Dr. Gwynne Jones Prif Weithredwr Chief Executive CYNGOR SIR YNYS MÔN ISLE OF ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL Swyddfa’r Sir LLANGEFNI Ynys Môn - Anglesey Mr Duncan Hawthorne LL77 7TW Chief Executive Officer Gofynnwch am - Please ask for: Vicky Jones Horizon Nuclear Power Limited ( (01248) 752102 7(01248) 750839 Sunrise House 1420 Charlton Court E-Bost-E-mail: [email protected] Gloucester Business Park Ein Cyf - Our Ref. WGJ/VLJ/PAC3 Gloucester Eich Cyf - Your Ref. GL3 4AE OFFICIAL Dear Mr. Hawthorne, RESPONSE TO THE HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER WYLFA NEWYDD PROJECT PRE- APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE THREE (PAC3) I am writing to you on behalf of the Isle of Anglesey County Council (“IACC” or “the Council”) setting out its formal response to the PAC3 consultation. In doing so, I am following a similar approach and structure to that adopted in response to the previous consultations. This is with the aim of demonstrating consistency and transparency through a coherent narrative of the IACC’s position as Horizon Nuclear Power’s (“Horizon”) proposals for the Wylfa Newydd Project have evolved and substantially changed over time. This response follows and builds on previous consultation responses in highlighting key issues and is not an exhaustive assessment of the proposals. The IACC has acted in good faith in presenting high-level views on various points including potential mitigation measures. However, there is an absence of detail in this PAC3 consultation which is unacceptable. Therefore, these comments are offered as guidance and a basis for further discussion as without a detailed picture of the proposals, it is not possible to measure the impacts and effects nor to assess the level of mitigation required. As highlighted in the IACC’s response to the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC) in April 2017, it is unacceptable and contrary to the objective of promoting meaningful consultation that the PAC3 consultation was limited to the minimum statutory period of 28 days (30 days with Bank Holidays). With changes to the design and layout of the power station, changes to the consenting strategy as well as fundamental changes to the worker accommodation strategy, the IACC believes that these are significant changes which merited a longer consultation period. As noted previously, the consultation could also have included significantly more detail and information on these changes in order for the IACC and the public to meaningfully consider and respond. This letter and the following appendices constitute the IACC’s response to the PAC3 consultation. This consultation response has regard to national policy statements and relevant guidance on the consultation process. 1 ñ Appendix A – High Level Strategic Report ñ Appendix B – PAC2 / PAC3 Summary of changes table BACKGROUND The IACC Vision for the New Nuclear Build at Wylfa, as set out in the Wylfa Newydd Supplementary Planning Guidance, is that it is “a positive driver for the transformation of the economy and communities on Anglesey, providing sustainable employment opportunities, improving the quality of life for existing and future generations and enhancing local identity and distinctiveness”. This Vision translates into a set of seven key objectives: 1. Contributes to the delivery of the Anglesey Energy Island Programme and the Anglesey Enterprise Zone, placing the island at the forefront of energy research and development, production and servicing; 2. Drives the transformation of the Anglesey and North Wales economies and maximises opportunities for the employment and upskilling of local people; 3. Delivers significant and enduring infrastructure benefits to the Island’s communities; 4. Supports improvements to the quality of life (including health, wellbeing and amenity) of the Island’s residents, visitors and workers during its construction and operation; 5. Recognises and strengthens the unique identity of the Island and its communities; 6. Promotes the sustainable movement of people and materials and provides resilient transportation infrastructure capable of attracting and sustaining economic growth and creating sustainable communities; and 7. Conserves and enhances the Island’s distinctive environment and resources, taking into account climate change. The continued support of the IACC for the Project is based on the expectation that this Vision and these objectives are going to be met. KEY ISSUES The key issues outlined below are in headline terms to avoid repetition. They therefore need to be read in conjunction with the more detailed comments in the Appendices. 1 Level of PAC3 Information 1.1 Despite PAC3 being welcomed as a means of consulting on the proposed changes since PAC2, it lacks the substance and detail necessary to enable the IACC to properly comment. In IACC’s view, the PAC3 consultation has been insufficient and inadequate as it has not provided the necessary level of information to allow full engagement with and meaningful comment to be given by the Council. Horizon should note that the adequacy of consultation is of key importance and, if not addressed now, potentially will become an issue later in the process. 1.2 This lack of detail means that the IACC are not able to meaningfully assess the potential impacts of the project, examine the validity of Horizon’s proposals or to influence and shape the proposals. Given that Horizon are proposing to submit the DCO application in 2017, the IACC would have expected to have been consulted on a revised draft Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) / Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). 1.3 Given that Horizon have advised that this is the final consultation prior to submission the IACC is unlikely to see the required detail until the DCO application is submitted. This is unacceptable in a process which is designed to be front-loaded. IACC understand that Horizon intend to share the outputs of assessments and further details prior to submission. IACC stress that this is now essential. Once submitted there will be limited ability to change any of the DCO elements. The DCO consultation process 2 is designed to allow consultees to influence the project through iterative design. This approach has not been followed with the information necessary to provide meaningful responses and influence the project. This is despite fundamental changes to the project at a very late stage in the process. It is contrary to the ethos of the DCO regime that detail on major elements and their impacts will not be available until submission. The Council cannot meaningfully assess the impacts and appropriateness of the proposed mitigation. The IACC note that the Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre- application process states: “The pre-application consultation process is crucial to the effectiveness of the major infrastructure consenting regime. A thorough process can give the Secretary of State confidence that issues that will arise during the six months examination period have been identified, considered, and – as far as possible – that applicants have sought to reach agreement on those issues”. 1.4 Given the above guidance, we are concerned about the ability of the IACC to enter into meaningful engagement with Horizon on the content of a Statement of Common Ground, without the necessary detailed information. We also note that the lack of detail provided has also been raised as an issue by other statutory consultees and by the Planning Inspectorate in the 2017 scoping opinion1. Horizon is pushing the provision of detail to an inappropriately late stage in this process and making it difficult for consultees to engage properly and fully. For example, it is still not clear exactly what it is proposed to include in the DCO as enabling works; PINS note that “it is unclear which elements of the SPC works the Applicant intends to seek consent for through the TCPA regime and which elements through the NSIP regime”. The need for the DCO application to be well prepared and to justify and evidence the decisions made was reiterated by PINS2. 1.5 Horizon’s “optimisation process” has resulted in the concentration of the project and its impacts in North Anglesey - for example the proposal is now for up to a maximum of 4,000 workers all to be located adjacent to the main construction site with another 1,032 in the immediate area. With Temporary Construction Workers Accommodation (TCWA) for up to 4,000 workers on-site and over 1,000 workers expected to live in existing accommodation in North Anglesey (PRS, latent, owner occupied and tourism accommodation), this will put significant added pressures and impacts on North Anglesey and it’s communities. The IACC cannot accurately assess these impacts without the evidence base being shared. 1.6 Within PAC3 there are a number of statements of commitment to plans, measures or provision of mitigation in varying forms. These are welcomed, but without detailed provisions on scale, timing, funding, delivery measures and monitoring regimes, these ‘commitments’ amount to no more than generalised statements of intention, with no certainty that the mitigation will be secured and delivered. Progress is critical prior to DCO submission. 1.7 In approaching this issue the IACC introduced the concept of a Community Resilience Fund. Given the complexity of the Project there is a need to deliver a mitigation response that has sufficient flexibility to respond to what is going to be a very dynamic and complicated construction process. As a means of responding to some of the uncertain impacts, a Community Resilience Fund would: 1 Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion, Proposed Wylfa Newydd Project, Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010007, June 2017 2 PINS Note of meeting on 07 June 2017 3 ñ respond decisively to unexpected, unquantifiable and unforeseen impacts; ñ address the consequences of development; ñ specifically target and empower local people in responding to the impacts of development; and, ñ be intentionally flexible in order to be able to address impacts as they occur and tackle the problem of unusable funds arising from overly restrictive distribution criteria.