Representation by Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
- Date submitted
- 27 January 2020
- Submitted by
- Other statutory consultees
APPLICATION BY EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATED THE PROPOSED EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH OFF-SHORE WINDFARM Please find below the Environment Agency’s relevant representation for the East Anglia ONE North offshore wind farm project. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all applications for development consent orders. We have a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. We have three main roles: (i) We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on business. We issue a range of permits and consents. (ii) We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in and integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. (iii) We are an environmental advisor – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. One of our specific functions is as a Flood Risk Management Authority. We have a general supervisory duty relating to specific flood risk management matters in respect of flood risk arising from Main Rivers or the sea. Overview and issues of concern Our relevant representation outlines where we consider further work, clarification or mitigation is required to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the environment. In summary we are broadly satisfied with the proposals. We have raised a flood risk issue in respect of pre-construction highways works, and have proposed some points of clarification in respect of groundwater protection. We have also highlighted our permitting requirements, and requested to be consulted on all relevant management plans and method statements proposed to be prepared post consent. We note that the applicant is not seeking to dis-apply environmental permits. We would like to remind the applicant that it will be necessary to apply for and have in place all necessary permits prior to any works commencing. We look forward to continuing to work with the applicant to resolve the matters outlined within our relevant representation to ensure the best environmental outcome for the project. 1.0 Document 6.1.6 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 6 Project Description 1.1 Regarding on-shore works and road modifications, section 6.7.3.3.2 outlines the offsite highway improvements required as part of the scheme. These are stated to include structural works to Marlesford bridge, where the A12 crosses the River Ore, to accommodate Abnormal Indivisible Loads; and an associated temporary laydown area on the north side of the A12/west or the River Ore. 1.2 The River Ore is a statutory main river at this location. Therefore a flood risk activity permit under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016 will be required from the Environment Agency prior to any works being carried out in, on, over, under or within 8m of the top of the bank. Permit conditions are likely to include registering with the Environment Agency’s flood warning service. 1.3 The associated temporary laydown area as indicated in figure 6.6k, is in an area shown by the Flood Map for Planning to be Flood Zone 3 (high risk). Furthermore, the Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Council Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (April 2018) shows the majority of the area to be within the functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b). This is land classified as having a 5% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of flooding (also known as a 1 in 20 year return period). 1.4 This site has not been considered within the Environmental Statement Volume 3 Appendix 20.3 Flood Risk Assessment. 1.5 Document 6.1.20 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 20 Water Resources and Flood Risk discusses the proposed offsite highway improvements, including the works to Marlesford bridge, at Section 20.3.1.1. It is highlighted that these onshore preparation works are not considered as part of the assessment of construction impacts in section 20.6; but that due to the small scale and temporary nature, along with adherence to best practice measures in Table 20.3, there will be no adverse impacts on surface water bodies (including through increased sediment supply or accidental release of contaminants) or changes to surface water run-off. 1.6 No further detail on how the temporary laydown area will be used is provided within the application. We are generally satisfied with the measures proposed to protect water quality during the works (see also section 5 of this response), but further detail is required due to the flood risk at the site. The use of the site as a laydown area will only be acceptable if it can be confirmed that there will be no land raising or built development on site. The nature and duration of use should also be confirmed. 2.0 Document 6.1.7 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 7 Marine Geology, Oceanography and Physical Processes 2.1 The landfall location for the export cables is proposed to be just to the north of Thorpeness, Suffolk. This area does not include coastal sea defences maintained by the Environment Agency. East Suffolk District Council manage the frontage at this location. 3.0 Document 6.1.8 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 8 Marine Water and Sediment Quality 3.1 We can confirm that we are satisfied with the general approach and methodology for looking at the impacts on near-shore marine water quality and accept the findings that baseline water and sediment quality of the study area is generally good. We agree that impacts are minor or negligible. 4.0 Document 6.1.18 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 18 Ground Conditions and Contamination 4.1 With reference to Table 18.2 (Embedded mitigation), we are generally satisfied with the measures proposed to protect groundwater. For clarity, the text in respect of groundwater quality under ‘Landfall and Onshore Cable Corridor’ should be amended to: A hydrogeological risk assessment (HRA) should be produced pre-construction to ensure protection of groundwater abstractions where construction activity, including HDD and piling, are undertaken within sediments which form or are in hydraulic continuity with Secondary Aquifers (superficial deposits) or Principal Aquifer (Crag). 4.2 Following on from the above, we note Table 18.2 states that it is the Landfall Construction Method Statement that will include and address issues arising from the detailed HRA for the Landfall and Onshore Cable Corridor. The HRA may highlight the need for further method statements to protect groundwater at locations elsewhere along the route away from the landfall site (see comments under paragraph 4.7, below). Therefore, we would suggest that the Groundwater Protection Method Statements proposed to form part of the Code of Construction Practice should address, as necessary, work at the substation sites, but also at landfall and along the onshore cable corridor. 4.3 We welcome the confirmation in Table 18.2 that the assessment and methods proposed to avoid contamination of the groundwater are to be agreed with the Environment Agency. There should be a clear reference in the Outline Code of Construction Practice that all HRAs are to be included along with subsequent Groundwater Protection Method Statements as part of the Pollution Prevention Response Plan; and that the Environment Agency is to review and agree these documents prior to the Code of Construction Practice for each stage of works being agreed. 4.4 In addition to the Pollution Prevention Response Plan, it should also be confirmed that we are to review the draft Materials Management Plans and Site Waste Management Plans. 4.5 Regarding Table 18.5 Data Sources Features, the Environment Agency holds details of licensed abstractions for public as well as private water supply. 4.6 Paragraph 55 records the presence of 2 licenced groundwater abstractions and one licenced surface water abstraction within the study area. Our records show that there is also an unlicensed abstraction in the study area at TM 4476 6034 (“Well opposite Ivy Cottage, Aldringham”). East Suffolk District Council should be contacted regarding details for this abstraction. 4.7 All impacts on shallow Secondary Aquifer superficial deposits and Principal Crag aquifer need to be considered. HRAs, and potentially method statements, will be required for all activities with the potential to alter groundwater flow within an SPZ and within close proximity of any groundwater abstraction (see also comments in paragraph 5.14 of this response). 5.0 Document 6.1.20 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 20 Water Resources and Flood Risk 5.1 In considering fluvial flood risk, Table 20.3 states “All materials to be stored outside of areas at higher risk of flooding (e.g. Flood zones 2 and 3) as far as is reasonably practicable”. Aside from the works to Marlesford bridge, the on-shore cable corridor predominately falls within Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk). The only exception being the relatively narrow floodplain associated with the Thorpeness Hundred river to the south of Aldringham, where the route crosses that watercourse. Therefore, we would expect there to be no storage of materials in Flood Zones 2 or 3 throughout the cable route. 5.2 We are generally satisfied with the embedded mitigation measures as outlined in Table 20.3 (but see further minor points below). We would want the opportunity to review and comment on a number of the proposed management plans and method statements while they are being prepared and prior to the planning authority approving the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) for each stage of works. This specific provision has not yet been included, and we have provided further detail on this in our comments on the Outline Code of Construction Practice below. 5.3 Table 20.3 states that surface water run-off during both construction and operation will be discharged at a rate to be agreed in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) (Suffolk County Council) and the Environment Agency. Whilst we are concerned to ensure that any run-off does not affect the quality of the receiving ground or surface waterbodies (including through increased sediment supply), discharge run-off rates are the sole responsibility of the LLFA. 5.4 In respect of foul drainage during construction, it is noted that mains will be used where possible, or if not available a septic tank. The proposed approach should be included as part of the surface water and drainage management plan with the CoCP for each stage. We would want to review those documents. For the substations during operation, it is again stated foul drainage will be either to mains or septic tank. Mains drainage should always be the first preference, followed by a package treatment plant; septic tanks may not be acceptable in certain locations. Where a form of non-mains foul drainage is proposed, an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency may be required. 5.5 Table 20.3 mentions ‘Local authority’ sewers; the applicant will need to discuss availability with the water company (Anglian Water) as they are main sewerage company in this area. If mains sewers are used the applicant will need to confirm with Anglian Water that there is capacity in the sewerage network and at treatment facility for all flows arising during the construction and operational phases of the scheme. 5.6 Regarding section 20.5.2 Existing Environment – Groundwater; due to the depth of the chalk aquifer, the Crag is considered to be the Principal Aquifer of concern in the study area. The Crag is overlain by Secondary Aquifer superficial deposits of high vulnerability which are often in hydraulic continuity with the Crag. Please also note that the term ‘Minor Aquifer’ is old nomenclature and has been replaced by the term ‘Secondary Aquifer’. 5.7 Table 20.12, Sensitivity and Value of Receptors, could also include reference to Secondary Aquifers supporting private supply. 5.8 Potential impacts during operation and additional mitigation measures are further discussed in section 20.6.1. In summary, we are generally satisfied with the assessment of impacts and the additional mitigation proposed, subject to a further review of the detailed method statements. 5.9 Regarding specifically the crossing of the Hundred River, we are generally supportive of the proposed mitigation and welcome the commitment to consider localised improvements to the geomorphology and in-channel habitats as part of site restoration works. 5.10 The proposed works involve damming which also has the potential to affect licenced water abstractors. There is one surface water licence (7/35/03/*S/0092/R01) which looks to be located within the order limits and is possibly referred to in section 20.5.2. Only groundwater abstractions are shown in Figure 20.3. This licence is an agricultural winter reservoir fill licence. The proposed works should not affect a right to abstract and/ or cause derogation to licenced water quantities. The timing of the works will therefore be significant, both in respect of water resources and effects on species. We have provided further comments on timings in respect of on-shore ecology, below. 5.11 We note that a watercourse crossing method statement, including the precise working methodology, is to be prepared as part of the Code of Construction Practice. This should be agreed with the Environment Agency, and should include any localised improvements. As highlighted, an Environmental Permit will also be required. 5.12 Given the proposal to dam the river, an Impoundment licence may also be required from the Environment Agency. This will be dependent on the detail of how the works will be undertaken and whether the works can be considered to be a ‘low risk’ activity. Factors to be considered will include the duration and timings of the works, and the potential impacts on any other water users, rights or the environment. We are satisfied that this can be considered post DCO consent, potentially as part of the watercourse crossing method statement. However, the applicant should be aware that if required, an Impoundment licence application can take up to 4 months to determine. 5.13 Similarly, if an abstraction licence is required (for abstracting water for construction works or for certain dewatering activities), there should be early consultation with us. Consultation with Essex and Suffolk Water regarding any impact on their compensation discharge into the Hundred River would also be advised. 5.14 In respect of groundwater, although a significant impact is unlikely, the additional mitigation measures described in 20.6.1.3.2 should specifically require an HRA to be provided and reviewed by the Environment Agency before works can proceed where works are to be undertaken within 50 m of any known groundwater abstractions/an abstraction identified (licensed or unlicensed) during landowner consultation. 6.0 Document 6.3.20.4 Environmental Statement Volume 3 Appendix 20.4 Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment 6.1 Currently we are generally satisfied with this document, but would wish to make the following observations. In respect of Table A20.4.2, this should include the potential impact of the watercourse crossing works to affect fish migration and general river connectivity depending upon the time of year the work is undertaken. Fish specifically, as a quality element, should be considered. 6.2 Table A20.4.5 Onshore Construction Activities: Scoping Questions for River Water Bodies. We are satisfied with the conclusions made but would highlight that consideration of impact should usually consider not only the footprint of the activity relative to the size of the waterbody, but also the nature of the impact relative to key local receptors (e.g. fish spawning habitat) and upon ecological connectivity. Moreover, the specific approach taken risks understating the relative importance of the watercourse itself. A truer reflection of potential impact would be an assessment of the proportion of active channel (e.g. river channel, riparian corridor, floodplain) affected. 6.3 Regarding Section 20.6.4 Installation of Watercourse Crossings; the timing of the temporary works could be key with respect to any impacts, and the coarse fish spawning season (March – June) should be avoided. A control measure to this affect should be included and the issue addressed as part of the watercourse crossing method statement. . 6.4 We would also highlight for awareness that the third cycle River Basin Management Plan is due to be published in 2021, which will see revised WFD classifications. The scheme should consider the most recent River Basin Management Plan at the time of construction. It would be beneficial to also detail the overall WFD waterbody status objective for future cycles, not just the current status at the time of construction. This could again be addressed in the watercourse crossing method statement. 7.0 Document 6.1.22 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 22 Onshore Ecology 7.1 Section 22.6.1.7 considers the impact of the proposed works on watercourses and ponds, and the proposed mitigation measures in respect of ecology. We note the data in respect of fish populations, but would suggest that the timing of the works to avoid possible impacts on fish spawning should be a further consideration at the detailed stage. 7.2 This document states that all ecological mitigation measures in respect of watercourses will be secured within the Ecological Management Plan. We would wish to see all measures to mitigate impacts on the Thorpeness Hundred river (ecological, water resources and water quality), included within the watercourse crossing method statement prepared as part of the Code of Construction Practice. 8.0 Document 6.3.22.5 Environmental Statement Volume 3 Appendix 22.5 Water Vole and Otter Presence/Absence Survey Report 8.1 Water vole and otter surveys were undertaken during a prolonged period of uncharacteristically dry weather. As such, several watercourses that were not viable or utilised by these species during the survey period could be in the future, particularly following periods of wet weather. As specified, final surveys must therefore be undertaken before the commencement of any works. 9.0 Document 8.1 Outline Code of Construction Practice (OCoCP) 9.1 We note that the final Code of Construction Practice is to be secured through Requirement 22. We are satisfied that the Environment Agency is not a named consultee in respect of that Requirement. 9.2 However, we do want to see the Outline Code of Construction Practice amended to include specific reference to the Environment Agency being consulted on some of the draft management plans and method statements that will make up the final CoCP. We would want to review and approve: • surface water & drainage management plan; • flood management plan; • site waste management plan; • materials management plan; • pollution prevention & response plan including groundwater protection method statements & construction method statements for the protection of onshore water; and • watercourse crossing method statement Additionally, we have the following specific comments on the OCoCP at this time. 9.3 We note in section 3.2 Construction Site Layout and Housekeeping, that when working in or adjacent to areas of Flood Zone 2 or 3 additional pollution prevention and flood awareness measures will be required. We support this approach and would expect to see these measures included in the appropriate management plans and method statements. We would however highlight that section 3.2 does not require the storage of debris or machinery to be outside the floodplain. This should be specified given that there is only one small section of Flood Zone 2 and 3 within the onshore cable corridor route. 9.4 We note and welcome the measures proposed in section 5 regarding Pollution Prevention and Response. It is stated that emergency response plans may be tested on-site in consultation with the Local Planning Authority. The Environment Agency should be included. 9.5 The pollution prevention and response plan in section 5 is to include a groundwater protection method statement. Section 6 (Contaminated Land and Groundwater), refers to the need for hydrogeological risk assessments (HRA) to ensure the protection of groundwater. Therefore, there seems to potentially be some uncertainty as to where and how the measures in section 5 and in section 6 will be secured. Additionally, while the proposed approach for managing unexpected contamination is welcomed, it is not clear specifically where this would be captured. Delivery of all control measures should therefore be further clarified in the OCoCP. 9.6 The relevant section of the CoCP should also include how groundwater flow to abstractions and dependent surface water features will be protected during construction. We would also highlight that an HRA and/or a piling risk assessment are required for any HDD or piling works within or outside a groundwater source protection zone. Subsequent method statements will be required as necessary. Documents should be provided for our review and approval. 9.7 We note and welcome the measures proposed in section 7 Waste Management. As highlighted above, we would wish to review the draft Site Waste Management Plan. 9.8 Similarly, we welcome the measures proposed in section 11 Surface Water and Drainage Management. We would wish to review draft Surface Water & Drainage Management Plans; the draft Flood Management Plan and the Watercourse Crossing Method Statement. 9.9 We note that the proposed control measures in section 11 in respect of sediment management include establishing attenuation or settlement ponds. It must be ensured that there is sufficient space within the site to include adequately sized ponds. 9.10 We also note that where possible spoil storage is to be set back 5m from watercourses. We would suggest that in the case of the Thorpeness Hundred river, spoil should be stored outside the floodplain. 9.11 Section 11.1.4 Surface Water Drainage again states that surface water run-off rates will be agreed with the LLFA and Environment Agency. As mentioned above, we are concerned with water quality but it is the LLFA that should agree discharge rates. 9.12 Table 11.1 highlights the consents that may be required from the Environment Agency. An Impoundment licence as mentioned in paragraph 5.12 of this response should also be added. 9.13 We are pleased to note in section 11.3 the requirement to protect private water supplies and to monitor all groundwater abstractions identified during landowner consultations. 10.0 Document 3.2 Draft Development Consent Order 10.1 Part 4 – Supplemental Powers currently includes Article 16 (5) under Discharge of water. We would suggest that this wording should be deleted as it is unnecessary and potentially confusing. The activity described would be a flood risk activity for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Regulations 2016, and as such controlled by those regulations. The applicant has confirmed that consent will be sought post DCO.