infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk · 1.2 the agenda for the hearing was set out in the...

June 2015Application Reference EN020001

Hinkley Point C Connection Project

Regulation 8(1)(k) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010

Applicant’s Written Summary of Case put forward orally at Issue Specific Hearing on Portbury / Portishead Optional Connection Alignments on 15 June 2015

8.13.12Do

cum

ent

13135145.4

HINKLEY POINT C CONNECTION PROJECT

ISSUE SPECIFIC HEARING:

PORTBURY / PORTISHEAD OPTIONAL CONNECTION ALIGNMENTS

15 JUNE 2015

THE WINTER GARDENS, WESTON-SUPER-MARE

1 Introduction

1.1 This document summarises the case put by the applicant, National Grid Electricity

Transmission plc (National Grid), at the resumed hearing into the Portbury / Portishead

optional connection alignments. The hearing opened at Nailsea Methodist Church at 10.00am

on 22 May 2015, and was adjourned at around 4.30pm. It reconvened at 11.00am on 15 June

2015 at The Winter Gardens, Weston-super-Mare. National Grid’s submissions prior to the

adjournment of the hearing are set out in Volume 8.13.11 submitted to the ExA at Deadline 5.

1.2 The agenda for the hearing was set out in the Examining Authority (ExA)’s letter published on

the Planning Inspectorate’s website on 15 May 2015. The summary below deals with those

agenda items that were addressed at the hearing following its resumption.

1.3 At the hearing, Item 2 of the Agenda (Heritage and Historic Environment) was dealt with after

Item 3 (Socio-Economic Impacts), and this summary deals with those items in that order.

There were a few points during the hearing when National Grid was asked to check a point of

detail and report back. Where National Grid was able to report back during the hearing the

details reported have, for ease of reference, been summarised here in the context in which

they arose rather than in the order they were dealt with at the hearing.

A GENERAL

1 3D Models and Videos

1.1 Before proceeding with the items on the Agenda, the ExA noted the submission of Mr L

Summerfield at Deadline 5, in which Mr Summerfield included a hyperlink to videos available

on National Grid's website that show parts of the virtual 3D model that National Grid produced

during the consultation stage of the Proposed Development.

1.2 Mr Chris Chadwick explained, on behalf of National Grid, that the 3D model used during

National Grid’s consultations was an illustrative tool for the purposes of consultation. It was

not used in the assessment of options and does not present a verifiably accurate

representation of the environment in which the development is proposed, or of the

development proposed in the DCO. There are three main reasons for this:

1.2.1 The model covers a vast geographical area, over 60km long by over 40km wide

and was therefore constructed using a combination of OS mapping, digital terrain

modelling data and aerial photography. This data is less accurate than that

2 13135145.4

obtained from site photographs and topographical surveys and that used in the

production of photomontages.

1.2.2 The model uses generic features. Most buildings in the model are shown as blocks

with pitched roofs at a height assumed through site observations and analysis of

aerial photography. Vegetation is also shown at an assumed height in approximate

locations to provide a representation of the environment through which the

development is routed. Through discussions with the Thematic Groups a small

number of locations were identified where site photography was used to provide a

more realistic impression of the environment. However, this additional detail was

only provided in a small number of discrete locations.

1.2.3 The model shows the correct position and type of pylons as proposed during the

statutory s42 consultation. However, as a result of representations received during

the consultation a number of changes were made to the route of the overhead line

and positioning of the pylons and these are not reflected in the model. These

changes included moving the route of Option B to the west of Tarr Bridge and

closer to the alignment of the 132kV G Route and changing the position and type of

pylons on Option A to minimise effects on a cold store and land within the Bristol

Port Complex.

B SPECIFIC

2 Agenda Items 3.1 and 3.2 – THE IMPACT ON RECREATION AND OUTDOOR TOURIST

FACILITIES

2.1 Ms Catherine Ambrose, on behalf of National Grid, explained that National Grid’s assessment

of impacts on recreation and tourism facilities considered the direct impacts of the Proposed

Development, e.g. land take, height restrictions and the wider amenity impacts. Portbury

Common and Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve would experience direct impacts. If Option A

were to be constructed, Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve would experience moderate adverse

significance of impacts during construction and a negligible beneficial effect during operation.

Portbury Common would experience minor adverse effects during construction and a

negligible beneficial effect during operation. These beneficial effects during operation arise as

a result of the existing lines being removed or undergrounded and no additional line being

constructed in the Portbury Wharf and Porbury Common areas. If Option B were to be

constructed, Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve would experience moderate adverse effects

during construction and negligible adverse effects during operation. Portbury Common would

experience minor adverse effects during construction and negligible adverse effects during

operation.

2.2 Ms Ambrose confirmed that all of the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) affected by Option B

would also be affected by Option A, but that Option A would affect an additional six PRoW

during the construction phase. No public rights of way will be permanently closed or diverted

and all temporary effects will be managed in accordance with the Public Rights of Way

Management Plan.

2.3 In response to a question from the ExA Ms Ambrose confirmed that users of National Cycle

Routes (NCR) 334, 26 and 410 would all experience overall minor adverse effects during

construction regardless of the option chosen. The only differentiator between the options in

13135145.4 3

relation to these cycle routes is visual impact. If Option A were chosen users of NCR 334

would experience negligible visual impacts in Sections E and F with short areas of low and

moderate adverse visual impacts for all phases of the Proposed Development, compared to

negligible visual impacts with short sections of low adverse visual impacts if Option B were

chosen. Users of NCR 410 would experience moderate adverse visual impacts along Section

E in all phases if Option A were chosen compared to low adverse visual impacts along

Section E if Option B were chosen. Visual impacts along Section F would be would be mostly

negligible in construction and entirely negligible in operation under either option (. Visual

impacts on users of NCR 26 would be low adverse during construction and negligible during

operation regardless of which option is chosen (Volume 5.15.1, page 132, and Volume

5.15.2 Appendix J).

2.4 Ms Ambrose explained that the speed at which users of cycle routes tend to travel means that

their interactions with the Proposed Development are temporary and that they are therefore

assessed as low sensitivity receptors. The assessments of amenity impact on these receptors

have followed the same method as the amenity assessments for other receptors.

2.5 Ms Ambrose explained that National Grid conducted user surveys to assess the

attractiveness of the area to cyclists and tourists. The results of the survey are that 87% of

those surveyed reported that they did not anticipate the Proposed Development affecting their

decision to come to the area and 86% of users surveyed reported that they did not expect the

Proposed Development to affect the type or frequency of their activities in the area (Volume

5.15.1, Inset 15.16). With specific reference to cyclists, Table 15.41 of Volume 5.15.1 shows

that only one person interviewed stated that the proposed development would cause them to

change their cycling routes. Of those surveyed, 57% were local residents (Volume 5.15.1,

Inset 15.12 and paragraph 15.5.85), so the surveys capture the opinions of local users.

Furthermore, 91% of those surveyed considered that their expenditure in the area would not

be affected by the Proposed Development (Volume 5.15.1, Inset 15.17 and paragraph

15.5.100).

2.6 Counsel for National Grid noted that these cycle routes pass through areas where there are

existing OHLs and other modern features such as the M5 motorway and Bristol Port, and that

users of the routes were presumably undeterred by such features. The results of the surveys

suggest that use of the routes will not be affected by the Proposed Development, whichever

optional alignment is chosen. Route LA15/22 currently passes under two OHLs and would

pass under only one if the Proposed Development were to go ahead.

3 Agenda item 2.1 – HERITAGE AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT – OPTION A

The effect on heritage assets and, in particular, St Mary’s Church and other assets in

Portbury; Court House Farmhouse; Elm Tree Farmhouse; railway remnants AR205 and

AR272; and Celtic field system HL63.

3.1 The ExA queried whether National Grid's Connection Options Report (Volume 5.2.2.4)

considered impacts on St Mary's Church, Portbury. Counsel for National Grid reassured the

ExA that impacts on the church were considered at paragraph 13.169 of the report, which is

in the part of the report dealing with route section G.

3.2 The ExA invited comments on the photomontages of VPE7, 11, and 12, which show views of

St Mary's Church, Portbury.

4 13135145.4

3.3 Counsel for National Grid noted that the photomontages showed that the setting of the church

includes various modern features including telegraph poles, modern electric streetlamps,

cars, and the M5 motorway. These things had to be taken into account when considering the

impact that Option A would have on the heritage significance of the church.

3.4 Ms Helena Kelly, on behalf of National Grid, explained that the assessment of St Mary's

Church had been conducted in accordance with Historic Environment Good Practice

Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, produced by Historic England.

The guidance makes clear at paragraph 9 that the setting of a historic asset is not itself an

asset; its importance lies in the contribution it makes to the heritage significance of the asset.

When assessing the contribution of an asset’s setting a number of factors listed in the

guidance should be considered. These include, among other things, the surrounding

streetscape and landscape, and the presence of noise, vibration and other pollutants. Setting

can make a positive, neutral, or negative contribution.

3.5 Ms Kelly explained that the immediate setting of the church, the churchyard, makes a positive

contribution to the heritage significance of the church. The churchyard is surrounded by very

mature trees that filter views of the wider setting. The immediate setting of the church would

be unaffected by the Proposed Development, but the wider setting would be affected. The

wider setting does make a positive contribution as it facilitates the appreciation of a church

with a visually dominant tower, and the evidential link between a rural parish church and the

community it serves. However, the setting has been altered by the presence of the M5

motorway, which has the effect of severing the church from part of its setting and which

creates noise effect that are readily apparent, even in the churchyard. In addition to the M5,

further modern features such as the industrial landscape of Avonmouth and a nearby modern

primary school detract from the contribution made by the wider setting to the heritage

significance of the church. The Option A pylons would be separated from the church by the

M5 motorway, reducing intervisibility, and would be viewed against the background of

Avonmouth’s industrial landscape.

3.6 Ms Kelly explained that for these reasons Option A would have a minor adverse impact on the

heritage significance of the church. Option B would result in a neutral effect. The minor

adverse impact of Option A is not a significant effect and amounts to less than substantial

harm. National Grid's assessment has been agreed by the Joint Councils and Historic

England.

3.7 National Grid proposes that if Option A is selected, steps would be taken to mitigate the

impact on the church, secured through the Section 106 agreement with the Joint Councils.

Historic England has suggested that mitigation should be focussed on enhancement

measures to the immediate setting of the church. The Diocesan Architect's Quinquennial

Report, notes that repairs are required to the boundary wall of the church, and these repairs

would enhance the immediate setting of the church. National Grid proposes a payment

secured through the Section 106 agreement to fund these repairs. Ms Kelly also noted that

there is a proposal for OSPES planting near the church (reference ME1.18 in Volume 5.25),

which would enhance the setting. The relevant landowner has expressed an interest in the

proposed planting and a meeting has been arranged to discuss details. Ms Kelly noted that

Historic England has expressed support for this proposal.

3.8 In response to a submission that the Parochial Church Council has resolved not to accept

funds for mitigation in the event that Option A is selected, Counsel for National Grid noted that

the Parochial Church Council would be under no obligation to accept such funds. National

13135145.4 5

Grid and the Joint Councils had intended a payment to be made and secured in the Section

106 agreement, but if the Parochial Church Council would not accept the funds, they payment

would not be made.

3.9 The ExA asked National Grid about the impact of the Proposed Development on the remains

of the hillfort on Conygar Hill in Portbury (Asset ID SM251), which is a scheduled

monument.

3.10 Ms Kelly, on behalf of National Grid, explained that the remains were assessed as a receptor

of high significance and the effect under either option is assessed as neutral. Ms Kelly

confirmed that the lack of public access to the site had, correctly, not been considered in the

assessment. Historic England and the Joint Councils have agreed the assessment.

3.11 The ExA asked how the impact of the Proposed Development on the Old Mill (Asset ID

LB1093) had been assessed.

3.12 Ms Kelly explained that the method used had been the same as for the other receptors,

namely considering how the setting contributes to the significance of the heritage asset, and

that in this case the heritage significance of the building came mostly from the architectural

and historic heritage interest of the building itself. The Proposed Development will not affect

the heritage significance of the receptor. National Grid's assessment has been agreed by

Historic England and the Joint Councils.

3.13 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on Portbury Priory (Asset ID LB1096).

3.14 Ms Kelly explained that Portbury Priory sits within Portbury village and is surrounded by

modern housing and that the contribution of the building's setting derives mainly from its

position within the village; the wider landscape is not important to the contribution that setting

makes to the significance of this asset, and there would be very little intervisibility to the

Proposed Development. The heritage interest of the building is largely architectural and

historic. As such the impact of the Proposed Development is assessed as neutral. Historic

England and the Joint Councils have agreed this assessment.

3.15 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on Court House Farmhouse (Asset ID

LB1122).

3.16 Ms Kelly explained that the impact of Option A was assessed as minor adverse. There would

be no impact from Option B. The farmhouse has a relationship with the land, therefore setting

makes a positive contribution to the heritage values of the listed building. However, a number

of factors would reduce the intervisibility of the Proposed Development, such as the screening

trees and the nearby farm buildings. Some views from the farmhouse include existing modern

elements. National Grid's assessment has been agreed with Historic England and the

Joint Councils.

3.17 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on Elm Tree Farmhouse (Asset ID

LB1117).

3.18 Ms Kelly explained that the impact of the Proposed Development on the heritage significance

of this asset was assessed as neutral because of the lack of intervisibility between this asset

and the Proposed Development, due to intervening vegetation (mature woodland to the north

of the disused railway) and topography; also the assessment was agreed with Historic

England and the Joint Councils.

6 13135145.4

3.19 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on Railway Remnants AR 205 (Asset ID

AR205).

3.20 Ms Kelly explained that the remnants are not a designated heritage asset, and is not within

the order limits. The remnants will experience no direct effect from the Proposed

Development. They sit in a cutting so intervisibility is limited. The contribution of the setting to

the heritage value of the remnants relates entirely to the relationship of the building to the

railway, which would be unaffected by the Proposed Development and the assessment was

agreed with Historic England and the Joint Councils.

3.21 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on site AR272 (Asset ID AR272).

3.22 Ms Kelly explained that AR272 was shown as the site of a railway station in data imported

from the NSC HER database. However, the station is not shown on historic mapping of the

area and there is no extant building there. It seems likely that the location is incorrectly

recorded, but it has been included in the assessment on a precautionary basis. There would

be no direct effect on the asset. The assessment has been agreed with Historic England

and the Joint Councils.

3.23 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on the Celtic field system HL63 (Asset ID

HL63).

3.24 Ms Kelly explained that impacts on the field system are common to options A and B and arise

from the undergrounding of the existing 132kV OHL. The impact is assessed as minor

adverse across the whole asset. The assessment and proposed mitigation have been

agreed with Historic England and the Joint Councils.

4 Agenda Item 2.2 – HERITAGE AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT - OPTION B

The effect on historic assets and, in particular, Celtic field system HL63; medieval land

features AR204 and AR206; WW2 installations AR219, 221 and 222.

4.1 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on Lower Caswell House (Asset ID

LB1092).

4.2 Ms Kelly explained that the impacts were assessed as minor adverse in relation to Options A

and B. The impacts arise not just from the parts of the route comprising Options A and B but

also from the preceding parts of the route.

4.3 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on heritage assets AR204 and AR206.

4.4 Ms Kelly explained that these receptors would experience neutral effects after mitigation

embedded in the design of the Proposed Development. The effects are common to options A

and B and arise from the undergrounding of the existing 132kV OHL. The assessment and

proposed mitigation have been agreed with Historic England and the Joint Councils.

4.5 The ExA asked what impact had been assessed on heritage assets AR219, AR221, and

AR222.

4.6 Ms Kelly explained that these assets comprise the Sheepway Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery and

military camp. The best surviving element is AR219, the gun emplacements, which are readily

13135145.4 7

apparent on the ground. The impact of the Proposed Development would be neutral under

Option B. There would be no impact under Option A.

5 Agenda Item 2.3 – THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS OF THESE

EFFECTS

5.1 Ms Kelly explained, on behalf of National Grid, that the main differentiator of the two options

in terms of historic and heritage impacts is St Mary's Church, which would be experience a

minor adverse effect under Option A and no effect under Option B. Either option is acceptable

in historic environment effects. The majority of effects in relation to archaeological remains

are common to both options.

5.2 Counsel for National Grid drew the ExA's attention to the fact that the assessments of impacts

discussed by Ms Kelly had been made by experts and agreed by the experts at the Joint

Councils and Historic England. Counsel for National Grid expressed the hope that ExA would

weigh the results of the assessment accordingly.

6 Agenda Items 3.1 and 3.2 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS – OPTION A AND OPTION B

The impact on Bristol Port

6.1 Counsel for National Grid noted that National Grid and BPC appeared to be in agreement that

it would be possible from an engineering perspective to construct T-Pylons on the type of

ground likely to be found in Bristol Port. In relation to BPC's comments about its preference

for lattice pylons over T-Pylons in parts of Bristol Port, Counsel for National Grid noted that

there is a balance to be struck between the benefits that lattice pylons might confer on BPC

and the disadvantage for visual receptors caused by the greater height of lattice pylons.

National Grid has advertised a proposal to increase the height of pylons 109 to 113 to

accommodate certain operational needs of BPC, and believes that the current balance is

correct. National Grid estimates that it would take slightly longer to construct T-Pylons than

lattice pylons but the differences are marginal.

6.2 Mr Jim Brown, for National Grid, explained that lattice pylons are taller than T-Pylons due to

the way that the conductors are configured on the two designs. A standard lattice pylon is

45m tall whereas a standard T-Pylon is 35m tall.

6.3 Mr Chris Chadwick for National Grid explained that as part of the development of its

proposals National Grid considered the use of the T-pylon and traditional steel lattice pylons

in each section of the route. This is documented in the PDOR, Volume 5.2.2.6. The

assessment of pylon types in the Portbury/Portishead area concluded that the T-pylon should

be adopted for an overhead line on Option B in section F for the following main reasons:

6.3.1 It would be less visible in the landscape due to its reduced height and benefits of

screening. Its reduced height would also result in less structure being visible

against the sky.

6.3.2 It would reduce effects on public views from PRoW, footpaths, cycle routes and

would be less visible above trees and ridge backgrounding from 146 properties in

settlements, properties along over 2km of elevated land and over 10 apartment

blocks.

8 13135145.4

6.4 Mr Chadwick confirmed that whilst there would be differences between the pylon designs

from a historic environment and ecological perspective they were not considered to be

significant. However, the T-pylon would result in slightly reduced effects on two Grade II

listed buildings and would require one less pylon within the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve

than the steel lattice pylon option.

6.5 Mr Chadwick explained that the PDOR formed one of a suite of documents which

accompanied National Grid’s statutory s42 consultation and that a small number of

representations were received during the consultation that expressed a preference for the use

of lattice pylons in Section F. This did not include the representation of the Bristol Port

Company. These representations were considered as part of a back-check and review

alongside a number of responses that expressed a preference for T-pylons in this area. Mr

Chadwick explained that no new information came forward in these representations that

altered National Grid’s assessments or conclusions on the pylon type to be adopted in this

area and consequently it considers that the pylon type selected is the most appropriate.

6.6 Mr Brown noted that National Grid has produced indicative designs for T-Pylon foundations

(Volume 5.3.3.5, figure 3.24.4), and that it would be necessary to conduct site-specific

ground investigations before final designs could be produced.

7 Agenda Items 4.1 and 4.2– NOISE, AIR QUALITY, GROUND CONDITIONS, WATER

QUALITY, POLLUTION PREVENTION AND FLOOD RISK – OPTION A and OPTION B

The operational impact of noise on occupants of residential properties including Cole

Acre, The Meadow and Elm Tree Park.

7.1 Ms Sue Fitton explained, on behalf of National Grid, that properties close to the Option A

route are already influenced by high background noise levels from the nearby motorway, so

there is assessed to be no effect from operational noise from the Proposed Development in

dry conditions (i.e. the majority of the time). Operational noise in dry weather would be well-

below existing background noise. In wet conditions, the operational noise of the Proposed

Development would be greater, but background noise would also be higher. Taking this into

account there is expected to be a minor adverse effect on Cole Acre, and The Meadow, and a

negligible effect at Elm Tree Park.

7.2 Ms Fitton explained that this assessment is based on the period when background noise is

quietest, in the middle of the night. Furthermore, Met Office data shows that wet weather

conditions only occur 7% of the time in this area, and the assessment assumes that all of this

wet weather occurs during the periods when background noise is quietest, which would not

happen in reality. Furthermore, the assessment has made no allowance for the attenuating

effect of screening vegetation. The assessment therefore represents a worst case scenario.

Ms Fitton noted that it seems unlikely that residents of these properties would often be in their

gardens in wet weather in the middle of the night, but the assessment makes no assumptions

about this.

7.3 In response to questions about the assessment of effects on Elm Tree Park, Ms Fitton

explained that background noise levels had been measured at around 1am and 2am on

Station Road, opposite the entrance to “Cole Acre”. Details are given in Figure 18, Appendix

14E, Volume 5.14. The measured background noise levels (LA90) were 47 dB at 49 dB at this

location, although these measurements would only take into account a partial screening effect

13135145.4 9

of the bund between the motorway and Elm Tree Park. However, the background level

assumed in the assessment for the Portbury area was 42 dB and this is considered to be a

prudent assumption in terms of the background noise levels at all properties to the immediate

north of the M5.

7.4 The assessment in the Environmental Statement also includes a tonal penalty in all sound

pressure calculations to account for buzz and crackle of the line.

The construction and operational impacts that would arise from the Option A route and

pylon LD99 passing over, and constructed within, the Priory Farm landfill.

7.5 Mr Andrew Przewieslik, on behalf of National Grid, explained that the principal potential

impact of construction within the Priory Farm landfill arises from the remobilisation of potential

contaminants and the risk of creation of preferential contaminant pathways. These impacts

can be mitigated and after mitigation a minor adverse effect is expected.

7.6 Mr Przewieslik explained that a short section of underground cable would pass through the

old landfill near the Portishead substation. The waste in that landfill is of an unknown type,

and site-specific ground investigations would be carried out before works commenced.

Requirement 18 of the Draft DCO secures this. The findings of the investigation and a

detailed mitigation plan would be presented to the local authority before construction began,

and this is secured through Requirement 17 of the draft DCO.

Flood Zoning

7.7 Mr Ian Blackwell, on behalf of National Grid, explained that with the proposed mitigation there

would be no significant difference between Options A and B in terms of flood risk.

7.8 In response to concerns expressed by Avon Wildlife Trust about the impact of the Proposed

Development on the soil in the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve, Mr Przewieslik explained, on

behalf of National Grid, that the impact on shallow hydrogeology was not expected to be

significant, but that site-specific ground investigations would be needed to understand the

drainage and soil parameters in the nature reserve and to inform the drainage management

plan and soil management plan. The results of these investigations would be shared with the

local authority and National Grid expects that the local authority would include the Avon

Wildlife Trust in any relevant discussions on this subject.

7.9 Mr Przewieslik explained that the works in the nature reserve would involve the excavation of

a shallow trench in which a cable would rest on a mixture of sand and concrete. The trench

would be in-filled using the material that had been dug out of it. If particularly sensitive soil

conditions were discovered, one of the mitigation options that could be adopted would be to

in-fill the trench as quickly as possible after it had been excavated. Mr Jim Brown, for National

Grid, explained that under the current proposal each 50m section of trench in the nature

reserve would be open for a maximum of two weeks before being re-filled.

10 13135145.4

8 Agenda Item 4.3 – THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS OF THE

EFFECTS OF THESE IMPACTS

8.1 Counsel for National Grid noted in summary that National Grid does not expect noise, air

quality, surface water, ground water, or flood risk impacts to be significant in differentiators of

Options A or B.

9 Agenda Item 5 - HEALTH, WELL-BEING, ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS –

OPTIONS A AND B

Clarity on the content of the works including undergrounding necessary to the west of

Sheepway and the east of Portishead irrespective of the option chosen.

9.1 The ExA asked for clarification in relation to one of the lines shown on one of the works plans.

Mr Jim Brown, of National Grid, clarified that the line related to existing 132kV OHLs that

would need to be undergrounded to accommodate the curve of the 400kV line if Option B

were chosen.

During construction and operation, the amenity impact on those living on the eastern

fringe of Portishead and the west of Sheepway including F.H29 to H33.

9.2 Ms Catherine Ambrose, on behalf of National Grid, explained that the amenity impact

assessment was an in-combination assessment comprising visual, noise, air quality, and

transport impacts. Where a receptor is only expected to experience one type of impact, it has

not been included in the in-combination amenity assessment, but the results in relation to that

one impact can be found in the relevant individual assessment in the Environmental

Statement.

9.3 Speaking generally, in terms of air quality, noise, and transport impacts, there is little to

differentiate the two options. The visual assessment is that which provides the greatest

differentiator between the Options A and B. Ms Ambrose reiterated that for all four specialist

areas there is a wide range of available and widely accepted mitigation which will be

implemented through the various management plans, CEMP, thereby reducing individual

effects and the overall the amenity effect experienced by receptors.

9.4 With specific reference to receptors on the eastern fringe of Portishead, Ms Ambrose

confirmed that during construction for Option A minor adverse effects would be anticipated

and for Option B moderate adverse effects for F1.H28 would be anticipated with minor

adverse effects for the other receptors. During operation, the eastern fringe of Portishead is

assessed as only experiencing visual effects, and as such in-combination amenity effects are

not anticipated.

9.5 Amenity effects on receptors to the west of Sheepway including F.H29 to H33, are anticipated

to be minor to moderate adverse during construction for both Options A and B. These

receptors are assessed as only experiencing visual effects, and as such in-combination

amenity effects are not anticipated. The visual effects will be beneficial for Option A and

adverse for Option B.

13135145.4 11

10 Agenda Item 5.2 - HEALTH, WELL-BEING, ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS –

OPTION A

The effects on living conditions at the cluster of properties to the north of Route A

including F.H40a to H43.

10.1 Ms Ambrose explained that receptor F1.H40a would experience minor to moderate adverse

amenity impacts during construction under Option A, and had been scoped out of the amenity

assessment for the operational stage because only visual effects are anticipated during

operation. Receptor F1.H41 would experience minor to moderate adverse amenity impacts

during construction and had been scoped out of the amenity assessment for the operational

stage because only visual effects are anticipated during operation. Receptor F1.H42 would

experience minor to moderate adverse amenity impacts during construction and minor

adverse impacts during operation under Option A. Receptor F1.H43 (Cole Acre) would

experience minor to moderate adverse amenity impacts during all phases under Option A.

The visual impact on that receptor is assessed as moderate adverse for all stages. Receptor

F1.H40b is assessed as experiencing minor adverse impacts and had been scoped out of the

amenity assessment for the operational stage because only visual effects are anticipated

during operation

11 Agenda Item 5.3 - HEALTH, WELL-BEING, ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS –

OPTION B

The impact on the amenity of users of Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve.

11.1 Ms Ambrose explained that the amenity impact of Option B on Portbury Wharf Nature

Reserve is assessed as minor to moderate adverse during construction and minor adverse

during operation. Option A would result in minor to moderate adverse impacts during

construction and only a beneficial visual impact during operation (arising from the removal of

existing OHLs).

12 Agenda Item 5.4 - THE COMPARISON OF EFFECTS BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS

12.1 Ms Ambrose summarised the comparative impacts of the two options by noting that five of the

receptors named in the agenda would experience minor to moderate adverse amenity effects

during construction of Option A, whereas four of the receptors would experience minor to

moderate adverse effects during construction of Option B. One of the named receptors (Cole

Acre) would experience minor to moderate adverse amenity effects during the operation of

Option A, whereas none would experience such effects during the operation of Option B.

National Grid does not believe therefore that the amenity assessment provides a clear

differentiator between the two options.

12.2 The assessment results to which Ms Ambrose referred are collated in Appendix A of this

summary.

12 13135145.4

13 Agenda Item 6 - BIODIVERSITY AND HABITATS REGULATION ASSESSMENT (HRA)

13.1 Counsel for National Grid confirmed that the Section 106 agreement that has been prepared

with the Joint Councils includes provision in relation to Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve within

the local wildlife site funds.

13.2 Ms Liz Seal, on behalf of National Grid, explained that National Grid is still in discussions with

Avon Wildlife Trust about agreeing a Statement of Common Grounds in relation to Portbury

Wharf Nature Reserve. Recent changes in management at the trust have delayed matters.

National Grid has not received comments from Avon Wildlife Trust on the draft Biodiversity

Mitigation Strategy, but has received comments from Natural England, the Environment

Agency and the Joint Councils.

14 Agenda Item 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 - BIODIVERSITY AND HABITATS REGULATION

ASSESSMENT (HRA) – OPTIONS A AND B

14.1 The ExA asked why the numbers of trees stated as being removed under Options A and B in

Volume 8.22.27A differ from those stated within National Grid’s Arboricultural Impact

Assessment (Volume 5.21).

14.2 Ms Liz Seal, on behalf of National Grid, explained that the most useful figures are currently

those given in Volume 5.30 (ES Clarification Note) and clarified that these will be reflected in

the updated AIA to be submitted at Deadline 6. These figures show that Option A would result

in the removal of 581 trees and 7.66 groups of trees, whereas Option B would result in the

removal of 545 trees and 8.47 groups of trees. The difference between these figures and

those within the biodiversity section of the Option A/B summary table (Volume 8.22.27A) are

due to the addition of the ‘could be affected’ category which is not included in the AIA.

14.3 National Grid agreed to provide the ExA with a reference to where the qualitative assessment

of trees removed under Option B could be found in the updated AIA submitted at Deadline 6

by National Grid.

14.4 In response to concerns raised about the removal of trees in Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve

that are currently used for Barn Owl boxes, Ms Seal explained that National Grid had been

provided with the location of the Barn Own boxes being used for breeding and believed these

will be retained. One box not currently used as breeding will be lost and this will be replaced

on a 2 for 1 basis. There might nevertheless be disturbance from works in close proximity to

the Barn Owls using the boxes so National Grid has made commitments in BMS (Section 4.1

Table 4.1) should this occur.

14.5 The ExA noted that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment is valid until 2019, and asked

whether there is a mechanism for updating it after that date. Ms Seal noted that Requirement

12 secures the preparation and approval of a Tree and Hedgerow Protection Strategy prior to

the commencement of any of the development. Furthermore, the reference to 2019 in the

AIA relates to predicting pruning activities during the operational stage. The AIA will not need

updating.

14.6 In response to queries about the possible installation of bird diverters on the proposed OHLs

near Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve, Ms Seal noted that it was important to consider whether

the Proposed Development would increase the risk of birds colliding with OHLs. Under either

option, three existing OHLs would be removed, which ought to reduce the risk. The new line

13135145.4 13

that would be constructed for Option B is further south and east than the current lines and the

water bodies in the nature reserve. Option B would result in an opening up of the vista

between the pools to the north and south of the existing lines. Wintering bird surveys

conducted by National Grid showed moderately large numbers of SPA species in pools to the

north of the Proposed Development, but only low numbers in the pools to the south of the

existing OHL. Furthermore, winter vantage point surveys at the nature reserve did not identify

any bird movements that would indicate the new OHL would result in bird collisions. If SPA

birds were reported as colliding with the Proposed Development, National Grid would

implement the NGET Bird Diverter Protocol which allows for consultation with relevant bodies

about whether action needed to be taken. This action could include monitoring and retrofitting

bird diverters. Ms Seal also noted that following discussions with National Grid, Avon Wildlife

Trust withdrew its previous request for bird diverters to be installed on this part of the

Proposed Development.

14.7 In response to a suggestion that there should be a separate Biodiversity Mitigation Plan for

the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve, Ms Seal explained that National Grid did not believe that

this was necessary. The existing BMS includes a commitment that the works will be overseen

by an ecological clerk of works funded by National Grid and a commitment to meet with the

relevant bodies to discuss detailed mitigation not less than six months before construction

would begin in the nature reserve. The existing BMS contains method statements for each of

the species found on the nature reserve, and these statements set out how National Grid

would plan its works to minimise disruption to those species. Furthermore the latest BMS

includes a list of details (related to existing Requirements) that would form the basis of pre-

commencement discussion for this site.

14.8 Regarding water voles at Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve, Ms Seal explained that National

Grid thinks it highly unlikely that it would be necessary to relocate water voles to areas

beyond the order limits. The impacts on water voles are generally limited to small working

areas for the installation of temporary culvert crossing. Impacts will be mitigated by

conducting surveys in advance and avoiding burrows where possible and vegetation will be

managed to encourage passive displacement from these small areas in advance of works.

14.9 In response to a suggestion by the inspectors, National grid agreed to consider wording for a

requirement to secure a Biodiversity Management Plan for the Portbury Wharf Nature

Reserve and include it in the DCO at Deadline 6 or submit a note explaining why this is not

necessary.

14.10 The ExA asked whether there were any significant receptors that had not been considered in

the table commencing on page 40 of Volume 8.2.27A.

14.11 Ms Seal explained that the table referred to extracts relevant information for Options A and B.

The table only presents species and habitats where there is a potentially significant effect

prior to mitigation, and shows the impacts before and after mitigation. Ms Seal explained the

Birch Wood and Prior’s Wood SNCI was not included in the table because it was affected by

both Options.

15 Agenda Item 6.4 – COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS OF THESE EFFECTS

15.1 Ms Seal summarised the differences between the two options in terms of sites affected. The

SNCIs at Caswell Moor and the fields between the railway line and the A369 in Portbury

would only be affected by Option A. The Portbury Dock Wood SNCI would only be affected by

14 13135145.4

Option B. The Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve SNCI and Portbury Wharf SNCI would be

affected by either option, but the impacts on these desginations would be greater under

Option B.

15.2 Ms Seal explained that there are no material differences in HRA terms between the two

Options. European Protected Species would be affected with either Option but overall one

more bat roost and a greater amount of terrestrial great crested newt habitat would be

affected by Option B. Effects on certain non-SPA bird species and water vole habitats are

also slightly higher under Option B. Three groups of non-SPA birds are the only ecology

receptors where the differences in effects between the Options result in a different category of

effect. Option B would result in minor adverse residual effects during construction for Raptors,

Barn Owls and Cetti's Warbler, whereas Option A would not cause significant effects.

Although either option is acceptable, taking account of the mitigation hierarchy there is a

preference for Option A on biodiversity grounds.

16 Agenda Item 7.1 – HAUL ROADS AND ACCESS – OPTION A

The overall effect on the Bristol Port operation including the proposed positions of

pylons and access to them both during construction and for operational maintenance

purposes.

16.1 Counsel for National Grid explained that National Grid and BPC are in agreement or very

close to agreement on the question of haul roads and access in Bristol Port under either

Option. Issues of access to pylons BW29A, LD104, LD105, and LD106 have been resolved

between National Grid and BPC.

16.2 BPC confirmed that this was the case.

17 Agenda Item 7.2 – HAUL ROADS AND ACCESS – OPTION B

The overall effect on the Bristol Port operation including the proposed positions of

pylons and access to them both during construction and for operational maintenance

purposes.

17.1 Counsel for National Grid confirmed that issues around pylon P-LD105, P-LD106, P-LD100,

P-LD101, P-LD102A, P-LD104 are all either resolved or very close to being resolved between

National Grid and BPC. The two parties are working on the wording of the necessary legal

documents to embody the solutions that have been reached.

18 Agenda Item 8 - THE OVERALL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS

INCLUDING THE METHOD BY WHICH THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF

OPTION A AND OPTION B HAVE BEEN ASSESSED

18.1 Mr Chris Chadwick, on behalf of National Grid summarised National Grid's view of the

comparison of the two Options. Mr Chadwick explained that as part of the iterative approach

to the routeing of the connection National Grid regularly back-checked and reviewed its

decisions in light of representations. This examination process is no different, and in response

to the additional information that has been submitted by the Joint Councils in their LIR,

information submitted by interested parties in their relevant and written representations and a

13135145.4 15

change in position by the Bristol Port Company, National Grid has continued the back-

checking process. As a result of this some of the factors initially considered to be

differentiators between the options have become less clear differentiators whilst others have

become more clear differentiators.

18.2 Mr Chadwick explained that National Grid has expressed a preference for Option A, but that

this preference is a marginal one. National Grid considers that both options are acceptable in

planning and environmental terms and this is why it feels the approach it adopted by putting

both options in to its DCO and allowing the debate to continue into the examination is

appropriate.

18.3 National Grid considers that the following topics do not help to differentiate between Options

A and B: noise; air quality; ground conditions; water quality; flood risk; traffic and transport;

amenity effects and EMF.

18.4 Mr Chadwick explained that the four factors that National Grid considers support its

preference for Option A are:

18.4.1 Option A is shorter and more direct. Paragraph 2.8.5 of EN-5 makes clear that the

Holford Rules should be followed by developers when designing their proposals.

Whilst both routes have been designed taking account of the Holford Rules, Option

A is considered to be more compliant as it minimises wirescape, is shorter than

Option B by over 1.2km and requires fewer pylons and less angle pylons.

18.4.2 Option A is preferred from a socio-economic perspective as it would reduce the

amount of Bristol Port Company land that would be affected by the development.

Option A would also reduce effects on the Bristol Port during construction as

Option B would require greater use of Port roads, would involve construction

vehicles having to travel further into the Port complex and would result in greater

interaction with existing port businesses and vehicles using the Port roads. These

reasons are supported by the Bristol Port Company in its representations.

18.4.3 Option A offers the lowest negative effects on the local landscape of all of the

overhead line route options. This is because the option is shorter, more direct,

minimises sharp changes in direction and contains landscape effects along the M5

and A369 corridor. It also avoids effects on Portbury Wharf and the adjacent

nature reserve.

18.4.4 Option A would avoid effects on ecological habitats and species to a greater extent

than Option B and is therefore preferred based on the mitigation hierarchy.

18.5 Mr Chadwick explained that the only factor that distinguishes between the options in historic

environment terms, and weighs in favour of Option B is the effect of Option A on St Mary's

Church in Portbury. However these effects would only be minor adverse and either option

would be acceptable in historic environment terms.

18.6 In terms of visual effects, Option A would result in a number of moderate adverse effects on

private views in Portbury but would result in a number of moderate beneficial effects on views

in Portishead. In contrast, Option B would result in fewer moderate adverse effects on

Portishead but also fewer overall positive effects. National Grid does not consider that there

are significant differences between the options with regard to their effects on visual amenity

but that this factor may weigh marginally towards Option B.

16 13135145.4

Overall, National Grid does not consider that the differences between the options in terms of

the effects on Portbury Church and visual amenity differentiate between the options to such a

degree that they outweigh the other factors.

13135145.4

APPENDIX A

Detailed Findings from the Amenity Assessment for the Receptors / Receptor Groups Named within the Portbury / Portishead Issue Specific Hearing Agenda

Notes:

This appendix has been prepared using the same method and topics as that used within the amenity assessment reported in

Volume 5.15.1, updated as appropriate and to reflect any supplementary receptors considered.

Operational noise assessment outcomes have assumed wet conditions.

Both Options A and B are considered in the Views assessment, with negligible used where there is unlikely to be any change or

effect resulting.

Operational phase effects were scoped out of the Air Quality assessment.

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor

Residual Effect after mitigation Conclusion

5.1 Options A and B

i Eastern fringe

of Portishead

Residence Moderate Views:

Option A: All minor adverse during construction. F1.H28

minor beneficial during operation, others moderate

Option A: Minor adverse effects during construction and minor to moderate beneficial (views only) during

2 13135145.4

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor


Views receptor

ref:

F1.H24 to

F1.H28

beneficial during operation.

Option B: F1.H28 moderate adverse during construction,

all others minor adverse during construction. All minor

adverse during operation.

Noise: Minor adverse during construction. Scoped out of

operational assessment.

Air Quality: Negligible effect during construction. Scoped

out of operational assessment.

Transport: Slight adverse during construction. Negligible

effect during operation.

operation.

Option B: Moderate adverse effects for F1.H28, minor adverse effects for the other receptors during construction, with minor adverse effects (views only) during operation.

i West of

Sheepway and

Wharf Lane

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H29 to

F1.H33

Residence Moderate Views:

Option A: Minor to moderate adverse during

construction. Minor to moderate beneficial during

operation. Negligible in all phases for the detached

property on Wharf Lane (F1.H31).

Option B: Minor to moderate adverse during all phases.

Negligible during all phases for the detached property on

Wharf Lane (F1.H31).




Option A: minor to moderate adverse effect during

construction. Minor to moderate beneficial effects

(views only) during operation.

Option B: Minor to moderate adverse effect during

construction and minor to moderate (views only) during

operation.

13135145.4 3

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor





5.2 Option A

i Portbury

Views receptor

ref:

E1.H38 to

E1.H49

(note: playing

field lies

between H45

and H49 but is

appropriately

considered in

the assessment

of Portbury

School)

Residence Moderate Views: Minor adverse during construction and

decommissioning. During operation, moderate adverse

for properties in Portbury on the settlement edge or with

long views of the proposed 400kV overhead line; minor

adverse for all other properties within the settlement.

Noise: Negligible to minor effect during construction and

decommissioning. Scoped out of operational assessment.





Minor adverse during construction

Moderate adverse (views only) during operation.

i Elm Tree Park Residence Moderate Views: Option A: Residential receptors would

4 13135145.4

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor


Views receptor

ref: F1.H40b

experience minor adverse effects during all phases

Option B: Residential receptors would experience ‘no

change’ during all phases.

Noise: Minor effect during construction. No effect during

dry conditions and negligible effect during wet conditions

in operation.





Minor adverse amenity effects during construction from

Option A and Option B. Minor adverse (views only)

during operation from Option A. Negligible effects only

during operation from Option B

i Sheepway, and

properties east

of Wharf Lane

Views receptor

ref: F1.H31, F1.

H34

Residence Moderate Views: Negligible during all phases.

Noise: Negligible effect during construction. Scoped out

of operational assessment.





No significant effects

Slight adverse during construction (traffic only)

ii Cluster of

properties to the

north of Route A

including

Residence Moderate Views: Minor adverse to negligible effect during all

phases.



13135145.4 5

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor


F1.H40a and to

F1.H43

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H40a




Transport: Slight / moderate adverse during construction.

Negligible effect during operation.

Minor to moderate adverse during construction

Negligible during operation

ii Cluster of

properties to the

north of Route A

including

F1.H40a and to

F1.H43

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H41

Residence Moderate Views: Option A: Minor adverse effect during all phases.

Option B: No change during all phases

Noise: Minor adverse effect during construction. Scoped






Minor to moderate adverse during construction for

Options A and B.

Minor adverse during operation (views only) for Option

A.

ii Cluster of

properties to the

north of Route A

including

F1.H40a and to

Residence

and business

Moderate Views: Minor adverse to negligible during construction

and operation (Option A and B)

Noise: Minor adverse during construction. No effect

during dry conditions and minor adverse effect during wet

conditions in operation.

Minor to moderate adverse during construction for both

options

Minor adverse during operation for both options.

6 13135145.4

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor


F1.H43

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H42



Transport: Slight/moderate adverse during construction.


ii Cluster of

properties to the

north of Route A

including

F1.H40a and to

F1.H43

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H43 (Cole

Acre)

Residence

and business

Moderate Views: Moderate adverse during construction and

operation for Option A. Negligible during construction and

operation for Option B

Noise: Minor adverse during construction. No effect

during dry conditions and minor adverse effect during wet

conditions in operation.





Minor to moderate adverse during all phases for Option

A. Minor adverse during construction for Option B.

Minor adverse during operation (noise during wet

conditions only) for Option B.

iii Portbury

Primary School

Views receptor

School

Moderate Portbury Primary School

(NB: this is more than 100m from Proposed Development

working areas)


Minor adverse during all phases (views only)

13135145.4 7

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor


ref: E1.M8

Views: Minor adverse during all development phases.



Air Quality: Outside spatial scope for all development

phases.

Transport: Negligible adverse during construction.


Receptor would be scoped out of the assessment.

iii Portbury Wharf

Nature Reserve

Area for

nature

conservation

Low Views: (Preferred Route Option A)

Bird Hide North Pools – Low adverse on construction, low

beneficial on operation and negligible on

decommissioning

Bird Hide South Pools – Low adverse on construction,

moderate beneficial on operation and low adverse on

decommissioning

Car Park Sheepway – Moderate adverse on construction,

low beneficial on operation and moderate adverse on

decommissioning

Car Park Wharf Lane – Low adverse on construction and

decommissioning. Low beneficial on operation

Noise: Negligible effect during all phases of development.

Minor to moderate adverse effects during construction

Beneficial visual effects during operation

8 13135145.4

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor




Transport: Moderate adverse during construction.


5.3 Option B

i Sheepway and

Portishead

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H24 to

F1.H28

Residence Moderate Views: F1.H28 moderate adverse effect during

construction, all others minor adverse during

construction. All minor adverse effect during operation.







F1.H28 minor to moderate, all others minor adverse

during construction

Minor adverse during operation (views only)

ii North west of

Sheepway

Views receptor

ref:

F1.H29 to

F1.H33

Residence Moderate Views: Minor to moderate adverse during all phases.

Negligible during all phases for the detached property on

Wharf Lane (F1.H31).

Noise: Negligible to minor adverse during construction.

Scoped out of operational assessment.


Minor to moderate during construction

Minor to moderate during operation (views only)

13135145.4 9

Agenda

Ref

Name of

Receptor

Type of

Receptor

Sensitivity

of Receptor





iii Portbury Wharf

Nature Reserve

Area for

nature

conservation

Low Views:

Bird Hide North Pools – Low adverse for all phases

Bird Hide South Pools – Moderate adverse on

construction and decommissioning, low beneficial on

operation

Car Park Sheepway – Moderate adverse for all phases

Car Park Wharf Lane – Low adverse for all phases

Noise: Negligible effect during all phases of development.



Transport: Moderate adverse during construction.


Minor to moderate adverse effects during construction

Minor adverse effects during operation

infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk · 1.2 the agenda for the hearing was set out in the...

Documents