Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Advice to Royal Haskoning

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Royal Haskoning
Date advice given
20 October 2011
Enquiry type
Email

Request for IPC advice regarding the draft Habitats Regulations Assessment Report for Galloper Wind Farm.

Advice given

In the time available, the IPC cannot undertake a detailed review of the draft HRA report on the Galloper Windfarm project. However, we have set out some comments below which we hope will assist. Please understand that these comments are provided on a without prejudice basis. As these comments constitute s.51 advice under the Planning Act 2008, they will be placed on the IPC's register of advice on the website.

On a general point some clearer 'sign-posting' through the documents would be very helpful, including the identification and exclusion of designated sites. Other points are set out below.

Relationship with other documents

It is unclear how the draft HRA report relates to the HRA Screening Report (the draft of which we previously reviewed) it would be helpful if you could clarify whether or not both reports are intended to be read together. On the basis of a quick look, the completed checklists appear to refer to only the draft HRA Report, but you may care to consider whether relevant information is set out in the HRA Screening Report.

Chapter 5 of the draft HRA Report sets out the evidence in Table 5.2 of no LSE on eight of the European sites identified (the ninth site is Alde-Ore Estuary SPA which is dealt with under Chapter 6 as a LSE has been identified). Table 5.2 provides a brief summary based on various reports which are referenced, please advise if these form part of the assessment.

The draft HRA Report (paragraph 3.4.3) identifies that the other key documents that will be relied on are:

  • Chapter 11 of the ES (Ornithology)
  • the associated Technical Appendix 11.A in the ES
  • the technical reports provided within the draft HRA report in Appendix B (Margate and Long Sands cSAC assessment); and
  • Appendix C (Alde-Ore Estuary SPA Technical Note on Disturbance-Displacement Effects).

However, the provided completed checklists refer to other chapters in the ES which have not been identified or cross-referenced to in the draft HRA report, for example, Chapters 9, 12, 13 and 23 of the ES. We also noted that there is currently no reference to Appendix D in the draft HRA Report, although, we have been provided with a copy of this appendix. Where the draft HRA Report cross-refers to one of these documents, it refers to a general chapter (i.e. Chapter 11 of the ES) rather than specific sections or paragraphs. Without sight of these documents it is unclear as to how helpful this will be to the reader, for example, if the chapter is long, it may be difficult to identify the relevant text. As a general rule, more specific cross-reference to the relevant paragraphs / sub-sections would be helpful to point to the specific text and to assist the reader.

In-combination effects (paragraph 5.4 of the draft HRA Report)

The criteria for identifying 'other plans or projects' is set out in Paragraph 5.4.2 and has now included a new category (in response to the IPC?s earlier comments provided on the draft HRA Screening Report) which includes plans or projects which are planned, but for which an application has not yet been submitted to the Competent Authority. A list of renewable projects has been identified in paragraph 5.4.3, which includes wind farm development projects from Rounds 1, 2, 2.5 and 3. However, the stated conclusion is that ?all, or some, of the following Round 1, 2 and 2.5 proposed consented or operational offshore wind farms within the Thames Strategic Area may have the potential for in-combination effects with the GWF Project? (paragraph 5.4.3). It is unclear whether the Round 3 Wind Farm proposed projects have the potential for in-combination effects or have simply been overlooked.

We also note that the recommendation from JNCC and Natural England that the inclusion of 'other' should be based on the ornithological species foraging range, has been incorporated into the in-combination assessment. The projects identified through this criterion are set out in paragraph 5.4.4. Whilst Scroby Sands (Round 1 Wind Farm operated by Eon) has been identified - as it partly overlaps with the Outer Thames SPA boundary and is within the foraging range of more wide-ranging species - it has not been included within the in-combination assessment. It is stated that this is on the basis that it is ?a small site some 50km+ north of the GWF, its impacts are expected to be negligible and therefore does not require inclusion [in] this assessment? (paragraph 5.4.4). The basis for making this assumption is unclear.

We are pleased to note that in response to the comments provided by the IPC on the draft HRA Screening Report, other marine activities have been identified such as dredging and aggregate extraction areas (paragraph 5.4.5) as well as onshore projects in the form of Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store (paragraph 5.4.6) and Sizewell C (paragraph 5.4.7).

Clarification in the draft HRA Report is sought on:

  • the search radius used to identify the 'other projects', both onshore and offshore,
  • what specific 'other plans' have been identified for both onshore and offshore as the focus has been on 'other projects',
  • what consultation had been undertaken to identify the 'other plans or projects' and whether (especially in relation to onshore development) have any plans or projects been discounted.

Consultation

General comments

The draft HRA report places heavy reliance on the comments provided by the IPC / JNCC and NE during the scoping exercise as providing the initial identification of designated sites which should be considered in the HRA process (paragraphs 3.3.3 -3.3.4). Whilst the IPC drew attention to the comments of the NCB in the scoping opinion, it was to assist the applicant and to direct their attention to these matters in preparing the EIA and not to provide a formal response on the scope of the HRA. This seems to have been misunderstood.

Table 3.1 setting out comments received from JNCC / NE and the IPC in response to the GWF HRA Screening Report is helpful as it includes GWFL response to these comments. However, several of the GWFL responses are unclear as to how the NCB responses has been addressed in the HRA, for example, vague GWFL responses such as ?these comments have been considered in the ornithological work which has been undertaken to inform the HRA?. Whether the identified responses have been implemented should be clearly stated in the Table with appropriate cross-reference to the specific paragraph (not just the section) in the HRA Report.

Appendix A of the draft HRA report includes the Ornithological Consultation Meeting Minutes with the NCB, but copies of correspondence between GWFL and the NCB do not appear to be included within the draft HRA report. It would be helpful for copies of any correspondence concerning the HRA (which has a wider remit than ornithological issues given the nature of the designated sites identified at the screening stage i.e. SACs) to be made available.

Additional (non-s.42 consultation) with the NCB

GGWFL appears to have undertaken consultation on the draft HRA Screening Report (Table 3.1 - which includes some responses from the IPC, NE and JNCC on the HRA Screening Report). It is unclear whether consultation has been undertaken on the draft HRA report. The response from JNCC (dated 14 October 2011), copied to the IPC, is stated to be in response to the ?additional information that was omitted from Galloper's Preliminary Environmental Report? and does not refer to the draft HRA report.

It is also unclear how any comments provided on the draft HRA will be incorporated into the HRA Report, as reference to, and details of, this further consultation exercise, have not been included in the draft HRA Report. It would also be helpful if a list of all the consultees consulted (both the NCB and any non-statutory consultees) regarding the HRA could be included in the HRA report.

We also note that the response from JNCC (dated 14 October 2011) identifies that the main concerns relate to the population modelling undertaken by GWF and that ?insufficient evidence has been presented to support a conclusion of no adverse impact on site integrity? together with the lack of information relating to the cumulative impact assessment. JNCC also flagged that information presented by them to GWFL on 12 July 2011 and 31 August 2011 has not yet been addressed by GWF. We would expect a response to these matters raised by JNCC to be addressed in the final HRA Report.

Outstanding Information

We also noted that information (for example, paragraph 6.3.16) and plans (for example, the onshore scheme plans in Figures 1.2 and 4.2) appear to be outstanding. These should be included in the final HRA report.

This is not an exhaustive review, but we trust you find this helpful.