Piblinell Carbon Deuocsid HyNet North West

Nid safbwyntiau’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio yw’r rhai a fynegir ar y dudalen hon. Yr hyn a ddangosir yma yw cynnwys a gyflwynwyd i’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio gan y cyhoedd a phartïon eraill â buddiant, sy’n rhoi eu barn ynglŷn â’r cynnig hwn.

Piblinell Carbon Deuocsid HyNet

Derbyniwyd 13/01/2023
Gan Cheshire West And Chester Borough Council


This Relevant Representation of Cheshire West and Chester Council provides an initial comment and issues relating to the content and scope of the application including the Local Plan Policy context, Environmental Assessment and the proposed requirements and provisions of the Draft Development Consent Order. Further to this representation, as a Host Authority, the Council will be providing a Local Impact Report (LIR) and, if necessary, a Written Representation (WR) at the forthcoming examination. 1 – THE PLANNING STATEMENT AND POLICY CONTEXT The submitted application and associated Planning Statement identifies the Local Development Plan within the Borough of Cheshire West and Chester (CWAC). A number of inconsistencies are noted in the identification of policies including an omission of Neighbourhood Plans as well as the full consideration of a number of Local Plan Policies including economic policies for the projects impact on existing businesses/operations including future expansions (standoffs / restrictions to the pipeline) and ecological network implications of Policy DM 44. Please note a more detailed consideration of the Local Development Plan will be provided as part of the examination within the Councils LIR. 2 – THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The Council has previously provided comment and recommendations on the scope and content of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). There are ongoing discussions between the Councils internal services and the applicant in respect the content of the submission stage Environmental Statement. The Councils position, as it stands on, specific matters including raised issues are provided below. Please note, as above, a detailed response in respect the Local Impacts of the project will be provided as part of the examination. Chapter 8 – Cultural Heritage Whilst the Councils Conservation officer is in general agreement with the overview of heritage impacts and assessments in Chapter 8 it is asked that individual Heritage Impact Assessments are provided to provide a true impact of AGIs and BVs. In addition, it is also requested that further detail is provided of how any harm resulting from AGIs and BVs can be mitigated against including planting and materials. In respect archaeology, whilst in general agreement with the assessments undertaken, the Archaeological Planning Advice Service for the Council identify that the outline Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeology does not include a maintenance and watching brief to deal with areas that cannot be trenched or where there are suspicions that the trenching might not have fully defined the archaeological potential. Without this inclusion in in the outline WSI concern I raised by the Council as to the potential for impacts on currently unidentified archaeology. Chapter 9 – Biodiversity It is understood that the project is considered as a whole, across both England and Wales, however, in considering local impacts within CWAC, in most instances, it has not been possible to assess impacts, as all analysis has been done at the project-wide level. To allow the assessment of local biodiversity impacts in CWAC it is asked that any impact assessments be split out (Hynet identified Sections 1-7). Significant concern is raised by the Council in respect the supporting biodiversity surveys including their strategy / extent (absence of surveys beyond the order boundary for barn owls and badgers), incomplete / missing survey data, as well as discrepancies in the provided survey data. It is noted that the applicant has advised that further survey data is to be provided within the next couple of months. Considering the nature of the incomplete surveys both in terms of their scope and missing data it is advised that any assessment of the projects likely impacts and effects in respect biodiversity cannot be made at this stage. For this reason, it is asked that suitable provision of time is given to enable the Council to consider any updated survey data and assessments prior to the commencement of the examination. In addition to the above issues relating to surveys concerns are also raised in respect a number of the undertaken species-specific assessments and which require clarification including detail of the full assessments of tree and hedgerow losses on bats and barn owls, habitat severance in respect badgers and riparian mammals as well the logic for transect and survey locations for breeding / wintering birds and fish. It is noted that, due to technical reasons, replacement trees cannot be planted within 12m either side of the pipeline. Clarification on this matter is required in respect what this means in terms of tree and hedgerow replacements and to the mitigation, compensation and enhancement for Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and overall habitat connectivity, including the provision of any required long-term management, which appears to be absent from any proposed mitigation. A Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) assessment has been undertaken, but only for priority habitats, rather than all habitats as a standard BNG calculation would. It is noted that BNG is not currently a mandatory requirement for NSIPs but can be used as a general tool to demonstrate if a project is achieving adequate habitat mitigation and compensation. The BNG undertaken shows the project is unable to provide net gain within the order limits and that off-site is only potential. It is asked that if BNG is to be applied to this project, the above be clarified including how off-site mitigation is to be secured. Chapter 16 – Population and Human Health A number of footpaths in the borough including those affected by the proposed works to the south of the M53 (Wervin and Wimbolds Trafford Works nos. 13 -15) are prone to drainage and waterlogging issues. Concerns are raised where works have the potential to affect or exacerbate local drainage. It is asked that due consideration of both direct and indirect impacts and on public rights of way from drainage is provided and be clearly addressed in the drainage management schemes and mitigated during construction works (CEMP) as well as the restoration of land. Chapter 17 – Traffic and Transport Whilst some concerns are raised in relation of the suitability and safety of the use of smaller lanes to access construction compounds no overall objection is made from the Council’s Highways. Chapter 19 – Cumulative Impacts Combined effects should be fully considered with HS2, especially in terms of impacts on MSAs, waste generation and impacts to local and regional transport. Combined effects with other NSIPs should include the Cadent Hydrogen Pipe project including its Pipe location and HAGIs which would have potential for physical overlap especially near to the HPP plant and offshoot to the Protos Site. 3 - THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER On review of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) the Council raises several concerns in respect the proposed wording and appropriateness of its provisions including the principal powers, the content and wording of the suggested requirements and the unrealistic proposed process timescales relating to applications made under the requirements. Discussions with the applicant in respect the draft DCO are ongoing and whilst it is expected that much the raised issues can be appropriately addressed there are several which without resolve are potentially matters for significant concern. These include but are not limited to the following: • Clarification in respect the defence to proceedings and arbitration in respect of statutory nuisance for noise and its interplay with existing statute (DCO Part 2 (Principal Powers) Para. 9). • The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) provisions under requirements 5 and 11 are considered too vague. More clarification of the inclusions for each are needed, and in particular direct references for mineral safeguarding, the protection and replacement planting of all significant trees and hedgerows (not just ancient woodland), heritage mitigation as well as clear biodiversity considerations including survey reporting and monitoring strategies. • Further to the above a definition of “existing features” in requirement 11 (d) is needed. • The proposed exceptions and definitions in relation to the proposed construction working hours under Requirement 13 (1-5) are not considered acceptable. • There is the need for detailed restoration plans including aftercare under Requirements 15 and 16. • Clarification of timescales for notifications and decisions under the proposed requirements and discharge of requirements - 42 days? • The proposed 5/21-day notification periods for the request for further information under Schedule 2 Part 2 paras 21 (2-4)) is not considered acceptable.