Our ref:
Your ref:
Joyce Melrose
Scottish Government
Energy Consents and Deployment Unit
5 Atlantic Quay
150 Broomielaw
Glasgow
G2 8LU
PCS/133417
If telephoning ask for:
Stephanie Balman
20 June 2014
By email only to: EconsentsAdmin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Ms Melrose
Electricity Act 1986
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland)
Regulations 2011
Proposed Wind Farm
Birneyknowe, 4km to the South East of Hawick, Scottish Borders
Thank you for your consultation letter which SEPA received on 14 May 2014.
We object to this planning application on the grounds of a lack of information relating to wetlands
and peatland. We will consider reviewing this objection if the issues detailed in Section 1 and 2
below are adequately addressed.
We also ask that the planning conditions in Section 3 and 7 (below) be attached to any consent (if
granted).
Advice for the planning authority
1.
Impacts to peatland
1.1
We note that limited peat probing was undertaken on areas of the site which were identified
on site using the British Geological Survey (BGS). However, a peat depth survey of the
whole site does not appear to have been completed nor any probing undertaken where
infrastructure is proposed.
1.2
We therefore object to the proposed development and request that a detailed map is
submitted of peat depths (this must be to full depth) for the whole site with all the built
elements overlain so it can clearly be seen how the development has been designed to
avoid areas of deep peat. This will ensure that the location of peat can be accurately
determined; the volume of disturbed peat can be calculated and we can assess if the reuse on site in line with our Regulatory Position Statement.
1.3
The peat depth survey should include details of the basic peatland characteristics, including
a break down of acrotelmic, catotelmic and amorphous peat. We recommend that
2
surveying is undertaken in accordance with the Scottish Government Guidance on
developments on peatland – Site surveys (2014) in particular Section 1.5. This
recommends that a low resolution survey should be undertaken for the whole site and a
detailed survey for areas where infrastructure is proposed.
1.4
The applicant should refer to Section 9 below for further details of the information we
require to be submitted. Reference should also be made to the Appendix 1 – for our
validation of the carbon balance assessment for further comments with respect to peat.
2.
Wetland ecology
2.1
It should be noted that types of wetland designated as Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial
Ecosystems (GWDTEs) are specifically protected under the Water Framework Directive.
From the information provided the following Turbines are shown to be located near or on
areas containing Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs):

Turbine (T) 8, T10, T11 and T14 are all located within M15. Where possible it is
requested that this infrastructure is located outside of the wet heath habitat due to the
sensitivities and value which is outlined throughout the Environmental Statement (ES).

S7 or S9a near T9. It is not clear what swamp type is present close to this Turbine due
to the colouring used in Figure 4.2. It is requested that this turbine is microsited as far
as possible away from this habitat type to avoid impacting local drainage and hydrology
that supports the wetland identified.
Our preference would be that these turbines are microsited outwith these areas ideally
adhering to the buffer distances (i) 100m from roads, tracks and trenches or (ii) 250m from
borrow pits and foundations. If this is not possible then we require justification to be
provided as to why they can not be relocated and details of the mitigation measures
proposed outlining how any impacts will be minimised. Please refer to Section 10 below for
examples of mitigation which could be included.

T1, T4, T5 and T13 are all located within M23. It is requested that all infrastructure
within M23, and indeed all other areas of moderately or highly groundwater dependent
wetland, includes mitigation to maintain the levels and quality of groundwater. For
example, all tracks should be permeable to groundwater flow and trackside drainage
should be designed to permit diffuse movement of groundwater and not underdrain
nearby wetlands by intercepting natural flows.
2.2
Detailed proposals for mitigation will also be required to be included within the Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which we have requested is produced by
condition.
3.
Environmental management and pollution prevention
3.1
We welcome that it is proposed to produce a environmental management plan (EMP) and
Construction Method Statement (CMS). Some of proposed measures relate to works which
may be regulated by us however, many of the works will not be and need to be covered by
condition. Therefore, we request that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the
submission of a full site specific construction environmental management plan (CEMP). To
assist, the following wording is suggested:
At least two (2) months prior to the commencement of any works, a full site specific
3
construction environmental management plan (CEMP) must be submitted for the written
approval of the planning authority [in consultation with SEPA] [and other agencies such as
SNH as appropriate] and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason: to control pollution of air, land and water.
3.2
The applicant should refer to Section 11 below for further details of our requirements for the
CEMP.
4.
Borrow pits
4.1
We note that two borrow pits are proposed. The Borrow Pit 1 location seems suitable in
that it is away from watercourses and not on a steep gradient. Borrow Pit 2 is also away
from watercourses but on a steeper gradient. If the design is to pitch into the hillside to
contain any silty runoff and space is provided for silt settlement lagoons if required, then
this location should be acceptable. The levels in the borrow pits should be pitched back
into the hillside so that surface water and groundwater (if encountered) is kept within the
quarry. Silty water can then be pumped out to settlement ponds when required.
5.
Private water supplies
5.1
We note that the closest private water supply (PWS) Birneyknowe Farm, is out with our
buffer distances (100 m from roads, tracks and trenches or 250 m from borrow pits and
foundations) and there are no other PWS within boundary. Therefore, no issues are
anticipated.
6.
Water Framework Directive requirements
6.1
Section 4.7 of SEPA’s Land Use Planning System – Guidance Note 4 outlines procedures
for the provision of an indication of the ‘consentability’ of a Section 36 windfarm proposal
under Water Framework Directive requirements. In line with this, on the basis of the
information available and without prejudice to any future applications for authorisation
under CAR, we would expect the proposal to fall into a ‘Category 1 – Capable of being
authorised’.
7.
Restoration
7.1
We request that a planning condition is attached to any approved consent seeking a
Decommissioning and Restoration Plan. The plan should be submitted at least two years
prior to the end of the design life of the development and based on best practice guidelines
which are applicable at the time of submission.
8.
Carbon balance
8.1
Please see Appendix 1 for a detailed validation of the submitted Carbon Balance
Assessment. Please note we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any
information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review and can take no
responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by authors.
4
Detailed advice for the applicant
9.
Disturbance and re-use of excavated peat
9.1
The peat depth survey should include details of the basic peatland characteristics. It is now
best practice for developers to produce a Peat Management Plan within the Environmental
Statement which sets out the principles as to how any surplus peat will be managed within
the site. We would expect all these proposals to be in accordance with Guidance on the
Assessment of Peat Volumes, Reuse of Excavated Peat and Minimisation of Waste and
our Regulatory Position Statement – Developments on Peat.
9.2
There are important waste management implications of measures to deal with surplus peat
as set out within our Regulatory Position Statement - Developments on Peat. Landscaping
with surplus peat (or soil) may not be of ecological benefit and consequently a waste
management exemption may not apply. In addition we consider disposal of significant
depth of peat as being landfilled waste, and this again may not be consentable under our
regulatory regimes. Our Planning and Energy webpage provides links to current best
practice guidance on peat survey, excavation and management.
9.3
Excavated peat should only be re-used on site where there is an environmental benefit and
is in keeping with the surrounding topography. Re-use should only occur at point of
extraction (i.e. peat should not be used to back fill areas that previously had no peat). Any
soil or peat to be removed should be stored as close as possible to point of extraction, it
should not be stored on environmentally sensitive areas e.g. away from water courses and
not on GWDTE’s and should be stored in a way which does not allow pollution to those
environments. Stockpiles should also be stored in a way so as to avoid drying out.
9.4
Please note, the placement of surplus peat to borrow pits (either on a temporary or
permanent basis) or bunds is not encouraged as experience has shown that peat used as
cover can suffer from significant drying and oxidation. In addition, peat deposited at depth
can lose structure and create a hazard when the stability of the material deteriorates.
10.
Wetland ecology
10.1
We have requested that a number of turbines are micro-sited to avoid areas of GWDTEs.
If this is not possible we have asked that justification be provided and mitigation to minimise
any impacts. For example, any de-watering of the foundations should be kept to a
minimum period during construction. Any pumped water should be treated efficiently
through a water treatment system (such as settlement ponds/ silt fences) and not situated
directly on areas of GWDTE. Water should ideally be discharged downslope to replenish
natural hydrological flow paths which have been intercepted by the excavation. Water being
discharged to downslope wetlands should be of suitable quality and the method of
discharge should not cause further pollution issues or threats to the GWDTEs e.g. erosion
due to point source discharges.
10.2
Tracks across areas of GWDTE should be made of a non alkaline permeable membrane.
Plugs should be incorporated in steeper gradients to ensure that trenches do not become
preferential conduits for water or allow under-draining of nearby wetlands by intercepting
natural flows. The track construction should be designed to permit natural groundwater
flows to continue.
10.3
We note that the ES refers to the use of a submerged foundations design and clay plugs.
It is requested that for all turbines within GWDTEs, a submerged foundation design is used
5
to maintain the hydrology supporting wetlands at this area. Clay plugs should be included
in all areas where the trench crosses through GWDTEs to maintain the original hydrological
conditions.
10.4
We note that stripped soils will be reinstated as soon as is reasonably practicable, however
if soils are to be stored for more than six months, mounds will be seeded with grass to
minimise erosion and weed growth (Section 16.62, ES). This is not considered to be good
practice, especially as there are so many botanically important habitats on site and it
should not be carried out on stored peat soils.
10.5
Section 4.8.23 of Appendix 4, notes that a new sluice will be installed at the outflow at
Fluther Moss. There is also a proposal to fence this area to protect stock. It should be
noted that his may have negative impacts on the conservation impacts of the wetland (as
grazing can be beneficial to prevent succession to scrub etc). We recommend that the
applicant contacts SNH to discuss this aspect of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
10.6
The map (Drawing ES20) shows areas of peatland management (11.1ha), tree and scrub
planting (16ha), drain blocking etc. All of these measures should be detailed in a detailed,
written HMP outlining handling and re-use of peat, restoration measures and target
outcomes for restoration under the HMP. We wish to be consulted on the HMP and request
that this is detailed within any planning condition requiring its submission.
11.
Environmental management and pollution prevention
11.1
Please note that we have requested that a planning condition is attached to any approved
consent requiring the submission of a construction environmental management plan
(CEMP) to be submitted at least two months prior to the proposed commencement of
development. The CEMP should incorporate detailed pollution prevention and mitigation
measures for all elements of the proposal potentially capable of giving rise to pollution
during all phases of construction, reinstatement after construction and final site
decommissioning.
11.2
As part of the CEMP, a construction method statement (CMS) will be required for all works
likely to affect water quality, such as road and turbine base construction, site compound,
river crossings and borrow pits. We also recommend that a Drainage Management Plan is
included within the CEMP.
11.3
Surface water drainage from access roads, turbine foundations, site compounds, site
buildings and borrow pits should be treated by a suitable SUDS system in accordance with
the General Binding Rules of CAR (GBR 10, GBR 21 and GBR 22). Appropriate treatment
must be provided prior to discharge to the water environment which should include, cut off
drains, silt fencing, swales, and silt settlement ponds. Run-off should be shed at regular
intervals to grassland soakaways or to silt settlement areas particularly on steep slopes.
11.4
The draft Design and CMS mentions a suite of measures including, drainage ditches,
waterbars, silt traps, vegetated buffer zones, settlement and filtration lagoons and Appendix
9.3 covers this in more detail and is fairly comprehensive. Provision of adequately sized silt
settlement lagoons will need to be provided in all areas of high risk particularly with roads
on steep inclines leading to river crossing points. Detail should be provided in the CMS
with respect to pollution control methods during river engineering works such as sand
bagging flow upstream and over pumping.
6
11.5
Details of borrow pit excavation and reinstatement (including the profile) should also be
included in the CMS or CEMP. We also request that this includes proposals for how any
groundwater will be dealt with, if encountered. Borrow pits should be located out with
GWDTEs and designed to limit the effects on any nearby wetland habitats and include
details of drainage and restoration.
11.6
To address the issue of waste we recommend that a site waste management plan (SWMP)
is included within the CEMP which addresses how all waste streams will be managed. This
should include waste materials excavated on site and the importation of any waste
materials to the site. It should be noted that any forestry waste (if applicable) should also be
included in the plan.
11.7
Further guidance on the design and implementation of crossings can be found in our
Construction of River Crossings Good Practice Guide. Other best practice guidance is also
available within the water engineering section of our website.
11.8
Advice on how to prepare a site waste management plan is available on the NetRegs
website and from Envirowise who also provide free advice on resource efficiency. Further
advice on the reuse of demolition and excavation materials is available from the Waste and
Resources Action Programme. Full details of what should be included in the EMP can be
found on our website.
11.9
In addition we also refer you to Good Practice During Windfarm Construction prepared by
SNH, SEPA and the windfarm industry and to our guidance note Promoting the sustainable
reuse of greenfield soils in construction.
Regulatory advice for the applicant
12.
Regulatory requirements
12.1
It should be noted that watercourse crossings, cable crossings of waterways, sluice
installation and borrow pit drainage (along with any other engineering in or near the water
environment) may require authorisation from SEPA under The Water Environment
(Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR). Contact should
be made with the local regulatory team (see Section 12.3 below) regarding this if required.
We note that the ES refers to the 2005 regulations and we ask that this is amended to the
2011 regulations as noted above.
12.2
If there is a requirement for a crusher/screener on site then this should be authorised by us
under Part B of The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (PPC
2012).
12.3
Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found
on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you
need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the regulatory team in
your local SEPA office (tel: 01896 754797).
If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 0131 449 8559 or
e-mail at Stephanie.Balman@sepa.org.uk.
7
Yours sincerely
Stephanie Balman
Planning Officer
Planning Service
ECopy to:
Frances Nicholson
Banks Renewables
Inkerman House
St John's Road
Meadowfield
Durham
DH7 8XL
frances.nicholson@banksgroup.co.uk
Disclaimer
This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, as such a
decision may take into account factors not considered at the planning stage. We prefer all the technical information
required for any SEPA consents to be submitted at the same time as the planning application. However, we consider it to
be at the applicant's commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further
planning application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. We have relied on the accuracy and completeness of
the information supplied to us in providing the above advice and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or
interpretation, or omissions, in such information. If we have not referred to a particular issue in our response, it should
not be assumed that there is no impact associated with that issue. If you did not specifically request advice on flood risk,
then advice will not have been provided on this issue. Further information on our consultation arrangements generally
can be found in How and when to consult SEPA, and on flood risk specifically in the SEPA-Planning Authority Protocol.
Version 2.0
13 July 2012
Appendix 1: Carbon Assessment of Section 36 Wind Farms: SEPA Validation Response
SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF REPONSE
Issue
Yes
/ No
If no, is any deficiency
significant enough to
affect substantially the
carbon payback
period?
Is there sufficient
confidence in the carbon
payback figure for it to be
used by Scottish
Ministers as a material
consideration in their
decision making?
No
Yes, please see
comments below.
Comments
Further requirements to enable
positive validation (where
applicable)
See below.
See below.
In addition, for future reference, please note
that the ‘minimum’ column of the carbon
calculator data input sheet should always be
used for the lowest measured value for each
parameter, not the value that provides the ‘best
case scenario’ as stated in section 4.1.2 of
appendix 1.1 of the Environmental Statement
(ES)‘ Carbon Balance Report.
Further resubmissions of the carbon
assessment for this site should be
done using the latest version of the
carbon assessment tool (version
2.9.0, published in April 2014).
Also, please note that the statement ‘The
carbon calculator will overestimate the carbon
and CO2 fixing potential loses arising from
excavation of the organic soils and associated
vegetation when treated as peat because such
losses are higher for peat’ (section 4.3,
appendix 1.1 of the ES) is only correct because
peat soils have deeper organic matter layers
than peaty soils. The carbon calculator
functions in exactly the same way regardless of
whether the depth of the soil organic matter
layer is greater or less than 0.5 m (the minimum
depth for classification of a soil as a peat).
Please also conduct further peat
survey as required, following
guidance at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource
/Doc/917/0120462.pdf.
Version 2.0
13 July 2012
SECTION 2: DETAILED RESPONSE
Issue
Yes
/ No
If no, is any deficiency significant
enough to affect substantially the
carbon payback period?
Are all relevant
data input as
required in the
tool?
No
Yes; entering maximum and
minimum values as suggested
increases maximum payback time
by 1 month in the fossil fuel mix
scenario.
Do the data
correspond with
the information
provided in the
Environmental
Statement?
Yes
Comments
Margin for error in infrastructure feature
dimensions (Including average length/width
of borrow pits, average length/width of
hardstanding, average length/width of access
track)
The same maximum, minimum and expected
values have been entered for each of the
parameters. This does not allow for a margin of
error in construction requirements, for example
turbine micrositing could slightly vary required
track length, some locations may require nonstandard sized foundations due to engineering
constraints etc.
Improvement of degraded bog and
restoration of peat removed from borrow pits
No data has been entered in these sections.
Further requirements to enable
positive validation (where
applicable)
It is suggested that for each of
these parameters, maximum and
minimum values should be entered
as the expected value plus or
minus 5% of this, as appropriate, to
build in a small margin for error into
each. If this is not regarded as
appropriate for any of the
parameters listed, an explanation
for why this is the case should be
provided.
The data provided should reflect
the impacts and restoration efforts
proposed for the site in the ES.
The outline Habitat Management Plan drawing
and Appendix 4 of the ES state that there will be
7.8ha of drain blocking and 11.1ha of peatland
management which will have carbon implications
for the development and carbon balance of the
site post construction.
Two borrow pits are proposed on site and
restoration figures should be provided in the
carbon calculator for these.
Restoration of site after decommissioning
In accordance to Appendix 1.1 section 4.9 of the
ES “It has been assumed that no restoration will
take place on decommissioning in order to reflect
a worst case scenario”. However, some of the
questions within this section have been
answered as “Yes” or “Not applicable”.
Please ensure consistency and
accuracy between the information
presented within and alongside the
ES, with that entered within the
calculator.
No; impact on carbon payback
period is negligible.
No; impact on carbon payback
period is negligible.
Is there
sufficient
evidence that
peat/soil depth
measurements
have been
probed to full
depth?
No
Do the data
(including peat
depth)
correspond with
the information
in the Halcrow
peat slide
assessment?
N/a
Are the data
credible?
No
Yes, although impact is difficult to
predict.
Access Track width
According to Table 2 in appendix 1.1, access
track width is 7m, however 6.9m has been
entered into the carbon calculator.
Access Track length
According to data in the carbon calculator,
access total access track length is 9,050m, with
9,020m of excavated road. The data also states
that there is no existing track, or track built using
other construction methods, so these figures are
inconsistent.
No information appears to have been provided
on the results of peat probing at this site: there
are no tables of data values or peat depth maps
and therefore it is difficult to work out how values
for peat depth entered into the calculator were
determined.
Version 2.0
13 July 2012
Please clarify correct width of
access tracks.
Please clarify correct length of
access tracks.
More information on peat probing
locations, results achieved and
calculation of values entered into
the carbon calculator is required.
A full Peat Slide Risk Assessment has not been
undertaken.
Yes; This is likely to have a major
impact on payback time, however
this is not easily quantifiable due to
the large number of variables
involved.
Peat depth data (including average depth of
peat at site, average depth of peat removed
from borrow pits, average depth of peat
removed from turbine foundations, average
depth of peat removed from hardstandings
and average depth of peat excavated for
road)
The requirements identified in the Peat Depth
Survey Guidance have not been followed.
The commission of a low resolution
peat depth survey across the site
and a more detailed peat depth
survey at infrastructure locations is
required.
The data from the surveys should
then be used to identify peat depth
across the site and at specific
elements of infrastructure.
Therefore, the peat depth data provided in the
tool is based on site walkover observations,
geological maps and peat probing undertaken in
localised areas only. In addition, the calculations
undertaken to identify the range of estimated
organic topsoil depths identified in tables 1, 3
and 4 of Appendix 1.1 of the ES and used to
calculate the volume of peat/organic topsoil
removed from infrastructure have not been
identified.
Yes; entering 0.05 m into minimum
column, 0.1 m into the expected
column and 0.3 m into the maximum
column increases minimum and
expected payback time by 2 and 1
month respectively and reduces
maximum payback time by 2
months in the grid mix scenario.
Average water table depth at site
The minimum water table depth value is the
same as the expected value and greater than the
maximum value provided. In addition, the values
provided are not considered realistic for blanket
peat.
Version 2.0
13 July 2012
Maximum and minimum values for
peat depth entered into the
calculator should represent the
range of values that could
reasonably be expected, for both
the whole site and at locations of
specific elements of infrastructure.
The input of minimum water table
depth value that is lower than the
maximum value is required. In
addition the use of more realistic
values for blanket peat in intact
condition (minimum = 0.05 m,
expected = 0.1 m, maximum = 0.3
m) or the performance of on site
measurements of water table depth
is required.
SECTION 3: GOOD PRACTICE
Issue
No – proposal
adheres to
good practice
Is there potential to reduce the carbon payback
through improved adherence to the SEPA/SNH Good
practice during wind farm construction guidance
and/or SEPA’s Regulatory Position Statement for
Development on Peat?
Yes – improved
adherence would
improve the carbon
payback
Yes
Where applicable specify areas of good
practice that could be introduced to improve
the carbon payback of the proposal
The consideration of proposals for restoration of
peat removed from borrow pits and restoration of
site after decommissioning would have resulted
on a further reduction of the payback time.
Validator: Alan Cundill, Emma Goodyer and Susana Sebastian
Date of validation: 03/06/2014
Reviewer: Mark Hallard
Date of review: 03/06/2014