Representation by Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
- Date submitted
- 6 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Planning Inspectorate The Square Temple Quay Bristol Avon BS1 6PN Our ref: HA/2023/125437/01-L01 Your ref: S56 Date: 6 November 2023 Dear Sir/Madam RAMPION 2 OFFSHORE WINDFARM - SECTION 56 - RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS RAMPION, SUSSEX COAST Please find our relevant representation for the Rampion 2 project in section 4 of this letter, following on from our introductory comments below: 1. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency has a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. Our work helps to support a greener economy through protecting and improving the natural environment for beneficial uses, working with business to reduce waste and save money and helping to ensure that the UK economy is ready to cope with climate change. We will facilitate, as appropriate, the development of low carbon sources of energy ensuring people, and the environment, are properly protected. We have three main roles: 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. 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 an integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. 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 rivers classified as ‘Main Rivers’ or from the sea. 2. Environment Agency area affected The proposed scheme is located in one Environment Agency area – Solent & South Downs. 3. Pre-application engagement The Applicant and their consultant team approached us in 2020 to discuss their initial plans for the scheme and the potential environmental issues that they would need to address. Since this early contact we have had a number of pre-application meetings and email correspondences with the Applicant and representatives of the Applicant. On 14 September 2021, we provided a formal response to the Applicant’s statutory consultation for the scheme (under Section 42(1)(a) Planning Act 2008 and Regulation 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). On 29 November 2022, we provided a further formal response to the Applicant’s second statutory consultation as their Preliminary Environmental Information Report had been updated to reflect some amendments to the proposal. 4. Relevant Representation Our relevant representation outlines matters that we have focused on within our remit and where further clarification, details or mitigation is required to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the environment. In regard to this proposed scheme, our particular focus has been on the following matters: Marine Environment • We are pleased to confirm we are satisfied with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment provided, which has been provided in a format agreed during pre-application advice in the Environmental Statement Volume 4, Appendix 26.3: Water Framework Directive compliance assessment. • In our view the WFD assessment justifies the proposal’s claim for compliance for the marine water quality WFD elements. We are pleased to see that all our potential concerns have been included and adequately addressed. We feel it is clear that there have been lessons-learnt from Rampion 1 which have been incorporated and satisfactorily addressed in the WFD assessment. • The release of sediment contaminants was scoped out of the Environmental Statement. However, we have raised concerns about the release of significant quantities of Bentonite during the drilling process during the offshore construction phase and the potential impacts to the newly establishing kelp beds in proximity. Assurances were given at the last expert topic group meeting that contact had been made with the Sussex Kelp Recovery Project and discussions/consultation were ongoing. We would welcome further clarification on this. Landfall • The cable makes landfall at Climping and will be installed using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) as detailed in the Environmental Statement Volume 2, Chapter 4: The Proposed Development Paragraphs 4.4.1-4.4.15 which makes reference to landfall, construction works and Transition Joint Bay (TJB). The TJB is to be a permanent below ground infrastructure where the offshore and onshore export cables are joined and is to be located landward of the beach. • We have previously discussed with the applicant the rapidly changing coastal morphology at the Landfall site. We are confident from references in Environmental Statement Volume 2, Chapter 6: Coastal processes demonstrate that this has been understood by the applicant. We would urge the applicant to ensure that they are satisfied that the risk to their equipment is appropriately mitigated. • Further details of the chosen landfall connection and associated work at Climping, including details of any flood mitigation will be required. A Flood Risk Activity Permit will need to be obtained prior to the commencement of such works. Crossings, Flood Risk and Flood Risk Activity Permits (FRAPs) Note for the Planning Inspectorate: the Environment Agency have responsibility for protecting designated ‘Main Rivers’. Local Authorities are responsible for protecting ‘Ordinary Watercourses’. There are both Main Rivers and Ordinary Watercourses along the proposed cable route. The applicant would separately have to apply for an Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority where required. • The Applicant has acknowledged the requirement to obtain Flood Risk Activity Permits (FRAPs) from us before commencement of works in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of any designated Main River and 16 metres from a Coastal Defence. However, we have not yet received any detailed methodology for such works, and therefore are not able to comment on this aspect, nor indicate whether such permits can be obtained, or advise upon any requirements that would be applied to such permits if obtained. It is our understanding that the Applicant does not intend to disapply the need for FRAPs under section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. • Should this position change, and the Applicant intends to seek disapplication of the need for FRAPs, then further discussion regarding disapplication of consents for both Flood Risk Activity Permits (FRAPs) will be required. We would expect methodologies to be provided for our examination (with sufficient time granted for this work) and also recommend that a number of protective provisions are included in the DCO. • It has been noted that this has been acknowledged in the latest documentation, but we would recommend that a requirement is included in the DCO, to cover the need for such permits to be obtained prior to works being undertaken. • During our pre-application engagement with the Applicant, we advised that our preferred method for crossing a Main River is HDD, as this presents the least risk in terms of flood risk and effects on river ecology. HDD essentially involves drilling underneath the river. An alternative method to cross is open trench cutting, which involves excavating a trench, installing the cable, and refilling the trench. This method poses a much greater risk to the fish, ecology and geomorphology of a river system. We, therefore, prefer to see HDD over open trenching cutting. • The documentation has stated that all “main rivers” and watercourses considered to provide good habitat for fish are proposed to be crossed by “trenchless crossing” and we require justification for those exceptions. The statement “where this represents the best environment solution, is financially & technically feasible” infers some ambiguity. It would be helpful to have an more clarity on this. • As previously discussed, and as far as practically possible, encourage the applicant to avoid the use of temporary culvert crossings. We would recommend the use of existing access points or using temporary bridges as an alternative. It has been noted that this has been addressed in the latest documentation and we would welcome a further discussion when more detailed locations have been determined. • We welcome the opportunity to look at in more detail and comment on those crossings which will require Flood Risk Activity Permits, including methods to create dry working areas, over pumping, and temporary crossings or culverts. • It is noted that the applicant has acknowledged in the latest documentation that stockpiles should be ideally situated outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3. If they are in the floodplain, the applicant should ensure the floodplain is connected to minimise any impacts on flow conveyance. Steps have been taken to address the issue, but the location of stockpiles will still need to be agreed. • It is noted that the applicant has acknowledged in the latest documentation that further details of access tracks and construction compounds will need to be discussed, with any consenting requirements considered. • Consideration for pre-construction and post-construction asset condition surveys will be required. This will be relevant to any construction activities in close proximity to Main Rivers and subsequent assets. Further details of this will be required as part of the consenting process. Biodiversity • The applicant has provided a significant amount of documentation and detail has with regard to the elements that might impact upon water dependent habitats and species of which the Environment Agency leads. We are happy with the quantity of data collected on biodiversity elements and comfortable that concerns we have previously raised are being addressed. • We support the standoff distance proposed from watercourse bank tops, though this currently has no specified distance. Clarification would be welcomed and, in our opinion, this should be a minimum of 3m in most locations. • There is mention of a 30m length of vegetation removal for those watercourse crossings which are “open cut”. We would like confirmation if this is 30m on both banks (ie 60m in total) or 15m per bank? • The applicant has confirmed that preconstruction surveys will be carried out for water vole and Great Crested Newts where the route intersects suitable habitat, which we support given the timeframes involved in the proposal. • We are pleased to see that all 17 ponds within the Development Consent Order limit are confirmed to be retained, and that all ponds have been considered Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI). Discrepancies • There is some confusion in the Water Environment Document (River Adur Catchment 26.6.18-25) it appears that several times when the tidal Arun is referred to this is an error, and further on in the document. This is important to amend to remove uncertainty. • The Lyminster bypass, currently being built, is not mentioned in cumulative effects although the proposed cable route intersects with this. We would like it to be acknowledged in the documents that contact has been made with the developers as this is now more pertinent than the A27 bypass which is currently on hold. Groundwater and Contaminated Land • We are largely satisfied with the hydrogeological risk assessment as provided. The contents would appear to align with previously agreed techniques and mitigation methods. However, the risk assessment does not preclude the use of drilling fluids containing hazardous or environmental harmful substance. We have previously agreed that these will not be used in sensitive locations such as within a SPZ. We would wish to agree as to exactly where and in what circumstances drilling fluids containing hazardous or environmentally harmful substances are used. We are comfortable that this can be agreed as part of general works moving forward. • We also note that monitoring will take place of private and public water supplies in the vicinity of the development corridor. It would be helpful if we could also be supplied with this monitoring. • We are generally satisfied with the geo-environmental desk study. We would remain of the opinion that the historic contamination risks associated with the study area are on the whole low. • As identified in the desk study though there may be some hotspots of contamination. These should be appropriately managed and investigated to ensure no risk to any controlled water receptors. Historical Landfill • We note the presence of historical landfill(s) within the route plans. These probably represent the largest contamination risk, though we acknowledge that these are largely non-biodegradable waste, and mostly fairly old. This would reduce the overall risk potential. • Any works associated with this scheme must not compromise any containment features of these landfills or create preferential pathways for contaminants within the landfill, to offsite receptors. We would though acknowledge that due to the age and suspected nature of the landfill, it is unlikely that many containment features were incorporated in their designs, however if any features are present then proposed works must ensure that these are not compromised. • We would also highlight that any waste material removed from the landfills, as part of construction would be classed as waste material. As such they cannot be re-deposited and must be appropriately disposed of as waste material. • If the borehole will be lost as part of the development, then it should be suitably decommissioned and backfilled, prior to constructions, this must be done ton ensure it does not represent a rapid pathway to any underlying aquifers. • If, during development works, contamination (including any contamination not previously identified) is found to be present then appropriate remedial works should be undertaken to address any residual risks. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information. We look forward to continuing to work with the Applicant to resolve the matters outlined above and contained within our relevant representation, finalise any necessary requirements, and to ensure the best environmental outcome for this project. Yours faithfully Mrs Sophie Brown Sustainable Places Planning Advisor