Representation by Hambleton District Council (Hambleton District Council)
- Date submitted
- 2 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
Relevant Representation of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), Selby District Council (SDC), Hambleton District Council (HDC) and Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) (the Authorities) The following representation is made on behalf of the Authorities. It is likely that further submissions and in particular the Local Impact Report and Statement of Common Ground will be prepared jointly by the Authorities. The Authorities have no strategic concern and are supportive of the project in principle. 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. Noise and Vibration 3.11 – it is consistently reported that the Noise and Vibration EIA assessment and methodology has not been raised as a matter for further discussion and therefore it is considered agreed. However, in reference to our previous comments of 5 November 2021 and subsequent email correspondence with WSP Acoustics, several matters were raised and are yet to be agreed. Notably: Proposed core working hours of 07:00-19:00 Mon to Fri and 08:00-17:00 Sat/Sun/Bank Holidays are not aligned to those considered to safeguard residential amenity during evenings and weekends (i.e. 08:00-18:00 Mon to Fri, 08:00-13:00 Sat, and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays). I am later informed by email that the intention is to adopt the appropriate core working hours of 08:00-18:00 Mon to Fri, 08:00-13:00 Sat, and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays, but seek a mechanism to carry out works that cannot be safely stopped outside of these hours. I would advise that this is not reflective in document 5.2.14 ES Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration (Volume 5). The intention is to assess operational noise in accordance with document ref: 29 ‘National Grid (2021). Policy Statement PS(T)134 - Operational Audible Noise Policy for Overhead Lines. National Grid, London’. I am not familiar with this document nor am I able to locate it, but I did raise concerns regarding the overall assessment methodology which are yet to be agreed. Notably, the trigger for Tier 3 assessment being >37dBA without a full understanding of background LA90,T values during rainfall at sensitive receptors. BS4142:2014+A1:2019 assessment methodology should be adopted in its entirety over National Grid criteria. In view of the above, I would advise that Noise and Vibration EIA assessment and methodology was raised as a matter for further discussion and yet to be agreed. Land Contamination Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement (and the associated appendices) considers the likely significant effects of Yorkshire GREEN with respect to geology and hydrogeology, including effects relating to land contamination, groundwater levels and groundwater quality. The assessment is based on risk assessments that consider whether the construction, operation or decommissioning of Yorkshire GREEN could disturb areas of old contaminated ground, introduce new soil contamination, cause contamination to enter groundwater, cause gas to move out of the ground that may build up in buildings, or destabilise the ground. A review of published historical mapping indicates that the previous land use within the 500m Study Area has been largely agricultural, together with the quarrying of limestone and small areas of sand and gravel. Baseline conditions were considered on a generalised project-wide basis followed by additional specific detail on three focus areas, where the project is likely to involve greater ground disturbance. Two of these focus areas are in the Selby District – Section D (Tadcaster area) and Section F (Monk Fryston area). SOCOTEC carried out a ground investigation on land to the east and north-west of the existing Monk Fryston substation. Soil and water samples were taken and analysed. The contamination testing results record concentrations of VOC, free cyanide, speciated phenols, PCBs and BTEX to be below laboratory detection limits in the soils tested. Asbestos was not recorded in any of the seven samples. Concentrations of PAHs, speciated TPH and metals were all found to be low. Concentrations of leachable contaminants were generally recorded to be less than UK Drinking Water Standards and Environmental Quality Standards. Embedded measures would prevent significant exposure to contaminants, minimise risk of mobilising pre-existing contamination, prevent new releases of contamination occurring, and protect substations/buildings from ground gas. These embedded measures include complying with relevant health and safety legislation and best practice construction requirements, carrying out ground investigations prior to construction (where necessary), and having contingency procedures for any unexpected contamination encountered during construction. Based on the proposed locations of substations, CSECs and pylons and routeing of the new and modified overhead lines, plus the incorporation of appropriate embedded environmental measures, no significant effects have been identified in relation to geology and hydrogeology from construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of Yorkshire GREEN. Significant contamination is not expected to be present at the site and no significant effects have been identified in relation to geology and hydrogeology from construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of Yorkshire GREEN. The proposed embedded measures are considered to be acceptable and proportionate, based on the sensitivity of the proposed development and the potential for the previous land uses to have given rise to contamination issues. The embedded measures should prevent significant exposure to contaminants, minimise risk of mobilising pre-existing contamination, prevent new releases of contamination occurring, and protect substations/buildings from ground gas. The recommendation us made that the following planning condition/requirement is attached to any planning approval, in case unexpected contamination is detected during the development works: Condition 1: Reporting of Unexpected Contamination: In the event that unexpected land contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and, if remediation is necessary, a remediation strategy must be prepared, which is subject to approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. It is strongly recommended that all reports are prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person. Reason: To ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land contamination. Heritage The Environmental Statement includes a Chapter on the Historic Environment (Chapter 7). This chapter is supported by an archaeological desk-based assessment (Appendix 7A) and the results of archaeological geophysical surveys at Overton (Appendix 7B), Monk Fryston (Appendix 7C) and Tadcaster (Appendix 7D). The sites at Overton and Monk Fryston were further evaluated by trial trenching (Appendix 7E). Together, these documents represent an adequate assessment of the proposal on heritage assets of archaeological interest. For the majority of the route the archaeology is either well understood or the scale of the proposal is limited meaning that significant impacts are not expected. I agree that in these case mitigation by an agreed scheme of archaeological works is an appropriate way forward. Whilst it would have been desirable to carry out trial trenching at Tadcaster the types of remains expected (i.e. a section of Roman Road and several field enclosures) are unlikely to represent a barrier to development providing appropriate mitigation in put in place. This is highlighted in section 7.46.6 of the Historic Environment Chapter. As well as including archaeological recording this mitigation could also include limiting the physical impact of the proposal if significant deposits are found to be present. This might take the form of micro-siting or using less invasive construction techniques for aspects of the scheme such as site compounds or access tracks. We would welcome an opportunity to continue to work with the Applicant on detailed aspects of mitigation of the impacts on heritage assets, to ensure an appropriate response in keeping with minimising the impact on the significance of the heritage assets. Ecology and Biodiversity The DCO application includes an ecological impact assessment contained within the Environment Statement. It is noted that some survey and assessment remains incomplete – specifically for bats and hedgerows. Notwithstanding the incomplete assessments, the Authority is satisfied that survey and assessment has been undertaken in accordance with current standards. The Authority welcomes the applicant’s commitment to providing 10% biodiversity net gain. Detailed comments cannot be provided at this stage in relation to mitigation and enhancement measures, further comments will be provided within the Local Impact Report. Landscape The Authority is satisfied that the DCO Application includes an adequate Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) subject to further information as to how the applicant intends to address the mitigation of adverse effects on landscape receptors and visual receptors (judged as either Significant or Not Significant). The Outline Landscape Mitigation Strategy and Proposed Planting Areas (Table 6.16) in Document 5.2.6 ES focuses mitigation at the Overton Substation, Monk Fryston Substation and Tadcaster CSEC (see more detailed comments below) and it appears that no mitigation is proposed outside these areas. We would draw the applicant to Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) section 5.9 Landscape and Visual, including Landscape impact (paragraph 5.9.8) providing reasonable mitigation where possible and appropriate and section 5.10 Land use including open space, green infrastructure & Green Belt, particularly Mitigation (paragraphs 5.10.19-5.10.24). The Outline Landscape Mitigation Strategy has been developed (see Figures 3.10 to 3.12 in Chapter 3: Description of the Project, Volume 5, Document 5.4.3) and forms part of the Project at both proposed substation sites and the Tadcaster CSECs. This comprises locations of earth mounding and new planting, comprising hedgerow reinforcement with new planting as well as new hedgerow, tree and woodland planting. We would welcome an opportunity to continue to work with the Applicant on detailed aspects of the landscape and visual mitigation, to ensure an appropriate response in keeping with local landscape character. The Authority would also wish to see further information and clarification for long-term maintenance and management of proposed landscape mitigation including responsibilities and how landscape is secured as a permanent element of the scheme through the Development Consent Order. Local Highways Authority The L.H.A has been consulted on this project by National Grid. The project will upgrade the electrical infrastructure within the North Yorkshire area and improve power generation for the nation. The project is to upgrade the existing cables and replace some pylons along the identified corridor. The route approximately follows a north south path from Overton near York to Monk Fryston and includes Tadcaster. National Grid as part of the work plan to install a new substation at Overton and Monk Fryston and construct a cable sealing and connecting compound near Tadcaster next to the A64.Numerous access points will be required along the works corridor. The developer has outlined within the application how the project will impact on the local highway network. The project has two elements of impact on the highway network. The first is accessing the various locations along the route and how the developer plans to manage this. The view of the Authority is generally the work near to or within the highway can be managed but concerned that safe working practises are introduced to protect the travelling public and the developer will support the authority in this approach. This may mean roads might need to be closed and diversions routes provided. Noted that the developer wishes to bridge over roads when implementing any cabling works. The second element of the work has identified a two Sub stations that need to be constructed and a large cabling compound. it is expected this work will impact on the road network. The Overton site is likely to require alterations to the highway including local widening and a permanent access point. The site is very close to the A19 and therefore the L.H.A understands all construction vehicles will approach the site from this road once Overton Lane has been improved. It is expected some large items delivered to site will be classed as abnormal loads which may present the developer with routing difficulties and discussion with the L.H.A will be required. It is worth noting that any abnormal load when heading south on the A19 may risk grounding at Thormanby due to the vertical alignment of the road. The L.H.A also wishes to advise that other site locations near Shipton may require further investigation with junction widening expected on East Lane and Corban Lane. Corban Lane at present has a 7.5tonnes weight limit. The new Monk Fryston sub station is to be constructed near to the existing substation. The site has direct access from the A1(m) and A63. Local widening of Rawcliffe Lane and its junction with the A63 will be required. Management of delivery’s to site may need to be outside peak times to reduce conflict at the junction onto Rawcliffe Lane. The other large compound is near Tadcaster on the A64. Access to this facility will be gained from the minor road network and not the A64. Therefore, engagement with the L.H.A will be necessary as the application goes forward. In building the various access points and establishing the site compounds along the route the management of each site must involve discussions with the L.H.A possibly needing to establish an approach in the draft D.C.O. at each location. Traffic generated by the operations per day may be of the order of 20 to 30 vehicles at any given location. Each activity may be independent of another so the impact on the highway network may be felt right across all areas. Therefore the Authority sees the importance of further discussions with the developer to formulate the production of the construction management plan and construction travel plan as well as the Development Consent Order ( DCO). The L.H.A notes that the project will be implemented over a number of stages which may assist with controlling traffic on the network and the L.H.A would expect to see any phasing programme within the construction management plan as the project progresses. It is expected in all cases that heavy goods vehicles will avoid settlements as much as possible and roads will only be closed to ensure road safety. The application has included some design details illustrating how the developer will access each location showing roads either within the site or accesses onto the highway network. The L.H.A has its own design standards and the one’s presented do not necessary follow what the authority wishes to see installed either as a temporary measure or as a permanent solution. The authority does not wish to see loose material on or near the highway or debris of any kind. The construction will run from 2024 and continue until 2028 when the temporary access points will be removed. Once removed the L.H.A expects the point of access to be returned to grass verge or landscape as necessary. Green Belt The key issue for the Examining Authority in considering this scheme is; • Firstly, whether the development is appropriate or inappropriate development in the Green Belt. • Secondly whether the development would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and • Thirdly, If inappropriate whether Very special Circumstances exist sufficient to outweigh the definitional harm by reason of inappropriateness, the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the development. Parts of the proposed development are engineering operations other parts are structures. Para 149 of the NPPF applies to structures/buildings. Para 150 of the NPPF applies to engineering operations. The NPPF sets out at para 149 that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate unless it falls within the limited list of exceptions set out at para 149 a) to g). Some elements of the scheme (eg. the pylons, overhead lines, any buildings, enclosures, boundary fencing or operational equipment) are structures and don't fall within any of these limited categories in para 149. Therefore, they are inappropriate development which is harmful by definition and Very Special Circumstances (VSC) will be needed to clearly outweigh the harm by definition and any other harm identified. Other elements of the scheme such as underground cabling, ground works, engineering works etc are engineering operations. The NPPF at para 150 sets out that other forms of development (which includes engineering operations) are not inappropriate where they 1) preserve the openness and 2) don’t conflict with the purposes of the including land in the GB. Where they fail 1 or 2 above, they are inappropriate development by definition and VSC are required to clearly outweigh the harm by definition and any other harms resulting from the proposal. In terms of the purposes of Green Belts, it is considered that the proposal would not be consistent with Purpose c) set out under para 138 of the NPPF which is “to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment”. As such it would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Some of the engineering operation elements of the scheme are appropriate development due to limited visual and spatial impact. Other engineering elements will have an impact on the openness. Overall the scheme will result in a number of ‘structures’ and operational equipment which will have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to the increased size of the substation at Monk Fryston, the scale of the development, the presence of additional pylons, overhead lines, operational equipment and infrastructure at this location and across the projects location. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. VSC will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harms to the Green Belt arising from the development are clearly outweighed by other considerations. Para 151 of the NPPF acknowledges that many elements of renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development and VSC need to be demonstrated to proceed. Such VSC can include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources. It is acknowledges that this project is intended to support the production of energy from renewable sources. The VSC put forward by the developers needs to be considered alongside any other identified harm arising from the scheme. These are matters for the Examining Authority to weigh up in the balance in the decision-making process. END