Applicant’s Comments on Third Party Responses to Examining … · 2016. 4. 20. · Introduction This document provides the comments of the applicant, National Grid Electricity Transmission

Application Reference EN020001 March 2015

8.9Do

cum

ent

Hinkley Point C Connection Project

Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010

Applicant’s Comments on Third Party Responses to Examining Authority’s First Written Questions


March 2015

VOLUME 8.9 – APPLICANT'S COMMENTS ON THIRD PARTY RESPONSES TO EXAMINING AUTHORITY'S

FIRST WRITTEN QUESTIONS

2

Introduction

This document provides the comments of the applicant, National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (National Grid) on some of the

responses by other Interested Parties to the Examining Authority’s first written questions submitted to the Planning Inspectorate

(PINS) on or before deadline 2, Thursday 26 February 2015.

National Grid has sought to provide comments where it appeared to be helpful to the Examination to do so, for instance where a

response includes a request for further information or clarification from National Grid or where National Grid considers that it would

be appropriate for the Examining Authority to have National Grid’s comment on a matter raised by an Interested Party in its

response.

Where an issue raised within a response has been dealt with previously by National Grid, for instance in National Grid’s own

response to a question posed by the Examining Authority in its first round of written questions or within one of the application

documents submitted to the Examination, a cross reference to that response or document is provided to avoid unnecessary

duplication. The information provided in this document should, therefore, be read in conjunction with the material to which cross

references are provided.

National Grid has not provided comments on every response made by an Interested Party to the questions raised. In some cases

no comments have been provided, for instance, because the response provided a short factual response, or because it reiterated

previously expressed objections in principle to the Proposed Development or expressions of opinion without supporting evidence.

For the avoidance of doubt, where National Grid has chosen not to comment on matters raised by Interested Parties this is not an

indication that National Grid agrees with the point or comment raised or opinion expressed in that response.


3

Written Question 2.7

The Joint Councils, Natural England (NE) and Avon Wildlife Trust (AWT) are asked to confirm if they are satisfied with the geographic scope of the surveys undertaken by the Applicant including the buffer zones. Are parties satisfied that all relevant sites and features have been included in the assessment?

Bristol Port Company’s response

See associated document 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_1st Qs

National Grid’s comment

Bristol Port Company’s (BPC) response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.7 (Volume 8.1.1) sets out what BPC considers are the three-fold inadequacies of the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES), specifically referencing the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (BMS) ES Volume 5.26.3, as follows:

a failure to identify protected and notable wildlife species in certain Sites of Nature Conservation Interests (SNCIs) in the Port;

a failure to identify appropriate mitigation measures required to safeguard vulnerable habitats and wildlife in those sites during construction; and

inadequacies in the species method statements, particularly in relation to water vole.

National Grid’s responses to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.7 part C provides a list of relevant biodiversity Figures and ES documents; Examining Authority’s first round written question 10.8 explains where the assessment of impacts can be found; and Examining Authority’s first round written question 10.9 confirms National Grid has reviewed the Ecological Management Plan for Royal Portbury Dock. Specific comments on BPC’s answer to Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.7 are provided in the following paragraphs.

Baseline and Mitigation Measures

The first two issues stated are the perceived failure to identify protected and notable wildlife species and identify appropriate construction phase mitigation measures in certain SNCIs in the Port. National Grid is confident it has a robust baseline assessment and breadth of mitigation measures.

As stated at Paragraph 2.4.1 of the BMS, the site specific information on SNCIs only makes specific reference to a species and habitat method statement:

“in relation to receptors listed in the site description, where they might be affected by the Proposed Development”. The paragraph goes on to state that “Protected and notable species not listed in the citations may also be present within these designations but such information is dealt with in Sections 3

4

and 4 of this document.”

BPC is directed to the Biodiversity chapter of the ES (Volume 5.8.1); in particular the associated appendices and figures (Volumes 5.8.2 and 5.8.3) and the 2014 survey update (Volume 5.28.1 to 5.28.3). These support each of the habitat and species method statements within the BMS (specific references are provided within sections 3 and 4 of the BMS). These documents present the scope and findings of the biodiversity data searches and field surveys for the Proposed Development; during the data searches BPC kindly provided monitoring data from 2009-2012.

A summary of how these documents resolve the concerns outlined by BPC is provided below:

Desk study data presented in ES (Volume 5.8.3.11 Figure 8.46.20) shows water vole present along Drove Rhyne. As no new water crossing is proposed at Drove Rhyne (save for any possible oversail of the Rhyne by an overhead line) this was not subject to targeted water vole survey.

The breeding bird survey data of 2012-2013 presented in the ES (Volume 5.8.3.6 Figures 8.17.14 and 8.17.31) identifies the presence of both Cetti’s warbler and whitethroat in the Portbury area. The method statement relating to these bird species will therefore apply.

National Grid can confirm the invertebrate surveys were undertaken by a survey team comprising both an aquatic and terrestrial entomologist and data searches also covered both terrestrial and aquatic species (ES Volume 5.8.2.5, Appendix 8N).

Comments on specific SNCIs

Some additional points are made by BPC in relation to SNCIs and these are considered in the following paragraphs.

Portbury Wharf SNCI

The BMS currently makes reference to agreeing seed mixes with Avon Wildlife Trust (AWT); National Grid will update the BMS to include reference to BPC and their consultants.

With reference to the commitment made to fund an AWT Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) BPC has requested that National Grid fund a BPC ECoW during active construction works in the Port estate. National Grid recognises that BPC has an established Ecological Management Plan for the Portbury Dock area. National Grid’s ECoW will liaise closely with BPC’s ecological advisors and where National Grid’s activities necessitate additional works; will reimburse such reasonably incurred related costs provided they are agreed in advance. This is proposed to be delivered by means of voluntary agreement with AWT and / or their successors with management responsibilities


5

for the site.

Portbury Dock Wood SNCI

BPC has requested funding for woodland management for Portbury Dock Wood SNCI to mitigate for the small loss of woodland under Option B. National Grid has committed to undertaking new tree planting on a 4 for 1 basis for trees lost to the Proposed Development. Through the Off-Site Planting and Enhancement Scheme (OSPES) (ES Volume 5.25) National Grid has also committed to funding a range of hedge, tree and woodland planting and “lump sum funds …. to contribute to, amongst others, the management of woodlands of community value, ancient woodland, veteran trees, stone walls, rhynes and ditches, orchards and pollarded willows”.

National Grid is happy to discuss opportunities for BPC with regard to these commitments.

Gloucester Road Railway Sidings SNCI

At Gloucester Road Railway Sidings, in addition to the trees already removed by BPC in the SNCI, further removal (as identified in the DCO application) would be required to facilitate the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. National Grid has been in initial discussions with Bristol City Council regarding effects on the site. Given the mix of tree and grassland habitats within the SNCI, National Grid considers it will be possible to achieve an appropriate mix of habitats across the current retained habitat corridor to allow BPC to meet their obligations without impinging on the operational needs of the Proposed Development.

National Grid has now received a copy of the Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan for the site and will be engaging with BPC and their consultants to discuss this issue. National Grid will also seek to discuss the other issues raised by BPC for this site (grassland mitigation and the pillbox).

Species Method Statements

The third issue identified by BPC relates to what it considers to be inadequacies in the species method statements with regard to water vole, birds and invertebrates.

Water Vole Method Statement

National Grid has been consulting Natural England on the latest version of this method statement, which differs slightly to the text within the current BMS. The Natural England approved document will be incorporated into the

6

next iteration of the BMS and will address BPC’s concerns. With reference to Paragraph 4.4.17, National Grid can confirm this text does not limit surveys to the footprint of the works (surveys will extend upstream and downstream of affected areas), but instead identifies that surveys of ditches will not generally be required where a buffer from the top of the ditch can be maintained.

Bird Method Statement

Barn Owls

National Grid confirms that Table 4.1 states the 50m is a minimum distance “no works will take place within a minimum disturbance buffer distance of 50m surrounding the nest location while the nest is active”. National Grid will provide some additional text in the next iteration of the BMS clarifying that retained trees with the potential to support breeding barn owl may fall within disturbance distances of works and would therefore come under the measures outlined in the method statement.

Cetti’s Warbler

Table 4.1 sets out that potential impacts on this species includes disturbance not just destruction. Paragraph 3.2.8 of the BMS sets out the commitment regarding nesting bird checks for all species; it states that no vegetation clearance will be undertaken during the breeding bird season “unless nesting bird checks by the ECoW indicate that no breeding birds will be affected”. This paragraph goes on to set out the establishment of exclusion buffers (which is also stated in Table 4.1).

Invertebrate Method Statement

Habitat reinstatement forms a fundamental principal of the embedded mitigation of the Proposed Development (see ES Volume 8.5.1 para 8.5.39 to 8.5.49) and will be secured by Requirements 5 and 15 of the draft DCO (Volume 2.1B). The approach to managing reinstatement of soils is addressed in Volume 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 of the ES (Ground Environment).


7


The Applicant states it will not undertake any works within SSSIs without the consent of NE (ES Vol 5.8.1, paragraph 8.5.11). NE welcomes this intention in its relevant representation (RR). a) The Applicant and NE are asked to clarify whether assent from NE is legally required before works are carried out in a SSSI once a DCO has been granted (under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act as amended). b) If not is any further provision required in the DCO?

Natural England‘s response

a) NE can confirm that assent is not legally required before works are carried out in a SSSI once a DCO has been granted. b) NE is satisfied that the broad principles of SSSI-related mitigation are set out in the BMS. However there is further detail (seed mixes, vegetation planting, timing of works, ECoW communications) which we would expect to be discussed/agreed with us prior to any works or activities within or adjacent to a SSSI. We would suggest that this could be secured by a DCO Requirement: ‘No works within or adjacent to a SSSI shall commence until an updated BMS for that stage of the construction of the Proposed Development (ES Volume 2.26.1, para 3.3.2) is submitted to and agreed with NE.’ Or wording to the same effect could be provided in the CEMP.


In response to Natural England’s answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.10, National Grid confirms it will provide wording in the draft Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) (Volume 5.26.3A). Specifically, Paragraph 2.3.2 of the BMS will be updated to include the additional commitments requested and submitted to the Examination.

For the reasons set out in National Grid’s response to this question in the Examining Authority’s first round written questions no change is proposed to the drafting of this requirement. National Grid has confirmed (see Volume 7.3 (Details of other consents and licences)) that Section 28E consent will be sought from Natural England.

8


a) AWT is asked to set out its specific concerns regarding the Applicant’s assessment of the effects at the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve. b) What additional information does AWT require when it states in its RR that it considers “that expert independent advice is needed to give advice on appropriate hydrology mitigation requirements for the Reserve.”? c) Does AWT consider this hydrological advice is needed now, or is it considered a future design requirement that needs to be secured? d) AWT is requested to elaborate what it is referring to when it states “additional compensation necessary either on the Reserve or in the wider ecological network as highlighted in the Environmental Statement (ES).” Is this the Applicant’s proposals to provide funds through s106 agreement(s) for compensatory habitat creation and management works (ES Volume 5.8.1, paras 8.9.19 – 8.9.23)? e) Is this “additional compensation” currently under discussion between the Applicant and AWT? If so what progress is there on reaching an agreement? f) The Applicant may wish to comment.

Avon Wildlife Trust‘s response

See associated document AWT response to ExA first questions 26 2 15


Further to (Avon Wildlife Trust’s (AWT) response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.15, National Grid confirms the issues raised are also provided with AWT’s SoCG and directs the Examining Authority to this document (Volume 8.3.3) for National Grid’s commentary on each issue.

With respect to AWT’s request for hydrological advice, National Grid can confirm that Drainage Management Plans (DMP) will be produced, following detailed drainage investigations and hydrological assessments, which will determine potential risks in relation to the water environment, including land drains, and identify appropriate control measures to avoid or reduce the risks. This is set out in the draft CEMP at ES Volume 5.26.1A, in accordance with the draft DCO at Volume 2.1B, Schedule 3, Requirements 5, 6 and 17.

Examples of the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the risk to the water environment are described in the draft CEMP (Volume 5.26.1A) at Section 3.4. Each DMP will be approved by the consenting authority prior to the commencement of any stage of construction works.


9


The EA and BPC have raised concerns regarding the mitigation proposed for water vole in their RRs. The EA raises a number of issues it considers to be non-compliant with the Water Vole Conservation Handbook. a) Can the Applicant respond to these concerns. b) Can the Applicant and NE update the Panel on progress with a letter of no impediment in connection with water vole. (EN-1 requires the ExA to ensure that species and habitats protected through a range of legislative provisions are protected from adverse effects of development)

Environment Agency‘s response

The water vole strategy continues to omit the possibility of trapping as a requirement to move water voles. Accordingly, this matter is included in the submitted Statement of Common Ground between the Agency and National Grid, as a ‘Matter not Concluded’ (see section 3.3 of the Statement of Common Ground). The Agency would recommend the inclusion of the following text in the Construction Environmental Management Plan: “There is a small risk that water voles will remain within the affected burrows, notwithstanding the displacement proposals. Should this occur, a trapping licence will be obtained from Natural England and trapping will be untaken utilizing best practice, in accordance with the Water Vole Conservation Handbook.” Although this is a relatively minor issue, displacement is frequently ineffective in this area (Somerset) and therefore, the possibility of the requirement to trap should be acknowledged.


With regards to the proposed water vole text provided by the Environment Agency in their response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.16, National Grid confirms this will be included in the next iteration of the draft CEMP (specifically Appendix 3, BMS Volume 5.26.3A).

10

Bristol Port Company‘s response

b) For the Applicant and NE BPC has raised specific concerns that the Applicant has failed to recognise water vole populations in the Drove Rhyne area of the Portbury Dock Estate, and therefore appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard water vole have not been identified here. There are a number of aspects of the Water Vole Method Statement (4.4.8-4.4.41) which are not compliant with the guidance in the Water Vole Conservation Handbook (3rd Edition): please refer to BPC's answer to question 2.7.


BPC’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.16 is addressed in Section 1.7 of Volume 8.6.1.


NE has previously advised the applicant that a letter of no impediment in connection with water vole is not required. This is based on the current CIEEM best practice guidance which considers water vole displacement as a mitigation measure which negates the need to apply for a development licence. We have recently been informed that new CIEEM guidance is soon to be released and that there will be a significant change in approach to the use of displacement as a mitigation measure and hence the need to apply for a development license may change. In light of this, NE is reviewing its position and will provide an update to PINS shortly


On 11 March 2015 Natural England confirmed by email their satisfaction with National Grid’s water vole method statement stating “you have future-proofed the document in relation to the forthcoming guidance as far as you can before it is published.”.


11


Are parties content with the level of detail included for the updating process of the BMS, which is stated as “The BMS will be updated prior to and during, each stage of the construction of the Proposed Development” (ES Volume 2.26.1, para 3.3.2)?


NE is not content with the level of detail as stated in the ES. The BMS is the primary delivery mechanism for all necessary wildlife mitigation and we would expect any future, post-consent, changes/revisions to be agreed with the relevant planning authority and NE


Requirement 5(2) will not be updated as requested. Requirement 5 already provides for agreement by the relevant planning authority to any changes to the draft CEMP and its appendices; it does not need to be revised to reflect this.

Please refer also to the answer below in response to the Joint Councils’ comments on the same matter.

Joint Councils’ response

The Joint Councils consider that the Biodiversity Mitigations Strategy (BMS) appended to the CEMP should be updated to secure additional mitigation. Details are outlined in the Joint Councils response to Question 2.20. It is essential that the local authorities have a requirement securing approval of the BMS prior to development commencing. The Joint Councils consider that the BMS is critical to ensuring that the impact of the scheme on local environments is minimised. National Grid should provide appropriate resources to enable the agreement of a final BMS. Requirement 5 should be updated to ensure that the Local Authorities are consulted on any updates to the CEMP. The authorities seek the following revision to Requirement 5: - (1) “No stage of the authorised development shall commence, until for that stage, a Construction Environmental Management Plan to minimise the impacts of construction works have been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) The construction works for each stage of the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority.” In addition, due to the complexity of the number of authorities involved and the number of management documents included as appendices to the CEMP, the authorities would request that the following management documents are submitted for pre-commencement approval under separate Requirements: a

12

Waste Management Plan; Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy; Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation; Construction Traffic Management Plan; Public Rights of Way Management Plan; and, a Noise and Vibration Management Plan.


Comments made by the Joint Councils on the December 2014 draft will be taken into account in the next iteration of the draft CEMP and its appendices, as will commitments made by National Grid in the SoCGs, its responses to the Examining Authority’s first round written questions, clarifications requested by stakeholders and the responses made by third parties to the Examining Authority’s first round of written questions.

National Grid will submit an updated CEMP and appendices during Examination in due course, incorporating any further amendments as necessary and anticipates all will be finalised during this period.

National Grid does not therefore accept that the CEMP (which will have been approved by the Secretary of State) should be subject to additional submission and approval prior to the commencement of development. Requirement 5 allows for changes to be made to the CEMP if these are subsequently required.

National Grid does not consider that there should be an individual DCO requirement relating to the submission of each of the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), Outline Written Scheme of Investigation (Outline WSI) or Public Rights of Way Management Plan (PRoW Management Plan).

Each of these documents falls underneath the umbrella of the CEMP. The drafting of requirement 5 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) has already been amended to reflect that the approved plans, schemes and strategies under the CEMP must be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority or highway authority (as appropriate).

Providing a requirement for each plan, scheme or strategy under the CEMP will be repetitive and will not provide any further clarity. As such National Grid remains of the opinion that the current drafting of this requirement does not require amendment.

For National Grid’s position on the Joint Councils’ comments regarding Requirement 5 and approval mechanisms, please see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.44 (Volume 8.1.1).


13


Can the Applicant and the Joint Councils update the Panel on further progress regarding the comments made on the BMS in April 2014 by the Joint Councils, to which the Joint Councils’ RR refers.


The Councils were consulted by National Grid on an updated BMS draft, and provided further comments to National Grid on 12th December 2014. Subsequently, National Grid updated the BMS, and submitted an updated Volume 5.26.3A, dated January 2015 to PINS. The Joint Councils have reviewed this document, and have identified outstanding issues. The following comments on the draft BMS, provided by the Joint Councils to National Grid on 12th December 2014 have not yet been addressed: • The BMS (Appendix 2, Volume 5.26.3) and the Outline WSI (Appendix 3, Volume 5.26.4) will be updated prior to and during, each stage of the construction of the Proposed Development to ensure the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. Requirement 5(2) should be amended so that the BMS and Outline WSI are subject to the same review periods. • Further updates to the BMS will be required, to incorporate the Joint Councils points regarding mitigation measures included in the SoCG e.g. bird diverters, LWS, habitat compensation, mitigation for effects on fish. • Regarding mitigation for bat commuting and foraging along hedgerows, National Grid must be able to demonstrate that it is beyond reasonable scientific doubt that an adverse effect on SAC bats will occur using such reduced mitigation, to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations and support a robust HRA. Natural England must be informed immediately of any non-conformance with European Protected Species licences; it is not acceptable to simply make reports available on request. • The mechanism for vegetation clearance to be stage to displace slow-worms is unclear. • This project will involve many crossings and the concern is that numerous displacements of water voles into already occupied areas may have a deleterious effect on the local population. The mechanism to ensure that water voles are displaced to areas of sufficient capacity is unclear. The Joint Councils do not agree with the conclusion in the Applicant’s report to Support HRA of no effect on integrity of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA, Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar, Severn Estuary SPA, Severn Estuary Ramsar (taking account of mitigation), due to lack of supporting evidence. The Joint Councils consider that National Grid may have dismissed the significant effects inappropriately in the in

14

combination assessment at Table 4.12 of the HRA (Volume 5.20) as described SoCG ID8.2.6. Further mitigation to address this should be outlined within an updated BMS to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of any stage of the authorised development


Further to the Joint Councils’ six bullet points provided in answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.20 National Grid confirms:

The BMS and the WSI (Volumes 5.26.3A and 5.26.4A) will be reviewed and, where appropriate, updated, prior to and during each stage of construction. Requirement 5(2) will not be updated as requested. Requirement 5 already provides for agreement by the relevant planning authority to any changes to the CEMP and its appendices; it does not need to be revised to reflect this.

Any agreed mitigation will be included in the next iteration of the BMS.

The matter relating to National Grid providing additional details on bat foraging habitats is covered in the Joint Councils’ SoCG (IDs 8.1.1, 8.11.2, 8.11.3 and 8.21.1).

The reference to making reports available on request is a general good practice approach and does not relate to reporting breaches in licence conditions. Furthermore, the BMS does not seek to replicate the details of the EPS licences but refers the reader to consult these documents directly.

National Grid will review the text regarding slow-worms to provide clarification. Any changes will be included in the next iteration of the BMS.

On 11 March 2015 Natural England confirmed by email their satisfaction with National Grid’s water vole method statement stating “you have future proofed the document in relation to the forthcoming guidance as far as you can before it is published”.

With regard to the Joint Councils’ additional comment on lack of supporting evidence for the conclusion of no effect on integrity on the SPA/Ramsar sites, National Grid is satisfied its assessment is robust. Please refer to the Joint Councils’ SoCG (IDs 8.1.2, 8.6.1, 8.6.2 and 8.10.5) and Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 including Appendix 4.79.1.1 and 4.80 including Appendix 4.80b.1.1 (Volumes 8.1.1 and 8.2.2).

With regard to the Joint Councils’ additional comment on concerns over the in combination assessment, National Grid is satisfied its assessment is robust. Please refer to Examining Authority’s first round written question 17.9 including Appendix 17.9c.1.1 and Appendix 17.9c.1.2 (Volumes 8.1.3 and 8.2.28).


15


a) Can AWT confirm it is satisfied with the wording in the BMS that secures the ECoW during the active construction period (ES Volume 5.26.3 para 2.4.73). b) Is a basis for the funding level agreed?


a) AWT are happy with the wording within the BMS that secures the ECoW during active construction. AWT would also like funding to be incorporated for the provision of input by AWT during mitigation and habitat restoration works including attendance at any meetings and production of reports/comments. b) AWT have not agreed an appropriate funding level


In Avon Wildlife Trust’s (AWT) response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 2.21, National Grid notes the request for the Trust’s Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) funding to include “attendance at meetings and production of reports/comments”.

National Grid will consider this request when agreeing the funding agreement for the ECoW.

16


The RR made on behalf of the Bristol Port Company (BPC) claims that compulsory acquisition of rights is proposed over further land in its ownership not identified as such in the Book of Reference and asserts that the Book of Reference contains inaccuracies concerning the nature and extent of land ownership and interests in land across the dock estate. Please provide details of any such inaccuracies and suggest how these might be addressed.


Attached as annexe 4 is a schedule of the inaccuracies in the Book of Reference affecting the dock estate identified by BPC to date. In relation to Section F, the comments are based on the contents of the revised Book of Reference (Volume 3.3.6.1A and following) published in January 2015. In relation to Section G, the comments are based on the original Book of Reference submitted with the application for the development consent order in May 2014 (Volume 3.3.7.1), together with, as appropriate, the Schedule of Variation dated September 2014 (Volume 3.4.7) and the Split Plot Sub Report dated September 2014 (Volume 3.4.9). BPC reserves the right to make further comment once a revised Book of Reference for Section G has been published. The comments set out in relation to Category 2 Owners (and so Parts 2 and 3) are not exhaustive. BPC will make further comment as and when it identifies further errors. see also annexe 4 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_1st Qs Annex 4


National Grid has reviewed the schedule prepared by BPC and is grateful to BPC for highlighting some inaccuracies and discrepancies in section G of the Book of Reference. These amendments will be reflected within the final Book of Reference that will be produced before the close of the Examination.


17


The RR submitted on behalf of BPC does not accept that compulsory acquisition could be achieved without serious detriment to its undertaking. a) Please indicate whether the land in question is land to which s127(1) of the Act applies? b) If so, what detriment is anticipated would be caused to the undertaking in question?

Bristol Port Company’s response

a) BPC's land has been acquired by BPC as a statutory undertaker for the purposes of its undertaking. The land is used for the purposes of carrying on BPC's statutory undertaking, or the land is held for those purposes. BPC's land is therefore land to which section 127(1) of the Planning Act 2008 applies. b) Please see section 4 of BPC's written representation and other references set out in the latter, including paragraphs 2.2.4, 3.6, 7.4-7.11, 9.2-9.34, 9.37, 9.39, 9.40, 10.1-10.17, 11.3-11.12, 12.1-12.4, 13.1-13.7, 14.3, 14.11-14.14 and 19.67-19.71. see also 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR


Please see paragraphs 1.7.5 to 1.7.10 of National Grid’s response to BPC’s written representation (Volume 8.5).

18


The RR made on behalf of BPC raises concerns as regards the protective provisions in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) that would be required by it as operator of, and statutory undertaker for, Bristol Port.

a) How can the DCO, as drafted, be said to ensure that the interests of BPC are appropriately protected? b) Should they be regarded as being inadequate in their current form and how could they be changed to

accommodate those concerns?


b) Please see the following paragraphs of BPC's written representation: 7.12 (subject to 7.13), 8.26-8.33, 9.42, 9.61-9.65, 10.14 (subject to 10.15), 10.38-10.46, 11.13, 12.30, 12.38, 12.43, 12.61-12.71, 13.12, 13.13, 14.4-14.8, 14.10, 15.4, 16.10, 17.1, 18.15-18.17, 19.2, 19.14, 19.34, 19.45, 19.64, 19.67-19.71, 19.74 and 19.75 see also 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR


Please see paragraphs 1.7.18, 1.7.23, 1.7.66, 1.7.69, 1.7.85 and 1.7.90 of National Grid’s response to BPC’s written representation (Volume 8.5).


19


What protective provisions do BPC consider appropriate, if the draft DCO was to be approved with the compulsory acquisition powers sought?


The powers of compulsory acquisition (particularly so far as they relate to the acquisition of rights) as currently set out in the draft DCO are so wide that BPC cannot see how any protective provisions could be framed in order to mitigate to any acceptable degree the impact of the resulting restrictions on BPC's undertaking. If those powers were awarded, BPC would require a protective provision that they did not apply to its land in those terms. BPC's position in relation to the acceptable extent of any rights and restrictions is set out in section 14 of BPC's written representation.



20


The RR made on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited raises concerns as regards the absence of protective provisions in favour of Network Rail in the draft DCO. What precise provisions in the draft DCO does Network Rail seek to be included and why?

Network Rail‘s response

See associated document 150226_EN020001_ Network Rail Infrastructure Limited_1st Qs


Please see National Grid’s response to Network Rail Infrastructure Limited’s written representation (Volume 8.5).


21


The RR made on behalf of Wessex Water Services Ltd raises concerns in relation to the impact upon public water mains, sewers and ancillary assets along the proposed route.

a) Are any changes sought to the draft DCO in order to protect the Company’s infrastructure; and b) if so, why are these considered to be necessary?

Wessex Water Services Ltd‘s response

See associated document 150226_EN020001_Wessex Water Sevices Ltd_WR


National Grid has, as agreed with Wessex Water, submitted a minor change to the route alignment of the proposed new connection route to meet operational concerns expressed by Wessex Water. This variation of the route alignment has been accepted by the Examining Authority (letter dated 12 March 2015). As is stated in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between the parties (Volume 8.3.6), National Grid is in communication with Wessex Water in order to reach mutually acceptable arrangements with regard to protective provisions.

22


Given that the definition of “maintain” should not result in works being authorised which have not been assessed in the ES, the Applicant is requested to consider whether a more appropriate definition would be as follows: “’maintain’ includes to inspect, repair, adjust, alter, dismantle, remove, reconstruct, replace or relay the authorised development, but not so as to vary from the description of the authorised development in Schedule 1 and only to the extent assessed in the environmental statement and any derivative of ‘maintain’ is to be construed accordingly”.

Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO’s) response

The MMO welcomes the Examining Authority's (ExA) proposal to limit the definition of "maintain" to the description of the authorised development in Schedule 1 and the limits of assessment within the Environmental Statement


National Grid’s position on this matter remains as reported in its original response to this question.


23


The RR of Bristol Port Company (BPC) complains that the DCO fails adequately to define and/or justify the downward vertical and lateral limits of deviation. For example, 5 (b) (i) would allow a vertical deviation as may be found to be “convenient”. How could this article be worded in a more precise and specific manner?


Please see paragraph 7.12 of BPC's written representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company WR




The Agency would advise that in certain locations or specific situations e.g. at main river crossing points, any downward limits of deviation could be limited to an absolute minimum vertical clearance. This could be reflected in specifically worded requirements, if considered necessary. With regard to main river overhead cable crossings, National Grid have confirmed that the next iteration of the DCO will include a formal Requirement specifying a minimum vertical clearance of 10.9m between the lowest cable above top of river bank level, to maintain a safe operational environment. Presumably, Requirements of this nature could also be agreed with other affected landowners /stakeholders


National Grid’s position on this matter remains as reported in its original response to this question.

24


The RR of the Environment Agency states that it has been advised by the Applicant that the required minimum clearance of 10.9m above the top of bank level at all statutory main river crossings would be provided. Has this position been agreed? If so, the Applicant is invited to re-draft the DCO to reflect this


Please see Q 4.8 (The Agency would advise that in certain locations or specific situations e.g. at main river crossing points, any downward limits of deviation could be limited to an absolute minimum vertical clearance. This could be reflected in specifically worded requirements, if considered necessary. With regard to main river overhead cable crossings, National Grid have confirmed that the next iteration of the DCO will include a formal Requirement specifying a minimum vertical clearance of 10.9m between the lowest cable above top of river bank level, to maintain a safe operational environment. Presumably, Requirements of this nature could also be agreed with other affected landowners /stakeholders.) above and paragraph 2.6.4 of the submitted Statement of Common Ground.


National Grid has amended the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) (Volume 2.1B) as submitted on 26 February 2015 to reflect the Environment Agency’s concerns regarding minimum vertical clearance over the top of banks of main rivers.

Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium and North Somerset Levels IDB‘s response

The Drainage Boards also have an interest in the height of cables over watercourses because this will limit the type and size of plant and machinery that can pass under the cable for operations, maintenance and improvement works. We have not yet agreed minimum heights over watercourses with the application, but have identified this matter to them in our comments on the draft SOCG.


As it stated in the SoCG between the parties (Volume 8.3.8), National Grid agrees with the Internal Drainage Board that “overhead line crossings must be of sufficient height to allow safe and effective passage underneath for plant and vehicles undertaking watercourse maintenance”.


25


The RR of BPC asserts that the DCO would permit the transfer of powers to third parties that are unreasonable in their nature and scope. a) Given that Article 7 requires the consent of the Secretary of State to the transfer of the benefit why would this be unreasonable? b) On the other hand, why is it necessary to include such a provision?


a) Please see paragraphs 19.15-19.24 of BPC's written representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR


Please see paragraph 1.7.98 of National Grid’s response to BPC’s written representation (Volume 8.5).

26


a) What justification is there for consent to be deemed after only 28 days? b) Would a period of at least 42 days, as was the case in the King’s Lynn Order referred to, not be more reasonable and appropriate?


a) Article 13(7) as currently drafted allows alteration of the layout of streets listed in Schedule 4 and the layout 'any' other streets within the Order limits with the street authority's consent. Consent is deemed to be given if the street authority fails to respond within 28 days. Whilst the Applicant may be correct that deemed consent provisions have precedent in Transport and Works Act Orders, the relevant authorities disagree that a blanket approach to deemed consent "is consistent with the philosophy" of the Act. This view is supported by PINS in its Panel Report to the Secretary of State in respect of the HPC DCO. Paragraph 8.114-8.115 considered EDF's draft Article 42AA(2) which stated that any failure by a party to notify the applicant within 28 days shall be treated as a deemed approval by that party. PINS found this proposal to be "draconian" and the article was omitted from the DCO. The Joint Councils request the removal of deemed consent provisions from this Article and those others as identified below. These comments are also relevant to the deemed consent provisions within Articles 12, 14, 18 and 41. b) The Joint Councils acknowledge that the project is categorised as a project of National Significance and will ensure that further details requiring approval will be managed to ensure no needless delay to the applicant, however the Joint Councils do not consider that there should be a provision for deemed consent within the development consent order due to the potential for the provision to allow an unsafe approval. This view is considered to be consistent with the Governments latest consultation on the Deemed Discharge of Planning Conditions. Although the paper refers to planning “conditions” it is considered that the same exception principles should apply. The Deemed Discharge of Planning Conditions, Government Response to Consultation (dated November 2014), outlines at paragraph 17 that the Government will make it clear that deemed consent is not considered to be appropriate for all types of development. Government intends to put in place an exemption to the deemed consent provision on:- • All conditions attached to development that is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment; • All conditions attached to development that is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site;


27

and, • Conditions that have the effect of requiring an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act. Paragraph 18 goes on further to provide that the Government has carefully considered the responses calling for additional exemptions, particularly where the matter is in relation to the protection of public safety. The Government therefore also proposes to exempt conditions relating to highway safety.


National Grid’s position remains that it is appropriate and necessary to include deemed consent provisions in the DCO to ensure the delivery of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Such deemed consent provisions have been included in many DCO and Transport and Works Act Orders.

National Grid’s position is set out further in Volume 8.1.2, in its response to this question.

This position applies to all deemed consent provisions within the DCO and not just the deemed consent provision in article 13.

National Grid is aware of the changes to the Town and Country Planning Act by the Infrastructure Act 2015 (c.7) but notes that these provisions (and the exemptions) relate to deemed consent of planning conditions and do not relate to DCOs.

28


a) With regard to Article 13, are the water undertakers and Environment Agency content with its provisions? b) As regards 16(9), is the longstop default provision of 28 days after which consent/approval will be deemed to have been granted reasonable?


The Agency has made the assumption that ‘Article 13’ should in fact read ‘Article 16’. The Agency has received written confirmation from National Grid that the deemed consent provisions detailed in Schedule 4 of the draft DCO relate only to the discharge of requirements in Schedule 3, and do not relate more generally to other consent procedures including the Agency’s Flood Defence Consent and Environmental Permitting regimes. The Agency has advised National Grid that the submitted DCO documentation should reflect this clarification. Please see the submitted Statement of Common Ground (Page 17).


This provision which National Grid also assumes refers to article 16 (which is set out in the model provisions for DCO’s and also Transport and Works Act Orders) relates to seeking the necessary consent of the person who owns the water course, drain etc., rather than the regulatory consent.

The Environment Agency’s (EA) consent will be sought in regards to structures in, under, or over a main river pursuant to section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991.

As the EA has acknowledged, National Grid has already confirmed that the deemed consent provisions detailed in Schedule 4 of the draft DCO relate only to the discharge of requirements in Schedule 3, and do not relate more generally to other consent procedures including the EA’s Flood Defence Consent and Environmental Permitting regimes.

No further confirmation of this point is considered necessary or required to any DCO application documentation.

Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium and North Somerset Levels IDB‘s response

The Drainage Boards statutory determination period for consents under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act is "two months after the relevant day". We would be concerned at any intention to shorten this period and any increase in our costs and hence to the Public in determining applications.


As explained above - this provision relates to seeking the necessary consent of the person who owns the water course, drain etc., rather than the regulatory consent.


29

Any necessary consent required under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act will be sought separately.


a) BPC assumes this is a reference to article 16. Please see paragraphs 12.54-12.60 and 12.69 of BPC's written representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR b) Yes


Please see paragraphs 1.7.64 - 1.7.65 of National Grid’s response to BPC’s written representation (Volume 8.5).

30


a) Please explain how this article is intended to operate alongside article 34(b) b) The views of the relevant statutory undertakers in relation to this article, and whether any redrafting is necessary, are sought.


b) BPC is uncertain whether this question is addressed to it. However, its views on the issues raised are at paragraphs 19.51-19.57 of its written representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR




31


The relevant statutory undertakers are requested to set out their views as to whether or not the s127 and 138 tests would be met or confirm that they wish to withdraw their representations.

Avon Fire & Rescue‘s response

In response we would like to confirm that we do not believe the tests have been met to such a degree that it would be in the public interest to remove my clients' representations at this juncture. As detailed in the Statement of Common Ground produced between ourselves and National Grid, there are still matters outstanding, although we do believe a dialogue is currently underway, and are hopeful that a resolution will be found. However until such point as we have confirmation that; a) The over sail of plot 220 will be removed from the DCO and b) That the Highways Network will remain unobstructed for the use of emergency vehicles Avon Fire and Rescue will continue to seek engagement with both the applicant and the Examining authority in the interests of protecting AFR's ability to carry out their statutory undertaking.


National Grid is working with Avon Fire and Rescue to resolve its concerns. National Grid has offered Avon Fire and Rescue an assurance that it will not exercise its powers over plot 220.

A SoCG has been prepared and discussions are ongoing in relation to Avon Fire and Rescue’s highway concerns. National Grid is hopeful that all outstanding issues will be resolved and it will update the Examination in this regard as soon as possible.


Please see paragraphs 4.1-4.3 and 12.28-12.29 of BPC's written representation in relation to sections 127 and 138 respectively. BPC does not wish to withdraw its representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR



32


The RR of BPC expresses concerns as to the scope of the DCO powers in relation to the River Avon. Views are sought as to the necessity for, and reasonableness of, the powers granted by this article. Why could the works adjacent to, and over, the River Avon not otherwise be completed safely?


Please see section 18 of BPC's written representation. Bristol Port Company - 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR It is for the Applicant to explain why the works adjacent to, and over, the River Avon could not otherwise be completed safely.




33


This Article would provide wide powers in relation to the felling and lopping or the cutting back of the roots of trees or shrubs. Would the relevant requirements set out in Schedule 3 provide sufficient protection for important hedgerows? Is it intended that the relevant local authorities’ approval under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 would still be needed?


Requirement 12 sets out that a Tree and Hedgerow Protection Strategy (THPS) identifying the trees, groups of trees and hedgerows to be retained during that stage has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. To avoid duplication of approval processes the Joint Councils consider that ‘important hedgerows’ should be identified within the THPS for consideration under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.


Please refer to National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.35 which confirms that important hedgerows would be included in a Tree and Hedgerow Protection Strategy. For the avoidance of doubt, National Grid can confirm that it will amend requirement 12(2) as follows (amendments in bold):

12(2)(b) a schedule of all proposed tree and hedgerow removal and pruning with annotated plans

12(2)(e) the identification of Important Hedgerows and trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order

National Grid does not agree that there would be duplication of approval processes as it is considered that separate approval under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 would not be required because the Local Planning Authority will have already approved the details under Requirement 12.

34


Requirement 2 states that the authorised development must be commenced within 8 years of the date of the Order. Likewise, the time limit for exercise of authority to acquire land compulsorily set out in Article 22 is the end of the period of 8 years beginning on the day on which the Order is made. The Explanatory Memorandum recognises that this represents a departure from the model requirement. The RR made on behalf of Brian Stephen Keedwell (Web reference 141) complains that such a period would be too long. a) What is the present justification for these time periods; and b) Should the justification for this approach set out in the Explanatory Memorandum now be regarded as being out of date?

Brian Stephen Keedwell‘s response

The proposed acquisition of a substantial portion of this agricultural holding is likely to result in severe disruption to, and eventual extinguishment of, the farming operation. The implementation of this aspect of the scheme will therefore have a direct impact on business investment decisions by the Keedwell family, and their other family arrangements. The Objector considers it is imperative that the timing of the acquisition requirements are stated exactly, and shown to be no more than necessary:- 1. At least part of the applicant’s original justification is now obsolete; 2. The Objector understands that the proposed acquisition of the Sandford sub-station site has strategic importance within the scheme as a whole, and which requires an early start of construction on site. The window therefore fails to address the specific site in question whatever the needs of the scheme as a whole. The applicant therefore needs to justify why the 8 year time period is necessary and proportionate in light of current circumstances. It is for the applicant to explain why, particularly, there is no scope for substituting a shorter time period.


Please see National Grid’s responses to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 3.36 and 4.41 (Volume 8.1.1).


35


Requirement 5 relates to the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the CEMP would be certified by the Secretary of State in accordance with Article 45 of the Order. Please clarify whether it is intended that the CEMP in the ES should be regarded as a final version rather than a draft. If not, then the Applicant is invited to consider redrafting this requirement to provide for the approval of the final CEMP by the relevant planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The definition of “CEMP” set out in requirement 1 should reflect whichever option applies.


The relevant planning and highway authorities ('the authorities') understand that the Applicant does not propose the draft CEMP in the ES as the final version for approval under the Order. The authorities issued comments to the Applicant on the ES draft CEMP in April 2014 and received a revised draft document from the Applicant in December 2014. This December 2014 draft CEMP appears to be the same draft submitted to the Examining Authority in January 2015, following the Preliminary Meeting. It is the authorities' position that the draft CEMP as set out in the ES is lacking in necessary detail with regard to a number of areas of mitigation, including but not limited to, biodiversity, public rights of way management, noise and vibration, etc. The document also lacks a mechanism to require the Applicant to accommodate future changes and advancements in best practice construction mitigation methods. Whilst the authorities welcome a number of the revisions to the ES draft CEMP, the revised document still lacks the level of detail and certainty which is considered adequate to address the predicted construction impacts. As such, the current draft CEMP is not in a form that should be approved under the DCO and the authorities request that a Requirement is imposed providing for the document's submission for approval to the relevant planning authority, prior to commencement of any stage of the authorised development. The authorities would also contend that even if the current draft was acceptable to them at this point in time, the requested 8 year implementation period means the document is likely to be out of date by the time of its application. The authorities have provided a number of comments to the Applicant that have not been addressed in either the version submitted to PINs accompanying the ES, or updated version submitted to PINs dated January 2015. These are set out in issue 1.10 of the Local Impact Report ('LIR') as follows: “The revision of the draft CEMP and its associated appendices was issued to the Joint Councils for their consideration on 20 November 2014 and comments were provided by the Joint Councils on 12 December

36

2014. National Grid have not yet addressed these comments. The key issues are summarised as follows; • The text refers to implementing mitigation measures in “general accordance” rather than “in accordance with”. This is considered to create uncertainty and should be revised. • Annual review of the draft CEMP is now incorporated relating to air quality. Good practice would normally be to undertake a 6 monthly review of CEMP in its entirety. The document should be amended accordingly. • The draft CEMP is not comprehensive in referencing mitigation (e.g. in relation to landscape and visual effects). This section should be updated to include all relevant ES mitigation references and appropriate plans. • Construction working hours require agreement as set out in issue 1.7 above. • Generic references are made to implementing ‘industry best practice’ on site. The CEMP should make reference specific existing guidance to ensure that appropriate commitments are known and understood. This will allow representations to be made on the guidance proposed and provide confidence in the measures to be implemented.” See also issue 3.6 (biodiversity) issue 6.4 and 6.10 (archaeology), issue 8.5 (noise), and 9.3-9.5 (PRoW) of the LIR for discipline specific issues. Detailed comments on the BMS are set out in response to question 2.20. Therefore the authorities would not be content with the CEMP being approved by the Secretary of State in accordance with Article 45 of the Order in its current form. As set out in LIR ID 1.11 National Grid’s approach to combining all mitigation documents Construction Transport Management Plan (CTMP), Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), Public Rights of Way (PRoW) Management Plan) under the umbrella of the draft CEMP leads to confusion regarding statutory responsibilities for discharge of requirements. The Joint Councils consider that the documents should require final approval as individual documents. The authorities would support the principle of a revised Requirement for approval of the final CEMP by the relevant planning authority prior to commencement of the authorised development. The authorities have proposed an amendment to Requirement 5 to address this in their response to question 2.17. The authorities seek the following revision to draft Requirement 5: -


37

“(1) No stage of the authorised development shall commence, until for that stage, a Construction Environmental Management Plan to minimise the impacts of construction works have been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) The construction works for each stage of the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority.” In addition, due to the complexity of the number of authorities involved and the number of management documents included as appendices to the CEMP, the authorities would request that the following management documents are submitted for pre-commencement approval under separate Requirements: a Waste Management Plan, Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy, Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation, Construction Traffic Management Plan, Public Rights of Way Management Plan and a Noise and Vibration Management Plan


The January 2015 draft of the CEMP is not the same as the December draft; details of updates made between the December and January drafts are provided in Table P.1 of the draft CEMP at Volume 5.26.1A.

National Grid is currently preparing an updated CEMP and in doing so is considering the comments made by the Joint Councils on the December draft. The updated CEMP will also reflect commitments made by National Grid in the Statements of Common Ground (SOCGs), its responses to the Examining Authority’s first round of written questions, clarifications requested by stakeholders and, where appropriate, the responses made by Interested Parties to the Examining Authority’s first round of written questions.

The concern expressed by the Joint Councils regarding the ability of the CEMP to accommodate advancements in best practice construction mitigation methods, such that it will not be ‘out of date’ as the construction phase progresses, is already addressed explicitly in a number of topic areas, for example Air Quality where there is a commitment to annual review of best practice construction mitigation methods; this will be extended to cover all topic areas in the next iteration of the CEMP and its appendices. Furthermore, Requirement 5 allows changes to be made to the CEMP, where necessary, with the written agreement of the relevant planning and/or highway authority.

For National Grid’s position on the Joint Councils’ comments regarding the phrase ‘…in general accordance with’ as applied in Requirement 5, please see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written

38

question 4.45 (Volume 8.1.1).

National Grid does not consider that there should be an individual DCO requirement relating to the submission of each of the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), Outline WSI or Public Rights of Way Management Plan (PRoW Management Plan).

Each of these documents falls underneath the umbrella of the CEMP. The drafting of requirement 5 CEMP has already been amended to reflect that the approved plans, schemes and strategies under the CEMP must be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority or highway authority (as appropriate).

Providing a requirement for each plan, scheme or strategy under the CEMP will be repetitive and will not provide any further clarity. As such National Grid remains of the opinion that the current drafting of this requirement does not require amendment.

For National Grid’s position on the Joint Councils’ comments regarding Requirement 5 and approval mechanisms, please see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.44 (Volume 8.1.1).


With the exception of the issues detailed in Section 3 (Matters Not Concluded) of the submitted Statement of Common Ground, the Agency is satisfied in principle with the submitted CEMP document. It is acknowledged that minor changes/amendments to the CEMP document may required to adapt working methods to suit unforeseen situations met during initial mobilisation and construction.


The issues detailed in Section 3 of the SoCG with the Environment Agency (Volume 8.3.7) with respect to the CEMP relate to the agreed mitigation measures in the most recent version of the Route Flood Risk Assessment (Volume 5.23.5.1A). The Environment Agency requests that these measures be included in the CEMP and therefore secured by Requirement 5.

National Grid will continue to engage with the Environment Agency in order to reach suitable arrangements in relation to these outstanding matters.


39


Requirement 5(2) makes reference to the works being “…carried out in general accordance with the approved plan, scheme or strategy…”. Other requirements are worded in a similar way. Why is it necessary, and reasonable, for the compliance with the approved plans, schemes and strategy to be qualified in this way?

Environment Agency response

The Agency would expect all works to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan, without qualification.


Please see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.45 (Volume 8.1.1).

Joint Councils response

The authorities do not believe that it is either necessary or reasonable for this qualification. Where plans, schemes and strategies have been agreed with the relevant authorities, these should be implemented as approved. The vagueness/flexibility built into this qualification is not appropriate and risks circumventing the approval process. The authorities and their communities need certainty that where mitigation measures have been agreed within documents, these measures will be delivered as agreed. The wording proposed by the applicant is not considered to be precise and would create issues in relation to interpretation which in turn impacts upon enforceability; fundamental components of the tests for planning conditions (as set out in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework)



40


Requirement 5 of the DCO requires the works to be carried out in general accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (ES Volume 5.26.1) which incorporates the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (BMS) as an appendix. The BMS is written ‘with the intention of being an enforceable requirement of the Development Consent Order’ (BMS, ES Volume 5.26.3, para 1.1.1). The ES contains a draft CEMP, with a draft BMS. a) Is it the Applicant’s intention to submit final versions of these documents during examination? b) Are NE and the Joint Councils content that the wording of Requirement 5 provides sufficient certainty about the delivery of mitigation for adverse effects on European sites, other designated sites and all habitats and species? c) If not, NE and the Joint Councils should set out: - what information is required and what changes to the BMS and/or DCO are required; - if this is an agreed position with any other party; identify who and what?


b) NE is not content with the wording of Requirement 5 of the DCO as it does not provide sufficient certainty about the precise delivery of necessary mitigation. c) We would therefore suggest that the wording be changed as follows: 5.—(1) All general construction works for the authorised development must be carried out in accordance with the CEMP, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority. We would expect that a final updated CEMP (BMS), that addresses NE’s concerns, is agreed with NE before the end of examination


National Grid cannot agree to the striking out of the word ‘construction’ from Requirement 5(1). As is set out in Requirement 5(2), the CEMP specifies measures to be used to minimise the impacts of construction works and to delete the reference to ‘construction’ works would undermine the purpose of this document. For National Grid’s position on the Joint Councils’ comments regarding the phrase ‘…in general accordance with’ as applied in requirement 5, please see National Grid’s response to Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.45 (Volume 8.1.1).


41


Requirement 31 appears to be rather loosely drafted. Does this meet the concerns of the relevant planning authorities or could it be worded in a more precise and specific manner?


Due to the scale of the project and anticipated long construction period, the Joint Councils were seeking a mechanism to secure the provision of project information to the local community who will be affected by the proposal (for example provide information in relation to updating the community on when works will be undertaken within their locality, providing information on when accesses will be in use by Construction Traffic etc). Requirement 31 as currently drafted does not meet the concerns of the relevant authorities. The lack of precision in the Requirement is likely to render it incapable of enforcement and as such failing two strands of the policy test. The Joint Councils suggest the following amendments: 1) No stage of the authorised development shall commence until a written scheme for the protection of local amenity during the construction phase has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority, in consultation with the relevant highway authority. The scheme shall include (but not be limited to) the following details: • the provision of information packs to local residents and occupiers affected by the works detailing the general phasing and carrying out of construction works; • specific information packs (for each relevant stage) in relation to on site/off-site works likely to give rise to complaints and a set programme for their completion; • a complaints procedure, (including but not limited to complaints relating to noise, dust, vibration, pollution, construction traffic, etc) setting out how complaints can be made; to whom; a reasonable timeframe for responding to complaints; the potential remedies; and who to contact if not satisfied with the outcome of the complaints procedure; • a complaints monitoring procedure to ensure that complaints are being handled in accordance with the complaints procedure; and • a 24 hour contact number for emergency complaints. The scheme shall be implemented as approved throughout the construction of the authorised

42

development unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority.


National Grid’s position with regards to the drafting of Requirement 31 (Residential amenity: information dissemination and complaints handling) remains as stated in its response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.54 (Volume 8.1.1).

It was understood by National Grid that the Joint Councils were content with the drafting of this requirement not least because it is substantively based on requirement PW 18 in Schedule 2 to the Hinkley Point C (Nuclear Generating Station) Order 2013, which the Joint Councils commented upon and which was subsequently made by the Secretary of State on 18 March 2013.

The Joint Councils have now proposed two different suggested amendments to the drafting of this requirement. Firstly, in its Local Impact Report and, secondly, in its own response to this question.

It remains National Grid’s view that this requirement, as drafted, is sufficiently precise and that it provides the appropriate framework for the control of complaints, communication and information. National Grid is committed to working with the Joint Councils to ensure that the system submitted for approval meets their requirements and the expectations of local residents.


43


The Applicant’s assessment of decommissioning assumes that the effects of decommissioning will be similar to the effects of construction and that further ecological surveys will take place prior to decommissioning (ES Volume 5.8.1 paragraphs 5.8.383-5.8.387. The commitment to undertake these additional surveys is not supported by requirements in the DCO, nor is it referred to in the BMS (ES Volume 5.26.3): a) The Applicant is requested to explain how the delivery of these surveys will be secured. b) The Joint Councils, NE and AWT are asked to give their views on this.


b) There is currently no mechanism to secure the carrying out of pre-decommissioning surveys and to ensure adequate mitigation is provided to address potential adverse effects. The Joint Councils request that a new requirement is included within Schedule 3 to address this deficiency. The Joint Councils suggest the following wording: No stage of the authorised development shall commence until a decommissioning scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant planning authority. The scheme shall include (but not be limited to) the following details: • a programme for the carrying out of pre-decommissioning ecological surveys and reporting; • a process for implementing any necessary mitigation or remediation measures revealed by the pre- decommissioning ecological surveys; • the restoration of the site, its habitat features and management of residual soil contamination; • the dismantling and removal of all above and below ground level elements; and • the timing for the schemes' implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.


As set out in National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.56, the new Requirement 34 (Volume 2.1B) requires the submission to and approval of, by the relevant planning authority, a written scheme of decommissioning.

This would secure such surveys, assessments and mitigation measures as are required to support the decommissioning of all new assets for which development consent is sought. National Grid does not consider it

44

appropriate to be more prescriptive at the present time, given the remoteness of the likely time period when these works would be carried out.


NE would expect the final BMS to include all details of biodiversity mitigation (including the scope of future surveys) for all stages of the project, including decommissioning.


Please see National Grid’s comment to the Joint Councils’ response above.


45


The RR of the MMO seeks confirmation that paras 1 and 2 of this Schedule do not apply to it. Can that be confirmed as an agreed position?

MMO‘s response

The MMO maintains that it should be made explicitly clear within the DCO that Schedule 4 does not apply to the DML. Given the relatively small scale of the works within the UK marine licensing area, the MMO does not feel it is appropriate or proportionate to include such discharge requirements. Please refer to the MMO response to question 4.59 below for further detail.


The position in this regard is being discussed further with the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and, if changes are appropriate, will be reflected in the draft DCO.

46


Notwithstanding the details provided in the Explanatory Memorandum, what is the justification for the provision of the detailed procedures set out in Schedule 4 in this particular case and are the time periods set out therein reasonable?

MMO‘s response

The MMO maintains that Schedule 4 should not apply to the DML. It appears that the discharge requirements are similar to those included within The Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014. The Thames Tideway Tunnel project includes very complex post-consent discharge requirements, whereby the Applicant must apply to the MMO for approval prior to carrying out each stage of licensed activities, at which point the MMO must either, approve the application, approve the application subject to conditions or refuse the application. Such discharge requirements were needed due to the complexity of the project within the marine environment and utilisation of a wide "Rochdale envelope". The two projects in terms of scope and complexity within the marine environment are not analogous and the MMO sees no benefit, to either the Applicant or the MMO, to include such requirements. As drafted, Schedule 4 overly complicates post-consent requirements in relation to the DML. The MMO, therefore, maintains that it should be made explicitly clear within this Schedule that it does not apply to the DML.


National Grid’s position on this matter remains as set out in its original response to this question.

However National Grid continues to engage with the MMO and if any changes to this position are agreed with the MMO will be reflected in the draft DCO.


47


The appeals section set out in paras 3 and 4 of Schedule 4 includes reference to the Deemed Marine Licence set out in Schedule 9. The RR of the MMO makes reference to its own appeal procedure. a) Why is it necessary for Schedule 4 to include reference to licence conditions? b) Should the definition of “relevant authority” set out in para 5 also include the MMO?

MMO‘s response

As stated above, the MMO's position is that it is not proportionate or desirable for Schedule 4 to apply to the DML. Schedule 4 should not include reference to DML conditions and the definition of "relevant authority" should not include the MMO.


National Grid’s position on this matter remains as set out in its original response to this question.

However National Grid continues to engage with the MMO and if any changes to this position are agreed with the MMO will be reflected in the draft DCO.

48


Should Schedule 9, Part 4, paras 11-14, make reference to “licensed activities” rather than “works”

MMO‘s response

The MMO agrees that Schedule 9, Part 4, paras 11-14 should make reference to “licensed activities” rather than works. Schedule 9, Part 2 attempts to define “licensed activities”. However, this Part of the DML is vague and should further detail the licensable marine activities under section 66 of the 2009 Act are to be consented by the DML. As currently drafted the DML states the applicant is licensed to undertake any licensable marine activity so long as it forms part or, or is related to the authorised development and this should be amended accordingly. It should be noted that the MMO has confirmed to the Applicant that it does not consider the dismantling and removal of the existing 132kV overhead electric line (“the WPD works”) over the River Avon constitutes a “licensable marine activity” under Part 4 of the 2009 Act. The construction of the new transmission system does constitute licensable marine activities under Section 66(1)7(a) of the 2009 Act, which states that is a licensable marine activity to: “To construct, alter or improve any works within the UK marine licensing area either— (a) in or over the sea” However, with regard to the WPD works, the removal of the overhead wires, would not fall under 66(1)(7)(a) as it is the removal of the current structure, not an alternation or improvement. This therefore, brings us on to Section 66(1)8 of the 2009 Act which is in relation to removal activities. This section of the 2009 Act states: “ To use a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, marine structure or floating container to remove any substance or object from the sea bed within the UK marine licensing area.” The WPD works are over “over the sea” rather than removals “from the sea bed”. Therefore, the WPD works do not constitute a licensable marine activity under Part 4 of the 2009 Act. It is acknowledged that the MMO stated in its relevant representation that it appears that the removal of an electric overhead line over the River Avon would constitute licensable activities. However, following further consideration it is now clear that this is not licensable.


The amendment sought has been made to the draft DCO (Volume 2.1B). National Grid notes that the Western Power Distribution (south west) plc (WPD) works over the River Avon do not constitute licensable activities.


49


The RR of BPC objects to the disapplication of key parts of its statutory powers contained in the Bristol Port’s byelaws. The RR of the Environment Agency indicates that the retention of Byelaws 19 and 23 of the Wessex Land Drainage Byelaws are considered to be of particular importance. Explain further the justification for disapplying the various byelaws set out in Schedule 16 (Part 2) of the DCO? Whilst the Explanatory Memorandum asserts (in relation to the associated Article 45) that it is proportionate to exclude such legislation, is this provision wider in scope than is necessary?


It is for the Applicant to provide the further justification for disapplying the various byelaws. In relation to proportionality and Article 49 (as opposed to Article 45, which is assumed to be an erroneous reference), please see section 17 (particularly paragraph 17.2.3) of BPC's written representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR




Please see Section 3 (Matters Not Concluded) of the submitted Statement of Common Ground. The Agency is currently reviewing its position in respect of National Grid’s proposed disapplication of the Agency’s Flood Defence Byelaws. The Agency is attempting to ascertain National Grid’s rationale for disapplying the Agency’s byelaws. The Agency will issue a position statement in respect of this matter at the earliest opportunity.


National Grid continues to review this position with the Environment Agency with a view to reaching mutually acceptable arrangements with regard to their regulatory powers and consent arrangements. National Grid will provide the Examining Authority with an updated position as soon as possible.

Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium‘s response

The Drainage Boards are also concerned about the proposed disapplication of related legislation and byelaws. We see the risk to the project of retaining them as low and we intend to work cooperatively and effectively with National Grid within our normal regulatory framework. We therefore wish for the relevant legislation and byelaws to remain applicable to this project.


National Grid continues to work with the Internal Drainage Boards with a view to reaching mutually acceptable arrangements with regard to their regulatory powers and consent arrangements. National Grid will provide the Examining Authority with an updated position as soon as possible.

50


Requirement 5 of the DCO requires the works to be carried out in general accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which incorporates the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (BMS). The BMS is written “with the intention of being an enforceable requirement of the Development Consent Order” (BMS, ES Volume 5.26.3, para 1.1.1). Are parties content that the wording of Requirement 5 provides sufficient certainty about the delivery of mitigation for European sites?


The Joint Councils are not content that the BMS within the ES. There are specific concerns with respect to impacts on bats, notably those associated with Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) through the undergrounding section. There is avian collision risk throughout the route, particularly unknown risk with the T pylon wirescape, including birds that form part of the Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar populations. The Joint Councils have therefore expressed concerns that the Habitats Regulations Assessment, required by European legislation is inadequate. The Joint Councils have raised concerns over the adequacy of information within the ES on which the assessment and mitigation proposals are based. As such the Joint Councils are not content that the wording of Requirement 5 provides sufficient certainty about the delivery of mitigation for European sites. The Applicants’ Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy ('BMS') lacks detail, and therefore should be subject to further work and local authority approval prior to construction. The Joint Councils request an additional Requirement for the pre-commencement submission and approval of a BMS – see previous comments at Q.4.44 and Q2.17. South Gloucester Council and Bristol City Council have significant concerns regarding effects on the ecological offsetting area at Hallen Marsh. The Joint Councils consider that Requirement 5 should be updated as set out in their response to question Q.17.


For National Grid’s position on the Joint Councils’ comments regarding the phrase ‘…in general accordance with’ as applied in Requirement 5, please see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.45 (Volume 8.1.1).

See also earlier comments above made by National Grid to answers submitted by the Joint Councils in respect of the Examining Authority’s first round written questions 2.17 and 4.44.


NE is not content with the wording of Requirement 5 of the DCO as it does not provide sufficient certainty about the precise delivery of mitigation for European sites. We would request that the wording be changed as follows: 5.—(1) All general construction works for the authorised development must be carried out in accordance with the CEMP, unless otherwise agreed with


51

the relevant planning authority.


Please see National Grid’s comments on Natural England’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.46 above.

52


a) Does NE consider the provisions for minimising disturbance to wintering Ramsar and SPA birds at Portbury Wharf are adequately covered by the statement in the BMS (ES Volume 5.26.3 para 2.2.24)? b) If not what provision should be included either in the BMS and/or the DCO?


a) Considering the nature and extent of activities provisions appear adequate, but could be improved. It is NE’s view that the conservation priority should be the internationally important non-breeding populations of classified SPA birds and, therefore, that the winter (or non-breeding period) should be avoided. This, however, would predicate that construction activity must occur during the bird breeding season. The protection afforded to all wild nesting birds under Part I of the W&CA 1981 (as amended) applies to all individual eggs and active nests; there is no minimum threshold of acceptable damage. Birds are ubiquitous and nest in a wide range of habitat types, including small discrete patches. Therefore, it is highly likely nesting birds will be present within development footprints of almost any scale and in any location. In order to remain lawful, where construction during the breeding period is unavoidable, vegetation removal has to occur prior to the bird breeding season. Based on the assumption that construction activities will be more disturbing and occur for a longer period than vegetation removal (which will be less disturbing and of shorter duration), vegetation removal during the winter is the appropriate approach and the direct result of attempting to mitigate construction disturbance. The timing of vegetation removal is therefore unavoidable, but could be adapted however (see below). NE accepts that It is not possible to time all construction related activities such that they avoid both the breeding and non-breeding periods where these run contiguous to one another. As clearance precedes construction, which will not take place from Oct – March, and the bird breeding season is from March to August inclusive, vegetation removal could be maximised during September. Any further clearance work necessary during Oct - March could avoid periods of freezing conditions when birds are more energetically stressed (in line with the call for voluntary restraint on wildfowling following seven consecutive days of frozen conditions. See here for further details). b) It is suggested by NE that either: • the BMS could contain a more detailed strategy for minimising disturbance (through vegetation removal) on wintering SPA and Ramsar birds – along the lines as outlined above; or


53

• the DCO could include a Requirement that ‘a vegetation removal strategy should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any activities within or adjacent to a SPA or Ramsar site during October to March (inclusive).’


As recommended by Natural England in their response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.71, National Grid will include additional detail within the BMS (Volume 5.26.3, Section 4.1) on minimising disturbance (through vegetation removal) on wintering Special Protection Area and Ramsar birds at Portbury Wharf.

54


a) The Applicant is asked to explain how the phased approach to hedgerow restoration in Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Consideration Zones for bats, which responds to the increase in number of active bat seasons spanned by construction activities, will be secured? b) The Applicant to respond to this in light of apparent inconsistencies with the timing for planting which is set out in Requirement 11(1). c) Do the Applicant, Joint Councils and Natural England consider DCO Requirements 11 and 14 need revising?


NE suggests the following revisions to Requirements 11 and 14: 11.—(1) All landscaping and replacement planting works referred to in requirements 9 and 10 must be implemented in the first available planting season after that part of the authorised development to which the landscaping or replacement planting works apply completed and must be carried out in accordance with specification set out at Volume5.7.2 Appendix 7K (NBS Landscape Specification) and the relevant landscaping scheme for that stage of the authorised development, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standard or other recognised codes of good practice. (2) Any tree or shrub planted as part of an approved landscaping or replacement planting scheme that, within a period of five years after planting, is removed, dies or becomes in the opinion of the relevant planning authority seriously damaged or diseased, must be replaced in the first available planting season with a specimen of the same species and size as that originally planted, unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority. 14.—(1) Bat mitigation measures, including measures for the creation of temporary bat flyways and foraging areas in the event that hedgerows or grasslands are removed in connection with any stage of the authorised development, must be provided in accordance with the details identified in the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. (2) The measures referred to in sub-paragraph (1) must be maintained until permanent replacement hedgerows and grasslands are appropriately mature.


National Grid considers that the reference to ‘is first brought into operational use’ is appropriate as testing of equipment, especially underground cables, is required before replacement planting can take place.

Please see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.45 (Volume 8.1.1) regarding the removal of ‘general’ from the requirement.


55

National Grid can confirm that it will include text confirming the provisions for bat flyways during the hedgerow establishment period in the BMS (Volume 5.26.3A). National Grid will also include text confirming the provisions for bat foraging in the BMS.


c) Regarding mitigation for bat commuting and foraging along hedgerows, National Grid must be able to demonstrate that it is beyond reasonable scientific doubt that an adverse effect on SAC bats will occur using such reduced mitigation, to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations and support a robust HRA. Paragraph 2.2.31 and 2.232 of the updated BMS submitted to PINS dated January 2015 states: - “To further reduce the effect of losses of foraging habitat as a result of removal of pasture and hedgerows during construction, areas of fields adjacent to the construction footprint have been included within the DCO Order Limits to ensure management of the habitats for bats during the construction period. The proposed locations of these areas are shown at Inset 2.5.” “These bat foraging habitats will be delivered with landowner agreement where possible, however these areas fall within the Order Limits of the DCO and will be implemented by National Grid even if agreement cannot be reached with landowners” The Joint Councils query the rights that National Grid have to undertake this work and are keen to ensure that National Grid have the appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that this mitigation is secured and maintained. Regarding Requirement 11, The Joint Councils consider that the timing of mitigation planting should be made clearer. Hedgerow reinstatement would happen within 12 months of the completion of each phase through the undergrounding section (at an appropriate planting time). The proposed amendment is set out as follows (addition in bold): - 11.—(1) All landscaping and replacement planting works referred to in requirements 9 and 10 must be implemented in the first available planting season after that part of the authorised development to which the landscaping or replacement planting works apply is first brought into operational use and must be carried out in general accordance with specification set out at Volume 5.7.2 Appendix 7K (NBS Landscape Specification) and the relevant landscaping scheme for that stage of the authorised development, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standard or

56

other recognised codes of good practice. Hedgerow reinstatement through the undergrounding section would, as set out in the BMS, be undertaken within 12 months of the completion of each phase, in the first available planting season. (2) Any tree or shrub planted as part of an approved landscaping or replacement planting scheme that, within a period of fifteen years after planting, is removed, dies or becomes in the opinion of the relevant planning authority seriously damaged or diseased, must be replaced in the first available planting season with a specimen of the same species and size as that originally planted, unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority. (3) no stage of the authorised development, including vegetation removal, may commence until, for that stage, until a Landscape and Nature Conservation Management Plan covering management arrangements and responsibilities for a 15 year period for all soft landscape works and replacement planting works is submitted and agreed in writing by the relevant planning authority. Regarding Requirement 14, temporary bat mitigation measures should remain in place until the new planting is functional for bats as follows (additions in bold): 14.—(1) “Bat mitigation measures, including measures for the creation of temporary bat flyways and foraging areas in the event that hedgerows or grasslands are removed in connection with any stage of the authorised development, must be provided in accordance with the details identified in the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. (2) The measures referred to in sub-paragraph (1) must be maintained during the construction of the relevant stage of the authorised development, and remain in place until new habitat mitigation planting for bats is fully established, providing functional mitigation.”


Mitigation planting on land not acquired by National Grid will be maintained by National Grid for five years via a DCO Requirement. Five years is the appropriate period to allow new planting to become established as set out in the model DCO provisions supported by the Planning Inspectorate guidance. The Joint Councils’ requested additions to Requirement 10 (2) and Requirement 11 are not agreed as National Grid considers five years to be appropriate.

See also Volume 8.3.12, SoCG Issues 6.19, 6.20, 7.23 and 7.24 and Volume 8.1.2, Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.15.

National Grid can confirm that it will include the phrase ‘Hedgerow reinstatement through the undergrounding section would, as set out in the BMS, be undertaken within 12 months of the completion of each phase, in the first


57

available planting season’ in Requirement 11 in the draft DCO.

With respect to the Joint Councils’ comments on Requirement 14, National Grid will also include text confirming the provisions for bat foraging in the BMS.

58


Can the Applicant respond to the Joint Councils’ suggestion in their RR that a Community Impact Mitigation Fund is required.


The Joint Councils' detailed justification for the provision of a Community Impact Fund is contained in Appendix C to the Local Impact Report.




59


The Environmental Statement (ES Volume 5.8.1, paras 8.9.19 – 8.9.23) indicates the Applicant’s proposals to provide funds through s106 agreement(s) for compensatory habitat creation and management works. a) Can the Applicant and the Joint Councils provide an update on progress on these s106 agreement(s). b) Will there be one per affected local authority?


a) The Joint Councils are seeking to secure the payments promised under the Applicant's ES for off-site biodiversity mitigation across five of the six Joint Council administrative areas – Somerset County Council is not seeking a contribution. The contribution sums requested by the Joint Councils are not agreed by the Applicant. The Applicant has indicated that it will offer some level of funding but has not confirmed what level of funding that will be. It has been clear from recent correspondence received from the Applicant that the likely level of funding will be well below that required to fund the necessary off-site mitigation package of works proposed for Local Wildlife Sites and wildlife corridors: 'Permanent habitat losses are small and National Grid has committed to the reinstatement of temporarily affected habitats within local wildlife sites. Therefore the need for offsite mitigation is minimal. The permanent losses of habitat relate to the removal of trees and National Grid has already committed to 4 trees for every one lost. Over and above the reinstatement of works and offsetting funds already committed to by National Grid, in recognition that habitats within the Local Wildlife Sites may be affected for several years during–the construction phase and habitat enhancement period, National Grid has offered an appropriate level of funding through S106 Agreement'.

The Joint Councils do not agree that reinstatement of temporarily affected habitats within local wildlife sites will adequately mitigate the predicted significant effects on biodiversity in these areas. There are 92 ha of habitat within non-statutory sites affected by the project, across up to 52 individual sites. There are areas of habitat that will be lost permanently and part of the biodiversity Section 106 contribution ask is to fund the creation of necessary ecological off-set areas, to mitigate such losses.

The Joint Councils are content that the level of funding requested within the draft Section 106 is directly related to the development, necessary to make the development acceptable in biodiversity/planning terms and proportionate in both scale and kind. The Joint Councils will continue to seek the level of funding as it appears in the draft to ensure that

the necessary mitigation for the effects of HCCP are made available to the Joint Councils and their communities. Progress on this aspect of the draft Section 106 Agreement is subject to further negotiations with the Applicant.

The applicant and the Joint Councils (BCC & SGC) agree the principle that ecological offset funding should be required for ASEA Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) related habitat creation at Hallen

60

Marsh, and that the rate per hectare should be £26,500 (the Councils consider given the duration of the Proposed Development that this should be index linked). However due to a disagreement about the applicability of RSPB guidance and the consequent lack of agreement as to the width of buffer needed to the overhead lines (National Grid state 50m and the Councils 100m), the overall sum for habitat creation is not agreed at Hallen Marsh. Further details may be found in the JC’s Local Impact report (LIR) Section 12 and Appendix D, Section 4.


Discussions between National Grid and the Joint Councils are ongoing regarding the content and details of any s106 agreement. The Examining Authority will be provided an update on the progress of such discussions as soon as practicable.


61


Can parties indicate what progress has been made in reaching agreement on the s106 agreement with relevant local authorities to deliver the off-site planting and enhancement scheme (OSPES), which the Applicant indicated it will enter into in the ES (ES Volume 5.21.1, para 9.5.7 and ES Volume 5.25, para 7.1.1).


It was originally proposed that OSPES would be funded by the Applicant through Section 106 contributions and the monies used by the Joint Councils to deliver the scheme. This position shifted in December 2014 when the Applicant confirmed that Joint Council delivery would be subject to a competitive tender process and the assumption of all financial risks and penalties of non-delivery. The Joint Councils are not in a position to assume the contractual and financial risk required by the Applicant. It has now been agreed, in principle, that the Applicant will implement the scheme via Section 106 obligation.

The OSPES scheme proposed by the Applicant within the ES does not achieve the necessary landscape and visual mitigation for the predicted effects of the Project. The Joint Councils have put forward proposals for an augmented OSPES scheme which is detailed in the Arup note dated 19 January 2015. The augmented proposals, amongst other elements, provides for additional planting at 'pinch-points' and measures to off-set significant landscape and visual effects that will be experienced by users of the Public Rights of Way network. The Joint Councils await the Applicant's comments on/approval of its additional OSPES proposals.

The mechanism for the delivery of the scheme is not yet agreed. As a minimum, the Joint Councils will require input in the approval process of any contractor(s) for delivery of the scheme. The Applicant's commitment to deliver the scheme must be supported by a cash deposit/financial bond for the full estimate of the cost of the planting and provide for step in rights in any case of default. The final mechanism must also provide for submission to and approval by the Joint Councils of any amended scheme required due to failure/inability to implement the agreed OSPES scheme.


The funding for the OSPES would be secured via the section 106 agreement. The implementation of the OSPES will be subject of landowner agreement. See also response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.76 (Volume 8.1.1). National Grid considers the OSPES proposals are adequate. However, it has agreed to review the comments made by the local authorities regarding ‘pinch-points’.

62


The HRA Report (paras 6.4.10 – 6.4.17) and BMS (ES Volume 5.26.3, para 2.4.114) state that funds will be provided to Bristol City Council through a s106 agreement to undertake bird collision mortality monitoring at Hallen Marsh, if future habitat creation works at this site led to an increase in the number of birds using the area. a) Does the position of the Joint Councils remain as stated in their RR, namely that ‘NG should fit flight diverters during construction to avoid impact’? b) If so the Joint Councils to set out their reasons in full for stating that bird diverters be fitted during construction. c) Bristol City Council is asked to confirm if it is willing to enter into such a s106 agreement with the Applicant. d) If so, the Applicant and Bristol City Council to update the Panel on what progress has been made with the drafting of the s106 agreement and when the full, engrossed version of the agreement will be put before the examination. e) NE is requested to advise if, in the event of an agreement being reached, it is content with use of the collision mortality calculation monitoring method being that “set out for the section of overhead line south of Mark” (ES Volume 5.20.1, paras 6.4.10 – 6.4.17). f) Is NE satisfied with the proposal that Bristol City Council is best placed to decide when monitoring should be undertaken, or does NE consider it has a role in this regard?


See associated document 150226_EN020001_Joint Councils_1st Qs


Part (a)

The issues raised by the Joint Councils in their answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 part a) are covered in National Grid’s commentary within the Joint Councils’ SoCG (ID 8.1.2, ID 8.6.1, ID 8.6.2, 8.10.4) and responses to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 (including Appendix 4.79.1.1 and 4.80 including Appendix 4.80b.1.1, Volumes 8.1.1 and 8.2.2).

Part (b)

The issues raised by the Joint Councils in their answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 part b) are covered in National Grid’s commentary within the Joint Councils’ SoCG (ID 8.1.2, 8.6.1, 8.6.2, 8.10.4, 8.10.5) and responses to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 (including Appendix


63

4.79.1.1 and 4.80 including Appendix 4.80b.1.1 and Appendix 4.80b.2.1, Volumes 8.1.1 and 8.2.2).

In addition, National Grid agrees with the Joint Councils that correction factors would have to be applied to monitoring work to account for various biases caused by scavenger removal, observer bias and birds flying outside of the survey area. The monitoring document for Hallen Marsh sets out the commitment to undertake scavenger removal studies and to agree appropriate correction factors with the Hallen Marsh Bird Collision Monitoring Working Group. It is not agreed that applying such correction factors will invalidate the findings of the monitoring study or cause underestimates in detected or predicted collision mortality.

Part (c)

Further to the Joint Councils’ answer to Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 part c) National Grid confirms it will be responsible for delivering the monitoring at Hallen Marsh and the details of the Hallen Marsh monitoring document will be included in the BMS.

In addition, during construction of the Proposed Development, the BMS may be updated to reflect changes to the mitigation measures proposed where considered necessary and appropriate. Updates to the BMS would be agreed with the relevant planning authority, as set out in Requirement 5(4).

Part (d)

Further to the Joint Councils’ answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 (part d), National Grid directs the Examining Authority to its response to Examining Authority’s first round written question 17.15 (Volume 8.1.3).


e) Since the ES was drafted, NE has had a constructive meeting with the applicant to refine the approach to monitoring collision mortality. This has resulted in the applicant agreeing a new approach which should supersede the approach currently set out within the ES. A draft plan (Bird Mortality Monitoring And Thresholds 1979.71.003.012) is at an advanced stage and the applicant advises NE that a final version should be ready shortly. NE is satisfied that the generic approach to bird collision/mortality monitoring being developed within the revised plan is sound. This plan, however, adopts an approach to risk and uncertainty based upon a potential reduction in existing baseline mortality levels. This approach is being followed for the area south

64

of Mark as it will replace an existing line, will use T-pylons (a design shown to result in lower levels of bird collision) and have diverters fitted at key stages of the route. The new line at Hallen Marsh, however, will not replace an existing line and will not use T-pylons design or have bird diverters fitted up front. Taking this into account as well as potential future habitat improvements at Hallen Marsh (owing to increased bird usage) baseline mortality is therefore likely to increase rather than decrease. This might warrant a more specific monitoring response, or for habitat improvement plans to be reviewed. f) NE is satisfied that Bristol City Council is best placed to decide when monitoring should be undertaken, however we would suggest Bristol City Council seek our advice in advance, to ensure its plans are ecologically sound and to ensure consistency with the wider approach. Both monitoring proposals (area south of Mark and Hallen Marsh) seek to monitor effects from a single project that affects the same European sites and, therefore, must be considered in-combination to determine whether potential impacts might occur post construction (which could then be minimised through additional mitigation measures). Whilst certain aspects of the monitoring proposals might legitimately differ, there cannot be two separate mortality thresholds that each relate to a point of impact on the European site, yet are applied separately thereby inadvertently doubling the scale of permissible impact. A working group has been proposed as part of the overall plan contained within the draft document Bird Mortality Monitoring And Thresholds 1979.71.003.012). Should the two monitoring proposals retain a degree of independence, as a minimum all parties should contribute to the main working group.


Part (e)

Further to Natural England’s answer to Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 part e), National Grid can confirm a bespoke Bird Collision Monitoring Strategy for Hallen Marsh has been developed (Volume 8.2.2, Appendix 4.79.1.1, Document Ref: 1979.71.003.015). National Grid is consulting with Natural England on this document.

Part (f)

Further to Natural England’s answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.79 (part f), National Grid can confirm that the Hallen Marsh Bird Collision Monitoring Working Group provisions set out in the monitoring document for Hallen Marsh would encourage Natural England and Bristol City Council to exchange advice.


65

National Grid can also confirm that the proposal for bespoke approaches to agreeing bird mortality thresholds (for Hallen Marsh and south of Mark) reflects a number of factors. It cannot yet be confirmed whether the monitoring to be undertaken at the section of the proposed 400kV overhead line south of Mark will be during the same winter periods as that proposed for Hallen Marsh. This is due to uncertainties regarding the timing of the habitat enhancements proposed for Hallen Marsh and therefore when monitoring will be commenced at this location.

There is also flexibility over which years monitoring will be undertaken south of Mark, as this depends on the monitoring findings in the first year of survey. Without concurrent monitoring it would be very difficult to apply a single threshold to determine whether in-combination impacts of the two sections of line were occurring.

66


The 26 August 2014 representation by the Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium, referred to in its RR refers to three key principles that are under discussion with the Applicant a) Can the Applicant inform the Panel of the progress of the discussions and agreements made b) The Drainage Board Consortium may wish to express a view.


The three key principles referred to in our representation of August 2014 and their current status are outlined below. • Any new infrastructure, including pylon or tower bases, haul roads, fencing, compound areas or any other construction, is sited at least 9m away from the banks of any watercourse. We regulate activities such as these under our Land Drainage Byelaws. Land Drainage Consent will be required from the Board for any proposals within the 9m Byelaw width. This is referred to in the draft SOGC and National Grid have committed that it is not their intention to place permanent features within the 9m Byelaw width. Should this not be possible they have committed to apply for Land Drainage Consent from the relevant IDB. However we remain concerned that the construction haul roads have specifically been excluded from this commitment in favour of a generalised compliance with PPG5. We have raised our concern with National Grid over this matter and it is an unresolved matter in the SOCG. • Any watercourse access crossing point, cabling that passes beneath any watercourse, or any other construction in, under or over any watercourse is constructed in such a way that will not adversely impact on the ability of the watercourse to function properly, be maintained efficiently or be improved in future. We regulate these activities under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act. Land Drainage Consent for these types of proposal will be required from the Board. This is referred to in the SOCG with a commitment from National Grid to apply for the relevant consents under the Act • Any new construction will not increase the surface water runoff rate or volume of water entering the drainage network or detrimentally affect surface water distribution within the local or wider catchments. Land Drainage Consent will be required for any new connections or modifications to existing connections to the watercourses.


67

This is referred to in the SOCG but there is insufficient detail at this stage for specific solutions. However there is a commitment from National Grid to apply for the relevant consents under the Act.


National Grid continues to engage with the Internal Drainage Boards (IDB) on these matters.

By way of clarification, with respect to the IDBs’ comments on clearance from watercourses and haul roads, the reason that a commitment cannot be made that haul roads will not be placed within 9m of watercourses is that, given the linear nature of the Proposed Development and the complex system of ditches and rhynes, the haul roads will necessarily have to cross numerous watercourses.

National Grid recognises the IDBs’ concerns regarding haul roads and stability of watercourse banks, and the possible obstruction of watercourses with temporary features. However, as the IDBs’ response above acknowledges, Land Drainage Consent would be sought for all works within 9m of ordinary watercourses, which would allow National Grid’s designs, methodologies etc. to be regulated.

68


In the 26 August 2014 Representation by the Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium, referred to in its RR; it is stated that within the current draft DCO, the Applicant is “seeking to disapply a number of the Boards Land Drainage Byelaws. We do not support this part of the DCO and therefore ask that the Inspectorate does not approve the section of the DCO”. a) Can the Applicant respond to this representation. b) The Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium may wish to respond also.


The Drainage Boards have consistently advised the applicant that disapplication of relevant legislation, regulatory powers and Byelaws is considered unacceptable. Limited progress has been made, in the form of retention of Byelaws 6, 9 and 10 however in order to retain its necessary regulatory function we would wish to retain all relevant legislation and Byelaws. We refer to this as an unresolved matter in the draft SOCG.


National Grid continues to work with the Internal Drainage Boards with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable position.


69


The 26 August 2014 Representation by the Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium, referred to in its RR also referred to “a number of outstanding technical issues” (four). a) Can the Applicant respond to this and report on progress in respect of each issue b) Identify issues that are still outstanding

Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium and North Somerset IDBs‘ response

The Outstanding Technical issues referred to in our representation of August 2014 and their current status are outlined below. • We asked that sufficient time is allowed for further consultation with the Boards should conditional approval be granted. Our concern being that should further modifications to the proposal be required we and National Grid may need to reconsider the impact of such changes on the Boards interest. We have had no further dialogue in this regard however we remain concerned that sufficient time should be allowed. • We asked what provision is being made for future access for maintenance of the overhead cables and new towers. Also for the removal of the old infrastructure. We understand that the proposed access culverts and haul roads will only be temporary installations for the new overhead lines. It is unclear what provision is being made for these other related matters and what impact this may have on the Boards interests. We have had no further dialogue in this regard and the situation remains unchanged. • We asked that where undergrounding of cables is proposed we will need to understand the impact on ground water movements and agree measures to avoid any detriment to the drainage of the area. We have had no further dialogue in this regard and the situation remains unchanged. We have identified this in our discussions with National Grid and in the SOCG. • We stated that we wish to ensure that no permanent loss or damage of habitat arises as a consequence of the development proposals and we would be keen to agree appropriate replacement/mitigation where this cannot be avoided. We have had no further dialogue in this regard and the situation remains as detailed in the application.


Consultation with the IDBs

As is stated in the SoCG between the parties (Volume 8.6.8), National Grid is continuing to work with the Internal Drainage Boards (IDB) to enter into a Consents Agreement that would establish working arrangements to allow for

70

sufficient time for detailed consideration of Land Drainage Consent applications and other matters.

Maintenance arrangements

National Grid will provide the IDBs with further information with regard to access for maintenance.

Groundwater movements

Please see National Grid’s response the Examining Authority’s first round written question 6.1.

Habitat Loss

National Grid will provide the IDBs with further information with regard to habitat mitigation measures to ensure their concerns are addressed.


71


Are the Boards content with the arrangements for dealing with rainfall events that may affect crossings over primary drainage ditches of haul roads and trenches?


North Somerset Levels IDB have not had detailed discussions with National Grid to the same extent as the Parrett and Axe Brue Drainage Boards. The draft SOCG summarises the discussion so far and we have asked that more detail is presented in a similar way to that for the Parrett and Axe Brue IDBs. The Boards have not been presented with details of overhead cable heights or where cables will pass under watercourses and this too has been raised in our response to the draft SOCG


National Grid has engaged extensively with North Somerset Levels Internal Drainage Board (NSIDB) (see pages 8-9 of the SoCG between the parties (Volume 8.3.8)) including initial discussion of clearance heights above watercourses. More recent discussions have taken place with the Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium on the basis of their close working relationship.

The Examining Authority is referred to National Grid’s comments on the response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.10 above.

The SoCG (Volume 8.3.8) confirms agreement in principle to various technical details. However, it should be noted that all underground cable watercourse crossings, as well as temporary bridges and culverts, within the regulatory control of the IDBs would remain subject to separate Land Drainage Consents.

72


Where underground cables are to be constructed in trenches: a) Please demonstrate for a number of test cases that the new construction will not interfere with sub-soil throughflow and the current subsoil drainage regime? and b) Examine and demonstrate that there is no possibility of building up local perched water tables and surface ponded areas that might have an adverse effect on agriculture?


The Drainage Boards wish to be advised of the impact that underground sections of the connection will have on groundwater movements and water tables. These are important aspects of flood and water management and the impacts of the proposals are unclear to us at present.


As is set out in the draft CEMP at ES (Volume 5.26.1A), in accordance with Requirements 6 and 17 of the DCO (Volume 2.1B), a Drainage Management Plan (DMP) will be produced, following detailed drainage investigations and hydrological assessments, which will determine potential risks in relation to the water environment, including land drains, and identify appropriate control measures to avoid or reduce the risks.

Examples of the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the risk to the water environment are described in the draft CEMP at Section 3.4. Each DMP will be approved by the consenting authority prior to the commencement of the relevant stage of construction works.

In addition, as set out in the draft CEMP at Section 3.3, in accordance with requirement 6 of the DCO (Volume 2.1B), a Soil Management Plan (SMP) will be produced, to be approved by the relevant planning authority, prior to the commencement of the relevant stage of the construction works. Examples of the measures to protect soils are provided in the draft CEMP at Section 3.3.

Further, soil surveys and ground investigations, in accordance with requirement 18 of the DCO (Volume 2.1B) and as set out within the draft CEMP at Paragraphs 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 and the ES at Volume 5.9.1, Paragraph 9.7.12, will be carried out prior to the commencement of the relevant stage of the construction works. National Grid has also committed to undertaking additional soil surveys and ground investigation within the SoCG.

Potential issues relating to perched water tables and surface ponded areas, which may have an adverse effect on agriculture will be identified and addressed through the DMP and SMP.


73


a) Have the effects on living conditions of the noise of buzzing given off by high tension lines in certain weather conditions, and of noise which might be generated by transformers and other plant and equipment been assessed? b) Interested parties are invited to comment


As set out at issue 14.16 of the SoCG The Joint Councils question the ‘moderate adverse’ effects assessment findings due to the uncertainty associated with the operation of the T-pylon. The ES is unclear how unique noise curves for each transmission tower and conductor bundle (as per TR(T)94) have been derived for the assessment of the T pylon noise and as such the ES is unclear how the data for T-pylon within the assessment has been validated. Given that assumptions have to be made (as the T-pylons are not yet operational or have not yet been tested) the Joint Councils agree that National Grid has undertaken an assessment that is appropriate based on current knowledge. However, the nature of the T-pylon as new technology still leaves uncertainty in the assessment of effects and therefore the potential effect on receptors. The Councils maintain that National Grid should provide for this uncertainty by way of Community Impact Mitigation (CIM) fund which would be drawn down only in the event that unforeseen impacts were identified during operation


Further clarification on T pylon noise is included in National Grid’s written responses to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 11.30 (Volume 8.1.2).

National Grid does not consider that the creation of a Community Impact Mitigation (CIM) fund is necessary or appropriate. For further clarification see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.75 (Volume 8.1.1).

74


ES Vol 5.11.1, para 11.4.13 and 11.1.14, Potential for Previously Unknown Archaeological Remains: a) Little field assessment appears to have taken place in areas of potentially high archaeological content such as the Puriton Ridge, the Mendip Hills and Tickenham Ridge. When will this assessment take place and what scope is there for adjusting the line of the works to mitigate harm to archaeological remains if any are identified? (c.f.: para 11.4.13). b) What confidence is there that areas of fundamental archaeological interest would not be disturbed, especially in the underground sections where limited scope for minimising impact by adjusting pylon positions would be available? What would happen if they were? Is the use of HDD rather than open cut techniques a possibility? c) Regarding OSPES, are the Joint Councils prepared to investigate the potential impact of broad areas of planting on archaeology as the Applicant suggests they should?


c) The Joint Councils consider OSPES essential mitigation that must be secured by National Grid as set out in the Joint Councils response to question 18.3. National Grid should be responsible for the delivery of OSPES, and therefore should investigate the potential impacts on archaeology. The Local Planning authority should be consulted on any new impacts identified and any further mitigation proposed via the detailed method statements (in addition, please note the Joint Councils request for pre-commencement submission and approval of a WSI in Q.4.44). The applicant should also demonstrate that the replacement planting scheme, detailed under the Joint Councils response to question 9.14, to be submitted in accordance with Requirement 10 would not impact on archaeology. It may be appropriate to update Figure 1 of the WSI, to facilitate archaeological mitigation or investigation in any potentially archaeological sensitive areas that may be disturbed by OSPES, or the replacement planting scheme


Schedule 3 of the Draft Agreement between National Grid and the Joint Councils pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Volume 8.4) states that National Grid will implement the OSPES in accordance with the OSPES delivery scheme.

In delivering the OSPES National Grid will ensure that the likely effects are discussed with the relevant LPA’s archaeological advisor and a suitable consideration of effects on archaeological remains included in the scope of work, as described in the OSPES at ES Volume 5.25.2, Paragraph 7.6.5.

National Grid notes the Joint Councils’ suggestion to update Figure 1 of the Outline WSI

(ES Volume 5.26.4A). National Grid will review this, and make amendments to the Outline WSI where appropriate, prior to the end of the Examination.


75

The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE) (formerly English Heritage)‘s response

(b) We do have concerns with the use of HHD in some areas as this will remove the ability to undertake certain geophysics surveys in the future. The areas will also not be fully assessed archaeologically as they will not have a direct impact from the development. This means there will be no gain of knowledge to offset the loss of ability to survey. There is also the future maintenance of the HHD routes which may involve the excavation of the cabling to access them. This work may not involve archaeological mitigation and there is the potential for loss of information on any archaeology surviving in these areas.


Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a viable option for preserving heritage assets with archaeological interest. The HBMCE has, in the SoCG (Volume 8.3.15 ID11.21), accepted the methods proposed in the ES (Volume 5.11.1) and Outline WSI (Volume 5.26.4A), which include the potential use of HDD.

76


ES Vol 5.26.4, Outline Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI): a) The Joint Councils are asked to develop their critique of the Outline WSI set out in their RR. In particular, are they satisfied that the content and the level of detail will allow them to discharge their responsibilities under ES Vol 2.1A Draft DCO Requirement 5 (CEMP)? b) The Joint Councils’ RR states that detailed site investigations should have informed the assessment of residual effects on the historic environment and that in the absence of this, a robust mitigation framework is essential. Could they clarify what they mean by a robust mitigation framework and how they would expect to see it delivered? c) How do the Applicant and the Joint Councils envisage the assembly and approval of the detailed method statements referred to in the WSI? d) EH has raised concerns about the adequacy of archaeological assessment. What further ground investigations does it consider necessary and what changes would EH like to see made to the Outline WSI?


See associated documents 150226_EN020001_Joint Councils_1st Qs


Part a)

National Grid has revised the Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.26.4A) which identifies at Paragraphs 1.7 and 1.18 the Joint Councils’ role in agreeing appropriate detailed mitigation proposals and in approving updates to the Outline WSI and detailed method statements and this was submitted to the Examination on 22 January 2015. This complies with the policy provisions of Paragraph 5.8.21 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). The WSI is in draft and amendments will be made to it during Examination as necessary.

National Grid will consider the Joint Councils’ additional comments and make amendments to the Outline WSI, where appropriate, prior to submission to the Examining Authority prior to the end of the Examination. Part b)

National Grid believes that Requirement 5 of the draft DCO is appropriate and covers the issues raised by the Joint Councils. National Grid does not see the merit or need for an additional requirement on this matter.

National Grid does not consider that there is any need for payment to the Joint Councils for the monitoring of the implementation of mitigation. National Grid, as a responsible developer, will have robust monitoring and


77

compliance systems and has committed to self-imposed monitoring regarding mitigation. It does not agree that additional funding, in addition to that payable for the discharge of Requirements, is either required or justified.

HBMCE (formerly English Heritage) ‘s response

(d) Further ground investigations. The post consent mitigation will need to start with detailed consultation with the relevant Local Authority Archaeological Officer (LAAO) to identify those areas needing further investigation. The areas listed for further investigation in the Outline WSI are only an indication of the areas needing further detailed pre-construction investigation. The LAAO will be able to identify further areas of archaeological potential. The nature and extent of that further investigation will depend on the known archaeological potential in those areas. In the Levels and Moors further geo- archaeological coring is required with full sequence recovery followed by analysis and scientific dating. In other areas geophysics followed by trial trenching will be more appropriate. At all stages the LAAO and HBMCE need to be consulted to ensure the appropriate work is undertaken, based on local knowledge of sites. The programme of archaeological investigation pre- construction needs to be fully integrated with the construction programme. This is to ensure the work is done in a suitable timeframe to allow for proper investigation and analysis of the results prior to further recommendations for mitigation being agreed.


National Grid wishes to note that in the SoCG (Volume 8.3.15, Table 4.1, ID11.3), the parties agree that sufficient programme and resource would be made available between consent of the Proposed Development and construction activities commencing to allow for the implementation of the pre-construction programme of works described in the Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.26.4A).

National Grid also notes The HBMCE’s agreement to the embedded mitigation measures proposed in the ES (Volume 5.11.1, Section 11.7) and Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.26.4A), as recorded in the SoCG (Volume 8.3.15, ID 11.19 - 11.23).

78


ES Vol 5.11.1, para 11.5.7, Construction Effects - critical sites: Confusion exists in relation to AR79 and AR279. Para 11.5.16 refers to AR79 but cross references Inset 11.6 which shows AR279. Also, para 11.5.10 lists AR279 in a group of Major Adverse significance of effect, whereas para 11.5.6 describes the effect as moderate adverse. AR279 is also referred to in para 11.5.17. Clarification sought. a) Remains associated with Horsey and Crook Deserted Medieval Settlements (AR20 and AR 23), significance of effect: Major Adverse. Para 11.5.7 notes that the assets are of high heritage significance, given their high evidential value, and that construction of a CSE compound, a new pylon, the easement of the Bridgewater Tee underground cable connection and access tracks would result in truncation of the earthworks and physically impact buried archaeological remains. b) What investigations, including trial trenching, has the Applicant undertaken to avoid the earthworks and guard against harm to archaeological remains, and has this resulted in adjustment of the route? c) What scope for adjustment of the route or relocation of components is there? d) What other precautions or mitigation is available besides excavation in advance of construction? e) Shrunken Settlement, Webbington (AR77), high heritage significance, working area overlaps by some 40%. Also AR78 and AR79 to the north (enclosure and possible Roman or Iron Age Field), working area overlaps. Could the working areas be adjusted to minimise impact? What other precautions or mitigation is available? f) Roman Remains (AR288-291) including multiple Roman buildings, partly excavated, near Max Mills (AR289). The buried cables would go straight through the partly excavated Roman buildings and mitigation proposed is excavation in advance of construction. Is there no alternative? g) Roman villa (AR172), part excavated during the 1960s, within the pinch point at Tickenham, significance of effect is predicted as major adverse. It lies in the working area for the 132kV undergrounding and therefore risks obliteration. Is it possible for the undergrounding to follow the 400kV pylon route, if necessary lying beneath the pylon bases? Alternatively, is it possible to narrow the working area at this point to avoid the asset? What other precautions or mitigation are possible besides full excavation? h) HL409 (probable barrow, a mound within an arable field) significance of effect is predicted as major adverse. What scope is there for avoiding this feature in the 132kV undergrounding works?


79

i)HL63 (Celtic field system with banks and lynchets, may be associated with Roman or Iron Age agricultural activity) significance of effect is major adverse. The 132kV undergrounding route appears to go straight through it. Besides controlled strip in advance of construction, what mitigation is possible? j) Stone-batch edge deserted medieval village (AR175) of high heritage significance would be subject to one pylon location. Perhaps harm could be avoided by careful relocation of the pylon. A similar situation exists with AR141 (Roman kiln). k) HL68 (continuation of Mere Bank, SM260), para 11.5.22 suggests that HDD techniques rather than open cut would reduce the magnitude of effect. Which option is proposed?

HBMCE‘s response) (Formerly English Heritage)

We have had no communication from the Applicant about this. As we explain in our written representation (paragraph 51) the lack of pre-determination survey and evaluation has meant we are not able to fully appreciate the impact of the Sealing End Compound on the highly significant assets. This has then impacted on concerns with post consent archaeological works; see our answer to 8.8 above.


The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE) notes in its Written Representation (Page 7, Paragraph 27 and Page 15, Paragraph 66) that discussions have taken place with regards to the potential for non-intrusive surveys to be undertaken outside of the Development Consent Order Limits at Horsey and Crook Deserted Medieval Settlement, which HBMCE considers would help compensate for the harm to the setting of the asset. National Grid, as previously indicated, is willing to continue discussions with HBMCE regarding these surveys.

National Grid notes HBMCE’s agreement to the method of assessment and baseline environment described by ES Volume 5.11.1, Sections 11.3 (Method) and 11.4 (Baseline Conditions), as recorded in the SoCG (Volume 8.13.5, ID 11.1-11.5).


See associated documents 150226_ENO20001_Joint Councils_1st Qs


Requirement 5 of the draft DCO secures the provision of the Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.26.4A) which identifies at Paragraphs 1.7 and 1.18 the Joint Councils’ role in agreeing appropriate detailed mitigation proposals and in approving updates to the Outline WSI and detailed method statements.

At Paragraph 1.19, the WSI identifies that the Joint Councils will be invited to monitor archaeological fieldwork. National Grid considers the Outline WSI to recognise the role of the Joint Councils and to be compliant with the

80

policy provisions of paragraph 5.8.21 of Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1).


81


ES Vol 5.11.1, para 11.5.7, Operational Effects – critical effects on settings: a) SM45, Horsey Deserted Medieval Village and AR23, Crook Deserted Village. The new pylons are seen in VPA9, but it is important to gain an appreciation of the impact of the two new CSE compounds, one of which would be built within AR23. The setting analysis texts (Appendix 11B, p.186 and p.191) describe the compounds as substantial new elements in the setting; and a new dominating element of the setting. Material sufficient to illustrate the effect should be supplied. b) LB47, Church of St Mark, Mark. The Grade I listed church stands on a slight knoll and there may be intervisibility, or associative connections with the power line. A setting analysis text would be helpful. c) LB264, Grade II* listed Church of St John the Baptist, Biddisham. The Joint Councils should articulate their concerns regarding the effect of the Project on the setting of Biddisham Church, LB85, Grade I listed Church of St Quiricus and St Julietta, Tickenham, Tickenham Court and associated heritage assets. Cf.: 8.1(d) above. This is a very sensitive area, with many heritage considerations, the potential for cumulative effects from allocated development north–west of Nailsea, on the other side of the proposed power line, and very tight surroundings for the installation of substantial infrastructure. We need to be satisfied that theeffects on the settings of the heritage assets is acceptable. Demonstrate how the effects would change arising from changes of location of the line within the LoD. d) LB129, Grade I listed Church of St Mary, Portbury. The pylon line would be very close and would introduce a new, very dominant element into the setting of the church, despite screening with vegetation, which may change in time and therefore vary in its effectiveness. Rather than questions of intervisibility, concerns exist over the effect on the setting experienced from wider positions including those to the north and east, with the power line in the foreground. A further photomontage from a point to the north would be helpful to assess the effect of the Project on the Church and other historic assets in Portbury. e) Grade I LB134, Kings Weston House. Photomontage VPG7 shows the lattice pylons of the new line joining cranes and wind turbines in the distance above the skyline, seen from Kings Weston House. (The line to be removed does not break the skyline.) There are several other important listed buildings and RPGs in the vicinity, and the Conservation Area as a whole would also be affected. Is VPG7 a worst case representation of the experience from these other historic assets? f) SM260, Mere Bank, Avonmouth. The new pylons would be taller than those replaced. A photomontage, from

82

Mere Bank Road would be helpful to judge effects of the Project on the asset’s setting. g) SM87, Pixie’s Mound, Hinkley. Despite VPH1, an accompanied site visit is necessary to appreciate the effect on the setting. h) BH6, Knowle Hall and HL78, Knowle Park. Although undesignated and much altered, the assets occupy a significant position in the landscape. A photomontage would be helpful to assess the effects of the line and CSE compounds on the settings of the assets. i) Loxton Conservation Area and undesignated buildings. Loxton overlooks the Webbington CSE from an elevated position. However, the conservation area setting appraisal tabulation (Appendix 11B, Table 6) tells us the significance of the Loxton Conservation Area would not be affected. Also, besides the listed church, Loxton has a number of buildings such as the Hall which might be expected to be at least undesignated heritage assets but are not identified in the ES. Show that the assessments for Loxton are appropriate. j) BH61, No.1 Granary/CWS Wheat Silo. The text of the settings analysis (ES Vol 5.11.2.5, Appendix 11B) describes the asset as a dominant landmark that defines the area as relating to its docklands past, and that the new pylons would comprise a prominent element of the setting increased by the eye-catching presence of the overhead lines passing in front. The Panel considers that the significance of the effect of the Project on the setting may have been underestimated. EH and the Joint Councils are invited to comment.


a)The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (a) b) The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (b) c) Tickenham/Nailsea area – due to the open nature of the moors landscape in this locality it is difficult to envisage how the impact on these listed buildings from the pylons can be mitigated. Therefore as mitigation National Grid through the S106 are offering to contribute to improvements to the Church and additional planting in the OSPES has been suggested by the Joint Councils d) The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (d) e) The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (e) f) The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (f)


83

g) Acknowledge & agreed h) The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (h) i) The Joint Councils would like to consider the Applicant’s response to point (i) j) The Joint Councils have no further comment to make on the impact of the proposed development on this designation.


National Grid notes that Joint Councils response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 8.11 part c) references the Church of St Quiricus and St Julietta at Tickenham and the Church of St John the Baptist at Biddisham. In relation to these assets:

a commitment is set out at Schedule 8 of the Draft Agreement between National Grid and the Joint Councils pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Volume 8.4) to provide financial contribution towards mitigation works at Tickenham Church; and

measures already included in the OSPES (ES Volume 5.25.1, enhancement reference number IDMB1.68) propose enhancement works described as “additional hedge gap planting with trees to further reduce adverse visual effects and strengthen landscape character” to the west of the Church of St John the Baptist at Biddisham, between the Church and the Proposed Development.

84


ES Vol 5.11.1, para 11.6.4, Landscape, including OSPES Mitigation: a) How has the landscape mitigation strategy, secured through Requirement 9 of the DCO, taken the historic environment into account? b) To what extent would the OSPES mitigate harm to the historic environment? c) What assessment has been made to ensure the OSPES does not harm the historic environment through the obstruction of views and so on. d) As the OSPES cannot be secured through the DCO there is no certainty that the measures required to protect historic assets would be implemented. Should changes to the OSPES be agreed outside the DCO process, can we be confident that the delivery and effectiveness of mitigation measures secured in the DCO would not be affected?


a) The Joint Councils have provided additional planting proposals they consider to be necessary to mitigate those residual effects which are capable of mitigation through landscaping. This includes consideration of planting for mitigation of effects on the historic environment, where effects are capable of further mitigation via landscaping. National Grid’s assessment of the residual effects on heritage assets concludes that there would be a permanent, moderate adverse effect on Grade I listed St Quiricus and St Julietta church at Tickenham. This harm cannot be reduced by embedded mitigation; however National Grid recognises that there are measures which it could provide a financial contribution towards, that can be defined as ‘heritage benefits’ and could weigh in favour of a proposed development by reducing harm. b) In SoCG ID 11.22 the Joint Councils consider that in lieu of embedded mitigation for the effects of the Proposed Development on the setting of heritage assets where additional OSPES may not be practical, National Grid should consider the provision of measures to offset the predicted adverse effects. As set out in LIR ID 5.5. The Joint Councils consider that further mitigation is available to National Grid to offset the impact of the proposed scheme on the setting of historic buildings. This would be secured via the CIM fund, to be put towards specific projects that could:

• Enhance the micro local setting of each historic asset; • Be put towards physical restoration or conservation works that would help to ensure the viable

continued use of the asset into the longer term; and • Provide of local historic interpretation so that the assets can better be appreciated by the public


85

despite the harm caused to their setting. c) The Joint Councils are not aware of the applicant having investigated the potential for OSPES to harm the historic environment. d) The Joint Councils consider OSPES essential mitigation that must be secured by National Grid as set out in the Joint Councils response to question 18.3.


Part a)

National Grid notes the Joint Councils’ response.

Part b)

National Grid does not consider that the creation of a CIM fund is necessary or appropriate. For further clarification see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.75 (Volume 8.1.1).

Part c)

National Grid refers to its response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 8.15 part c provided in Volume 8.1.2 Paragraphs 8.15.5 – 8.15.8.

Part d)

National Grid refers to its comment on the Joint Council’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 8.7 provided above.

86


What further mitigation do the Joint Councils consider necessary in relation to historic heritage?


In addition to the mitigation outlined in answer to question 8.8 (b), the Joint Councils consider that the following mitigation measures are also necessary:-

• financial contributions towards improvements to the settings of Church of St Quiricus and St Julietta at Tickenham and Stone-edge-Batch, Tickenham Valley environment, to be secured via S106 agreement;

• CIM fund to offset settings impacts on heritage buildings that are deemed to be of less than substantial harm at St Mary Church, Portbury, where landscaping via OSPES is not feasible to secure sufficient mitigation;

• The Joint Councils require additional OSPES to be secured via S106 agreement to alleviate the worst landscape and visual effects at the following receptors: Church of St John, Biddisham, Grade II* (LB264); and, Church of St Mark, Mark, Grade I.

NSC have requested the following to be secured via S106 agreement:

• A sum towards the purchase of geophysics equipment to enable community groups to carry out archaeological work to further better understanding and recording of revealed archaeology.

• A sum towards a project to gather, collate and prepare a deposit model for the whole of the Northmarsh by gathering all available archaeological, geoarchaelogical, geological, lidar, borehole, trial pit and other data. The effects of undergrounding at Nailsea/Tickenham and Gordano, and at Lox Yeo and Sandford, and the effects of deep piling for T-pylons, on the existing peats and alluviums of the Northmarsh will be profound. Dewatering and physical and chemical effects from the works will almost certainly lead to deterioration of the preserved archaeology. Unlike Sedgemoor, the preserved organic archaeology in the Northmarsh is little understood. In order to understand these effects, and the background of the Northmarsh and its archaeology and particular, and in order to mitigate archaeological effects from this and future projects

• A sum towards the recovery, recording and publication of data in relation to the Winthill/Max Mills Roman burial site. Contribution to fund for recovering and publication of data of various archaeological interventions at this nationally important and (partly) Scheduled site (Winthill/Max Mills Romana – British site), some of which will be destroyed by the undergrounding works.


In relation to the Church of St Quiricus and St Julietta at Tickenham, National Grid refers to the measures set out at Schedule 8 of the Draft Agreement between National Grid and the Joint Councils pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Volume 8.4).


87

A commitment is set out at Schedule 8 of the Draft Agreement between National Grid and the Joint Councils pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Volume 8.4) to provide a financial contribution towards mitigation works at St Mary’s Church, Portbury.

National Grid does not consider that the creation of a CIM fund is necessary or appropriate. For further clarification see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.75 (Volume 8.1.1).

National Grid does not consider additional measures in relation to the Church of St Mark at Mark and the Church of St John at Biddisham to be necessary because:

The Proposed Development would not result in any loss of, or harm to, the significance of the Church of St Mark. A setting analysis is provided at Volume 8.1.2, response to Examining Authority’s first round written question 8.11(b).

Measures already included in the OSPES (ES Volume 5.25.1) (enhancement reference number IDMB1.68) propose enhancement works described as “additional hedge gap planting with trees to further reduce adverse visual effects and strengthen landscape character” to the west of the Church of St John the Baptist, between the Church and the Proposed Development.

National Grid considers that the approach to public outreach described in Section 11 of the Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.26.4A) is reasonable, proportionate and consistent with the policy provisions of Paragraphs 5.8.19 - 5.8.22 of EN-1.

National Grid does not believe that additional funding to provide a programme of public outreach works via s106 contribution is justified, given the provisions included in the Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.26.4A) which National Grid will require its archaeological contractors to provide.

National Grid will require its archaeological contractors to comply with relevant professional standards and best practice, as set out in the Outline WSI (ES Volume 5.24.6A), in publishing and disseminating the results of the archaeological fieldwork undertaken to mitigate the effects of the Proposed Development on heritage assets with archaeological interest for the entire development area. The publication of results will be the responsibility of National Grid and their archaeological contractor (as set out at Paragraph 5.8.20 of EN-1). North Somerset Council will be consulted on the scope of post excavation publication, but National Grid does not consider it to be necessary or justified to provide funds to North Somerset Council for the items and activities identified.

Please also refer to the ‘Drafting Note’ at Schedule 8 of the Draft Agreement between National Grid and the Joint

88

Councils pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Volume 8.4).


89


a) The Joint Councils are asked to provide further clarification about the way in which they consider the magnitude of change has been underestimated in the Applicant’s assessment of landscape and visual effects, as stated in their RR. b) In their RR, the Joint Councils suggest that methodological issues raised will give rise to significant major adverse (landscape and visual) effects left unmitigated. Can the Joint Councils specify what they consider these to be?


a) i. The Joint Councils consider that National Grid has under assessed the significance of landscape effects in Section C and Section G. The Joint Councils consider that the overall moderate beneficial operational effect of the Proposed Development identified in Section C does not fully take account of the minor adverse direct and indirect effects anticipated in the Mendip Hills AONB (Section C). In Table 6.18, balancing a single moderate beneficial effect with four minor adverse effects does not logically result in an overall moderate beneficial effect. The Joint Councils consider that at best an overall neutral or minor beneficial significance of effect would be more appropriate. a) ii. There are several instances where the Joint Councils consider the magnitude of visual effects has been underestimated. These include receptors at the following locations: • Polden ridge - particularly at the junction of PRoWs BW 28/1 and BW 2/46 In Section A; • Mark, at Dwelling - B1.H51, PRoW - AX23/10 and roads B1.R13 and B1.R12/11 in Section B; • Cripps Farm - caravan site B1.M7 and dwelling B1.H34 in Section B; • M5 users at Portbury in respect of Route Option A in Section F; • Residents of Avonmouth Village at receptors G1.H45 and G1.H46 in Section G: and • Receptors H1.F1, F2, F3, F15, F16, R1, R6, R8, H1, H2 and H4 overlooking Wick Moor in Section H. It is also considered that the magnitude of visual change as a result of development at Route Option B has been overestimated in respect of dwellings F1.H17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and on PRoW receptors F1, F10 and 11. b) The Joint Councils do not agree with the way in which National Grid appear to have combined

90

judgements on sensitivity and magnitude to arrive at an assessment of overall significance. A medium magnitude effect on a highly sensitive receptor is judged as of “Moderate” significance. ‘Moderate’ seems illogical and it is considered that a ‘Major’ significance would be more appropriate. In the ES, the only scenarios that would lead to an effect of Major significance are where high magnitudes of change would be experienced by receptors of high or medium sensitivity. The approach described in the method unduly moderates the significance of the effects predicted (the moderate category is much broader than the major category). This if further detailed in the SoCG ID 6.1 and 7.1. The Joint Councils have provided additional planting proposals they consider to be adequate to mitigate those residual effects which are capable of mitigation through landscaping. These have been provided to National Grid as additional OSPES and are detailed within the LIR.


Part a)

The Joint Councils answer at part a i) has been addressed by National Grid in the SoCG between the Joint Councils and National Grid, at SoCG ID 6.1, 6.3 and 6.6 (Volume 8.3.12).

The Joint Councils answer to part a ii) identifies instances the Joint Councils consider the magnitude of visual effects has been underestimated. These points have been addressed by National Grid in the Joint Councils’ SoCG (Volume 8.3.12) at the following locations:

SoCG ID 7.1;

Section A: SoCG ID 7.5;

Section B: SoCG ID 7.6;

Section C (not referred to in the Joint Councils’ answer): SoCG ID 7.7;

Section D (not referred to in the Joint Councils’ answer): SoCG ID 7.8;

Section E (not referred to in the Joint Councils’ answer): SoCG ID 7.9;

Section F: SoCG ID 7.10;

Section G: SoCG ID 7.11.1; and

Section H: SoCG ID 7.12.

As set out in Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 7.1; National Grid is content that its assessments are appropriate but has noted the effects that the Joint Councils disagree with are the moderate adverse significance of effects during construction relating to high sensitivity views from visual receptors in the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (Section C) and from long distance footpaths and cycle routes, and published routes within 1km of


91

the Limits of Deviation (LoD) of the Proposed Development.

SoCG items ID 7.5 to 7.10, 7.11.1 and 7.12 (Volume 8.3.12) set out specific concerns the Joint Councils have on particular aspects of the visual assessment in Sections A to H, including the issue raised at SoCG ID 7.1. National Grid provides further explanation and justification for these particular aspects in the SoCG.

Part b)

National Grid note that the Joint Councils have referred to SoCG items ID 6.1 and 7.1 (Volume 8.3.12) which set out National Grid’s position on the Joint Councils’ answer to this part of Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.5.

92


a) NE are requested to comment on the points made in the RR from the Mendips Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership, that the LVIA has given too much weight to the benefits of undergrounding and insufficient weight to elements that will affect the AONB’s landscape and setting such as the cable sealing end compound, link box pillars, cable bridges and loss of trees. Does NE agree with the opinion of the AONB Partnership? b) The Applicant also to comment on these points


We understand the AONB’s concerns and have questioned the weight given to the benefits of undergrounding in our response to the draft ES (see next paragraph). This hasn’t formed part of our RR because the issue doesn’t rate sufficiently significant as to alter our preference for undergrounding within the AONB. The AONB unit’s comments will have been informed by their detailed local knowledge of the protected landscape and how it is used and viewed by residents and visitors. NE’s response to the draft ES questioned whether an overall assessment of Moderate Beneficial landscape effect for the completed and operational scheme was fully justified. Whilst the removal of existing overhead lines is clearly a benefit, the AONB and its setting will still need to accommodate some new permanent surface infrastructure (Sealing End Compound, link pillars and a bridge across the River Axe) and there is no guarantee that landowners will permit the complete reinstatement of hedgerows and other landscape features. We therefore asked that an overall assessment of ‘Neutral’ be considered for the operational phase. A neutral assessment would still be regarded as a positive outcome by NE because the natural beauty of the AONB would be maintained. The Applicant did not revisit and alter their assessment. We have not pursued the matter further because it does not affect our preference for the undergrounding scheme. Nonetheless we wanted to help ensure that the conclusions of the LVIA were as accurate as possible. For visual effects we questioned whether the removal of the existing overhead line (the F Route) would have moderate beneficial effects (whilst accepting that it would benefit receptors using Rights of Way with direct or filtered views of the line, and improve views from the M5 into the AONB where the overhead line currently parallels the motorway). However, uncertainty that land owners will accept full restoration of hedgerows and other landscape features, plus the presence of link pillars along the route could negate some of that benefit to views within the Lox Yeo Valley. We therefore asked whether some assessments of Moderate Beneficial visual effects for the operational phase and residual effects would be more appropriately judged as Minor Beneficial. As with our questioning of landscape effects the issue doesn’t alter our preference for undergrounding through the


93

AONB


In Natural England’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.6, it considers that there is ‘uncertainty that landowners will accept full restoration of hedgerows and other landscape features’.

Under the DCO (Volume 2.1B) Requirements 10, 11 and 15, National Grid will secure reinstatement of land, implementation of in-situ replacement tree and hedgerow planting and maintenance of this planting for five years.

94


Do parties consider the Applicant’s assumptions made with regards to the extent of the study area and subsequent selection of receptors to be satisfactory? We refer specifically to assumptions made in respect of visibility of the proposed pylons (lattice and T-pylon) which have led to the determination of the study area within which all receptors are assessed (1km from the line of deviation (LoD)), in which representative receptors are used (3km from LoD) and valued viewpoints beyond 3km (ES Volume 5.6.1 paras 7.3.7 – 7.3.13). We note Avonside CPRE considers the visual impact to extend 5 miles either side of the proposed line. Other parties’ view on this would assist the Panel.


In SoCG ID 5.3.5 the Joint Councils express concern over the lack of a formally defined study area for landscape, visual and cumulative impact assessment. This was brought up in earlier rounds of consultation. For example, at the PEIR stage, the Joint Councils stated: “Scoping Opinion 3.26 With regard to the method for visual assessment parameters have been identified as the basis for undertaking the field assessment. It is not clear however what the justification for this choice of study area is and how this relates to the Zone of Theoretical Visual Influence.” Also para 5.4.5 of the PEIR suggests a wider study area may be needed for some topics such as visual effects. A visual study area has still not been defined. The figures provided in support of Chapter 7 show 1km and 3km ‘buffers’, but no clear study area. Whilst the chapter argues that views of overhead lines will diminish to such an extent over 3km as to not be prominent in views, pylons are tall structures and T-pylons in particular may be visible in the landscape over considerable distances, even up to 10km due to it being a more solid structure similar in design to wind turbines. The study area and its extent should be presented and justified. The Joint Councils have raised concerns regarding the study area considered for the assessment of visual amenity impacts on PRoW. As set out in SoCG ID 7.26 there was an apparently unexplained reduction in the quantum of PRoWs included in the assessment, with the cut off area for mitigation via OSPES lowered from the original 3km to 1km. This change was made between the S42 consultation and the release of the draft ES and was queried at the time, but the councils have not yet received a satisfactory justification for this. The Joint


95

Councils consider that a 3km study area would have been more appropriate. It is considered likely that more significant landscape, visual and sequential cumulative effects than those predicted in the ES, would be experienced by users of PRoW throughout a 3km study area.


The Joint Councils have answered this question by highlighting their concerns about the study area used for the landscape, visual and cumulative impact assessment, which is contained in the Joint Councils’ SoCG at ID 5.3.5 (Volume 8.3.12).

National Grid defined the study area for the landscape and visual assessments in the method at ES Volume 5.6, Section 6.3, Paragraphs 6.3.7 to 6.3.20 and ES Volume 5.7, Section 7.3, Paragraphs 7.3.6 to 7.3.20. As set out at Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.1 and ID 7.1, National Grid understand that the Joint Councils’ are in agreement with the study areas defined and justified in the landscape and visual assessment methods.

With regard to the Joint Councils’ concerns as to “the lack of a formally defined” study area for the landscape and visual cumulative impact assessment, a 10km Zone of Interaction (ZoI) was identified for the landscape and visual assessment of cumulative effects as detailed at ES Volume 5.17, Section 17.2, Paragraphs 17.2.6 to 17.2.9. ES Volume 5.17, Section 7.2 also explains the scoping exercise undertaken for the cumulative assessment and the consultation process, which included consultation with the Joint Councils on the proposed method and scope.

As set out in Volume 8.3.12, SoCG Issue 7.25 and Local Impact Report (LIR) response ID 8.2 (Volume 8.6) National Grid reduced the extent of access and signage improvements proposed along long distance footpath and cycle routes from being proposed along these routes within 3km of the Proposed Development to being within 1km. The greatest landscape and visual effects would be experienced within 1km of the Proposed Development; therefore improvement works beyond 1km would not be proportionate or appropriate in planning terms.

Public Right of Way (PRoW) access and signage improvements proposed in the OSPES relate to local PRoW where most benefit would be derived. This relates to where the significance of effects in views from PRoW within 1km would be greater than minor adverse.

96


a) The Applicant is asked to state what if any consideration was given to further mitigation of the areas that have been assessed as having residual moderate adverse effects on landscape. In particular was any further consideration given to mitigation for any of the areas that are assessed as having greater moderate adverse effect? b) Was undergrounding considered as a form of mitigation for any of these areas? c) Does NE consider the Applicant has minimised harm to the landscape using reasonable mitigation in these areas, which have residual moderate adverse effects? d) The Joint Councils to indicate if these areas correspond with the “pinch points” to which the Joint Councils’ RR refers. Which area specifically in Tarnock was considered a “pinch point”? e) Can the Applicant and the Joint Councils advise if progress has been made on any alternative mitigation measures (as suggested in the Joint Councils’ RR) in this regard?


d) The Joint Councils consider that the proposed mitigation measures within the ES are inadequate and require additional on-site and off-site provisions as set out within Appendix B of the LIR, to be secured via S.106 agreement to alleviate the significant, adverse residual landscape, visual and cumulative effects at the following ‘pinch points’ along the route: • Puriton Ridge; • Mark; • Tarnock/Biddisham; • Tickenham/Nailsea; • Avonmouth Village; • land north of Hallen Marsh (Ableton / Minor’s Lane); and • Wick Moor South of the Line Entries in Section H. The Joint Councils have requested additional mitigation measures in these areas to address localised landscape, visual and cumulative effects that can be mitigated via landscaping. This is set out in SoCG ID 6.15, 7.20, 17.15.1 and 17.15.2 and as detailed in Appendix B of the LIR. The ‘pinch points’ identified by the councils correspond with areas having been assessed by National Grid as having residual moderate adverse effects on landscape. At Tarnock, the Proposed Development crosses the Bristol Road (A38), midway between Rooks Bridge and Tarnock, in a perpendicular north-south direction midway along the linear settlement. The proposed


97

400kV line would be positioned along a similar alignment to the existing 132kV line. The landscape to the north and south of the crossing point at Tarnock is an attractive rural one with many thick intact hedgerows often dotted with large mature trees. There are some lengths of outgrown hedgerows. Due to the increased scale and visual prominence of the Proposed Development and the loss of at least 20 trees and other vegetation (see Volume 5.12 Figure 21.2.16b) in the area, the ES predicts significant adverse permanent operational effects on the character of the local landscape and on the visual amenity of several neighbouring private dwellings. Appendix B of the LiR, Figure 3 shows an indicative scheme of additional mitigation planting that the Joint Councils consider appropriate and necessary to contribute to the mitigation of these significant adverse effects. Justification for each planting measure proposed is provided on Figure The areas of moderate visual impact predicted by the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES) include Avonmouth village where the Proposed Development partly encircles the residential area. Here the Council does not consider the impact mitigation to be adequate. Details of the other ‘pinch points’ are also included in Appendix B of the LiR. e) The Joint Councils consider that additional measures are essential to make the scheme acceptable in landscape terms, and do not agree to the reference within the SoCG National Grid make to OSPES as ‘enhancement’. Avonmouth Village: The applicant’s assessment contained in the ES predicts a moderately significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of private dwellings at receptors in Avonmouth village. As set out in the LIR Appendix D sections 5 and 8, the Councils require that a similar approach to that proposed in the OSPES in the residential area north of Gloucester Road, Avonmouth be adopted within this housing area. This should include a landscape scheme to comprise a similar number of street trees as a feature of quality design which would contribute positively to an area’s character and identity and safeguards the amenity of existing development, as advocated by Policy BCS21. Land north of Hallen Marsh (Ableton / Minor’s Lane); As set out in the LIR Appendix D sections 5 & 8 the Councils require hedgerow planting to replace permanent loss of linear tree cover – to provide some screen and buffer to adjacent existing development and the Proposed Development, and additional planting to offset the permanent loss of tree cover that results in loss of landscape features and visual impacts on the local PRoW and linking highway network.

98

The Joint Councils have written to National Grid to clearly set out the specific and geographic proposals they consider are required to mitigate effects with their reasoning and proposals for implementation in each case. A draft copy of Appendix B of the LIR was provided to National Grid via e mail on 19th January 2015. National Grid are yet to respond.


As stated in National Grid’s response the Joint Councils Local Impact Report (LIR) LIR ID 6.3 and 6.15 to 6.19, National Grid does not consider that any additional mitigation is required (Volume 8.6). National Grid has not identified any landscape and visual effects that it considers are so adverse that it indicates that the development is unacceptable from a landscape or visual perspective.

In many instances the long-term adverse effects of the Proposed Development on landscape character and visual amenity reported in the ES would be reduced by the implementation of the OSPES. The funding for the OSPES would be secured via s106 agreement. The implementation of the OSPES will be the subject of landowner agreement (See also Volume 8.3.12, SoCG Issues ID 6.15, 7.25, 7.26, 17.3, 17.4, 17.14 and 17.15).

The Joint Councils’ answer includes a list of ‘pinch points’, which it suggests are the locations where a moderate adverse residual significance of effect on landscape would occur according to the ES Volume 5.6.1. National Grid considers the OSPES proposals are adequate. However, it has agreed to review the comments made by the local authorities regarding ‘pinch-points’.

However, there are three locations in the list provided where the residual significance of effect on landscape has been assessed in the ES as being lower than moderate adverse (see ES Volume 5.6, Section 6.10, Paragraphs 6.10.90 and 6.10.91). These are:

Avonmouth Village in Section G;

Land north of Hallen Marsh (Ableton / Minor’s Lane) in Section G; and

Wick Moor South of the Line Entries in Section H.

National Grid assumes that the Joint Council’s inclusion of Avonmouth Village in its list of ‘pinch points’ relates to the number of visual receptors here, which would experience a moderate adverse significance of effect on views during operation in the short, medium and long-term (visual receptor references: G1.M12, G1.H43, G1.H44, G1.H45, G1.H46, G1.H50, G1.H51 and G1.H52, see visual assessment tables at ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix G)

National Grid does not understand the Joint Council’s reasoning for including the land north of Hallen Marsh in Section G or Wick Moor south of the line entries in Section H in its list of pinch points, based on the visual assessment provided in the ES. The following provides a summary of the greatest visual effects assessed during


99

operation in the short, medium and long-term at these locations.

Land north of Hallen Marsh (Ableton / Minor’s Lane) in Section G

The visual assessment presented at ES Volume 5.7 reports that users of the PRoW network in the vicinity of Ableton and Minor’s Lane (visual receptor references G1.F26 and G1.F27, see visual assessment tables at ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix G) would experience a minor adverse significance of effect on views during operation of the Proposed Development in the short, medium and long-term.

Wick Moor South of the Line Entries in Section H

The visual assessment presented at ES Volume 5.7 reports on a single PRoW (visual receptor reference H1.F3,

see visual assessment tables at ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix H) south of the line entries in Section H where

users would experience a moderate adverse significance of effect on views during operation in the long-term.

Other visual effects in Section H assessed during operation in the long-term are typically no greater than minor

adverse significance.

100


a) Are the Joint Councils satisfied with the adequacy of provisions relating to the control of design, replacement, management and maintenance for landscape softworks to be discharged by the relevant planning authorities? This question specifically relates to: - DCO Schedule 3 Requirement 9. (“Provision of landscaping”) - DCO Schedule 3 Requirement 10. (“Replacement planting”) - DCO Schedule 3 Requirement 11. (“Implementation of landscaping and replacement planting”) b) If not what further details are required in the DCO or elsewhere to secure appropriate control? (See also more detailed questions below).


a) and b) The Joint Councils are not currently satisfied with the adequacy of the provisions relating to the control of design, replacement management and maintenance for landscape softworks. The Joint Councils are satisfied with the provisions of Requirement 9, which relate only to site specific embedded mitigation planting. The Joint councils have set out in SoCG ID 7.24 the amendments they consider are necessary to Requirements 10 and 11 as follows. Bold text is to be added to the current Requirements. Replacement planting 10.—(1) Unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority, no stage of the authorised development, including vegetation removal, may commence until, for that stage, a scheme for the planting of trees, groups of trees and hedgerows to replace those to be removed during that stage that accords with Section 9 of the Arboricultural Implications Assessment report (Volume 5.21.1) has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) The planting scheme submitted under sub-paragraph (1) must include details of—(a) the location and a schedule of plants noting number, species, size and planting density of any proposed planting or seeding; (b) cultivation, importing of materials and other operations to ensure plant and seed establishment; and (c) details of the fifteen year maintenance regime. (3) For replacement planting in-situ or in new locations that cannot be accommodated within the order


101

limits or has not been implemented prior to the completion of the works for that stage, a planting scheme must be submitted and agreed in writing by the relevant planning authority. Implementation of landscaping and replacement planting 11.—(1) All landscaping and replacement planting works referred to in requirements 9 and 10 must be implemented in the first available planting season after that part of the authorised development to which the landscaping or replacement planting works apply is first brought into operational use and must be carried out in general accordance with specification set out at Volume 5.7.2 Appendix 7K (NBS Landscape Specification) and the relevant landscaping scheme for that stage of the authorised development, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standard or other recognised codes of good practice. Hedgerow reinstatement through the undergrounding section would, as set out in the BMS, be undertaken within 12 months of the completion of each phase, in the first available planting season. (2) Any tree or shrub planted as part of an approved landscaping or replacement planting scheme that, within a period of fifteen years after planting, is removed, dies or becomes in the opinion of the relevant planning authority seriously damaged or diseased, must be replaced in the first available planting season with a specimen of the same species and size as that originally planted, unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority. (3) no stage of the authorised development, including vegetation removal, may commence until, for that stage, until a Landscape and Nature Conservation Management Plan covering management arrangements and responsibilities for a 15 year period for all soft landscape works and replacement planting works is submitted and agreed in writing by the relevant planning authority.


Part a)

National Grid has amended the definition of ‘commence’ from Requirement 1 (Interpretation) of Schedule 3 of the draft DCO by deleting a reference to ‘devegetation’ so that any such works are excluded from pre-commencement works. There is, therefore, no need to amend Requirements 10 and 12 in this regard contrary to the position as stated in Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.19 and 7.23.

102

The Joint Councils’ requested additions to DCO Requirement 10 (2) and DCO Requirement 11 are not agreed as National Grid considers a five year maintenance regime to be appropriate (see Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.20).

The Joint Councils’ requested addition to DCO Requirement 10 (3) is not agreed as tree (and hedgerow) planting in new locations outside the Order Limits is subject to landowner agreement.

As set out in Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.20 and 7.24; mitigation planting on land not acquired by National Grid will be maintained by National Grid for five years via DCO Requirement 10.

National Grid will commit to facilitate the planting and enhancement works including five years’ maintenance. National Grid has a high level of confidence that the indicative scheme (OSPES), or similar, can be delivered.

Five years is the appropriate period to allow new planting to become established. The model DCO provisions

(Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 2009), supported by PINS guidance set out five years as the default period within which tree or shrub planting (as part of an approved planting scheme) should be replaced if planting dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased (model requirement 8); and two years for the same in relation to tree planting (model requirement 9).


103


a) The Applicant is asked to explain how it proposes the details of the landscape management and maintenance will be secured. DCO Schedule 3 Requirement 9 refers to ES Volume 5.7.2 Appendix 7K: (NBS Landscape Specification) for the landscape works covered in that Requirement. But this specification lacks detail in terms of frequency of operations and woodland management operations. b) Are the Joint Councils satisfied with the content of the landscape maintenance specification (Q35 in ES Volume 5.7.2.3 Appendix 7K) apart from the duration; which they consider should be longer than 5 years; as raised in their RR c) Are the Joint Councils satisfied with the proposals for “replacement planting” in DCO Requirement 10? d) Is NE satisfied with the content of the landscape maintenance specification (Q35 in ES Volume 5.7.2.3 Appendix 7K) and with the management and maintenance proposals set out for replacement planting in DCO Requirement 10?


b) As set out in SoCG ID 6.9 The Joint Councils consider that the detail relating to the majority of the reinstatement proposals and management of reinstated hedgerows have not been provided in the DCO documents. The Joint Councils consider that the level of detail required is similar to that provided for the site-specific mitigation planting on plans at Volume 5.7.3.14 and the landscape specification for site specific Mitigation at Volume 5.7.2.3, Appendix 7K. The Joint Councils are satisfied with Appendix 7K, but note that it only covers landscape mitigation proposed around site specific infrastructure such as substations, CSE compounds and river crossings. C. The Joint Councils consider replacement tree and hedgerow planting to be essential mitigation for the direct loss of vegetation as a result of the development. The Applicant has committed to replant trees on the basis of four new for every one lost. Due to the operational constraints of overhead and underground conductors and as shown on supplementary plans (‘G1979.71.009.001.1-21C_Tree_Hedgerow_Impact_In-situ_Site Specific_OSPES’) very little replacement tree planting will take place in-situ. Therefore the majority of the replacement tree planting would need to be in new locations off site and is subject to 3rd party agreement. There is no indication within the application as to where replacement tree and tree group and hedgerow planting in new locations is proposed (Paragraph 1.28 of supplementary document ‘Reinstatement of land, trees and hedgerow and watercourses’) Due to the fact that this information is missing from the application, the mechanism for delivery is not secured. It is unclear therefore as to what extent replacement planting could be achieved. The Joint Councils do not agree with the approach to replacement planting. The commitment to discuss planting options with landowners set out by the Applicant in SoCG ID 6.16

104

and 6.18.1 does not secure delivery of what is considered essential mitigation. The Applicant notes in SoCG 6.18.1 that “Within the Order Limits, National Grid has the powers to seek rights over land to undertake replacement planting in new locations.” The Applicant has stated that it is not prepared to exercise these rights. The following amendment to Requirement 10 would partially address this issue, although the mechanism for securing this essential mitigation remains unclear: Replacement planting 10.—(1) Unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority, no stage of the authorised development, including vegetation removal, may commence until, for that stage, a scheme for the planting of trees, groups of trees and hedgerows to replace those to be removed during that stage that accords with Section 9 of the Arboricultural Implications Assessment report (Volume 5.21.1) has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) The planting scheme submitted under sub-paragraph (1) must include details of— (a) the location and a schedule of plants noting number, species, size and planting density of any proposed planting or seeding; (b) cultivation, importing of materials and other operations to ensure plant and seed establishment; and (c) details of the fifteen year maintenance regime. (3) For replacement planting in-situ or in new locations that cannot be accommodated within the order limits or has not been implemented prior to the completion of the works for that stage, a planting scheme must be submitted and agreed in writing by the relevant planning authority. The Applicant has stated that replacement planting in situ and in new locations will be in addition to planting proposed within the OSPES and around site specific infrastructure. The Joint Councils agree with this but consider it is also imperative that OSPES and ‘site specific’ planting should not count towards the Applicant’s commitment to replant four new trees for every one lost unless it can be robustly demonstrated that the new planting is geographically proximate to the site of lost vegetation; that it performs its function in OSPES as site specific mitigation and as mitigation of adverse effects on the landscape from lost vegetation.


105

Additionally, the Joint Councils consider that in-situ hedgerow replacement planting will need to be undertaken with species composition and management designed to be in keeping with the character of the original hedgerow, to ensure a long term ‘scarring’ effect would not prevail if replacement hedgerow sections do not match the existing hedgerow. In instances where the existing hedgerows are of poor quality or gappy, the Joint Councils consider that it is crucial that work is carried out to enhance adjacent sections of existing hedgerows to strengthen their form and character. The Joint Councils have requested that any such work should be carried out at the same time as the replacement planting and should be included as DCO mitigation. The Joint Councils have also commented that where trees and tree groups are lost, appropriate mitigation would be to replace them with some form of structure planting in-situ, where possible this should be with like for like tree species. Where for operational reasons this is not possible, the Joint Councils have requested shrub or hedgerow planting should be proposed as mitigation against adverse effects on the fabric and character of the landscape. For example there are instances shown in Volume 5.21.3 on Figures 21.2.7, 21.2.7a and Figure 21.2.47a, where there are existing overgrown hedgerows with significant numbers of trees to be removed, there will be at best partial removal or total loss of what is currently an overgrown hedgerow having become a line of trees. In order to replace these landscape features, replacement hedgerow planting is required in order to avoid fragmentation of the intact field pattern. This should be shown on the plans as ‘Hedgerow Replacement Planting’. This was requested at the draft ES stage, but has not been provided in the final ES. The provision of supplementary plans (‘G1979.71.009.001.1- 21C_Tree_Hedgerow_Impact_In-situ_Site Specific_OSPES’) has highlighted many other areas where lines or groups of individual trees are to be removed and no replacement structure planting is proposed. In particular, these include: • To the north and south of Woolavington Road (Figure 1.1); • Field boundary trees north of pylon LD8, south of Cripps Farm (Figure 1.3); • Roadside trees either side of Northwick Road, south of pylon LD20 (Figure 1.4; • Field boundary trees north of Tarnock between Pylons LD31 and 33 (Figure 1.6);

106

• Field boundary trees north of pylon LD 46 (Figure 1.10); • Tree lines to the north of pylons LD 59 and 63 at North End (Figure 1.11); • Field Boundary between LD75 and 76 south of North Drove (Figure 1.14); • To the north and south of the Junction of Cadbury Camp Lane and Whitehouse Lane (Figure 1.15; • Under Preferred Route Option A along the south edge of Portbury docks and along The Portbury Hundred (Figure 1.16); • Adjacent to Pylon P-LD 104 and smaller areas further west along Route Option B at Portbury Wharf (Figure 1.17); • On the proposed Storage Facility Site off Gloucester Road (Figure 1.18 and G1979.71.008.002C_Tree Removal and Retention on the Proposed Storage Facility Site); and • South of Moor House Farm and holiday Park, along Ableton Lane as it passes the CoPart site and adjacent to Pylon LD123 (Figure 1.20)


Part b)

As set out in Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.9; National Grid is committed to ensure that satisfactory landscaping is provided. National Grid provided clarification to the Joint Councils on 29 January 2015 with regard to the reinstatement of land, trees and hedgerow and watercourses following construction to direct then to the relevant information within the DCO application.

The draft CEMP states that any land temporarily used during construction will be reinstated in accordance with DCO, Requirement 15 (Volume 2.1B). Also, Requirement 6 refers to the approval and implementation of construction mitigation plans, including a Soil Management Plan.

Under the DCO requirements National Grid is required to reinstate land, implement in-situ replacement tree and hedgerow planting and undertake maintenance of this planting for five years. National Grid will also submit a replacement planting scheme (Requirement 10 and 11) and a Tree and Hedgerow Protection Strategy (Requirement 12) to be approved by the relevant planning authority, before the authorised development may


107

commence. See DCO Requirements 10, 11 and 12.

National Grid confirms that the landscape specification at ES Volume 5.7.2, Appendix 7K covers replacement planting and site-specific mitigation planting. DCO Requirement 11(3) secures this and specifies that:

‘all landscaping and replacement works referred to in requirements 9 and 10 must be carried out in accordance with specification set out at Volume 5.7.2 Appendix 7K (NBS Landscape Specification) and the relevant landscaping scheme for that stage of the authorised development, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standard or other recognised codes of good practice.’

Part c)

National Grid is committed to planting four trees for each tree lost to the Project. National Grid will undertake replacement planting in-situ where it will not interfere with the operation of the Proposed Development. New hedges will be planted as in-situ replacements and there are very few instances where removed hedges will not be replaced by new planting.

As set out in Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.16 and 6.18.1; the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) at ES Volume 5.21 states that in the instances where it is not possible to plant replacement trees, tree groups or (exceptionally) hedges in-situ, National Grid will offer to undertake replacement planting on the landowners’ land. Where possible, and subject to landowner agreement, National Grid will look to undertake planting as close as possible to the sites where losses occurred provided that the new planting does not interfere with operation of the Proposed Development.

Within the Order Limits, National Grid has the powers to seek rights over land to undertake replacement planting in new locations. In the first instance National Grid will discuss planting in new locations with the affected landowner so that planting would not interfere with the use of land, such as cropping and land management activities. No trees, areas of tree groups or lengths of hedgerow have been identified for these works, because tree, tree group and hedgerow removal and replacement works would be confirmed prior to construction works commencing and a replacement planting scheme produced in accordance with DCO, Requirement 10.

Please see National Grid’s comments on the response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.13 above regarding National Grid’s position on ‘devegetation’.

The Joint Councils’ requested additions to DCO Requirement 10 (2) and DCO Requirement 11 are not agreed as National Grid considers five years maintenance regime to be appropriate (see Volume 8.3.12, SoCG ID 6.20).

108

The Joint Councils’ requested addition to DCO requirement 10(3) is not agreed as tree (and hedgerow) planting in new locations outside the Order Limits is subject to landowner agreement.

The Joint Councils are also referred to the relevant DCO Requirements, where it is stated that National Grid will submit a replacement planting scheme (and a Tree and Hedgerow Protection Strategy) to be approved by the relevant planning authority, before the relevant stage of the authorised development may commence.

Natural England’s response

NE is satisfied with the content of the landscape maintenance specification except that we believe that the Joint Councils’ request that this should be for longer than 5 years is justified.


Part d)

As set out in National Grid’s response at Volume 8.1.2, to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.15; National Grid does not consider that landscape maintenance should be for longer than five years. National Grid is proposing five years’ maintenance of planting; five years is a sufficient period for plant maintenance to ensure the successful establishment of new planting in order to achieve the growth rates predicted and secure long-term viability in each of the locales. The first five years is the most important for the establishment of newly planted trees.

A five years’ maintenance period for planting is standard practice in granting planning permissions. The drafting of the relevant Requirement in the DCO (Requirement 11 (implementation of landscaping and replacement planting)) is consistent with the model requirement laid out in the Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 2009.


109


a) Are parties content that there is sufficient information regarding the visual properties of the T- pylons? b) Are parties content with the Applicant’s reliance on the new design of pylon to reduce the adverse effects on visual impact?


a) The Joint Councils consider that uncertainty around the impacts of the first commercial UK deployment of T-pylons, include visual impacts and increased noise levels in wet weather. As outlined in the RR, the Joint Councils have concerns over the deliverability of the new T-Pylon and the potential for environmental effects to arise that are not currently known or differ from those predicted. The Joint Councils consider that as part of a wider Community Impact Mitigation Fund, NG should provide funding to deal with unforeseen and less tangible impacts associated with the first use of this new technology in the UK and other areas of uncertainty highlighted above. As set out in the LIR ID 3.1, the Joint Councils seek assurance that potential impacts on amenity (e.g. to an elongated programme, revised construction methodology or other unforeseen impacts) could be addressed at point of occurrence. As set out in LIR ID 6.2 The Joint Councils consider the use of alternative pylon colours may be beneficial and should have been widely consulted upon as part of the application. In the absence of this work, the DCO should include a requirement that the local authorities approve the final pylon colours. The Joint Councils consider that the following Requirement would address this; “No stage of the authorised development may commence until details of the colour of each pylon to be erected in that stage have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the relevant authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.” This point is also raised in SoCG ID 2.16 and 11.22.

b) In terms of reducing visual impact, The Joint Councils consider that the T-pylon will not offer significant mitigation. The negative aspects of a solid, more massive structure are considered finely balance against the visual benefits of their reduced height. Notwithstanding the answer to question 9.7 above regarding a study area, it is considered that visual effects assessment has adequately considered the implications of T-pylons in place of traditional lattice structures.

110


part a)

In accordance with National Grid’s position in the Joint Councils SoCG ID 11.22 (Volume 8.3.12), National Grid has undertaken an assessment to ascertain if there would be any benefits associated with considering alternative T-pylon colours. This study has been provided as an appendix to accompany the National Grid response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.35 at Volume 8.1.2 (see also Volume 8.2.25, Appendix 9.35.1.1). National Grid does not consider that the creation of a CIM fund is necessary or appropriate. For further clarification see National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.75 (Volume 8.1.1).

part b)

Embedded mitigation through the use of the T-Pylon is not the only form of mitigation that has been incorporated into the Proposed Development. Please refer to National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.9 (Volume 8.1.2), which sets out the embedded and proposed mitigation measures used to minimise adverse visual effects.


111


a) Are the Joint Councils satisfied with the adequacy of provisions relating to the control of design to be discharged by the relevant planning authorities and other agencies? This question specifically relates to: - DCO Requirement 3. (“In accordance with the approved details”) - DCO Requirement 4. (“Stages of authorised development”) which requires a written scheme setting out all the stages for approvals - DCO Requirement 8. (“Control of artificial light emissions”) - DCO Requirement 16. (“Fencing and other means of enclosure”) subsection (4) which refers to permanent fences walls and other means of enclosure - DCO Requirement 32. (“Approval of external appearances etc. of permanent structures”) b) If not what further details are required in the DCO or elsewhere to secure appropriate control?


a) and b) The Joint Councils have expressed their preference for directional drilling options to reduce likely significant effects of the scheme during construction and operation. Directional drilling rather than bridge crossing, which would serve to avoid flood risks, by avoiding construction within flood zone 3. See SoCG ID 10.9 and LIR ID 4.2. The Joint Councils are satisfied with the adequacy of provisions relating to the control of design to be discharged by the relevant planning authorities relating to Requirements 3, 4, 8, 16, and 32 subject to the following amendments: • DCO Requirement 3, ("In accordance with the approved details") – As previously stated in answer to Q.4.45, the Joint Councils do not believe that it is either necessary or reasonable for the requirement to construct in schemes and strategy have been agreed with the relevant authorities, these should be implemented as approved. The vagueness/flexibility built into this qualification is not appropriate and risks circumventing the approval process. The authorities and their communities need certainty that where mitigation measures have been agreed within documents, these measures will be delivered as agreed. • DCO, Requirement 8 ("Control of artificial light emissions") – same comment in relation to DCO, Requirement 3, in the interests of precision, the Joint Councils will not accept the phrase “in general accordance”; reference to “general” must be removed.

112

• DCO, Requirement 16 ("Fencing and other means of enclosure") – should be amended as indicated in bold lettering: (1) No stage of the authorised development may commence until, for that stage, written details of all proposed temporary and permanent fences, walls or other means of enclosure, along with a timetable for removal of temporary walls, fences and other enclosures have been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) Any temporary fences, walls or other means of enclosure approved under sub- paragraph (1) must remain secure during the construction of the relevant stage of the authorised development in accordance with the approved written details unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority. (3) Any temporary fencing must be removed in accordance with the approved timetable submitted as per (1) (4) Any permanent fences, walls or other means of enclosure approved under sub-paragraph (1) must be installed in accordance with the approved details. (5) The scheme referred to in sub-paragraph (1) must incorporate the mitigation measures in relation to bat flyways set out in the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy.


National Grid makes the following comments in relation to the proposed amendments set out in the Joint Councils’ response:

DCO, Requirement 3 – National Grid’s response to this requested amendment is provided at Examining Authority’s first round written questions 4.42 and 4.45 (Volume 8.1.1).

DCO, Requirement 8 – the word ‘general’ has been removed from this requirement in the draft DCO as submitted on 26 February 2015 (Volume 2.1B).

DCO, requirement 16 – In response to previous Joint Council concerns on this point, National Grid amended Requirement 16(3) to make clear that fences are removed after completion of the relevant stage of the authorised development “to which it relates”. This allows for a clear and enforceable timetable for the removal of temporary fencing and National Grid notes that the Joint Councils have to date not explained the need for a further timetable to be submitted.


113


The RR of the MMO, para 7.6, complains that it is unclear which associated development would be undertaken below MHWS. For the avoidance of doubt, what associated development is proposed to be carried out below MHWS?

MMO‘s response

The MMO awaits clarification on this matter from the Applicant.


National Grid is in discussion with the MMO on this matter. The associated development below MHWS would only be such development as is required below MHWS in connection with Work No. 1G. All associated development has been assessed in the ES. National Grid therefore believes that it is acceptable for the reference to ‘associated development’ to remain.

114


"a) Having regard to the RR of the MMO, para 6.7, does the Applicant agree that an adequate Environment Impact Assessment in relation to the marine area has not been carried out? b) How can the Panel be satisfied that a thorough and robust assessment of impacts upon the marine environment has been undertaken?"

MMO‘s response

Following discussions with the Applicant the MMO is content that the Environmental Impact Assessment has adequately assessed the potential environmental impact of the proposed licensable activities. The MMO is aware that the harbour authority responsible for this area of the River Avon, The Bristol Port Company ("BPC"), is concerned in relation to impacts on navigation and it may be appropriate for further mitigation to be secured by conditions within the DML. The MMO will continue to work with the Applicant and BPC regarding this matter.


National Grid is in discussion with the Bristol Port Company’s Haven Master in order to secure adequate controls of the temporary closures of the River Avon, including safeguarding navigation interests.


115


In the light of the MMO RR, how can the Panel be satisfied that the proposed conditions within the draft Deemed Marine Licence would capture all relevant and necessary mitigation? What, if any, changes should be made to those conditions? (MMO and Applicant)

MMO‘s response

The MMO defers to the advice of Natural England (NE) in relation to potential impacts on designated sites. However, we will work with the Applicant and NE to ensure that all relevant and necessary mitigation is captured within the DML. It has been agreed with the Applicant that new conditions (15 and 16) will be added to the DML to secure the use of a track-way to protect the grazed saltmarsh habitat and to ensure licensed activities are only undertaken at high tide to mitigate impacts on the mudflats, part of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The Applicant has agreed that the following conditions should be added to the DML: "15. Should boats be used: temporary ground protection in the form of trackway or similar must be used to protect the SAC salt marsh habitats when taking the pilot bonds to the boat." "16. Should boats be used: the boats must only be used at periods of high tide to avoid disturbing intertidal habitats" However, it should be noted that the MMO has also requested that a definition of "boats" be included in the DML. In relation to mitigation of navigational impacts, the MMO will continue to work with the Applicant and BPC to capture any required mitigation.


National Grid will continue to work with the MMO to ensure that the conditions of the DML capture all necessary mitigation. National Grid is also in discussion with the Bristol Port Company’s Haven Master in order to secure adequate controls of the temporary closures of the River Avon, including safeguarding navigation interests.

116


a) Having regard to the concerns raised by BPC and the MMO, are changes required to Article 40 and/or the Deemed Marine Licence set out in Schedule 9 of the DCO? b) For example, should the minimum period of closure referred to in Article 40 be specifically defined? c) What would be the most appropriate method of dealing with any potential conflict between requirements and conditions relating to activities above or below MHWS?


a) and b) Please see section 18 of BPC's written representation. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR


Please see paragraphs 1.7.87 – 1.7.90 National Grid’s response to BPC’s written representation (Volume 8.5).

MMO’s response

a) The MMO will discuss with the Applicant any changes required to the DML relating to navigational impacts, following confirmation of the agreed outcome of the meeting between the Applicant and BPC on 13 February 2015. The MMO proposes that further consideration should be given to the inclusion of a condition within the DML to secure a river closure mitigation plan, to be approved by the MMO prior to the commencement of licensed activities. b) The MMO awaits the response of the Applicant and BPC on this subject. However, if the temporal scale of the proposed river closure is to be captured within the DCO and DML as mitigation; the maximum permitted period of closure should be defined rather than the minimum.

c) Requirements within the DCO and conditions within the DML should not contradict each other. The MMO will work with the relevant planning authority in relation to any crossover between our respective jurisdictions. At this stage, it is not clear what, if any, potential conflict you are referring to and, therefore, it is difficult to provide further detail at this stage.


National Grid’s position remains as set out in its response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 10.17.

However, National Grid continues to work with the MMO to ensure that the conditions of the DML capture all necessary issues. National Grid is also in discussion with the BPC’s Haven Master in order to secure adequate controls of the temporary closures of the River Avon, including safeguarding navigation interests.

Further information on the likely temporal scale of river closures are set out in National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 10.14.


117

118


Persimmon Homes Severn Valley is requested to set out in more detail what information it considers to be missing in order to complete the more comprehensive and detailed mitigation strategy it suggests is necessary in its RR. Avon Wildlife Trust is asked to comment. The Applicant may wish to comment.

Persimmon Homes Seven Valley‘s response

See associated document 150225_EN020001_Persimmon Homes Severn Valley_1Qs


National Grid considers the assessment of effects on Portbury Wharf nature reserve and Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) is robust.

Each topic considers the potential for a single receptor to experience effects on multiple impact pathways and during both construction and operational phases. Where differences occur between options these are highlighted in the ES. In addition, although the approach to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is topic based, each chapter considers the inter-relationship of effects identified on shared receptors in other topics. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development together with other plans and projects are also taken into account (Volume 15.17.1).

In respect of the request for consideration to reducing working areas, ES Volume 8.5.1 Section 8.5 (Ecological Design Considerations) includes a series of on this matter. In addition, the BMS (Volume 5.26.3A) details the range of ecology mitigation proposed for the scheme and demonstrates how the approach to the construction phase will minimise effects. National Grid also refers Persimmon Homes to National Grid’s commentary within the Avon Wildlife Trust (AWT) SoCG (Volume 8.3.2) as a source of further information on minimising impacts on Portbury Wharf.

With respect to the consideration of other route options, National Grid undertook environmental and technical studies to inform the decision on the route and technology to be taken forward in the Portishead/Portbury area including the identification of Route Option A and Route Option B.

This appraisal included consideration of routes not dissimilar to those put forward by Persimmon Homes and is documented in the Connection Options Report (COR) (ES Volume 5.2.2.4, Appendix 2G).


A specific mitigation strategy for Portbury Wharf has not been supplied. During a phone conversation between AWT and Paul Clack (ARUP) in early February 2015 it was suggested this was pending but was still the intention of National Grid to supply one. It is stated that habitats would be replaced in accordance with AWT's current management plan. However, this management plan is intended for use for existing well- established habitats, and a specific methodology will be needed for habitat reinstatement and restoration. Therefore, it is considered that a Construction Environmental Management Plan and a


119

strategy which includes creation, establishment and management of habitats specifically for Portbury Wharf is created (Ten Year Ecological Restoration and Management Plan or similar). This should also include more details of monitoring for restoration of habitats and for post-development impacts on protected and notable species. More timing and phasing details are also required. For example, it is stated that works will avoid the period of September to April to avoid impacts on wintering birds. However, given that there are multiple timing constraints due to the wide variety of species present at Portbury Wharf, it is difficult to understand how the works can be programmed to minimise impacts as much as possible on all species (e.g. removing hedgerows in winter may result in impacts on hibernating GCN) and timing will need to be very carefully considered. It may be that a significant lead in period will be required. Due to use of the reserve, AWT will need a much longer period than 1 month's notice before works commence. AWT will need a definitive programme as soon as possible; ideally at least six months before works commence. This will also be needed to ensure that AWT via their Consultancy can provide an ECoW who is fully aware of requirements at the site. AWT welcome NG's commitment to fund this role. Therefore, detailed consultation with AWT will be required during the mitigation design process including details of mitigation licence applications.


In response to Avon Wildlife Trust’s answer to the Examining Authority’s First Witten Question 12.7, please refer to National Grid’s commentary within the SoCG (Volume 8.3.2) particularly ID 8.7.1.

120


The RR of BPC states that Route Option A would have a far greater impact on its operations both during construction and afterwards. Explain in detail the different impacts on the operations of BPC, identifying any area of land that could be sterilised by the Proposed Development and setting out any negative impacts on the dock estate.


Please see section 3, paragraph 8.1 and section 9 of BPC's written representation which explain that, based on the further information which it has received from the Applicant, BPC now considers Option A to be the less undesirable route. BPC therefore objects to Option B. 150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_WR




121


The ES 5.2.1, paras 2.6.58-2.6.63, sets out the appraisal conclusions in relation to Study Area F and includes reference to the Holford Rules. Have the impacts on the BPC operation been appropriately weighed in the balance by the Applicant when concluding on its preferred route? Can the Port area be considered to be such an important and specialised industrial area that the normal application of Rule 7 of the Holford Rules be given less weight in this instance?


As stated in the SOCG between BPC and the Applicant it is accepted that, in principle, BPC has no objection to the proposed Hinkley C connection crossing its land, albeit that BPC believes that the authorised development as proposed will cause serious detriment to the carrying on of its undertaking.



122


The RR of BPC makes reference to the impact on the Crooks Marsh site. Is it agreed that because of its configuration, the Option B proposal would result in the entire site being lost to economically viable development by BPC.


Crook's Marsh is not affected by Option A or B, because it is to the north-east of Avonmouth. See section 5 of BPC's written representation. It is for the Applicant to agree with BPC's view about the site being lost to economically viable development.




123


ES Volume 5.15.1, para 15.5.49, Land Uses, Construction Effects – Business Operators: The text notes that various route options through Avonmouth were considered and the selection made was based principally on minimising effects on existing and planned businesses. Comment required from Interested Parties, together with an update on negotiations, including Paragon Vehicle Services Ltd., and C J Associates who are both predicted to be subject to effects of moderate adverse significance.

Bristol City Council response

In response we would like to confirm that, to date, negotiations with National Grid have been limited. BCC are a significant landowner throughout Avonmouth, and would like to see an escalation in National Grid's efforts to reach Heads of Claim for the diminution in the value of their land.


National Grid notes the points made and is still in negotiation with interested parties.

124


ES Volume 5.15.1, paras 15.5.55 and 15.5.57, Land Uses, Operational Effects – Business Operators: The text notes that within the overhead line corridor, direct land take would be limited to the footprint of the newly erected pylons, but also that some business operators have identified limitations on their business arising from the Project, for example through restricting the use of cranes and high lifting equipment. Several RRs indicate that working practices or opportunities for development or expansion of their premises would be severely restricted. Parties are invited to develop their cases and provide an update on negotiations.

Joint Council’s response

It is accepted that direct land take by pylons is limited, however overhead lines and their safety clearances impose additional constraints along a swathe of land up to 50m wide. This is illustrated by National Grid’s ‘sag and swing’ information showing the clearances required underneath and alongside the proposed overhead lines, and these are lower than many of the larger buildings that are seen to be being delivered at ASEA (See Local Impact Report (LIR) Appendix D ASEA (appendix E The applicant’s sag and swing information). In order to identify the scale of building for which there is a demonstrable demand in the ASEA, the Councils reviewed recently approved planning consents for development in the ASEA (and in effect the expansion of existing businesses). Both footprint and building height which have been consented were considered relevant as the Proposed Development bisects a number of plots across the ASEA. The review of consents is contained in the LIR. The Council’s assessment work identifies that buildings recently consented in the ASEA are generally in excess of 15m in height with the main building footprints for industrial and warehousing units typically rectangular in form and ranging from 108m x 80m to 250m x 280m. This contrasts with the applicant’s information which shows the maximum permitted building heights for development underneath the Proposed Development varying between 6.01m and 10.23m. This is significantly less than buildings that have been recently consented in the ASEA. The headroom needed to construct the building must also be taken into account, and this provides an additional height constraint to the scale of building that is likely to be accommodated underneath the overhead lines. In order to further validate the concerns of the Councils and those set out in Relevant Representation, the Councils have commissioned an independent Industrial Market Review. A full copy of the Review is contained in the Joint Council’s LIR. The Review confirms that the nature, scale and format of building sought by the market is that described by the Councils. The Review suggests that there would be an impact from the height constraints that would be imposed by the Proposed Development on the future development of land parcels within the ASEA. The Review concludes that development opportunities and existing buildings and operations that are ‘in some way blighted or impose restrictions on operating practices will be less attractive to occupiers, developers and investors alike and in some instances may be incapable of supporting any form of development or beneficial occupations’. It is also evident from the Relevant Representations from local businesses, including the Port, that they consider the Proposed Development will impact on their operations including the ability to work at height


125

and plans to expand operations. The Councils are therefore of the opinion that as a result of the restrictions imposed by the Proposed Development, the sites will be subject to a constraint that they do not currently have. The capacity of the development plots dissected by the overhead power line to accommodate the scale of larger building promoted by policy and for which there is market demand would be likely to be reduced, and the Industrial Market Review confirmed that they would be rendered less desirable as investment opportunities. The Industrial Market Review concludes that ‘… in over 25 years’ experience of dealing with the industrial property market, I can confirm that the presence of pylons and overhead cables has frequently proved to be detrimental to occupation, development or funding of opportunities’. On the basis of the above the Joint Councils conclude that it is more than the land take of the pylons that constrains development, it is the ‘sag and swing’ and the safety clearances required by the overhead lines that place a significant constraint on development and operations. Therefore it is concluded that the Proposed Development would be likely to result in a significant impact upon some existing business operations, developability of land and future business plans.

National Grid’s comments

This issue is addressed in part 12 of the National Grid response to the Joint Council’s Local Impact Report.

126


a) Has agreement been reached with the relevant Highway Authorities on the following topics? - appropriate methodology for undertaking traffic counts - accuracy of the traffic data gathered - methods of transportation analysis - conclusions of the transportation analysis - access routes and other traffic restrictions - time restrictions on traffic movements - the relevance of IEA guidelines on traffic flow thresholds in the case of narrow country roads where flows are currently low - control of HGVs at potentially over-capacity junctions - routes to be used by Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AILs) - monitoring and enforcement strategy for construction and related traffic - surveys of their existing highway assets likely to be used during construction - use of Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) - location and design standards for bellmouths and other site accesses - the need for a decommissioning plan. b) If agreement has not been reached on any of these topics what are the outstanding issues?

Highways Agency‘s response

See associated document: 150224_EN020001_Highways Agency_1st Qs


The following items have been raised by the Highways Agency and are not agreed.

Control of HGVs at Potentially Over-capacity Junctions

Discussions regarding peak hour junction restrictions are ongoing. For a fuller response please see National Grid’s response to the Highway Agency’s written representation (Volume 8.5).

Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy for Construction and Related Traffic

As detailed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (Volume 5.26.5A, Section 6.14) a Delivery Management System (DMS) will be implemented. National Grid does not propose to use an electronic delivery management system, other than for abnormal deliveries, for which National Grid proposes to use the Highway Agency’s Electronic Service Delivery for Abnormal Loads.


127


See associated document: 150226_EN020001_Joint Councils_1st Qs


The following items have been raised by the Joint Councils as being not agreed.

Transport Assessment Sensitivity Report Analysis of Background Traffic Growth

Please see Section 12.7 of the SoCG – Joint Councils (Volume 8.3.12) for the current position.

Minimal LGV Movements


AIL Movements


Access Routes and Other Traffic Restrictions


Time Restrictions on Traffic Movements

Please see the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (Volume 5.26.5A) Section 7 for details.

Control of HGVs at Potentially Over Capacity Junctions

Please see response to the Highways Agency above.

Use of Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs)

128

Please see Section 12.46 SoCG – Joint Councils (Volume 8.3.12) for the current position.

Location and Design Standards for Bellmouths and other Site Accesses

This amendment is considered to be unnecessary. The current drafting already ensures that details of the design will be agreed by the highways authority and constructed in accordance with those details, and that road safety audits will be carried out and any defects identified in those audits remedied to ensure that the road is safe.

The purpose of road safety audits is to identify any defects with the current design (and which will be rectified) and not to redesign a scheme. Design and audit are therefore independent of each other and this is reflected in the drafting of this Requirement.


129


Are the Authorities content with the estimated quantities of construction waste and the waste management plan?


The Joint Councils are satisfied with the estimated quantities of construction waste in the Waste Management Plan, but have some concerns with the way in which this is presented. As set out in LIR ID 10.1 The Joint Councils have provided comment on the draft Outline Waste Management Plan as part of the CEMP review. The following comments have not be addressed by National Grid in the updated CEMP submitted to PINS: • The requirement for waste storage containers to be labelled should be included. National Grid could refer to the National Colour Coding Scheme for labelling all containers; • At Table 4.1 the councils have requested the removal of decimal places. This incorrectly suggests a high level of accuracy; and • At Table 4.1 the councils have requested Addition of waste type and EMC codes. This information is key to direct suitable waste management methods. The Joint Councils request that the outline WMP is updated accordingly or alternatively, that a separate Requirement is imposed for the pre-commencement submission and approval of a waste management plan, as requested in our the response to Q.4.44


According to WRAP, the National Colour Coding Scheme for labelling containers was developed by Waste Aware Construction (WAC) and the Institute of Civil Engineers. As far as National Grid is able to ascertain, WAC is no longer operational and it is considered this advice may now be out of date. Notwithstanding this, National Grid commits to using the most up to date best practice in managing construction waste for the Proposed Development and will include this commitment in the next iteration of the outline Waste Management Plan (WMP).

With respect to points two and three of the Joint Councils’ response, National Grid can confirm that these suggestions will be incorporated into the next iteration of the outline WMP. The request for a separate requirement for the outline WMP is addressed in National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 4.44 (Volume 8.1.1).

130


Are NE and the Joint Councils satisfied with the Applicant’s approach to cumulative assessment (ES Volume 5.17.1 and ES Volume 5.8.1 section 8.11)? Specifically are parties content with the assumption made that if effects of the proposed development are not significant and the effects of other projects are not significant, then the combined effect will also not be significant?


As set out in SoCG ID 17.2.1 and LIR ID 1.4 the Joint Councils are not content with the assumption made that if effects of the proposed development are not significant and the effects of other projects are not significant, then the combined effects will also not be significant. Assessment of cumulative effects should aim to identify where the proposed development gives rise to additional significant effects in combination with other developments. The assessment criteria should therefore be about the receptor’s sensitivity and the degree of cumulative change brought about by the proposed development within the context of the agreed cumulative baseline. The assessor then makes a judgment on the significance of the element of that cumulative effect arising as a result of the proposed development. The significance criteria and the text should focus on the proposed development.


As set out in National Grid’s response to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 16.7, the assumption referenced in the question, that ‘if effects of the proposed development are not significant and the effects of other projects are not significant, then the combined effect will also not be significant’ is an incorrect assumption in relation to the cumulative effects assessment carried out.

National Grid’s response to this question provides clarification on this matter.


131


a) The Applicant and NE are asked to update the Panel on whether agreement has been reached on the mortality thresholds at which additional mitigation would be required with regards bird collision monitoring and mitigation in route Sections A and B. This is raised in NE’s RR and is covered in the BMS (ES Volume 5.26.3, paras 2.2.14 – 2.2.21 and the HRA Report paras 4.7.1 – 4.7.14). b) Is the RSPB still involved in discussions about mortality thresholds (HRA Report para 4.7.1)? c) The Applicant to advise where this will be included and propose draft wording.


A draft proposal is at an advanced stage; see response to 4.79 e). NE would not envisage any problems in agreeing thresholds (and has already reached agreement with the Applicant’s consultant). At the time of writing, the main outstanding issue is to agree the precise nature of the mitigation response should thresholds be triggered.


National Grid’s position remains as stated in its answer to this question.

132


Paragraph 6.4.5 of the HRA Report lists additional “proposals not forming mitigation but relevant to the Proposed Development” which the Applicant is considering. These do not form part of the DCO and are not relied on in the HRA to reach conclusions. Exact locations are dependent on future landowner agreements. a) NE is requested to give its opinion on whether the conclusions of the HRA are robust without the security of these measures in the DCO. b) NE also to indicate if it considers the off-site planting enhancement scheme (OSPES) has the potential to affect species linked to European sites adversely (eg SPA bird species preferring wide open spaces for predator avoidance). If there is no control over the OSPES’s content could the scheme result in effects which may change the conclusion of the HRA? c) How does NE consider this could be resolved?


a) In NE’s opinion the conclusions of the HRA are not robust without the security of the following measures in the DCO: • Future collision monitoring and mitigation at Hallen Marsh. c) NE considers that the OSPES does have the potential to affect SPA/Ramsar bird species if its content is uncontrolled. d) We would suggest some additional text within the BMS stating: ‘Only existing hedgerows that, in their current state, already affect potential sightlines for SPA/Ramsar waterbirds, will be enhanced through the OSPES or otherwise. No new hedgerows or off-site planting will take place that could potentially affect use by waterbirds, unless their presence has been excluded through monitoring work, or adjacent habitats are clearly unsuitable.’


Part a)

The monitoring and mitigation document for Hallen Marsh will be appended to the BMS (Volume 5.26.3A).

Part b) and Part c)

The current OSPES proposals (Volume 5.25) have already taken account of Special Protection Area / Ramsar bird species (avoiding new tree and hedge planting within Hallen Marsh).

Given that locations of OSPES planting are not guaranteed, National Grid is willing to include some additional text


133

in the OSPES with regard to Special Protection Area / Ramsar birds and changes to planting locations.

134


a) Natural England is asked to advise if it is content with the mechanisms set out in the Applicant’s Bird Diverter Protocol (ES Volume 5.8.2 Appendix 8G) and the locations proposed for: - the installation of bird diverters (DCO Requirement 13.) - monitoring potential future need for bird diverters. (ES Volume 5.26.3 paras 2.2.12, Inset 2.3, para 2.2.14 and 4.1.11 Table 4.1) b) Natural England to comment on AWT’s request that bird diverters are fitted as a precautionary measure from the outset at Portbury Wharf if alternative Route Option B is used. c) AWT is requested to refer the Panel specifically to where the “monitoring regime suggested to analyse the potential increased risk of bird collision” it refers to in its RR is described. Can the Trust set out its reasons in full for its request for bird diverters being fitted as a precautionary measure at Portbury Wharf if Route Option B is used.


a) The protocol set out in Appendix 8G and monitoring described in the ES sections outlined above, should be superseded once the draft Bird Mortality Monitoring And Thresholds document 1979.71.003.012 is finalised. The applicant’s existing Bird Diverter protocol at 8G may be at odds with some the new text devised specifically for this application and contained within the new draft Monitoring and Thresholds document. b) On the basis of proximity to the SPA, NE would support such a precautionary approach.


Please see comments on Avon Wildlife Trust response below.


c) On review of the information provided by the vantage point surveys in winter 2013/14 and the proposed cable alignment, AWT would like to withdraw their request for bird diverters at Portbury Wharf


National Grid can confirm the bird mortality monitoring and thresholds document (1979.71.003.012) will be appended to and secured via the BMS (Volume 5.26.3). This in combination with the Hallen Marsh bird monitoring document (1979.71.003.015) which will also be appended to the BMS, updates the provisions set out in ES Volume 5.8.2, Appendix 8G. The National Grid bird diverter protocol applies to the remaining sections of overhead line.


135


a) The Applicant is requested to explain how it will secure the proposed management regimes to increase the diversity and size of invertebrate populations (ES Volume 5.26.3 para 2.2.32). b) How far in advance of the construction works is it proposed this management will be in place? c) Does NE have any views on this? If so what?


NE would expect this detailed information, alongside other relevant detail e.g. proposed habitat type/amount/location, to be presented by the applicant within an updated BMS.


In response to Natural England’s answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 17.20, National Grid confirms the additional detail on bat foraging habitats will be included in the BMS (Volume 5.26.3A) by the end of the Examination.

136


Do parties consider the commitment to reinstate subsoil, topsoil and hedgerows in phases within 12 months of the completion of each phase (Volume 5.9.2.1, Para 5.2.3) is sufficiently defined for the designated bat populations in light of the extended construction activities in the 400kV undergrounded part of the line?


As discussed in 17.19 & 17.21 above, subsoil, topsoil and hedgerows will be re-instated at a suitable time of year to allow the vegetation to establish and grow. When there are periods of losses of permanent hedgerow, temporary bat flyways will be put in place which will allow the bats habitat to remain connected by enabling commuting routes to effectively remain in place. These plans are detailed in the ES Chapters and appendices noted above and in ES Volume 5.26.3A and ES Volume 5.26.1A. NE suggests alternative wording could be included in the BMS to provide more clarity: ‘to reinstate subsoil, topsoil and hedgerows in phases, each at the most appropriate time of year for reinstatement/planting and within 12 months of the completion of each construction phase’


In response to Natural England’s answer to the Examining Authority’s first round written question 17.24, National Grid confirms the alternative wording on habitat reinstatement will be included in the BMS (Volume 5.26.3A) before the end of the Examination. Specifically, clarifications will be made to Paragraphs 2.2.28 and 2.2 33.

Documents

Applicant’s Comments on Third Party Responses to Examining … · 2016. 4. 20. · Introduction This document provides the comments of the applicant, National Grid Electricity Transmission