SOUTH HOLLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL Report of: Planning Manager To: Planning Committee – 4 June 2014 (Author: Richard Fidler – Development Manager) Subject: Land adjacent to Sutton Bridge Power Station Purpose: To consider an Application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989

H18-0001-06 Application Number:

H18-0001-06 Date Received: 21 November 2013

Application Type:

Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989

Description:

Amendment to the application for consent to construct and operate the proposed Sutton Bridge B Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Generating Station

Location:

Land adjacent to Sutton Bridge Power Station, Sutton Bridge

Applicant:

EDF Energy West Burton Power Ltd

Agent:

Ward: Sutton Bridge

Ward Councillors: Cllr CJTH Brewis, Cllr MD Booth

You can view this application on the Council’s web site at http://www.sholland.gov.uk/doitonline/plandev/plansearch.aspx . Just enter the Application Reference Number, press ‘Get the details’ and follow the links to see the documents and plans held 1.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION 1.1 Significant development and the issues raised merit Committee consideration. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 This application for consent under the Electricity Act 1989, Section 36 was originally

submitted to DECC in December 2005. The application was on hold for some years, then in November 2013, updated documentation was submitted to DECC.

2.2 The updated proposal seeks consent for a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) to

be known as Sutton Bridge B (SBB), which would provide up to 1800 MW of electrical generation capacity, with an overall efficiency of around 60%. It needs to be borne in mind that it falls to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to determine the application under the provisions of Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and the deemed planning permission under Section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The District Council, as local planning authority, has been consulted on the application as has Lincolnshire County Council. As consultees, the District and County Councils cannot grant or refuse planning

permission. They are, however, able to recommend conditions and to negotiate any legal agreements with the applicants considered necessary to secure matters that cannot be dealt with by conditions. Any formal objection from either Council would be likely to result in a public inquiry.

2.3 The application seeks consent principally for:

• Up to 3 No. gas turbines;

• Up to 3 No. Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs);

• Up to 3 No. Steam Turbines;

• Up to 3 No. Stacks;

• Up to 3 No. generator transformers;

• Hybrid cooling towers or Air Cooled Condensers (ACCs);

• 1 No. Gas Recovery Facility (GRF);

• 1 No. switchyard;

• Other plant/equipment (including Water Treatment Plant);

• Ancillary plant/equipment; and

• Buildings (including: administration offices; control room; engineering works (i.e. construction contractors’ temporary laydown area/vehicle loading and unloading/fencing; storage facilities; lighting; warehouses; and workshops).

2.4 In addition to the above, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements are proposed to

be included within the scheme with details to be submitted and approved by South Holland District Council as the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the relevant phase of development.

2.5 In summary, the principal amendments to the original (2005) submissions are:

• An increase in generation capacity from 1260 MW to a maximum of 1800 MW;

• An increase of overall electrical efficiency from 55% to around 60%;

• The use of either ACC or Hybrid Cooling Towers;

• The use of either GIS or AIS switchgear;

• The use of natural gas only; and

• An increase in the expected operational lifetime from 25 to up to 35 years. 2.6 The proposed SBB site of 14.8 hectares is on land adjacent to the existing Sutton

Bridge A CCGT power station. SBB would be completely standalone from SBA and it is anticipated that there would be no common or shared facilities.

2.7 The proposal is EIA (environmental impact assessment) development. The

application therefore includes:

• Updated Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary;

• CHP Assessment;

• CCR Feasibility Study;

• Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report;

• Flood Risk Assessment;

• Planning Statement;

• Consultation Report.

2.8 The final detailed design of the proposed CCGT plant would not be completed until a construction contract is in place. However, it should be noted that the layouts which have been assumed for the purposes of the EIA (and the additional supporting studies) have been developed through preliminary engineering studies, and at present are considered to be the most likely layouts. The EIA has been undertaken on the basis of a ‘worst case scenario’, whereby any impacts would be no greater than those reported in the ES. Prior to commencement of construction the applicant would be required to submit full design details to South Holland District Council pursuant to a planning condition imposed on the Section 36 consent.

2.9 In terms of scale the main structures and their maximum dimensions are listed

below:

2.10 Road access would be via Centenary Way. 2.11 Construction is likely to take between 28 to 36 months, including commissioning. 2.12 The electricity generated would be delivered to the National Grid. It is currently

anticipated that this would be via a direct connection into the nearest suitable connection point, which is the National Grid Walpole Sub-Station approximately 3.5 km from the site. In addition a gas supply will be required, which it is anticipated would be via a connection to the nearby National Grid Gas National Transmission System. Separate planning applications will be required for these connections.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 The application site of 14.8 ha is currently flat agricultural land (0m Above Ordnance

Datum (AOD)). The site is bounded by Centenary Way to the north, with Wingland Enterprise Park and the Bakkavar factory beyond. To the south and east of the site is open farmland. To the west, the site adjoins the existing Sutton Bridge A power station, with the River Nene approximately 0.75 km beyond.

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 The Development Plan South Holland District Local Plan, July 2006 The South Holland Local Plan 2006 was formally adopted on 18 July 2006. Following

a direction from the Government Office for the East Midlands under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 18 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as of 18 July 2009 only certain Local Plan policies have been extended and continue to form part of the development plan. In the context of those

saved policies referred to below, it is considered that the Local Plan was adopted in general accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (albeit under the transitional arrangements). Those policies referred to below clearly accord with the thrust of guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, and in the context of paragraph 215 of the NPPF should therefore continue to be given substantial weight in the decision making process.

Policy SG1 – General Sustainable Development

Policy SG2 – Distribution of Development Policy SG3 – Settlement Hierarchy Policy SG6 – Community Infrastructure and Impact Assessment Policy SG7 – Energy Efficiency Policy SG11 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy SG12 – Sewerage and Development Policy SG13 – Pollution and Contamination Policy SG14 – Design and Layout of New Development Policy SG15 – New Development: Facilities for Road Users, Pedestrians and Cyclists Policy SG16 – Parking Standards in New Development Policy SG17 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy SG18 – Landscaping of New Development Policy EC1 – Major Employment Areas – Sites Allocated for Employment Use If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, Section 38 (6) to the Town and Country Planning Act as amended by the 2004 Act states that the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012 Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 set out the Government’s definition of sustainable development, and encourage the planning system to make it easier for jobs to be created, to replace poor design with better design, to improve the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure, and to widen the choice of high quality homes. It further emphasises that planning decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. Paragraph 17 goes on to

define 12 core planning principles which should underpin decision-taking. More specific guidance directly relevant to this application is set out in the following sections: Section 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport Section 7 – Requiring good design Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Whilst this application would not be determined under the provisions of the Planning

Act 2008, it is considered that some of the overarching principles set out in the National Policy Statements (NPSs) are relevant. The key principles of EN-1the overarching NPS for Energy are:

• It is recognised that the role of the planning system is to provide a framework which permits the construction of infrastructure in places where it is acceptable in planning terms (para. 2.2.4);

• It is ‘critical that the UK continues to have secure and reliable supplies of electricity’ with ‘sufficient capacity to meet demand at all times’ using a ‘diverse mix of technologies and fuels, so that we do not rely on any one technology or fuel’ (para. 2.2.20);

• The ‘Government considers that the need for such infrastructure will often be urgent’ (para. 3.3.3);

• ‘Fossil fuel power stations play a vital role in providing reliable electricity supplies; they can be operated flexibly in response to changes in supply and demand and can provide diversity in our energy mix.’ and will continue to do so, as the UK transitions to a low carbon economy, and that they be ‘constructed and operate, in line with increasing climate change goals’ (para. 3.6.1).

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), 2014

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 H18-1274-92 Sutton Bridge A power station granted permission in 1996 with

subsequent planning permissions for a visitor centre, waste storage enclosure, further storage buildings and hardstanding granted between 2000 and 2011.

H18-0723-12 Energy Park Sutton Bridge Biomass power station granted on 8

January 2014 - S106 agreement for community discounted electricity scheme (£250,000 per year). Following a legal challenge the permission was quashed by the High Court on 9 May 2014 and the application is required to be reconsidered by the local planning authority.

H18-0208-99 Wingland Enterprise Park, constructed in 2001, lies to north of SBB.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Parish Council Request DECC take the following points into account (summarised):

• Question cost effectiveness of increasing facility from 1260MW to 1800MW with a marginal 5% increase in efficiency;

• Updated EIA is inadequate and does not take into account the many changes that have occurred in the area since 2005;

• Location is not within the Wingland industrial area; it is on a Greenfield site;

• Sutton Bridge area already suffers from high levels of air pollution. Recently quashed PREL gasifer power station planning application will be re-submitted and the impact it would have on cumulative emissions should be considered;

• Impact of increased traffic and infrastructure during construction must be fully re-considered;

• In view of December 2013 tidal surges question whether this is a sensible location for the construction of another power station;

• Issues connected to water being taken from and discharged back into the River Nene, of particular concern is the temperature of the water returning to the river as this could have a significant impact on wildlife. The river flows directly into The Wash which is a SPA, SSSI and RAMSAR site i.e. it is a highly protected area and The Wash Biodiversity Action Plan needs to be thoroughly considered;

• In summary, concerned that major issues including those relating to emissions, traffic/highways, flood risk and the protection of wildlife have not been fully re-considered and therefore request that a Public Inquiry is held in respect of the application.

6.2 District Councillors No comments received. 6.3 County Highways No objection. 6.4 Environmental Protection No objections in principle, subject to conditions relating to: external equipment;

construction working hours; residential amenity ; information dissemination and complaint handling; burning of materials; a Construction Environmental Management Plan; Land contamination; air quality monitoring; piling controls.

Also request a S106 contribution for air quality monitoring equipment and maintenance.

Understand that operational noise will be regulated by an Environment Agency Permit.

6.5 Lincolnshire County Council (Planning) No objection but make the following comments:

• The applicants suggested draft condition (6) is re-worded to secure the submission/approval/construction of a SuDS system/strategy, and not just a drainage scheme;

• The continual management of the approved SuDS system/strategy should be secured by either a planning condition and/or S106 agreement;

• There is a need for an archaeological scheme of works to allow any surviving archaeological remains to be preserved by record. This should be secured by condition.

6.6 Kings Lynn & West Norfolk

No objection subject to off-site air quality monitoring and the imposition of the suggested draft conditions (or variations of) contained in Appendix 1 of the Parsons Brinckerhoff Planning Statement dated November 2013.

6.7 Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions that the development be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment; implementation of flood mitigation measures and details of a surface water drainage scheme. Comment that an abstraction licence would be required if the hybrid cooling option is followed. Would welcome further discussions regarding this. The determination of whether hybrid cooling or air cooling is Best Available Technique will be a matter for the determination of the Environmental Permit.

6.8 Natural England Internationally designated sites

Comment the application site is within approximately 6.8km of European designated sites (The Wash and North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and The Wash Special Protection Area (SPA)) and therefore has the potential to affect the interest features of those sites. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The Wash Ramsar site is protected as paragraph 118 of the NPPF applies the same protection measures as those in place for European sites.

The application site is also within approximately 6.8km of The Wash Site of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI). In considering the European site interest, Natural England, advises that, DECC, as a

competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

Natural England notes that the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has not been produced by DECC, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is DECC’s responsibility to produce the HRA. Natural England provides the advice on the assumption that DECC intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil its duty as competent authority. Natural England notes that the applicant has screened the proposal to check for the likelihood of significant effects. The assessment concludes that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. On the basis of information provided, Natural England concurs with this view. Natural England welcomes the proposal for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the separate method statements for individual protected species. This CEMP will complement the mitigation required to ensure that there are no long term air quality and water resource impacts as a result of the proposal. Therefore advise the requirement for a CEMP (with reference to individual method statements) be conditioned. HRA Advice – air quality and condition Natural England notes that the Air Quality assessment has screened the proposal to check for the likelihood of significant emissions on the above named European sites. The assessment concludes that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or on combination. On the basis of information provided, Natural England concurs with this view.

As proposal will require an environmental permit also advise applicant to engage in pre-permitting discussions with the Environment Agency to ensure that there are no permitting concerns that are relevant to the design of the proposal or the determination of the planning decision. As part of any planning consent and notwithstanding the technology selected for the operation of the site, Natural England would welcome the inclusion of relevant conditions in order to ensure the measures outlined within Chapter 9 of the environmental statement will be implemented. HRS Advice – water resources and condition Note hybrid cooling tower technology will require inputs and outputs of water from the River Nene on a daily basis. However are satisfied, on the basis of the information provided and notwithstanding the regulation of this activity by the EA, that there will not be an adverse impact upon The Wash SAC/SPA/Ramsar. Nationally designated sites This application is within 6.8km of The Wash SSSI. However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. Therefore advise that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Conditions advised for internationally designated sites are required to ensure that the development, as submitted, will not impact upon the features of special interest for which The Wash SSSI is notified. European Protected Species Noted that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken. Natural England does not object as on the basis of the information available its advice is that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect bats and otter. Other legally protected species Natural England’s Standing Advice on protected species should be applied in order to assess the adequacy of any surveys, the impacts hat may result and the appropriateness of any mitigation measures. Other advice Natural England would expect DECC to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from the proposal in the following:

• Local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity);

• Local landscape character; and

• Local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.

Recommends further information be sought from appropriate bodies (which may include the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and the Greater Lincolnshire) to ensure there is sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal prior to determination. Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. Should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally draw attention to Section 40 of the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

6.9 English Heritage In view of the proximity of Sutton Bridge A have no specific comments on additional

aesthetic impacts upon the historic environment. 6.10 Highways Agency No comments as A17 does not form part of the trunk road network. 6.11 Health & Safety Executive Confirm that Hazardous Substances Consent is not required. 6.12 Civil Aviation Authority Due to 80m height of proposed stacks number of potential issues. Need to check

aerodrome specific safeguarding issues as submitted documentation does not appear to consider or even dismiss the potential aerodrome-safeguarding issue. Best practice for 80m stacks to be equipped with aviation waning lighting.

6.13 Defence Infrastructure Organisation Site is outside of MoD safeguarding areas therefore has no safeguarding objections. 6.14 NATS Safeguarding Does not conflict with safeguarding criteria, accordingly has no safeguarding

objection. 6.15 Met Office Safeguarding No concerns. 6.16 Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust In a response to the applicant comments that the Trust is satisfied the key nature

conservation issues have been identified and that there should not be any significant negative impacts on protected or notable habitats or species as a result of the proposals. Support the recommendations made by the ecological consultants for mitigation and enhancement measures. Would wish to ensure that the maximum possible biodiversity gains are achieved for the site.

6.17 South Lincs Environment Group Holding objection as have been unable to locate a full EIA and request a full

independent EIA be made available for the public to study. Feasibility study has many discrepancies: the maps do not show the boundary of the

Wingland Enterprise Park which is very misleading; the proposed development is not within the Wingland Enterprise Park boundary, it is on a Greenfield site; it appears that a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) unit has to be built after the EU directive came into force in June 2009, that would also have to be built on a Greenfield site. Concerned that the feasibility study does not include comments regarding a CCS.

Have serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of emissions on the surrounding area. The site is extremely close to the residential area of Sutton Bridge and The Wash which is an SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR site. Can find no evidence of EDF circulating a fact sheet to every household within a 5 mile radius or of posters placed in the local press and in the local area.

6.18 John Hayes MP Objects on the following (summarised) grounds:

• Flood risk;

• Profound aesthetic impact on a very small rural town defined by its unspoilt view of Fenland flatness;

• Taking existing power station into account the cumulative effect , given the topography, need to be seriously considered;

• Concern of the impact of high structures on regular RAF aircraft movements;

• Constituents are anxious about increased traffic on nearby roads – especially HGVs on small rural lanes;

• Believes that a public inquiry, particularly the flood risk, is the best way forward and fairest to the community.

6.19 Public 5 objections received from residents of Sutton Bridge. The points raised are

summarised as follows:

• Greenfield site, not in allocated industrial area;

• Site is adjacent to an existing gas fired power station, food processing firms employing hundreds of local people and there are also 50 residential properties bordering the site;

• There are proposals to build an incinerator/gasifer on the adjoining land;

• There are 7 huge wind turbines on the opposite side of the river;

• Close proximity to the river Nene which runs directly into The Wash which is a Ramsar site, SSSI and SPA site;

• Madness to build on a site at risk of flooding with excessive ground water levels;

• Negative visual impact from such a large power station that will dominate the flat landscape for miles around;

• Cumulative negative impact on air quality;

• Potential traffic chaos on A17 during construction which may occur simultaneously with the increased traffic from construction of Energy Park Sutton Bridge;

• Consultation was flawed as EDF did not write to all households;

• Unacceptable safety risk having another power station adjacent to a biomass power station;

• There appears to be no EIA;

• This is a completely new application not an extension of the existing power station;

• Proposal is now for a 1800MW station which is over twice as large as the existing one, presume it will have to include a CCS on yet another huge tranche of grade 1 agricultural land. The CCS has not been considered in the feasibility study;

• Hope the Secretary of State will call a public inquiry to allow all concerns to be aired before this huge development which will have a devastating effect on Sutton Bridge is given approval.

6.20 Applicant or Agent

• Planning Conditions – confirm that it is appropriate, following feedback from consultees to suggest some amendment/additions to the draft set of conditions detailed in the Planning Statement. Broadly, the amendments/additions to be suggested to DECC relate to: flood risk and drainage; air quality; air safeguarding; the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); contaminated land; archaeology; and piling matters. Will seek to agree the wording with the relevant stakeholders over the coming weeks. Thereafter intend to write to DECC, copied to South Holland DC, with an updated version of the draft set of conditions,

• Are aware of the position of your members to ensure that the community benefits from projects locally. Ask that members are reminded of the benefits that Sutton Bridge B would bring in terms of local job creation and spend, and potential for business rate retention. Notwithstanding, understand that additional measures may be requested. Are clear that this should be discussed outside of the planning process, as there are no impacts that have been identified that would need to be mitigated.

7.0 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The key issues for consideration in this application are:

� The need for additional electricity generation and the principle of development. � Consideration of alternatives. � Air Quality. � Noise and Vibration. � Landscape and Visual Impact � Flood Risk � Ecology. � Water Quality and Resources. � Geology and Soils. � Traffic, Transport and Access. � Historic Environment. � Socio-Economics � Mitigation

The need for additional electricity generation and the principle of development. 7.2 The Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) states that the

determining authority should start with a ‘presumption in favour of granting consent’ for applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Further it notes that:

“All applications for � consent (for energy infrastructure should be assessed) on the basis that the Government has demonstrated that there is a need for those types of infrastructure”.

7.3 The Government believes in an urgent need for new large scale energy infrastructure

developments, which include: the need to meet energy security and carbon reduction objectives; the need to replace closing electricity generating capacity; and the likely future increases in electricity demand.

7.4 Part 3 of EN-1 sets out and establishes the need for developments for energy

infrastructure. Para 3.1.1 states that all energy infrastructure projects falling under the provisions of EN-1 are needed to achieve energy security and at the same time dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

7.5 There is thus clearly still a need for fossil-fuelled plants (such as CCGT) in addition to

renewable generation and nuclear. These plants can be brought on-line quickly when there is high demand and shut-down quickly when there is low demand, thus complementing base load electricity generation and intermittent electricity generation from nuclear and renewables.

National Planning Policy Framework 7.6 Para 14 of the NPPF states:

“At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-making.”

7.7 Para 17 identifies the 12 Core Planning Principles a number of which are relevant to the proposed SBB power station.

Building a Strong Competitive Economy

7.8 Para 18 outlines that the Government is committed to ‘securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity’. Para 19 expands on this and states: “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth.” Promoting Sustainable Transport

7.9 Para 19 states: “Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating development but also in contributing to wider sustainable and health objectives.” Para 32 also states: “Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

• The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

• safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

• improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented/refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.”

Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change

7.10 Para 93 states: “Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”

7.11 Para 100 of the NPPF states: “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

7.12 Para 111 relates to the re-use of previously developed land. It states: “Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.” South Holland Local Plan

7.13 The application site is an unallocated greenfield site which is grade 1 agricultural land. It is adjacent to the existing Sutton Bridge A power station and close to the 54 Ha site allocated for employment use and identified as a major employment area in Policy EC1. The proposed SBB would provide necessary energy infrastructure adjacent to an existing power station and allocated employment site, with a scale and impact of development comparable to the existing power station and other existing or proposed employment developments.

7.14 Policy SG1 relates to sustainable development and states that planning permission for development will be granted where the Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the principles of sustainable development and where the quality of life for residents is unimpaired or enhances, reasonable measures have been taken to conserve energy and natural resources and the District’s essential character and environmental assets are not damaged. The ES identifies the environmental assets that may be affected by the proposed SBB power station in chapters 9 to 17. Measures are proposed in the ES to protect the quality of life for nearby residents. These include the preparation of, and compliance with, a Construction Environmental Management Plan during the construction phase.

7.15 Policy SG2 relates to the distribution of development and requires all development proposals to be located having regard to sustainable development principles. The application site was identified due to the requirement for a large area of land and access to certain facilities such as a grid connection. The alternative sites considered and the rationale for the choice of site is set out in Chapter 6 of the ES. Section 15 of the ES (Traffic, Transport and Access) presents the results of the impact assessment on the local highway network and concludes that the impacts would not be significant. A Construction Traffic Management Plan would be prepared and complied with during the construction phase to manage the movement of traffic.

7.16 Policy SG6 relates to community infrastructure and impact assessment and requires new development to include measures to demonstrate how public infrastructure and services required to support the development will be delivered. EDF Energy proposes to work with the local authorities to identify measures to maximise opportunities for the local workforce and supply chain.

7.17 Policy SG7 relates to energy efficiency and encourages development to be designed to provide maximum energy efficiency and where the floor space exceeds 1000 sqm to incorporate renewable energy production equipment to provide at least 10% of its predicted energy requirements. Due to the nature of the SBB, the design of the buildings and other plant is dictated by function. However, the choice of technologies has been considered in detail to maximise efficiency. The Combined Heat and Power Assessment demonstrates at the current time, there are no identified feasible CHP opportunities.

7.18 Policy SG11 relates to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and concerns the

management of surface water runoff from proposed development. Details of the measures proposed are included in the Flood Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency and Lincolnshire County Council also suggest conditions be imposed in relation to the detail of such a scheme.

7.19 Policy SG12 relates to sewerage and requires new development to include provision for the effective collection, treatment and disposal of foul sewage discharge. Waste water would be treated on site to ensure that any discharge is compliant with the terms of the Environmental Permit and/or Trade Effluent Discharge Consent.

7.20 Policy SG13 states that planning permission will only be granted where proposed development would not cause unacceptable levels of pollution to the surrounding area. Would be dealt with by the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

7.21 Policy SG14 concerns the layout and design of new development. New development should be designed to ensure that it makes a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of its surroundings. New development should normally respect the vernacular architecture of the area in which it is located although high quality contemporary design will be supported in appropriate contexts. The policy’s range of criteria to be taken into consideration include the scale, form and height of the proposed development, the effect on the amenity of nearby residents through noise, disturbance, overlooking and loss of light. Development that would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality will not be permitted. Chapter 11 of the ES presents the results of the landscape and visual impact assessment. Due to the nature of the proposed power station, the design is driven by the technical specification of the power plant, Ten locations were selected to be representative of views from the surrounding area and assessed in the EA. The impact on local residents and vehicle users in these locations was assessed as having the potential to be slight, neutral or moderate during construction and operation, with the exception of the effect on King John Bank during operation which would have a view of the cooling towers leading to a substantial effect. These effects would be mitigated as screen planting become established.

7.22 Policy SG15 requires new development to provide safe and convenient access to and within a site for motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, the less able-bodied and people with disabilities to accommodate the potential increase in movement generated by the proposal. Centenary Way and junction with A17 are of a sufficient standard and have the capacity to accommodate the development.

7.23 Policy SG16 requires development to provide appropriate parking and servicing arrangements. Sufficient parking would be provided on site to accommodate all vehicles during construction, operation and decommissioning.

7.24 Policy SG17 is concerned with the protection of residential amenity taking into account amongst other things, the levels of smell, emissions and pollutants and potential noise nuisance including that associated with vehicular activity. Measures are proposed in the ES to protect the quality of life for nearby residents. These include the preparation of, and compliance with, a Construction Environmental Management Plan during the construction phase and the creation of boundary screen planting.

7.25 Policy SG18 requires new development to incorporate landscaping proposals as an integral part of their design and layout. Planting is proposed along the site boundary to help assimilate the development into the landscape.

Air Quality 7.26 An assessment of potential impacts during construction, operational phase and

decommissioning was undertaken. The conclusion was that the potential air quality impacts during all phases of the project would not be significant following compliance with the commitments and controls set out in the ES, which include compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan; during operation compliance with the Environmental Permit, use of abatement technology, stacks of sufficient height and emitting flue gases at a temperature and velocity to ensure adequate dispersal and finally through a Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan.

7.27 Both our Environmental Health officers and those of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk have

raised no objections subject to conditions.

Noise and Vibration 7.28 An assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts was undertaken in relation to

each phase of the project. The same 6 Noise Sensitive Receptor (NSR) locations were used as in the original 2005 ES. These had been agreed in consultation with our Environmental Health officers and were: Gibbons Farm (approx 930m south east of the site), Herons Path Bungalow (approx 660m north west of the site), Peterspoint Lane Cottages (975m north west), Agricultural Experimental Units (approx 800m north west), Marigold Cottage, Chalk Lane (approx 1300m north east) and King John Bank (approx 790 m south south east). There would be some noise disturbance during construction, which would be controlled through measures in the CEMP to ensure that noise thresholds would not be breached. In terms of vibration there would be no piling within 20m if surrounding properties, so no greater than a negligible impact. Best practice noise control measures would be adopted during operation, so potential impact would be minor. Deconstruction phases similar to construction with activities controlled via a DEMP.

7.29 Environmental Health has no objections subject to conditions.

Landscape and Visual

7.30 The scale and in particular the height of the development notably the stacks and the surrounding flat landscape would mean that it would be visible form distance, even given its proximity to the existing SBA. The Landscape and Visual Assessment undertaken as part of the ES considered the potential impacts of the proposed development (with mitigation) in the three phases of the project.

7.31 During construction potential impacts would be mitigated through measures in the

CEMP, including topsoil storage to screen views into the site and the creation of a screen perimeter. These mitigation measures would result in the potential impacts from most viewpoints being neutral of slight. However, the impact on residents from Walpole St Andrews looking north west, King John Bank looking west and River Nene, north of Gibbons Farm looking north east has a potential moderate impact, albeit for a temporary period.

7.32 During operation, the power station would be of a functional design, industrial in

character and appearance, with a relatively simple clear outline and the applicant puts the case that the use of cladding and materials with finishes in recessive colours would help minimise any potential visual impacts. Ten photomontages were produced from key locations in the vicinity, with the alternatives of hybrid cooling towers and ACCs. The potential impacts relate to: the loss of existing landscape features associated with the proposed site; the introduction of new buildings and structures, including lighting at night and change of land use. The assessment was that all viewpoints would potentially experience a slight impact once the landscaping scheme has established itself, with the exception of the viewpoint by residents from King John Bank looking west and the River Nene, north of Gibbons Farm, looking north east which would be moderate.

7.33 Decommissioning would be similar to construction with activities controlled by a

DEMP. 7.34 The landscape and visual assessment concludes the impacts during all phases would

not be significant in the long term following compliance with the commitments and controls set out in the ES.

7.35 The view of your Planning Officers is that there are no reasons to disagree with the assessment undertaken and therefore the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its landscape and visual impact.

Ecology 7.36 There are two Statutory Designated Sites within the Ecological Study Area: The

Wash (and The Wash and North Norfolk Coast) Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve (NNR) located approximately 6.5km north of the proposed site; and The Shrubberies Local Nature Reserve (LNR), which is parkland/pasture, located approx 6.6km to the north west.

7.37 There are four Non-Statutory Designated Sites within the ecological study area.

Cross Keys Pool and Field Local Wildlife Site (LWS) approx 750 m north; Nene Bank Verges Roadside Nature Reserve (RNR), approx 500m south west; South Holland Main Drain Banks LWS, approx 500m west and Sutton Bridge Disused Railway Line Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SCNI) approx 1km north west.

7.38 In addition, within the ecological survey area, there are two Biodiversity Action Plan

(BAP) Habitats listed on the UK and Lincolnshire BAPs: coastal and floodplain grazing marsh; and ponds.

7.39 Various ecology surveys were undertaken to assemble a detailed list of the habitats

present, including: badgers, bats, breeding birds, Great Crested Newts (and other amphibian species), otters, reptiles, water voles and wintering birds.

7.40 The assessment concluded that potential ecological impacts would not be significant

during all phases following compliance with the commitments and controls set out in the ES. Construction and Decommissioning would be controlled via the CEMP and DEMP. During operation the assessment noted there would be some potential slight adverse impacts at the Cross Keys Pool and Field LWS before the implementation of mitigation. The operation of the power station would be controlled, principally through the Environmental Permit that would regulate the emissions.

7.41 Natural England, the relevant statutory advisor on nature conservation matters does

not object to the proposal nor does the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

Water Quality and Resources 7.42 The assessment undertaken concluded that potential impacts on water quality and

resources would not be significant during all phases following compliance with the commitments and controls set out in the ES. These would include measures in the CEMP and DEMP. Potential impacts during operation would depend whether hybrid cooling towers or ACCs were used. With hybrid cooling towers only, potential impacts would be associated with the use of water for : raw water treatment; effluent/purge from the hybrid cooling towers and the thermal plume. During operation with either hybrid cooling towers or ACCs, the potential impacts would be associated with the use of water for : raw water treatment (make-up to steam/water cycle); effluent from steam/water cycle; waste water treatment plant; and miscellaneous uses. In addition during operation there are expected to be four new drainage/water systems to include: surface water drainage system; oily water drainage system; contaminated (process effluent) waste water system; and sewerage system. Measures would be controlled under the Environmental Permit; appropriate oil and chemical storage tanks would be used and the site drainage system would be appropriately designed and maintained.

7.43 Both the Environment Agency and Lincolnshire County Council have recommended the imposition of conditions to deal with drainage matters.

Flood Risk

7.44 The Environment Agency is satisfied with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and raises no objection. The view of your Planning Officers is that both the sequential and exceptions tests have been met for the proposed development, as although it is located in Flood Zone 3, there are not considered to be sequentially preferable sites in the district and the proposed energy generating use may be considered as essential infrastructure in terms of the NPPF.

Traffic, Transport and Access

7.45 The impact assessment considered the potential impacts on local traffic, the local transport network and associated infrastructure, particularly during the morning and afternoon peak hours, consistent with conditions on the A17 and the junction with Centenary Way/King John Bank. The assessment estimates as a worst case that the peak of construction activities would occur in 2017.

7.46 During the peak of construction it estimated up to 1500 construction personnel per

day would travel to and from the site, with the bulk of this workforce traffic outside of the AM and PM peak hours. There would be no exceedances of the threshold for satisfactory operation of the A17 following the addition of the traffic associated with SBB, a potentially minor impact for general construction traffic and a potential moderate impact for the movement of abnormal indivisible loads. In addition, there would be no exceedances of the threshold for satisfactory operation of Centenary Way.

7.47 It is stated that EDF Energy will work with Sutton Bridge Power (operators of SBA),

the developer/operator of Energy Park Sutton Bridge (biomass power station) and users of the Wingland Enterprise Park to ensure that any on-site traffic associate with SBB is managed and the potential for impacts on Centenary Way traffic minimised.

7.48 During operation, the potential impact from operational traffic would be minor as there

would only be low levels of additional traffic including the intermittent delivery of various process chemicals.

7.49 During decommissioning works would be similar to construction and activities would

be controlled via a DEMP. 7.50 The conclusion of the assessment is that potential impacts on traffic, transport and

access would not be significant following compliance with the commitments and controls set out in the ES. Notwithstanding, a Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed to manage the movement off goods and workforce during the construction phase.

7.51 The County Highway Authority has no objections.

Historic Environment 7.52 The impact assessment considered the potential impact on conservation areas,

designated features (including Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields), built historic environment assets, earthworks features and buried archaeological assets. Most significant impacts would occur during construction. Concludes that measures be included within the CEMP and following compliance with this, the potential impacts on the historic environment would not be significant.

7.53 Natural England has no objections. Lincolnshire County Council requests a condition as there is a need for an archaeological scheme of works to allow any surviving archaeological remains to be preserved by record.

Socio-Economics

7.54 The construction workforce is anticipated to peak at approximately 1500 workers. During operation, the power station workforce is anticipated to be approximately 50. The applicant states that local recruitment and supply chain use would be encouraged throughout the power station's life.

Mitigation (Planning Obligation)

7.55 The applicant is of the view that there is embedded mitigation within the application and as such there is no requirement for significant additional mitigation in the form of a S106 agreement. The ES concludes there would be no significant impacts as a result of the proposal.

7.56 Environmental Protection have requested funding for the capital cost and subsequent

maintenance of air quality monitoring equipment. 7.57 Having considered the proposed development in the contact of the CIL Regulations,

your Planning Officers are of the view that there are no legitimate grounds for requiring a Planning Obligation. However outside of Planning there is a possible mechanism for agreements to secure community benefits. This is still a matter for discussion with the applicant.

Conclusion

7.58 The proposed SBB site is an unallocated Greenfield site but is adjacent to the existing Sutton Bridge A power station and to land currently in employment use and allocated for employment use. The proposal would contribute to securing sufficient generation of electricity in the future, including the provision of flexible capacity to accommodate variations in demand. It would support the drive towards electricity generation by renewable (which is often intermittent) by ensuring that forecast demand is still met. A modern, efficient power station would help meet carbon reduction objectives and the design has taken CCR into account. Construction, operation and decommissioning activities has the potential to bring positive benefits to the local economy through offering employment opportunities and supporting ancillary services.

7.59 The ES concludes that through the following commitments and control there would be

on significant impacts as a result of the development; Measures set out in the CEMP would be developed to ensure there would be no significant adverse impacts arising from the construction phases. These would relate to: controls over noise, air and light emissions; compliance with construction working hours; and establishment of method statements to control any potential impacts on ecological receptors.

7.60 Development of a landscaping scheme to minimise potential landscape and visual

impacts. 7.61 Management of transport impacts arising from the construction phase through the

implementation of a Construction Transport Management Plan, which would include measures to maximise opportunities for utilising sustainable modes of transport and identification of routing of construction traffic.

7.62 Development of and compliance with, an archaeological monitoring and recording scheme, to manage any archaeological finds during the construction phase;

7.63 The development of a Decommissioning Plan to manage any potential impacts

arising. 7.64 The creation of flood attenuation ponds to ensure that there would be no adverse

impacts of adjacent users as well as ensuring the power station is protected. 7.65 It is considered that the proposed development would comply with the government's

approach to sustainable development set out in the NPPF. It would contribute to economic growth in the local area, will support energy generation security and meet increasing demand. Whilst it would be a significant structure it is considered that its design and mitigation measures plus adjacent structures would minimise its impact on the surrounding environment.

7.66 Government policy in para 3.6.1 of NPS EN-1. recognises that fossil fuel power

stations play a vital role in providing electricity supplies and can provide diversity in our energy mix and will continue to do so as the UK transisitions to a low carbon economy.

7.67 On this basis it is considered that the proposed SBB power station is acceptable in

planning terms. 8.0 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 Raise no objection subject to an updated list of conditions to that set out in

Appendix 1 of the Planning Statement submitted with the application. Those conditions are appended to this report.

Background papers:- Planning Application Working File

Lead Contact Officer Name/Post: Paul Jackson; Planning Manager Telephone Number: 01775 764402 Email: paul.jackson@breckland-sholland.gov.uk Appendices attached to this report: Appendix A - Plan A Appendix B - Draft conditions (Appendix 1 of Sutton Bridge B - Planning Statement, November 2013)

APPENDIX A Plan A

APPENDIX B Draft conditions (Appendix 1 of Sutton Bridge B - Planning Statement, November

2013)