Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Copeland Borough Council July 2016
Moorside ProjectApplication for a Development Consent OrderStage 2 Consultation Response
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Contents Page
Introductory Foreword by Elected Mayor Mike Starkie i
Executive Summary vii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Approach 1
1.2 Structure of Response 2
1.3 Proposed Scheme 3
1.4 The Accommodation Sites 4
1.5 The Additional Sites 6
1.6 Vision, Objectives and Policy Context 7
2 Project Legacy 12
2.1 Overview 12
2.2 Borough Wide Legacy 14
2.3 Moorside Main Site Legacy 19
2.4 Whitehaven 22
2.5 Corkickle Accommodation Site 25
2.6 Mirehouse Accommodation Site 28
2.7 Egremont 31
2.8 Egremont Accommodation Site 33
2.9 Cleator Moor Legacy 36
2.10 Millom Legacy 39
2.11 Ancillary Infrastructure Legacy 42
3 Evaluation of Technical Documentation - The Moorside Site 45
3.1 Introduction 45
3.2 Summary of Prior PEI Engagement 45
3.3 Approach to EIA 46
3.4 Transport 47
3.5 Noise and Vibration 52
3.6 Air Quality 65
3.7 Landscape and Visual 70
3.8 Countryside Recreation 77
3.9 Socio-economics 81
3.10 Soils, Geology and Land Quality 86
3.11 Historic Environment 90
3.12 Freshwater Environment - Groundwater 93
3.13 Freshwater Environment – Surface Water 97
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
3.14 Marine Water and Sediment Quality, Marine Ecology and Marine and Coastal Physical Processes 102
3.15 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology 104
3.16 Ornithology 109
3.17 Climate 113
3.18 Radiology 116
4 Evaluation of Technical Documentation – Accommodation Sites 121
4.1 Observations and Council Comments on PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation Material 121
5 Evaluation of Technical Documentation – Additional Sites 131
5.1 Observations and Council Comments on PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation Material 131
6 Evaluation of Technical Documentation - CEMP, HRA, Biodiversity Strategy and Transport Strategy 138
6.1 Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan 138
6.2 Outline Biodiversity Management Strategy 140
6.3 Outline Transport Strategy 142
6.4 Habitats Regulations Assessment Evidence Plan 147
6.5 Plans and Drawings 148
7 Planning Requirements and Obligations 152
7.1 Introduction 152
7.2 Legacy Use and Community Benefits 152
7.3 Transport 153
7.4 Noise and Vibration 154
7.5 Air Quality 154
7.6 Landscape and Visual 154
7.7 Countryside Recreation 154
7.8 Socio-economics 155
7.9 Soils, Geology and Land Quality 155
7.10 Historic Environment 155
7.11 Freshwater Environment - Groundwater 155
7.12 Freshwater Environment – Surface Water 156
7.13 Marine and Coastal Physical Processes, Marine Water and Sediment Quality and Marine Ecology 156
7.14 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology 156
7.15 Ornithology 157
7.16 Climate 157
7.17 Radiology 157
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
7.18 Summary 157
8 Council Responses to Questions 159
8.1 Proposed Development within the Moorside Site 159
8.2 Accommodation Sites 166
8.3 Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway 169
8.4 Highway Improvements 169
8.5 Public Rights of Way and Amenity Routes 170
8.6 Highways 170
8.7 Common Land 171
8.8 Site Preparation Application(s) to Copeland Borough Council 172
8.9 The Benefits and Legacy that NuGen wants to leave 173
8.10 How NuGen’s Design for the Moorside Project has evolved 174
8.11 Landscape Strategy 177
8.12 Land and Property 178
8.13 Health / Impacts 179
9 Adequacy of Consultation 181
9.1 Introduction 181
9.2 Procedural Adherence 181
9.3 Approach to and content of Stage 2 Consultation 186
9.4 Communities Directly Affected 191
9.5 Adequacy of Progress on Issues Raised 193
9.6 Summary 200
Tables Table 1 Borough Wide Legacy Summary
Table 2 Moorside Site Legacy Summary
Table 3 Whitehaven Legacy Summary
Table 4 Corkickle Accommodation Site Legacy Summary
Table 5 Mirehouse Accommodation site Legacy Summary
Table 6 Egremont Legacy Summary
Table 7 Egremont Accommodation Site Legacy Summary
Table 8 Cleator Moor Legacy Summary
Table 9 Millom Legacy Summary
Table 10 Ancillary Infrastructure Legacy Summary
Table 11 Mitigation Measures in Line with Current Best Practice
Table 12 Copeland Borough Council’s Comments on Stage 2 Plans and Drawings
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Table 13 Table of SoCC Commitments
Table 14 Progress on issues raised at Stage 1 Consultation
I
Introductory Foreword
If you require a copy of this document in an alternative format, for example, large print, Braille, audio cassette or an alternative language, please call 01946 598300
II
As Elected Mayor of the Borough Council I welcome the opportunity provided by NuGeneration Ltd to provide comments on the proposed development at Moorside through the Stage 2 consultation process in advance of the Development Consent Order (DCO) submission in Quarter 2 2017. The Council understands the significance of the project at a national level, both in terms of the substantial contribution that the power station could make to the Governments strategy to secure future energy provision and its contribution to the national economic growth agenda.
The Council and the communities within Copeland have a long history of association with the nuclear sector dating back to initial nuclear power research in the 1940s. The Council underlined its current position in relation to the sector in a series of position statements in 2015. Since the Stage 1 consultation stage in 2015, NuGen have maintained important on-going dialogue with the Council. As principal host authority representing local communities affected by the project, Copeland Borough Council has a key role to play in the determination process, and will be submitting a Local Impact Report at the time of DCO submission.
Recognising the wider needs of the local economy and communities, through consideration of matters such as infrastructure requirements, skills, transient workers and legacy, the Council has a clear mandate to influence the project to secure positive, permanent long term outcomes.
Introductory Foreword by Elected Mayor Mike Starkie
The Council also has a key role in determining applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA), including Accommodation Sites associated with the project. It is essential that the process for determination of the DCO and TCPA applications is run in tandem, so that sufficient information is available on every aspect of the scheme to support the decision making process.
Whilst the Council is broadly supportive of the project and recognises the considerable and potential economic benefits that could be realised, there exist a number of key areas of concern that need to be highlighted at this stage to ensure that these are addressed by NuGen before the DCO and TCPA applications are submitted.
III
Introductory Foreword
Key commentsThe Council is disappointed to note the current level of detail provided within the current proposed scheme documents. Fundamentally the Council takes the view that very little has substantially changed in terms of detailed understanding since Stage 1 consultation in 2015!
The lack of design information generally, is a cause for concern to the Council at this time and has been highlighted by feedback from a number of local residents and groups. This specifically includes a lack of detailed information on structures such as the Marine Offloading Facility and the Beach Landing Facility. This restricts the Councils ability to understand the impacts of the project and therefore to fully evaluate potential mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures. The Environmental Impact Assessment has not been undertaken for key elements of the project, and the Preliminary Environmental Information presented is therefore not adequately evidenced and robust enough to enable the council to comment on the technical adequacy of the information presented.
Information about workforce profiles and the movement of goods and people has been requested over a long period and the absence of this information has had a major impact on how the Council and wider communities have been able to assess the potential impacts and legacy benefits of the proposals. The Council await key information required to support the assessment of the project in respect of skills and supply chain impacts, including procurement approach, and Supply Chain and Workforce strategies. The Council remains concerned (these matters having been formally raised in Stage 1 Consultation and now repeated at Stage 2) that the opportunities and positive effects arising from the Moorside project may not materialise without more active engagement and information from NuGen. The longer term positive legacy associated with re-skilling and educational enhancements as well as the support for locally based organisations to engage in the project demand more information and positive steps from NuGen in advance of DCO submission.
Emergency and business continuity plans are critical for the Moorside Project and for Copeland.It is unclear to the Council what consideration has been given to the continued operations of the Sellafield nuclear decommissioning site, and cumulative impacts and opportunities associated with the site and wider strategic interventions.
In respect of traffic and transport, a key matter for the realisation of the project, there is considerable work for NuGen to complete in order for the Council to have higher levels of confidence in the transportstrategy proposed. There remain some information shortfalls in terms of baseline data and there is no specific reference to means by which mitigation will be secured. Impacts on local communities, including parking provision are likely to require strategic interventions, beyond the highways improvements currently identified by NuGen as mitigation for transport impacts. The implications of elements or aspirations of the project set out by NuGen, such as a Visitor Centre, and the use of Workington Port, are not yet understood.
Environmental issues associated with the project remain a considerable concern for the Council with significant gaps in the baseline and methodology shared, and with an assessment which is incomplete. The Council shares the concerns expressed by the County Council and communities close to the Moorside site regarding the landscaped spoil mounds proposed for the site. Further information is required in order for local communities to appreciate the potential landscape impacts and mitigation associated with the proposed spoil mounds and habitat enhancement at the Main Site. Of particular concern is the extent to which the mounds may or may not provide screening for communities at Beckermet.There are very few specific environmental control, mitigation, enhancement or compensation measures consulted on within the Stage 2 documentation. TheCouncil wishes to see detailed proposals developed for the area north of the site identified by NuGen for environmental mitigation, alongside environmental mitigation measures associated with Accommodation and Ancillary Sites. The Council
IV
Introductory Foreword
has not yet been consulted on a number of important control documents to manage potential impacts, expected to accompany the DCO submission. The extent of mitigation proposed at present is unacceptable given the potential for significant environment effects anticipated by NuGen.
Securing Legacy for Local CommunitiesThe Council is clear that communities across the Borough want to see permanent and positive legacy benefits emanating from this project including appropriate investment in infrastructure and community facilities to mitigate any negative impacts of the project. The Council recognises that NuGen has a commitment to a positive legacy arising from the project and this is reflected in the current Stage 2 Consultation material. However, the Council remains concerned that there is an absence of detail in terms of legacy and potential benefits of the Moorside Project, Accommodation sites and Additional sites at this time.
The Council has therefore mapped out in Section 2 of this document detailed and specific proposals for the Accommodation Sites and Borough-wide interventions to secure project Legacy. This is set against an extensive policy framework and is underpinned by the Joint Council Legacy Strategy (prepared jointly with Cumbria County Council) ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Investment, Maximising Project Legacy for Cumbria (March 2016). The Council’s analysis presents significant opportunities and priorities for securing project legacy, on which extensive engagement with NuGen and their development partners is anticipated prior to DCO submission. Legacy aspirations set out by the Council and through engagement with Community Partnerships include;
• A borough-wide transport and movement strategy which provides for sustainable infrastructure both post-construction and through operation of the plant including emergency planning, resilience and business continuity arrangements;
• An effective accommodation strategy for construction and operational workforces which sees those workers integrated into existing communities, spreading the economic benefits and reducing potential issues of social cohesion and providing a positive permanent residential legacy that contributes to the Councils growth ambitions;
• A commitment to developing local supply chain opportunities through a transparent procurement strategy and helping local businesses meet quality requirements including the provision of a contractor code of conduct for NuGeneration Ltd’s suppliers and the development of inward investment opportunities for incoming supplier businesses at appropriate locations in our towns;
• Supporting the Council’s approach to developing sustainable communities by siting non-essential facilities such as offices, training centres in our towns rather than on the Main Site;
• Work with local partners to maximise the opportunities for local residents to gain access to job opportunities through training/up-skilling and through a voluntary local labour agreement;
• A commitment to ‘quality of life’ issues including improvements to the provision of health and leisure facilities, minimising the impacts and maximising the opportunities to support the tourism sector and improvements to the public realm;
• Specific aspirations for Whitehaven (including the Mirehouse and Corkickle Accommodation Sites) to be delivered through a holistic masterplanning approach with project partners. This will incorporate the potential long term legacy use of Accommodation Sites and rail infrastructure required to service the project;
Site specific interventions such as the re-use of existing buildings, reinforcement of healthcare and recreation provision, support for supply chain and commercial opportunities, and reinforcement of connectivity through highways, recreational routes and public realm improvements at Egremont, Cleator
V
Introductory Foreword
Moor, Millom, and the wider Borough that reflect the aspirations of local communities; and
• The overall effect of the Moorside Project should be beneficial to the community over and above the need to commercially employ local goods and services in the implementation phase and to conform to statutory requirements. Also that the local infrastructure and its utility to the public, and the functioning, image and appearance of local communities, should not be degraded during the construction phase and any opportunity to improve them should be taken. These aspirations are set out in further detail in the Council’s response document.
Moving ForwardThe Council is mindful of the incredibly tight timescales imposed to ensure submission of the application for a DCO in Quarter 2 2017. Given the current gaps in evidence and lack of detail in some aspects of the project the Council would expect dialogue to continue with NuGen right up to submission of the DCO and TCPA applications. Whilst the Council recognises that NuGen has undertaken some positive work in engaging with the community, there is still a significant gap in meaningful engagement on wider legacy interventions which has been identified in the Council’s own engagement with representative community organisations.
In addition and in view of the current global investment environment the Council expects that an appropriate exit strategy is developed should the project not proceed to implementation and operation. In addition, the Council recognises the significant linkages between this project and the North West Coast Connections project being developed by National Grid and the cumulative risks that this relationship presents.
It is the Councils view therefore that NuGen should consider a further stage of formal public consultation once additional design detail is available for key components of the proposals, and when the impacts have been assessed to enable meaningful engagement on mitigation, compensation, enhancement and legacy opportunities.
Copeland Borough Council believes that it is essential that further engagement with stakeholders and local communities is undertaken by NuGen in order to ensure that the considerable potential local economic benefits associated with the Moorside project can be fully realised.
Elected Mayor Mike Starkie
VI
Executive Summary
© G
ary
McK
eatin
g
VII
This Executive Summary sets out Copeland Borough Council’s principal recommendations in respect of an evaluation of NuGeneration Ltd.’s (NuGen) Stage 2 consultation documentation for the Moorside New Nuclear Project.
In 2015, Copeland Borough Council provided a formal response to NuGen as part of the Stage 1 Consultation exercise, pursuant to ‘Strategic Issues’ consultation material presented by NuGen under Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008. Copeland Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to review and appraise Stage 2 consultation material and submissions made by NuGen. As principal host community to the development, the Council recognises its’ key role in assessing the proposals as they evolve in response to NuGen’s multi-stage consultation process.
The structure of the Council’s response to Stage 2 consultation reflects an assessment of core topic areas as set out within consultation material. In addition, these topic areas represent the key issues which the Council considers to be the material considerations which will be of relevance to the Examining Authority in considering the DCO once submitted and for the Secretary of State in any grant of the DCO. Due reference has been made to all consultation material provided by NuGen. This includes a Preliminary Environmental Information Report, Outline Biodiversity Management Strategy, Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan and Habitats Regulation Assessment, Proposed Scheme Document and Plans and Drawings, supplemented by visits to consultation events.
The Council have provided a combined response to consultation addressing all matters set out above. The Council have also provided commentary on adequacy of consultation matters in respect of S42, S47 and S48 of their duties under the Planning Act, which will in due course underpin a formal representation to the Planning Inspectorate upon submission of the Development Consents Order (DCO) by NuGen.
The Council considers that NuGen should reflect on the adequacy of consultation and desired outcomes at this last formal stage of consultation prior to DCO submission. Not only does the Council have concerns as to whether the consultation has provided communities and wider stakeholders with access to sufficiently detailed project information, there are also concerns on whether engagement on the project is representative of a sufficiently wide cross section of affected communities. The Council would encourage NuGen to consider another formal stage of consultation informed by responses to this Stage 2 consultation.
Section 1 Summary: The Proposed SchemeThe effectiveness of the Stage 2 consultation is limited by its substance. The Council do not consider the information consulted on at Stage 2 adequate to provide stakeholders and local communities with sufficient opportunity to help shape key aspects of the proposals prior to DCO submission.
The Project is insufficiently defined to support meaningful engagement in respect of:
• The Port of Workington and its relationship with the wider Transport Strategy;
• The MOLF and its potential environmental and community impacts;
• Community infrastructure associated with the project, potentially outside the boundaries of the Main Site and Accommodation Sites.
• Relationship of the project with Sellafield, West Cumbria Mining Proposals, Eastern Relief Road, North Coast Connections Project and other cumulative sites.
The Council’s own engagement with representative community organisations has indicated a significant gap in meaningful engagement on wider legacy interventions. Other key evidence, assessment information, mitigation and mechanisms to control and manage effects are largely omitted from the Stage 2 consultation material.
Executive Summary
VIII
The main Site has been characterised further by NuGen since Stage 1 Consultation, the implications of which for local communities have not yet been adequately consulted on.
The Council await key information required to support the assessment of the project in respect of skills and supply chain impacts, including construction workforce occupational profile, operational workforce occupational profile, procurement approach, and Supply Chain and Workforce strategies. The Council remains concerned (these matters having been formally raised in Stage 1 Consultation and are repeated now at Stage 2) that the opportunities and positive effects arising from the Moorside project may not materialise without more active engagement by NuGen. The longer term positive legacy associated with re-skilling and educational enhancements as well as the support for locally based organisations to engage in the project demand more information from the project strategy as well as positive steps from NuGen in advance of and through the DCO Examination.
The Council’s response focuses on the key areas of omission and gaps in information provided in the consultation material with a view to those gaps and omissions being rectified prior to submission of the DCO. There are significant gaps within the PEIR; as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not yet been progressed to a more meaningful level and the evidence base for preliminary conclusions has not yet presented for detailed review. The assessment methodology is not yet agreed for a number of assessment disciplines. The lack of progression of assessment in relation to aspects including (for example) transport, legacy and the marine environment is of particular concern. The Council has noted a particular limitation in respect of the design and intended usage of marine infrastructure, including the MOLF.
The Council remain concerned in respect of the relationship of the project with Sellafield, West Cumbria Mining Proposals, Eastern Relief Road, North Coast Connections Project and other
cumulative sites. It is imperative that full account be made of the Moorside project in the context of wider development and that this be linked back to the underpinning policy framework, including a full consideration of evidence produced by Copeland Borough Council including the Growth Strategy, Joint Legacy Strategy, Legacy Masterplan and Development Plan.
The Stage 2 Consultation material contains limited information regarding important elements of the scheme that may be delivered outside the DCO application, including TCPA applications for Accommodation Sites, and wider infrastructure improvements required for example to support a rail based Transport Strategy. There is no assessment information on these elements of the scheme to promote meaningful engagement on impacts, mitigation and control measures. This will be required to underpin an evidence based S106 package.
Section 2 Summary: LegacyThe Council welcomes NuGen’s commitment to legacy however there is an absence of detail in terms of legacy and potential benefits of the Moorside Project, Accommodation sites and Additional sites. The Council would like to see workers relocate to Copeland with their families, integrating and strengthening our local communities whilst reducing the need for additional housing and facilities on the Accommodation Sites. This will only happen if Copeland offers a good quality of life. It would be prudent therefore for NuGen to support and strengthen our local communities and ensure Copeland remains an attractive place to live.
There is a significant gap in meaningful engagement on wider legacy interventions which has been identified in the Council’s consultation with representative community organisations. The Council have therefore mapped out in Section 2 of this document detailed and specific proposals for the Accommodation Sites and Borough-wide interventions. This is set against an extensive policy framework and is underpinned by the Joint Council Legacy Strategy, ‘Nationally Significant
Executive Summary
IX
© C
opel
and
Bor
ough
Cou
ncil
X
Infrastructure Investment, Maximising Project Legacy for Cumbria (March 2016). The Council’s analysis presents significant opportunities and priorities for securing project legacy, on which extensive engagement with NuGen and their development partners is anticipated prior to DCO submission.
There are significant omissions in strategies for the enhancement of skills and supply chain opportunities. The Council would expect to see a local labour agreement, support for upskilling and an employment strategy that matches appropriate skills to the employment opportunities, both within the nuclear sector and to enable backfill as the local labour force take up new opportunities.
There is no indication given in the consultation documents that the local industrial estates have been considered yet these should have a key role in supporting the supplier base for the project. The Council would also expect to see a commitment by NuGen to support local businesses in meeting quality requirements, and to provide support through the tender process.
Supporting the four key towns is a priority for the Council and is a key theme in Copeland’s Growth Strategy. The Council remains concerned therefore at the lack of community legacy proposals identified for the towns. The Council’s view is that operational uses should be town centre based as far as possible, but within existing Planning Policy guidelines. Non-essential facilities should be based off site to increase the opportunity for local benefit.
Accommodating the majority of construction workers on Accommodation Sites raises concerns regarding social cohesion and integration with existing communities. Consideration should be given to both enhancing and encouraging workers to use existing town centre facilities. Where Accommodation Site buildings contribute to future plans for the towns, retention of buildings will be preferred. However, where temporary structures are removed consideration should be given to the retention of any accompanying infrastructure which could enable future development.
Section 3 Summary: Technical Evaluation of Stage 2 Consultation DocumentsThe following key / approach summarises the Council’s technical response to Stage 2 Consultation, in respect of Sections 3 to 6 of this Document. In this Executive Summary, a traffic light system has been employed to summarise the key recommendations in each technical area and to guide NuGen in interpretation of the Council’s consultation response. This assessment reflects the Council’s current position based on the information provided to date, and will be subject to review as the project progresses. It is acknowledged that where significant omissions are identified, this may be addressed as further project information becomes available.
Colour
The content of the consultation material is considered appropriate and generally lacks errors or omissions. Information is considered adequate for the purpose of Stage 2 consultation with the expectation of further dialogue as the project progresses. Insufficient project definition, or baseline information available at this stage limits the extent to which meaningful commentary may be made on the Stage 2 material. Further dialogue required on specific areas. The content of the Stage 2 consultation material has significant omissions, or requires updating or reviewing to comply with recommended policy and guidance.
Executive Summary
xii 3.
0 E
valu
atio
n of
Tec
hnic
al D
ocum
enta
tion
- Moo
rsid
e S
ite
3.1
Tran
spor
tB
asel
ine
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at th
ere
rem
ains
a la
ck o
f bas
elin
e in
form
atio
n up
on w
hich
to b
ase
any
revi
ew o
f the
PE
IR
and
ther
e is
ther
efor
e lim
ited
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e in
term
s of
ana
lysi
s an
d as
sess
men
t. D
etai
led
base
line
info
rmat
ion
is a
ntic
ipat
ed in
the
Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
NuG
en s
houl
d pr
ovid
e m
ore
deta
iled
info
rmat
ion
at th
e ne
xt s
tage
in o
rder
to
ena
ble
the
Cou
ncil
to c
onsi
der t
he
adeq
uacy
of t
he b
asel
ine,
ass
essm
ent
and
miti
gatio
n.
The
Cou
ncil
sugg
ests
a lo
g of
how
co
nsul
tatio
n is
sues
hav
e be
en
resp
onde
d to
/ ad
dres
sed
wou
ld b
e us
eful
follo
win
g th
is c
onsu
ltatio
n re
spon
se.
Ass
essm
ent
met
hodo
logy
Whi
lst t
here
is re
fere
nce
to th
resh
olds
for m
agni
tude
of
cha
nge,
thes
e ha
ve n
ot b
een
assi
gned
and
this
is
fund
amen
tal t
o un
ders
tand
ing
the
effe
cts
aris
ing
from
th
e tra
nspo
rt as
sess
men
t. Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
d th
at
NuG
en p
rovi
de c
larit
y on
this
in o
rder
to a
id s
take
hold
er
unde
rsta
ndin
g.
Ass
essm
ent
Whi
lst p
redi
cted
env
ironm
enta
l effe
cts
seem
real
istic
, m
ore
evid
ence
is re
quire
d to
sup
port
the
anal
ysis
and
as
sess
men
t of e
ffect
s. N
o as
sess
men
t out
puts
hav
e be
en p
rovi
ded.
Mor
e in
form
atio
n is
requ
ired
for t
he
Cou
ncil
to m
ake
any
furth
er c
omm
ent o
n th
e ad
equa
cy
of th
e as
sess
men
t. Th
e im
pact
s on
loca
l peo
ple
mus
t be
thor
ough
ly c
onsi
dere
d an
d cr
oss
refe
renc
e th
e he
alth
im
pact
ass
essm
ent.
Tran
spor
t stra
tegy
Ther
e is
con
side
rabl
e w
ork
for N
uGen
to c
ompl
ete
in
orde
r for
the
Cou
ncil
to h
ave
high
er le
vels
of c
onfid
ence
in
the
trans
port
stra
tegy
pro
pose
d. T
here
is n
o sp
ecifi
c re
fere
nce
to m
eans
by
whi
ch m
itiga
tion
will
be
secu
red.
Th
ere
is a
lack
of c
larit
y re
gard
ing
how
pro
posa
ls fo
r the
V
isito
r Cen
tre a
t the
Mai
n S
ite in
fluen
ce th
e Tr
ansp
ort
Stra
tegy
.3.
2N
oise
and
Vi
brat
ion
Bas
elin
e an
d as
sess
men
tTh
e C
ounc
il no
tes
that
bas
elin
e da
ta a
nd g
athe
ring
and
asse
ssm
ent i
s in
com
plet
e an
d th
ere
is in
suffi
cien
t ev
iden
ce w
ithin
the
PE
IR to
pro
vide
con
fiden
ce th
at th
e ou
tcom
es re
porte
d ar
e co
rrec
t. Im
pact
s ar
isin
g fro
m
cons
truct
ion
and
appr
opria
te c
onst
ruct
ion
wor
king
hou
rs
requ
ire fu
rther
con
side
ratio
n.
The
Cou
ncil
do n
ot a
gree
with
all
the
crite
ria a
nd m
etho
dolo
gies
for
iden
tifica
tion
of s
igni
fican
t im
pact
s or
effe
cts
and
advi
se o
n fu
rther
co
nsul
tatio
n.
Ass
essm
ent
met
hodo
logy
The
prop
osed
crit
eria
and
met
hodo
logi
es fo
r ide
ntifi
catio
n of
sig
nific
ant i
mpa
cts
and
effe
cts
is o
f con
cern
and
will
re
quire
furth
er c
onsu
ltatio
n.
xiii
3.3
Air
Qua
lity
Bas
elin
eTh
e C
ounc
il id
entifi
es n
o ke
y is
sues
or g
aps
requ
iring
fu
rther
con
sulta
tion,
but
reco
mm
ends
that
:M
onito
ring
shou
ld ru
n un
til a
t lea
st D
ecem
ber 2
016
and
that
whi
ch d
oes
not c
over
bot
h su
mm
er a
nd w
inte
r mon
ths
shou
ld b
e tre
ated
with
cau
tion;
Act
ion
on Z
ones
of I
nflue
nce
for s
ensi
tive
ecol
ogic
al
rece
ptor
s be
twee
n 2k
m a
nd 1
0km
from
the
site
sho
uld
be c
ompl
eted
. The
bas
elin
e m
ay n
eed
to b
e ex
tend
ed to
in
clud
e th
ose
elem
ents
of t
he p
roje
ct th
at a
re n
ot
defin
ed a
t thi
s st
age.
Impa
cts
aris
ing
from
con
stru
ctio
n du
st re
quire
furth
er
cons
ider
atio
n in
con
sulta
tion
with
loca
l com
mun
ities
.
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
draf
t Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
3.4
Land
scap
e an
d Vi
sual
Bas
elin
e an
d as
sess
men
tTh
e C
ounc
il co
nsid
ers
that
ther
e ar
e ga
ps in
the
base
line
and
met
hodo
logy
, and
that
the
asse
ssm
ent i
s in
com
plet
e du
e to
a la
ck o
f defi
nitio
n in
des
ign.
Th
e m
ain
gaps
in th
e P
EIR
are
:M
issi
ng v
isua
l bas
elin
e in
form
atio
n fo
r offs
hore
vie
wpo
ints
in
resp
ect o
f the
mai
n si
te a
nd th
e C
orki
ckle
to M
ireho
use
Rai
lway
line
Site
; La
ck o
f cla
rity
and
any
deta
il re
gard
ing
miti
gatio
n pr
opos
als
acro
ss th
e m
itiga
tion
hier
arch
y an
d ho
w
mea
sure
s w
ill b
e co
nsid
ered
in th
e ef
fect
s an
d re
sidu
al
effe
cts
asse
ssm
ent.
Onc
e de
sign
ed th
e m
eans
of s
ecur
ing
thes
e m
easu
res
will
nee
d de
finin
g;P
artia
l and
inco
mpl
ete
tem
pora
l sco
pe o
f ass
essm
ent
mak
ing
appr
ecia
tion
of th
e si
te s
peci
fic a
nd w
hole
pro
ject
ef
fect
s im
poss
ible
at t
his
stag
e;
Inco
mpl
ete
natu
re o
f the
who
le p
roje
ct e
ffect
s as
sess
men
t in
the
PEIR
. Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds N
uGen
to p
rovi
de th
e fo
llow
ing:
PE
IR o
ff sh
ore
view
sB
rief a
sses
smen
ts fo
r val
ue a
nd s
usce
ptib
ility
lead
ing
to
sens
itivi
ty fo
r vis
ual r
ecep
tors
Qua
ntify
rece
ptor
s af
fect
ed in
gro
ups
or a
ffect
ed le
ngth
s of
rout
es a
nd re
fined
agg
rega
tion
of re
cept
ors
into
gro
ups
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te.
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
DC
O s
ubm
issi
on, i
nclu
ding
a d
raft
Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
The
Cou
ncil
advi
ses
that
furth
er
info
rmat
ion
is re
quire
d, s
peci
fical
ly
with
rega
rd to
bas
elin
e an
d as
sess
men
t met
hodo
logy
.
xiv
The
loca
l com
mun
ity a
t Bec
kerm
et a
nd n
earb
y co
mm
uniti
es h
ave
sign
ifica
nt c
once
rns
rega
rdin
g th
e im
pact
s of
the
Moo
rsid
e M
ain
Site
in c
lose
pro
xim
ity to
re
side
ntia
l pro
perti
es a
nd h
ave
ques
tione
d th
e ex
tent
to
whi
ch th
e m
ound
s ca
n de
liver
ade
quat
e la
ndsc
ape
scre
enin
g, a
nd th
eir p
ract
ical
lega
cy u
ses,
giv
en th
e po
tent
ial s
ecur
ity c
once
rns.
Furth
er c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith lo
cal
com
mun
ities
and
sta
keho
lder
s is
co
nsid
ered
ess
entia
l.
3.5
Cou
ntry
side
R
ecre
atio
nB
asel
ine
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at b
asel
ine
info
rmat
ion
is s
till r
equi
red
for t
he a
rea
sout
h of
Cal
der B
ridge
and
eas
t of S
ella
field
.Fu
rther
eng
agem
ent i
n ad
vanc
e of
dr
aft E
nviro
nmen
tal S
tate
men
t. Th
e C
ounc
il w
ould
like
the
oppo
rtuni
ty
to c
omm
ent o
n su
rvey
met
hodo
logy
an
d in
terv
iew
pro
form
as. T
he C
ounc
il w
ould
als
o lik
e th
e op
portu
nity
to
revi
ew a
nd c
omm
ent u
pon
cons
ulta
tion
prov
ided
to N
uGen
by
othe
rs.
Ong
oing
tech
nica
l mee
tings
and
an
opp
ortu
nity
to re
view
the
draf
t E
nviro
nmen
tal S
tate
men
t in
due
cour
se w
ill p
rovi
de th
e C
ounc
il w
ith
incr
ease
d co
nfide
nce
to a
ddre
ss
mat
ters
of c
once
rn.
Ass
essm
ent
met
hodo
logy
The
asse
ssm
ent m
etho
dolo
gy is
not
cle
ar a
nd fu
rther
de
tail
is re
quire
d fo
r the
app
roac
h to
ass
essi
ng w
hole
pr
ojec
t effe
cts.
The
Cou
ncil
reco
mm
ends
am
enity
and
la
nd ta
ke e
ffect
s ar
e co
nsid
ered
sep
arat
ely
to e
nsur
e tra
nspa
renc
y an
d cl
arity
.P
oten
tial m
itiga
tion
The
prop
osed
ben
efits
of r
ecre
atio
nal u
ses
of th
e m
ound
s is
not
sup
porte
d by
evi
denc
e at
this
sta
ge, a
nd fu
rther
di
alog
ue is
requ
ired
with
loca
l com
mun
ities
.
3.6
Soci
o-ec
onom
ics
Bas
elin
e an
d as
sess
men
tTh
e as
sess
men
t has
sig
nific
ant o
mis
sion
s in
clud
ing
cons
truct
ion
wor
kfor
ce o
ccup
atio
nal p
rofil
e, o
pera
tiona
l w
orkf
orce
occ
upat
iona
l pro
file,
pro
cure
men
t app
roac
h,
Sup
ply
Cha
in a
nd W
orkf
orce
stra
tegi
es a
nd d
etai
ls o
f ot
her c
ompe
ting
cons
truct
ion
and
nucl
ear d
evel
opm
ent
prog
ram
mes
/NS
IPs.
The
Cou
ncil
reco
mm
ends
a re
fresh
ed h
ousi
ng m
arke
t and
co
mm
unity
/ so
cial
infra
stru
ctur
e to
add
ress
the
gaps
.Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds th
at a
sses
smen
t of e
ffect
s sh
ould
be
revi
ewed
onc
e th
e ab
ove
have
bee
n ad
dres
sed.
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
draf
t Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
The
Cou
ncil
expe
cts
the
cons
ulta
tion
resp
onse
will
be
expa
nded
to
refle
ct th
e em
ergi
ng fr
amew
ork
and
stak
ehol
ders
invo
lved
. Th
e C
ounc
il ad
vise
s th
at s
trong
le
ader
ship
will
be
requ
ired
if th
e po
tent
ial f
or th
e bu
sine
sses
, pla
ces
and
peop
le o
f Cop
elan
d is
to b
e re
alis
ed.
xv
3.7
Soils
, Geo
logy
an
d La
nd Q
ualit
yA
sses
smen
tTh
e C
ounc
il no
tes
that
ther
e ar
e ke
y is
sues
whi
ch
requ
ire fu
rther
con
sulta
tion
with
CB
C p
rior t
o su
bmis
sion
re
latin
g to
the
inco
mpl
ete
asse
ssm
ent d
ue to
ong
oing
site
ch
arac
teris
atio
n G
I whi
ch w
ill fu
rther
info
rm th
e ba
selin
e.
Pot
entia
l im
pact
s du
ring
deco
mm
issi
onin
g ar
e no
t di
scus
sed
in d
etai
l; th
e C
ounc
il ad
vise
s th
at ju
stifi
catio
n w
ill b
e re
quire
d fo
r the
ass
umpt
ion
that
the
impa
cts
will
not
be
wor
se th
an fo
r the
con
stru
ctio
n / o
pera
tiona
l pha
se.
Furth
er c
onsu
ltatio
n is
requ
ired
with
th
e C
ounc
il pr
ior t
o su
bmis
sion
.
3.8
His
toric
En
viro
nmen
tA
ppen
dix
The
resu
lts o
f the
geo
phys
ical
sur
vey
has
not b
een
incl
uded
in th
e ap
pend
ices
, as
reco
mm
ende
d by
the
Cou
ncil.
The
Cou
ncil
reco
mm
ends
incl
udin
g th
e ba
selin
e st
udie
s in
the
appe
ndic
es.
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at th
e us
e of
a g
reys
cale
bas
e m
ap
on F
igur
e 12
.5 w
ould
be
mor
e ef
fect
ive
and
that
the
A3
scal
e ge
ophy
sics
and
plo
tted
aeria
l pho
togr
aphs
requ
ire
appr
opria
te s
calin
g fo
r vis
ibili
ty.
The
Cou
ncil
advi
ses
a th
orou
gh
proo
f-rea
d of
the
docu
men
t and
all
docu
men
ts g
oing
forw
ard
as th
ere
are
num
erou
s gr
amm
atic
al e
rror
s an
d so
me
sent
ence
s ar
e no
t cle
ar.
The
Cou
ncil
advi
ses
on re
visi
on
to ta
ke p
lace
to th
e pr
elim
inar
y as
sess
men
t as
the
desi
gn a
nd
asse
ssm
ent p
rogr
esse
s, a
nd th
at
phot
ogra
phs
wou
ld h
elp
illus
trate
vi
ews
tow
ards
the
deve
lopm
ent f
rom
ke
y lis
ted
/ sch
edul
ed a
sset
s.
3.9
Fres
hwat
er
Envi
ronm
ent
Gro
undw
ater
Bas
elin
eD
etai
led
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
base
line
grou
ndw
ater
regi
me
and
inte
ract
ions
with
the
surfa
ce w
ater
hav
e no
t bee
n pr
esen
ted
in th
e P
EIR
.
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
draf
t Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
Add
ition
al te
chni
cal a
sses
smen
t and
in
terp
reta
tion
is re
quire
d, s
uppo
rted
by q
uant
itativ
e m
etho
ds, t
o ev
alua
te
impa
cts
and
desi
gn a
ppro
pria
te
miti
gatio
n.
Incl
usio
n of
a h
ydro
geol
ogic
al
conc
eptu
al m
odel
bas
ed o
n si
te
mon
itorin
g da
ta a
nd a
cal
ibra
ted
num
eric
al g
roun
dwat
er m
odel
re
pres
entin
g ba
selin
e co
nditi
ons.
Ass
essm
ent
Pre
dict
ed c
hang
es a
nd p
oten
tial e
ffect
s ar
e pr
esen
ted
in g
ener
ic o
utlin
e on
ly. F
urth
er, p
oten
tial e
ffect
s on
Lo
w C
hurc
h M
oss
cann
ot b
e es
tabl
ishe
d ba
sed
on th
e in
form
atio
n pr
esen
ted
in th
e P
EIR
and
muc
h ad
ditio
nal
tech
nica
l ass
essm
ent a
nd in
terp
reta
tion
is re
quire
d,
supp
orte
d by
qua
ntita
tive
met
hods
, to
eval
uate
impa
cts
and
desi
gn a
ppro
pria
te m
itiga
tion.
The
Cou
ncil
reco
mm
ends
a m
ore
deta
iled
hydr
ogeo
logi
cal
conc
eptu
al m
odel
bas
ed o
n si
te m
onito
ring
data
and
a
calib
rate
d nu
mer
ical
gro
undw
ater
mod
el re
pres
entin
g ba
selin
e co
nditi
ons.
Pot
entia
l im
pact
s du
ring
deco
mm
issi
onin
g ar
e no
t di
scus
sed
in d
etai
l; th
e C
ounc
il ad
vise
s th
at ju
stifi
catio
n w
ill b
e re
quire
d fo
r the
ass
umpt
ion
that
the
impa
cts
will
not
be
wor
se th
an fo
r the
con
stru
ctio
n / o
pera
tiona
l pha
se.
xvi 3.10
Fres
hwat
er
Envi
ronm
ent
Surf
ace
Wat
er
Bas
elin
eTh
e in
form
atio
n pr
esen
ted
in th
e P
EIR
is in
suffi
cien
t to
enab
le a
n as
sess
men
t of t
he p
oten
tial e
ffect
s on
floo
d ris
k an
d on
the
inte
grity
of L
ow C
hurc
h M
oss
SS
SI.
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
draf
t Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
Det
aile
d de
sign
info
rmat
ion
is
requ
ired.
Des
ign
Littl
e ev
iden
ce th
at th
e cu
rren
t des
igns
hav
e in
corp
orat
ed
spec
ific
miti
gatio
n to
add
ress
wat
er is
sues
. Gen
eral
lack
of
des
ign
deta
il lim
ited
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch a
dequ
ate
asse
ssm
ent c
an b
e pr
esen
ted.
A
sses
smen
tLa
ck o
f inf
orm
atio
n on
the
proj
ect’s
ben
efits
and
lega
cy.
3.11
Mar
ine
and
Coa
stal
Phy
sica
l Pr
oces
ses,
M
arin
e W
ater
and
Se
dim
ent Q
ualit
y an
d M
arin
e Ec
olog
y
Des
ign
Lack
of d
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
on s
truct
ures
e.g
. MO
LF,
Circ
ulat
ing
Was
ter S
yste
ms
and
Bea
ch L
andi
ng F
acili
ty
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
draf
t Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
Incl
usio
n of
det
aile
d de
sign
on
mar
ine
stru
ctur
es .
Ass
essm
ent
The
Cou
ncil is
una
ble
to c
omm
ent o
n w
heth
er th
e im
pact
s ar
e lik
ely
to b
e of
any
sig
nific
ance
with
out
furth
er d
etai
ls o
f the
pot
entia
l wor
ks (e
.g. M
OLF
, Bea
ch
Land
ing
Faci
lity,
and
Circ
ulat
ing
Wat
er S
yste
ms)
.
3.12
Terr
estr
ial a
nd
Fres
hwat
er
Ecol
ogy
Miti
gatio
nD
etai
ls o
f the
pro
pose
d de
velo
pmen
t for
miti
gatio
n sh
ould
be
refin
ed a
nd c
larifi
ed.
Whi
lst t
here
is re
fere
nce
to m
itiga
tion
thro
ugh
offs
ettin
g m
easu
res,
it is
not
cle
ar w
hat t
his
wou
ld in
volv
e an
d w
heth
er it
wou
ld b
e ad
equa
te.
Ther
e is
no
men
tion
of e
nhan
cem
ents
with
in th
e P
EIR
; Th
e C
ounc
il ex
pect
s th
e pr
ojec
t to
deliv
er s
igni
fican
t en
hanc
emen
ts to
del
iver
the
last
ing
lega
cy th
at N
uGen
fre
quen
tly re
fers
to.
Furth
er e
ngag
emen
t in
adva
nce
of
draf
t Env
ironm
enta
l Sta
tem
ent.
Incl
usio
n of
det
aile
d en
hanc
emen
t m
etho
ds.
3.13
Orn
ithol
ogy
Miti
gatio
nD
etai
ls o
f the
pro
pose
d de
velo
pmen
t for
miti
gatio
n sh
ould
be
refin
ed a
nd c
larifi
ed.
Whi
lst t
here
is re
fere
nce
to m
itiga
tion
thro
ugh
offs
ettin
g m
easu
res,
it is
not
cle
ar w
hat t
his
wou
ld in
volv
e an
d w
heth
er it
wou
ld b
e ad
equa
te.
Ther
e is
no
men
tion
of e
nhan
cem
ents
with
in th
e P
EIR
; Th
e C
ounc
il ex
pect
s th
e pr
ojec
t to
deliv
er s
igni
fican
t en
hanc
emen
ts in
clud
ing
deta
iled
prop
osal
s fo
r the
In
dica
tive
Are
a fo
r Env
ironm
enta
l Man
agem
ent t
o de
liver
th
e la
stin
g le
gacy
that
NuG
en fr
eque
ntly
refe
rs to
.
Ong
oing
con
sulta
tion
and
clar
ifica
tion.
Incl
usio
n of
det
aile
d en
hanc
emen
t m
etho
ds.
xvii
3.14
Clim
ate
Bas
elin
e an
d as
sess
men
tTh
e C
ounc
il no
tes
the
abse
nce
of e
xtre
me
and
rare
m
eteo
rolo
gica
l phe
nom
ena
with
in th
e ba
selin
e da
ta, t
his
wou
ld b
e co
vere
d by
the
met
eoro
logi
cal a
nd h
ydro
logi
cal
haza
rds
asse
ssm
ent i
f one
was
car
ried
out.
NuG
en s
houl
d ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
at
the
carb
on fo
otpr
int a
sses
smen
t is
a w
ay o
f ass
essi
ng th
e pr
ojec
t’s c
limat
e ch
ange
impa
ct in
com
paris
on to
the
UK
’s c
arbo
n bu
dget
, not
to c
ompa
re
the
cont
ribut
ion
of d
iffer
ent e
lem
ents
of
the
proj
ect.
Miti
gatio
nN
o sp
ecifi
c m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s ar
e co
ntai
ned
in th
e ch
apte
r. Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds th
at m
itiga
tion
of
impa
cts
on e
colo
gy s
houl
d be
incl
uded
. 3.
15R
adio
logy
Bas
elin
eTh
e C
ounc
il w
ould
que
stio
n w
heth
er th
e m
ater
ial i
nclu
ded
with
in th
e P
EIR
pro
vide
s su
ffici
ent c
onfid
ence
in th
e w
ork
on ra
diol
ogy
cond
ucte
d to
dat
e. G
ener
ally
the
docu
men
t is
effe
ctiv
e, h
owev
er th
ere
rem
ains
som
e w
eak
area
s w
ith re
gard
s to
com
men
ts re
fere
ncin
g th
e di
spla
y an
d pr
esen
tatio
n of
the
base
line
mat
eria
l. Th
is s
houl
d be
ad
dres
sed
in th
e E
nviro
nmen
tal S
tate
men
t.
Incl
usio
n of
a m
ore
robu
st p
rese
ntat
ion
of b
asel
ine
data
.
Miti
gatio
nTh
e C
ounc
il co
nsid
ers
that
as
a m
inim
um, w
here
m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s ar
e no
t pre
sent
ed, a
stra
tegy
is in
pl
ace
to c
onfir
m h
ow th
ese
area
s ar
e to
be
addr
esse
d.
Con
side
ratio
n sh
ould
be
give
n to
the
som
e of
the
wor
ding
w
hich
und
erpi
ns th
e m
itiga
tion
stra
tegi
es. A
t thi
s po
int i
n tim
e, th
e C
ounc
il co
nsid
ers
that
furth
er w
ork
is re
quire
d to
dem
onst
rate
and
pro
vide
just
ifica
tion
for m
itiga
tion
appr
oach
es.
Pro
vide
just
ifica
tion
for m
itiga
tion
appr
oach
ed.
xviii
4.0
Eva
luat
ion
of T
echn
ical
Doc
umen
tatio
n - A
ccom
mod
atio
n S
ites
4.1
Tran
spor
tB
asel
ine
and
asse
ssm
ent
Bas
elin
e in
form
atio
n is
inco
mpl
ete,
in p
artic
ular
on
base
line
cond
ition
s at
acc
omm
odat
ion
site
s. T
his
will
af
fect
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
mag
nitu
de o
f im
pact
.
Mor
e in
form
atio
n is
requ
ired
to
enab
le th
e C
ounc
il to
con
side
r the
as
sess
men
t of i
mpa
cts
on th
e ba
selin
e co
nditi
ons.
4.2
Noi
se a
nd
Vibr
atio
nB
asel
ine
and
asse
ssm
ent
The
ratio
nale
beh
ind
the
iden
tifica
tion
of im
pact
s in
the
PE
IR s
tate
s th
at th
e fin
al o
utco
mes
of t
he a
sses
smen
t will
be
dep
ende
nt o
n th
e lo
catio
n of
acc
ess
and
egre
ss p
oint
s.
Issu
e sh
ould
rem
ain
“live
” at q
uarte
rly
prog
ress
mee
tings
.
4.3
Air
Qua
lity
See
Sec
tion
3.3
4.4
Land
scap
e an
d Vi
sual
See
Sec
tion
3.4
4.5
Cou
ntry
side
R
ecre
atio
nS
ee S
ectio
n 3.
5
4.6
Soci
o-ec
onom
ics
See
Sec
tion
3.6
4.7
Soils
, Geo
logy
an
d La
nd Q
ualit
yB
asel
ine
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at b
asel
ine
data
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n is
no
t pre
sent
ed in
det
ail i
n th
e P
EIR
. Th
ere
is a
par
ticul
ar la
ck o
f det
ail o
n m
inin
g is
sues
and
the
met
hodo
logy
take
n in
the
desk
-bas
ed s
tudy
. La
ck o
f det
ail o
n th
e sc
ope
of g
roun
d in
vest
igat
ions
. Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds re
asse
ssm
ent o
f res
idua
l ef
fect
s fo
llow
ing
com
plet
ion
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
site
ch
arac
teris
atio
n gr
ound
inve
stig
atio
n w
hich
is o
ngoi
ng.
Ong
oing
eng
agem
ent.
Furth
er d
iscu
ssio
n on
find
ings
from
the
desk
-bas
ed a
sses
smen
ts fo
r the
mor
e un
usua
l site
issu
es.
Furth
er d
iscu
ssio
n on
find
ings
of t
he
desk
stu
dy to
ens
ure
all p
oten
tial
sour
ces
of in
form
atio
n ha
ve b
een
exha
uste
d an
d to
ena
ble
all r
isks
to
be
fully
ass
esse
d pr
ior t
o gr
ound
in
vest
igat
ion.
A
sses
smen
tW
ith re
gard
s to
Mire
hous
e an
d C
orki
ckle
, the
Cou
ncil
cons
ider
s th
at th
e po
tent
ial p
hysi
cal e
ffect
s of
form
er
wor
king
s, ta
king
acc
ount
of d
epth
, and
pot
entia
l ris
k to
con
stru
ctio
n w
orks
and
site
use
rs w
ill n
eed
to b
e ad
dres
sed.
With
rega
rds
to E
grem
ont,
the
Cou
ncil
cons
ider
s th
at
furth
er d
etai
ls m
ay b
e ob
tain
ed fr
om o
ther
sou
rces
with
re
gard
s to
mor
e un
usua
l iss
ues
such
as
irons
tone
min
ing.
xix
4.8
His
toric
En
viro
nmen
tA
ppen
dix
The
Cou
ncils
reco
mm
end
sepa
rate
figu
res
to s
how
in
divi
dual
ass
ets.
Incl
usio
n of
sep
arat
e fig
ures
to s
how
in
divi
dual
ass
ets
Bas
elin
e an
d A
sses
smen
tTh
e ba
selin
e da
ta is
less
wel
l dev
elop
ed th
an th
e M
oors
ide
site
, how
ever
des
igna
ted
asse
ts a
nd H
ER
site
s ar
e de
scrib
ed in
som
e de
tail.
The
resu
lts o
f ini
tial a
sses
smen
t of l
ikel
y im
pact
s ar
e lo
gica
l in
rela
tion
to th
e cu
rren
t bas
elin
e. T
he C
ounc
il w
ould
exp
ect t
hese
to b
e re
vise
d in
ligh
t of a
dditi
onal
su
rvey
s an
d m
ore
deta
iled
desi
gn in
form
atio
n.
No
spec
ific
miti
gatio
n is
pro
pose
d fo
r im
pact
s un
ique
to
the
Acc
omm
odat
ion
Site
sTh
e C
ounc
il no
tes
that
the
resi
dual
effe
cts
desc
ribed
ar
e lo
gica
l in
light
of t
he le
vel o
f bas
elin
e an
d de
sign
in
form
atio
n cu
rren
tly a
vaila
ble.
Det
aile
d ba
selin
e da
ta a
nd m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s re
quire
d.In
itial
ass
essm
ent w
ould
nee
d to
be
revi
sed
in li
ne w
ith a
dditi
onal
sur
veys
an
d m
ore
deta
iled
desi
gn in
form
atio
n.
4.9
Fres
hwat
er
Envi
ronm
ent
Gro
undw
ater
Bas
elin
e an
d as
sess
men
tTh
ere
is a
n ab
senc
e of
a d
etai
led
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
ac
com
mod
atio
n si
tes
in th
e P
EIR
, and
an
abse
nce
of
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res.
The
Cou
ncil
reco
mm
ends
the
incl
usio
n of
a d
etai
led
base
line
asse
ssm
ent c
onsi
stin
g of
a
hydr
ogeo
logi
cal c
once
ptua
l mod
el b
ased
on
desk
stu
dy
and
grou
nd in
vest
igat
ion.
The
Cou
ncil
wou
ld li
ke to
see
if
all r
elev
ant p
rope
rties
hav
e be
en c
onta
cted
to id
entif
y un
regu
late
d ab
stra
ctio
ns.
Incl
usio
n of
a h
ydro
geol
ogic
al
conc
eptu
al m
odel
.
4.10
Fres
hwat
er
Envi
ronm
ent
Surf
ace
Wat
er
Miti
gatio
n an
d D
esig
nTh
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds c
onsi
dera
tion
of o
ppor
tuni
ties
to
desi
gn th
e ac
com
mod
atio
n si
tes
in a
man
ner t
hat a
ctiv
ely
cont
ribut
es to
ach
ievi
ng W
FD o
bjec
tives
and
alle
viat
ing
exis
ting
and
futu
re fl
oodi
ng p
robl
ems.
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at n
o re
al in
dica
tion
is p
rovi
ded
as
to h
ow a
ny m
itiga
tion
wou
ld b
e se
cure
d an
d gu
aran
teed
. Fu
rther
dev
elop
men
t of m
itiga
tion
and
mea
ns o
f del
iver
y is
cle
arly
requ
ired
in th
e C
EM
P an
d dr
aft E
nviro
nmen
tal
Sta
tem
ent.
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at c
umul
ativ
e ef
fect
s ha
ve n
ot b
een
asse
ssed
.
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at th
ere
has
been
lim
ited
cons
ulta
tion
in re
spec
t to
the
acco
mm
odat
ion
site
s an
d w
ould
w
elco
me
furth
er e
ngag
emen
t on
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f sur
face
wat
er b
odie
s.
xx 4.11
Mar
ine
and
Coa
stal
Phy
sica
l Pr
oces
ses,
M
arin
e W
ater
and
Se
dim
ent Q
ualit
y an
d M
arin
e Ec
olog
y
See
Sec
tion
3.11
4.12
Terr
estr
ial a
nd
Fres
hwat
er
Ecol
ogy
See
Sec
tion
3.12
.
4.13
Orn
ithol
ogy
See
Sec
tion
3.13
.4.
14C
limat
eS
ee S
ectio
n 3.
14.
xxi
5.0
Eva
luat
ion
of T
echn
ical
Doc
umen
tatio
n - A
dditi
onal
Site
s
5.1
Tran
spor
tB
asel
ine
and
Ass
essm
ent
Lim
ited
info
rmat
ion
pres
ente
d on
bas
elin
e co
nditi
ons
at a
dditi
onal
site
s. In
par
ticul
ar, i
nfor
mat
ion
on th
e ra
il as
pect
s of
the
proj
ect i
s lim
ited.
Th
e C
ounc
ils a
dvis
e th
at fu
rther
wor
k is
requ
ired
to
reso
lve
mat
ters
rega
rdin
g as
sess
men
t con
clus
ions
in
clud
e ba
selin
e in
form
atio
n co
mpl
eted
and
con
firm
whi
ch
scen
ario
(s) i
mpa
cts
are
bein
g as
sess
ed a
gain
st. A
t thi
s st
age
no a
sses
smen
t has
bee
n pr
esen
ted
on th
e po
tent
ial
impa
ct o
f the
dev
elop
men
t pro
posa
ls a
nd th
e ro
bust
ness
of
the
trans
port
stra
tegy
is y
et to
be
asce
rtain
ed d
ue to
a
lack
of i
nfor
mat
ion
on th
e ba
selin
e an
d as
sess
men
t sc
enar
ios.
Ope
ning
eng
agem
ent.
5.2
Noi
se a
nd
Vibr
atio
nB
asel
ine
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at a
ctiv
ities
at W
orki
ngto
n H
arbo
ur
are
not m
entio
ned
in S
ectio
n 5.
5.6
and
requ
ests
ju
stifi
catio
n fo
r thi
s.
5.3
Air
Qua
lity
Ther
e is
pot
entia
l for
add
ition
al s
cope
aris
ing
whe
n th
e us
e of
Por
t of W
orki
ngto
n is
defi
ned.
5.
4La
ndsc
ape
and
Visu
alB
asel
ine
The
Cou
ncil
wou
ld li
ke to
see
furth
er in
form
atio
n on
the
base
line
info
rmat
ion
for t
he A
dditi
onal
Site
s.
Incl
usio
n of
det
aile
d ba
selin
e da
ta fo
r th
e A
dditi
onal
Site
s A
sses
smen
tTh
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds N
uGen
pro
vide
a c
onsu
ltatio
n no
te o
n th
e lik
ely
impa
ct o
f con
stru
ctio
n an
d op
erat
ion
of th
e S
t Bee
s R
ailw
ay a
nd C
orki
ckle
to M
ireho
use
Rai
lway
and
pro
vide
som
e in
dica
tion
of th
e lik
ely
pote
ntia
l la
ndsc
ape,
vis
ual a
nd b
iodi
vers
ity e
ffect
s pr
edic
ted
alon
gsid
e a
land
scap
e m
itiga
tion
stra
tegy
.
Con
sulta
tion
note
on
the
likel
y im
pact
of
con
stru
ctio
n an
d op
erat
ion
of
the
St B
ees
Rai
lway
and
Cor
kick
le
to M
ireho
use
Rai
lway
and
pro
vide
so
me
indi
catio
n of
the
likel
y po
tent
ial
land
scap
e, v
isua
l and
bio
dive
rsity
ef
fect
s pr
edic
ted
alon
gsid
e a
land
scap
e m
itiga
tion
stra
tegy
.5.
5C
ount
rysi
de
Rec
reat
ion
See
Sec
tion
3.5.
5.6
Soci
o-ec
onom
ics
See
Sec
tion
3.6.
xxii 5.7
Soils
, Geo
logy
an
d La
nd Q
ualit
yB
asel
ine
The
Cou
ncil
note
s th
at th
ere
are
sign
ifica
nt g
aps
in th
e ba
selin
e da
ta fo
r the
Add
ition
al S
ites,
and
reco
mm
end
a de
sk s
tudy
, min
ing
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
nd s
cope
site
ch
arac
teris
atio
n G
I.
Com
plet
e ba
selin
e da
ta fo
r the
A
dditi
onal
Site
s an
d re
com
men
ded
desk
stu
dy, m
inin
g ris
k as
sess
men
t an
d sc
ope
site
cha
ract
eris
atio
n G
I. M
etho
dolo
gyTh
e C
ounc
il no
tes
that
mor
e de
taile
d m
etho
dolo
gy is
re
quire
d w
ith th
e in
clus
ion
of th
e pr
esen
tatio
n of
dat
a.P
rovi
de a
mor
e de
taile
d m
etho
dolo
gy
with
the
incl
usio
n of
the
pres
enta
tion
of d
ata
Miti
gatio
nTh
e C
ounc
il no
tes
that
pro
pose
d m
itiga
tion
for t
he
Add
ition
al S
ites
is to
be
deve
lope
d du
ring
desk
stu
dy,
min
ing
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
nd s
cope
site
cha
ract
eris
atio
n.
Miti
gatio
n co
uld
be p
rovi
ded
by im
plem
entin
g a
soil
man
agem
ent p
lan
whi
ch c
over
s th
e re
-use
of s
oils
, and
a
rem
edia
tion
stra
tegy
/ m
etho
d st
atem
ent f
or a
ppro
val b
y th
e C
ounc
il.
Pro
pose
d m
itiga
tion
to b
e p
rovi
ded
by a
soi
l man
agem
ent p
lan
whi
ch
cove
rs th
e re
-use
of s
oils
, and
a
rem
edia
tion
stra
tegy
/ m
etho
d st
atem
ent f
or a
ppro
val b
y th
e C
ounc
il.
5.8
His
toric
En
viro
nmen
tTh
ere
is p
oten
tial f
or a
dditi
onal
sco
pe a
risin
g w
hen
the
use
of P
ort o
f Wor
king
ton
is d
efine
d.5.
9Fr
eshw
ater
En
viro
nmen
t G
roun
dwat
er
Bas
elin
eTh
e sc
ope
of g
roun
dwat
er in
vest
igat
ion,
if p
ropo
sed,
has
no
t bee
n pr
esen
ted
and
shou
ld b
e su
bjec
t to
cons
ulta
tion.
Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
ds N
uGen
incl
ude
a de
taile
d ba
selin
e as
sess
men
t con
sist
ing
of a
hyd
roge
olog
ical
co
ncep
tual
mod
el b
ased
on
desk
stu
dy a
nd g
roun
d in
vest
igat
ion.
Incl
usio
n of
sco
pe o
f gro
undw
ater
in
vest
igat
ion
subj
ect t
o co
nsul
tatio
n
Ass
essm
ent
The
PE
IR is
lack
ing
a de
taile
d as
sess
men
t of t
he S
t Bee
s ra
ilway
site
Com
plet
e a
deta
iled
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
S
t Bee
s ra
ilway
site
.5.
10Fr
eshw
ater
En
viro
nmen
t -
Surf
ace
Wat
er
See
Sec
tion
3.10
.
5.11
Mar
ine
and
Coa
stal
Phy
sica
l Pr
oces
ses,
M
arin
e W
ater
and
Se
dim
ent Q
ualit
y an
d M
arin
e Ec
olog
y
See
Sec
tion
3.11
.
5.12
Terr
estr
ial a
nd
Fres
hwat
er
Ecol
ogy
See
Sec
tion
3.12
.
xxiii
5.13
Orn
ithol
ogy
See
Sec
tion
3.13
.5.
14C
limat
eS
ee S
ectio
n 3.
14.
6.0
Eva
luat
ion
of T
echn
ical
Doc
umen
tatio
n - C
EM
P, H
RA
, Bio
dive
rsity
Stra
tegy
and
Tra
nspo
rt S
trate
gy
6.1
Out
line
Con
stru
ctio
n En
viro
nmen
tal
Man
agem
ent P
lan
Ove
rall,
the
Out
line
CE
MP
prov
ides
a g
ood
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
full
exte
nt a
nd s
cope
of t
he F
inal
CE
MP
The
outli
ne
CE
MP
is m
issi
ng M
ater
ials
Man
agem
ent P
lans
, Soi
l M
anag
emen
t Pla
ns, S
usta
inab
ility
Pla
ns a
nd o
ther
typi
cal
com
pone
nts
of c
onst
ruct
ion
envi
ronm
enta
l man
agem
ent.
The
Cou
ncil
reco
mm
ends
that
cla
rifica
tion
be p
rovi
ded
on
wha
t stra
tegi
es a
nd p
lans
will
be
prov
ided
as
part
of th
e D
CO
app
licat
ion.
6.2
Out
line
Bio
dive
rsity
M
anag
emen
t Pla
n
The
Cou
ncil
hope
d th
at th
e B
iodi
vers
ity M
anag
emen
t S
trate
gy w
ould
be
sign
ifica
ntly
mor
e ad
vanc
ed th
an th
at
pres
ente
d. T
his
shou
ld in
clud
e de
taile
d sp
ecifi
catio
n fo
r a
Bio
dive
rsity
miti
gatio
n an
d of
fset
ting
plan
, a H
abita
t M
anag
emen
t Pla
n (H
MP
) and
Hab
itat E
nhan
cem
ent P
lan.
N
o at
tem
pts
have
bee
n m
ade
to c
alcu
late
offs
ettin
g as
of
yet.
Ong
oing
eng
agem
ent o
n th
e pr
ogre
ssio
n of
the
Bio
dive
rsity
M
anag
emen
t Pla
n an
d of
fset
ting
prop
osal
s.
6.3
Out
line
Tran
spor
t St
rate
gyD
raft
cons
truct
ion
wor
kfor
ce m
ovem
ent
stra
tegy
.
The
Cou
ncil
advi
ses
that
a p
roac
tive
appr
oach
will
be
requ
ired
from
NuG
en to
ince
ntiv
ise
wor
kers
to a
rriv
e w
ithou
t a c
ar, i
n pa
rticu
lar b
ecau
se th
e st
rate
gy c
urre
ntly
re
lies
on a
n as
sum
ptio
n th
at w
orke
rs w
ill b
e fro
m o
utsi
de
the
UK
and
ther
efor
e no
t usi
ng a
car
. Fr
om p
revi
ous
expe
rienc
e, th
e C
ounc
ils c
onsi
der t
hat
stro
nger
inte
rven
tions
, suc
h as
resi
dent
par
king
sch
emes
w
ill b
e re
quire
d.Th
e C
ounc
il re
com
men
d th
at it
wou
ld b
e us
eful
to
unde
rsta
nd a
n in
itial
est
imat
e of
num
bers
invo
lved
in
orde
r to
form
a v
iew
on
the
feas
ibili
ty a
nd o
pera
tiona
l re
quire
men
ts o
f a c
olle
ct /
drop
-off
serv
ice.
Mor
e de
tail
is
also
requ
ired
on th
e fe
asib
ility
of t
rans
porti
ng w
orke
rs o
n a
char
ter t
rain
ser
vice
.
Ong
oing
eng
agem
ent w
ith th
e C
ounc
il.
xxiv
Dra
ft co
nstru
ctio
n fre
ight
mov
emen
t st
rate
gy
It is
unc
lear
to th
e C
ounc
il w
heth
er th
e us
e of
the
MO
LF
to re
ceiv
e bu
lk d
eliv
erie
s is
par
t of t
he p
ropo
sals
stra
tegy
. It
is a
lso
uncl
ear t
o w
hat e
xten
t the
pro
posa
ls to
util
ise
UK
su
pplie
rs w
ith ra
il ac
cess
is fe
asib
le.
Ong
oing
eng
agem
ent w
ith th
e C
ounc
il.
6.3
(con
t’d)
Out
line
Tran
spor
t St
rate
gy (c
ont’d
)O
pera
tiona
l tra
nspo
rt st
rate
gyTh
e C
ounc
ils c
onsi
ders
it e
ssen
tial t
hat N
uGen
con
firm
the
requ
irem
ent f
or d
edic
ated
cha
rter t
rain
s du
ring
oper
atio
n.
Ass
essm
ent o
f cha
rter t
rain
re
quire
men
ts.
Em
erge
ncy
evac
uatio
n st
rate
gyTh
e C
ounc
il ad
vise
s th
at N
uGen
nee
d to
con
firm
the
requ
irem
ent f
or a
nd th
e nu
mbe
r of c
oach
es to
be
used
du
ring
oper
atio
nal p
hase
.
Ass
essm
ent o
f coa
ch re
quire
men
ts
6.4
Hab
itats
R
egul
atio
n A
sses
smen
t
The
Cou
ncil
expe
ct th
at th
e E
vide
nce
Pla
n w
ill b
e su
bjec
t to
furth
er c
hang
e as
the
desi
gn o
f the
Moo
rsid
e P
roje
ct is
de
velo
ped.
Ong
oing
eng
agem
ent.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Approach
This document sets out the response from Copeland Borough Council (CBC) to the Moorside Stage 2 Proposed Scheme Consultation conducted by NuGeneration Ltd. (NuGen). CBC welcome the opportunity to review and appraise submissions made by NuGen relating to their proposals for a new nuclear power plant at the Moorside site. As principal host authority to the development, the Council recognises its key role in assessing the proposals as they evolve in response to NuGen’s multi-stage consultation process. The Council understands that it is imperative that NuGen capture sufficient detail in this formal stage of consultation as, at this time, the Council is unaware of any plans for further formal consultation through which affected communities and interested parties will be able to submit views pre-Development Consent Order (DCO) submission.
In 2015, CBC provided a formal response to NuGen as part of the Stage 1 Consultation exercise, pursuant to ‘Strategic Issues’ consultation material presented by NuGen under Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008. In addition, the Council provided a formal response to the Moorside Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report following a request for a Scoping Opinion from the Secretary of State pursuant to Regulation 8(1) of the EIA Regulations. This set out information that CBC consider should be supplied in the Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted in support of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application.
Since the Stage 1 consultation stage, NuGen has maintained important on-going dialogue with CBC, including quarterly technical meetings, and the provision of draft documentation to inform Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). The Council’s ongoing evaluation has sought to identify where previous comments provided by the Council have been addressed, and where matters require on-going resolution. This approach is also reflected in this report.
The Stage 2 Consultation material provided by NuGen presents updates on the project proposal, including updated design parameters presented in the ‘Proposed Scheme Document’, on which NuGen has sought feedback including a set of questions issued within the consultation documentation.
Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) is presented within the Stage 2 Consultation through the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report (pursuant to Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended)). The PEI includes a number of technical appendices including an outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), a draft Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (BMS), a draft Outline Transport Strategy, and Habitats Regulations Assessment Evidence Plan. These matters have been considered within this response.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 2
CBC have provided a single and combined response to consultation, comprising of strategic evaluation of the Proposed Scheme, and technical evaluation of the proposed scheme documentation. The Council has also provided commentary on adequacy of consultation matters in respect of S42, S47 and S48 of their duties under the Planning Act, which will in due course underpin a formal representation to the Planning Inspectorate upon submission of the Development Consents Order (DCO) by NuGen.
Due recognition has been given to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (hereafter referred to as the EIA Regulations), The Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Seven, Preliminary Environmental Information, the EIA Regulations and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG’s) EIA Planning Practice Guidance (DCLG, 2014).
1.2 Structure of Response
The Council’s response to the NuGen Stage 2 Consultation material is structured as follows;
Section 1 sets the framework for the Council’s response, drawing on information from the Moorside Proposed Scheme Document and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. Reference is made to the National and Local Policy Context in which the project will be determined.
Section 2 sets out the Council’s position on Legacy opportunities arising from the project. The Council’s ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Investment, Maximising Project Legacy for Cumbria (March 2016), underpins the response along key themes. Emerging commentary gathered from the Councils ongoing engagement with the community affected by NuGen’s proposals has been incorporated into the Council’s response.
Section 3 provides a review of the technical documentation provided by NuGen for the purpose of Stage 2 Consultation. It centres on the Council’s review of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) and supplementary material provided to support consultation.
Section 4 provides a review of the PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation material associated with the individual technical areas specific to the accommodation sites; Mirehouse, Egremont and Corkickle.
Section 5 provides a review of the PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation material associated with the individual technical areas specific to the Additional Sites; St Bees Railway, Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway and Highways Improvements.
Section 6 provides a review of the technical documentation provided by NuGen accompanying the PEIR; the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Biodiversity Management Strategy, Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), and outline Transport Strategy. NuGen
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 3
has provided a Plans and Drawings volume within the Stage 2 Consultation material, on which commentary is provided within this Section of the report.
Section 7 draws on the previous Sections of the report to consider how mitigation and measures of control will be secured for the Moorside Project with regards to Section 106 Obligations agreements and DCO Planning Requirements.
Section 8 provides the Council’s response to the consultation questions posed by NuGen in the Proposed Scheme document of the Stage 2 consultation material.
Section 9 sets out the Council’s observations regarding the adequacy of consultation to date undertaken by NuGen in respect of the Moorside proposals.
1.3 Proposed Scheme
At Stage 2, the Moorside Project comprises:
The Moorside Development at the Moorside Site;
Development and other works at the Accommodation Sites; and
Development and other works at the Additional Sites.
The Moorside Site
The Moorside Power Station includes the following integral elements:
The nuclear island (which comprises the shield building plus auxiliary building (x3) which forms part of the Power Block):
(a) free-standing steel containment vessel;
(b) concrete shield building; and
(c) Auxiliary building.
The turbine building x3 (each building forms part of a Power Block);
The annexe building x3 (each building forms part of a Power Block);
The diesel generator building x3 (part of a Power Block) houses two diesel generators and their associated heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment;
The radiological waste building x3 (part of a Power Block) contains facilities for the handling and storage of plant wastes;
The Moorside Site Railway is within the Moorside Site, the development comprises of approximately 9km of railway including re-use of a disused branch providing access from the Cumbrian Coast
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 4
Line into the Moorside Site from the south, one or more spurs and sidings;
The circulating water systems (CWS) and service water system (SWS);
The Heavy Haul Road;
The Marine Off-Loading Facility (MOLF) and beach landing facility;
The new Sellafield access road;
The new Moorside access road;
The River Ehen Floodplain bridge;
Land to the South of the Moorside Power Station – up to 2 million m³ of the material excavated would be used for capping and raising land up to +30m (AOD) at the south west of the Moorside Power Station, boarded by Sellafield to the south and the coast to the west;
Landscaping mounds to the north east and north west of the Moorside Power Station;
Potential realignment of Nursery Road;
Internal roads and car parks;
Substation and switchyard;
Surface water and sewer drainage system.
1.4 The Accommodation Sites
1.4.1 Egremont
Associated Development at the Egremont Site includes construction worker accommodation and facilities for an estimated 500 workers (but with capacity to increase the number of bed spaces by 500 to an estimated 1,000).
A plan to show the location of the Egremont Development is included as Plan 17. A masterplan of the Egremont Site identifying the main physical constraints, along with the proposed areas of development is provided in Plan 18. NuGen has also provided an illustrative layout plan (see Plan 19) which provides an illustration of how the accommodation units and associated infrastructure could be arranged within the site. This plan is purely illustrative and may not represent the final layout proposed to be taken forward by NuGen.
Plans 20 and 21 provide illustrative elevations of what typical three-storey and four-storey accommodation may look like. Plan 22 provides an
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 5
illustration of a typical coach interchange, whilst a typical facilities management building illustration is provided in Plan 23.
1.4.2 Mirehouse
Associated Development at the Mirehouse Site includes construction worker accommodation and facilities for an estimated 2,500 workers (but with capacity to increase the number of bed spaces by 1,000 to an estimated 3,500 workers).
A plan to show the location of the Mirehouse Development is included as Plan 11. A masterplan of the Mirehouse Site identifying the main physical constraints, along with the proposed areas of development is provided in Plan 12. NuGen has also provided an illustrative layout (see Plan 13) which provides an illustration of how the accommodation units and associated infrastructure could be arranged within the site. This plan is purely illustrative and may not represent the final layout proposed to be taken forward by NuGen. Stakeholder engagement on the details of the final layout will continue prior to finalising the application drawings.
1.4.3 Corkickle
Associated Development at the Corkickle Site includes construction worker accommodation and facilities for an estimated 1,000 workers (but with capacity to increase the number of bed spaces by 500 to an estimated 1,500).
A plan to show the location of the Corkickle Development is included as Plan 14. A masterplan of the Corkickle Site identifying the main physical constraints, along with the proposed areas of development is provided in Plan 15. NuGen has also provided a plan (see Plan 16) which provides an illustration of how the accommodation units and associated infrastructure could be arranged within the Corkickle Site (based on providing 1,000 bed spaces). This plan is purely illustrative and may not represent the final layout proposed to be taken forward by NuGen.
The option to provide a potential new or alternative link road is currently being considered, running from Meadow Road at the southern edge of the Corkickle Site, north across Coach Road and through the northern part of the site, connecting back into the Preston Street. The extended sections of road are represented by the dashed lines within Plan 16, which if built, could provide a section of road that could be utilised by both NuGen and the public. At this stage, detailed design work and modelling of these options is on-going.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 6
1.5 The Additional Sites
1.5.1 Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway
This makes provision for development at the Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway Site comprising a new rail track ‘loop’ approximately 3.2km in length enabling NuGen charter and freight trains to operate alongside scheduled trains without interruption together with new rail platform at Corkickle and a new rail platform at Mirehouse.
A dedicated new Moorside worker rail platform is proposed at the northern end of the Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway, adjacent to the Corkickle Site, to be used by construction and operational workers travelling from the Corkickle Site to the Moorside Site.
The new worker platform would be approximately 240m long, 7m wide and 1.1m high. It is proposed that the entire length and breadth of the platform would be enclosed by a secure structure measuring up to 3.5m in height.
Two platform options are being considered, the first would involve the construction of the platform immediately south of the existing Corkickle railway station on the western side of the rail track. Workers could access the platform from within the Corkickle Site, via a footpath or use the proposed new access from Coach Road.
The second option would comprise a new worker rail platform on the eastern side of the existing rail line. The second option would require the construction of two platform bridges which could measure up to 7m high and 2.5m wide. The bridges would span across the railway track and connect to the enclosed platform structure.
An alternative access is being considered for the second option which could potentially involve a new vehicle and/or pedestrian access from Calder Avenue through the existing area of vegetation. Under both options public use of the existing Corkickle station would be maintained.
NuGen’s preferred option is to locate the platform on the eastern side of the existing railway line (the second option). This would avoid the need for Moorside trains to cross the existing railway line and join the loop (which is proposed to run along the eastern side of the existing track) and would provide platforms on either side of the newly created track.
1.5.2 St Bees Railway
A passing loop already exists on the section of the rail line at St Bees. The loop begins approximately 100m north of St Bees railway station and extends approximately 200m south.
NuGen proposes to extend the loop further south by approximately 285m in length, thus creating a loop measuring approximately 485m in total. This extended loop is required to ensure that one NuGen charter train is able to stop within the extended loop, whilst another NuGen charter train or
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 7
scheduled train passes through St Bees (travelling either north or south). The extension would ensure that the train waiting within the loop would not block the B5345 road which runs through the village and across the railway line, as is the case with the current loop. The trains could be held in the extended loop section south of the B5345 whilst waiting for the passing train to arrive at St Bees.
The extended loop would provide sufficient passing space to allow a Moorside Project charter train (anticipated to be up to 240m long) or Moorside Project freight train to move off the main line and allow other trains to pass by without interruption.
The new track would measure 1.2m in width and would be located approximately 1.8m to the east of the existing track. An area of land to the south west of St Bees station has been identified for use as a construction compound and lay down area.
The St Bees Railway is proposed to be used both during construction and operation of the Moorside Power Station.
1.5.3 Highway Improvements
The transport modelling is currently at a preliminary stage and this has indicated that improvements may be required at the following locations. It should be noted that some of these junctions may not be required by the time the project design is complete:
• A595/A66 Roundabout, Cockermouth;
• A66 Ramsey Brow, Workington;
• A596 Hall Brow, Workington;
• A595 Parton Junctions;
• Coach Road/Station Road;
• Coach Road/B5345;
• A595/A5094 Inkerman Terrace/ B5295 Ribton Moorside, Whitehaven;
• A595 Homewood Road Roundabout, Whitehaven;
• A595/ Moor Row; and
• A595/ The Crescent, Thornhill.
1.6 Vision, Objectives and Policy Context
NuGen’s Stage 2 Consultation material includes helpful references to the legislative and policy context within which the Moorside proposals are being brought forward. This section of the Consultation Response addresses this context and seeks to highlight local aspects which the Council would expect NuGen to respond to following the Stage 2 Consultation.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 8
1.6.1 National Policy Context
The Moorside project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), as defined by The Planning Act 2008 (the Act). As an NSIP, the project requires the grant of development consent by the making of a DCO under the Act and approval of the Secretary of State. An application for a DCO, under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to any National Policy Statements (NPS) which applies to the application, except in a limited number of specified circumstances. These matters are set against the provisions of the Overarching Energy National Policy Statement (NPS EN-1) and in the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (NPS EN-6). The National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS) is also acknowledged in its relationship to proposed highways matters.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The weight of the NPPF relating to NSIPs is clarified in paragraph 3 of the NPPF: “This Framework does not contain specific policies for nationally significant infrastructure projects for which particular considerations apply. These are determined in accordance with the decision-making framework set out in the Planning Act 2008 and relevant national policy statements for major infrastructure, as well as any other matters that are considered both important and relevant (which may include the National Planning Policy Framework). National policy statements form part of the overall framework of national planning policy, and are a material consideration in decisions in planning applications.” Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides the principal basis in law for the determination of planning applications, namely that they must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate to the contrary. This provision does not apply to applications for development consent under the Planning Act 2008. The council would wish NuGen to note that Local Plan policies may, however, be a material consideration in the determination of applications for development consent as the Secretary of State must have regard to any ‘Local Impact Report’ submitted by a relevant local planning authority. The Council considers that issues raised in consultation sent through to NuGen to date and in information set out within this response, will inform a Local Impact Report which the Council will submit to inform DCO Examination in due course. The Council is committed to reconciling issues with NuGen through Statements of Common Ground as far as practicable.
NuGen’s Stage 2 Consultation (Proposed Scheme Document, Section 14) specifically addresses the powers conferred by the Development Consent Order (DCO). Section 14.1 of the document also notes that the DCO will seek to authorise works onshore and those offshore including the Marine Offloading Facility and the intake and outfall structures plus ancillaries of the cooling water system. The associated Deemed Marine Licence will thus form part of the DCO and various (non-specified) harbour powers will also be sought. The Council notes the additional complexity of this DCO in that
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 9
it seeks more than one Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) to be included i.e. the proposed railway works would in themselves constitute an NSIP alongside the nuclear power station and associated works. Under section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, the Council understands that NuGen will be bringing forward Associated Development which includes Accommodation Sites, Highway Improvements works at Port of Workington (assuming that this facility is employed in the project) and the Marine Offloading Facility. The relationship of works to be secured under DCO and those secured under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires more clarity following the Stage 2 Consultation process. The Council notes that NuGen has made reference to the important role that the Moorside site can have in effecting positive legacy. This is a key aspect driving the Councils objectives for the project. The Council notes that reference to legacy benefit in national policy is limited to Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) paragraph 5.12.8.: ‘The IPC1
should consider any relevant positive provisions the developer has made or is proposing to make to mitigate impacts (for example through planning obligations) and any legacy benefits that may arise as well as any options for phasing development in relation to the socio-economic impacts.’ This confers particular importance for the Council in NuGen taking full account of local policy in respect of deriving a positive outcome from the Moorside project for Copeland.
1.6.2 Copeland Borough Council Vision and Local Policy Context
The Council notes that in Section 14 and in the following section highlighting the evolution of the Moorside scheme, limited provision is made for discussion of works which may be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA). In addition the provisions of the Copeland Local Plan and wider supporting documents including the Growth Strategy, Joint Legacy and Community Legacy Strategy provisions are not discussed in any detail. It is imperative that NuGen and development partners take full account of the Borough and County planning policy context. The policy context within which TCPA applications might be considered and the implications of demands that the Moorside project may place on the local planning policy context and allocated sites over both the current and the next plan period are crucial matters for consideration by NuGen. This Consultation Response, particularly in Section 2 following, highlights policy matters which NuGen should take into consideration in continuing the development of the Moorside project. It is imperative that dialogue with the Council is undertaken with NuGen’s full awareness of the local and Cumbria County policy and underpinning framework setting out the Councils vision for the project.
1 Section 128 of the Localism Act 2011 abolished the IPC, with the National Infrastructure Directorate of PINS
taking its place. All decisions on NSIPs are taken, following an Examining Authority recommendation, by the SoS.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 10
NuGen’s proposed site at Mirehouse currently has no status in the adopted or emerging site allocations. Copeland Borough Council are currently preparing their Site Allocations and Policies Document. Whilst the majority of the site at Corkickle (employment / regeneration / greenspace) and part of the proposed site at Egremont (employment) are allocated, NuGen’s proposed site at Mirehouse (accepting that NuGen’s current thinking is that the site is not suitable for worker accommodation) currently have no status in the adopted plan or the emerging site allocations work. It is recommended that NuGen works closely with Copeland Borough Council in respect of Accommodation sites or other legacy benefits so that the process can both inform and be informed by the adopted and emerging Local Plan. Planning policy relating to any locations taken forward will need to be formulated in the first instance through the Local Plan and supporting site allocations work with detailed site requirements. Work on this aspect should be done in conjunction with local community involvement and supported by further detailed site work, e.g. relating to environmental considerations.
NuGen’s commitment set out in the Stage 2 Consultation includes the consideration of creative solutions and collaboration with delivery partners and other agencies and community groups. This is entirely aligned with the Growth Strategy and reflects the Councils objectives for partnership working. With this in mind, the Councils have commenced a Community Legacy Engagement programme with community partnerships to encourage collective stakeholder engagement, and seek to encourage further collaboration across NuGen, the Councils, community organisations, and potential delivery partners. This programme has commenced in parallel to NuGen’s consultation and as such, meetings are ongoing and responses are reflected in this Consultation Response only where they are available. The Council will wish to provide feedback from these sessions highlighting the themes and priorities for Community Legacy drawing through the wider references to the Growth Strategy, Joint Legacy Strategy, Legacy Masterplan for Associated Development Sites and Copeland Local Plan policy framework.
The Legacy Masterplan for Associated Development Sites presents an evaluation of the legacy opportunity for Accommodation sites, and includes a consideration of the local policy context.
The capacity of each site has been examined in the Legacy Masterplan in relation to the context of the opportunity it presents as well as the physical context including (but not limited to) considerations of landscape character, flood risk, existing utilities (e.g. gas main); proposed utilities (e.g. overhead line); topography; and green/blue infrastructure.
There is a clear emphasis in the Legacy Masterplan on the use of Joint Legacy Strategy criteria/themes for reporting. The Council would encourage NuGen to adopt this approach and report against it on the continuing evolution of the Associated Development sites. More widely, it is crucial that the matters associated with legacy also draw out the Growth Strategy priorities which dovetail with the Joint Legacy Strategy and draw in cross
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 11
cutting themes reflecting desired positive legacy outcomes from the Moorside project.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 12
2 Project Legacy
This section of the Council’s Consultation Response addresses NuGen’s Strategic Approach and Legacy Proposals for the Moorside project, principally set out within the Scheme Document. The Council’s ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Investment, Maximising Project Legacy for Cumbria (March 2016), underpins the response along key themes. Emerging commentary gathered from the Council’s ongoing engagement with the community affected by NuGen’s proposals has been incorporated into the Council’s response. The Council would wish NuGen to note that this section also makes reference to wider issues including sign-posting to the Council’s review of the PEIR.
2.1 Overview
This Consultation Response seeks to respond to NuGen’s proposals, highlighting opportunities for a positive project and legacy development framework. The Council will wish to work constructively with NuGen in developing an effective delivery framework linked to the Joint Legacy Strategy which meets community needs now and in the future. The means by which wider legacy commitments will be secured should be established between the Council and NuGen prior to DCO submission in order to provide assurances that these will be delivered as an integral part of the project. This will help in establishing common ground and a clear route through to securing commitments within the Section 106 agreement.
The Council welcomes NuGen’s commitments to delivering lasting sustainable legacy benefit to West Cumbria. There is however a significant gap in meaningful engagement on wider legacy interventions which has been identified in the Council’s consultation with representative community organisations. The Council notes the importance of NuGen’s influence of their supply chain and partners in ensuring that these legacy commitments and supply chain opportunities are realised. In particular, the Council would stress the need for NuGen to encourage all participants in the project, for example prospective partners involved in delivery of Associated Development sites to engage in dialogue with the Council as soon as possible.
Further baseline characterisation, informed by on-going stakeholder engagement in relation to a number of strategies including the Procurement Strategy, Supply Chain and Workforce Development Strategy is required to provide the Councils with more confidence on predicted impacts and mitigation. There has been progress and this will need to continue post-Stage 2 Consultation. This commentary is also reflected in wider aspects of the review of the PEIR in this response. Further information is also required in respect of freight logistics and management of vehicular movements in order to provide a more informed view of the relationship of the Associated Development sites to the broader worker and plant movement strategy.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 13
Where elements of the project fall outwith the scope of the Development Consent Order (DCO), the Council wishes to ensure that alternative means of consenting and securing development provide certainty and clarity, and that the Council’s role is identified. It will be imperative that the effects of the project are identified collectively, irrespective of whether certain elements of the consenting process may sit outside of the DCO. Moreover, it is important that measures of control e.g. including Planning Conditions to any Town and Country Planning Act application as well as any Planning Obligations agreed under S106 are seamlessly integrated with those which might be sought and agreed through the DCO.
Copeland Borough Council would look to engage in dialogue with NuGen in respect of provisions for a Community Impact Mitigation Fund. This dialogue will ensure that the scope of Community Impact Mitigation can be integrated into the wider legacy strategy. To deliver legacy benefit, continuing discussions with NuGen will need to address a number of partner organisations including Copeland Borough Council, Cumbria County Council, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Department for Transport amongst others. The role of Section 106 contributions associated with the Moorside Project will need to feature within this discussion
Copeland Borough Council, working with Cumbria County Council and the Local Enterprise Partnership has prepared a joint council legacy strategy, ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Investment, Maximising Project Legacy for Cumbria (March 2016), which underpins the following response along key themes. The Council has also undertaken engagement with local Community Partnerships, which also underpins the response.
The approach set out by NuGen in committing to phasing and the use / re-use of elements of the Moorside Project is welcome although lacks detail within the Consultation Document. For example, at Stage 2 Consultation the Council anticipated that there would be a clear articulation of the mechanism to secure local employment and local engagement of the supply chain through definitive and proactive measures which could cascade through NuGen’s procurement arrangements. Cross-referencing to the Socio-economic section of the PEIR would also assist in this regard. The Council would question what influence NuGen’s engagement with prospective legacy users e.g. Sellafield Ltd. has had on the design, development and future re-use potential of infrastructure and facilities.
Long term requirements from NuGen will require clarification and reconciliation with the commitments to legacy set out in this Consultation Response and through further dialogue.
A phased sequence of development will allow funding to be obtained incrementally whilst providing opportunities for continued environmental enhancements and minimising local disruption. The programme should be aligned with the decommissioning programme for Associated Development site requirements by NuGen towards the end of the Moorside construction stage, for which further information will be required. This is referred to in
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 14
outline within Section 5.10 of the Proposed Scheme Document under Development Programme and Phasing. The decommissioning and future re-use / legacy option planning of Associated Development sites is a crucial area of importance for the Council and one that must facilitate and align with the Joint Legacy Strategy.
In the assessment of the existing condition of the urban environment, and consideration of the potential sequencing of the Associated Development sites the Council would encourage NuGen to take account of the following factors:
Impact – which areas and interventions will demonstrate the before and after benefits most clearly?
Visibility – which areas and interventions will be experienced by the highest numbers of people?
Strategic importance – which areas will deliver the widest or most profound and specific legacy benefits?
Such interventions should seek to enhance the existing baseline provision and fully mitigate the potential of adverse community impacts. Using the above as a guide, the Council would suggest that the Corkickle Accommodation Site as part of a Whitehaven-wide intervention would represent an excellent flagship legacy project to set the context for others set out within this Stage 2 response. It is close to the Town Centre and could offer an attractive and convenient extension of the existing Town Centre. Corkickle would demonstrate a marked physical improvement including changes to highway circulation, pedestrian and cycle access to the town centre. It would be a catalyst to further investment and act as a high profile gateway project. This suggested phasing is indicative and, should opportunities arise for specific areas, for example from wider infrastructure improvements, these should be actively pursued as a priority. This will necessitate continued and close dialogue with the Council and will continue post Stage 2 Consultation. The potential phasing of projects should be regularly reviewed as the project progresses and as a clear consenting strategy for the DCO and TCPA applications becomes more concrete.
The following sets out a summary of the Council’s recommendations against the spatial framework of Borough wide interventions, the four towns, and NuGen’s proposed accommodation sites.
2.2 Borough Wide Legacy
Whilst commenting on the specific aspects of the Moorside Project as set out in the Stage 2 Consultation, it is incumbent on the Council to also consider the impact of the project on the borough as a whole. A borough wide perspective will ensure that the Moorside project is itself successful, both during construction and operation, whilst also supporting Copeland’s growth ambitions and providing a lasting positive legacy. The Council seek
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 15
to ensure that the Transport Strategy and impact assessment are considered in a holistic manner, so that potential impacts and interfaces between areas affected and enhancement opportunities are not overlooked. NuGen has provided limited information in relation to the presentation and the evidence for the transport strategy. The Council expects a more detailed Transport Strategy to be made available prior to DCO submission.
From the limited information presented, it would appear that the constraints of the existing highways and rail infrastructure have been overlooked. A focus on ad hoc junctions is inappropriate without comprehensive understanding of the borough infrastructure. At this stage the Council is concerned that the lack of a clear, detailed and evidenced transport strategy will compromise the Moorside Project. For example, it is not evidenced how local workers will access the site and no consideration is given to the impact on the A5086 even though it is expected that this will be a key route for coaches, local workers and potentially supply chain and delivery vehicles.
Whilst recognising the necessity to maintain traffic flow to and from all nuclear sites, this should not be at the expense of the amenity of local communities nor the growth aspirations of the borough.
Emergency and business continuity plans are critical for the Moorside Project and for Copeland. The continued lack of information in this regard is a concern. NuGen must show preparedness for onsite emergencies, Sellafield emergencies, severe weather and flooding events. The Council requires further information regarding NuGen’s proposals; without which progression to DCO submission is considered inappropriate
In respect of socio-economic information, there are significant omissions including construction workforce occupational profile, operational workforce occupational profile, procurement approach, Supply Chain and Workforce strategies and details of other competing construction and nuclear development programmes/NSIPs.
The Council would expect to see a local labour agreement, support for upskilling and an employment strategy that matches appropriate skills to the employment opportunities. This should cater for the nuclear sector and enabling backfill as the local labour force take up new opportunities. A commitment to local employment should be provided in the Section 106 agreement and cascaded through tiered contracts.
There is no indication given in the consultation documents that the local industrial estates have been considered yet these should have a key role in supporting the supplier base for the project. The Council expects a significant number of new / expanding supply chain companies to be based in Copeland, and reinforcing the key town approach, existing local industrial estates should be equipped to develop local supply chain opportunities. The Council would also expect to see a commitment by NuGen to support local businesses in meeting quality requirements and to provide support through the tender process.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 16
Tourism is significant for the borough yet there is no comment in the consultation documentation regarding the potential impact, mitigation or support measures for this sector. Other than the mounds at the Moorside Site, which in themselves are of concern, there are few specific environmental protection/mitigation measures within the Stage 2 consultation documentation. The extent of mitigation proposed at present is unacceptable given the impact of the project on both the coastal and inland landscape.
Supporting the four key towns is a priority for the Council and is a key theme in Copeland’s Growth Strategy. The Council remains concerned at the lack of community legacy proposals identified for the towns.
Accommodating the majority of construction workers on Accommodation sites raises concerns regarding social cohesion and integration with existing communities. Whilst the Council acknowledges that the AD sites may need some additional recreational facilities if they were to house a significant number of workers, consideration should be given to both enhancing and encouraging workers to use existing town centre facilities.
The siting of new facilities on Accommodation sites needs careful consideration if the facilities are to remain in place to support the operational phase of the Moorside Project. The Council’s view is that non-operational uses should be town centre based as far as possible, and within existing Planning Policy guidelines.
Non-essential facilities should be based off site to increase the opportunity for local benefit. Current proposals suggest a visitor centre, administration block/ offices and training facilities would all be on-site, which not only raises transport and emergency planning issues, but also conflicts with the key town approach.
Where Accommodation site buildings contribute to future plans for the towns, retention of buildings will be preferred. Where temporary structures are removed, consideration should be given to the retention of any accompanying infrastructure which could enable future development.
The Council would expect to see a commitment to enhancing community facilities where an increased demand is expected. E.g. access to health and leisure facilities, particularly important if a significant number of the workforce choose to relocate with their families.
The Council would like to see workers relocate to Copeland with their families, integrating and strengthening the local communities whilst reducing the need for additional housing and facilities on the Accommodation sites. This will only happen if Copeland offers a good quality of life. It would be prudent therefore for NuGen to support and strengthen our local communities and ensure Copeland remains an attractive place to live.
The numbered references in the following summary table provide a link to the policy evidence base on which these recommendations are based;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 17
1. Copeland Local Plan 2013 – 2028 Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD
2. Copeland 2020: Corporate Strategy 2016-2020 3. Copeland Growth Strategy 2016 – 2020 4. Nationally Significant Infrastructure Investment Maximising Project
Legacy for Cumbria (March 2016) 5. Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 6. South Copeland Partnership Plan (2016 - 2020) 7. Cumbria Strategic Economic Plan (2014 – 2024) 8. Cumbria LEP Infrastructure Plan 9. Whitehaven Locality Action Plan (2013) 10. Whitehaven Town Centre and Harbourside Supplementary
Planning Document (2012) 11. Legacy Masterplan for Associated Development Sites (June 2016) 12. Pow Beck Valley Supplementary Planning Document 13. North East Copeland Locality Partnership Annual Plan (2014/15) 14. Mid Copeland Partnership Plan (2016-2020) 15. South Copeland Coast Economic Plan (Draft, January 2016) 16. West Copeland Locality Partnership Action Plan (2015/2016) 17. Howgate and Distington Partnership Community Plan (2012) 18. North Copeland Coastal Economic Plan (2016)
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 18
Table 1 Borough Wide Legacy Summary
Spatial
Framework
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Borough Construction of
Whitehaven Relief
Road instead of ad hoc
junction changes to
maintain traffic flow
Support existing train
station capacity and
car parking at all
impacted stations
Improvements to
pedestrian and cycle
routes
1 4 7 8 9 14 15 17 18
Non-essential facilities
to be located off site.
Broadband & mobile
phone coverage to be
strengthened to ensure
operation in an
emergency.
1 3 4 5 8 18
Local labour
Agreement
Support for existing
industrial estates
Ensure local trades
able to compete for
contracts
1 2 3 4 14
Appropriate mitigation measures both for the main site and impact on tourism and coastal landscape
1 3 4 6
Support existing community facilities
Incentivise workers to use local facilities
Non-essential facilities to be located off site.
Public Realm enhancements and mitigation for impacted communities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 14 18
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 19
2.3 Moorside Main Site Legacy
The Council has a number of concerns regarding the rationale for site design in respect of legacy provision. NuGen is urged to consult with Beckermet and nearby communities, regarding significant concerns which relate to the impacts of the Moorside Main Site on the residential properties which lie in close proximity. Section 8 of this response provides a detailed analysis of the proposed mounds on site. There is no evidence that the mounds will provide adequate screening for Beckermet, as is suggested in the NuGen consultation material. Policy ENV 5 of the Copeland Local Plan seeks to protect and enhance the Borough’s Landscapes from inappropriate change. The proposals for the MOLF, proposed haul road and flyover and scale of impact on local communities associated with coastal activity, environmental impacts and transport effects are poorly understood by local communities, based on the information provided by NuGen to date.
Legacy enhancements should be provided for these communities for impacts that cannot be fully mitigated, and a CIM fund established to address poorly understood or unforeseen effects.
Office and support buildings that are not essentially located at the Moorside site should be accommodated within the wider Borough towns. The Council has noted that opportunities for the local supply chain and skills upgrading are consistently important themes emerging from community engagement and has previously been noted by NuGen following an analysis of Stage 1 Consultation. The Council considers that the location of training facilities should be carefully considered in view of a Borough-wide strategy.
NuGen has set out a number of highways access proposals and mitigation for impacts on public access within the Stage 2 Consultation documents. Local communities at Beckermet should be consulted further on proposals for the closure of Nursery Road, as highways infrastructure configurations will need to provide permanent legacy to local communities.
The Council seeks clarity in relation to the proposed alterations to highway infrastructure and the potential impacts on the operation of Sellafield. Project legacy could be provided through improved access provision. Cumulative landscape impacts associated with the adjacent Sellafield site, overhead electricity lines, and proposed substation should be mitigated. Where mitigation is not possible, appropriate compensation should be provided.
There should be a wider strategy of network enhancement, which includes national cycle routes and connections to Accommodation Sites and Whitehaven. This should include the diversions which have been proposed to mitigate effects on public rights of way. This should result in environmental enhancement which benefits users. It is not clear how the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 20
proposals for a visitor centre at the Moorside Site, align with a sustainable Transport Strategy for the project.
The Councils seek further clarification on the proposals for fencing of the Moorside site in respect of security, safety, and long term resilience and expect to be consulted on further information regarding strategies for Emergency Planning. Investment in coastal defences will be required and there may also be a requirement for investment in local flood defences, sustainable urban drainage systems and the safeguarding of transport networks.
The Council seek to be consulted on further proposals for Common Land replacement, in respect of the potential community recreational enhancements that should be secured.
The impact on properties must be mitigated through a package of compensation measures. The eligibility requirements for the Property Support Scheme and Local Mitigation Scheme will be of acute interest to local affected communities and it is crucial to ensure that there is a transparent and robust process in place for the management of applications.
A number of significant environmental impacts are anticipated in association with the Moorside Main Site. The Council considers that consultation in relation to mitigation and enhancement proposals to date has been insufficient. It is imperative that proposals for mitigation and enhancement are considered holistically across a range of environmental and community receptors in order to drive project efficiency and coherence, and to ensure the maximisation of legacy opportunities. The Council should be consulted on a detailed plan for the Environmental Mitigation area to the north of the main site, which would include flood plain compensation, which maximises the potential for wider community and environmental legacy enhancement.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 21
Table 2 Moorside Site Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Moorside Main
Site
Consider interface with
Sellafield.
Consult local
communities on access
proposals.
Diversions proposed to
public rights of way
should form part of a
wider strategy of
network enhancement.
It is not clear how the
proposals for a visitor
centre at the Moorside
Site, align with a
sustainable Transport
Strategy for the project.
1
3
4
7
9
Clarification on the
proposals for fencing.
Emergency planning
strategies to consider
the location of services
and accommodation
within the Whitehaven
area including local
communities
Beckermet,
Calderbridge etc.
1
2
3
Training facilities
should be
considered in view
of a Borough-wide
strategy.
Office and support
buildings should be
accommodated
within the wider
Borough towns.
1
2
3
Investment in coastal defences will be required and sustainable urban drainage systems and to safeguard transport networks.
Impact of mounds to be consulted on.
Mitigate cumulative landscape impacts with Sellafield site and overhead electricity lines.
Further detailed proposals for environmental enhancement.
1
4
Consulting local
communities on
site infrastructure
and mounds.
Mitigation and
enhancement
opportunities to
deliver legacy
benefit to local
communities.
Common land
replacement.
Impacts on
properties must
be mitigated.
1
2
3
4
7
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 22
2.4 Whitehaven
It is the Council’s understanding that Whitehaven presents the most significant opportunity for legacy benefit, which would accrue from the integration of the Accommodation Sites at Corkickle and Mirehouse into a wider town-based master-planning strategy.
The Council considers that Whitehaven should provide a hub for the location of offices and headquarters for which a Moorside site location is not essential. This could include;
Corporate headquarters;
Service provision for Outages at Corkickle;
Research and Development facilities; and
Emergency planning provision.
The Council recognises that there may be a requirement to locate some new recreational and leisure facilities within the Accommodation Sites, but also considers that investment in existing facilities within Whitehaven will provide greater legacy benefits. A co-joined strategy to the provision of community services for the Accommodation Site and other workers, which includes health, leisure and recreation, will promote community cohesion, and provide a lasting legacy for communities. The Council considers that there is significant potential for integrated master-planning to link up the Accommodation sites at Mirehouse and Corkickle with a wider strategy of public realm improvements including green and blue corridors, improving the environment for walking and cycling across Whitehaven, and linking to tourism and diversification.
The Transport Strategy presented by NuGen to date requires further development, particularly in the consideration of a long term rail legacy, and coordination of strategies to improve connectivity between local communities.
NuGen must provide a clear strategy for the use of the MOLF to aid an understanding on its wider implications on transport movements. It is essential that neither the construction nor operation phases of the Moorside development lead to a detrimental impact on Whitehaven Harbour. The Council suggests that legacy opportunities could be provided in the form of support for public realm enhancements in the harbour area. NuGen should consider the Needs Case for the retention of a new rail station at Mirehouse, as the Council considers that the long term demand for the Mirehouse station may not justify its retention and NuGen should clarify the frequency of associated public and/or commercial services that could be provided.
The transport strategy for Accommodation Sites must take into consideration the impact of the proposed Whitehaven Relief Road, which could re-shape the proposed legacy strategy associated with highways improvements. The proposal for a new access road from the Mirehouse AD
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 23
site to the A595 would jeopardise plans for a Whitehaven Relief Road. This is a priority highway scheme for the LEP, CCC and CBC as it reduces the volume of traffic on the A595 through Whitehaven, whilst enhancing access to other key sites e.g. Whitehaven Commercial Park.
A key priority for Whitehaven is to address social inequalities and improve social cohesion and social mobility. The Council and its partners have a number of initiatives ongoing and emerging to address these issues and see that the investment from NuGen into the Associated Development sites at Corkickle and Mirehouse will play a key role in addressing these issues if well targeted and embedded in joined up approaches.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 24
Table 3 Whitehaven Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Whitehaven Long term demand for the Mirehouse station may not justify its retention.
Consider the impact of the proposed Whitehaven Relief Road.
Use of the MOLF may impact Whitehaven Harbour.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Whitehaven should provide a hub for offices, research and development, and buildings to service outages not essential to site.
1
2
3
10
Training centres to be located in local communities.
1
2
3
Public realm improvements
Linking the Accommodation sites at Mirehouse and Corkickle with Whitehaven Town Centre
Improved environment for walking and cycling.
1
8
9
Locate new recreational and leisure facilities within Whitehaven
Healthcare provision should be met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities local to Whitehaven.
1
2
3
4
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 25
2.5 Corkickle Accommodation Site
The Corkickle Accommodation Site sits just outside the Whitehaven town centre boundary and the town conservation area, which lie to the north and are within walking distance of the town centre and harbour.
The majority of the proposed Corkickle Associated Development site is allocated as an Employment Opportunity Site (Policy EMP3) as identified in the Copeland Local Plan. As such it should be developed to contribute towards regeneration strategies in the Borough and is considered by the Council to be the primary site for commercial, leisure and permanent housing legacy. Integration with Whitehaven in respect of road infrastructure and sustainable modes of transport is expected to underpin the legacy strategy for this site. Enhancements to the cycle route network should seek to address areas prone to anti-social behaviour, and link with an improved public realm strategy for Whitehaven. A good quality network of pedestrian routes including links to local bus stops could be promoted.
The proposals for Accommodation siting and form set out by NuGen in the Stage 2 Consultation material do not align with the Council’s aspirations set out in the Legacy Masterplan. The Legacy Masterplan promotes higher density mixed use development at Corkickle Station Gateway and The Ginns to make the transition between the Town Centre and the site whilst maximising its place-making potential. Employment and mixed-use opportunities should also be incorporated at The Ginns, Pow Beck Valleyside and Corkickle Junction.
It is anticipated that the Accommodation infrastructure will provide a flexible platform for long term legacy of accommodation uses, for example re-use as residential care facilities. Building design should be energy efficient and should promote low carbon initiatives. NuGen could explore the potential for a district heating system to serve the site and link to surrounding areas.
The Accommodation Site infrastructure should seek to improve the local road network at key pinch points such as along Meadow View.
Flood attenuation areas should be provided within the Meadows and Pow Beck Valleyside through green and blue infrastructure provision. Wildlife habitats and corridors could be provided, for example the Meadows enhanced as a wetland habitat attraction with visitor centre facilities possibly combined to cycle tourism, and circular boardwalk trails.
The Council does not consider retail facilities within the site acceptable, due to the proximity of the Town Centre with the exception of ancillary retail supporting existing uses.
The Council considers that investment in existing leisure and recreational facilities within Whitehaven will promote greater social cohesion and legacy
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 26
benefit. The need for additional healthcare provision arising from the Moorside project should be met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities local to Whitehaven, outside the Accommodation Site. It is essential that the need for school provision is reviewed and adequately supported within the local community.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 27
Table 4 Corkickle Accommodation Site Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Corkickle
Accommodation
Site
Enhance the cycle network.
Improve site access points and adjacent street design.
Create a good quality network of pedestrian routes including those that link to local bus stops.
Create an enhanced railway station gateway.
1
4
8
9
11
Improve the local road network at key pinch points.
Provide flood attenuation areas through green and blue infrastructure provision.
4
11
12
Employment-led mixed use opportunity development at The Ginns, Pow Beck Valleyside and Corkickle Junction.
Emphasis should be placed on the connection to the Town Centre.
Provide a flexible platform for long term legacy use of accommodation.
1
2
3
4
11
Wildlife habitats and corridors.
Connections to town centre and recreational and amenity opportunities.
Explore potential district heating system.
Energy efficient and low carbon Accommodation Site Design.
2
3
4
8
High quality public realm.
The Council do not consider retail facilities within the site acceptable.
Enhance recreational and leisure facilities within Whitehaven.
Healthcare provision met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities local to Whitehaven.
1
2
3
4
12
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 28
2.6 Mirehouse Accommodation Site
The Mirehouse AD site proposed by NuGen falls immediately outside the Whitehaven settlement boundary and at present has no allocated status in the Local Plan. The vast majority of the site, to the west of the A595, is identified as a Landscape of County Importance and as such is afforded protection by Local Plan Policies ENV5 and DM26. Improving the design and integration of the settlement edge with the countryside through good landscape design approaches is therefore of importance.
The Council considers the long term legacy uses at Mirehouse will be limited to small scale residential opportunities, rather than large scale development. The accommodation provision should seek to improve the range and quality of housing available in the area by providing a platform for future need-based housing provision so as not to compromise wider town centre regeneration opportunities. The emerging Site Allocations and Polices Plan (Preferred Options) identifies a possible housing allocation (reference WE10, Egremont Road) on the north eastern part of the site identified by NuGen (to the east of the A595), but does not include the West of the proposed Accommodation Site. Building design should be energy efficient and should promote low carbon initiatives.
Given the setting and character of the area, large scale commercial or educational uses may not be appropriate. Support for small scale commercial activities in the vicinity of the rail station however would be encouraged.
In line with the Council’s comments in respect to Corkickle, integration with Whitehaven in respect of road infrastructure and sustainable modes of transport is expected to underpin the legacy strategy for this site. Enhancements to the cycle route network should link with an improved public realm strategy for Whitehaven. A good quality network of pedestrian routes including links to local bus stops could be promoted. Emphasis should be placed on the connection to the Town Centre and to facilitate skills and supply chain investment. The Council considers that the location of training facilities should be considered carefully in view of a Borough-wide strategy.
The Mirehouse Accommodation site as proposed by NuGen includes a new rail station and road infrastructure. The Council considers that the long term demand for the Mirehouse station may not justify its retention, and NuGen should clarify the frequency of associated public services that could be provided. The proposed road link to West Lakes Science Park is not considered a sustainable element of the Transport Strategy, and NuGen should explore alternative road alignments. Road access points need to take into consideration the emerging findings of the EIA, and comments raised by the Council in relation to impacts on residential amenity from noise and construction activities should be carefully considered.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 29
The Accommodation Site has the potential to provide flood attenuation areas within green spaces and green corridors and to incorporate SUDs drainage measures. Wildlife habitats and corridors could be promoted at Mirehouse Ponds and along routes to Stanley Pond.
The south eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the current Westlakes Science Park boundary. The North West Coast Connections Project also traverses the site, and the proposed Whitehaven Relief Road is adjacent to the site. There are emerging proposals by West Cumbria Mining to develop a new underground mine for the extraction of coking coal with a rail loading facility located to the south of the Mirehouse Associated Development site. The impacts of other proposed development on the Transport Strategy and wider impacts of the project should be considered by NuGen. Legacy opportunities in association with other projects, require careful consideration by NuGen.
The Council considers that investment in existing leisure and recreational facilities within Whitehaven will promote greater social cohesion and legacy benefit. The need for additional healthcare provision arising from the Moorside project should be met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities local to Whitehaven, outside the Accommodation Site.
It is essential for the need for school provision to be reviewed and adequately supported within the local community.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 30
Table 5 Mirehouse Accommodation site Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Mirehouse AD
site
Potential interface with the Whitehaven Relief Road, West Cumbria mining, and National Grid proposals.
Proposed road link to West Lakes Science Park is not supported.
Consider Needs Case for the retention of rail station.
Enhanced national cycle route and public rights of way.
Access points should consider residential amenity and impacts during construction.
1
2
3
4
5
8
Potential to provide flood attenuation areas and incorporate SUDs drainage measures.
11 Commercial opportunities in the vicinity of Mirehouse Station.
Potential for integrated mitigation and enhancement opportunities associated with other projects.
Emphasis on connection to the Town Centre for skills and supply chain investment.
1
2
3
4
11
Good landscape design approaches important due to designated landscapes.
Cumulative impacts with other projects yet to be considered.
Enhance waterways and green infrastructure corridors.
Wildlife areas at Mirehouse Ponds and along routes to Stanley Pond.
Promote energy efficiency and low carbon Accommodation Site Design.
1
2
3
4
8
11
Providing platform for future need-based housing provision.
Enhance recreational and leisure facilities within Whitehaven.
Healthcare provision met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities local to Whitehaven.
Review the need for school provision.
1
2
3
4
8
9
11
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 31
2.7 Egremont
Egremont is a small market town with history dating back for approximately 800 years and the remains of a Norman Castle exist in the town. The town consists of an historic market centre with residential areas to the rear of the Main Street. There are clusters of light industrial, school and leisure buildings set back from the main street. The Council would anticipate that legacy benefits for Egremont should include:
the extension of the Bridge End Industrial Estate into the AD Site;
improvements to the main street, including re-use of derelict space and buildings for supply chain offices; and
improvements to leisure facilities within the town.
The Council supports the proposal by NuGen to enhance the cycle network, providing connections to the Town Centre, and Moorside site. The legacy Strategy should seek to integrate green and blue infrastructure to establish physical connections between the Accommodation Site and the Town Centre.
Parking provision at Egremont and potential for local services to support worker transfers should be examined in further detail.
NuGen has previously made reference to a potential Visitor Centre location at Egremont. If this emerges as a potential proposal, a strategy for visitor service provision to maximise the local benefit for Egremont and Whitehaven should be explored in further detail. NuGen should encourage supply chain businesses to locate in the area and provide a wider range of employment opportunities through a range of buildings and serviced parcels.
Enhanced employment provision can be provided through office based accommodation widening the availability of high quality business space at Egremont.
It is essential that the need for school capacity provision is reviewed and adequately supported within the local community.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 32
Table 6 Egremont Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Egremont Enhance cycle network and green infrastructure, providing connections to the Town Centre and Moorside site.
Parking provision at Egremont and potential for local services to support worker transfers.
1
4
11
16
If a visitor centre is promoted at Egremont, strategy for visitor service provision to maximise local benefit for Egremont.
Provide a wider range of employment opportunities through a range of buildings and serviced parcels.
Office based accommodation at Egremont.
1
11
16
Enhanced provision through green and blue infrastructure connecting to Egremont.
1
2
3
4
8
9
11
16
Review the need for School capacity provision.
1
2
3
4
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 33
2.8 Egremont Accommodation Site
The Associated Development site at Egremont is located to the south of the existing Town and is partly within the Town boundary and partly outside. The site extends from Egremont to the small village of Thornhill to the south.
The legacy strategy for Egremont should include;
Enhancement to the employment zone at Bridge End;
Infrastructure to enhance supply chain opportunities;
Enhanced connectivity to the wider transport and recreational network; and
Interventions to maximise local benefit associated with any Visitor Centre proposed.
The site is bounded to the east and west at Cringlethwaite Road by industrial estates and car showrooms. The Council considers that legacy opportunity exists in the form of business and commercial development in the northern part of the proposed Accommodation Site. This could enhance the southern area of the employment zone which extends from Bridge End to the A595. NuGen could encourage supply chain businesses to locate in the area and provide a wider range of employment opportunities through a range of buildings and serviced parcels.
The northern tip of NuGen’s proposed site at Egremont is allocated in the Local Plan for employment use (Saved Local Plan Policies EMP1 & EMP2). The remainder of the site falls outside of the settlement boundary of Egremont and has no allocation status. The emerging Site Allocations and Polices Plan (Preferred Options) retains the current employment allocation to the north, but proposes no extension to the south.
Developing the northern section of the site where there is reasonable access via Cringlethwaite Road should include the careful design of site access, and street enhancements. The Coast to Coast cycle network Route 72 runs along the eastern boundary of the site along a cycle track parallel to the A595. The Council supports the proposal by NuGen to enhance the network, providing connections to the Town Centre and Moorside site.
The River Ehen is located to the western boundary of the site and is prone to high water levels at peak flow times of the year. It is therefore important that the design of the Egremont site introduces flood attenuation measures.
NuGen has previously made reference to a potential Visitor Centre location at Egremont. If this emerges as a potential proposal to attract visitors to Egremont, a strategy for visitor service provision to maximise the local benefit for Egremont and Whitehaven should be explored in further detail.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 34
NuGen should explore the opportunity for flexible building forms and floor plate configurations subject to demand. NuGen should promote energy efficiency and low carbon Accommodation Site building Design.
Landscape design should be carefully considered in the context of providing a landscape buffer to development that is in keeping with the character of the outskirts of Egremont, and building design for landscape integration.
Opportunities should be sought to enhance the River Ehen through landscape design and improvements to the public right of way, including mitigation measures within flood risk areas.
The Council considers that investment in existing health, leisure and recreational facilities within Egremont will promote greater social cohesion and legacy benefit. The need for additional healthcare provision arising from the Moorside project should be met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities local to Egremont, outside the Accommodation Site.
It is essential that the need for school provision is reviewed and adequately supported within the local community.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 35
Table 7 Egremont Accommodation Site Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Egremont
Accommodation
Site
Develop the northern section of the site.
Careful design of site access, and street enhancements.
Enhance the cycle network, providing connections to the Town Centre and Moorside site.
1
4
11
16
Flood attenuation measures for the River Ehen.
1
5
9
11
If a visitor centre is promoted at Egremont, a strategy for visitor service provision to maximise the local benefit for Egremont.
A range of buildings and serviced parcels, for supply chain and business opportunities.
1
11
16
Landscape design in keeping with the character.
Enhance the River Ehen through, including flood mitigation.
Promote energy efficiency and low carbon Accommodation Site Design.
1
4
7
11
16
Locate new recreational and leisure facilities within Egremont.
Healthcare provision met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities in Egremont.
Review the need for school provision.
1
2
3
4
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 36
2.9 Cleator Moor Legacy
Cleator Moor is a small, rural mining town with a High Street, local library and Town Hall. The surrounding townscape is a mixture of residential areas and industrial estates with some isolated older houses on the periphery. Accommodation has been discounted by NuGen and therefore not included at Stage 2 Consultation. The Council considers that further consideration should be given within the wider project to other Legacy opportunities within the town settlement boundary.
Cleator Moor should provide a hub for the location of offices, supply chain and training facilities. This could include;
Town centre regeneration through the provision of office space, and supply chain services;
Enhancement of Leconfield Industrial Estate;
Enhanced leisure provision; and
Training facilities.
There is potential for Cleator Moor to house a proportion of workers who are not located within Accommodation Sites. Where this is the case, it is essential that transport and facilities are provided for. Cleator Moor provides an opportunity to locate training facilities where they would provide lasting benefit to local communities.
NuGen should seek to ensure that the Transport Strategy addresses access for workers residing in Cleator Moor, through enhanced public transport provision. Clarity is sought around infrastructure requirements for any coach pick up points proposed.
There are opportunities for commercial and industrial development, aligned with stakeholder aspirations for legacy provision, for the regeneration benefit of the local economy and communities. A number of opportunity sites exist within the town centre. The most significant cluster of which are located at the Leconfield Industrial Estate and Phoenix Enterprise Centre with adjacent brownfield sites. A number of serviced plots are currently available and a number of the older industrial buildings have been cleared. This provides a natural hub for the location of supply chain and training facilities. These sites are within the Cleator Moor Conservation Area and the Town Centre Boundary and therefore new development would need to be of a high quality.
There is also an existing supply of managed workspace facilities that could be utilised by NuGen in support of the project. There may be scope for synergies with existing business occupiers through NuGen occupation.
The site is accessed via the A5086 which links Egremont to Cleator Moor and extends on to Frizington and Cockermouth. This is a heavily trafficked route, and it is essential that any increase in traffic associated with the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 37
project is managed by providing additional capacity, safety and resilience measures which contribute to a long term legacy.
There are opportunities to enhance the wider movement networks including:
Public realm improvements in the town centre;
Links to the proposed extension to the local highway network i.e. the Whitehaven Relief Road; and
Enhancements to the national cycles network, with direct links to route 71 and 72, which connect to the Accommodation Sites.
The Council considers that investment in existing leisure, health and recreational facilities within Cleator Moor will promote greater social cohesion legacy benefit.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 38
Table 8 Cleator Moor Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Cleator Moor Enhancements to the existing cycle network.
Access for workers residing at Cleator Moor, through enhanced public transport.
Potential coach pick up points.
1
2
4
13
Utilise opportunity sites including Leconfield Industrial Estate, and the Phoenix Enterprise Centre.
The re-use of existing town centre buildings.
Use existing supply of managed workspace.
Training facilities provision.
1
4
11
13
Public realm improvements.
Links to the proposed extension to the local highway network.
Enhancements and links to National Cycle Network.
11 Investment in existing leisure, recreation and health facilities within Cleator Moor
1
3
4
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 39
2.10 Millom Legacy
The town of Millom has a designated Conservation Area which reflects the quality of the townscape. Policy SS3 seeks to ensure that Housing Needs, Mix and Affordability are derived in accordance with the Borough’s Individual Housing Market Areas. Although NuGen has not proposed Millom as an Accommodation Site, it could be used to house a number of workers in the local community, who will require local services and transport links. A strategy to provide worker housing in local towns, outside of the Accommodation Sites, whould enhance the existing housing supply and be suitably tailored to local needs. Local skills and supply chain interventions should be maximised to provide legacy opportunities for local communities.
Millom has the potential to support the Moorside Project and legacy benefits should include:
Focused skills training locally enhancing existing provision;
Town centre improvements, including re-use of empty buildings for supply chain; and
Investment into the town and area cycle networks to enable growth and diversification.
Located in the south of the Borough, approximately one hour’s drive from Whitehaven, Millom is on the main Cumbrian Coast rail line which connects the town to Sellafield, and Whitehaven, to the north. Improvements to Millom Station and public realm in its vicinity should be sought as part of the wider Transport Strategy, considering the potential for commuting to site by rail.
NuGen and National Grid will need to include targets and mechanisms within their Procurement Strategies that create opportunities for engagement of local supply chain companies in their project delivery. The Network Centre Unit 3 provides a potential hub for the provision of skills and training opportunities to provide a pathway for local access to employment and further opportunities exist within existing buildings and sites.
The Council seek to understand the outcome of any feasibility studies regarding the potential use of Millom Port, and what infrastructure improvements may be delivered here as a project Legacy.
There is potential to improve the public realm to enhance visitor experience and initial impression upon arrival. This will include key streets and spaces, rationalisation of car parking, connections to green spaces and seeking opportunities for street tree planting. This will be an important part of the strategy to attract future growth.
The Council seek to ensure the enhancement of visitor provision is supported. Such measures include;
Co-ordinated visitor information to reveal and communicate the visitor offer at multiple points in the town centre;
Setting and footfall for local retail offer; and
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 40
Use of existing vacant buildings and sites.
The connection to Route 72 of the National Cycle Network should be enhanced as part of a wider mitigation and enhancement programme throughout this part of the network.
The Council considers that coordination with the North West Coast Connections Project is crucial to maximise local opportunity, and that there are opportunities to ensure that the local grid power supply is reinforced to ensure long term resilience.
The need for additional healthcare, recreation and leisure provision arising locally from the Moorside project should be met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities within Millom.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 41
Table 9 Millom Legacy Summary
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Millom Feasibility studies regarding the potential use of Millom Port.
Improve connectivity to the cycle network.
Improvements to Millom Station and public realm.
1
4
6
15
Provisions to house workers locally should enhance the existing housing supply and be suitably tailored to local needs.
Local grid reinforcement.
1
4
Opportunities within existing vacant buildings and sites.
The Network Centre Unit 3 provides a potential hub.
Visitor facilities provision and setting improvements for local retail offer.
Coordination with the North West Coast Connections Project and targeted commitments.
4
6
11
15
Improve the public realm.
1
4
6
15
Healthcare, recreation and leisure provision met through improvements to existing facilities and capacity enhancements at facilities within Millom
1
3
4
15
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 42
2.11 Ancillary Infrastructure Legacy
The Council notes the proposals for highway improvements, rail enhancements and the potential use of the Port of Workington for sea, rail and/or road logistics facilities, for storage, consolidation and sequencing of deliveries, with options for additional port side facilities. These proposals include:
St Bees Railway: comprising a new rail track ‘loop’ approximately 285m in length supporting use of NuGen charter and freight trains;
Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway: comprising a new rail track ‘loop’ approximately 3.2km in length supporting NuGen charter and freight trains together with new rail platform at Corkickle and a new rail platform at Mirehouse;
Highway Improvements: The Council notes the indicative list / areas for junction improvements as follows:
A595/A66 Roundabout, Cockermouth;
A66 Ramsey Brow, Workington;
A596 Hall Brow, Workington;
A595 Parton Junctions;
Coach Road/Station Road;
Coach Road/B5345;
A595/A5094 Inkerman Terrace/ B5295 Ribton Moorside,
Whitehaven;
A595 Homewood Road Roundabout, Whitehaven;
A595/ Moor Row; and
A595/ The Crescent, Thornhill.
This Consultation Response includes a dedicated section which addresses transport and logistics matters (particularly in relation to the PEIR) and in addition, these matters are addressed in the Responses to Questions section of this response (Section 8). There are a number of uncertainties in respect of these improvements and the Council anticipates continued collaboration across the whole project in respect of transport and mobility for both people and materials. Mitigation proposed by NuGen to date in the form of junction improvements is unlikely to be sufficient to address wider impacts. A co-joined strategy also needs to consider impacts on joining the A595 from villages such as Parton and a potential interface with the Whitehaven Relief Road.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 43
Many of the transport legacy priorities identified in relation to rail and road infrastructure have been outlined in respect of the Accommodation Site and towns, and are relevant to ancillary development. Ancillary infrastructure design that enhances community access to legacy is welcomed. For example, highways improvements should consider the need to access community facilities within Whitehaven and the four towns. A co-joined strategy for legacy interventions should be secured under a package of Section 106 measures.
The Council notes that there is no specific question in the Proposed Scheme Document which relate to the potential use of the Port of Workington. This necessitates wider discussion with the Council in the context of the project-wide strategy for transport and mobility, potential effects at the community and environmental level and the mechanism to secure suitable controls over the operation of this facility. The Council seeks further information from NuGen in relation to the Port of Workington, its potential for use, and any impacts the proposals may have, in the context of the wider Transport Strategy and impacts arising from the use of the MOLF, rail and road. As historic and permanent harbours it is essential that neither the Port of Workington nor Whitehaven Harbour experience a detrimental impact from either the construction or operation phases of the Moorside project. There is the potential to support plans to improve the quality of the town centre, harbour public realm, open spaces and to provide much better play and recreational facilities, particularly around the harbour area.
Transport modelling has to be adequately advanced to provide evidence that the proposed highway improvements will provide long term resilience for the transport network. The Council is yet to be consulted on any environmental impact assessment associated with the proposed highways improvements. This is of significant concern, given the challenging programme for DCO submission set out by NuGen. Further formal consultation is required. Environmental effects must be mitigated and long term enhancement secured.
Investment in coastal defences will be required and there may also be a requirement for investment in local flood defences and sustainable urban drainage systems and to safeguard transport networks.
Skills and supply chain interventions to support the delivery of ancillary sites should be coherent with the wider strategies set out for delivery of other elements of the project. They should also consider other major infrastructure proposals such as the North West Coast Connections project, in order to ensure that opportunities are considered and presented in a holistic manner.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 44
Table 10 Ancillary Infrastructure Legacy Summary
Spatial
Framework
Transport & Connectivity
Resilience Skills & Supply Chain
Environment & Sustainability
Vibrant Communities
Ancillary
Infrastructure
Further information to
be provided regarding
the Port of Workington,
in the context of the
wider Transport
Strategy.
Potential
improvements required
to facilities at
Whitehaven Harbour,
with plans improve the
quality of the town
centre and public
realm.
1
2
3
4
10
13
14
17
Transport modelling to
be adequately
advanced.
Long term capacity
improvements must be
secured.
Investment in coastal
defences will be
required
Possible requirement
for investment in local
flood defences and
sustainable urban
drainage systems and
to safeguard transport
networks.
1
4
Coherent skills and
supply chain
interventions.
Coordination with
other major
infrastructure
projects.
4
14
Engagement on the
approach to
environmental
mitigation and
enhancement.
1
4
Enhance
community access
to legacy; for
example highways
improvements.
A co-joined
strategy for legacy
interventions
across all
elements of the
project.
3
4
14
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 45
3 Evaluation of Technical Documentation - The Moorside Site
3.1 Introduction
This section of the Council’s consultation response sets out a review of the technical documentation provided in support of NuGen’s Stage 2 Consultation programme. It centres on the Council’s review of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) and supplementary material provided to support consultation. Where relevant, the Council draws upon the response provided to the Planning Inspectorate in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping and also wider technical engagement with the NuGen team at a topic-specific level. The Council notes that this wider access is likely to have provided more opportunities to raise issues of concern or matters requiring clarification than many wider stakeholders responding to Stage 2 Consultation.
3.2 Summary of Prior PEI Engagement
Following the Council’s formal representation in response to Stage 1 Consultation, the Council has provided detailed technical responses to two PEI ‘Discussion Documents’ provided by NuGen in January 2016 and March 2016. The Council’s response to PEIR discussion documentation sought to comment on the following matters:
Data gathering methodology;
Assessment methodology, scope of assessment and limitations;
Policy and legislative context;
Environmental measures incorporated into the development (embedded mitigation).The adequacy of baseline information presented to date;
The adequacy of proposals for further baseline information collation and potential for any emerging gaps in the baseline on which the ES will be based;
The identification of receptors and further recommendations for inclusion;
Proposed methodology for the assessment of effects; and
Emerging assessment conclusions, and proposals for mitigation and enhancement (including means by which mitigation may be secured and delivered).
During the process of reviewing documentation provided by NuGen, it was apparent that the PEI was incomplete. Thus, it was not possible to provide complete commentary on the above matters at that time. Across most topic areas, it was not possible to have high levels of confidence in the conclusions on potential impacts due to a lack of transparent application of methodology, and absence of a consolidated, clearly presented baseline
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 46
alongside a clear description of the project. The baseline information presented contained significant gaps and omissions as set out in the Council’s response to the March 2016 PEIR Discussion Document.
As the Council noted in response to both the January 2016 Discussion Document and March 2016 Discussion Document, without a preliminary assessment of effects there is no information on which to comment on the adequacy of embedded mitigation. The Council also requested clarity on the means proposed to secure mitigation. The Council notes that it was intended that ‘additional mitigation’ be presented in the PEIR to follow. This is a key aspect for NuGen and Council engagement through Stage 2 Consultation and in the lead up to DCO submission and is addressed in this section as fully as possible.
The Council anticipated that the PEIR at Stage 2 Consultation would provide a consolidated baseline and assessment, and that it would present draft mitigation proposals on which stakeholders can provide meaningful comment. In order to do so, the Council clearly set out in their responses the gaps and omissions which required resolution. At this stage, based on information provided to the Council for the Stage 2 Consultation, the extent to which these gaps and omissions have been resolved continues to be limited by lack of project definition and clear parameters for assessment. Commentary on predicted initial impacts frequently continue to be based on ‘expert judgement’.
The Council would expect at this Stage 2 Consultation that the baseline would be sufficiently complete and the project well enough defined to support the application of a robust assessment methodology, presented in a transparent manner on which to understand the conclusions of the assessment. The relative absence of material, at Stage 2 Consultation, remains limiting to the Council’s capacity to provide meaningful engagement on project mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures. The Council considers it essential that these matters are resolved, in order to develop a pathway to resolving matters related to Planning Requirements and Obligations prior to DCO submission.
3.3 Approach to EIA
The technical review set out in subsequent sections of this consultation response highlight a number of queries around the definition of parameters for assessment, in consideration of the ‘worst case’ scenario for assessment required for the EIA. The inconsistent and unclear project definition means that it is difficult to understand what parameters have been assumed to provide a worst case scenario for EIA, particularly in respect of:
Assumptions for physical infrastructure requirements at Accommodation Sites during the operational stage of the Moorside Power Station;
Assumptions for physical infrastructure associated with transport of both people and materials to and from the Main Site and Associated Development Sites including port facilities;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 47
Process of and impacts associated with the decommissioning and re-instatement of the Associated Development Sites including the transfer to third parties where such uses can be readily identified;
Cumulative or inter-related effects arising from multiple aspects of the project being delivered in a common timeframe and / or geography.
There is also a particular lack of clarity on the approach to the assessment of ‘residual effects’, for instance for the Landscape and Visual assessment there is no distinction between effects pre and post mitigation. Therefore it has not been possible to determine whether the effects predicted in the PEIR are pre landscape mitigation effects or post mitigation residual effects.
As set out by the Council in response to the Planning Inspectorate associated with the EIA Scoping Report consultation and on-going dialogue with NuGen in technical meetings, a key issue of uncertainty remains workforce numbers associated with AP1000 technology construction, for which some high level information was presented in the March 2016 Discussion Document. The extent to which this is addressed within the Stage 2 Consultation documentation appears limited. Further discussion on this matter is included in Section 3 of this Consultation Response.
3.4 Transport
This section of the Council’s consultation response presents a review of transport matters for the Moorside proposals which has been informed through reference to Chapter 4 of the PEIR material and the draft Outline Transport Strategy provided by NuGen.
3.4.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context described in the PEIR and offer no further comments at this time.
3.4.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council notes that the baseline information is incomplete and recognises that additional baseline information is still being collated across all modes. Given that predicted effects are reliant upon establishing a clear and transparent baseline, this casts doubt upon the ability to accurately predict the magnitude of impact across these modes.
It is imperative that a complete baseline is established as soon as possible and, of particular importance, is to establish the existing use of the Cumbrian Coast Line railway given the importance of rail to the overall transport strategy. In addition, the relationship of port facilities for the movement / transfer of abnormal indivisible loads to the wider transport strategy should be fully set out against the baseline. It is not clear what baseline assumptions are made in respect of existing rail capacity and shift patterns associated with Sellafield workers currently travelling to site by rail. The definition of ‘local workers’ seems very limited in the explanation of the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 48
baseline, and should cover all of Cumbria for existing residents (defined as ‘Home Based’ in the Transport Strategy), who may not have easy access to the railway line and may place additional pressure on the road network and parking within west Cumbria and Copeland specifically. It may be appropriate to extend the micro-simulation model to Low Moresby roundabout on the A595 to ensure that wider community impacts are fully considered. NuGen should ensure that the baseline takes into consideration the ‘new’ expected baseline which will include the new expanded passenger rail timetable (as required in the new franchise) and potential changes to Sellafield shift patterns which may affect the peak traffic flows and capacity of the railway.
3.4.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The table of consultation responses deals with issues raised at a summarised high level of detail. This provides a useful summary of consultation and is considered to be reflective of the overall situation with regards to consultation. However, it does not allow specific responses to individual issues to be identified which limits the extent to which the Council can be assured that matters raised in prior consultation have been adequately addressed. The Council notes that the PEIR may not be the only location within which such consultation would be recorded e.g. it is anticipated that such a record would be held in the Consultation Report to be prepared / expanded by NuGen in due course. However, to inform consultee responses to the consultation for Stage 2, the Council notes that a log of how consultation issues have been responded to/addressed would have been useful and this is recommended as an action arising from this consultation response. NuGen would helpfully provide such detail in subsequent technical working groups running through and beyond Stage 2 Consultation.
3.4.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The methodology proposed is based upon the relevant best practice and national guidance including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines.
The overarching assessment is stated to be based around a series of sensitivity tests which are being confirmed through stakeholder discussions. However, the Council notes that no evidence of these tests has been presented alongside the consultation material for Stage 2. As an action arising from this consultation response, the Council would request access to the sensitivity tests referred to in the assessment methodology.
It is stated that magnitude of change will be determined through the identification of potential thresholds, however these have not been assigned within the Stage 2 PEIR. Such information is fundamental to understanding the judgements or conclusions on effects arising from the transport assessment.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 49
Another major concern is the lack of clarity around the workforce at this time, as the relative levels of existing local workforce, UK migrants and non-UK migrants will have potentially very different effects.
3.4.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council welcomes that the methodology for the transport assessment has been applied consistently in the form of Table 4.4. However, as stated above in this consultation response, the baseline information is incomplete which must affect the confidence which the Council is able to assign to the judgement and assessment of the magnitude of the impact.
The response to consultation in Table 4.1 sets out scope of works that includes testing a range of scenarios and applying sensitivity tests to capture changes in the impacts across the phases of the project. For example, the scenarios consider both the construction and operational phases and assess the impact upon the highway if (as an example) rail is not available as anticipated. However, the Council notes that it is unclear how this approach has been applied to the PEIR and it appears that only one scenario has been assessed (i.e. assuming that the strategy can be implemented in full as anticipated). It is unclear at this Consultation Stage 2 what provision / mitigation or alternative scenario analysis has been undertaken to assess the potential impact of having to rely on a strategy other than preferred by NuGen. This creates uncertainty and a prospect of an unmitigated or poorly characterised transport scenario potentially being required due to a failure to execute the preferred strategy. The Council anticipates greater clarity in this regard as a follow up to this Stage 2 Consultation process and in advance of DCO submission.
In general, further work is required by NuGen to resolve matters regarding assessment conclusions including the completion of the baseline information/establishment and confirmation of what scenario(s) impacts are being assessed against. A clearer workforce strategy with robust definitions of different types of workers and their transport requirements will be required to underpin the assessment.
3.4.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
At this stage no assessment has been made of the impact of the development and therefore it is not possible to comment on the appropriateness of the mitigation proposed. Indeed, details of the proposed mitigation are also limited at this stage. There is considerable work for NuGen to complete in order for the Council to have higher levels of confidence in the transport strategy proposed.
In general, the approach set out within the Transport Strategy document appears to be valid, but a number of questions remain over the scale of
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 50
intervention required to deliver the strategy, for instance how realistic it is and the residual impacts arising.
The Council notes that there is no specific reference to means by which mitigation will be secured. However, as stated in para 4.11.1, “At this stage, all of the mitigation measures, which are anticipated will be required, are incorporated into the development proposals…”. It is therefore assumed that ‘mitigation measures’ are part of proposals and therefore would be delivered as part of development. However, it is not clear how this can be the case where the effects have not been fully characterised.
There is reference to a potential requirement for further ‘non-incorporated’ mitigation measures, but these are not defined and no means of securing delivery is provided. This is of particular importance to the Council since assurance is sought on the viability of mitigation measures in the context of Planning Requirements and Obligations.
The Council notes that the draft Transport Strategy makes recommendations with regards to Section 106 Agreements for resident parking permit schemes for the roads and residential areas surrounding the site. It is stated that parking would be monitored to identify the requirement for parking restrictions. It is considered highly likely that this will be required given the importance of limiting access by parking controls. It is therefore recommended that parking restrictions are included as part of the core scheme and discussed and agreed with the Council(s) as a matter of priority following this Stage 2 Consultation response.
3.4.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council notes that the scope of likely residual effects is considered to be suitably extensive and covers the full range of effects that would be reasonably anticipated as a result of the development. This comment is clearly subject to the uncertainty noted previously regarding the extent to which mitigation measures can be relied upon.
The probability of most residual effects is classed as ‘likely’, which is considered robust. Only one ‘unlikely’ effect has been identified (disruption to shipping lanes and commercial fishing vessels). Whilst there will be other effects that are unlikely to occur, by the virtue that they are unlikely it is not considered necessary to include them in the assessment.
The sensitivity of receptors are generally identified as ‘low’ or ‘medium’. Limited justification is presented for the classification of these sensitivities. Selection of the sensitivity category will have an impact upon the identified effect. It is recommended that these sensitivities are reviewed through dialogue with the Council and agreed. In particular, it is noted that Receptor 1 (sensitive receptors) are classified as ‘medium’ sensitivity, and that Receptor 3 (transport infrastructure) is identified as very low (construction) and low (operation) sensitivity. Given the limited resilience of the transport networks in the area it is recommended that this is reviewed.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 51
A large number of the predicted residual transport effects are termed ‘potentially significant’. This assessment is largely on the basis of a predicted ‘medium’ magnitude of change. However, at this stage, no modelling information has been presented on the potential impact of the development proposals and the robustness of the transport strategy is yet to be ascertained due to a lack of information on the baseline and assessment scenarios. It is therefore considered that there is a risk of the magnitude of these effects increasing from medium to high following assessment. This change would increase the significance of these effects from moderate (potentially significant) to major (significant). This matter would require review with the Council and a reconsideration of the potential scheme of mitigation that might be brought forward.
3.4.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The full list of other developments has been streamlined to identify those that are likely to have a cumulative effect on the transport networks. The list of developments that have not been taken forward for assessment at this stage appears reasonable. The implications of the expanded timetable that is required under the new passenger rail franchise should also be factored in to assessments as it will reduce capacity on the line for NuGen to use by taking up pathways, but could also help deliver its Transport Strategy.
At this stage, only a brief discussion of each of the developments that may have a cumulative effect is presented. Therefore, at this stage it is not considered that the cumulative effects have been adequately assessed. The Council would anticipate a full evaluation of potentially cumulative effects within the Environmental Statement produced in support of NuGen’s DCO submission.
As a first step, the Council would recommend that information on the anticipated traffic generation of the other developments on the network to be used by the site should be presented to provide an understanding of the relative scale of development/traffic generation of each scheme. As the analysis and modelling work is undertaken, traffic forecasts for these schemes should be included within the do-minimum and do-something scenarios to allow the cumulative effects to be identified and mitigated as appropriate.
3.4.9 Key Issues / Gaps requiring further Consultation
In responding to Stage 2 Consultation, the Council confirms the following key issues / gaps requiring further consultation between NuGen and CBC prior to DCO submission:
Completed baseline to be established, reviewed and agreed with the Council (and with Cumbria County Council and Allerdale Borough Council);
Clarification on the current status of the Cumbria Coast Line railway in terms of its capacity, condition and future potential for use for the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 52
Moorside Project. This should also take account of the requirements of the new passenger rail franchise;
Confirmation of scenario(s) to be tested including sensitivity tests;
Confirmation of sensitivity thresholds;
Quantitative supporting analysis (e.g. highway junction modelling) to be undertaken to inform/update the assessment;
Further consideration of other developments for cumulative assessment;
Refinement of the predicted residual effects following the above; and
Transport Assessment and supporting Travel Plan to be produced and subsequently reviewed.
3.4.10 Summary Comments
In summary, the Council notes that there remains a lack of information within the PEIR upon which a full range of comments can be made. The Council welcomes that the assessment methodology appears robust and the draft Transport Strategy provides an appropriate overall approach to the development. However, limited information is available in terms of analysis and assessment supporting Stage 2 Consultation. Whilst predicted environmental effects seem within the realms of being realistic, more evidence is required to support the analysis and assessment of effects. From the review of material made available at Stage 2, it appears that no assessment outputs have been provided. It would be useful for the Council to have more information to make further comment and a commitment is sought from NuGen that there will be continuing dialogue (including on the draft Environmental Statement) in advance of DCO submission.
3.5 Noise and Vibration
This section of the Council’s consultation response presents a review of noise and vibration matters for the Moorside proposals which has been informed through reference to Chapter 5 of the PEIR material and the draft Outline Transport Strategy provided by NuGen.
3.5.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council notes that the expected Policy, Legislative and guidance documents are listed.
3.5.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council notes that the baseline information provided via quarterly meetings to date is adequate. Outstanding agreed noise and vibration monitoring sites which have previously been discussed are set out in the PEIR.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 53
Although the Council has previously provided commentary with regards to the potential need to adjust some of the baseline levels prior to use in assessments, this has not been addressed in the PEIR. The Council considers this to be necessary in order to take into account situations where preferred locations may not be practical.
3.5.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council notes that all issues raised regarding survey work are not listed and sites requested have been included in the survey work section.
The Council welcomes that the document is consistent with ongoing informal consultation.
It would be useful to continue informal consultation to cover noise and vibration issues as they are firmed up, rather than leaving what will be a significant volume of new information to be tacked only at the Environment Statement stage.
3.5.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the methodology does not explain how the assessment will be carried out against the policies set out in the National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS EN-1) and Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE). Accordingly, it is not clear how the assessment will demonstrate how the national noise policy objectives will be met. For example, adverse impact thresholds or Lowest Observed Affect Level (LOAELs) are either not defined or are otherwise unclear.
Section 5.3.4 describes the use of BS6472 as being relevant for road and rail vibration assessment, however the section also needs to mention BS6472’s relevance to the assessment of vibration resulting from construction or fixed plant.
The Council notes that in Table 5.2, with regards to rationale for incorporation of environmental measures, the first row lists construction site mitigation measures. This is considered to be insufficient and not in accordance with best practice used by other major projects. For example, other major projects adopt a Code of Construction Practice that comprehensively sets out how impacts during the construction phase will be controlled and mitigated. The Council would expect similar provisions to be adopted for a project of this scale and duration. There are other measures which are commonly used which are not mentioned. There is no mention of an off-site protection policy which might include noise insulation in the event that all on-site control measures are exhausted.
Table 5.3 sets out what is to be used in the final ES, rather than what is used in the PEIR. The Council notes that this is helpful as it enables comment on methodology ahead of the Environmental Statement submission.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 54
In Table 5.3, in terms of construction and operation (rail traffic), vibration is reported to be predicted using measurement from the existing range of rail vehicles using the line. This will only be relevant where the types of rolling stock and track at the measurement locations are similar to those experienced in construction/operation at sensitive receivers. Measurement may be needed elsewhere, and a prediction method implemented, if the above assumptions are found not to be valid.
In Table 5.3, in terms of construction and operation (ecological assessment), it is stated that the impacts on ecological receptors would be contained within the ecology and other chapters. However, no methodology for the prediction of underwater noise /vibration generation and propagation is described.
Sections 5.7.2 to 5.7.3 and 5.7.4 are not readily interpreted, and it is not clear from them how the assessment will be carried out. The Council notes that criteria have only been provided for residential receptors, or those with similar sensitivity.
Section 5.7.2 states: “Whereas, government policy, namely that provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government..., requires that noise....assessments identify impacts that would result in significant adverse effects...”. The Council disagrees with the implication that policy refers only to significant adverse impacts. As set out in our comments on section 5.3 above, the policy aims are to (paraphrasing) avoid significant impacts, to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts and to improve where possible. This distinction is important as it promotes the need to mitigate and minimise noise and vibration through the proposals above the LOAEL and below the significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life (SOAEL), and not just at or above the SOAEL, as implied by the reference in the PEIR to “significant adverse impacts”. Neither does the PEIR describe whether existing noise environments are in need of improvement and whether the scheme provides opportunities to improve where possible.
The Council does not agree with the first two paragraphs in section 5.7.3. The Council believes that it should be possible to align the assessment of significance in EIA and policy terms. This would require the consideration of noise and vibration exposure between the LOAEL and SOAEL as well as above the SOAEL, with and without, the development, and the number of receptors and resources potentially affected. The PEIR takes a formulaic approach to the assessment by adopting the “Low – Medium – High” approach for all assessment which is inflexible and often inaccessible. The Council has found it very difficult to access and follow the description of the methodology. It follows that other stakeholders, particularly technical specialists, may have found it to be quite impenetrable.
The Council notes that flexibility in approach is needed to accommodate the concept that some receptors may already be exposed at or above SOAEL, and therefore a different set of criteria may apply. This inflexibility is indicated by the difficulties of producing an accessible set of criteria for the magnitude of effects (see Table 5.12).
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 55
Section 5.7.3 refers to carrying out an additional assessment in parallel with the EIA assessment to identify significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life, in terms of the SOAEL. It is not clear from this whether the intention is to detail that assessment in the Environmental Statement, its inclusion in the PEIR implies that it will but this is not stated explicitly. The final sentence of the paragraph indicates that this assessment against SOAEL will be “further” addressed by the Health Impact Assessment (HIA). This may be intended to indicate that, in addition to assessment in the EIA, information on exceedance of SOAELs will be passed to the HIA team for inclusion in the HIA.
The Council would be concerned if the Environmental Statement did not cover assessment in terms of government noise policy, as it is not considered that the intention of policy was for it to be used solely in HIA. Reporting within the Environmental Statement will enable a holistic mitigation scheme to be developed on the basis of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and complying with government planning policy.
Section 5.7.4 does not mention context in the evaluation of significance of effects. This is an important omission when carrying out an assessment of fixed plant noise using BS4142, which specifically states that context is an important consideration. This affects the assessment of the Moorside Site most, as this is likely to be the most significant generator of noise from fixed plant on the scheme. There is no mention of whether the number of receptors affected would influence the identification of a significant effect in EIA terms, for instance MOLF implications during construction and operation, AD site and other construction areas/compounds e.g. St Bees railway compound.
The Council considers the significance matrix in Table 5.4 to be too formulaic to enable good judgement of significance. It includes a result of “Potentially significant”. However, there is no text accompanying the table which explains how it will be determined whether the result is significant or not. Testing the table, considering a residential receptor (previously identified in the PEIR as Medium sensitivity), the “magnitude” would need to be High for the impact/effect to be judged of significance. Again, the Council believe this will underestimate the true impacts/effects.
Sections 5.7.8 to 5.7.14 address in part the range of noise levels between LOAEL and SOAEL, which lends support to the idea that this will be assessed (see comment above on section 5.7.3). The Council understands the rationale behind the adoption of minerals planning guidance levels for the long term earthworks, and the potential need for works close to properties where, for a short duration, high noise levels are likely to be produced.
However, the Council is concerned that a different set of criteria is proposed for earthworks and general works. This suggests that separate elements may be assessed separately and that this could lead to an underestimate of the impacts when there is an overlap in earthworks and general construction activity. People will be impacted by the totality of all the construction noise
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 56
and it is suggested that an overarching set of criteria be used (as it has on other major projects e.g. the A14) to assess the totality of construction noise. In section 5.7.13, it states that there could be a higher level of disruption for long term benefit but then does not set a time limit for the higher level.
The Council is concerned that Table 5.5, normal operations earthworks, appears not to be consistent with the advice given on noise limits in the PPG-M e.g. the limit is LA90+10 during the day and should only be permitted to go up to 55dB if the LA90+10 limit cannot be met without imposing unreasonable burdens on the operator. The PPG-M does not refer to 1dB above LA90+10 and neither does it refer to more than 1dB above 55dB.
The Council is also concerned that Table 5.5 appears to overlay two sets of criteria i.e. “normal” and “temporary” earthworks. This imports risk if temporary and normal earthworks occur at the same time as this could result in an underestimate of the impacts and effects. Daytime “medium” and “high” have the same description, the Council is unclear as to whether this is intentional and if it is, whether and how these would be differentiated. It is likely that temporary and normal construction and earthworks will take place at the same time however it would be better if the works and impacts are differentiated. The Council notes that Table 5.5 is poorly laid out and the table should include the normal background levels. The Council questions if all construction works and cumulative impacts with vibration are adequately covered in Table 5.5. There is an undescribed gap for ‘daytime’ in Table 5.5 between (55dB-10) and 55dB, the council questions whether this is intentional. Numbers in the “medium” categories look like they need a lower or upper range to make them robust and the criteria appear inconsistent between categories, it is not clear from the preceding text how the “low” criterion of 32dB was arrived at.
In terms of Temporary Earthworks referring to these under the category “fixed and mobile plant” is confusing and the Council would not consider that fixed plant noise would be adequately controlled if the levels for Temporary Earthworks were adopted as the criteria. The criteria were clearly derived with reference to mobile equipment which when working on the areas of earthworks close to a site boundary are not practical to screen, and which provide a long term advantage (e.g. bunds as mitigation) in balance. The stated time period limit is “less than 8 weeks” or “less than 1 week” for very short term works. This should be caveated by a note to the table that qualifies this as the time limit within one year. The Council notes that the criteria for Saturday afternoons and public/bank holidays are not included. With regards to daytime and evening time periods, both medium and high refer to a length of 1 week, one of them is less than 1 week, the other is more than one week. It is not explained how the criteria will be interpreted where the exceedance is for a duration equal to 1 week. Due to the duration of all works (access preparation, construction, bunds, MOLF move to operational), weekend and bank holiday working should be avoided or at least limited in order to minimise disruption and disturbance to residents.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 57
It is not clear from the noise chapter whether the “power block” includes all buildings or just central part. If just central part, it is not clear what criteria apply to construction activities for the other buildings.
The criteria adopted appear to be an incorrect interpretation of the ABC method. CBC believe that assigning “Low” significance to a level of 65dBLAeq(12 hours) would underestimate the significant effects resulting from construction.
Moorside will have a construction programme of a significant length, and the Council considers that the influence of the duration of the exposure should be taken into account in determining the likelihood of significant effects in EIA and HIA terms.
Sections 5.7.22 to 5.7.32 refer to the Groundborne vibration residential impact criteria. Vibration dose values (VDVs) above which varying degrees of adverse comment may be expected in dwellings are presented in Table 5.6. No reference is made to the direction of the vibration in the Table or in the description around the subject of vibration criteria. The direction of the vibration dictates the appropriate weighting, and these will need to be considered when carrying out prediction and comparison with criteria. The Council is concerned that not all areas have been considered and that the MOLF construction has not been adequately considered.
Residential criteria for perceptible vibration in Table 5.7 are based on those in Table 5.6, from the appropriate British standard, and their interpretation to produce the criteria for magnitude of groundborne vibration effects are broadly in line with best practice. An additional set of vibration levels and their potential effects on people have been identified for use where “it is not possible to determine the VDV”. Whilst it is not explicitly stated, the Council assume that these figures would be used in the assessment of construction vibration, as they derive from BS5228. Criteria for cosmetic damage are in line with industry norms. However Table 5.6 has different day and night times as those in the noise assessment table showing day as 07.00 – 23.00.
Section 5.7.31 refers to noise criteria for road traffic noise. Impact criteria based on those presented in DMRB are set out, both for noise impacts due to change in the short-term and the long-term. The Council does not believe that the criteria correctly reflect either DMRB or current best practice, and consider that use of these criteria would underestimate adverse effects. Short-term is implied to be within the first 15 years of the start of use of the altered road. Inspection of the magnitude of effect criteria in Table 5.12 indicates that the short term impact criteria from DMRB have been used in deriving the effect criteria for construction related traffic, and the long term for operational road traffic. Rationale for choosing the short term and long term classifications has not been spelled out. The tables and text do not seem to give the basic acknowledgement that road traffic volumes will be increasing. Sellafield already creates two distinct peaks on traffic flows linked with shift times and assuming NuGen will avoid clashing shift times more will be added. The Council notes that there are no links with transport section/road usage surveys and no cross reference to transport policies.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 58
Inspection of the criteria in Table 5.12 indicates, for operational road traffic:
“medium” magnitude of effect would be ascribed where the level is >= 55dB LAeq,16 hour) and sees “>=3-10dB” change (with a further alternative for those newly exposed). It is not clear what is meant by greater than 3-10dB change (similar uncertainty surrounds other cases where “greater than or equal to” has been used with a range of numbers for change). The Council is uncertain how this should be interpreted it could be:
it only applies where the change is greater than 3dB;
it only applies where the change is greater than 10dB; or
it only appliers where the change falls in the range 3 to 10dB;
The Council considers that this approach and its presentation should be reconsidered before the Environmental Statement.
The Council do not consider that the interpretation of the change magnitudes represent current best practice as they are set out. The Council would not be in agreement with an identification of a “medium” effect where a noise level could change by 10dB from, say, 60dBLAeq, 16hr resulting in a level of 70dBLAeq,16hr. The latter level would be well in excess of the highest threshold used in Table 5.12 of 63dBLAeq, 16hr.
No account appears to be taken of the number of receptors affected in determining the significance. The Council is of the opinion that, in Table 5.11, the third row could be the basis of significant effects where the level is greater than or equal to 55dBLAeq(16 hr) but the change is between 3 and 4.9dB in the long-term. However, under the assessment regime set out, this situation would not be identified as a significant effect;
The “high” category also has what CBC believe is an anomaly. The category where “greater than 55dBLAeq, 16hr” and “greater than or equal to 10dB change” could mean that a level of 60dBLAeq, 16hr + 9dB = 69dBLAAeq, 16hr would not be identified as having a magnitude that could lead to a significant effect. Setting this example next to the “greater than or equal to 63dBLAeq,
16hr” with “greater than or equal to 1dBchange” being categorised as “high” demonstrates the inconsistency of the two change categories. This might be addressed by taking the “level which is greater than 55dBLAeq, 16hr” and adding to it a minimum change of 8dB rather than 10dB, thus giving 63dBLAeq, 16hr” , conveniently equalling the starting point for the “high” category.
In the Council’s view Table 5.11 will be inaccessible to the majority of lay readers. Before the Environmental Statement, consideration should be given to revising the approach, and its presentation.
In section 5.7.33, reference is made to WHO Night Noise Guidelines, without including the fact that the level referred to is the interim guideline and thus higher than their preferred longer term guideline value. It would also appear that the nature and character of any changes in road traffic noise has not be properly considered to determine whether a classic
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 59
(DMRB) approach to the assessment highway noise is appropriate or not. For example, will the scheme generate a disproportionate number of HGVs at particular times of the day, evening or night? The Council do not accept therefore that the criteria are properly justified. The Council expects a statement that noise insulation treatment will be provided if levels are reached.
In terms of noise criteria for rail traffic noise, similar comments apply to Table 5.13 as are set out above in relation to road traffic noise.
The text in sections 5.7.35 to 5.7.36 does not identify the LOAEL, but does seek to establish a SOAEL, which is presented independently of the magnitude of effect criteria table (Table 5.13). It is stated that an assessment against SOAEL will be carried out for the Environmental Statement.
It is not clear whether rail traffic movements can occur at night. If movements can occur at night, the Council is concerned that the potential effects at night on people have not been sufficiently considered or justified. The Council is concerned that details on rail movements are vague, night times need to be stated. Potential effect on sleep should be considered and the assessment methodology should be developed using the best available evidence on effects at night and best practice guidance. For example, the IEMA Guidelines recommend that a risk assessment be undertaken using evidence on sleep disturbance and having regard to the LAmax and number of events as well as period LAeq levels. The combined effect of noise and vibration has not been considered. This is an important omission.
Section 5.7.46 to section 5.7.48 set out the levels which the applicant proposes to use for the SOAEL and LOAEL for noise from fixed plant. The Council does not agree with the statement that the rating level is equal to the specific level in section 5.7.42.
In Table 5.15, the Council does not agree with the “medium” category, the context must be accounted for. The Council would normally expect to see LA90- + 10dB identified as significant.
In section 5.7.47, the Council does not agree with the assessment as set out in this section. Such an assessment must take account of context. The Council does not believe that you could have a daytime LOAEL of 50dBLAeq where the noise contains pronounced features. WHO Community Noise Guidelines clearly states that lower levels may be appropriate depending on the nature of the noise.
3.5.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council notes that the preparation of the PEIR has come too early in the design process for likely noise and vibration effects of the scheme to be quantitatively evaluated. The authors have carried out calculations and drawn conclusions for construction for the early earthworks only, which are
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 60
anticipated by them to give rise to the most significant noise and vibration contribution. The calculations are based on the author’s experience of similar schemes, and no outline of the works assessed is provided in the noise and vibration chapter, only assumed plant items.
The Council acknowledges that there are many areas of the environmental assessment that have not been addressed at this stage, and this is acknowledged in section 5.8.13. This limitation is hidden in the text and should be stated earlier on in sub heading of section 5.8.
The Council has previously commented on material regarding ambient and background noise levels with respect to the potential need to adjust some of the measured levels to derive the baseline for the assessment. When selecting practical monitoring locations the sites are not always ideal for providing the baseline needed. For example, the only practical location for installing monitoring equipment may have a greater view of a nearby road than the quieter rear façade of a property for which baseline was to be gathered. Section 5.8.12 describes one such potential location (M5). Using the baseline at M5 for properties at the western end of Dent Road could lead to the assessment baseline being overestimated if used without amendment. The monitoring equipment is described as having a 160degree unobstructed view of the A595. A simple angle of view correction in line with Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) would be sufficient to address the concern in this example. The Council would expect to have seen this addressed in the narrative on baseline conditions, and would expect the tables of baseline levels to indicate how the measured levels might need to be adjusted to provide the baseline for the assessment.
Sections 5.8.13 to 5.8.16 describe how the assessment of construction noise has been carried out for the PEIR. The assessment has been based on AFW experience of similar works, due to the absence of initial information on the actual works proposed. Judgements are therefore not based on evidence in the PEIR. This raises concerns as there may be no opportunity to consider assessment of actual proposed works until the Environmental Statement is published. Comments have been kept to a minimum in this review for that reason, as they would be speculative. General comments have been made.
The Council agree that the likely worst case for the early construction earthworks will be the establishment of bunds at the perimeter of the site, assuming that these are provided.
It appears that the only quantitative assessment that has been carried out for the PEIR for noise and vibration is for the early earthworks i.e. for bund formation. The only table of results provided is Table 5.18 (Bund construction and topsoil replacement – range of predicted noise levels). The text state that other assessments are qualitative.
It is stated that where insufficient information is available on the baseline and/or development to undertake a prediction of the magnitude of change, an asterisk has been included in the tables of assessment. From the foregoing statement, CBC would therefore have anticipated that the majority
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 61
of the cells in the assessment tables would have asterisks. However, in practice, Tables 5.19 to 5.24 have very few asterisks. It is therefore not clear how the magnitudes of change in the Tables of residual significant effects have been arrived at. The absence of supporting evidence at this stage means that it is not possible to comment on the voracity of the outcomes.
In terms of sections 5.8.13 to 5.8.16, understanding of whether the assessment is comprehensive and appropriate would have been aided by a description of the sequence of construction and how this affects outcomes of assessment and effectiveness of mitigation specifically for noise and vibration. For example, it is understood that construction materials would mainly be delivered to the MOLF, but the MOLF itself will need construction, so the material must arrive by some other means. Cross referencing to the appropriate timeline and relevant sections of the project overview would have aided interpretation by the reader.
In section 5.8.18 (noise model), it is stated that calculations have been based on current understanding of potential outer bund and bulk earthworks. The noise and vibration chapter does not provide an indication of when firmer information may be received. It is therefore possible that the Environmental Statement could be based on information that is subject to change. This is not unusual, as EIAs are often based on an early level of design. The likelihood of change to design, and hence likely significant effects post Environmental Statement will need to be considered when drawing up appropriate conditions for the control of noise and vibration. In this section, cross-reference to appropriate information regarding the zone for bunding would have aided interpretation.
With regards to bund construction and topsoil replacement in section 5.8.20/21, Table 5.18 and Figure 5.9, as mentioned above, interpretation and understanding would have been assisted if the zone for earthworks and the assumed working area of the plant had been indicated on Figure 5.9, or a cross reference included to where this information is included elsewhere in the PEIR. It is not readily possible to comment on the appropriateness of the prediction outcomes when the source positions are not indicated. The above is given as a specific comment here, but this lack of referencing throughout the chapter generally impedes understanding.
Section 5.8.23 indicates that the assessment to date only covers construction and operation, but does not include decommissioning. It is stated that it is likely that the effects of decommissioning would be likely to be no worse than or less than, those of construction. The Council considers that an assumption in that absence of any information regarding decommissioning and what might be involved, that decommissioning would be no worse than construction is not unreasonable, given the magnitude of the works for construction. However, for the Environmental Statement, evidence should be provided that this is a reasonable assumption, via, as a minimum, a narrative on the similarities and difference between works involved in decommissioning and those of construction.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 62
Section 5.8.28 to 5.8.33 cover the assumptions inherent in the assessments. The following points are noted:
Section 5.8.29 and section 5.8.31 refer to assumed working hours, including reference to weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. However, bank and public holidays are not mentioned. Clarity will be needed with regard to NuGen’s intention to work bank holidays, as these would normally be consisted in the same way as Sundays, as quiet days, providing respite from construction noise. In section 5.8.29, the assumed working hours for weekdays and Saturdays start at 07:00hours. This is considered by the Council to be too early for significant construction works. The Council anticipate that the first part of a working day in the vicinity of residential properties that started at 07:00hours, would be a “start-up” period, where no noisy works would take place. The impact piling is assumed for building foundations however this is not consistent with the “environmental measures” set out in Table 5.2, which include use of “low vibration plant such as hydraulic piling or continuous flight auger piling techniques” “and/or “sort start” piling techniques”. It should be noted that smaller sites than these have restrictions on weekend working to minimise disruption for residents and Saturdays commonly have a later start time than Monday – Friday. The Council notes that there are no details on how construction staff will get to the main site and various AD sites e.g. will there be transportation arrangements such as coaches etc. from pick up points.
It should be noted that as so little of the environmental assessment has been carried out for noise and vibration, it is not practical to comment regarding further work. Effectively, the environmental assessment needs to be carried out before any informed comment can be made on the assessment conclusions, as the majority of issues will only be addressed at that stage according to the text.
3.5.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes there is no assessment of “unmitigated” effects, only “residual” effects are described. It is therefore not possible to understand or comment on the nature of mitigation which might be incorporated, or which might need conditioning to ensure that likely significant effects are minimised.
Where mitigation measures are currently unknown/uncertain they have not been mentioned, but will be included in the Environmental Statement according to the text. This applies to the majority of potential sources of effect. It is therefore only possible to comment on what measures are proposed, and not on any potential omissions. As quantitative evaluation has not in the main been made, it is not possible to comment on the appropriateness or effectiveness of the measures.
The Council notes that in Table 5.2, rationale for incorporation of environmental measures (operational phase), an obvious omission is site planning to place noisy plant remote from sensitive receptors. The Council would welcome this in the draft Environmental Statement.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 63
3.5.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council notes that only residual effects are identified throughout the assessment. The majority of assessment is outline only, and proposed mitigation is only described generically in the PEIR. This is assumed to be due to a lack of information on the scheme to enable predictions to be carried out.
General comments which are common to two or more elements of the tables of summaries of predicted residual effects (Tables 5.19 to 5.24):
Reference is made to dependency (for final magnitude of change assessment, i.e. ES) on when noise occurs “such as the evening, weekend or night-time”. The Council notes that the summary of baseline noise levels presented in Table 5.16 does not include ambient noise levels for evenings and night-time. It is therefore difficult for us to speculate on whether or not the magnitude of impact might be greater than that indicated in the tables;
Rail traffic (noise) and rail traffic (vibration) have separate rows in the tables. The description of factors on which magnitude of change is dependent differ between noise and vibration. For those sites where rail spurs are mentioned, they only appear in the vibration section – it is not clear why this is the case;
Rail traffic (noise) is sometimes referred to as potentially giving rise to Medium magnitude of change “given relatively short separation distances from the railway”, whereas the following rail noise (vibration) row is described a low magnitude of change, “given large separation distances”. These statements appear contradictory in the absence of an explanation of the relative zone of influence of rail noise and rail vibration;
Assessments in the noise and vibration chapter are heavily reliant on separation distances between operational plant and receptors. However, no details, even zones on the Moorside site, are provided on the chapter 5 figures to assist the reader with their relative positions. No cross-references out to other figures in the PEIR are provided, nor any description of relative positions of plant on the site where this is relevant to the noise assessment. This makes it difficult to readily confirm the voracity of the statements made in the Rationale columns in the tables;
Receptor 4 (Braystones), MOLF (noise). The magnitude of change in this row is indicated as low, due in part to large separation distances. Braystones may represent some of the closest residential communities to the MOLF, so a statement with respect to why even these properties are sufficiently far away as to be unlikely to see a high magnitude of change would assist the reader. The location of the MOLF is not indicated on the Figures showing the noise sensitive receptors. Again, a cross-reference to an appropriate figure elsewhere might enable understanding;
Receptor 6 (Moss Side) - the rationale behind the assessment of magnitude of change for fixed and mobile plant (noise) discusses the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 64
potential difference between days, evening, night and weekends in terms of magnitude of change. This suggests that, when considering conditions to reasonably control noise in construction, working hours/days will be a key method of minimising adverse impacts and effects;
Receptor 6/7/8 – there is no mention of the possible link between likely magnitude of impacts and the possibility of effects (beneficial or adverse) which might result from the possible change to Sellafield access. This may be because the authors have considered this to be part of the highways improvements schemes, which are not assessed in the PEIR;
Receptor 9 (Sellafield site) – no comment has been made in the PEIR with respect to whether there are any especially noise or vibration sensitive uses within the Sellafield site boundary. The Council has therefore assumed for the purpose of this review that there are none which are more sensitive than residential use. Rationale text for fixed and mobile plant (noise) state that a higher magnitude of change may occur during more sensitive periods, which it identifies as “evening, weekend or night-time”. This appears to be more appropriate to residential use than commercial;
Rail traffic (noise and vibration) for construction and operation – magnitude of change is judged to be low due to relatively large separating distances, however Figure 5.9 suggests that the Cumbria Coast line is in close proximity to the Sellafield site. Our previous comment regarding relative zones of influence from railways applies here also;
Operation receptor 1, fixed plant (noise) and (vibration) - the logic of the explanation in the Rationale column does not appear sound. The Council believe that “change” is from existing conditions to future conditions, not between different times of the day. Also, for noise, it states that significance is based on operational hours which are yet to be finalised. However, in the following row for vibration, it says operational hours are 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. The Council assume that for the main power plant site, the hours given for vibration are most likely to be correct.
The Council acknowledges that Chapter 23 identifies earthworks at the Moorside Site as a potential residual effect e.g. earthworks required for the excavation of the nuclear island location, the clearance and levelling of the remainder of the Moorside Site and the construction of the earthworks due to the scale of the works required and the proximity of the dwellings in the south of Beckermet and in the Blackbeck area along the A595.
3.5.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council notes that cumulative effects have only been addressed in outline, as effects of the Moorside scheme have only been assessed on the basis of the author’s experience and not on scheme information.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 65
The Council suggests that the cumulative effects should consider the impact of each of the projects on the study area of the Moorside sites e.g. what is the increase in road traffic on the road under study. It may be that the impacts are in fact negligible but it would be more transparent to report the predicted impact of those projects before discounting them.
3.5.9 Key Issues/Gaps requiring further Consultation
There is still baseline data gathering and reporting to complete. A significant amount of assessment is still to be carried out. The Council would have expected the PEIR to have assessed the scheme in more detail, and to have assessed more elements of the scheme than just the worst case construction for the Moorside search area.
At this stage, no elements of the assessment are in any way complete, and all conclusions are outline and subject to change once based on design information as opposed to professional experience and judgement.
There is therefore a significant amount of assessment to do, the early outcomes of which would normally be expected to be in the PEIR. The Council considers the methodologies used to arrive at assessment outcomes, the findings and the potential mitigation will require further consultation.
3.5.10 Summary Comments
The Council do not agree with all the criteria and methodologies for identification of significant impacts and effects. The Council does not agree with the approach to identify LOAELs and SOAELs and their relationship to EIA significance criteria.
There is insufficient evidence within the PEIR to provide confidence that the outcomes reported are correct. The authors have been clear that the outcomes may change at the Environment Statement stage.
The Council has concerns regarding some of the criteria, and how government planning policy will be dealt with in the final Environmental Statement, based on what has been considered in the PEIR.
Taken at face value, the comments and rationales provided are generally reasonable and overall the issues identified as most likely to give rise to significant effects appear as would be expected
3.6 Air Quality
This section of the Council’s consultation response presents a review of air quality matters for the Moorside proposals which has been informed through reference to Chapter 6 of the PEIR material and associated figures.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 66
3.6.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council notes that the expected Policy, Legislative and guidance documents are listed.
3.6.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
It is unclear whether the Council’s latest air quality monitoring data has been included within the baseline data. Amec Foster Wheeler (AFW) have received data from the Council however this has not been included in the report to establish baseline conditions.
Table 6.3 reports that the high concentrations were attributed to a “back trajectory” analysis of Saharan dust; this has been discussed in the quarterly meetings and elevated levels at the other monitoring locations have also been found.
At Stage 1 it was stated:
“The study areas proposed for the majority of assessments are appropriate however the information relating to the construction dust assessment references the Department of Environment 1996 guidance for environmental effects of dust from surface mineral workings. It is our view, as has been discussed at a number of the quarterly meetings, that the latest available guidance from the Institute of Air Quality Management on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction should be used to identify study area and receptor sensitivity with regard to construction dust impacts. It is understood that AFW would like to include further assessment than is included in the IAQM guidance and this is accepted, however the IAQM guidance should be used as a basis rather than older documents such as the above 1996 document and the 2012 technical guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. The section titled Methodology for prediction of effects – fugitive dust makes no reference to the IAQM guidance at all even though this is referenced elsewhere in the document.”
The Council notes that this has not been taken on board and this is discussed further in the methodology section below.
The reference to the latest Defra guidance is to LAQM.TG(09) and should in almost all instances be replaced by reference to LAQM.TG(16), the updated guidance, which was published in April 2016 (the consultation draft was published in November 2015).
The baseline information presented is consistent with what has been presented previously and includes the latest monitoring data available at the time of writing. One piece of technical advice which is clear in TG(09) is the advice that if monitoring for six months that the six months include winter and summer months and not, for example run from March to September (see paragraphs 3.15, A1.122 and A1.128). Table 6.3 refers to monitoring in Workington commencing in March 2016, this should run to at least December 2016. The start and end dates for each monitor should be clearly
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 67
stated and those not satisfying this criterion flagged as particularly uncertain.
In general, the monitoring data should be presented more clearly, for instance the table should state start and end months rather than just duration. The monitored levels (period averages and/or monthly averages) could be shown graphically as functions of times. Tabulating monitored concentrations from different periods without stating when those periods were is not a like-for-like comparison and ignores seasonal and regional effects.
The Council notes that the overall picture is of an area with good air quality. The highest concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were recorded at roadside sites but there were no exceedances of the annual mean air quality objective (AQO), the maximum concentration corresponds to 91% of the AQO.
The Council recommends presenting the baseline monitoring data with greater clarity over the start and end dates of monitoring, flagging up six month periods that do not include summer and winter months as particularly uncertain e.g. add information to Table 6.1 and 6.14. The Council also suggests adding a chart to show the monitored data as function of time.
3.6.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council notes that the consultation is consistent with the quarterly technical meetings. However the action on Zones of Influence for sensitive ecological receptors between 2km and 10km from the site has not yet been implemented (Table 6.5). Local communities require further engagement in relation to concerns arising from potential construction dust, and suitable control, reporting and control measures incorporated into the DCO Requirements and control documentation.
3.6.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council welcomes that the assessment methodology is mostly appropriate and comments raised at Stage 1 have been addressed. The Council would like the following matters on assessment methodology addressed:
Table 6.9 reproduces the assessment of magnitude of change from IAQM/EPUK 2015. The guidance recommends “judgement of the significance should be made by a competent professional who is suitably qualified.” Table 6.10 instead makes a prior judgement about significance. While the judgement at the extremes is not disputed, some of the classifications of “not significant” and “potentially significant” impacts should be made when the assessment output is available using professional judgement, not at this stage;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 68
Table 6.11 classifies residential receptors as of medium sensitivity to dust (based on work by Arup published in the Department of the Environment’s 1996 document, reference 22), whereas the latest publication by IAQM on dust due to construction and demolition (IAQM “Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction”, June 2016 update to IAQM 2014 guidance) classifies residential receptors as of potentially high sensitivity to dust nuisance and PM10 health effects.
The IAQM guidance should be followed for the assessment of dust and PM10 impacts due to construction, with the assessment of meteorological parameters (paragraph 6.7.19) used for areas of construction activity much larger than those included in the IAQM guidance.
3.6.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council notes that Section 6.8 “Predicted residual effects and their significance” presents some numerical data from dispersion modelling of standby generators and a preliminary assessment of construction dust and earthworks impacts. In terms of standby generators, there is no input data provided and little output, therefore it is not possible to know whether the assessment is appropriate. In the full assessment more information on the predicted concentrations would be expected, for instance, rather than saying how many receptors are predicted to exceed (Table 6.16), it would be more useful to give the percentile values at each receptors.
The predicted short-term concentrations in the loss of off-site power (LOOP) scenario at the nearest receptor are very high (reported as 367% of the AQO threshold) and should not be discounted as simply as they are. Consideration should be given to impacts on receptors (employees and visitors to the site) who will be exposed over the relevant time period (an hour) to concentrations much higher than that reported at the residential receptor. The Council would expect more information on the number of hours of operation of standby sources.
The Council is unclear on the reporting of the short-concentrations. Percentage of the AQS seems to be applied to the 99.79th percentile concentration which is incorrect. The AQS is 18 exceedances of an hourly conas multiplying the number of exceedances.
As described above, the Council would expect the IAQM 2014 methodology to be followed which includes the impact of PM10 due to construction as well as dust nuisance. More detail on the magnitude of construction at each location would be expected to explain the judgement of the magnitude of change/activity. In that assessment the Council would not expect to see use of “#” with a meaning that “No receptor sensitivity assigned – already accounted for in setting of air quality standards & Limit Values.”
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 69
In general, the full assessment should contain full information on input and output data with relevant parameters for comparison with the air quality objectives.
3.6.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that the mitigation is described generically in Chapter 23, Table 23.3. If the assessment shows that any of the sources of emissions would significantly impact air quality tighter measures could be implemented, as on major construction sites elsewhere in the country, but these may not be necessary until NuGen has provided evidence as to why. Potential mitigation measures could include:
Use of the tightest available Euro standard for NRMM;
Use of Euro VI and 6 vehicles by contractors and sub-contractors HGVs and Euro 6 LGVs.
The Council notes that there is no mention of ship emissions in Table 23.3. The assessment will determine whether mitigation is required for emissions from ships.
The Council recommends that mitigation should be defined in more detail following the assessment.
3.6.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
At this stage, before the assessment has been carried out, it is hard to judge whether the residual effects are appropriately defined. The Council acknowledges that Chapter 23 identifies earthworks at the Moorside Site as a potential residual effect e.g. earthworks required for the excavation of the nuclear island location, the clearance and levelling of the remainder of the Moorside Site and the construction of the earthworks due to the scale of the works required and the proximity of the dwellings in the south of Beckermet and in the Blackbeck area along the A595.
3.6.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council acknowledges that Section 6.10.2 considers cumulative effects and six identified projects are ruled out on the basis that “they are located outwith the Zones of Influence of the Moorside Project Sites”. It is said that this will be kept under review pending the availability of information from the respective developers regarding their own air quality ZoIs. The Council suggests rather than referring to ZoIs, the cumulative effects should consider the impact of each of the projects on the study area of the Moorside sites e.g. what is the increase in road traffic on the road under study and/or what is the predicted impact on air concentration due to a named aspect of the project on the receptors under study for Moorside. It may be that the impacts are in fact negligible but it would be more transparent to report the predicted impact of those projects before discounting them.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 70
The Council notes that the four projects not ruled out on the basis of ZoIs are described but not properly assessed.
The Council recommends considering the cumulative impacts qualitatively as far as possible without use of ZoI as a scoping device.
3.6.9 Key Issues/Gaps requiring further Consultation
The Council identifies no key issues/gaps requiring further consultation.
3.6.10 Summary Comments
The Council recommend that:
Monitoring started in March 2016 should run to at least December 2016. Monitoring that does not cover summer and winter months should be treated with caution;
The action on Zones of Influence for sensitive ecological receptors between 2km and 10km from the site should be completed.
The Council acknowledges that the full assessment is awaited at which time the following is anticipated:
Use of the EPUK/IAQM 2015 method for assessment of significance;
Use of the IAQM 2014 method for assessment of dust and PM10 due to construction, potentially supplemented by an analysis of local meteorological data;
Consider cumulative impacts qualitatively as far as possible without use ZoI as a scoping device;
Similar to the noise assessment, Moorside will have a construction programme of a significant length, and the Council considers that the influence of the duration of the exposure should be taken into account in determining the likelihood of significant effects in both EIA and HIA terms; and
Detailed mitigation on the basis of the outcome of the assessment.
3.7 Landscape and Visual
This section of the Council’s consultation response presents a review of landscape and visual matters for the Moorside proposals which has been informed through reference to Chapter 7 (landscape) and Chapter 8 (visual) of the PEIR material.
3.7.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council notes that the expected Policy, Legislative and guidance documents are listed.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 71
3.7.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The issues raised in the Stage 1 Consultation appear to have been addressed. The baseline study and data presented to date in respect of the main site is broadly adequate for this Stage 2 consultation.
3.7.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council notes that the adequacy and record of consultation to date appears broadly adequate.
3.7.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The visual chapter does not contain criteria tables for the assessment of value and susceptibility of visual receptors. The Council would welcome these aspects to be described for each receptor/group of receptors in discursive text in the assessment section of the draft Environmental Statement.
The Council questions whether the significance evaluation matrix, provided in Chapter 3, is proposed to be used in the final Environmental Statement. If so there are concerns that it may not be adequate. The introduction of an additional ‘potentially significant’ category is confusing. It is suggested that the final Environmental Statement should assess effects as either significant or not significant and clearly defines the threshold between significant and non-significant effects.
It is considered that the major category in the significance evaluation matrix is broader than any other criteria. For example to demonstrate this, taking a very highly sensitive receptor, it would receive the same major effect from changes of a very high through to a low magnitude. The Council considers it more appropriate to subdivide the major significance category to describe effects on a very highly sensitive receptor, as a result of changes predicted to be either high or very high in magnitude.
The Council notes that the PEIR lacks any definition of typical criteria for the significance ratings. These could be provided in individual topic chapters as appropriate. The incomplete nature of the assessment in terms of temporal scope makes it difficult to understand the overall potential for significant effects. The PEIR does not provide any description or assessment of effects resulting from:
The construction of the Associated Development sites (this is excluded in paragraphs 8.2.3, 8.10-8.13, but included at 8.5.10);
The operation of the Additional Sites, or
The decommissioning of any of the proposed development.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 72
3.7.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council considers it difficult to judge whether the methodology has been applied, because the preliminary assessments do not set out in any detail in respect of the professional judgements made on the value and susceptibility to change for visual receptors.
The nature of change is briefly described for each receptor group in Table 8.9 under ‘Rationale’. This level of detail and focus on magnitude is variable, but broadly adequate for PEIR. This is welcomed.
The assessment appears to be incomplete, as Table 8.9 Summary of Predicted Visual Effects does not include rows for the off shore views.
The Council acknowledges that visual receptors have been grouped into large groups. As an example with reference to the main site; visual receptor groups include Residents in Beckermet – southern areas: south of Nursery Rd and Braystones Rd; and Users of National Cycle Route 72, but there is no quantification of the number of receptors affected. For instance the number of dwellings with direct views and the number with oblique restricted views, or the length of the NCR with different types of view. The Council recommends the provision of visual receptors and visual effects drawings in the draft Environmental Statement. These can be a simple and graphic means of quantifying and illustrating the location, number, lengths and types of receptors, direction and nature of views, sensitivity and significance of effects on receptors.
In addition to this, it is noted that the grouping of visual receptors may need refining. If either the sensitivity of or magnitude of change to receptors varies within a group, they should not be grouped. The same examples given above the magnitudes of change vary throughout the receptor groups such that the significance of effects varies significantly. In the case of residents in Beckermet – southern areas: south of Nursery Rd and Braystones Rd, magnitude varies from medium to very high leading to significance ranging from the high end of the major category to the low end of it. In the case of users of National Cycle Route 72, magnitude varies from very low to very high resulting in minor (non-significant) effects on some and major significant effects on others. This highlights the need to consider disaggregating such visual receptor groups as appropriate for the final assessment.
The Council recommends NuGen to provide the following:
PEIR offshore views;
Brief assessments for value and susceptibility leading to sensitivity for visual receptors;
Quantify receptors affected in groups or affected lengths of routes and refined aggregation of receptors into groups where appropriate.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 73
3.7.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation measures ‘incorporated’ into the proposed development have been briefly described in Tables 7.2, 8.6 and Chapter 23. Due to the preliminary nature and brief descriptions of the measures provided it is not possible to assess whether the measures proposed are adequate to address the impacts.
At paragraph 4.21-4.24 of GLVIA3 and at Section 6.5.1 Current Practice in EIA Mitigation of IEMA’s Special Report – The State of Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in the UK IEMA (2011), mitigation measures are split into three distinct categories:
Table 11 Mitigation Measures in Line with Current Best Practice
The PEIR only appears to describe mitigation measures, which fit into the first ‘primary’ category. However, there is also reference to construction measures in Chapter 23, under transport for example, but not in the landscape or visual tables. The Council recommends that NuGen should clarify a consistent approach to the description of mitigation measures.
There also is likely to be a need for secondary mitigation measures once the residual effects are understood and the means by which these will be secured, managed and monitored to guarantee their successful delivery.
To this end NuGen’s strategy for mitigation should be set out and described in terms of the categories above and in relation to the temporal scope of the assessment and the iterative design process.
In our review of the PEIR, the Council could not find information which clearly sets out NuGen’s mitigation strategy in relation to the temporal scope of assessment. In order for the reader to understand the purpose and effectiveness of proposed landscape mitigation, it should be made clear in
Mitigation Category
GLVIA 3 IEMA
1 Primary measures developed
through the iterative design
process which have become
integrated or embedded into the
project design.
Actions undertaken by the
EIA that influence the
design stage
2 Standard construction or
operational management practices
Standard construction
practices
3 Secondary measures designed to
address any residual effects
Specified follow-up action
to be implemented post-
consent
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 74
the Environmental Statement at what stages the effects assessment has been carried out and presented and how these effects are to be mitigated.
Common practice in LVIA normally follows the process below:
Firstly assessing the effects as a result of proposed development including any non-planting mitigation measures as a result of
The construction phase; and
Operation of the development in the first year;
Then describing the landscape mitigation measures designed into the development to reduce the effects; and
Finally assessing the residual effects following establishment of the landscape mitigation at year 15.
The Council found that the PEIR assessment seems to go straight to the last stage, presenting residual effects without adequately distinguishing and describing landscape proposals and their mitigating effect. Whilst it is appreciated that this may be a product of the preliminary nature of the design development so far, it is important that the approach to designing landscape mitigation and its inclusion in the temporal scope of the assessment is understood early and agreed with consultees. For example, with regard to the northern landscaping mounds, it is not clear how the mounds are considered in terms of the mitigation hierarchy. It is not clear whether the mounds are considered to be a form of mitigation, screening views of the main development or whether they are considered an integral and necessary part of the proposed development giving rise to their own adverse visual effects, which in turn require landscape mitigation. It is appreciated that both of the above may be true, but clearly setting this out in relation to the temporal scope of effects assessment is necessary. It will be necessary to make an assessment of the effects as a result of the proposed development (including the mounds) and then a further assessment of the residual effects once any proposed landscape mitigation has become established.
The Council notes that the PEIR only describes generic types of mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the proposed development. There is no description of specific landscape or visual mitigation related to predicted effects. Thus there is no description of the means by which any mitigation would be secured. See also reference in the item above to the lack of temporal distinction between landscape and other forms of mitigation. The Council requests that the additional landscape mitigation measures being proposed to reduce the effect on key receptors are outlined at this stage.
The Council notes that secondary mitigation measures and enhancement (GLVIA paragraphs 4.35-4.37) have not yet been described.
The Council would like NuGen to provide a brief paper setting out their mitigation strategy as to how the iterative design and assessment process works, with specific reference to what is to be assessed as the development
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 75
pre mitigation and post mitigation and how the post mitigation effects will change over the establishment period.
3.7.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
As per commentary above, there is no distinction between effects pre and post mitigation. Therefore it has not been possible to determine whether the effects predicted in the PEIR are pre landscape mitigation effects or post mitigation residual effects. The Council also requests a specific chapter in EIA on ‘Potential Effect on Residual Amenity’ as opposed to just visual amenity. The Council considers this a key impact particularly in relation to neighbouring settlements and isolated residential properties in the vicinity (i.e. Beckermet and Braystones) and is not adequately covered in the other sections.
3.7.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
Due to the fact that the whole project has been assessed as many separate developments (the main site, the associated development and the multiple Additional Sites), an additional level of intra-project cumulative assessment is required. The Council acknowledges that whole project effects are discussed in the Sections 7.9 for landscape and 8.9 for visual.
In these sections, the assessors provide a useful summary of the likely effects on each group or type of receptor as a result of the construction effects of the main site and the operational effects of the Accommodation and Corkickle to Mirehouse railway site as an example. This summary is welcomed, but understood to be an example and a snapshot in the full life of the whole project. It does not include, for example, operation of the main site.
In the case of the whole project visual effects assessment, at paragraph 8.9.2, the cumulative nature of these effects is described and considered appropriate. Section 7.9 does not describe the cumulative nature of these effects, but instead at 7.9.6 states that whole project landscape effects are assessed as being at least equal to the highest level of landscape effect identified for that receptor. This is not considered adequate as it does not take into account the cumulative nature of these effects. For example, the Coastal Cliffs and Hills Landscape of County importance will receive effects from all development sites. Therefore, what is required is an assessment of the potential for all landscape effects on this receptor to accumulate and cause an overall cumulative effect, greater than those recorded for each, rather than what appears to have been provided, which is an assessment of the worst of these effects resulting from individual development sites. This could be a misinterpretation of the approach taken, but some clarification and consistency is required.
Additionally, consideration and a clear explanation is required as to how and why these whole project effects have been considered either as:
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 76
Primary effects in each relevant topic chapter; or
Intra-project cumulative effects
Given the uncertainty over the potential use of the port of Workington as part of the developments transport strategy, it is considered too early to scope the Tidal lagoon West Cumbria project out of the landscape and visual cumulative assessment. If any considerable development is proposed at Workington, when considered alongside the proposed MOLF, the tidal lagoon project should be included in the cumulative assessment especially in terms of potential cumulative effects on seascape and coastal land character.
The whole project effects section in the Environmental Statement should include:
A summary of all of the significant effects predicted as a result of all aspects of the proposed development.
An assessment of any instances where landscape and/or visual effects combine and give rise to greater effects on any receptors.
This latter assessment is similar to cumulative effects assessment, but distinct from it in that the resulting coincidental and sequential effects are all attributable to the proposed development. This is also distinct from intra-projects as it is only in regard to a single topic.
3.7.9 Key Issues/Gaps requiring further Consultation
The Council notes that the main gaps in the PEIR from a visual perspective are the following:
Missing visual baseline information for:
Offshore viewpoints in respect of the main site; and
The Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway line Site
Lack of clarity and any detail regarding mitigation proposals across the mitigation hierarchy and how measures will be considered in the effects and residual effects assessment. Once designed the means of securing these measures will need confirmation;
Partial and incomplete temporal scope of assessment making appreciation of the site specific and whole project effects impossible at this stage;
Incomplete nature of the whole project effects assessment in the PEIR.
Summary Comments.
The Council concludes that the baseline and methodology are broadly adequate but have some gaps. The assessment is incomplete, even for PEIR stage, largely as a result of lack of definition in respect of project and mitigation design.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 77
The Council need to establish whether any additional viewpoints should be included in the LVIA and are concerned that the assessment is not explicit enough to fully understand the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal.
3.8 Countryside Recreation
This section of the Consultation Response presents the Council’s comments on countryside recreation matters for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 9 of the PEIR material, figures and appendices. Where appropriate, reference is made to the Council’s response to consultation on the EIA Scoping Report and wider topic specific discussions relating to Countryside Recreation.
3.8.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context and has no further requirements of this section at this point in time.
3.8.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council notes that as previously recommended, regard has been given to national usage comparators (section 9.4.13), the Copeland Borough Council open space assessment (section 9.4.14) and Environment Agency records on river usage (section 9.4.16).
The Council recognises that user surveys are yet to be undertaken and a methodology has not yet been agreed (section 9.4.32). During the quarterly (Q1) meeting held on 13th June 2016 it was agreed that the survey proforma and proposed sampling technique would be circulated for comment as soon as possible, with surveys to take place during school holidays to capture peak usage. It is noted that the Zone of Influences (ZoIs) could alter based on the ZoIs of other disciplines (Table 9.2 first row). It is unclear as to why some of the event locations in section 9.8.6 are in quoted italics.
Specific to Moorside baseline data, the first two bullets in section 9.8.8 seem to contradict each other. The Council notes that baseline information is still required for the area south of Calder Bridge and east of Sellafield.
It is recommended that comparison of counter data with other national usage records provides a useful comparator and will enable a more justified/evidence based assessment.
It is somewhat surprising and counter intuitive that usage levels of both Sustrans Route 72 and coastal footpath are low on Saturdays and it would be useful for the Council to understand potential reasons for this when NuGen undertook the user surveys. In particular, if any limitations were imposed these should be specified in the Countryside and Recreation assessment.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 78
The Council notes that features MS34, MS35, and MS36 still require walkover surveys.
As noted by the Council during Stage 1 Consultation, the future baseline assessment to be incorporated within the Environmental Statement will require a review of all proposed development using the relevant planning portal. The Council queries whether consideration has been given to the Copeland Borough Council Infrastructure Deficit Paper and the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Seven, as suggested by the Council during Stage 1 Consultation.
The Council would like the opportunity to comment on survey methodology and interview proforma. It would be useful for the Council to understand when the ZoIs will be finalised given the wider context that the proposals are now subject to formal Stage 2 Consultation with a degree of project maturity anticipated.
3.8.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
Consultation is yet to be undertaken with local community groups and certain special interest groups (section 9.4.46/9.5.6) and the Council acknowledges that this is now planned for summer 2016. Responses to consultation comments previously raised by the Council in Table 9.2 are generally considered acceptable. It will be particularly important that the Council is given an opportunity to review and comment upon consultation provided to NuGen by others. It is presumed that this opportunity will be presented shortly following completion in summer 2016.
3.8.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that section 9.1.5 states that amenity effects (e.g. through loss of availability of a resource that is convenient to use or valued, or a change in its character) are now assessed within this chapter whereas effects on human health are included within the Health Impact Assessment. This is accepted as a logical approach. However, there does not appear to be any methodology set out for the amenity assessment and the Council seeks clarity on that matter.
The Council is unclear if the same methodology is being applied to open spaces as well as common land, if any informal open spaces are being lost these also need to be replaced. During the quarterly (Q1) meeting on 13th June 2016 it was confirmed that no informal open spaces are likely to be lost however amenity effects on these would be considered.
A category has been included on page 9-67 for ‘Recreational users enjoying distant views of the site’, the Council would like to know whether this will just be extracted from the LVIA chapter. If this is intending to cover an amenity assessment, it should be combined with other effects such as noise/air quality to ensure completeness.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 79
The Council notes that the methodology for whole project effects shown in Table 9.21 is not clear and further detail is required for the approach to assessing whole project effects.
Section 9.2.3 states that as there is no standard methodology for assessing countryside access and recreation impacts, “the methodology adopted has been determined in the light of the author’s past experience of EIAs and guidance provided by key authorities”, this should also include reference to best practice and other NSIP/major infrastructure EIA examples e.g. Hinkley Point C and HS2 amongst others. The Council has an expectation that Hinkley in particular should inform NuGen’s approach to Countryside Recreation noting the very different context in West Cumbria and Somerset which should clearly be reflected.
The Council notes that the assessments in Table 9.16 onwards seem to show one assessment per resource, which covers both amenity and land take effects. It is suggested these two types of effects are addressed separately to ensure transparency and clarity.
3.8.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
It is suggested that the sensitivity of effect ratings in Table 9.4 should also give consideration to the sensitivity of the user in terms of changes to the environment. For example, activities which require a very quiet environment would be more susceptible to a change in amenity. This builds on the Council’s suggestion at Stage 1 Consultation that consideration should be given to the ability of users to absorb change.
It is suggested that the magnitude of effect ratings outlined in Table 9.5 also gives consideration to the length of effect. For example, if an effect is very short in nature it could be appropriate to reduce the magnitude rating. This was also suggested by the Council during Stage 1 Consultation.
The Council would suggest that separate magnitude assessments are required for land take versus amenity effects. Amenity should look at cumulative environmental effects on users e.g. a combination of noise, visual and air quality effects. This was also suggested through the Council’s feedback during Stage 1 Consultation.
The Council notes that the amenity assessment should also be applied to community and business resources which is not covered by this chapter of the PEIR and that there should be a consistent approach to the assessment of these topics. This was also suggested during Stage 1 Consultation.
There are no clear conclusions on amenity effects, there are references to “reducing amenity value” however it is not clear if this is based on other topic conclusions or professional judgement. These need to be categorised as per the landtake effects with a conclusion regarding significance of effect.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 80
3.8.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The PEIR states that mitigation will seek to “retain an adequate supply of open space and countryside access resources as required by policy in NPS EN-1 and local planning policies” (section 9.6.1), this is considered a suitable approach.
Whilst PROW diversions are under consideration, “the design of other measures is still being progressed” (section 9.6.3). Mitigation measures outlined in Table 9.3 are largely focused on diversions and provision of alternatives – consideration also needs to be given to how amenity effects would be addressed. For example, if walkers would experience a combination of visual and noise effects, it may be appropriate to provide green screening. These measures may be identified by other topics but also need referencing in this chapter. There are a limited number of references to amenity mitigation for the Mirehouse Site but these are high level. This information should evolve quickly and be provided to the Council to assist with reconciling approaches to mitigation, legacy, Planning Requirements and S106 Obligations.
A number of footpaths are noted to be unused due to poor maintenance. The Council would like to know if there is any opportunity to improve the usability of these resources as part of the project and as a positive legacy associated with its introduction. Enhancements listed at section 9.11.1 could include improvements to the resources subject to a loss of amenity.
3.8.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council considers that residual landtake effects have been appropriately considered, with suitable mitigation measures provided. However, the Council notes that the amenity effects are not well defined and the methodology relating to them is not clear.
3.8.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
Confirmation is required that no significant amenity effects are likely as a result of cumulative construction activities from the ongoing hazard reduction and decommissioning programme at Sellafield and the proposals for the North West Coast Connection Project.
3.8.9 Key Issues / Gaps requiring further Consultation
The key issues and gaps which require further consultation with Copeland Borough Council and wider stakeholders prior to submission are identified above.
3.8.10 Summary Comments
The Council notes that progress has been made following comments at Stage 1 Consultation, however further work is needed to finalise the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 81
methodology for amenity and residual effects resulting from this. This could require further mitigation measures which will need to be discussed and agreed with the Council prior to finalisation. The Council notes that ongoing technical meetings and an opportunity to review the draft Environmental Statement in due course will be highly important in providing increased confidence to address these matters.
3.9 Socio-economics
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 Consultation response on socio-economic matters for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 10 of the PEIR material. Where relevant, this response makes reference to technical meetings held between NuGen and the Council as well as the Council’s prior response to the Planning Inspectorate on EIA Scoping.
3.9.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council notes that key policies and legislation are referenced, but would suggest that the HM Government’s publication Sustaining Our Nuclear Skills (2015) is also referenced.
3.9.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council welcomes the updated construction workforce estimates based on Westinghouse Electrical Company’s (WEC) experience of AP1000 technologies now used which is a major step forward from Stage 1 Consultation.
The Council acknowledges an interesting analysis undertaken by Working Futures for the Cumbria LEP area (undated and unreferenced) referred to in the Proposed Scheme Stage 2 Consultation document (page 89) on local employment. The construction employment numbers differ slightly although the need to provide accommodation for 4000 workers is consistent.
It would be useful if the source documents used in the Baseline analysis (Table 10.1) were dated. The Council recommends that the Cumbria Business Survey needs to be referenced by a foot note.
The Council notes that the Workforce Development Strategy is a “work in progress”. The Proposed Scheme Stage 2 Consultation document gives further insights such as targets to be agreed for apprenticeships, work experience etc. The Supply Chain Strategy is a “work-in-progress”.
NuGen has gone on record as being committed to seeking to maximise the use of UK and Cumbrian based businesses in the supply chain and maximising the number of local people accessing employment during construction and the operation of the plant. Both strategies could have implications for legacy, maximising impacts and the achievement of NuGen’s economic and employment aims. The precise workforce and supply chain requirements have yet to be defined with the preliminary
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 82
assessment based on 6,500 construction workers at peak in year 9. It is recommended that once defined, the important emerging Workforce and Supply Chain strategies and plans should be reviewed by the Local Authorities and County Council as this would assist in defining realistic outcomes, outputs and potential impacts bearing in mind the additional supply chain expenditure could be between £20m-£40m retained in Cumbria per annum.
The Council awaits the results of further survey work on visitor accommodation businesses.
3.9.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The following themes or issues raised through consultation bear a close resemblance to those raised by the Council to date:
Local businesses/supply chain: Evidence base to understand capabilities required to underpin the Supply Chain Strategy. It is understood that a confidential study has been prepared by Nuclear AMRC which shows that the UK is capable of WEC Small Modular Reactor (SMR) manufacture. Like the AP1000, the WEC SMR is also a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). The study may provide further insights to the capacity and capability of the UK supply chain in the UK and Cumbria. Evidence base awaited. Potential interventions indicated are encouraging.
Employment: The Council notes that the Employment evidence base and recommendations awaited and potential interventions are encouraging;
Social and community infrastructure: response is encouraging.
The Council notes that Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) is missing within the list of Consultees. The Council understands that both the LEP and NuGen are developing a shred approach to Employment and Skills (see page 89 of the Proposed Scheme Stage 2 Consultation document). Other bodies and stakeholders referenced include Centre of Nuclear Excellence (CoNE), University of Cumbria; National Skills Academy for Nuclear.
The Stage 2 Consultation document incorrectly refers to the LEP as the Cumbria Local Economic Partnership (page 58) and confusingly the Local Enterprise Council (page 89). The Council assume that the latter should read “Local Enterprise Partnership Skills Plan”. The Council notes that the last paragraph on page 89 also has a strange introductory sentence.
Collaborative working is also highlighted in the introduction to the Stage 2 Consultation document. The Council recommends that the consultation response in Section 10.3 to be expanded in due course to reflect the emerging framework and stakeholders involved. The omissions may be due to the timing of drafting.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 83
3.9.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the criteria for sensitivity of socio-economic receptors and for assessing the characteristics of socio-economic effects are clear.
Youth unemployment and under-employment are not evident and this may be addressed/included in the emerging Workforce Strategy.
The Council is unclear on the potential displacement effects identified in the Business Survey and questions whether this may be addressed in the emerging Workforce Strategy.
The Proposed Scheme Stage 2 Consultation document (page 90) highlights a number of key initiatives to be developed and considered with LAs and Training Providers. Such initiatives must be robust and evidence driven and will have immediate development and socio-economic implications as well as legacy implications. The evidence for such interventions will need to be clearly set out and could contribute to a business case to enable stakeholder/partner to revise intervention priorities as appropriate.
3.9.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council notes that the assessment of significance is predicated on emerging evidence and expert judgment. The assessment may be revised within the Environmental Statement following more detailed analysis and refinement in engineering design. This may also affect the mitigation proposals such as the provision of worker accommodation.
Subject to the above, the assessment of construction activity at the Moorside Site suggests that the construction phase of the scheme will have a number of beneficial Significant effects (additional wealth, business base diversification, direct and indirect employment and the multiplier effect of local wage expenditure on goods and services) with the magnitude of beneficial change accruing in Copeland.
It should be noted that if the local labour market is found to be “tight”, there could be issues with displacement. Any significant displacement effects would mean that the net impact of the project may be less than the gross impact expected for the project during construction phase. A tight labour market is also likely increase requirements for non-local/international employees. A high contingent of international labour related to specific skills gaps will have particular consequences for service delivery and social cohesion.
In terms of visitor economy, overall assessment is potentially “significant” subject to appropriate transport measures and the accommodation strategy. Preliminary worst case suggests an overall assessment of adverse effects in Copeland.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 84
The Council acknowledges that moderate adverse effects have been identified for the 1,500 non-home based workers requiring accommodation with potentially significant effects for the private rented sector, school places and health services.
The Council notes that the survey work on visitor accommodation businesses remains outstanding. This is required to establish the potential accommodation supply which could be used by the construction workforce.
Further work required includes defining the exact workforce and supply chain requirements. Detail is required on the intended segmentation of the construction and main operational workforce required.
3.9.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council acknowledges that the preliminary assessment is predicated on further work/analysis. The employment and supply chain impacts will be dependent on the procurement approach adopted by NuGen/WEC and any targets agreed with LA and stakeholder partners. This will determine the potential magnitude of change and hence mitigation measures required. The rationale and interventions proposed are encouraging. It is noted that the initial analysis of supply chain and workforce potential is based on an understanding of NuGen’s intention to put in place measures to promote local supply chain and employment benefits.
The proposed scheme highlights the objectives of a procurement strategy. It is assumed that the objectives will be refined following consultation.
3.9.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council notes that the assessment has identified a number of residual, significant adverse effects, including effects on capacity in the private rented housing sector, local health services and education. Additional mitigation measures will be required to bring these effects to an acceptable level.
At this preliminary assessment stage there is insufficient information available to determine the most appropriate mitigation measures. It is understood that these will be assessed and set out in detail in the Environmental Statement. It is suggested that emerging mitigation proposals should be explored with the Las at the earliest opportunity.
3.9.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council acknowledges that a number of major developments which could compete for workers. Key projects referenced include the decommissioning of Sellafield, BAE Systems based at Barrow-in-Furness and off-shore wind farms; National Grid North West Coast Connections Programme and West Cumbria Mining Project, Whitehaven and so on. However, the Council notes that the timeframes not clear.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 85
The potential for significant cumulative effects associated with the competition for and recruitment of workers is likely to be greatest during the construction phase when the demand for workers, many with a similar skillset to those required by Sellafield Ltd, is greatest. Similarly with purchasing goods and services locally, particularly during the construction phase of development. Cumulative impacts on the housing market, social and community infrastructure is likely to be limited, assuming no change in the Sellafield workforce.
The Council notes that there is limited information available BAE Systems based at Barrow-in-Furnace but potentially significant effects could occur on workforce requirements during construction and potential pressure on local housing markets and community services, potentially significant effects.
The Council notes that information is limited on the socio-economic implications on the remainder.
3.9.9 Key Issues/Gap requiring Consultation
Key issues/ gap requiring consultation have been addressed in the sections above in terms of construction workforce occupational profile, operational workforce occupational profile, procurement approach, Supply Chain and Workforce strategies and details of other competing construction and nuclear development programmes/NSIP.
Refreshed housing market and community/social infrastructure to “fill gaps” or reflect changes resulting from above.
The Council recommends that assessment of effects should be reviewed once the above have been completed
3.9.10 Summary Comments
The assessment should be considered as “work-in-progress” because quantitative analysis has yet to be completed and a number of other strategies have yet to be developed e.g. Workforce Development and Supply Chain Strategies which will play a key role in maximising the potential benefits locally. The assessment underpinning the PEIR is therefore based on ‘expert judgement’ of the available data and may be revised later in the consent process e.g. with the Environment S or when the analyses are complete.
In view of the “work-in-progress” status, it has been necessary to also review/cross check other Stage 2 Consultation documents in the public domain such as the Moorside Proposed Scheme Stage 2 Consultation document and the Non-technical Summary for consistency and additional/more developed analysis. The Council has also drawn on papers, presentations and discussions held with NuGen, Regeneris and other stakeholders to inform our understanding of the latest position with regard to emerging proposals and policy.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 86
Preliminary assessment findings show the complex and interrelated nature of the socio-economic theme. The next stage needs strong leadership if the potential for the businesses, places and people of Copeland is to be realised.
3.10 Soils, Geology and Land Quality
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 Consultation response on soils, geology and land quality matters for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 11 of the PEIR material. Where relevant, this response makes reference to technical meetings held between NuGen and the Council as well as the Council’s prior response to the Planning Inspectorate on EIA Scoping.
3.10.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context and no further information is sought at this time.
3.10.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
It is understood that the baseline data so far has been obtained from a ‘Preliminary Phase 1 geo-environmental desk study’ on the ‘majority’ of the Moorside site, which implies that some of the site or sites has not yet been covered. The Moorside Project data gathering report for Quarter 4 (October - December) 2015 (Soils, Geology and Land Quality) indicated that the remainder of the site would be addressed through desk study research during the first quarter of 2016, although this has not been acknowledged in the PEIR.
Additional baseline data has been obtained from an initial (Phase 2) intrusive investigation which provides summary information on the geology, hydrogeology, geotechnics and some preliminary interpretation of land quality issues has been undertaken. The Moorside Project data gathering report for Quarter 4 (October - December) 2015 (Soils, Geology and Land Quality) and follow-up meeting with NuGen and the PEIR indicate that a second stage ground investigation is currently underway to further inform the baseline conditions across the whole of the site and to address specific issues highlighted by desk study and to confirm possible anomalies highlighted by interpretation of the initial intrusive investigation. The Council notes no results and interpretation are yet reported for this second stage GI (site characterisation) and thus this information is not available to support Stage 2 Consultation.
The Council notes that baseline data and interpretation is not presented in detail within the PEIR and anticipates that this detail will be provided in due course within a draft Environmental Statement.
In the main, the Stage 1 Consultation issues identified by the Council and points discussed at the quarterly meetings are being addressed by NuGen,
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 87
although the programme for this activity appears to have slipped compared to what had been expected and results of investigations / interpretation has not been well developed yet. It had been expected that the location and layout of the nuclear island would be fixed by this stage but so far these details have not been provided.
The PEIR considers the construction and operational phase of the Moorside Power Station only and assumes that the effects of decommissioning will not have a greater potential detrimental effect on potential receptors. This appears reasonable but further commentary on decommissioning activities would be helpful noting that specific provisions exist under the Nuclear Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning) Regulations, 1999, as amended for the nuclear plant.
The Council recommends full assessment and interpretation of data being gathered from the second stage intrusive investigation when complete.
The Council recommends provision of a justification that residual effects of decommissioning will not be greater than for the construction and operational phases.
3.10.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council notes that consultees consisting of Natural England, Cumbria County Council, Copeland Borough Council and the EA have raised issues which are included within Table 11.1 of the PEIR. Particular mitigation/addition work suggested by NuGen to address issues raised through consultation include:
A Soil Management Plan developed to address appropriate re-use of soils;
Further information to be added to the baseline when survey information becomes available;
Resolution of ground instability and ground contamination issues to be addressed during detailed design of the scheme.
In general terms, the information in the PEIR follows the information disclosed during consultation at quarterly meetings, and this reflects the slower rate of progress than expected in terms of programme of activity e.g. with the interpretation of Stage 1 investigation data and the programme of the Stage 2 intrusive investigation. However, the Council notes that not all items discussed in the Q4 meetings were reported in the PEIR and would seek reassurances that these matters will be resolved in the draft Environmental Statement and presented to the Council for review and comment in due course.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 88
3.10.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The assessment methodology appears appropriate and in line with that presented for Stage 1 Consultation. However, little technical detail is presented in the PEIR and is anticipated for inclusion within the draft Environmental Statement which the Council expects to receive in due course. The Council notes that the relevant receptors have been identified.
During Stage 1 Consultation, the Council advised that the assessment tables (Summary of Predicted Residual Effects) appeared relatively generic but that they provided a good overview of the data collected to that point. The Council also commented that there were blanks in some tables where insufficient baseline and/or design information was available at that time to assess the magnitude or significance. The mitigation statements were generic. The Council notes that generally only minor changes to these tables have been undertaken since Stage 1 Consultation but further baseline information gained from the further intrusive investigations and associated interpretation should allow a more complete picture to emerge. It will be crucial that this information is shared with the Council in advance of DCO submission.
3.10.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council notes that the judgements presented within the PEIR appear to have been based on the methodology but there appears to be a lack of specific base data presented along with justification for the conclusion presented in the PEIR.
Given that further intrusive work is underway then the Council conclusion is that the sensitivity/magnitude interpretation, while generally appearing reasonable given our understanding of the site, is subject to reassessment and confirmation by NuGen, since this is effectively ‘work in progress’.
The Council is of opinion that the draft Environmental Statement will need to provide significantly more detail to allow the methodology to be confirmed.
Further work is required to resolve matters regarding assessment conclusions include completion and interpretation of studies currently underway and further complete presentation of data.
3.10.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that the mitigation measures outlined so far appear very generic reflecting a limited level of detail upon which these might reasonably be based. The Council anticipates that these will become more specific when the assessment work is complete, although it is indicated by NuGen that mitigation will be addressed more completely during the detailed design phase. In the interim, it would be useful if NuGen could present more
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 89
specific /detailed measures for the works anticipated as part of a scheme design package.
Certainly, mitigation measures will need to be addressed more completely in the draft Environmental Statement but this will require a more complete assessment of baseline data.
The Council recommends that mitigation could be provided by (inter alia) the following:
Soils Management Plan – covering re-use of soils;
Remediation Strategy / Method Statement - for approval of the Council / through review of the draft Environmental Statement and potentially secured through Planning Requirements.
3.10.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The residual effects outlined in Section 11.14 and Table 11.6 of the PEIR considers the construction and operational phase of the Moorside Power Station only and assumes that the residual effects of decommissioning will not have a greater potential detrimental effect on potential receptors. This appears reasonable but further commentary on decommissioning activities and justification for this conclusion would be helpful noting that that specific provisions exist under the Nuclear Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning) Regulations, 1999, as amended for the nuclear plant.
Table 11.6 indicates that, so far, insufficient information is available to assess the residual effects associated with damage/degradation of sub-soil and topsoil during stripping, excavation, handling, stockpiling etc. However, presumably this information should be available from geotechnical assessment from the current stage of GI and from an ongoing assessment of bulk earthworks / from which a soils management plan can be developed. The Council would seek further clarity on this matter.
The Council notes that the range of residual effects listed in Table 11.6 appear reasonable. Generally, the residual effects all appear to be minor except for the predicted loss of agricultural land as a result of the development. However, the table should be regarded as ‘work in progress’ and the Council anticipates an updated version to be provided in due course.
The Council notes that the discussion at the Environmental Assessment technical quarterly meetings suggest work is ongoing but it is not presented or captured in the PEIR. This will need to be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement to follow.
The Council recommends reassessment of residual effects following completion and interpretation of site characterisation GI which is ongoing.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 90
3.10.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
It is not clear how NuGen proposes to address cumulative effects for Soils, Geology and Land Quality. However, the Council notes the value of effective soil waste / resource management being explored across all sites under the Claire Code of Practice. The Council notes that further assessment of project interactions are required in the draft Environmental Statement and this is anticipated in due course.
The Council recommends consistent cross referencing between the soils, geology and land quality assessment with air quality, contaminated land arrangements and earthworks.
3.10.9 Key Issues / Gaps requiring further Consultation
The key issues requiring further consultation with CBC prior to submission relate to the incomplete assessment due to ongoing site characterisation GI which will further inform the baseline.
3.10.10 Summary Comments
The information to date appears to provide potential impacts for the scheme on soils for the construction and operational phases. However, the potential impacts during decommissioning are not discussed in detail and the assumption is that the impacts will not be worse than for the construction/ operational phase. The Council notes that justification will be required.
The Council acknowledges that the identified receptors appear appropriate.
The assessment is not yet complete requiring the results and interpretation of the GI currently being undertaken. This is expected to be presented in the draft Environmental Statement in due course.
Development of mitigation measures is required as well as full and detailed assessment of project interactions. This should also be set out within the draft Environmental Statement for review and comment by the Council.
3.11 Historic Environment
3.11.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context as it relates to the Historic Environment and have no further requirements at this time.
3.11.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council considers that the baseline data is adequate at this stage, comprising predominantly desk-based data for all sites, with reference to walkover survey results. Results of geophysical survey at Moorside site are
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 91
discussed with reference to specific archaeological periods. Sufficiently detailed list of assets included in the setting assessment is provided in Appendix A.
However the Council recommended that the results of the geophysical survey should be included in the appendix; this has not been actioned.
In terms of setting, each asset is described in sufficient detail to establish its basic characteristics, and the elements of setting that contribute to its significance. For the most part these descriptions are clear, and the conclusions are logical.
The Council notes that there are numerous textual errors throughout the baseline such as conservation area missing ‘area’, for instance, see paragraph 12.8.50/ 51, and some sentences that are not clear. The Council suggests a thorough proof-read on the document by someone that has not read it before to pick up on these errors.
The Council notes that the use of a greyscale base map on Figure 12.5 Moorside Historic Development would be more effective. At the A3 scale geophysics and plotted aerial photographs are barely visible, the Council suggests these require separate figures at appropriate scale.
The Council considers that baseline studies that were used to inform the PEIR should be included as appendices.
3.11.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council notes that Table 12.1 provides an accurate record of comments on consultation activity to date, and these have been addressed at an appropriate level for PEIR stage.
3.11.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the assessment methodology is in line with current best practice, and is appropriate.
3.11.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council welcomes that the assessment methodology is used consistently, and based on the current baseline data. The Council is in agreement with the initial significance of effect for each asset, and the rationale presented to support the assessed impact. However, at Ponsonby Church (GII), the Council considers that the magnitude of change would likely be medium rather than low, considering the elevated location of the church.
The Council would expect revision to take place to the preliminary assessment as the design and assessment progresses. Photographs would
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 92
help illustrate views towards the development from key listed/scheduled assets.
3.11.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that the mitigation measures proposed are appropriate for the impacts initially identified at this stage.
3.11.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
Based on the information presented, the residual effects described at this stage are logical, some potentially significant and significant construction and operational effects are predicted due to changes to the settings of listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments.
3.11.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects have been assessed in the sense of project-wide impacts upon the historic environment, however other unrelated developments have not been considered.
3.11.9 Summary Comments
The Council acknowledges that the PEIR is in general sufficient to provide an indication of likely impacts at this stage of the design development.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 93
3.12 Freshwater Environment - Groundwater
This section of the Council’s response to Stage 2 presents commentary on the Freshwater Environment (Groundwater) for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 13 of the PEIR material. Where relevant, this response draws upon technical meetings with NuGen and the Council’s prior response to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of EIA Scoping.
3.12.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context as it relates to the Freshwater Environment and have no further requirements at this time.
3.12.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council notes that the baseline data and interpretation is not presented in detail in the PEIR. At the Q4 Environmental Assessment Technical meeting held on 23rd February 2016, NuGen stated the intention to append the final Q4 monitoring report with more detailed analysis and interpretation but this has not been included in the PEIR. The Council would welcome more detail of the hydrogeological understanding of the site which was presented at the Q4 meeting than is included in the PEIR. This is a substantial information gap and therefore the PEIR can only be considered to provide a preliminary assessment of effects which the Council anticipates being expanded upon in the draft Environmental Statement.
Generally, the Council’s Stage 1 Consultation issues and points discussed at the quarterly meetings appear to be under review and response by NuGen, although the programme appears to have slipped in respect of what the Council had expected and results of investigations / interpretation has not been well developed at this time.
The Council would welcome a more detailed hydrogeological conceptual model based on site monitoring data and a calibrated numerical groundwater model representing baseline conditions (model also to be used to assess impacts of development). This is expected within the draft Environmental Statement which the Council anticipates receiving in due course.
Groundwater abstractions are identified on Figure 13.2 as potential receptors but no details are provided e.g. depth of boreholes and aquifer abstracted, abstraction rate and purpose. The Council would like to see if all relevant properties have been contacted to identify unregulated abstractions.
3.12.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council welcomes that the quarterly Environmental Assessment technical meetings with NuGen/AFW to date have been useful and
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 94
informative. However, the Council notes that the level of detail discussed at the quarterly meetings is not reflected in the PEIR. Several items were identified by NuGen at the Q4 meeting to be included in the PEIR, these items are outlined within slides 57, 58 and 59 of the Quarterly 4 Soils and Geology, Groundwater, Surface Water and Radiological presentation undertaken on 23rd February 2016.
Chapter 14 (14-4) states that the need for outflow monitoring on the Low Church Moss outflow is discussed in Chapter 13, however no detail is included to assess whether no outflow monitoring is justified, or if level monitoring is adequate.
3.12.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the assessments are not supported by quantitative analysis such as numerical groundwater modelling and very little technical detail is presented in the PEIR. It is understood this assessment is ongoing and NuGen state this will be included in the Environmental Statement, however at this stage it is a limitation on the Council’s capacity to respond on this matter. The scope and adequacy of the proposed modelling work has not been presented in the PEIR or previously at quarterly meetings.
The groundwater assessment (Chapter 13) should be consistent with the surface water assessment (Chapter 14). In Table 14.5 high sensitivity is assigned to water features supporting sites with national conservation designations (e.g. SSSI) whereas conservation sites are not a criteria in the groundwater assessment (Table 13.3) (and therefore Low Church Moss is assigned Low sensitivity in Chapter 13 as only water resources criteria are considered). It is unclear on how the assessment differentiates between temporary and permanent effects.
The Council would expect the scope of further assessments to be included in the draft Environmental Statement, including numerical modelling, which should be presented at the quarterly meetings.
It would be useful for a justification to be provided outlining residual effects of decommissioning will not be greater than for the construction and operational phases.
3.12.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
Table 13.2 identifies the ‘predicted changes and potential effects’ including:
Groundwater dewatering leading to reduction in groundwater levels, flow and quality;
Other changes in the groundwater regime caused by placement of permanent sub-water table structures; also consequential migration of any pre-existing contamination’
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 95
However, the Council notes that Chapter 2 does not include description of these aspects of the proposed development and no detailed technical assessment of these is included in the PEIR.
Table 13.2 also identifies ‘incorporated measures’ as mitigation:
Excavation/shaft/tunnel lining, cut-off wall(s) and drainage corridors;
Groundwater reinjection and/or surface flow augmentation, regular monitoring.
Similarly, the Council notes the description of these aspects of the development is not included in the PEIR.
The Council anticipates that the draft Environmental Statement should include detailed description of the baseline groundwater regime (e.g. flows, levels and quality) and changes as a result of the development. This should include the changes to groundwater regime and quality identified in Section 13.5.4 and Table 13.2 and the measures including those identified in Table 13.2. Each of these changes should be evaluated using appropriate quantitative techniques, such as numerical modelling. This is currently a significant gap that must be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement.
The Non-Technical Summary includes a figure showing groundwater levels at Low Church Moss that is not included in Chapter 13. The Council notes the absence of detailed data or graphical presentation is included in Chapter 13.
Section 13.5.4 (and Table 13.2) should identify new groundwater abstractions for water supply at Moorside as potentially causing a change in groundwater level. The Council notes that these effects must be considered in the draft Environmental Statement.
The Low Church Moss pond impact is identified as ‘Medium’ magnitude to a ‘Low’ sensitivity receptor (Table 13.8), resulting in ‘Minor (Not Significant)’ effect. However, this evaluation is premature, or its validity unknown, as the assessment has not yet been completed or presented. Section 13.8 states this evaluation is preliminary. In other chapters, such as Chapter 11, where the ‘assessment is incomplete and ongoing at this time and therefore the significance of the effects cannot be accurately predicted’ then the magnitude of change and significance of effect has not been stated. This would have been a more appropriate approach for those potential effects where there is significant uncertainty in Chapter 13.
The assessments of Low Church Moss pond receptor as a water resources receptor in Chapter 13 and Low Church Moss SSSI receptor as an ecological receptor in Chapter 18 must be ‘joined up’ and cross referenced. The ES should include quantitative assessment of the changes to the hydrological/hydrogeological regime at Low Church Moss, and this should inform the assessment of ecological effects.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 96
The Council notes the need for NuGen to differentiate between temporary and permanent effects within the chapter. It is unclear whether dewatering for groundwater control is only during construction or is there a permanent dewatering system to manage groundwater levels that must be considered during operation.
3.12.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
Table 13.2 lists ‘incorporated measures’ as mitigation as follows:
Excavation/shaft/tunnel lining, cut-off wall(s) and drainage corridors;
Groundwater reinjection and/or surface flow augmentation, regular monitoring.
However, the Council notes that no further information on the measures is included in the PEIR. This is a significant omission and additional information stating how these measures will mitigate impacts should be included in the draft Environmental Statement.
Section 13.11.2 states ’all of the mitigation measures which are anticipated will be required are incorporated into the development proposals’. This statement is considered premature considering the stage of development of the assessment.
The Council notes that further development of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the draft Environmental Statement for discussion and agreement with the Council.
3.12.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
As noted above, the assessment is still in progress and currently has significant gaps that should be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement in due course. Prior discussions at Environmental Assessment technical quarterly meetings suggest this work is ongoing however it has not been presented in the PEIR and is expected in the draft Environmental Statement.
3.12.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council notes that the cumulative effects have not been adequately addressed. Sellafield site decommissioning is identified as having interactions, potentially significant, with the Moorside site (see section 13.10.05), however no information on the nature of these interactions is presented. This is a significant omission that should be addressed in the Environmental Statement. Groundwater abstraction at Moorside for dewatering or water supply and other changes to the groundwater regime could affect the groundwater contaminant distribution associated with the Sellafield site.
The Council notes that other projects potentially having interactions and relevant cumulative effects are identified. Those sites excluded from the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 97
assessment are appropriate. Further assessment of the identified project interactions and cumulative effects is required in the Environmental Statement.
3.12.9 Key Issues / Gaps requiring further Consultation
The Council notes that the groundwater assessments are at a relatively early stage of development and the conclusions are preliminary only. Detailed interpretation of the baseline groundwater regime (including groundwater quality) and interactions with surface water has not been presented in the PEIR, and should be included in the draft Environmental Statement for Council review and comment. The scope of further work including numerical modelling should be presented at the next Environmental Assessment technical quarterly meetings.
The Council notes that predicted changes and potential effects are presented in generic outline only. The Environmental Statement should include detailed information relating to changes to the groundwater regime such as: changes to recharge distribution, dewatering and groundwater control (temporary and permanent), groundwater abstraction for water supply, subsurface barriers to groundwater flow, contaminant leaching from on-site soils, spills or leaks during construction and operation, and changes to baseline groundwater contaminant distribution.
Measures to mitigate effects, including those embedded in the scheme design should be presented in the Environmental Statement, and residual effects evaluated.
Potential effects on Low Church Moss cannot be established based on the information presented in the PEIR and much additional technical assessment and interpretation is required, supported by quantitative methods, to evaluate impacts and design appropriate mitigation.
3.12.10 Summary Comments
In general, the Council notes that there remains a lack of information in the PEIR upon which detailed commentary is possible. The Council would welcome further detailed information as outlined above, notably within the draft Environmental Statement when this becomes available.
3.13 Freshwater Environment – Surface Water
This section of the Council’s response to Stage 2 presents commentary on the Freshwater Environment (surface water) for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 14 of the PEIR material. Where relevant, this response draws upon technical meetings with NuGen and the Council’s prior response to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of EIA Scoping.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 98
3.13.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context as it relates to the Freshwater Environment (Surface Water) and have no further comments at this time.
3.13.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council notes that water quality in the aquatic environment at Moorside is well defined. However the PEIR still excludes consideration of water supply requirements for the NuGen site and associated developments, which are as yet undefined.
A very preliminary conceptual model of the Low Church Moss SSSI water dependent habitat is presented in Chapter 13, but no baseline data on the water balance or catchment draining to this site is yet present in the baseline assessment. The PEIR states that the new site will not drain to the SSSI, which begs the question of where its water supply will come from. Effects on this receptor are rightly identified as significant (High sensitivity; Medium Impact), if the SSSI’s catchment is largely within the footprint of the new development, the impacts could be High.
The Council notes that the baseline modelling of fluvial, coastal, surface water and groundwater flooding risks has not informed this PEIR, which remains highly-reliant on EA Flood Zone data, which can be indicative only on smaller watercourses. Surface water flooding is an important area for modelling as surface water flooding is disruptive and can occur when there is no river or coastal flooding. The impact of the EA’s new climate change guidance, which recommends a 70% uplift in peak river flows and a 40% uplift in peak rainfall intensities, when assessing impacts on Essential Infrastructure, including essential transport links, post 2079, will potentially have significant implications for this EIA. It is anticipated that Flood Risk Assessment of the Moorside site will include assessment of the impacts of the H++ scenario on the flood risk posed to the new development.
The Council notes that unlicensed water supplies may yet exist and the PEIR acknowledges that these may be identified.
The Council would welcome modelling of fluvial, surface and groundwater flood hazards, taking climate change into consideration over the lifetime of the scheme, using the new EA guidance.
If Low Church Moss SSSI is to be adequately protected and retained, then it will be critical to understand which areas drain to this site and the level of ground and surface water interaction.
3.13.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council welcomes that the quarterly Environmental Assessment technical meetings with NuGen/AFW to date have been useful and informative. However, the Council notes that the level of detail discussed
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 99
at the quarterly meetings is not reflected in the PEIR. Several items were identified by NuGen at the Q4 meeting to be included in the PEIR, these items are outlined within slides 57, 58 and 59 of the Quarterly 4 Soils and Geology, Groundwater, Surface Water and Radiological presentation undertaken on 23rd February 2016.
Chapter 14 (14-4) states the need for outflow monitoring on the Low Church Moss SSSI outflow is discussed in Chapter 13, however no detail is included to assess whether no outflow monitoring is justified, or if level monitoring is adequate.
Whilst it is clear that the Flood Risk Assessment will be included in the final EIA, with inclusion of all sources and will account for climate change impacts, it is challenging for the Council to assess the implications of this proposed development for flood risk based on the information provided.
The Council has previously suggested that positive effects should ideally be identified and reported on. There is limited evidence that this EIA process is actively influencing positive water environment outcomes on the Moorside site.
3.13.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council welcomes that the EIA methodology is well-developed. However the Council questions the classification of a water body as of low value based on its current WFD status, when the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) objectives will be for such water bodies to achieve good status (or potential) by 2027, unless this would be prohibitively expensive.
The surface water assessment (Chapter 14) should be consistent with the ground water assessment (Chapter 13). In Table 14.5 high sensitivity is assigned to water features supporting sites with national conservation designations (e.g. SSSI) whereas conservation sites are not a criteria in the groundwater assessment (Table 13.3) and therefore Low Church Moss SSSI is assigned low sensitivity in Chapter 13 as only water resources criteria are considered.
The Council notes that the assessments are not supported by quantitative analysis such as numerical modelling and very little technical detail is presented in the PEIR. It is understood this assessment is ongoing and NuGen state this will be included in the ES, however at this stage it is a major limitation in the methodology. The scope and adequacy of the proposed modelling work has not been presented in the PEIR or previously at quarterly meetings.
Water bodies should be assessed with regard to their future potential or future status if the development is to contribute towards achieving statutory RBMP objectives.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 100
The Council would expect the scope of further assessments to be included in the draft Environmental Statement, including numerical modelling, which should be presented at the quarterly meetings.
3.13.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council recognises that the assessment is so high level that the appropriateness of the methodology and assessment conclusions is difficult to assess.
The Council notes that it is difficult to see for example how a licensed effluent discharge to the River Ehen is “unlikely” from new works, if the works is proposed; nor why the magnitude of change would be Medium, if this was a licensed discharge that met Environment Agency requirements.
The Council agrees that impacts on Low Church Moss SSSI should be assessed as significant, pending a proper assessment. The Council questions whether the access bridge has been considered from the point of view of shading and impacts on fish movement.
3.13.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that the proposed mitigation as listed in Table 14.4 is adequate. Although the draft CEMP has no content on water issues as yet e.g. reference to Pollution Prevention Guidance, BS 6031 Code of practice for earthworks, relevant CIRIA guidance and little reference to monitoring. Therefore the Council notes that the CEMP remains very high level.
As outlined in Table 23.4, “design of new landscapes will incorporate areas of wetland/river and coastal features where these have been lost to the development, where appropriate. The creation of swales, settlement ponds and other related drainage techniques within the Moorside Site”. The Council notes that there are no obvious signs of this proposed mitigation anywhere on the drawings of the Moorside site.
As outlined in Table 23.11, “it is likely that surface water runoff from the power station site would be discharged directly to sea, in the latter stages of construction and during the operational phase of the Project”. The Council questions whether the impact of the areas that drain to the Low Church Moss SSSI have been factored in and how this impact will be mitigated.
3.13.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
As noted above, the assessment is still in progress and currently has gaps that should be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement. Discussion at the technical environmental assessment quarterly meetings suggested this work is ongoing however it has not been presented in the PEIR.
The Council notes the absence of data on water supply and data on wastewater disposal. There is no indication on drawings of how SuDS will
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 101
be incorporated into the design to manage surface water and no indication as to how any water lost to Low Church Moss SSSI, as a result of diversion into site drainage systems, will be compensated for. In addition there are no details of the proposed sea outfall.
3.13.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council notes that the cumulative effects have not been adequately addressed. The decommissioning of the Sellafield Site is identified as having interactions, potentially significant, with the Moorside site, however no information on the nature of these interactions is presented. This is a major omission that should be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement.
3.13.9 Summary Comments
In general, the surface water assessments are at a relatively early stage of development and the conclusions are preliminary only.
Numerical modelling of flood risks is proposed by NuGen to inform this assessment, as well as development of a hydrological model of Low Church Model SSSI. Potential effects on flood risk and on the integrity of Low Church Model SSSI cannot be established based on the information presented in the PEIR and much additional technical assessment and interpretation is required, supported by quantitative methods, to evaluate impacts and design appropriate mitigation.
The Council notes that the predicted changes and potential effects are presented in generic outline only.
Measures to mitigate effects, including those embedded in the scheme design are to be presented in the draft Environmental Statement, and residual effects evaluated, but there is little evidence that the current designs have incorporated specific mitigation to address water issues. The Council notes the absence of data on water supply and data on wastewater disposal. There is no indication on drawings of how SuDS will be incorporated into the design to manage surface water and no indication as to how any water lost to Low Church Moss SSSI, as a result of diversion into site drainage systems, will be compensated for. In addition there are no details of the proposed sea outfall. There are no details of how water features lost/removed on the footprint will be compensated for elsewhere. In general, there is a lack of design detail that makes this assessment commendably aspirational, but ultimately lacking in substance.
The scheme benefits and legacy says relatively little about Water Framework Directive and flood resilience issues and how the project could have a positive impact in both of these key areas.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 102
3.14 Marine Water and Sediment Quality, Marine Ecology and Marine and Coastal Physical Processes
This section of the Council’s response to Stage 2 presents commentary on the Marine Environment for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 15 (Marine and Coastal Physical), Chapter 16 (Marine Water and Sediment Quality), and Chapter 17 (Marine Ecology) of the PEIR material. Where relevant, this response draws upon technical meetings with NuGen and the Council’s prior response to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of EIA Scoping.
3.14.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context as it relates to the marine elements and have no further no further comments are requirements at this timed.
3.14.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Council notes that the baseline data has been adequately addressed for the marine environment.
3.14.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council welcomes that the quarterly Environmental Assessment technical meetings with NuGen/AFW to date have been useful and informative.
3.14.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the assessment methodology has been adequately addressed for the marine environment.
3.14.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council notes that the Beach Landing Facility is not described in any detail within the Project Description. In order to be able to understand the potential impacts arising from such a facility, the Council would need much more detail including the area of ‘beach’ likely to be impacted upon and the duration and timing of use. The Council recommends covering the potential impacts of the Beach Landing Facility on marine ecology and quality in the draft Environmental Statement.
The Council notes that the description of the MOLF given in the PEIR is different to the design of the MOLF discussed at the recent HRA and Quarterly meetings. At the last HRA meeting held on 27th May 2016, the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 103
Council was told that the MOLF would be a solid structure for the first 500m (i.e. the permanent MOLF) and that after this it would be a piled structure. The issue with the change in design from what was proposed in the PEIR is that it will change the outcome of impact assessments. A solid PEIR of 500m into the marine environment will impact differently to a piled structure where water is allowed to flow under the structure. At present, many of the marine impact assessments are based upon expert opinion rather than the results of the models produced. Given the fluidity of the design of the MOLF, and the lack of model outputs, at this stage, there is little credibility to any of the marine impact assessment conclusions. It should be made clear that the lack of detail in terms of MOLF means that the Council should be cautious about agreeing or not with any of the assessments undertaken.
Also, there are no details as to how the MOLF will be decommissioned. The Council is advised that the first 500m of the MOLF will likely be retained for the duration of the project however, the other 1.1km is likely to be removed. This raises the question of how the MOLF would be decommissioned and when are key aspects of the design which need to be considered in the EIA. For decommissioning that will happen in the short term, it is not sufficient to say it will be in line with best practice; further details will be required.
In Table 2.12 of the PEIR, “NuGen anticipates that in order to control various activities in and around the MOLF, such as precluding vessels and others from accessing certain areas (preventing diving, surfing and sailing boats for example), NuGen will need to establish a Harbour Authority. NuGen currently proposes to apply for a Harbour Empowerment Order with its application for a DCO”. It is worth highlighting that, once awarded, as a Harbour Authority, NuGen would have powers to undertake certain activities without the need for further planning permission or consents. This will depend on the exact details of the Harbour Empowerment Order (HEO). The Council expect to see the specific powers the HEO delivers clearly defined and explained in the DCO or ideally prior to the DCO being submitted.
As with the MOLF, there is a lack of detail as to what the Circulating Water Systems (CWS) will look like apart from understanding there will be a series of tunnels for both intake and discharge of water and some structures on the seabed (see Table 2.9 of PEIR). Without having more details on the marine structures, the Council advises that it is difficult to provide any sort of meaningful assessment of the PEIR impact assessment conclusions.
There is also lack of detail in respect to the Surface Water and Sewer Drainage System. The Council would expect further information to understand exactly how this is being dealt with in terms of discharge to the marine environment.
In addition, the Council notes the lack of detailed information on Port of Workington. The Council is unable to comment on whether the impacts are likely to be of any significance without further details of the potential works.
In terms of the marine elements, the Council expect to see the potential impacts on effects of structures on sediment movement and coastal
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 104
processes outlined, then how this impacts upon the benthic and fish communities, and then how this impacts upon high predators (i.e. ornithology and marine mammals) and the human environment (i.e. commercial fishing industry and shipping). Whilst models have been established, the Council is concerned that there is insufficient time to complete building and testing of the models, undertake modelling of potential impacts.
3.14.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that the Marine Strategy needs to be clearly communicated to the public and that there will be mitigation in place where required and consideration taken of the introduction of structures in the marine environment as a result of this development.
3.14.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council is unable to comment on the adequacy of residual effects without further details of the potential works.
3.14.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council is unable to comment on the adequacy of cumulative effects without further details of the potential works.
3.14.9 Key Issues/Gaps requiring Consultation
Further engagement is required for detailed information on the MOLF, Circulating Water System and Port of Workington and these structure’s impact on the marine environment. It should also be noted that the assessment of these structures need to factor in noise and vibration impacts and air quality impacts during construction and operation in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 respectively.
3.14.10 Summary Comments
The Council notes that the assessment of marine environment required by the project is at a very early stage. The Council is unable to comment on whether the impacts are likely to be of any significance without further details of the potential works (e.g. MOLF, Beach Landing Facility, and Circulating Water Systems).
3.15 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on terrestrial and freshwater matters for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 18 of the PEIR material, Biodiversity Management Strategy (BMS) and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 105
3.15.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council welcomes that the policy and legislation context is well defined within the Chapter. The Council expect clear cross referencing and explanation of linkages to be made within the Environmental Statement to relevant policies, including Copeland Local Plan. The policy and legislation section should be kept under review between now and the date of submission to reflect any relevant changes or alterations.
3.15.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Chapter briefly outlines results obtained to date that are in effect a short synopsis of those presented at quarterly meetings and within associated quarterly reports, however baseline data is not complete as surveys for many receptors are ongoing in 2016. The Council notes that figures included are clear and helpful. However, it is disappointing that no further information has been presented for the Indicative Area for Environmental Measures (IAEM) on these Figures as the Council expects that the IAEM will become a major focus in the coming months as mitigation measures evolve. The Council remains concerned that the area and existing condition of the IAEM may be insufficient to deliver the environmental (not restricted to biodiversity) mitigation suggested by NuGen.
Whilst some surveys are proposed for the IAEM, the Council is also concerned that these may not be adequate to fully understand baseline conditions in the area; for example, given that the Council assume the IAEM is to be used for badger mitigation, no detailed badger surveys are proposed (see Table 18.1a), albeit the Council notes the scope of surveys in the area will be kept under review.
The Council understands that work at the Port of Workington is still being considered however there is no mention of this within the Chapter.
The Council suggests completion of baseline surveys for the main site, IAEM, AD sites, rail sites and highway improvement areas as outlined and add in others as required as the project changes and provide specific paper on adequacy of IAEM based on preliminary offsetting calculations as a priority.
3.15.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
It is encouraging to see the Council’s comments presented within Table 18.3 - Consultation Responses Received. Additionally, the Council has seen NuGen take on board some comments to date which is encouraging, more notably through quarterly minutes and associated reports that have fed into the PEIR, though some questions still remain.
The Council do not feel that the first response in Table 18.3 addresses the query on why statutory and non-statutory sites have different zones of influence (10km vs 2km), when it is assumed that if significant air quality impacts could occur at 10km these could by inference affect non-statutory
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 106
sites at such a distance. The Council recommends that Table 18.3 should be expanded to reflect ongoing comments (including formal comments on the PEIR) and included within the ES. Many of the responses within the Table are holding statements, relating to ongoing survey work, as yet unseen assessment and incomplete documents (notably the BMS and CEMP). The Council expects these responses to be fully answered within the Environmental Statement.
As discussed below, no changes in assessment methodology have been included as previously raised in relation to the January 2016 Discussion Document and Draft PEIR.
Where differences in opinion have been raised, such as for polecat survey effort, NuGen has committed previously to producing position papers to set out their approach; this is welcomed, though the Council has yet to see these or indeed the start of the Statement of Common Ground Issues Tracker. This point was also raised within the Draft PEIR response.
3.15.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
As previously identified, there is an issue here as NuGen stated that the assessment uses CIEEM guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA). Although NuGen comments that the assessment method will be kept under review (Table 18.3), the approach used in the PEIR continues to apply a typical EIA matrix; however as the CIEEM guidance states, using a wholly subjective link between value and ‘magnitude’, matrices generally assign different levels of significance to various cells in the matrix.
This type of matrix tends always to place negative impacts on a feature of local value into a ‘low’ significance category. This can downplay local values for biodiversity. A check should be made of planning policies to ascertain whether special provisions have been made for protecting such resources.
The newly published 2016 guidance that NuGen references states:
“This guidance avoids and discourages use of the matrix approach. In circumstances where ecologists are required to fit an assessment into a different format than that outlined in these Guidelines, it is recommended that the approach set out here is applied as far as possible to enable decision-makers to understand the evidence base.”
The Chapter and associated BMS identifies that biodiversity offsetting methods will be used using the Defra methodology. This is welcomed and considered appropriate; however at this stage no attempt has been made to employ the methodology on the Moorside Site, IAES or other areas.
Within Table 18.4 for the Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway Site and the St Bees Railway Site, the line for Cumbria BAP Priority Habitats seems to be missing.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 107
Within Section 18.6.5, it is stated “The preliminary assessment of potential effects presented in the PEIR has been undertaken based on the expectation that mitigation, off-setting and enhancement measures to be set out in these documents will be adopted as an embedded part of the Moorside Project”. However in previous sections (such as 18.6.3) off-setting is considered part of mitigation and should not be separated out here.
Regarding red squirrels, throughout the tables in the Chapter this legally protected species is lumped with S41 mammals which is an error. Additionally, given the lack of red squirrels found on site (and the presence of grey squirrel) the Council question the need for mitigation for this species.
Table 18.5 refers to the potential for in-channel works on the River Ehen in regards to freshwater mussels; the Council assumes this is a mistake as no in channel works will occur. Confirmation is sought in relation to this.
The Council notes that the links to the footnotes on Table 18.3a appear to have been lost and need reinstating. The wording in Tables 18.12-18.19 is weak in places when it refers to mitigating/offsetting impacts of key features ‘to some extent’; this suggests that adequate mitigation may not be possible in many cases. In the same tables, there are various references to hibernating otters and badgers which need addressing.
Within Table 18.15 for the Egremont Site, the rationale includes mention of CEMP covering appropriate timing of works on/near the channel; however the Council understands that a broad riparian buffer will be maintained at this site. Clarity is sought on this matter.
Within Table 18.19, despite all sites predicting no significant effects for red squirrel, the final column (for the Whole Moorside Project) predicts a Potentially Significant effect. The Council assume this may be an error.
In general, a clearer presentation of how NuGen has diverted from the CIEEM methodology should be included.
Initial offsetting calculations using the stated method should be presented for discussion at the first available quarterly meeting.
NPS-EN1 is correctly referenced in the chapter, which confirms that assessments of low carbon energy and climate change can be considered. Clarity is sought as to how these will be addressed within the Environmental Statement.
3.15.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
Within the Chapter, NuGen has tried to undertake a preliminary assessment using the stated matrix based approach (Tables 18.12-18.19). However this is severely limited by the fact that some surveys are still ongoing and design has not been fixed to allow meaningful conclusions to be made.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 108
In various places, qualified judgements are made based on professional judgement, but without firm design details and complete data sets, such conclusions remain questionable. There is also a reliance on an adequate CEMP and BMS, neither of which have been substantially advanced within the PEIR.
All surveys and associated assessments both within this and related (notably air quality) chapters need to be completed. The Council recommends CEMP and BMS also need to be completed to support assessment conclusions.
3.15.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that mitigation proposals remain at a very early stage of development which is disappointing. Many of these are simply tried and tested generic mitigation for protected species which are promised to be captured within and delivered by the CEMP and BMS. There is also a reliance on the IAES being adequate, but this remains unconfirmed.
With surveys ongoing and scheme design not clear, it is not possible yet to assess impacts on receptors; thus adequate mitigation cannot be defined.
3.15.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
At this stage, residual effect conclusions remain provisional for the reasons described above. It is not yet possible to comment on whether they fairly reflect effects post mitigation, principally due to the lack of mitigation design available within the PEIR and associated documents.
The Council recommends that baseline data gathering, impact assessment and mitigation/enhancement design need to be completed to allow residual effects to be determined.
3.15.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council notes that the cumulative effects have not been adequately addressed. The Chapter includes a list of other developments where cumulative effects may occur and seeks to exclude several more where no cumulative effects are anticipated. For those scoped in, the Chapter identifies types of effect that may act cumulatively, such as habitat loss and degradation. However, no further assessment is included at this stage as project level effects are yet to be adequately determined.
The list of cumulative developments should be kept under review as the project progresses and, as firm conclusions are reached on the project level effects, these should be assessed alongside those predicted for other developments. As well as qualitative assessment, where possible quantitative measures should be included within the cumulative assessment (such as habitat loss by area, AQ inputs, noise etc.).
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 109
3.15.9 Key Issues/Gaps requiring Consultation
As previously raised, it is important to see details of the proposed development for mitigation to be refined and move from the generic to the specific. In particular, whilst NuGen references effects for ecological receptors being mitigated using offsetting methods it is not yet clear whether such offsetting would be adequate within the IAEM, and how this would be secured.
Additionally, there is no mention of enhancements within this Chapter of the PEIR. The Council expects the project to deliver significant enhancements over and above required mitigation to deliver the lasting legacy for the area that NuGen has frequently referred to.
3.15.10 Summary Comments
This chapter of the PEIR has moved on somewhat from the March draft version, but still lacks detail in terms of assessment and mitigation design.
The Council understands that survey work is ongoing / yet to start on some sites for ecological receptors, and details of development appear still subject to change. Thus, mitigation outlined is as yet generic and significantly no enhancement proposals are included. In particular, the BMS and CEMP provided with the PEIR are just at outline stage which is disappointing as more details were expected at this stage.
Further refinements must happen swiftly over the coming months and the Council would value early sight of relevant information as this comes forward to inform the NuGen’s Environmental Statement and associated documents.
3.16 Ornithology
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on ornithology matters for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 19 of the PEIR material, Biodiversity Management Strategy (BMS) and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
3.16.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council welcomes that the policy and legislation context is well defined within the Chapter. The Council expects clear cross referencing and explanation of linkages to be made within the Environmental Statement to relevant policies, including Copeland Local Plan. The policy and legislation section should be kept under review between now and the date of submission to reflect any relevant changes or alterations.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 110
3.16.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
The Chapter briefly outlines results obtained to date that are in effect a short synopsis of those presented at quarterly meetings and within associated quarterly reports. The Council notes the baseline data is incomplete as surveys for Sandwich terns and for the AD sites are ongoing in 2016. Figures included are clear and helpful.
However it is disappointing that no specific mention is made for breeding bird surveys within the Indicative Area for Environmental Measures (IAEM). This should be included in paragraph 19.8.1 but is notably absent. At the ornithology quarterly meeting held on 5th November 2015 , it was stated that a three visit Common Bird Census survey would take place within the IAEM (and as captured as item 31 on the meeting minutes). This needs confirmation as it is definitely required to inform mitigation design. At this stage, the Council remains concerned that the area and existing condition of the IAEM may be insufficient to deliver environmental mitigation which is not restricted to biodiversity mitigation as suggested by NuGen.
The Council understands that work at the Port of Workington is still being considered; there is no mention of this within the Chapter.
The Council recommends completing baseline surveys for the main site, IAEM, AD sites, and rail sites as outlined and add in others as required as the project changes.
3.16.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
It is encouraging to see the Council’s comments presented within Table 19.1 - Consultation Responses Received. Additionally, the Council acknowledges that NuGen has taken on board some comments to date which is encouraging, more notably through quarterly minutes and associated reports that have fed into the PEIR though some questions still remain.
As discussed below, no changes in assessment methodology have been included as previously raised in relation to the January 2016 Discussion Document and Draft PEIR.
The Council recommends that Table 19.1 should be expanded to reflect ongoing comments including formal comments on the PEIR and included within the ES. Many of the responses within the Table are holding statements, relating to ongoing survey work, as yet unseen assessment and incomplete documents (notably the BMS and CEMP). The Council expects these responses to be fully answered within the Environmental Statement.
3.16.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
As previously identified, there is an issue here as the applicant stated that the assessment uses CIEEM guidelines for EcIA. The approach used in the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 111
PEIR continues to apply a typical EIA matrix; however as the CIEEM guidance states, using a wholly subjective link between value and ‘magnitude’, matrices generally assign different levels of significance to various cells in the matrix.
This type of matrix tends always to place negative impacts on a feature of local value into a ‘low’ significance category. This can downplay local values for biodiversity. A check should be made of planning policies to ascertain whether special provisions have been made for protecting such resources.
The newly published 2016 guidance that the Applicant references states:
This guidance avoids and discourages use of the matrix approach. In circumstances where ecologists are required to fit an assessment into a different format than that outlined in these Guidelines, it is recommended that the approach set out here is applied as far as possible to enable decision-makers to understand the evidence base.
The Council suggests a clearer presentation of how NuGen has diverted from the CIEEM methodology should be included.
3.16.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
Within the Chapter, NuGen has tried to undertake a preliminary assessment using the stated matrix based approach (Tables 18.12-18.19). However this is severely limited by the fact that some surveys are still ongoing, assessment has yet to be undertaken and design has not been fixed to allow meaningful conclusions to be made.
In various places qualified judgements are made based on professional judgement, but without firm design details and complete data sets, such conclusions remain questionable. There is also a reliance on an adequate CEMP and BMS, neither of which have been substantially advanced within the PEIR.
Perhaps in part due to uncertainties, but also due to the use of the matrix method, at this stage the chapter is predicting (Table 19.9) potentially significant negative effects, even with embedded mitigation. This does not seem correct, notably for European Designated Sites and associated features and surely such significant effects would fail HRA tests?
It would be helpful if Table 19.3 could be expanded to include the AD sites thus far assessed rather than just the Moorside Site.
Further work required to resolve matters regarding assessment conclusions include completion of all surveys, Special Protection Area (SPA) connectivity work and associated assessments both within this and related (notably marine physical processes) chapters. The Council notes that the CEMP and BMS also need to be completed to support assessment conclusions.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 112
3.16.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that mitigation proposals remain at a very early stage of development which is disappointing. Many of these are simply tried and tested generic mitigation (such as avoiding impacts to breeding birds) and unspecified statements that suggest the CEMP will ensure disturbance does not occur to key species. There is also a reliance on the IAES being adequate, but this remains unconfirmed. The Council is also unclear as to how mitigation for the AD sites would be delivered and indeed where.
With surveys and analysis ongoing and scheme design not clear, it is not yet possible to assess impacts on receptors; thus adequate mitigation cannot be defined.
3.16.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
As discussed above, Table 19.9 summarises residual effects, the Council questions the conclusions of potential significant effects on Environmentally Designated Sites and SSSIs as this would not be acceptable. It is assumed mitigation will be in place to at least avoid significant negative effects to these sites. The Table should also specify if stated effects and positive or negative.
Additionally, St Bees Railway Development is included in the Table, but excluded from the rest of the Chapter which is confusing.
The Council recommends that baseline data gathering, impact assessment and mitigation/enhancement design need to be completed to allow residual effects to be accurately determined.
3.16.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council notes that the cumulative effects have not been adequately addressed. The Chapter includes a list of other developments where cumulative effects may occur and seeks to exclude several more where no cumulative effects are anticipated. For those scoped in, the Chapter identifies types of effect that may act cumulatively, such as habitat loss and disturbance. However, no further assessment is included at this stage as project level effects are yet to be adequately determined.
Regarding the Zones of Influence (ZoIs) used in Section 19.10, the Council would find it useful to define how these have been established and agreed such as the 35km ZoI around St Bees SSSI.
To support the scoping out of the four developments in 19.10.4, it would be similarly helpful to show these on a figure to illustrate that they do not fall within identified ZoIs.
The list of cumulative developments should be kept under review as project progresses, as firm conclusions are reached on the project level effects these should be assessed alongside those predicted for other developments. As well as qualitative assessment, where possible
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 113
quantitative measures should be included within the cumulative assessment such as cumulative disturbance/displacement estimates, AQ inputs, noise etc. The Council notes that significance thresholds (such as 1% of a defined population) should also be used where possible.
3.16.9 Key Issues/Gaps requiring Consultation
As previously raised, the Council needs to see details of the proposed development for mitigation refined and moved from the generic to the specific. In particular, whilst NuGen references effects for ecological receptors being mitigated using offsetting methods it is not yet clear whether such offsetting would be adequate within the IAEM, and how this would be secured.
Additionally, there is no mention within this Chapter of the PEIR to enhancements. The Council expects the project to deliver significant enhancements over and above required mitigation to deliver the lasting legacy for the area that NuGen has frequently referred to.
3.16.10 Summary Comments
This chapter of the PEIR has moved on somewhat from the March draft version, but still lacks much in terms of assessment and mitigation design. The Council acknowledges that as survey work is ongoing / yet to start on some sites for avian receptors, and details of development appear still subject to change. Thus, mitigation outlined is as yet generic and significantly no enhancement proposals are included. In particular, the BMS and CEMP provided with the PEIR are just at outline stage which is disappointing as the Council had hoped for more details. Further refinements must happen swiftly over the coming months and the Council would value early sight of relevant information as this comes forward to inform NuGen’s Environmental Statement and associated documents.
3.17 Climate
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on climate matters for the Moorside Site which has been informed by Chapter 20 of the PEIR material.
3.17.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council notes that the EU Directive on EIA, by which Climate will become an EIA report chapter, will be transposed into UK law in 2017 and so the emerging guidance on the contents of the climate chapter is relevant.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 114
3.17.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
It is unclear as to whether an assessment of meteorological and hydrological hazards in line with IAEA Safety Requirements publication on Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations has been undertaken (IAEA 2003)2. This would cover a lot of the future climate aspects and therefore inform adaptation.
It is considered adequate that a short summary of 30 years’ data from St Bees Head Station has been presented as the climate baseline. However it is anticipated that more appropriate parameters would be expected within the baseline data for instance maximum wind speed, maximum gust speed, maximum hourly rainfall and data on snow fall.
The Council notes the absence of extreme and rare meteorological phenomena within the baseline data; this would be covered by the meteorological and hydrological hazards assessment if one was carried out.
3.17.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The Council welcomes consultation with stakeholders for specific studies, e.g. Flood Risk Assessment is specified, and is reported with further engagement on climate issues foreseen as the studies progress and the project design evolves. It should be noted that climate change will impact not just ground water, surface water and marine and coastal effects (Chapters 13 – 15) but other topics such as biodiversity, building design and HVAC. Therefore consultation on climate should be undertaken with other topics.
3.17.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the details of the proposed methodology are sparse.
It is acknowledged that although the impacts proposed in Sections 20.1.2 and 20.1.3 of this particular project on global climate change is small, the carbon footprint is the means of assessing the project’s climate change impact in comparison to the UK’s carbon budget will not be insignificant. Section 20.1.4 states the purpose of the carbon footprint is to compare the contribution of different elements of the project. It is also to benchmark against other projects and thereby drive mitigation.
The proposed methodology states that decommissioning will be ignored however decommissioning may account for a significant proportion of the whole life carbon. It is noted that the Inspector said ‘The applicant should confirm, in the ES, how the security of the embankment would be ensured in the event of Network Rail ceasing to maintain this structure in the future.”
2 International Atomic Energy Agency, Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. NS-R-3, IAEA, Vienna (2003).
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 115
As requested by the Inspector, the applicant should address the security of the railway embankment.
3.17.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The potential effects identified as requiring further assessment do not include effects associated with the impact of climate change on building design and HVAC, adaptations and mitigations. The Council would anticipate the inclusion of these matters within the Environmental Statement.
3.17.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The Council notes that there is no specific mitigation measures contained in this chapter.
Chapter 23 contains general comments on proposed mitigation. However the Council notes that the following mitigation measures are vague and unclear, for instance, the first bullet point is vague and the meaning of the third bullet point is entirely unclear:
Identify and apply lower carbon measures where appropriate, e.g. Use of alternative transport modes where possible for personnel, plant, equipment and materials transfer;
Seeking achievement of BREEAM Very Good (or better) standards where appropriate in non-safety critical buildings for the Moorside Power Station and other buildings to be constructed on the Accommodation Sites and Additional Sites;
Consideration of on-site power generation options for the Moorside Site during the construction phase of the MPS.
The Council recommends that mitigation of impacts on ecology should be included.
3.17.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council notes that Chapter 23 does not identify climate change as having potentially significant residual effects. As a thorough analysis has not been carried out it is not possible to conclude anything about residual effects, but in addition, there is not the same existing framework for judging significance as there is for other topics e.g. air quality.
3.17.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The Council notes that cumulative effects have not been assessed and are possibly not relevant except in planning to collaborate on mitigation measures.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 116
3.17.9 Summary Comments
The Council notes that the assessment of climate change impacts and adaptations required by the project is at a very early stage.
3.18 Radiology
This section includes the Council’s Stage 2 response on radiology matters associated with the Moorside site. This draws upon Chapter 21 of the PEIR material as well as prior comments provided by the Council at technical meetings and in response to EIA Scoping.
3.18.1 Commentary on Policy and Legislative Context
The Council is encouraged by the adequacy of the policy and legislative context described in the PEIR and has no further comments at this time.
3.18.2 Adequacy of Baseline and Data
Section 21.1.11 of Chapter 21 in the PEIR references “other chapters describe the environmental sampling programmes and radiological baseline assessments, namely: Soils (Chapter 11); Freshwater Environment: Groundwater (Chapter 13); Freshwater Environment: Surface Water (Chapter 14); and Marine Water and Sediment Quality (Chapter 16).”
Section 11.7.1 of Chapter 11 states “The scope of the assessment as far as land quality (contamination) is concerned is non-radiological soil contamination only.” Radiological contamination is covered in Chapter 23 and there may be some scope for additional clarification in Chapter 23 and Chapter 13. There should be a more definitive paragraphs on the characteristics of any radionuclides found in solids, levels of activity associated with those radionuclides and the baselines these were measured against (DTI and WHO Standards) and a close out statement would be useful, similar to those within Sections 14.8.22, 14.8.23 and 14.8.24 of Chapter 14.
It is noted in Chapter 14 that there is a reference to more information on and potential environment impacts of radiochemicals which can be found in Chapter 21. The Council notes that it would be helpful to incorporate the extracts from Chapters 11, 14 and 16 and reference all baseline results into Chapter 21 to enhance transparency and coherence in reporting. The Council notes that sections 16.8.12 to 16.8.32 in Chapter 16 are well covered and the ongoing work is acknowledged.
It is recommended that more definitive statements are provided on Soils and Surface water, even if only a close out paragraph to confirm the level of activity associated with the radionuclides found, provide a range of quantitative data (maximum activity), a comparison to threshold limits and a closing statement to confirm no additional analysis will be considered. Also, a potential recommendation which would assist in interpretation would be to
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 117
incorporate the paragraphs from the other chapters into Chapter 21, even if noting “Paragraphs X to Y are also included in Chapter N, however are repeated here for completeness”.
3.18.3 Commentary on Consultation Activity to Date
The consultation activity to date at the meetings has been informative and the scope of the sampling and results have been well presented. The Council notes that Chapter 21 is informative and Tables 21-3 and 21-4 are clear and the explanation of the models utilised for aqueous and gaseous discharges also positive. The target dose rates in Table 21.6 are well laid out.
The baseline material from Stage 1 would benefit from being configured into one document with simple tabulated result tables comparing the results to threshold limits (DTI / WHO standards) and text to put the results into context demonstrating a robust evidence led approach underpinned by summary data. The reference to the baseline data in Chapter 21 is positive for Chapter 14 and 16. However, while it is acknowledged that there is considerable amounts of data, some of the graphic and pictorial output shown in the technical meetings is not included within the reporting supporting the PEIR. This is potentially a lost opportunity to offset queries at a later date with a robust approach at this stage in the project and will need to be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement for presentation to the Council in due course.
3.18.4 Commentary on Adequacy of Assessment Methodology
The Council notes that the prior responses to Stage 1 Consultation, including assessment methodology issues, have been reasonably addressed however if additional detail was called for to underpin some of the positive statements within Chapter 21 it is suggested that interpretation of the results may not be as robust as the regulator may require. There were a number of queries in Stage 1 which were raised by the Council and while the levels of radioactivity which were associated with these queries is acknowledged as being low, it may be of benefit to ensure an interpretation and explanation of the results is available. For instance, identification of the bounding case and comparison to Threshold Standards in any more granular consultation period / arena e.g. interface with the regulator.
3.18.5 Commentary on Application of Methodology and Assessment Conclusions
The Council notes that the judgement is based on empirical sampling results, as above a more evidence led summary, display of results, interpretation of the results, conclusions and comparisons to thresholds would potentially add significant benefit to the close out of issues previously
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 118
raised by the Council during Stage 1 Consultation. It is acknowledged that Stage 2 in Chapter 21 was more organised and structured in its approach.
3.18.6 Commentary on Proposed Mitigation
The mitigation measures which are included in the associated chapters are reasonably well presented although some deficiencies are noted within the relevant reviews in this consultation response. It may be worth providing some additional consideration to those chapters where mitigation is acknowledged as being unknown and provide an explanation of why that is the case and state any strategies which can be developed to resolve any shortfalls. The following statement might be a reasonable example which may support heightened confidence “The Sellafield Site Decommissioning project has the potential to interact with the Moorside Project, particularly with respect to the Moorside Site itself. This would notably occur during the construction phase of the Moorside Site, if there was simultaneous disturbance of contaminated soils at both sites and the proposed mitigation measures were ineffective.” In this case a coupling effect of two projects may result in the proposed mitigation measure being ineffective while it is acknowledged that there is a low probability, the Council would wish to understand the consequence. Other statements regarding mitigation potentially may benefit from stronger wording for instance “appropriate mitigation measures and good management practice should mean that significant effects are unlikely to occur”. The Council considers that “should mean” would be better expressed as “robust management procedures and checking will provide a robust strategy to reduce risks in accordance with the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) / As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles”. The Council would wish to see a clearer reference to the hierarchy of hazard control measures (e.g. Eliminate, Reduce, Isolate, Control, Personal Protective Equipment and Discipline) in their application to risks.
There is a clear commitment in the document to undertake appropriate monitoring in terms of gaseous, aqueous, direct dose, et al underpinned with an understanding of record keeping in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Agency and the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Safety Assessment Principles. This is welcomed and anticipated.
3.18.7 Commentary on Residual Effects
The Council notes that while it is acknowledged that the soil results were particularly encouraging and only very low levels were found, the sedimentary results demonstrate that there may be a hazard (potential for harm) during any marine construction, or utilisation of this area as a transport route for large scale equipment. There is a potential that disturbance would result in significant increases in radioactive exposure to humans as disturbed sediment is released and it has the potential to be deposited at beach level. Any activity during marine construction should be undertaken with robust planning and control. Monitoring should be
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 119
undertaken throughout and in the immediate aftermath of the construction period across a pre-planned area while a dose assessment is a worthy starting point and monitoring and robust mitigation strategies should be planned. High levels of planning, assessment undertaken in support of all activity, pre-working assessments; monitoring throughout any marine associated activity and in addition response and recovery plans should be developed in the event of significant disturbance and high radioactive levels are detected.
3.18.8 Commentary on Cumulative Effects
The overall strategy for assessing Cumulative Effects seems sensible and the assessment includes the following:
“Contribution from past lawful discharges from other nuclear licensed sites that have led to an accumulation of radioactivity in the environment around the Moorside Site; Contribution from past events, such as accidents and nuclear weapon testing, that have led to an accumulation of radioactivity in the environment around Moorside Site; Contribution from future discharges of other sites releasing radioactivity into the environment that have an impact on the area around the Moorside Site. For the purpose of this assessment the contribution from past discharges and events will be assessed based on measured baseline levels in the environment. For the assessment of the contribution from future discharges from other existing sites and proposed developments, the potential impact from their planned gaseous and aqueous discharges will be included”.
If the measured baseline levels in the environment are to be assessed based on the comments above, the baseline material presented to date would benefit from being configured into one document with simple tabulated result tables comparing the results to threshold limits (DTI / WHO), text to put the results into context demonstrating a robust evidence led approach underpinned by summary data. The reference to the baseline data in Chapter 21 is positive for Chapter 14 and 16 however while it is acknowledged there is considerable amounts of data, some excellent graphic and pictorial output shown in the meetings is not included within the reporting. This is potentially a lost opportunity to offset queries at a later date with a robust approach at this stage in the project. The Environmental Statement would be an appropriate location to set out this data.
3.18.9 Key Issues / Gaps requiring further Consultation
The Council considers that as a minimum, where mitigation measures are not presented, a strategy is in place to confirm how these areas are to be addressed. Consideration should be given to the some of the wording which underpins the mitigation strategies. At this point in time, the Council considers that further work is required to demonstrate and provide justification for mitigation approaches.
Significant work has been undertaken to develop strategies and approaches to the radiological issues. Some consideration should be given to whether
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 120
the data, results and wording et al. provides an adequate demonstration on whether this effort is clearly demonstrated. Consolidation of baseline data and more thought on how to clearly demonstrate the effort which has gone into the generation, analysis and generation of results may be valuable.
3.18.10 Summary Comments
It remains important to tackle the issues which are outlined above and consideration should be given to the impression the document gives the intended audience. The Council would question whether the material included within the PEIR provides sufficient confidence in the work on radiology conducted to date. Generally the document is effective, however there remains some weak areas with regards to comments referencing the display and presentation of the baseline material. This should be addressed in the Environmental Statement.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 121
4 Evaluation of Technical Documentation – Accommodation Sites
4.1 Observations and Council Comments on PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation Material
This section provides a review of the PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation material associated with the individual technical areas specific to the accommodation sites; Mirehouse, Egremont and Corkickle. It should be noted that the Council would also refer NuGen to Section 2 and 3 preceding this section and only those topics where there are specific matters not addressed in those sections previously are addressed here. It is important that NuGen considers the whole Consultation Response in this regard.
4.1.1 Transport
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on transport matters for the accommodation sites which has been informed by Chapter 4 of the PEIR material and the draft Outline Transport Strategy. This should be considered alongside the preceding Section 3.
As a general comment, it is not possible to isolate transport effects for accommodation sites from those of the main site as the main traffic movements to/from the accommodation sites are to the Moorside site. Therefore, only those sections that are specific to the accommodation sites are highlighted in this section. Furthermore, it is noted that all accommodation sites have been assessed collectively as per Table 4.5 within Chapter 4 of the PEIR.
As per the Council’s response to the Moorside site, it is noted that baseline information is incomplete (please refer to Section 3). The Council notes that there is limited information presented on baseline conditions at accommodation sites and this is regarded as a deficiency of the PEIR.
The Council notes that the methodology has been applied consistently in the form of Table 4.5. However, as stated elsewhere in this consultation response, the baseline information/ establishment is incomplete which will affect the judgement/assessment of the magnitude of the impact.
There is a contradiction in the first row of Table 4.5 which states that “All three accommodation sites will be reliant on highway access during their construction”, but then states that “The use of the highway network will be minimised”. This should be rectified.
The Council considers the scope of likely residual effects to be suitably extensive and covers the full range of effects that would be reasonably anticipated as a result of the development.
The probability of most residual effects is classed as ‘likely’, which is considered robust. Some ‘unlikely’ effects have been identified (relating to
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 122
accelerated deceleration in physical quality of network assets). This is shown as ‘unlikely’ during construction and likely during operation. The rationale for this difference is unclear and the Council anticipates further detail to be provided in the draft Environmental Statement. Without further information it would be anticipated that such effects would be more likely during construction due to the higher number of HGV movements.
The sensitivity of receptors are generally identified as ‘low’ or ‘medium’. Limited justification is presented for the classification of these sensitivities though they are generally accepted as appropriate.
A number of the predicted residual transport effects during construction are termed ‘potentially significant’, particularly those related to sensitive receptors. This assessment is largely on the basis of a predicted ‘medium’ magnitude of change. However, at this stage, no modelling information has been presented on the potential impact of the development proposals and the robustness of the transport strategy is yet to be ascertained due to a lack of information on the baseline and assessment scenarios. It is therefore considered that there is a risk of the magnitude of these effects increasing from medium to high following assessment. This change would increase the significance of these effects from moderate (potentially significant) to major (significant).
There is an error in the calculated significance of the first line of Receptor 3 (construction). On the basis of the scores of ‘low’ for both sensitivity and magnitude of change, the resulting significance should be ‘negligible’ and not ‘moderate’.
4.1.2 Noise and Vibration
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on noise and vibration matters for the Accommodation Sites which has been informed by Chapter 5 of the PEIR material.
The Council has provided previous commentary with regards to changes in AD site boundaries, identification of potential site access points and new AD and “other” sites mean that not all noise sensitive receptors will now be covered by the baseline monitoring locations identified to date. The new site boundaries in the PEIR appear to be adequately covered by the monitoring locations. However, the rationale behind the identification of impacts in the PEIR states that the final outcomes of the assessment will be dependent on the location of access and egress points. A number of such points are indicated on, for example, the accommodation sites on figures within the project description. Given the wording in chapter 5, the Council assume that these could change further. This issue will need to remain “live” at the quarterly meetings.
Section 5.8.30 refers to an assumption that operational road traffic for the Corkickle and Mirehouse sites will be no more than existing road traffic levels. There is no cross-reference to another part of the PEIR to explain why this assumption might be appropriate.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 123
4.1.3 Soils, Geology and Land Quality
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on soils, geology and land quality matters for the accommodation sites which has been informed by Chapter 11 of the PEIR material. As with preceding sections, commentary presented here is restricted to that which is supplemental to responses on this topic elsewhere within this document (primarily Section 2 and 3).
The Moorside Project data gathering report for Quarter 4 (October - December) 2015 (Soils, Geology and Land Quality) indicated that basic desk study information had already been obtained for the accommodation sites but some outstanding information such as Coal Authority Reports and abandoned mine plans would be obtained during the first quarter of 2016. The PEIR confirms that desk study research has been obtained and reviewed by NuGen to inform their assumptions. However, the Council notes that the baseline data and interpretation is not presented in detail within the PEIR and would be expected in the draft Environmental Statement.
Whilst the list of key sources of desk based assessment, as indicated in Section 11.4.6 of the PEIR, is reasonably comprehensive for most site circumstances, some further details may be obtained from other sources when some more unusual site issues are apparent; mining being perhaps one of them. At present, as little detailed information is presented in the PEIR or other reports with respect to mining issues etc. and therefore it is difficult to make a defined judgement that all potential sources of information have been exhausted to enable the risks to development to be fully assessed prior to scoping ground investigation. Further discussions on findings may be helpful. It is noted that in the Q4 reports and meeting NuGen indicated that a mining report and mine plans would be obtained from the Coal Authority. The list of desk study sources only mention reference to the Coal Authority interactive web-site as a source of information.
It is acknowledged that intrusive investigation will be undertaken but at present no level of detail on the scope of ground investigation is presented to inform the baseline.
Generally, the Stage 1 Consultation issues and points previously raised by the Council and discussed at the quarterly meetings are being addressed by NuGen, although the programme appears to have slipped compared to what had been expected and results of investigations / interpretation has not been well developed yet.
Confirmation is required that desk study data sources have provided sufficient information with respect to site characterisation and assessment of potential risks to the development (in particular with regards to mining) to enable a suitable ground investigation to be scoped to confirm assumptions and extend the baseline knowledge. The Council would like confirmation that the Coal Authority sources have been thoroughly investigated and any mine plans accessed as was the intention by reference to the Q4 report.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 124
The Council would like to see confirmation of programme and scope for additional studies including GI as this will be required to complete the baseline.
The residual effects are presented in Section 11.14 and Tables 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9. The PEIR considers the construction and operational phase at the site only and assumes that the residual effects of decommissioning will not have a greater potential detrimental effect on potential receptors. This appears reasonable but further commentary on decommissioning activities and justification for this conclusion would be helpful.
Tables 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9 indicates that, so far, insufficient information is available to assess the residual effects associated with damage / degradation of sub-soil and topsoil during stripping, excavation, handling, stockpiling etc. However presumably this information should be available from geotechnical assessment from the future GI and from an ongoing assessment of bulk earthworks / from which a soils management plan can be developed.
The range of residual effects listed in Tables 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9 appear reasonable. Generally the residual effects all appear to be ‘negligible’ and ‘minor’ except for the predicted loss of agricultural land as a result of the development, which is classified as ‘major’. However, the tables should be considered as ‘work in progress’ as it is not clear that all desk study information has yet been considered and certainly the GI has not been undertaken and assessed.
Discussion at Quarterly meetings suggest work is ongoing but it is not presented in the PEIR. The Council notes that the discussion at the Environmental Assessment technical quarterly meetings suggest work is ongoing but it is not presented in the PEIR. The Council recommends reassessment of residual effects following completion and interpretation of site characterisation GI which is ongoing.
4.1.3.1 Mirehouse
The primary land use for Mirehouse is described as agricultural as outlined in Section 11.13.19 of the PEIR reports an Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade 3. However, Section 11.5.4 indicates that an ALC survey will be undertaken in 2016 but is not included in the PEIR. NuGen should confirm that the additional survey is to supplement the information for the existing ALC grade mentioned in the PEIR.
The geology of the site has been assessed through desk study. Historical coal mining has been undertaken on the site in the form of a drift mine in the south west corner. Also a number of disused shafts are located on the eastern half of the site, although Figure 11.6 of the PEIR does not show the possible locations of the shafts. An infilled lignite quarry is also located on the eastern site boundary, although Figure 1.6 of the PEIR does not define the location. The desk study also indicates the presence of Made Ground from the former mining activity. Other potential contaminative land uses are
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 125
identified at or near to the site including, railways, commercial / industrial, mine spoil disposal.
Within the residual effects, while mining is mentioned as a feature of the site with former opencast lignite and former mine shafts and a surface drift, little mention of the implication of these features being present is apparent except for the potential risk of mine gas. The potential physical effects of former workings, taking account of depth, and potential risk to construction works and site users will need to be addressed.
4.1.3.2 Egremont
The primary land use for Egremont is described as agricultural. An Agricultural Land Classification Survey (ALC) for the site has not yet been undertaken.
The geology of the site has been assessed through desk study and Made Ground has been identified in the north –eastern portion. Former Ironstone mining is also identified at a mine about 150m northeast of the site, and iron workings are anticipated to be present at depth below the eastern part of the site. Other potential contaminative land uses are identified at or near to the site including landfilling, railways, commercial/industrial, and mine spoil disposal. Whilst the list of key sources of desk based assessment is reasonably comprehensive for most site circumstances, some further details may be obtained from other sources when some more unusual site issues are apparent; ironstone mining being perhaps one of them. At present, as little detailed information is presented in the PEIR or other reports with respect to mining issues etc. The Council notes it is difficult to make a defined judgement that all potential sources of information have been exhausted to enable the risks to development to be fully assessed prior to scoping ground investigation. The Council recommends that further discussions on findings may be helpful.
Within the residual effects, while ironstone mining is mentioned as a feature close to or beneath the site, little mention of it is apparent apart from its designation as a geological SSSI. Discussion at Quarterly meetings suggests work is ongoing but it is not presented in the PEIR.
4.1.3.3 Corkickle
The primary land use for Corkickle is described as urban / industrial with the site containing industrial units, a railway line, passenger station, culvert, scrubland and “recreational facilities”.
The Council notes that the geology of the site has been assessed through desk study. The area is indicated to have a history of coal mining and old mine shafts are located on and to the west of the site. In addition, a former gas works and chemical works have been identified on or within 250m of the site along with landfilling and the presence of Made Ground.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 126
Within the residual effects, while mining is mentioned as a feature of the site and former mine shafts are present, little mention of the implication of these features being present is apparent except for the potential risk of mine gas. The potential physical effects of former workings, taking account of depth, and potential risk to construction works and site users will need to be addressed.
4.1.4 Historic Environment
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on the historic environment for the Accommodation Sites which has been informed by Chapter 12 of the PEIR material.
The baseline data is less well developed than the Moorside site addressed in Section 3 of this Consultation Response, however designated assets and HER sites are described in some detail. The Council is in general agreement with the initial description of baseline.
Figures 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 is adequate, although some of the labels for assets are cramped and it should have a separate figure to show individual assets, for example Figure 12.6 addresses this for assets immediately adjacent to the development site.
The results of initial assessment of likely impacts are logical in relation to the current baseline. The Council would expect these to be revised in light of additional surveys and more detailed design information.
No specific mitigation is proposed for impacts unique to the Accommodation Sites, for example setting impacts, as no significant impacts have been identified.
The Council notes that the residual effects described are logical in light of the level of baseline and design information currently available.
4.1.4.1 Mirehouse
The Council is encouraged that the walkover survey was able to identify previously undiscovered archaeological earthworks within the Mirehouse site; this provides us with some security that the walkover surveys are being undertaken effectively.
4.1.4.2 Egremont
It should be noted that there is no specific commentary to the Egremont site for the Historic Environment in Chapter 12 of the PEIR.
4.1.4.3 Corkickle
The Council is in general agreement with the initial description of baseline condition, apart from Corkickle Railway station. This asset is unlisted, and paragraph 12.8.176 of the PEIR states that this is ‘likely to reflect its age
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 127
and nature’. Considering that the station dates to 1855, and still retains its original use, and adjacent possible railway workers’ cottages, the Council would suggest that this building should be considered to be of greater than Medium Heritage Importance.
4.1.5 Freshwater Environment – Groundwater
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on groundwater matters for the Accommodation Sites which has been informed by Chapter 13 of the PEIR material.
The Council notes that the baseline data and interpretation is not presented in detail in the PEIR. NuGen previously noted that desk studies for these would be completed for the May 2016 PEIR however this is not presented within the PEIR.
The Council identifies that Ground Investigation (GI) survey work was only completed for the Moorside site. The scope of GI for accommodation sites, if proposed, should inform a detailed baseline assessment.
The Council recommends the inclusion of a detailed baseline assessment consisting of a hydrogeological conceptual model based on desk study and ground investigation. The Council would like to see if all relevant properties have been contacted to identify unregulated abstractions.
As noted in Section 5.13, the groundwater assessment (Chapter 13) should be consistent with the surface water assessment (Chapter 14). In Table 14.5 high sensitivity is assigned to water features supporting sites with national conservation designations (e.g. SSSI) whereas conservation sites are not a criteria in the groundwater assessment (Table 13.3) (and therefore Low Church Moss is assigned Low sensitivity in Chapter 13 as only water resources criteria are considered). Consideration of conservation sites should be consistent between Chapter 13 and 14 and it is suggested that conservation sites which are considered in Chapter 13, should be appropriately cross referenced with Chapter 18.
The Council would expect a justified scope of further assessments to be included in the ES which should be presented at the quarterly meetings.
The Council notes the absence of a detailed assessment of the accommodation sites within the PEIR. This is a significant omission from the PEIR that should be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement. The scope of groundwater investigation including groundwater quality and interactions with surface water, if proposed, has not been presented in the PEIR. The Environmental Statement should include detailed description of the baseline groundwater regime for all accommodation sites and changes as a result of the development. This is currently a gap that must be addressed in the ES. The Council would expect a justified scope of further assessments to be included in the ES which should be presented at the quarterly meetings.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 128
The Council notes the absence of mitigation measures specific to the accommodation sites within the PEIR. Depending on the outcome of the assessment further development of mitigation and means of delivery may be required.
The Council notes the absence of a specific assessment for the accommodation sites within the PEIR. There is inadequate information to provide sufficient detail for the review and needs further consideration within the Environmental Statement. The Council acknowledges that the groundwater assessments are at a relatively early stage of development and the conclusions are preliminary only.
4.1.6 Freshwater Environment – Surface Water
The Council notes that baseline modelling of fluvial, surface water and groundwater flooding risks has not informed this PEIR, which remains highly reliant on Environment Agency Flood Zone data. This can be indicative only on smaller watercourses. The impact of the Environment Agency’s new climate change guidance may have an impact on the areas within these sites that are likely to be at risk of flooding from river and surface water sources later in the century and the areas required for surface water attenuation which need to be outside of floodplain areas.
The Council notes that there has been limited consultation on the accommodation sites.
Whilst it is clear that the Flood Risk Assessment will be included in the final EIA, with inclusion of all sources, and will account for climate change impacts, it is challenging for the Council to assess the implications of this proposed development for flood risk based on the information provided.
The Council has previously suggested that positive effects should ideally be identified and reported on. The developments present a number of potential opportunities to address WFD and flood resilience issues.
The Council recommends consideration of opportunities to design these sites in a manner that actively contributes to achieving WFD objectives and alleviating existing and future flooding problems.
The Council notes that the methodology is well-developed however the manner of undertaking technical investigations to inform the EIA is not. The Council questions the classification of a water body as of low value based on its current WFD status, when the RBMP objectives will be for such water bodies to achieve good status (or potential) by 2027, unless this would be prohibitively expensive. Water bodies should be assessed with regard to their future potential or future status if the development is to contribute towards achieving statutory RBMP objectives.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 129
The Council would expect the scope of further assessments to be included in the draft Environmental Statement, including numerical modelling, which should be presented at the quarterly meetings.
The Council notes that temporary and permanent effects should be differentiated.
The Council considers that the assessment is so high level that the appropriateness of the conclusions is difficult to assess.
Further work required to resolve matters regarding assessment conclusions consist of flood modelling and development of site drainage approach, incorporating SuDS.
The Council considers the proposed mitigation as listed in Table 14.4 as adequate. Although the draft CEMP has no content on water issues as yet e.g. reference to Pollution Prevention Guidance, BS 6031 Code of practice for earthworks, relevant CIRIA guidance and little reference to monitoring. Therefore the Council notes that the CEMP remains very high level.
As outlined in Table 23.4, “design of new landscapes will incorporate areas of wetland/river and coastal features where these have been lost to the development, where appropriate. The creation of swales, settlement ponds and other related drainage techniques within the Moorside Site”. The Council notes that there are no obvious signs of this proposed mitigation anywhere on the drawings of the Moorside site. The Council notes that these need to be outside the floodplain areas, unless designed as part of a strategic flood storage approach that attenuates both site runoff and flows in the receiving watercourse which cannot be achieved without increasing flood levels/storage locally.
The Council notes that there is a significant potential opportunity to address existing flood risk problems in Workington using the area at the south end of the Corkickle Site upstream of the old railway line that is identified as an area for environmental mitigation/enhancement. This area has good potential for use as a strategic flood storage facility to alleviate downstream flooding problems, but would also have potential as a wetland wildlife habitat and local amenity adjacent to the Sustrans route. The Council questions whether this opportunity is being explored.
The Council notes that no real indication is provided as to how any mitigation would be secured and guaranteed. Further development of mitigation and means of delivery is clearly required in the CEMP and draft Environmental Statement. The mitigation is high level only, not related to any features shown on the drawings and time is potentially running out in terms of understanding the baseline properly so that appropriate mitigation, compensation and enhancements can be incorporated into the design.
As noted above, the assessment is still in progress and currently has major gaps that should be addressed in the draft Environmental Statement. Discussion at quarterly meetings suggests this work is ongoing however it has not been presented in the PEIR.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 130
The Council notes that the cumulative effects have not been assessed.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 131
5 Evaluation of Technical Documentation – Additional Sites
5.1 Observations and Council Comments on PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation Material
This section provides a review of the PEIR and Stage 2 Consultation material associated with the individual technical areas specific to the Additional Sites; St Bees Railway, Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway and Highways Improvements. As with the prior Consultation Response on Accommodation Sites, for certain topics, the Council considers that Section 3 addresses principal areas of concern in relation to Additional Sites. Only those topics where additional commentary is deemed helpful are included below.
5.1.1 Transport
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on transport matters for the Additional Sites which has been informed by Chapter 4 of the PEIR material and the draft Outline Transport Strategy.
As a general comment, it is difficult to isolate transport effects for the railway and highway from those of the main site and wider sites. Nonetheless, attempts have been made to only report on those sections that are specific to the Additional Sites in this section to assist in the precision of the response. It is noted that both railway sections (Corkickle to Mirehouse and St Bees) have been assessed collectively as per Table 4.6. Therefore all comments are as per Corkickle to Mirehouse railway section.
The Council notes that there is limited information presented on baseline conditions at Additional Sites. It is recognised that additional baseline information is still being collated across all modes.
Given that predicted effects are reliant upon the establishment of a baseline, this casts doubt upon the ability to accurately predict the magnitude of impact across these modes.
5.1.1.1 St Bees Railway and Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway
It is noted in the PEIR that baseline information on the rail aspects of the project in particular is limited. The Council recognises that information is being collated with regards to the existing use of the Cumbrian Coast Line railway to establish a baseline to assess change against.
It is imperative that a complete baseline is established as soon as possible. Of particular importance is to establish the existing use of the Cumbrian Coast Line railway given the importance of rail to the overall transport strategy.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 132
It is unclear to the Council from the information presented in the Stage 2 Consultation and PEIR how the effects on the railway will be assessed. It is stated that no survey work has been undertaken with regards to rail, with none currently identified as being required. Desktop information will be used to inform this work, though no indication is provided as to how this would be undertaken.
Furthermore, it is stated that for rail, appropriate thresholds for change would be discussed with relevant stakeholders. This should include Copeland Borough Council. This will include reviewing outputs from Network Rail (NR) and DRS in relation to the use of the Cumbrian Coast Line railway for the Moorside Project. The Network Rail and DRS work will provide an understanding of the baseline position of the rail network against which threshold changes can be agreed.
It is useful for the Council to be provided with further information on methodology including outputs from NR and DRS.
The Council notes that the methodology has been applied consistently in the form of Table 4.4. However, as stated elsewhere, the baseline information/ establishment is incomplete which will affect the judgement/assessment of the magnitude of the impact. The response to consultation in Table 4.1 sets out the scope of works which includes testing a range of scenarios and applying sensitivity tests to capture changes in the impact across the phases of the project. For example, the scenarios consider both the construction and operational phases and assess the impact upon the highway if (as an example) rail is not available as anticipated. It is unclear how this approach has been applied to the PEIR and it appears that only one scenario has been assessed i.e. assuming that the strategy can be implemented in full as anticipated.
Further work is required to resolve matters regarding assessment conclusions; this includes the completion of baseline information and confirmation of which scenario(s) impacts are being assessed against.
The Council considers the scope of likely residual effects is considered to be suitably extensive and covers the full range of effects that would be reasonably anticipated as a result of the development.
The probability of most residual effects is classed as ‘likely’, which is considered robust. Only one ‘unlikely’ effect has been identified (construction traffic on the highway network). It is considered that the probability of this effect is ‘likely’ not ‘unlikely’, though the low sensitivity and very low magnitude are accepted.
The sensitivity of receptors are generally identified as ‘low’ or ‘medium’. This is considered acceptable.
Some of the predicted residual transport effects are termed ‘potentially significant’. This assessment is largely on the basis of a predicted ‘medium’ magnitude of change. However, at this stage no assessment has been presented on the potential impact of the development proposals and the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 133
robustness of the transport strategy is yet to be ascertained due to a lack of information on the baseline and assessment scenarios. It is therefore considered that there is a risk of the magnitude of these effects increasing from medium to high following assessment. This change would increase the significance of these effects from moderate (potentially significant) to major (significant).
5.1.1.2 Highways Improvements
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on transport matters for the highways improvement sites which has been informed by Chapter 4 of the PEIR material and the draft Outline Transport Strategy.
As a general comment, it is not possible to isolate transport effects for highway improvements from those of the main Moorside site as the main traffic movements using the highway are travelling to/from the Moorside site. Therefore, only those sections that are specific to the highway improvements are highlighted in this section.
The Council notes that the methodology has been applied consistently in the form of Table 4.7. However, as stated elsewhere, the baseline information/ establishment is incomplete which will affect the judgement/assessment of the magnitude of the impact.
Further work required to resolve matters regarding assessment conclusions include baseline information completed and confirm which scenario(s) impacts are being assessed against.
The Council considers the scope of likely residual effects is considered to be suitably extensive and covers the full range of effects that would be reasonably anticipated as a result of the development.
The probability of all residual effects is classed as ‘likely’, which is considered robust.
The sensitivity of receptors are generally identified as ‘low’ or ‘medium’. Limited justification is presented for the classification of these sensitivities, though they are generally accepted as appropriate.
A number of the predicted residual transport effects during construction are termed ‘potentially significant’, particularly those related to sensitive receptors and network users. This assessment is largely on the basis of a predicted ‘medium’ magnitude of change. However, at this stage no modelling information has been presented on the potential impact of the development proposals and the robustness of the transport strategy is yet to be ascertained due to a lack of information on the baseline and assessment scenarios. It is therefore considered that there is a risk of the magnitude of these effects increasing from medium to high following assessment. This change would increase the significance of these effects from moderate (potentially significant) to major (significant).
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 134
5.1.2 Noise and Vibration
The Council notes that activities at Workington Harbour are not mentioned in Section 5.5.6. The Council questions whether this is not mentioned because it is not considered to have the potential to create a significant effect, or whether it has just not been considered.
5.1.3 Landscape and Visual
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on landscape and visual matters for the Additional Sites which has been informed by Chapter 7 (landscape) and Chapter 8 (visual) of the PEIR material.
The baseline study and data presented to date in respect of the main site and the Accommodation Sites are broadly adequate for this Stage 2 Consultation. The Council would like to see similar proportionate level of baseline information for the following sites:
The Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway Line;
St. Bees Railway Site;
Highway Improvement Sites;
Port of Workington Site; and
The Freshwater Corridor.
5.1.3.1 St Bees Railway and Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway
To date there has been no consultation on the scope of the visual assessment. The Council would like to be provided with the same level of information for this development as for the other sites, such as the locations and range of representative viewpoints, a ZTV and a study area. The Council would like to know if production of this information is underway and whether it will be consulted upon at an early opportunity as possible.
In terms of the Corkickle to Mirehouse railway site, it is considered that there is the potential for some significant effects as a result of the permanent work proposed to widen the railway corridor to accommodate an additional line and two railway stations. Even with the objective, as described at paragraph 2.3.22, to achieve the proposed works to the Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway Site within existing railway land, there is concern regarding the loss of a potentially significant amount of trackside vegetation and disruptive works to existing bridges over and under the existing railway. It is thought that this part of the development could give rise to some significant townscape and visual effects.
The Council recommends NuGen to provide a consultation note on the likely impact of construction and operation of this rail loop and provide some indication of the likely potential landscape, visual and biodiversity effects predicted alongside a landscape mitigation strategy.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 135
5.1.4 Soils, Geology and Land Quality
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on soils, geology and land quality matters for the Additional Sites which has been informed by Chapter 11 of the PEIR material.
The Council notes that NuGen reported at the Q4 review and technical meetings that Additional Sites require desk study information to be obtained and assessed, and it was stated by NuGen that this would occur during the first quarter of 2016 and reported in the next quarterly report. It was also reported that a Mining Risk Assessment would be undertaken and reported at the next quarterly meeting. The desk study information would be used to scope a Soil and Agricultural Land Classification as well as an intrusive investigation to develop the baseline. However, so far the Council has not seen any baseline data and assessment for the Additional Sites and this information appears to be absent from the Stage 2 Consultation material.
Confirmation is required that desk study data sources have provided sufficient information with respect to site characterisation and assessment of potential risks to the development (in particular with regards to mining) to enable a suitable ground investigation to be scoped to confirm assumptions and extend the baseline knowledge.
The Council would like confirmation that the Coal Authority sources have been thoroughly investigated and any mine plans accessed as was the intention by reference to the Q4 report.
The Council would like to see confirmation of programme and scope for additional studies including GI as this will be required to complete the baseline.
The Council is not aware that any consultation has been undertaken specifically with regards to the Additional Sites. From information received at the Q4 meeting and from the Q4 report, it is understood that desk study and follow-on baseline assessment will be undertaken during the first quarter of 2016.
The Council recommends undertaking the desk study, mining risk assessment and scope site characterisation GI because all data will be required to establish an adequate baseline for consultation.
The Council notes that more detailed methodology is required with the inclusion of the presentation of data.
At this time, the Council cannot comment on the application of methodology and assessment conclusions due to the absence of baseline data relating to the Additional Sites.
The Council notes that proposed mitigation for the Additional Sites is to be developed following desk study, mining risk assessment and scope site characterisation. Mitigation could be provided by the following:
Soils Management Plan – covering re-use of soils;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 136
Remediation Strategy/Method Statement – for approval by the Council / and secured under Planning Requirements.
The Council notes that there are significant gaps in baseline data for the Additional Sites. The Council recommends NuGen undertake a desk study, mining risk assessment and scope site characterisation GI indicated in their Q4 report / consultation.
The Council notes that there are significant gaps in baseline data for the Additional Sites. The Council recommends NuGen to undertake a desk study, mining risk assessment and scope site characterisation GI indicated in their Q4 report / consultation.
5.1.5 Freshwater Environment – Groundwater
This section presents the Council’s Stage 2 response on groundwater matters for the Additional Sites which has been informed by Chapter 13 of the PEIR material.
5.1.5.1 St Bees Railway and Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway
The Council notes that detailed baseline data and interpretation for the railway sites is not presented in the PEIR. NuGen previously noted that desk studies for these would be completed for the May 2016 PEIR however this is not presented within the PEIR.
The Council identifies that Ground Investigation (GI) survey work was only completed for Moorside Site. The scope of GI for Additional Sites, if proposed, should inform a detailed baseline assessment.
The Council recommends to include a detailed baseline assessment consisting of a hydrogeological conceptual model based on desk study and ground investigation.
The Council notes that the absence of a detailed assessment of the St Bees railway site within the PEIR. This is a significant omission from the PEIR that should be addressed in the Environmental Statement. The scope of groundwater investigation, if proposed, has not been presented and the Council would wish to see that during the technical meetings.
The Environmental Statement should include a detailed description of the baseline groundwater regime at the St Bees Railway site and changes as a result of the development. This is currently a gap that must be addressed in the Environmental Statement.
The commentary on proposed mitigation is as per Moorside site, presented in Section 3. The Council notes the absence of mitigation measures specific to the St Bees Railway Site within the PEIR. Depending on the outcome of the assessment further development of mitigation and means of delivery may be required.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 137
The Council notes the absence of a specific assessment for the railway sites within the PEIR. There is inadequate information to confirm this is adequate and needs further consideration for Environmental Statement.
The Council acknowledges that the groundwater assessments are at a relatively early stage of development and the conclusions are preliminary only.
Detailed interpretation of the baseline groundwater regime including groundwater quality and interactions with surface water has not been presented in the PEIR, and should be included in the Environmental Statement.
Predicted changes and potential effects are presented in generic outline only. The Environmental Statement should include detailed information relating to changes to the groundwater regime. Measures to mitigate effects, including those embedded in the scheme design should be presented in the Environmental Statement, and residual effects evaluated.
5.1.5.2 Highways Improvements
It should be noted that the Highways Improvements sites have been adequately addressed for Freshwater Environment in the preceding Section 3.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 138
6 Evaluation of Technical Documentation - CEMP, HRA, Biodiversity Strategy and Transport Strategy
This Section provides a review of the technical documentation provided by NuGen accompanying the PEIR; the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Biodiversity Management Strategy, Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), and outline Transport Strategy. NuGen has provided a Plans and Drawings volume within the Stage 2 Consultation material, on which commentary is provided within this Section.
6.1 Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan
This section provides discussion of the Moorside Project Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). It is noted that the Final CEMP will take account of appropriate environmental mitigation commitments identified in the Environmental Statement.
The Council welcomes NuGen’s commitment to produce a number of CEMPs that are intended to be submitted as part of its application for development consent for the Moorside Project in 2017. A detailed and finalised CEMP to address initial parts of the construction period on the Moorside Site will be written. However, the Council understands that the scope of the phases of construction to be covered by the CEMP is still to be finalised. The Council understands that an Outline CEMP will also be submitted alongside the DCO to address the rest of the construction works for the Moorside Site, Accommodation Sites and Additional Sites. However there should be separate detailed CEMPs covering the Moorside Site, Accommodation Sites and Additional Sites rather than combining into one CEMP.
The Council welcomes the inclusion of site waste management which is a legal requirement, however it would be beneficial if the CEMPs include Materials Management Plans, Soil Management Plans, Sustainability Plans and other typical components of construction environmental management. Paragraph 1.3.6 does state “there will be a number of strategies and management plans that are also submitted by NuGen as part of its application for a DCO for the Moorside Project. These may need to be read alongside and interact with the CEMP”. There should be some clarity provided on what strategies and management plans will be provided as part of the DCO application.
It is acknowledged that the roles and responsibilities will be outlined within the Final CEMP ensuring that all relevant environmental commitments and responsibilities are adhered to. However at this stage, the roles and
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 139
responsibilities could be addressed in a generic way within the Outline CEMP. The Final CEMP should include key requirements for the key role of an Environmental Officer. It would be appropriate to state here that this person should be a Chartered Environmentalist with at least 10 years’ experience on major projects.
The Council notes that the CEMP should define the hold points in relation to the project for approval of each stage of the developing CEMP, for example an approved site-specific construction environmental management plan will be in place at least one month before the start of any works on the site.
It is welcomed that NuGen will develop an Integrated Management System (IMS) into a single framework including quality management systems. This approach will ensure continual improvement is at the heart of everything that NuGen does and will provide the framework of its mission, vision and values, company policies, management responsibilities and processes and procedures
One of the aims of the CEMP is to ensure that all construction works are completed with the minimum disruption to communities. It is welcomed that the CEMP is expected to outline that NuGen and relevant contractors should liaise with the relevant local authority/ies and other relevant parties to identify when community events and other potential conflicts are planned within areas close to the Moorside Project Sites.
It is welcomed that the CEMP does not just focus on monitoring and reporting as important elements of environmental management but also includs other management controls which precede monitoring and reporting such as competence management, internal audit, records management and emergency preparation.
The Council notes that the BMS will form part of the CEMP. The CEMP as presented is just an outline structure and the Council is unclear how the BMS will fit into this as there is no mention of it within the document. The Council also note that section 3.1.5 states that a 25% increase in biodiversity in targeted areas under NuGen’s control or influence by the end of the Construction and Commissioning phase. This is not mentioned in other documents and has not been discussed at quarterly meetings. The Council requests further details on what a 25% increase actually means and by when as this seems optimistic at this stage. The CEMP should cover the broad range of marine activities and that plans are likely to include (but not be limited to):
Archaeology Discovery Plan;
Marine Mammal Protection Programme;
Noise and Vibration Management Plan;
Piling Management Programme;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 140
Pollution Prevention Programme;
Traffic and Transportation Plan;
Fish Species Protection Plan;
Non-Native Invasive Species Plan;
Otter Protection Plan;
Vessel Management Plan; and
Waste Management Plan.
If the CEMPs are detailing the mitigation required to minimise impacts then the plans outlined above should be at a detailed stage when DCO is submitted.
Overall, the Outline CEMP provides a good understanding of the full extent and scope of the Final CEMP.
6.2 Outline Biodiversity Management Strategy
The Council hoped that the Biodiversity Management Strategy would be significantly more advanced than presented. It will contain a Biodiversity mitigation and offsetting plan, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Habitat Enhancement Plan. However all of these are simply presented as outline structures with no details at this stage.
The Council notes the following statement in paragraph 1.2.4 which should be kept in mind throughout the process:
“NuGen is committed to going beyond regulatory requirements and, in partnership with others, to make a positive contribution to environmental enhancement, including biodiversity benefits.”
Whilst the introductory text in Section 2 is welcomed on the methods and principles of offsetting using the Defra method, it is disappointing that no initial calculations have been attempted on at least part of the development as it is currently known. As per our review proformas, the Council is concerned that land identified within the IAEM may be insufficient and this information is needed urgently.
Section 2.3.5 requires rewording as it implies UK protected/notable species receive European Protection which is not the case. Likewise Sections 2.3.7-2.3.9 (Licensing Requirements for Protected Species) only refer to EPS licences with no mention of badgers (i.e. non-EPS) licences.
Section 2.3.14 states that all badger sett closures “typically require artificial setts to be created”’. This is not the case, as artificial setts are normally only required for high status setts (such as main setts).
Sections 2.3.16-2.3.17 fail to discuss Schedule 1 breeding birds. Red squirrel is included under the Section 41 species (terrestrial) header, NuGen
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 141
is reminded that this species receives legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985 and as such should not be discussed here. The Council questions the need for mitigation for red squirrel given the lack of evidence of the species in any survey undertaken thus far.
The rationale within paragraph 2.3.28 is also questioned in regards to moving common toads to ponds, as these animals spend most of their lives in terrestrial habitats, amending this to ‘suitable habitat’ would be preferable as moving toads into ponds alone is inappropriate.
Section 2.3.30 refers to in-channel works on the River Ehen in regards to effects on freshwater mussels, it is important to note that the Council has been told there will be no such works.
Section 2.3.32 states, when discussing mitigating habitat loss in intertidal and subtidal zones:
“However, this effect can be lessened through careful design and management of marine infrastructure, resulting in the creation of artificial rocky reef habitat, offsetting the loss of such habitat (and potentially Sabellaria reef) during construction/operation of the MOLF and other marine structures.”
The Council has been previously told that the MOLF may not be a permanent structure. The Council would like to know if this has changed.
Regarding the HMP, Section 3.4.1 states:
“NuGen will retain ownership of the HMP and will oversee its implementation and regular review. It is anticipated that the HMP will be the basis of an agreement, with a nature conservation body/partner, governing the stewardship of the Moorside Project Sites. Implementation of the HMP will commence under the direction of suitably experienced ecologists appointed by NuGen and with the assistance of a landscape contractor following completion of protected species translocation and habitat (offset) creation.”
This has not yet been discussed at quarterly meetings. The Council is unclear if the nature conservation body/partner would indeed be the main deliverer of this.
The duration of the HMP is not explicitly stated; whilst the Tables 3.1 – 3.2 suggest a ten year period, the Council is unclear if this is post construction or indeed appropriate for the project. The Council would expect a 25-year period in such cases.
Section 3.4.5 correctly suggests that actions should be checked and verified, and names the Council as arbiter; again, this has not been discussed thus far at quarterly meetings. Whilst this seems potentially logical, appropriate funds would need to be in place to cover any such inputs and captured via Requirement/Obligation. There is no mention of an overseeing management committee for the site, which may be worth consideration by NuGen. Such a committee could include (but not be limited
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 142
to) Natural England, Copeland Borough Council, Cumbria County Council, landowners and managers along with NuGen and their delivery partner(s).
6.3 Outline Transport Strategy
This section outlines the Council’s response to the draft Outline Transport Strategy for the Moorside Site. Wider concerns regarding uncertainties in respect of the means of access, car parking, management of peak flows and longer term legacy opportunity from rail are highlighted in Section 0 of this response.
6.3.1 Construction and Operation Workforce Characteristics
The document clearly sets out the assumptions of the peak construction workforce split as follows:
1,000 home based;
1,500 live locally; and
4,000 in Accommodation Sites.
It is anticipated that 45% of the workforce could be non-UK based and 55% UK based. It should be noted that these figures relate to the construction of the Moorside site. Consideration has not yet been given to the Additional Sites.
It is stated that shift patterns (which are yet to be confirmed) would be developed to avoid existing peak traffic periods as far as is practical. This is considered to be a sensible approach though would need to be confirmed and enforced through an appropriate mechanism. Brief details are provided for shift patterns of various stages of construction. These will need to be developed carefully alongside Sellafield Ltd to ensure that alignment between the working patterns of both sites.
Figure 3 presents a summary of the number of workers by residential location. This includes the total number of workers and the number assumed to be on/between shifts and the number on leave. It is noted that the number that live locally differs from that presented in Figure 2 (1,250 vs 1,500).
The document states that NuGen is looking into having workers living on the Accommodation Sites finishing their working week at different times in order to spread the number of vehicles on the network. Whilst this makes sense in theory, consideration should be given to any implications on the viability of this in practice. It is also noted that, as the strategy is to limit access by car, workers will be travelling by organised or schedule coaches and trains to Penrith/Carlisle. Spreading demand for these services may adversely impact upon their viability.
The assumption (on page 14) that the non-UK workers will locate evenly between the accommodation sites and local housing lacks justification. It
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 143
could be just as relevant and plausible to assume that most non-UK workers (up to 2,500) would live on the accommodation sites with UK workers taking up residential spaces locally. If this were to happen it could have different implications for Nugen’s transport and parking strategies.
The operational workforce is likely to be significantly smaller (c.1,000 workers), all living locally (or home based).
Intense movements of staff are anticipated during outages. These demands would exceed the operational workforce, although the overall number of staff would be lower than during construction (albeit the Accommodation Sites would not be in place). Section 5.4 of the Transport Strategy states that NuGen will be required to provide 300 additional temporary parking spaces on site during outages, but no real justification is provided for this.
6.3.2 Draft Construction Workforce Movement Strategy
This section sets out the key objectives of the strategy to transport construction workers. A number of approaches have been considered and the preferred strategy (combination of P&R, rail and public transport) is considered to be appropriate.
Key to the strategy is ensuring that non-local workers do not arrive in West Cumbria via car. If this is achieved, then ensuring that workers use the intended scheduled and charter mass transport services will be far easier to achieve. This is therefore considered to be critical to ensuring that the overall traffic impact of the proposed development is minimised.
In order to achieve this, it is likely that a proactive approach will be required from NuGen to incentivise workers to arrive without a car. The strategy places an element of reliance on the fact that 45% of workers will be from outside of the UK and therefore would not have access to a car. This is questionable as it is considered likely that a proportion of these workers could drive to the UK from their home country or rent a car whilst in the UK. This strategy also assumes that a large number of UK workers will move to the Accommodation Sites and not use their car. In reality it is considered equally likely that the majority could choose to stay in local housing and travel to and from west Cumbria by car.
The strategy notes that workers will be made aware that parking on roads near to the sites will not be acceptable. From previous experience it is considered that stronger methods of discouragement, such as resident parking schemes will be required. It is noted that the strategy states that this will be considered where necessary.
It is noted that workers would not be allowed to use their car during times that they are known to be on a working shift. It is questioned how practical this would be. Workers would travel to/from site outside of their shift times in any case (to ensure they are at their place of work when their shift begins). The ability of NuGen to control worker use of their own vehicles outside of shift times is considered to be limited.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 144
Proposals are described to collect/drop-off construction workers from Penrith and Carlisle stations. It is stated that demand for the service would be closely monitored over the construction period in order to inform capacity of vehicles and number of services. However, at this stage it would be useful to understand an initial estimate of numbers involved (including links to rail timetables) in order to form a view on the feasibility and operational requirements of such a service. This would also inform an understanding of the requirements at each station for pick-up/drop off and the implications on the transport networks these locations. It is noted that the suggested locations for these are informed only by a desk study at this stage. It is not clear how transport for home workers could be managed in a way as to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by potentially impractical arrangements for joining staff travelling from Accommodation Sites by rail or coach. Alternative pick-up arrangements should be managed with the same rigour (including access to safety briefings etc.) as for those workers travelling from Accommodation Sites.
As above, this element is a fundamental part of the strategy and its viability/feasibility must be understood to understand how realistic/deliverable the transport strategy is. Figures 6 and 7 provide summaries of the strategy for travel to work and public transport to Moorside. It would be beneficial to add numbers to these figures.
A charter train service would be the primary means of transporting workers to and from the site. It is assumed that 3 trains per shift would be required to transport the 2,400 workers. As above, more detail is required on the feasibility of this. Key questions would relate to the ability of the platforms to accommodate the peak passenger numbers, loading/unloading times of the trains, and the validity of the assumption that each train would be 100% full, given that a maximum of 3,500 staff are proposed to be accommodated at Corkickle and Mirehouse.
More fundamentally, it will need to be confirmed that there are sufficient free train paths to operate this number of trains. This is especially pertinent with the expected increase in passenger trains under the new rail franchise and freight trains on the line during the construction period.
Similar unresolved questions relate to the coach strategy for workers at Egremont and other non-rail linked settlements. Key questions to be resolved are how many coaches would be required to operate the strategy and what is the availability of such vehicles/drivers.
There seems to be little planning for local home based workers at this time. Figure 11 does not seem an accurate area of focus for Home Based workers as it does not reflect practical experience at Sellafield, nor opportunities to maximise opportunities to young people and unemployed across Cumbria. It is considered that home based workers are likely to be dispersed across Cumbria, albeit with a focus in west Cumbria, and will have to travel to a railway station or accommodation site to be able to get onto site. Without careful planning and management many of these journeys are likely to be by car, which will have implications for parking provision in these locations.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 145
Workers may seek to utilise scheduled services to Sellafield, and it is not clear how associated capacity issues would be managed.
The strategy discusses how workers would move around the area outside of shift patterns. This includes a shuttle service between each of the Accommodation Sites.
There appears to be a contradiction in the strategy for car use for those vehicles parked at Accommodation Sites. On one hand it is stated that workers could car share when visiting other locations, however, at the same time it is stated that there will be no visitor parking at Accommodation Sites. Therefore car-shares to visit other Accommodation Sites would not be possible. The strategy states that the entire workforce could have access to a car in the evening (via car share of up to 5 workers per vehicle). It is questioned how realistic this is.
Reference is made to car clubs offering the potential to remove at least 14 vehicles per car off the road. As this data is based on research from London, the applicability of this comparison is questioned.
6.3.3 Draft Construction Freight Movement Strategy
The Council notes that 15m3 of soil and rock will be excavated. It is proposed that all of this is reused on site. It is reasonable to assume that a proportion of this material may be contaminated or otherwise unsuitable for reuse and therefore would be exported from the site. Given the high volumes, even a small proportion may result in a large number of vehicle movements if moved by road. Section 8 of this response highlights the Council’s concerns regarding the proposed landscape mounds. Any alternative proposals put forward must be considered from a transport impact perspective, and it may be that local re-use of material can be accommodated within agreed parameters.
It is stated that the rail freight infrastructure would be implemented at an early stage, which is consistent with the rail-focussed strategy.
It is unclear to the Council whether the use of the MOLF to receive bulk deliveries is part of the proposals strategy (it is referred to but it is not immediately apparent if this is a confirmed approach).
It is stated that NuGen will seek to utilise UK suppliers with a rail access. However, it is unclear to what extent this can be secured/guaranteed.
Deliveries during the night are mentioned as a means to reduce traffic impacts. It must be ensured that any impacts on noise are assessed as part of the Environmental Statement if this forms part of the proposals. Clarification is required as to how ‘off-peak’ delivery hours proposed between 10.00 and 16.00 in Section 1.4.6 of the Transport Strategy will relate to shift patterns for NuGen and Sellafield workers in consideration of cumulative effects.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 146
6.3.4 Operational Transport Strategy
The operational transport impacts are likely to be lower due to the reduced workforce. However, the Accommodation Sites will no longer be in use and therefore the nature of the impacts may be different.
It is noted that NuGen is still considering the requirement for dedicated charter trains during operation. This should be confirmed as soon as possible as it will have a major bearing on the operational transport strategy. It is not clear here if it is proposed that the Sellafield station will be used. There are also a number of assumptions relating to the delivery of significant investment and enhancements on the CCRL. Again, these are fundamental to the strategy.
It is stated that if these improvements are not delivered then the strategy would be shuttle coach based. Again, it is unclear to what degree this will form a formal scenario/sensitivity test that will be assessed. However, if there is uncertainty over the delivery of the primary strategy then it would be appropriate to undertake sensitivity tests as such.
In respect to parking provision during the operational period Section 5.2.1 suggests that only 100 of the 300 parking spaces will be for key workers, with the remaining provided for visitors, regulators and VIPs. It is not clear whether this could provide capacity for parking during outages rather than creating 300 extra temporary spaces every 18 months.
6.3.5 Emergency Evacuation Strategy
Two construction phase scenarios and two operation phase scenarios have been set out as follows:
Construction Phase – Scenario 1 – no rail for evacuation - In this scenario, it is stated that 2,300 staff would be evacuated using 46 coaches.
Construction Phase – Scenario 2 – rail available for evacuation - In this scenario, staff would be evacuated by rail (possibly with support via coach).
Operation Phase – Scenario 1 – rail available for evacuation - In this scenario, staff would be evacuated by rail (possibly with support via coach).
Operation Phase – Scenario 2 – no rail for evacuation - In this scenario, it is stated that 900 staff would be evacuated using 18 coaches.
The above scenarios assume that the evacuation occurs mid-shift. However, it is anticipated that the worst case will occur should the evacuation be required at shift changeover which may increase the number of workers on site.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 147
It is unclear where the coaches will be sourced and how long the evacuation would take. It is noted that several coaches could be retained on the Moorside site. However, it may be that charter coaches would only be available at specified time. Again this links back to the need to confirm the requirement for the number of coaches to operate the strategies and more detail on how they would work.
6.4 Habitats Regulations Assessment Evidence Plan
The Council has provided comments on a tracked changes version of this document on 25th April 2016 and it appears that the version received is the same document albeit with new covers and a NuGen introduction. Therefore comments supplied previously still apply. For completeness these include:
It should be noted that the Council did not comment on the original Evidence Plan (this was prior to our involvement with the project); therefore the Council has not commented on the original text, merely looking at the recent (April 2016) changes that have been discussed via quarterly meetings to date;
Overall changes to this Evidence Plan are minor and reflect discussion to this point; thus the Council has few specific comments at this stage;
As per Section 1.4.9, the Council expect that this Evidence Plan will be subject to further change as the design of the Moorside Project is developed;
Within the outline description (Section 2.1), the Council is now told “…in addition to water required for cooling (supplying the circulating water system and the service water system), abstracted sea water will be required for sediment management”. This has not as yet been discussed in detail at the quarterly meetings, and should be picked up next time;
It is encouraging to see that extra Sandwich tern surveys are proposed in-line with meeting discussions; these will be carried out between June and August this year;
Under Section 8 – Evidence Plan process route map, Stage 4 has a bullet that states “Produce and agree Statements of Common Ground – December 2016”. The wording of this is questioned as it implies SoCG will be finalised, where in reality this is likely to remain in discussion until submission. The Council does not wish to agree a completion date at this early stage, especially as this date has come forward by three months from the initially stated March 2017. For example, the Council notes avian surveys are ongoing and as results are not yet available, putting such a firm end date on is questioned;
The last entry in the consultation record in Appendix A is dated 15/4/15; would it not be prudent to include relevant subsequent responses, such as those from the minutes of the 4th March HRA meeting;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 148
The Council is unclear on the programme in Appendix B; despite a ‘Final HRA Report’ date of Q3 2016, in Q1 2017 this shows ‘Consultation on complete evidence base (Year 2)’ and Completion of Statements of Common Ground (Year 2). If these include HRA relevant evidence, it would seem prudent to not finalise the HRA until later in the programme.
6.5 Plans and Drawings
Table 12 below outlines the Council’s comments on the Stage 2 plans and drawings. Further plans and illustrative drawings are required as highlighted in the points raised below:
Require cross sections / topographical survey information. No illustration from submitted drawings as to how the proposed scheme fits in with the adjacent topography in terms of levels/ landform. Noted that the power station itself is to be set down some 20m in what is in effect a basin – unable to assess potential impact of this on surrounding areas (which is likely to be considerable) without topographical survey and cross sections etc.. This has implications for example as to how access to the site will be achieved from landward site and from the MOLF;
Require illustrative information as to scale and location of the proposed railway viaduct over the River Ehen carrying the new railway line onto site, including location, scale of structure and potential design at this stage. Whilst reference is made to one being proposed in Q4 p30 there is no further information about this. It is unclear whether this is aligned to the proposed bridge to carry the Heavy Haul road (i.e. alongside) or in a completely separate location. Confirmation is required;
Require further illustrative information re the proposed Heavy Haul Road from the MOLF – this is some considerable size at 40m width (motorway scale!). No details provided regarding this apart from a description (p28) as to how this will fit into the surrounding landscape in terms of its location and height etc.;
Require detail with regard to position and design / specifications of proposed substation and associated pylons noted that it may be located closer to the outer boundary nearer Beckermet and this is likely to have considerable impact if here due to proximity to settlement. (Q6 p31 refers).
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 149
Table 12 Copeland Borough Council’s Comments on Stage 2 Plans and Drawings
Plan No. Plans and Drawings CBC Comments
3. Moorside Site Indicative Development Area
There is a lack of information to justify extent of ‘environmental measures’ boundaries – further areas may be required subject to assessment
4. Moorside Site Illustrative Master Plan
Lack of information referencing rationale for zoning of mounds Lack of visual representations of mounds referencing local communities Not accepting of suggested uses for mounds
5. Moorside Site Illustrative Layout No operational car park is shown. It is unclear whether the plan is to use Yottenfews Car Park in respect of the scale of MOLF shown, confirmation is needed as to whether this is operative scale as well as whether it is it to be retained. It is unclear whether the ‘Support’ buildings which are non-essential, could be in town centres.
6. Moorside Site – Birds Eye View This should include mounds and MOLF and context, size of reactors, Sellafield Road and Beckermet
7. Moorside Site – Operational Buildings from Main Entrance
Eight storey ‘office’ buildings may be more appropriately located in town centres, subject to further assessment by appointed architects
8. Moorside Site – Warehouse Buildings and Nuclear Island
Indication of angle of view would be helpful, also shown mounds etc. for context.
9. Sellafield Road Options Plan Option 2 (blue) is currently our preferred option. It is presumed that NuGen will also take into account feedback from Sellafield Ltd / CCC and the views of the local community
12. /13. Mirehouse Site Illustrative Masterplan/ Mirehouse Site Illustrative Layout
The proposed road to the new roundabout at WLSP. What impact could there be in respect of the Whitehaven Relief Road. The alternative layout proposed within the Legacy Masterplan is the Councils preferred layout (including line of Whitehaven Relief Road). There appears to be no justification for the ‘operational’ layout. Include reference to West Cumbria Mining. Show a plan of ‘operational’ layout.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 150
Plan No. Plans and Drawings CBC Comments
13. Mirehouse Site Illustrative Layout The scale of Facilities Management buildings goes against the Councils desire to see workforce integration with the wider community. Clarification is required for Emergency Planning facility i.e. storage, Control Centre. This does not currently indicate integration with the wider community.
15. and 16. Corkickle Site Illustrative Masterplan/ Corkickle Site Illustrative Layout
There is a need to better understand access arrangements to the town centre. The Council has a preference for the site layout as per the Legacy Masterplan document inclusive of road accesses / green corridors. The Council would also reiterate comments on Facilities Management provision (see comments on Plan 13 above). Need a plan showing preferred operational layout.
18. /19. Egremont Site Illustrative Masterplan/ Egremont Site Illustrative Layout
Need a plan showing preferred operational layout. The Council has a preference for the site layout as per the Legacy Masterplan document.
20./21./22./ 23.
Illustrative Elevation - 3 Storey Accommodation Unit/ Illustrative Elevation - 4 Storey Accommodation Unit/ Illustrative Elevation – Coach Interchange/ Illustrative Elevation - Facilities Management Building
NuGen should reference the preferred illustrative designs in Legacy Masterplan document.
24. St Bees Railway Site Construction compound – there is a lack of detail and potential environmental impacts are insufficiently described
29.-33. A595 Parton Junctions Coach Road/Station Road Coach Road/B5345 A595/A5094 Inkerman Terrace/B5295 Ribton Moorside, Whitehaven A595 Homewood Road Roundabout, Whitehaven
It is unclear whether the proposed highway improvements are required if the Whitehaven Relief Road is provided. The Council notes that in respect of Homewood Road there may be issues in respect of capacity and legacy implications – hospital (subject to modelling)
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 151
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 152
7 Planning Requirements and Obligations
7.1 Introduction
This section outlines how the Council considers mitigation and measures of control will be secured for the Moorside Project with regards to Section 106 Obligations agreements and DCO Planning Requirements. The Council notes the importance of highlighting agreed mitigation and measures within Statements of Common Ground and is committed to working with NuGen in this regard. This process must include for provisions made within the DCO and accompanying evidence as well as those specifically identified in S106 agreements and Requirements.
The Council would welcome clarity on a consenting strategy that ensures that control measures, mitigation, enhancement, compensation and legacy commitments are secured alongside the DCO. The Council has highlighted in this Consultation Response that the DCO will seek to authorise more than one NSIP and Associated Development and is thus complex. Greater clarity is needed on how these elements and also provisions sought in relation to consents under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) relate to one another.
There is considerable uncertainty regarding the scope, roles and responsibilities, and timing of TCPA applications for Accommodation Sites, Additional Site and other applications that may be required as part of the wider project. Clarity and commitment is required to deliver the strategic project objectives set out by NuGen, and those set out by CCC and CBC in the Joint Legacy Strategy. In this respect the Council’s consider it essential that key TCPA applications for the Accommodation Sites, and community infrastructure to support these sites is ‘twin-tracked’ with the DCO application within the project programme.
To support meaningful progress on the formation of an agreed Requirements and Obligations package, CBC and CCC are preparing a Delivery Plan, which seeks to provide a pathway for the realisation of initiatives to be secured via Section 106 Obligations, Requirements, and embedded mitigation. This includes commitments secured though the DCO, and those that might be secured in collaboration with partners outside of the DCO itself (principally anticipated under permissions pursuant to TCPA). Engagement with NuGen on this work will be key in establishing common ground on community legacy matters prior to DCO submission.
7.2 Legacy Use and Community Benefits
The Councils welcome the commitment from NuGen in the Proposed Scheme Document to ‘work with the relevant local planning authorities regarding potential “legacy uses” for such buildings with the aim that either NuGen, or NuGen through a third party, will submit planning applications at
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 153
the appropriate time for the retention and re-use of buildings to ensure a lasting legacy.’
NuGen’s commitment includes the consideration of creative solutions and collaboration with delivery partners and other agencies and community groups. The Councils have commenced a Community Legacy Engagement programme with community partnerships to encourage collective stakeholder engagement, and seek to encourage further collaboration across NuGen, the Councils, community organisations, and potential delivery partners.
Informal dialogue with NuGen on legacy provision has commenced. In order to inform proactive engagement on legacy matters, CBC and CCC have submitted to NuGen a Joint Legacy Strategy, and Legacy Masterplan for Associated Development Sites. Engagement of delivery partners for the Accommodation Sites, led by NuGen is underway and the Council welcomes the crucial continuing dialogue in this respect.
The Stage 2 consultation material, whilst providing strategic commitments to legacy benefit, does not set out any detailed proposal community legacy benefit, particular where this may be delivered outside the physical boundaries of the DCO application.
The Councils therefore consider it essential that detailed community legacy interventions be consulted upon as soon as possible, to ensure adequate community and stakeholder engagement can be undertaken prior to DCO submission.
A coherent compensation and mitigation package is essential and should be borne in mind when further developing the Property Support and Voluntary Local Mitigation Schemes. Copeland Borough Council would look to engage in dialogue with NuGen in respect of provisions for a Community Impact Mitigation Fund. This dialogue will ensure that the scope of Community Impact Mitigation can be integrated into the wider legacy strategy. To deliver legacy benefit, continuing discussions with NuGen will need to address a number of partner organisations including Copeland Borough Council, Cumbria County Council, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Department for Transport amongst others. The role of Section 106 contributions associated with the Moorside Project will need to feature within this discussion.
7.3 Transport
The Council notes that there is no specific reference to means by which mitigation will be secured. However, as stated in para 4.11.1, “At this stage, all of the mitigation measures, which are anticipated will be required, are incorporated into the development proposals…”. It is therefore assumed that ‘mitigation measures’ are part of proposals and therefore would be delivered as part of development.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 154
There is reference to a potential requirement for further ‘non-incorporated’ mitigation measures, but these are not defined and no means of securing delivery is provided.
The draft Transport Strategy makes further recommendations with regards to Section 106 Agreements for resident parking permit schemes for the roads and residential areas surrounding the site. It is stated that parking would be monitored to identify the requirement for parking restrictions. It is considered highly likely that this will be required given the importance of limiting access by parking controls. It is therefore recommended that parking restrictions are included as part of the DCO application.
7.4 Noise and Vibration
It should be noted that the means by which noise mitigation will be secured in terms of s106 obligations and DCO requirements has not been stated within the PEIR nor elsewhere within the Stage 2 Consultation material. At this stage, it would be valuable to know the mechanisms on how mitigation will be secured for noise and vibration and will depend on the nature of final mitigation measures. Further development of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the Environmental Statement. Control measures should be incorporated into the DCO by way of agreed method statements and implementation plans, secured by way of DCO Requirement.
7.5 Air Quality
Air quality mitigation within the Construction Environmental Management Plan and Construction Transport Management Plan will be secured via a requirement to the DCO for the Moorside Project.
7.6 Landscape and Visual
The PEIR only describes generic types of mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the proposed development. There is no description of specific landscape or visual mitigation related to predicted effects. Thus there is no description of the means by which any mitigation would be secured. At this stage, it would be valuable to know the mechanisms on how mitigation will be secured for landscape and visual. Further development of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the Environmental Statement. The commitment to design principles should be secured by way of an agreed statement secured by DCO Requirement.
7.7 Countryside Recreation
It should be noted that the means by which countryside recreation mitigation will be secured in terms of s106 obligations and DCO Requirements has not been stated within the PEIR. At this stage, it would be valuable to know the mechanisms on how mitigation will be secured for countryside recreation and will depend on nature of final mitigation measures. Further development
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 155
of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the Environmental Statement. Control measures including agreed Public Rights of Way management and diversions during construction should be incorporated into the DCO by way of agreed method statements and implementation plans, secured by way of DCO Requirement.
7.8 Socio-economics
The Council notes that there is a clear commitment and delivery by which mitigation will be secured however further work is required. It is essential that economic and community interventions are delivered by agreed Section 106 Obligations. This is an area for significant engagement and progression prior to DCO application, in line with the legacy provisions set out above.
7.9 Soils, Geology and Land Quality
The Council notes that there is no specific reference to means by which mitigation will be secured. However the Council recommends that mitigation could be provided by:
Soils Management Plan – covering re-use of soils;
Remediation Strategy / Method Statement - for approval of LPA / ES under planning conditions.
Such method statements should be agreed prior to DCO submission as secured by way of DCO Requirement.
7.10 Historic Environment
No details are provided on how mitigation will be secured, the Council would expect these to be agreed prior to DCO submission with the consultees, and for the detailed written schemes of investigation and method statements to be submitted as part of the DCO application.
Monitoring arrangements should be included in the Written Schemes of Investigation (WSI), agreed prior to DCO submission as secured by way of DCO Requirement. Section 106 Obligations should cover the cost to the consultees of maintaining long-term monitoring prior to and during construction.
7.11 Freshwater Environment - Groundwater
It should be noted that the means by which groundwater mitigation will be secured in terms of s106 obligations and DCO requirements has not been stated within the PEIR. At this stage, it would be valuable to know the mechanisms on how mitigation will be secured for groundwater and will depend on nature of final mitigation measures. Further development of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the Environmental Statement.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 156
Control measures to ensure best environmental practice during construction should be incorporated into the DCO by way of agreed method statements and implementation plans, secured by way of DCO requirement.
7.12 Freshwater Environment – Surface Water
It should be noted that the means by which surface water mitigation will be secured in terms of s106 obligations and DCO requirements has not been stated within the PEIR. At this stage, it would be valuable to know the mechanisms on how mitigation will be secured for surface water and will depend on nature of final mitigation measures. Further development of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the Environmental Statement.
Control measures to ensure best environmental practice during construction should be incorporated into the DCO by way of agreed method statements and implementation plans, secured by way of DCO requirement.
7.13 Marine and Coastal Physical Processes, Marine Water and Sediment Quality and Marine Ecology
It should be noted that the means by which mitigation for marine elements will be secured in terms of s106 obligations and DCO requirements has not been stated within the PEIR. The Council suggests that NuGen should make it clear within the Marine Strategy that there will be mitigation in place where required.
This is a significant area of concern requiring further engagement and development of detailed control, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures and means by which these will be secured prior, considering the scope of marine infrastructure and potential impacts.
7.14 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology
The means by which terrestrial and freshwater ecology mitigation will be secured is not discussed within the PEIR material. The Council notes that at quarterly meetings there has been discussion around involving local farmers and the BMS refers to an ‘…agreement with a nature conservation body/partner governing the stewardship of the Moorside Project Sites.’ However this is not discussed further and as such no mechanism for securing mitigation is in place. The BMS contains no clear monitoring proposals at this stage, merely including indicative tables that reference monitoring.
The Council expects that as a minimum the BMS and CEMP will be secured in their entirety via Requirement. Further discussions are needed regarding the implementation of the Habitat Management Plan and Habitat
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 157
Enhancement Plan and the Council’s role as verifier as stated within the BMS; the Council expects that mitigation, enhancement and associated monitoring/verifying will be subject to specific Requirements and Obligations and associated S106 agreement(s).
7.15 Ornithology
The means by which ornithology mitigation will be secured is not discussed within the PEIR material. The Council notes that at quarterly meetings there has been discussion around involving local farmers and the BMS refers to an ‘…agreement with a nature conservation body/partner governing the stewardship of the Moorside Project Sites.’ However this is not discussed further and as such no mechanism for securing mitigation is in place. The BMS contains no clear monitoring proposals at this stage, merely including indicative tables that reference monitoring.
The Council expects that as a minimum the BMS and CEMP will be secured in their entirety via Requirement. Further discussions are needed regarding the implementation of the Habitat Management Plan and Habitat Ecological Plan and the Council’s role as verifier as stated within the BMS; the Council expects that mitigation, enhancement and associated monitoring/verifying will be subject to specific Requirements and Obligations and associated S106 agreement(s).
7.16 Climate
It should be noted that the means by which climate mitigation will be secured in terms of s106 obligations and DCO requirements has not been stated within the PEIR. At this stage, it would be valuable to know the mechanisms on how mitigation will be secured for climate and will depend on nature of final mitigation measures. Further development of mitigation and means of delivery is required in the Environmental Statement.
7.17 Radiology
There is a clear commitment in the PEIR to undertake appropriate monitoring; gaseous; aqueous; direct dose; et al underpinned with an understanding of record keeping in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Agency and the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Safety Assessment Principles (SAPs).
7.18 Summary
The extent to which a pathway for the delivery of Planning Requirements and Obligations can be agreed with NuGen is limited by lack of advancement of EIA, which results in lack of definition of mitigation, enhancement and compensation associated with project impacts. This is an area of significant concern. Likewise, meaningful engagement on Community Legacy has not progressed to date. The Councils are
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 158
proactively engaging with NuGen to seek resolution of these matters, which will be essential to underpinning the Statement of Common Ground process prior to DCO submission.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 159
8 Council Responses to Questions
The NuGen Stage 2 Consultation provides useful questions upon each aspect of the Moorside development which are addressed by the Council in the following section in sequence. In reviewing this Consultation Response, the Council would encourage NuGen to review the responses to questions as well as related specific commentary drawn through the Councils examination of the PEIR and wider documents made available in support of Stage 2 Consultation.
Whilst the questions posed by NuGen may be of use in driving feedback on particular elements of the project, they can only represent a partial response to the project. The scope of the questions posed are not considered by the Council to be sufficient to drive balanced feedback, and the phraseology of the questions could have been more effective in ensuring that respondents have a fair opportunity to engage.
8.1 Proposed Development within the Moorside Site
8.1.1 Question 1
Q1 Some design aspects of support buildings are determined by safety and engineering efficiency, but others can be designed in a number of ways. NuGen is interested in your views on the materials and colours with which the buildings should be finished, how buildings, roads and rail should be arranged on the site and landscaped, and what should guide the architectural and design choices to be made.
Council Response
The Stage 2 consultation material presents the preliminary arrangement of the main site and describes the purpose and locations of elements of the development, although provides little in the way of explanation and design rational for their arrangement within the site. The Proposed Scheme Document does state at Q1 that:
‘Some design aspects of support buildings are determined by safety and engineering efficiency, but others can be designed in a number of ways.’
Before commenting on the layout and arrangement of the site, the Council considers it important to properly understand the rationale behind the current design. The buildings of the main site should be designed to be as sympathetic as possible to the receiving landscape. Fundamentally, the Council has yet to see a clear rationale for the building layout proposed. In order to reduce the effects associated with significant massing of buildings within the site it is likely to be appropriate to select offsite locations for certain buildings which are not required on site for operational and safety performance reasons. The Council expects a clear explanation as to what
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 160
buildings are linked to the operation of the nuclear power station and must be located on site and those which might be located elsewhere. Clearly, the distribution of buildings offsite also serves as a potential catalyst for wider regeneration and infrastructure investment which are priorities for the Council linked into the Legacy Strategy.
The Council understands that NuGen has yet to finalise the design team responsible for supporting both masterplanning and building design within the site. The Council would wish to remain fully engaged by NuGen as these decisions are taken to ensure that appropriate opportunities are provided to liaise with the design / architectural team and to ensure clarity in terms of the Councils ambitions for site development and quality of design.
The Council particularly notes that some of the ancillary structures required to support the nuclear power station will themselves be substantial and prominent due to their position within the overall site layout. For example, the proposed substation is understood to be a significant structure and the Council expect NuGen to work with their architectural and design partners to deliver a sympathetic design as far as practicable. The built form of the power station is likely to be operational for 60 years or more so NuGen should propose materials that will withstand this exposed and saline environment for at least that period. This will be critical to the long-term success of the proposed scheme and the Council will be seeking reassurances as to the quality of design materials.
Throughout the evolving design process, the Council would wish to be consulted on important aspects of the design, such as the layout and external appearance of the proposed buildings. The Council welcomes the Design Approach document consulted upon in 2015. It is considered that an evolution of this document is required with information on design choices made, general arrangement of the site, the architectural treatment and materials proposed etc. The Council would welcome this as a means of ongoing consultation. As an example of a very helpful DCO document on the design of large infrastructure projects, the Council would like to refer NuGen to a document, ‘Design Approach to Site Specific Infrastructure’3 produced by National Grid as part of the DCO for the Hinkley C connection project. It focuses on the design and appearance of infrastructure and ancillary elements, but importantly also refers to the delivery of the design approach in relation to the DCO.
The Council notes that the detail of design layout and choices in form and massing of the main site may have a fundamental bearing on the extent of impacts experienced by nearby settlements. For example, due to both proximity and scale of development, the settlement of Beckermet is expected to experience significant effects on views out towards the site. This is likely to be compounded by the proposed substation, anticipated form of
3 https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN020001/EN020001-003892-
8.32_Updated_Appendix_2.9.26.1_Design_Approach_to_Site_Specific_Infrastructure.pdf
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 161
the proposed mounds (see Council response to Question 2) and also towers and electrical infrastructure associated with the National Grid North West Coast Connections Project. These are matters related to masterplanning and design but the Council also notes the potential related effects through increased noise, lighting and potential vermin. The Council expects considerably more detail on both the rationale and anticipated effects of proposed buildings on and offsite to emerge through continued dialogue.
8.1.2 Question 2
Q2 NuGen would like to hear your views about where the mounds will be and how they should be landscaped, including views on the creation or retention of any views or viewpoints. (Please also note Question 20 below on the land use and management of any publicly accessible areas of the mounds).
Council Response
Fundamentally, the Council understands that the formation of the mounds is to assist NuGen in managing large volumes of excavated material and to serve as a visual screen for views into the site. Whilst the principle of this is logical, the Council would wish NuGen to consider the form and function of the mounds over the construction and operation period. Clarification is required regarding the Moorside site’s waste strategy at the construction phase and this will help understanding of the ‘driver’ for the principle of the mounds and their specific location.
It seems possible that during / through construction NuGen could identify wider users of the material which might present opportunities for reducing the total volumes managed on site. Such an approach would require the Council to be satisfied that transfer of the material i.e. from the point of storage on site to the point of need would not compromise existing transport capacity. The Council would expect continual engagement if such an approach is to be considered by NuGen.
The Council questions whether NuGen has adequately taken into account the views of Sellafield Ltd. in relation to the proposed mounds, particularly in respect of any security matters, including line of sight for surveillance purposes. This matter also relates to the feasibility / viability of introducing viewpoints and access for the community. It may be impractical to provide access to the mounds on security matters alone. NuGen should identify the extent to which this may pose a constraint.
The rationale for locating the main mounds to the north east of the main development is not clear. The Council assumes that this was the only available part of the site once the other elements of the scheme had been arranged. The Council notes that in the Stage 2 documentation constant reference is made to these mounds being sited to the north west of Moorside site. This is misleading as the mounds are actually positioned more to the north east of the site.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 162
There is some uncertainty in respect of the form of the mounds across the site. In particular, and noting the proximity of nearby settlements, the Council would wish to see sections of the mounds showing the intended profiles in relation to nearby houses. Such information would assist interested parties, including the Council in understanding the relative scale of the proposed mounds.
It is unclear to the Council how much consideration has been given to the form and function of the mounds in respect of the nearest affected settlements i.e. Beckermet, as well as the views from the National Park. The Council understands that the location of the mounds may be restricted due to the intervening topography i.e. presence of the floodplain and ecologically sensitive designations. However, the Council would strongly encourage views of the local communities affected by the proposals to be fully taken into consideration.
The Council has concerns that the mounds are identified as potential contractor’s laydown areas during construction and the mounds will only be re-profiled/landscaped on completion. Such areas given the scale and magnitude of the mounds are going to be visually very prominent to the immediate residences in the vicinity and from wider views generally for a considerable period of time (circa 8 year construction period). The Council cannot envisage how any form of mitigation would be acceptable here.
The Council is aware there may be some misconception that the mounds will completely screen Beckermet from the Moorside site. However, as they are to be sited over to the north east, the mounds will provide relatively minimal visual screening of the Moorside site from Beckermet. The fact that the mounds are expected to be very prominent may in themselves present a significant concern and be perceived as an adverse impact from local settlements.
Some of the viewpoints provided do not tally with the proposed descriptions regarding the mounds, i.e. PEIR Chapter 8 Viewpoint VP6 – Proposal. Mounds here are illustrated as having a gentle profile to the west however the written description of the proposal describes western side of mounds as having very steep profile (i.e. cliff edge type); this is quite misrepresentative.
The Council notes that the impact of mounds on the setting and special qualities of the Lake District National Park need to be considered at this stage and not later at the submission stage as there will be insufficient time to fully consider/evaluate the resultant findings.
It would be beneficial for NuGen to clarify the hierarchy of design decisions behind the size, shape and location of the northern mounds. The Council notes that the intention is to gently slope the mounds from the outer side and have a steeper profile from the inner/Moorside site side. There are security issues regarding this, however the mounds would look hugely artificial in form particularly in relation to the surrounding natural topography/landscape form. The design of the mounds will fundamentally be affected by whether they are a necessity to accommodate spoil that would otherwise need to be removed from site, or whether they are intended
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 163
principally as visual screening. Not only will this aid in the appreciation of their purpose and form, but will also help clarify their status in terms of mitigation.
8.1.3 Question 3
Q3 Have Your Say: Sellafield Road from the A595 to Sellafield Rail Station will need to be temporarily closed to non-Moorside traffic during part of the construction phase. Two options are being considered for providing an alternative route for traffic affected by the closure, more information on these options can be found in section 5 of the Proposed Scheme Document. The options are all subject to engineering design, safety assessment and transport modelling, and therefore both options remain under consideration. What route do you think is the most appropriate? If you have a preference, please explain why.
Council Response
A fuller understanding of the rationale behind the options to either close or open the existing road following construction is needed before a fuller consultation response can be provided for this question. The Council would welcome further consultation in respect of the proposed solution for long-term permanent operational phase. Options for this include re-opening or removal of the existing Sellafield Road to public traffic, and or retention or removal of the selected new road option. Alternatives to the two options presented by NuGen may not require any changes to the main road. One alternative would be to use the start of the existing Sellafield road, to the proposed new roundabout; and then construct a new road from there to Sellafield. The other could involve a bridge over the existing Sellafield road, for NuGen’s use. These would also allow Nursery Road to remain open. The location of the mounds would require further consideration.
Above all, communities and local businesses must be protected from adverse effects associated with these proposals and the Council would wish to remain engaged as design development from NuGen reaches greater maturity.
As an initial comment on the two options presented on Plan 9, from a landscape and visual perspective, it may be preferable to use the shorter of the two options (Option 2), which is furthest from the Lake District National Park (LDNP). This option also lies within the area proposed for earthworks and landscape mitigation offering more opportunity to integrate it into the landscape. From a highways/transport planning perspective the following initial assessment is offered:
Option 1: It is unclear how well the eastern junction of the new road and the existing A595 would work. It is stated that this junction would be a roundabout. The main route would involve a right turn (for north bound traffic) potentially creating delay to the main trunk road route. The alignment of the junction may be constrained due to the alignment
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 164
of the roads that join into the junction. This road would cross a number of minor accesses and consideration would need to be given to how these would be connected to the network. ‘Lower Godderthwaite’ in particular would effectively become directly accessed from the A595. The route also crosses Black Beck watercourse, which will need to be addressed.
Option 2: This follows a more ‘natural’ highway alignment and would create a more intuitive continuation of the A595. This option would have less interaction with existing farm accesses though would require a junction/crossing with Nursery Road (though clearly not if Nursery Road is to be closed).
At this stage, Option 2 would appear to be a more sensible alignment as it results in less deviation from the existing route, creates a more natural through route for the A595 and has less interaction with minor accesses and watercourses.
The Council notes that although the Proposed Scheme document states that both options are the same length, Option 2 appears from the plans to be significantly shorter (at least in terms of new highway).
Both options will have a potentially significant impact upon the Sellafield Car Park, which will be severed by the proposed alignment.
8.1.4 Question 4
Q4 Have Your Say: What are your views on the railway structures on the Moorside Site, especially on the proposed railway viaduct over the River Ehen, including on its materials and appearance.
Council Response
The general layout and arrangement of railway structures within the Moorside site appears logical although the Council notes that no other design information appears to have been provided for comment. For example, it is unclear to the Council what relationship the proposed MOLF has to the railway structures and the viaduct nor how this information has been adequately considered within the landscape and visual impact assessment. The Council would note that the viaduct, if included, should be designed to fit visually and in character with the adjacent Heavy Haul Road Bridge, it appears from the plans that the two structures are conjoined.
The Council advises that rail structures should be in keeping or fit with the scale and character of the existing rail infrastructure of the Cumbrian Coast Line. Further design detail is required in order to provide a more informed response on this matter.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 165
8.1.5 Question 5
Q5 Have Your Say: What are your views as to whether Nursery Road should continue to give access to the A595 and/or whether this should be maintained for all forms of motor vehicles or restricted in some way to bicycles, a bridleway or footpath. If so, at what sections should restrictions be imposed and on which sections the route should remain fully accessible?
Council Response
The Council encourages NuGen to take full account of feedback from local communities, including Beckermet, who would be directly affected by the closure of Nursery Road.
8.1.6 Question 6
Q6 Have Your Say: Some aspects of the substation design are fixed by technical requirements, but NuGen would like your views on the locations and configurations shown in section 5.
Council Response
The Council identifies that the substation is one of the closer elements to Beckermet and would be visually prominent to that community (alongside wider grid infrastructure). The Council would find it helpful to see on a plan, where National Grid and NuGen have preliminarily agreed where the new grid connection will be positioned adjacent to the Moorside Site. Some thought should be given as to whether the substation would be better placed and easier to integrate into the landscape if it were moved further east and tucked into and visually enclosed by the proposed earth mounds.
The Council notes the need for a particularly robust assessment of the cumulative effects as a result of the proposed development in combination with the proposed National Grid’s North West Coast Connections project. The Council would also encourage NuGen to consider appropriate means of compensating for losses in visual amenity (for example from Beckermet) where it may not be possible to mitigate the effects of the proposal.
The project, as proposed by NuGen, has developed significantly since Stage 1 Consultation, and the associated implications for Beckermet and local communities have not yet been adequately consulted on.
8.1.7 Question 7
Q7 Have Your Say: Do you support the idea of re-using waste heat from the Moorside Power Station? Are you aware of any existing or proposed developments where such heat could be used?
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 166
Council Response
The Council would wish NuGen to examine options for re-use of waste heat and would anticipate a heat demand mapping exercise be conducted to evaluate the potential for transmission. For example the Council would be interested to know the viability of heat transmission to the nearby settlement of Beckermet. The Council notes that this exercise will need to respond to issues around potential fluctuation in waste heat supply (during outtages and planned maintenance for example) as well as the complexity of heat transfer, taking into account pipeline, thermal isolation, pumping and wider infrastructure investment. The Council would wish NuGen to examine both district heating opportunities as well as industrial processes. Where such opportunities exist currently, or might in the future, the Council would wish to remain engaged, particularly in respect of linkages to the Growth Strategy, Joint Legacy Strategy and Site Allocations as well as having assurances that infrastructure needs have been anticipated and assessed within the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Council would draw NuGen’s attention to the Joint Legacy Strategy which highlights the importance of inclusion of energy efficiency and sustainability measures and renewable energy should be integrated into design, construction and operation of new developments and especially for the Associated Development sites. This is highly relevant context for the examination of potential uses for waste heat.
8.2 Accommodation Sites
8.2.1 Question 8
Q8 Have Your Say: What are your views on the current proposals for the worker Accommodation Sites at Mirehouse, Corkickle and Egremont, including numbers of bedspaces on each site, arrangement of buildings, the roads and infrastructure and the proposed enhancements and mitigation?
Council Response
The Council notes that the proposed layout is not in accordance with the Legacy Masterplan document commissioned by the Council and set out earlier in Section 2 of this Consultation Response. In respect of a full response to this question, detailed commentary is included in Section 2 which the Council would encourage NuGen to take fully into consideration.
The Council acknowledges that the accommodation table states that a proportion of buildings may be permanent to support Moorside Site emergency evacuation procedures and outages.
The bed space requirements are based on the revised and updated construction employment figure estimates based on the emerging AP1000 reactor design which is to be welcomed. The proving proposals show the approximate percentage of land within the red line Associated Development boundary however the Proposed Scheme document does not show the total
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 167
number of bedspaces that NuGen may require. For instance, the proving plans circulated by NuGen during the Legacy Masterplan showed 500 bedspaces in Egremont however the current proposal shows 520 bed spaces and therefore not the total potential development. The proving proposals used 100% of the land within the red line AD boundary excluding wet ecology areas for the Corkickle site. However the Proposed Scheme Document does not illustrate the total number of bedspaces that NuGen may require. The proving proposals use approximately 40-50% of the land within the red line Associated Development boundary for the Mirehouse site. However, the Proposed Scheme Document does not illustrate the total number of bedspaces that NuGen may require.
There is a conflict between previous statements from NuGen that all buildings would be removed to make way for legacy development. The discounted scenario table (See Figure 4 of Proposed Scheme document) suggests that NuGen may discount any of the current Associated Development sites and select another as yet unidentified. It also states that a percentage of the temporary buildings could be retained to support the emergency planning procedures. It also indicates that parking, coach shuttle and park/ ride to the station may be retained for the operational stage. This presents a conflict between previous statements from NuGen that all buildings would be removed to make way for legacy development. This presents an uncertainty over the future legacy use and how these temporary, and presumably low quality structures, would be/could be incorporated into legacy site uses. It may be an opportunity for NuGen to identify a site of particular sensitivity that could be excluded from AD selection and put forward another.
In terms of social and community impact although NuGen indicate a number of workers associated with the construction they do not attempt to estimate the number of dependents that may follow and therefore the Council perceive the total cumulative impact to be larger than is currently stated.
The spatial arrangement for Mirehouse, Egremont and Corkickle is not in accordance with the Legacy Masterplan (see Section 2).
The Council notes the lack of detail in the landscape proposals and would welcome detailed landscape proposals.
Highways arrangements at Mirehouse do not lend themselves to housing development parcels. Housing development is the long term preferred legacy use and the highway network needs to reflect this.
The highways arrangement at Corkickle does not facilitate development either side of the new spine road. This is likely to be due to the linear park and flood zone.
The highways arrangement at Egremont may be capable of conversion into light industrial units depending on the building design. The alignment has a number of dead-ends. A full circle could be created to avoid the need for turning movements. The arrangement is predicated on a single point of
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 168
access which may raise issues of resilience if there is an accident or obstruction on the route.
The potential for a new or alternative link road through the Corkickle site will potentially reduce impacts on the existing network, in particular the B5345. The Council is of the opinion that new internal road infrastructure will be required in any event to serve the western parts of the site. The main southern road section would be a long cul-de-sac if it is not extended to join Meadow Road.
Part of the road route is shown as being within the Flood Zone 2 and 3. It would appear that the road could be realigned slightly to avoid this though it may be that it is preferable to have a road within the flood zone as opposed to buildings.
The southern end of the road would pass over a disused rail corridor and vertical alignment issues would need to be considered.
8.2.2 Question 9
Q9 Have Your Say: What are your views on any potential long term uses of the Accommodation Sites?
Council Response
The Council notes that once the temporary accommodation is no longer required, then some of the buildings would be demolished and the site restored. This is not a sustainable option. The Councils views on the future development options / scenarios for the Associated Development (including accommodation) sites are set out in Section 2 of this response and NuGen is encouraged to take full account of the detail therein.
The Council welcomes that NuGen is engaging with the communities to ensure that some or all of the temporary accommodation can be used as a legacy project. Whilst sports and leisure facilities are ancillary, it is not clear if these are included in the legacy considerations and they must feature.
Consideration should be given to the longer term use of the accommodation to meet local demand such as starter homes type accommodation. Alternatives should be subject to further analysis via study and stakeholder engagement. The Council is interested in the responsibilities that will vest with third parties in respect of accommodation sites including the intended transfer / arrangements for land acquisition and management. Further detail is expected in this regard. It will also be important for the ongoing maintenance costs to be defined before asset transfer as this will have resource/revenue implications should this be a preferred option.
The Council is unclear on what demand there is for additional leisure and sporting facilities over and above use by the workforce. A demand study is required to underpin options.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 169
8.3 Corkickle to Mirehouse Railway
8.3.1 Question 10
Q10 Have Your Say: NuGen would like to hear your views on the two platform options.
Council Response
The Council has wider issues of concern in respect of the proposals for rail enhancement / reliance. In addition to the potential impacts on Corkickle discussed below, there are wider uncertainties in respect of the means of access, car parking, management of peak flows and longer term legacy opportunity from rail. This necessitates further evidence-led discussion between NuGen and the Council taking full account of views from potentially affected communities. This matter is also an issue for the proposed enhancement for the loop at St Bees. These matters are addressed in further detail in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this consultation response.
The two platform options described present a significant impact to the character and function of the existing railway station. There are residential properties fronting onto the station. The impact of the suggested proposals will change the character of the area and peak flows of 800 present a large impact to the amenity of surrounding residential areas.
The Council is of the opinion that a platform extension to the south of the existing station accessed via the Corkickle site would have the least visual impact to neighbouring areas.
Also of note is the impact of the loop line from Corkickle to Mirehouse and the extending of bridge structures over and under the railway line.
8.4 Highway Improvements
8.4.1 Question 11
Q11 Have Your Say: What are your views on the proposed highway concept designs for the Highway Improvements?
Council Response
The Council has concerns regarding the extent to which NuGen has taken into account the issues at a strategic and network wide level. It appears at this stage that the highway proposals are somewhat limited in focus, being principally directed to localised junction improvements. A Borough-wide approach is required which takes into account the Whitehaven Relief Road as well as potential challenges for access onto the A595 through increased vehicle flow.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 170
The Council notes that no modelling information has been provided on the proposed highway improvements and therefore it is not possible to comment on what the existing capacity issues are or to what extent the proposed mitigation would improve capacity. This matter alongside wider issues identified above must form part of ongoing engagement with the Council, Cumbria County Council and affected communities.
8.5 Public Rights of Way and Amenity Routes
8.5.1 Question 12
Q12 Have Your Say: NuGen would like to know any views you have on the proposed closure and suggested diversions of public rights of way and amenity routes.
Council Response
The Council would note the importance of NuGen setting out a clear rationale for longer term closures and to take full account of community concerns in this regard to assist in finalising the strategy for public rights of way and amenity routes.
8.6 Highways
8.6.1 Question 13
Q13 Have Your Say: Do you have any views on the highways proposals?
Council Response
The Council notes that no modelling information has been provided on these highways improvements and therefore it is not possible to comment on what the existing capacity issues are or to what extent the proposed mitigation would improve capacity. Above all, the Council would note a similar response to Question 11 i.e. that NuGen should take into account a network-wide approach with full consideration of the effects of highway proposals across the whole of the Borough. A wider consideration of the highways effects in full consultation with Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council is also recommended. In particular, the Council would note that there is limited information on which a strong response might be made on the legacy arising from highways improvements and how these matters might relate and support existing and future planned County initiatives. There are still considerable uncertainties in respect of the movement / transfer of both the imported workforce and the local workforce and what this might mean in terms of highway capacity and improvements (including the relationship to Park and Ride facilities) facilitating access to coach and train transfer. The Council would anticipate a much greater level of coherence between highways and the wider transport rationale for the
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 171
project including the relationship to the MOLF, Port of Workington, rail, localised junction improvements and wider strategic highway initiatives. This should include sufficient granularity of detail to enable an understanding of the impact of the works to facilitate highway improvements themselves and the relative timing of the works in the overall construction programme. This phasing approach is imperative and it will also need to address the reconfiguration of Associated Development sites initiated by NuGen through decommissioning / change of use.
8.7 Common Land
8.7.1 Question 14
Q14 Have Your Say: What views do you have on the proposed provision of replacement Common Land?
Council Response
An ‘Indicative area for environmental measures’ has been identified by NuGen, which incorporates the potential for environmental enhancement, flood plain compensation, and common land replacement. Plans 4 and 5 outline the ‘indicative area’ and constraints, but there is no detail presented on how the ‘indicative area’ may be used to fulfil these objectives. The Council notes that the objectives for Common Land replacement are likely to differ from other objectives for environmental enhancement/mitigation and must be agreed with those with an interest in the common land. It is essential that further stakeholder consultation regarding a scheme/schemes for on-going operational management of common land, mitigation/compensation and flood compensation is agreed. NuGen note in Section 14.3 of the Proposed Scheme Document that:
‘NuGen will include powers to acquire replacement land for the Common as part of its proposed DCO, and on completion of the necessary land acquisition will take steps to vest the replacement land in Cumbria County Council as a permanent replacement for land lost. The DCO can include powers to ensure that the replacement land will be provided with the same rights, trusts and incidents attached to the land as the original land.’
Whilst the exchange land will be acquired under the compulsory purchase powers in the DCO, a separate application to the Secretary of State under the Commons Act 2006 for de-registration of the existing common land will be needed. Before the application may be made, a statutory consultation exercise will be required. The application will also need to include a review of any alternatives to de-registration and assessments of the common land to be lost and the exchange land to be provided, in order to show that the exchange land is sufficient to replace that lost4.
4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477135/common-land-
consents-policy.pdf
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 172
The Council would welcome the provision of an environmental masterplan for the indicative area including zoning where land management objectives are required. The Council considers that common land replacement should complement plans to mitigate effects on recreational amenity and public rights of way. NuGen should also consider economic, biodiversity, landscape and archaeological value of the common land and how proposals for replacement land will fully mitigate for any loss and tie in to the wider mitigation / enhancement programme.
8.8 Site Preparation Application(s) to Copeland Borough Council
8.8.1 Question 15
Q15 Have Your Say: What are your views on these works? Would you support, in principle, the concept of site preparation works being permitted by the local authority in order to ensure timely and effective progress with the project?
Council Response
The Council will consider any Town and Country Planning Application (TCPA) on the basis of its individual merits when the scope of such application is confirmed and consulted upon. NuGen should continue to liaise with the Council to ensure that suitable resource and programme for the application is agreed via the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA). A scoping exercise for the site preparation application has not yet been undertaken. It is essential that the site preparation works is fully consulted on and assessed through EIA, and that sufficient information is presented alongside the TCPA application to enable an assessment to be made. Early dialogue regarding Requirements and Section 106 Obligations specifically relating to the TCPA is encouraged, and should seek to facilitate common ground. The Council would note that the linkages between any facilitate works which might be secured under TCPA and the DCO must be transparent and clear (including for stakeholders engaged in responding to such applications). The Council would seek dialogue on the most appropriate means to provide for potential reinstatement of any works undertaken under TCPA where this precedes works which may not be delivered under a DCO. Whilst the Council understands NuGen’s commitments to the project and fully expects this to progress through to DCO submission and then delivery the Council cannot be placed in a position where works are progressed and potentially stopped, leading to a failure to deliver the wider nuclear project (however unlikely this may seem). In part, this will need to be informed by a clear explanation of the scope and extent of works which may be sought under TCPA and the measures that might be necessary to redress site effects should the wider programme not be progressed.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 173
Subject to further consultation, the principle of advance works to secure habitat mitigation and compensation should seek to ensure that mitigation is established as early as possible so as to avoid short to medium term deficit wherever possible. Similarly, the Council seek to be consulted on a public rights of way management plan for the site. The Council also note that the Transport Strategy and underpinning assumptions for logistics (including the use of Workington Port) underpin some of the infrastructure requirements of the TCPA application, and therefore early common ground on these matters in connection with the DCO pre-application consultation process will be required. The Council seek greater clarity on the relationship of TCPA applications for works in respect of the MOLF, Port of Workington and Associated Development site delivery (including potential working arrangements / strategy for delivery) with third parties. The cumulative effects arising from such infrastructure should be clear with mitigation measures addressing these as far as practicable.
8.9 The Benefits and Legacy that NuGen wants to leave
8.9.1 Question 16
Q16 Have Your Say: NuGen would like to hear your views on any of the key points relating to its strategy around benefits and legacy.
Council Response
Section 13 of the Proposed Scheme Document states that ‘NuGen will work with the relevant local planning authorities regarding potential “legacy uses” for such buildings with the aim that either NuGen, or NuGen through a third party, will submit planning applications at the appropriate time for the retention and re-use of buildings to ensure a lasting legacy.’
The Council welcomes NuGen’s commitment to consider creative solutions and collaboration with delivery partners and other agencies and community groups. Section 2 of this Consultation response provides details on the Council’s expectation in respect of the benefits and positive legacy which is expected to derive from the Moorside project. The Council considers however that engagement with local communities and other stakeholders is not yet sufficiently progressed and the details of proposals for wider community benefit are disappointingly absent from the Stage 2 Consultation material. In particular the Stage 2 consultation material focusses on the localities with the physical infrastructure associated with the DCO application, and lacks information regarding wider structural interventions, and specific community interventions connected with Accommodation and Ancillary Sites as well as wider interventions. The Council expects a full Borough-wide approach to the benefits and legacy which might be secured from the project with a clear rationale as to how NuGen propose to tie into existing initiatives as well as those which might flow from the project.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 174
In order to inform proactive engagement on legacy matters, CBC and CCC have submitted to NuGen a Joint Legacy Strategy and Legacy Masterplan for Associated Development Sites. Engagement of delivery partners for the Accommodation Sites, led by NuGen is underway and the Council welcomes continuing dialogue in this respect.
The Council is preparing a Delivery Plan, to provide a pathway for the realisation of community-led plans for positive initiatives to be secured via Section 106 Obligations, Requirements, embedded mitigation and commitments secured though the DCO and in collaboration with partners. Engagement with NuGen on this work will be key in establishing common ground on community legacy matters prior to DCO submission.
The Council would welcome clarity on a consenting strategy that ensures that legacy commitments are secured alongside the DCO. Aspirations associated with planning applications that may or may not come forward at an undefined future date are not considered sufficient to deliver the strategic project objectives set out by NuGen, and those set out by CCC and CBC in the Joint Legacy Strategy.
8.9.2 Question 17
Q17 Have Your Say: Are the potential benefits and legacy being considered by NuGen appropriate to each area? Are there any benefits / legacy NuGen should prioritise, or have been missed?
Council Response
Overall the potential benefits and legacy being considered by NuGen must be Borough / County wide. The Council welcomes NuGen’s commitment to consider creative solutions and collaboration with delivery partners and other agencies and community groups. The Council considers however that engagement with local communities and other stakeholders is not yet sufficiently progressed and the details of proposals for wider community benefit are largely absent from the Stage 2 Consultation material. The preceding text included within this Section 2 provides NuGen with a clear indication of the Councils expectations in respect of the legacy programme / process moving forward and continued collaboration will be imperative.
8.10 How NuGen’s Design for the Moorside Project has evolved
8.10.1 Question 18
Q18 Have Your Say: NuGen would like to hear your views on the options in respect of the Moorside Power Station, Accommodation Sites and Additional Sites in the context of national policy requirements.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 175
Council Response
The Council would wish NuGen to consider the following National Policy requirements:
Section 5.9 of NPS EN-1 Energy, in particular:
- Landscape effects - paragraph 5.9.8; - Designations - paragraph 5.9.12; - Visual effects - paragraph 5.9.18; and - Mitigation measures - paragraphs 5.9.21 to 5.9.23.
Section 3.10 of EN-6 Nuclear, in particular:
- Mitigation - paragraphs 3.107 and 3.10.8.
Section D8 under C7 Sellafield in Annex C of EN-6 Annexes, in particular:
- Mitigation - paragraph c.7.74
Overall, the Council would note the importance of NuGen taking full account of the Council’s priorities for the Moorside Power Station, Accommodation Sites and Additional Sites as set out in Section 2 of this Consultation response. Clearly, whilst the Council recognises the reference to national policy, this must not be at the expense of taking into account local priorities and needs which may not be reflected at the national level. It is imperative that NuGen takes full account of the localised as well as Borough-wide issues associated with the Moorside project and works constructively with the Council and wider stakeholders to deliver enhanced and long term positive community outcomes.
8.10.2 Question 19
Q19 Have Your Say: What are your views on the Principal Search Criteria and on the process to identify developments within them, as used by NuGen to identify the proposed Accommodation Site locations?
Council Response
The Council acknowledges the Principal Search Criteria in section 15.3:
Located on a network- rail or road that can facilitate evacuation from the Moorside plant in the event of an emergency;
Reduce impact on the National Park by utilising the rail network or a new highway network.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 176
Within 30mins travel time and be able to accommodate 4000+ workers, be adjacent to a town or service centre and have minimal environmental impact.
When developing the Legacy Masterplan work described earlier in this section, the Council had limited visibility of the context of the wider search that NuGen had undertaken and the Search Criteria were not stated. However, the points identified within the Search Criteria present a reasonable starting point although cannot be considered wholly representative of the Councils expectations in respect of sites which should be considered for positive legacy. It is important that NuGen do not focus legacy proposition only on those sites which are selected as part of the accommodation strategy. The Council would expect a much wider consideration which takes into account the whole of the Borough.
The Council is unclear on one specific point which is the need for the AD sites to be used in the event of an evacuation at Moorside including with the need to retain some structures on the sites. The Council is uncertain as to the context of this use and would question the basis / rationale for it. This matter should be subject to further dialogue. Furthermore, the Council would expect a clear presentation of the engagement to date with the Cumbria County Council Resilience Unit and Sellafield Ltd. on this matter.
The Council notes investment in the AD sites is required at Mirehouse, Corkickle and Egremont and, in general, providing much needed infrastructure, employment and upgrading of rail transport. Integration across these sites is of particular interest to the Council and further dialogue is sought on this matter.
There are areas of concern over the Legacy uses proposed for accommodation sites, including;
The areas and uses required in the Legacy timeframe, identify which buildings are temporary and which are permanent;
Clarify the quality of the architecture proposed and the difference between temporary and permanent i.e. construction approach;
Clarify the long term site ownership, in particular in respect of whether all or part will be retained by NuGen in perpetuity, if part of the disposal mechanism should be clarified;
Clarify landscape strategy and quality of design;
Clarify the FM approach and how many workers can be accommodated within the FM leisure buildings;
Links to the local centres are a site selection criteria, however, it is not clear how much investment will be made in the connecting physical and social infrastructure;
Where land uses within the local plan list the AD sites of being of significant importance in delivering employment, the numbers of onsite jobs need to be clarified and any planning shortfall relocated
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 177
onto another site. Note that this may require considering sites discounted within the current site allocations process; and
Comments on the layout of the AD sites proposed within the Stage 2 consultation are located elsewhere in this document.
In terms of the process to develop the masterplans for each site, the Stage 1 proving plans were very high level taking no account of site characteristics. The Stage 2 plans appear to be more rigorous, however, until detailed proposals are shown, the Council is unable to comment further but instead direct NuGen to preceding text setting out the priorities for the sites (particularly within Section 2 of this Consultation response).
It is important to stress that Phasing will be very important in determining the effect of the AD masterplans on the surrounding areas and their long term legacy benefit cannot be assessed with the current information.
8.11 Landscape Strategy
8.11.1 Question 20
Q20 Have Your Say: NuGen would like to hear your views on the land use proposals for the mounds at the Moorside Site, for the operational phase, after the completion of construction works.
Council Response
As noted above, the Council recognises that NuGen has established a strategy for the management of waste excavated material at the site as far as possible. The Council would like clarification on the hierarchy of design decisions behind the size, shape and location of the northern mounds. The design of the mounds will fundamentally be affected by whether they are a necessity to accommodate spoil that would otherwise need to be removed from site, or whether they are intended principally as visual screening. Not only will this aid in the appreciation of their purpose and form, but this will also help clarify their status in terms of mitigation.
After the completion of the construction phase, the Council would note potential access and security issues both for Moorside and Sellafield which NuGen will need to reconcile in respect of the overall strategy for the mounds. This is fundamental in respect of the potential for public access to the landscaped mounds. NuGen must be highly aware of the potential effects of the proposals for Moorside on the nearby settlement of Beckermet. The strategy for management of spoil, in particular the screening effects which might be offered through the proposed mounds should be discussed in detail with affected communities, including Beckermet.
The Council notes that the form e.g. profile and function of the mounds, as well as the potential security issues emerging from their formation will need
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 178
to inform the possibility of using them for recreation. Cross sections of the mounds would be helpful to show their profile during construction and operation in relation to existing levels and the surrounding landscape. Early site of and consultation on emerging landscape proposals on the mounds would be welcomed. The Council would also encourage further dialogue in respect of the potential for wildlife habitat creation and mitigation / enhancement schemes.
The rationale for locating the main mounds to the northeast of the main development is not clear. The Council assumes that this was the only available part of the site once the other elements of the scheme had been arranged. The impact of the completed mounds (post construction) are difficult to adequately assess and should not be underestimated. The Council requires details on specific location and profiling topography. This is particularly important in the context of local settlements such as Beckermet, the community of which is expected to experience effects cumulatively including the mounds themselves, substation, transmission pylons (associated with the North West Coast Connections Project) and the development of the main site structures associated with the Moorside project.
The Council wishes to be consulted further as the design of the main site evolves and in particular when the external design resulting from the RIBA/LI design competition is available.
8.12 Land and Property
8.12.1 Question 21
Q21 Have Your Say: Do you have any views on NuGen’s approach to properties affected, and the Draft Property Support Scheme and Voluntary Local Mitigation Scheme?
Council Response
The Council notes the provision of a Property Support Scheme and Local Mitigation Scheme. The eligibility requirements for each scheme will be of acute interest to local affected communities and it is crucial to ensure that there is a transparent and robust process in place for the management of applications. It is unclear at present on what basis the geographical boundaries for the schemes have been defined on Plan 49. A robust evidence base relating to the impacts of the scheme, yet to be further understood through the EIA process, will be required to justify the proposal. The Council would also welcome further consultation on the timing and implementation of such a scheme, given the likely impact of the development phase on local perception and associated house prices.
The Council is yet to be consulted on a package of community impact mitigation measures, including Section 106 Obligations and potential Community Impact Mitigation for unforeseen and poorly predicted effects. A
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 179
coherent compensation and mitigation package is essential and should be borne in mind when further developing the Property Support and Voluntary Local Mitigation Schemes.
Finally, in respect of compulsory purchase the document notes that ‘NuGen will make every effort to discuss the need for acquisition of land and rights with landowners and to reach solutions acceptable to both parties.’ CBC are supportive of this approach and consider that the emphasis on voluntary landowner agreement should be strengthened. Compulsory purchase should be sought as a ‘last resort’ as was the approach applied by EDF at Hinkley Point C5.
8.13 Health / Impacts
8.13.1 Question 22
Q22 Have Your Say: How do you feel about how the following might potentially impact on you and your family as a result of construction, and also when the power station is in operation?
Council Response
The Council notes that it is difficult to fully articulate the impact on the local population due to a lack of detailed information on the impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Moorside power station. Section 2 of this Consultation response, as well as preceding responses to questions should provide a clear indication of the Council’s views for NuGen to consider and act upon in this regard. The Council continues to engage with its local communities and would note that it is imperative that NuGen also engage with the local communities at each of the sites where development will take place to ensure impacts are removed or reduced as far as possible. The Council has concerns that affected communities may have a limited opportunity to engage with NuGen directly on the emerging proposals prior to DCO submission. Furthermore, the Council would encourage NuGen to consider running another formal stage of consultation to provide that platform and access to information for affected communities.
8.13.2 Question 23
Q23 Have Your Say: Do you see any potential benefit to people’s health as a result of the Moorside Project? For instance, improved economic circumstances, investment in health or recreation services and facilities, transport improvements or something else?
5 EDF, Hinkley Point C Pre-Application Consultation: Approach to Compulsory Purchase
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 180
Council Response
It is important that impact on health and well-being is considered in its widest sense including effects on physiological well-being and community-wide effects. The Council welcome the proposal to undertake a Health Impact Assessment, but are yet to be consulted on the detailed assessment and potential outcomes of this. It is imperative that NuGen takes full account of the effects of the project in respect of the Health Impact Assessment and that this fully and transparently conveys the issues (positive and adverse) which may arise from all phases of development.
The Council welcomes the investment in sporting and recreational services and proposals to construct new cycleways and pedestrian routes. The Council also welcomes NuGen’s objective to maximise support for local health care providers to meet the requirements of NuGen’s workforce during construction and operation, and provide a legacy of enhanced services. The Council would like to be part of continued dialogue on any commercial agreements and investment by NuGen with regard to such expanded services.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 181
9 Adequacy of Consultation
9.1 Introduction
This section of the Council’s response sets out the Council’s observations regarding the adequacy of consultation to date undertaken by NuGen in respect of the Moorside proposals. The Council’s evaluation includes commentary on the adequacy of consultation matters in respect to adherence with the consultation commitments set out in the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). Consideration has also been given to the extent to which NuGen has responded to issues raised by the Council at Stage 1 and also in advance of this current Stage 2 consultation. This section also draws in reference to emerging evidence from the Council’s dialogue with representative community groups.
This Section of the Council’s response is set out as follows:
Procedural adherence including requirements of the 2008 Planning Act and Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Equality Act. Observations are also provided in relation to sufficiency of consultation for the preliminary works applications;
Approach to Stage 2 including commentary on the accessibility of the consultation information, adequacy of engagement with communities and stakeholders and engagement in relation to community benefits;
Communities directly affected including specific issues that have emerged through consultation carried out by the Councils during April 2015; and
Progress on specific issues, comparing comments provided by the authorities at Stage 1 and details of Councils’ understanding of progress at Stage 2.
9.2 Procedural Adherence
The Planning Act 2008 imposes a duty on promoters of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) to consult those who would be directly affected by the proposed development, people living in the vicinity of land proposed for development, the general public, local authorities and a range of other statutory consultees before submitting an application for a DCO.
The Planning Inspectorate has a right to refuse to accept the application if it believes the pre-application consultation has not been conducted properly by the promoter, and the Secretary of State (as decision maker) has the power to reject an accepted application if consultation has been inadequate.
With respect to this process, the Council believes that it is useful to describe the relationship of the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC) and the Interim Consultation Report to this Stage 2 Consultation since
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 182
compliance with the SOCC is a principal means to confirm the approach to consultation for agreement with the host authority. This is confirmed below.
9.2.1 Legal and Guidance Context
The following section identifies the principal forms of guidance and statutory provisions which have informed this response to NuGen’s Stage 2 Consultation.
9.2.1.1 Provisions of the Planning Act
Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 requires an application for an NSIP to produce a statement which sets out how the applicant proposes to consult with the people living in the vicinity of the land. Section 47(5) states that “in preparing the statement, the applicant must have regard to any response to consultation under subsection (2) that is received by the applicant before the deadline imposed by subsection (3)”. Subsection 47(2) is concerned with the consultation with local authorities and subsection 47(3) identifies a 28 day period for consultation on the draft Statement of Community Consultation. Subsection 47(7) states that “the applicant must carry out consultation in accordance with the proposals set out in the statement”. Guidance on Pre-Application Consultation (March 2015) states (in paragraph 40) that: “It is expected that in most cases applicants and local authorities will be able to work closely together and agree on the consultation process. Where significant differences of opinion persist between the applicant and local authority (or authorities) on how the consultation should take place, the Inspectorate may be able to offer further advice or guidance to either party. However, such advice will be without prejudice to any later decision on whether to accept or reject an application for examination.”
Specifically with respect to the staged approach to consultation guidance issued by CLG (March 2015) is of relevance. This states (in para 70) that a two-stage process of consultation is beneficial, especially for larger projects and that:
“applicants might wish to consider undertaking non-statutory early consultation at a stage where options are being considered. This will be helpful in informing proposals and assisting the applicant in establishing a preferred option on which to undertake statutory consultation.”
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 183
In addition the IPC’s guidance note on Pre-Application Stages (April 20126) (para 5) states:
“The overriding intention of the legislation is to ensure that detailed matters are consulted upon and solutions or mitigation negotiated with the local community, landowners, statutory consultees and local authorities before submission of the application for development consent to the IPC”.
The need for full transparency in the consultation process is reinforced by the Planning Officers Society August 2010 Advice Note on Responding to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which refers to the Powys County Council published advice entitled ‘A briefing note for developers producing a Statement of Community Consultation’ in respect of NSIPs which has been previously commended by the IPC7.
9.2.1.2 Provisions of the Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Equality Act
The Council wishes to highlight that in forming its consultation response, it has also taken account of its own wider duties and responsibilities to the community it represents. Public bodies have a statutory duty under the Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Equality Act to:
Promote equality of opportunity;
Promote good community relations; and
Assess and consult on the likely impact of proposed policies, functions or services on the promotion of equality.
The three Acts were replaced in 2011 by a single Public Sector Duty. Under the new Duty, a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share relevant protected characteristics and those who do not by:
Removing/minimising disadvantages;
Meeting different needs of protected group;
Encouraging participation in public life where low;
Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it by:
Tackling prejudice; and
Promoting understanding. 6 See https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Advice-note-16.pdf 7 see http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Powys-SOCCguide
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 184
Issues relating to the following subject areas have been reviewed as part of preparing the Councils’ response and are incorporated within the response. Particular matters which the Council has identified require further attention by NuGen relate to:
Age;
Race;
Disabilities;
Sexual orientation;
Religion and belief; and
Gender.
These matters have been raised in the relevant technical sections of this consultation response for consideration by NuGen.
9.2.2 Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC) for the Moorside Project
A first draft of NuGen’s proposed Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) was issued in March 2015 and consultation commenced with the local authorities under Section 47 (2) of the Planning Act 2008. Copeland Borough Council, Cumbria County Council and Allerdale Borough Council provided a joint response in March 2015.
There were a number of comments made by the Councils relating to both the proposed content of the SOCC and wider clarifications. NuGen responded to the comments with a paper which explained how they had sought to address each comment received from the local authorities by providing an explanation of the changes made to the SOCC in response to these comments. Stage 1 Consultation took place between April and July 2015. An Interim Consultation Report provided an overview of the responses received during this stage of consultation. A paper was also prepared by NuGen that explained how they had sought to fulfil each requirement set out in the agreed SOCC throughout Stage 1 Consultation.
An updated SOCC was issued by NuGen to the Councils in April 2016. The aim of the updated SOCC was to reflect improvements in approach and experiences from the community during Stage 1 consultation. The main comments provided by the Councils on the updated SOCC were set out as below:
Basic principles for consultation are robust and meet expectations relating to engagement with residents and businesses in the Borough. The SOCC reflects the feedback from Stage 1 Consultation relating to the lack of broad demographic engagement through the provision of events and publicity designed to address wider engagement. There is not a clear formalised strategy for engaging with hard to reach groups,
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 185
however the SOCC provides generally appropriate means of engagement.
The project remains insufficiently detailed and designed to enable issues of core concern to be properly assessed by the residents and businesses of Copeland. Whilst proposals do include more detail than previously the case this may still be an issue which impacts upon the effectiveness of the consultation process at this stage;
The SOCC has not adequately addressed engagement with local business and potential supply, with the education and academic community, particularly young people who may ultimately be those taking advantage of the business and employment opportunities presented by this development. The scope should be widened at consultation in order to ensure adequate engagement;
The scope for the Moorside project to stimulate growth and to provide opportunity for lasting legacy is afforded limited reference in the SOCC and it does not adequately address consultation processes which might relate to development which is not considered through the DCO and is instead considered through conventional planning application process under the Town & Country Planning Act.
The Council’s comments in April 2016 identified that many of the lessons learned from Stage 1 Consultation appeared to be reflected in the revised SOCC, and that the basic principles for consultation seemed robust and met expectations relating to the engagement with residents and businesses within the Borough. The Council has considered the commitments in the updated SOCC in respect of this response to formal Stage 2 Consultation.
9.2.3 Information on Applications made outside of the DCO Process
The SOCC makes reference to the consents which may be required for Associated Development, however details on the approach to pre-application consultation to be undertaken for any preliminary works and other non-DCO applications (such as worker accommodation and associated development sites where applications are intended to be submitted in advance of the DCO application) are absent from the SOCC.
If applications, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, are to be made to the local planning authorities (with the jurisdiction for them) then the authorities will require pre-application consultation on these applications in accordance with their Statements of Community Involvement (SCI). Clearly, it is particularly important to ensure that there is sufficiently detailed and transparent engagement with affected communities in respect of such infrastructure. The Council notes that Stage 2 Consultation has provided a platform for that engagement.
It is noted that there have been no details provided nor discussion undertaken on any draft heads of terms for a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions for applications to be taken forward outside the DCO
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 186
process. Copeland Borough Council require such discussions to take place prior to submission.
9.3 Approach to and content of Stage 2 Consultation
The Council considers that the approach indicated in the SOCC is fundamentally sound and NuGen has made efforts to address some of the areas of concern raised by the Councils with regards to the SOCC following Stage 1 Consultation. There are still a number of specific issues however which are of concern to the Council remaining both from Stage 1 consultation and arising from this Stage 2 consultation. These are discussed below.
Whilst proposals within the Stage 2 Consultation material do include more detail than at Stage 1, the remaining relative absence of important and detailed information on specific aspects of the project is considered to be an issue for affected communities which could impact upon the effectiveness of the consultation process at this stage. The Council considers that NuGen should give full consideration to conducting another formal stage of consultation in order to address deficiencies identified in this consultation response (as well as those that may be raised by wider parties). This would create an opportunity for outstanding matters of community concern to be reviewed and addressed in advance of DCO submission.
The Council notes that the inclusion of defined questions posed by NuGen in the Stage 2 consultation may be of use in driving feedback on particular elements of the project, but they can only represent a partial response to the project. The Council does not consider that the scope of the questions is sufficient to drive balanced feedback. Moreover, the phraseology used in the questions could have been more effective in ensuring that respondents have a fair opportunity to engage. In some cases the subject matter or area of the project upon which NuGen seeks comments is helpful, for example transport, but the questions are relatively narrow. The Council would wish to stress the importance of taking full account of all consultation responses, not just those elements which might relate to responses to questions.
In order to assess the adequacy of consultation, this section maps out the Council’s views on the following:
The commitments made by NuGen in the SOCC and how these have been addressed through Stage 2 Consultation;
Adequacy of consultation with stakeholders; and
Adequacy of consultation on project legacy.
9.3.1 SoCC commitments
In accordance with Section 47 (7) of the Planning Act 2008, NuGen is required to carry out consultation in accordance with the proposals that are
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 187
set out in the SOCC. Table 13 sets out what NuGen has committed to carrying out in Stage 2 Consultation.
Table 13 Table of SoCC Commitments
NuGen’s commitments
1 Topics for
consultation
Site layout and design principles;
Proposals for the railway works, MOLF and AD;
Preliminary environmental information and supporting
technical documents; and
Details of feedback received under the Stage 1 Consultation
and how this has been taken into account.
2 Documents for
consultation
Proposed scheme overview;
Statement of Community Consultation;
Preliminary Environmental Impact Report;
Technical figures and drawings.
3 Consultation
locations
NuGen’s Moorside Information Centre: exhibition, hard
copies of Stage 2 Consultation material;
Selected libraries;
Main offices of relevant district and county councils,
including Copeland Borough Council. Allerdale Borough
Council, Cumbria County Council, Carlisle City Council;
Online at www.nugenconsultation.com;
Free digital storage devices;
4 Consultation
techniques
Exhibitions
Direct mail
Newsletter
Press campaign
TV / radio
Posters
Website
Social media
Presentations
5 Locations of
public exhibitions
Whitehaven;
Cleator Moor;
St Bees;
Egremont;
Beckermet;
Gosforth;
Seascale;
Bootle;
Ravenglass;
Carlisle;
Penrith;
Kendal; and
Barrow-in-Furness.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 188
NuGen’s commitments
Locations of
events specifically
aimed at
businesses,
employees and
students
Sellafield site;
Westlakes Science and Technology Park; and Lilyhall
6 Consultation
techniques to
engage ‘hard to
reach’ groups
The provision of one week focused on engaging in further
events with schools and young people’s groups;
Consultation within employment centres to increase
engagement with young people and working people;
Consultation exhibitions open on Saturday mornings and
until 7.30pm during school holidays;
Schools will be invited to events which cater for students;
The provision of summary documents in plain English,
online, and in hard copy.
7 Response to
consultation
feedback
NuGen has committed to ensure that all consultation responses
are carefully considered and that, where a response relates to
National Grid’s proposals for national infrastructure, the
response will be forwarded to National Grid.
NuGen has committed to recording, reviewing and considering
all responses as part of the consultation process, and will
produce a report based on the feedback.
NuGen has committed to explaining how the feedback
responses have been considered and taken into account.
Where proposals haven’t been altered to reflect feedback,
NuGen will explain the reasoning in a final consultation report.
9.3.2 Adequacy of Engagement with Hard to Reach and Minority Groups
NuGen has recognised the low participation of the under 45 age range during Stage 1 Consultation, and have attempted to address this by holding consultation events within employment centres and on Saturday mornings, in addition to specific events to accommodate school students. The Councils have welcomed these attempts by NuGen to broaden engagement by developing a focus to engage with young people.
NuGen has also recognised the 2:1 ratio of male to female respondents and have committed to addressing this disparity during Stage 2 Consultation however evidence of efforts to abide by this (via a very clear commitment or mechanism) has not been provided throughout Stage 2 Consultation. It is important that NuGen makes attempts through executing its’ consultation programme to fully respond to all groups potentially affected by the proposals.
In April 2016, the Council raised a concern that a formalised strategy to engage hard to reach and minority groups did not appear to be in place. Whilst NuGen has stated that they have taken into account all hard to reach groups, they have not implemented a clear strategy within the SOCC which
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 189
identifies the methods and process through which engagement will occur. NuGen has stated that the variety of channels through which consultation is available is designed to ensure inclusivity, however evidence of this has not been provided for all hard to reach groups.
9.3.3 Adequacy of Engagement with Other Stakeholders
In terms of local authority engagement, NuGen has maintained dialogue with the local authorities throughout the development of the project design and consultation stages, supported by a Planning Performance Agreement with Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council. The Councils seek further clarity on the resources that will be provided to adequately engage Allerdale Borough Council, which is considered essential in respect to emerging proposals for the Port of Workington, and the potential for wider community legacy interventions.
9.3.4 Adequacy of Engagement on Skills/Training Matters
The Stage 1 Consultation feedback provided by NuGen found that the majority of people who support the proposals do so citing the economic benefits that it has the potential to bring. The feedback suggested that the most significant benefits of the project are thought to be employment opportunities, to the local economy and skills and training.
Whilst it appears consultees find these benefits to be of significance, in April 2016 the Council raised a concern that the SOCC and therefore intended consultation strategy holds limited reference to engagement on the project’s opportunity for lasting economic legacy and that it does not provide clarity on a strategy to engage with local businesses and the local workforce.
The Council noted that it would be beneficial for NuGen to engage with the local workforce, and in particular young people who may ultimately take advantage of the business and employment opportunities presented by the development. NuGen has addressed this concern by adding a consultation event at Sellafield for employees only, and have committed to engaging with young people through schools and academic institutions. NuGen has not, however, provided a clear consultation strategy for engagement on the lasting economic legacy of the project. The Council’s direct engagement with representative community groups underlines this concern; community partnerships have identified the significant opportunity associated with interventions that will secure the use of local labour and local facilities to support the Project. Specific structural interventions such as IT access and recruitment design can ensure that barriers to access to the local labour market can be reduced, alongside the use of local centres for training and skills provision to improve accessibility. NuGen however are yet to engage meaningfully with local partnerships and community groups on the means by which such interventions could be delivered. Specific local priorities identified to date include skills provision and recruitment pathways for local
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 190
people. This matter is addressed in further detail within this consultation response, including in Section 3 on Socio-economics.
9.3.5 Adequacy of Engagement on Community Benefit
An analysis of the feedback from the Stage 1 Consultation found that the majority of people believe the project has the opportunity to benefit the community, as they saw it as an opportunity to make improvements to the existing transport infrastructure, for example.
The Council’s comments in April 2016 included a need for the SOCC to consider how the wider community might be engaged to ensure awareness of all parties who could benefit from the project. Whilst the SOCC has made provisions for individuals in the wider sub-region, this has not been further expanded upon and the Council fully expected this to be addressed during the delivery of Stage 2 Consultation. It will be important for NuGen to demonstrate how wider effects associated with the project have been taken into account for all potentially affected communities.
NuGen has held a number of meetings with local partnerships in relation to the Community Outreach Programme. Feedback from these sessions has established that it would be beneficial for NuGen to carry out more constructive dialogue on community legacy benefit. The Councils, informed by their engagement with representative community partnership groups consider that NuGen has not engaged meaningfully on this matter, and have set out to NuGen a proposal for meaningful local engagement involving community groups, NuGen and Copeland Borough Council post Stage 2 consultation. Lasting local legacy will incorporate the provision of economic interventions, alongside community infrastructure on a wider geographical basis that inferred by the Stage 2 consultation material (which focusses solely on Accommodation and Additional sites). Specific local priorities identified to date include healthcare provision and recreational facilities that would provide dual benefit for Moorside workers and local communities if designed and located appropriately.
9.3.6 Adequacy of Providing Further Details on Wider Consultations
NuGen has not provided detailed information on wider consultation activities which may have a relationship with the Moorside proposals and this is consistent with expectations from the Council. Reference has been appropriately made to other consultation activities which have the potential to coincide with the Stage 2 Consultation. NuGen has noted that where the consultee feedback relates to another project undergoing consultation, such as the North West Coast Connections Project, the feedback will be passed across to the relevant developer. The Council supports this position as it will assist in driving a more complete programme of engagement across wider infrastructure proposals.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 191
9.4 Communities Directly Affected
NuGen has carried out consultation with the communities which have the potential to be directly affected by the proposals as a part of Stage 2 Consultation. This included discussions / meetings at areas within approximately eight miles of a consultation event undertaken by NuGen and included:
Whitehaven;
Cleator Moor;
St Bees;
Egremont;
Beckermet;
Gosforth;
Seascale;
Bootle;
Ravenglass.
Distington;
Millom;
Workington;
Maryport;
Wigton.
Cockermouth;
Keswick;
Broughton-in-Furness;
The Council’s own engagement with representative community organisations has, to date indicated that there is a significant gap in meaningful engagement on wider legacy interventions. Such interventions may be contained within Section 106 Obligations or delivered via TCPA in partnership with other agencies. The Council considers it essential that in consultation with NuGen a pathway for the realisation of community-led plans for positive initiatives be secured prior to DCO submission (and irrespective of their relationship with the definition of the DCO in planning terms). As noted previously in this response, feedback from community engagement by the Council suggests a continuing fragmented or low level of understanding amongst communities of the potential impact of the Moorside proposals upon them. This is concerning for the Council and a recommended response is for NuGen to consider a further formal stage of consultation to address the absence of detail in aspects of the engagement and inform communities fully.
9.4.1 Awareness of the Proposals
NuGen has highlighted a recognition that whilst consultation activity should focus on the people living nearest to the Moorside Project sites, it is a large development and there are likely to be wider impacts throughout the region and therefore requires consultation across Cumbria.
The Stage 1 Consultation feedback highlighted that 10% of respondents made a complaint about not receiving a notification regarding consultation activities and 8% of respondents made a request for more advertising. This indicates that in executing the Stage 2 Consultation NuGen must make
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 192
improvements on the process of consultation at Stage 1. The Council will wish to be kept aware of this matter since prior awareness of the consultation events is fundamental to supporting community capacity to engage in them.
The Council has been made aware of a number of community concerns regarding understanding of the parameters of the project defined in Stage 2 consultation including lack of appreciation of the scale and form of MOLF and marine infrastructure. This reflects the Council’s technical review of the Stage 2 consultation material which highlights that lack of project definition limits the extent to which the impacts of the project and potential mitigation can be understood.
9.4.2 Community Satisfaction with Consultation to Date
Following Stage 1 Consultation, the Council understands that NuGen received 375 feedback forms from individuals who attended a consultation event with regards to the proposals. The feedback received in relation to the quantity and quality of information provided during construction suggested that the majority of individuals felt that consultation was adequate. Nonetheless, the Council notes that 14% and 24.8% respectively, felt that the quantity and detail was insufficient. This is a matter which the Council fully expects NuGen to resolve during the execution of Stage 2 Consultation.
Whilst 20% of consultees who provided feedback praised the consultation thus far, 17% requested that locals be kept better informed, and 20% requested more information and additional events. Other areas of concern included:
Complaints about not receiving notifications related to consultation events;
Requests for more advertising; and
More engagement with Parish Councils.
The Council understands that NuGen has committed to taking this feedback into consideration during the Stage 2 Consultation process and anticipate seeing the evidence arising in the form of the updated Consultation Report (and preceding feedback).
9.4.3 Key Issues and Requirements for Stage 2 Consultation
With regards to consultation, the following list of key issues were raised as a part of the Stage 1 Consultation process and provide NuGen with an indication of how to improve Stage 2 Consultation:
General praise for the consultation so far;
Request for locals to be kept better informed;
Request for more detailed information;
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 193
Request for additional events (locations and types);
Complaint about not receiving notification;
Request for more advertising;
More engagement with Parish Councils.
9.5 Adequacy of Progress on Issues Raised
There are still a number of specific issues which are of concern to the Council. The project remains insufficiently detailed and defined to enable issues of core concern to be properly assessed by the residents and businesses of Copeland. The previous Stage 1 Consultation process flagged transport, health facilities and economic opportunity as the main issues of concern to the community. See the Summary Table in Executive Summary for further details on the technical issues which have progressed since Stage 1. Table 14 addresses the issues raised at Stage 1 Consultation and assesses NuGen’s progress on each issue at Stage 1 Consultation.
Table 14 Progress on issues raised at Stage 1 Consultation
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
Project
Definition and
Approach to
Stage 1
Consultation
The Council noted a lack of
project definition for the
Additional Scoping Land and
Associated Development sites,
with relatively little baseline
data in the Stage 1
Consultation documentation.
The project definition remains
inconsistent and unclear, and
means that it is difficult to
understand what parameters have
been assumed to provide a worst
case scenario for EIA.
Approach to scoping out of
topic issues; the Council noted
that NuGen should be cautious
on the scoping out of EIA needs
without consultation and
approval from the Secretary of
State.
Ongoing engagement has taken
place with regards to the scoping
out of EIA needs.
The Council noted there should
be a greater focus on
engagement with Sellafield with
the intentions of securing
mutually advantageous
outcomes.
The Council would question what
influence NuGen’s engagement
with prospective legacy users e.g.
Sellafield Ltd has had on the
scheme development
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 194
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
Approach to EIA Detail of how cumulative
development would be
considered was limited
NuGen has not provided clarity on
cumulative or inter-related effects
arising from multiple aspects of the
project being delivered in a
common timeframe and / or
geography.
The Council noted that NuGen
should provide clarification on
how it intends to address
decommissioning of all other
elements that form part of the
DCO.
The process of and impacts
associated with the
decommissioning and re-
instatement of the Associated
Development Sites including the
transfer to third parties where such
uses can be readily identified are
still unclear.
The Council noted that further
explanation is required in
respect of the development
planning strategy and any
sequential impacts associated
with various phases of work
supported under different
planning regimes
There remains considerable
uncertainty regarding the scope,
roles and responsibilities, and
timing of TCPA and other
applications.
Transport The Council noted the need for
further information on the
scope of assessment in order
to understand, in particular, the
relationship of the AD sites and
the transport strategy from the
perspective of the construction
programme.
The Council also noted the
need to understand the
strategy for dealing with
excavated material.
The baseline information remains
incomplete and therefore the
scope of assessment is not yet
clear.
It is not yet possible to isolate the
transport effects for the
accommodation sites from those
of the main site.
Whilst the strategy for dealing with
excavated material is touched
upon in the Draft Construction
Freight Movement Strategy, a
clear strategy has not yet been
provided.
Noise and Vibration
The Council noted concerns relating to the assessment methodology and its compliance with the Noise
The Council has not received clarity on the type of freight trains that are likely to be used for construction.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 195
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
Policy for England and the application of BS6472 Pt1. The Council sought clarity on the type of freight trains used for construction in order to aid the vibration assessment, and receptors affected by the new rail spur should be considered. The Council noted that quantified justification should be provided as to why operation phase vibration is not assessed in the context of operational rail movement. The Council also noted that there should be a full consideration of all receptors and resources potentially affected.
The Council welcomes that operational phase vibration is being assessed in the context of operational rail movement. At Stage 2, the Council notes the use of BS6472 as being relevant for road and rail vibration assessment, but the PEIR does not mention its relevance to the assessment of vibration resulting from construction or fixed plant.
Air Quality and Climate
The Council recommended the inclusion of carbon footprinting for the construction stage. The Council sought clarification on the rational for why NO2 monitoring is being undertaken at the SSSI rather than NOx monitoring, and the absence of SO2 monitoring. An appropriate Zone of Influence (ZoI) should be identified to assess emissions from all modes of transport. The Council noted that the air quality and climate assessment should link to the Health Impact Assessment (HiA).
NuGen has included a carbon footprint assessment in the assessment methodology however the scope of this assessment is currently limited to comparing the contribution of different elements of the project. The aim of a typical carbon footprint assessment is to assess the project’s climate change impact in comparison to the UK’s carbon budget. Rationale has not been provided for why NO2 monitoring is being undertaken at the SSSI rather than NOx monitoring, and the absence of SO2 monitoring. NuGen has not identified an appropriate ZoI to assess transport emissions and have not linked air quality and climate assessment to the HiA.
Radiology The Council requested further information relating to detailed locations and testing suites for radiological assessments. The Council noted that the potential effects associated with dewatering and disposal of radiological contaminated
NuGen has not provided further detail on the locations and testing suites for radiological assessments. Whilst the PEIR refers to dewatering activities to control groundwater, further details of the potential effects has not been provided.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 196
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
groundwater should be included. The Council noted that further clarity is sought around the methodology associated with predicted radiation dose. The Council advised that there should be a clear understanding of the marine cooling of the Moorside project and its potential to change the baseline. Marine environment modelling should provide further information on this.
NuGen has provided further detail on the methodology associated with predicted radiation dose, by identifying the key steps in the assessment and the sources of radiation doses. NuGen has not provided any further information on the marine cooling of the project.
Soils and Geology
The Council noted that the baseline information should be extended to include details of superficial deposits thickness and characteristics; sandstone bedrock characteristics and faulting and excavated soils within the reactor footprint. The Council requested further justification with regards to whether the assessment will consider all receptors including radiological contamination.
The baseline information has been extended.
Freshwater Environment and Flood Management
The Council noted that detailed methodologies for assessment of potential effects had not been identified. The Council recommended that a joint probability analysis of river flow and tidal boundary conditions should be undertaken. The Flood Risk Assessment should align with the ES. The Council noted that NuGen will need to assess and demonstrate that staff and visitors will remain safe from flooding effects.
The Council welcomes that the assessment methodology has been well developed since Stage 1 but advises that the surface water assessment should be consistent with the groundwater assessment. NuGen has clarified that, whilst the Flood Risk Assessment and Water Framework Directive compliance assessment will be stand-alone documents, they will support the findings of the ES. It is assumed that the Flood Risk Assessment will assess and the effects of flooding on staff and visitors.
Marine and Coastal Physical Environment
The Council noted that Low Church Moss SSSI requires particular consideration due to its sensitivity.
The Council notes that Low Church Moss SSSI has not been considered.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 197
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
The Council noted that further design definition is required and information is required on dredging and disposal operations. The Council noted that the general marine physical processes should be included in the assessment, in addition to long term climate implications. The Council raised concerns regarding the cooling infrastructure and requested further engagement.
The Council notes the lack of detailed design information on cooling infrastructure. General marine physical processes are included within the assessment
Landscape and Visual
The Council advised that consideration should be given to the relatively proximate Local Character Areas which were not included in the ZTV at Stage 1. The landscape character does not address how mitigation and replacement planting would be considered or secured.
The Local Character Areas have not yet been included in the ZTV. The landscape character has not been updated to address how mitigation and replacement planting would be considered or secured.
Historic Environment
The Council encouraged NuGen to adopt a precautionary approach to scoping at Stage 1. The ZoI should be given consideration as the scope of development in AD is defined.
It is assumed that the ZoI will be given consideration as the scope of development in AD progresses.
Biodiversity The Council advised on further detail in respect of Ancient Woodland, Section 41 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) mammals, polecat and harvest mouse. The Council requested further clarity surrounding the detail of surveys. The Council noted that the programme for HRA Evidence Plan should align with the survey programme and requested clarification on whether freshwater pearl mussel downstream from the
The PEIR provides further detail relating to the protected sites and species and provides further clarity surrounding the detail of surveys. The PEIR does not address the concerns relating to the HRA Evidence Plan or mechanism to other new projects.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 198
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
SAC boundary are being considered as part of the SAC population. The Council also noted that a mechanism to other new projects within the in-combination assessment that may come forward between now and the application date may be helpful.
Countryside Recreation
The Council noted that further detail would need to be agreed relating to scope of assessment, assessment methodology and mitigation. The Council advised that NuGen should consider the potential effects during construction, and that impacts associated with the MOLF and AD sites require particular attention. The Council noted it would be of value to define exactly which areas/ resources / users are considered and will be taken forward.
The Council notes that the scope of assessment methodology is still unclear. In particular, there does not appear to be a methodology set out for the amenity assessment, and it is unclear whether the same methodology is being applied to open spaces as well as common land.
Socio-Economics and Human Population
The Council requested further consultation on baseline information and suggested a robust baseline analysis to identify gaps in the supply chain and skills. The Council noted more detail on the precise mechanisms for NuGen’s commitments to the local supply chain would be beneficial. The Council noted that more detail on how an amenity assessment will be undertaken should be provided. An accommodation strategy should be provided in addition to further detail on potential impacts and legacy benefits.
The Council has welcomed the updated construction workforce estimates which is a major step forward from Stage 1. Whilst NuGen has highlighted intentions to put in place measures to promote local supply chain and employment opportunities, detail on the mechanisms for commitments have not yet been provided. There does not appear to a methodology set out for the amenity assessment. An accommodation strategy has been provided and discussed in Section 5o of this Response.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 199
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
Key assumptions should be supported with evidence.
Health Impact Assessment
Healthcare provision for workers should be linked back to the anticipated worker needs and should be clearly articulated in the HIA. NuGen should also consider post-construction implications of sustained infrastructure provision.
No information provided in consultation material.
Community Benefit
The Council sought NuGen’s commitment to a community benefit package of measures.
NuGen has not yet committed to a community benefit package of measures.
Economy, Gross Value Added, etc.
The baseline is not detailed in respect of the anticipated reliance / scope of supply chain. The Council noted that work force displacement should form part of an integrated strategy. The Council noted that further information is required regarding a strategy for up-skilling and re-skilling of the existing workforce and pathways for youth employment, under-employed and the unemployed. The Council considered that long term impacts on visitor perception supported by robust evidence should be addressed. The Council urged NuGen to consider spatial recommendations in the Local Plan at the centre of its’ AD Strategy, linking to a coherent and appropriate Transport Strategy. The Council noted that consideration should be given to the longer term legacy associated with worker accommodation, linked to growth expectations. The Council advised that transferable skills should include all employment sectors affected.
The Council does not consider that these areas of concern have been addressed at Stage 2 due to a lack of detail and clarity on consideration of the supply chain and workforce strategy.
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 200
Issue raised at Stage 1 Consultation Progress on issue at Stage 2
Consultation
Topic area Summary of issues
Transport Strategy
The Council noted that there may be an opportunity to explore shared benefits from transport interventions with Sellafield and other major employers. The Council noted more detail is required on sensitivity of trip generation forecasts to changes in assumed parameters. The Council noted that the rail strategy should demonstrate an ability to secure and deliver necessary improvements and sustainable project legacy. The Council noted that community impacts associated with removal of spoil, transport of nuclear materials and decommissioning require further consideration in consultation with the Council.
The Council does not consider that these areas of concern have been addressed at Stage 2 due to a lack of detail and clarity on the transport strategy.
9.6 Summary
This section of the consultation response has set out the Council’s observations regarding the adequacy of consultation undertaken by NuGen in respect of the Moorside proposals. In accordance with Section 47 (7) of the Planning Act 2008, NuGen has produced a SOCC which sets out the strategy for consultation. NuGen is required to carry out consultation in accordance with these commitments. This section has assessed whether NuGen has met the commitments set out in the SOCC and also assessed the adequacy of progress following issues raised at Stage 1 Consultation. Whilst some of the concerns have been addressed at Stage 2 Consultation, there are still a number of areas of concern which have not been addressed by NuGen at this stage.
There remains a distinct lack of strategy which would allow NuGen to ensure effective consultation with hard to reach and minority groups, which includes
Copeland Borough Council
Response to Stage 2 Consultation
Page 201
females who were under-represented at Stage 1 Consultation. It is of crucial significance that NuGen provides an evidence-led strategy to address this issue.
The Council also seeks further clarity on how NuGen aims to engage with Allerdale Borough Council as consultation to date has been inadequately addressed.
The Council’s own engagement with representative community organisations has indicated a significant gap in meaningful engagement on wider legacy interventions. Such interventions may be contained within Section 106 Obligations or delivered via TCPA in partnership with other agencies. The Council considers it essential that in consultation with NuGen a pathway for the realisation of community-led plans for positive initiatives be secured prior to DCO submission (and irrespective of their relationship with the definition of the DCO in planning terms).
25
