Representation by Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
- Date submitted
- 8 March 2024
- Submitted by
- Other statutory consultees
Dear Sir/Madam APPLICATION FOR EAST RIDING SOLAR FARM DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER: RELEVANT REPRESENATION BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY EAST YORKSHIRE SOLAR FARM Boom Power have advised that on 25 January 2024 an application (reference EN10143) for a Development Consent Order (DCO) was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination on the 19 December 2023. Summary These relevant representations contain an overview of the project issues which fall within our remit. They are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that we may make throughout the examination process. We may also have further representations to make when supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. We have reviewed the draft DCO, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting document submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 21 November 2023 and accepted on 19 December 2023, as part of the above application. We are pleased that some of the concerns and issues raised by the Environment Agency during pre-application consultation have been considered and addressed. We can confirm at this stage that we consider the ES provides a satisfactory assessment of the scheme with relation to flood risk, groundwater, land and water, ecology, waste and landfill. The mitigation and enhancement measures identified for the construction and development are considered appropriate. Please note that this is subject to the modelling completed to inform the application being signed off as being fit for its intended purpose and that discussions are ongoing regarding this matter. We currently anticipate the issues around modelling are resolvable. We note from the application that the Applicant is seeking to disapply the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) 2016 (“the EPR”) and has included Protective Provisions to this effect within Schedule 14. However, we are unable at this stage to confirm that we are content to disapply the provisions of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2016 (“the EPR”), which relate to permits for flood risk activities. Further information on this is provided below. Draft DCO Schedule 2 – Requirements We are supportive of Requirements 3, 5, 9, 11, 12 & 18. Requirement 11 We are supportive of the inclusion of Requirement 11. We note that a framework Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Doc Ref: EN010143/APP/7.7) has been provided which includes measures to take into account the impacts of flood risk and to minimise these. Also, that the works will be undertaken in accordance with best practice. The CEMP recognises that there may be the need for secondary permissions such as flood risk activity permits (page 45). It also includes environmental measures to manage the impacts of flood risk (Pages 57-59). There are a number of activities of interest to us through the construction activities given the interaction with watercourses identified as ‘main rivers’ and also their associated floodplains. The CEMP the potential impacts of installing cables under a main river and commits to using trenchless technology to cross a main river. These are to be a minimum of 5m below bed level of a main river – please note that the crossing should continue at the required minimum depth beneath any defences. We are supportive that the final depth will be based on site specific risk assessment and construction of the defences themselves. We strongly recommend the Applicant enters detailed discussion with us regarding the main river crossings in order to determine the required depths beneath the main rivers Ouse & Derwent and their related defences. We are pleased to see that existing crossings will be used where possible, and that where new crossings are required that they will be of an open span design, and that there will be no new culverts as part of the scheme. Requirement 18 We are supportive of the inclusion of requirement 18 regarding decommissioning and restoration, which makes reference to the decommissioning of the site at the end of its lifetime. A Framework Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) is included (Doc Ref: EN010143/APP/7.9) with the details of the sequence and programme of decommissioning to be provided in the detailed DEMP. It includes a consideration of flood risk and acknowledges the possible requirement for the need of further permissions (such as. flood risk activity permits). Works will again be undertaken in accordance with good practice guidance, and measures to manage flood risk during decommissioning are included. We note that some infrastructure may be left in place to minimise disturbance. This includes assets that could remain in pace below riverbeds and below existing flood infrastructure. We would like to highlight that in some locations the flood defences in situ are likely to require some works over the lifetime of the development. The EA have general concerns if infrastructure remains in situ, with respect to degradation, subsidence, theft and vandalism. This aspect may benefit from ongoing discussions and clarification on the CEMP and DEMP as new understanding and/or guidance becomes available. Part 2 Section 6 (f) & Schedule 14 Part 5 – disapplication of EPR / protective provisions for the EA The applicant requests disapplication of the provision of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2016 (EPR), which relate to permits for flood risk activities. The applicant has included a suggested form of protective provisions for the benefit of the Environment Agency. We are currently considering whether or not it would be appropriate to agree to this disapplication of EPR. We do not normally agree to disapplication without protective provisions in our preferred form being included in the DCO. Environmental Permit: Flood Risk Activities It is possible that some works would require a Flood Risk Activity Permit under the 2016 Environmental Permitting Regulations. This includes flood risk activities, as defined by the 2016 Environmental Permitting Regulations, where a permit will be required for any works, in, under or over a main river or defence, or, are within 8m (16m if tidal) from the top of bank of a main river, or toe of a defence. A permit is separate to and in addition to any planning permission / DCO granted. Further details are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits We would like to see Flood Risk Activity Permits referenced in the Consents and Agreements Positions Statement (Doc Ref: EN010143/APP/3.3 as at this stage disapplication has not been agreed and it is possible that Flood Risk Activity Permits will be required. We have concerns regarding the main river crossings under the rivers Ouse and Derwent, where the applicant is looking to cross using trenchless techniques for the grid connection to Drax Power Station. It is likely that despite using trenchless techniques the works would be considered high risk. We have areas of concern around the conditions of some flood risk management assets and therefore it is likely that we would require monitoring to be undertaken to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on flood defences (to ensure that their standard of protection is maintained). We also need to ensure that the works do not impact our ability to carry out future maintenance or improvement works. We would therefore strongly recommend further discussion regarding this as detailed in our PEIR response, dated 16 June 2023 (OREF RA/2023/145823/01-L01). Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 9 Flood Risk, Drainage & Water Environment (Doc Ref EN010143/APP.1) and Volume 2, Appendix 9-3: Flood Risk Assessment (Doc Ref: EN010143/APP/6.2) We note that this chapter identifies and proposes measures to address the potential impacts and likely significant effects of the scheme on flood risk, drainage and the water environment during construction operation and decommissioning phases. Overall, we are satisfied that the Draft DCO adequately mitigates flood risk in relation to the permanent and temporary structures. We are pleased to see that comments made at PEIR stage have been incorporated into both the Chapter 9 and the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Consideration has been given to all sources of flood risk, including surface water, possible flow routes and groundwater. The grid connection cable will be installed under both the Rivers Derwent and Ouse, both classified as Main rivers and therefore potentially affecting those watercourses and their associated infrastructure. With respect to the permanent infrastructure, this will be installed a minimum of 5m below hard bed level (section 9.6.18). Where flood defences are present the minimum depth of 5m must apply to the outermost toe of those defences. We do note that final depths are to be based on site specific risk assessments. It should be noted that the optimal depth will need to be subject to ongoing discussion for each location (please see earlier comments regarding the crossings under the heading of ‘Part 2 Section 6 (f) & Schedule 14 Part 5 – disapplication of EPR / protective provisions for the EA’). It is noted that any launch or reception pits for the trenchless crossings are to be a minimum 16m from the landward toe of a defence. We note that the depths and construction of the flood defence embankments (9.7.121) will be identified through liaison with the Environment Agency and that the directional drilling is to be at a sufficient depth to not compromise those assets. We would recommend ongoing discussion regarding these works, as we would also need to ensure that the directional drilling does not compromise our ability to carry out any required maintenance or possible future improvement works. We note that existing ground levels are to be maintained where possible and kept as close to existing where not. We are pleased to see that whilst the scheme’s lifetime is to be 40 years, that it has been assessed for 75 years, and that a credible maximum scenario has also been considered and is detailed within the FRA, along with appropriate climate change allowances (including the impacts of tidal flooding). We support the inclusion of the flood risk mitigation requirements 9.6.40 to 9.6.46. Which includes the provision of compensatory storage – the design of which is to be agreed in writing at detailed design stage. With particular reference to the FRA, we are in ongoing discussions with the applicant with respect to the modelling that has been carried out to inform the FRA. We consider the proposed mitigation included within the FRA to be acceptable and appropriate, but this is subject to the modelling being approved as being fit for the purpose of its intended use*. We currently anticipate the issues around modelling are resolvable. The FRA considers risk to and risk arising from the development, for both the Solar PV site and for the grid connection corridor. As mentioned, it also proposes mitigation to ensure that the development utilises appropriate mitigation to deal with the possible impacts of flood risk to the development, and also measures to ensure that the development does not increase or exacerbate risk to others (see * above). Ecology comments Environmental Statement Chapter 8: Ecology 8.6 Embedded Mitigation The embedded mitigation Is suitable and has identified all potential adverse effects, and devised ways to eliminate or greatly reduce them e.g. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) will safeguard aquatic habitats, and tunnelling under hedges will preserve them. Vegetation Clearance and Building Works 8.6.13 An ecologist should be on site and overseeing any vegetation clearance in the bird nesting season. This requires further work and alteration to the current wording. 8.6.15 - Installing Barn Owl nest boxes will be a good addition to the ecological benefits arising from the site. 8.6.21 – We are happy to see that lighting on the site will conform to best practice guidelines; this should, reduce any adverse impact upon nocturnal wildlife. 8.6.24 – For the crossing of larger drains, if over pumping is required, this will need a 2mm diameter mesh screen on the intake to comply with the Eel Regulations to prevent the entrapment of elvers. Please amend the fish section on page 8-623. 8.6.29 - Invasive Non-native Species (plants) – the applicant needs to develop an eradication plan. Himalayan balsam easy to control by pulling, strimming, or spraying (before it seeds seed), the New Zealand Pygmyweed (Crassula helmsii) probably requires burial or very careful physical removal. 8.8 Additional Mitigation, Enhancement, and Monitoring Additional Mitigation Ecology Mitigation Area (1g and 1h) We welcome the measures detailed in the Additional Mitigation section, as stated, these will off-set any potential adverse effects from the development. Volume 2, Appendix 9-2: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment We concur with the conclusion of the WFD Assessment that the scheme throughout its life will not cause deterioration in any WFD quality element for any waterbody, nor will it prevent future improvement, including the achievement of the wider WFD objectives in the Humber River Basin Management Plan, or mitigation measures developed to achieve Good status. Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment Report Document Reference: EN010143/APP/7.11 We are pleased to see that the project is predicted to result in a net gain of 80.42% for area-based habitat units, and a net gain of 10.09% for watercourse units. We would like to see that the net gain of 3.89% in hedgerow units can be increased to meet the 10% ambition for this habitat type. Habitats Regulations Assessment Document Reference: EN010143/APP/7.12 We have reviewed the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the various European sites: River Derwent SAC, Lower Derwent Valley SPA, SAC, Ramsar site, Humber Estuary SPA, SAC, Ramsar, Skipwith Common SAC, Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA; and Thorne Moor SAC. We are satisfied that the measures in it will prevent any Likely Significant Effect on the interest features of these sites. Groundwater and Contaminated Land/ Land and Water comments We are pleased that all previous comments relating groundwater and contaminated land have been considered, and we have no objections from a groundwater, contaminated land and land and water perspective at this stage. We do have the following comments to make: Chapter 9: Flood Risk, Drainage and Water Environment We note that delivery of a detailed Surface Water Drainage Strategy informed by infiltration testing is secured as a requirement of the DCO. We welcome that standalone, site specific hydraulic fracture risk assessments will be produced prior to drilling the cable crossings. Table 4. Flood Risk, Drainage, and Water Environment We are pleased to see our comments have been included, and acknowledgment has been made to the potential requirement for the need to apply for permits for groundwater activity/abstraction licences etc. We understand that the appointed contactor will carry out works in accordance with any permits in place and is subject to these being granted. Please refer to the additional ‘Environmental Permitting Guidance’ can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-need-an-environmental-permit. We welcome that temporary drainage will be monitored throughout construction and that specific details will be confirmed in detailed CEMP. We would like to review the Water Management Plan (WMP) when available. Table 14. Ground Conditions We welcome that the potential for unexpected contamination has been included. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt should be submitted to the relevant planning authority and a verification plan, and subsequent verification report should be produced. We recommend that developers should: • Follow the risk management framework provided in Land Contamination: Risk Management, when dealing with land affected by contamination • Refer to our Guiding principles for land contamination for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site - the local authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health. • Consider using the National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management which involves the use of competent persons to ensure that land contamination risks are appropriately managed • Refer to the contaminated land pages on gov.uk for more information. Waste Management We have no objection to the application from a waste management perspective. Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please contact the Yorkshire Waste Team at yorkshirewaste@environment-agency.gov.uk Landfill We have no objection to the application from a landfill perspective. We confirm there are no active permitted landfills or deposits for recovery permits within the development area. A single ‘historic’ landfill appears to be adjacent to the grid connection corridor at grid ref SE66820 27982 (full details of the site are included below). The Environment Agency has no regulatory role with historic landfills and the developer is advised to contact the local authority and or landowner for more information on any risk posed by installing infrastructure on or close to the site in question. Historic Landfill Dataset reference EAHLD05289 Site Name New Road Landfill Site Site address Drax Power Station, New Road, Drax, North Yorkshire Waste Management Licence number 68604 REGIS Reference YP4/L/CEG001 WRC Reference 2700/0101 BGS Reference n/a Site Reference CEG001, 0700/NYCC/075 Licence holder n/a Licence holder address Drax Power Station, New Road, Drax, Selby, North Yorkshire Site operator name Central Electricity, Generating Board, North Eastern Region Book of Reference We have reviewed the Book of Reference and have the following comments. The following details of current tenants (occupiers) on EA land entries have been omitted from the book of reference. Plot no EA plot reference Type of occupancy Tennant/ Occupier 18/107 River Derwent Plot 2 seasonal grazing licence 18/108 River Derwent Plot 2 seasonal grazing licence 18/109 River 18/110 River Derwent Plot 21 Farm Business Tenancy Mr J Bramley, Woodhall, South Duffield, Selby YO8 6TG 21/140 River Ouse Plot 8 Farm Business Tenancy Mr RA Nicholson, Sickle Croft Farm, Thorpe in Balne, Doncaster DN6 0DZ 21/141 River 21/142 River Ouse Plot 9 Farm Business Tenancy Mr JS Spetch, Ship Farm, Long Drax, Selby YO8 8NH We trust the above advice is useful. We are happy to provide clarification of any of the points above if this is required in which case contact should be made with Yorkshire Area Sustainable Places Team Planning Specialist, Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AT, email sp-yorkshire@environment-agency.gov.uk We look forward to continuing to work with the applicant to resolve any outstanding matters and to ensure that the best environmental outcome for this project. If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Ms Lizzy Walker Sustainable Places Planning Advisor e-mail: [REDACTED] Team e-mail: sp-yorkshire@environment-agency.gov.uk