Statement of Common Ground with Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water … · 2016-06-28 · 1.2.2 Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. (YWS) is the statutory undertaker managing both the

F-EXC-CG-012_EA YWS ON © 2014 Forewind

3 March 2014 Issue 3.0

Statement of Common Ground with Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

DOGGER BANK CREYKE BECK

F-EXC-CG-012_EA YWS ON © 2014 Forewind Page ii

Document Title Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

Statement of Common Ground

Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

Forewind Document Reference F-EXC-CG-012_EA YWS ON

Issue Number Issue 3.0

Date 3 March 2014

Drafted by Sarah Chandler

Checked by Tamsyn Rowe

Date / initials check TR 27-Feb-14

Revision History

Date Issue Number

Remarks / Reason for Issue Author Checked Approved

20 Dec 2013 0.1 First draft SoCG issued Sarah Chandler

Tamsyn Rowe

Tamsyn Rowe

28 Feb 2014 2.0 Second version issued following comments from EA and YWS

Sarah Chandler

Tamsyn Rowe

Tamsyn Rowe

3 March 2014 3.0 Third version issued following comments from EA

Sarah Chandler

Tamsyn Rowe

Tamsyn Rowe


F-EXC-CG-012_EA YWS ON © 2014 Forewind Page iii

Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Reason for this document .................................................................................. 4

1.2 Application Elements within this SoCG .............................................................. 4

1.3 Structure ............................................................................................................ 5

2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Development description .................................................................................... 6

2.2 Consultation Schedule ....................................................................................... 7

3 Matters of Specific Agreement ..................................................................................11

3.1 Water Resources and Protection of Groundwater .............................................11

3.2 Flood Risk .........................................................................................................15

3.3 Waste ................................................................................................................16

3.4 Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................................18

3.5 Marine and Coastal Processes .........................................................................18

3.6 Air Quality, Electro-magnetic Fields, Health, Noise and Vibration .....................19

3.7 Issues unresolved .............................................................................................19

4 Confirmation of Agreement with Environment Agency ................................................20

5 Confirmation of Agreement with Yorkshire Water Services .........................................21

6 Appendices .................................................................................................................22

Tables

Table 2.1 Summary of pre-application consultation between Forewind and Environment Agency/Yorkshire Water .............................................................................. 7

Table 2.2 Summary of post-application consultation between Forewind and Environment Agency/Yorkshire Water .............................................................................. 10


F-EXC-CG-012_EA YWS ON © 2014 Forewind Page 4

1 Introduction

1.1 Reason for this document 1.1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared between Forewind and the

Environment Agency (EA), and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd (YWS) to set out the areas of agreement and disagreement between the three parties in relation to the proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

1.1.2 Forewind is a consortium comprising RWE, Scottish and Southern Energy, Statkraft and Statoil. Forewind is committed to securing all the necessary consents required for the development and construction of offshore wind farms in the Dogger Bank Zone.

1.1.3 The Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects (CLG, February 2012) and The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 highlight the importance of the agreement with stakeholders and submission of SoCG to the Major Applications and Plans Directorate within the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) during the Examination stage. A SoCG is defined as a written statement prepared jointly by the applicant and any interested party, which contains agreed factual information about the application and is a means of clearly stating any areas of agreement and disagreement between two parties in relation to the application. It is also useful to ensure that the evidence at the examination focuses on the material differences between the main parties which might lead to a more efficient examination process.

1.2 Application Elements within this SoCG 1.2.1 The Environment Agency (EA) is an executive non-departmental public body established under the

Environment Act 1995. It is an adviser to Government with principal aims to protect and improve the environment and to promote sustainable development. It plays a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through its functions and roles. It is also an advisor to local decision makers in its role as a statutory consultation body in respect of particular types of development, as listed in Schedule 5 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order application, the Environment Agency is a statutory interested party. With regards to the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck development, the EA’s statutory function therefore covers a range of onshore technical areas and these form the scope of this SoCG:

1.2.1.1 Water Resources and Protection of Groundwater - The Environment Agency takes action to conserve and secure the proper use of water resources, preserve and improve the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters and groundwaters through pollution control powers and regulating discharge consents. The EA has a duty to implement the Water Framework Directive. The EA also encourages remediation of land contamination through the planning process as a means to protect controlled waters from pollution from land contamination. Aspects of Water Resources and Protection of Groundwater in Chapter 24 of the ES are therefore included in this SoCG.

1.2.1.2 Flood risk – the Environment Agency is the principal flood risk management operating authority. It has the power (but not the legal obligation) to manage flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The Environment Agency is also responsible for increasing public awareness of flood risk, flood forecasting and warning and has a general supervisory duty for flood risk management. The EA has also a strategic overview role for all flood and coastal erosion risk management. Aspects of Flood Risk in Chapter 24 of the



ES are therefore included in this SoCG.

1.2.1.3 Waste – The Environment Agency has regulatory powers in respect of waste management. Aspects of Waste in Chapter 24 of the ES are therefore included in this SoCG.

1.2.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology – The EA are advisors on the water environment and promote the conservation and enhancement of habitats and species, particularly those that depend on water environments. As such aspects of Terrestrial Ecology in Chapter 25 of the ES are therefore included in this SoCG, with specific focus on water dependent habitats and species.

1.2.2 Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. (YWS) is the statutory undertaker managing both the collection, treatment and distribution of water supply and the collection and treatment of waste water throughout the East Riding of Yorkshire. The statutory function of Yorkshire water relates to the onshore technical areas of Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality (Chapter 24 of the ES) as well as protective provisions regarding their infrastructure. Although not a statutory consultee for development management, YWS advises local decision-makers regarding the potential impact of new development on its statutory functions. With regard to this Development Consent Order application, YWS is a statutory interested party.

1.3 Structure 1.3.1 This document starts by setting out the background to the development and the stakeholders who are

entering into the SoCG. It also summarises the pre-application consultation, and any post-application consultation that has subsequently occurred.

1.3.2 Table 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of this SoCG lists those matters agreed with the EA and YWS. Table 3.1 follows the sequence of sub-headings within Chapter 24 (Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality) of the ES as detailed below. Table 3.2, 3,3 and 3,4 list matters of agreement with specific focus on the elements of Chapter 24 (Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality) and Chapter 25 (Terrestrial Ecology) in which the Environment Agency are interested in.

1.3.3 Sequence of sub-headings in the ES Chapters:

1.3.3.1 Guidance and consultation;

1.3.3.2 Methodology;

1.3.3.3 Existing environment;

1.3.3.4 Assessment of impacts - includes worst case definition;

1.3.3.5 Interrelationships;

1.3.3.6 Cumulative Impact Assessment;

1.3.3.7 Draft DCO

1.3.4 The Rule 6 letter issued by the Planning Inspectorate on Thursday 9 January 2014 states that the Examining Authority (ExA) would like Forewind to engage the Environment Agency in a SoCG in order to seek agreement on the topics of:

1.3.4.1 Marine and Coastal Processes

1.3.4.2 Construction and operational effects in respect of air quality (dust and exhaust fumes),

electromagnetic fields, health, noise and vibration effects.

These topics are addressed in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of this SoCG.



2 Background

2.1 Development description 2.1.1 The Dogger Bank Zone is between 123 and 290 kilometres (77 to 180 miles) off the east coast of

Yorkshire and extends over an area of approximately 8,639 km2 (3,336 square miles). The water depth ranges from 18 to 63 metres (59 to 206 feet).

2.1.2 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck will be the first stage of development of the Dogger Bank Zone, and will comprise two wind farms, each with a generating capacity of up to 1.2GW (total generating capacity of up to 2.4GW). The two wind farms will connect to the existing National Grid substation at Creyke Beck, in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

2.1.3 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck will comprise the following offshore elements:

2.1.3.1 Up to 400 wind turbines with supporting tower structures, foundations fixed to the seabed and associated support and access structures;

2.1.3.2 Two offshore high voltage direct current (HVDC) converter platforms with foundations fixed to the seabed;

2.1.3.3 Up to eight offshore collector platforms with foundations fixed to the seabed;

2.1.3.4 Up to four offshore accommodation or helicopter platforms with foundations fixed to the seabed and including facilities for vessels and helicopters for operations and maintenance activities;

2.1.3.5 Offshore platforms may be co-located on a single foundation, resulting in a combined offshore platform comprising two or more of the platform structures described above;

2.1.3.6 Up to 10 offshore meteorological monitoring stations with foundations fixed to the seabed;

2.1.3.7 Subsea cables between the elements of offshore infrastructure described above;

2.1.3.8 Offshore export cables carrying electricity from the offshore HVDC converter platforms to the Holderness coast; and

2.1.3.9 Ancillary works including: cable and pipeline crossing structures; protection against foundation scour and subsea damage, cable protection measures and vessel-mooring facilities.

2.1.4 The onshore elements are all located within the East Riding of Yorkshire, and comprise:

2.1.4.1 Underground cable transition joint bays at the landfall, north of Ulrome on the Holderness coast;

2.1.4.2 Underground HVDC export cables running approximately 30 kilometres from the landfall transition joint bays to the two converter stations;

2.1.4.3 Two converter stations located between Beverley and Cottingham adjacent to the A1079 and with associated roads, fencing, landscaping and drainage;

2.1.4.4 Underground high voltage alternating current (HVAC) export cables running



3 Matters of Specific Agreement

3.1 Water Resources and Protection of Groundwater ID Statement on which Forewind seeks agreement Forewind Environment

Agency Yorkshire Water

Services Ltd

A. Guidance and Consultation

3.1.A.1 Appropriate legislation, planning policies and guidance relevant to the water resources and protection of groundwater for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck have been listed in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Chapter 24 Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality of the Environmental Statement (ES).

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.A.2 The EA and YWS have been consulted throughout all stages of the development to date, and the consulta ion schedule (in section 2 of this SoCG) is a fair and accurate record of pre and post-application consultation.

Agree Agree Agree

B. Methodology

3.1.B.1 The Groundwater Risk Assessment (ES Chapter 24 Appendix D (App ref: 6.24.4)) was developed in response to EA and YWS concerns, which were identified during stakeholder consultation (meeting held with EA, YWS, Forewind and RHDHV on 5 June 2013). The proposed mitigation contained herein demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the risk to groundwater associated with the construction of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.B.2 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) Screening exercise captures all the relevant water bodies that were identified following consultation between the applicant and the EA, as part of the statutory consultation in May 2013 (PEI3).

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.B.3 The environmental impact assessment of effects on water resources and groundwater, being based on the methodologies outlined in Section 3 of Chapter 24 (Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality) of the ES, is satisfactory.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.B.4 The conceptual site model presented within the Phase 1 Contaminated Land Report (Appendix 24A of the ES), prepared with reference to best practice guidance outlined in CLR11 (Model Procedures for Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11, 2004), is satisfactory in so far as it relates to impacts on the water environment.

Agree Agree Agree

C. Existing Environment



ID Statement on which Forewind seeks agreement Forewind Environment Agency

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

3.1.C.1 Characterisation of the existing water environment was completed using the methodologies outlined in in Section 3 of Chapter 24 (Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality) of the ES.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.C.2 Characterisation of the existing environment, insofar as this relates to potential controlled water receptors, has been prepared in line with best practice guidance outlined in CLR11 (Model Procedures for Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11, 2004).

Agree Agree Agree

D. Assessment of Impacts – Worst Case Definition

3.1.D.1 Realistic worst case scenarios for the assessment of impacts on onshore geology, water resources and land quality are presented in Table 5.1 in Chapter 24.

Agree Agree Agree

E. Assessment of Impacts during Construction, Operating and Decommissioning

3.1.E.1 The ES provides a satisfactory assessment of the potential water environment impacts arising from construction, operation and decommissioning of the onshore elements of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.E.2 The residual construction and decommissioning impacts outlined in Table 12.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES are appropriate and have been derived using the methodologies outlined in Section 3 of Chapter 24 of the ES. Minor adverse residual impacts to surface water quality and groundwater quality, and no deterioration with regards to the Water Framework Directive have been identified.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.E.3 The residual operational impacts outlined in Table 12.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES are appropriate and have been derived using the methodologies outlined in Section 3 of Chapter 24 of the ES. Minor adverse residual impacts for groundwater quality in the SPZ1 area are identified and all other impacts are identified as negligible.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.E.4 Mitigation measures, as described in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Chapter 24 of the ES are an appropriate suite of measures to reduce predicted impacts on water resources and groundwater to the residual levels stated in summary Table 12.1 of Chapter 24. Further mitigation measures may be identified following future detailed design stages. Further mitigation necessary during the construction phase will be secured by requirement 29 of the DCO (amended as ou lined in section 3.1.H.5).

Agree Agree Agree

F. Inter-relationships

3.1.F.1 The inter-relationships relevant to the assessment of the water environment as listed in Table 9.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES are all adequately summarised and considered.

Agree Agree Agree

G. Cumulative Impacts





3.1.G.1 The cumulative impacts relevant to the assessment of geology and water resources in Chapter 24 of the ES are adequately considered and summarised. The Yorkshire and Humber Carbon Capture and Storage project by National Grid is the only project considered in he cumulative impact assessment, with regards to the water environment. Due to its area of potential influence being beyond the extent of the agreed study areas for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, no cumulative impacts on onshore geology and water resources are predicted.

Agree Agree Agree

H. Development Consent Order

3.1.H.1 The description of the onshore elements within the DCO is consistent with the description presented wi hin Chapter 5 (Project Description) which forms the basis of he water resources environmental impact assessment in the ES.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.H.2 With the addition of the protective provisions proposed by the Environment Agency, there is no objection in principle to Article 9 (Part 2) of the draft DCO (Disapplication and modification of legislative provisions). The inclusion of protective provisions is accepted in principle, subject to the specific wording being agreed; discussion on the drafting amendments is on-going.

Agree Agree n/a

3.1.H.3 Protective provisions for Yorkshire Water Services infrastructure are not agreed, however discussions to progress a separate legal agreement are currently progressing between Yorkshire Water Services and Forewind.

Agree n/a Agree

3.1.H.4 The following proposed amendment to the DCO wording of Requirement 26 is agreed as appropriate to secure the surface drainage mitigation: 26.—(1) No stage of the onshore works shall commence until written details of the surface and (if any) foul water drainage system (including means of pollution control) for that stage have, in consultation with the relevant sewerage and drainage authorities and he Environment Agency, been submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant planning authority. (2) The surface water drainage works shall restrict surface water discharge to no more than the greenfield run off rate (1.4l/s/ha) in line with the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix B to Chapter 24 of he Environmental Statement); (3) The submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site (surface water drainage scheme); ii. include a timetable for implementation (foul and surface water schemes); and iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the proposed schemes (foul and surface water management).

Agree Agree Agree





(4) The surface and foul water drainage systems shall be constructed, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details and the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the approved written details

3.1.H.5 The following proposed amendment to the DCO wording of Requirement 29 is agreed as appropriate for securing the delivery of mitigation in line with the Outline Code of Construction Practice. It is agreed that with this proposed amendment, there is no need for a specific requirement relating to hydro-geological (groundwater) risk assessment: 29.—(1) No stage of the onshore works shall commence until a code of construction practice (CoCP) in accordance with the Outline Code of Construc ion Practice (application reference 8.2) has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) The CoCP shall be written to reflect and ensure delivery of the construction phase mitigation measures included within the Environmental Statement and shall include consideration of, but not be limited to, the following matters during construction of the onshore works: [as listed in the DCO] (3) Prior to the commencement of each stage of the onshore work, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) for that stage of the works , drafted in accordance with the principles set out in the approved CoCP, shall be submitted to and approved by he relevant local planning authority.

Agree Agree Agree

3.1.H.6 The following proposed additional DCO requirement is agreed as appropriate to provide mitigation for any potential operational effects upon ground and surface waters arising from the converter stations: Work No. 7 shall not commence until a detailed scheme addressing the matters referred to in this requirement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant local planning authority following consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme shall take account of the mitigation measures in relation to operational activities at the converter station site, as detailed within Section 7 of the Environmental Statement, and shall include:

i Details of any proposed underground oil separators, including the full structural details of the installation and the mitigation to be embedded into the design of the installation in order to protect ground and surface waters;

ii Details of the proposed storage bund installations, including full structural details of the installation and the mi igation to be embedded into he design of the installation in order

Agree Agree Agree





to protect ground and surface waters; and iii An emergency plan, including provisions to ensure that controlled waters are protected

in an emergency event. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the relevant local planning authority.

3.2 Flood Risk ID Statement on which Forewind seeks agreement Forewind Environment

Agency


3.2.A.1 Appropriate legislation, planning policies and guidance relevant to Flood Risk for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck are listed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Chapter 24 Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality of the ES.

Agree Agree

3.2.A.2 The EA has been consulted throughout all stages of the development to date, and the consultation schedule (in section 2 of this SoCG) is a fair and accurate record of pre and post-application consultation.

Agree Agree

B. Methodology

3.2.B.1 The FRA has been produced in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and associated Technical Guidance, published in March 2012.

Agree Agree

3.2.B.2 The methodology for the Flood Risk Assessment and associated flood modelling was discussed and agreed during meetings and through correspondence between the EA and the applicant during 2011/2012. A draft of the Flood Risk Assessment was submitted to the EA in July 2012. It was confirmed that the draft FRA considered the appropriate onshore issues although further work would be required on the proposed surface water drainage scheme. It was confirmed that this work would be unlikely to raise any ‘showstopper’ issues. The provision of the Flood Risk Assessment accords with paragraphs 5.7.4 and 5.7.5 of NPS EN-1.

Agree Agree


3.2.C.1 Characterisation of the existing environment in Section 4 of Chapter 24 (Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality) of the ES was completed using the methodologies outlined in Section 3 of Chapter 24 of the ES

Agree Agree





3.2.D.1 Realistic worst case scenarios for the assessment of impacts of onshore geology, water resources and land quality are presented in table 5.1 in Chapter 24.

Agree Agree


3.2.E.1 Section 6.5 of Chapter 24 and the accompanying Appendix 24B of the ES provide a satisfactory assessment of the potential flood risk impacts arising from construction, operation and decommissioning of the onshore elements of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

Agree Agree

3.2.E.2 Residual construction and decommissioning impacts outlined in Table 12.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES have been derived appropriately from the FRA presented in Appendix 24b and in accordance with methodologies outlined in Section 3 of Chapter 24 of the ES. Negligible residual impacts to flood risk have been identified.

Agree Agree

3.2.E.3 Residual operational impacts outlined in Table 12.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES have been derived appropriately and in accordance with me hodologies outlined in Section 3 of Chapter 24 of the ES, and identify negligible residual impacts for flood risk.

Agree Agree

3.2.E.4 The FRA confirms that the sequential test has been applied as part of the site selection process, and as a result the converter stations have been located within areas of low flood risk. Therefore there is no conflict wi h paragraph 5.7.12 of NPS EN-1.

Agree Agree

F. Development Consent Order

3.2.F.1 The proposed amendment to the DCO wording of Requirement 26, as set out in paragraph 3.1.H.4 of this SoCG, is agreed as appropriate to secure the Flood Risk Assessment mitigation.

Agree Agree

3.3 Waste ID Statement on which Forewind seeks agreement Forewind Environment

Agency


3.3.A.1 Appropriate legislation, planning policies and guidance relevant to waste for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck are listed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Chapter 24 Onshore Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality of the ES. Forewind followed the relevant legislation, planning policy and guidance documents with regards to waste issues.

Agree Agree

3.3.A.2 The EA has been consulted on waste issues throughout all stages of the development to date, and he consultation schedule (in section 2 of this SoCG) is a fair and accurate record of pre and post-application consultation.

Agree Agree

B. Methodology




3.3.B.1 The Site Waste management Plan (Appendix 24C of the ES) adheres to the requirements of the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008. [NB: These Regulations were subsequently repealed post-application, which removed the requirement for development to produce a Site Waste Management Plan, but the regulations themselves still represent a robust approach to preparing a Site Waste Management Plan.]

Agree Agree


3.3.C.1 No entry. Agree Agree


3.3.D.1 Realistic worst case scenarios for the assessment of impacts of onshore geology, water resources and land quality are presented in table 5.1 in Chapter 24.

Agree Agree


3.3.E.1 Chapter 24 of the ES provides an appropriate assessment of the potential waste impacts arising from construction, operation and decommissioning of the onshore elements of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

Agree Agree

3.3.E.2 The identification of potential sources of impact and pathways adhere to best practice guidance outlined in CLR11 (Model Procedures for Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11, 2004).

Agree Agree

3.3.E.3 Residual construction and decommissioning impacts for waste which are outlined in Table 12.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES have been derived appropriately and in accordance with the requirements of the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008, and identify minor adverse residual impacts following mitigation.

Agree Agree

3.3.E.4 Residual operational impacts for waste which are outlined in Table 12.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES have been derived appropriately and in accordance with guidance named in Section 2 of Chapter 24, and identify all impacts as negligible.

Agree Agree

3.3.E.5 Mitigation measures for construction and decommissioning, as described in the Waste Management section of Table 12.1, are appropriate to reduce predicted impacts to the residual levels stated in the ES.

Agree Agree

F. Inter-relationships

3.3.F.1 The inter-relationships relevant to the assessment of waste as listed in Table 9.1 of Chapter 24 of the ES are all adequately summarised and considered.

Agree Agree

G. Cumulative Impacts

3.3.G.1 The cumula ive impacts relevant to the assessment of waste in Chapter 24 of the ES are adequately considered and summarised. The Yorkshire and Humber Carbon Capture and Storage project by National Grid is the only project considered in the cumulative impact assessment. Due to its area of potential influence being beyond the extent of the agreed study areas for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, no cumulative impacts on land quality and waste are predicted.

Agree Agree




H. Development Consent Order

3.3.H.1 The Outline Code of Construction Practice specifically references the need for a Site Waste Management Plan, which is secured through DCO Requirement 29, and there is no need for an additional requirement.

Agree Agree

3.4 Terrestrial Ecology

ID Statement on which Forewind seek agreement Forewind Environment Agency


3.4.A.1 The EA has been adequately consulted on terrestrial ecology throughout all stages of the development to date. The consultation schedule (in section 3 of this SoCG) is a fair and accurate record of pre and post-application consultation on terrestrial ecology issues

Agree Agree

B. Assessment of Impacts during Construction, Operating and Decommissioning

3.4.B.1 The need for habitat enhancement has been incorporated into the proposals through he provision of the habitat enhancement area at he converter stations site.

Agree Agree

3.4.B.2 The Applicant’s commitment to not retain any permanent culverts, at water crossings, addresses the concerns previously raised by the EA regarding the potential for habitat fragmentation associated with culverting.

Agree Agree

C. Development Consent Order

3.4.C.1 DCO requirement 28 (Ecological Management Plan) adequately reflects the requirement to incorporate ecological enhancements measures outlined in Chapter 25 (Terrestrial Ecology) of Environmental Statement.

Agree Agree

3.5 Marine and Coastal Processes ID Statement on which Forewind seek agreement Forewind Environment

Agency 3.5.1 The EA consider that issues related to marine and coastal processes will be satisfactorily covered by the Agree Agree



ID Statement on which Forewind seek agreement Forewind Environment Agency

representations made by other interested parties identified in Annex F of the ExA letter dated 9 January 2014. The representa ion of the EA does not identify any specific concerns in relation to marine and coastal processes, and therefore specific matters of agreement on these issues have not been identified in this SoCG.

3.6 Air Quality, Electro-magnetic Fields, Health, Noise and Vibration ID Statement on which Forewind seek agreement Forewind Environment

Agency 3.6.1 The EA consider issues related to onshore construc ion and operational effects in respect of air quality (dust and

exhaust fumes) electro-magnetic fields, health, noise and vibration effects to lie outside the EA’s remit, and therefore specific matters of agreement on these issues have not been identified in this SoCG with Forewind.

Agree Agree

3.7 Issues unresolved

3.7.1 There are no areas of specific disagreement.



6 Appendices

List of attached appendices:

Appendix 1 – Email confirming agreed SoCG structure change (21 January 2014)

Appendix 2 – Minutes of meeting (15 January 2014)

Appendix 3 – Draft DCO wording (17 January 2014)



Appendix 1 – Email confirming agreed SoCG structure change (21 January 2014)



Appendix 2 – Minutes of meeting (15 January 2014)

CONFIDENTIAL Meeting record

KEY DECISIONS/NOTES

1. Overview of Examination and Rule 6 letter

Rule 6 letter outlines a timetable for examination and completing the Statements of Common

Ground (SoCG) as requested by the Examining Authority (ExA) Topic areas further to those covered in the current draft SoCG have been requested to be

included in the Environment Agency (EA) SoCG. These are: Marine and Coastal Processes Onshore Construction and Operational Effects in respect of air quality,

electromagnetic fields, health, noise and vibration effects Any suggested changes/additions to DCO requirements to be submitted at the appropriate

deadlines – ExA takes final decision on inclusion of any of the suggested changes or additions Deadline for submitting SoCG to ExA is Tuesday 4 March 2014, Forewind has an internal

review process to complete prior to submission therefore we will work toward finalising the SoCG by Friday 14th February 2014

2. Overview of SoCG and Issues Raised in Relevant Representations

At the time of the meeting both the EA and YWS had comments on V0.1 SoCG that were discussed verbally, and it was agreed that a formal comments log would be submitted to Forewind by 14 Feb 2014. The following points were noted in the discussion:

EA didn’t anticipate commenting on Air Quality or Marine and Coastal Processes as they are not the leading body on these issues, RJ and JS agreed these fall under the remit of other stakeholders. The focus for the EA is on water resources and the associated geological and land quality issues associated with the water environment, and on waste.

Agreed by all that there is no need for a separate offshore SoCG Comments to come back from RJ and SW on section 1.2 (Application Elements within this

SoCG) –the remit and statutory function of each needs refining by the EA. RJ will add in some notes on the EAs remit with regards to Air Quality or Marine and Coastal

Processes to cover off the ExA request. The EA is likely to defer to other consultees on these topics. The Water Framework Directive is the only relevant coastal issue, which the EAare now happy with and it can be added into the SoCG.

SW will provide comments to include YWs interest in protective provisions as well as with the ground water environment.

TR to send the comments log to EA and YW Some minor checks to be made to the consultation summary, in line with the forthcoming

comments log.

3. Matters of specific agreement

Key comments on section 3 (Matters of Specific Agreement) were discussed EA requested that Guidance and Consultation sections (3.1.A.1 and 3.2.A.1) be omitted from

the SoCG. EA as a standard don’t agree to all appropriate legislation, planning policies and relevant guidance being followed – RJ noted that in principal the EA are satisfied that Forewind has followed appropriate guidance however they will not commit to an ‘absolute agreement’ on it in the SoCG to keep consistency with other projects

MR – the ExA may pose a question on it later in the examination phase however fine to omit for now

CONFIDENTIAL Meeting record

Water aspects of the Land quality section are to be included in with the Geology and Water Resources section – comments on, and subsequent amends to, the application elements section will help inform the detail to which land quality needs to be addressed

Flood Risk to be separated out as a separate section (YW less interested in this than water resources and protection of groundwater)

Waste to be covered in a separate section – only for agreement with EA MM raised minor concern with section 3.1.B.3 – discrepancy in the detail of the conceptual

model outlined in the Groundwater Risk Assessment used to inform the Chapter 24 of the ES (Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality)

Emphasised that it wouldn’t change the mitigation of risk to groundwater MR – wording can be tweaked in section 3.1.B.3 to reflect any concerns

4. DCO Requirements

Amendments and additions to DCO requirements requested in the EA and YW relevant representation discussed following FW review and legal review

Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) Requirement 29 – proposed a change to the wording to secure the CoCP is in

accordance with the Outline CoCP and is approved by the relevant planning authority ERYC have a statutory obligation to consult EA/YW on this This alleviates the need for the inclusion of specific additional requirements such as oil

separators, storage bunds etc. RJ/SW can see that this approach could work, will come back to Forewind to confirm they

are satisfied with this once re-reviewed the outline CoCP. MR to provide cross references to the CoCP and proposed new requirement wording.

Surface and foul water drainage (requirement 26) – ERYC has a duty to consult EA / YW on discharge of the requirements anyway, so FW see no need to specifically include consultation with the Environment Agency in the DCO wording

EA happy with the DCO requirements on biodiversity/ecology

5. Protective Provisions – Yorkshire Water

YW have been liaising with Dalcour Maclaren with regards to protective provisions for the protection of their infrastructure. MR to follow up on this

Multiple consultees are requesting specific wording on protective provisions

6. AOB

Inter-relationships Residual impact tables in ES need to be cross-referenced to clarify what ‘residual impact’

stated in the SoCG is referring to The EA is satisfied in principle that there are no cumulative impacts, RJ to review table

9.1 in the ES chapter and will provide comments. Matters of disagreement

In principle no matters of disagreement aside from matters of detail. The wording of DCO requirement changes to be agreed on and comments to come back largely covering an approach to restructuring the SoCG and refining the remit of the EA and YW



Appendix 3 – Draft DCO wording (17 January 2014)

Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water DCO comments and proposed amendments

Relevant rep comment Suggested amendment

Environment Agency protective provisions

As a general point of principle Forewind is happy to add the Environment Agency’s provisions to the DCO; however amendments may be discussed at a later date following a technical review and to reflect the position of the Internal Drainage Board.

Site waste management plan

DCO requirement 29(2)(c) (page 43) already requires ‘sustainable waste management during construction’ to be part of the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP).

Section 6 of the outline CoCP confirms that the final CoCP will be based upon the draft Site Waste Management Plan which is submitted as an Appendix to Chapter 24 of the Environmental Statement.

To include consultation with the Environment Agency in relation to requirements 26 (Surface and foul water drainage) and 29 (Code of Construction Practice)

Forewind would prefer to leave out references to consultation with specific bodies as a general principle, as the local planning authority is required to consult with the relevant statutory bodies regardless.

Addition of new wording in requirement 26 relating to surface water drainage discharge rate.

Can accept new wording relating to surface water but would suggest removing the tailpiece “unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority”. The Environmental Statement application reference for the FRA is also used for clarity, as the ES is a certified document within the DCO. New wording to be added within Requirement 26 (surface and foul water drainage): “(2) The surface water drainage works shall restrict surface water discharge to greenfield run off rate (1.4l/s/ha) in line with the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix B to Chapter 24 of the Environmental Statement);”

Addition of new wording in requirement 26 providing additional detail.

New wording to be added within Requirement 26 (surface and foul water drainage): “(3) The submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site (surface water drainage scheme); ii. include a timetable for implementation (foul and surface water schemes); and iii. provide a management and maintenance plan

Relevant rep comment Suggested amendment for the lifetime of the proposed schemes (foul and surface water management). (4) The surface and foul water drainage systems shall be constructed, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details and the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the approved written details.”

The additional requirements proposed should already be covered within the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) required under Req. 29. New wording is proposed to require the final CoCP to reflect and ensure delivery of the mitigation in the ES and the outline CoCP.

Oil separators - Table 7.2 of Chapter 24 of the ES already requires “details of the proposed oil separators, their location, the construction details, Construction Quality Assurance and proposed design mitigation will be agreed with the Environmental Agency prior to construction”. Therefore, linking the CoCP to ES mitigation will ensure this is covered.

Storage bunds – Table 12.1 (also incorrectly referenced as 11.1) of Chapter 24 of the ES, and Section 8.2.3 of the outline CoCP, clarify that storage bunds will be used as a mitigation measure, therefore their details will need to be in the final CoCP for sign off by the local planning authority in consultation with the EA; Emergency plan – DCO requirement 38 already includes the need for a Detailed Emergency Plan to be put in place for the connection works at the National Grid substation;

Hydro-geological risk assessment – Tables 6.6 and 6.11 of Chapter 24 of the ES state that if discharge of over pumped water or dewatering of excavations is required in the SPZ2, a groundwater risk assessment will be developed and consultation will take place with the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water Services. An outline groundwater risk assessment is already included as Appendix 24D.

Proposed wording (changes in red): 29.—(1) No stage of the onshore works shall commence until a code of construction practice (CoCP) in accordance with the Outline Code of Construction Practice (application reference 8.2) has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) The CoCP shall be written to reflect and ensure delivery of the construction phase mitigation measures included within the Environmental Statement and shall include consideration of, but not be limited to, the following matters during construction of the onshore works: [as listed in the DCO] (3) Prior to the commencement of each stage of the onshore work, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) for that stage of the works , drafted in accordance with the principles set out in the approved CoCP, shall be submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authority.

Documents

Statement of Common Ground with Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water … · 2016-06-28 · 1.2.2 Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. (YWS) is the statutory undertaker managing both the