Representation by North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council (North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council)
- Date submitted
- 5 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
Relevant Representation of North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council The following representation is made on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) and Selby District Council (SDC) only. It is likely that further submissions and in particular the Local Impact Report and Statement of Common Ground will be prepared jointly between NYCC and SDC. The Authorities have no strategic concern and are supportive of the project in principle. The consultation with the Authorities has been good and importantly, it is felt that the Applicant has taken on board comments from officers from earlier rounds of consultation. It is understood that design work is ongoing and we expect the dialogue to continue. It is understood the applicant is keen to submit an early draft of the Statement of Common Ground. Whilst there are still areas of discussion we are confident any issues will be worked through in an effective way. The following represent the current position from key service areas. Air Quality Paragraph 6.9.12 of Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement sets out that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is to be produced for the proposed scheme based on measures set out within Appendix 6.2, which defines the threshold of acceptability and proactive monitoring strategy. It is considered that this is a suitable approach to mitigating amenity impacts from dust during the construction phase. Noise and Vibration Paragraph 7.5.53 of Chapter 7 of the Environmental Statement - Operational noise level assumptions are set out within Table 7.14 and, in the event of deviations to such, a similar configuration of values will be achieved through a series of mitigation measures. This is considered to be a pragmatic approach to ensuring consistent operational noise emissions. With reference to Table 7.26, adverse operational noise impacts are identified during the night-time period at receptors R6 and R14. Contextual considerations are put forward (7.9.15-7.9.20), notably no exceedance of ambient LAeq,T values, widespread compliance with BS8233:2014 design criteria and use of conservative background LA90,T values. However, there is uncertainty regarding good acoustic design within this section in terms of efforts to incorporate noise mitigation measures as set out within Section 7.5.53 when seeking to avoid adverse noise impacts at all sensitive receptors. With reference to Table 7.20, BS5228 ABC assessment methodology is adopted and the relevant categories at the receptors are well defined, albeit based on long-term ambient LAeq,T values presumably over 16hrs. There is a need to define the time period over which ABC LAeq,T values apply. Whilst long average target noise criteria are typically appropriate for general construction work, applying this to high impact activities will likely be to the detriment of residential amenity. This is acknowledged within BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014 which states that impulsive noise cannot always be controlled effectively using a long LAeq and instead suggests specifying a short LAeq or looking to control maximum levels (LAFmax). Therefore, high-impact noise activities should be well defined, for example piling works, rollers and tunnel boring, and consideration given to a more representative LAeq,T for such works. With reference to Table 7.2, the applicant confirms that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared by the contractor, but there appears to be no further commitment to this within the report, only acknowledgment that noise monitoring should be carried out during the construction phase (7.14.1). This is critical in defining the finer detail such as construction techniques/equipment, compounds, proactive monitoring strategy etc. Details of construction working hours cannot be located. Core working hours should be well defined as 0800-1800 Monday to Friday, 0800-1300 Saturday, and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Night-time construction noise levels are defined (Table 7.21) and the need for construction outside of Core working hours in the absence of justification is questioned. Document ref. 5.4: Statutory Nuisance Statement The term ‘nuisance’ is defined in case law as an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over it, or in connection with it (Read v J Lyons & Co. Ltd [1945]). This is often further defined as excessive and unreasonable impacts, in this case taking account of Best Practicable Means (BPM). Generally speaking, construction work within Core working hours is predominantly reasonable, however there is a lack of transparency when working outside of such hours and how necessary it is to carry out construction works during this time. It is a realistic scenario that a statutory nuisance could be substantiated as a consequence of carrying out construction works outside Core working hours unnecessarily, which is not reflected in the document. Contaminated Land Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement and the associated Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (Appendix 11.1) provide a good overview of the site setting and its potential to be affected by contamination. An intrusive ground investigation and risk assessment is needed to assess the ground conditions and any potential land contamination. If significant land contamination is identified, then appropriate remedial action will be required to make the site safe and suitable for its proposed use and to protect other receptors from contamination. If the stated mitigation measures are implemented, it is agreed that no likely significant environmental effects on ground conditions are anticipated. Heritage (SDC) The Environmental Statement has included a Heritage chapter, it identifies Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings plus scheduled monuments. Grade II listed buildings do not appear to be shown on the designated heritage asset map (they are mentioned in the Heritage chapter being located in the 1km study area). Non-designated heritage assets have been identified. The viewpoint document shows how the new development will appear in context with the existing structures. Cumulative Impacts It has been noted that 6.3.18.2 Environmental Statement - Volume 3 - Appendix 18.2 ‘Short List of Other Developments’ only contains 46 schemes, while the Environmental Statement refers to 76 schemes. It is understood that the applicant is aware of this issue and is looking to issue a corrected version for consideration. Landscape and Visual Effects The Authority is satisfied that the DCO Application includes an adequate Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The 1960’s mitigation planting aimed to provide a high-quality landscape, reduce visual clutter, create a tidy impression, and a transition between the Original Power Station and the surrounding landscape. It is acknowledged that the original site planting has become eroded because of progressive changes to the footprint of Drax Power Station as development and technology changes. The condition of planting ranges from poor to moderate (ES 9.7.37). The importance of design quality, layout and landscaping schemes are recognised within National Planning Policy EN-1, EN-3 and NPPF. The Applicant has submitted a Lighting Strategy (Application Document 6.7) and a Design Framework document (Application Document 6.9) as part of the Application in order to guide detailed design, which are welcome. These are provided as supporting documents to the DCO Application and do not form part of the ES. Given the scale of the existing Drax Power Station site and the significant changes that have taken place since the original landscape design, the Authority requested the Applicant begin work on an up-to-date design strategy for the site. The Authority is pleased to say that the Applicant has agreed to this and has consulted on early drafts of the design guide. The Authority welcomes the opportunity to work with the Applicant on detailed aspects of these guidance documents and to understand how opportunities could be secured through this Application, to ensure an appropriate response. Cultural Heritage NYCC I have reviewed the documents relating to Heritage on the PINS website including the Cultural Heritage Chapter of the ES and the supporting Historic Environment Desk-based assessment. I agree that the area within the curtilage of the current power station has a low archaeological potential. The proposed laydown area and environmental offset area to the east of the power station have been subject to previous geophysical survey and trial trenching. This has demonstrated that archaeological features of the later prehistoric or Roman period survive. The ES chapter and the Register of Environmental Actions set out a scheme of archaeological mitigation in the form of archaeological monitoring and recording prior to development. I support this recommendation which is a proportionate response to the expected significance of the archaeological remains. Other aspects of the proposal such as the continued us of a trackway through the Scheduled Monument and re-stocking of hedgerows are unlikely to have a significant impact on archaeological remains. Ecology The Authority is satisfied that the DCO application includes an adequate ecological impact assessment and biodiversity net gain assessment. A Habitat Regulations Assessment has also been provided which considers the significance of impacts upon European designated sites. The ES identifies that significant adverse effects as a result of the development would occur in the absence of mitigation or compensation. Areas of land have been identified within and outside the DCO area in order to provide mitigation, compensation and enhancement for habitats and species impacted by the development. Delivery of these measures is set out within the Outline Landscape and Biodiversity Strategy. The Biodiversity Net Gain assessment sets out where no net loss and net gain can be achieved, currently 10% gains are not achieved for all habitat types. It is understood that the applicant is still working towards achieving 10% in all areas and this is welcomed. Minerals and Waste Note that reference to the recently adopted Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (MWJP) has been referenced and relevant minerals and waste policies included in Chapter 13 – Minerals and Waste. In paragraph 13.7.12 it is noted that the site is within a Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA). Paragraph 8.55 of the includes exemption criteria for MSAs one of which states - Redevelopment of previously developed land not increasing the footprint of the former development. This applies to the Drax site. In paragraph 13.7.22 of the report it states that the capacity gap for recycling CDE waste is approximately 470,000 tpa by 2030, the adopted MWJP states that it would be 437,000 tpa by 2030. Please can figures be checked for accuracy. The adopted MWJP also includes a range of Development Management policies which are relevant to this scheme, and should be included with other Local Plan policies in the relevant sections, one example is D06 – Landscape. Local Highway Authority The planning authority has consulted the Local Highway Authority (L.H.A) to comment on the environmental statement prepared for the project. The L.H.A notes that Drax Power Ltd already has a consented application to develop the site for an additional power generator with a new gas pipeline to feed the site. Therefore the highway authority is aware of the traffic related issues connected with the site and has a generally understand of the work both with the existing approved project and the new project which will generate similar volumes of traffic. The L.H.A understands that if this new project is approved the previous consented project will not progress. The developer has outlined the approach to the project sighting severance , pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation , highway safety and driver delay as major concerns which need to be investigated. The results have been included within the Environmental Statement and are shown on Table 5.3. The LHA is satisfied that the project will not have a significant impact on the highway network within North Yorkshire. Within the Environmental Statement the developer has also reviewed the local highway network in terms of capacities at junctions and the L.H.A is satisfied the road network will perform without significant issues. The construction phase of the project will have the greatest impact on the network and the L.H.A will work with the developer to reduce numbers of HGVs where possible. The Environmental Statement suggests at the peak of construction some 270 HGVs will be travelling to and from the site. The LHA will expect the applicant to introduce measures in the Construction Management plan prepared for the site to reduce traffic congestion when possible. It is noted that Junction 4 on the M62 will be impacted most by the increase in traffic and the L.H.A would look to National Highways to reach agreement with the developer to reduce any impact which may affect road safety and traffic flows on the Motorway network. The applicant has prepared a framework Construction Worker Travel Plan and a Construction Traffic management( CTMP)which the L.H.A seeks to develop with the applicant to avoid as much as possible congestion on the network and mitigate accidents which may be attributed to the increase in traffic around the site. The routing of abnormal loads to the site will close New Road from the M62.The Highway authority will expect this work to be managed by the developer and consult with L.H.A when such work is to be programmed. It is noted that routing of abnormal loads has been included in the C.T.M.P. Work on the site is within its boundaries and therefore once materials are on site the expected work will not affect the traveling public on the highway network. Public Rights of Way The Authority recognises the need to temporarily close 35.6/6/1. It will be necessary for the closure to be managed in accordance with local policy and legislation. The Authority looks forward to working with the applicant to ensure the necessary procedures are in place and secured through the DCO. There are minor items which may need to be discussed concerning the description of some of the routes effected. Overall the mitigation measures proposed seem appropriate to the scheme. END