and the Water Resources Act
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010
4.30 The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (EPR 10) require operators of certain facilities, which could harm the environment or human health, to obtain permits from the EA. Environmental permits can combine several activities into one permit. There are standard permits supported by ‘rules’ for straightforward situations and bespoke permits for complex situations. For further information, please see the Government’s advice on determining the need for an environmental permit4.
4.31 The EA’s environmental permits cover:
• Industry regulation; • Waste management (waste treatment, recovery or disposal operations); • Discharges to surface water; • Groundwater activities; and • Radioactive substances activities.
4.32 Characteristics of environmental permits include:
• They are granted to operators (not to land); • They can be revoked or varied by the EA; • Operators are subject to tests of competence;
4 Available from: https://www.gov.uk/environmental-permit-check-if-you-need-one
61 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Operators may apply to transfer environmental permits to another operator (subject to a test of competence); and • Conditions may be attached.
The Water Resources Act 1991
4.33 Under the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended), anyone who wishes to abstract more than 20m3/day of water from a surface source such as a river or stream or an underground source, such as an aquifer, will normally require an abstraction licence from the EA. For example, an abstraction licence may be required to abstract water for use in cooling at a power station. An impoundment licence is usually needed to impede the flow of water, such us in the creation of a reservoir or dam, or construction of a fish pass.
4.34 Abstraction licences and impoundment licences are commonly referred to as ‘water resources licences’. They are required to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on existing abstractors or the environment. For further information, please see the EA’s WR176 guidance form on applying for a full, transfer or impounding licence5:
4.35 Characteristics of water resources licences include:
• They are granted to licence holders (not to land); • They can be revoked or varied; • They can be transferred to another licence holder; and • In the case of abstraction licences, they are time limited.
Role of the Applicant
4.36 It is the responsibility of applicants to identify whether an environmental permit and / or water resource licence is required from the EA before an NSIP can be constructed or operated. Failure to obtain the appropriate consent(s) is an offence. The CSU as was established to aid applicants in this regard (see paragraph 4.25 above).
4.37 The EA allocates a limited amount of pre-application advice for environmental permits and water resources licences free of charge. Further advice can be provided, but this will be subject to cost recovery.
4.38 The EA encourages applicants to engage with them early in relation to the requirements of the application process. Where a project is complex or novel, or requires a Habitats Risk Assessment, applicants are encouraged to “parallel track” their applications to the EA with their DCO applications to the Planning Inspectorate. Further
5 Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wr176-applying-for- full-transfer-or-impoundment-licence-form-guidance
62 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
information on the EA’s role in the infrastructure planning process is available in Annex D of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note eleven (working with public bodies in the infrastructure planning process)6
4.39 When considering the timetable to submit their applications, applicants should bear in mind that the EA will not be in a position to provide a detailed view on the application until it issues its draft decision for public consultation (for sites of high public interest) or its final decision. Therefore the applicant should ideally submit its application sufficiently early so that the EA is at this point in the determination by the time the Development Consent Order reaches examination.
4.40 It is also in the interests of an applicant to ensure that any specific requirements arising from their permit or licence are capable of being carried out under the works permitted by the DCO. Otherwise there is a risk that requirements could conflict with the works which have been authorised by the DCO (e.g. a stack of greater height than that authorised by the DCO could be required) and render the DCO impossible to implement.
Health Impact Assessment
4.41 The Secretary of State considers that it is a matter for the applicant to decide whether or not to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment (HIA). However, the applicant should have regard to the responses received from the relevant consultees regarding health, and in particular to the comments from the Health and Safety Executive in relation to electrical safety issues (see Appendix 3).
4.42 The methodology for the HIA, if prepared, should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.
Transboundary Impacts
4.43 The Secretary of State has noted that the applicant /has not indicated whether the proposed development is likely to have significant impacts on another European Economic Area (EEA) State.
4.44 Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations, which inter alia require the Secretary of State to publicise a DCO application if the Secretary of State is of the view that the proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another EEA state and where relevant to consult with the EEA state affected. The Secretary of State considers that where Regulation 24 applies, this is likely to have implications for the examination of a DCO application.
6 Available from: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and- advice/advice-notes/
63 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
4.45 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should identify whether the proposed development has the potential for significant transboundary impacts and if so, what these are and which EEA States would be affected.
Aviation
4.46 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to consult with the relevant stakeholders on potential effects on aviation and defence assets.
64 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
APPENDIX 1 – PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2264) (as amended) sets out the information which must be provided for an application for a development consent order (DCO) for nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. Where required, this includes an environmental statement. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information need not be replicated or included in the ES.
An environmental statement (ES) is described under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) 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 Regulations Regulation 2)
The purpose of an ES is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are fully considered, together with the economic or social benefits of the development, before the development consent application under the Planning Act 2008 is determined. The ES should be an aid to decision making.
The Secretary of State 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. The Secretary of State recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.
ES Indicative Contents
The Secretary of State emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law. The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in environmental statements.
Page 1 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations states this information includes:
17. Description of the development, including in particular—
(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; (b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used; (c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.
18. 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.
19. 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 interrelationship between the above factors.
20. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from:
(a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.
21. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.
22. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.
Page 2 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
23. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.
(EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1)
The content of the ES must include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regulations. This includes the consideration of ‘the main alternatives studied by the applicant’ which the Secretary of State recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES. Part 2 is included below for reference:
24. A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development
25. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects
26. The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment
27. An outline of the main alternatives studies by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects, and
28. A non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs of Schedule 4 part 2 above].
(EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 2)
Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering inter- relationships between factors and cumulative impacts.
Scheme Proposals
The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES which should support the
Page 3 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
application as described. The Secretary of State is not able to entertain material changes to a project once an application is submitted. The Secretary of State draws the attention of the applicant to the DCLG and the Planning Inspectorate’s published advice on the preparation of a draft DCO and accompanying application documents.
Flexibility
The Secretary of State acknowledges that the EIA process is iterative, and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. For example, there may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. However, at the time of the application for a DCO, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes.
It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.
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 uncertainty in preparing development applications. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Rochdale Envelope’ which is available on the Advice Note’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.
The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some 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 ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within any proposed parameters would not result in significant impacts not previously identified and assessed. The maximum and other dimensions of the proposed development should be clearly described in the ES, with appropriate justification. It will also be important to consider choice of materials, colour and the form of the structures and of any buildings. Lighting proposals should also be described.
Page 4 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Scope
The Secretary of State 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 local authorities and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.
Physical Scope
In general the Secretary of State 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.
The Secretary of State recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified for each of the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. This should include at least the whole of the application site, and include all offsite works. For certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance and best practice, whenever this is available, and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts. 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.
Breadth of the Topic Area
The ES should explain the range of matters to be considered under each topic and this may respond partly to the type of project being considered. If the range considered is drawn narrowly then a justification for the approach should be provided.
Temporal Scope
The assessment should consider:
• Environmental impacts during construction works;
Page 5 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
• Environmental impacts on completion/operation of the proposed development; • Where appropriate, environmental impacts a suitable number of years after completion of the proposed development (for example, in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals); and • Environmental impacts during decommissioning.
In terms of decommissioning, the Secretary of State 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, as well as to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account, is to encourage early consideration as to how structures can be taken down. The purpose of this is to seek to minimise disruption, to re-use materials and to restore the site or put it to a suitable new use. The Secretary of State encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.
The Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State recommends that throughout the ES a standard terminology for time periods should be defined, such that for example, ‘short term’ always refers to the same period of time.
Baseline
The Secretary of State 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, whenever possible, be consistent between topics. The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although it is recognised that this may not always be possible.
The Secretary of State recommends that the baseline environment should be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys, and care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date.
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. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies and appropriate consultees, wherever possible.
The baseline situation and the proposed development should be described within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.
Page 6 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Identification of Impacts and Method Statement
Legislation and Guidelines
In terms of the EIA methodology, the Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State 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 APFP Regulations.
In terms of assessing the impacts, the ES should approach 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 Regulations require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20).
As a matter of principle, the Secretary of State applies the precautionary approach to follow the Court’s reasoning in judging ‘significant effects’. In other words ‘likely to affect’ will be taken as meaning that there is a probability or risk that the proposed development will have an effect, and not that a development will definitely have an effect.
The Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact inter-relationships.
The Secretary of State recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the proposed development can be approached in a number of ways. However it 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 topic areas. The Secretary of State recommends that a common format should be applied where possible.
Page 7 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
Inter-relationships between environmental factors
The inter-relationship between aspects of the environments likely to be significantly affected is a requirement of the EIA Regulations (see Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations). These occur where a number of separate impacts, e.g. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.
The Secretary of State considers that the inter-relationships between factors must be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole. This will help to ensure that the ES is not a series of separate reports collated into one document, but rather a comprehensive assessment drawing together the environmental impacts of the proposed development. This is particularly important when considering impacts in terms of any permutations or parameters to the proposed development.
Cumulative Impacts
The potential cumulative impacts with other major developments will need to be identified, as required by the Directive. The significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). In assessing cumulative impacts, other major development should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant authorities on the basis of those that are:
• Projects that are under construction; • Permitted application(s) not yet implemented; • Submitted application(s) not yet determined; • All refusals subject to appeal procedures not yet determined; • Projects on the National Infrastructure’s programme of projects; and • 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.
Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and how these have been taken into account as part of the assessment will be crucial in this regard.
The Secretary of State recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects, through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.
Page 8 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
For the purposes of identifying any cumulative effects with other developments in the area, applicants should also consult consenting bodies in other EU states to assist in identifying those developments (see commentary on Transboundary Effects below).
Related Development
The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is related with the proposed development to ensure that all the impacts of the proposal are assessed.
The Secretary of State recommends that the applicant should distinguish between the proposed development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.
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 Secretary of State 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 (see Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 21); and should be identified as such in the specialist topics. Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may relate to more than one topic area. For each topic, the ES should set out any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects, and to identify any residual effects with mitigation in place. Any proposed mitigation should be discussed and agreed with the relevant consultees.
The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment and can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the assessment.
It would be helpful if the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions and/or requirements proposed
Page 9 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
within the draft 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.
The Secretary of State advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation and may be adopted during decommissioning.
Cross References and Interactions
The Secretary of State 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 Regulations 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.
Consultation
The Secretary of State 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 (PEI) (this term is defined in the EIA Regulations under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’) 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 (PEI). This PEI could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with Section 47 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 PEI. Attention is drawn to the duty upon applicants under Section 50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.
Transboundary Effects
The Secretary of State recommends that consideration should be given in the ES to any likely significant effects on the environment of
Page 10 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
another Member State of the European Economic Area. In particular, the Secretary of State recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and water and to potential impacts on migratory species and to impacts on shipping and fishing areas.
The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 12 ‘Development with significant transboundary impacts consultation’ which is available on the Advice Notes Page of the National Infrastructure Planning website7.
Summary Tables
The Secretary of State recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the applicant may wish to consider the use of tables:
Table X: to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation on the basis of specialist topics, inter-relationships and cumulative impacts.
Table XX: to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion and other responses to consultation.
Table XXX: to set out the mitigation measures proposed, as well as assisting the reader, the Secretary of State considers that this would also enable the applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Development Consent Order.
Table XXXX: to cross reference where details in the HRA (where one is provided) such as descriptions of sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or compensation measures, are to be found in the ES.
Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms
The Secretary of State 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.
Presentation
The ES should have all of its paragraphs numbered, as this makes referencing easier as well as accurate. Appendices must be clearly
7 Available from: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and- advice/advice-notes/
Page 11 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered. All figures and drawings, photographs and photomontages should be clearly referenced. Figures should clearly show the proposed site application boundary.
Confidential Information
In some circumstances it will be appropriate for information to be kept confidential. In particular, this may relate to information about the presence and locations of rare or sensitive species such as badgers, rare birds and plants where disturbance, damage, persecution or commercial exploitation may result from publication of the information. Where documents are intended to remain confidential the applicant should provide these as separate paper and electronic documents with their confidential nature clearly indicated in the title, and watermarked as such on each page. The information should not be incorporated within other documents that are intended for publication or which the Planning Inspectorate would be required to disclose under the Environmental Information Regulations 2014.
Bibliography
A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references. All publications referred to within the technical reports should be included.
Non Technical Summary
The EIA Regulations require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regulations 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.
Page 12 of Appendix 1 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
APPENDIX 2 – LIST OF BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED
Note: the Prescribed Consultees have been consulted in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 3: EIA Consultation and Notification (version 6, June 2015)8.
SCHEDULE 1 DESCRIPTION ORGANISATION The Scottish Executive Scottish Government The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive The National Health Service NHS England Commissioning Board The relevant Clinical Cumbria Clinical Commissioning Commissioning Group Group Lancashire North Clinical Commissioning Group Natural England Natural England The Historic Buildings and Historic England - North West Monuments Commission for England The relevant fire and rescue Cumbria Fire and Rescure authority Service Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service The relevant police and crime Cumbria Constabulary commissioner Lancashire Constabulary
The relevant parish council(s) Whicham Parish Council or, where the application relates Millom Without Parish Council to land [in] Wales or Scotland, Drigg and Carleton Parish the relevant community council Council St. Bees Parish Council Lowside Quarter Parish Council Beckermet with Thornhill Parish Council Ponsonby Parish Council Arlecdom and Frizington Parish Council Bootle Parish Council Waberthwaite Parish Council Muncaster Parish Council Gosforth Parish Council Seascale Parish Council
8 Available from: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and- advice/advice-notes/
Page 1 of Appendix 2 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
SCHEDULE 1 DESCRIPTION ORGANISATION Egremont Town Council Moresby Parish Council Weddicar Parish Council Distington Parish Council Rockcliffe Parish Council Beaumont Parish Council Kingmoor Parish Council Orton (Carlisle) Parish Council Westlinton Parish Council Kirkby Ireleth Parish Council Duddon Parish Council (includes Broughton West Parish Councils and Angerton PC) Lower Holker Parish Council Aldingham Parish Council Urswick Parish Council Workington Parish Council Maryport Town Council Dean Parish Council Bridekirk Parish Council Aspatria Town Council Bromfield Parish Council Waverton Parish Council Dundraw Parish Council Woodside Parish Council Thursby Parish Council Aikton Parish Council Winscales Parish Council Great Clifton Parish Council Camerton Parish Council Seaton Parish Council Broughton Moor Parish Council Dearham Parish Council Crosscanonby Parish Council Gilcrux Parish Council Oughterside and Allerby Parish Council Hayton and Mealo Parish Council Westnewton Parish Council Wigton Town Council Askam and Ireleth Parish Council Dalton with Newton Town Council Lindal and Marton Parish Council Middleton Parish Council
Page 2 of Appendix 2 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
SCHEDULE 1 DESCRIPTION ORGANISATION The Environment Agency The Environment Agency - [North West] The Scottish Environment Scottish Environment Protection Protection Agency Agency Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Natural Heritage The Maritime and Coastguard Maritime & Coastguard Agency Agency The Marine Management Marine Management Organisation Organisation (MMO) The Relevant Highways Cumbria County Council Authority Lancashire Council Council The relevant strategic highways Highways England - [North company West] The Coal Authority The Coal Authority Trinity House Trinity House The Crown Estate The Crown Estate Commissioners The Forestry Commission Forestry Commission - North West and Midlands The Secretary of State for Ministry of Defence Defence The Office for Nuclear The Office for Nuclear Regulation (the ONR) Regulation (the ONR)
RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS The relevant Clinical Cumbria Clinical Commissioning Commissioning Group Group Lancashire North Clinical Commissioning Group The National Health Service NHS England Commissioning Board The relevant NHS Trust North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust Railways Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Highways England Historical Railways Estate Dock and Harbour authority Maryport Harbour and Marina Whitehaven Marina Port of Barrow Heysham harbour Glasson Docks Lighthouse Trinity House Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group Homes and Communities Homes and Communities Agency Agency The relevant Environment Environment Agency Agency The relevant water and sewage United Utilities
Page 3 of Appendix 2 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS undertaker The relevant public gas Energetics Gas Limited transporter ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd ESP Pipelines Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited GTC Pipelines Limited Independent Pipelines Limited LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited National Grid Gas Plc National Grid Gas Plc Quadrant Pipelines Limited SSE Pipelines Ltd Scotland Gas Networks Plc Southern Gas Networks Plc Wales and West Utilities Ltd Greenpark Energy Transportation Limited The relevant electricity Fellside CHP generator with CPO Powers Roosecote Power Station Heysham 2 The relevant electricity Energetics Electricity Limited distributor with CPO Powers ESP Electricity Limited Independent Power Networks Limited The Electricity Network Company Limited Utility Assets Limited Electricity North West Limited The relevant electricity National Grid Electricity transmitter with CPO Powers Transmission Plc
SECTION 42 CONSULTEES Local Authorities Cumbria County Council Lancashire County Council Carlisle City Council Allerdale Borough Council Copeland Borough Council South Lakeland District Council Barrow in Furness Borough Council Lancaster City Council Lake District National Park
Page 4 of Appendix 2 Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
SECTION 42 CONSULTEES Yorkshire Dales National Park Northumberland National Park Northumberland County Council County Durham County Council North Yorkshire County Council Blackpool Council Blackburn with Darwen Council City of Bradford Metrolpolitan District Council Calderdale District Council Rochdale District Council Bolton District Council Bury District Council Wigan District Council Sefton District Council St Helens District Council Knowsley District Council Eden District Council Wyre District Council Ribble Valley Borough Council Craven District Council Richmondshire District Council Dumfries and Galloway Council
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES Royal National Lifeboat Royal National Lifeboat Institution Institution
Page 5 of Appendix 2
Scoping Opinion for Proposed North West Coast Connections Project
APPENDIX 3 – RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES
List of bodies who replied by the Statutory Deadline:
Aldingham Parish Council Coal Authority Copeland Borough Council Drigg and Carleton Parish Council Environment Agency GTC (on behalf of Utility Grid Installations, Independent Pipelines, GTC, Electric Network Company, Quadrant Pipelines, Independent Power Networks) Highways England Historic England Health and Safety Executive Lake District National Park Authority Maritime and Coastguard Agency Natural England Millom without Parish Council North Yorks County Council Northumberland County Council Peel Ports PPA Group Authorities (Allerdale Borough Council, Barrow Borough Council, Carlisle City Council, Copeland Borough Council, Cumbria County Council, Lake District National Park Authority, Lancaster City Council, Lancashire County Council, South Lakeland District Council) Trinity House Wicham Parish Council
Page 1 of Appendix 3 From: Clerk Aldingham Parish Council To: Environmental Services Subject: FTAO JENNY COLFER Date: 13 October 2015 15:17:02 Attachments: letter re NWCC scoping consultation Oct 2015.odt
RE: North West Coast Connections Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Please find attached response to the above from Aldingham Parish Council
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Aldingham Parish Council
Clerk: B Moon Tel: 01229 861646 Email: [email protected]
Jenny Colfer EIA and land Rights Advisor Major Applications and Plans,
The Planning Inspectorate,
Temple Quay House,
Temple Quay,
Bristol, BS1 6PN 13th October, 2015
Dear Madam
RE: North West Coast Connections Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report
We write in response to the above and request for comments as per your email of 18th September, 2015, your ref: 150918_EN020007_3417121.
The content of the scoping document is extremely comprehensive but by virtue of the fact that it is merely outlining the assessments to be carried out is severely lacking in the detail that is of primary interest to the residents of Aldingham Parish. (It says a lot but defines little)
The primary issues of concern to residents being the construction phase activities and the legacy infrastructure such as buildings, pylons and overhead lines. (Disruption to daily life and the future environment)
The time scale for the construction phase implies a period of up to 5 years of:-
Significantly increased volumes of road traffic.
Increased noise and potentially increased levels of environmental pollution in the form of construction activities.
The influx of large numbers of project staff associated with the tunnelling activities is put at around 1000 people will in itself will be challenging.
The main omission from the scoping document is the lack of clarity with regard to the opportunity for local interests to be represented during the detail design phase. Once the design phase is complete it will be difficult to influence any aspects of the project that impact on residents to be modified.
We hope that these comments on behalf of Aldingham Parish Council will be taken into consideration.
Yours faithfully
Beth Moon (Clerk)
From: The Coal Authority-Planning To: Environmental Services Subject: EN020007 North West Coast Connection Project DCO – EIA Scoping Consultation Date: 16 October 2015 15:46:53 Attachments: image001.png 16Oct15 EN020007 North West Coast Connections NSIP EIA Scoping.pdf
For the Attention of: Ms Jenny Colfer – EIA and Land Rights Advisor
Dear Ms Colfer
Further to your consultation notification of 18 September 2015 please find attached the comments of the Coal Authority on the above project.
Yours sincerely
Mark Harrison
Mark Harrison BA(Hons), DipTP, LLM, MInstLM, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager – Corporate Projects T : 01623 637 119 E : [email protected] W : gov.uk/coalauthority
Resolving the impacts of mining. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.
______
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
200 Lichfield Lane 0345 762 6848 Mansfield 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries)
Nottinghamshire [email protected] NG18 4RG www.gov.uk/coalauthority
Ms J. Colfer – EIA and Land Rights Advisor The Planning Inspectorate
[By Email: [email protected]]
Your Ref: EN020007
16 October 2015
Dear Ms Colfer
Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulations 8 and 9
The North West Coast Connection Project Development Consent Order – EIA Scoping
Thank you for your consultation letter of 18 September 2015 seeking the views of the Coal Authority on the EIA Scoping for the above proposal.
The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.
The Coal Authority Response:
I have reviewed the proposals and confirm that the northern part of the proposed North West Coast Connection Project falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the proposed DCO application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered as part of this proposal and its accompanying Environmental Statement.
The Coal Authority has previously been consulted by the National Grid on an Outline Scoping Paper for this proposal and provided our comments to them in a letter dated 17 June 2015.
The Coal Authority is therefore pleased to note that the Scoping Report (September 2015) submitted by the National Grid at Chapters 14 and 15 demonstrates a good understanding of the coal mining legacy issues affecting particular sub-sections of the North West Coast
Connection Project area. Paragraph 15.1.6 confirms that Coal Authority records have already been obtained to identify potential ground stability hazards such as recorded mine entries, areas of past underground coal mining at shallow depth and areas of past surface coal mining activity. The Scoping Report confirms at paragraph 15.5.12 that detailed desk studies will be prepared addressing ground stability and minerals protection, which the Coal Authority is satisfied will comprise the equivalent of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment that we require to support development proposals within Development High Risk Areas.
Where the proposed North West Coast Connection Project falls within the surface coal resource area which forms part of the defined Mineral Safeguarding Area for Cumbria, the Coal Authority would expect due consideration to be afforded to the potential for prior extraction of the coal resource, in line with national planning policy in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance. In areas of coal mining legacy, the prior extraction of remnant shallow coal resources can prove to be a more economically viable method of remediation than the grout filling of shallow voids.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Yours sincerely
Mark Harrison
Mark E. N. Harrison B.A.(Hons), DipTP, LL.M, MInstLM, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager
Disclaimer
The above consultation response is provided by the Coal Authority as a statutory consultee and is based upon the latest available coal mining data on the date of the response, and electronic consultation records held by the Coal Authority since 1 April 2013. The comments made are also based upon only the information provided to the Coal Authority by the Local Planning Authority and/or has been published on the Council's website for consultation purposes in relation to this specific planning application. The views and conclusions contained in this response may be subject to review and amendment by the Coal Authority if additional or new data/information (such as a revised Coal Mining Risk Assessment) is provided by the Local Planning Authority or the applicant for consultation purposes.
2
From: John Groves To: Environmental Services Cc: Steve Smith; Catherine Little; lynne.thomas Subject: Response to EIA Scoping Request NW Coast Connection Project ref 150918_EN020007_3417121 Date: 15 October 2015 18:19:30 Attachments: image001.png EA Scoping response NWCC 151015.docx
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find attached the Council’s comments re consultation in respect of the above. Please not these comments are in addition to and reiteration of submissions made on behalf the Council and others by WYG and submitted to the Inspectorate 15 October 2015
John Groves Strategic Nuclear and Planning Manager
Tel: 01946 598416 Mobile: 07776 160592 E-mail: [email protected]
Copeland Borough Council, The Copeland Centre, Catherine Street, Whitehaven, Cumbria, CA28 7SJ. Tel: 0845 054 8600. Fax: 01946 598303. www.copeland.gov.uk, [email protected]
Working to improve lives, communities and the prosperity of Copeland
Copeland - the best place to live in Cumbria This email is confidential and is for the attention of the addressee only. Copeland Borough Council accept no responsibility for information, errors or omissions contained in it. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. You should independently check this e-mail and any attachments for viruses, as we can take no responsibility for any computer viruses that might be transferred by way of this e-mail. This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Nati Response to EIA Scoping Report
Title Response to National Grid Request for Scoping Opinion – EIA Scoping Report Author John Groves Date of Issue 16 October 2015
The Council has received consultation from the Planning Inspectorate having regard to the Scoping Request by National Grid relating to the North West Coast Connections Project Scoping Request Environmental Impact Assessment. The Council has jointly other authorities which are signatories to a Planning Performance Agreement with National Grid have commissioned WYG to provide a technical appraisal of issues which are covered by the EIA Scoping Report. This report has been submitted directly to the Inspectorate. The Council would ask that this report is considered as the substantive basis for response to this consultation. The Council also tables this separate response to provide emphasis and reiteration of the specific areas of comment on the scoping report which are of particular relevance to Copeland It is recognised that this consultation precedes more detailed evolution of the NWCC project. Whilst it is accepted that a range of principles about the construction of a transmission network from the proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station can be accepted, it is clear that there is considerable additional detail around the project which will need to be specified in anticipation of the submission of an application for a Development Consent Order. 15 October 2015 1
COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Nati Response to EIA Scoping Report
Whilst this consultation over Scoping early in the formulation of the project is welcomed, particularly based on an assumption that this enables the consultation to realistically inform the detailed design and form of the development and the approach to Environmental Assessment – it is clear that the nature of the wider project as currently presented is based on a considerable number of assumptions many of which are not currently evidenced. This particularly relates to assumptions relating to the acceptability of pylons and cables rather than potential preferences and requirements for undergrounding of cables, particularly in environmentally sensitive locations. At this stage issues relating to the level of mitigation needed to manage potential impacts is not fully understood. This has potential to result in differing impacts which in turn may have implications for issues which need to be scoped into or out of assessment. It is accepted that the process of designing the project is inevitably iterative. It is considered however that the Council must highlight those areas where appraisal and understanding of the impact of the on the residential and business communities in Copeland, is currently constrained as a consequence of the limited information available. This particularly relates to understanding of the requirements for a construction workforce, the manner in which that workforce will be established and the consequences for accommodation, transportation and skills development strategies. It is noted in the substantive submission made by WYG on behalf of the Council and others that there are inherent concerns over weaknesses in submissions within the EIA Scoping Report around the topics of Socio-economic impacts. There are 3 areas of specific concern • The preferred routing occupies and area of land south of the main settlement of Whitehaven, running north and west of the West Lakes Science and Technology Park. This area is viewed as being of strategic significance in facilitating potential growth and development which is anticipated as a consequence of the considerable investment in the nuclear sector, including Moorside and wider decommissioning and reprocessing activity focused on Sellafield. The land is identified as a potential associated development site for Moorside. The Scoping report does not recognise potential conflict or scope for the assessment of impact of being unable to realise growth potential. 15 October 2015 2
COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Nati Response to EIA Scoping Report
• Scoping does not adequately consider the range of issues, potential impacts and therefore assessment required in sensitive landscapes across the Borough. This particularly relates to land across the St Bees and Mirehouse Valleys and south to the Moorside site, and for most of the extent of the preferred routing south of the Moorside site to the southern edge of the Borough. • Scoping does not adequately account for the known issues over the resilience of the transmission and distribution networks in the south of the Borough. It is known that there are current supply issues to the settlements in the south of Copeland which have the potential to limit and inhibit growth and development. Suggestions that visual impact of over ground cables might be mitigated through the removal of the existing 132KV distribution cables exacerbate concern in this regard. Scoping should demonstrate clear understanding of this issue providing for adequate assessment and comprehension of the current position; understanding of potential impacts and appraisal of mitigation. Scope for legacy benefit acquired as a result of increased resilience to the power supply network should be covered through scope of a more detailed and through appraisal of socioeconomic benefits. The Council otherwise would reiterate its reliance of the WYG submission in response to consultation over the scoping report.
15 October 2015 3
From: To: Environmental Services Subject: NG North West Connection Project Scoping Consultation Date: 15 October 2015 10:35:08
Dear Sirs Attached is a response to the scoping consultation from Drigg & Carleton Parish Council. Please acknowledge receipt.
D Millington, Parish Clerk
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
From: Pickup, Jeremy To: Environmental Services Subject: 150918_EN020007_3417121 Environment Agency consultation response Date: 16 October 2015 14:12:12 Attachments: dps1.rtf
Dear Sir/ Madam
Please find the Environment Agency’s consultation response attached.
Regards
Jeremy Pickup Planning Advisor | Sustainable Places Team| Cumbria & Lancashire Area
Environment Agency | Ghyll Mount, Gillan Way, Penrith 40 Business Park, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 9BP tel 01768 215798 email [email protected]
Follow us on Twitter @EnvAgencyNW Visit the website - https://www.gov.uk/environment-agency Visit our blog - https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/
Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. Click here to report this email as spam
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Our ref: NO/2015/108220/01-L01 The Planning Inspectorate Your ref: 150918_EN020007_ 3/18 Eagle Wing 3417121 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Date: 16 October 2015 Bristol BS1 6PN
Dear Sir/Madam
PLANNING ACT 2008 (AS AMENDED) AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED) – REGULATIONS 8 AND 9
APPLICATION BY NATIONAL GRID FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE NORTH WEST COAST CONNECTION PROJECT
SCOPING CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CONTACT DETAILS AND DUTY TO MAKE AVAILABLE INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANT IF REQUESTED
Thank you for referring the above Scoping consultation which we received on 18 September 2015.
We have reviewed the National Grid Report: ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and Appendices - North West Connections’ dated September 2015 which was received with your consultation request.
The Environment Agency is a non-departmental government agency with wide ranging responsibilities. In England, our responsibilities include matters relating to:
• managing the risk of flooding from main rivers, reservoirs, estuaries and the sea • regulating major industry and waste disposal, including discharges and disposals of radioactive wastes from nuclear sites • treatment of contaminated land • water quality and resources • fisheries • conservation and ecology The proposed North West Coast Connection Project will have a number of environmental impacts that we will be responsible for regulating through the Environment Agency Ghyll Mount (Gillan Way) Penrith 40 Business Park, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 9BP. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency Cont/d..
Environmental Permitting regime. We are also an advisor on relevant matters in the planning system, including the promotion of sustainable development.
Based on the information submitted, it appears that most of the environmental issues relevant to the Environment Agency have been identified. We would offer the following comments which fall within the Environment Agency’s remit:-
Chapter 5 Approach to Scoping and EIA 5.9.7 The West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon is not included in the list of proposed developments with potential to impact on the project (this could have significant implications if it goes ahead).
Chapter 8 Terrestrial and Avian Ecology In broad terms we agree with many of the the proposals setting out further assessment, and make specific comments on areas of primary interest to our remit below.
8.3.17 The list of invasive species records doesn’t include Himalayan balsam, a species listed on Schedule 9 of the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act, which is likely to be present on many of the watercourses within the project area and elsewhere in the wider countryside.
8.4.12 We agree with the assessment of risk and proposed strategy to scope-in potential pollution and degradation of watercourses at this stage.
8.4.13 We agree with the approach to scoping-in potential hydrological impacts on wetland habitats and the cross-referencing to flood risk.
8.4.14 We agree with the approach to scoping-in potential geo morphological impacts on the Marine Environment.
We agree with the proposed approach to detailed surveys of freshwater aquatic species and the proposed review of this position as the project design is refined.
8.5.71 We support the decision to produce a formal Evidence Plan in support of the project’s Habitats Regulations Assessment.
8.5.75 We support the proposed production of a separate Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment document in order to clarify determination of the project’s WFD compliance.
8.6.7 Large scale and wide-ranging projects such as this have the potential to transfer invasive species between sites and across river catchments through movement of machinery, equipment and personnel.
It is likely that some invasive non-native species will be present in, or along, many of the watercourses to be crossed, even if not visible at the specific work locations. As such, we strongly recommend incorporating appropriate working method statements into a specific Bio security Plan, setting out bio security measures to be undertaken at various sites according to the risk of spreading invasive species.
Chapter 13 Hydrology and Flood Risk Although we are in general agreement with the approach to the scoping, we were unable to check the extent of the area of influence as the figures mentioned in the report
Cont/d.. 2
appear to be missing.
We have identified a number of minor points in the report which we discuss below:
13.3.46 In relation to flood risk there is no reference to reservoir failure of Cogra Moss.
13.3.100 We are aware of differences between the names of main rivers as defined in the Defra main river map and those named on Ordnance Survey maps and named in the Scoping report. For instance, Eskmeals Pool does not exist and as a Defra Main river, the main river name is Esk River. As the Environment Agency is primarily concerned with main rivers for regulatory purposes, the author should be aware of the main river status and differences in nomenclature and the potential confusion this could cause.
13.3.105 Again, in this section reference is made to Whicham Beck, whereas the main river name is Whitecoombe Beck.
13.3.117 The report questions the Area Benefitting from Defences (ABD) associated with Galloper Pool. The ABD is formed by existing infrastructure, so remains in the model and this case forms a de facto defence to the appropriate standard.
13.3.127 No mention of reservoir flooding is made in this section. Additionally, there is no mention of Roose Beck, main river, which not a modelled catchment.
13.3.141 We acknowledge the statement "Baseline conditions for hydrology and flood risk could change over the anticipated lifetime of the Project as a consequence of changes in climate".
13.3.142 We acknowledge the awareness of the Environment Agency’s 'Adapting to Climate Change: Advice for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities'. We will keep you informed in relation to changes in guidance on upcoming climate change allowances, as relates to planning.
Chapter 14 Hydrogeology In Appendix 14A - Hydrogeology Scoping Table the operation section states that routine maintenance of underground cables and tunnels is not relevant/no effect and therefore scoped out. It might be that the practices used for maintenance are low risk but it should still be considered, so we would like to see that added.
Please note a Groundwater activity permit maybe required to carry out the tunnelling work depending on whether additives are used to carry out tunnel boring operations. The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (as amended), make it an offence to cause or knowingly permit a groundwater activity unless authorised by an Environmental Permit which we will issue. A groundwater activity includes any discharge that will result in the input of pollutants to groundwater.
The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency on 03708 506 506 for further advice and to discuss the issues likely to be raised. You should be aware that the permit may not be granted. Additional ‘Environmental Permitting Guidance’ can be accessed via our main website (https://www.gov.uk/environmental-permit-how-to-apply).
14.5.10 There is no mention of Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015. Although they are mentioned in other areas they should also be included in the water and waste legislation sections.
Cont/d.. 3
Chapter 15 Geology and Soils We would agree with the list of guidance documents as listed below :-
Land Contamination
1 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11) (EA, 2004) (Ref.15.3);
2 BS 8485:2015: “Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings” (Ref. 15.4);
3 BS 8576:2013: Guidance on investigations for ground gas. Permanent gases and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (Ref. 15.5);15-33
4 CIRIA C665: Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings” (Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA), 2007) (Ref. 15.6);
5 Cumbria Contaminated Land Officer Group publication “Development of Potentially Contaminated Land and Sensitive End Uses: An Essential Guide for Developers” (2013)(Ref. 15.7);
6 Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on land affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention (EA, 2001) (Ref. 15.8); and
7 BS 10175:2011 A1:2013 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites. Code of Practice (Ref. 15.9).
Under the chapter on Land Contamination; General Scope 15.5.17 the following is stated:
‘The assessment of the effects relating to pre-existing contamination will be undertaken in general accordance with “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11)” (Ref. 15.3). This provides a framework for assessing effects on contamination receptors. However, this framework is designed for individual development sites and the responsibilities of site owners (or other persons responsible for the contamination status of the site) under the planning regime or Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. A consequence of this is that any pre-existing contamination at a site can require mitigation, should it present an unacceptable risk to a receptor, even if the proposed development does not materially alter the pre-existing risk.’
And that;
‘This approach is not directly applicable to EIA for large infrastructure projects crossing third party land, as constructing infrastructure on third party land does not bestow any statutory (or other) responsibility on the infrastructure provider to remediate pre-existing contamination. Therefore, the EIA will only consider effects relating to pre-existing contamination where either of the following two conditions applies. Otherwise, effects associated with pre-existing contamination will be assessed as ‘neutral’ and not significant for EIA purposes (i.e. no mitigation required):’
With regard to the construction of pylons it is unlikely that a pathway would be created,
Cont/d.. 4
however in areas where trenching or tunnelling might be considered then, we would disagree with the interpretation specifically of the Part 2A legislation.
Our understanding is that, if a third party undertakes works that can impact upon an existing Part 2A site by creating a pathway for the migration of that contamination away from the originally designated and determined site. Then those works would be liable for further consideration under the Part 2A legislation. It is our view is that the ability to knowingly permitting the pollution to migrate via the development of a pathway would be the responsibility of the person undertaking the works irrespective of the regime under which those works were undertaken.
In chapter 15.5.22, we would agree that ‘The detailed desk study, together with the results of any targeted ground investigations, will be reported as standalone technical reports. The EIA will be based on the findings of these reports.’ This would allow the consideration of each targeted area prior to the main works, and so allow for the agreement of any inbuilt precautions or mitigation.
In chapter 15.5.28 we would agree with the proposal that ‘effects assessed as moderate or major will be considered to be significant for EIA purposes. However, effects assessed as minor will not be disregarded. Whilst not significant for EIA purposes, measures to reduce such effects may be incorporated into Design Mitigation and Good Practice Mitigation.’ The use of mitigation to insulate the development from the external environment is often employed, following agreement with the appropriate authority.
Geology and Soils 15.1.6 2. Landmark Information Group (LIG) data sets, provided in GIS format, including historical landfill polygons (from local authority, Environment Agency (EA) and BGS records) and recorded locations of formally designated Part IIA Contaminated Land;
In relation to the information supplied by the Landmark Group, it should be born in mind that this information was only correct at the time that it was obtained, and that the location of existing sites can alter, and that new landfills and contaminated land sites are being generated continuously.
We noted the comment in respect of mobile groundwater contaminants in Chapter 15.2.3 ‘The potential effects from other mobile contaminants, namely groundwater contamination, are not relevant to the definition of the Study Area, as these are defined as a feature of the baseline hydro geological conditions. Therefore, they are relevant to the hydrogeology Study Area.’
And we would agree that ‘The only potential effect of groundwater contamination that is relevant to the land contamination assessment is the egress of groundwater onto land within the Scoping Corridor. This potential effect is only relevant within the Scoping Corridor boundaries, so does not affect the definition of the Study Area. The interface between the Geology and Soils and the Hydrogeology assessments is explained further in the ‘inter-topic effects’ section of this chapter.’
We would comment that, dependent upon the time of the year (season) that the investigation is undertaken cognisance should be made of the potential for seasonal variation in respect of groundwater and/or surface water flow volumes (flash flood conditions), especially in relation to mining areas and subsurface sources of water within geologically mined areas.
Cont/d.. 5
Chapter 15 Geology and Soils 15.7 Approach to Inter-relationship Effects In section 15.7.3 it is stated that ‘although effects will only be assessed within the EIA topic area that is relevant to the receptor affected, mitigation design will be undertaken collaboratively and reported in all relevant ES sections.’ And that ‘In these circumstances, the relevant EIA sections would be compiled collaboratively to ensure a consistent assessment that fully considers inter-related effects, with full details of mitigation measures specified in each section.’
For the avoidance of confusion where this duality exists, we would request that cross referencing is made to the other EIA sections within which contamination is being considered collaboratively.
In relation to Waste and Materials Management especially where large volumes such as the 1.2 million tonnes anticipated from a tunnel crossing Morecambe Bay, the infrastructure for the transport of materials and reuse of materials should be considered. The use of the CL:AIRE Code of Practice would significantly decrease the environmental impact of transporting waste should a ‘Hub and Cluster’ type system be used especially at a rail head where options for re-use could be considered outside of the immediate development area.
Local disposal of such large quantities of materials could give rise to raised land levels and so impact upon flood catchment areas required for local drainage and capacity. Disposal away from these low lying areas should be considered.
With regards to the specific potential for a tunnel below the Morecambe Bay, it should be born in mind that ‘the deeps’ were considered a suitable dumping ground for varieties of armaments following World War 2, and that quite often Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) can be washed up on the beaches around Morecambe Bay. If new structures are to be developed there may be a potential for these to ‘attract’ such UXO, and consideration should be given to a methodology for dealing with such occurrences. (It is not uncommon for Bomb Disposal Crews to dispose/detonate washed up UXO on the beaches where appropriate, this would not be possible if a building or other structure is in proximity).
Barrow in Furness was also a strategic target for bombing in World War 2 due to its industrial setting, consideration of unidentified UXO should be undertaken when undertaking site inspections within this area of the development.
Chapter 17 Waste and Materials Management 17.1.7 Refers to various waste streams likely to be generated during the various phases of project but does not include Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE).
17.6.11 It is important to ensure a Code of Construction Practice (C of CP) is prepared and available for outside contractors to ensure they have a full understanding of their responsibilities when working on site.
The documents make reference throughout to the creation of waste streams and spoil from excavations. Whilst re use is proposed, permits issued under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (as amended), may be required for the treatment of both waste and non waste materials and early pre application discussions are advised to ensure works are not delayed.
Cont/d.. 6
Chapter 18 Marine Environment 18.1.7 & 18.4.22 We note that our previous comments on the potential impact of electro-magnetic fields on migratory fish have been included and that the issue has been scoped in for further assessment.
No details are given on the form of this assessment however we would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with the developer or their consultants to agree how this assessment should proceed.
18.3.90 Marine invasive species are mentioned but it is unclear if or how the issue will be addressed further. There is potential for transfer of marine invasive species through the proposed project and as such the issue should be scoped-in for further consideration of risk and bio security planning if appropriate.
Chapter 20 Contents and Scope of the Environmental Statement The permitting requirements for waste and water management may vary across the scope of the works, due to the sensitivity of the locations. The EIA should make an assessment of works that may fall within the permitting requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (as amended), the Water Resource Act 1991 (as amended) and any other relevant legislation.
Although smaller water bodies may not directly have a WFD classification, any changes to flow, morphology, vegetation or similar may have an impact on a WFD classified water body. The EIA should consider how changes to tributaries of WFD water bodies may affect the WFD classifications of the main water body.
Any temporary or permanent culverting of water courses should be fully assessed. An assessment should be made of existing culverts to determine if these areas can be de- culverted during the works in mitigation for any proposed new culverts.
The EIA should consider the locations of any temporary or permanent foul water discharges and ensure that the appropriate manage of any proposed foul water systems are considered.
The documents state that a separate WFD focus document will be produced. This should be extensive in detail due to the sheer number of WFD water bodies that are within and close to the Scope of Works. The EIA should consider the works necessary to maintain or improve water quality along the scheme of works; no deterioration of water quality should be seen as a result of the works.
The EIA should cover in detail any WFD classified water courses within, and neighboring the scope of works. Particular attention should be paid to those water courses that may be affected by the works by water of channel alteration, temporary or permanent diversions, abstractions, discharges, temporary and permanent crossing points, any affects on existing abstractions or surface water discharges (foul and clean).
The EIA should consider the individual and cumulative effectives of the scope of works on water courses, and statutory/non-statutory designations.
The EIA should also assess any impacts on Statutory and non-statutory protections (SSSI, SPA, BHS, LWS etc) both within and in proximity to, the scheme of works as a result of any works in, or near water courses. Cont/d.. 7
An assessment for any impacts of the works on Bathing and Shellfish Waters should be made, especially for water bodies that are coastal or within 1km of coastal waters.
If you have any queries or comments relating to the issues raised in this response, please do not hesitate to contact me via the e-mail address below.
Yours faithfully
Jeremy Pickup Planning Adviser - Sustainable Places
E-mail [email protected]
End 8
From: [email protected] To: Environmental Services Subject: 150918_EN020007_3417121 Date: 21 September 2015 10:31:48
Please note in respect of the above reference, we have no comment to make.
This regards the following companies
Utility Grid Installations Independent Pipelines GTC Electric Network Company Quadrant Pipelines Independent Power Networks
Kind Regards
Tom Anderson Engineering Support Officer
GTC Engineering Energy House Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St. Edmunds Suffolk IP30 9UP Tel: 01359 243376 (ext. 3376) Fax: 01359 244046 Email: [email protected] Web: www.gtc-uk.co.uk
NOTE: This E-Mail originates from GTC, Energy House, Woolpit Business Park, Woolpit, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP30 9UP VAT Number: GB688 8971 40. Registered No: 029431.
DISCLAIMER The information in this E-Mail and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on your system and notify the sender immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this E-Mail for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its content to any other person. Whilst we run antivirus software on Internet E-Mails, we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own up to date antivirus software. Thank you This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
From: Reade, Jonathan To: Environmental Services Cc: Sinnott, Mike; Lee, Steven; Alder, Lindsay; "Bruce Allan"; "Jonathan Parsons"; Kevin Clague; Hope, John Subject: National Grid - North West Coast Connections Project. Information for Environmental Statement. Comments from Highways England Date: 19 October 2015 15:51:51
For the attention of Jenny Colfer
Dear Jenny
I refer to your Scoping Consultation letter dated 18 September 2015 (Your Ref : 150918_EN020007_3417121) relating to the National Grid : North West Coast Connections Project. You have asked for advice on the information to be provided in an environmental statement relating to the project.
This response confirms that Highways England is interested in the project and wishes to comment on the information we consider should be provided in the environmental statement.
Highways England is the new government company charged with looking after the same motorways and major A roads as the Highways Agency did. We’re focussed on the most important national routes, while councils manage the local roads that serve their communities.
Our role is to operate, maintain and modernise these roads in line with the Road Investment Strategy. This requires us to work collaboratively with a range of stakeholders, existing and new, to better understand their needs and priorities. Within Cumbria this strategic road network includes the M6, A66T, A590T and A595T north of Calder Bridge to it’s junction with the A66T at Great Clifton.
We are interested in the Coastal Connection Project because of it’s scale and proximity to that network. Necessary improvements to overcome any capacity constraints or safety concerns could physically impact on the layout of junctions, verges along the length of the road and structures. In addition, the Project could have a material impact on network performance – particularly during the lengthy construction phase – with potential implications for our future maintenance and improvement programmes.
I make some general points relating to Chapter 2 The Proposed Development and then more detailed comments relating to Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport.
These comments would also be applicable to other parts of the document not explicitly mentioned in this reply.
Chapter 2 The Prosed Development.
Section 2.5 deals with Material, Waste and Transport Strategies. An issue of particular interest to us is the proposed tunnel under Morecambe Bay.
Para 2.5.11 confirms that some 1.2m tonnes of material could be excavated from the tunnel. Para 2.5.12 indicates that it is “expected that the majority of soil excavated during construction would be stored and replaced. Excess soils would be stored and re-used elsewhere on the Project, or re-used for restoration purposes on other nearby projects. It is anticipated that soils would be re-used in restoration of land where existing ENW electricity infrastructure is being removed.” Against this background, we need to understand precisely how much material will be excavated, how will it be managed, where will it be moved to and how will it get there ? Therefore we would wish to be involved in discussions relating to study proposed in para 2.5.13 and agree impacts on our network and any necessary mitigation measures.
Section 2.6 confirms that a “transport strategy is under development (para 2.6.1). We support the aim of the transport strategy which will be to minimise road traffic and HGV movements wherever appropriate. It is noted that “Where road is the only viable option, the Project will investigate sustainable practices for the movement of materials and workforce to minimise traffic flows.”(para 2.6.2). It may be more sustainable, as stated in para 2.6.2, to use road deliveries for aggregate from local quarries rather than other modes of transport combined with road to transport aggregate from further afield. However traffic travelling to and from local quarries could still have an impact on the operation of the strategic road network, therefore we need more detail on the practices that maybe used.
What is critical to us is gaining an early understanding of the overall demand for transport (logistics, materials, movement of plant and Abnormal Indivisible Loads), as well as workers during the construction phase and the mitigation measures that may be required.
On the basis of the information provided we are content with the study area identified in Figure 2.25. We also support the consideration of road traffic alongside and in combination with rail, via existing and potentially new rail infrastructure, and marine travel via deliveries to local ports (e.g. Barrow, Heysham, Workington) as proposed in para 2.6.3.
We agree that the transport strategy for the Project will also need to consider the potential implications of other construction projects in Cumbria, particularly Moorside.
We would wish to understand the location of construction sites or material holding locations and how movement to or between these sites could impact on our network. This will need to be set out in the Transport Assessment.
The above considerations are important for two principal reasons. We need to ensure
· the strategic road network described above has the appropriate capacity from an operational and safety perspective, and · that necessary improvements can be delivered in a timely manner to support the proposed construction and operational timetable for the Moorside Project.
Given the above comments, we need to discuss and agree the scope of the Transport Assessment with National Grid and also Cumbria County Council.
It is important to recognise that improvements to the road network may need to be in place prior to the start of the main construction works. In addition, the mitigation strategies for highway network management and improvements need to be identified and included in the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Once agreement has been reached with Highways England and Cumbria County Council regarding traffic generation and distribution onto the road network, there maybe a need for additional road traffic noise and air quality surveys to those currently proposed.
Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport Turning specifically to Chapter 9 Transport, we support the key principle of the Transport Strategy to minimise road traffic and deterioration in the physical quality of road infrastructure including the landscape. However, appropriate transport thresholds for an Environmental Impact Assessment may not be appropriate for a Transport Impact Assessment. We need to agree thresholds with National Grid and Cumbria County Council as part of discussions relating to the scope of the Transport Assessment.
On the basis of the information provided, we agree that the Environmental Statement should consider the construction and decommissioning phases as proposed at para 9.1.3.
On the basis of the information provided at Section 9.9, we are content with the proposal at para 9.1.4 to scope the operational phase of the Project out of further assessment, as there will be limited traffic generation or movement associated with routine activities.
So far as data sources is concerned (para 9.1.7 and para 9.5.12), we have information regarding the condition of assets across our network including road pavement, drainage network, structures, highway embankments and cuttings. We have information regarding the location, severity and frequency of flooding instances across the strategic road network as well as personal injury accident data. We will be happy to share this information with National Grid. We should also be able to help with information on biodiversity, landscape and visual impacts.
With specific regard to traffic flow data, we can review and provide more information to help with the development of the Transport Assessment and supplement baseline data available in TRADS.
A number of Road Study Areas are identified. We would have a particular interest in the impact of development traffic at any junction · on the A595 in Section A – Moorside to Whitehaven, · on the A595 and A66 in Section B – Whitehaven to Aspatria · on the M6 in Section C - Aspatria to Harker Substation, Carlisle · on the A590 in Section E – Silecroft to Lindal in Furness · on the A590 in Section H – Lindal in Furness to Middleton substation
With regards to factors influencing future baselines, other relevant programmed schemes that may come forward prior to and during construction period should be identified in the Transport Assessment. For our network, these could be renewal schemes as well as safety or capacity improvement schemes.
In this regard, we have an issue with the stability of the A595 embankment at Low Moresby, which is north east of Parton. We are investigating this matter and developing measures to ensure the embankment’s stability. We will be in a position to formally discuss the matter in more detail with National Grid before the end of this calendar year, but it is important to note that the emerging preferred option is the complete renewal of the A595 embankment. Associated works could take upto 2 years to complete including construction of a local diversion route.
We welcome reference to The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (para 9.5.11 Relevant Legislation and Guidance). This should be used as well as other appropriate, professional guidance relating to matters such as Landscape, Ecology and relevant Interim Advice Notes. We welcome reference to DfT Circular 02/2013. This should be used as well as any subsequent update or revised guidance.
We note that new traffic data surveys were carried out in September 2015. It would be helpful to understand whether there were any incidents or works on the transport network at the time the surveys were carried out (including rail) that could have affected the data collected.
It is noted that Manual Classified Counts were undertaken between 07.00 and 19.00. Our experience is that the morning peak flow on the A595 between Cockermouth and Sellafield is earlier in the morning. It is between 05.00 and 07.00. This is associated with shift workers travelling to Sellafield. We have information to help improve this aspect of the data and this should be included in the Transport Assessment.
With reference to the potential effects on the rail (covered at para 9.5.19), it will be important for the Transport Assessment to set out whether any improvements (and if so what) may be needed to support travel to work by train and bus for the construction workforce.
Para 9.5.20 indicates that the transport of spoil between rail freight facilities and disposal sites “may” be assessed. It is our view this must be assessed.
As mentioned above, we need to discuss and agree that application of the IEMA Guidance Thresholds as part of discussions on the scope of the Transport Assessment (para 9..5.17 to 9.5.38 inclusive)
Para 9.6.6 confirms that for the construction and decommissioning phases National Grid will consider the application of Good Practice Mitigation. We would wish to be involved with such discussions. The Construction Traffic Management Plan and the Traffic Incident Management Plan will need to be defined and agreed as part of the Environment Impact Assessment and the Transport Impact Assessment. These should form sister documents to the DCO for approval. In this regard, we will need to understand and agree matters such as temporary traffic management - diversion signing, site direction signing etc. In this regard it will be important to discuss and agree a strategy for managing works where there maybe a conflict – in terms of road space or timing.
Other observations Emergency planning This is a matter which needs early consideration, particularly the role of the strategic road network as part of an emergency evacuation route. We would wish to be involved in discussions regarding this matter.
Regards
Jonathan Reade
Jonathan Reade, Asset Manager Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD Tel: +44 (0) 161 9305635 | Mobile: + 44 (0) 7710 958484 Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk GTN: 4315 5635
***************************************************************
Highways England Company Limited | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ | Registered in England and Wales No. 9346363
***************************************************************
______
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
From: Davison, Andrew To: Environmental Services Subject: North West Coast Connections Project scoping opinion, f.a.o Jenny Colfer Date: 16 October 2015 15:10:04 Attachments: North West Coast Connections scoping opinion letter 16-10-2015.pdf
Dear Ms Colfer,
Please find attached Historic England’s response to this consultation.
A hard copy is in the post to you.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Davison Principal Inspector of Ancient Monuments North West
Direct Line 0161 242 1412 Mobile 07747 638329
Historic England | Canada House 3 Chepstow Street | Manchester | M1 5FW https://www.historicengland.org.uk/ | @HE_NorthWest
We are the public body that looks after England's historic environment. We champion historic places, helping people to understand, value and care for them, now and for the future. Sign up to our enewsletter to keep up to date with our latest news, advice and listings. HistoricEngland.org.uk Twitter: @HistoricEngland This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may become publicly available.
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
From: [email protected] on behalf of [email protected] To: Environmental Services Subject: EN020007- North West Coast Connections - EIA Scoping Request Date: 13 October 2015 12:29:10 Attachments: NSIP - North West Coast Connections - EIA request - Response to PINS.pdf
Dear Ms Colfer
HSE does not comment on EIA Scoping Reports but the attached information is likely to be useful to the applicant. A hard copy has also been despatched in the post.
Regards
Diane
Diane Savage | Land Use Planning Policy| Major Hazards Policy Division | Hazardous Installations Directorate - Health & Safety Executive | 2.2 Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle L20 7HS | | +44(0)151 951 4522 (VPN 523) | : [email protected] www.hse.gov.uk | http://hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning
*****************************************************************************************************************
Please note : Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications and may be automatically logged, monitored and / or recorded for lawful purposes by the GSI service provider.
Interested in Occupational Health and Safety information?
Please visit the HSE website at the following address to keep yourself up to date
www.hse.gov.uk
*****************************************************************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
From: Dan Hunt To: Environmental Services Cc: Jenny Colfer Subject: CONSULTATION RESPONSE - EN020007 - North West Coast Connections - EIA Scoping Notification and Consultation Date: 14 October 2015 16:11:58 Attachments: FINAL LDNPA response - NWCC EIA scoping - 141015.pdf
Dear Ms Colfer Please find attached our response to your consultation dated 18 September 2015.
Please can you confirm receipt of our response by email. I have sent our response by email only, if you require a signed paper version please let me know and I will provide one. If you have any queries please do contact me Kind regards Dan Hunt
Dan Hunt Consultations Manager – North West Coast Connections Lake District National Park Authority
Mobile: 07711 285872 (my main phone) LDNPA reception: 01539 724555 www.lakedistrict.gov.uk
From: Environmental Services [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 October 2015 11:43 To: Dan Hunt Subject: FW: EN020007 - North West Coast Connections - EIA Scoping Notification and Consultation
Mr Hunt Please see below the consultation email sent in relation to the North West Coast Connections project. Kind regards
Jenny Colfer
EIA and Land Rights Advisor Major Applications and Plans
The Planning Inspectorate, 3/18 Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5532 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected]
Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate)
Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.
From: Environmental Services Sent: 18 September 2015 15:31 To: [email protected] Subject: EN020007 - North West Coast Connections - EIA Scoping Notification and Consultation
Dear Sir/Madam Please see the following hyperlink to correspondence on the proposed North West Coast Connections. http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/09/Letter-to-stat-cons_Scoping-AND-Reg-9- Notification.pdf Please note the deadline for consultation responses is 19/10/2015, and is a statutory requirement that cannot be extended. Kind regards, Jenny Colfer EIA and Land Rights Advisor Major Applications and Plans, The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5532 Twitter: @PINSgov Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning website) This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.
********************************************************************** 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.
Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes. ****************************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Supporting the Lake District bid for World Heritage Status www.lakesworldheritage.co.uk #lakedistrictbid
This email contains information intended for the addressee only. It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege.. Any dissemination, distribution, copyright or use of this communication without prior permission of the addressee is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Lake District National Park Authority. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by the Lake District National Park Authority for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof. Computer systems of this Authority may be monitored and communications carried out on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Sent by email only
Lake District National Park Authority Murley Moss, Oxenholme Road Kendal, LA9 7RL Telephone: 01539 724555 Fax: 01539 740822 Minicom: 01539 792690 Jenny Colfer Email: [email protected] EIA and Land Rights Advisor Website: w ww.lakedistrict.gov.uk The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Temple Quay House Direct email: dan.hunt 2 The Square @lakedistrict.gov.uk Direct dial: 07711 285872 BRISTOL Our ref: 7/2015/E0534 BS1 6PN Your ref:
Date: 14 October 2015
Dear Sir/Madam
National Grid - North West Coast Connection Project Response to consultation – EIA Scoping document
Please find our response to you consultation of 18 September 2015 below.
1. Over-arching comments
1.1 Focused assessment and report
The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) The State of Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in the UK – Special Report (2011) advises that current scoping practice all too often leads to broad assessments that lack appropriate focus leading to long Environmental Statements that add burdens all parties involved in EIA.
The length of this Scoping Report gives concern about the length and focus of the resultant Environmental Statement (ES). The ES should endeavour to focus on the specific environmental effects likely to result from the proposed development to avoid an unnecessary burden on all parties.
1.2 Iterative design and mitigation
In assessing the impacts of a development the usual approach would be to carry out the assessment on the basis of a pre-determined design where the design informs the assessment. However, for this complex project the proposed iterative design process set out in sections 5.5.5 – 5.5.11 is a logical way to proceed as it can inform design mitigation. We note that the current design and therefore scope of the EIA will change during the EIA period. In particular this may result in the use of other transmission technologies such as undergrounding or tunnelling.
Sections 2.4.14, 4.4 + 4.5 and 5.5.10/11 recognise that the scope of the EIA will change and that this will require ongoing dialogue with statutory consultees and stakeholders.
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
However, we are strongly concerned that this fails to commit the developers to a clear, transparent and inclusive iterative process across interested parties. The EIA scoping proposals are not clear with respect to:
how changes to the EIA scope will be notified, discussed and agreed how changes to the design detail will be notified, discussed and agreed how the impacts of design changes will be assessed across all topics in particular, how the impacts of non-overhead transmission technology will be assessed across all topics, including Historic Environment and Ecology how planning authorities, including ourselves, will be engaged in this iterative process compensation, mitigation and restoration on and off site process and mechanisms
The engagement approach and programme for the iterative design process needs to be clearly set out.
Our experience to date has been that there can be considerable delays between stakeholders identifying the need for issue-specific meetings and these being organised by National Grid. On occasions stakeholders have to push hard to secure these over many weeks. Dates for meetings are often released late affecting availability of interested parties.
We are strongly concerned that the assessment of impacts on the Historic Environment, Ecology and other topics assumes that the proposed transmission technology will be overhead wires and pylon. The impacts of undergrounding is only to be assessed in locations currently stated in the proposals – i.e. the tunnel under Morecambe Bay. While we accept the iterative design and mitigation process it is essential that assessing the impacts on other topics of any additional undergrounding proposed during the iterative process is included in the EIA scope.
1.3 Lake District National Park’s statutory Management Plan
We are strongly concerned that the entire Scoping document fails to include or consider the ‘The Partnership Plan – the Management Plan for the English Lake District, 2015-20’. This plan is the integrated strategy for managing this nationally important landscape. It is the result of joint working and agrees joint action by 25 organisation involved in management of the National Park.
This is the statutory National Park Management Plan and needs to be recognised as such. The plan includes partnership polices and actions under four strategy sections: Spectacular Landscapes; Visitor Experience; Vibrant Communities; Prosperous Economy.
This plan should also be considered and included where relevant throughout the Scoping document. It is particularly relevant to the sections on Landscape (Chapter 6); Historic Environment, including cultural landscapes (chapter 7); Ecology (Chapter 8) and recreation, visitor economy, and land-use (Chapter 16).
If this statutory National Park Management Plan is not significantly referenced and considered within the Scoping document we reserve the right to formally object. We sincerely hope that we will not find ourselves in this position.
1.4 Scoping out
Where we have commented on ‘Scoping out’ per chapter these comments should also be reflected in Chapter 19, Table 19.1 ‘Effects to be Scoped Out of the EIA’.
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
2. Comments by chapter
2.1 Chapter 3 - Planning Policy Context
General comments We are strongly concerned that the statutory and policy framework for National Parks is significantly underplayed in this chapter. Whilst reference to the NPPF approach to National Parks in section 3.4.5 is welcomed this is inadequate. The policy and legislative context for National Parks was set out in detail in our consultation response to National Grid in December 2014 and again in our comments relating to the announcement of National Grid’s preferred route corridor in July 2015. This information should be the starting point for considering these important aspects.
Key omissions include the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 amended by the Environment Act 1995, as well as the English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular (DEFRA: 2010).
Omissions and gaps 3.6.5 - It is not clear that our statutory role as Local Planning Authority for the National Park is sufficiently well understood, including that where necessary we have a role that extends to the setting of the National Park beyond the boundary.
3.6.23 - The development plan for the National Park also comprises of the saved policies of the Lake District National Park Local Plan (1998) which should be referred to. These are available at: http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/ data/assets/pdf file/0006/172761/Saved-1998-Local-Plan- policies-Nov-2013.pdf
2.2 Chapter 6 - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
General comments In assessing the landscape and visual impacts (LVIA) of a development the more usual circumstance would be to carry out the assessment on the basis of a pre-determined design where the design informs the assessment. For this project the approach is an iterative design and impact assessment.
The EIA scoping document sets the parameters for the LVIA assessment using the worst case scenario, in this case overhead lines. This is a logical way to proceed as it can then inform design mitigation which is likely to be the adoption of other technologies such as undergrounding or tunnelling where the LVIA identifies ‘unacceptable’ effects which can be mitigated.
What is not clear is how planning authorities, including ourselves, will be engaged in this iterative process – see section ‘Over-arching comments’ above.
LVIA is entirely consistent with GLVIA3 recommendations and is therefore logical, thorough, transparent and stands up to scrutiny. Seascape, though not included in GLVIA3 is treated similarly to landscape.
We note that it is acknowledged that World Heritage Site inscription for the Lake District will be given “appropriate consideration” without providing further detail.
Effects potentially arising from cumulative impacts are within the scope of a standard LVIA and are covered by GLVIA3 and adequately addressed in Chapter 6. There is a direct reference to the Cumbria Cumulative Impact of Vertical Infrastructure (CIVI) report and database and that it will form part of the methodology used.
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
Omissions and gaps The potential for further removal of existing electricity supply lines through joint working with Electricity NW has not been included within the EIA scoping and should be. The mitigation of the construction of new 400kv lines in the ‘opportunity corridor’ of the existing 132kv line by removal of the existing 132kv line is addressed. However, further opportunities should be explored as part of the iterative design and mitigation process. For example, if the new cabling uses underground cabling the scope for including the existing 132kv line within the same trench as mitigation for landscape impacts from new pylons elsewhere on the route should be included. Removing existing supply lines for mitigation should be considered through a ‘whole project’ approach. Currently this mitigation is only being assessed through a ‘one-up, one-down’ per section approach.
Each section and sub-section of the scoping-corridor is described separately which makes the LVIA more manageable and within each section there is a heading for Designated Landscapes which will allow for proper identification of potential effects on the National Park and setting. However, while Table 6.2 identifies NP designation as of ‘National’ value it is not clear how this is carried through in the assessment process described in 6.6 – 6.8
Landscape/Seascape/Visual effects. The weighting given to these designations could be clearer in the methodology, making direct reference to the National Park. #
Scoped out The potential effects of construction traffic on trees, field boundaries and other has been prematurely scoped out and should be included. These features can be important landscape components in the National Park and more widely. There are potential risks posed by construction, e.g. where large vehicles require access along narrow lanes. These impacts would require mitigation/re-instatement.
2.3 Chapter 7 - Historic Environment
Omissions and gaps We are strongly concerned that the assessment of impacts on the Historic Environment assumes that the proposed transmission technology will be overhead wires and pylon. The impacts of undergrounding is only to be assessed in locations currently stated in the proposals – i.e. the tunnel under Morecambe Bay. While we support the iterative design and mitigation process it is essential that the impacts on the Historic Environment of any additional undergrounding proposed for landscape impact mitigation is included in the EIA scope and fully assessed.
While it is acknowledged that information on the nomination for the Lake District World Heritage Site (WHS) is still being collated (referred to in 7.5.6), the significance and implications of the potential Lake District WHS should be fully considered throughout the Historic Environment chapter.
The Lake District WHS nomination documents are due to be finalised and submitted at the end of January 2016. These will contain a significant amount of relevant information to enable an assessment of impacts. We will be able to provide this information to you from the start of February 2016, please contact us to gain access to this at that point or when you require it thereafter.
7.1.6. - ‘NMP data’ (National Mapping Programme) is mentioned as being available for Cumbria. NMP data is not available for the Lake District and therefore interrogation of aerial photographs is required and should be included as part of the desk based assessment.
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
7.3.4 - HLC (Historic Landscape Characterisation) data is available for the Lake District and should be interrogated at this stage. This is not referred to and should be assessed as part of the assessment.
7.5.6 – Our Authority, LDNPA, holds data for the Romans in Ravenglass. Data from our Historic Environment Record should be included as a source for this information.
7.6.7 – Our Authority’s, LDNPA, Historic Environment Advisor should be included in this paragraph.
Scoped out 7.9.4/7.9.9/7.9.13 - We do not disagree that the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (WHS) should be scoped out in the paragraphs where suggested. However, the current text is ambiguous and it needs to be made clear in the text which WHS is being referred to. The Frontiers of the Roman Empire WHS and the nominated Lake District WHS should be clearly differentiated.
2.4 Chapter 8 – Ecology
General comments While the use of ‘Zones of Influence’ for biodiversity species is a proportionate response and in line with guidance it is important that any additional areas and/or species identified during the EIA process will require adequate survey and assessment. The iterative approach to design and assessment means that this situation may arise and should be overtly included in the EIA scope.
Similarly, for habitats, if additional areas outside the current project survey areas become included in the iterative design process additional survey and assessment would be required. In Cumbria, the review of County Wildlife Sites (CWS) has not been completed. Consequently not all sites that meet CWS standard are identified. It should be noted that in some instances, lack of CWS status does not preclude a site from meeting this standard and should be afforded that same consideration.
Section 8.5.62 states that IEEM guidelines are being followed for the assessment. In terms of valuation, the IEEM guidance include a number of other facets of evaluation which are highly relevant in the National Park and should be included in the scope of the ecology assessment. In particular the assessment should include the value/significance of undesignated areas of habitat:
in relation to habitats networks and connectivity with secondary or supporting value (for example areas that provide a buffer and protect a designated site) with good potential for restoration to favourable condition (for example peatland areas) should be considered. with local community and socio-economic benefits (for example local green space/habitat with local importance for wildlife experience)
These could all affect the assessment of impact, and the need for mitigation or compensation.
In terms of legacy from this project the sharing of biodiversity survey data from this large scale and geographically spread project would be a valuable addition to records for Cumbria. We would like to see the sharing of this data via the Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre at an appropriate time.
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
Omissions and gaps Appendix 8D – under the ‘Principal Project Element – Underground cables’ section of the table there is a list of 5 activities under in the ‘Activity’ column. We understand that not all activities are included in this table. However, we consider that two activities which could lead to significant biodiversity impacts are missing and should be added: drainage; disposal of waste spoil.
In addition to the direct impacts of soil stripping to install underground cables, installation of drainage may be required to create suitable ground conditions and potentially large volumes of excess spoil could be produced. Both could have significant direct and indirect consequences for biodiversity.
Disposal of waste spoil is included as an activity under the ‘Tunnel’ section of this table. It would be inconsistent not to include this in the ‘Underground cables’ section. In the same table an additional activity that we consider should be included under the ‘Tunnel’ section is ‘Create shaft-head island(s)’. The creation of these could significantly impact directly or indirectly on biodiversity, particularly on the Morecambe Bay SAC notified features and bird species.
2.5 Chapter 9 – Traffic and transport
This chapter fails to link the impact of project traffic and transport on tourist traffic (all modes of transport) and tourists. These impacts may have knock-on impacts to the local tourism offer and economy. These should be referred to and if necessary socio-economic impacts should be further explored further in Chapter 16.
2.6 Chapter 16 – Socio-economics, recreation and land-use
We are strongly concerned that this entire chapter fails to include or consider the ‘The Partnership Plan – the Management Plan for the English Lake District, 2015-20’. The plan is the result of joint working by 25 organisation involved in management of the National Park – see ‘Over-arching comments’ section above.
This statutory plan includes policies for recreation and visitor experience in the National Park. Policy VE1– Opportunities for experiences in a unique landscape – is particularly relevant. Other polices and actions under each of the strategy sections (Spectacular Landscapes, Visitor Experience, Vibrant Communities, Prosperous Economy) should also be considered and included where relevant to recreation, visitor economy, local communities and land-use.
Socio- economics In our consultation response (December 2014) we noted that National Grid acknowledged that there is potential for the proposed overhead pylon technology to have an effect on the National Park’s tourism offer but National Grid stated there was no definitive evidence to conclude on this matter.
We are strongly concerned that the Scoping Document does not indicate or give confidence that this lack of evidence will be addressed or if the Environmental Statement will be able to adequately consider this impact. In our opinion this is one of the greatest potential impacts on the enjoyment of the National Park and the tourism economy which underpins many local communities. A thorough understanding is critical to a full assessment of the proposals.
Recreation The Lake District National Park and its setting, which extends beyond the National Park boundary, is of national importance for recreation and visitor experience. This underpins Cumbria’s important visitor economy and the jobs of many people in communities in and
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe beyond the National Park. The main draw for visitors is the unique cultural landscape – which is the basis of the current proposal for World Heritage Site inscription.
We are strongly concerned that the significance of the National Park for recreation, unique visitor experiences and a thriving visitor economy is not included in the Scoping document. These omissions may lead to the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the NWCC project on these topics not being considered. These are major omissions that need to be rectified in the scope of the EIA. In particular the Scoping document should include: recognition and assessment of the recreation value of the areas of the National Park and its setting that the development affects. This should go further than assessing only national footpath and cycle routes proposed in 16.3.2. This should consider impacts on the core attraction of the cultural landscapes of the National Park. the importance of visitor access and recreation from informal use of PRoW and other access provision. The current approach, set out in Table 16.3 is to only consider specific tourist attractions. This ignores the importance of this widespread informal use. Recognition of the Cultural Tourism Strategy for the Lake District and assessment of potential impacts on its delivery assessment of the impact of the development on the receptors within the National Park and its setting assessment of the impact of the development on the visitor economy within the National Park and its setting the impact on these of design changes during the iterative design process (see comments in ‘Over-arching comments’ section above) – particularly if the transmission technology is changed (for example, use of underground cables)
Appendix 16C should also be amended to reflect these points. Currently this fails to recognise the importance of the cultural landscapes of the National Park for recreation and the visitor economy. Key receptors should include informal access to experience these landscapes beyond just the national footpath and cycle routes.
2.7 Chapter 17 – Waste and Materials Management
We consider that significant biodiversity impacts could be caused through the disposal of waste spoil from the undergrounding of cables. This should be included as a potential impact in the scope of the EIA – see our comments above on Chapter 8.
2.8 Chapter 20 – Contents and Scope of the Environmental Statement
Given the range and complexity of issues covered in each chapter it would be advisable to break the chapter structure down and detail this in the content or at least refer to main sub- headings, in the contents, mainly for ease of reference.
If you have any queries regarding our response please do contact me.
Yours sincerely
Dan Hunt NWCC Consultations Manager
Richard Leaf e, Chief Executiv e
A member of the Association of National Park Authorities A member of the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
From: Helen Croxson To: Environmental Services Subject: EN020007 - North West Coast Connections - EIA Scoping Notification and Consultation Date: 15 October 2015 13:58:27 Attachments: North West Coast Connections.doc
FAO Jenny Colfer,
Please find attached response from MCA as requested.
Kind regards
Helen
Helen Croxson Navigation Safety Specialist Support Maritime and Coastguard Agency Bay 2/20 Spring Place 105 Commercial Road Southampton SO15 1EG 023 80329184
P Subject to the need to keep up to date file records, please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, the email and associated files have been transmitted to you in error: any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.
Nothing in this email may be interpreted as a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency unless confirmed by a communication signed by or on behalf of the
Chief Executive.
The MCA'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.
If you are of the opinion that you have received this email in error, please contact [email protected]
***********************************************************************************
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Navigation Safety Branch Bay 2/04 Spring Place 105 Commercial Road Southampton SO15 1EG
Jenny Colfer Tel: +44 (0)23 8032 9184 Fax: +44 (0)23 8032 9204 Major Applications and Plans E-mail: [email protected] The Planning Inspectorate Your ref: EN20007 Our ref: MNA 053/008/0028 14 October 2015
Dear Jenny
North West Coast Connections
Thank you for your letter dated 18 September 2015 in which you invited our views on the above Scoping Notification and Consultation.
The proposal has been examined by staff of the Navigation Safety Branch and, on the basis of the information provided, we are content that any navigational safety concerns can be addressed by suitably worded conditions in any consent at the formal application stage.
Subsea cables raise particular concern to the safety of navigation so a series of conditions will need to be complied with should the consultation progress to application. Key issues that will need to be addressed prior to consent are:
- A Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) should be undertaken to supply detail on the possible impact on navigational issues for both Commercial and Recreational craft. The NRA should address issues such as: • Collision Risk • Navigational Safety • Visual intrusion and noise • Risk Management and Emergency response • Marking and lighting of site and information to mariners • Effect on small craft navigational and communication equipment
- Electromagnetic deviation on ships' compasses. The MCA would be willing to accept a three degree deviation for 95% of the cable route. For the remaining 5% of the cable route no more than five degrees will be attained. The MCA would however expect a deviation survey post the cable being laid; this will confirm conformity with the consent condition. The developer should then provide this data to UKHO via a hydrographic note (H102), as they may want a precautionary notation on the appropriate Admiralty Charts.
- The developer must ensure that 'the works' do not encroach on any recognised anchorage, either charted or noted in nautical publications, within the proposed consent area.
- Particular attention should be paid to cabling routes and burial depth for which a Burial Protection Index study should be completed and, subject to the traffic volumes, an anchor penetration study may be necessary.
- Reference should be made to any Marine Conservation Zones established or planned within the development area and adjacent coastline.
A detailed review of any application will be undertaken before consent is granted.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Croxson Navigation Safety Branch
From: [email protected] To: Environmental Services Subject: Fwd: Your Ref: 150918_EN020007_3417121 Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the North West Coast Connection Project Date: 15 October 2015 18:54:40
Please discount response sent in error earlier this afternoon
-----Original Message----- From: coopermarshside
Dear Ms Colfer
As per your letter dated 18 September 2015 requesting information that should be considered in the environmental statement of the above named application, please find below the points of concern raised by the Councillors and via consultation with, by the residents of Millom Without Parish Council and Wicham Parish Council:
1. Millom Without Parish Council
1.1 Impact on Tourism 1.1.1 Tourism is one of the key industries in this area and is currently a growth industry. The EIA indicates that the construction of pylons could have a possible negative effect on that industry through lack of accommodation (ie current accommodation taken over by a migrant workforce), increased road traffic, increased noise during construction, deterring tourists. 1.1.2 Action Required The Council feels that the presence of 50m pylons in an area of natural beauty is not in keeping with the landscape and would like to see further analysis of immediate cost to the tourism industry and also the long term impact on the industry.
1.2 Alternative Options to Overhead Pylons 1.2.1 The National Grid have an obligation to minimize the impact of it's operations on an area. It is noted that nowhere within the EIA has any consideration been given to routing the power lines under the Duddon Estuary by tunnel. The only alternatives assessed were directly laying the power lines on the Estuary floor using shallow trenches and overhead power lines across the mouth of the Estuary. 1.2.2 At public meetings when challenged, no representative from National Grid could give an adequate response to the question when asked about why routing the cables in a tunnel under the Duddon Estuary was not an option that had been considered. The only response received was a vague one of potential cost and that overhead lines were the cheaper option. 1.2.3 The Council feel that a precedent has been set for the Tunnel option as within the National Grid's EIA the same environmental impacts were identified for Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary (see sections 2.2 and 3.2 of the EIA). As a result National Grid have decided to mitigate the consequences of the environmental Impact by undertaking to construct a tunnel under Morecambe Bay. 1.2.4 The Council feels that different criteria is being applied to the same Environmental Impact and that this makes the decision of a tunnel for Morecambe Bay and Overhead Power lines for the Duddon Estuary questionable. 1.2.5 Action Required The Council would like to see further analysis on the positive and negative impacts of routing power lines via tunnel under the Duddon Estuary. The Council would like to see the reasoning behind the decision to undertake the construction of a tunnel under Morecambe Bay, and the reasoning why a tunnel under the Duddon Estuary was not considered as an option.
1.3 Potential Health Impacts 1.3.1 Electromagnetic Fields. The National Grid are not proposing to carry out a health impact assessment of having High Voltage Power Lines strung over, across, and through populated areas. 1.3.2 "Though the balance of evidence is against there being any effect on human health from exposure to EMFs there is some scientific evidence suggesting a possible link between unusually high exposures to magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Based on this evidence, magnetic fields are classed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as ‘possibly’ carcinogenic.” 1.3.3 The proposed route corridor of pylons around the Duddon Estuary bring the pylons into close proximity to individual homes and schools. 1.3.4 Air Quality There is no evidence within the EIA of an assessment of the health impact on the local population of increased traffic pollution during the construction phase, potentially increased levels of dust and other particles around construction sites and the impact of noise pollution. 1.3.5 Noise. It is known that noise and especially nuisance noise can have a negative impact on an individual's general wellbeing and mental health. 1.3.6 There is no Environmental Impact Statement on the noise levels from 400kv wires when loaded and running. 1.3.7 Action Required The Council considers that as part of the Environmental Impact, an independent study of all potential ill health effects on the local population should be undertaken.
1.4 Asset Value Impact 1.4.1 The EIA does not assess the immediate and long term impact on assets within the Communities. 1.4.2 It is estimated that for every acre of land taken out of production during the construction phase will cost a farmer a minimum of £300 per year or part thereof. 1.4.3 The siting of overhead pylons takes land permanently out of production. Easements (access routes) may be required after construction. Hedgerows and trees may have to be removed for access to sites under construction and would be difficult to replace. 1.4.4 Land taken out of use would have a negative impact on farm incomes as a reduction of the Single Payment Scheme would be enforced. 1.4.5 It is known that the siting of pylons and overhead lines in close proximity to/or adjacent to properties has a negative impact on the value of that property in comparison to similar properties within the same locality. 1.4.6 Action Required The Council requires that a study be undertaken on the immediate and long term impact of the project on assets within the community.
2. Wicham Parish Council
2.1 Impact on Tourism 2.1.1 The Wicham Parish is located on the western edge of the Lake District National Park and as such comes under it's planning authority, 2.1.2 The Lake District National Park are currently bidding for World Heritage status 2.1.3 Tourism is one of the key industries in this area and is currently a growth industry. The EIA indicates that the construction of pylons could have a possible negative effect on that industry through lack of accommodation (ie current accommodation taken over by a migrant workforce), increased road traffic, increased noise during construction, deterring tourists. 2.1.4 The Parish community plan reflects the importance of the tourism industry and in conjunction with South Copeland are promoting festivals eg kite festival, to encourage more visitors to the local area. 2.1.5 Action Required The Council feels that the presence of 50m pylons in an area of natural beauty is not in keeping with the landscape and would like to see further analysis of immediate cost to the tourism industry and also the long term impact on the industry.
2.2 Alternative Options to Overhead Pylons 2.2.1 The National Grid have an obligation to minimize the impact of it's operations on an area. 2.2.2 The villages which compose the Wicham Parish are located on a narrow coastal plain, bordered by the Irish Sea to the west and the fells and mountains of the Lake District to the east. The options of siting of overhead power lines is limited and therefore has a greater visual impact on the surrounding countryside. 2.2.3 Action Required The Council considers that overhead power lines are inappropriate for the area within the Lake District National Park and requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment be undertaken on this and a review of alternative options to overhead power lines.
Wicham Council also wish for the above points 1.3 and 1.4 under Millom Without Parish Council to taken in consideration as part of their input into this review.
Both Councils are of the opinion that the proposed sea route which was considered and dismissed be re-evaluated and further investigation into alternative technologies be investigated and re- assessed.
These are the opinions and requests for further information that Millom Without Parish Council and Wicham Parish Council require to disseminate to their communities.
Yours sincerely
Lesley Cooper (Mrs) Clerk to Millom Without and Wicham Parish Councils
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. From: Booth, Hannah (NE) To: Environmental Services Subject: NWCC Scoping - EN020007 - NE response Date: 19 October 2015 14:00:49 Attachments: NWCC - PINS EIA Scoping (Final).pdf NE Feedback Form June 2015.pdf ATT00001.txt Importance: High
FAO Ms Jenny Colfer
Please find attached Natural England’s response to your Scoping consultation for North West Coast Connections. Your official letter stated that the deadline was 19 October which is the date we have worked to; although I note that your email stated 16 October so I hope I’ve used the right date.
I have also attached a Customer Feedback Survey which you may wish to use. The aim of the survey is to monitor the quality of our service and contributes to Natural England’s commitment to an improved customer focus. Yours sincerely Hannah
Hannah Booth Sustainable Development Lead Adviser Case Officer – Moorside Nuclear Scheme NSIP & NWCC NSIP Cumbria Area Team Tel: 0300 060 4170
NB: I work a 9 day fortnight (every other Monday off)
Follow Natural England’s Cumbria Team on Twitter: www.gov.uk/natural-england.org.uk
We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.
In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to meetings and attendvia audio, video or web conferencing.
Natural England is accredited to the Cabinet Office Customer Service Excellence Standard
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. Date: 19 October 2015 Our ref: 166030 Your ref: EN020007
Ms Jenny Colfer The Planning Inspectorate Customer Services 3/18 Eagle Wing Hornbeam House Temple Quay House Crewe Business Park Electra Way 2 The Square Crewe Bristol Cheshire BS1 6PN CW1 6GJ
BY EMAIL ONLY T 0300 060 3900 [email protected]
Dear Ms Colfer
Environmental Impact Assessment scoping for North West Coast Connections (NWCC), Cumbria.
The Planning Act 2008 (as amended) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended)
Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received by Natural England on 18 September 2015.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Executive summary
• This response does not represent a full review of the submitted Scoping Report produced by National Grid and we are seeking closer engagement going forward.
• We need to develop a clear programme of pre-application engagement activity for the next 12 months between National Grid and ourselves; including information outlining how this marries with their project planning, formal consultations and scheduled design freezes. This is good practice and will enable us to manage our input effectively.
• In enabling a more structured and focused approach, we are looking to set up a protocol with National Grid that sets out the nature of our pre-application engagement; including timescales for the provision of our comments on their emerging draft documents. A meeting between Natural England and Robert Powell, NWCC Project Manager, to progress these matters has been arranged.
Pre-consultation advice Natural England has been attending the Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) for this project since its inception. Through this forum we have provided extensive advice to National Grid for their public consultations, as well as more bespoke advice when requested.
Page 1 of 6
The SRG has been a very helpful forum for Natural England to engage with National Grid during the strategic options stages of the project. However, now that the project is moving into a more detailed phase, we need to have a more structured and focused approach to engagement with National Grid.
In relation to their approach to Scoping, National Grid prioritised their engagement with relevant Local Planning Authorities. Natural England was invited to these discussions by National Grid but the lateness and nature of the invitation to attend led to some confusion and difficulties with our availability. Consequently, we could not attend all topic meetings nor provide written advice on the associated draft scoping reports.
Our experience with other NSIPs has been more inclusive - such as reviewing draft documents more than once - and we see this as good practice.
We strongly advise that we work with National Grid to agree a protocol on their future engagement needs so that we can adequately support them in the development of their Development Consent Order submission; as well as their Evidence Plan and Habitat Regulations Assessment.
Furthermore, we are seeking early discussions on a draft Statement of Common Ground, particularly in relation to potential impacts on protected landscapes from this scheme. Such a document will help National Grid identify ‘points of disagreement’ with Natural England and give them clarity about the project risks they are carrying.
Scoping advice We cannot provide detailed comments on all the scoping topics relevant to our remit for the reasons described earlier.
Consequently, our advice is provided without prejudice to any future advice we may provide in response to the emerging project details and consequent potential effects on environmental receptors.
Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report & Appendices Section Reference Issue NE comment Table of n/a Comment Page numbers and navigational hyperlinks have Contents not been included. For ease of use it will be essential that the future Environmental Statement does not omit this information. Chapter 4 – 4.5.10 & Comment Our experience of National Grid’s approach to Consultation 4.5.11 gathering comments on the draft scoping document was poor.
As previously noted we were invited to the workshops but it was difficult for us to attend and provide written advice within the available timescales.
We did prioritise attending the landscape (30 April), hydrology (14 May) and marine (15 May) topic meetings; and subsequently provided pre- application advice on marine and landscape topics only via additional meetings with National Grid (29 July & 19 August).
We consider there was an unrealistic timescale
Page 2 of 6
for obtaining our comments, prior to the Scoping submission. We will look to resolve these issues with National Grid, so that we are fully aware of future advice requests in good time and with agreed timescales for responding.
However given the necessary iterative approach to scoping out the EIA, because the full extent of the scheme is still unknown, we are satisfied that we have provided the right level of advice to National Grid at this stage of the project. Chapter 6 – No reference Comment Many of the following comments were made in Landscape & our letter dated 10 July 2015, ref: Visual DAS/5041/159197, following our review of Impact National Grid’s landscape scoping approach Assessment paper. 6.2.4 Comment We advise that A. Wainwright’s guides ‘The Outlying Fells of Lakeland’ and ‘A Pictorial guide to Lakeland Fells, The Southern Fells’ are referenced in this paragraph and the reference list at the end of the chapter. 6.2.4 Typographical In relation to the study area, reference is made to error the selection of viewpoints that are mentioned in the ‘Wainwright walking guides to the Western Fells (Ref. 6.16)’. However, Ref. 6.16 refers to a different book – ROBSON, E, ‘After Wainwright’ (2003) Second Edition – is this an error? 6.3.118, Comment We consider that in addition to the ‘Landscape 6.3.132, Types’ the ‘Areas of Distinctive Character’, as 6.3.144 and outlined in the Lake District National Park 6.3.160 Landscape Character Assessment and Supplementary Planning Document 2011, are an important part of the landscape baseline for the National Park.
These ‘Areas of Distinctive Character’ set out place-specific sensitivities and management guidelines including reference to impacts of vertical development and are therefore very relevant to this study. Natural England wishes to see these included in the assessment. 6.6.1 We note the methodology and we are generally supportive of it. However we advise that Methodology professional judgment should be used in decision- for assessing making rather than an over reliance on matrices. landscape effects With reference to Image 6.2 (page 6-47) Determining the Magnitude of Landscape Change, we consider that not all factors will always have equal weighting. For example, scale of impact may have greater weighting than extent therefore judgement and caution should be exercised in the application of the methodology. 6.6.28 Natural England wishes to see reference made to
Page 3 of 6
how a sequence of moderate effects may lead to a significant effect.
Due to the nature of the proposal the impact will cover an extensive geographical area and therefore sequential effects will need to be accounted for. We advise that a sequence of ‘moderate’ effects can lead to a significant effect and that the assessment should make allowance for this possibility.
We would like to see a reference to use of professional judgement in these instances and the acceptance that such effects ‘will not be completely disregarded’ (see GLIVA 3.32 and 3.33). Table 6.10 Natural England is concerned that only 3 of the 12 boxes (25%) in Table 6.10 are categorised as Levels of significant effects. This sets a disproportionately Landscape high bar for the assignment of significant effect. Effect We are concerned that this may exclude certain moderate effects, particularly those of a medium sensitivity and medium magnitude, which may deliver a result of ‘not significant’ but which the Examining Authority and potentially other interested parties will find hard to understand. 6.6.30 We welcome the definition of Major and Major/Moderate landscape effects and advise that similar definitions are presented for Moderate, Minor and Negligible effects. The definition of a ‘moderate’ effect will be particularly helpful for the Examination Authority. 6.8 Natural England notes the methodology and we are generally supportive of it. However we advise that Methodology professional judgment should be used in decision- for assessing making rather than an over reliance on matrices. visual effects With reference to Image 6.5 (page 6-60) Determining the Magnitude of Visual Change, we consider that not all factors will always have equal weighting. For example, following the methodology set out, scale of impact may have greater weighting than extent therefore judgement and caution should be exercised in the application of the methodology.
We have a particular concern with consideration of ‘geographical extent’ in relation to landscape receptors. In our opinion an effect can still be significant if it occurs over a relatively small area. This is particularly the case if the baseline receptor is a large generic landscape type or whole designation. Regardless of geographic extent, we consider that a sequence of moderate effects experienced by visual receptors along a linear
Page 4 of 6
route can also be significant. 6.8.26 Natural England wishes to see reference made to how a sequence of moderate effects may lead to a significant effect. Due to the nature of the proposal the impact will cover an extensive geographical area and therefore sequential effects will need to be accounted for.
We advise that a sequence of ‘moderate’ effects can lead to a significant effect and that the assessment should make allowance for this possibility.
We would like to see a reference to the use of ‘professional judgement’ in these instances and the acceptance that such effects ‘will not be completely disregarded’ (see GLIVA 3.32 and 3.33). Table 6.18 Natural England is concerned that only 3 of the 12 boxes (25%) in Table 6.18 are categorised as Level of significant effects. This sets a disproportionately effect high bar for the assignment of significant effect.
We are concerned that this may exclude certain moderate effects, particularly those of a medium sensitivity and medium magnitude, which may deliver a result of ‘not significant’ but which the Examining Authority and potentially other interested parties will find hard to understand. 6.8.28 We welcome the definition of Major and Major/Moderate landscape effects and advise that Description similar definitions are presented for Moderate, of Major/ Minor and Negligible effects. The definition of a Moderate ‘moderate’ effect will be particularly helpful for Visual Effects the Examining Authority. (Significant) None Comment Natural England wishes to see a separate assessment of potential effects on the Special Qualities of the Lake District National Park, as set out in the relevant Management Plan and associated Landscape Character Assessment. A significant effect on a special quality can be over a relatively small part of the whole designated area.
Natural England does not believe that the proposed assessment of impact on the landscape character areas of the National Park will adequately cover this requirement.
Special qualities of designated landscapes encapsulate the reasons why the landscape was designated for being of national importance. Frequently they appear in multiple locations within the National Park and within specific landscape character areas.
Page 5 of 6
A clear, rigorous and authoritative assessment will greatly assist the Examining Authority in reaching their recommendation and provide confidence to third parties that this key attribute of the National Park has been appropriately considered.
Appendix 6A - Landscape and Visual Amenity Viewpoints We suggest the locations of the following two viewpoints (VP) are amended as follows:
• VP D1_413 - This viewpoint should be moved further south-east to 308200 496720 on the track leading to a ford between Saltcoats and Ravenglass; and
• VP D1_421 - We suggest this viewpoint is moved further to the south to 309400 4995250 onto the Public Right of Way (PROW) leading to Waberthwaite (adjacent to gap in dry stone wall, below Newtown Knott).
We also advise that the following two new viewpoints are included:
• E1 section – A VP at 319445, 483700 beyond the public road leading SE from Green Road Station (at junction between Cumbria Coastal Way and bridleway leading to Sand Side).
The views to the north-west through to the north-east from this location take in the southern Lakeland fells including the Coniston Old Man complex to the north east. In the foreground upper Duddon estuary dominates the view with the rail bridge and existing 132kV line in the middle distance (at approximately 2 km distance). This is an open estuarine landscape with 360 degree views. The 132kV line is back-clothed by the fells to the north. Receptor types found here are 2 (users of trails), and 3 (users of PROW). The location is in the setting of the Lake District National Park.
• E2 section – A VP at 320789, 487655 at the junction of A595 and A593 and minor road to Broughton-in-Furness.
The views to the south-west through to the south-east from this location take in the lower Duddon estuary, including Barrow-in-Furness to the south. In the foreground upper Duddon estuary dominates the view with the rail bridge and existing 132kV line in the middle distance (at approximately 2 km distance). The 132kV line is sky-lined from this location. Receptor types found here are 1 (residents of dwellings) and 6 (road users). The location is within the Lake District National Park.
For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Hannah Booth, the Lead Adviser responsible for provision of Natural England’s advice, on 0300 060 4170.
We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service.
Yours sincerely
Phil Reynolds Senior Adviser Cumbria Area Team
Page 6 of 6
From: Mark Rushworth To: Environmental Services Subject: North West Coast Connection - Scoping Opinion Date: 15 October 2015 13:51:04 Attachments: North West Coast Connection - Scoping Opinion PINS letter.docx
FAO - Jenny Colfer
Please find attached the officer response from North Yorkshire County Council.
Regards,
Mark Rushworth Senior Policy Officer Strategic Policy & Economic Growth
Business and Environmental Services North Yorkshire County Council County Hall, Racecourse Lane Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL7 8AD
Tel: 01609 536965 E: [email protected]
Access your county council services online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at www.northyorks.gov.uk.
WARNING
Any opinions or statements expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily those of North Yorkshire County Council.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this in error, please do not disclose any information to anyone, notify the sender at the above address and then destroy all copies.
North Yorkshire County Council's computer systems and communications may be monitored to ensure effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
Although we have endeavoured to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are free from any virus we would advise you to take any necessary steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.
If you receive an automatic response stating that the recipient is away from the office and you wish to request information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations please forward your request by e-mail to the Information Governance Team ([email protected]) who will process your request.
North Yorkshire County Council.
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Your ref: 150918_EN020007_3417121 Tel: 01609 536965 Contact: Mark Rushworth Email: [email protected] Date: 15 October 2015 Web: www.northyorks.gov.uk
Jenny Colfer The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN
Dear Madam,
Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) - Regulations 8 and 9
Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the North West Coast Connection Project - Scoping Opinion
I refer to your correspondence date 18 September 2015. North Yorkshire County Council officers have considered National Grid’s North West Coast Connection Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and Appendices.
The NYCC officer response is that from the detail available it would appear that there are unlikely to be any direct cross boundary issues or significant implications for North Yorkshire and the County Council and, as such, we have no comment in this regard.
However, we note that it would be helpful for the EIA to examine how and whether construction of the proposed new infrastructure in West Cumbria and across Morecambe Bay might have knock- on effects on the national grid network elsewhere, possibly affecting North Yorkshire.
The County Council will maintain a watching brief.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Rushworth Senior Policy Officer
Strategic Policy & Economic Growth Business and Environmental Services North Yorkshire County Council County Hall, Racecourse Lane Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL7 8AD
From: Wilson, Robert To: Environmental Services Subject: 15/03182/CNA - Decision Date: 15 October 2015 13:06:04 Attachments: ufm4.rtf
Good afternoon
Please find attached Decision for the above application
Regards
Robert Wilson Technical Support Development Services County Hall Morpeth NE61 2EF
Phone: 01670 623759
Save Time Do It Online! We have made some key improvements to our site to make all of our services easy to access. Now you can do everything from paying your council tax, to reporting a faulty street light online. Go to: www.northumberland.gov.uk and click 'pay, apply or report' to access the relevant forms.
Northumberland added disclaimer This email is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the email from any computer. All email communication may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with internal policy and relevant legislation. Please, consider your environmental responsibility. Before printing this e-mail ask yourself: "Do I need a hard copy?" This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Jenny Colfer Planning Ref: 15/03182/CNA Major Applications And Plans Your Ref: Contact: Mr Joe Nugent The Planning Inspectorate Direct Line: 01670 622631 Temple Quay House E-Mail: [email protected] Temple Quay Date: 15th October 2015 Bristol BS1 6PN
Dear Sir/Madam,
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
Proposal Proposed 400kv electricity transmission connections
Location Moorside Near Sellafield West Cumbria
Applicant North West Coast Connections
I would confirm that Development Management have No Objection to the above consultation.
Yours Faithfully
Mr Joe Nugent Planning Officer
recorded for legal purposes.
From: lynne.thomas To: Environmental Services Cc: Jenny Colfer; [email protected]; Steve Solsby; [email protected]; Kenyon, Guy; Hatcher, Alison; Steve Smith; John Groves; Porter, David; Prideaux, Emma; Dan Hunt; McNeill, Alastair; peter.shannon Subject: 150918_EN020007_3417121 North West Coast Connection Project Date: 15 October 2015 16:13:51 Attachments: A072895 NWCC Scoping Response lett 151016-signed.pdf 150918 EN020007 3417121 NWCC Scoping Response FINAL 151015.pdf
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find attached a letter and the Scoping Response from nine local authorities. This is provided in response to the letter sent to them on 18th September 2015.
Sincerely,
Lynne Thomas Principal Project Manager
WYG Lakeland Business Park, Lamplugh Road, Cockermouth, Cumbria, CA13 0QT Tel: +44 1900 898 600 Fax: +44 1900 823 204 Mob: +44 7468 707 869
www.wyg.com ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
WYG Engineering Limited. Registered in England number: 1959704. Registered Office: Arndale Court, Otley Road, Headingley, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS6 2UJ VAT No: 431-0326-08
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the recipient. If you are not the recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e- mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
PPA Group Authorities
NWCC
Joint Scoping Response to National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
October 2015
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Address: Unit 6 Lakeland Business Park, Lamplugh Road, Cockermouth, Cumbria CA13 0QT
Tel: +44 (0) 1900 898600
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.wyg.com
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Document Control
Project: North West Coast Connections
Client: PPA Group Authorities
Job Number: A072895
File Origin: T:\Projects\A072895 NW Coast Connections\Work Packages\6.EIA and Mitigation\EIA\EIA Scoping Response\A072895 - NWCC - PPA Group Joint EIA Scoping Opinion Response.docx
Document Checking:
Prepared by: Peter Shannon Date: 07/10/15
Checked by: Kathryn Donnelly Date: 07/10/15
Revisions Graham Hale Date: 14/10/15 verified by:
Issue Date Status
1 08/10/15 Draft issued to client
2 14/10/15 Final issued to client
3
4
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Contents Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 3
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RESPONSE 4
3.1 The Proposed Development (Chapter 2) ...... 4
3.2 Planning Policy and Consultation (Chapters 3 and 4) ...... 14
3.3 Approach to Scoping and EIA (Chapter 5)...... 17
4.0 TOPIC BASED REVIEW OF EIA SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 24
4.1 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 6) ...... 24
4.2 Historic Environment (Chapter 7) ...... 37
4.3 Terrestrial and Avian Ecology (Chapter 8) ...... 49
4.4 Traffic and Transport (Chapter 9) ...... 55
4.5 Construction Noise and Vibration (Chapter 10) ...... 60
4.6 Operational Noise and Vibration (Chapter 11) ...... 62
4.7 Air Quality (Chapter 12) ...... 63
4.8 Hydrology and Flood Risk (Chapter 13) ...... 65
4.9 Hydrogeology (Chapter 14) ...... 67
4.10 Geology and Soils (Chapter 15) ...... 76
4.11 Socio-economics, Recreation and Land Use (Chapter 16) ...... 84
4.12 Waste and Materials Management (Chapter 17) ...... 92
4.13 Marine Environment (Chapter 18) ...... 94
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
5.0 TOPICS TO BE SCOPED OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 95
6.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 97
Appendix Contents
Appendix 1 – South Lakeland District Council Environmental Protection - Air quality guidance for development in South Lakeland
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1.1 The PPA Group Authorities consider that National Grid has provided a comprehensive and detailed Scoping Report, which subject to topic specific comments contained in this report, sets out a largely appropriate methodological approach to the assessment of effects of the NWCC Project.
1.1.2 The PPA Group welcome National Grid’s commitment to continued meaningful engagement on Project design and the scope of the EIA, including technology choices and the significant mitigation that will be required. The engagement approach and programme for the iterative design and assessment process needs to be clearly set out.
1.1.3 Furthermore, we would also urge National Grid to consider the programme for developing the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), given the importance of the documents in providing mitigation of the extensive effects of the Project. In order to appropriately engage with the PPA Group over the remaining survey and assessment period. We would welcome a clear programme of proposed engagement activities during this period of the project, including issue of drafts were appropriate.
1.1.4 The PPA Group welcome National Grid’s commitment to provide a focused ES, however, the length of the Scoping Report gives concern about the length and focus of the resultant Environmental Statement (ES).
1.1.5 It is concerning that there are a number of significant aspects of the NWCC Project that are as yet ‘undefined’. The PPA Group note that National Grid have made a clear statement in paragraph 2.3.9 that if elements of the NWCC Project change or the scope of Project changes they will revise the scope of the EIA to ensure effects are assessed as part of the process. This undertaking is welcome, however, it is suggested that there are several locations on the route, such as the corridor south of Whitehaven, Ravensglass, the Duddon estuary and the land in proximity to the tunnel heads in relation to workers compounds and accommodation/services that may need further consideration now.
1.1.6 It is considered that the proposed Study Area for the assessment of landscape is too narrow and must be extended to at least 15km in order to allow the full assessment of the potential impact of the NWCC Project. Furthermore, there is a significant concern that the proposed methodology attributes a lack of weight to residential visual impact and a low value attached to landscapes
1 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
valued by local people. These two potential effects are likely to be significant given scale of the Project and the number and sensitively of receptors.
1.1.7 We note that a large increase in viewpoints has been put forward since pre-scoping. The PPA Group welcome the inclusion of additional viewpoints suggested by the Group during the initial scoping phase. However, we would reiterate previous comments that the range and location of viewpoints selected cannot be refined and agreed to until a ZTV is prepared to illustrate the theoretical visibility of the proposals. It is understood that viewpoint selection will be refined during the development of the ES and we would re-iterate that we should to be involved in refining the section and welcome a programme in order to provide a response on this matter.
1.1.8 We are concerned that the assessment of impacts on the Historic Environment assumes that the proposed transmission technology will be overhead lines, and as such the impacts of undergrounding is only to be assessed in locations currently stated in the proposals. While the PPA Group understand the iterative design and mitigation process it is essential that the impacts of any additional undergrounding proposed for mitigation on the Historic Environment is included in the EIA scope and fully assessed.
1.1.9 The Scoping Report states that regular dialogue has taken place with host authorities and that National Grid has had regard to local planning policies and land allocations. This engagement and recognition of the importance of local policy is welcomed by the PPA Group, however, there are a number of omissions in the review of local planning policy that should be addressed by National Grid. Furthermore, National Grid should monitor the development of planning policy across the study area, and as such the policy background will need to be updated. A full review of local planning policy, both adopted and emerging is required to underpin the EIA.
1.1.10 It is considered that there is potential for the proposed NWCC Project to have a significant impact on the local economy. This is a key issue that needs to be assessed through the EIA. Therefore, the PPA Group are strongly concerned that the Scoping Report does not indicate or give confidence that this lack of evidence will be addressed or if the ES will be able to adequately consider this impact. A thorough understanding is critical to a full assessment of the proposals.
2 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 This report provides an evaluation of the North West Coast Connections (NWCC) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report and sets out the PPA Group Authorities Joint Response to the Secretary of State’s request for a Scoping Opinion received on 21 September 2015 following Regulation 8(1) of the EIA Regulations.
2.1.2 This response has been informed by a number of regulations and guidance notes, including; the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, The Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Seven, Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping (PINS, 2015) the EIA Regulations and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG’s) EIA Planning Practice Guidance (DCLG, 2014).
2.1.3 The PPA Group welcomes the opportunity to review and appraise the EIA Scoping Report. This response has been prepared by WYG in support of the PPA Group and represents a full review of the Scoping Report produced by National Grid. It has been informed by the views of topic specialists from the PPA Group Authorities supplemented by WYG support where required. The PPA Group recognises and welcomes process of informal EIA topic scoping and engagement by National Grid Scoping Report has been used. Furthermore, it is noted that ongoing ‘dynamic’ scoping will be an important element of the process in the development of the ES that will be submitted to support the NWCC project.
2.1.4 In order to address the above, the paper is structured as follows:
Section 3 provides a consideration of the technical elements of the NWCC and the proposed approach to the EIA; Section 4 provides a review of the EIA Scoping Report on a topic by topic basis; and Section 5 provides a review of the topics scoped out and the proposed structure of the Environmental Statement.
3 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RESPONSE
3.1 The Proposed Development (Chapter 2)
Scoping Corridor
3.1.1 It is understood that the Proposed Route Corridor (PRC) announced by National Grid in June 2015 forms the basis of the NWCC Application and following this, the Scoping Corridor identified in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 follows this PRC. At this stage National Grid consider that the corridor is larger than the eventual Order Limits of the DCO, and subsequently the study areas for some EIA topics will be refined. However, it is noted that National Grid acknowledge that there may still be elements of NWCC Project that are as yet ‘undefined’ and therefore these could be located outside the scoping corridor. These elements have potentially significant scale and associated effects on the Study Area. This is a significant concern of the PPA Group, in terms of; ensuring the EIA appropriately considers these ‘undefined’ elements (and subsequent effects), the necessary stakeholder engagement is carried out and recording of new elements of the NWCC project as they are defined. Whilst it is concerning that the Scoping Corridor is subject to change, National Grid have made a clear statement in paragraph 2.3.9 that if elements of the NWCC Project change or the scope of Project changes they will revise the scope of the EIA to ensure effects are assessed as part of the process. The PPA Group Authorities welcome this approach; however, there is a clear requirement to undertake appropriate engagement and effectively record.
3.1.2 The use of consistent geographic sections in the ES is welcomed given the clear links with previous consultation and to aid the accessibility of the document for communities and stakeholders affected by the route. It is noted that there are a number of points along the route where the scoping corridor has been extended to take into account important identified receptors such as ecological sites, to allow for Electricity North West (ENW) temporary works and for ‘design development’. More information is required to understand both the ENW and ‘design development’ areas identified in the figures to allow an opinion to be formed on the adequacy of the scoping corridor.
3.1.3 Avoidance of key receptors is clearly an important first step in the mitigation hierarchy, however, it is also suggested that there are other sections of the route where this scoping corridor may need to be likewise extended. Paragraph 2.3.8 highlights three examples of these areas, however, it is suggested that there are several locations on the route, such as the corridor south of Whitehaven, Ravensglass, the Duddon estuary and the land in proximity to the tunnel heads in relation to
4 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
workers compounds and accommodation/services. These areas amongst others have been identified by the PPA Group during earlier rounds of consultation and it is clear that these may require changes out with the current Scoping Corridor, and/or an alternative scoping corridor is required. National Grid should return to these representations and those submitted in July 2015 to consider additional re-alignments. The PPA Group would expect to be fully involved and informed of changes to Scoping Corridor and identification of refinements to the design of the NWCC Project.
3.1.4 At this current time there is very little information regarding the ENW temporary works or an explanation of what ‘design development’ relates to. It is considered that more information is required to understand the potential works and as it becomes the available the scoping corridor may need to be revised.
3.1.5 Paragraph 2.3.5 point one implies that alternative options for 400kV infrastructure will be included in the scoping; it states “The scoping Corridor contains land for: 400kV transmission infrastructure (having regard to a range of technologies) and 132kV, 33kV, 11Kv, and 415V distribution infrastructure”. National Grid need to provide clarity that scoping will include a section on main alternatives considered within the route corridor option. This should include where alternatives to pylons have been considered and justification for the need for pylons as opposed to undergrounding, including the alternative options for rationalisation of the distribution network which may be required as part of mitigation.
3.1.6 The ‘areas of search’ for new/extensions to substations at Harker, Stainburn, Moorside is noted, as is the areas for tunnel head and substations at Barrow-in-Furness and Heysham. One area of search for a transport Option (Rail/Dock) is highlighted at Cavendish Dock Barrow-in-Furness, however, similar sites for transport upgrades mentioned in the Scoping Report and are not identified in the Figures. This includes the potential use of Whitehaven and Heysham ports (paragraph 2.3.8) and rail sidings at Heysham. It is considered that this is an incorrect reference to Whitehaven and the list should be revised to include the Port of Millom and the Port of Workington as referenced elsewhere where in the Scoping Report. Notwithstanding the incorrect reference, it is suggested that these omissions should be amended or explanation given why these areas are not being considered at this stage.
3.1.7 It is considered that Paragraph 2.3.8 should indicate the extent of associated alteration/new development relating to the ENW network, particularly having regard to South Copeland as a consequence of potential rationalisation of the powerlines.
5 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.1.8 A description of the confirmed project infrastructure scoped out would be welcome, and as such it is suggested that this should include justification as to why the proposal to develop a 132kV substation to the north of Millom is not being taken into consideration at this time.
Project Description
3.1.9 It is noted that the specific technology choices for the delivery of the NWCC Project is still under consideration, and as a result the EIA will consider four main technology types; overhead lines, cables in tunnel, cable in duct, and direct buried underground cables. At this stage this approach is understood, however, consideration of the most appropriate technology should be carried out considering the full range of potential impacts and must be undertaken fully engaging the PPA Group and other key stakeholders.
3.1.10 It is considered that undergrounding of the line could be an important technology to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. The impact of this technology will need to be considered in the NWCC context to assess whether the adverse impacts of the proposed development can be addressed without leading to an additional impact to other receptors and topics. In order to make an assessment more information is required regarding the impact of different technologies along the route. During the next stage of the NWCC project it is vital that this information is available to enable the discussion of mitigation that is required to ensure that the proposed development can be made acceptable
3.1.11 It is very important that National Grid engages with the PPA Group in the development of appropriate technology from an early date in order to inform all forms of mitigation. To ensure engagement, a programme should be developed by National Grid to provide an appropriate level of consultation before the design is frozen (understood to be end December 2015) for the statutory consultation in April 2016. Furthermore, the PPA Group consider that an ongoing dialogue is required following the formal consultation in order that suitable mitigation and technology choices can be made.
3.1.12 In assessing the impacts of a development the usual EIA approach would be to carry out the assessment on the basis of a pre-determined design where the design informs the assessment. However, for this complex project the proposed iterative design process set out in sections 5.5.5 – 5.5.11 is a logical way to proceed as it can inform design mitigation. We note that therefore the
6 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
current design and therefore scope of the EIA will change during the EIA period. In particular this may result in the use of other transmission technologies such as undergrounding or tunnelling.
3.1.13 Sections 2.4.14, 4.4, 4.5 and 5.5.10/11 recognise that the scope of the EIA will change and that this will require ongoing dialogue with statutory consultees and stakeholders.
3.1.14 However, we are strongly concerned that this fails to commit the developers to a clear, transparent and inclusive iterative process across interested parties. The EIA scoping proposals are not clear with respect to:
how changes to the EIA scope will be notified, discussed and agreed;
how changes to the design detail will be notified, discussed and agreed;
how the impacts of design changes will be assessed across all topics;
in particular, how the impacts of non-overhead transmission technology will be assessed across all topics, including Historic Environment and Ecology; and
how planning authorities, including ourselves, will be engaged in this iterative process.
3.1.15 The engagement approach and programme for the iterative design process needs to be clearly set out. It is considered that there can be considerable delays between stakeholders identifying the need for issue-specific meetings and these being organised by National Grid. On occasions stakeholders have to push hard to secure these over many weeks. However, National Grid’s commitment stated in paragraph 5.5.9 of the Scoping Report that the iterative design will take into account stakeholder opinion is noted.
3.1.16 The principal elements of the project are set out in paragraph 2.4.4, the PPA Group has a number of observations as follows;
The scope should reflect the currently undefined nature of substation development. Scale and design would impact on issues which should be scope into assessment. Until more details regarding the project are known, the approach to scoping should be broad based.
Point 7 suggests that modification of the ENW line will be undertaken on a one up, one down basis where the ENW line falls within the proposed route corridor. The PPA Group (both
7 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
collectively and individually) have concerns regarding this approach and have previously set out the preference for rationalisation of the ENW infrastructure in a papers submitted to National Grid in July 2015. The concerns are twofold; firstly, it is considered that the issue of cumulative impact resultant from an additional, larger overhead line requires two lines to be taken down in a number of areas, notably in sections B3, C1 and C2. Secondly, the principle of removing the 132kV line may not be appropriate in all areas. The integrity of the electricity distribution network and connection opportunities should not be weakened as a result. There are significant concerns regarding the ability to connect to the electricity network in the areas of Millom and east of Whitehaven considering current requirements, and the ability of new energy generators to connect to the distribution system. National Grid and ENW must pay particular attention to the maintaining and enhancing the electricity distribution system in the context of possible rationalisation and other mitigation. Furthermore, this consideration must be given to the entire route to ensure the electricity system supports current requirements and aspirations for growth. It is vital that the potential for connectivity to the local distribution and supply network must not be compromised as a result of the project. Compromise would include an inability to connect to the local distribution network or where the cost of a connection is increased to such an extent as to result in economic disadvantage to new consumers and generators who require a connection;
Early discussions with National Grid have suggested the project would include a new substation at Stainburn, and subsequently an ‘area of search’ for this facility is indicated on Figure 1.4, however, the substation is not included in the list of the principle elements. Clarity is required on this topic;
Permanent works are also suggested at Natland substation to the south of Kendal in Cumbria and is well outside of the scoping corridor. It is unclear if this development will be included in the DCO for the NWCC Project as associated development. It is therefore considered that more information is required to understand the potential impact of any development at Natland;
Point 9 are justified as being needed for ‘construction purposes’, but it is considered that these should potentially be undertaken also for mitigation or compensation purposes;
Point 10(c/f) suggests ‘temporary rail sidings’ and ‘temporary marine works’ may be required, however, it is considered that the benefit of any works carried out to improve transport infrastructure across the study area should be maximised and provide a legacy benefit. As such
8 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
National Grid should explore opportunity for the creation of permanent rail siding where appropriate in consultation with the statutory bodies and the rail/port operators. If permanent works are constructed the impact of permanence needs to be assessed;
In addition to the potential legacy benefits related to point 10(g) further information is required to understand the full impact of the construction sites and worker accommodation either ‘welfare’ or overnight and the need for associated development sites. Furthermore, the construction compound description seems to assume that workers will be arriving by car, while a sustainable transport solution such as coach/bus transfers for construction staff should be not ruled out; and
In general more information is required regarding the time scale of a ‘temporary’ works in relation the ENW line and access roads.
3.1.17 Reference should be made in paragraph 2.4.32 to the assessment of impacts of the construction process relating to tree and hedgerow removal, removal of walls and other boundary treatments particularly to facilitate construction access.
3.1.18 There needs to be consideration given to the timing of works (paragraph 2.4.44) required in order to avoid vehicle movements, particularly HGV, during ‘unsocial’ hours, particularly on local roads.
3.1.19 The indicative plans for substations works is noted, however, it is unclear whether, in addition to indicative design, the location of the development as shown on the plans is indicative. Furthermore, it is noted that works on the Stainburn substation will be in the form of an extension to existing rather that a new 400kV substation, however, it is unclear why indicative design is not included for this work.
3.1.20 The Scoping Report provides a comprehensive summary of technology that could be used in the NWCC Project, and suggests that a number of technologies could be used. There is clear potential to consider the most appropriate technology and pylon choice throughout the NWCC route. This is in terms of undergrounding and the use of variations of lattice pylons and possibly T-Pylons and other designs depending on the context and impact that requires to be addressed. More information is required regarding the impact and potential for technologies across the NWCC Project. It is understood that National Grid undertook modelling of the HPCC on a section-by- section basis comparing both pylon types, and underground technology in order to assess the
9 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
appropriateness of use. This allowed selection of the most appropriate design on a section by section basis and enabled early and informed consultation during the statutory consultation.
3.1.21 The Route Corridor Study (RCS) responses by the PPA Group Authorities provide a starting point for considering the spatial potential of these technologies. However, the detailed route alignment and more detailed background work by National Grid is required to assess the full application and appropriateness of this technology. Additionally, not enough is known about possible mitigation, its effects or how the route might change once mitigation has been taken into account. Solutions such as undergrounding for example may prove equally unacceptable to other topics such as ecological designations. During the next stage of the NWCC project it is vital that this information is available to enable discussion of mitigation that is required to ensure that the proposed development can be made acceptable. It is considered continued engagement and meaningful discussions regarding the developing scope of the assessment and to formally influence the design and development of the NWCC Project, including technology choices and the significant mitigation required that will be required.
3.1.22 The PPA Group welcome the undertaking set out in paragraph 2.4.14 that the alignment, siting and transmission technology remain subject to further detailed technical design, assessment and consultation. Continued engagement with the PPA Group on these elements of the NWCC Project is welcomed.
Proposed Removal of 132kV Overhead Lines
3.1.23 As stated in paragraph 2.4.97 National Grid consider that a key element of their mitigation strategy will be to remove an existing ENW line if a new line is introduced into the corridor. The PPA Group understand National Grid’s position on this, however, it is important to recognise that replacement of one 132kV line with one 400kV line does not represent a ‘like for like’ replacement, but potentially results in a worse visual impact, therefore a more considered approach to rationalisation of existing infrastructure, in consultation with the PPA Group and other key stakeholders is required.
3.1.24 It is suggested in the Scoping Report that between Sellafield and Lindal Tee the single 132kV will be removed following completion of the new 400kV line. As stated above (paragraph 3.1.16) the integrity of the electricity distribution network and connection opportunities should not be weakened as a result of rationalisation. There are significant concerns regarding the ability to
10 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
connect to the electricity network in the areas of Millom considering current requirements, and the ability of new energy generators to connect to the distribution system. The removal of the line between Sellafield and Lindal Tee would result in economic disadvantage to new consumers and generators who require a connection.
3.1.25 In order to understand the impact of the construction of 132kV AC Underground Cables it would be useful to know the minimum separation distance between cable groups (paragraph 2.4.108).
Morecambe Bay Tunnel
3.1.26 It is noted that indicative site designs for the tunnel head are provided in Figures 2.21 and 2.22 at Roosecote and Middleton, and as set out, the final design of the building is not included in the Scoping Report. However, it is understood that these are largely dependent on the tunnel design and National Grid are proposing to use the ‘realistic worst case scenario’ in the EIA process. In order for tunnel construction to be undertaken a main compound would be required at each tunnel head location, indicative site layouts are not included in the Scoping Report, however, a list of likely components is included at paragraph 2.4.131. Given the clear importance across a number of topics including transport and socio-economics, and scale of these construction sites it is considered that indicative plans are required from an early stage to ensure that design and an appropriate mitigation strategy can be integrated into the NWCC DCO. Although indicative, the list of components does not include car parking or access works, this is considered to be a significant omission given the scale of operations. Until details emerge it is considered that the precautionary principle should be adopted.
3.1.27 The Scoping Report states that 1.2 million (estimate) tonnes of tunnel arising will be generated by the tunnelling work, and for the purposes of the EIA process it is assumed that this will be extracted in equal measure at each end of the tunnel. Furthermore, it states that the arisings will remain on site for the duration of the tunnelling works and while they are temporary the works will be ‘substantial’ (paragraph 2.4.145). Given these statements it is clear that the impact of the tunnel on the surrounding area will be substantial and although ‘temporary’ the effects must be considered over a number of years. More information is required regarding the timescale and works that will be required to appropriately assess the development across the range of ES topic areas.
11 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.1.28 It is considered that the potential re-use of tunnel arisings and means of disposal is key to determining the nature and extent of transport impacts. It is considered that more information is required to understand and assess the impacts.
Minerals, Waste and Transport Strategies
3.1.29 The Scoping Report states that the NWCC Project will require a large volume of materials and will generate significant quantities of waste. The PPA Group welcome the undertaking in paragraph 2.5.2 that National Grid will investigate opportunities to sustainably source and re-use material locally. It is recognised that this is a very important undertaking that can greatly reduce transport related impacts of the project. Furthermore, the undertaking to explore the opportunities for the re-use of tunnel arisings is welcomed, and it is considered that this must be carried out in consultation with the PPA Group and if possible should be used to secure a legacy for the local area impacted by the NWCC Project.
3.1.30 The production of a Waste Management Plan (WMP) which will support a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is supported. The PPA Group should be involved in the production of the strategy in order to identify mitigation options and to ensure an appropriate and sustainable strategy is developed, prior to the submission of the DCO. It is considered that access to the draft CEMP would be useful and beneficial to developing an acceptable and appropriate Plan.
3.1.31 Additionally, the production of a transport strategy that aims to minimise road and HGV movements is welcomed, especially when the project is set within the context of other major projects in the study area. And, in principle, the adoption of a rail based strategy which looks to rail based solutions as a first option is welcomed, however, the EIA must include the consideration of the cumulative impact of all major projects on the transport system. Section 2.6 should offer clarity offer approach to transport strategy and relationship to EIA.
3.1.32 The Scoping Report states that the transport strategy will also consider the potential implications of other construction projects, especially the proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station. Furthermore, the PPA Group welcome the investigation of transport movements compared to other projects and the potential to share any proposed transport infrastructure improvements.
3.1.33 In considering Figure 2.25 it should be noted that the following projects may interact with and/or impact on the location and timing proposed National Grid transport and construction activities;
12 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
the Moorside Project also includes potential Associated Development Sites in/near Whitehaven, Cleator Moor and Egremont;
West Cumbria Mining Ltd has a search area between Whitehaven and St Bees for its proposed minehead; and
United Utilities has a proposed route and highway access points for its Thirlmere Transfer Water Pipeline project.
3.1.34 The PPA Group are aware of a number of additional projects that should be considered. These are listed in chapters 9, 16 and 17, and should be coordinated across the EIA.
Construction Workforce
3.1.35 Section 2.7 of the Scoping report provides a brief overview of the construction workforce required for the NWCC Project, and it is noted that in total approximately 1,500 workers will be required, including 1,000 for the tunnel construction on its own. The PPA Group consider that recruitment and provision of workers should focus on the local workforce to reduce the reliance and pressure on accommodation and provide a opportunity for local people and businesses to benefit from the project. It is also suggested that more information is required regarding the requirements of the workforce skills from and early stage, and this should be used to inform the requirement for ‘associated development’.
3.1.36 Clarity is required over the wider workforce strategy and accommodation strategies relating to the NWCC Project and the especially the tunnel workforce, this needs to fully consider the cumulative impact issues given other large scale infrastructure projects expected to be taking place at the same time as NWCC construction. An employee breakdown is required to understand if this is local workforce or migrating workforce to understand scope of impacts and opportunities.
3.1.37 Furthermore, the number of workers that will be accommodated especially for the tunnel construction against the backdrop of a number of other nationally significant and major products will need to be fully considered by the EIA. The EIA process should consider provision of accommodation and services for the workers and should sites and where mitigation is required it should seek to identify appropriate measures that provide a benefit and legacy to the local area.
13 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.1.38 The PPA Group would welcome the opportunity to participate in the development and undertaking of the workforce requirements of the NWCC Project.
3.2 Planning Policy and Consultation (Chapters 3 and 4)
3.2.1 Chapter 3 provides an overview of the policy framework that the NWCC Project is expected to be considered and determined under. This includes discussion of the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) and National Policy Statement EN-1 (Overarching NPS for Energy) and EN-5 (Electricity Networks Infrastructure). Table 3.1 sets out the assessment principles from EN-1 and summarises how this will be addressed within the application for development consent.
3.2.2 It is noted that National Grid are proposing not to undertake a health impact assessment (HIA), instead addressing the effects of the NWCC Project throughout the EIA process. The PPA Group understands that this is not a legal obligation, however, it is considered that the applicant must be provide sufficient information and justification within the ES to demonstrate that health issues have been considered. It is considered that there is a need for HIA given the cumulative effects with other contemporaneous developments and given significant workforce issues which arise when NWCC are added to wider impacts. If National Grid decide to submit a HIA the PPA Group consider that the scope and methodology should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account project technology and mitigation measures.
3.2.3 Paragraph 3.3.8 of the Scoping Report emphasises that in making a decision on a proposed development the Secretary of State must take account of its potential adverse impacts, including cumulative, as well as ‘any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts’. Furthermore, paragraph 3.3.19 sets out additional national policy and states that in ‘particularly sensitive locations the potential adverse landscape and visual impacts of an overhead line proposal may make it unacceptable in planning terms’. It is considered that there are a number of locations on the NWCC route that this applies, and as such alternatives to overhead lines must be considered. Additionally, it is clear that significant measures will be required to mitigate and compensate the adverse impacts of the NWCC project. The primary route to developing a comprehensive scheme of mitigation/compensation and appropriate technology is through the EIA process and therefore, it is vital that National Grid undertake meaningful and early discussion with the PPA Group and other stakeholder in the development of the project and EIA process.
14 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.2.4 The Scoping Report states in paragraph 3.6.3 that regular dialogue has taken place with host authorities and that National Grid has had regard to local planning policies and land allocations. This engagement and recognition of the importance of local policy is welcomed by the PPA Group, however, there are a number of omissions in the review of local planning policy specifically related to NSIPs and the NWCC that should be addressed by National Grid. Copeland Borough Council (statement on Pg6, ST4 and ER3), Lancaster City Council (DM19) and the Lake District National Park Authority (Policy CS12) have local policy that is highly relevant and should be considered.
3.2.5 As is mentioned in paragraph 3.6.19 of the Scoping Report National Grid commented on Draft Policies SP7 and DC15, titled ‘Mineral Safeguarding’, in the February 2015 Minerals and Waste Local Plan. National Grid commented that if Policy DC15 were to be adopted in its present form it would appear to prevent non-mineral development from proceeding in Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) and suggested a revised policy wording that included provisions that would allow non-mineral development to go ahead. Cumbria County Council does not agree that Policy DC15 would have this effect, as Cumbria is a two tier authority, and Policy DC15 refers to consultation by District Authorities as decision makers, and the situations under which prior extraction of mineral at risk of sterilisation would be permitted by the County Council.
3.2.6 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (adopted 2009) contains an identical Policy DC9 and the weighing of standard mitigation factors/material planning considerations in assessing whether specific non mineral developments in MSAs, without prior extraction, has been carried out by District Authorities in consultation with the County Council, taking NPPF into account.
3.2.7 However, a revised policy and suitable text is being prepared for the Submission Draft of the MWLP. This will clarify the circumstances in which the County Council would require consultation from District Authorities, and the criteria and mitigation factors the County Council would apply in weighing its consultation response to proposals for non-mineral development in MSAs. It is noted that the Scoping Report suggests that the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Local Plan will be submitted to PINS by the end of 2015 (paragraph 3.6.17), this has now been revised, and is now scheduled for May 2016.
3.2.8 The Scoping Report should acknowledge the MWDF as the current Development Plan Policy, as well as the emerging MWLP and ensure that the MSAs and MCAs are considered. Potential conflicts should be noted in the EIA so that Cumbria County Council responses to the EIA can be facilitated.
15 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.2.9 The Scoping Report also provides an overview of the policy documents including land allocations, however, there are a number of a number of potential conflicts between the NWCC Project and a number of existing and emerging site allocations such as land to the south of Whitehaven, a number of sites in South Lakeland at Kirkby in Furness, and Roosecote Quarry south east of Barrow Port. These impacts must be considered as part of the EIA process. Furthermore, National Grid should monitor the development of planning policy across the study area, and as such the policy background will need to be updated, for example, Allerdale Borough Council are planning site allocation preferred option in early 2016, and South Lakeland District Council have recently started work on a replacement development management development plan document and expect to adopt it in Summer 2017. A full review of local planning policy, both adopted and emerging is required to underpin the EIA.
3.2.10 National wildlife sites are mentioned specifically in paragraph 3.6.4 under point 3, therefore, point 4 needs to include mention of nationally designated landscapes (AONBs and National Parks).
3.2.11 We are strongly concerned that the Scoping Report fails to include or consider the LDNPA ‘The Partnership Plan – the Management Plan for the English Lake District, 2015-20’. This is the statutory National Park Management Plan and needs to be recognised as such. This issue is further discussed with 4.11.10) In addition, we are strongly concerned that the statutory and policy framework for National Parks is significantly underplayed in this chapter. Whilst reference to the NPPF approach to National Parks in section 3.4.5 is a welcomed this is inadequate. The policy and legislative context for National Parks has been set out in detail in LDNPA consultation response to National Grid in December 2014 and again in relation to the announcement of National Grid’s preferred route corridor in July 2015. This information should be the starting point for considering these important aspects.
3.2.12 It should be noted that insofar as planning jurisdiction is concerned, the LDNPA does not overlap with other authorities. LDNPA is the Local Planning Authority for the LDNP and has its own development plan (paragraph 3.6.5). However, it is not clear that the statutory role as Local Planning Authority for the National Park is sufficiently well understood, including that where necessary the LDNPA have a role that extends to the setting of the National Park beyond the boundary.
16 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
3.2.13 Key omissions also include the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 amended by the Environment Act 1995, as well as the English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular (DEFRA: 2010).
3.2.14 Paragraph 3.6.16 states that Cumbria County Council has responsibility for mineral and waste related development across Cumbria local authority areas, however, it should be noted that the LDNPA is the responsible authority for the minerals and waste within the Lake District National Park.
3.2.15 Chapter 4 sets out National Grid’s approach to consultation, provides a review of the consultation carried out with stakeholders to date, and sets out the future approach and method of consultation and engagement. The PPA Group welcomes the level of consultation and engagement carried out to date and it is considered to be appropriate given the scale and importance of the project. The commitment set out by National Grid in paragraph 4.5.12 that proposes to continue workshops, meetings and other standard methods of correspondence as part of ‘ongoing specialist topic consultation’ during the EIA process it noted and welcomed. However, in order to fully engage in the process the PPA Group require an appreciation of the programme of EIA work so that resources can be allocated to ensure the process is both useful and meets the objectives of National Grid.
3.3 Approach to Scoping and EIA (Chapter 5)
3.3.1 The overarching approach to scoping and EIA is provided in chapter 5 of the Scoping Report, including; identification of mitigation/compensation measures, how inter-relationship of effects and cumulative effects will be addressed, and an assessment of the alternatives.
3.3.2 It is noted that the Scoping Report states that the assessments will be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced environmental professionals (Paragraph 5.1.3). The PPA Group would support this, and it is considered vital given the scale and complexity of the NWCC Project and the breadth of topic areas that require assessment.
3.3.3 The PPA Group note that as details of various elements of the proposed development have not yet been finalised, and the EIA process for the NWCC Project will developed in accordance with the principles of the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ following Advice Note 9 ‘Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ . This should be used to ensure that the EIA considers the realistic worst case environmental case in each assessment across each topic. This is important in ensuring an appropriate mitigation scheme is
17 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
developed considering the greatest extent of potential environmental effect. However, it is considered important that the extent of potential deviation which might be anticipated is provided. In order to fully consider that effects of the NWCC Project there is a need for greater understanding of how this might impact on scoping if deviation came to be considered to permit development activity beyond currently defined corridor.
3.3.4 It is considered that as the NWCC Project develops the parameters of the proposed development will narrow and there will be less need for this flexibility, therefore, the EIA process should reflect this. At all time the scope of the EIA must take full account of the consequential development, including works to the ENW infrastructure and any associated development.
3.3.5 It is noted that as set out in Table 5.1 inter-relationship issues between topics will be considered in each topic chapter where required, while the ES will include a separate chapter for Cumulative Effects. Clear links and signposting is important to ensuring that this approach is successful. It is also noted that a Water Framework Directive Assessment will be produced as a separate report.
3.3.6 Whilst Table 5.1 includes cumulative effects, it doesn’t address other effects identified in the 2009 EIA regulations which state that this should include any “direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development” all need to be scoped in and considered appropriately.
3.3.7 Clarity is required regarding when the HRA will take place and how this would feed into the NWCC Project development. Currently the Scoping Report suggests that a HRA report will be submitted with the planning application, however, the process is not clear.
Approach to the Scoping and Assessment of Environmental Effects
3.3.8 Paragraph 5.2.4 of the Scoping Report sets out the overall EIA approach to identify likely significant effects and identification of insignificant effects. The approach incorporates; reporting ‘Design and Good Practice’ mitigation that results in residual non-significant effect in an appendix or scoping out, use of screening tables, topic based sensitivity, magnitude and significance thresholds and topic based appropriate study areas. Given the scale of the NWCC Project, the EIA process must fully consider the all potential impacts; including social, economic and environmental considerations at every stage of the process to ensure that the design process of the project can minimise potential effects at the earliest stage. As the Project develops more information is required regarding the potential range and extent of mitigation, given the nature and scale of mitigation
18 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
influential on approach to issues which might be scoped into or out of EIA. Particularly issues around socioeconomic impacts.
3.3.9 The PPA Group welcome National Grid’s commitment to provide a focused ES, however, sufficient links to demonstrate the issues have been satisfactorily addressed is required. Furthermore, it must be noted that although as stated topic based sensitivity, magnitude and significance thresholds have been discussed informally with consultees in some topics it has not been universal. For example, although an early draft of the draft socio-economic scoping paper has been discussed, this did not include a discussion on thresholds.
3.3.10 The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) The State of Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in the UK – Special Report (2011) advises that current scoping practice all too often leads to broad assessments that lack appropriate focus leading to long Environmental Statements that add burdens all parties involved in EIA.
3.3.11 The length of this Scoping Report gives concern about the length and focus of the resultant Environmental Statement (ES). The ES should endeavour to focus on the specific environmental effects likely to result from the proposed development to avoid an unnecessary burden on all parties.
3.3.12 Within section 5.2 Approach to scoping and Assessment of environmental Effects the 2009 EIS Regulations state that an ES should cover “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”.
3.3.13 The ES must provide confidence and clarity that effects from issues scoped out or discussed only briefly in an appendix on the grounds that the resulting effects will be avoided through design mitigation are not reintroduced if the design, technology or route etc of the scheme changes, or if they are, this is dealt with comprehensively.
3.3.14 A scoping table has been provided for each of the topics set out in chapters 6 to 18, listing the receptor types that have been identified for each topic against detailed key Project activities and potential impacts. This approach is welcomed as it aids clarity and understanding of the scoping process. As set out in paragraph 5.2.17 as the project details develop more finalised, National Grid intend to use the scoping tables as an ‘audit trail’ to explain how the NWCC project has evolved through the EIA process. It is considered that as stated in guidance any changes in scoping should
19 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
be agreed with consultees and suitably recorded. The PPA Group note that National Grid do not intend to re-issue the Scoping Report as the tables are updated, however, more detail is required to understand how changes to the scoping tables will be recorded to ensure the ‘audit trail’.
Baseline for the Assessment
3.3.15 It is noted that the NWCC project construction works will take approximately seven years from 2019, with commissioning and operation of the 400kV connection servicing the proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station from the 2024. It is understood that the current timescale of this accords with the commissioning of the Moorside plant.
3.3.16 Paragraph 5.3.5 identifies that one element of the future baseline includes ‘new development’ and that this should be accounted for when considering the future conditions that may be present at the relevant assessment years for construction, operation and decommissioning. However, paragraph 5.9.3 indicates that the new development contributing to the future baseline will be considered within the cumulative effects assessments rather than the future baseline of chapters. Whether new developments are considered within the assessment of future baseline conditions or cumulative effects should be clearly defined within the ES to ensure they are given an appropriate level of weight.
3.3.17 The baseline assessment needs to consider impacts of existing ENW infrastructure to enable assessment of changes to that network as an impact of the Project.
3.3.18 It may be appropriate to consider new developments under construction or permitted but not implemented under future baseline, with unconsented or proposed developments within cumulative effects. It is recognised the collation of these developments is ongoing and the planning status of identified projects may change during the lifetime of the Project application process. This process should be coordinated across the EIA.
Spatial Scope
3.3.19 It is noted that the EIA study area will consist of the 400kV connection, relevant permanent infrastructure, temporary works and ENW infrastructure and that it will vary spatially from topic to topic based on the impact. It is expected that the study area to explicitly include any associated works required to facilitate the project, such as worker accommodation, transport upgrades and
20 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
construction compounds. The PPA Group broadly welcomes the use of consistent geographic sections to manage the assessment and presentation of environmental information.
Predicting and Assessing Impacts
3.3.20 The PPA Group welcomes the adoption of the precautionary approach in the assessment of magnitude and significance of impacts. Furthermore, the approach to establish the proposed criteria for the determination of sensitivity have been for each of the receptors on a topic by topic basis, based on legislation, statutory designation, guidance and professional judgment is supported.
Avoidance by Design, and Mitigation and Compensation Measures
3.3.21 The PPA Group welcome the recognition that mitigation and compensation of significant adverse effects of the project will be a key component of the EIA process and will be considered for all stages of the project. Furthermore, it is recognised that there are a range of measures from design mitigation, good practice mitigation, through to bespoke project mitigation and compensation. It is considered that each of these types of mitigation has a role to play in the development of the NWCC DCO and wider delivery of an acceptable development.
3.3.22 It is vital that National Grid engages with the PPA Group in the development of appropriate mitigation options from an early date in order to inform all forms of mitigation. To ensure useful input a programme of engagement should be developed by National Grid to provide an appropriate level of consultation before the design if frozen (understood to be end December 2015) for the statutory consultation in April 2016. Furthermore, the PPA Group consider that an ongoing dialogue is required following the formal consultation in order that suitable mitigation and technology choices can be made. The PPA Group welcome National Grid’s statement in paragraph 5.5.9 of the Scoping Report that the iterative design will take into account stakeholder opinion, and therefore, it is understood that as a result the full scope of the EIA is not fixed.
3.3.23 It is noted that National Grid intend to provide an outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to accompany the ES, and that the preparation of a detailed CEMP will be the subject of a Requirement contained in the draft development consent. The PPA Group accepts that the CEMP and good practice measures detailed within the plan can provide a level of mitigation to some issues. A draft CEMP must be produced prior to submission of the DCO. Therefore, it is considered that the PPA Group has a significant role in its development and as such it is considered
21 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
that an early draft of the Plan and engagement on the content is required, together with a clear programme for engagement.
3.3.24 It is welcomed that the Scoping Report states that bespoke mitigation and compensation can form part of the suite of mitigation measures for the NWCC Project. Given the significant issues and sensitive environment that the NWCC Project will interact with, the PPA Group considers that bespoke mitigation and compensation will form a major part of NWCC Project, and as such early engagement is required to ensure the measures can be developed to successfully address the adverse impacts of the proposed development.
Inter-relationship Effects
3.3.25 The PPA Group consider that the inter-relationship effect of the NWCC Project are potentially significant and are central to ensuring that the project can be delivered without compromising the sensitive environment of the study area. The topic based approach proposed to consider the inter- relationships is understood, however, clear signposting and linkages will be required to ensure that all the relationships are considered. Furthermore, there will be a clear need to highlight the links to the consideration of cumulative effects of the project.
Cumulative Effects
3.3.26 Given the level of major development planned for Cumbria and Lancashire there is clear need to appropriately consider cumulative effects with other development. The PPA Group welcome that as set out in paragraph 5.9.4 National Grid will consider major development following Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Nine, importantly including projects of the PINS Programme of Projects, development identified in adopted and emerging development plans. Additionally, the PPA Group support the role of the LPAs in the study area in identifying future developments as they enter the planning system and as set out in other plans and strategies, and the proposal to consider cumulative effects under a single chapter.
3.3.27 The list of future projects provided at paragraph 5.9.7 provides a number of projects that should be considered, however, there are a number of omissions at this stage, and given the dynamic nature of project development it should be regularly monitored and updated by National Grid. The PPA Group have a key role in providing intelligence on projects as they emerge. In addition to the 11 projects listed this stage, there have been a large number of proposals for solar farms entering the planning system, and a number of projects such as a tidal lagoon of the coast north of Workington
22 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
and proposals by West Cumbria Mining are at an early stage of development. Additionally National Grid must include a full review of site allocation documents to ensure all major develops are considered and appropriately reviewed (as stated in the Scoping Report 5.9.4). Furthermore, this should be consistent with the lists of major projects identified elsewhere in the Scoping Report, such as paragraph 16.8.3.
Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)
3.3.28 The PPA Group note the national policy on EMF as set out in paragraph 5.10.4 and National Grid’s commitment to as a minimum follow policy and as a minimum comply with regulation and guide lines. Furthermore, it is noted that National Grid will produce a separate document to accompany the applicant that provides comprehensive information on EMF as it relates the NWCC Project.
3.3.29 The approach to EMC also noted and given the Certificate of Conformity with the EMC Directive provided in Appendix 5C it is considered to be appropriate.
23 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.0 TOPIC BASED REVIEW OF EIA SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 6)
Introduction
4.1.1 The scoping chapter lists a number of documents and data sources which are applicable to the project. We note that a non-published SLR Consulting report – North West Coast Connections (NWCC) – Seascape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis (2014) – has been referenced. In order to provide a complete feedback we would welcome access to this report prior to the submission of the ES to inform the PPA Group review process.
4.1.2 In assessing the landscape and visual impacts (LVIA) of a development the more usual circumstance would be to carry out the assessment on the basis of a pre-determined design where the design informs the assessment. For this project the approach is an iterative design and impact assessment.
4.1.3 The EIA scoping document sets the parameters for the LVIA assessment using the realistic/worst case scenario, in this case overhead lines. This is a logical way to proceed as it can then inform design mitigation which is likely to be the adoption of other technologies such as undergrounding or tunnelling where the LVIA identifies ‘unacceptable’ effects which can be mitigated. More information is required about how planning authorities, will be engaged in this iterative process, and how the audit trail will be recorded.
4.1.4 It should be noted that the Arnside & Silverdale AONB Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment is still in draft, and will be published later in 2015 (paragraph 6.1.7). Figure 6.6 Landscape Character Areas South Overview should include the Arnside & Silverdale LSCA.
4.1.5 Lancashire County Council has been omitted from the list of prescribed consultees, as a statutory consultee for NSIP projects the Council should be on the list of prescribed consultees. The Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership is identified in this section as a prescribed consultee of relevance to the LVIA but they have not been consulted on this EIA Scoping Report. The Forest of Bowland AONB should also be considered as part of this list. Additionally, it should be noted that WYG Group provides support to the PPA Group and all comments/reports issued are on behalf of the PPA Group or named authority, therefore, should not be referenced as a separate non-prescribed consultee.
24 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.1.6 A number of surveys and studies relating to fieldwork have been referenced in section 6.1. The inclusion of photographic records captured during fieldwork to date would be very useful to further inform at the scoping report stage and ongoing consultations. This will be a useful tool when agreeing viewpoint selection and should be provided when further viewpoint discussions are carried out.
4.1.7 Appendix 6B includes consultee comments and responses. This tabulates items raised in the meeting on the 30th April 2015 and how they have or intend to be addressed. It also lists consultation responses received and under consideration by the assessment team. A response to the issues raised in these consultations should be provided prior to the issue of the ES and as part of the dynamic process. Issues that still require a response arelisted in Appendix 6B, include:
Letter correspondence from Historic England Dated 10th June 2015 addressed to WYG concerning marine outline scoping paper – we note that the issue highlighted to be addressed is in relation to the Historic Seascape Characterisation and how this will be considered as part of the seascape impact assessment. Any overlap between Historic Environment and Marine Environment assessments will need to be addressed within the within the ES;
Discretionary Advice Service – DAS 5041 from Natural England dated 10th July 2015 addressed to SLR Consulting – the PPA Group have not seen this letter and would welcome the opportunity to review a copy;
PPA response to proposed viewpoints 23rd July 2015 – these relate to a range of additional viewpoints to be considered – it would seem that some of these may have been taken on board, but other viewpoints may still be under consideration. The viewpoint numbering and number of viewpoints being considered has changed since the pre-scoping review and the number of viewpoints to be considered has increased to over 280. Appendix A provides some comment for the reason for viewpoint selection, and in some cases this refers to ‘suggested by Cumbria County Council’ and ‘PPA response to consultation on proposed viewpoints dated 23/07/15’. However, cross reference should be made to demonstrate what comments have been taken on board and how they have been addressed in order to allow a direct correlation between comment provided and viewpoint selected. This would demonstrate that the approach is truly dynamic and ensure all comments have been addressed to some extent. This needs to be made clearer so that the dynamic process is evident in the LVIA;
25 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Response on behalf of South Lakeland District Council from WYG 23rd July 2015 – a range of issues still to be addressed; and
Response on behalf of Allerdale Borough Council from WYG August 2015 – a range of issues still to be addressed.
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.1.8 In section 6.2.1 it states that ‘an extended study area will be considered should this be necessary once the list of cumulative sites is compiled’. In the Cumulative Effects section 6.11 it states a variety of study areas will be considered depending on the type of development. These study areas are discussed below under cumulative effects.
4.1.9 The study area is to be informed by Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) mapping. The use of 5m grid Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is stated. This is a useful tool for considering a bare earth scenario. We would also recommend that data is used to indicate the ZTV which considers trees and built form in the landscape (either via DTM with the buildings and woodlands added, or Digital Surface Model (DSM)). We would recommend that a series of ZTVs are produced based on different criteria to determine the extent of visibility of various elements, e.g. pylons only, pylons and overhead lines, substations only, all elements of proposals; and that a bare earth scenario and one with visual screening be prepared.
4.1.10 Section 6.2.2 also details that ‘local authorities will be consulted throughout the LVIA process’. We would welcome a programme in relation to this consultation detailing when and how this will be carried out, as issues regarding viewpoint selection and consultations still to be responded to need to be addressed prior to the preparation of the LVIA.
4.1.11 Paragraph 6.2.3 suggests that main landscape, seascape and visual effects are likely to occur within 5km of an overhead line. The PPA Group dispute that the main significant impacts within 5km. Additionally, there is a lack of weight to cumulative combined and sequential impact. It is considered that this issue is an important planning consideration as the cumulative impact study already identifies a level of concentrated infrastructure along the existing pylon corridor. Any overhead lines especially in the context of their higher height and differing scale to the existing 132 kV overhead lines will be seen over a considerable distance, especially where the topography is
26 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
predominantly open with little screening. Cumulatively any overhead line will be seen in this landscape from short, medium and long distance viewpoints or a considerable distance. It will cumulatively appear as a linear feature traversing across the open countryside with substantial combined and sequential cumulative impacts.
4.1.12 6.2.4 states that the main Study Area for the project will focus on receptors within 5km of the Project infrastructure but that particularly sensitive viewpoints lying between 5-10km will be considered, and exceptionally, viewpoints beyond 10km. We would re-iterate the comments provided in the Response on behalf of South Lakeland District Council from WYG 23rd July 2015 and Response on behalf of Allerdale Borough Council from WYG August 2015 which suggests 15km from the project infrastructure should be a starting point for the study area, which would correlate with recommendations in Visual Representation of Windfarms 2.1 (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014) and Cumulative Impacts of Vertical Infrastructure (CIVI) (WYG for Cumbria County Council, October 2014). The study area can subsequently be refined through desk and site studies. A ZTV would be of extreme benefit in aiding this refinement.
4.1.13 The proposed Study Area needs to acknowledge and take account of the proposed tunnel islet and the need for a different approach. Given its location there are no viewpoints within 5kms, most are between 5 – 10km, and there are sensitive viewpoints such as the AONB that are more than 10kms. For example view points within the AONB are required, such as Warton Crag and Arnside Knott.
4.1.14 To the north, should the study area extend into Scotland, relevant authorities and policies within Scotland should be consulted with and reviewed as necessary.
4.1.15 Appendix 6A has a number of minor issues that require revision, within Subsection H2 - Morecambe Bay. H2_653 - It should be noted that Arnside Knott is also located within the Arnside & Silverdale AONB. H2_656 Heathwaite, H2_ 657 - Jack Scout, H2_658 - Warton Crag: should be amended to read 'Arnside and Silverdale Authority' to read 'Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership'.
4.1.16 This section sets out the existing landscape environment in outline in relation to each sub section. The layout according to each subsection is clear and we would welcome this logical approach to be carried forward into the ES chapter when describing the baseline landscape environment in further detail.
27 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Existing Environment
4.1.17 The descriptions under each sub section currently only include landscape character types and sub types within the scoping corridor. The introduction text describes that the assessment will consider landscape character types and sub types outside of the corridor in line with the 5km study area. Landscape character types and sub types outside the scoping corridor boundary should be described and considered for each sub section, within a wider study area than 5km if appropriate.
4.1.18 Unless specifically mentioned the baseline as described under each sub section has not been reviewed in detail; however, we would expect its contents to be expanded upon within the LVIA. Once the route of the line is known and location of other infrastructure such as substations is confirmed, we would expect the information within the baseline to include details of existing vegetation or significant structures within the study area.
4.1.19 It is suggested that the review of Landscape Character of Section A1 (paragraph 6.3.6) should provide reference to views from within areas of designated landscape value – from the fells back to the coastal plane and recognise cumulative impacts such as the powerlines in conjunction with the proposed Nuclear Power Station at Moorside. Additionally the impact of ENW rationalisation should be referenced in Section A2 (paragraph 6.3.19), B1 (paragraph 6.3.34), and D1 (paragraph 6.3.125). Furthermore, paragraph 6.3.140 should make reference to the cumulative impact with the proposed Haverigg Wind Farm, and needs to emphasis that ENW may be generally desirable as mitigation to landscape impact, however, in some areas such as in E1 it could have significantly negative socioeconomic consequences in terms of impact on protection of a resilience electricity supply to Millom and south Copeland.
4.1.20 The description of visual amenity in paragraph 6.3.24 should include ‘flat coastal plain’ in the description of the area. We would also question whether Winscales is perceived as part of the built environment of Workington (paragraph 6.3.34). It is considered that the key visual receptors listed in paragraph 6.3.45 should include vertical infrastructure of Workington. It is also suggested that Appendix 6A should include a viewpoint related to the A66. Additionally, it is considered that the paragraph 6.3.70 should include reference to the elevated above coastal plain.
4.1.21 Point 3 of paragraph 6.3.192 needs to include Warton Crag.
28 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.1.22 We would again draw attention to the benefits of using the CIVI Study (as described in the WYG responses on behalf of South Lakeland and Allerdale) to inform the sensitivities of landscape character areas and receptors and to supplement the baseline text.
4.1.23 Sections 6.3.206 - 6.3.208 describe ‘Factors Influencing Future Baseline’. This section includes a description of the time period over which the development is likely to be carried out. This includes a construction period over five years, with an additional two years for rationalisation work, and work commencing prior to the development consent (by approximately 2 years). As there are a number of phases to the development, it should be made clear how the assessment will be carried out in relation to these phases and whether a phased approach should be adopted, identifying the impacts and effects at various phases.
4.1.24 The section discusses how changes in land practices and changes in vegetation patterns will be considered within the assessment, alongside climate change. Within the EIA Approach and Methodology chapter, within section 5.9.3, it mentions considering ‘future baseline situations which includes other schemes that are likely to be constructed or have not yet commenced but have a valid planning permission’. This is included within the Cumulative section and it should be made clear within the future baseline section where and how such developments are being addressed.
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.1.25 This section relates to the potential effects for construction, operational and decommissioning phases. We would recommend post decommissioning is also considered, and year 15 assessment – should this be relevant in certain locations where vegetation makes a contribution to screening the development.
4.1.26 Mitigation is touched upon within this section. Proposals and plans to mitigate the development should be provided. Where this includes planting, indicative species lists and specification should also be included. Proposed species should be appropriate to the landscape character of the area, with mixes tailored to the relevant character of the area along the route.
4.1.27 On a review of the supporting figures, we would make the following comments:
The viewpoint reference sheets have been reproduced at a different scale at the scoping stage from that reviewed at the pre-scoping stage. For consistency, and to aid in the review process,
29 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
drawing scales as now presented should remain consistent and be carried through to the LVIA ES chapter;
We would note that some drawings show a scale of 1:115,000 at A1 in the title block. These are actually 1:25,000 scale at A1;
It is noted that the viewpoint numbering sequence has changed to that set out in the pre- scoping paper. For consistency and to aid the review process, we would request that the numbering as now adopted should remain to avoid confusion in relation to ongoing consultation with the viewpoints; and
We would note that all viewpoint numbers have the prefix VP on the drawings but this is dropped in the viewpoint tables in Appendix A. For clarity and to avoid confusion, we would recommend the table and drawing correlate in referencing.
Assessment Methodology
4.1.28 We would note that the methodology text is similar to that included within the Outline Scoping Paper (SLR, revision B June 2015) and would draw attention to the comments on methodology previously provided within the WYG response by WYG on behalf of South Lakeland and Allerdale. Comments contained within that response have not been repeated here, but remain valid and should be addressed.
4.1.29 It should be noted that Lancashire County Council policy requires photomontages to be provided in accordance with the Highland Council standards, 'Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Development, March 2015'. Although aimed at wind energy development it is suggested that this standard provides an best practice on landscape visualisations and will be appropriate on assessing the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed islet. Therefore, assessment of the impacts should make use of the ‘Highland Council standards’.
4.1.30 There appears to be confusion between Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council and their abbreviations (LCC and LaCC) – in both paragraph 6.1.10 and 6.5.7. A reference to the
30 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
forthcoming Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document is needed in paragraph 6.5.15.
4.1.31 We note that it is acknowledged that World Heritage Site inscription for the Lake District will be given “appropriate consideration” without providing further detail.
4.1.32 South Lakeland District Council Policy CS5 should be included in paragraph 6.5.18; also there is a requirement to include a reference to the forthcoming Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document. The review of local policy should include reference to the guidance within the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit and the Cumulative Impact of Vertical Impact (CIVI) study.
4.1.33 We note that the photography will be produced in accordance with the guidance listed in section 6.5.21 (we assume this should refer to section 6.5.22). This includes Visual Representation of Wind Farms Version 2 which includes some specific guidance on the presentation of the final photomontages. Please note, this guidance has been updated and should be referred to as Version 2.1 (December 2014). The wind farm guidance includes a number of specific requirements in relation to the carrying out and presentation of photography and we would seek clarification on which elements of the guidance will be accorded with, as all elements may not be relevant to this project. We would advocate the use of a full frame sensor camera to carry out the photography.
4.1.34 Additional elements have been added to the methodology since the previous review, and this includes a more extensive section on assessing Seascape Effects, which is welcomed.
4.1.35 It is considered that there has been a lack of weight given to local landscape value which albeit not designated is important to local rural communities. The landscape of Allerdale remains an important asset to the local communities and former large scale development proposals have prompted local opposition. The scoping attached little weight to non-designated landscape whose character and appearance may be eroded by the proposal. Some such areas are already experiencing a high degree of man-made clutter as outlined in the vertical impact study. Similar to turbines landscaping is unlikely to offer any substantial mitigation given the scale of any overhead structures and the topography/ vegetation of the landscape. Furthermore it would be viewed across the wider coastal plain when looked from the higher fell levels from the Lake District National Park with potential impacts on tourism.
4.1.36 We note that no international designations are included within the table 6.2 and this is described in 6.6.14 as because there is no ‘landscape of such status within the area’. We would highlight that
31 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Hadrian’s Wall) World Heritage site and Buffer Zone lies within the scoping corridor boundary and although not designated for its landscape quality or value, it is still an important feature within the landscape, contributing to its character, and a major tourist attraction. The effect of the development on Hadrian’s Wall and Buffer Zone will primarily be addressed within the Historic Environment chapter; however, this should be carried out with close collaboration to the Landscape and Visual Chapter and cross referenced where applicable. How the effects on this feature are addressed should be clearly stated.
4.1.37 Table 6.2 details values attached to landscape. We would query how landscape value is determined for a landscape that does not fall into any of the designation/status categories described within the first column of the table. Additionally, more information and cross referencing is required to provide clarity of how landscape influence the significance of the setting of the WHS Hadrian wall, e.g. indivisibility between forts, may suggest that this issue is this better addressed in the landscape or heritage section.
4.1.38 Table 6.2 lists Grade I or II parks and gardens of special historic interest, it omits II*. This should be included.
4.1.39 It is suggested that Table 6.3 does not provide an appropriate consideration of cumulative impact, and subsequently it provides a greater emphasis on Landform. Furthermore, it is suggested the following point should be noted under each of the areas; Landcover - 50m pylons cannot be screened, Prominence – due to the open character it is suggested that a greater prominence is possible given increased clutter, Scale – contrast in scale with spacing scale of existing pylons increased prominence and clutter, Human – increased cumulative clutter than existing – greater combined /sequential cumulative impacts.
4.1.40 Section 6.6.17 describes that where susceptibility is judged to lie between the levels of high, medium or low, intermediate levels are introduced such as high/medium. It is recommended that this approach is avoided to provide transparency in the assessment process and avoid multiple splits of combinations.
4.1.41 We would note that an Amber category has now been added to table 6.10 Levels of Landscape Effects. This is a welcomed addition in relation to determining the significance of effect.
4.1.42 It is reiterated (as per WYG comments on behalf of South Lakeland and Allerdale) that descriptions of all effects should be included, not just major and major/moderate effects. In addition, the effects
32 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
described do not correlate with the wording used in the tables, e.g. the description states that major effects ‘are likely to be permanent (in that they will endure for more than 25 years)’ whereas a substantial magnitude of change (which combined with a high sensitivity receptor results in a major effect) is described as lasting for 10 to 25 years. These descriptions should be checked and amended accordingly.
Methodology for Assessing Visual Effects
4.1.43 It is considered that LVIA is entirely consistent with GLVIA3 recommendations and is therefore logical, thorough, transparent and stands up to scrutiny. However, seascape is not included in GLVIA3 is treated similarly to landscape.
4.1.44 The list of publically assessable visual receptors (paragraph 6.8.1) should include other accessible land such as that owned by the National Trust, RSPB etc.
4.1.45 It is consider that paragraph 6.8.1 should reference the guidance that has been used to guide visual receptors. The use of ‘appropriate’ point one of the list is vague and more information is required to understand how the assessment for visual receptors will be undertaken.
4.1.46 There is significant concern that a lack of weight has been given to residential visual impact (paragraph 6.8.1), for example there is a pinch point in the area around Broughton Moor. Paragraph 6.8.11 provides details of how publicly accessible views will be assessed, it is noted that the list is not exhaustive, however, local value must be given weight as they are important irrespective of national designation. Overall, it is considered that Table 6.11 attributes low value attached to local people, this clearly needs to be addressed.
4.1.47 Section 6.8.6 describes how the viewpoint selection will be refined at the scoping stage. We would re-iterate that we wish to be involved in refining the viewpoint section and welcome a programme in order to provide a response on this matter at appropriate times. To date it appears that some comments have been addressed and others have not, although there is no narrative to illustrate what comments have been addressed. To illustrate the dynamic process, as discussed earlier, this needs including, alongside the provision of a timetable for further consultation opportunities.
4.1.48 We note that over 280no. viewpoints have now been selected for assessment, which is a large increase on the viewpoints put forward in the pre-scoping study and a welcomed increase, and the inclusion of additional viewpoints suggested by the PPA Group during the initial scoping phase.
33 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
However, we would reiterate previous comments that the range and location of viewpoints selected cannot be refined and agreed to until a ZTV is prepared to illustrate the theoretical visibility of the proposals. Once this is available we will be happy to comment on the viewpoints selected to date.
4.1.49 With regards to the tunnel head at Heysham there are viewpoints to the south which are welcomed, however, one of the man receptors i.e. local residents, has not been taken account of. An additional viewpoint is therefore proposed to the north west of the site; PROW south of Heysham Mossgate residential area Representative viewpoint from residential area northwest of proposed tunnel head (SD 341917 460423).
4.1.50 6.8.7 describes how winter and summer photography will be included, which is welcomed, however, clarity is requires regarding if this will becarrie3d out forr all viewpoint locations. We would add that from a selection of viewpoints we may wish to see wirelines or/and photomontages to be produced to illustrate the development. We welcome dialogue on this matter at a suitable time.
4.1.51 We would reiterate the benefits of using the CIVI study at the early stages of the assessment work as highlighted in previous consultation responses. This should be used to supplement the baseline and assessment work alongside SLRs own methodology. The guidance within the CIVI study recommends a ZTV is provided as part of the required information for assessing planning applications in Cumbria for vertical infrastructure.
Mitigation
4.1.52 Detail on mitigation has been added since the review of the pre-scoping paper. A list of information has been included, however, this is predominantly generic mitigation and specific mitigation measures should be included within the ES. It is noted that BS5837 (2012): Trees in Relation to Construction (this should be referenced with its correct title BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition, construction – Recommendations). We would also add that BS3882:2015: Specification for Topsoil should be referred to under point 3 in relation to the handling and storage of soil.
Approach to Inter-relationship Effects
34 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.1.53 We note that this section refers to the inter-relationship effects with the Historic Environment chapter, as well as other chapters. We would stress that it is made clear how inter-relationship effects are dealt with and to avoid any overlapping assessment.
Cumulative Effects
4.1.54 The cumulative effects section has been added since the review of the pre-scoping paper. This highlights various study areas to be considered for a range of cumulative structures.
4.1.55 It is considered that effects potentially arising from cumulative impacts are within the scope of a standard LVIA and are covered by GLVIA3 and adequately addressed in Chapter 6. There is a direct reference to the Cumbria Cumulative Impact of Vertical Infrastructure (CIVI) report and database and that it will form part of the methodology used.
4.1.56 It is assumed that Heysham Power Station will be included in the cumulative assessment of the proposed tunnel islet. Cumulative impacts will need to be considered for the tunnel head and its associated infrastructure. Development should include Heysham Power Station, nearby wind turbines and telecommunication masts, pylons and other existing and future power transmission infrastructure e.g. National Grid and off shore wind energy sub stations.
4.1.57 Section 6.11.6 describes a study area of 5km when referring to other electricity transmission lines to be considered alongside the development. It is clear the many effects; including cumulative impact cannot be dealt with using a 5km study area. Therefore, we would recommend this study areas is extended to 15km to correspond with that used within the CIVI study, which is considered appropriate for structures between 15m and 50m in height.
4.1.58 Section 6.11.7 relates to wind turbines and the potential study area extending to 45km from the project. We assume this distance has been specified in accordance with the recommended initial ZTV distance for turbines 150m+ as specified in the table on page 13 of the Visual Representation of Wind Farms Version 2.1. It should be noted, that although unlikely to create significant effects, a study area of up to 60km could be considered (relating to the 45km study area for the turbine and
35 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
the 15km study area for the pylons). Although unlikely, an explanation should be provided as to why any effects at this distance have been scoped out of the study.
4.1.59 In relation to other developments, the study area will need to be refined depending on the type of development being considered.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.1.60 The tunnelling activity will generate a significant amount of waste material. There is no detail of how and where this will be disposed of at this stage of the project. There are potential implication in terms of its storage, transportation and disposal. There could be landscape and visual amenity implications if waste is stored even temporarily (which could be years given the scale of the project), alternatively it may be proposed to use the waste elsewhere on the project for landscaping purposes. At this stage, therefore, tunnel waste should be scoped in.
4.1.61 The potential effects of construction traffic on trees, field boundaries and other has been prematurely scoped out and should be included. These features can be important landscape components in the National Park and more widely. There are potential risks posed by construction, e.g. where large vehicles require access along narrow lanes. These impacts would require mitigation/re-instatement.
Omissions and gaps
4.1.62 The potential for further the removal of existing electricity supply lines through joint working with ENW has not been included within the EIA scoping and should be. The mitigation of the construction of new 400kv lines in the ‘opportunity corridor’ of the existing 132kv line by removal of the existing 132kv line is addressed. However, further opportunities should be explored as part of the iterative design and mitigation process. For example, if the new cabling uses underground cabling the scope for including the existing 132kv line within the same trench as mitigation for landscape impacts from new pylons elsewhere on the route should be included. Removing existing supply lines for mitigation should be considered through a ‘whole project’ approach. Currently this mitigation is only being assessed through a ‘one-up, one-down’ per section approach.
4.1.63 Each section and sub-section of the scoping-corridor is described separately which makes the LVIA more manageable and within each section there is a heading for Designated Landscapes which will allow for proper identification of potential effects on the National Park and setting. However, while
36 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Table 6.2 identifies the National Plan designation as of ‘National’ value it is not clear how this is carried through in the assessment process described in 6.6 – 6.8 Landscape/Seascape/Visual effects. The weighting given to these designations could be clearer in the methodology, making direct reference to the National Park.
4.2 Historic Environment (Chapter 7)
Data Sources and Consultation
4.2.1 The range of data sources is considered appropriate for the assessment and we welcome the inclusion of National Mapping Programme data following discussions at the Historic Environment Scoping Workshop. The consideration of LiDAR data should be kept under review as the project progresses, particularly as the Environment Agency data sets have recently been released for commercial use. If it is found that the current data sources does not provide an adequate basis on which to determine the archaeological potential of any sections of the study area then LiDAR may be appropriate.
4.2.2 National Mapping Programme (NMP data) is mentioned in paragraph 7.1.5 as being available for Cumbria. NMP data is not available for the Lake District and therefore interrogation of aerial photographs is required and should be included as part of the desk based assessment.
4.2.3 If the proposed 10km study area for assets of Very High and High Value is to be considered the data sources will need to include: Registered Battlefields from Historic England National Heritage List for England and Historic Scotland for Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings. If the 10km study area for assets of Very High and High Value is to be considered consultees should be extended to include Historic Scotland and the Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service.
4.2.4 The consultation section outlines the past consultation events that have taken place and how comments have been addressed within the Scoping document and proposed EIA methodology which is welcomed. The consultation section does not outline the proposed approach to consultation during the remainder of the EIA process. An indicative consultation strategy and programme should be identified to allow consultees to contribute to the ongoing refinement of scope, methodology, and comment on potential effects and proposed mitigation options. This consultation process should be designed to allow iterative design and assessment to take place.
37 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.2.5 As stated in Table 7.1 it is considered that the Hedgerow Regulations need to be given consideration as some hedgerows may be classed as important by virtue of more than solely any historic ground.
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.2.6 The study areas are defined in relation to a distance from the Project Infrastructure. The study area should be defined as a distance from the Order Limits (paragraph 2.3.4) to allow an appropriate buffer of any deviation from the proposed infrastructure locations to be accounted for.
4.2.7 The Historic Environment Study Area as shown on Figure 7.1 to 7.24 is a 1km buffer of the Scoping corridor. This equates to the study area for low value built heritage or historic landscapes, but does not cover the study areas of 500m, 2km or 10km as outlined for other aspects and assets to be considered in the historic environment assessment. Figures 7.1-7.12 for designated heritage assets do not therefore show either the 2km or 10km study area that will be assessed for designated heritage assets.
4.2.8 For Very High and High value landscape assets Registered Battlefields should be included within this category for assessment. The Battle of Solway Moss Registered Battlefield is c. 4.5km from the Scoping corridor. It is considered that the study area for Grade II Historic Parks and Gardens should be increased from 2km, given their nature this might not be enough for Parks and Gardens, particularly in rural settings.
4.2.9 The consideration of maritime historic environment will be considered within the Marine Environment chapter and Historic Seascape within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment chapter. The identification of these aspects as considered within other chapters should be clearly identified in the EIA chapter.
4.2.10 Summary information on the undesignated assets with 1km appears to be an accurate reflection of the records held in the Cumbria Historic Environment Record. The use of the term Study Area in Section 7.3 is confusing as the Study Area assessed in Section 7.3 is a 1km buffer of the Scoping corridor; it does not relate to the Study Areas as defined in Section 7.2 to be used in the collection of designated data, the iterative assessment of effects or reporting within the ES.
4.2.11 Paragraph 7.3.3 notes that data has been collected for designated heritage assets (other than Conservation Areas within the Study Areas). It is unclear why a 1km buffer Study Area has been
38 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
used within the Scoping report rather than the proposed 2km and 10km Study Areas as proposed in Section 7.2 given the GIS datasets are readily available.
4.2.12 Paragraph 7.3.3 notes that collection of data for Conservation Areas is underway and will be presented later. It is unclear why the Conservation Area data collected for the Route Corridor Options Study could not be presented in this Scoping report. Furthermore, it is consider that given the settings of rural conservation areas are generally more extensive than for urban based Areas, a more extensive buffer may be required. A suitably qualified historic building/urban conservation professional would be able to make a judgement on this.
4.2.13 Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) data is available for the Lake District and should be interrogated at this stage. This is not referred to and should be assessed as part of the assessment.
4.2.14 The cropping of GIS data sets to a 1km buffer of the Scoping corridor on Figures 7.1 to 7.12 leads to a false impression of the range and extent of heritage assets, most notably the World Heritage Site and Buffer Zone, within the wider landscape context. In a number of locations the cropping of the GIS data does not follow the 1km buffer Study Area and therefore designated areas within the Study Area (e.g. B3, Figure 7.3) are not depicted as such on the plans. The proposed Lake District National Park World Heritage Site and buffer zone should be shown on future plans.
4.2.15 The baseline information provided in paragraphs 7.3.6 to 7.3.25 and Tables 7.2 to 7.15 provides some context to the historic environment conditions in the Scoping corridor and 1km study area. The information at present is not sufficiently aligned to the proposed Study Areas, or proposed methodology to be adopted for the EIA, to allow detailed comment. It is recommended that further consultation is undertaken by the technical team as the baseline data sets are collated and the screening out of assets based on the use of the ZTV is completed.
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.2.16 We are strongly concerned that the assessment of impacts on the Historic Environment assumes that the proposed transmission technology will be overhead wires and pylon. The impact of undergrounding is only to be assessed in locations currently stated in the proposals – i.e. the tunnel under Morecambe Bay. While we support the iterative design and mitigation process it is essential that the impacts of any additional undergrounding proposed for mitigation on the Historic Environment is included in the EIA scope and fully assessed.
39 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.2.17 Paragraph 7.4.2 identifies that the colour coded screening tables in Appendix 7B have identified the potential characteristics of impacts. Inconsistency in receptors identified as have no effect or insignificant effect is discussed in the Section relating to Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment below.
4.2.18 Potential direct effects on Scheduled Monuments, Registered Park and Garden and undesignated built heritage have not been specifically identified in paragraph 7.4.4 but are included as potentially significant (scoped in) effects within Appendix 7B. Paragraph 7.4.4 and Appendix 7B has not identified potential effects on the setting of the Registered Battlefield of Solway Moss which is located c. 4.5km from the Scoping Corridor.
4.2.19 The identified list of potential impacts on undesignated assets during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases are appropriate and it is considered that there is unlikely to be significant impacts on designated assets during operation and decommissioning.
4.2.20 The list of construction activities which could impact heritage assets is considered to identify most direct activities that may occur. Potential effects from construction traffic movements are not included in paragraph 7.4.5 but are included in Appendix 7B as a potential construction activity which could affect historic environment assets.
4.2.21 Paragraph 7.4.6 identifies that maintenance of project infrastructure, including access arrangements, may have an effect on the setting of heritage assets. However, Appendix 7B, Section 7.9 and Chapter 19 have specifically identified that maintenance of project infrastructure will be scoped out of the EIA as significant effects are not anticipated. Access would be via existing tracks, helicopter, four wheel drive or temporary aluminium trackways. The approach to maintenance and access and potential impacts needs to be clearly defined and justification provided if the activity is to be scoped out from further assessment.
4.2.22 Paragraph 7.4.9 confirms that impacts on the setting of heritage assets will be considered only within the operation phase, unless impacts will only occur at construction. Whilst a greater level of impact on setting may occur at construction due to additional construction movement, machinery and activities, this increased level of impact is likely to be temporary and therefore the residual significance will correlate with that at the operational phase.
40 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.2.23 The chapter must include consideration of the potential for additional or different effects to arise from the use of the Limit of Deviation should this approach be adopted or where areas of final design are still undetermined or may be altered (paragraph 5.4.10).
Assessment Methodology
Planning Policy
4.2.24 The Planning Practice Guidance which supplements the National Planning Policy Framework should be included in the national documents to be considered. The PPG includes specific guidance on World Heritage Sites which will be relevant to the Project.
4.2.25 Whilst the World Heritage Site Management Plans have been identified as data sources to inform the baseline data collection, relevant policies should also be used to inform the identification of effects and decision making (paragraph 034 of PPG).
4.2.26 The Scoping Report notes almost all of the key guidance documents that will need to be consulted. It will be essential that the Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (GPA 3) (March 2015) is considered and that any field analysis and subsequent appraisal of impacts is clearly founded on this guidance. The EIA assessment would also need to take reference from and follow the guidance contained within the Government’s supporting practice guidance to the NPPF: - ID: 18 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, as well as the policies within the NPPF itself, and particularly the need to understand and evaluate significance in connection with heritage assets; paragraph 58 notes eight steps that might be followed in undertaking such assessment. It is suggested that steps 1-5 and 7 will need to be addressed within the EIA that is being prepared for this site.
4.2.27 A comprehensive check that all local and regional policies have been included has not been undertaken for this response. Emerging policy documents for the local authority areas should be identified and kept under review as they may be adopted, or be sufficiently developed to be given weight. Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans should also be considered where they are either adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents or material considerations.
Additional Baseline Information
41 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.2.28 LDNPA holds data for the Romans in Ravenglass, and data from the Authorities Historic Environment Record should be included as a source for this information (paragraph 7.5.6). While paragraph 7.5.6 acknowledges that information on the nomination for the Lake District World Heritage Site (WHS) is still being collated (referred to in 7.5.6), the significance and implications of the potential Lake District WHS should be fully considered throughout the Historic Environment chapter.
4.2.29 The Lake District WHS nomination documents are due to be finalised and submitted at the end of January 2016. These will contain a significant amount of relevant information to enable an assessment of impacts, and should be referenced when available. The Lake District National Park Authority will be able to provide this information to National Grid from the start of February 2016 or whenever required thereafter.
4.2.30 The identification of additional baseline information is appropriate and accords with the discussions held at the Scoping Consultation Workshop.
4.2.31 The desk-based and site walkover survey elements must be completed in sufficient time to allow further archaeological investigations as identified within paragraphs 7.5.8 and 7.5.28 to be carried out and reported within the ES as required. The initial appraisals and assessments of impacts with regard to the setting of heritage assets will also need to be completed with sufficient time to allow consultation with prescribed consultees and to implement an iterative design mitigation process which can be implemented within the proposed scheme.
Proposed Methodology
4.2.32 Paragraph 7.5.9 states that there is currently no methodology consistently adopted by the Historic Environment profession for assessing impacts on Historic Environment assets as part of an EIA. This statement highlights the need for appropriate Historic Environment professionals to be carrying out the work in respect of the particular type of assessments that they have relevant expertise in. Specifically relevant expertise in this case is even more necessary in the absence of consistently adopted methodology.
4.2.33 It is considered to be important that the heritage professionals engaged consist not only of archaeological practitioners but also of those demonstrably qualified, experienced or accredited in historic building conservation, with expertise in above ground (non- archaeological ) heritage assets (HAs). There is a clear need for experts who are qualified and experienced in assessing the impact
42 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
upon the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas and in assessing the contribution made by such settings to the significance of each heritage asset. Our experience is that not many archaeologists have experience in assessing the settings of listed buildings and analysing the contribution to significance, and certainly not conservation areas.
4.2.34 The use of the DMRB methodology Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, HA208/07 is considered to be an appropriate choice of assessment methodology in the absence of a single best practice methodology adopted by the Historic Environment profession as a whole. It is recommended that the technical authors keep abreast of ongoing discussions within IEMA and the industry to develop an adopted best practice methodology. Should a best practice methodology be developed and adopted the use of DMRB should be reviewed.
4.2.35 In terms of undesignated and unknown archaeological assets the criteria for assessing the value of heritage assets, as outlined in Table 7.17 is broadly accepted, however, it is advised that an additional category should be added to the Very High Value assets: currently unknown archaeological assets that demonstrably form part of a WHS. This is particularly pertinent in terms of the Hadrian’s Wall WHS.
4.2.36 The identification that significance/significant has two meanings in Historic Environment assessment and clarification of the context in which they are used in this assessment is welcomed (paragraph 7.5.12). The explanation in paragraph 7.5.13 of the attribution of Grade II listed buildings to a Medium category of value within the criteria for assessing value in Table 7.17 is generally helpful. However, it is considered that the blanket valuation of all Grade II buildings medium is inconsistent with their national importance. More explanation is required.
4.2.37 Furthermore, paragraph 7.5.12 states that ‘professional judgement’ will be used when considering the value of all assets on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in particular circumstances the value of individual Grade II listed buildings could be elevated from medium to high when professional judgement is used. This is broadly welcomed; however, it is considered that it is essential that appropriately qualified professionals are used for this. Almost by definition, archaeologists will not find listed buildings highly historically significant compared with many of the heritage assets that they deal with. However, the historic significance of a listed building, conservation area, or Historic Park and Garden compared with archaeology is not of relevance here as they are designated for some very different reasons. As such, valuation of Grade II buildings should be
43 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
driven by ‘appropriate professional judgement’, and until this assessment has been undertaken, it is difficult to accept the proposed values in Table 5.2 in respect of Grade II listed buildings.
4.2.38 In terms of undesignated and unknown archaeological assets the criteria for assessing magnitude of impact to heritage assets outlined in Table 7.18 is considered to be acceptable.
4.2.39 It is considered important that National Grid makes use of Conservation Principles, produced by English heritage in and particularly the sections on Heritage Values, Assessing Heritage Significance and Managing Change to Significant Places. Any assessment of heritage significance in the EIA should be clearly informed by paragraphs 30 to 60 of Conservation Principles and must evaluate significance by closely following the guidance in paragraphs 61 to 83 of the same publication. Particular attention should be focussed on paragraphs 76-77 of the 2008 publication, so that matters of setting and the physical context of the area are considered.
4.2.40 The consideration of the contribution made to the significance of a heritage asset by other heritage assets as outlined in paragraph 7.5.20 is welcomed.
4.2.41 When assessing the magnitude of impact it will be important for the assessment and assignment of magnitude to take account not just of the scale of change, but also whether the change affects the significance of the asset (as defined by NPPF). There are instances where a partial change to elements or setting may affect the most important elements of the significance; or where relatively large changes affect elements which contribute little to the significance of the asset. In these instances it would be appropriate to apply professional judgement to the assignment of the magnitude of impact beyond the descriptive example criteria.
4.2.42 The assessment of effects on the World Heritage Sites should take account of ICOMOS guidance “Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties” (2011). This guidance is of particular relevance when considering the effects of development on the World Heritage Site and its Outstanding Universal Value as a whole. The principles within the document and how it is related to the DMRB methodology should be identified.
4.2.43 Given that any subsequent application is likely to result in proposals that deliver some level of harm to some of the immediate and wider setting of the heritage assets identified; so any supporting Heritage Statement must clearly outline any public benefits associated with the proposal that will be required in order to offset such harm.
44 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Methodology for Assessing Setting
4.2.44 The use of the Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 to guide the assessment of effects on the setting of heritage assets is welcomed. The relationship between the process of assessment of effects on setting and how the DMRB assessment criteria is applied to the assessment will need clear explanation to ensure the relationship between the magnitude of impact and the effect on the significance of the heritage asset from a change to setting is understood.
4.2.45 When assessing the setting of heritage assets particular attention should be paid to views identified in relevant policy documents, management plans and appraisals as outlined in paragraph 8 of the Good Practice Advice Note 3, in addition to the setting(s) identified through site visits. The consideration of setting and potential effects should also take account of non-visual characteristics of the setting where this is appropriate.
4.2.46 It is stressed that when developed, any assessment applied to listed buildings, conservation areas and historic landscapes, must be undertaken by someone with appropriate qualifications and experience in order for a robust assessment to be made. For example, there is an obvious need for experts who are qualified and experienced in assessing the impact upon the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas and in assessing the contribution of those settings to the significance of each Heritage Asset. In the absence of such ‘appropriately qualified professionals’, it is considered that there cannot be confidence in the adequate settings of listed buildings and Conservation Area.
4.2.47 Due to the potential numbers of designated assets that may be identified as requiring assessment it is strongly recommended ongoing consultation is implemented with consultees to ensure the assessment of assets remains proportionate. This is of relevance where the proposed use of a Digital Terrain Model (base-earth model) is proposed to be used for the ZTV, rather than a Digital Surface Model (which would take into account significant blocks of woodland, built environment etc) and could initially lead to the inclusion of assets unlikely to be affected. This screening process should be enhanced by use of the Virtual Reality model and close collaboration with the LVIA specialists.
4.2.48 The presentation of the assessment of effects on setting within the ES chapter should be carefully considered. The rationale for exclusion of assets from assessment should be clearly presented and justified, particularly where assets may fall within the ZTV. Where assets are affected the
45 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
assessment should focus on providing “a clearly expressed and nontechnical narrative argument that sets out ‘what matters and why’ in terms of the heritage significance and setting of the assets affected, together with the effects of the development upon them” (Good Practice Advice note 3, page 7). The assessment should be supported by technical analyses as required. Figures and illustrative material should be used to support these. Consultation should be undertaken with prescribed consultees to confirm the nature and extent of supporting documentation required to be submitted with the ES.
4.2.49 Close liaison with the LVIA is recommended to make best use of the ZTV, virtual reality model, ground truthing of visibility, selection of viewpoint locations, photomontage locations, wireframe and virtual reality model outputs.
Additional Archaeological Investigation
4.2.50 The undertaking stated in paragraph 7.5.28 that further archaeological investigations are likely to be carried out in particular areas is accepted. These particular areas are most likely to be where there is considered to be a high archaeological potential or where the physical impact of the development will be substantial.
Mitigation
4.2.51 The hierarchy of mitigation to be employed on the Project is considered to be appropriate.
4.2.52 The objective of design mitigation where impacts cannot be wholly avoided should be not only to avoid substantial harm, but to minimise harm to heritage assets where practicable (paragraph 7.6.4). The avoidance of direct physical impacts can be employed not only for designated sites, but also non-designated assets (paragraph 7.6.5).
4.2.53 As identified in paragraph 5.5.14 an outline CEMP which includes good practice mitigation measures to be implemented will be produced and submitted with the ES. The Historic Environment good practice mitigation measures should be included within this CEMP or as a separate document. Whatever form the Historic Environment good practice mitigation measures take they need to be outlined in a clearly identified document to be updated and ultimately approved by relevant authorities as a legal requirement and binding on National Grid.
46 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.2.54 When considering Design Mitigation within the EIA the chapter will need to present compelling evidence as to the efficacy of design mitigation. It will need to address the iterative design process that has been followed and demonstrate how the final design is the optimal viable solution for the asset in question. Consultees should be involved in this iterative design process.
4.2.55 The consideration of bespoke mitigation measures should include consideration of appropriate compensation measures such as well as reduction measures.
4.2.56 In terms of good practice mitigation outlined in paragraph 7.6.7 of the Scoping Report the PPA Group, must be appropriately involved in the CEMP (as set out in paragraph 4.2.56), furthermore, the LDNPA should be included in this paragraph.
Approach to Inter-relationship Effects
4.2.57 The consideration of inter-relationships with the LVIA chapter is identified as requiring specific consideration in the Scoping report. The consideration of inter-relationships should consider the potential effects on heritage assets which include but are not necessarily limited to, World Heritage Site and buffer zone, candidate World Heritage Site, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefield and Conservation Areas, particularly where there is a relationship between the potential effects on the historic landscape features and overall landscape character. There may also be an inter-relationship between the setting of the asset (the surroundings in which the asset is experienced) and the potential of the asset to attract visitors and its amenity value.
4.2.58 The consideration of potential inter-relationship effects between the maritime historic environment and historic seascape and the Historic Environment assessment has not been specifically identified. The potential for inter-relationships between these aspects will need to be specifically identified and considered. Potential for inter-relationships should be considered with particular reference to effects on prehistoric archaeological remains.
4.2.59 Paragraph 5.8.10 identifies that additive effects (whereby a number of non-significant effects within a particular area contribute to a significant effect) will be considered within each topic chapter. The Historic Environment Scoping chapter does not specifically address the issue of additive effects other than to note within the responses to the PPA Scoping workshop response (Table 7.1) that they will be considered throughout the assessment. The ES chapter will need to clearly outline how additive effects have been identified and considered within the chapter and present these results. This will be particularly important when considering additive effects and different effects such as
47 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
sequential effects in relation to designated heritage assets will need to be clearly described and how these have been reduced or avoided through design mitigation measures. The consideration of additive effects on the World Heritage Site and its Outstanding Universal Value should take into ICOMOS guidance “Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties” (2011) into account.
Cumulative Effects
4.2.60 The Scoping chapter has identified within Section 7.8 that an assessment of cumulative effects will be included in the historic Environment assessment. It is understood from paragraph 5.9.6 and Chapter 20 that this assessment of cumulative effects will be reported in a separate chapter. The ES chapter should include clear signposting to this assessment.
4.2.61 The consideration of potential cumulative effects of development has initially been identified as consideration of developments within 5km of the Scoping corridor, although this will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The consideration of developments should be cognisant of the approach outlined in Section 5.9 and the consideration of developments between 5km and 10km will need to be considered where potentially significant effects on the setting of assets of Very High and High value up to 10km from the Project are identified.
4.2.62 The Historic Environment assessment should take account of and liaise with those completing the LVIA cumulative assessment. The consideration of potential cumulative effects from other vertical infrastructure is an area where particular benefit will be derived from joint consideration of data.
4.2.63 The methodology for completing the cumulative assessment, criteria and weighting to be applied to new developments will need to be clearly explained within the ES chapter. It is recommended consultees are involved in discussions regarding the cumulative assessment once further information on the range of potential assets to be affected and new developments are identified.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.2.64 A number of categories of effects resulting from project related activities on Historic Environment receptors have been scoped out of the assessment and are considered not to require further assessment. These effects have been identified in Section 7.9, Appendix 7B and Chapter 19.
48 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.2.65 While we do not disagree that the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (WHS) should be scoped out in the paragraphs where suggested (paragraph 7.9.4/7.9.9/7.9.13). However, the current text is ambiguous and it needs to be made clear in the text which WHS is being referred to. The Frontiers of the Roman Empire WHS and the nominated Lake District WHS should be clearly differentiated.
4.2.66 The list of potential effects to be scoped out of the EIA within Section 7.9 and Chapter 19 are considered to be appropriate and justification has been provided to support their exclusion from the EIA process. It is noted in paragraph 7.9.15 this is an iterative process and assets may be scoped in or out of the assessment during the EIA process.
4.2.67 It should be noted that both Section 7.9 and Chapter 19 describe the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site as being located approximately 100km from the tunnel infrastructure; whilst the main body of the World Heritage Site correlating with Hadrian’s Wall may be c. 100km from the proposed tunnel infrastructure, the World Heritage Site includes dispersed elements which extend as far south as Ravenglass c. 40km from the tunnel infrastructure. This is included for clarification and the proposal to scope this effect out of further assessment is still considered to be appropriate.
4.2.68 Appendix 7B is inconsistent with the information presented in Section 7.9 and Chapter 19 with regard to the effects of tunnelling activities during Construction. Section 7.9 and Chapter 19 identify above ground construction activities associated with tunnel construction will be assessed as part of the EIA with the exception of effects on the World Heritage Site and Registered Park and Garden (due to distance between the activities and assets). Appendix 7B identifies effects on all heritage receptors are considered not relevant or insignificant and have been scoped out. The approach within Section 7.9 and Chapter 19 is considered to be the appropriate approach and the table in Appendix 7b should be amended.
4.3 Terrestrial and Avian Ecology (Chapter 8)
Introduction and Consultation
4.3.1 Chapter 8 provides a very detailed and comprehensive scoping for the assessment of ecology. This chapter includes terrestrial ecology above Mean High Water Springs and both terrestrial and marine ornithology. It might be considered beneficial to separate the avian assessment into another
49 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
chapter on Ornithology as this is a significant part of the assessment with regards ecology due to the vertical structures involved in this development and potential effects on marine and terrestrial birds.
4.3.2 It appears that there are a number of errors of detail in the appendices; e.g. table 8.40 non- statutory designated sites within 1km of subsection H3 refers to Heysham Moss – land adjoining SSS BHS as 'golf course, notable for strip of herb rich sandy grassland…'. This is not factually correct and should be corrected within the ES.
4.3.3 Table 8.1 provides a summary of consultee comments and responses, and in response to LaCC suggestion that common toad surveys should be considered, the applicant states that specific surveys are not currently planned but good practice mitigation measures will be included in the CEMP. This may be sufficient, depending on the presence/ absence of toad breeding ponds and terrestrial habitat, the nature of the development, timing of works, etc. However, common toad is a Species of Principal Importance in England (section 41 NERC Act 2006), and significant adverse effects cannot be ruled out at this stage or on the basis of generic best practice mitigation during construction (e.g. impacts on hibernation/ foraging habitat, severance of migration routes may need bespoke mitigation).
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.3.4 These sections provide a clear and comprehensive scope of the extent of the ecology study areas and existing environments being addressed. It is welcomed that feedback provided during consultation and technical meetings appears to have been taken on board throughout this chapter. However, regarding the study area for Natterjack toads are also wide-ranging and could be included within the 500m search area for the substations (paragraph 8.2.6).
4.3.5 Paragraph 8.2.6 sets out the study area for field survey for receptors, but appears to refer to protected species only. Species of Principal Importance are mentioned as key receptors at 8.3.35 however, although paragraph 8.5.13 suggests that no targeted surveys for priority species would be carried out. As noted, the need for targeted surveys for priority species cannot automatically be ruled out at this stage.
4.3.6 It is considered that although the ‘Zones of Influence’ for biodiversity species is a proportionate response and in line with guidance it is important that any additional areas and/or species identified during the EIA process will require adequate survey and assessment. The iterative approach to
50 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
design and assessment means that this situation may arise and should be overtly included in the EIA scope. Similarly, for habitats, if additional areas outside the current project survey areas become included in the iterative design process additional survey and assessment would be required.
4.3.7 Paragraph 8.2.6 states that surveys for roosting bats (bullet point 7) would be 'focused on potentially suitable features within scoping corridor that are likely to be directly impacted' and paragraph 8.5.27 states that no attempt is being made to identify all potential bat roosts within a given distance of the scoping corridor, with the emphasis on features likely to be directly impacted. However, the ES should additionally consider the potential for indirect effects on both bat roosting and foraging/ commuting habitat within the zone of influence of the various elements of the proposals.
4.3.8 More information is required related to the use of bat surveys to generate baseline evidence to enable full evaluation of the impact on these protected species.
4.3.9 It is considered that there is a lack of reference to Hen Harrier, Goose and swan bird zones. This issue is further highlighted in paragraph 4.3.19.
4.3.10 In Cumbria, the review of County Wildlife Sites (CWS) has not been completed. Consequently not all sites that meet CWS standard are identified. It should be noted that in some instances, lack of CWS status does not preclude a site from meeting this standard and should be afforded that same consideration.
4.3.11 It should be noted that the designated section of the River Ehen SAC is not actually within the Scoping Corridor but the lower reaches where it meets the River Keekle and flows downstream to the coast is of significance as it allows the passage of migratory fish up the river towards Ennerdale (paragraph 8.3.6). Atlantic salmon are an essential part of the lifecycle of freshwater pearl mussels and hence any potential obstruction to this migration could result in a significant effect on the SAC further upstream. Therefore it is considered that this site should be scoped into the assessment. And in reference to paragraph 8.3.17 it is suggested that Himalayan Balsam and Cotoneaster species are also likely to be present. Furthermore, it is considered that the combined impacts of developments such as Moorside/Haverigg windfarm should be considered.
51 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.3.12 Table 8.2 lists potential impacts during construction, operation and decommissioning of the works. The tunnelling operations and any horizontal directional drilling (HDD) may also have more acute noise and vibration impacts on, for example, migratory fish, which might result in injury.
4.3.13 The table in Appendix 8D, under the ‘Principal Project Element – Underground cables’ row lists of 5 activities under in the ‘Activity’ column. We understand that not all activities are included in this table. However, we consider that two activities which could lead to significant biodiversity impacts are missing and should be added: drainage; disposal of waste spoil.
4.3.14 In addition to the direct impacts of soil stripping to install underground cables, installation of drainage may be required to create suitable ground conditions and potentially large volumes of excess spoil could be produced. Both could have significant direct and indirect consequences for biodiversity.
4.3.15 Disposal of waste spoil is included as an activity under the ‘Tunnel’ section of this table. It would be inconsistent not to include this in the ‘Underground cables’ section.
4.3.16 In the same table an additional activity that we consider should be included under the ‘Tunnel’ section is ‘Create shaft-head island(s)’. The creation of these could significantly impact directly or indirectly on biodiversity, particularly on the Morecambe Bay SAC notified features and bird species.
Assessment Methodology
4.3.17 It is considered that the methodology conforms with current best practise, legislation and guidelines, and provides detailed information on the assessment process.
4.3.18 Paragraph 8.5.2 Point 5 should also refer to South Lakeland Core Strategy policy CS8.4
4.3.19 Paragraph 8.5.31 refers to otter and water vole survey where impacts on potentially suitable habitat is considered likely. The applicant should be aware that water vole have been recorded in suboptimal habitats, and the absence of water vole from affected water courses should not be assumed on the basis of an assessment of habitat suitability only.
52 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.3.20 Section 8.5.62 states that IEEM guidelines are being followed for the assessment. In terms of valuation, the IEEM guidance include a number of other facets of evaluation which are highly relevant in the National Park and should be included in the scope of the ecology assessment.
4.3.21 In particular the assessment should include the value/significance of undesignated areas of habitat:
in relation to habitats networks and connectivity;
with secondary or supporting value (for example, areas that provide a buffer and protect a designated site);
with good potential for restoration to favourable condition (for example peatland areas) should be considered; and
with local community and socio-economic benefits (for example, local green space/habitat with local importance for wildlife experience).
4.3.22 These could all affect the assessment of impact, and the need for mitigation or compensation.
4.3.23 Ii is considered that a legacy from this project should be the sharing of biodiversity survey data from this large scale and geographically spread project would be a valuable addition to records for Cumbria. We would like to see the sharing of this data via the Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre at an appropriate time.
Mitigation
4.3.24 It is considered that the development of this ‘corridor’ scheme provides an excellent opportunity to enhance and/or create new wildlife habitat linkages within the coastal zone of Cumbria, as part of the mitigation for the scheme. This must be considered through the EIA process as the project develops.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.3.25 Paragraph 8.9.2 considers the potential effects during each stage of construction, operation and decommissioning of the scheme. There is however not any mention of potential maintenance work effects on ecological receptors during operation of the overhead transmission lines and underground cables. This needs to be addressed.
53 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Commentary on Chapter 8 Figures
4.3.26 The ES states that figures 8.1 – 8.12 identify statutory and non-statutory designated sites. The version of these maps that I have seen does not appear to identify non-statutory (Local Sites – BHS in Lancashire), although it is noted that these are listed in the appendices.
4.3.27 Figure 8.14-8.16, the search area for the Workington area substation extends right up to the River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC /SSSI on the floodplain. Any proposed development located here would require an Assessment of Likely Significant Effect and possibly full Appropriate Assessment. It is not considered suitable to locate the substation adjacent to a Natura 2000 site. The search area then extends southwards to the Hen Harrier Protection Zone located at the southern end of the search area. Although outside the actual search area the potential for impacts on hen harriers using this area needs to be assessed, as the boundary itself does not mean they will not be using other areas in this vicinity.
4.3.28 The B1 corridor then passes directly through the middle of the hen harrier protection zone between Lillyhall and Branthwaite, crossing rush pastures, heathland and marshy grassland etc which all appear shown as improved grassland on the API maps even though this is clearly not the case when using the aerial photographs on MAGIC.
4.3.29 Figures 8.26-8.34 the desk based API Phase 1 habitat surveys appear potentially very unreliable as most of the fields are shown as arable or improved on these Figures. Some areas which are known to support semi-improved, marshy grassland or rush pasture etc have been checked and these are coming up as improved or arable on the Figures in 8.26 to 8.34, even though they appear less improved on MAGIC. Very few semi-improved or unimproved fields, rush pasture or marshy grassland areas have been detected at all using this API desk method. There is generally less than 1% semi-improved and marshy grassland indicated on the maps for any of the sections through Cumbria (apart from 8.1.229 where there is 51% marshy grassland recorded). The accompanying text has indicated that the majority of the habitats are likely to be improved grassland or arable, which may not actually be the case. Please note that we have only checked one section of the corridor against the MAGIC aerial photographs.
4.3.30 These maps do not consistently appear to show all the watercourses across the corridor, and not all ponds/waterbodies are shown as blue in the Figures.
54 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.3.31 It is essential that this desk based technique is followed by field checks as it is anticipated that some of these fields will be of greater ecological interest than suggested.
4.3.32 Figure 8.8 - 8.12 records indicate natterjack toad in Broughton Moor Ponds and Pond 2. We believe great crested newt is present in some of these ponds but we are not aware of natterjack toad at this inland location.
4.3.33 Figures 8.39-8.4, these Figures show protected species survey maps indicating the scope of surveys for breeding birds, overwintering birds, reptiles and dormice. We could find no corresponding text in the scoping chapter to explain the extent of the two areas chosen for the overwintering bird survey road transects, other than mention that NE and RSPB had been consulted with regards the ornithological surveys. The zones studied do not include land along the coastal hinterland near Allonby Bay, Allerby and Oughterside, and there are no transects indicated on the eastern side of the Duddon estuary or on the Furness peninsula on the western side of the Morecambe Bay in the search area where the tunnel head is potentially going to be located. There may be reasons for not including these coastal areas but it is not explained in the text.
4.3.34 In addition there are no overwintering bird surveys indicated for the hen harrier protection zone east of Workington, which is an important area to cover, particularly as the corridor passes directly lengthways through the centre of the site, following the existing 132kV overhead line. There appear to be no overwintering surveys for any of this B1 corridor.
4.3.35 There really needs to be a section in the text to explain the reasons behind the geographic extent of the ornithological surveys (and for each case why these zone of influences have been adopted) so we can understand the reasons why some areas of potential importance have not been studied.
4.3.36 The colour code for dormouse surveys is misleading as it is very similar to the working search area proposed around Cavendish Dock.
4.4 Traffic and Transport (Chapter 9)
Introduction and Consultation
4.4.1 Chapter 9 of the Scoping Report sets out the proposed approach to the assessment of potential effects and their likely significance on land-based traffic and transport due to the NWCC Project. It
55 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
is noted that a separate Transport Assessment (as described in paragraph 9.5.18), will be produced to support the DCO, and will be developed in consultation with the relevant highway authorities.
4.4.2 A Traffic and Transport scoping workshop was held on 6 May 2015 and it is welcomed that table 9.1 of the Scoping Report confirms that road traffic surveys will be conducted in September 2015 and that 5 year personal injury collision data will be obtained and reviewed as requested during the consultation.
4.4.3 It is suggested that LLWR should be added to the list of non-prescribed consultees given the scale of the proposed development and the imminent planning application.
4.4.4 It is considered to be reasonable to scope out operation at this stage based on the assumptions regarding works/activities arising; however, this may need review should the project design alter any of these assumptions.
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.4.5 It is noted that the Study Area for roads will comprise the Scoping Corridor as well as roads on which, as a result of the NWCC Project, there could be a significant increase in traffic or HGV flows. It is agreed that this is likely to comprise the road network west of the M6 between junctions 34 and 44. Additionally, the study area should also include all rural back roads including minor fell roads to assess potential increase in flows for displaced traffic due to congestion and short cuts.
4.4.6 Cumbria County Council has identified a number of ‘sensitive’ highway routes in the context of the Moorside NSIP Project. The potential highway demands and therefore potential impacts are likely to differ from those from the NWCC project; however, it may be helpful to share this information with National Grid. Furthermore, it is agreed that for rail, the Study Area will comprise the Scoping Corridor as well as railway lines where a material impact on freight or passenger services could occur as a result of the Project. This approach is welcomed; however, the relevant members of the PPA Group should be fully involved in establishing the final Study Area.
4.4.7 It is agreed that rail study area at this stage should include Cumbrian Coast Line, Furness Line, Leeds / Lancaster to Morecambe Line and WCML. Furthermore, it is also agreed that the rail study area at this stage should include operational railheads / sidings and sidings that could be reinstated, and study area at this stage should include Workington, Millom, Barrow and Heysham.
56 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.4.8 It is suggested that the statement, ‘the line is not heavily used’ (paragraph 9.3.37) is misleading given the proposed use by NuGen, West Cumbria Mining and others. Furthermore, it is suggested that the railway lines could also be used for transport of ‘construction workers’ (paragraph 9.3.38).
4.4.9 Regarding Section A Moorside to Whitehaven access points on B5292, C4015, B5345 and local roads, consideration should be given to avoiding HGV movements on unsuitable local roads, and generally to avoiding peak times of highway demand, avoiding vehicle movements within concentrated periods of time where practicable, and spreading highway demand where practicable to reduce and /or eliminate transport impacts. Similar consideration is required for;
Section B Whitehaven to Aspatria access points on B5301, A596, C2037, A66, A595 and local roads;
Section C Aspatria to Harker Substation access points on local roads;
Section D Moorside to Silecroft access points on B5344 and local roads;
Section E Silecroft to Lindal in Furness access points on A595 and local roads; and
Section H Lindal in Furness to Middleton Substation access points on A590.
4.4.10 There are a number of minor errors in the summary of railway stations as follows;
Table 9.18, the railway station is Kirkby – in – Furness, not ‘Kirkby’.
Table 9.19, - the railway station is Cark (in Cartmel) and not ‘Clark’.
Table 9.19, - the railway station is Kents Bank and not ‘Kent Banks’.
4.4.11 It is considered that paragraph 9.3.3 should be revised to adequately provide an assessment of cumulative impact and reference the consecutive developments seeking to utilise rail capacity which will have implications for anticipated road/rail modal splits. Also it should emphasise the relationship of road/rail uses to issues of noise, vibration and air quality, and the impact of improvements to road and rail infrastructure required to accommodate development.
4.4.12 It should be noted that Burgh Road and local road in Rockcliffe are in Section C not Section B (Table 9.4).
57 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.4.13 Paragraph 9.3.37 introduces the rail network in the local area. Whilst the Cumbrian Coast Line Railway is not heavily used presently, demand for rail capacity will increase steeply as a number of major developments in West Cumbria are developed. This includes; NuGen’s Moorside Project, West Cumbria Mining’s coking coal extraction proposals, United Utilities Thirlmere Transfer water pipeline project, the Low Level Waste Repository works at Drigg, and Sellafield site projects. All these developments have cited rail as key to their delivery and/or future operation. Additionally, current rail freight demand forecasts show cumulative demand ramping steeply from 2017 peaking in 2019 and sustaining into the early 2020s. Cumulative demand will exceed the line’s current capacity, requiring investment in additional rail infrastructure. The Line has full rail connections at Port of Workington which are the subject of proposed improvements utilising HM Gov’s Local Growth Fund. It is understood the rail access to Barrow Port does not fully penetrate the Port facility but could be reinstated. As well as the single line section between Sellafield and Whitehaven, there is also a single line section at Parton, and some lengthy signalling sections on the northern sections of the line, all of which can limit the Line’s capability to absorb extra demand without investment in additional infrastructure. The PPA Group supports the position that the Line, with appropriate investment, is very well suited to handling bulk freight traffic including construction materials, etc for major developments most of which appear to have broadly concurrent timescales. For power line implementation, it may be possible for the rail industry to develop temporary lineside ‘railheads’ to serve areas of land where road access is constrained and where no railheads presently exist.
4.4.14 It is unclear why Silverdale station is cited as being on the Cumbrian Coast Railway Line (paragraph 9.3.50).
4.4.15 It is considered that it may also be possible for the rail industry to construct a temporary rail line and railhead which may operate in conjunction with facilities at Barrow Port to serve the proposed tunnel head at Roosecote Paragraph (9.3.61-64). It is considered that there is a lack of reference to to development proposals within Sellafield which will have consequences for rail and road networks. However, the recognition of need to keep baseline conditions reviewed in the light of other developments and changes highlighted in 9.3.70 is welcomed.
4.4.16 Paragraph 9.4.3 refers to Appendix 9C, however, there is no Appendix 9C, and it is considered that the reference be to Appendix 9B instead.
58 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Assessment Methodology
4.4.17 Where practicable, National Grid should also liaise with other developers proposing to place a demand on rail capacity to identify where common / mutually beneficial investment can be directed to deliver the necessary capacity / operational flexibility.
4.4.18 With reference to point 9 of paragraph 9.5.11, the South Lakeland Core Strategy (ref. 9.15). Note that this was adopted in October 2010. Paragraph 9.5.11 refers to Policy CS10.2 –Transport Impact of New Development. Reference should also be made to Core Strategy Policy CS10.1 – Accessing Services, as this refers specifically to ‘supporting the transfer of freight movements, particularly improvements to the rail freight network’.
4.4.19 The use of rail or marine transport to transport materials and waste is supported, as it has the potential to reduce the number and / or mileage of lorry improvements on the highway network, which would minimise the potential effects.
4.4.20 It is suggested that survey information on damage to highways as a result of construction traffic has normally been addressed by condition on mineral applications involving quarry traffic.
4.4.21 It is considered that the receptor sensitivity table (Table 9.20) is logical and seems the best way to assess any potential impacts.
4.4.22 It is considered that Chapter 9 fails to link the impact of project traffic and transport on tourist traffic (all modes of transport) and tourists. These impacts may have knock-on impacts to the local tourism offer and economy. These should be referred to and if necessary socio-economic impacts should be further explored further in Chapter 16.
Mitigation
4.4.23 Bespoke mitigation is likely to also include rail infrastructure improvements as well as highway infrastructure improvements as appropriate (paragraph 9.6.8)
Cumulative Effects
4.4.24 It is considered that cumulative effects may also need to consider major developments which are not ‘committed’ in the normal sense of the word (i.e. having obtained planning approval) given the variety of planning processes that may apply to these developments, in order that significant
59 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
effects are not overlooked which may have a material impact on the NWCC project, particularly where these developments are all seeking to exploit the same transport facilities including port and rail capacity.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.4.25 It is considered reasonable to scope out Operation and Decommissioning at this stage based on the assumptions regarding works and activities; however, this may need review should the project design alter any of these assumptions.
4.5 Construction Noise and Vibration (Chapter 10)
Introduction
4.5.1 Chapter 10 sets out the proposed approach to the assessment of the likely significant effects of the NWCC Project on sensitive receptors from audible noise and vibration due to the construction and decommissioning phase of the development. This section should ensure that the impact of noise and vibration from any development activity required to upgrade rail, road or port infrastructure needed to enable construction of principal development is considered.
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.5.2 Due to the close proximity of the Roosecote Tunnel Head to the boundary of South Lakeland District Council and the predicted increase in traffic flow in the area bringing in equipment and materials further discussions should be had with Environmental Health with regards to local noise surveys, traffic routes and late-night vehicle movements of abnormal loads. Details of mitigation measures shall be provided to Environmental Health. It is likely that piling will take place at Roosecote and perhaps in other regions for the pylon foundations. Any sensitive locations should be discussed with the Environmental Health Department and a noise and vibration management plan produced and agreed by Environmental Health.
4.5.3 Chapter should consider the impacts from alteration, rationalisation and any additional works required to ENW network. Also this assessment should cover the consequences of construction process if alternatives to overhead lines are found to be required to enable mitigation.
60 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.5.4 There are local quarries in the area that may be used to provide rock for the temporary surfaces and roads. Further details should be provided when known of the chosen quarries in the South Lakeland District. Their increased use is likely to have impacts including increasing traffic, further blasting and vibration.
4.5.5 Similarly any landfills that become engaged in taking spoil that are in the South Lakeland District shall be identified and the environmental impact assessed with regards to traffic movement, dust and noise.
4.5.6 As previously agreed sensitive receptors such as schools, care homes etc shall be given extra consideration and if necessary background noise surveys shall be carried out with liaison with Environmental Health and mitigation measures put in place if necessary.
4.5.7 Details shall be provided of any noise impact considered with the development of the rock islet located in the centre of Morecambe Bay. Although at considerable distance night time works with the potential for sound carrying over a large reflective plain may cause noise nuisance. Further details of the construction method and noise levels shall be provided to the Environmental Health Department.
4.5.8 The Scoping Report does not go into detail with regards to security and site lighting. Any compounds likely to be manned at night in sensitive locations likely to cause nuisance to residential dwellings shall be subjected to a Lighting survey. The locations and scope of a lighting assessment shall be agreed with Environmental Health.
Assessment Methodology
4.5.9 It is noted that National Grid have reviewed a number of adopted local planning policies related to noise and vibration. It is vital that emerging local policies are also monitored and should be added to the review as they emerge. For example, South Lakeland District Council is in the early stages of preparing a Development Management DPD, which may include policy material relating to noise and vibration. WHO Guidelines for Community Noise should be added to the list at paragraph 10.5.3.
4.5.10 It is considered that in Table 10.1 residential receptors should be allocated ‘high’ sensitivity and not medium. This is especially important close to works. Duration of effects can also be a key issue for vibration and should be considered in terms of interventions for residents above suggested
61 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
notice/warning. It is also suggested that there is potential for weakened and vulnerable structures to suffer damage below levels quoted. ES needs to consider whether this is an issue.
4.5.11 The Scoping Report states that effects assessed as ‘major’ will be considered to be significant for EIA purposes, and impacts assessed as moderate may be significant, based on professional judgement. It is considered that ‘moderate’ should be a consideration for EIA purposes as standard.
Cumulative Impacts
4.5.12 It should be noted that there are a number of areas where cumulative impact may be an issue, one such is on the A596 where a number of complaints have been received by the Local Authority related to heavy use of the route for HGV timber traffic.
4.6 Operational Noise and Vibration (Chapter 11)
Introduction and Consultation
4.6.1 Chapter 11 sets out the proposed approach to the assessment of the likely significant effects of the NWCC Project on sensitive receptors from audible Noise and Vibration due to the operation of the proposed electricity transmission equipment when energised and in service.
4.6.2 National Grid held a scoping workshop on 21 May 2015 to consider consultees informal view on the proposed scope of the Operational Noise assessment. The PPA Group welcomed the opportunity to informally engage with National Grid and it is considered that ongoing discussion will be an important will be an important aspect in the continued development of the NWCC Project.
Existing Environment
4.6.3 It is considered that the operation of ventilation, cooling fans, overhead cabling, switches, standby generators are likely to add to noise levels if present in the locations set out paragraph 11.3.3 – 4 and 11.9.11 and it is therefore considered to require assessment (please note comments in 4.6.7).
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.6.4 The Scoping Report in paragraph 11.4.3 suggests that operational vibration had been scoped out of the assessment, and reactors will be placed on anti-vibration mounts to minimise vibration. If this is
62 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
acceptable a mechanism must be put in place to ensure that this takes place so that all mitigation is submitted and approved prior to construction.
Assessment Methodology
4.6.5 The minimum background noise levels set out in paragraphs 11.5.7, 11.5.11 and 11.5.24 require further consideration as they may not be true if noise has an acoustic feature (i.e. rating levels are higher), and therefore recommended that actual measured background/ambient noise levels are determined for Heysham receptor sites affected by proposal.
4.6.6 Table 11.2 categories residential receptors as ‘medium’ sensitivity, however, it is suggested that this group of receptors should be moved to the ‘high’ category.
4.6.7 It is understood that National Grid will undertake background noise surveys at a number of locations in the NWCC Study Area. It is considered that the applicant must agree the monitoring locations with the relevant PPA Group members before this work commences.
4.6.8 National Grid propose that baseline surveys will be carried out in the residential areas around the proposed substation and head house locations (paragraph 11.5.9). It is considered that periods of measurement need to reference requirements of relevant guidance, and care should be taken to ensure levels are representative (shorter periods may not provide this assurance). If any operations are daytime specific, then daytime assessment needs to be undertaken.
General Comments
4.6.9 It should be noted that full consideration is required concerning the topographical positions of site and receptors for noise assessment of noise at Heysham tunnel head/vicinity of tunnel head. Additionally, the scoping should reference consents/setting consents under Control of Pollution Act 1974 and take it into consideration.
4.7 Air Quality (Chapter 12)
Introduction and Consultation
4.7.1 Chapter 12 sets out the proposed approach to the assessment of the likely significant effects of the NWCC Project in isolation and in combination with other developments on air quality during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. It is considered that the proposed
63 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
methodology for the assessment of the impact of the development on air quality and the proposal to put forward mitigation is largely acceptable; however, there are a number of comments which should be taken into account in the ES. Furthermore, the PPA Group consider that ongoing engagement with the group and other key stakeholders will be key and an important component of in the development of the ES.
4.7.2 The ES must consider the impact of modal splits for movement of materials and people during the construction process.
Study Area
4.7.3 The Scoping Report proposes to assess the air quality impact of traffic on roads within the study area, which includes routes used by construction vehicles. It is important that through engagement with the PPA Group the assessment includes consideration of areas identified with potential issues, including the A590 through Ulverston as there are potential issues with air quality here (monitoring location N41 - County Road / Victoria Road junction).
Existing Environment
4.7.4 Routing of haulage traffic is key to considering the air quality impact of the proposed development and especially when considering the areas likely to experience intensive and long term construction, such as the tunnel heads at Barrow and Heysham.
4.7.5 The Scoping Report States in paragraph 12.3.15 that in South Lakeland, the closest monitoring point to the development area is location A1 in Kendal. It should be noted that there is in fact passive monitoring carried out in the Ulverston area and locations and results are available in reports on the SLDC website. The latest results can be obtained from SLDC. Additionally SLDC have produced a leaflet which outlines the thresholds agreed locally, above which an air quality assessment is required (appendix 1). These may differ from the thresholds specified in the Scoping Opinion and should be taken into account in the ES.
4.7.6 It is suggested that there is scope to share air quality data with NuGen to ensure consistency of baseline and analysis of impact and mitigation.
4.7.7 Due to future years construction and duration of the project outlined in paragraph 12.3.20 and 12.3.22 there is particular concern over the robustness of emission factors to predict future
64 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
concentrations. The methodology adopted therefore needs careful consideration and agreement to ensure a robust/worst case approach is adopted if modelling work is undertaken.
4.7.8 It is considered that National Grid should liaise with the relevant Local Planning Authority to ensure they are aware of any other developments in the area which should be taken into account in assessing the cumulative impact on air quality.
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.7.9 National Grid consider that there will be no significant sources of odour are expected during the construction, operation and decommissioning phase of the Project that could give rise to impact. Therefore, they have proposed to scope out the assessment of odour from the EIA (Paragraph 12.4.6). However, it is considered that there is a possibility that odourous material could be associated with arisings from tunnelling work and therefore needs consideration. More information is required to understand the potential impact; therefore, this cannot be scoped out at this stage.
Assessment Methodology
4.7.10 Lancaster City Council’s Development Management DPD Policy DM37 (paragraph 12.5.2) should be given consideration.
4.7.11 It should be noted that the indicative criteria for requiring an air quality assessment criteria in EPUK Guidance (May 2015) should be followed.
General Comments
4.7.12 There is no mention of any proposed air quality/nuisance dust monitoring requirements during construction phase or how use will be considered/triggered. This should be a consideration for the assessment and associated mitigation proposals. Furthermore, there is also no mention of alleviating dust/emissions associated with road based haulage by utilising available rail link.
4.8 Hydrology and Flood Risk (Chapter 13)
Introduction and consultation
4.8.1 Chapter 13 sets out the proposed approach to the assessment of the NWCC Project on the hydrological environment and the risk of flooding during the construction, operational and
65 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
decommissioning phases of the development. It is welcomed that the EIA will consider the decommissioning phase of the development in the analysis of flood risk, along with construction and operation.
4.8.2 It is suggested that more information is required as to the impact of underground cabling to mitigate other impacts, to enable a full assessment.
4.8.3 Table 13.2 includes an error related to a comment attributed to LaCC. This comment should correctly state that CCC & LaCC have recently been made statutory consultees to the LPAs and we will comment on surface water flood risk and implications for ordinary water courses. Additionally, both authorities will be responsible for issuing any LDCs.
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.8.4 The Scoping Report proposes a hydrological Study Area based on the Scoping Corridor with an 250m additional area to incorporate hydrologically connected water bodies. This approach to the study area is welcomed as a 250m scoping corridor around the development is considered to be sufficient to consider the hydrological connectivity and its associated impacts.
4.8.5 The Scoping Report should acknowledge the mine working legacy in many areas that has resulted in existing pollution incidents.
Assessment Methodology
4.8.6 It is considered that South Lakeland Core Strategy, Policy CS8.5 – Coast is also relevant to this topic, and as such should be considered to ensure that thorough and effective assessments of drainage impact and flood risks are carried out. Additionally, it is fully expected that Saved Local Plan policies will no longer be in force (or at the very least, the replacement policies will be at an advanced stage and will carry some material weight) come the time a planning application for this project is submitted (Paragraph 13.5.6 Point 4), and as such National Grid should monitor emerging planning policy over the course of the project development.
4.8.7 It is considered that the hydrological receptors discussed (aquatic environment, water resources and people, property and infrastructure) are appropriate and the receptor sensitivity criteria table (Table 13.38) is an accurate assessment of how to rank sensitivity. However, private domestic householder water resources need to be taken into account, properties that have non mains,
66 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
(private water supplies), where raw water quality are important. Furthermore, the magnitude of change table (Table 13.39) provides a good summary of how to assess the impacts of change on hydrology and flood risk.
4.8.8 It is noted that as the Project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project in Flood Zones 2 or 3; a FRA will need to be prepared to accompany the application for development consent. The PPA Group look forward to consultation with National Grid for the creation of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
4.8.9 It must also be noted that an Ordinary Watercourse Flood Defence Consent will be required prior to construction.
4.8.10 Local flood risk is not identified in the Scoping Report; however, it is recognised that practical issues may only be identified as detailed design progresses. As issues become clearer in later stages of the Project, they should be addressed through best practice and appropriate site-specific measures, and Land Drainage Consents where applicable. The appropriate members of the PPA Group should to be consulted on any such issues as they arise, so that the most up-to-date local information relating to flood risk can be used in assessment of risk and design options.
Cumulative Effects
4.8.11 The PPA Group welcomes that cumulative effects and in-combination assessment incorporating these and other relevant developments identified will be undertaken to accompany the EIA, and in particular, it is welcomed that the United Utilities West Cumbria pipeline will be considered when assessing flood risk.
4.9 Hydrogeology (Chapter 14)
Introduction and Consultation
4.9.1 The need for an assessment of the proposed the construction, operation and decommissioning phase activities is clearly recognised given that the project will inevitably involve some degree of interaction with groundwater.
67 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.9.2 Chapter 14 defines the Study Area for the hydrogeology EIA and summarises what existing hydrogeological baseline data is available. It outlines the potential effects that will be assessed by the Hydrogeology assessment and describes the additional baseline studies that will be undertaken to inform the EIA. Using the EIA methodology set out in Chapter 5, Chapter 14 describes the criteria and framework that will be used to assess the significance of potential hydrogeological effects. The approach that will be adopted towards design mitigation and Good Practice Mitigation is outlined clearly.
4.9.3 The collaborative approach taken during the scoping document preparation is evident from the regular cross-referencing between chapters. This approach will be important during the ES preparation.
4.9.4 The following additional investigations / assessments are expected to inform the EIA:
Table 1 Additional investigations/assessments expected to inform the EIA
Assessment Detail
Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA) for The HIA will be undertaken in line with the Environment potential dewatering activities associated with Agency Guidance entitled “Hydro geological impact the proposed tunnel beneath Morecambe Bay. appraisal for dewatering abstractions”, reference Science Report – SC040020/SR1, dated April 2007. WFD assessment As the scope of the WFD assessment is relevant to more than one chapter (Hydrology and Flood Risk, Hydrogeology, and Marine Environment), it will be prepared as a separate report. The WFD assessment is discussed further in Chapter 13. Piling risk assessments Piling risk assessments will be undertaken in advance of construction in accordance with the EA guidance “Piling in layered ground: risks to groundwater and archaeology” (2006) and “Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention” (2001).
68 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
WFD assessment report A WFD assessment report that will span several different EIA topic areas, including Hydrology and Flood Risk, Hydrogeology, the Marine Environment, Terrestrial and Avian Ecology to be prepared. Hydrogeological Desk Study A detailed hydrogeological desk study will be prepared to inform the EIA CEMP A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) will be prepared in support of the ES.
4.9.5 The Scoping Corridor has been used as a basis for the hydrogeology Study Area. This may change as it is defined in detail. Consideration should be afforded to how this might impact on individual assessments (i.e. it may be appropriate to source information for a larger area than the current scoping corridor). At present a provisional Study Area defined by the Scoping Corridor plus adjacent land up to 500m from the Scoping Corridor boundaries will be adopted for the majority of the Project, with the exception of subsections H1 and H3 which contain potential tunnel entry points. The approach to be taken is broadly acceptable to us, provided there is remains a level of flexibility that should works become more intrusive, or the area in question be considered more sensitive the search area can be extended beyond the proposed 500m.
4.9.6 The tunnel design and methodology for construction has yet to be defined. It may be prudent to agree the extent of the Study Area with the Planning Authority before completing the hydrogeology assessment.
Existing Environment
4.9.7 This section provides a clear description of the area to be considered as part of the assessment. The following comments are focused on subsections that may require further consideration.
Subsection A1
4.9.8 There are three recorded industrial groundwater abstractions near to Beckermet, between 600m and 700m to the east of the Scoping Corridor. Despite the works proposed in Subsection A1 are expected to be related to the construction of overhead power lines and accompanying infrastructure works, it is possible depending on the scale of abstraction, aquifer properties and flow direction that the abstractions identified could interact with the Scoping Corridor.
69 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Consideration will be afforded whether or not to assess the risk to these abstractions in detail within the ES Chapter on Hydrogeology.
Subsection A2
4.9.9 The hydrogeology is complex in this area, with multiple bedrock units and superficial cover. There are known historical landfill operations, open cast coal and iron ore mining within 250m of the Scoping Corridor. Consideration should be afforded within the ES Chapter on Hydrogeology to identified contaminant activities that could affect the site during construction.
Subsection B1
4.9.10 The hydrogeology is complex in this area, with extensive faulting, multiple bedrock units and superficial cover. There are extensive areas of surface and underground coal mining. The Scoping Corridor crosses Keekle Head former opencast site, which is an un-restored site with an outstanding Enforcement Notice. The EA advises that the site contains buried spoil, and may suffer from environmental issues related to mine water. Other potentially contaminative land use in Subsection B1 includes a lime kiln, a quarry and former railway land. Moresby Railway Junction historical landfill is located adjacent to, but outside, the Scoping Corridor. Consideration will be afforded to the use of design mitigation to minimise the risk of drawing contaminated groundwater towards the Study Site. Such mitigation should be incorporated into the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
Subsection B2
4.9.11 Baseline groundwater quality monitoring should be considered within subsection B2 given the known groundwater quality issues relating to an extensive legacy of coal mining, Royal Armaments Depot and landfilling within the Study Area (other potential historical contamination activities noted). Blooming Heather Landfill is understood to fall within the Scoping Corridor. As such careful consideration of the risks associated with this site and potential pathways for contamination should be identified within the ES Chapter on Hydrogeology.
Subsection B3
4.9.12 Carr Wood is a Part IIA Contaminated Land site that is located immediately adjacent to the south of the Scoping Corridor. Baseline groundwater quality monitoring should be considered within subsection B3 given the known acid mine drainage and potential pathways associated with
70 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
historical extractive industries. Careful consideration of the risks associated with this site and potential pathways for contamination should be identified within the ES Chapter on Hydrogeology.
Subsection C1
4.9.13 There is a known SPZ is present at Low Scales, in the south of Subsection C1. This is believed to be related to a drinking water abstraction operated by United Utilities. There are other potential domestic / farming scale abstractions within close proximity to the Scoping Corridor. Consideration as to how these abstractions might be affected should be considered within the ES Chapter on Hydrogeology.
Subsection C2
4.9.14 There are known groundwater abstractions and industrial activities within the Study Area, the latter of which have the potential to act as a source of contamination to groundwater. Consideration will be afforded to the use of design mitigation to minimise the risk of drawing contaminated groundwater towards the Study Site. Such mitigation should be incorporated into the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
Subsection D1
4.9.15 We agree that given the continuity of the sandstone aquifer in this area the Study Area should be extended in Subsection D1 to include the groundwater abstraction at Calder Bridge. There are known historical activities that have the potential to act as a source of contamination to groundwater within the Study Area. The risk of these historical activities, including two active landfills related to Sellafield impacting groundwater within the Scoping Corridor should be assessed. Consideration should be afforded to the use of design mitigation to minimise the risk of drawing contaminated groundwater towards the Study Site. Such mitigation should be incorporated into the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
Subsection D2
4.9.16 No comment.
71 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Subsection E1
4.9.17 Part of the Study Area overlaps with an area that may have undergone metalliferous mining. This should be investigated further and assessed within the ES Chapter on Hydrogeology.
Subsection E2
4.9.18 There are known quarries, tanks, graveyard, and historical iron ore workings within subsection E2. Numerous mine entries, mine workings and spoil heaps are present in the area. Two historical landfills (Broughton Refuse Tip and Kirkby Refuse Tip) are located within the Scoping Corridor. An active landfill site (Old Chapel Works) is located adjacent to, but outside of, the Scoping Corridor. As per previous sub-sections containing potential contamination sources consideration should be afforded to the use of design mitigation to minimise the risk of drawing contaminated groundwater towards the Study Site. Such mitigation should be incorporated into the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
Subsection H1
4.9.19 Subsection H1 will be the site of the western entrance for the proposed tunnel. Groundwater control works are expected to be required in this area. National Grid is planning on completing a HIA in line with the Environment Agency Guidance entitled “Hydrogeological impact appraisal for dewatering abstractions”. The assessment findings will need to be incorporated into the the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
4.9.20 There are multiple commercial abstractions within 500m of the Scoping Corridor and a significant public drinking water abstraction(s) from groundwater in Barrow-in-Furness (3km north of Scoping Corridor) and its source protection zone (SPZ3) extends into the Scoping Corridor. The risk to these receptors should be addressed and fully quantified by the hydrogeological impact appraisal.
4.9.21 Historical iron ore workings, a graveyard and mineral extraction (sand and gravel) has taken place in this area. There are a large number of historical landfills that fall within the Scoping Corridor and all of these require consideration within the ES assessment on hydrogeology. Additionally, there still is sand and gravel extraction ongoing in this section of corridor.
4.9.22 The potential for ground / landfill gas migration towards the tunnel should be considered as part of the ES assessment.
72 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Subsection H2
4.9.23 Subsection H2 is situated entirely beneath Morecambe Bay. Detailed desk studies and ground investigations will be undertaken to inform tunnel design. This information should be used to inform the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
Subsection H3
4.9.24 A tunnel entrance will be located in Subsection H3. As per Subsection H1, groundwater control works are expected to be required in this area. National Grid is planning on completing a HIA in line with the Environment Agency Guidance entitled “Hydrogeological impact appraisal for dewatering abstractions”. The assessment findings will need to be incorporated into the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
4.9.25 There are known historical landfills that have the potential to act as a source of contamination to groundwater within the Study Area. The risk of these historical activities should be fully addressed by the ES assessment on hydrogeology.
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.9.26 Section 14.3.1 summarises the likely hydrogeological receptors that could be affected by the proposed development. These include:
Principal, Secondary A, Secondary B, and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers (both solid and superficial);
Groundwater that is abstracted as public drinking water i.e. the SPZ in the Study Area for Subsections C1 and H1;
3 Industrial groundwater abstractions in Study Area Subsections A1, B1, C1, C2, D1, and H1; and
Private groundwater abstractions.
73 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.9.27 A screening exercise using hydrogeology specific scoping tables have been used to identify and categorise potential impacts associated with the development. The main potential effects are listed in Section 14.4.5 as:
Release of pre-existing ground contamination to groundwater;
Risks to receptors from pre-existing groundwater contamination;
Release of contamination to groundwater from construction activities (e.g. the storage and use of fuels);
Physical effects on groundwater resources (including abstraction yields) due to changes to groundwater levels or flows (excluding groundwater control for the tunnel;
Dewatering at the tunnel entrances and islet/temporary shafts;
Physical or chemical effects on groundwater associated with the tunnel;
Discharge of groundwater arising from construction dewatering and groundwater control operations.
4.9.28 It is considered that these likely potential effects are acceptable
Assessment Methodology
4.9.29 This methodology conforms to current best practise, legislation and guidelines, and provides detailed information on the assessment process. It should be noted that the EIA will only consider effects to the hydrogeological environment relating to pre-existing contamination as constructing infrastructure on third party land does not bestow any statutory (or other) responsibility on the infrastructure provider to remediate pre-existing groundwater contamination. This will not be the case where National Grid owns the land (14.5.14).
4.9.30 We welcome the fact that targeted ground investigation and groundwater quality testing may be undertaken to ensure that there is a sufficient level of information to inform the EIA (14.5.20). This information may be important in quantifying the impact of dewatering on known abstractions (i.e. in subsection H1 etc.). Quantitative hydrogeological risk assessments will be undertaken in relation
74 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
to potable groundwater abstractions (both SPZ and any private abstractions) if the desk study and baseline information indicates that there is the potential for a significant effect on these.
4.9.31 It is considered that South Lakeland Core Strategy, Policy CS8.5 – Coast is also relevant to this topic, and as such should be considered to ensure that thorough and effective assessments of drainage impact and flood risks are carried out. Additionally, it is fully expected that Saved Local Plan policies will no longer be in force (or at the very least, the replacement policies will be at an advanced stage and will carry some material weight) come the time a planning application for this project is submitted (Paragraph 14.5.7 Point 4), and as such National Grid should monitor emerging planning policy over the course of the project development.
4.9.32 There must be consideration of consequences for substation design in areas adjacent to Sellafield in terms of groundwater flows and movement of historic contamination. It is suggested that more information is required as to the impact of underground cabling to mitigate other impacts, to enable a full assessment.
4.9.33 We would question the neutral impact on pre contamination as not significant as there may be cumulative pollution issues (paragraph 14.5.14).
Hydrogeological Impact Assessment for Dewatering
4.9.34 The proposed use of the EA guidance document “Hydrogeological impact appraisal for dewatering abstractions” conforms to current best practise, legislation and guidelines, and Sections 14.5.21 – 14.5.28 provide detailed information on the assessment process to be undertaken. As suggested in Section 14.5.27 - It will be important that a dialogue specific to the HIA is established with the EA in order to confirm the most appropriate tier for each location and identify groundwater-dependent conservation sites / ecosystems. This will be an important consideration in terms of Inter- relationship effects.
Mitigation
4.9.35 This addresses linkages between different topics and is considered to be a suitable approach to provide a robust assessment.
75 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Approach to Inter-relationship Effects
4.9.36 The approach to cumulative effects is considered to be satisfactory. We would stress the importance of sharing information between the different specialism’s and would recommend cross discipline communication. Section 14.7.5 details how potential impacts identified within the hydrogeology chapter will be shared with other specialism’s who would use this to inform their assessments of effects on this receptor.
4.9.37 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) promotes a holistic approach to the management of groundwater, and establishes a system for the protection and improvement of all aspects of the water environment including rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater. Consideration should be afforded to how best this will be achieved across disciplines, to ensure that ‘minor effects’ from a hydrogeology perspective are not ruled out early on, as these minor effects may have a more significant impact on other specialism’s (i.e. ecology / aquatic ecology).
Cumulative Impacts
4.9.38 The approach to cumulative effects is considered to be satisfactory. The Scoping Report suggests that the cumulative impact of the proposed development will be undertaken for developments within a 2km radius of the Scoping Corridor, although the distance over which cumulative effects are considered will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for different receptor types (paragraph 15.8.1). The case-by-case approach is welcomed.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.9.39 The approach to scoping our activities that do not have the potential to impact hydrogeology should be clearly documented and appended to the ES for clarity. The proposed approach / methodology to scoping out assessments are considered to be satisfactory.
4.10 Geology and Soils (Chapter 15)
Introduction and consultation
4.10.1 The need for an assessment of the proposed construction, operation and decommissioning phase activities is clearly recognised given that the project will inevitably involve some degree of interaction with the geological and soil environment. The Chapter covers the following five sub-
76 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
disciplines: land contamination; ground stability; geo-conservation; agricultural land & soils and minerals protection.
4.10.2 The introduction clearly outlines the methodologies that it will use to assess the potential effects associated with each of the above sub-disciplines and each sub-discipline is discussed in its own merits. The data sources that will be consulted are clearly outlined for each of the sub-disciplines and are considered appropriate to their respective assessments. Consideration should be afforded to the use of aerial photography, as it may assist with identifying areas of current and historical contamination.
Study Area
4.10.3 The Scoping Corridor has been used as a basis for the Geology and Soils Study Area. The approach to be taken is acceptable, and maintains a level of flexibility that permit consideration of wider affects should they become relevant.
Existing Environment
4.10.4 This section provides a clear description of the area to be considered as part of the assessment. The following comments highlight the main potential considerations in each subsection.
Subsection A1
4.10.5 No significant issues expected in relation to the five previously defined sub-disciplines in this subsection.
Subsection A2
4.10.6 The hydrogeology is complex in this area, with multiple bedrock units and superficial cover. There are two known historical landfill operations and one active landfill, a large open cast coal mine and historical iron ore mining within 250m of the Scoping Corridor. This is expected to afforded consideration in the land contamination and ground stability sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
77 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Subsection B1
4.10.7 There are extensive areas of surface and underground coal mining in Subsection B1. The Scoping Corridor crosses Keekle Head former opencast site, which is an un-restored site. The EA advises that the site contains buried spoil, and may suffer from environmental issues related to mine water. Other potentially contaminative land use in Subsection B1 includes a lime kiln, a quarry and former railway land. Moresby Railway Junction historical landfill is located adjacent to, but outside, the Scoping Corridor.
4.10.8 There are five opencast coal mines, including 45 mine entries recorded entirely or partially within the Scoping Corridor in Subsection B1. The latter is expected to afforded consideration in the land contamination and ground stability sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
4.10.9 Subsection B1 contains Saw Mill Quarry RIGS, a designated site for its geology / palaeontology. This is expected to afforded consideration in the geo-conservation sub-discipline of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
Subsection B2
4.10.10 Subsection B2 has known groundwater quality issues relating to an extensive legacy of open cast coal mining, including 45 mine entries recorded. A Royal Armaments Depot and landfilling is known to have taken place within the Study Area (other potential historical contamination activities noted). Blooming Heather Landfill is understood to fall within the Scoping Corridor. These issues are expected to afforded consideration in the land contamination and ground stability sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
Subsection B3
4.10.11 Carr Wood is a Part IIA Contaminated Land site that is located immediately adjacent to the south of the Scoping Corridor. Careful consideration of the risks associated with this site and potential pathways for contamination should be identified within the ES Chapter on Geology and Soils. Subsection B3 contains several former quarries, a tile works and landfills. Given the legacy of coal mining in this subsection issues are expected to afforded consideration in the land contamination and ground stability sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
Subsection C1
78 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.10.12 No significant issues expected in relation to the five previously defined sub-disciplines in this subsection.
Subsection C2
4.10.13 There are known industrial activities within the Study Area including several sewage works, a tar distillery, a bone manure works, railway land, historical and an active landfill, a corn mill, and an area containing tanks. Orton Moss is a designated SSSI, but is believed to fall outside of the Scoping Corridor.
Subsection D1
4.10.14 There are known industrial activities within the Study Area including Sellafield Works, two active landfills related to Sellafield, a sewage works, and several small historical quarries / clay pits. Subsection D1 contains the majority of the Banks of the River Calder is designated as RIGS on the grounds of its geological and geomorphological features. These issues are expected to afforded consideration in the land contamination and geo-conservation sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
4.10.15 The Scoping Report (paragraph 15.3.77) makes reference to the CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (2010) Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Submitted Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map (Regulation 30). However, this is an old policy document and the EIA needs to take into account the February 2015 Minerals and Waste Local Plan and its Site Allocations (although site M15, extension to Peel Place Quarry is still included).
Subsection D2
4.10.16 Historical metalliferous mining may have occurred in parts of subsection D2. Available information suggests that there is the potential for ground instability relating to metalliferous mining in the area around Whicham. Annaside and Gutterby Banks SSSI are located within the Study Area. Subsection D2 is within the LDNPA, which has designated sand and gravel deposits as a Mineral Safeguarding Area. These issues are expected to afforded consideration in the ground stability, geo-conservation and minerals protection sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
79 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Subsection E1
4.10.17 The primary historical industrial land use within Subsection E1 appears to be localised areas of quarrying. Part of the Study Area overlaps with an area that may have undergone metalliferous mining. The latter may raise the potential for land and groundwater contamination as well as instability. Grass Guard, Po House and Whinney Bank Quarry (both RIGS) are located within the Study Area.
4.10.18 The Scoping Report (paragraph 15.3.91), refers to site M17, which was allocated in the last MWLP in Feb 2015, however, this will be removed next time as the site has gained planning permission for that area.
Subsection E2
4.10.19 There are known quarries, tanks, graveyard, and historical iron ore workings within subsection E2. Numerous mine entries, mine workings and spoil heaps are present in the area. An area of potential instability relating to quarrying (slate) is also recorded by Arup, to the east of Kirkby-in- Furness.
4.10.20 Two historical landfills (Broughton Refuse Tip and Kirkby Refuse Tip) are located within the Scoping Corridor. An active landfill site (Old Chapel Works) is located adjacent to, but outside of, the Scoping Corridor.
4.10.21 Eccle Riggs Bank Quarry is designated as a RIGS. These issues are expected to afforded consideration in the contaminated land, ground stability and geo-conservation sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
4.10.22 The Scoping Report (paragraph 15.3.101), reference is made to the CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (2010) Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Submitted Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map (Regulation 30). However, the February 2015 Minerals and Waste Local Plan and its Site Allocations. Additionally, site M5 is still in the Feb 2015 MWLP.
Subsection H1
4.10.23 Subsection H1 will be the site of the western entrance for the proposed tunnel. Historical iron ore workings, a graveyard and mineral extraction (sand and gravel) has taken place in this area. There are a large number of historical landfills, a sewage works, and operating gas terminal, and the
80 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Power Station (that is in the process of being dismantled) fall within the Scoping Corridor. The historical mining and quarrying may increase the potential for ground instability in this Subsection. Additionally, there still is sand and gravel extraction ongoing in this section of corridor.
4.10.24 Bolton Heads and Redman Hall Wood Limestone Pavement are protected under an LPO. South Walney and Piel Channel Flats SSSI is located adjacent to the west of the Scoping Corridor. These issues are expected to afforded consideration in the contaminated land, ground stability and geo- conservation sub-disciplines of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
4.10.25 The Scoping Report (paragraph 15.3.114), reference is made to the CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (2010) Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Submitted Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map (Regulation 30). However, the February 2015 Minerals and Waste Local Plan and its Site Allocations. It’s also not clear in this paragraph that Roosecote sand and gravel quarry is operating.
Subsection H2
4.10.26 Subsection H2 is situated entirely beneath Morecambe Bay, where the primary contamination risk Is expected to be the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) offshore and sediment within the bay may also have been affected by contamination associated with varied historical shipping inputs.
Subsection H3
4.10.27 A tunnel entrance will be located in Subsection H3. There are known historical landfills, Nuclear Power Station, a mill, railway land, potential contamination from former petrochemical and nitrate fertiliser industries, and several backfilled quarries within the study area. Heysham Head & Red Nab RIGS is located within the Study Area.
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.10.28 A screening exercise using Geology specific scoping tables have been used to identify and categorise potential impacts associated with the development. The main potential effects are broken down into the five sub-disciplines and are listed in Section 15.4.5 – 15.4.11 as:
Land Contamination - We agree that these are the likely land contamination potential effects. It is unclear how contaminated land associated with industrial sites, landfill or mine workings will be dealt with should they be encountered and require removal and disposal off site;
81 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Ground Stability - We agree that these are the likely ground stability potential effects;
Geo-Conservation - We agree that these are the likely geo-conservation potential effects;
Agricultural Land - We agree that these are the likely agricultural potential effects; and
Minerals Protection - We agree that these are the likely minerals protection potential effects.
Assessment Methodology
4.10.29 This methodology conforms to current best practise, legislation and guidelines, and provides detail on what guidance information will be used to prepare each of the five sub-discipline assessments. Effects will be considered in relation to each of the three key phases - construction, operational and decommissioning.
4.10.30 It should be noted that the EIA will only consider effects to the geological and soil environment relating to pre-existing contamination as constructing infrastructure on third party land does not bestow any statutory (or other) responsibility on the infrastructure provider to remediate pre- existing land contamination. This will not be the case where National Grid owns the land (14.5.18).
4.10.31 We welcome the fact that targeted ground investigation and groundwater quality testing may be undertaken to ensure that there is a sufficient level of information to inform the EIA (15.5.21). Each sub-discipline will be informed by detailed baseline desk study assessments. These baseline assessments will support of the ES Chapter on Geology & Soils.
4.10.32 In paragraph 15.5.7 reference is made to Policy C8 of the South Lakeland Local Plan (2006), however, this policy has been superseded by South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.4 – Biodiversity and geodiversity. Additionally, it is fully expected that Saved Local Plan policies will no longer be in force (or at the very least, the replacement policies will be at an advanced stage and will carry some material weight) come the time a planning application for this project is submitted (Paragraph 13.5.6 Point 4), and as such National Grid should monitor all emerging planning policy over the course of the project development.
4.10.33 It is suggested that more information is required as to the impact of underground cabling to mitigate other impacts, to enable a full assessment.
82 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.10.34 Paragraph 15.5.17 states that an assessment of the effects relating to pre-existing contamination will be undertaken in general accordance with “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. It sets out National Grid’s understanding of this approach and states that it is not directly applicable the EIA for the NWCC project, as constructing infrastructure on third party land does not bestow any statutory (or other) responsibility on the infrastructure provider to remediate pre-existing contamination. However, it is considered that this view requires revision. For “contamination” to require mitigation (i.e. remediation in Part 2a/CL) the development must be capable of completing a contaminant linkage – normally be introducing a receptor, but occasionally by creating a pathway, e.g. deep piling or altering the source, by exposing it at surface by a reduced level dig say. The point regarding bestowing no duties should be discussed with a legal advisor. A developer, or contractor, can - by introducing a receptor – create or form a contaminant linkage and potentially be held liable as a Class B person under Part 2A (see the Circular Industries case from 2007). Until such agreement is reached it is considered require pre-existing contamination to be assessed and remediated as necessary.
4.10.35 National Grid state in paragraph 15.5.19 that the assessment of land contamination will be restricted to effects associated with soil contamination and ground gas. It is considered that land contamination effects on controlled waters will require assessment, however, it is understood that the Environment Agency are the regulator for this aspect of development. It is vital that there is continuing dialogue with the PPA Group and other key statutory bodies to ensure that methods are appropriate and to ensure if any, information held may be of relevance to the Desk Study (PRA) and also to agree the scope of any site investigations. It is considered that it is beneficial in terms of time and cost to undertake contamination testing, if necessary, contemporaneously with any geotechnical SI.
4.10.36 Additionally, it must be noted that ecological system effects are considered under Part 2a legislation as a receptor.
Mitigation
4.10.37 This addresses linkages between different specialisms and is considered to be a suitable approach to provide a robust assessment.
83 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Approach to Inter-relationship Effects
4.10.38 The approach to cumulative effects is considered to be satisfactory. We would stress the importance of sharing information between the different specialism’s (inter-topic effects) and would recommend cross discipline communication.
Cumulative Effects
4.10.39 The approach to cumulative effects is considered to be satisfactory. The project will include a consideration of cumulative effects associated with other developments within and beyond the Scoping Corridor, up to a distance of 2km.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.10.40 Section 15.9 details the circumstances in which potential effects will not require further assessment. The approach to scoping out activities that do not have the potential to impact Geology and Soil should be clearly documented and appended to the ES for clarity. The proposed approach/ methodology to scoping out assessments are considered to be satisfactory.
4.10.41 Mineral safeguarding is noted as a key issue, and the approach and the matrix used to determine significance of effects appears appropriate. However, paragraph 15.9.2 (4) appears to say mineral sterilisation will be scoped out of the ES, which is at odds with the rest of chapter 15 of the Scoping Report. We would expect the EIA to include a full assessment of potential impacts on the receptors described (including MSAs, and active/inactive quarries). In respect of minerals sterilisation, As well as the document listed, the EIA should have regard to NPPG and relevant planning policy.
4.10.42 It should be further noted that mineral safeguarding may need to be addressed in the supporting statement for the planning application, depending upon the outcome of more detailed investigation of the issue. It may be that ground investigations are justified should circumstances warrant it.
4.11 Socio-economics, Recreation and Land Use (Chapter 16)
Introduction and Consultation
4.11.1 Chapter 16 sets out the proposed approach on onshore socio-economic, recreation and land use features and existing and potential future land uses during the NWCC Project. It is noted that the chapter includes an assessment of the works associated with the construction of the proposed
84 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Morecambe Bay tunnel, including the associated creation of employment during the construction phase, however, offshore socioeconomic and recreation effects will be dealt with separately in Chapter 18: Marine Environment of the ES.
4.11.2 Table 16.1 (last row) relates to consultation response from Cumbria Tourism and should be revised. It suggests that there is potential for displacement as workers leave industry to take up NG jobs, but then says that NG construction jobs very specialised. Also surely displacement wider than just tourism industry. This is repeated in table 16.2.
Data Sources
4.11.3 National Grid are currently collecting the socio-economic baseline data for the assessment and have requested stakeholders provide any additional references or data sources. This needs to be an ongoing process to ensure that update and relevant data is used in the ES.
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.11.4 National Grid propose a two tier approach to the study area with a Local Area of Influence (LAI) and a Wider Study Area (WSA). The LAI is based on the scoping corridor with a buffer of 250m, and the WSA includes all local authorities over a wider area reflecting labour markets and drive times. It is suggested that the WSA makes allowance for drive times of between 30-60 minutes,
4.11.5 The baseline data is noted and it is welcomed that the dataset covers housing and social infrastructure given the potential impact of the NWCC Project and the needs of construction workers on local housing markets and services. Appendix 16C Paragraph 16.1.1 sets out a number of key receptors including ‘strategic economic development sites’. While consideration of development sites is welcomed, it is considered that this list is very limited and the definition of ‘strategic’ is unclear and will vary across the area. As such all development sites including residential should be considered. Additionally, Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) appear to be missing from the maps, and a number of errors in the descriptions that should be corrected, for example, it should be noted that in paragraph 16.1.27 Crosby does not have a shop.
4.11.6 Further details regarding the expected NWCC Project workforce and skills is required to enable an informed consideration of the effects of development and potential mitigation measures required. The PPA group must be involved from an early stage in the development of a workforce profile and consideration of the socio-economic impacts that may result.
85 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Characteristics of Potential Effects
4.11.7 Paragraph 16.4.5 emphasises that there may be cumulative effects with other projects proposed in the area and especially the proposed Moorside Power Station. This emphasis is welcomed, and it is considered that there is potential that the cumulative impact of major developments will lead to significant effects across all EIA topic, with specific importance to socio-economic receptors.
Assessment Methodology
4.11.8 The Scoping Report provides a summary of relevant current and emerging local planning polices in paragraph 16.5.3, however, there are several additional plans that should be considered. These include the following adopted and emerging Plans;
LDNPA Allocations of Land (2013)
saved policies of the Lake District National Park Local Plan (1998)
LDNPA Minerals Safeguarding Areas (2013)
The Lancaster District Core Strategy (2008)
South Lakeland Local Plan Land Allocations (2013)
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2): Site Allocations Issues and Options (2014)
Barrow Borough Local Plan - Preferred Options Consultation Draft June 2015
Copeland Local Plan 2013-2028 Site Allocations and Policies Plan – Preferred Options (2015)
4.11.9 Where the development plan documents are emerging appropriate weight should be given to the policy based on its status, and this weight should be reviewed as the plan progresses. Furthermore, it is considered that additional policies from the South Lakeland Local Plan Land Allocations should be considered. Consideration should be given to the scope for the NWCC Project to sterilise areas to prevent scope for growth and development potential through land take, for example the land South Whitehaven highlighted in previous consultation.
4.11.10 Furthermore, we are strongly concerned that chapter 16 and the wider Scoping Report fails to include or consider the LDNPA ‘The Partnership Plan – the Management Plan for the English Lake
86 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
District, 2015-20’. The plan is the result of joint working by 25 organisations involved in management of the National Park. This is the statutory National Park Management Plan and needs to be recognised as such. The plan includes partnership policies and actions under four strategy sections: Spectacular Landscapes; Visitor Experience; Vibrant Communities; Prosperous Economy. Policy VE1– Opportunities for experiences in a unique landscape – is particularly relevant. Other policies and actions under each of the strategy sections (Spectacular Landscapes, Visitor Experience, Vibrant Communities, Prosperous Economy) should also be considered and included where relevant to recreation, visitor economy, local communities and land-use.
4.11.11 This plan should also be considered and included where relevant throughout the Scoping document. It is particularly relevant the sections on Landscape (Chapter 6); Historic Environment, including cultural landscapes (chapter 7); Ecology (Chapter 8) and recreation, visitor economy, and land-use (Chapter 16).
4.11.12 Table 16.3 provides an overview of the potential effects on socio-economic, recreational and land use receptors that are likely to require further assessment and the proposed approach to be undertaken. It is noted that the study area to measure the effects on visitor accommodation will be confirmed once more details are known regarding the employment levels, locations of construction and phasing of work. It is considered that this will be important to assessing the impact of the 1,500 workers generated by the NWCC project and as such this should be established in consultation with the PPA Group and other key stakeholders. Furthermore, it is considered that the study area used to examine the effects on local facilities and services should be established through consultation. More information is required regarding the types of accommodation used and if a dispersed model is used the effects will be felt out with the proposed 5km buffer.
4.11.13 With regards to socio-economics, the LDNPA consultation response (December 2014) noted that National Grid acknowledged that there is potential for the proposed overhead pylon technology to have an effect on the National Park’s tourism offer. It is suggested that this issues is also applicable across the NWCC Project route, and is a key issue that needs to be assessed through the EIA. However, National Grid have not provided definitive evidence to conclude on this matter. Therefore, the PPA Group are strongly concerned that the Scoping Report does not indicate or give confidence that this lack of evidence will be addressed or if the ES will be able to adequately consider this impact. In our opinion this is one of the greatest potential impacts on the enjoyment of the National Park and the tourism economy which underpins many local communities through the Study Area. A thorough understanding is critical to a full assessment of the proposals.
87 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.11.14 Furthermore, when considering the potential impacts on recreation it should be noted that the Lake District National Park and its setting, which extends beyond the National Park boundary, is of national importance for recreation and visitor experience. This underpins Cumbria’s important visitor economy and the jobs of many people in communities in and beyond the National Park. The main draw for visitors is the unique cultural landscape – which is the basis of the current proposal for World Heritage Site inscription. Again, we are strongly concerned that the significance of the National Park for recreation, unique visitor experiences and a thriving visitor economy is not included in the Scoping document. These omission lead to the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the NWCC project on these topics not being considered. These are major omissions that need to be rectified in the scope of the EIA. In particular the Scoping document should include:
recognition and assessment of the recreation value of the areas of the National Park and its setting that the development affects. This should go further than assessing only national footpath and cycle routes proposed in 16.3.2. This should consider impacts on the core attraction of the cultural landscapes of the National Park;
the importance of visitor access and recreation from informal use of PRoW and other access provision. The current approach, set out in Table 16.3 is to only consider specific tourist attractions. This ignores the importance of this widespread informal use;
recognition of the Cultural Tourism Strategy for the Lake District and assessment of potential impacts on its delivery;
assessment of the impact of the development on the receptors within the National Park and its setting;
assessment of the impact of the development on the visitor economy within the National Park and its setting;
the impact on these of design changes during the iterative design process, particularly if the transmission technology is changed (for example, use of underground cables);
4.11.15 Appendix 16C should also be amended to reflect these points (above). Currently this fails to recognise the importance of the cultural landscapes of the National Park for recreation and the
88 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
visitor economy. Key receptors should include informal access to experience these landscapes beyond just the national footpath and cycle routes.
4.11.16 It is unclear what assumptions have been made over local sourcing of materials, procurement and supply chain and assumptions over the socioeconomic impacts over alternative approaches to logistics/port use. Table 16.3 should also consider potential for positive impact in facilitating a robust electricity supply which is not currently available and enabling development/growth as a consequence – i.e. in Millom/Bootle.
4.11.17 It is understood that effects on planning locations will be considered based on up to date local plan or SHLAA (footnote 7), however, there are no SHLAA documents listed in the baseline and as stated above a number of adopted and emerging site allocation documents have been omitted. In order to assess the effect on planning allocations these documents will be required. In addition, the study area is proposed to comprise of sites crossed by (and adjacent to) the NWCC route. More information is required to define the ‘adjacent to’ and it maybe that a wider study area is required in some locations to reflect different land use allocations and the importance of some more strategic of sensitive allocation sites.
Mitigation
4.11.18 It is noted that National Grid intend to maximise procurement and employee from within the Cumbria and the North West (Paragraph 16.6.4), however, more information is required regarding the level of procurement/recruitment that will focus on the local area. Additionally, although the statement is welcomed it is considered that the ‘North West Region’ is too wide in the first instance and the opportunities should be focused on Cumbria and the areas of Lancashire in proximately to the route. More information is required to understand the skills and services that will be required, this is a priority to allow skills providers and workers to maximise the opportunities generated by the project. This process needs to be ongoing and fully involve the PPA Group, local businesses and skills providers.
4.11.19 As identified in paragraph 16.6.5 a CEMP which includes good practice mitigation measures to be implemented will be produced and submitted with the ES. In terms of socio-economic mitigation it is proposed that a Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Soil Management Plan (SMP) will be produced. The good practice mitigation measures should be included within this CEMP or separately, however
89 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
delivered the measures must be in a clearly identified document to be updated and ultimately approved by relevant authorities as a legal requirement and binding on National Grid.
4.11.20 Furthermore, it is understood that National Grid will seek agreements with businesses and landowners whose land is affected by permanent infrastructure. It is noted in paragraph 16.6.11 that National Grid also suggest that other bespoke mitigation/compensation measures ‘may include provision of facilities for worker employed during the construction phase’. More information is required related to this statement, in terms of the types of facilities (accommodation, services, depots, etc), scale and the locations of development. Also it is considered that these may be ‘associated development’ and as such should be included in the area of EIA scoping and ultimately the DCO.
Approach to Inter-relationship Effects
4.11.21 It is noted that this section refers to the inter-relationship effects with the Socio-Economic chapter and a number of other topics. We would stress that it is made clear how inter-relationship effects are dealt with and to avoid any overlapping assessment. It is noted that National Grid propose to address visual, noise, vibration and air quality effects experienced by sensitive receptors in the Planning Statement that will accompany the DCO (paragraph 16.7.3), however, it is considered that information is required within the ES with clear signposting and referencing of these issues.
Cumulative Effects
4.11.22 National Grid proposes to consider all major development within a radius of 20km LAI. This distance is considered to be too limited given the geography of the study area; therefore, it is welcomed that the distance of considering major development will be varied on a case-by-case basis. A limited number of major projects are highlighted in 16.8.3; however, this list is inconsistent with the list of major projects detailed in 5.9.7 that includes a number of major projects that warrant consideration. It is suggested that one comprehensive list should be developed highlighting the major projects, in addition to the key areas allocated for development in the adopted and emerging Local Plans. Furthermore, National Grid should ensure that the list is ‘live’ and regularly updated with projects identified by the stakeholder and the monitoring of planning application (as set out in paragraph 5.9.5). National Grid should work with the PPA Group, including the Cumbria Nuclear Transport Group to ensure that this list of major project is appropriate and regularly updated.
90 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.11.23 It considered that there will be additional impacts on housing availability, pressures for facilities/infrastructure in combination with NuGen impacts, and with concentration of tunnel workforce. It is suggested that there are benefits from collaborative working – and as such National Grid should consider how effects can be addressed and benefits provided in combination with other major schemes in the area and especially in relation to the proposed Nuclear Power Station at Moorside.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.11.24 It is understood that the full results of the screening exercise is set out in Chapter 19, however, the discussion of the proposed socio-economic effects not requiring further assessment during construction appear to be missing from chapter 16. In general more information is required to understand the effects across all phases of the project, such as a programme of the works, workforce projections, skills requirements and key locations.
4.11.25 National Grid propose to scope out the effects of construction and decommissioning traffic on the deliverability of sites allocated for development (chapter 16.9.10). This is not supported as it is considered the increased traffic, especially related to the areas of more intensive construction (tunnel heads) may impact on the marketability, viability and infrastructure requirements of allocated sites and therefore could undermine deliverability during the construction/decommissioning, and ultimately the deliverability during a Plan period.
4.11.26 It is noted that National Grid are not proposing to undertake a health impact assessment (HIA), instead addressing the effects of the NWCC Project throughout the EIA process. The PPA Group understands that this is not a legal obligation, however, it is considered that the applicant must be provide sufficient information and justification within the ES to demonstrate that health issues have been considered. It is considered that there is a need for HIA given the cumulative effects with other contemporaneous developments and given significant workforce issues which arise when NWCC are added to wider impacts.
4.11.27 If National Grid decide to submit a HIA the PPA group consider that the scope and methodology should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account project technology and mitigation measures.
91 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.12 Waste and Materials Management (Chapter 17)
Introduction and Consultation
4.12.1 Chapter 17 sets out the proposed scope of the Waste and Materials Management assessment in relation to the NWCC Project. It is understood that the quantities of material generated from the Project and in particular tunnelling, may be significant, with the tunnel alone, anticipated to generate approximately 1.2 million tonnes of arisings. Similarly, other significant material streams are anticipated to be generated by large volumes of aggregate used for the construction of temporary access roads and construction pads, plus steelwork, cabling and footings from dismantled overhead lines. If an alternative technology such as undergrounding is used the profile of waste streams is likely to be significantly different. The PPA Group must be involved in ongoing engagement and discussions on technology choice, and the implications for the waste generated for the NWCC Project.
4.12.2 It is considered that the Lowther Estate should be added to the list of non-prescribed consultees given their extensive mineral rights within the study area.
Study Area and Existing Environment
4.12.3 It is considered that the baseline for waste is comprehensive and appropriate for a project at this stage of development. Additionally, it is noted that there are close links to other topics in the EIA such Geology and Soils, and as such Chapter 15 is has been considered alongside the waste and materials management. However, it is considered that National Grid should also seek information on closed mineral sites that have not be fully restored such as Keekle head in Copeland.
4.12.4 The Cumbria Minerals & Waste Local Plan is listed and the Scoping Report (paragraph 17.5.17) suggests that this is an adopted document, however it is emerging and should be referenced as (latest draft is Feb 2015).
4.12.5 It should also be noted that the South Lakeland Local Plan was adopted in 1997 and amended in 2007 (paragraph 13.20).
92 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Assessment Methodology
4.12.6 We consider that significant biodiversity impacts could be caused through the disposal of waste spoil from the undergrounding of cables. This should be included as a potential impact in the scope of the EIA – see our comments above on Chapter 8.
4.12.7 The Scoping Report (paragraph 17.6.10) states that primary mechanism for delivering the proposed mitigation measures for the construction phase of the Project will be the CEMP. It is considered that the PPA Group is fully involved in the development of a CEMP and it is suggested that a draft CEMP should be consulted on in order to give stakeholders input and the opportunity to shape the final version.
Cumulative Effects
4.12.8 The list of future projects provided at paragraph 17.8.6 provides a number of projects that should be considered is welcomed. However, there are a number of omissions at this stage, and given the dynamic nature of project development it should be regularly monitored and updated by National Grid. The PPA Group have a key role in providing intelligence on projects as they emerge, and therefore it is welcomed that as stated in paragraph 17.8.5 developments to be included within the cumulative effects assessment would be settled in consultation with relevant local authorities. The final list of projects to be considered must be consistently adopted with the lists of major projects identified elsewhere in the Scoping Report, such as paragraph 16.8.3.
4.12.9 In the Scoping Report at paragraph 17.8.6, the Low Level Waste Repository is incorrectly referred to as a Depository.
Potential Effects Not Requiring Further Assessment
4.12.10 It is noted that although paragraph 17.9.7 states that with the exception of metal waste, the erection and connection of 400kV pylon structures will not generate any of the other waste types. However, as suggested in paragraph 17.9.9 reinforced concrete foundations will be required, in and this process will generate potential for waste in terms of soil and rock generated from the excavation of pylon bases.
93 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
4.13 Marine Environment (Chapter 18)
Introduction and Consultation
4.13.1 Chapter 18 sets out the proposed approach to the assessment of potential effects in the marine environment. The area of the Scoping Corridor that has the potential to affect the marine environment directly is considered to be anything located below mean high water springs (MHWS) and as such fall outside the planning areas of the PPA Group Authorities. It is noted that seascape is considered within Chapter 6 (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) and ornithology is considered with Chapter 8 (Terrestrial and Avian Ecology). This must be clearly referenced to ensure clarity in the ES.
4.13.2 A number of the Group have an interest in the Marine topic of the EIA given the interaction with terrestrial matters such as the human environment and socio economic issues, and the impact of construction and operation (from a landscape point of view) of the tunnel islet. The PPA Group understand that other statutory consultees, such as Natural England, Environment Agency, Marine Management Organisation and Historic England are better placed to make detailed comments across the scope of the Marine topic, however, there are a number of comments are provided on elements of the Marine topic that have been of interest to the PPA Group.
4.13.3 The potential impact of the islet (and the temporary shafts during tunnel construction) on the geomorphological processes within the estuary are assumed to be included here but the resulting indirect impact on the coastal environment, in particular the coastal saltmarsh (priority habitat) within the AONB should be included somewhere in this section. Comment also relevant to 18.2.2, 18.4.2, 18.4.38 - the indirect impacts of the permanent islet on the coastal habitats beyond the 5km radius should be considered. It is suggested that if 132 kV rationalisation is not possible and alternative means of securing robust local supply network is required (Section 18.3 – Impact on Duddon).
94 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
5.0 TOPICS TO BE SCOPED OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
5.1.1 Chapter 19 of the Scoping Report provides a summary (in table 19.1) of the topics that National Grid intend to scope out of the ES. The PPA Group welcome National Grid’s commitment to provide a focused ES that concentrates on the matters that are relevant and have a bearing on the project.
5.1.2 It is acknowledged that the scoping exercise has been undertaken based on the current level of design of the Project and knowledge of likely receiving environments and receptors. However, it is imperative that the scope of the EIA is fully kept under review, as stated, as the project develops. It is understood that the applicant is adopting a ‘dynamic’ approach to scoping topics out given the stage of project and baseline development. In order for this approach to be successful the PPA Group authorities will need to be kept fully informed of any cases where it becomes necessary to scope back in issues that are currently scoped out and indeed where it becomes apparent that effects considered as being potentially significant now can actually be scoped out later in the EIA process. Where matters are scoped out must be appropriately justified and ultimately confirmation is required from the Secretary of State. However, given that many details of the project are still being developed there are number of areas that suggest it may be premature to scope out topics.
5.1.3 This response provides an assessment of the effects to be scoped out on a topic by topic basis and as such reference should be paid to the specific concerns where they are expressed in this document. It is suggested that given the range and complexity of issues covered in each chapter it would be advisable to break the chapter structure down and detail this in the content or at least refer to main sub-headings, in the contents, mainly for ease of reference.
5.1.4 The rationale behind paragraph 19.1.6 is unclear. The paragraph explains that Chapter 5 sets out the justification for the scoping out of EMFs as the effects will non-significant, but goes on to point out the fact that Chapter 18 identifies potential EMF impacts on migratory fish. National Grid need to be clear as to whether EMFs scoped in or out of the EIA as a whole. Chapter 5 currently states that they are scoped out; however, chapter 18 suggests the potential for EMF effects on migratory fish is scope in. Clarity is required.
5.1.5 Table 19.1 page 19-6, top row of table: The ‘Effect to be scoped out of EIA’ cell states that ‘Decommission effects on landscape fabric such as trees’. The justification cell refers only to trees.
95 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
Thus, it is not clear whether only impacts on trees are scoped out or whether effects on the landscape fabric as a whole are scoped out.
96 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015 Scoping Response on National Grid’s NWCC EIA Scoping Report
6.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
6.1.1 The proposed structure for the ES is provided in chapter 20, along with a list of topics to be included in the ES for NWCC against each of the checklist of EIA topics as set out in Schedule 4, Part 1 of the 2009 EIA Regulations.
6.1.2 The proposed ES structure is provided in table 20.2 appears logical and provides continuity from the Scoping Report and the informal EIA scoping carried out by National Grid thus far. However, given the number of topics and complexity of the project, linkages between topics and mitigation must be clearly identified. More information on the structure of the topic based chapters is required as the project develops to enable full consideration and in order to develop the most appropriate and consistent chapter structure.
6.1.3 Furthermore, the PPA Group consider that the Non-Technical Summary (NTS) has a key role in the EIA process given it is likely to be the key document for many stakeholders and the wider community. Following this is it suggested that thought should be given to the length and complexity of the NTS to ensure it is accessible, while also fulfilling an important role in the EIA process. It is noted that the ES will provide a schedule of proposed environmental mitigation measures, including the proposed provisions to deliver and implementation. This is welcomed by the PPA Group; however, it is vital that National Grid undertake meaningful and early discussion with the PPA Group and other stakeholder in the development of the most appropriate technology and mitigation/compensation measures.
97 www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
PPA Group Authorities A072895 15/10/2015
Environmental Protection Air quality guidance for development
A guide for developers reduce levels of NO2 and have a duty to ensure any development on air quality supports this plan. This means considerations that air quality is a material planning consideration when What do I need to know looking at planning applications about air quality? submitted to SLDC. Whilst the AQMA applies only to Kendal, air Air quality can be a material quality is still considered for any planning consideration in the developments elsewhere in the Development Control process. district. New developments have the potential to negatively affect air We require all development to be quality. air quality neutral. The design and location of the In addition, certain regulated development might also be industries which create emissions relevant to avoid exposing people to air will need to apply for an to existing poor air quality in an Environmental Permit to operate. area. Impacts can come from This falls under the Environmental things like road traffic, biomass Permitting Regulations 2010. plant or industry. SLDC must also be informed (under the Clean Air Act 1993) of Is air quality a problem in the the installation of all non-domestic furnaces. South Lakes? Kendal currently has an Air What type of development Quality Management Area needs an air quality (AQMA) after monitoring showed assessment? high levels of Nitrogen Dioxide across the town. This is due to The following information acts as road traffic emissions. a guide and outlines how we assess each development. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a Potential developers should respiratory irritant which contact SLDC for advice and exacerbates asthma and guidance in the early stages of the increases susceptibility to process. infection. Any development meeting any of In response to the AQMA, we the following criteria will be have an Action Plan to try and required to complete a full air
Air quality guidance for development Environmental Protection
• Evidence of model How will the development be performance or validation assessed for its impact on results; air quality? • Details of any extra emissions The overall outcome of an air calculations; quality assessment is to find out • Input data sources including: whether the development will input parameters specific to have a significant impact on air the model and site, quality or whether the existing air meteorology (at least three quality environment is years data), traffic modelling unacceptable for the proposed data, air quality monitoring development. data, background The three main ways a concentrations etc; development may have an impact • Evidence that the street are: canyons on Lowther Street 1. If the development is likely to and Wildman Street in Kendal cause a deterioration in local have been taken into account; air quality (i.e. once completed • The years modelled and the it will increase levels of baseline chosen; pollutants); • Assessment against relevant 2. If the development is located air quality objectives; in an area of poor air quality (i.e. it will expose future • Model output data, on maps occupiers to unacceptable where appropriate – baseline, levels of pollutants); with and without development; 3. If the demolition/construction • Discussion of results; phase will have a significant impact on the local • Determination of significance; environment (e.g. through dust • Mitigation required / proposed; and exhaust emissions). • Conclusions. Environmental Protection Air quality guidance for development
The following flow chart shows how a development is assessed for how significant a consideration air quality issues may be:
Note: Where “significant” is used, it will be based on the professional judgement of the council’s officer.
What happens after the Instead officers will work with assessment is carried out? developers to look at ways of making sure the development has We will make recommendations a positive and beneficial impact based on the result of the flow on the environment. chart. This helps officers to decide In terms of air quality this might how the development will affect air through the development’s design quality. or by mitigation or off-setting measures arranged through Where air quality is a significant planning obligations or conditions. consideration, we won’t Only if a negative impact is automatically refuse development: predicted, despite mitigation each case will be assessed on an measures, will refusal be individual basis. considered. Air quality guidance for development Environmental Protection
Any development which results in • fleet operation strategy; an increase in emissions or introduction of new exposure to • incentives to take up low poor air quality will be required to emission technologies & fuels. mitigate this. The aim is to ensure all development is air quality Further Information neutral. Mitigation measures • South Lakeland District should be proposed as part of the Council website – information air quality assessment for and advice on planning and air agreement with the Local quality: Authority – ideally also calculating www.southlakeland.gov.uk the resulting reduction in emissions. Measures may • National Planning Policy include: Guidance (2012) – DCLG www.gov.uk/government/public • road network/junction ations/national-planning- improvements; policy-framework--2 • pedestrian/cycling • Land Use Planning and infrastructure; Development Control: • ELV charging points at houses Planning for Air Quality (2015) /on street; – Environmental protection UK and IAQM: • ELV fleet; www.iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance /iaqm-planning- • ultra-low emission service development.pdf vehicles/waste vehicles; • Defra guidance and air quality • car club; assessment tools: • travel plan; http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/ • bus service provision/low This information is for guidance emission buses; only, for further information or to discuss a potential development • contribution to existing please contact the Environmental measures/air quality Protection Group. monitoring; See contact details overleaf. • planting of species known to be most efficient at removing pollutants from the air;
From: Thomas Arculus To: Environmental Services Cc: Navigation Directorate Subject: EN020007 –NORTH WEST COAST CONNECTIONS – EIA SCOPING NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION Date: 16 October 2015 09:58:29 Attachments: 221525 2.pdf
Dear Sirs, Please find attached Trinity House’s response to your letter dated 18 September, Yours faithfully,
T.L.Arculus Trinity House
**********************************************************************
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses on behalf of Trinity House by the Symantec.Cloud Anti- virus Service.
This communication, together with any files or attachments transmitted with it contains information which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege and is intended solely for the use by the person(s) or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, publish or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please notify [email protected] and delete it from your computer systems.
Trinity House reserves the right to monitor all communications for lawful purposes. Receipt of this email does not imply consent to use or provide this email address, or any others contained therein, to any third party for any purposes. The contents of this email are protected under international copyright law.
To save energy and paper please print this email only if you really need to.
This email originated from: "The Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond" which is incorporated by Royal Charter in England and Wales. The Royal Charter number is RC 000622. The Registered office is Trinity House, Tower Hill, London, EC3N 4DH. Website: http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk
*********************************************************************
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.