Representation by North Yorkshire Council (North Yorkshire Council)
- Date submitted
- 8 March 2024
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
North Yorkshire Council EYSF Relevant Representation – 08-03-2024 The following is the Relevant Representation from North Yorkshire Council. This, as per the guidance notes, is intended as a brief summary of the Council’s position on key areas of the application as it relates to council services. We look forward to engaging further, throughout the examination. Highways and Transportation Impact of the project North Yorkshire Council as Local Highway Authority ( L.H.A) has been consulted on this project which is to provide additional electricity to National Grid. The construction involves installing solar panels in land within East Riding County Council. Work within North Yorkshire Councils area is confined to the grid connection corridor crossing fields near to Long Drax and the site of the existing Drax power station. The operation enters North Yorkshire to the east of Hemmingborough crossing the River Derwent near Hagthorpe Hall and then crosses the A63 Hull Road. At this point the developer wishes to create a new access on the southern verge of the A63 and construct a compound store near to this location creating a new access on a unadopted minor road to the north of A63. The grid connection corridor then heads south crossing the River Ouse near Drax Abbey Farm. After this point new accesses are to be created on Pear Tree Ave Carr Lane and New Road again to allow the corridor to access Drax Power Station which connects the project to the National Grid. A compound is to be form near Drax abbey Farm. Consultation with L.H.A The developer has consulted North Yorkshire Council on highway matters and officers have engaged with the developer from an early stage expressing concerns with the project as it entered the County . The A63 county road due to the traffic volumes on the road present the likely location where traffic congestion and road safety may be compromised and as part of the consultation the L.H.A offered feed back to the developer to improve the working environment and suggested how the site is to be manged which the developer has focused on and included as necessary. Therefore the authority, as with the rest of the network would expect the developer to continue to engage with officers as the work progresses, if the project is approved by planning inspector. The L.H.A wishes to be involved and believes the developer will agree to this approach, mindful that Traffic orders and street work notices will be required to undertake the work on the network. Construction The L.H.A agrees that the construction phase of the project will generate the most traffic and that construction of the solar farm within East Riding will create the most impact to the public highway . The construction may last for approximately 18 months and at peak times generate 500 vehicle trips per day over the whole site hence the Authority understands the impact to be low on the network within North Yorkshire. It is expected that vehicles used for construction will operate outside the peak times on the network further reducing any impact. The applicant has stated that up to 75 HGVs per day will deliver equipment and materials to all the compounds within the scheme area. However no clear figures of the likely traffic generated by the project within North Yorkshire have been provided. The project within North Yorkshire will construct new accesses points which join the adopted highway all shall be design to the Councils standards The Authority does not wish to see loose material on or near the highway or debris of any kind. Over running of the verge must be avoided where possible and repaired as directed by the L.H.A when necessary. Once removed the L.H.A expects all points of access to be returned to grass verge or landscape as necessary. A.I.L are expected to access either Drax power station or Compound E along the A645 and New Road and the L.H.A will expect to be consulted at each stage to effectively manage the road network. The developer has provided a framework construction management plan which as the project progresses will need amending to manage the project. North Yorkshire Council as L.H.A expects to be involved in this process allowing the authority to comment on all aspects of the project when considering its impact on the highway. Built Heritage Relevant Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments have been identified and the search area is considered to be satisfactory. The grid connection corridor would result in disturbance to the setting and therefore the significance of some of the identified heritage assets during the construction phase. The proposal to introduce solar panels on mass coupled with their closeness to acknowledged heritage assets is considered to amount to harm to the setting and therefore significance of heritage assets. As harm has been acknowledged the justification for these works and then in turn harm needs to be outweighed by the public benefit of the proposal. Cumulative Impacts Volume 1, Chapter 17: Cumulative Effects and Interactions (doc ref: APP-069). It is noted that paragraph 17.3.8 refers to Policy SG10 (Low Carbon and Renewable Energy) of the Selby District Council Local Plan Publication Version 2022. This is an emerging Development Plan document. On 17 September 2019, the former Selby District Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan. Consultation on issues and options took place early in 2020 and further consultation took place on preferred options and additional sites in 2021. The Pre-submission Publication Local Plan (under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended), including supporting documents, associated evidence base and background papers, was subject to formal consultation that ended on 28th October 2022. The responses have been considered. The Council's intention is to consult on a further Revised Pre-Submission Publication (Regulation 19) Consultation in Spring 2024 prior to the submission of the plan to the Secretary of State for Examination. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF, given the stage of preparation following the consultation process and depending on the extent of unresolved objections to policies and their degree of consistency with the policies in the NPPF, the policies contained within the emerging Local Plan can be given weight as a material consideration in decision making. The equivalent local policy within the adopted Development Plan for the Selby area of NYC is Policy SP17 (Low Carbon and Renewable Energy) of the Core Strategy Local Plan. Volume 2, Appendix 17-1: Shortlist of Cumulative Schemes (doc ref: APP-125). ID64 – it is correct that this application was refused, however a resubmission has been made, planning reference ZG2023/0720/FULM, which should be included within the short list. ID74 – The status of this application has evolved since the document was prepared. Whilst still pending decision, the application was been taken to Strategic Planning Committee in January 2024 and there was a resolution to grant subject to conditions and negotiation and completion of a S106 agreement securing management and maintenance of off-site landscaping and sky lark plots. The long list cannot be located. Environmental Health Noise and Vibration. While the literature captures 55 noise-sensitive receptors for assessment, please note that I have only considered those within the boundary of North Yorkshire Council in my response (R37 & R38). Construction Noise/Vibration. Existing background sound levels are well defined (Appendix 11-3: Baseline Noise Survey ref: EN010143/APP/6.2 [N16]) and support the alignment of BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Category A noise threshold values with the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) (Table 11-6). Construction noise is assessed and predicted to adhere to LOAEL at R37 & R38 (Table 11-13), which was derived through noise modelling of input data set out within Appendix 11-4: Construction and Operational Noise Assessment ref: EN010143/APP/6.2. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is secured through DCO requirement 11 and, amongst other Best Practicable Means (BPM) measures, there is prior commitment to restrict core working hours to between 07:00 and 19:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 and 13:00 Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holiday. There is a caveat for emergency works which should be clearly defined in the CEMP. Overall, taking into account the aforementioned, there are no objections relating to construction noise/vibration impacts. Operational Noise/Vibration. Significant operational noise/vibration impacts at receptors R37 and R38 are not envisaged due to distances from noise-generating fixed plant installations. Ground Conditions Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement and the Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment Report provide a good overview of the site’s history, its setting, and its potential to be affected by contamination. The proposal to carry out intrusive site investigation and GQRA in the areas of potential contamination is considered acceptable. If contamination is found, appropriate remediation/mitigation measures will be required to manage the potential risks from land contamination. Following implementation of these measures, it is agreed that no significant effects associated with ground conditions are likely. Archaeology The Environmental Statement includes a Chapter on the Historic Environment (Chapter 7). This chapter is supported by an archaeological desk-based assessment (Appendix 7.2) and the results of archaeological geophysical survey (Appendix 7.3). There is a report on archaeological trial trenching (Appendix 7.4) but this falls outside of the North Yorkshire Council area. Together, these documents represent an adequate assessment of the proposal on heritage assets of archaeological interest. Whilst it would have been desirable to carry out trial trenching within North Yorkshire the proposal is limited to the cable connection meaning that very significant impact is not expected. Whilst the cable connection may have a localised impact in places it’s linear nature will mean that it is unlikely to destroy an archaeological site in its entirety and should not prejudice our ability to understand such sites in the future. In addition, large areas adjacent to the river are likely to have considerable accumulations of largely sterile alluvial silts and other expected archaeological features are limited to drainage and agriculture associated with the medieval and later use of the landscape. Although of interest these types of remains are not of such significance as to warrant a higher level of assessment. The Framework Construction Environment Management Plan submitted with the DCO includes proposed mitigation in relation to heritage assets of archaeological interest. I am pleased to see that an Archaeological Clerk of Works will be appointed to oversee the implementation of this mitigation. I support the framework as set out in the CEMP. Landscape Summary These comments principally relate to Chapter 10 Landscape and Visual Effects in the Applicant’s EIA, but comments may overlap with other topic areas such as Chapter 16 Other Environmental Topics - Glint and Glare, and Chapter 17 Cumulative Effects and Interactions. These comments are based on the current published details within the North Yorkshire Council area, principally focussed within the Grid Connection Corridor. The Works within the North Yorkshire Council area are shown on Works Plan Sheets 18 – 22 (Document Reference: EN010143/APP/2.3). We have concerns which mainly relate to protection and retention of existing vegetation within the Grid Connection Corridor and the lack of certainty for this to be secured through the Environmental Mitigation and Commitments Register and DCO. The scheme generally allows a Site with wide spatial working area for the installation of the Grid Connection Cables, typically 30m wide corridor, where this could be widened or narrowed in places to accommodate operations (page 2-29 Document Reference: EN010143/APP/6.1). We would wish to see greater certainty for protection and retention of existing vegetation and in the agreement of final routing options within the Grid Connection Corridor and a landscape framework capable of minimising potential vegetation loss and offsetting the wider cumulative effects. Cumulative Effects There are a number of large energy projects planned in the study area utilising the connection to the National Grid Substation at Drax. Some of these are in proximity to and overlap with this DCO Application site boundary. Collectively these have potential to radically change land use within several km radius of the Grid connection point at Drax Power Station, for a long-period of time (40+ years). The existing landscape infrastructure, woodlands and hedgerows is extremely important in screening the existing development at Drax Power Station and in helping to mitigate, screen and buffer the effects of existing and proposed energy-related development in this area. Replacement planting would take many years to become established if this had to be replaced and reinstated. There is potential for ongoing erosion of the landscape baseline in this area over a number of years, therefore we would wish to see greater certainty for protection and retention of existing vegetation and in the agreement of final routing options, recommend that the landscape strategy should consider a landscape framework capable of minimising this erosion and offsetting the wider cumulative effects. Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVIA) Certain assumptions have been made within the LVIA, but it is not clear that a worse-case scenario has been taken into account for landscape, visual and cumulative effects, and there is potential for important woodland and hedgerow vegetation to be cleared within the Grid Connection Corridor and around Drax Power Station. There are contradictions between the parameters and level detail considered in the assessments, and the wider principles assumed and secured through the DCO. The LVIA includes statements that no vegetation will be lost as a result of the scheme (e.g. paragraph 10.5.83 of the LVIA). However, trees and hedgerows are shown for removal on the Tree Protection Plans, and generally allowed within the DCO. Detailed routing for the connection cables has been considered within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Report (Document Reference: EN010143/APP/6.2) with red, yellow and green routing options being shown in detail, but these are not secured in the DCO. The DCO secures only broad principles for habitat reinstatement within a wider Proposed Cable Corridor, as shown on the Works Plans (Document Reference: EN010143/APP/2.3) and on the Landscape Masterplan within the Framework Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (Document Reference: EN010143/APP/7.14). Similarly, the Environmental Mitigation and Commitments Register (Document Reference: EN010143/APP/6.5) outlines commitments for protection and reinstatement of vegetation through Requirements 5 Detailed Design for Approval, Requirement 6 LEMP, requirement 6 CEMP, but these link only to the broader principles of the relevant Frameworks. LV-03 within the EMCR set out minimum offsets for the layout of the scheme in order to protect woodland, hedgerows and individual trees, but it is assumed that this is meant within the layout for the PV Solar Site, rather the Grid Connection Corridor. Proposed and existing landscape features between the plan and plan key are also confusing, inconsistent and unclear. Landscape mitigation and principles shown on the Landscape Masterplan are minimal in content and lacks commitment given the overall scale of the Works. The plans provide no explanation of how potential clearance works would be minimised, mitigated or reinstated. Biodiversity The approach to ecological assessment is supported as it follows current best practice guidance. The Council generally agree with the assessment which appears reasonable in terms of the location, type and scale of the proposed works. We are fully supportive of the intention of this project to provide a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain in line with current guidance set out in the Environment Act 2021. We support use of the most up to date version of the Defra Biodiversity Metric in presenting data on biodiversity losses and gains. The proposals for BNG should sit within a wider landscape and biodiversity strategy which has clear objectives and sets out how monitoring and management will be delivered in the long term. END