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 DONG Energy

Back to list

Enquiry

From
DONG Energy
Date advice given
31 May 2012
Enquiry type
Email

Request for review of DONG Energy HRA Screening and Scoping Report

Advice given

Description of the project

In section 2.2 of the HRA Screening Report, the description of the project includes the onshore infrastructure connecting to the onshore NGET substation as shown on Figure 1. However, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the development for which a Development Consent Order (DCO) will be sought will only include the offshore wind farm site and the offshore cable route up to the Mean High Water Mark on the Welsh coastline (paragraph 1.3.1 of the Addendum in the Scoping Report). Therefore, it is assumed that the consent for the proposed onshore cable route and substation would be subject to a separate planning application made to Denbighshire County Council as part of the Town and Country Planning Act (?TCPA?) regime, as indicated in the DONG Energy Transboundary Report (January 2012). The description of the project in the HRA Screening Report should clearly distinguish between the elements of the project that would be included within the DCO and any separate development that would be considered in the in-combination assessment.

Project layout assumptions

The HRA Screening Report identifies that at this stage in the development process there are still several elements of the project where the design is not fixed. This includes the proposed layout and size of the turbines, the voltage of the inter-array cabling and the dimensions and location of the offshore substation. It is important that any assumptions in relation to the project design used to inform the assessment of whether there is a likely significant effect, i.e. the realistic worst case scenario, are clearly identified and explained.

The study area

The HRA Screening Report identifies the study area as "the perimeter of the project site, or the cable route corridor, plus one tidal excursion". However, it is unclear what the size of this geographical area is and on what basis this study area was defined. It is also unclear whether this has been agreed with the statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs).

The HRA Screening Report also refers to the study area as being identified in Figure 4. However, this information is not shown. It would be helpful if the extent of the study area could be clearly marked on a plan at a sufficient scale, so that project features can be readily identified.

The Scope of the HRA

The HRA Screening Report identifies which European sites have been considered in the screening assessment. It must be clear what criteria have been used to select these sites and whether the scope has been agreed with the SNCBs. Figure 5 is noted as showing the locations of some of the sites included within the assessment in relation to the proposals. All of the sites considered within the assessment, and their designations, should be clearly shown on a map along with the location of the proposals.

Baseline data and Methodology

All baseline data sources must be clearly identified and explained. The methodology used to undertake the baseline data surveys should also be clearly identified. Clarification should be provided as to whether the methodology has been agreed with the SNCBs.

When assessing potential in-combination effects with other plans and projects, where baseline data relating to these other plans and projects has been used in this assessment, the methodology used to undertake these baseline assessments should be clearly identified. Clarification should also be provided as to whether the methodology used in the baseline assessments for the other plans and projects is consistent with the methodology used to undertake the baseline assessments for the proposed Burbo Bank extension. Where the methodologies differ, an explanation should be provided to explain the different approaches to the collection of the baseline information.

Site with multiple designations

Where sites have been considered in the HRA assessment, which have multiple designations, it should be made clear whether all of the designations for each site have been considered and the outcome of each assessment. For example, several of the SPA sites identified in Table 9 (species present during site surveys and potential for likely significant effect) are also designated as a Ramsar site, however, only the Ribble and Alt Estuary Ramsar site has been expressly identified in the table. While there may be some overlapping of the interest features relevant to each designation applied to a site, the assessment should clearly consider the potential impacts and likely effects on every feature of every designation.

Connectivity with non-UK European Sites

Where migratory species have been considered in the HRA assessment, it should be made clear whether there is likely to be a significant effect on non-UK European sites associated with those species. Justification should be provided by the developer to support the conclusion reached. As part of the HRA screening process the Planning Inspectorate would also expect to see evidence of consultation with the SNCBs regarding this issue.

In-combination assessment

Paragraph 5 of the HRA Screening Report interprets the scope of ?other plans and projects? as including the three identified categories. The Planning Inspectorate advises that, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, ?other plans or projects? which have not yet been submitted to a competent authority for consideration, but that are proposed or could be reasonably anticipated to happen should also be included within the scope of the ?in-combination test?.

In addition, whilst the types of development to be considered in the in-combination assessment are set out in paragraph 5, it is unclear what criteria has been used to determine if these plans and projects are relevant, and whether this criteria has been agreed in consultation with the relevant SNCBs and the local planning authority. Clarification should also be provided on the criteria used to identify the named plans and projects presented in paragraph 5.1. It is unclear what approach has been used to identify these as relevant for the assessment. It is also unclear whether the identified plans and projects have been agreed in consultation with the relevant SNCBs and the local planning authority. Where projects and plans, if any, have been discounted / scoped out of the in-combination assessment, the reasons for this should be identified.

As previously stated, if the onshore cable route and substation development will not form part of the DCO application, it should be considered in the in-combination assessment for the project. However, at present this onshore development is not included in the list of projects identified in paragraph 5.1.

Figure 4 seeks to identify plans and projects that may act in-combination with the Project. However, each plan and project should be clearly identified and named on the Figure.

Overview of the HRA Process

If after submission of the DCO application the project is accepted for examination, the Examining authority (ExA) will need to ensure that during the examination a process is adopted to ensure that sufficient information is provided to enable the Secretary of State to have confidence in meeting his/her statutory duties as the Competent Authority (CA) under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations) and the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (Marine Regulations).

To ensure that sufficient information is provided to enable the Secretary of State to have confidence in meeting his/her statutory duties as the CA under the Regulations set out above, the process that has been identified is that the ExA would submit its ?framework? assessment for the Secretary of State to consider, based on information provided within the DCO application and supporting documents and gathered through the examination process. The duty to carry out appropriate assessment however remains with the Secretary of State as the CA.

The ExA is likely to ask the developer to provide a review of all relevant habitats information and source documentation submitted with the application (a ?screening matrix?), if this has not been provided as part of the application documents. The ExA may also ask the developer to update the screening matrix and report on any matters arising after the submission of the DCO application. Opportunities would be given during the examination for SNCBs and the public (through the opportunity to become Interested Parties to the examination) to comment on the content and conclusions of the screening matrix.

No likely significant effects report

The Planning Inspectorate is aware that one purpose of the HRA Screening Report is to facilitate engagement with the SNCBs regarding the scope of the HRA assessment and therefore at this stage, the conclusions reached in the HRA Screening Report have not been commented on or agreed by the SNCBs.

If it is determined by the developer that the proposed development will not have a likely significant effect on any of the European sites considered, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, then the Planning Inspectorate would expect a 'No Likely Significant Effects Report? to be submitted with the DCO application. The report should include sufficient information to allow the Secretary of State as the CA to make its own determination on likely significant effects, and be satisfied there is no significant residual effect from the proposed development. It must be made clear that the developer has reached the view that there are no significant effects. The developer should provide reasons why it is considered that an appropriate assessment will not be required for these European sites and provide evidence of confirmation from the SNCBs that this conclusion is supported.

Framework Appropriate Assessment (AA)

It is also noted that the HRA Screening Report has concluded that at this stage in the HRA process, a likely significant effect as a result of the project cannot be excluded in relation to the seven European sites identified in Table 10. Therefore, if it is determined that an AA is required in respect of these seven sites, DONG Energy must provide ?sufficient information? with the DCO application to enable the CA to undertake the AA . The Planning Inspectorate's Advice Note 10: ?Habitat Regulations Assessment? , strongly advises a developer to shadow the HRA process at the pre-application stage so that the necessary information can be provided with the DCO application. This information may be provided in an AA Report submitted with the DCO application.

Following on from Table 10, the report should show clearly which European sites are taken forward for AA and which features could be subject to significant effects. The report should lay out what impacts have been considered and the sources of those impacts. The report should assess every feature that has been taken forward for AA and quantify all relevant impacts, at all applicable phases of the development. Clear conclusions as to whether or not impacts could result in an effect on the integrity of the European site should be made. Such a report should include details of the discussions with the SNCBs, for example a record of the dates, meeting notes and the conclusions of any discussions and identify whether an agreement has been reached between the developer and the SNCBs on the outcome of the AA.

It should be noted that during the 28 day acceptance procedure, only the information submitted with the DCO application is considered and the Planning Inspectorate is not able to request further information at the acceptance stage to supplement or clarify information provided in an applicant?s HRA report.

Justification of conclusions reached

As a general comment, where conclusions have been reached in the No Likely Significant Effects and/or the shadow AA Report, these should be clearly justified by reference to any material relied upon, for example baseline data or academic reports, with any evidence that the SNCBs support the conclusion reached. This evidence may include copies of letters or meeting notes. Where reference is made to consulting any consultees, including the SNCBs, the report should be clear as to whether agreement has been reached with these consultees. Where issues are outstanding and have not been agreed with the SNCBs this should be clearly identified in the report.

Cross-reference to other documents

With regard to the surveys undertaken, cross-reference is made to the Burbo Bank Extension Ornithology report (DONG Energy, 2012). Where cross-reference is made to another document it would be helpful to be provided with the paragraph / page reference to which the reader is directed. Where appropriate, it may be helpful to append documents which are referred to in the report.