Representation by Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
- Date submitted
- 17 June 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
APPLICATION BY HIGHWAYS ENGLAND FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE A47 NORTH TUDDENHAM TO EASTON PROJECT Please find below our relevant representation for the A47 North Tuddenham to Easton project. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all applications for development consent orders. We have a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. We have three main roles: (i) 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. (ii) 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 and integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. (iii) 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 Main Rivers or the sea. Overview and issues of concern Our relevant representation outlines where we consider further work, clarification or mitigation is required to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the environment. We have highlighted that further information is required in respect of assessing and mitigating the potential impacts of shading on the ecology of the River Tud at the proposed crossing. We are broadly satisfied with the assessments and proposals in respect of managing fluvial flood risk, subject to a number of points of clarification and a review of the detailed design. In general we are also satisfied with the approach taken to date and the mitigation proposed in respect of protecting surface water quality and groundwater resources. We have made a number of observations in respect of these issues and have highlighted that we will need to review further assessments and the detailed proposals prior to development commencing. We have requested an amendment to Requirement 6, and that we are added as a named consultee to Requirements 4 and 8. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. We look forward to continuing to work with the applicant to resolve the matters outlined within our relevant representation to ensure the best environmental outcome for the project. Yours faithfully Martin Barrell Planning Specialist Environment Agency 1.0 Document 3.1 Draft Development Consent Order (DCO) 1.1 We note that the applicant is not seeking to dis-apply environmental permits. We would like to remind the applicant that it will be necessary to apply for and have in place all necessary permits prior to any works commencing. 1.2 Requirement 4 requires the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and associated documents. The EMP is a mechanism to ensure the delivery of mitigation measures during the construction phase as outlined in the Environmental Statement, including those in Chapter 13 Road drainage and the water environment. Although we are generally satisfied with the approach taken in identifying the potential adverse effects of the proposed scheme on surface water quality and groundwater resources, and with the mitigation outlined to date, the Environment Agency should have the opportunity to review and comment on the detailed proposals prior to construction. 1.3 The Environment Agency should be included as a named consultee in respect of Requirement 4, for matters relevant to our remit. 1.4 Given that construction activity will be required to take place in and around areas of fluvial Flood Zone 2 and 3 (medium and high probability), an Emergency Flood Plan should be prepared. It is currently not clear whether such a document will form part of the EMP, and this should be confirmed. 1.5 We support the inclusion of Requirement 6 Contaminated land and groundwater, and we welcome the inclusion of the Environment Agency as a named consultee. However, the proposed wording should be amended. The determination of the need for remediation in part (2) should be based on a consideration of the risk assessment by all parties, rather than determined solely by the undertaker. Additionally, and also in respect of part (2), remedial measures should be taken to render the land fit for its intended purpose and to prevent any impacts on controlled waters. 1.6 Requirement 8 is concerned with Surface and foul water drainage. As detailed below, we are generally satisfied with the approach proposed to date. However, work on the detailed drainage design is on-going. It will be important for us to review and confirm that the detailed proposals are acceptable. 1.7 The Environment Agency should therefore be a named consultee in respect of Requirement 8 Surface and foul water drainage system. 2.0 Document 3.3 Consents and Licences Position Statement 2.1 We note the inclusion of Appendix A - Table of Consents and Agreements as required from consenting authorities, including the Environment Agency. We welcome early discussions on these authorisations and note that progress is to be reported in a Statement of Common Ground. 2.2 It should be noted that the Environment Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations from 2007 onwards replaced the permitting system in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. Guidance on this can be found in the DEFRA Environmental Permitting: Core Guidance document. 2.3 On the issue of ‘Waste and Materials’, it should be noted that an Environmental Permit will be required for the importation and treatment of waste material falling outside the scope or limits detailed in either a Regulatory Position Statement or a waste exemption. In respect of ‘Waste Materials’, the consenting authority for certain mobile plant permits such as concrete crushers is the relevant local authority, and therefore they should be listed along with the Environment Agency. 3.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 8 - Biodiversity 3.1 This chapter details the loss of some habitat types that fall within the footprint of the work, and acknowledges that compensatory habitat can take some time to re-establish (including floodplain grazing marsh and mixed deciduous woodland). We note that compensatory habitat is to be delivered, monitored and managed through the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP), as part of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EMP falls under Requirement 4, and as highlighted in 1.2 (above) we would wish to be consulted on this. 3.2 The results of the white-clawed crayfish survey (Appendix 8.5), show that the invasive signal crayfish have become much more numerous in the past 3-4 years, and that numbers of white clawed crayfish have further declined. The remaining population of white clayed crayfish is extremely vulnerable to crayfish plague. It must be ensured that any work in or near the water will be preceded by strict biosecurity measures, in particular a thorough Check-Clean-Dry of machinery equipment and clothing must be undertaken. Such measures must be included in the EMP. 3.3 As laid out in section 5.2.3 of the Otter and water vole survey report (Appendix 8.14), measures must be in place to ensure that otters can move freely up and down the watercourse ensuring access during both construction and scheme operation. Excavations and trenches must be covered overnight to prevent entrapment, and permanent fencing should be in place to exclude otter from the carriageway. We note the proposed installation of otter ledges at new culverts and the River Tud crossing. 3.4 The Otter and water vole survey report (Appendix 8.14), also states that measures must be in place during construction to ensure that water vole are not impacted. A 5m buffer is to be retained from the top of the bank of the River Tud. Any displacement, if required, must be carried out within the displacement window 15 February – 15 April under Natural England licence. We note the reference to these measures in the EMP table 3.1 Record of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC). 4.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 9 – Geology and Soils 4.1 In respect of Table 9-4: Sensitivity of receptor; we would suggest that any aquifer, principal or secondary, which supports potable supply should be accorded ‘very high’ values. However, we note that within Table 9-13: Determination of the significance of residual effects, ‘Groundwater’ as a feature (encompassing both principal and secondary aquifer) is identified as having ‘very high’ sensitivity. 4.2 Regarding Table 9-5: Magnitude of impact; any impacts on groundwater abstraction, whether those abstractions are used for public or private potable supply, should be deemed to be of major magnitude. It will be essential to apply the principle that no private drinking water supplies can be derogated, even temporarily, without the prior consent of the owner and the provision of mitigation measures. 4.3 Table 9-6: Baseline data. We have a few corrections to make in respect of this table. We would highlight that both the chalk and the sand & gravel aquifers are used for private domestic (i.e. potable) supplies in the area of the scheme, not just for agricultural purposes as recorded in the table. The new Anglian Water Services Public Water Supply borehole is in East Tuddenham not North Tuddenham; the associated Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1) should be assumed to extend 250m to east, south and west in addition to 1 km to the north. For information, the site was licensed in September 2020, to take water from the chalk for public supply, all year round. 4.4 Regarding ‘Landfill records’ and baseline data, records of former landfills taking ‘inert’ waste should be substantiated. Prior to regulation, proper records of waste types deposited were not kept, and records that do exist have been found to be incorrect at other sites. 4.5 For table 9-8: Potential receptors; this should include East Tuddenham SPZ1 and private groundwater abstractors. 4.6 As highlighted above, we support the inclusion within the draft DCO of Requirement 6 Contaminated land and groundwater, but have suggested two amendments to the proposed wording. We welcome the inclusion of the Environment Agency as a named consultee in respect of that Requirement. 5.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 10 – Material Assets and Waste 5.1 Appendix 10.2 Outline site waste management plan is comprehensive in its current form. But the references at 10.1.20 and 10.1.32 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, should be updated to Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 6.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 13 – Road Drainage and Water Environment and Appendices 6.1 In respect of fluvial flood risk, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared and is included as Appendix 13.1. We are generally satisfied with the FRA and with the proposed approach to managing fluvial flood risk across the scheme, subject to clarification on the points outlined below. 6.2 The FRA confirms that a compensatory flood storage scheme is required to compensate for the loss of floodplain storage at the proposed River Tud crossing. As highlighted at paragraph 13.4.13 of ES Chapter 13, the Applicant has previously provided information to us to demonstrate that the flood storage area indicated in drawing HE551489-GTY-ELS-000-DR-LX-30012 from document 6.8 Environmental Masterplan, has the potential to directly compensate on a volume-for-volume and level-for-level basis to prevent a loss of floodplain storage. 6.3 However, the submitted FRA does not currently include clear confirmation that appropriate flood storage compensation can be delivered. Further information, possibly as an addendum to the FRA, should be provided as part of the DCO application to demonstrate that the required volumes have been assessed and can be appropriately provided. 6.4 FRA paragraph 7.1.2, in respect of the River Tud compensatory storage scheme, states that: “The proposal will be further reviewed at detailed design, where it will be appropriately contoured and sensitively tied into the landscape following the provision of updated topographic survey”. The Environment Agency would wish to review and agree that detail. It is not currently clear which mechanism will be used to enable us to review and approve the detailed design. This should be confirmed. It would not be appropriate for this matter to be agreed as part of a Flood Risk Activity Permit. 6.5 The potential requirement for flood compensatory storage on the Oak Farm tributary is discussed at paragraph 7.2.3 of the FRA. This paragraph states: “it is proposed that no flood compensatory storage is provided. This has been agreed, in principle, with Norfolk County Council subject to the provision of more detail of the flood risk impacts within this assessment”. It is not clear whether the provision of more detail is already contained within this assessment or is to be added. As above, the mechanism for reaching the final agreement on this issue needs to be defined. If flood compensatory storage is not provided, flood risk to an area of arable land will increase. For that scenario, it should be confirmed that any landowner affected is accepting of the increased risk. 6.6 Regarding the possible need for compensatory flood storage on the Hockering watercourse, paragraph 7.3.2 of the FRA states that: “A detailed topographic survey is currently being undertaken, therefore the estimated volume of floodplain storage displaced will be reviewed at detailed design”. As above, the mechanism for reviewing and agreeing the final design needs to be defined. 6.7 Paragraph 7.3.1 of the FRA notes that there will be a small displacement of water on the Hockering watercourse, calculated to be 27m3. The paragraph states: “Due to the poor quality of LiDAR within this area and the fact that cross-sections are mainly based on interpolation, an uncertainty allowance of 20% has been included in the estimate”. As stated at ES paragraph 13.9.36, we agree that no compensatory storage would be required for a loss in floodplain storage of 27m3. However, the Applicant should confirm that the 20% uncertainty allowance is a sufficient worst case scenario, and that there is no risk that a detailed topographic survey would change the amount of water displaced sufficiently to result in a compensatory storage scheme becoming required. 6.8 In respect of surface water and ecology, paragraph 13.8.28 of the ES considers the potential impact of the River Tud crossing on the watercourse. Although shading is considered in respect of its potential effects on channel stability, structural damage and increasing sediment, the potential impact of the new 30m wide bridge deck on Water Framework Directive (WFD) Biological quality elements does not appear to have been assessed. 6.9 Shading of the River Tud at this location may have profound impacts on the aquatic, marginal and bankside vegetation assemblage and consequently create a ‘dead zone’ where shading is densest. If vegetation is shaded out there will be a permanent loss of habitat for invertebrate species, and subsequently fish and mammal species as well. For some fish species dense shade is a barrier to migration. It should be demonstrated that the impact of shading has been assessed both alone, and in combination with the existing crossing which will be retained and with other relevant projects. 6.10 Drawing HE551489-GTY-ELS-000-DR-LX-30012 (from document 6.8 Environmental Masterplan), identifies an area for potential enhancement measures in the vicinity of the River Tud crossing. There must be confidence that ecological enhancements, which are to be detailed at a later stage, will be capable of appropriately compensating and mitigating any adverse effects of the proposals, including those caused through shading. The River Tud is priority Chalk Stream Habitat, which are protected under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC). The proposed development must also ensure that there is no deterioration in the current WFD status of the River Tud, and must not prevent the waterbody from achieving ‘Good’ status in the future. Further information is required to demonstrate that measures will be provided to mitigate all impacts of the proposed crossing. 6.11 Paragraph 13.8.30 of the ES highlights the impacts of the new and extended culverts on the ecology of the Oak Farm and Hockering watercourses. Paragraph 13.9.11 outlines the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures. Further information will be required to fully demonstrate that the detailed measures proposed will provide adequate compensation for the impacts on the specific ecology of the affected watercourses from the permanent loss of riparian habitat. 6.12 In respect of groundwater resources and quality, we would comment that in Table 13-1 Criteria for Estimating the Importance of Water Environment Attributes, the ‘high’ category should include principal and secondary aquifers supporting all drinking water supplies (public and private). In Table 13-2 Estimating the Magnitude of an Impact on an Attribute, we note that the ‘major beneficial’ category includes ‘recharge of an aquifer. Artificial recharge to the chalk aquifer must be precluded. 6.13 Paragraph 13.5.2 considers groundwater levels. We would suggest that the February/March 2021 levels are likely to be representative of maxima. 6.14 With reference to paragraph 13.5.5, the temporary source protection zones for the new public water supply abstraction at East Tuddenham are available online. 6.15 Paragraph 13.8.15 refers to the use of directional drilling for utilities crossings. Where directional drilling is to be used, the Environment Agency must be consulted prior to any works to agree a method statement. Any such works must not alter the hydraulic continuity or otherwise between strata, must use inert drilling fluids, and should include monitoring and breakout mitigation plans. 6.16 With reference to paragraph 13.8.16; the Environment Agency would like to be consulted on the methodology for any groundworks with the potential to disrupt vertical hydraulic gradients. 6.17 The potential for impacts from spillages on shallow groundwater during construction should be included in Table 13.8. We note that this potential impact is included in Table 13.9 which considers potential effects during the operation of the proposed scheme. 6.18 In respect of the Drainage Strategy Report (Appendix 13.2), and paragraph 6.8.5, we would comment that no hazardous substances can be permitted to enter groundwater irrespective of the dilution potential. 6.19 We are pleased to note that filter drains will not be employed over areas where groundwater is within 1 m of the ground surface or within SPZ1. We request that drainage basins should also be excluded from these settings. 6.20 We look forward to being consulted on Piling Works Risk Assessment (and those for other below-ground structures) in terms of obstruction to groundwater flow, water quality and the preclusion of contaminant mobilisation. 6.21 We also look forward to seeing the Preliminary Risk Assessment for GWDTE (Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems) and groundwater abstractions, and any subsequent Hydrogeological Impact Assessments for sites in proximity to underground works, along with water features surveys for drainage at cuttings. 6.22 Overall, we are generally satisfied with the proposals and information outlined in the Drainage Strategy Report, but as indicated we will need to review and confirm that further assessments and the detailed proposals for both the construction and operational stages are acceptable. As highlighted above with regards to the draft DCO, the Environment Agency should therefore be a named consultee in respect of Requirement 8 (Surface and foul water drainage system), and, for matters relevant to our remit, Requirement 4 (Environmental Management Plan). 6.23 In respect of surface water quality, we are satisfied with the consideration of potential issues and with the general principles of the proposed mitigation measures for construction and operation. As mentioned, we would want to review the detailed proposals. 6.24 With regards to water quality and WFD, chapter 13 includes reference to no impact on the ‘overall WFD status of the waterbodies’. There should be no deterioration in the status of any of the quality elements; it should be made clear that this has also been considered and is also the case. 6.25 We have reviewed the Water Quality Assessment (Appendix 13.3). We support the proposed approach to identify and put in place mitigation measures to ensure that sediment and other pollutants will not impact on the water quality of receiving watercourses. We look forward to reviewing the detail. 7.0 Document 7.4 Environmental Management Plan 7.1 With reference to paragraph 1.1.6, we note that the following documents are to be prepared to mitigate potential adverse effects upon surface waters and groundwater during construction: • a water monitoring and management plan • a temporary surface water drainage strategy 7.2 As highlighted above, the Environment Agency should be included as a named consultee in respect of Requirement 4, to enable us to review and comment on relevant documents. 7.3 Other plans that we would also wish to review include the Landscape and ecology management plan, Soil management plan, Materials management plan, Site waste management plan, Biosecurity management plan and Invasive non-native species management plan (if prepared as a separate document). 7.4 We have reviewed Section 3 and Table 3.1: Record of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC). We have the following comments at this time: 7.5 BD4 & RD1 – we note the reference to the use of construction best practice in relation to pollution prevention and water management. As highlighted, the Environment Agency should be consulted on the water monitoring plans and temporary surface water drainage strategy. 7.6 RD2 & RD9 – In addition to the above, specifically in respect of the proposed compensatory flood storage area upstream of the River Tud Crossing, it should be noted that the Environment Agency should review and approve the detailed design. This should be progressed as part of the DCO process and not through an Environmental Permit. 7.7 RD3 – we note that the Environment Agency is to be consulted on construction method statements and risk assessments. We should also be consulted on piling design. 7.8 RD5 (and Table 4.1) – dewatering can only be undertaken without a licence at the rates quoted in the tables if the dewatering works for the whole scheme will last for a period of 6 consecutive months or less. If dewatering will occur over a longer time frame, the maximum rate at which dewatering can be undertaken without an abstraction licence is 20 m3/d. 7.9 RD10 – we would like to see the groundwater and surface water monitoring proposal and an assessment of the areas where groundwater is judged to be less than 1m below the drainage system. 7.10 The EMP does not currently appear to consider how catastrophic spills affecting the surface water drainage systems will be dealt with, or how any directional drilling activities will be managed. These issues should be addressed. 7.11 Regarding Table 4.1 – it should be noted that the Environment Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations from 2007 onwards replaced the permitting system in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. It should also be noted that the consenting authority in the case of certain mobile plant permits such as concrete crushers is the local authority and therefore they should be listed along with the Environment Agency.