Application by National Grid Hinkley Point C Connection ... · • To point out particular sections...

EN020001: Hinkley Point C Connection. Examining authority’s second written questions and requests for information

Application by National Grid Hinkley Point C Connection Project The Examining authority’s second written questions and requests for information

The following table sets out the Examining authority’s (ExA’s) written questions and requests for information, responses to which are due on Thursday 4 June 2015 at 23:59h (11:59pm) – Deadline 5.

Questions are set out using an issue-based framework derived from the initial assessment of principal issues provided as Annex D to the Panel’s Rule 6 letter of 28 November 2014, with additional topic headings, as for first questions (FQs).

Column 2 of the table indicates the party (or parties) that is (are) required to answer each specific question.

The ExA would be grateful if all bodies named could answer all questions directed at them, providing either a clear and substantive response, or indicating that the question is not relevant to them for a reason that should be clearly explained.

The direction of questions in this way does not preclude an answer being provided by a party to whom it is not directed, should the question be relevant to its interests. Where questions can be fully addressed and answered within a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) or other submission, then a reference to the relevant section of a SoCG or submission, will be sufficient.

Questions addressed to the ‘relevant highway authority’ should be answered by the highway authority responsible for the area in question.

References to the Environmental Statement, which is Volume 5 of the Application Documents are prefixed ‘ES’ and the abbreviation ‘para(s)’ denotes the relevant paragraph.

Each second round question has a unique reference number which starts with a 2. then combines a section number and a question number. When you are answering a question, please start your answer by quoting the unique reference number. References to first round questions are prefixed FQ. If you are answering a limited number of questions, responses in a letter format will suffice. If you are answering several questions, it will assist the ExA if you use a table based on that used below. An editable version of this table in Microsoft Word is available from the Planning Inspectorate. Please email your request to: [email protected] and include ‘Editable ExAQ2 Table’ in the subject line of your email.

1

mailto:[email protected]

EN020001: Hinkley Point C Connection. Examining authority’s second round questions, clarifications and requests for information

Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter 1. Air quality 2.1.1 Wraxall & Failand

Parish Council

The Parish Council has stated that “the construction traffic will emit large quantities of toxic particulate and dust which will have an adverse effect on the air quality for residents of the area”. Given the views expressed by Public Health England (PHE) and the degree of conservatism explained in the ES Document 5.13 para 13.3.3 and 13.3.5 and referred to in the Agenda points 8.1 and 8.2 of the Issue Specific Hearing (ISH) Agenda for 29 April 2015 (Air Quality, etc.) the Parish Council is asked: • To point out particular sections of the scheme within the Parish Council area where

property and residents are likely to be affected; and • To provide any available evidence that may differ from the assessment made in the ES.

2. Biodiversity, Biological Environment and Ecology Hallen Marsh 2.2.1 Applicant

Joint Councils Minor alignment changes are reported (ES Volume 5.2.1, para 2.9.118 - 127) to minimise effects on Hallen Marshes. Was undergrounding considered in this location? Was the impact on bird mortality assessed within the environmental effects considered? Was the importance of Hallen Marsh for ecological off-setting, which has been explained through written representations (WRs), the Local Impact Report (LIR), and at ISHs, known at the time routing decisions were made? Joint Councils may wish to comment on the latter point.

2.2.2 Applicant Joint Councils Natural England

Applicant and Joint Councils to confirm if the buffer zone, which will determine the s106 agreement funding is agreed? If so what is the agreed buffer zone in hectares? Any comment from Natural England?

2.2.3 Joint Councils Reference was made at the Biodiversity ISH to the strategic allocation of development at Hallen Marsh. Could the Joint Councils explain if there is a risk of activity associated with this development causing disturbance to any birds using Hallen Marsh? How suitable would Hallen Marsh be as habitat for birds associated with the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) following development of the allocated areas?

2.2.4 Applicant Reference was made at the Biodiversity ISH to the displacement that would be caused by

2


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter the M49 motorway. Why would birds using Hallen Marsh not habituate to the noise from the M49? Could the Applicant provide a brief review, with references, to the evidence it has used to come to this conclusion?

2.2.5 Joint Councils The Joint Councils are requested to set out any sustained differences with the stated opinion of Natural England at the Biodiversity ISH, namely that Hallen Marsh biodiversity matters are environmental impact assessment (EIA) matters and not those relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for this project.

Otters 2.2.6 Applicant Can the Applicant clarify the discrepancy in what was reported at the Biodiversity ISH

regarding agreement having being reached with Yatton and Congresbury Wildlife Action group (YACWAG) on matters to do with otter; and the position stated in YACWAG’s submission in lieu of attendance at ISHs. This may be a matter of timing.

General 2.2.7 Applicant

Joint Councils Natural England

Applicant, Joint Councils and Natural England to provide an update of any non-HRA biodiversity matters which are not agreed by parties and reported elsewhere for Deadline 5.

2.2.8 Applicant Joint Councils

We heard at the Biodiversity ISH that agreement had been reached on the s106 contributions for local wildlife sites. Does that mean that the matters listed on the fourth page of the “other claims where agreement has not been reached” (Document 8.4A) are no longer a point of dispute? If they are still the subject of disagreement, parties should set out the case for and against.

2.2.9 Applicant Avon Wildlife Trust Bristol Port Company (BPC)

Further to stated agreement with the Joint Councils on contributions to local wildlife sites, as now set out in Document 8.4A, are there any outstanding matters in connection with the local wildlife sites for any other interested parties?

3. Compulsory Acquisition 2.3.1 Applicant Document 7.5A Need Case for the South West and South Wales & Gloucestershire Regions

3


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Table 4.2 sets out a summary of the Applicant’s contractual requirements in respect of generator connections to the NETS in the South West region. Are those contractual requirements dependent upon or linked to the grant of development consent in the case of the Navitus Bay stages 1, 2 and 3 or the final investment decisions, implementation or completion of any of those schemes? If so, should the grant of the compulsory acquisition powers sought for the Hinkley C Connection project be similarly linked?

2.3.2 Applicant Document 7.5A Table 4.3 identified the existing and future contracted generator connections in the South Wales & Gloucestershire. Like Table 4.2, these do not all relate to existing generators. Please identify the status of those projects within both Table 4.2 and 4.3 for which a completion date is given in terms of whether all necessary consents have been granted to enable them to proceed and any potential impediments to their completion.

2.3.3 Applicant Document 7.5A, para 6.3, indicates that National Grid is obliged to offer to connect new generation to its transmission system and connection agreements for substantial quantities of new generation have been signed including in the South West and South Wales and Gloucestershire regions. Do the parties to those agreements retain the ability to amend or otherwise alter the anticipated connection date or withdraw from the contractual arrangement with the Applicant in specified circumstances, for example, in the case of failure to obtain the necessary consents or a decision not to proceed with the scheme? If so, how reliable does that make the need case advanced by the Applicant? Please distinguish between those projects to which such caveats would apply and those which are certain to proceed.

2.3.4 Applicant In response to FQ 3.21, the Applicant states that the legislation and licence requirements require it to deliver a connection to contracted customers. The only customer specifically mentioned is EDF Energy, the contracted customer for the Hinkley C Connection Project. That would seem to indicate that the contract with EDF Energy is crucial to the progression of the project and the scheme would not be taken forwards in the absence of that contractual obligation. The response also suggests that EDF Energy retains the ability to cancel the bilateral connection agreement or vary the contractual delivery date. Is that a correct assessment of the contractual position? What are the implications that follow for the prospects of the scheme actually being taken forwards and the likely timescale for that? Explain how this is catered for, if at all, by the RII-T1 arrangements?

4


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter 2.3.5 Applicant In response to FQ 3.23, the Applicant indicates that there are very few property owners who

would be in a position to issue a blight notice; that there have been no such notices lodged to date and it is not aware of any landowners who are preparing to lodge a notice. Please provide an update to that response and indicate the property owners who, in its opinion, would be in a position to issue such a notice.

2.3.6 Applicant In response to FQ 3.27, the Applicant indicates that the principles referred to in the Funding Statement are underpinned by an indemnity agreement between it and Western Power Distribution (WPD) in respect of the latter’s reasonable and proper costs. Has this agreement been signed? Whilst the terms of that agreement are stated to be commercially confidential, can further details be provided of the indemnity arrangement without revealing its commercial terms?

2.3.7 Applicant In response to FQ 3.29, the Applicant indicates that, in practice, it will be managing the process, negotiation and payment for any land/easements on behalf of WPD. The ExA repeats its request for the Applicant to provide evidence to allow consideration of WPD’s ability to pay compensation. How can the ExA be satisfied that funds would be available to meet the WPD obligations in this respect?

2.3.8 Applicant The Funding Statement, at para 1.11, gives an estimated project cost in excess of £600m. What is the current estimated total project cost? Has there been any revision to the construction costs figures set out in the Update Report (Volume 7.4)?

2.3.9 Applicant The Funding Statement, at para 4.3, estimates the total cost of payments, disturbance injurious affection and related professional fees at £50.2m. In the light of negotiations which have taken place to date, does that figure need to be revised?

2.3.10 Applicant The Applicant’s response to FQ 3.18 sets out a summary of the appraisal’s conclusion for each Study Area. Please explain the reasons for rejecting all Study Areas, apart from Study Area C, as being particularly sensitive locations in the context of paragraph 2.8.2 of EN-5? What regard has been had to the degree of screening and the nature of the landscape and local environment through which the route passes and the limited scope for mitigation of adverse impacts in some areas?

2.3.11 Applicant The Applicant’s response to FQ 3.18 sets out a summary of the appraisal’s conclusion for each Study Area in relation to the assessment of localised benefits of undergrounding.

5


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Document 5.2.1, para 2.6.39, explains that each of the overhead line routes was assessed by Study Area using a range of disciplines of environment, socio-economics and cost, using professional judgement to balance the issues and compare the effects of the routes to identify the preferred option or combination of options. Explain precisely how the social and environmental impacts have been assessed in each case. What objective assessment has been made of these various impacts? Identify the role that professional judgment has played in the conclusions reached. What weight was attributed to each criterion in each Study Area and why? How has the social impact been assessed in each case and was this examined solely in terms of local economic impact? How has the impact on buried archaeological remains been assessed in each Study Area and how did this differ from area to area and for what reasons?

2.3.12 Applicant Notwithstanding the details provided in the ES, and in response to FQs, the Applicant is requested to set out in summary form the alternatives to the proposal included in the application that were considered, and the reasons for the selection of the land chosen providing references to ES documentation where appropriate.

2.3.13 Applicant National Trust

The response to FQ 3.59 indicates that terms have been agreed with the National Trust for the rights required over the two parcels of land owned by it. However, as initially requested, written confirmation is sought from the National Trust that the land is not held by it inalienably.

2.3.14 Applicant The response to FQ 3.60 referred to the table at Appendix 3.60.1.1 which provided an update, where relevant, on the progress made by the Applicant in its discussions with the relevant bodies. A further update on the progress made is now sought.

2.3.15 Applicant The response to FQ 3.61, at 3.61.2, indicates that the Applicant will provide the ExA with a detailed response to any objections made by persons with an interest in land (PILS) to the proposed grant of compulsory acquisition powers in advance of any compulsory acquisition hearings taking place. That detailed response is now sought.

2.3.16 Applicant The response to FQ 3.61, at 3.61.3, indicates that the Applicant would provide the ExA with an updated response to each objection of which it is aware prior to the close of the Examination. Please confirm that this will be provided by Deadline 6.

2.3.17 Applicant In response to FQ 3.41, BPC has provided comments in relation to the errors and omissions

6


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Bristol Port Company (BPC)

in the Book of Reference. Are these comments agreed as reflecting the correct situation and, if so, does the latest version of the Book of Reference reflect all those changes? Please confirm that it is now complete and accurate?

2.3.18 Applicant BPC

The BPC’s written representation suggests protective provisions that it asserts are necessary in order to safeguard its interests. Have these protective provisions been agreed? If not, outline any remaining areas of disagreement.

2.3.19 Applicant In Document 8.5, para 1.7.22, the Applicant responds in relation to the justification for limited removal of pylon foundations. The Applicant has also provided a more general response to FQ 3.7. In relation to that response, the Applicant is requested to explain the type of material comprised in the existing foundations. Whilst full excavation might involve a larger area, this is what is being sought by some owners despite the greater disruption that might cause. Could the complete removal of foundations be accommodated in those instances where this is specifically requested by owners? Which types of foundations would require excavations of over 30m2 and does this represent the exception rather than the norm? What is the likely extent and cost of the additional work involved in most cases?


In Document 8.5, para 1.7.37, the Applicant responds to BPC claims that the overhead line would cause serious detriment to the undertaking as it would prevent entirely the use of large areas of the immediate dock area for cargo handling and port development. What is the outcome of discussions between the parties on what land uses could be found to be compatible with the overhead line? Can BPC explain further why the proposed conductor clearances would cause serious detriment to its operations?


The written representation of BPC seeks justification from the Applicant for the scale of the rights over land sought to complete Work 4G pylon removal. In the light of the Applicant’s response set out in Document 8.5, paras 1.7.43-45, are the issues raised by BPC now resolved by the revised DCO and work plans?

2.3.22 Applicant Mr and Mrs Blewitt

The written representation from Mr and Mrs Blewitt of Sunnydene asserts that their property has been blighted by the project. Does the Applicant agree that the property has been blighted in this way? The Applicant’s response in Document 8.5 para 2.18.2 makes reference to on-going negotiations. Has any agreement been reached in respect of this property?

2.3.23 Applicant The written representation from Mr and Mrs Blewitt of Sunnydene makes reference to their

7


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Mr and Mrs Blewitt

Human Rights. Are the distances set out in that representation agreed and is the time period referred to for the use of the temporary access in this location agreed? How has the Human Rights balancing exercise been undertaken in this instance? What specific factors have been taken into account and what weight has been attributed to each element that has been taken into consideration?

2.3.24 Applicant RWE Generation UK (RWE)

In Document 8.5, para 1.22.4-5, the Applicant indicates that it is seeking to agree with RWE an asset protection agreement. Has any such agreement been reached with RWE in respect of the impact of the proposed development on RWE operations at Bristol Port? Has agreement been reached as regards the acquisition of RWE’s interests?

2.3.25 Applicant Table 1 of the Statement of Reasons (SoR) identifies all the land where permanent acquisition of land is proposed. As described in paragraph 3.3 of the SoR, the land will be required for the construction of substations and cable sealing end compounds. So far as the land over which pylons are to be constructed or within which underground electric cables are to be installed our understanding is that no land will be acquired but rights under Article 27 of the draft DCO will be relied upon. Please confirm our understanding is correct.

2.3.26 Applicant Paragraph 10.2 of the SoR refers to the acquisition of rights over common land and paragraph 10.4 sets out the Applicant’s view that the provisions of section 132(3) of the Planning Act 2008 will apply and accordingly special parliamentary procedure will not apply. Please advise if discussions with the commoners have taken place and if they have, whether the commoners concur with your view.

2.3.27 Applicant Paragraph 10.3 of the SoR identifies plots where acquisition of rights over Crown land are sought and states that discussions are ongoing in relation to securing agreement to acquire the necessary interests. What is the current position regarding these discussions? Please confirm that all secured written confirmation from the relevant Crown interests will be provided by Deadline 5.

4. Draft Development Consent Order (DCO) 2.4.1 Applicant

Joint Councils Given the need justification that has been provided by the Applicant for the DCO powers sought, should the implementation of any consent granted be linked to progress of the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station project and/or any other energy generating scheme?

2.4.2 Applicant At the DCO ISH, concern was expressed by the Joint Councils as regards the flexibility

8


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter afforded to the location of “associated development” within the Order Limits, including the positioning of the construction compounds. Does the revised draft DCO satisfactorily secure the location of the construction compounds and is any further amendment of the definition of “associated development” required in the interests of precision?

2.4.3 Applicant In relation to Article 5 – Limits of Deviation (LoD) can the Applicant confirm that the LoD in relation to the substation/cable sealing end/construction compounds may be more limited in extent than for the overhead line (OHL) and, if so, what is that limit and how could it be secured through the DCO?

2.4.4 Applicant At the DCO ISH, the Applicant indicated that the ability to deviate vertically from the levels shown on the plans ‘to any extent downwards as may be found to be convenient or necessary’ as set out in Article 5(b)(i) would, in practice, be restricted as far as the cables are concerned by the minimum conductor clearance required for safety purposes. Rather than relying upon other legislation in this way, should this restriction be specifically set out in this article?

2.4.5 Applicant BPC

The written representation of BPC seeks minimum conductor clearances between LD109 and LD114 of 21 m. In Document 8.5, para 1.7.40, the Applicant states that that would be outside the scope of the LoD and the DCO in that pylons of this height were not assessed by the ES. Could the height of the pylons in this location be increased to the maximum height assessed in the ES and, if so, could this be secured in the DCO? Would that be sufficient to meet the BPC concerns? Could this principle also be adopted in other situations where there is oversailing of business premises?

2.4.6 Applicant BPC

In Document 8.5, para 1.7.10, the Applicant states that when maintenance or emergency works are required to National Grid equipment then it would consult with BPC in order to cause as little disruption as practicable. What safeguards would there be to ensure that this took place and how would this be secured through the DCO?

2.4.7 Applicant BPC

In Document 8.5, para 1.7.13, reference is made to BPC’s concerns regarding the railway land. What is the outcome of the discussions between the Applicant and BPC regarding the railway land and should any detailed design aspects such as the scaffolding areas be secured through the DCO?

2.4.8 Applicant In Document 8.5, para 1.7.19 and in its response to FQ 4.8, the Applicant makes its case for

9


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter BPC the DCO to accommodate a degree of flexibility. Notwithstanding that response, is the

degree of flexibility sought proportionate? What particular type of ground conditions would merit movement within the LoD and for what reasons? Is there a similar need for flexibility throughout the route, or do other factors favour a greater degree of precision in certain locations such as the Port area.

2.4.9 Applicant BPC

In relation to Article 18, the written representation of BPC complains that this would allow surveys and investigations on land outside the Order Limits. The Applicant has responded at Document 8.5, para 1.7.46, but is requested to explain further why this power is necessary and how it can be regarded as proportionate. Could the adjacent land at the Port over which this power might be exercised be defined more precisely?


At Document 8.5, paras 1.7.50-1.7.56, the Applicant provides a response to the points made by BPC in its written representation in relation to Articles 30 and 31 – land subject to temporary possession. In the light of that response, does BPC still allege that these articles are inappropriate and, if so, why?


In relation to Articles 13 and 41, the written representation of BPC seeks that any closure of its private roads and any Dock Public Road and any traffic restriction on the latter should take place only with its consent. In its response set out in Document 8.5, para 1.7.68, the Applicant states that the DCO would provide the powers required to construct and deliver the development notwithstanding the private status of those roads. Does that represent an agreed position as regards the scope of the DCO powers and would the exercise of such powers be proportionate? Does the fact that Article 41 requires the consent of the traffic authority meet the concerns expressed by BPC in that respect?


In relation to Article 13, have all proposed temporary closures of public rights of way (PRoWs) now been identified in the revised PRoW Management Plan?

Other agreements 2.4.13 Applicant

Joint Councils Have the terms of a service level agreement (SLA) been settled?

2.4.14 Applicant Provide an update on all other agreements.

10


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter 5. Flood Risk 2.5.1 Applicant

Joint Councils The Joint Councils put forward their concerns over the risk to the development from coastal flooding. Their concerns, and proposals for strategic mitigation, are set out in the Local Impact Report, Appendix G, “Mitigating Flood Risk in Sedgemoor”. The Joint Councils are asked to re-state their case for the mitigation requested and the progress that might have been made towards agreement on this item between the Joint Councils and the Applicant. The Applicant is invited to comment.

6. Ground Conditions, Water Quality and Pollution Prevention Ground 2.6.1 Applicant The Applicant has provided details of T-pylon construction and it is intended that the

foundations will be either raft foundations or a pile cap supported on piles. In each case, there will be a large area of structural concrete beneath the surface of the restored ground. The Applicant is asked to confirm:

• The thickness of subsoil and topsoil respectively that will lie over the structural concrete

• The consideration that has been given to shrinkage and erosion of this soil and its ability to sustain vegetation

• The special arrangements that will be made for foundations that would be constructed on sloping terrain.

Working Space 2.6.2 Applicant Regarding Mrs Taylor’s property Merriedown, at Stone Edge Batch, Tickenham, the Applicant

is asked to confirm the following: • The use that will be made of the compound; • The period over which the compound will be operational (installation, use and

decommissioning); • The period over which the HDD crossing of Clevedon Road will be carried out (pre-

installation, drilling, cable installation and decommissioning);

11


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter • The period over which the haul road will be in use, including construction, operation,

de-commissioning and restoration. The Applicant is asked to prepare and provide a plan with dimensions illustrating the position of the cable installation works and haul road in relation to Mrs Taylor’s property.

7. Health, Wellbeing and Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) 2.7.1 Applicant Why is Moorland Park Traveller site described in the ES amenity assessment as a ‘temporary

settlement’ when it operates as a permanent rather than as a transit site? Has the impact on residents been appropriately assessed on the basis that it provides a permanent settled base for the families that occupy it?

2.7.2 Applicant At the relevant ISH, it was indicated on behalf of the Applicant that the pylon nearest to the Moorland Park site (LD51) could be moved further from the residential area within the LoD. The Applicant is requested to investigate and set out the scope for movement of the pylons and line in this location further away from Moorland Park but within the LoD and how this could be secured through the DCO? Explain the implications that this might have for other nearby residential properties, specifying the respective distances from the pylons/line of all relevant properties.

2.7.3 Applicant Indication was given at the ISH that at Moorland Park, some 70 children live within 60m of the proposed 400kV line. Also, that the route was chosen as equidistant between Moorland Park to the west and buildings which have been described as dwellings to the east. These buildings are shown as businesses rather than dwellings on Visual Receptor Figure 7.2.10, ES Volume 5.7.3.1. Describe their nature as residential receptors. Is there any association of adult leukaemia with power lines in a manner analogous to that of childhood leukaemia? Are there any grounds for exercising greater caution with respect to children than adults? Given the high child population of Moorland Park, would the cautious approach be to allow a greater separation to the west than to the east?

2.7.4 Applicant Comment on the accumulation of electric charge in cars, caravans and other vehicles insulated from the ground and the effects in terms of dust attraction and of the likelihood of micro-shocks when occupants come in contact with the ground.

2.7.5 Applicant Comment on case law regarding perceived fear as a relevant planning consideration which must be weighed, whether or not based on sound scientific grounds, including the following

12


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter cases: • Newport BC v SSW and Browning Ferres (QBCOF 96/0150/D) • Trevett v SSTLR and Stroud DC (CO/3189/2002)

2.7.6 Applicant It was noted at the ISH that health limits for magnetic fields vary considerably from country to country. The Applicant is asked to compare limits in European countries.

2.7.7 Applicant It was explained at the ISH that radio interference arises largely from corona discharge, and that this is generated by the surface condition of conductors such as excessive dust layering or broken strands. How frequently do these conditions arise? In the case of broken strands, what is the nature of repair, the process, and the time taken?

2.7.8 Applicant Concern was expressed at the ISH about the length of time communities would be exposed to construction effects. Using the settlements/communities tabulated in ES Volume 5.15.2, Appendix 15J, provide an indicative assessment of the time periods each settlement/community would be subject to the effects of construction works.

2.7.9 Joint Councils, Parish Councils

Please specifically identify, with reasons, the residential receptors and locations where a case can be made for reduced working hours and indicate the proposed alternative hours/days of working for those receptors/locations.

2.7.10 Applicant Joint Councils Parish Councils

The assessment of amenity effects on communities is restricted to those of 5 or more dwellings, and therefore disregards smaller groups and single dwellings. Moreover, ES Volume 5.15.1, para 15.5.123 notes that receptors that were significantly affected by more than one discipline were identified and scoped into the assessment, thereby ignoring those that might be affected very significantly by only one discipline, such as noise and vibration. In addition, underlying the assessment depends on subjective professional judgment regarding sensitivity, magnitude, and cumulative outcome – para 15.5.124 notes that potential effects were considered qualitatively. With this in mind, the Applicant is asked to look again at the following residential locations, and any others where less than 5 dwellings might be significantly affected by the construction or operation of the project: • Riverside Farm, Bason Bridge (B1.H31); • Properties associated with Churchill substation works (CH1.H1, CH1.H2); • A1.H30, A1.H31 Woolavington; • B1.H16, B1.H24, B1.H25, B1.H31 Huntspill;

13


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter • B1.H76, B1.H77 Northwick Road, Mark; • B1.B7 (flat above garage), B1.H108 Tarnock; • D1.B6 Hewish; • E1.H7 Tickenham; • F1.H42, F.1.H43 Cole Acre, Portbury.


Further to the previous question, the ExA finds the assessment of amenity effects for the following settlement/community locations in particular, unrealistic. Does the Applicant wish to revise the assessments or comment in any way and what additional mitigation can be offered? • Bason Bridge • Tarnock • Nailsea (western fringes), together with the construction effects of undergrounding and

the removal of the 132kV line on residential receptors in north Nailsea • Tickenham • Portishead (eastern fringe) • Avonmouth (dwellings subject to removal of the 132kV line (G1.H31, etc) • Moorland Park (especially regarding noise) • St Anthony’s Park, Avonmouth

2.7.12 Applicant The Applicant is requested to consider and respond to Mark Parish Council’s point in its Deadline 4 Submission regarding whether T-pylon LD18 can be moved further north away from properties, for landscape and visual reasons as well.

8. Heritage and Historic Environment 2.8.1 Applicant

Joint Councils Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE)

Provide a reprise on progress towards agreement on the contents of the written scheme of investigation (WSI). Has a mechanism been agreed for approval by the Joint Councils and HBMCE of the WSI as a component part of the CEMP and for periodic review during construction? Has a mechanism been agreed for approval of method statements and outreach initiatives?


Has agreement been reached on the location and nature of further pre-commencement archaeological investigations and investigations during construction?

14


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter HBMCE

2.8.3 Applicant At the Landscape and Visual ISH on 22 April, it was said that Knowle Hall (BH6) is being purchased by a far eastern company for use as a Sino-cultural centre, with the intention of devoting resources to restoration of the parkland (Knowle Park HL78). The settings analysis (ES Volume 5.11.2.5, p.192) notes that setting is a major contributor to (its) value, and that the key attribute of the setting is what remains of the formal design. Further, that the proposed development would be a new and intrusive element of the setting, out of scale with the surroundings. In this context, the ExA disagrees with the ES assessment that the significance of effect would be minor adverse for Knowle Hall and negligible adverse for Knowle Park. Does the Applicant wish to reconsider its ES assessment and what mitigation can be offered without obscuring views from the PRoWs?

2.8.4 Applicant As can be seen from Photomontage VPA3, the eye would be drawn by the intrusion of the proposed 400kV line, where none now exists, from the PRoW towards the settings of Horsey DMV (SM45), Crook DMV (AR23) and Horsey Manor Farm (LB662). Taking into account the effects on settings as experienced elsewhere, the ExA disagrees with the ES assessment made. What additional mitigation can be offered?

2.8.5 Applicant The ExA seriously disagrees with the ES assessment of the effect of the project on the setting of the Grade I Listed Church of St Quiricus and St Julietta. The Church is poised above the moors in a critical position, backing onto Tickenham Ridge, and the intrusion of the 400kV line would have a very significant effect, much more so than do the existing lines at present. This can be seen clearly from the recent Photomontages VPD28 and VPD29. The Applicant is urged to make great efforts to ameliorate the harm and to update the ExA on its proposals in that respect.

2.8.6 Applicant HBMCE

Following the consideration at the Historic Environment ISH of the impact on the setting associated with Kings Weston House, provide an update on the discussions that have taken place between the Applicant and HBMCE towards mitigating the effects of the project, taking into account Bristol City Council’s Historic Management Landscape Plan 2010, including offsetting by way of contributions to works to improve the micro-setting.


Following the consideration at the Historic Environment ISH of the impact on the setting associated with St Mary’s Church, Portbury, taking into account the relationship between the

15


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Church tower and the Route A pylons revealed by VPE12, and the likely loss of existing tree cover parallel to the motorway, provide an update on mitigation discussions regarding the scope for mitigation and off-setting.


Regarding pylon colour, particularly in relation to Tickenham listed group, provide an update on views which HBMCE might have developed and on the progress of mitigation discussions.

2.8.9 Applicant Would the Applicant provide any information available on Gang Wall, noted by Yatton and Congresbury Wildlife Action Group (YACWAG) in the written representation dated 5.5.15 as a candidate scheduled monument.

9. Landscape and Visual Effects and Design Landscape 2.9.1 Applicant

Joint Councils Other Interested Parties such as; Parish Councils and Yatton and Congresbury Wildlife Action Group (YACWAG)

Has there been and will there be further discussion and movement over the claims where agreement has not been reached in terms of s106 contributions for Landscape (Woods and Distinctive Elements) as set out in Document 8.4 (Draft s106 Agreement). Or have any changes been made to Schedule 7 content of the draft s106 agreement in Document 8.4, as updated in Schedule 3 Part C in Document 8.4A, in light of evidence received at the ISHs? Has the Applicant considered further the points that were made by the local communities who live and know the landscapes into which the T-pylons will be introduced, in terms of what makes that landscape distinctive and what might be most appropriate for its enhancement? The question is asked in the context of points made by local communities through parish councils and individuals at ISHs. In particular we heard the opinion that the impact of the T-pylons across the flat landscape of the Somerset Levels cannot be mitigated by planting or colour and finish of the pylons; and that planting is not a solution if it would obscure valued views. We heard opinions about the distinctiveness of this landscape being more about drainage and water than trees. YACWAG, in its written contribution for the ISHs also made the point about the potential for ditch creation and habitat improvement, including planting for biodiversity enhancement. We also heard about the potential for some footpath diversions to mitigate landscape and visual impact and opportunities for improving access. The question specifically refers to the flat levels and moors landscape character areas, but response is requested with regard to any other landscape character area where landscape

16


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter enhancement might be delivered through means other than planting. Are there any comments from other parties? Also see Q2.18.2 regarding OSPES.


We heard at the Landscape ISH that local communities felt they had no input to the landscape assessment. The Applicant mentioned that officers who had a strong understanding of the principles and approach dealt with this. However, the Joint Councils maintained that they did not know the Sections (in the ES) were going to be used for landscape character assessment; and that they pointed out at pre-application, that assessment at this geographical scale, has the effect of averaging out, and potentially missing out altogether, local areas of high value. The Applicant acknowledged there is a gulf between national scale and local scale for value, and although there were areas that were greater than local value, they did not in its opinion reach a tipping point; and were taken into account. If either Applicant or Joint Councils wish to set out further points not already made relevant to this area of professional disagreement, do so here. The Joint Councils are requested to set out what different outcome in terms of any additional or different mitigation or enhancement they might have expected had a finer grained approach been taken to the landscape character assessment and the definition and classification of value. The Applicant is invited to consider whether there are any geographic areas which do merit further consideration for landscape enhancement or mitigation.

The Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 2.9.3 The Mendip Hills

AONB Partnership (the AONB Partnership) Joint Councils

The AONB Partnership to provide details of initiatives which are considered would assist in distracting attention away from the undergrounding area, (as set out in the SoCG between Applicant and the AONB Partnership) for which s106 contributions are being sought. Has there been co-ordination between the AONB Partnership and Joint Councils regarding any footpath diversions for the purpose of moving people away from adverse views, such as footpath AX15/1 near the Webbington Hotel?

2.9.4 The Mendip Hills AONB Partnership

Are there any initiatives the AONB Partnership would propose regarding mitigating views of the construction area at the CSE compound site; and the CSE compound itself from the

17


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Compton Bishop Parish Council Badgworth Parish Council

viewpoints and footpaths in the AONB? Compton Bishop Parish Council and Badgworth Parish Council may wish to comment.

2.9.5 Applicant Provide an update on the discussions with the AONB Partnership (Document 8.13.4.1, para 3.3). In light of evidence received at the Landscape ISH, has any further consideration been given to the provision of funding towards projects which could distract views away from the construction and operational activities that are visible from the AONB?

Public Rights of Way 2.9.6 Applicant

Joint Councils Has any progress been made on agreement of a fund for footpath improvements and diversions in addition to those proposed in the OSPES, as mentioned at the ISH on Means of securing mitigation and/or enhancement for landscape and heritage effects? If progress has been made, please clarify which if any of the proposals contained in the list of other claims where agreement has not been reached in relation to rights of way in Document 8.4 have been included.

2.9.7 Applicant Compton Bishop Parish Council Badgworth Parish Council

Views are sought as to why the footpath usage figures from the Applicant’s surveys differ from the opinions about usage figures from the local representatives of the parishes in question in the Mendip Hills AONB? Does this call into question the reliability of those surveys?

Visual 2.9.8 Applicant

Joint Councils Other Interested Parties

In response to first round questions, the Applicant’s response 9.24.4 confirmed that the view from Droveway Farm (D1.H13) is the only receptor for which a major adverse magnitude of visual effect during the operational stage (short and medium term) is predicted. Viewpoint D1 taken from Nye Road, and VPD20 from the Strawberry Line were stated to have been used to support the assessment. Also in response to ExA’s first round questions, the Applicant provided two photomontages to illustrate the views from Droveway Farm, VPD31 and VPD32 (Applicant’s response 9.24.5 – 10). As predicted, in the original

18


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter assessment for D1.H13, the view at VPD31 shows no change to the view during operation from a representative ground floor/garden view. VPD32 demonstrates that from other locations around the farmhouse, views will be obtained at ground level of the substation. There are no major adverse visual effects predicted for construction stage effects anywhere in the project. We were given an explanation about how upper and ground floor (and garden) views have been taken into account in the visual assessment at the Landscape ISH and response to first round question 9.4 (9.4.7 and 9.4.8 and 9.4.19). It appears this is referred to in the baseline view and assessment when the views are only from one floor. Otherwise the two different values for susceptibility to change are amalgamated into one receptor sensitivity assessment. We are mindful of the Applicant’s points regarding there being no right to a private view and the weight to be attributed to public rather than private views. But EN-5 does acknowledge that at particularly sensitive locations adverse visual and landscape impacts could lead to proposals being unacceptable in planning terms. Also the way in which the visual assessment is used in the amenity assessment (ES Volume 5.15.2 Appendix 15J), does lead to the visual impact as assessed comprising part of how the effect on people’s amenity is predicted. We are also mindful of the stated difference in professional opinion between the Applicant and Joint Councils regarding the approach to predicting the significance of the effects, whereby the Joint Councils consider that because the moderate category is much broader than the major category, this has led to underassessment. In considering the assessment and the views from Droveway Farm and the Applicant’s response to FQ 9.4, we now question the Applicant’s assessment of some other properties, in terms of the final outcome of magnitude of effect for construction and operational views, when considering the criteria for assessment of magnitude of effect on views and the significance of visual effects (ES Volume 5.7.1 Tables 7.7 and 7.8). In particular we note that the “introduction of elements considered totally uncharacteristic in the view” is one typical criterion for high magnitude of effect on views. The way in which a particular property or properties meet the typical description is of course a matter of professional judgement.

19


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter We query the overall assessments of the following properties and request the Applicant’s response, including the potential for any construction stage and/or operational stage mitigation: • Woolavington properties close to the proposed line, A.1.H128, A1.H129, A1.H130; • Cripps Farm, B1.M7 and B1.H34; • Riverview Farm, B1.H32, particularly construction stage; • Properties round the Mark pinchpoint, in Yardwall Road and south of Mark, B1.H35,

B1.H44, B1.H45, B1.H46, B1.H47, B1.H48, B1.H51, B1.H52, B1.H53; • Properties north of Mark, B1.H76 and B1.H77; • Properties in Rooks Bridge and Tarnock, B1.B7, which we have heard is residential as

well as business, B1.H108, in particular Tarnock Farm and its surroundings; • Moorland Park, D1.H58; • Properties near the angle turn in Kenn, D1.H77, D1.H78, D1.H88 and properties on Kenn

Moor near the proposed line, D1.H99 and D.H100; • Nailsea, D1.H156 and properties overlooking the Nailsea Compound, D1.H128; • Properties at Tickenham near the Church Lane and Clevedon Road compounds and near

where the proposed line crosses the road at Stone Edge Batch; • Spindlewood, E1.H28 and E1.H27; • Properties on either side of the M5 motorway in Portbury; • Properties in Avonmouth; • St Anthony’s Park; • Any other property in close proximity to the line or a construction area that the Applicant

considers relevant to the points made above. Other parties may wish to comment.

2.9.9 Applicant In all relevant cases does the distance from the line of deviation as set out in the visual receptor tables (ES Volumes 5.7.2.1 and 5.7.2.2) refer to a property’s garden (which it is indicated in the methodology is included)? We note that the nearest distance to the line of deviation for receptor B1.H108 is 0m (ES Volume 5.7.2.1). This means that the T-pylon could be placed immediately next to the property’s garden. Is there a case here for reducing the limit of deviation, even if the pylon is not moved? We note the Applicant’s further assessment that the current position is the

20


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter preferred, but that increasing the height of T-pylons LD31 and LD32 would reduce adverse visual effects, but not change the overall assessment (Document 8.13.3.1). What is the distance from the nearest edge of receptor B1.H108’s garden to the current proposed location of T-pylon LD32 and what is the distance to the nearest overhead conductor?

2.9.10 Applicant Applicant to define High/Moderate susceptibility to change, which occurs in the visual effects tables (ES Volume 5.7.2.1) but not in the method statement (ES Volume 5.7.1.1 Table 7.5).

2.9.11 Avonside Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

Is Avonside CPRE satisfied that the new photomontages provided by the Applicant demonstrate the points Avonside CPRE was making regarding Tickenham and Portishead?


In the opinion of the Applicant and the Joint Councils, should it be generally accepted that the visual amenity of residents who live within a designated area is more valuable than those who live outside designated areas? (ES Volume 5.7.1, para 7.3.55 and ES Volumes 5.7.2.1 and 5.7.2.2). We heard about users of public rights of way at the Landscape ISH, but not about residents. In this regard the Applicant is requested to comment on its interpretation of GLVIA3, para 6.37, which mentions the value attached to particular views…and indicators of value attached to views by visitors. Do either of the bullet points at 6.37 of GLVIA3 indicate that views experienced by some residents should be assessed as being more valuable than views experienced by others?

2.9.13 Joint Councils The Joint Councils set out their position on landscape value in their Deadline 3 response. If there is continued difference of professional opinion over ‘value’ as used in the visual assessment, the Joint Councils are requested to set out their position.

Planting proposals and their maintenance/aftercare 2.9.14 Applicant

Joint Councils The Applicant’s submission Note 6 in Document 8.13.3.2 sets out the trees replacement figures. The Applicant is requested to update these figures with any revised submissions that involve differences to tree numbers. Are the differences of opinion between Applicant and Joint Councils regarding the way the four for one calculation is undertaken resolved? If not spell out continued differences and

21


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter how these might be resolved.


It is clear progress has been made on replacement tree planting as set out in Schedule 7 of the updated draft s106 agreement between the Joint Councils and the Applicant (Document 8.4A). Is the Applicant confident that suitable locations can be found in terms of both landowner agreement and appropriate places to plant trees in terms of enhancing landscape character and retaining important views? In this regard should clause 2.3 of Schedule 7 refer to planting not conflicting with landscape distinctiveness and views; or is this something the Joint Councils are able to control at post-consent approvals stage? Should it also refer to enhancing green infrastructure functionality for biodiversity and wildlife reasons, as suggested by the Joint Councils and YACWAG? In terms of the priority list in clause 2.6, is further clarification required on what is meant in 2.6.3 by “landscape improvement”? A definition of ‘mature tree’, as referred to in 2.1 is required. Are the Joint Councils in agreement with the proposed revised wording presented in red and have they any comments on the points above?

2.9.16 Joint Councils What is the Joint Councils’ opinion on the statement in Document 8.13.3.1, para 9.20 regarding the reasons for not committing to advance planting in specific locations? Would the benefits of delivering some planting early outweigh the possible need to remove small areas of advance planting at a later date? Do you consider the inter-visibility of the CSE compound south of the Mendips such that an advance planting approach should be adopted here?

2.9.17 Applicant What will be the nature of the agreement between Applicant and landowners for replacement planting at the end of the examination, before the Secretary of State’s decision is made? The Applicant is requested to provide model wording for one. What percentage of replacement planting is now securable through landowner agreements? Where are these? What percentage of replacement planting is anticipated to be secured before the end of this

22


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter examination? Where are these?

2.9.18 Applicant Does the content of Document 8.13.4.2 mean that the Applicant is willing to add these planting proposals to the OSPES?


Provide an update on tree planting in Avonmouth following any further discussions with the Joint Councils and the points made by the Joint Councils following their site inspection when the crane representing Pylon LD110 was still in situ.


Having heard from the Joint Councils about standard practice regarding aftercare of street trees, the relevant Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the role of commuted sums for 15 years maintenance; has the Applicant reconsidered the Avonmouth street tree planting maintenance period and/or means of ensuring the trees deliver the proposed enhancement?


Since hearing opinions on tree and plant aftercare/maintenance; has the Applicant considered means other than entering private landowners land to deliver the maintenance some parties consider is necessary to ensure the replacement and enhancement planting thrives? Specifically, we heard that unless pollarded, willows can blow over in the Somerset Levels. How is this specific landscape management matter addressed? In response to FQ3.6, at 3.6.8, the Applicant indicated that the less extensive root systems needed for planting of hedgerow plants close to underground cables can be achieved through regular maintenance. As hedge planting is indicated in the undergrounded area, how will this regular maintenance be achieved? Group Tree planting, as set out in Schedule 7 of Document 8.4A, at a density of one tree per square metre may require future thinning beyond Year 5. How will the long term viability of that planting be safeguarded?

2.9.22 Applicant How will the aftercare/maintenance of the embedded mitigation planting which is on land under temporary possession be delivered to ensure the planting achieves that predicted in the ES after 15 years? How will this be monitored?


Is the matter of monitoring still a point of disagreement? Has consideration been given to the points made by YACWAG in its written submission for

23


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter the ISHs, regarding the potential involvement of local agencies and groups in monitoring? Is this an approach the Joint Councils would consider acceptable? How could this be secured?


Differences remain between the parties over the length of time required for landscape maintenance and aftercare. The Applicant is asked to justify why this development project should differ in landscape maintenance and aftercare from other development projects in the Joint Councils’ area. What arrangements could the Applicant put in place if the Secretary of State considered it appropriate for there to be longer than five years for landscape maintenance for some or all planting? The Joint Councils are asked, now that the Applicant has stated it does not maintain or pay other landowners to maintain landscape works on other transmission projects, why this one should be different? Both parties are asked if, and why, there are some areas which do require 15 years landscape maintenance, some which need more than 5 years but less than 15 years, and some where 5 years would suffice. If so, these areas should be defined and appropriate requirement wording be submitted. If this is the case could this be secured by commitment to a management plan as suggested by the Joint Councils, together with time periods for different planting types?

Colour of T-pylons 2.9.25 Applicant

Joint Councils Parties to update consideration of colour of T-pylons. Is it agreed that there should be one colour/material, even if that colour/material is not yet agreed?

Design of substations, cable sealing end compounds and bridges 2.9.26 Applicant

What is the progress on the co-ordinated and sympathetic overall design approach, which would enable a holistic approach to post-consent approvals, whilst allowing flexibility for different types of kit?

Landscape works associated with construction compounds 2.9.27 Applicant Large Construction Compounds are planned at:

• Tarnock (two compounds)

24


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter • South of the Mendips (Hams Lane) • Barton Road • Castle Hill • Sandford Substation (multiple compounds)

In Document 8.13.3.2, the Applicant has provided more detailed explanation and some measures that would reduce their apparent scale and impact for the South Mendips compound and compounds at Sandford Substation. Within Doc 8.13.3.2, the Applicant is asked to review Drawing MMD-322069-C-SK-AT-Rt-XX-001 which shows the compound associated with work No 4A that serves the AT Route. If this is for use by two contractors and the existing hedge passes more or less along a central dividing line, why is it not possible to retain the majority of the hedge? It appears from the drawing that no peripheral hedges are for retention? Is this a drafting matter – should the fine green lines be hedgerows to be retained? Please provide any specific proposals for advance planting and indicative proposals for temporary planting on these drawings. The Applicant is asked to undertake a review of each of the compound areas to justify the area required and to consider similar proposals as appropriate for the compounds at Tarnock, Barton Road and Castle Hill as follows: • Justification for the provision of the areas shown on the construction drawings and in Doc

5.26.5A Draft CEMP Appendix 4, in the light of the size requirements being stated by the Applicant at the Landscape ISH to be double the size of the final asset area;

• Proposals for compartmentalising the compound areas according to proposed use, to reduce their apparent scale and impact;

• Reviewed provisions for advance planting; including any of embedded mitigation, replacement planting or OSPES, where relevant;

• The use of existing hedges and trees to assist in compartmentalising the compounds; • Evidence of which trees and hedges can be changed from the “trees and hedges that

may be affected” category to those to be retained; • Proposals for temporary planting; • How these measures can be secured for the large compounds listed above and how

proportionate, but similar measures can be secured for other works areas and

25


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter construction compounds;

• Update the Trees and Hedges to be Removed or Affected plans (Documents 4.7.8 and 4.7.8A).

The output from the review of all compounds should be included in the next appropriate issue of the CEMP in order to provide detailed guidance for the appointed contractors and monitoring team.

10. Marine and Navigation Works 2.10.1 Applicant

Marine Management Organisation (MMO)

The MMO’s oral submissions at the DCO ISH, expressed its concerns as regards the current drafting of Article 7 in relation to the scope to allow the transfer of the Deemed Marine Licence (DML) partial or otherwise. The Applicant explained at the ISH that the DML is not a marine licence; it is a schedule to a DCO that is a deemed marine licence. Nonetheless, the MMO is concerned that there should be clearly identifiable areas of responsibility for enforcement purposes both initially and following any subsequent transfer of the benefits of the DCO, including schedule 9. In the light of the MMO’s concerns, should the transfer of the benefit of the draft DML under the DCO provisions only proceed from the licence holder to another single identified legal entity, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State or does the Secretary of State’s consent provide a sufficient safeguard?

2.10.2 Applicant MMO

In relation to the definition of ‘licensed activities’ set out in Part 2 of the DML, what scope is there for improving the precision of this definition? Given the approach taken in the Able Marine Energy Park DCO, should this set out in greater detail the licensed activities that would form part of the authorised development?

2.10.3 Applicant MMO

Can the Applicant and MMO indicate whether the other terms of the DML set out in the revised draft DCO are now agreed? If not, set out any remaining areas of disagreement.

2.10.4 BPC BPC is the statutory harbour authority and local lighthouse authority in the relevant part of River Avon. In its written representations, it raises concerns that the proposed River Avon crossing works and associated river closures would cause risks to navigation and have the potential for adverse impacts on harbour users. Given the Applicant’s response set out in Document 8.5, para 1.7.87, do those concerns still persist?

2.10.5 BPC In the light of the Applicant’s response set out in Document 8.5, para 1.7.88, is BPC

26


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter satisfied that its original concerns have been addressed in that respect and with the notice period set out in DML?

11. Noise and Vibration Construction noise – receptors near to construction activities 2.11.1 There are a number of locations where residential properties are situated near to

construction activities and haul roads. These include, but are not limited to: Sunnydene, properties near Webbington, Moorlands Park, Merriedown, and Spindlewood. ES 5.14.2 Appendix A Table 2, establishes limiting distances at which predicted noise level falls-off to a level that is below various threshold levels for various construction activities. These findings are summarised in ES Vol 5.14.1 para 14.4.1 and then para 14.6.1 lists general measures that will be implemented to mitigate construction noise although it is said that these may not be effective for construction noise. ES 5.14 Table 14.16 sets out for each construction activity, the significance of residual effects of construction and de-commissioning noise for residential receptors within a limiting distance. The limiting distances appear to be those that are summarised in para 14.4.1 and extracted from Table 2 referred to above. They are the distance from the receptor at which the noise level falls below the 65dB(A) threshold. There is no distinction made for noise impacts on properties that are situated substantially nearer to the noise source than the limiting distances that are listed in the table. Neither are there location-specific assessments of construction noise for properties that are situated within the limiting distances. In addition to the construction noise, properties that are close to haul roads will be exposed to the noise of the haul road and/or bellmouths operation over a protracted period. Furthermore, it appears that there have been no location-specific assessments of Lmax figures for any receptors close to haul road and construction activities. According to NPS-EN1 development consent should not be granted unless the proposals will meet the following aims: • avoid significant adverse control of noise impacts on health and quality of life from

27


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter noise;

• mitigate and minimise other adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and

• where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life through the effective management and control of noise.

Given the absence of location-specific noise assessments for receptors close to haul roads and construction activities, how can the Panel be satisfied that the proposal would in fact comply with the aims of NPS-EN1? The Applicant is asked to provide details of local, specific and appropriate physical mitigation measures for the properties identified and other residential properties that are situated nearer to the works and haul roads than the limiting distances stated in Table 14.16. Within the next appropriate draft of CEMP the Applicant is asked to ensure that clear guidance is provided on the provision of local noise mitigation together with design principles and typical details of appropriate measures, such as temporary noise attenuation fences and bunds. Drawing on the guidance established from the preceding paragraph, the Applicant is asked to specify, and include in the CEMP, a list of noise mitigation measures that are appropriate for receptors that are at set distances from the works and haul roads and lying within the 65dB(A) noise threshold distance.

2.11.2 Joint Councils Are the Joint Councils content with the provisions for the monitoring of noise and vibration contained in the draft Noise and Vibration Management Plan?

12. Portishead/Portbury Options for Overhead Route Connection 2.12.1 BPC BPC in its written representation indicates that for Option B the proposed construction routes

are part of private dock road network. Explain in further detail the disruption that the use of these roads would cause to the Port?


BPC in its written representation states that the construction of Option B would result in dust in close proximity to expensive motor cars. How, in practice, could any security measures be put in place by the Applicant? What mitigation measures for air pollution/dust, if any, have been agreed with the Applicant?

2.12.3 Joint Councils Parties are invited to comment on the Applicant’s Document 8.2.27A, which is an update on

28


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Portbury Parish Council Other Interested Parties

the comparisons between Option A and Option B. Parties are also asked to comment on the Visual Effects Option A and Option B document contained in Document 8.6.2 (appendix E).

2.12.4 Joint Councils What effect do you consider the inadequacies you have raised generally concerning the Applicant’s visual and landscape assessments have had in the Portishead/Portbury area?

2.12.5 Applicant Why do all the photomontages provided for Elm Tree Park provide a side-on view of the T-pylon, such that very little of the insulator array is visible? Are there any views from within Elm Tree Park where the insulator array will be more obvious? Do the photomontages represent the worst case scenario as requested?

2.12.6 Joint Councils Portbury Parish Council

Clarification is requested as to the status of the report entitled ‘The Landscape Character of Portbury and surrounding area’. If it is intended to form part of the emerging Parish Plan, what stage has that plan reached in the process leading to adoption and what is the anticipated timetable for the plan preparation process?

2.12.7 Applicant Joint Councils Portbury Parish Council

The Applicant’s response to FQ 12.2, at para 12.3.8, in relation to the impact of Option A on anticipated views from Portbury village during operation, makes reference to the screening and filtering effect of trees minimising the scale of change from the present situation. Would this effect be consistent year-round during all seasons and should the continued presence of such vegetation be relied upon?

2.12.8 Applicant Avon Wildlife Trust (AWT)

Both parties are requested to provide an update on any matters not agreed and/or matters still subject to further information with regards to the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve.

13. Radar, Air Navigation No questions 14. Socio-economic Effects 2.14.1 Applicant

Joint Councils At the ISH it was reported that progress was being made on socio-economic agenda items through discussions between the Applicant and the Joint Councils. What matters are not agreed and what are outstanding beyond those set out in Document 8.4A?

2.14.2 Applicant Report on progress towards an employment and skills charter or similar device. What efforts

29


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Joint Councils would be required of the parties, and what controls would be available to make it work as

intended? Provide details of the education, skills and training, outreach, and other strategies intended to maximise local employment. Would the Applicant employ directly and, if so, how would it maximise local employment? Would the project alter the balance of locally based National Grid maintenance and emergency response teams, and how could this be used to encourage local employment? What constraints would be placed on contractors through the tendering process to encourage local employment?

2.14.3 Applicants Joint Councils

What equivalent arrangements would be made to assist local involvement in the supply chain during construction and operation?


What arrangements for maximising local employment and supply are in place for the EDF Hinkley Point C reactor project, and what can we learn from them?

2.14.5 Joint Councils Parish Councils

How robust is the Applicant’s assessment of effects on tourism? What effects would occur? What measures should be put in place to ameliorate the effects?

2.14.6 Applicant Reprise the state of negotiations with affected parties and with businesses which might be harmed by the construction or operation of the project.

2.14.7 Joint Councils Parish Councils Others

Identify local businesses which might be harmed by the project during construction or operation and which may not have been recognised by the Applicant. Suggest mitigation measures.


In Document 8.5, para 1.7.7, the Applicant states that only 5% of the Port area would be affected and this represents a worst case scenario as the full width of the Order Limits would not be affected for the whole length of the route. In practice, what is the proportion of the Port area that would be affected by the project?


In response to FQ 12.13, the Applicant indicated that it did not agree that the entire Crooks Marsh site would be lost to “economically viable development”. What is the extent of the site that would be lost to such development as a result of the scheme? Can this be identified by reference to a plan?


In Document 8.5, para 1.7.8, the Applicant refers to ES Volume 5.15.1 Table 15.7 which states that BPC land is considered to be of low sensitivity given the flexibility across the site to locate different uses and storage including using land beneath overhead lines (OHLs).

30


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter What is the true extent of the flexibility of this land? What proportion of the land affected could be said to have such flexibility?

15. Traffic and Transport 2.15.1 Applicant

Highways England Joint Councils

What is the justification in terms of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) or other formal advice and direction for the approach taken to the use or otherwise of restrictions on the movement of scheme HGV traffic at motorway junctions?

2.15.2 Joint Councils It is not obvious to the ExA which streets within the Bristol Port area are public highways and which are private. Will the Joint Councils provide a drawing indicating the current status of all streets in this area?

2.15.3 Applicant Bristol Port Corporation (BPC)

Are outstanding issues with regard to the status and possible use of streets within the port resolved? If not, what issues are outstanding?

2.15.4 Applicant Royal Mail

Are outstanding issues with Royal Mail (RR Web Ref 31) now resolved? If not, what issues are outstanding?

2.15.5 Applicant Avon Fire and Rescue (AF&R)

Are outstanding issues with Avon Fire and Rescue (RR Web Ref 118) relating to oversailing of their property and traffic disruption now resolved? If not, what issues are outstanding?

2.15.6 Joint Councils What is the status of the right of way crossing the M5 on Portbury footbridge? The Applicant details a clearance of 5.2m between the conductors and the footbridge (Response to ExA’s First Questions 8.1.2 FQ12.16) assuming a head height of 2.2m. What is an appropriate head height for designs involving equestrians? Is this clearance considered adequate for horse riders?

2.15.7 Applicant What consideration has been given to the re-siting of bus stops in the vicinity of the proposed bellmouths at Tarnock? (RR Web Ref 147).

Haul Roads, Haul Road Accesses and Working Space 2.15.8 Applicant The Droveway; confirm the purpose of the haul road crossing of the Droveway just North of

Sandford Substation. 2.15.9 Applicant Traffic volumes on haul roads and their connection to the highway.

31


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Confirm and augment the information provided at the Traffic and Transport ISH by providing for each listed combination of haul road and highway access, the estimated peak usage of the haul road in vehicles per day, the corresponding volume on the connecting highway in terms of vehicles per day, the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), and the likely length of time that the haul road will be in use. Haul Road Highway that is crossed or

connected to

Factory Lane (as currently proposed by the Applicant) Church Road B3139

Main haul road between T-pylons LD17 and LD20 Mark Causeway B3139

Haul road North from A38 at Tarnock A38

Haul Road through Webbington Sevier Road

Haul Road South of Towerhead Road Towerhead Road A371

Haul Road North of Towerhead Road Towerhead Road A371

Haul road crossing The Droveway North of Sandford Substation

The Droveway (extension of Nye Road)

Haul Road passing Moorlands Park and joining Moorlands Park Access Road

A370

Stone Edge Batch, haul road access through Bellmouth AC91 accessing Clevedon Rd (referred to by Mrs Taylor at the Traffic and Transport ISH)

Clevedon Road B3130

32


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter 16. General Questions 2.16.1 Interested Parties Additional documents were submitted by the Applicant on 7 April 2015 and the ExA

exercised its discretion to accept them into the examination and they were published on the Planning Inspectorate website on 8 April. The relevant documents are as follows: 1.7D Guide of Application; 3.6.9 Applications under section 138 of the Planning Act 2008 – Wales and West Utilities Ltd; 3.6.10 Applications under section 138 of the Planning Act 2008 – Western Power Distribution (South West) plc; 8.3.17 Statements of Common Ground – Joint Councils – Development Consent Order; 8.12 Supporting Information on Impact of the Hinkley C Connection on the Development Potential of Selected Sites in the ASEA; Covering letter for documents submitted on 7 April; 3.6.6 Applications under section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 – EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd; 3.6.7 Applications under section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 – NNB Generating Company Ltd; 3.6.8 – Applications under section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 – RWE Generation UK plc. The publication on 8 April of 8.3.17 did not include the Development Consent Order schedules. These were incorporated into a revised schedule of that document and republished on 9 April 2015. Comments on these additional documents from interested parties are now sought.

2.16.2 Applicant In addition to the requests made in Q 2.6.2 and notwithstanding the details provided in Document 8.5, para 2.13.2, the Applicant is requested to explain further its consideration of alternatives in the vicinity of Mrs Elzbieta Taylor’s property including whether the proposed underground cable could be moved to a different location and the alternatives to conventional underground cabling across this land. The Applicant’s response indicates that there is a degree of flexibility in where the underground cables could be sited within the LoD and is requested to explain this by reference to a plan and indicate whether such an alternative siting in this particular location could be secured through the DCO.

2.16.3 Mr J & Mrs E Marshall and Mr I Marshall

The representation made by Jeremy B Bell dated 24 April 2015 on behalf of Mr J & Mrs E Marshall and Mr I Marshall concerning the prospect of pylon LD-32 being moved in a northerly direction states that it is their understanding that the height of the tower would have to be increased from the standard tower size. What has led them to make this assumption and are they aware of all possibilities under consideration? Please identify the pylons referred to which are proposed to be located on the farm, including the one which would facilitate a change of direction. Please also identify the position of the gateway in the

33


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter north-east corner of the field and the farm buildings by reference to a plan. Please provide further details of the type of livestock currently utilising this part of the agricultural holding, the general pattern of grazing and the frequency of use of the relevant gateway by the herd/flock.


In relation to the community impact mitigation (CIM) fund proposed by the Joint Councils, does the Applicant accept that, as set out in the LIR Appendix 3, para 1.3, there may be a range of residual adverse impacts that could potentially arise as a result of the scheme? What is the Applicant’s opinion on the projects listed as examples in the Joint Councils’ Deadline 4 submission?


In relation to Mark Causeway, could some, or part of, the historic Ashtrees property be retained to provide a community use which might offer some social and economic benefits and provide some screening for the nearby pylon and, if so, should this be secured as part of the DCO or planning obligation?


The LIR, Appendix 3, section 9, outlines the Joint Councils’ proposals for governance of the CIM fund with the administration comprising of representatives of the Joint Councils, the Applicant and the community. The Applicant’s fundamental objection to the provision of such a fund, as set out in FQ response 4.75.1 and stated orally at hearings is noted. However, would such a regime provide sufficient control to enable the Applicant to ensure that the funds would be used appropriately and in accordance with the EN-1 guidance, or would further control measures be required? How would any disagreement between the administrators as to how the funds should be applied be resolved? Could provision be made for any funds not utilised in accordance with EN-1 to be repaid to the Applicant after a set period during which all unmitigated adverse impacts could reasonably be expected to have come to light?

2.16.7 Applicant The written representation of BPC draws attention to the fact that the dock estate would require particular foundation solutions. The Applicant’s response in Document 8.5, para 1.7.77, indicates that the construction of T-pylons is being tested at Eakring but acknowledges that ground conditions are different in that location. Should a test not first be done on land with similar ground conditions to those found along the actual route?

2.16.8 Joint Councils Joint Councils to set out any specific suggestions to improve the usability of the Overarching

34


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Mitigation Annex (ES Volume 5.23) as referred to in the JC’s response to Deadline 3, in which is it stated “the Annex has not been driven by the impacts outlined within the ES”.

2.16.9 Joint Councils Have the Applicant’s explanations about the way the cumulative assessments have been carried out in the ES allayed the Joint Councils’ concerns over the methodology?

17. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 2.17.1 Applicant

Natural England What length of period of maintenance is proposed to be secured for the habitats required for bat mitigation including the bat flyways? Can this maintenance period be secured via either of the options described at the Biodiversity ISH (namely voluntary landowner agreements or works included within the powers in the Order Limits)? What form will the monitoring take to ensure the flyways are established and functioning and the necessary management regimes for habitats are being adhered to? Is this agreed with Natural England?

2.17.2 Applicant Provide alternate wording for both options (in Q2.17.1 above) in the final version of the DCO as the Applicant wishes it to be made at Deadline 6. To include any necessary changes to the description of associated development in Schedule 1.

2.17.3 Applicant Natural England Joint Councils

Applicant, Joint Councils and Natural England to provide an update of any HRA matters which were not agreed by parties and reported at Deadline 5.

2.17.4 Natural England Natural England to confirm that nothing in its more detailed consideration of the Applicant’s HRA submissions has altered Natural England’s view that there is sufficient information for the Secretary of State to undertake an appropriate assessment should one be needed. Or if the position has changed to set out in full what additional information is required.

2.17.5 Natural England Natural England to confirm the position with regards to the likely significant effect or adverse effects on site integrity for those European Sites still screened in at Biodiversity ISH; or direct the Panel to where this point is covered in previous submissions.

18. Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme (OSPES) 2.18.1 Applicant The ExA notes the Joint Councils’ acceptance of the need for flexibility in where planting is

delivered because of the Applicant’s need to agree locations with third parties.

35


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter Joint Councils The Applicant is requested to list any areas shown for OSPES which have now been secured

by landowner agreement or through works within the powers of the Order Limits. Also list separately any OSPES where on-going dialogue may result in landowner agreement before the end of this examination. The Applicant is requested to identify any locations discussed at the Landscape and Biodiversity ISHs where concerns were raised about the uncertainty of the OSPES and the possible need for mitigation and indicate what measures have been taken, if any. Has wording been agreed in the s106 agreement regarding reasonable endeavours?


Have any of the points mentioned above in Q2.9.1 regarding what is considered appropriate enhancement for the distinctive landscapes been considered in revisions to the OSPES? Are the works described in the OSPES (Document 5.25, paras 7.4.1 – 2) the same as those in the draft s106 as updated in Schedule 3 Part C in Document 8.4A?


It is clear progress has been made on proposed approvals mechanism for changes to the OSPES, as set out in the updated draft s106 agreement between the Applicant and Joint Councils (Document 8.4A). Are the Joint Councils in agreement with the wording for clauses 2.5 and 2.6 of Schedule 3 Part A Off Site Planting in Document 8.4A? Opinions were presented at the ISHs that local communities and local interest groups have detailed knowledge and opinions about where and what planting should form part of the OSPES. Also we heard that some felt they had not been consulted. Is there any plan to tap into this local knowledge regarding variations to planting proposals? Has any consideration been given to a local community and/or special interest groups’ forum alongside local planning authority approvals? Are the Joint Councils content with the wording in clause 2.2 regarding the approach to staged submissions?

2.18.4 Applicant What will be the nature of the agreement for OSPES planting between Applicant and landowners at the end of the examination, before the Secretary of State’s decision is made? Describe the nature of the agreement and can model wording for one be supplied? What percentage of OSPES planting is now securable through landowner agreements? What

36


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter percentage of OSPES planting is anticipated to be secured before the end of this examination? Identify the locations for these agreements.

19. Planning Policy No questions 20. Site Visits 2.20.1 Applicant Further to photographs of the T-pylons at Eakring submitted in Document 8.16; please

submit photographs taken from the same locations when all the pylons are erected and strung. If possible submit these at Deadline 5, otherwise submit at Deadline 6.

21. Other Relevant Matters 2.21.1 Applicant The Neumann report, commissioned by Wraxall and Failand Parish Council, puts lifetime

costs at 3.3 times greater for a complete undergrounded solution compared to the application scheme with a 13% underground section through the AONB. Is it agreed that that figure excludes property blight, loss of tourism, and any direct or anxiety induced health costs?

2.21.2 Applicant The Applicant’s initial response to the Neumann report, at para 1.1, states that it is well put together and broadly welcomed but points to slightly inaccurate assumptions. How does that description, and the GIL alternative costs figures provided by the Applicant at the Landscape ISH, sit with the Applicant’s response to FQ 21.5 that the report included a number of fundamental errors which invalidated the analysis and conclusions made? Are those conclusions and costs now broadly accepted?

2.21.3 Applicant The update to the Strategic Options Report, para 20, gives examples of situations where underground cables have been installed – that includes preserving important views. Are there not important views to preserve elsewhere along the route other than within the AONB? Has the Applicant placed too much weight upon the AONB designation or absence of such designation from other parts of the route rather than assessing the true merits of the local landscape and its ability to absorb the impact of the T-pylons?

2.21.4 Applicant The Response to FQ 21.1: “Explain in more detail the reasoning behind the ES conclusion (para 2.4.58) that the increase to the estimated costs of the PC4P option is not of an extent

37


Q Number Question to: Question Subject Matter that would suggest any other option should be progressed” at 21.1.13 states that Hinkley Point to Seabank (HVDC) has an estimated capital cost of £1,074m, £396m more than the estimated capital cost of PC4P. The ES Project Need and Alternatives, 2.4.46, indicates that National Grid does not consider that the increase to the estimated costs of the proposed scheme is of an extent that a subsea option should be progressed. Given that the difference of £396m is far less than was originally envisaged, as the costs of the preferred route have increased with undergrounding part of the route and the like, is the Applicant still of that view or might that option have warranted further consideration? Is the difference of £396m, perhaps adjusted upwards when looked at in detail, of a magnitude that would not automatically rule that option out if there were obvious benefits associated with it or in order for the company to comply with its duties under s38 and schedule 9 of the Electricity Act?

2.21.5 Applicant The response to FQ 3.18 sets out the additional capital costs of undergrounding various sections of the route. A range of figures is given for each section, for example, in Study Area F Portishead the range provided is that it would be between £8m to £23m more in capital costs. Why is such a broad range given in some instances and does this call into question the accuracy and reliability of the figures provided?

38

Application by National Grid Hinkley Point C Connection ... · • To point out particular sections...

Documents

Transcript of Application by National Grid Hinkley Point C Connection ... · • To point out particular sections...