West Cumbria Water Supplies Project– Thirlmere Transfer
United Utilities plc
Supplementary Information
Volume 2
Planning Application Consultation Responses
Revision | 0 29 July 2016
Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
West Cumbria Water Supplies Project - Thirlmere Transfer
Project no: B2707061 Document title: Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses Revision: 0 Date: 29 July 2016 Client name: United Utilities plc
Jacobs U.K. Limited 5 First Street Manchester M15 4GU United Kingdom T +44 (0)161 235 6000 F +44 (0)161 235 6001 www.jacobs.com
© Copyright 2016 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.
i
Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Consultation Responses ...... 2
ii
Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
1. Introduction
1) This Planning Application Consultation Responses report supports a planning application (the Planning Application) to the Lake District National Park Authority, Copeland Borough Council and Allerdale Borough Council (the Three Planning Authorities) for consent under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for development of a water supply connection from Thirlmere to West Cumbria. The proposal is referred to as the West Cumbria Water Supplies Project – Thirlmere Transfer Scheme (the Proposed Scheme). The application references for each of the Three Planning Authorities is, respectively, 7/2016/2027, 4/16/2108/0F1 and 2/2016/0045.
2) This report forms Volume 2 of the Supplementary Information submitted in July 2016 in support of the Planning Application. Other volumes of the Supplementary Information present details of proposed amendments to the planning application and consideration of their environmental effects (Volume 1), and further information regarding the assessment of alternatives to the Proposed Scheme (Volume 3).
3) The Three Planning Authorities have carried out extensive consultations with both statutory and non- statutory stakeholders. In turn, stakeholders have submitted to the Three Planning Authorities their responses to the Planning Application.
4) This report summarises the representations which have been received from consultees, and provides responses to them. The report comprises a schedule of over 250 representations from statutory bodies, non-statutory organisations and members of the public. Although it is not feasible or necessary to cover every detail of the responses, wherever practicable further information has been provided to aid the decision making process. Where appropriate, responses provide references to where, within the Planning Application documents, more information can be found on a particular subject.
5) The report comprises a table of consultation responses (Table 2.1 below) together with a number of appendices that provide additional detail where required. The Appendices are: • Appendix 1 - Environmental Management Process • Appendix 2 – Tree and Hedgerow Loss • Appendix 3 – Permanent Sites Visibility Splay Drawings • Appendix 4 – Access Arrangements, Royal Mail Delivery Office Keswick.
6) A number of the consultation responses required updates to the Construction Strategy documents submitted as part of the Construction Code of Practice within the original Environmental Statement. Revised versions of a number of the Construction Strategies have been submitted along with this report as revisions to the original Environmental Statement Appendix 4.2. These are: • A4.2.1 – Construction Strategy General Overview Rev 1 • A4.2.3 – Construction Strategy Pipelaying Rev 1 • A4.2.4 – Construction Strategy Pipelaying Open Cut Watercourses Rev 1 • A4.2.5 – Construction Strategy Water Quality Monitoring Methodology Rev 1 • A4.2.7 – Construction Strategy Tunnelling Rev 1 • A4.2.9 – Construction Strategy Preliminary Method Statement Shoulthwaite Moss • A4.2.13 – Construction Strategy Working in Floodplains Rev 1 • A4.2.15 – Construction Strategy Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1 • A4.2.16 – Construction Strategy Outline Soil Management Plan Rev 1 • A4.2.17 - Construction Strategy Outline Biosecurity Management Plan Rev 1.
1 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
2. Consultation Responses
Table 21: Summary of Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
NATURAL ENGLAND
1 Impact on R. The Information to Inform the Appropriate It should be understood that cessation of abstraction Ehen Assessment (IIAA) document details the impact of here is intended as part of a staged process to re the scheme on The River Ehen SAC as negligible. naturalise the flow regime, which was identified through Natural England are concerned this may lead to the Environment Agency’s Review of Consents process queries about why the project is therefore necessary and noted in the Inspector’s Report following the as we are hoping the impacts on the Ehen are Examination in Public of UU’s WRMP[1]: “the cessation significant and beneficial. Our advice would be to of abstraction is not the sole environmental goal. It is produce a clarification document which negates more part of a process of river environment potential negative reaction to this statement. improvements to facilitate the removal of the weir and the return of the River Ehen SAC to a favourable condition under natural flows”. Therefore, the operation of the Proposed Scheme is seen to have significant benefits for the River Ehen SAC in the longer term through its enabling of future measures (not part of this assessment) towards a more natural flow regime. “
The EA consultation response also confirms this: “The Information to Inform the Appropriate Assessment, provided by United Utilities in Volume 4, Appendix 11.13 and other locations within the documentation, describes the impact of the change from the before to after the implementation of the proposed scheme as negligible for the River Ehen and Ennerdale. Given that one of the main purposes of the proposed scheme is that it enables the abstraction from Ennerdale to cease, this may cause confusion or raise questions as to the value of the scheme. However, it is acknowledged that this is a step in the process that will ultimately enable greater beneficial changes to both the River Ehen SAC and Ennerdale SSSI.”
2 River working In the Water Environment section (appendix 3 of the The table does refer to a working window of March – windows ES) Table 2.3 details the 'working in water window' to October but caveats this with the particular sensitivity of be March-October. This would not be suitable, an individual watercourse and requirements of the flood especially in a salmon river. This should be altered to defence consent conditions. Works within any salmonid June - September. watercourses would be restricted to June – Sept unless agreed with the Environment Agency or Cumbria CC. It should be noted that additional working windows for aquatic ecology receptors are detailed in the ecology chapter and supporting appendices.
3 River River modifications within the red line boundary are The river modifications referred to are detailed in the Modifications of concern. There is little assessment on how this will Environmental Statement, Volume 4 Appendix 9.3 Realignment alter geomorphological functioning downstream and section 6 (pg.75) and relate to Shoulthwaite Moss and the potential impacts on fish migration and spawning. Smaithwaite on the Raw Water Aqueduct. The mitigation is fairly low key given this is detailing Further details on Shoulthwaite Moss have been
[1] The Planning Inspectorate (2014) Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007, Examination in Public into the United Utilities Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013. 17 November 2014.
2 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. realignment of a watercourse. This should be given provided as part of the Supplementary Information within more thought in term of if alternative solutions are Volume 2 Updated Construction Strategies, A4.2.9 possible. In all cases this should avoid culverting of Preliminary Method Statement Shoulthwaite Moss and the channel and should include the reinstatement of A4.2.9 Shoulthwaite Moss Management Plan. Ditch the channel to allow for natural processes. realignment has been dealt with as part of this document and looks at the future process for considering the hydrological and geomorphological processes downstream in Naddle Beck. With regard to the watercourse intersecting the red line boundary around a tributary of St John’s Beck around Smaithwaite, further information is now available on the proposed method in this area. As the temporary working area is quite steep the stream would be temporarily culverted in its current position to form a platform to work from. The adjacent land would be excavated to allow the contractor to lay the pipe. The land would be reinstated back to its original ground levels, as much as possible and finally the working area/culvert removed. The stream would remain in its original position throughout and would not be realigned in this location.
4 HRA The HRA does not consider the potential effects of The HRA does not consider the potential effects of the the reinstatement of better/ more efficient drainage reinstatement of better/more efficient drainage as there than was present on site prior to construction. is a commitment to return drains to their current condition not improve them. As a result, no assessment can be made as it is not practicable to try and assess the impacts when there is no clear evidence that it would happen or the magnitude of the ‘improvement’.
It is acknowledged that Natural England have concerns regarding the improvement of drainage however ensuring that no improvement to drainage takes place would be dealt with by the planning process and controls such as the ECoW not via the HRA process.
Pre and post construction drainage plans would be prepared by the Contractor and made available to the Local Authorities, Environment Agency and Natural England prior to start on site. A revised A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1 is included in the Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated Construction Strategies.
5 Ecology A great number of surveys have been carried out The surveys were carried out by a team of ecologists. Resources during the design and HRA stage for the project. Cascade Consulting has a growing ecological resource However, these surveys were in the main part carried managed by Richard Andrews and Liz Baker. Both Liz out by one ecologist employed by Cascade. Due to and Richard have extensive knowledge of the project the departure of this ecologist, United Utilities should and were involved in designing and directing the ensure that all methodology used is provided to them ecological surveys for this project. Richard and Liz will to ensure consistency of approach throughout the continue to provide the direction to Cascade’s input and project. will ensure consistency of approach is maintained.
6 Environmental Due to the structure of the ES we would question the Please refer to the Supplementary Information Volume 2
3 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. Management likelihood of a contractor being able to identify all of West Cumbria Water Supplies Environmental the relevant parts of the ES to inform their method Management Process in Appendix 1, this details the statements. This is a concern in ensuring all actions process by which the Contractor would identify the are taken to avoid damage to the designated sites. relevant parts of the ES, the checks that are in place to ensure everything is picked up and final sign off by the LPAs, EA and NE. United Utilities and the contractor’s would employ an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW) to ensure all Method Statements meet the necessary requirements
7 Reinstatement Reinstatement along the pipeline route is well A separate Reinstatement Construction Strategy has not documented within the ES, however methodology is been produced however further details have been vague and there is no reference to a timeline to provided within the Supplementary Information Volume indicate when reinstatement will take place in relation 2 Updated Construction Strategies A4.2.1 Construction to the rest of the works. Appropriate reinstatement is Strategy: General Overview Rev 1, section 8 considered integral to preventing pollution, mainly Reinstatement. sediment, to the SAC. More thorough restoration methodologies/ principles should be provided. This should include a Reinstatement Construction Code of Practice. Reinstatement of the working strip should be a priority. Where the strip is still required for access then the downstream half of the strip should be reinstated to provide a buffer.
8 Reinstatement Reinstatement of watercourse banks must be Further details have been provided within the watercourse considered in more detail as the potential for a long Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated banks term residual effect is great. This is due to the Construction Strategies, A4.2.4 Construction Strategy: creation of bank weakness, which, even following Pipe laying Open Cut Watercourse Crossings Rev 1: reinstatement would be prone to erosion. This is “Following reinstatement of the channel and potentially especially the case where the riparian strip is the riverbank (see below), the flow control measures wooded/ heavily vegetated on either side of the would be carefully removed…..The riverbank would then reinstated strip. be reinstated and re-profiled back to its original position and any vegetation stripped prior to commencing returned and firmed in. Turfs and clumps of vegetation would only be used for reinstatement where they are considered to be of adequate size and robustness to deal with typical flow conditions. In areas, where stripped vegetation is limited, the toe and lower section of riverbank would be prioritised over the upper bank. In some areas it may be necessary to use additional turf of local provenance and suitable seed mix. Following firming in, biodegradable matting would be installed to help stabilise ground. It may also be necessary to install additional silt fence along the riverbank to capture any silt run-off until revegetation occurs and the riverbank has recovered. In areas where high flows are understood to be a possible concern, soft engineering solutions such as willow hurdles may be required to help stabilise any disturbed ground. Riverbank reinstatement works would be timed during the growing months to ensure the vegetation has adequate time to take. The UU ECoW would monitor any river/ditch reinstatement works, especially following any periods of elevated flows, until they are satisfied the site has recovered. In the event the measures are not deemed to be effective, consultation with relevant stakeholders would be
4 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. undertaken to identify any potential alternatives. Removal of any in-river works and reinstatement of the channel and banks would be prioritised and undertaken as soon as possible”. Much of this has also been duplicated with the general construction strategy A4.2.1 Construction Strategy General Overview Rev 1.
9 River Ehen We have significant concerns regarding watercourse Watercourse crossing 03_24: Following a site visit on SAC – crossings 03_24 and 04_48 and believe these are a 13/7/16 there was no beck present at the crossing Watercourse priority. Concerns remain over the proposal to open location only wet ground. The route of the watercourse crossings cut crossing 03_24 (Lingla Beck). It is felt United was walked for some distance and could not be found in Utilities should explore the potential to direct drill or this location. It is not considered appropriate to tunnel this crossing to avoid the potential for directional drill or tunnel this crossing our intention is to sediment/ pollutant discharge directly into the River open cut this crossing with sufficient mitigation put in Ehen SAC. Given the sensitivity of this site the place to avoid sediment/pollution downstream. precautionary principle should be adopted here. The mitigation provided is not clear or specific enough to Watercourse crossing 04_48: The initial plan is still to ensure that there would be no impact. As this site slip line the existing pipeline in this location. If it is drains directly into the SAC a more robust approach found that due to the quality of the existing pipe this is should be adopted. not possible and the method needs to change, then NE would be approached and a new HRA produced for this crossing.
10 River Ehen Equally the other crossings within the River Ehen The implementation of the multiple mitigation measures SAC – catchment should be considered further in terms of specified in Section 5.2 of the IIAA (ES Volume 4 Watercourse mitigation. Whilst these crossings drain into the River Appendix 11.13) and the updated CCoP are considered crossings Keekle, the confluence with the Ehen downstream of sufficient (and proportionate to the risks) to ensure there the SAC boundary, any pollution incident resulting are no residual significant effects on either the from works within this catchment could have the conservation status of freshwater mussel and Atlantic potential to impact transient interest features of the salmon or the River Ehen SAC’s Conservation SAC and mitigation should be robust enough to Objectives for these species. ensure against this.
11 River Derwent Significant concerns remain around the drainage See other responses below and the Supplementary & strategy for the project; these have been detailed in Information Volume 2 Updated Construction Strategies, Bassenthwaite the joint response on CCP's in Annex 1. It should be A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Outline Land Drainage Lake SAC noted that until these issues are addressed Natural Plan Rev 1. England are not able to support a conclusion of no likely significant effect. The potential for in- combination impacts of the drainage strategy of the whole scheme, upon both linear and point water receptors, remains too uncertain.
12 River Derwent Specific mitigation has been provided for interest The Littorelletea uniflorae Isoëto-Nanojuncetea & feature 3130 (Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing community has been included in the assessment even Bassenthwaite waters) which is the Annex 1 habitat that is the though it is recognised that it is more typically found in Lake SAC primary reason for designation of this SAC. The standing water bodies such as Bassenthwaite Lake. The specific mitigation provided is for the localised loss of impact assessment undertaken prior to the submission macrophytes associated with watercourse crossings of the planning application concluded that the proposed which is not entirely relevant to the standing water scheme would not have an impact on Bassenthwaite features (namely in this case, Bassenthwaite Lake). Lake and so the comment is correct in suggesting that the mitigation measures proposed for this community are not entirely relevant.
However, in-line with the precautionary principle and in recognition of the value of the species that make up
5 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. these communities, the Littorelletea community was included in the assessment in conjunction with the Ranunculion fluitansis and/or Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation assemblages of running water. Whilst these two communities are found in different habitats individual species that make up the Littorelletea community have been found in rivers impacted by the proposed scheme (e.g. in St John’s Beck). As a result, there is a risk that species included within this assemblage could be lost during construction. The mitigation measures developed for the Ranunculion assemblages were consequently included for the Littorelletea community as well even though the crossings are away from Bassenthwaite Lake and would not directly impact the SAC feature.
13 River Derwent Consideration should be given to the potential in Within the Environmental Statement, Volume 4, & combination release of sediment into the lake through Appendix 9.3 details the range of mitigation Bassenthwaite the construction phase. Bassenthwaite Lake is requirements (both generic and site specific) at each Lake SAC currently considered to be in unfavourable condition watercourse crossing; successful implementation of the for a number of reasons, one of which is increased full suite of mitigation measures at each crossing would sedimentation of the lake bed, and therefore specific reduce the risk of cumulative impacts, though we consideration should be given to this. acknowledge Natural England’s concerns. Please also refer to the updated A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1 in Volume 2 of the Supplementary Information.
14 River Derwent Tunnelling is proposed to operate 24/7 until a Under the “Impacts” listed within Section 6.4.3 of & crossing has been completed. There does not appear Appendix 11.11 of the Environmental Statement, it is Bassenthwaite to be any documented consideration to the potential recognised that the effect of disturbance on fish could Lake SAC – noise impacts of this on fish populations. include noise and vibration from machinery and Tunnelling vehicles, including during tunnelling operations. impact on fish Overall, the tunnelling methodology is considered to be more favourable to fish species than open cut options as the tunnelling work does not result in any temporary in- channel habitat loss.
The potential noise would be dependent on the exact machinery that is used by the Contractor and the geology of the underlying ground. The tunnelling noise would be mitigated by the programming of the works where practicable.
The Environmental Control Plan would detail the timings and mitigation and would be agreed with the LPAs, EA and NE.
15 River Derwent Crossing 04_48 (River Cocker) is proposed to be Watercourse crossing 04_48: The initial plan is still to & open cut. This is part of the SAC and has not been slip line the existing pipeline in this location. If it is Bassenthwaite discussed with Natural England previously. The open found that due to the quality of the existing pipe this is Lake SAC – cut method is suggested as mitigation to the currently not possible and the method needs to change, then NE River Crossing exposed pipe which is to be slip lined. We do not would be approached and a new HRA produced for this consider this to be appropriate mitigation within such crossing.
6 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. an important habitat. United Utilities should employ directional drill or tunnelling methods here. If this is not possible then a specific methodology for this crossing would need to be provided before we could agree with the conclusion of no likely significant effects.
16 Shoulthwaite There does not appear to have been an operational Further details on Shoulthwaite Moss have been Moss assessment on Shoulthwaite Moss. This is important provided as part of the Supplementary Information in terms of the potential to impact the hydrological Volume 2 Updated Construction Strategies A4.2.9 functioning of the moss, which in turn could have a Preliminary Method Statement Shoulthwaite Moss and knock on impact on Naddle Beck (part of River A4.2.9 Shoulthwaite Moss Management Plan. The Derwent SAC). There seems to be a lack of operational assessment has been dealt with as part of information around the specific construction these documents and looks at the future process for strategies for Shoulthwaite Moss, including material considering the hydrological functioning of the moss. to be used and land drainage issues. This is vital as damage to this habitat has the potential to damage the downstream SAC.
17 Clints Quarry Natural England agrees with the screening out in the If any specific groundwater impacts are identified during SAC IIAA document of Clints Quarry SAC. However we construction, work would cease until a specific HRA is note that there is consideration to the potential completed and appropriate methodologies are agreed ground water impacts of the construction of the with Natural England. service reservoir. If any potential groundwater impacts are identified a specific HRA must be carried out with regards to construction and operation phases of that element of the project. If these impacts are realised during construction then work must cease while the HRA is completed and appropriate methodologies are agreed with Natural England.
18 Gill Beck SSSI The major requirements surrounding Gill Beck is a Following concerns raised by Blindcrake Parish Council specific location. The SSSI is a geological one, and local residents within Blindcrake over the visual therefore the major potential impact will be on the impact and flood risk of the ravine crossing, an visual impact of the geological interest (aside from alternative design has been provided for the Gill Beck actual loss of geological feature). Natural England will crossing which involves a bridge with the pipes in the not be able to assess the appropriateness of the bridge deck. Please refer to the updated planning scheme in relation to Gill Beck SSSI until a specific drawing B2707061/S5/LDNP/06 Rev 1. At this stage it location and methodology is confirmed. is not possible to specify the exact methodology for the works until the Build Contractor has been appointed. Initial thoughts are that two concrete pads would be created on either side of the beck which may need to be piled. The bridge and pipes would be brought into the site in sections. An assessment of the visual impact of the new structure has been provided within the Supplementary Information Volume 1 SEI Amendments to the Planning Application, Scheme Amendment 3. We do not believe that there is a major potential visual impact on the geological SSSI arising from the revised design of the bridge with pipes in the bridge deck, or that the geological SSSI should be regarded as a visual receptor. There is a distance of some 50 m between the proposed location of the bridge and the northern-most outcrop of the qualifying geology for the SSSI. The intervening topography between the SSSI and the proposed pipeline comprises a steep,
7 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. heavily-wooded ravine. During the summer months visibility northwards along the bed of the gill is very limited due to the trees being in leaf, and even in winter the overhanging boughs of trees impede longer distance views.
19 Soil Referring to Para 3.5 of the Soil Management Plan A4.2.16 Construction Strategy Outline Soil Management Management we welcome the proposal to take account of the ‘Loss Plan (Rev 1) has been updated to state: “Any material Plan or degradation of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land not intended for reuse within the land reinstatement as a result of construction operations’. However 3.20 would be recycled or reused at a suitably licensed and 5.2.3 refer to the potential disposal of surplus facility. Further details are provided below in section soils. Soils are a finite resource and should not be 6.8.2”. treated as waste. However, if the proposal is to use surplus soil for external landscaping, or taking it off- site for other beneficial use; such as reclamation elsewhere or remediating brownfield or contaminated land, then this would best be described as recycling or reuse rather than disposal. The Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) 'The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature' (Defra, June 2011) emphasises the importance of natural resource protection, including the conservation and sustainable management of soils.
20 Soil At para 6.3 bullet 7 refers to donor soils. Provided all A4.2.16 Construction Strategy Outline Soil Management Management the soils are stripped and stored with a soils audit Plan (Rev 1) has been amended to exclude subsoils Plan (5.2.4) to ensure that no soils are lost, it is unlikely from section 6.3 bullet 7, as it is recognised that donor that any donor soils would be needed. Elsewhere in subsoil is unlikely to be required. “If any is required” has the report there is reference to surplus subsoil being been added to the end of the bullet point. disposed of (e.g.6.8.2) which contradicts with this. At the time of writing the Construction Strategy full ground investigation results were unavailable for the pipeline route therefore the balance of surplus/donor material was unclear. Now that we have more ground investigation information the balance will be developed further with assistance from the Contractor.
21 Soil With regards to soil stripping (para 6.5) normally soils This paragraph does not suggest that soil would be Management would be stripped to 1.2m not the 1m referred to stripped to a depth of 1 m, only that subsoil supports Plan here. With soil storage (para 6.6.2) stripping to basal topsoil functions to a depth of at least 1 m. The fifth layer is not necessary, stripping is only required to bullet point in 6.5.2 states that the depth of soil strip ensure that like is placed on like, i.e. topsoil can be would be based on depths identified in the Soil placed on topsoil and subsoil should be placed on Resource Survey and the Pre entry Soils and Existing subsoil. We agree soil should be stripped to basal Land Drainage Assessment. layer on haul roads as indicated in 6.9.2. To reflect Natural England’s recommendation, the wording has been amended within A4.2.16 Construction Strategy Outline Soil Management Plan Rev 1 to state that: “Before work begins, the topsoil would be stripped where subsoil would be stockpiled, with subsoil strip not required. The topsoil can be placed on topsoil without the need for stripping. On haul roads the soil would be stripped to the basal layer”.
22 Soil In terms of soil reinstatement (para 6.8.2) the normal This paragraph does not suggest that soil would be Management soil profile for agricultural use would be 1.2m not 1m stripped to a depth of 1 m, only that subsoil supports
8 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. Plan referred to here. Regarding aftercare (para6.11) it is topsoil functions to a depth of at least 1 m. The fifth encouraging to note that aftercare of the disturbed bullet point in 6.5.2 states that the depth of soil strip land and soils will be given due consideration, would be based on depths identified in the Soil including preparation of an aftercare plan. Whilst this Resource Survey and the Pre entry Soils and Existing is not a mineral site, useful guidance on how to Land Drainage Assessment. approach aftercare and aftercare strategies following restoration can be found in the Planning Practice Within A4.2.16 Construction Strategy Outline Soil Guidance at paragraphs 56-58 Management Plan Rev 1, section 6.11 an additional sentence has been added: Further guidance on how to approach aftercare and aftercare plans can be found in the Minerals Planning Practice Guidance paragraphs 56 – 58.
23 Construction “9.3 Control Storage of Fuel” – “An adequate supply Text added to A4.2.1 Construction Strategy: General Strategy: of spill kits (e.g. able to be brought to a spill within 2 Overview Rev 1 - “This would be the responsibility of the General minutes of a spill occurring anywhere on the project) contractor” Overview would be kept at all construction sites” A4.2.1 - 1
24 Construction PPG4 Waste water is not listed in 9.1. This is “PPG 04 – Treatment and disposal of sewage where no Strategy: relevant for Construction compounds and worker foul sewer is available” added to section 9.1 of A4.2.1 General welfare facilities. Construction Strategy: General Overview Rev 1. Overview A4.2.1 - 2
25 Construction 9.5 should be titled “Storage of Materials and Waste” Title amended within A4.2.1 Construction Strategy: Strategy: General Overview Rev 1. General Overview A4.2.1 - 3
26 Construction “10 Lighting” mentions cowls etc. to control light Sentence amended within A4.2.1 Construction Strategy: Strategy: intrusion “into adjacent highways or neighbouring General Overview Rev 1 to say “Any lighting required for General properties and buildings”. This section needs to the works shall be positioned and controlled via cowls, Overview include rivers and any other sensitive wildlife areas so as not to intrude into adjacent highways, A4.2.1 -4 i.e. to minimise disturbance of otters, fish & neighbouring properties and buildings, rivers and other potentially bats etc. sensitive wildlife areas (to minimise disturbance of otters, fish and bats)”.
27 Pipe laying – Downstream silt fencing should be used where there Within A4.2.4 Construction Strategy: Pipe laying – Open open cut are sensitive receptors following reinstatement and Cut Watercourse Crossings Rev 1 the following text has watercourse up until establishment. But this must ensure no been added “In addition to the above measures, where crossings significant impediment to fish passage or increased there are sensitive features, downstream silt fencing A4.2.3 - 1 flood risk to properties. Would need FDC from CCC would be used where appropriate following
or PfFRA from EA. reinstatement and up until establishment. However this must ensure no significant impediment to fish passage or increased flood risk to properties. This would also be included in the FDC or PfFRA temporary consent application.”
28 Pipe laying – The methodology for launch and receptor pits has not Directional drill and slip-lining are not dealt with in the open cut been provided for direct drilling or slip lining methods. Pipe laying – Open Cut Watercourse Crossings watercourse Construction Strategy.
9 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. crossings However further details have been added to A4.2.3 A4.2.3 - 2 Construction Strategy: Pipe laying (Open Cut, Directional Drill and Slip Lining) Rev 1 – Paragraph 2.6.2 additional text added to say: “There are a number of different methods for constructing the launch/reception areas, the exact method would be chosen by the Contractor dependant on the location. Generally launch/reception areas would be created by pushing sheet piles into the ground with an excavator to form the pit boundary. Sheet piling would be required to maintain the structural integrity of the working areas. An excavator would then dig out the central material to form the pit. When adjacent to a watercourse silt fencing would be placed around the pit.” Paragraph 2.7.2 additional text added to say: “Generally launch/reception pits would be created by pushing sheet piles into the ground with an excavator to form the pit boundary. Sheet piling would be required to maintain the structural integrity of the working areas for the slip lining process. An excavator would then dig out the central material to form the pit…. When adjacent to a watercourse silt fencing would be placed around the pit”.
29 Pipe laying – There is no detail on how an incident with regards to Within A4.2.3 Construction Strategy Pipe laying (Open open cut the drilling will be addressed. This must be included Cut, Directional Drill and Slip Lining) Rev 1 a section 3.1 watercourse due to the potential for the drill to hit a boulder or entitled “Directional Drilling Fluid Breakout” has been crossings similar and break out thought the river bed. Whilst the added details below. A4.2.3 - 3 likelihood of this may be perceived as very low the Directional Drilling Fluid Breakout inclusion of a set of principles to follow in this Drilling fluid (Bentonite/polymer) can sometimes instance is vital. breakout of the bore in certain geological conditions. In the event of egress of drilling fluid from the bore, it is only likely to reach ground level where there is a continual path available to the surface. The risk of a fluid breakout during drilling cannot be fully assessed beforehand. For this reason a close watching brief during drilling activities and site specific contingency measures are essential. Prevention Breakout occurs when annular fluid pressures exceed formation fracture pressures. Annular fluid pressures are minimised by constant monitoring of the drilling fluid parameters. The drill fluids operator would monitor drill fluid density, viscosity and solids content on an ongoing basis, to ensure that the fluid does not increase in viscosity, requiring additional pressure to maintain mobility. The driller would monitor the drill fluid pressures, volumes, viscosities and densities of mud being pumped through the bore. Any increases in pump pressure experienced by the drill operator would be investigated immediately to prevent the risk of pressure build up within the annulus. Site Monitoring Breakout is only likely to happen when it is under pressure, so during drilling, reaming and pipe pulling,
10 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. site monitoring would be carried out by key personnel. The drill operator is responsible for monitoring the flow of mud at both the drill entry and exit points. In addition monitoring of all potential leakage paths that have been identified would take place at regular intervals. In the event of drill fluid breakout the operation would be stopped. Site personnel would be equipped with radios for instant communication with the drill operator. Breakout Procedure • Report immediately • Stop drilling if necessary • Contain the bentonite by constructing a bund with sandbags • Recover the bentonite from the bund by using a vacuum tanker or pump sets • Discharge the bentonite into the entry/exit pit for disposal • Wait for agreed period for restarting drilling, if drilling was stopped. • Watch the area closely to check if breakout channel has sealed.
30 Pipe laying – Please clarify why there has to be a concrete bed As detailed within A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipe open cut poured at the base of river crossing excavations. This laying Open Cut Watercourse Crossings the concrete watercourse does not seem consistent with methodology across bed would be poured but also there would be a concrete crossings the rest of the pipeline. This would be a high risk surround. A4.2.4 - 1 activity given the potential impact of concrete on watercourses therefore justification is required. Could This concrete surround can be seen on the planning this be limited to certain areas or is it necessary at drawing B2707061_S5_LDNP_03. This concrete all? surround would be required on all river crossings to protect the pipe, reduce the need for future maintenance, minimise the risk of settlement and also protect the river from bursts.
The following text has been added to Construction Strategy Pipe Laying Open Cut Watercourse Crossings Rev 1 section 2.5.5 to make it clear “In order to provide protection to the pipes, reduce the need for future maintenance, minimise the risk of settlement and protect the river from bursts during operation, a concrete bed would be poured on the base of the excavation and concrete used to surround and cover the pipes and ducts. Concrete pouring would only be undertaken during forecasted periods of low flows, as determined by the Contractor’s ECoW, when there is no perceived risk of the working area being inundated with water. The Contractor’s ECoW would notify the UU ECoW prior to undertaking any concreting works. During any concreting works, associated water quality monitoring as outlined in the A4.2.5 Construction strategy Water Quality Monitoring Methodology Rev 1 would pay particular attention to any changes in pH. Once the concrete has cured the river bed material would be
11 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. reinstated back in its original layers and level“.
31 Pipe laying – There is no detail on the maximum amount of time a Sentence added to A.4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipe open cut flume can be left in place. This needs stating as there laying Open Cut Watercourse Crossings Rev 1 in watercourse is a potential for impact on fish passage – unless the section 2.5.1 “and the flume would be of a suitable size crossings flume is of a suitable size and gradient to adequately and gradient to adequately cater for fish passage.” A4.2.4 - 1 cater for fish passage.
32 Pipe laying – What is the mitigation for preventing sediment wash A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Open Cut Watercourse open cut off reinstated banks? Given that the flumes need to Crossings Rev 1 updated “Following reinstatement of watercourse come out to allow fish passage, how will the potential the channel and potentially the riverbank (see below), crossings for bank wash and destabilisation be mitigated? the flow control measures would be carefully removed. A4.2.4 - 2 Prior to removal, these will be inspected by the ECoW and any silt build up carefully removed. Unless otherwise agreed with relevant statutory stakeholders, all in channel works (flumes etc.) would be removed during appropriate flow conditions, as determined by the ECoWs. Removal of any in channel works in salmonid watercourses, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant statutory stakeholders, would be restricted to between June-September. The riverbank would then be reinstated and re-profiled back to its original position and any vegetation stripped prior to commencing returned and firmed in. Turfs and clumps of vegetation would only be used for reinstatement where they are considered to be of adequate size and robustness to deal with typical flow conditions. In areas, where stripped vegetation is limited, the toe and lower section of riverbank would be prioritised over the upper bank. In some areas it may be necessary to use additional turf of local provenance and suitable seed mix. Following firming in, biodegradable matting would be installed to help stabilise ground. It may also be necessary to install additional silt fence along the riverbank to capture any silt run-off until revegetation occurs and the riverbank has recovered. In areas where high flows are understood to be a possible concern, green engineering solutions such as willow hurdles may be required to help stabilise any disturbed ground. Riverbank reinstatement works would be timed during the growing months to ensure the vegetation has adequate time to take. The UU ECoW would monitor any river/ditch reinstatement works, especially following any periods of elevated flows, until they are satisfied the site has recovered. In the event the measures are not deemed to be effective, consultation with relevant stakeholders would be undertaken to identify any potential alternatives. Removal of any in-river works and reinstatement of the channel and banks would be prioritised and undertaken a soon as possible.”
Sentence added to CCoP to say “The flume pipes would be of a suitable size and gradient to adequately cater for
12 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. fish passage.”
33 Pipe laying – There is no detail on the maximum amount of time an As detailed in A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipelaying open cut aqua dam will remain in place. This needs stating as Open Cut Watercourse Crossing Rev 1 section 2.5.2 “A watercourse there is a potential impact on fish passage if in place number of flume pipes, sized to take account of the flow crossings for too long. in the watercourse, would be inserted through the Aqua A4.2.4 - 3 dam to the downstream side of the river. These pipes would act as a conduit to transfer the water from the upstream side of the dam, 30-40m downstream.” The
aquadam is creating a dry working area, there would be a flume pipe associated with it to allow fish passage. Sentence added to CCoP to say “The flume pipes would be of a suitable size and gradient to adequately cater for fish passage.”
34 Pipe laying – How would sediment release during the process of Section 2.5.4 updated within A4.2.4 Construction open cut removing bunds following over pumping be Strategy Pipe laying Open Cut Watercourse Crossings watercourse prevented? Rev 1. A bund would not be used instead the river crossings would be dammed using sandbags as detailed below: A4.2.4 - 4 “In smaller sized watercourses and ditches, damming and over pumping may be employed. Suitably sized pumps with back up (to deal with any sudden rise in the water level, or if flash flooding) would be placed up stream of the proposed excavation site with inlet and outlet pipes placed in the channel either side. Terram would be placed in the bed of the watercourse at both the pipe inlet and outlet points. The inlet pipe would be fitted with a screen or cover to prevent fish entry. A sandbag dam would be constructed either side of the excavation using fully sealed bags constructed using hessian, polypropylene or other geotextile material, filled with clean coarse sharp sand. Sandbags would be laid and compacted with their seams and bag mouths facing inwards to minimise water entry. Double-bagging may be required at sensitive sites. In some instances it may be necessary to install PVC (e.g. Visqueen) sheeting to form a barrier on the wet side of the wall. All materials used to construct a dam would be new and unused to mitigate any potential biosecurity risk. During the dam installation process, dewatering of the excavation area would be required using additional pumps. The size of pumps would be carefully selected based on volume of water. A back-up pump and adequate length of discharge hoses would also be available. Water removed from within the easement would be pumped to land, away from the watercourse, silt buster/s or other approved silt removal system appropriate to the site and volume of water. The effectiveness of any dewatering and silt removal would be closely inspected by the Contractors ECoW and assured by the UU ECoW. Only once the ECoW is satisfied the dam is adequately sealed and dewatering/silt removal is under control can any in channel or riverbank works commence. Similarly when
13 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. removing the dam adequate silt removal measures would be employed downstream and supervised by the ECoW.”
35 Pipe laying – As aquadams are filled with river water and then In A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipe Laying Open Cut open cut emptied they carry a particular biosecurity risk. As Watercourse Crossings Rev 1 text added to say “All watercourse there is potential for the presence of alien crayfish & Aqua Dam’s would be cleaned and dried off site prior to crossings crayfish plague on some watercourses – measures use to eliminate biosecurity risk.” A4.2.4 - 5 will need to be considered to address this. “Once in place, the Aqua Dam would be filled with water pumped from the river. The pump would have a screen installed at the end to prevent fish ingress”.
36 Pipe laying – Reference is made to the careful removal & storage In A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipe Laying Open cut open cut of river bed stones/gravels. Except in very minor Watercourse crossings Rev 1 the following text has watercourse watercourses this should require the stripping of the been added to section 2.5.5 “In all watercourses other crossings surface layer of the bed material to be separate from than very minor watercourses, the surface layer of the A4.2.4 - 6 the sub surface bed – as the structure/size of bed materials would also be stripped followed by the sub material tends to be different. These should be stored surface bed materials each of these would be carefully separately and be replaced as layers. This should removed and stored separately within the working area
reduce sediment washout from the newly reinstated to be reinstated in layers following the installation of the bed and speed up recovery of the natural bed pipes.” structure.
37 Pipe laying – There is no mention of minimum pipe depth within The Code of Practice for Pipelaying is a standard open cut this CCP. (this is only mentioned in A4.2.2 part 36) document for landowners which is used on all UU watercourse where it says that the top of the pipe will “normally be projects it is not project specific so 300mm is not crossings at least 300mm below the original cleared bottom of accurate and would not be the minimum depth for this A4.2.4 - 7 the watercourse”. This probably needs to note the project. minimum depths allowed under standard rules PfFRA (1.5m from top of pipe) and where geomorphologists On the planning drawings (B2707061_S5_14 and
have indicated instability and a need for greater B2707061_S5_LDNP_03) we have shown the minimum
depth – then this depth needs to be implemented. distance to be 1.2m below hard bed level to the concrete
Similarly the lateral distance from the river where this surround so would be 1.5m in total but it says this is to
depth can be reduced also needs inclusion. This is be confirmed. It would be agreed as part of the relevant to HRA because of issues relating to risk of FDC/PfFRA as it is dependent on the watercourse. burst pipes in the future; or forming obstructions (to
fish movement or sediment movement) in bed if left Sentence added into A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipe exposed as a weir in the future; or the risk of hard engineering becoming essential to protect the pipes. Laying Open Cut Watercourse Crossings – “The minimum pipe depth would be 1.5m from the top of the
pipe however the exact depth would be agreed as part of the Flood Defence Consent/Permit for Flood Risk Activities.” And “Where the watercourse has been indicated within the Environmental Statement within Appendix 9.3 Table 2.6 as soft or poached banks requiring set back working or active and laterally migrating rivers requiring minimum pipe depths and distances from the bank. Methodology would be agreed and supervised by a geomorphological clerk of works and implemented on site after consent has been obtained”.
14 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
38 Pipe laying – Sections “2.4.3 Half & Half” and “2.4.4 Over- Text added to A4.2.4 Construction Strategy: Pipe laying open cut pumping” make reference to damming. Dams will Open Cut Watercourse Crossings Rev 1: “All materials watercourse need to be biosecure (e.g. dumpy bags full of stone used to construct a dam would be new and unused to crossings have potential to provide transport of alien crayfish as mitigate any potential biosecurity risk.” A4.2.4 - 8 well as crayfish plague) – so careful consideration needed of if/where it would be appropriate to re-use dams. Also need to ensure the material in the dams
(if dumpy bags or similar used) is not fine sand or other material that would block the spaces in spawning gravels if spilt/washed out.
39 Water Quality It is proposed that responsibility for any revisions to A4.2.5 Construction Strategy Water Quality Monitoring Monitoring the Water Quality Monitoring Methodology (WQMM) Methodology Rev 1 has been amended to say: Plan rest with contractors ECoWs. This is not appropriate; the role should rest with the “This Water Quality Monitoring Methodology (WQMM) applicant’s ECoW – in discussion with contractors would become the responsibility of the United Utilities ECoWs. All changes will also need to be agreed with Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) in discussion with the the EA, NE and Local Planning Authorities. Contractor’s ECoW, who would keep the Strategy This is required to ensure that contractors are not updated as necessary should any changes occur. Any responsible for changes to the WQMM, which is a changes would be agreed with the Site Manager, the key part of safeguarding the SACs and SSSIs and Environment Agency (EA), Natural England (NE) and ensuring there are no significant impacts to them. the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs).”
40 Water Quality The Water Quality Monitoring Plan document does The following text has been added to A4.2.5 Monitoring not cross-referenced in or to the standard United Construction Strategy: Water Quality Monitoring Plan Utilities Environmental Control Plan is A4.2.1 section Methodology Rev 1 “Agreed triggers would supersede 9. standard triggers identified in United Utilities Standard There is a risk that this could lead to confusion over Specification S08.” responses when the triggers for control measures in the WQM Plan are exceeded. It should be made clear that the project-specific WQM Plan overrides any contrary statement in the generic UU Environmental Control Plan
41 Water Quality The plan includes 11 indicative locations, in Please refer to A4.2.5 Construction Strategy: Water Monitoring Appendix A. These locations identified as potential in Quality Monitoring Methodology Rev 1 and refer to the Plan appendix A are a sound start, however there is no associated Appendix A Watercourse Crossing Turbidity indication if this is temporary monitoring during Monitoring Requirements Plan. specific construction phases or if these are permanent monitoring points, for example; SONDS. Clarity is needed on how many SONDS are planned and to agree their locations
42 Water Quality It is recommended that a continuous monitoring point Refer to A4.2.5 Construction Strategy Water Quality Monitoring downstream of crossing 03_24 (Lingley Beck). Due to Monitoring Methodology Appendix A Watercourse Plan the high sensitivity of the potential receptor Crossing Turbidity Monitoring Requirements Plan which monitoring should be stringent in this location and shows turbidity monitoring during key construction intermittent spot monitoring would not be considered periods, subject to local inspection following Response 9 sufficient. above. This plan is subject to agreement by NE, EA and LPAs.
43 Water Quality Water quality data should be available to the Local Section 7 updated in A4.2.5 Construction Strategy Monitoring Planning Authorities on request. Water Quality Monitoring Methodology Rev 1 to include Plan Regular water quality reports EA, NE & LPAs for water quality data and data reports.
15 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. should be sent to the EA,LPA's and NE Currently these are not provided to all bodies.
44 Water Quality Secchi disks would not be considered appropriate for Reference to secchi disks has been removed from the Monitoring monitoring turbidity in river systems. They are not A4.2.5 Construction Strategy Water Quality Monitoring Plan sensitive enough to pick up small changes in turbidity Methodology Rev 1 instead a turbidity meter would be which would have the potential to impact the SAC. is used. the proposals need to be altered to something which is more sensitive.
45 Water Quality No detail on how far back from the river and how The Water Quality Monitoring Plan doesn’t deal with Monitoring deep the direct drilling would need to be at a directional drill however the following text has been Plan minimum added into A4.2.3 Construction Strategy Pipelaying Rev 1, in the Directional Drilling section 2.6. “The minimum pipe depth would be 1.5m from the top of the pipe however the exact depth and location of the launch and reception pits would be dependent on the river and ground conditions so would be agreed as part of the Flood Defence Consent/Permit for Flood Risk Activities. Where the watercourse has been indicated within the Environmental Statement within Appendix 9.3 Table 2.6 as soft or poached banks requiring set back working or active and laterally migrating rivers requiring minimum pipe depths and distances from the bank. Methodology would be agreed and supervised by a geomorphological clerk of works and implemented on site after consent has been obtained”.
46 Water Quality Water quality monitoring should be continued in A4.2.5 Construction Strategy Water Quality Monitoring Monitoring select, agreed locations until reinstatement has Methodology Rev 1 has been updated to say: “Water Plan established quality monitoring works would continue until both the Contractor and UU ECoWs and relevant statutory stakeholder are satisfied there is no longer any risk of silt or pollution run off from the working easement or associated land drainage works and the associated working area has satisfactorily recovered.”
47 Construction There is no outline of the procedure to follow if there Within A4.2.7 Construction Strategy: Tunnelling, a Strategy: is an incident associated with drilling section 3.1 entitled “Annulus Fluid Breakout” has been Tunnelling added as detailed below. Annulus Fluid Breakout Annulus fluid can sometimes breakout of the tunnel drive in certain geological conditions. In the event of egress of fluid from the annulus, it is only likely to reach ground level where there is a continual path available to the surface. The risk of a fluid breakout during tunnelling cannot be fully assessed beforehand. For this reason a close watching brief during tunnelling activities and site specific contingency measures are essential. Prevention Breakout occurs when annular fluid pressures exceed formation fracture pressures. Annular fluid pressures are minimised by constant monitoring of the tunnelling fluid parameters. The tunnel operator would monitor
16 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. fluid density, viscosity and solids content on an ongoing basis, to ensure that the fluid does not increase in viscosity, requiring additional pressure to maintain mobility. The tunnel operator would monitor the fluid pressures, volumes, viscosities and densities of mud being pumped through the annulus. Any increases in pump pressure experienced by the tunnel operator would be investigated immediately to prevent the risk of pressure build up within the annulus. Site Monitoring Breakout is only likely to happen when it is under pressure, so during driving operations, site monitoring would be carried out by key personnel. The tunnel operator would be responsible for monitoring the flow of mud at both the entry and exit points. In addition monitoring of all potential leakage paths that have been identified would take place at regular intervals. In the event of fluid breakout the operation would be stopped. Site personnel would be equipped with radios for instant communication with the tunnel operator. Breakout Procedure • Report immediately • Stop tunnelling if necessary • Contain the fluid by constructing a bund with sandbags • Recover the fluid from the bund by using a vacuum tanker or pump sets • Discharge the fluid into the entry/exit pit for disposal • Wait for agreed period for restarting tunnelling, if stopped. • Watch the area closely to check if breakout channel has sealed.
48 Construction There is no mitigation included for the lighting With regards to fish species under the “Impacts” listed Strategy: associated with the 24/7 operations and the potential within Section 6.4.3 of Appendix 11.11 in the Tunnelling impact on Otter and fish Environmental Statement, it is recognised that the effect of disturbance on fish could include noise and vibration from machinery and vehicles (including tunnelling) and light during night working.
Under section 9.2.3 of the same Appendix the mitigation measures for artificial lighting stated: “Avoid artificial lighting at or near normally un-lit areas of habitat, particularly near rivers and lakes. Where unavoidable, lighting should be directional task-lighting to reduce light-spill into sensitive areas, and duration of lighting should be minimised”.
The following text has been added to A4.2.7 Construction Strategy: Tunnelling Rev 1 “Temporary
17 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. lighting may be required to allow 24/7 working. Where possible artificial lighting at or near normally un-lit areas of habitat, particularly near rivers and lakes would be avoided. Where unavoidable, lighting would be directional task-lighting to reduce light spill into sensitive areas and the duration of lighting would be minimised as much as practicable.”
The above mitigation is considered appropriate for the 24/7 tunnelling, especially as tunnelling activity is set back a considerable distance from the bank tops (over 100m on the River Greta and approximately 45m on the River Derwent). This distance, along with the proposed mitigation is considered sufficient to minimise impacts on fish of artificial lighting.
With regards to the impacts on otter; whilst lighting is acknowledged as a potential source of disturbance the mitigation measures outlined above, as well as additional measures such as pre-construction checks for holts etc. and the distance between the areas of construction and the river, mean it is highly unlikely that impacts on this species would arise as a result of tunnelling operations.
49 Construction There does not appear to have been an assessment Refer to Response 14 above. Strategy: on the potential impact of noise of these operations in Tunnelling relation to fish passage (esp. considering the 24/7 duration)
50 Construction There are no details on the times of year that these Exact timings would be informed by the Build Strategy: operations will be carried out. If in winter then the Contractors programme, this would be available when Tunnelling potential of impact from noise on fish would be the contracts have been awarded. greater. Refer to Response 14 above.
51 Construction Has a Lamprey survey of the locations proposed No lamprey surveys have been undertaken to date Strategy: been carried out (or an appropriate habitat survey) however some initial surveys are due to be carried out. Tunnelling and the potential impact of 27/7 tunnelling been assessed? Volume 4 Appendix 11.11 in the Environmental Statement notes: “Pre-construction surveys of all watercourses will be undertaken to ensure that the previous conditions are still applicable and no additional surveys are required”. If exceptional lamprey habitat is found specific surveys would be undertaken. Lamprey species are generally considered to be insensitive to noise, and for the reasons detailed in response 48, lighting is not considered to be a significant issue.
There remains the possibility however, that vibration from tunnelling could adversely impact lamprey species in these locations. In this case, temporal dispersion is considered likely to occur. However, whilst it is
18 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. acknowledged that there may be an impact, a low probability has been attached to this conclusion.
With regard to juveniles, as part of the pre-construction phase, a walkover is proposed at each tunnelling location, which looks at the presence of suitable lamprey habitat 50 metres either side of the proposed tunnelling location.
Removal of juveniles or adults from suitable lamprey habitat may be necessary in exceptional circumstances ahead of construction work. However, it is considered to be more stressful than natural dispersal and will be avoided if at all possible
Overall, the tunnelling methodology is considered to be more favourable to lamprey than open cut techniques as the tunnelling work does not result in any temporary in- channel habitat loss.
52 Construction No guidance is provided on how far back from the The measurement of how far back from the river the Strategy: river and how deep the tunnelling would need to be at tunnel shafts would be located is site specific this is Tunnelling a minimum dependent upon the topography, depth of the river and underlying geology. It is not really realistic to give a minimum figure.
As shown on the planning drawing B2707061/S5/LDNP/07 for the River Greta tunnel crossing the eastern shaft would be approximately 100m from the river bank and the western shaft would be 130m from the river bank. The depth is shown to be 5m below the river however this is to be confirmed by the build contractor.
For the River Derwent crossing the northern shaft would be approximately 45m from the river bank and the southern shaft would be over 100m from the river bank and separated by the A66. As detailed on the planning drawing B2707061/S5/10 the depth would be circa 13m below the River Derwent but this is to be confirmed by the build contractor.
53 Construction Page 3 – How will waste slurry from drilling Sentence added within Construction Strategy: Strategy: operations be managed post completion of drilling Tunnelling page 3 to say “The waste slurry from the Tunnelling operations? tunnelling operations would be disposed of at a licensed waste facility.”
54 Construction In general the principles around drainage in the first Refer to the updated A4.2.15 Construction Strategy Strategy: Land section of the CCP are sound when considering an Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1. Drainage agricultural setting. However they are not applicable when considering a freshwater SAC as a potential receptor of multiple drainage connections.
19 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. 55 Construction The pre-construction section states that Reference removed in the A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Land surface water may be intercepted by a Strategy Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1. Drainage topsoil storage mound. However there is Text added into A4.2.4 Construction Strategy: not mitigation included here to state how Pipelaying Open cut Watercourse Crossings and this "mound" will be protected from Construction Strategy: Pipelaying. scour/ erosion itself. This would seem to have the potential to act as a conduit and “Once the Contractor’s ECoW is satisfied that the silt carry sediment laden runoff into a control measures have been effectively installed and are receptor drain/ river. effective, bulk stripping would commence. The location of spoil mounds would be agreed with the Contractor’s ECoW to ensure mounds are not located in areas vulnerable to run-off (sloping ground), areas susceptible to flooding or where silt control measures may be difficult to install and operate. In areas where the easement is perpendicular to a watercourse, spoil mounds would be pulled back from the watercourse as far as practicable, by at least 10m unless agreed otherwise with the EA, NE and LPAs. In areas where the easement runs parallel to a watercourse, spoil would be stored on the opposite side of the trench from the watercourse. It may also be necessary to install additional more robust silt control measures in some locations depending upon site conditions (slope, distance to watercourse etc.) and watercourse sensitivity. Stored topsoil would be capped and sealed using an excavator, with appropriate gradients allowing controlled water runoff. All works within and adjacent to any watercourses would be supervised by the Contractors ECoW with assurance provided by the UU ECoW.”
56 Construction The construction phase details that UU's contractors Refer to the updated A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Strategy: Land will be responsible for including measures for the Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1. Drainage routine monitoring and control of discharges. This is fairly loose mitigation and cannot be concluded sufficient to protect the SAC from multiple sediment laden discharges.
57 Construction What are pre-identified "safe areas" and will these be Safe areas deleted from the Construction Strategy. Strategy: Land agreed with NE, EA and LPA's? Refer to the updated A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Drainage Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1.
58 Construction Waterstops within the main pipeline route should be A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Outline Land Drainage Strategy: Land used regularly along the whole length, not just in Plan Rev 1 amended to say “Waterstops will be installed Drainage areas where there is a perceived risk. The whole along the fully length of the pipeline.” pipeline is designed to be gravity fed; therefore the whole pipeline has the potential to act as a drain. For this reason waterstops should be used regularly. There are obviously multiple discharge points along the pipeline route. How will these discharge points be managed, what will they look like? There does not appear to be any consideration given to this.
20 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
59 Construction There are obviously multiple discharge points along Refer to the updated A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Strategy: Land the pipeline route. How will these discharge points Outline Land Drainage Plan Rev 1. Drainage be managed, what will they look like? There does not appear to be any consideration given to this.
60 Construction All access culverts should be fully passable to fish. Reference to this removed from the Land Drainage Strategy: Land This is particularly important as many will be in for a Construction Strategy and added to the A4.2.4 Drainage long period of time. Construction Strategy Pipelaying Open Cut Watercourse To minimise disturbance to fish passage the culverts Crossings. will need to be of sufficient diameter, very low gradient and the minimum length needed to allow “Any required temporary access culverts would be of a safe use by relevant machines. sufficient diameter, gradient and length to allow fish To achieve this culverts should be for single lane passage. Culverts would only be used for single lane traffic only. Installation and removal should be traffic only and would be installed and removed outside outside the the salmonid spawning season unless agreed otherwise salmonids spawning season. This should apply to all by the EA, NE and LPAs and in accordance with the culverts except at those locations where it has been relevant consent specification.” agreed on some minor watercourses that in-river works can occur in the spawning season – due to lack of fish habitat/passage.
61 Construction How will soil management the sensitivity of the Refer to A4.2.15 Construction Strategy Outline Land Strategy: freshwater SAC/SSSIs within near to the Drainage Plan Rev 1 and A4.2.16 Construction Strategy Outline Soil development? Outline Soil Management Plan Rev 1. Management The mapping* of the development route to indicate Plan such sensitivity is welcomed as a very useful tool. However, it is not clear how soil management will reflect the varying degrees of sensitivity identified. This is a significant issue because this could affect the impact on soils and soil sediments on the SACs. Also, this could affect the conclusion of the HRA *A4.2. 15 – Appendix C - Indicative scheme areas of ecological and hydrological sensitivity for land drainage impacts during construction.
62 Construction The commitment to provide specialist soil advice Within the pipeline contracts it says “The contractor shall Strategy: during the construction works should be clearly develop a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and appoint Outline Soil secured. This is indicated in section 5.1 of the sufficient suitably qualified and experienced personnel Management A4.2.16 (SQEP) to supervise the works (member of the Institute Plan This is required to ensure that the high sensitivity of of Professional Soil Scientists or equivalent). These the SACs to soil sediment is reflected in the detailed personnel would be expected to have the relevant construction Method Statements and implementation experience and expertise to supervise all aspects of the of them on site SMP. The SQEP would be present on site during the In addition, it should be made clear how this soil main construction and reinstatement works, as specialist will link with and report to the appropriate, to advise the contractor and supervise and Environmental Advisor, and ECoWs report on the implementation of the SMP”. The SQEP would report to the Contractor’s Environmental Advisor and work alongside the Ecological Clerk of Works.
63 Construction Is locating soil stockpiles a minimum of 10m from any A4.2.4 Construction Strategy Pipe laying Open Cut Strategy: watercourse sufficient to reduce the risk of sediment Watercourse Crossings Rev 1 updated to say “Once the Outline Soil entering SAC watercourses? Contractor’s ECoW is satisfied that the silt control Management - see section 6.6.2 penultimate bullet point. measures have been effectively installed and are
21 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. Plan Should this be amended in areas adjacent to the effective, bulk stripping would commence. The location SACs and/or in higher flood risk zones? of spoil mounds would be agreed with the Contractor’s Is this consistent with other developments in/near ECoW to ensure mounds are not located in areas freshwater SACs? vulnerable to run-off (sloping ground), areas susceptible As agreed in meeting 20m should be the minimum to flooding or where silt control measures may be with protection (geotextile). Protection should be difficult to install and operate. In areas where the used until the stockpile is 50m from the watercourse. easement is perpendicular to a watercourse, spoil There should also be an agreed slope level, above mounds would be pulled back from the watercourse as which protection would be used. far as practicable, by at least 10m unless agreed otherwise with the EA, NE and LPAs. In areas where the easement runs parallel to a watercourse, spoil would be stored on the opposite side of the trench from the watercourse. It may also be necessary to install additional more robust silt control measures in some locations depending upon site conditions (slope, distance to watercourse etc.) and watercourse sensitivity. Stored topsoil would be capped and sealed using an excavator, with appropriate gradients allowing controlled water runoff. All works within and adjacent to any watercourses would be supervised by the Contractors ECoW with assurance provided by the UU ECoW.” A4.2.16 Construction strategy Outline Soil Management Plan Rev 1 updated to refer to A4.2.4.
64 Construction It is not clear that the restoration of areas of semi- Section 6.5 of A4.2.16 Construction Strategy: Outline Strategy: natural habitat which are trenched or affected by Soil Management Plan states “Topsoil is an essential Outline Soil other works will require the soils to be reinstated to resource, being the medium for plant growth and an Management the pre-construction state. This is not stated in soil important carbon store, whilst the subsoil supports Plan restoration measures – section 6.8. It would require topsoil functions, contributing to soil water supply and storage of soils to enable the soil profile to be regulating drainage. restored. Soil stripping should be employed with care so that both This is required to ensure that the semi-natural topsoil and subsoil resources can be reused on or offsite habitat can be reinstated in the long-term – which is and not wasted. the stated aim in the mitigation plan In some locations of the proposed route, the quality of the upper subsoil horizon is significantly better than the lower subsoil horizon, for example where the latter is comprised of very stony or heavy clay material. In these situations, the different subsoil layers should be stripped and stored separately so that they can be reinstated in the correct sequence in the restored profile.” And in Section 6.8.2 5th bullet “The soil layers would be replaced sequentially, with the subsoil being fully reinstated before the topsoil layer follows. These layers should conform to a pre-determined thickness based primarily on the original state of the soil, taking into account where subsoil layers of different quality were identified for separate stripping and storage”.
65 Construction Silt protection measures are very limited and this is a To avoid repetition this was covered in A4.2.1 Strategy: CCP where this is very relevant. This should detail Construction Strategy General Overview within Section Outline Soil silt fencing to be used D/S of storage mounds, D/S of 9.2 amongst others. Management trench/ haul routes and in and sensitive areas. Cross reference added into A4.2.16 Construction Plan Strategy: Outline Soil Management Plan Rev 1 which says in section 6.6.2 “Silt protection measures would be
22 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. incorporated as detailed within A4.2.1 Construction Strategy General Overview Section 9.2 Prevention of Silt Pollution.”
66 Construction There is a mitigation measure to store soil in dry This statement has been deleted from A4.2.16 Strategy: locations, or drained it wet. What does this mean? Is Construction Strategy: Outline Soil Management Plan Outline Soil this installing new drains or relying on existing ones? Rev 1. Management If existing how will the condition of the drains be Plan assessed? What is the potential for soil to be lost to Refer to A4.2.15 Construction Strategy: Outline Land the drainage system? If installing new drains see Drainage Plan Rev 1 for further details. comments on drainage strategy above
67 Construction There should be consideration given to the method A4.2.17 Construction Strategy: Outline Biosecurity Strategy: employed to treat/ control INNS e.g. injection of JK Management plan updated to say: “The Environment outline rather than spraying when within 10m of a Agency would be consulted ahead of any weed or INNS Biosecurity watercourse. treatment works located within 8m of any watercourse”. Management and “Where chemical control is deemed necessary Plan adjacent to any watercourses, stem injection would be employed instead of spraying”.
68 Construction A biosecurity clerk of works should be employed The Ecological Clerk of Works would also cover Strategy: given the complexity associated with this CCP and biosecurity. Detailed knowledge from such as the West outline ensuring compliance. Suggest this is someone with Cumbria Rivers Trust would be called upon as and when Biosecurity good catchment knowledge of existing INNS required. A4.2.17 Construction Strategy Outline Management locations and treatments. Biosecurity Management Plan Rev 1 updated to say Plan “Consultation would take place with all relevant stakeholders e.g. West Cumbria Rivers Trust, NE, EA to ensure that all appropriate knowledge is available to inform the management approach.”
69 Construction Where disinfectants are used to clean kit/ machinery, Text added into section 5.3.3 of A4.2.17 Construction Strategy: the grey water produced should be disposed of down Strategy: Outline Biosecurity Management Plan Rev 1 outline appropriate sewer drains, not into the river system “Where disinfectants are used to clean kit/ machinery, Biosecurity the grey water produced would be disposed of Management appropriately and, not into the river system.” Plan
70 Construction The Dec 15 floods are likely to have spread JK Within A4.2.17 Construction Strategy: Outline Strategy: rhizome & HB seeds to potentially numerous new Biosecurity Management Plan Rev 1 section 4.3 the outline areas, that could be anywhere on the floodplain. This following sentence has been added “The December Biosecurity should be included in the CCP and the ID of the 2015 floods are likely to have spread Japanese Management young plants added to the tool box talks (p8) as it knotweed rhizome and Himalayan balsam seeds to Plan may not be safe to rely on even quite recent INNS potentially numerous new areas within the floodplain surveys. therefore the data searches and existing field surveys cannot be relied upon and further surveys would be required.”
Sentence updated within section 5.2.2 to say “All construction personal would be given a tool box talk on the presence of any weed or INNS and associated biosecurity procedures including identification”.
23 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
71 Construction The HRA states that all vehicles etc. will be cleaned Text added to section 5.2.1 of A4.2.17 Construction Strategy: and dried before moving between different Strategy Outline Biosecurity Management Plan Rev 1: outline watercourses/waterbodies. Don’t think this is “A strict protocol of CHECK-CLEAN and DRY for all Biosecurity reflected in A4.2.17 & not sure of the practicalities in plant, machinery and equipment would be employed Management some areas – particularly where there are numerous prior to deployment to site. Once on site, further Plan small crossings being put in close together. (NB Hot cleaning or disinfection may be required where any steam cleaning could be included as a biosecurity plant, machinery and equipment disturbs or potentially option). disturbs any areas known to contain an INNS. Any Chapter 8 part 14 just says “Implement CHECK – plant, machinery and equipment working directly within CLEAN & DRY protocol for all plant, machinery and any areas containing an INNS would be cleaned within equipment prior to deployment within the infestation area prior to leaving. The proposed easement/working Areas”. This is not the same as method of cleaning would be carefully selected to stated in the HRA. ensure its effectiveness whilst preventing the risk or causing any secondary spreading. The proposed method would be detailed in the Contractor’s site specific method statement, described below. Where water, steam or disinfectants are used to clean any plant, machinery and equipment, the grey water produced would be contained and appropriately disposed of. No grey water would be discharged to the aquatic environment.”
72 Construction The Check, Clean & Dry protocol does not appear to Refer to Response 71 above. Strategy: be described or referenced. If not familiar with this outline protocol then the amount of drying time needed to be Biosecurity effective may not be apparent. Management Plan
73 Construction In A4.2.17 section 5.3.1 Biosecurity Controls – “Entry Removed from pest and disease section and covered in Strategy: to water bodies, lakes, rivers and streams” is weed and INNS section. outline biosecurity control level 1. But this ignores the Biosecurity presence of alien crayfish in the Derwent catchment Management & aquatic alien weeds i.e. Crassula & Elodea. Maybe Plan more appropriate to consider Level 2 Biosecurity for entry to watercourses in some areas or a section here on Additional controls: watercourses (as per Forestry, crops & animals). Section 5.2 on INNS does not fully address this and it is potentially confusing to separate alien crayfish out from other Pest and disease management.
74 Construction 4.3 lists the INNS & locations but under records the Within A4.2.17 Construction Strategy: Outline Strategy: spread of these species & would benefit from pointing Biosecurity Management Plan Rev 1 section 4.3 the outline out that due to the Dec 2015 floods some of these following sentence has been added “The December Biosecurity species may have spread significantly since the 2015 floods are likely to have spread Japanese Management surveys. American signal crayfish are not just in St knotweed rhizome and Himalayan balsam seeds to Plan John’s Beck & although this is the only work area potentially numerous new areas within the floodplain where there are alien crayfish and in-river working – therefore the data searches and existing field surveys its wider spread needs to be indicated in case of cannot be relied upon and further surveys would be technical issues with slip lining or tunnelling – which required.” can subsequently lead to some in-river access/work.
If possible require contractors to report any sightings Wording amended to say “American signal crayfish
of crayfish to either the EA, NE or the planners (Pacifastacus leniusculus) particularly in St John’s
(noting this would not require any delay stand down Beck.” and sentence added in Section 4.3 to say “If
24 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. for in-river works). there are any sightings of crayfish during the construction works the Contractor’s ECoW should be notified. The Contractor’s ECoW would then report these sightings to the EA, NE and LPAs (it should be noted that this would not require any delay or stand down for in-river works).”
75 Construction “5.2.2 Treatment & Control” A few additions may be A4.2.17 Construction Strategy: Outline Biosecurity Strategy: helpful to contractors e.g. Management Plan Rev 1 updated to include: outline • do not use physical control if Japanese knotweed is Section 5.2.2 “Additionally, physical control methods Biosecurity present – except as part of a specific integrated (mowing and strimming) would be employed on seeded Management management plan as this method of control will soil storage sites and on undisturbed vegetation within Plan generally spread the species. the working areas, laydown areas and site compounds. • Ensure herbicide operatives are certified for use of These methods would also be employed in the herbicides in or near water & for use of herbicide by operational phase of the project for the injection (this is additional to the standard certification grassed/landscaped areas of the service reservoirs, for backpack spraying) pumping station and Water Treatment Works. Physical • Might be worth noting that demarcation fencing control methods (strimming) should not be used to around an established stand of JK needs to be 7m ensure the species are not spread, except as part of a specific integrated management plan. out from the visible canes unless a smaller area has been confirmed to be free of rhizome Chemical control involves the use of herbicides. Although widespread use of herbicides is generally not regarded as a sustainable long term practice in weed control, it can be of value in localised situations. Where chemical control is deemed necessary adjacent to any watercourses, stem injection would be employed instead of spraying. Where chemical control is required, only appropriately trained and certified staff for use of herbicides in or near water and for use of herbicide by injection would complete herbicide spraying. Only registered chemical would be used according to the instructions provided on the label”. Section 5.2.1 added “Demarcation fencing would extend the maximum extent of any ground potentially infested e.g. 7m around any stand of Japanese knotweed. Installation of any demarcation fencing and implementation of any works affecting an INNS would be supervised by the ECoW.”
76 S08 App C. P3 Ref Harm to ecology and animals and S08 is a standard document which covers all UU Environmental vegetation. Authority to be notified should include NE. projects. When that table was drafted, it was presumed Management that notification to Natural England would likely come from the Environment Agency, since it is the EA who are the Regulator for Controlled Waters and Natural England are a consultee to them for protected flora and fauna therein. The document is in the process of being updated. This can be incorporated into the updated version and be available for this project.
BOWFELL CONSULTING LTD. - ECOLOGIST ON BEHALF OF ALLERDALE & COPELAND
77 River Ehen Issue 1: Upstream tributary crossing – there is a lack We believe this comment relates to the crossing of SAC of mitigation of the open cut tributary which joins the Lingla Beck (03_24). Refer to response 9 above. SAC upstream of the SAC boundary. This makes the SAC and not the downstream associated habitats a
25 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. potential receptor. Mitigation should be provided which is equivalent to that for the R. Derwent given the sensitivities of the freshwater mussel populations.
78 River Ehen Issue 2: Open cut tributaries - further consideration is Refer to Response 9 above. SAC required of the impacts on the River Ehen and the mitigation required for the proposed open cut construction of watercourse crossing on tributaries. Consideration should be given to directional drilling for crossing 03_24 (Lingla Beck), located directly upstream of the River Ehen. Also, for watercourse crossings 03_24 and 04_48 consideration should be given to direct drill these crossings to avoid the potential for sediment/ pollutant discharge directly into the River Ehen SAC. Given the sensitivity of this site the precautionary principle should be adopted here. The mitigation provided is not clear or specific enough to ensure that there would be no impact. As this site drains directly into the SAC a more robust approach should be adopted. This is likely to lead to the use of directional drilling to avoid potential harm the SAC.
79 River Ehen Issue 3: Further watercourse crossings - other Refer to Response 10 above. SAC crossings within the River Ehen catchment require further consideration of mitigation to avoid impacts to the SAC. Whilst these crossings drain into the River Keekle, the confluence with the Ehen downstream of the SAC boundary, any pollution incident resulting from works within this catchment could have the potential to impact transient interest features of the SAC and mitigation should be robust enough to ensure against this.
80 River Ehen Issue 4: Construction Code of Practice - Supporting Refer to Responses 23 to 76 above and the SAC the conclusion of the IIAA for the River Ehen SAC Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated depends upon the Construction Code of Practice and Construction Strategies. supporting Construction Strategies in ES Appendix 4.2 being effective. Outstanding issues identified for these is section 6 below will need to be addressed.
81 River Derwent Issue 5 - Construction Code of Practice - Supporting Refer to Responses 23 to 76 above and the SAC the conclusion of the IIAA for the River Derwent SAC Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated depends upon the Construction Code of Practice and Construction Strategies. supporting Construction Strategies in ES Appendix 4.2 being effective. Outstanding issues identified for these is section 6 below will need to be addressed.
82 Impacts and Issue 6: Extent of habitat loss – despite a high quality Habitat Type Area (ha) of habitat type within restoration of Phase 1 habitat survey no assessment is made of the the planning application wider extent of habitat loss from the proposals. In Chapter boundary countryside 11, Ecology paras 119-125 no mention is made of the key habitats extent. This is required to be able to assess the Arable land 20.921 overall impact on habitats of local or higher Acid grassland 0.113 importance outside of designated sites (i.e. not within Amenity grassland 2.463 SSSIs), and the effectiveness of compensatory
26 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
measures. Bare ground 2.155 Figures for the extent of habitat loss per habitat are Broadleaf 3.235 required. woodland
Continuous 1.474 bracken
Dense scrub 0.582
Felled coniferous 0.549 plantation
Floodplain marsh 0.175
Improved 253.451 grassland
Marshy grassland 14.324
Mixed woodland 0.239
Neutral grassland 1.949
Other tall herbs 0.007 and fern (non ruderal)
Planted broadleaf 5.217 woodland
Planted coniferous 2.630 woodland
Planted mixed 0.975 woodland
Semi-improved 1.179 acid grassland
Scattered 1.028 broadleaf woodland
Hardstanding 1.353
Poor semi- 27.717 improved grassland
Semi-improved 2.688 neutral grassland
Scattered scrub 1.812
Surface water 0 mesotrophic
Tall ruderal 0.887
Valley mire 1.657
TOTAL 348.780
83 Impacts and Issue 7: Reinstatement of habitats from existing seed Reinstatement of habitats within and outside designated restoration of bank - within and outside designated sites sites would primarily be undertaken through careful wider reinstatement should primarily be achieved through stripping, storage and management of any soils in order countryside reuse of existing turves and topsoil removal and to retain the original seedbank. Stripped soils would be key habitats reinstatement. This is to preserve the local stored adjacent to their place of origin to ensure the
27 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. provenance seed bank wherever possible. Chapter seedbank is reinstated back to their original location. 11, Ecology, para 120 and Appendix 23.1: Mitigation Where the retake from a seedbank is unsuccessful, re Schedule indicate that re-seeding is the main seeding may be required using seed mixes of local vegetation restoration technique. This should be provenance that match the species present prior to secondary to reusing the existing site topsoil construction. Reinstatement of any trees, shrubs or seedbank as the primary habitat restoration hedgerows will be undertaken using specimens of local technique. provenance. This is particularly relevant for wet grassland and species rich hedges – see detailed comments below. In order to identify the most valuable habitats and the existing composition of species, further specialist survey work will be a specific mitigation measure as outlined in paragraph 9.2 of Appendix 11.2 of the Environmental Statement: “preconstruction surveys for notable non- designated habitats (hedgerows, wet grassland, species rich grassland, peat habitats and deciduous woodland and areas of ancient woodland) will be undertaken to ensure previous data are still relevant and areas for specific mitigation are identified ahead of construction. Surveys must be undertaken by an experienced ecologist to identify notable non-designated habitats and associated species. These surveys will inform targeted mitigation measures such as recommended species mixes for replanting and indicate the most suitable locations for habitat-specific mitigation”.
84 Impacts and Issue 8: Linking the Mitigation Schedule and Refer to the West Cumbria Supplies Environmental restoration of Construction Strategy - Appendix 23.1: Mitigation Management Process in the Supplementary Information wider Schedule relies upon the implementation of the Volume 2 Appendix 1 which documents how the CCoP, countryside content of the many of the sub-strategies contained Construction Strategies, Mitigation Schedule and key habitats within Appendix 4.2: Construction Strategies. While Environmental Masterplan would be used by the actions from these sub-strategies are very briefly Contractors to produce the Environmental Control Plans included the relevant Construction Strategies are not which are to be agreed by the EA, NE and LPAs. cited, despite being the documents to go to for the full detail. This is a significant cross-referencing gap that may lead to the specific measures outlined in the Construction Strategies being overlooked when detailed mitigation designs and Method Statements are developed by the contractors.
85 Impacts and Issue 9: Linking the Environmental Masterplan and Refer to the West Cumbria Supplies Environmental restoration of the Construction Strategy - Appendix 23.2: Management Process in the Supplementary Information wider Environmental Masterplan is a very effective Volume 2 Appendix 1 which documents how the CCoP, countryside document at indicating at high-level the site specific Construction Strategies, Mitigation Schedule and key habitats mitigation requirements along the entire length of the Environmental Masterplan would be used by the project. This could help to ensure that the generic Contractors to produce the Environmental Control Plans commitments made by the applicant for mitigation in which are to be agreed by the EA, NE and LPAs. the Mitigation Schedule (see above) are implemented in the detailed construction design and implementation. However. To achieve this it is essential that the Mitigation Schedule links to the Construction Strategies (see point above) and that the Masterplan links to the drainage sensitivity mapping in Appendix 4.2.15: Construction Strategy – Land Drainage Plan, Appendix C: Indicative scheme areas of ecological and hydrological sensitivity for
28 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. land drainage impacts. While this has been developed for construction phase impacts it is also very relevant to the reinstatement works.
86 Impacts and Issue 10: Composition of locally appropriate seed In order to identify the most valuable habitats and the restoration of mixes – despite reference to its use for this purpose existing composition of species further specialist survey wider the Phase 1 habitat survey, which uses a standard work will be a specific mitigation measure as outlined in countryside rapid assessment technique, does not provide paragraph 9.2 of Appendix 11.2 of the Environmental key habitats detailed site-specific species information for habitats. Statement: “preconstruction surveys for notable non- Further work will be required to identify the designated habitats (hedgerows, wet grassland, species composition of locally appropriate seed mixes, which rich grassland, peat habitats and deciduous woodland will cannot be ascertained from the Phase 1 survey and areas of ancient woodland) will be undertaken to data. ensure previous data are still relevant and areas for specific mitigation are identified ahead of construction. Surveys must be undertaken by an experienced ecologist to identify notable non-designated habitats and associated species. These surveys will inform targeted mitigation measures such as recommended species mixes for replanting and indicate the most suitable locations for habitat-specific mitigation”.
87 Reinstatement Issue 11: Reinstatement of hedge bottom flora Refer to Response 83 above. of hedge Section 6.1 of Appendix 23.1: Mitigation Schedule bottom flora fails to provide any mitigation action to reinstate the hedge bottom vegetation. The notes on the maps in the Appendix 23.2: Environmental Masterplan states ‘Species rich seed mixes for hedgerow bottoms and grassland to be developed from Phase 1 habitat data’. The primary method should be the effective storage and reinstatement of the existing turves of the vegetation. This should be required within the Mitigation Schedule, with a statement ‘Careful topsoil removal and reinstatement to preserve seed bank wherever possible.’ In addition, the Phase 1 habitat survey, which uses a standard rapid survey technique, does not provide detailed site-specific species information. Further work will be required to identify the composition of locally appropriate seed mixes.
88 Hedges Issue 12: Photo-recording of individual hedges A4.2.1 Construction Strategy General Overview in During pre-application the need for effective section 4 Site Survey says “Condition surveys would be reinstatement of hedges, including the local style of carried out of all land and key features such as cist banking or similar, was agreed to be important. hedgerows and stone walls (with a photographic record) At this stage it was agreed with UU and their to help inform the reinstatement. Any structural surveys consultants to use photo-recording of each hedge to of properties that may be impacted by vibration would ensure reinstatement is in the pre-construction style. also be undertaken”. This commitment does not appear to be included in the application. This should be sought as an additional commitment.
89 Native Issue 13: Area of compensation woodland – Chapter Appendix 8.3 of the Environmental Statement details Woodland 11, Ecology para 124 states – ‘for habitat loss in various features that are considered to be potentially at woodland, a requirement for compensation has been risk as a result of the development proposals. No identified due to the residual permanent loss of trees distinction has been made at the assessment stage between native and non-native woodland and all
29 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. and woodland, especially ancient woodland. ‘ woodland replanting proposals would comprise native However, the total extent of loss of native woodland, species. The location for the planting sites is detailed in both recorded as ancient and not, is not given in the drawings forming part of the Environmental Statement Environmental Statement. Therefore the adequacy of Volume 4 Appendix 23.2 Environmental Masterplan. the extent of woodland creation cannot be judged to be acceptable or not. Please refer to the Supplementary Information Volume 2 Appendix 2 Tree and Hedgerow Loss, for the total extent While the extent of the Ennerdale planting is defined of tree, woodland and hedgerow loss. – 4.2 ha – the balance of woodland creation through the community planting fund is not stated. The extent of the Community Planting Fund and the management arrangements would be agreed in due A figure for the total loss of native woodland and area course with the LPAs and NE. to be recreated as compensation should be provided by UU. In addition, a commitment should be sought The aim of the planting at Ennerdale is to link this in to to deliver the extent of compensation woodland as a the Wild Ennerdale Stewardship Plan. The Stewardship minimum. Plan includes two objectives which support this next phase: Securing the Ennerdale woodland compensation project – while the Ennerdale proposals are • Plant native broadleaves and Juniper as seed considered to provide suitable ecological trees in the eastern valley to give natural compensation for permanent ASNW loss how this processes the opportunity to develop project will be secured is not entirely clear. woodland away from becoming dominated by spruce. The proposals note that the Wild Ennerdale • Allow natural woodland encroachment beyond Stewardship Plan is due for review in summer 2016, present forest boundary to soften stark the timing of which coincides with the determination contrast between forest and open fell. of this EIA. Therefore, any planning condition imposed on United Utilities, should planning A range of planting approaches would be adopted in permission be granted, can be incorporated into this terms of location, species, density and methods of tree revised Stewardship Plan and will be signed off by all protection to best reflect variable natural regeneration Stewardship Partners prior to the plan’s patterns in this exposed part of the valley. implementation.
Exact details of nature and scale of the compensation in It is recommended that a condition requiring creation this area would be agreed with all relevant parties. of woodland for ecological compensation of impacts
(rather than for landscape and amenity) of at least 4.2 ha is applied. The prime proposal for this is the Ennerdale project. However, such a condition would allow UU to find alternative sites should the need arise. These would need to be agreed to the satisfaction of the planning authorities.
90 Native Issue 14: Securing the community fund for woodland We are seeking a Management Partner for the Woodland creation - the value of this fund, details of its community tree fund and this will include for advice and management and the criteria by which funds will be support to local communities. Exact details of the scale allocated are all subject to further development with and nature of the fund will be agreed with all relevant stakeholders. parties.
It is not clear when these will be established. As a minimum the value of the fund and proposals for how it will be administered should be agreed with UU – either as a condition or in a statement of commitment. In addition, it is recommended that
30 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. these proposals include provision for woodland creation advice and support for local communities. This would help communities develop ideas for new woodland into suitable projects and then implement them effectively through to young woodland.
91 Wet Grassland Issue 15: Reinstatement of wet grassland habitat Refer to Responses 83 and 86 above. Section 6.1 of Appendix 23.1: Mitigation Schedule states that for wet grassland ‘The Reinstatement of habitats to include replanting of appropriate native species mix’. The notes on the maps in the Appendix 23.2: Environmental Masterplan states ‘Species rich seed mixes for hedgerow bottoms and grassland to be developed from Phase 1 habitat data’. This is a secondary method for restoring the vegetation. The primary method should be the effective storage and reinstatement of the existing turves of the vegetation. This should be required within the Mitigation Schedule, with a statement ‘Careful topsoil removal and reinstatement to preserve seed bank wherever possible.’ In addition, the Phase 1 habitat survey, which uses a standard rapid assessment technique, does not provide detailed site-specific species information. Further work will be required to identify the composition of locally appropriate seed mixes.
92 Construction Issue 16: Construction Code of Practice – a series of Refer to Responses 23 to 76 above and the Code of detailed outstanding issues need to be addressed Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated Practice before the conclusion of no likely significant effect on Construction Strategies. the River Derwent and River SACs from the proposals can be sufficiently justified. The outstanding issues are set out in Annex 1.
93 Construction Issue 17: Sign-off of agreed revisions and future Updated Construction Strategies have been included Code of proposed plans – the planning authorities will need to within the Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated Practice sign-off any changes to the Code of Practice resulting Construction Strategies and as such would form part of from addressing the issues in Annex 1. In addition, any planning permission granted. We agree that local during the detailed project planning and construction authority and regulator resourcing during the stages they will need to provide comment and construction phase would benefit from a joint approach. approval to the numerous detailed Method Statements, designs, timetables and similar requirements and liaise with the ECoW and other advisers as required in the proposals and Environmental Statement. Agreement is required as to how this will be achieved and resourced during the detailed project planning and construction stages. A joint approach to produce comment and approvals across the planning authorities may be appropriate and efficient.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
94 Valves at It is unclear whether the valve alterations at Thirlmere Replacement valves at Thirlmere are included within the Thirlmere are part of this planning application or whether they application but would have no additional capacity. They will need planning permission – but regardless they require relocating due to the additional take off. The
31 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. will need an assessment under the Habitats operation of the valves and the scale and nature of the Regulations. releases is the subject of further analysis.
95 River working The acceptable season for in-river working on Refer to Response 2 above windows salmonid rivers is normally June to September. This is incorrectly described as March – October in the Environmental Statement. Additionally in Volume 4 Appendix 11.11 - Table 9.2 – “Indicative spawning times for relevant fish species” erroneously shows the spawning period for sea trout as being July to November. This table also shows the spawning period for river and brook lamprey as extending into July. This is normally considered to be more March/April. Only sea lamprey are expected to still be spawning in June and these have more limited and more obvious spawning areas and thus are easier to avoid.
96 Chapter 9 Emergency discharges assessed as negligible. This The nature of the effect of emergency discharges was 9.5.2 could increase to minor in low flow conditions. considered in terms of the magnitude, probability, Para 42 reversibility and duration of the effects of the Proposed Scheme. As the likelihood of this event occurring was extremely low, the overall effect was considered to be negligible. We do, however, recognise that in the unlikely occurrence of this event, then there may be impacts requiring remediation which would be agreed with the Environment Agency and Natural England at the time.
97 Environmental It is assumed that any water supply would be Yes this assumption is correct. Statement tankered to site and that all wastewater would be
Volume 4 stored and removed from site rather than discharged The text within A4.2.3 Construction Strategy: Pipelaying
Technical locally. Based on this assumption, there would be no Rev 1 section 2.3 has been improved. It previously said
Appendices local abstractions or discharges, 4.2 re this. Could be “Water & Electricity would be provided by connecting included in General Overview. Chapter 9 into local networks where available or from temporary App 9.4 generators and bowsers.” Sentence added to say “No local abstractions would take place from watercourses“ and “All wastewater would be stored and removed from site rather than discharged locally into watercourses.”
98 Appendix 10.1: 6.1 (98) - Sentence says : In accordance with the Appendix 10.1: Existing Bridge End WTW Level 3- FRA Existing Bridge NPPF, the proposed development is considered to be Volume 4: End WTW ‘Essential Infrastructure’ based on NPPF Level 3- FRA classification. In terms of development compatibility, Yes, the words should read 3a and 3b. Volume 4 this type of site is appropriate in all fluvial Flood Zones except Flood Zones 1 and 2.??? Question- should this read 3a and 3b?
99 Appendix It is understood that EA framework contractors have A teleconference was held between Jacobs, the EA and 10.2A: Moota provided and overview and an opinion on the Mott MacDonald (EA Framework Contractors). A Hill Service modelling approach and methodology. technical response note was produced by the Jacobs Reservoir modelling team: Jacobs’s response to Mott review Final, Overview dated 24/05/16 which was submitted to the Environment Modelling Agency under separate cover. A response was Report provided from the EA and Mott MacDonald on 18/07/16 Volume 4 which concluded “Jacobs have responded to all queries
32 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. to show that modelling has been undertaken to deliver a conservative estimate of breach hydrographs and flood extents. Comment on all issues raised is considered to be appropriate with no further comments from Mott MacDonald regarding the study.”
100 Appendix As 10.2A Refer to Response 99 above. 10.2C: Moota Hill Service Reservoir Breach Modelling Report Volume 4
101 Appendix As 10.2A No response required. 10.2B: Threapland Gill Hydrology Report Volume 4
102 Appendix 10.4: Section 3. Assessment of Flood Risk to Development ES Appendix 10.4: Raw Water Aqueduct Level 3 Flood Raw Water Site. Risk Assessment Volume 4: Aqueduct Level 25) bullet 2 says with regards the RWA, ‘it would not
3 Flood Risk be vulnerable to the effects of flooding and can Paragraph 25) The only above ground elements Assessment withstand submersion with water without affecting the associated with the RWA (with the exception of the Volume 4 operation.’ bridge at Gill Beck, and the connection at Bridge End) are some of the valves and kiosks. Valves are not Question- The FRA discusses submersion but has it vulnerable to flooding as they are watertight, concrete adequately addressed potential for structural damage encased structures. The kiosks would be mounted on from channel scour and landslip or in less severe concrete plinths and would be robustly designed to circumstances flood damage to above ground protect against floating debris. Electrical equipment equipment in the flood plain from exposure to flowing within the kiosks would be installed at least 1.5 m above floodwater and floating debris. surrounding ground level to provide further protection against potential flood water ingress.
76) For clarification please confirm that where culvert capacity is discussed- what climate allowance is The potential for structural damage to the pipeline from proposed? channel scour and landslip has been assessed and the results of this assessment were included in Volume 2 of the ES, Section 2.4.3.1 of Chapter 9 - Water Resources. 94) Land Drainage Aspects are considered the remit
of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). Paragraph 76) At the time of writing the FRA the latest EA Climate Change guidance was used. A 20 % 97) The applicant should be aware Flood Defence allowance was added for Climate Change for this Consent process was replaced by Permitting for assessment. Flood Risk Activities (PfFRA) on 6 April 2016. Due to
proximity of the SSSI and SAC a number of operation are likely to require ‘Bespoke Permits.’ Paragraph 94) Noted.
105) The bullet point here contradicts information Paragraph 97) Noted. provided in 4.1.3 (76) which refer to 1:100 yr fluvial (1% AEP) event plus CC, rather than 1:1000 yr ( Paragraph 105) Text should read ‘the culverts would be 0.1% AEP) event. Clarification on design event and designed to convey a 1 in 100 year (1 %) plus climate climate change allowance used, and rationale is change flood event.’
33 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. required.
With reference to section 6. Summary and Conclusion and our previous comments in Section 3. 25), we would consider flood damage a potential factor pipeline failure.
103 Appendix It is understood that EA framework contractors have No response required. 10.8A: WTW provided and overview and an opinion on the Clean Water modelling approach and methodology. Storage Tank Overflow Modelling report
104 Appendix As 10.8A No response required. 10.8B: Brides Beck Hydrology report
105 Appendix Section 2. Methodology refers to the Hamlet of Appendix 10.12: Crummock Water Flood Investigation 10.12: ‘Southwaite’. We question this because there is a Report Volume 4: Crummock model at Southwaite Mill and only a very small break Water Flood in the two models which does not affect ‘Southwaite’, The EA model received had only ID coverage of Investigation therefore this mistake undermines this part of the Southwaite. The increase in peak water level for the 1 Report report and it needs to be revisited. in 100 year flood event was found to be <1mm in this Volume 4 area and the maximum increase in flow was around Impacts of peak river levels in Low Lorton and 0.1% at Southwaite Mill. We therefore conclude that the Cockermouth as a result of the scheme are noted. impact of the scheme in this area would be negligible.
Section 3.1. As discussed there is a model and Paragraph 12) For clarity, the original text should be therefore a revised assessment needs to be made. changed to ‘The models received provided 1D coverage of the River Cocker, downstream of Crummock Water, extending to the town of Cockermouth. However, it At present therefore we cannot agree that should be noted that the 2D model extent (floodplain satisfactory assessment has been made and cannot agree with conclusions at present. representation) was restricted to Low Lorton and Cockermouth.’
Paragraph 13) Text stating ‘Where coverage permits’ to be removed.
Paragraph 19) For clarity, original text should be changed to ‘Particular attention was paid to the town of Cockermouth and Low Lorton Village’
Paragraph 20 & 21) For clarity, original text should be changed to ‘In addition, a number of properties associated with the hamlet of Southwaite are situated within close proximity of the River Cocker. These properties lie within the 1D-model extent only where floodplain depths cannot be extracted from the model. As a result, an assessment has been carried out in which the peak, in-channel water levels have been
34 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. extrapolated across the floodplain to represent potential floodplain depths. The change in peak flows between the ‘With scheme’ and ‘no abstraction’ scenarios has also been extracted in this location to add an extra layer of detail to the assessment.’
Section 3, paragraph 22) For clarity, text should be changed to ‘…there are three key areas containing receptors, downstream of Crummock Water, that could be vulnerable to an increase in fluvial flood risk from the River Cocker.’
Paragraph 23) For clarity, text should be changed from ‘…for all three urban areas for the 1 in 30…’
Table 3-1) New rows added for Southwaite. The maximum increase in peak water level for both the 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year flood events is <1 mm.
Paragraph 33) Original text should be changed to ‘Within the hamlet of Southwaite there are three properties that lie within close proximity of the River Cocker. As discussed in Section 2, model coverage in this area is 1-Dimensional and therefore floodplain depths cannot be extracted at this location. Peak in- channel water levels for both the 1 in 30 year and 1 in 100 year flood events are shown to increase by <1 mm throughout Southwaite. This is considered a negligible increase and is not discussed further.
Paragraph 34) Original text should be changed to ‘Southwaite Bridge is located immediately downstream of the village and there is potential therefore for flows to back up behind the structure during an extreme flood event and be directed towards nearby vulnerable receptors. Southwaite Mill is the closest to the bridge and lies some 50 m west of the structure. However, peak flows during the 1 in 100 year flood event are shown to increase by up to 0.1% in Southwaite as a result of ceasing abstraction at Crummock Water.’
Paragraph 35) Text changed to ‘This is considered to be a negligible increase from a flood risk management perspective and the impact of the scheme on flood risk to the village of Southwaite is therefore considered to be low.’
106 Appendix No comment, as previous: - It is understood that EA No response required. 10.13A: Halls framework contractors have provided and overview Beck and an opinion on the modelling approach and Hydrological methodology. Report Volume 4
35 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
107 Appendix It is understood that EA framework contractors have No response required. 10.13B: River provided and overview and an opinion on the Ellen modelling approach and methodology. Hydrological Report Volume 4
108 Appendix Generally agree with the content of the Assessment, ES Appendix 10.14: Construction Phase Level 3 Flood 10.14: however in relation to Appendix A. General Flood Risk Assessment Volume 4: Construction Risk Management Considerations Phase Level 3 A.1 Flood Risk to the Proposed Works No information has been omitted. The ellipses in Section Flood Risk In this section there are a number of eliipsis. We take A.1 have been used where information from the Assessment this to indicate an intentional omission of a word, construction strategies is being summarised, rather than Volume 4 sentence, or whole section from a text without quoted. It is important that the information within the altering its original meaning. The document reads construction strategies is summarised in our own words that this section is not completed. rather than using direct quotations.
109 Appendix No comment as it is understood that EA framework No response required. 10.14B1: contractors have provided and overview and an Brides Beck opinion on the modelling approach and methodology. Commissioning Flow Flood Modelling Technical Note Volume 4
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL
110 Visibility Splays No detail was initially provided in relation to the Refer to Supplementary Information Volume 2 Appendix visibility splays on the access arrangements for the 3 which shows the permanent sites visibility splay permanent access locations. Following the County drawings that were provided to Cumbria Highways and Council’s request this information has been provided were commented on in this response. United Utilities and the County Council has the following comments will accept the additional requirements proposed by to make. Cumbria Highways and updated visibility splays will be provided in due course. Temporary proposals and
B2707061-S3-ABC-WTW-20 RvB Traffic Management Plan would also be provided prior to commencement on site. The 215m visibility stated is fine. Consideration should be given to the mature trees located within the extents of the visibility splays. Stated on the plan that these will be trimmed back, we need to ensure that any maintenance work completed to these trees will ensure visibility (now and in future) is not obstructed.
M333_80040112_00_97_9401_CPA1 The Moota B5301 will require 215m splay to the right; unless it can be demonstrated that 85th %ile speeds are lower than 60mph, in which case this may be reduced. Consideration to be given to the increasing gradient of the B5301 toward the new access. This may impede visibility of approaching traffic over the brow of the hill.
M334_80040112_00_97_2701_CPC Williamsgate to Summergrove is considered fine, as the 215m visibility splay is specified in the notes
36 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. section.
M335_80040112_00_97_9401_CPA HLays High Leys – 215m is required (90m is specified) unless 85th speeds are significantly lower than 60mph.
Each new access, be that permanent (built to the appropriate highway standards) or temporary subject to construction management / traffic management plans, should be provided prior to commencement in detail to allow for the Local Highway Authority to make comment on each site.
111 Highways and The current proposal would not meet the Refer to Supplementary Information Volume 1 SEI Transport – requirements of DMRB in terms of visibility for Amendments to the Planning Application Amendment Water adequate road safety. Vehicles using the junction 42A which details an amended access off the A595 as Treatment near the access, or those coming out of the access to requested. Works use the junction, would not be aware of vehicles pulling out of the WTW. The current arrangement is United Utilities have also been in discussions with highly likely to result in the creation of a conflict zone Cumbria Highways with regard to the Stopping up order with the potential for resulting road traffic incidents to and this would be progressed in due course. causing serious injuries or fatalities.
Our preference for the WTW access would be the creation of a single access off the A595 for the sole purpose of building, maintaining and operating the WTW. In order to provide a single dedicated access we recommend you make an application for a stopping up order on the road from which your access is currently shown. This will allow the development of new dedicated access built to modern standards at the existing junction location. This arrangement would significantly reduce the likelihood of conflict and injury.
It is considered that this information should be provided before the County Council provides its final response.
It should also be noted that works to alter the A595 highway following a stopping up order would be subject to an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
112 Historic The County Council agrees with all of the proposed Further trial trenching would be undertaken at High Leys Environment mitigation measures that are outlined in paragraph Service Reservoir to establish the form and nature of the 12.6 in the Cultural Heritage Chapter 12 and also in geophysical anomalies identified in earlier surveys. This table 12.6.6 in appendix 12-6 of the ES. In addition phase of work would be undertaken post-determination to these measures, it is advised that the geophysical as part of the programme of archaeological mitigation; anomalies identified in the survey of the High Leys the investigation would follow a Written Scheme of Service Reservoir are subject to trial trenching and, if Investigation agreed with Cumbria County Council’s found to be significant, provision be made for their Historic Environment - Development Control team.
37 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. investigation and recording through an archaeological Based on the results of the trial trenching further excavation. This mitigation may actually be covered archaeological investigations such as archaeological by paragraph 12.6, point 95 of the ES, which is a excavation or watching brief may be undertaken. generic statement recommending trial trenching of geophysical anomalies, but the High Leys Service Reservoir is the only geophysical survey location in the Copeland section of the proposed development that requires further trial trenching and so the point does need highlighting.
113 Minerals and It would be useful if a list or map of the “nine These are shown on Figure 13.2. Waste: abandoned limestone quarries or previously worked areas within the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme”? Environmental Suggest ‘disused’ is a suitable term. Statement, chapter 13 It is considered that, ‘abandoned’ is not the right Highclose Quarry was not reviewed in Minerals context. soils, terminology, they could be ‘disused’, ‘restored’, This was because it was identified as an area of infilled paragraph 101 ‘dormant’ or ‘mothballed’. land rather than as an active or potential quarry.
It is also considered that it needs to be demonstrated Historical mapping suggests that quarrying ended in the that Highclose Quarry, approximately 980 m north of 1970s/1980s and contemporary aerial images indicate Moota Quarry, has been taken into consideration. the site was infilled at that time. Although Highclose is currently dormant, there has
been interest shown to re-open it, and it has planning permission until 2042; its operation may impact on Regarding access sterilisation, it is assumed that access the pipeline scheme or vice versa. to any new development at this resource would remain along the A595 and B5301 and this access would not be
compromised by the scheme. It is important to demonstrate that all disused
quarries have been taken in consideration this could be in terms of safety, future re-opening or the use of The scheme planning application boundary is ~ 1.3km inert waste arising from the scheme being used for east of Highclose at its closest location we do not restoration. consider that any future working of this site would be constrained by the Proposed Scheme.
Quarries (operational & disused) have been considered in the scheme design, principally to avoid active sites (e.g. Moota), considering economic disruption, engineering design, constructability, but also with consideration of ecological and geological conservation. Quarries have been identified where surplus materials can be used for restoration, namely Moota and Lillyhall sites. It has not been possible to avoid MSA, although key current minerals sites have been avoided. A balance and judgment has been made during scheme design, considering other environmental factors, hydraulics, engineering design and constructability to reach a sustainable design for submission.
114 Minerals and The lower extent of the proposed scheme (from The February 2015 document was the most up to date Waste: Mockerin to Cleator) also crosses the Brick clay document available at the time our Environmental Environmental Mineral Safeguarding Area, it is however Impact Assessment was undertaken. The Consultation Statement, acknowledged that this would not have been in Draft was not used as it was not available at the time of chapter 13 Cumbria County Council’s Feb 2015 draft MWLP, but writing. soils, is in the current consultation draft. paragraph 103 The igneous rock MSA in the northern part of the
38 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. The upper extent of the proposed scheme (from scheme was an omission. It is not considered, that the Bothel to Torpenhow) potentially crosses the Igneous presence of this MSA would change the assessment; rock Mineral Safeguarding Area. the scheme would not impact upon this MSA.
115 Minerals and It is stated that the impact on Mineral Safeguarding Paragraphs 143 to 147 of the Environmental Statement Waste: Areas by virtue of the limited footprint of the proposed refer to effects during Construction. Environmental scheme route, is neutral or slight; it is considered that this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of MSAs. It Statement, Paragraphs 169 to 170 of the Environmental Statement chapter 13 is also considered that the statement “there are no refers to effects during operation. operational mineral extraction activities or known soils, paragraphs planning applications in process for workings within The scheme has a limited width corridor of development 143 to 147 and 250 m of the Proposed Scheme, the sensitivity/value and we do not consider that the sterilisation of the 169 to 170 of the Minerals Safeguarded areas was considered to limited width of ground in relation to the MSA is greater be medium” is incorrect. Furthermore, in Table 13.5 with regard to MSAs, it says “Unlikely to be significant than medium sensitivity. This is considered appropriate effect during construction due to inherent scheme given that current mineral extraction facilities are not design and limited duration of works”. generally in close proximity to the scheme and future extensions towards the scheme, such that they could be affected by the presence of the pipeline, are not planned or likely given the distance from the scheme.
Using data recently provided by CCC we have calculated approximate values for the potential percentage take of the various MSA by the scheme during operation approximates as follows: • CCC Coal & Fire Clay MSA-0.01% • CCC Limestone MSA-0.18% • CCC Sand & Gravel MSA-0.125% • LDNPA MSA-0.005%
116 Minerals and It is considered that the effect should be stated as EIA methodology identifies Significance as a function of Waste: being high or significant (once a mineral is sterilised sensitivity and magnitude. Environmental it’s lost to us and future generations - inter generational equity) and the planning application Statement, As such, an effect can only be designated as high with should be assessed from that standpoint. chapter 13 an appropriately weighted sensitivity or magnitude. soils, paragraphs The current wording could lead to a request for prior Our assessment considers that MSA are a medium 143 to 147 and extraction of the minerals that they are not intended sensitivity, and during construction phase represent a 169 to 170 to be used in the construction/pipe minimal impact which produces a neutral or slight
bedding/landscaping/etc., or potentially a request to significance. use the stone they dig up for WwTW cladding or
walling, etc. It is recognised that the presence of the proposed infrastructure could theoretically prevent extraction of minerals, however, given the limited operational easement within the MSA (a typical width of 8m post construction), it is considered unlikely that the Proposed Scheme would significantly limit future mineral workings. The % area potentially impacted is minimal as identified in Response 115 above.
Priority would be given for reuse of any surplus excavated materials, within the construction process (e.g. bunds, backfill etc.) to maximise scheme sustainability and minimise the requirement for Imported
39 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. minerals.
117 Minerals and A Mineral Safeguarding Area is intended to We consider this comment as a statement of fact. We Waste: safeguard proven deposits of minerals which are, or recognise the importance of MSA in the context of Environmental may become of economic importance within the protection of future mineral resource and would continue Statement, foreseeable future, from unnecessary sterilisation by to consider these designations in scheme design where chapter 13 non-minerals development. The fact that the footprint possible. soils, is small, the duration of construction is short or that paragraphs there are no mineral permissions or applications 143 to 147 and within 250m, are all irrelevant to the designation of an 169 to 170 MSA – a mineral is a finite resource and once it has been sterilised, it cannot be recovered.
118 Minerals and It is acknowledged that this pipeline is a much Mitigation is embedded within the design by routing Waste: needed major project, but the significance of the away from historical quarries or those with on-going Environmental impact on minerals and mineral safeguarding should activities were possible, within constraints of other Statement, be heightened. This would be in conformity with both environmental assets and the engineering requirements chapter 13 the adopted Cumbria Core Strategy and the of the pipeline hydraulics. soils, emerging Cumbria Minerals & Waste Local Plan, which have policies to safeguard minerals (policies paragraphs In the absence of defined mineral development CS14 and DC15 respectively). 143 to 147 and proposals within the proximity of the scheme it is not 169 to 170 possible to assess impact in relation to hypothetical minerals abstraction at an unknown location or future time. Operationally, there would be a ~8m permanent easement in relation to the pipeline, and access would be maintained through the existing road network.
119 Minerals and It should be noted that the February 2015 draft of the We agree that the MWLP plan period is to 2029 as the Waste: MWLP had a Plan period to 2029, not 2026 as this response suggests, our original 2026 date is incorrect. Environmental paragraph states. In relation to the third bullet it is considered the use of this quote in this way may be Statement, It is accepted that bullet point 3 relates to sand and misleading, as it actually only applies to sand and chapter 14 gravel quarries only, however the MWLP quotes given in gravel quarries, not all quarries in Cumbria. materials, this section are used to illustrate the availability of a paragraphs 32 range of minerals within Cumbria and is meant to and 38 highlight local capacity for the range of mineral resources which might be used during scheme construction. It is accepted that specific reference to sands and gravels in relation to bullet point 3 would have avoided any confusion but this only forms part of a selection of extracts from the plan which was included to emphasise the availability of mineral supplies within Cumbria.
120 Minerals and The cumulative impact of the pipeline project with a Whilst the integration of materials management Waste list of other major projects that may, or may not, strategies might be a future goal between major come to fruition in West Cumbria is assessed, but proposed infrastructure development in West Cumbria, it this does not seem to also assess any synergy with should be noted that this is a commercial consideration the other major projects on inert waste use, either which will take account of market conditions prevailing at from this project to the others or vice versa. It is the time of the respective projects. Neither the DCO considered that it needs to be clarified what is application for National Grid’s North West Coast intended to do be done with the inert waste. There Connection or NuGen’s Moorside development have should be more clarity on the handling of cumulative been submitted, nor will they be until next year at the impacts if some or all of the other major projects earliest, and then determination may not take place until occur simultaneously – i.e. could there be suitable 2018 at the earliest. By this time the peak construction inert wastes arising from these other projects that can period for the West Cumbria Water Supplies project will
40 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. be used for the pipeline project and vice versa. This be underway. would reduce the sourcing of inert wastes from elsewhere reducing the amount of inert waste that At this stage it is not possible to confirm whether the needs disposal from all the projects together. prevailing market conditions, final scheme design or construction programmes are aligned to enable re-use and sharing of materials between these or other major developments.
ELEANOR KINGSTON - CULTURAL HERITAGE – LDNP STRATEGY AND PARTNERSHIP ADVISER
121 Blindcrake and The area around Blindcrake and Redmain has Following the on-site meeting in December 2015 with Redmain considerable amounts of ridge and furrow and field Eleanor Kingston we have amended the route in line systems which will be destroyed by the route of the with the recommendations. Please refer to the pipeline in the current planning application Supplementary Information Volume 1 SEI Amendments (paragraph 45). Blindcrake village is a conservation to the Planning Application document 3 within the area, which is designated for its “Fossilised medieval document and can be seen on the updated strip field farming pattern to the west of the village, Environmental Masterplan Rev 1. later enclosed with hedges and a few stone walls, described in 2008 as “undoubtedly the finest example of its type in the Lake District” and unspoiled surviving relationship between historic village and medieval strip field pattern”. I would suggest that the magnitude of impact on these assets is major, not moderate, and the significance of effect is large adverse. The mitigation options identified for these areas of the scheme are inadequate and do not address the issues previously raised. Therefore, I cannot accept that the overall impact of the proposed scheme on cultural heritage after mitigation is Slight Adverse. I would have to recommend refusal on cultural heritage grounds if the pipeline route remains unchanged. However, this area was identified at pre-application stage to be of high significance and an on-site meeting was held in December 2015 to discuss possible mitigation and changing the route of the pipeline. An amendment was later agreed, but it is not included in this planning application. If an amendment is supplied that conforms to the agreements that were made at pre-application stage then I would be happy to withdraw the recommendation for refusal.
122 Ancient The removal of ancient woodland is identified as a Woodland would be reinstated as far as possible with Woodland moderate adverse impact to the historic landscape the constraint of the permanent easement. Losses (paragraphs 51 and 53). I would welcome the re would be compensated for by the proposed planting at instatement of woodland in areas of the same setting. Ennerdale and the establishment of a community tree fund.
123 Environmental Not all of the mitigation options are detailed on the All mitigation is contained within Volumes 2 and 4 of the Masterplan Environmental Masterplan maps. I am concerned Environmental Statement. The Environmental about whether they all should be or not? In particular Masterplan maps contain information on defined it is those sites which require further work e.g. trial individual mitigation and not those which require further trenching, geophysical survey and are therefore more evaluation prior to mitigation.
41 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. significant and should not be ignored during the construction phase.
124 Blindcrake and Paragraph 138: I cannot agree with this statement Mitigation for this area would be topographic survey Redmain because the proposed route is destructive to a highly followed by reinstatement of the ridge and furrow. This significant heritage asset and there is currently no was agreed at a site visit with UU and Eleanor Kingston. appropriate mitigation for the areas of ridge and The reinstatement would not materially change the furrow and field systems in Blindcrake and Redmain. understanding of the heritage assets and as a result the mitigation is complaint with NPPF.
Refer to Response 121 above.
125 Archaeological Having read through the documentation, apart from United Utilities would continue to employ specialist Clerk of Works the area of high significance around Blindcrake and heritage contractors throughout the scheme. Redmain, I am relatively happy with the scheme, the assessments and recommendations for mitigation. It has made me realise the sheer volume of work that will be needed to deliver the archaeological mitigation and I am concerned about how this will be managed. Would it be appropriate to flag up at this stage that it would be useful to have an equivalent of an ‘Ecological Clerk of Works’ (an archaeological consultant) for the cultural heritage, to ensure that everything is delivered at the appropriate time and place?
JEREMY PARSONS – HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER (CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL)
126 Archaeological As mentioned above, the considerable amount of Following receipt of the comments, further consultation Assets pre-application discussions have resulted in a suite of was undertaken in July 2016. The results of this have recommended mitigation measures outlined in been incorporated into the responses provided. paragraph 12.6 of Chapter 12 and also in Table 12.6.6 of Appendix 12.6 of the ES that I broadly WA18 lies outside the working area and would not be agree with. However, I do have three minor queries physically impacted on by the scheme. Due to concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on over potential damage to the asset it is recommended archaeological assets that I advise should be that temporary panel fencing is erected around the asset addressed at this stage, prior to the determination of during construction. This would be removed on the application: completion of the construction programme in this area. • No assessment of impact has been undertaken for WA18, a building that is shown on the 1st edition OS The area south of the River Derwent has high potential map, which lies within the development area. This for prehistoric remains due to features found within Trial assessment needs to be undertaken and, if it is to be Trench 14, geophysical survey Area 24 and the affected, its significance needs to be determined and proximity of earthworks site WA208 in addition to its a suitable mitigation scheme implemented; position close to the river. Evaluation of the area by trial
• No assessment of impact has been undertaken for trenching would establish the presence or absence of
the prehistoric features identified in evaluation trench archaeological remains. This would be carried out in
14, in geophysical survey Area 24, nor for the accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists
earthworks site WA208, which lies in the same area. (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an archaeological field
This assessment needs to be undertaken for these evaluation. If significant remains are identified, they
two assets and a suitable mitigation scheme needs to would be recorded by excavation which would be carried
be proposed for the development for the immediate out in accordance with Chartered Institute for
vicinity, which has the potential to contain buried Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for prehistoric assets. archaeological excavation. After excavation, a • No assessment of impact has been undertaken for programme of post-excavation assessment and analysis
42 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. WA86, an earthworks site. This assessment needs to would be completed. be undertaken and, if it is to be affected, its WA86 is located outside the working area (see Figure 3, significance needs to be determined and a suitable WA report CP11437). No archaeological features mitigation scheme implemented. associated with the earthwork were identified during geophysical survey (WA report CP11587 - land to the north and west of Cockermouth); a possible soil-filled ditch was identified northwest of WA86 however it is not thought to be associated with the asset. Evaluation of the area by trial trenching would establish the presence or absence of remains associated with WA86. This would be carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an archaeological field evaluation. If significant remains were identified, they would be recorded by excavation which would be carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for archaeological excavation. After excavation, a programme of post- excavation assessment and analysis would be completed.
127 Archaeological Paragraph 12.6, point 96 – I agree with the proposed The excavation north of the River Derwent would be in Mitigation mitigation measure for the excavation of the accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists significant archaeological assets surviving north of (CIfA) Standard and guidance for archaeological the River Derwent (geophysical survey Area 17). excavation. After excavation, a programme of post- However, it needs to be stated that the excavation excavation assessment and analysis would be will be in accordance with Chartered Institute for completed. Archaeologists (CIfA) standard and guidance for
excavation and also that a programme of post- Further trial trenching and excavation is proposed south
excavation assessment and analysis will be of the River Derwent due to the presence of a Neolithic
completed. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation pit identified during trial trenching. This would be carried
measure states that excavation should be carried out out in accordance with Chartered Institute for
south of the River Derwent, but it is not known Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an whether archaeological assets survive in this archaeological field evaluation. location. So instead, I advise that it is most appropriate to undertake trial trenching in the first instance and, if significant remains are revealed in the trenches, then it would be necessary to proceed to excavation mitigation.
128 Archaeological Paragraph 12.6, point 102 – I agree with the If significant remains are identified within Areas 7, 8 and Mitigation proposed trial trenching within Areas 7, 8 and 10 of 10 of the WTW, they would be recorded by excavation Williamsgate WTW. In addition, it needs to be stated which would be carried out in accordance with that if significant remains are revealed in the trenches Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard then provision will be made for their investigation and and guidance for archaeological excavation. After recording through an archaeological excavation. excavation, a programme of post-excavation assessment and analysis would be completed.
129 Archaeological Paragraph 12.6, point 104 – I agree with the Area 68b would be subject to trial trenching and not Mitigation proposed trial trenching but, as it seems only Area Area 68a. This would be carried out in accordance with 68b will be impacted upon by the development, it is Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard only this area that will require trenching, rather than and guidance for an archaeological field evaluation. If the stated Area 68 (which includes Areas 68a and significant remains are identified, they would be 68b). recorded by excavation which would be carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for archaeological
43 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. excavation. After excavation, a programme of post- excavation assessment and analysis would be completed.
130 Archaeological Paragraph 12.6, point 105 – I agree with the Geophysical survey has been carried out between Mitigation proposed mitigation of geophysical survey and trial Papcastle to Broughton Cross (WA report trenching in the Derwent valley east of Broughton CP11587). Targeted trial trenching would be carried out Cross, although I advise that this need not include based on geophysical survey results and at the location the stated area around Papcastle, as the geophysical of WA9, a tramway, because of the proximity to the survey work has already been carried out here. medieval Church of St. Bridget (WA192) and its Regardless of the geophysical survey results in this graveyard (WA10). This would be carried out in area, an appropriate level of trial trenching will need accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists to be carried out along a 200 metre corridor of the (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an archaeological field development in the location of WA10, a tramway, evaluation. If significant remains are identified, they because of the proximity to the medieval church would be recorded by excavation which would be carried (WA9) and Chantry Well (WA85). out in accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for archaeological excavation. After excavation, a programme of post-excavation assessment and analysis would be completed.
131 Archaeological Appendix 12.6, Table 12.6.6 – WA375, I agree with WA375 would be recorded by excavation which would Mitigation the proposed mitigation measure for the topographic be carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute for survey and archaeological excavation of the Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for significant archaeological assets surviving here. archaeological excavation. After excavation, a However, it needs to be stated that the excavation programme of post-excavation assessment and analysis will be in accordance with Chartered Institute for would be completed. Archaeologists (CIfA) standard and guidance for excavation and also that a programme of post- excavation assessment and analysis will be completed.
132 Archaeological No mitigation measures are proposed for the Area 71a would be subject to trial trenching. This would Mitigation geophysical anomalies identified in the survey of be carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute for Area 71a that will be impacted upon by the Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an construction of a compound on the south side of the archaeological field evaluation. If significant remains are A594. I disagree, and I advise the anomalies need to identified, they would be recorded by excavation which be investigated by trial trenching and, where would be carried out in accordance with Chartered appropriate, provision should be made for their Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and investigation and recording through an archaeological guidance for archaeological excavation. After excavation. excavation, a programme of post-excavation assessment and analysis would be completed.
133 Archaeological No mitigation measures are proposed for the An archaeological watching brief would be carried out Mitigation crossing of the course of the Roman road WA171. I where the pipeline crosses the line of the Papcastle to disagree, and I advise that an archaeological Moresby Roman Road (WA171). This would be carried watching brief is carried out on the ground works of out in accordance with Chartered Institute for the construction of the development in the vicinity of Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an the line of the Roman road. archaeological watching brief.
134 Archaeological No mitigation measures are proposed for CFA123b, A photographic survey would be made in accordance Mitigation the possible remains of a World War II pillbox. I with guidance in Historic England’s Understanding disagree and advise that the remains of the possible Historic Buildings – A guide to good recording practice, pillbox are subject to photographic recording. of CFA123b, the possible location of remains of a World War II pillbox.
135 Archaeological No mitigation measures are proposed for the 2 The compound areas to the east of Bridgefoot would be Mitigation compound areas side by side to the east of subject to trial trenching. This would be carried out in
44 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. Bridgefoot. These areas are considered to have the accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists potential for currently unknown archaeological (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an archaeological field assets, given their proximity to a cropmark (WA200) evaluation. If significant remains are identified, they and the feature revealed in geophysical survey Area would be recorded by excavation which would be carried 68. I therefore advise that the 2 compound areas are out in accordance with Chartered Institute for subject to trial trenching and, if significant remains Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for are revealed in the trenches, then provision will need archaeological excavation. After excavation, a to be made for their investigation and recording programme of post-excavation assessment and analysis through an archaeological excavation. would be completed.
SAM LUMB – LDNP TREES AND WOODLAND ADVISER
136 Tree protection Whilst the appendix sets out a series of mitigation The general principles of tree and woodland protection measures to reduce the impact of the development, are set out in the Environmental Statement Volume 4 no specific tree protection plan is available. This Appendix 8.7 – General Tree Protection Measures. should include the use of protective fencing and Specific details for each tree/woodland would be buffers zones around affected woodlands. Natural provided at a later stage and include fencing type, England’s Standing advice recommends a 15 metre position and buffer zone position for group and buffer but clearly this is dependent on local woodland protection. circumstances.
137 Compensation Appendix 11.3 discusses compensation for the 4.1 Full details of the compensation package will be planting hectares of ANSW, but does not mention developed with stakeholders. compensation for the 5 hectares of woodland to be felled. Further detail is required for compensation planting, area, location, size etc. I cannot find it in the documents but it would be interesting to know if the woodlands adjacent to which the pipeline navigates are in active management and if not could pro-active management of those woodlands be part of any compensation package?
JUDY CLAVEY – LDNP ECOLOGIST
138 Shoulthwaite Because of the status of Shoulthwaite Moss, we have Refer to Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated Moss raised the issue of indirect impact on the site Construction Strategies. Refer to A4.2.9 Preliminary following a meeting held 19 May 2016 we are still Method Statement Shoulthwaite Moss and A4.2.9 waiting to receive additional information about the Shoulthwaite Moss Management Plan. hydrology of the site and intended mitigation in the form of wider habitat restoration.
139 Habitats I am unable to find any clearly defined single list of all Refer to Response 82 above for the list of all habitats. habitats together with areas that will be destroyed during implementation of the development in any one Excel versions of the habitat and tree figures were
part of the document (that I could find). There are provided to Judy Clavey under separate cover. tables which list tree, hedgerow, groups and woodland areas affected, but they are in pdf format making it difficult to utilise the information. I have attempted to pull out all of the relevant figures, but due to overlap across the chapters (due to focus on consideration of sites of certain status), I am not confident that my interpretation of the losses is as accurate as it could be. What I am concerned be at the moment is that in focussing on the HRA process and the designated sites, the scale of impact on other notable, non-designated habitat is not being fully taken account of yet.
45 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
We need to agree this information as it’s an important reference point from which we can build a picture of the value of habitat reinstatement already included in the scheme, and also agree additional on-site habitat re-instatement if appropriate / possible. We will then also be able to clarify our expectations in relation to requirement for creation of off-site compensatory habitat and review these against the draft compensation proposals included in the application. This will also allow a more transparent and evidence based approach to what is agreed.
140 Mitigation My understanding is that there is an expectation that The assumption is correct, unfortunately it was not Documents/ some mitigation is generic and intended to be possible to include all mitigation on the Environmental Construction universal, and the env masterplan is to focus on Masterplan, it however should be read in conjunction Strategies certain elements of mitigation. with the Mitigation Schedule (Volume 4 Appendix 23.1) and the ES chapter. In most cases the Environmental I am mindful that there are numerous parties all Masterplan only includes site specific mitigation commenting on the detail of these, me included, in a otherwise the plans would be too cluttered, generic mitigation has been dealt with elsewhere. range of formats. My concern is that the advice to you should be consistent and where not, that we are able to clarify and agree the best option, and ensure Following the consultation responses we have produced that there is consensus / clear understanding of what Supplementary Information including updated the final version is. Environmental Mitigation documents in Volume 1 Appendix 2, specifically the Environmental Masterplan My recommendation is that a mitigation document which has been given an updated Rev schedule should be made with relevant references number. Similarly a number of Construction Strategies including version control. Could you please ask if this have been updated within Volume 2 and given an updated Rev number. is available or if not request that it is created. This needs to be accompanied by a clear list of people who will need to be informed in the event of modification. This includes those not included in the HRA process.
141 MAFF I also note that some of the guidance notes that are The MAFF Good practice guide for handling soils Guidance referenced in the documentation are not available in guidance notes can be found at the following location: the application. Some are not easy to find without http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090306103 effort. The MAFF guidance notes on soil handling is 114/http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land an archive document that is only available as single use/soilguid/index.htm [Accessed 22/07/16] files (there are apparently 18 separate notes).
142 Establishing The need for the information listed above is Detailed reinstatement plans would be provided to No Net Loss of important; we intend to utilise biodiversity offsetting satisfy any planning condition requirements. Full details Habitat and approaches to understanding whether or not the of the compensation package would be developed with Enhancement development will achieve no net loss of biodiversity. stakeholders. My initial analysis is that we will be looking for additional boundary feature creation and additional restoration or creation of habitat which is mindful of the distinctive areas and special qualities of the National Park.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LDNP AND ALLERDALE
143 Sensitive There are a number of particularly sensitive receptors Our contractors would develop a Nuisance Management Receptors in close proximity to the scheme (e.g. Nether Place Plan as part of their Environmental Control Plan. This Nursing Home). We recommend those receptors that would include identification of all sensitive receptors and
46 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. are highly sensitive are identified. mitigation and control measures.
144 Bridge End – The chapter considers noise from the operational The noise emissions from Hydrogenation installations Hydrogeneratio sites and predicts no adverse impacts on nearest essentially emanates from three main sources: n noise receptors. We would however request noise source • The First Source is from the Energy data on the operations carried out at Bridge End Generation Equipment (Turbine) and is due Connection. At the time of the assessment to the relatively high speed rotational hydrogenation was thought to be the only potentially components of the Turbine. This source noisy operation, however no source data was tends to be of a relatively medium level and available. of a medium to high frequency in its nature. • The Second Source is from the discharge of the fluid (water) as it discharges from the Energy Generation Equipment to the receiving watercourse. This source tends to be of a relatively low level and of a low frequency in its nature. • The Third Source is from the pipework conveying water to the Energy Generation Equipment and from the pipework conveying water from the Energy Generation Equipment to the receiving watercourse. This source tends to be of a low level and of a low frequency in its nature. Until the build contactor is appointed it is not possible to estimate the predicted noise levels which would be emitted from the installation since it is related to a number of factors which are developed during the later phases of the project. However it is very common that Energy Generation Equipment of the concept/type proposed are situated in rural locations where noise suppression is a prime consideration and design criterion. As such there are proven Design Methods/Procedures to minimise and mitigate noise emissions, such that there would be no discernible increase in noise level from a Site. Such methods would be utilised/specified, as appropriate, for this project.
CUMBRIA GEOCONSERVATION
145 Geological We regret that the Environmental Statement Volume Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 3 Figures Sites (p28, 146) merely mentions 18 geological sites. We 13.1 & 13.2, and Volume 4 Appendix 13.1 which present regret that no maps, lists or details were made these sites graphically and tabulated. available for these 18 sites, in the documents which were on line or at the Moot Hall in Keswick. It would have been helpful to see an overall map of these geological sites together with the proposed route of the pipeline.
146 Mockerkin Tarn It would appear that Mockerkin Tarn LGS lies 40m The scheme corridor is to the west of the A5086, and from the proposed scheme, which is described as Mockerin Tarn LGS adjacent to the east. As such, the having a 40m working corridor. We would seek road would separate the construction site and the LGS. further reassurance that there will be no negative Thus no negative impact on the LGS is anticipated. impact on this site.
47 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
147 Moota Quarry Moota Quarry LGS, described as having a very high The term ‘environmental receptor’ is an EIA term for LGS sensitivity, lies 200m from the proposed scheme. environmental features or factors that could be impacted The LGS refers to part of the former working quarry, by a scheme. where Cumbria GeoConservation considers that it is significant that the former working faces are left for Moota Quarry has been identified as a location where future geological study, and are not obscured by surplus arisings could be used for restoration activities. backfilling. We would seek clarification on its role as Such restoration would be carried out by the operators an ‘environmental receptor’. We are somewhat of the quarry and it is assumed that any such restoration confused by the reference to an unnamed RIGS. We would take account of the LGS status of Moota Quarry. would urge Jacobs/United Utilities to refer to the
Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre (CBDC) in Carlisle for full and up to date details of all current LGS sites. Further details of RIGS/LGS are presented in the Environmental Statement in Volume 3 Figures 13.1 & 13.2, and Volume 4 Appendix 13.1.
148 LGS We note that the seven LGS listed are considered to No access restrictions are currently planned, any that do lie outside the development footprint. We would occur would relate to temporary road closures where need to be informed of any possible access diversionary routes would be established as appropriate. restrictions during construction.
149 Ennerdale Volume 1 further refers to a new area of woodland This area of planting is being developed as planting at the head of Ennerdale. We would compensation, refer to Response 89 above. The exact welcome further information on this development, to area of planting is to be determine however the LGS at consider if it might have an impact on the important Black Sail would be accounted for when developing the glacial features of the LGS at Black Sail. detail.
CUMBRIA POLICE
150 Security Doors The submitted Design and Access Statement makes All our proposed assets comply with our Asset reference to a requirement for double skinned Standards for security and are compliant with LPS 1175 security doors at High Leys Service Reservoir and SR3 as a minimum. Pumping Station. I recommend items that are compliant with LPS 1175 SR3 as a minimum standard for this purpose.
COAL AUTHORITY
151 Site The applicant should ensure that the exact form of Areas where ground Investigation works were likely to Investigation / any intrusive site investigation is agreed with The encounter Coal Seams were identified prior to Mines Coal Authority’s Licensing and Permitting Department commencing works and an assessment of the as part of their permit application. The findings of requirement for CA permits was completed. In all cases these intrusive site investigations should inform any the depth of the proposed exploratory holes combined mitigation measures, such as the drilling and grouting with the anticipated thickness of drift cover meant that of shallow mine workings and the capping of any exploratory holes were unlikely to encounter the shaft, if identified, which may be required in order to underlying solid geology and consequently CA permits remediate mining legacy affecting the site and to for investigation were not required. ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development. With regards to the impact of historic workings and shafts on the pipeline construction the presence of Building over or within the influencing distance of a hazards associated with historic mining was identified at mine entry raises significant safety and engineering route design stage and the route was designed where risks and exposes all parties to potential financial possible to eliminate this risk. Where avoidance was liabilities. The Coal Authority has adopted a policy impractical or unsuitable the appropriate ground where, as a general precautionary principle, the investigation was undertaken to identify any potential building over or within the influencing distance of a risks. Having now completed the ground investigation mine entry should wherever possible be avoided. The works we are comfortable that the route does not cross Coal Authority would take this opportunity to make any historical workings or shafts and as a consequence the applicant aware of our adopted policy: is in compliance with the CA policy of avoidance and
48 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or where necessary treatment. within-the-influencing-distance-of-mine-entries
ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST
152 Electricity The development is shown to be adjacent to or affect United Utilities are In dialogue with Electricity North Distribution Electricity North West operational land or electricity West, they have identified all crossings and are doing Assets distribution assets. tracing of their assets in specific areas. Where the development is adjacent to operational land the applicant must ensure that the development does not encroach over either the land or any ancillary rights of access or cable easements. If planning permission is granted the applicant should verify such details by contacting Electricity North West, Estates and Wayleaves, Frederick Road, Salford, Manchester M6 6QH. The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.
153 Electricity Other points, specific to this particular application United Utilities are aware of a number of overhead and Distribution are: underground circuits that are crossed by the pipeline. Assets · The proposed pipeline developments will cross a As standard practice safe working distances would be number of significant overhead and underground adhered to. United Utilities are In dialogue with circuits. Electricity North West to discuss diversion of assets. · It is imperative that a safe working distance is maintained from these and that safe working practices are followed at all times. · If it is necessary, the developer can apply to Electricity North West to have assets relocated. The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant. The applicant should be aware of our requirements for access to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, or alter any of our distribution equipment. This includes carrying out works incidental to any of these purposes and this could require works at any time of day or night. Our Electricity Services Desk (Tel No. 0800 195 4141) will advise on any issues regarding diversions or modifications.
FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT
154 Mirehouse Scheme Section 4 – Crosthwaite Roundabout to Detailed reinstatement plans would be provided to Estate and Castle Inn: FLD consider the route of the pipeline satisfy any planning condition requirements. Environmental through the Mirehouse Estate, the related loss of Masterplan mature trees, and the surrounding rural open landscape will have significant adverse impact upon the landscape character of this area. Furthermore, we request that a condition be applied to ensure the detailed mitigation measures outlined in Appendix 23.2 the Environmental Masterplan are wholly fulfilled . This would ensure the applicant goes beyond the generic mitigation schedule set out in Appendix 23.1
49 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. section 2 Landscape and Amenity
155 Construction Friends of the Lake District strongly object to the Although we note the concerns this is the most Compound Construction Compound as depicted on drawing appropriate location for the compound which is required B2707061_S3_LDNP_17. This large area would for the safe and efficient delivery of the project. have a significant detrimental impact upon the rural character of this area for a prolonged period of over 2 years. We consider given the landscape sensitivities of this area the location and scale of this compound should be reconsidered.
156 Isel FLD wish to raise serious concerns over the proximity Further details of the kiosk siting and design would be of the pipeline to Grade I listed Isel Hall and its provided to satisfy any planning condition requirements. setting. The construction phase in particular will have a severe detrimental impact to this important 15th Century listed building. We object to the siting of the kiosk as illustrated on drawing number B2707061_S2_LDNP_18 as this would be a permanent detracting feature in this sensitive area. Should this kiosk be permitted we would expect it to be subject to the requirements for siting expressed in section 2 of this response.
157 Mitigation Furthermore, we request that a condition be applied Detailed reinstatement plans would be provided to Measures to ensure the detailed mitigation measures outlined in satisfy any planning condition requirements. Appendix 23.2 the Environmental Masterplan are wholly fulfilled . This would ensure the applicant goes beyond the generic mitigation schedule set out in Appendix 23.1 section 2 Landscape and Amenity. We suggest that Planning Authorities ensure that the Environmental Masterplan pays due cognisance of the landscape sensitivities and guidelines for managing landscape change for the relevant ADCs and LCTs. We draw particular attention to the guidelines for management of landscape change associated with ADC 1 which state that action should be taken to ‘Conserve and enhance the network of hedgerows and limestone, drystone walls which provide evidence of the medieval field system in this section and emphasise the opportunities to enhance these boundaries.
158 Kiosks Friends of the Lake District are concerned regarding Further details of the siting and design of the kiosks the siting and design of the 7 kiosks associated with would be provided to satisfy any planning condition the RWA outlined within the application particularly requirements. given that these are to be permanent structures which will have a detrimental impact on landscape character and amenity. The kiosks are 1.5 metres in height and will introduce an uncharacteristic industrial element to a number of rural locations at intermittent points along the route, the majority of which are situated within the sensitive scheme sections highlighted previously. FLD are particularly concerned regarding the siting of the kiosks represented on drawing numbers: B2707061_S2_LDNP_13
50 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. B2707061_S2_LDNP_16 B2707061_S2_LDNP_18 FLD request that the Lake District National Park Authority agree specific locations for the siting of kiosks which maximise the screening benefits of landform from key viewpoints in these sensitive locations. Furthermore FLD believe it would be beneficial, in landscape terms, if the kiosks were designed to reflect the rural nature of the locations. Although the kiosks will be viewed individually and independent of each other FLD are concerned regarding the cumulative impact along the route of the kiosks along with the air valves and washout valves. When taken together this introduces small but permanent features along the route which have the potential to make the route discernible in areas of open landscape. Again, mitigation should be sought through ensuring these features, as far as is technically possible, are sited to make best use of the intervening topography of the area to reduce their visual impact.
159 Laydown The laydown areas/construction compounds All plant and equipment would be removed from areas/construct associated with the development are of significant laydown areas on completion of the relevant phase of ion compounds concern in terms of the associated detrimental impact work. These areas would be reinstated in the first on landscape character and amenity. Whilst FLD available planting season. acknowledge that these areas are a necessary part of the pipeline development we are of the opinion that the management of these areas requires stringent control and that it is essential that these areas are restored as soon as in practicably possible. As such we request the attachment of a planning condition to require reinstatement of laydown areas/constructions compounds and the removal of all ancillary infrastructure and plant within a 3 month period of the pipeline becoming operational. Furthermore, we would request that all plant is removed from laydown areas following the completion of the relevant works for that section.
160 WTW Although the proposed Water Treatment Works are The laydown area/construction compound at the WTW substantial in scale we acknowledge that the siting has been sized to accommodate all necessary plant and and design have been developed to minimise the machinery, storage, car parking etc. We would not wish landscape impacts associated with the development. to make it any larger than that required to carry out The site of the Water Treatment Works represented construction. Subject to detailed programming early in the application is favourable to previously boundary planting would help the timely establishment discussed siting. Notwithstanding this it must be of the landscaping. noted that the site is in an area of high sensitivity and possesses a strong degree of intervisibility with the adjacent National Park. The proposed WTW does introduce an unfamiliar feature to this open agricultural landscape; however we believe that the design and proposed mitigation will significantly reduce the landscape impacts of the proposal.
51 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. However, we consider the scale and location of the laydown area/construction compound to be inappropriate. In addition to the condition outlined above we would request that the size of the area is reduced.
161 Decomissionin Friends of the Lake District reiterate the importance Further details regarding the removal of structures, g and removal of the decommissioning and removal of all assets landscaping etc. at the decommissioned sites would be of assets rendered redundant by this proposal. FLD consider it made available to satisfy any planning condition appropriate, if the scheme is approved, to attach a requirements. The removal of weir structures is subject condition requesting detailed briefs are prepared and to further investigation and does not form part of this implemented by United Utilities for the removal of development. redundant buildings and plant at Ennerdale and Cornhow with appropriate timescales attached. This should include information on landscaping reflecting the local landscape character. A further condition should be attached relating to the removal of all weirs and other associated manmade structures, rendered redundant by this proposal, at Ennerdale and Crummock Water.
162 Reinstatement Friends of the Lake District are disappointed to note Please refer to the Supplementary Information Volume 2 that the total loss of woodland which is not classed as Appendix 2 Tree and Hedgerow Loss, for the total extent Ancient and Semi-Natural or the number of hedgerow of woodland and hedgerow loss. crossings have not been quantified in the ES. This
was an issue we raised in our original scoping Details of hedgerows and other features at risk can also request response. be found in the Environmental Statement Chapter 7 As previously highlighted due to the major landscape Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Para 568. implications of this scheme, particularly the impacts on woodland and hedgerows, which will have a The location for the planting sites is detailed in the detrimental impact on both landscape character and Supplementary Information Volume 1 Appendix 2 visual amenity it is essential that restoration and Environmental Masterplan Rev 1. reinstatement works are tightly controlled through
planning conditions in order to ensure a satisfactory remediation of the landscape post construction. Further details of reinstatement proposals would be provided to satisfy any planning condition requirements. This is particularly the case in the Lake District National Park where United Utilities have a Statutory Duty to have regard for the Special Qualities of the Lake District as a Statutory Undertaker under Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995.
163 Hedgerows Hedgerows and walls are the main field boundaries A photographic record would be taken of all boundary and Dry Stone encountered by the pipeline. Friends of the Lake features with reinstatement on a like for like basis. Walls District consider that it would be appropriate for the Additional hedgerow trees have been included for in the Planning Authorities to attach a condition requiring reinstatement proposals where practicable. We would that restoration reflects the existing character of the work with landowners where further opportunities for affected field boundary and where appropriate the enhancement are identified. The community tree fund quality of the boundary is enhanced through the would also help in this regard. planting of additional hedgerow trees. Where possible, through negotiation with land owners, there may be opportunities outwith the red line boundary to enhance hedgerows. FLD request that such opportunities are explored by United Utilities particularly given this is an opportunity for a positive landscape contribution.
52 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
164 Hedgerows Friends of the Lake District suggest that the Planning As detailed in A4.2.1 Construction Strategy General and Dry Stone Authorities attach a condition requiring the applicant Overview, section 4 Site Survey this has already been Walls to establish a pre-development photographic record included within the application. “Condition surveys would of hedgerows and their condition to ensure be carried out of all land and key features such as reinstatement is carried out to a satisfactory standard hedgerows and stone walls (with a photographic record) and reflects the local style post construction. to help inform the reinstatement. Any structural surveys of properties that may be impacted by vibration would also be undertaken”.
165 Hedgerows We would welcome clarification on the provenance of We are engaging with suppliers to investigate the and Dry Stone the hedgerows to be planted and whether these will feasibility of growing sufficient tree stock of local Walls be reinstated using mature hedgerow to the current provenance. height or whether immature hedgerows will be planted to ensure full mitigation at year 15? Regarding hedgerows as detailed within the With regards provenance we request a condition be Environmental Statement Volume 4 Appendix 23-3. attached to ensure that all new planting consists of “The proposed reinstatement of native hedgerows will locally specific native species of geographically involve shrub planting species appropriate to the reasonable local provenance. location, used to create linear features along boundaries in keeping with local landscape character, to enhance biodiversity and help with landscape integration. The proposed reinstatement of important hedgerows and species rich hedgerows are to be reinstated as they occur in the landscape so local distinctiveness and variation of species can be recreated. The composition of both tree/shrub species and the hedgerow ground flora should mimic the species mix found naturally, according to locality. Table 23.10 below identifies the required specification of larger plants to achieve quicker re-establishment. However, the precise species mixes for specific to individual locations would be provided at a later stage”.
166 Hedgerows Friends of the Lake District welcome the We intend to reinstate on a like for like basis. and Dry Stone reinstatement of all drystone walls within the Walls construction period. We consider that there is an opportunity for potential planning gain by way of the removal of fencing and replacement with walls where landowners are agreeable.
167 Woodland Friends of the Lake District object to a uniform Please refer to the planning drawing B2707061_S6_01 corridor of no replanting over the easement and submitted as part of the Jan 16 planning submission. instead request the use of a planning condition The drawing does show “wide planting plots to be requiring planting of native shrub species alternating planted with a naturalised undulating edge” and a wavy in from each side of the easement so as to reduce edge is shown on the plan. the ability to delineate the route of the pipeline from
higher ground. Isel Wood and Messegermire Wood We appreciate that this is only a typical detail drawing are of particularly concern regards this point. and further details would be developed in conjunction with land owners and stakeholders and be provided to satisfy any planning condition requirements.
168 Woodland Furthermore we do not consider that the restoration We consider a 5 year maintenance period to be after care period of 5 years as outlined in the general sufficient to deliver successful mitigation but would arrangements drawings is satisfactory to ensure the comply with any additional requirements the planning success of the proposed reinstatement. This should authority consider appropriate. be increased to a period of 10 years with a robust
53 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. monitoring programme to ensure that the mitigation measures outlined in the application are successful and the landscape impacts of the proposal are reduced to a reasonable level. In order to ensure the success of the restoration works it would be appropriate for United Utilities to enter a financial bond with the Planning Authority for a period of 15 years.
169 Woodland Friends of the Lake District suggest it is appropriate Refer to Response 83 and 165 above. for a condition to be imposed to ensure that all trees and shrubs planted as part of the reinstatement plans must be native species for that area and of geographically reasonable local provenance in order to ensure the success of the reinstatement and to avoid the introduction of non-native species.
170 Impacts on During the construction phase users of the Public The time period for individual closures is not currently Access Rights Of Way (PROW) network will experience available and would be subject to the contractor’s significant adverse impacts in terms of both access to programme. We would expect closures in most cases to the network and amenity. We consider, in order to be limited to the time period for laying the pipe across minimise the disruption caused to users of the PROW the PRoW itself and this would only be a matter of days. network, it is appropriate to restrict the time period for We intend to keep the PRoWs open as long as possible footpath closures through planning condition. We via gates in the easement fence. consider that a period of one month would be an adequate maximum timescale for closure. We would discuss the detail of each PRoW crossing Furthermore, we suggest that United Utilities with relevant stakeholders and communicate via all communicate any such closures to the public, agreed media channels. through a range of media, at least one month prior to the closure. Where possible this should be accommodated on the relevant Local Authority websites.
171 Compensatory In principle we are in agreement with compensatory Refer to Response 89 above. Planting and planting at Ennerdale and the associated ecological Community and landscape benefits this would bring. However, it Fund - is not clear whether this planting (4.2ha) would Ennerdale provide an adequate level of compensatory planting because, as highlighted previously, the ES does not fully quantify the extent of native woodland which is not Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland and thus it is no possible to assess whether this is wholly adequate. Furthermore, Friends of the Lake District request further information on the details of the proposed compensatory planting and how it will be achieved.
172 Wider fund for FLD are in strong support of the advent of a The management of the proposed community tree fund Derwent community fund for planting and would welcome the is to be confirmed. This would allow for schemes in the catchment opportunity, as a stakeholder, to contribute to the Derwent Catchment area to be put forward and we negotiation of the details of such a fund. would expect to work with Friends of the Lake District We consider it would be appropriate to impose a and Open Spaces Society on any ideas for priority condition stating that a fund will be set up to allow for planting areas that they have. local schemes of planting within the Derwent Catchment area. This should also encompass, wherever possible, the potential to alleviate flood risk and make provision for advice and support for
54 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. communities in developing proposals to be considered for the fund.
OPEN SPACES SOCIETY
173 PRoWs Closure of PROWs during construction. We are Refer to Response 170 above. grateful that UU have recognised this as an issue and will, during the construction phases, strive to keep some routes, e.g. Spooner Green Lane, Keswick, always open to users. We are concerned that some popular routes may be affected during popular times of the year but, equally, that there are uncertainties when the pipeline contractors will need to close such routes. We therefore propose that a planning condition be imposed to the effect that, when a pipeline is going directly across a footpath, the closure be no longer than one week. Where the route of a pipeline is tangential to, or along, a PROW, then we accept this may have to impose a longer period of closure. However, we would seek an undertaking for maximum length of closure for each path from UU before undertaking the works. At most we would envisage a one month closure.
174 PRoWs In addition we ask that UU make such closures Refer to Response 170 above. notifiable to the public at least one month in advance. In the LDNP this may be notifiable to the public through the use of the current web pages held by the npa to show current path closures and bridges missing following the devastation of Storm Desmond. It is a regret that CCC do not have a parallel system.
175 PRoWs Where any footpath or bridleway furniture is to be We would comply with whatever requirements the replaced it should be by means of British Standard planning authority and its Park Management team have. kissing gates, even where there are currently stiles.
176 Restoration of Restoration of the pipeline route. We understand the The pipeline would be reinstated in the first available the pipeline issues of timing for such restoration is reliant on the planting season following commissioning of the pipeline route programme for the contractors and the and associated works. commissioning of the pipeline. We would seek a planning condition to the effect that all temporary associated works with the construction of the pipeline be removed and the sites restored within 6 months of the final commissioning of the pipeline and associated works.
177 Field We have discussed with UU the nature of the field Detailed reinstatement plans would be provided to boundaries boundaries which are crossed and which appear to satisfy any planning condition requirements. fall within three types: stone walls, hedges directly rooted in the soil; and hedges rooted in a kest (or Refer to Response 163 above. hedge bank). We ask that a condition be required that all restoration reflect the character of the existing field boundary. We hope that there is a way the planning authority can request UU to plant additional hedgerow trees, to reinforce the character of the landscape, even though such planting will require the permission of the landowners as it will be outside the narrow corridor of the easement of the pipeline and
55 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. thus the boundary of the planning application. This may also be considered under planning gain.
178 Woodland We have a significant concern about the scale of the Refer to Response 167 above. restoration woodland restoration where the route of the pipe cuts through existing copses and woods and we strongly object to a uniform, parallel over-wide easement which will not be replanted. This will have a marked effect on the landscape character when viewed from higher ground and will show up strongly the route of the pipeline for many years to come. We have discussed with UU how scalloped planting of more substantial and native shrub species can make the planting edge more wavy and less regimented and would seek a planning condition to enforce this. Particular areas of concern are Messenger Mire Wood and Isel Park Wood in the LDNPA.
179 Tree or shrub We also expect a planning condition to insist that any Refer to Response 165 above. planting trees or shrubs planted should be of species native to the landscape character of the area and be of local provenance. We regard this as essential to ensure the successful and long-term retention of the restoration works.
180 Restoration For this same reason we would seek to ensure that Refer to Response 168 above. Bond the restoration after-care time period is increased from 5 years, as proposed, to 10 years to ensure successful growth in growing conditions that are not always typical of a 5 year standard. Additionally we would submit that the company must lodge with one of the three planning authorities a bond of at least £200,000 that would be held for up to 10-15 years after final commissioning of the scheme in order to ensure that all restoration work has been successfully undertaken.
181 Compensatory We have discussed with UU the aims of their Refer to Response 172 above. planting compensatory planting ideas to make up for the loss of trees removed during implementation of the scheme. We believe a condition should be applied that a fund be set up to allow for local schemes of planting within the Derwent catchment area and which, wherever possible, should help alleviate potential flood risk.
182 Proposed We have no specific concerns about the siting or Although we note the concerns this is the most WTW design of this major works. However, we do believe appropriate location for the compound which is required the site to be used for the contractors’ operational for the safe and efficient delivery of the project. base for the construction of the treatment works is sensitive and contains, while not of major national significance, an example of a wet hollow and old field patterns which are otherwise getting scarcer in the adjoining landscape of Allerdale.
183 Benefits of the We said at the outset that the potential benefits in the Refer to Response 161 above. scheme Ennerdale and Crummock areas outweigh the problems of the proposed scheme. It is our strong
56 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. belief that granting of planning permission for this scheme should contain planning conditions about proposals for these two areas. In essence they are of two distinct types. Firstly there will be an amount of redundant buildings and plant which UU will have surplus to requirements and fully under their control. We seek a condition that such redundant structures will be removed within 5 years of the final commissioning of the works proposed in the planning application. Such sites should be landscaped in a way which meets the local landscape character and uses only native species. The second issue is concerned with the weirs and associated structures at Ennerdale and Crummock Water. This application makes these structures redundant and, while we acknowledge the role of the Environment Agency in decisions about the future of these structures, we should like to see the LDNPA, with support from Copeland and Allerdale, to ensure these two lakes are re-naturalised. Consequently we seek a planning condition to achieve the short to medium term demolition of these structures and the re-naturalisation of the two lakes.
184 Planning Gain Such a large scheme offers little by way of planning We note the ambition for this particular footpath route gain. We would suggest the creation of a new but it is not something we are able to deliver as part of definitive public right of way as one possible gain. this development. This proposal would assist in making a significant contribution to a more complete round Bassenthwaite walk which avoids the need for walkers to mix with fast traffic on the A591. The path would follow the easement of the new pipeline from the intersection of the pipeline with fp 255001 in the parish of Under Skiddaw (GR NY2245264) and follow the easement west to the A591 and then across, below Mirehouse, to meet public footpath 206023 (GR: NY230285). We recognise this would involve additional expenditure by UU but we believe that such a planning gain is in accordance with correct planning procedures.
CUMBRIA LOCAL ACCESS FORUM
185 PRoWs We recommend that closures of any PRoWs are kept Refer to Response 170 above. to the shortest time possible to allow the least
possible disruption for all users. We also recommend PRoWs would be reinstated back to their condition that any affected PRoWs are reinstated at least to the before commencement of works. standard they were before commencement of any works, and preferably improved so that the user can derive greater enjoyment from their use.
RAMBLERS (LAKE DISTRICT AREA)
186 PRoWs Closure of PROWs during construction. We are Refer to Response 170 above. grateful that UU have recognised this as an issue and will, during the construction phases, strive to keep some routes, e.g. Spooner Green Lane, Keswick, always open to users. We are concerned that some
57 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. popular routes may be affected during popular times of the year but, equally, that there are uncertainties when the pipeline contractors will need to close such routes. We therefore propose that a planning condition be imposed to the effect that, when a pipeline is going directly across a footpath, the closure be no longer than one week. Where the route of a pipeline is tangential to, or along, a PROW, then we accept this may have to impose a longer period of closure. However, we would seek an undertaking for maximum length of closure for each path from UU before undertaking the works. At most we would envisage a one- month closure. In addition we ask that UU make such closures notifiable to the public at least one month in advance. In the LDNP this may be notifiable to the public through the use of the current web pages held by the npa to show current path closures and bridges missing following the devastation of Storm Desmond. It is a regret that CCC do not have a parallel system.
187 PRoWs Where any footpath or bridleway furniture is to be Refer to Response 175 above. replaced it should be by means of British Standard kissing gates, even where there are currently stiles.
188 Restoration of Restoration of the pipeline route. We understand the Refer to Response 176 above. the pipeline issues of timing for such restoration is reliant on the route programme for the contractors and the commissioning of the pipeline. We would seek a planning condition to the effect that all temporary associated works with the construction of the pipeline be removed and the sites restored within 6 months of the final commissioning of the pipeline and associated works.
189 Field We have discussed with UU the nature of the field Refer to Response 177 above. Boundaries boundaries which are crossed and which appear to fall within three types: stone walls, hedges directly rooted in the soil; and hedges rooted in a kest (or hedge bank). We ask that a condition be required that all restoration reflect the character of the existing field boundary. We hope that there is a way the planning authority can request UU to plant additional hedgerow trees, to reinforce the character of the landscape, even though such planting will require the permission of the landowners as it will be outside the narrow corridor of the easement of the pipeline and thus the boundary of the planning application. This may also be considered under planning gain.
190 Woodland We have a significant concern about the scale of the Refer to Response 167 above. restoration woodland restoration where the route of the pipe cuts through existing copses and woods and we strongly object to a uniform, parallel over-wide easement which will not be replanted. This will have a marked effect on the landscape character when viewed from higher ground and will show up strongly the route of
58 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. the pipeline for many years to come. We have discussed with UU how scalloped planting of more substantial and native shrub species can make the planting edge more wavy and less regimented and would seek a planning condition to enforce this. Particular areas of concern are Messenger Mire Wood and Isel Park Wood in the LDNPA.
191 Tree or shrub We also expect a planning condition to insist that any Refer to Response 165 above. planting trees or shrubs planted should be of species native to the landscape character of the area and be of local provenance. We regard this as essential to ensure the successful and long-term retention of the restoration works.
192 Restoration For this same reason we would seek to ensure that Refer to Response 168 above. Bond the restoration after-care time period is increased from 5 years, as proposed, to 10 years to ensure successful growth in growing conditions that are not always typical of a 5 year standard. Additionally we would submit that the company must lodge with one of the three planning authorities a bond of at least £200,000 that would be held for up to 10-15 years after final commissioning of the scheme in order to ensure that all restoration work has been successfully undertaken.
193 Compensatory We have discussed with UU the aims of their Refer to Response 172 above. planting compensatory planting ideas to make up for the loss of trees removed during implementation of the scheme. We believe a condition should be applied that a fund be set up to allow for local schemes of planting within the Derwent catchment area and which, wherever possible, should help alleviate potential flood risk.
194 Proposed We have no specific concerns about the siting or Refer to Response 182 above. WTW design of this major works. However, we do believe the site to be used for the contractors' operational base for the construction of the treatment works is sensitive and contains, while not of major national significance, an example of a wet hollow and old field patterns which are otherwise getting scarcer in the adjoining landscape of Allerdale.
195 Benefits of the We said at the outset that the potential benefits in the Refer to Response 161 above. scheme Ennerdale and Crummock areas outweigh the problems of the proposed scheme. It is our strong belief that granting of planning permission for this scheme should contain planning conditions about proposals for these two areas. In essence they are of two distinct types. Firstly there will be an amount of redundant buildings and plant which UU will have surplus to requirements and fully under their control. We seek a condition that such redundant structures will be removed within 5 years of the final commissioning of the works proposed in the planning application. Such sites should be landscaped in a
59 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. way which meets the local landscape character and uses only native species. The second issue is concerned with the weirs and associated structures at Ennerdale and Crummock Water. This application makes these structures redundant and, while we acknowledge the role of the Environment Agency in decisions about the future of these structures, we should like to see the LDNPA, with support from Copeland and Allerdale, to ensure these two lakes are re-naturalised. Consequently we seek a planning condition or a planning agreement to achieve the short to medium term demolition of these structures and the re-naturalisation of the two lakes.
196 Planning Gain Planning Gain: Refer to Response 184 above. Such a large scheme offers little by way of planning gain. We would suggest the creation of a new definitive public right of way as one possible gain. This proposal would assist in making a significant contribution to a more complete round Bassenthwaite walk which avoids the need for walkers to mix with fast traffic on the A591. The path would follow the easement of the new pipeline from the intersection of the pipeline with fp 255001 in the parish of Under Skiddaw (GR NY2245264) and follow the easement west to the A591 and then across, below Mirehouse, to meet public footpath 206023 (GR: NY230285). We recognise this would involve additional expenditure by UU but we believe that such a planning gain is in accordance with correct planning procedures.
LDNP PARISH COUNCILS
BLINDCRAKE PARISH COUNCIL
197 Gill Beck One issue that is causing a lot of concern is the detail A meeting was held with Blindcrake Parish Council on crossing of the ravine crossing - Gill Wood / Gill Beck. 12/05/16 to discuss their concerns. Rather than a ravine crossing a bridge with the pipes in the bridge deck was Drawing B2707061/S3/LDNP/06 shows the pipes agreed. The updated drawing is currently under contained within a 8m wide concrete platform set consideration. Please refer to Amendment 3 within the upon a reinforced earth bank. This is causing a Supplementary Information Volume 1 SEI number of concerns including the considerable loss Amendments to the Planning Application and updated planning drawing B2707061/S5/LDNP/06 Rev 1. of trees, potential flood risk and the considerable visual impact of the structure located on the edge of the conservation area.
Drawing B2707061/S3/LDNP/05 details a crossing of a similar sized ravine with a simple pipe bridge set down from the adjacent land. Such a treatment would address most of the villagers concerns. Could you please advise why this method of crossing the ravine has not been thought suitable.
198 Constraints If the proposed scheme was to go ahead there would We note the concerns and have routed the pipeline to be a considerable impact on the parish. avoid as many sensitive features as possible. In the Blindcrake and Isel area this is particularly difficult due
60 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. The proposed Williamsgate water treatment works to the range of environmental constraints. We believe and the Moota Hill service reservoir would be located that effective reinstatement and management will help to within the parish as would 4.5km. of the twin Raw minimise the impacts although we accept that this would Water pipelines and 1.7km. of the service and sludge take a number of years to fully mature. main. The raw water pipe line would cut through the Gill Beck SSSI and the Blindcrake Conservation Area as well as running adjacent to Isel Hall a grade 1 listed building and close to several grade 2 listed buildings and structures. There are 7 road crossings proposed including one across the A595. The proposed service main also would cut through the Blindcrake Conservation Area and would involve 2 crossings of the A595. From the documents it would appear that work within the parish is proposed to commence in 2017 and wouldn’t be completed much before 2022.
199 Consultation The proposals are for the contracts are to be let on Parish councils and local residents would be consulted design and build contracts, this will inevitably lead to on any proposed amendments. detailed design changes. Because of the scale of work within the parish it would be appropriate that the parish council should be consulted over any amendments to the proposals.
200 Alternative Of particular concern is the length of the raw water Refer to Response 198, 121 and 197 above. Route pipeline running between the Isel Sunderland road
crossing and the Redmain Blindcrake road crossing. Routing the pipe below Gill Wood below the SSSI was
The proposed route would involve the destruction of investigated however it would have involved laying the
part of the small but visually important wood adjacent pipe within the floodplain close to the River Derwent to the road junction before passing within 50m. of Isel SSSI/SAC and was considered too steep. Hall and 70m. of the grade 2 listed buildings at Isel
Mill. The route then crosses the Blindcrake Isel road three times, the last involving a crossing of Gill Beck Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter 3 and the associated technical appendices. within the SSSI and the Blindcrake conservation area.
It is considered that the environmental and heritage damage along this section is unacceptable and an alternate route should be considered.
If an alternate route is not possible then there should be a much more detailed design prepared for the section to the north of Isel Hall prior to design and build tenders being obtained. The route of the raw water pipeline beyond this section should be amended to cross through Gill Wood below the SSSI and re-join the proposed line between Blindcrake and Redmain. This would avoid three road crossings.
UNDERSKIDDAW PARISH COUNCIL
201 Local Economy The potential impacts to the local economy as a The Environmental Statement outlines the potential
61 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. result of a) the entire project, and b) more specifically socio --economic impacts for the scheme within Volume the proposed lengthy road closure on the A591 are 2 Chapter 16. likely to be large and economically costly. The socio-economic assessment has considered the effects of the Proposed Scheme upon the tourism industry, while also examining the demand that would be placed on accommodation during the construction phase. It was determined that, while the area has a high level of demand for tourism accommodation, there is sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the construction workforce. Therefore, this is considered a benefit to those receptors. The economic impact of the scheme on local labour demand and the local economy has been assessed and this suggests positive impacts from direct employment on the scheme, indirect employment due to supply chain impacts and additional expenditure occurring in the region. United Utilities will continue to liaise with parish councils and key stakeholders prior to and throughout the construction period. Traffic Management Plans will be developed with Cumbria Highways.
202 Storm That this proposed project will commence before the The project cannot be delayed as it needs to be fully Desmond region has fully recovered from the Storm Desmond operational in advance of the revocation of the Floods. abstraction licence at Ennerdale in 2022.
203 Compliance If any approval is given serious consideration needs We note the concerns and would work with landowners with Conditions to be given to the wording and the management of and the local planning authorities to ensure effective compliance with any conditions especially given the reinstatement and compliance with any planning reinstatement of the land impacted by the project conditions. (especially in light of the on-going issues with the land reinstatement at Keswick School following the last UU project, and the landscaping issues with the Keswick WwTW).
204 Need for the The Parish Council can’t understand based on the The Environmental Statement outlines the need for the project information provided the ‘need’ for this project. scheme within Volume 2 Chapter 3 Design Evolution.
205 Changes That any approval should involve strict conditions Any changes that arise due to changing circumstances regarding the project management & pre-emptive would be discussed with the local planning authorities applications for any changes to reduce the need for and planning applications submitted where required. many retrospective applications (as have occurred on the other UU projects in the locality).
KESWICK TOWN COUNCIL
206 Flooding Would it be possible for the same route to be used to No unfortunately not. The pipeline would be buried divert flood water out of the Town at times of severe underground and would be full of water. The pipeline flooding. also is a pressurised system so it would not be possible to divert flood water into the pipeline.
207 Valves The emergency valves/gates at Thirlmere to be The existing valves are fully operational and can be Thirlmere replaced so that they can be partially opened, as partially opened as required. There are no flood gates opposed to them being fully open or fully closed as at Thirlmere. We are replacing the valves to enable they are at the moment. connection to the new WTW.
62 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
ALLERDALE PARISH COUNCILS
PAPCASTLE PARISH COUNCIL
208 River Derwent Papcastle Parish Council have considered the The pipeline would be tunnelled underneath the River proposed plans and the effect of the damage caused Derwent. Tunnelling is described in ES Vol 4, Appendix by the floods in 2009 and 2015, have serious 9.3, section 2.3.3 and 2.4.2.1. A specific assessment on concerns about the potential damage to the riverbank the River Derwent is provided in Section 2.4.2.2. An and the exposure of the proposed pipeline both updated tunnelling construction strategy A4.2.7 during and after construction. This is evident from Construction Strategy Tunnelling Rev 1 is also provided the attached photographic evidence showing the in the Supplementary Information Volume 2 Updated damage in both 2009 and 2015. Significant bank Construction Strategies. retreat occurred along the right bank downstream of the Papcastle Bridge in 2009 and this has resulted in A review of the position of the shaft locations was the complete removal of a bank revetment. However undertaken by the design team, including consultation the left bank in contrast was not subject to any with an in-house geomorphologist following the latest erosion. The Parish Council are also concerned that change to the bankline at Papcastle Bridge, to ensure there should be protection where the pipeline crosses there is still sufficiently low risk to the pipeline in the the old Roman Road. As such this parish council future. UU was also involved in a meeting with Cumbria wishes to refuse this application in its present form as CC, EA, NE and the landowner regarding the proposed this will have major impact on the parish. The Parish works, please refer to Response 252 below. Council feel very strongly that their views must be
taken into consideration. Following the recent erosion during the 2015 floods at Papcastle Bridge, a 30m buffer set back from the existing (newly eroded) bankline has been introduced to avoid temporary working in this area. However it is thought that the shaft location is appropriate.
An archaeological watching brief would be carried out where the pipeline crosses the line of the Papcastle to Moresby Roman Road (WA171). This would be carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and guidance for an archaeological watching brief.
GREYSOUTHEN PARISH COUNCIL
209 Safety Greysouthen Parish Council has no objection in We will develop a Traffic Management Plan measures principle to the proposal. However, as the pipeline incorporating safety measures at the school. All passes close to Eaglesfield Paddle School we would measures and construction timings would be discussed assume that safety measures where required will be and agreed with the school. put in place to safeguard the children travelling to and from the school.
BOTHEL AND THREAPLAND PARISH COUNCIL
210 Landowners/ The Parish Council has considered the application United Utilities would treat all affected landowners fairly Traffic and has no objection but would make the following and where possible work with them to adhere to their Management comments: requirements as required by our Code of Practice for a) The Parish Council would request that UU treat all Pipelaying. affected landowners in Parish fairly and where possible adhere to their requirements in respect of United Utilities will continue to liaise with parish councils time out of production and land reinstatement; and key stakeholders prior to and throughout the b) The Parish Council would request that UU liaise construction period. Traffic Management Plans will be with them with regard to work traffic through the developed with Cumbria Highways accounting for village and that UU ensure that traffic is stopped or constraints such as school arrival and departure times. limited to a minimum during school arrival and
63 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. departure times given the narrow road and limited space; Any damage caused by the United Utilities works to c) If any damage is caused to the Bothel to roads would be fully repaired. Threapland road this is fully repaired; d) That UU respect all villagers who live close to the Our contractor would employ all practicable means to proposed works or use the area for walking minimise the impacts on our customers. etc.
BRIDEKIRK PARISH COUNCIL
211 Traffic Concerns raised about the traffic disruption and the The Environmental Statement in Appendix 4.3 details scale of the map is insufficiently detailed to identify the worst case durations for road closures surrounding exactly where the pipe is to be located. Insufficient Bridekirk of 2 weeks for the side roads between time to absorb such a large document. Routing and Bridekirk and Tallentire and Bridekirk and Dovenby. The traffic management are the primary worries. How is A594 Dovenby road would not be closed however would this going to be managed and how long is the road to be temporarily widened and would have traffic lights with be closed? single file traffic for 4 – 5 weeks. The A595 would remain open with two way traffic maintained through the use of directional drill techniques or temporary widening with a speed restriction.
The road closures of the minor roads between Bridekirk and Tallentire or Dovenby are expected to be much less potentially 2-3 days to open cut the trench, the road would then be opened and plated to allow traffic over the trench. The road would then need to be closed again for approximately 1 – 2 days to enable the road to be tarmacked.
The routing and traffic management would be managed via a Construction Traffic Management Plan to be agreed with the local planning and highways authorities.
We would liaise with the Parish Council before and during the construction works and take all practicable means to minimise the level of disruption.
BOLTONS PARISH COUNCIL
212 Quarry Hill Boltons Parish Council do not object to this Further details regarding the removal of structures, application but do however have concern for the fate landscaping etc. at the decommissioned sites would be of the site at Quarry Hill. made available to satisfy any planning condition requirements. Any change in use of the site would be the subject of separate consultation and planning application.
COPELAND PARISH COUNCILS
WEDDICAR PARISH COUNCIL
213 Summergrove Cllrs expressed concern at the low level of The woodland adjacent to the existing Summergrove SR Woods significance attached to Summergrove Woods as a is predominately mixed age beech, horse chestnut, ash preserve of red squirrels. Squirrels have been and sycamore with the occasional oak, Scot’s pine, sighted over a number of years and recently a group hawthorn and birch. Although the woodland is divided of three were seen in the Chair’s garden. This into four separate blocks by two minor roads, aerial suggests that there is a viable population of squirrels connectivity exists between each block. However, due to
64 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. and we feel that this should be factored into the the lack of suitable coniferous habitat and its small size preservation of the trees in this small area and that with poor connectivity to any adjacent woodland, this work should be limited to outside breeding periods. woodland is classified as low value.
We are aware of the presence of Red Squirrels. The scheme boundary falls outside of Summergrove woods although there is potential that trees on the edge of these woodlands may be impacted as the arboriculture data suggests tree removal. However, this is considered to be a worst case assumption and it is anticipated that this loss would be minimised through discussions with contractors. If any tree removal is required it would be undertaken outside of the red squirrel breeding season. Such activities would, therefore, be undertaken from September – November only.
LDNP NEIGHBOUR CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Mr R. Dixon (Redmain)
214 Tourism Severe and long lasting damage to the Lake Districts Refer to Response 201 above. landscape. A significant blow to tourism and the UNESCO bid The Lake District simply cannot afford such disruption and damage as soon after the December 2015 floods.
215 Derwent Bank Destruction of many trees, with a net loss overall. Exact details of nature and scale of the compensation Sycamores There are already too few trees in the Lake District, would be agreed with all relevant stakeholders including and this is totally unacceptable. Cutting down LPAs, NE. The community tree fund would help to mature, ancient woodland trees is not made secure additional planting along the pipeline route. compensatory by planting new trees in another area. To suggest planting in Ennerdale is simply a joke. A meeting was held with Mr R. Dixon on 04/05/16 to Nothing more than a publicity stunt to add the “wild discuss his concerns. The red line boundary has been Ennerdale project”, and totally unrelated to anywhere amended to protect the sycamore trees directly south of the pipeline will affect. Derwent Bank. The pipeline would be routed between the trees. Please refer to Amendment 3 within the Removal of two huge, landscape and wildlife Supplementary Information Volume 1 SEI importance sycamore trees directly south of Derwent Amendments to the Planning Application. Bank, Redmain. Totally unnecessary and could be easily avoided by having the working area further into the field. This would be devastating to the landscape of Redmain and it would never be the same again.
216 Local Roads Damage to minor roads that cannot cope which such We would work with local residents to minimise the volumes of heavy machinery and traffic. Roads will impacts on them. United Utilities would continue to be wrecked, verges churned up and will never liaise with parish councils and key stakeholders prior to recover. It will be chaos and misery for all the local and throughout the construction period. Traffic communities caught up in any access area. Management Plans would be developed with Cumbria Highways accounting specific constraints for the areas.
Any damage caused by the United Utilities works to roads or verges would be fully repaired or reinstated.
217 Ridge and Irreplaceable damage to historic ridge and furrow Refer to Response 121 above. Furrow land between Redmain and Blindcrake.
65 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
218 Damage to The application has nowhere near enough detail on Refer to the Supplementary Information Volume 2 Countryside how damage to the countryside will be avoided and Updated Construction Strategies and Volume 2 strictly controlled. Appendix 1.
Ms S. Hall (Redmain)
219 Derwent Bank Irreversible loss and destruction of many mature Refer to Response 215 above. Sycamores landscape important trees, particularly in places where they would be easily avoidable by moving the The route has been designed to avoid as many areas of working area slightly more into the middle of fields. ancient woodland as possible, and where possible go The route is badly planned and could easily have through the narrowest section to limit the impact. avoided plenty of these important trees.
The now proposed removal of 2 6ft girth, 60ft high Sycamore trees between my property and Redmain directly south of Derwent Bank is completely unjustified as the pipeline could have been sited further into the field and totally avoid them. United Utilities told me they were protected in their consultation and wouldn’t be harmed. This is totally unacceptable as they are of huge landscape importance to myself, my family and the community. The area will never look the same again and would be devastating. The value of ancient mature trees for well-being and happiness of the people living immediately around them cannot be ignored and the value of their loss should not be underestimated.
The value of ancient mature trees for well-being and happiness of the people living immediately around them cannot be ignored and the value of their loss should not be underestimated.
220 Trees The Lake District national park is very sensitive to The route has been designed to avoid as many areas of change, and the loss of landscape trees is a huge ancient woodland as possible, and where possible go impact that is totally unacceptable when alternative through the narrowest section to limit the impact. routes are clearly available. Compensatory planting is not an acceptable replacement for ancient mature trees of landscape importance, especially when the proposed compensatory site is Ennerdale, which is nothing to do with the areas that will be damaged. It is blatantly an excuse for free funding for the wild Ennerdale project.
This project will change the landscape forever with its permanent access routes and traces of where the pipeline will be. Again the LDNP is highly sensitive to change and this would be damaging to the landscape for a very long time. Particularly as the route is badly placed through a mixture of woodland and open countryside, both of which human development is very obvious and stands out.
The route crosses into several ancient woodlands which should not be disturbed, again highlighting
66 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. what a poor route choice this application has made. Protection of the landscape and its fragile habitats is top prority in Lake District planning decisions and this application simply pays no regard to this. Following the major road networks would generally avoid most woodland as the road is already in place.
221 Blindcrake Crossing through Blindcrake which is a designated We note the concerns and have routed the pipeline to Conservation conservation area again highlights the avoid as many sensitive features as possible. In the Area inappropriateness of the route. All trees in the Blindcrake area this is particularly difficult due to the conservation area should be protected and all the range of environmental constraints. We believe that traffic and construction will completely degrade the effective reinstatement and management will help to conservation area. The whole point of a conservation minimise the impacts although we accept that this would area is to protect against rogue industrial take a number of years to fully mature. developments such as this.
222 Local Roads The minor roads and lands this route will affect are Refer to Response 216 above. totally unsuitable for such an industrial development. The roads are already at crumbling point with potholes and the huge volumes of machinery will cause vast amounts of damage to the roads and verges. The rural road network is simply not capable of dealing with it without huge disruption and damage to the local communities. The route should be parallel to the major roads such as the A66 so the road structure can support heavy traffic and machinery. Running it through the rural countryside and associated minor roads is simply ridiculous.
223 Tourism and Impact on tourism and local communities from long Refer to Response 201 above. local term, widespread disruption to roads, increased communities heavy traffic and damage/disruption to the landscape. Within the Environmental Statement Chapter 16 This project will turn a corridor of the north lakes consideration has been given to the potential direct including Keswick into a no go zone for tourists, severance that might be experienced by various tourism which is unacceptable especially as the whole area is businesses and sites, as well as the more general just starting to recover from the December 2015 consideration of isolation of communities and areas. flooding. It would be an absolute disaster for
communities and businesses.
224 Alternative If this pipeline was built next to the A66, there would A route following the A66 corridor was investigated, route be little to object to as the road is already the main please refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 landscape feature and could handle the volumes of Chapter 3 and Volume 3 Figure 3-16. traffic and machinery. To plough the route through undisturbed, fragile countryside and woodland is an The route does currently follow the A66 between Naddle environmental, visual and logistic catastrophe. Beck and the Low Briery Holiday site. It would not be possible to continue to follow the A66 across the River Greta as the A66 is on a bridge over the river which is very steep and there is extensive tree cover, the southern embankment of the bridge is known to have had stability issues in the past. There was found to be insufficient room to house the pipe within the bridge deck. Further along the A66 adjacent to Bassenthwaite Lake again there was found to be insufficient room to run the pipe and maintain a hydraulic gradient as there were steep banks, contaminated ground and the works would
67 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. be in the floodplain very close to the designated lake.
Mr P. Kerr (Cockermouth)
225 Need for the My objection is based upon the fact that there is Please refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2, scheme already an excellent water supply to West Cumbria Chapter 3. “The need for the Proposed Scheme centres from Crummock Water, and that the new pipeline and on addressing the loss of current water sources in West extensive associated developments it are not strictly Cumbria to: necessary. A significant development of this kind, • Enable the Ennerdale Water abstraction running across a large part of the National Park, licence to be revoked should only be permitted if it is of vital necessity – for • Ensure an adequate supply-demand balance example if there was no existing safe water supply to reduce the risk of loss of supply already in place, no power or other important utility. • Provide a resilient water supply for the future”. This is not the case; United Utilities – a private
company – have other agendas which they are using as an excuse to try to force through something that is Please also refer to the Supplementary Information chiefly in their (and their shareholders) interests. The Volume 3 – Assessment of Alternative Schemes. National Park has other, wider, and longer term interests than these – an opinion that I humbly, but firmly, state in this document.
Mr G. Tomlinson (Blindcrake)
226 Gill Beck I have looked at the plans for the proposed pipeline A meeting was held with Mr G. Thomlinson and crossing and have two concerns about the way in which it will Blindcrake Parish Council on 12/05/16 to discuss their cross the Ghyll below my house. The concerns are concerns. Rather than a ravine crossing a bridge with 1. The new plans shown to me by my parish the pipes in the bridge deck was agreed. The updated councillor show the pipeline crossing an earth dam drawing is currently under consideration. Please refer with the Ghyll passing through the bottom of the dam to Amendment 3 within the Supplementary Information in a large diameter pipe. In a worst case scenario, in Volume 1 SEI - Amendments to the Planning Application a storm similar to one of many this millennium, the and updated planning drawing B2707061/S5/LDNP/06 pipe could block, say with a fallen tree with flood Rev 1. water quickly building up behind to form a small lake. The surface level of such a lake would top out at the level of the concrete on the top of the dam. I am concerned about the height of this level. If the water ever reached this level, then where would it be on my property. Would it flood my carport or log store or garage? Without knowing exactly the level of the top of the proposed dam it won't be possible to assess this risk. There are some secondary concerns about the lateral stability of the pipe carrying the Ghyll given the nature of the soil on each bank of the Ghyll. 2. The visual impact of the permanent clearing of trees from around the site of the pipeline. It would help if the trees in the proposed area for clearance could be marked.
Mr D. Weeks (High Keld, Chestnut Hill)
227 Pipeline I would like to make the following objections to the It is not possible to place all the pipes in the same trench Amendment proposed pipe line coming through my land at High due to future maintenance requirements. There needs Keld, Chestnut Hill, Keswick. This will be the second to be sufficient space to drive temporary sheet piles time that I have had the upset from such work and it between the pipes and create sufficient working space will restrict more of my land with a wide sweap of to undertake a potential repair in the future. This would unusable land. So my first point would be that both entail the pipes being at approximately 3m pipe lines are put in the same trench (Keswick water centres. However, we would position the new twin
68 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. pipe and the proposed new one) thus confining the mains as close as possible to the existing main to ground consumed, if this is to go ahead. minimise the land take.
228 Tunnelling My main objection is the damage that might be done Pre and post structural surveys on any properties to my house during the proposed tunnelling under the surrounding the tunnel locations would be undertaken. road starting in the field adjacent to the house itself.
229 Trees The next point is that a number of trees between my This is noted. two fields are to be felled and can not be replaced as the roots will interfere with the pipe. This is an area frequented by the red squirrels, bats, birds and badgers. This is a corridor for wildlife through this area.
230 Detailed plans Another concern is that nobody can give me an exact Further details will be provided when a Build Contractor detailed plan on a large scale as the answer seems has been appointed. to be “we can not do that until the contractors are appointed and they decide how the work will be done and the access they will need” and nor can they tell me how long they would be on the land. To me they should be able to say when they would be on the land and for how long.
Mr R. Smith (Millbeck, Keswick)
231 Landowners / As productive landowners of this pipeline route, we We will work with all landowners to minimise the impacts National Park feel we will be much better off without it. You just on them. We note the concerns and would work with need to see existing pipeline which have been done landowners and the local planning authorities to ensure around the Keswick area. After reinstatement, it is a effective reinstatement. blot on the landscape and agricultural productivity is very poor. The proposed scheme is going to rip open the heart of the National Park and if you approve it there is not way you can refuse anything in the future.
Mr M. Dixon & Mrs P. Dixon (Redmain)
232 Escarpment Proposed route of pipeline (General layout and red Exploratory holes completed in this section indicate the line p.d.f sheet 19). The proposed route of the ground conditions to comprise topsoil overlying stiff pipeline appears to be far too close to the Glacial Till of medium strength. Assuming a maximum escarpment adjacent to the road and our property working width of 40m and the use of a totally horizontal (address as above). During the winter months, this working platform the proposed difference in height area of land suffers from a high level of water which across the easement would be a maximum of 1.0m. runs down the hillside from a large catchment area Given the limited height of cut slope combined with the towards the River Derwent. We hardly need to be medium to high strength of the glacial till we would not reminded of the extreme rainfall during the winter of anticipate any movement or instability in this section. 2015/16 which caused major landslips in many areas. Our concern is that major earthworks (we understand In terms of drainage of the existing crossfall the that the work area will be up to 40m) will disturb the contractor would as standard practice install appropriate structural integrity of the land and could potentially drainage both laterally along the pipe route as a collect cause land movements. (We understand from a drain and perpendicular across the route to allow the meeting held last October, that this section is transfer of flows across the easement whilst preventing scheduled to go ahead during the winter of 2017). any surface sediment collection.
It should also be noted that whilst there were an number of slope failures in the surrounding area due to the excessive rainfall over the winter there is no evidence of recent or historic mass movement across the section of
69 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. route in question further confirming the stability of the existing slope. It should also be noted that at present it is not proposed to construct pipeline sections during the winter months.
Consequently in view of the above we would not consider there is a risk from either localised slope failures from our works or a long term risk to the stability of the area around Holme Wood.
233 Damage to the Irreparable damage to the sensitive landscape of the We note the concerns and have routed the pipeline to landscape of LDNP. avoid as many sensitive features as possible. In the the LDNP - Felling of many mature landscape – Important trees Blindcrake area this is particularly difficult due to the along the route. Planting replacement saplings is not range of environmental constraints. We believe that mitigation for removing mature trees. effective reinstatement and management will help to
- Cutting through multiple ancient woodlands. Gill minimise the impacts although we accept that this would take a number of years to fully mature. Wood, just outside Blindcrake, in particular, will be severed in two and never be allowed to grow back to normal. Refer to Response 121, 215, 216, 220 and 221 above. - Unacceptable damage to Blindcrake which is a conservation area, both from removal of trees and hedgerows and also vehicular access and traffic volumes which will damage the village’s roads, verges and tranquillity. - Destruction of hedgerow tree strips, particularly between Isel School and Gill Wood and between Park Wood and Isel Cottage. These are characteristic landscape features of the area and will never look the same again. They are strips of mature trees mixed with shrubbier hedge species that create a wall of greenery along the roadside and field boundaries. To cut huge holes through/remove these strips will ruin them forever. It would take decades of management to recreate them.
234 Road Road disruption – The amount of potential disruption Refer to Response 216 above. Disruption and additional transport costs for local residents is not acceptable. The narrow, secondary roads around Blindcrake, Isel and Redmain are not suitable for heavy construction traffic and the inevitable road closures will mean long detours for people working in Cockermouth, Keswick and further afield. This will put an unacceptable financial burden on individuals as there appears to be no plans to reimburse petrol costs or extra travelling time. The narrow rural lands are in no way fit to cope with such an industrial scale project as this. Roads are already in a poor state and will not be able to handle such volumes of heavy vehicles. Very few passing places on many roads will lead to disruption and increase the risk of RTAs.
235 Alternative Overall the route chosen for this project seems to be Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter Options designed around minimum disruption to human 3 Design Evolution and the Supplementary Information infrastructures i.e. the major roads. The Volume 3 Assessment of Alternative Schemes.
70 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. consequence is maximum damage to unspoilt rural countryside and woodlands which is totally Refer to Response 224 above. unacceptable as it is the type of landscape most sensitive to changes in the National Park. We question whether all other viable alternatives have been considered. For example, would a route generally following the line of the A66 (which already supports major human altered landscape infrastructure) be better able to absorb and cope with such a project? This application is the biggest threat to the landscape this part of the Lake District has ever seen. The irreversible damage would be an absolute disaster.
Mr & Mrs K. Tyson (Underskiddaw)
236 Landowners Firstly if this is granted permission it is going to We would work with all the landowners and businesses and completely destroy both our farming and our to minimise the impacts on them. Where required we Businesses hospitality businesses for several years with the would support landowners/tenants that need additional amount of disruption construction work will cause. land and where possible would time our works to From the agricultural viewpoint it is going to cause minimise impacts. months and possibly years of disruption to our farming policy, removing from use during the whole of the time needed for construction, large chunks of some of our only useable land in the winter months. Indeed in this last winter it was our only useable land for about three month. All our dealings so far with the investigation works, and any question/answer discussions, have left us with no concrete timings to plan for, no definite time for which we will not have use of the land. No amount of compensation can make good this kind of disruption to peoples’ lives. And it will affect so many others in the same way, from Keswick to Bridekirk and beyond.
237 Economy I also believe that the entire project is going to bring Refer to Response 201 above. massive disruption to the economy of the town of Keswick. We have already seen the huge loss of business resulting from the closure of the A591 since the beginning of December last year, and people will similarly be put off coming to Keswick if there are large amounts of roadworks to negotiate for long periods of time. They will quite simply go somewhere else, and the worst-case scenario is that they may never come back to Keswick.
Mr J.W.Fryer_Spedding (Keswick)
238 Contrary to I object to this planning application for the reasons Refer to the Supplementary Information Volume 3 – LDNP planning set out in the remainder of this letter. Assessment of Alternative Schemes. policies In summary my objection is that to allow the application would run contrary to Lake District National Park planning polices, and in particular those mentioned in section 2 of the letter.
The remainder of this letter comprises the following
71 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. parts: Section 2 – Relevant Policies and Planning Guidance Section 3 – Environmental Considerations Section 4 – Landscape Considerations Section 5 – Proper approach to a “Major Development” Section 6 – Summary
Mr J. Thirlwall (Blindcrake, Cockermouth) – Objection to both LDNP and Allerdale applications
239 Need for the The plans are totally inappropriate and will destroy Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter Scheme / Isel the local environment, the local infrastructure is not in 3 Design Evolution and the Supplementary Information and Blindcrake place to support this scheme and the parish of Isel Volume 3 Assessment of Alternative Schemes. and the village of Blindcrake will be destroyed. This scheme should be scrapped and a more sensitive We note the concerns and have routed the pipeline to plan developed. The damage will be such as to avoid as many sensitive features as possible. In the destroy an area of special scientific interest for ever, Blindcrake and Isel area this is particularly difficult due there are better ways to get water to West Cumbria. to the range of environmental constraints. We believe This scheme is doing it on the cheap regardless of that effective reinstatement and management will help to how many lives are destroyed doing it. minimise the impacts although we accept that this would take a number of years to fully mature.
Mr J. Saxton
240 Contrary to The objection details a number of arguments Refer to the Supplementary Information Volume 3 – LDNP planning including: Assessment of Alternative Schemes. policies / Need • application of this size and scale - major for the Scheme development. So the planning authority is required to be “rigorous” in its approach • The documentation fail to mention the Silkin Test Principles • “exceptional circumstances” test…“overriding national need”… “cannot be met in any other way” • The whole need for the pipeline is based on the EA revoking the licence to extract water from Ennerdale Water. However the licence has not yet been revoked, and the evidence that the licence will be revoked is not strong • Local economy of the National Park badly affected. Tourism, farmers and local businesses affected • Disruption on the National Park and the benefit will be to those living outside the Park • Amount of money spent in the Park or will benefit those in the Park appear to be relatively small. The Park will suffer all the harm and none of the benefit.
Ms T. Jackson (H&H Land and Property)
241 Route I act as Agent on behalf of Mr J Helme, Ormathwaite This change has been incorporated into the Amendment Farm, who’s land is affected by the proposed Supplementary Information. Please refer to Volume 1 development. We wish to bring to your attention that SEI Amendments to the Planning Application
72 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. the plan submitted with the planning application, Amendment 8. Drawing number B2707061_s2_LDNP_7 Sheet 7 of 28 and Sheet 8 of 28 (attached for your ease of reference) showing the line of the proposed development, is not the line which was agreed with my client. The second attached plan shows the agreed route with a green line, which was understood to be the route which would be taken. My client requested this change to reduce the impact of the development on his agricultural enterprise. In light of the route put forward in the planning application, we object to the route as proposed and seek amendment to reflect the agreed route.
Ms T. Jackson (H&H Land and Property) and Mrs E.M.Helme (Underskiddaw)
242 Route I act as Agent on behalf of Mr E Helme, Ormathwaite Unfortunately it is not possible to amend the alignment Amendment Farm, who’s land is affected by the proposed of this route. The agent was advised in January 2016 development. We wish to object to the proposed line that “This route cannot be amended as it is further away of the route affecting Mrs Helme’s land. The plan from the static homes and for ecological reasons submitted with the planning application, Drawing minimises the number of trees we have to remove. Also number B2707061_s2_LDNP_7 Sheet 7 of 28 is a from an engineering point of view the route avoids the different route to that which was originally put requirement for a pressure valve chamber from the forward. Please find attached a plan showing the United Utilities existing network and makes the stream original proposal which would be preferred by my and road crossing easier as there is space between client. The route put forward in the planning them. Therefore, United Utilities cannot amend this application is severely detrimental to my clients route”. farming operations. In light of the route put forward in the planning application, we object to the route as proposed and seek an amendment, reverting to the original proposed route.
243 Route Part of the proposed pipeline crosses land owned by Please refer to Response 242 above. Amendment myself. The field in question is number NY2624/5966. On plans that I received from United We note the concerns, we will reinstate the field on a Utilities, they show a completely different route like for like basis. We would work with all the across that particular field to what has been landowners to minimise the impacts on them including submitted to yourselves. Their new proposed route maintaining access wherever practicable. would completely destroy this field altering the lay of the land and it would never recover. Also I would have great difficulty accessing the remainder of this field and it would probably involve making then a new access route from the road but that would not solve the problem as I would also need a new bridge which in itself would pose another problem as the beck is so close to the existing road and that there are already existing water works in that area. On the plans submitted to you even after the work has been done, I would have problems with the access as they are proposing to construct two wash out valves in the gateway. Heavy agricultural equipment (i.e. tractor with trailer laden with big bales of silage) would need to pass over. I do not know why they have decided to change the route as the original plan seems to make more sense as it follows the natural lay of the ground instead of moving the pipe up the hillside.
73 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. Please consider my objections as this plan will cause great difficulty in access and would not be environmentally friendly to the stream.
Ms T. Jackson (H&H Land and Property) acting on behalf of Mr R. Grisedale
244 Route We wish to bring to your attention that the plan This change has been incorporated into the Amendment submitted with the planning application, Drawing Supplementary Information. Please refer to Volume 1 Number B2707061_s2_LDNP_6 Sheet 6 of 28 SEI Amendments to the Planning Application (attached for your ease of reference) showing the line Amendment 9. of the proposed development is not the line which was agreed with my client. The second plan indicates the proposed route change, which was agreed, and understood to be the route which would be taken. My client requested this change to avoid the septic tank, located in the field, and to reduce the impact of the development on the land. In light of the route put forward in the planning application, we object to the route as proposed and seek amendment to reflect the agreed route.
Mr D. Boniface (Applethwaite, Keswick)
245 Contrary to The United Utilities pipeline proposal would seem to Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter LDNP planning contravene one of the basic policies of the LDNPA – 3 and Supplementary Information Volume 3 Assessment policies in that the preservation of the landscape is of Alternative Schemes. paramount and that if an alternative proposal which does not have the same detrimental effect on the landscape is available then that should be the preferred option.
246 Use of rivers If United Utilities wish to convey water from Thirlmere Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter to the west coast there is already a water conduit in 3 paragraph 23 “During the consultation events, the existence that they could utilise: the River Derwent. question of transferring the water from Thirlmere via A controlled release of water from Thirlmere local watercourses and waterbodies rather than building Reservoir into the Derwent would allow it to be a new water pipeline was also raised. This option abstracted and treated beyond Cockermouth and this however had already been assessed and discussed with would avoid the massive disruption to the landscape, the Environment Agency and Natural England. It was farming, tourism and road communications that the discounted because the water resources involved, implementation of United Utilities’ scheme will cause. including Bassenthwaite Lake, are very sensitive and all A licence has already been granted to the Lakes form part of a Special Area of Conservation, a European Distillery, Bassenthwaite for the abstraction of water level habitat designation. Both the Environment Agency from the River Derwent. If it is good enough for them and Natural England advised that they could not support then it should be good enough for United Utilities. If such a proposal. They indicated that the changes in this would cost more it is a price worth paying for the flows and the infrastructure that would need to be built, preservation of the landscape. could give rise to potential significant adverse effects on protected species and habitats”.
247 Alternative If the principle of the scheme is accepted, despite my Refer to Response 224 above. route comments above, then reconsideration is required in the light of the effect of this scheme on Keswick and the A66. United Utilities seem to be proposing the route which is simplest and therefore cheapest for them to construct, without taking into account the costs and losses that they will be inflicting on the economy of Keswick by the disruption to the town that their works will cause. The proposed route crosses the A66 three times and carves its way
74 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. through the heart of the town. Once it has crossed the A66 once, why is it then not kept to the north side of that trunk road (bored if necessary) and carried over the River Greta on a bridge, rather than bored under the river in the heart of Keswick?
248 Kiosks In a number of locations a ”kiosk” is shown on the Refer to Response 158 above. plans. I can find no details of these kiosks on the drawings on the web. The requirement for these in open countryside needs justification and if they are unavoidable, their size, materials and siting need careful consideration. For example, one is shown adjacent to the unnamed/unnumbered road leading into Applethwaite from the A591 on page six of the general layout plan. The details of these kiosks should be provided.
249 Reinstatement They certainly can’t be trusted to reinstate the land Refer to Response 203 above. “as found”. This has not been achieved on the Keswick School playing field. United Utilities did work there as part of the sewerage improvements for Keswick. The drainage of the playing fields at the school is still being resolved. That is a small project by comparison to this pipeline and one must wonder whether United Utilities can carry out their promise to “leave as found” on such a big project.
Royal Mail
250 Access This objection relates to the planning application for A meeting was held with the Royal Mail and their agents the Thirlmere to West Cumbria Pipeline as it is Cushman and Wakefield on 27/06/16 to discuss their proposed to be routed through the northern part of concerns. The main actions from the meeting were for Keswick. The proposed route as currently shown on UU to provide a plan which detailed proposals for a the application plan B2707061_S2_LDNP_6 passes segregated access from the highway through the yard to through the operational yard of the Keswick Delivery the working area which would allow continued operation Office and proposes a construction site compound to of Keswick Delivery Office. Also for a meeting to be be located on part of the site. Please see attached arranged between UU, Royal Mail and BT regarding title plan for the RMG ownership and operational their proposed access arrangements through the site. area, along with the relevant plan abstracted from the planning application for ease of reference. British A drawing showing the Access Arrangements, Royal Telecom shares the yard area…… The Keswick DO Mail Delivery Office, Keswick operational yard is within the ‘red line’ of the planning (P456_80040112_00_97_2112 Rev A) was provided to application and implementation of the proposed Royal Mail, BT and Cumbria Highways as shown within development to which the application relates will Appendix 4 of this document. We are actively engaged prevent RMG from operating for the duration of the in dialogue with the Royal Mail, BT and Cumbria work, thereby preventing RMG from carrying out its Highways over these proposals and the drawing is statutory duty. currently under consideration. While RMG does not object to the West Cumbria Pipeline in principle, it has strong objection to the proposed route of the pipeline referenced in the planning application, and to the proposed location of the construction site compound to the south of the Delivery Office yard. It is imperative that, to ensure there is no disruption to RMG’s service to the CA12 postcodes, RMG has certainty that no works which would interrupt or in any way prejudice operations at Keswick DO will take
75 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. place as a result of the planning permission for the pipeline. The DO cannot operate without uninterrupted use of its yard. As such any proposal to carry out works in, block, or access across the yard are not acceptable. Further, RMG holds the health and safety of its staff as a top priority at all times and where there are situations of increased dust, noise and vehicular movements across RMG property, this is of significant concern. It is considered that a construction site compound, excavation work and transport of material through the operational yard and past the DO will significantly compromise the health and safety of RMG staff. It is therefore imperative that an alternative route is proposed by the applicant, during the consideration of the application ref: 7/2016/2027, through the northern part of Keswick, to direct the proposed pipeline away from the RMG operation. It is not clear from the planning application documentation submitted whether alternative routing options have been explored for this area and this should be made clear with any alternatives described and discounted with full reasoning where relevant. It is understood that this is a requirement of the EIA Regulations. RMG welcomes the commitment by the applicant, in paragraph 183 of the application Design and Access Statement, not to close multiple routes serving the same community at the same time. This will be critical to enable RMG to deliver its statutory duty and must be written into any planning permission. RMG requests the Local Authority’s full co-operation and assistance in the applicant finding a new route for the proposed pipeline, wherever this can be facilitated. To re-iterate, RMG’s priority in such a case RMG is to ensure uninterrupted service from the DO.
ALLERDALE NEIGHBOUR CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Mr P. Gallagher (Keswick)
251 Need for the Having attended a number of meetings relating to this Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter scheme / proposal I remain unconvinced that the pipeline is 3 and the Supplementary Information Volume 3 Alternative either proportionate or necessary in relation to Assessment of Alternative Schemes. route supplying water to West Cumbria. There are surely less intrusive means to supply water to the locations Refer to Response 246 and 224 above. mentioned including nearby lakes and rivers. Should the pipeline be deemed necessary my specific concerns relate to the route through Keswick. I would suggest a route to the north of the A66, away from the town and then parallel to the same road, intruding on a minimum number of residents and businesses. It is clear that a considerable amount of preplanning
76 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. has been completed by United Utilities. It concerns me however that such works are being considered through, and under a town that is susceptible to flooding. I have no doubt that similar assessments relating to risk were conducted prior to the flood defences being built. It would appear that the assessments were woefully inadequate and similar issues could be attached to the pipeline proposal that in effect undermines the town.
Messrs R. B. Jackson (Papcastle, Cockermouth)
252 River Derwent I object to the sinking of a shaft and 700ml dia pipe A meeting organised by the Environment Agency was crossing plus two 150ml pipes so close to the River Derwent held with Messrs R. Jackson, the Environment Agency, down stream of the Papcastle Bridge in field NY1031 Natural England, Cumbria County Council, Connect OS1222 where erosion has progressively increased Roads/Cumbria Highways and United Utilities. The after each flood. 1992/3…..; 2005 floods…..; 2009 following was agreed: floods….; 2015 floods….. Without proper 1. The A595 road bridge road drainage outfall would be engineering under the bridge and along the river reinstated as an open channel with stone cascade to the edge this plan should be turned down or amended river. The public footpath would require a simple foot and the tunnel extended some 100 meters from the bridge across the channel which could be located further river edge. away from the river bank edge, thus increasing the future resilience for the footpath. To be actioned by Connect Roads, Cumbria County Council and the Environment Agency. 2. Track underpass on right hand bank – The scour requires infilling and the level of the underpass needs to be smooth and consistent with the banking upstream and downstream. The erosion of the raised bank without grass growth is to be repaired and further protected with use of appropriate geotextile material. Both these actions will help reduce the likelihood of future flood flows through this underpass causing significant erosion of the banking below the bridge and minimises the risk of significant future erosion into the field downstream. This will also help protect the Thirlmere pipeline that will run through this field. To be actioned by Connect Roads/Cumbria CC and the Environment Agency. 3. Redundant block work, left hand bridge channel and removal of gravel on left hand bank. To be actioned by the Environment Agency, Cumbria County Council and Connect Roads. 4. River Bank Restoration – The right hand bank downstream of the road bridge has been eroded from the original line of the river for an approximate length of 100m due to the recent floods. The depth of the channel on this right hand side has also increased considerably which if left would require a further considerable loss of land to batter back the banking at an appropriate angle. The effective restoration of this section of river bank is dependent on the appropriate works being undertaken as outlined in points 1 to 3 above. In order to facilitate a suitably resilient and pragmatic restoration of the right hand river bank the
77 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. use of river gravels deposited on the field further downstream was discussed and agreed. Options for the banking were discussed. Environment Agency to draw up a proposal for the restoration of the right hand river bank to be agreed with NE and shared with all.
The tunnel shafts would be set back from the right hand bank approximately 45m and then a tunnel at a depth of approximately 13/14m under the river and the A66 before emerging on the far side of the A66 as shown on planning drawing B2707061_S5_10. A 30m buffer has been applied from the current river edge. With the river bank restoration works in place this distance from the river is considered appropriate.
Mr C. Woodhouse
253 Quarry Hill I recognise it has been the subject of much thought Further details regarding the removal of structures, and that benefits to our environment and economy landscaping etc. at the decommissioned sites would be are intended and expected. However may I comment made available to satisfy any planning condition and request clarification regarding Quarry Hill Water requirements. Decommissioning would not take place Treatment Works. Under the Scheme these are to until the proposed development is fully operational in be decommissioned. I note this will involve removal 2021. of significant plant and machinery. This is all planned it appears, if the Scheme is approved, for Spring 2017 to the end of 2018. I can find nothing in the Scheme explaining what is to happen about the existing structures at Quarry Hill Water Treatment Works. There seems nothing explaining any future use or what mitigation and residual effects and steps will be carried out to make good and restore the original landscape and setting of this site. It may be this is covered somewhere in the extensive Scheme documentation but, if not, surely this needs to be part of this planning application for this Scheme with a full and detailed explanation.
Mr M. White (Papcastle, Cockermouth)
254 Need for the The objection details a number of arguments Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter scheme/ including: 3 Design Evolution and Supplementary Information Alternatives • Revocation of the Ennerdale Water Volume 3 Assessment of Alternative Schemes. extraction licence is not justified, but United Utilities has failed to challenge it. • The scheme puts West Cumbria’s overall water supply at excessive risk from failures or pollution • United Utilities have not properly considered alternatives to the proposed scheme • The size (and hence cost) of the raw water aqueduct pipe is excessive • Statements on environmental effects are muddled and contradictory
78 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No.
Mr & Mrs P. Gannon (The Parklands, Cockermouth)
255 Construction Our objection is in relation to what are labelled as To limit the impact in this area we have carried out Compound/ Construction Compound / Laydown Areas shown on further investigation into the existing pipes that were Laydown Area B2707061_S2_ABC_25 Revision A on the Eastern planned to be slip-lined in this area. They were installed side of the 66. This land is managed on behalf of the approximately 10 years ago and are in good condition. residents of The Parklands and is referenced in the Rather than slip-lining we are now proposing to connect deeds of each property as being maintained for the into either side of the pipes that cross the A66, as a benefit (quiet enjoyment) of the residents of The result we can significantly reduce the working area that Parklands. Use of this area for the purposes is required in the area of green space adjacent to The described in the planning application would be Parklands. Refer to Supplementary Information Volume contrary to that specified use. Payment is made by 1 SEI Amendments to the Planning Application the residents of The Parklands to maintain this land Amendment 45. No compound would be located within in accordance with that covenant. It has taken quite this new working area. a number of years of management for this land to mature, and proposed use as a contractor compound If the above methodology proves not to be viable an would destroy it for many years to come; it currently additional working area would be required but further serves as a noise abatement and visual barrier to the discussions would be had with the local planning very busy A66 as well as providing wildlife habitat authority if this were found to be the case once and runs for rare red squirrels and other creatures. construction had started. Besides which our property outlook would be directly
adversely affected. Any trees removed not on the permanent easement
would be replanted and maintained in accordance with There are other areas very close to these shown any planning condition. which could better serve the needs of United Utilities
and cause less nuisance, such as the currently
abandoned end of Brigham Road where new properties are being built by Armstrong, or the lay-by just a few yards west along the A66.
Ms L. Grundy (The Parklands, Cockermouth)
256 Construction Although I have no objection in principle to the above The working area here is unconnected to the Compound/ proposal, I do have concerns regarding the development of the proposed Pumping Station at Harrot Laydown Area Compound Construction/Laydown Area as shown on Hill. It is associated with the existing pipework that the document ‘General Layout Pages 9-12 crosses the A66 in this location. B2707061_S2_ABC.PDF’. The land which United Utilities is planning to use as To limit the impact in this area we have carried out the Compound Construction/Laydown Area is an further investigation into the existing pipes that were area of Open Space on the edge of The Parklands planned to be slip-lined in this area. They were installed housing development. This parcel of land is managed approximately 10 years ago and are in good condition. by Greenbelt Group Ltd on behalf of the residents of Rather than slip-lining we are now proposing to connect The Parklands who pay Greenbelt an annual into either side of the pipes that cross the A66, as a management fee to maintain it. Not only is this area result we can significantly reduce the working area that of land a valuable community asset, used, as a play is required in the area of green space adjacent to The area for the children of the estate, but it’s also used Parklands. Refer to Supplementary Information Volume on a daily basis by many dog walkers. 1 SEI Amendments to the Planning Application As can be seen from the photograph below, this area Amendment 45. No compound would be located within of land is elevated higher than the houses next to it, this new working area. so the use of this area for a Construction Compound
will mean that anyone working in the area will be able If the above methodology proves not to be viable an
to see straight into the bedroom windows of the additional working area would be required but further houses next to it. discussions would be had with the local planning
79 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. The land also contains a number of young trees, authority if this were found to be the case once which were planted over 10 years to mitigate the construction had started. noise of the traffic on the A66. The use of this area as a Construction Compound area will result in the Any trees removed not on the permanent easement trees, which are acting as a sound barrier, being would be replanted and maintained in accordance with removed. This will have a detrimental effect on the any planning condition. quality of life of those residents who live in the nearby
houses. The working area here is unconnected to the The building of a Construction Compound will development of the proposed Pumping Station at Harrot constitute a Change of Use for the land, which I Hill. It is associated with the existing pipework that believe requires planning permission in its own right. crosses the A66 in this location. Having looked through the extensive amount of documentation accompanying this application, I can find nothing that shows the size of the building, or the layout of the compound. Neither can I find anything that details tree replanting or the length of the time that the building will exist for, that’s presuming that it won’t become a permanent fixture. Finally, I do not understand why this area of land has been chosen as a Construction Compound due to the fact that the A66 cuts off the compound from the new Harrot Hill Pumping Station. Any construction traffic, travelling between the compound and the new pumping station at Harrot Hill will need to travel along Brigham Road (which is a very busy residential road that has cars parked either side of the road for the whole length of the road), along Lamplugh Road to the roundabout on the A66, then along the A66 to the Brigham turnoff. Surely it would have been better to have placed the compound closer to the site of new pumping station. So, in conclusion, I believe that the siting of the Construction Compound/Laydown Area for the new Harrot Hill Pumping Station is in the completely wrong location. Its construction, and daily use, will have a detrimental effect on the lives of the residents of the nearby housing. It will result in a lot of heavy haulage traffic using a busy residential street. It will also mean the loss of trees, which are acting as a sound barrier to mitigate the noise of the traffic on the A66.
Mr & Mrs M. Travis (The Parklands, Cockermouth)
257 Construction We are aware of United Utilities (UU) proposed To limit the impact in this area we have carried out Compound/ planning application and are generally in agreement further investigation into the existing pipes that were Laydown Area with the need for the modifications in order to secure planned to be slip-lined in this area. They were installed water supplies for West Cumbria into the future. We approximately 10 years ago and are in good condition. do however have serious concerns relating to the Rather than slip-lining we are now proposing to connect proposed Compound Construction/Laydown Area as into either side of the pipes that cross the A66, as a shown on the document ‘General Layout result we can significantly reduce the working area that B2707061_S2_ABC. Specifically the land which UU is required in the area of green space adjacent to The intends to use as the Compound Parklands. Refer to Supplementary Information Volume Construction/Laydown Area is currently an area of 1 SEI Amendments to the Planning Application open space on the edge of The Parklands Amendment 45. No compound would be located within
80 Supplementary Information Volume 2 Planning Application Consultation Responses
Resp Summary Consultation Response Text UU Response No. development. This land is currently an amenity area this new working area. for the benefit of The Parklands residents, including ourselves, who pay a yearly management charge to If the above methodology proves not to be viable an Greenbelt Ltd. To maintain the area. This area of additional working area would be required but further land contains many young trees planted when The discussions would be had with the local planning Parklands estate was developed some 10+ years authority if this were found to be the case once ago to reduce the traffic noise emanating from the construction had started. adjacent A66 road. The use of this area of land as a
construction compound will result in the destruction of Any trees removed not on the permanent easement these maturing trees and elimination of this essential would be replanted and maintained in accordance with sound barrier. In addition the close proximity of a any planning condition. construction compound to residential housing will have a negative impact on the well-being of those residents close by. We request that Allerdale Borough Council re-assess this aspect of the UU planning application and position the construction compound in a less detrimental location.
Mr D. Siddall (Cockermouth)
258 Need for the Proposals will place West Cumbria dependent on one Refer to the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Chapter scheme source of water (Thirlmere) this creates an 3 Design Evolution and Supplementary Information unnecessary strategic risk. Volume 3 Assessment of Alternative Schemes. The alleged threat to the freshwater mussels in River Ehen is theoretical and United Utilities should first challenge the EU directive they claim leads to a halting of abstraction from Ennerdale.
COPELAND NEIGHBOUR CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Mr R. Megan
259 Traffic I’ve now had an opportunity to have a quick look at We note the concerns and would work with Cumbria the proposals and raise no objection in general terms Highways and the local community to develop – indeed very supportive of the overall concept. My appropriate Traffic Management Plans, with the only query is that regarding the disposal of spoil and beginning and the end of the school day a major factor traffic implications. For example re-High Leys SR in their development and implementation. and PS where “potentially large volumes of excavated material…may need to be removed from site for processing” (E.S. Volume Chapter 14) the traffic effect is described as “slight/moderately adverse”: I would suggest that the traffic implications will be considerably more than that on the A5086. Under Chapter 18 such implications appear to be downplayed as “negligible”, “slight” or “moderate” for this narrow, winding A road. Certainly the mitigation strategies will need to be very carefully considered, conditioned and enforced and during school term times (I have in mind e.g. Lamplugh, Paddle and Dean Schools) construction traffic should cease for a given period at the beginning and end of the school day.
81