Report to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning and Cultural Services
Report submitted by: Interim Executive Director for Environment
Date: 5 November 2014
Part I - Item No.
Electoral Division affected:
N/A
North West Coast Connections Project: Stage 2 Consultation on Outline Route
Corridors/Substation Siting
(Appendix 'A' refers)
Contact for further information:
Phil Megson, 01772 534162, Environment Directorate,
Philip.Megson@lancashire.gov.uk
Executive Summary
National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) is undertaking an informal public
consultation on the North West Coast Connections Project. The Project will connect
proposed new nuclear generation at Moorside (near Sellafield, West Cumbria) by
new electricity transmission lines to the existing national grid electricity transmission
network. The public consultation concludes on 28 November 2014.
NGET has identified an emerging preference - Onshore North and Onshore South
with Tunnel Group Options - for reinforcing the electricity transmission network to link
Moorside to the national grid. For Lancashire, the emerging preference involves a
Tunnel under Morecambe Bay from Roosecote in Cumbria to the Heysham
peninsula to connect to the national grid via a new substation that is currently under
construction to the east of Heysham. The tunnel head and associated infrastructure
are the only elements of the emerging preference that would have a permanent
presence above ground in Lancashire. The tunnel head is consistent with the
'Heysham Energy Coast' designation in Lancaster City Council's Site Allocations
Development Plan Document and, subject to detailed siting at the next stage in the
Project, would avoid, as far as reasonably practicable, national and local
environmental designations.
It is concluded that, in comparison to other route corridor options, the emerging
preference has the least impacts on Lancashire. It is therefore recommended that
Onshore Group South with Tunnel Options should be supported.
Recommendation
The Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning and Cultural Services is asked to
agree that:
1. Onshore South Tunnel Option Section H2.1 and Tunnel Head Outline Siting Area
H2T1 should be supported as this route corridor option has the least impacts on
Lancashire compared to other route corridor options.
2. Onshore South Group Options should be opposed due to the high level of
environmental impacts on Lancashire compared to Onshore South Tunnel Option
Section H2.1 and Tunnel Head Outline Siting Area H2T1.
3. If Onshore South with Tunnel Group Options is selected by NGET to proceed to
the next stage (Stage 3) of the NWCC Project, NGET should be encouraged to
assess the feasibility of:
 Utilising a rail based option to export tunnel spoil from, and to import
construction materials to H2T1 during the construction phase of the Project;
 Maximising local labour, expenditure on goods and services;
 Achieving legacy impacts from the project, which should include investment in
the local housing stock to provide workforce accommodation.
Background and Advice
The North West Coast Connections (NWCC) Project is a Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act 2008.
To meet future energy demand, to increase security of supply and to decarbonise
electricity generation to contribute to the Government's targets of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-1 sets out the
Government’s conclusion that there is a significant need for new major energy
infrastructure. NPS EN-1 includes information regarding the specific need for new
major electricity networks infrastructure in Section 3.7. There is a need for National
Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) to strengthen its electricity distribution
network in Lancashire and Cumbria to connect proposed new nuclear generation at
Moorside (near Sellafield, West Cumbria) by new electricity transmission lines to the
existing electricity network. By virtue of NPS EN-1 the need for the Project has been
demonstrated.
The process for bringing forward the NWCC Project is set out below:





Stage 1 Strategic Options (informal consultation)
Stage 2 Routeing/Siting (public consultation) – current stage
Stage 3 Detailed Routeing/Siting
Stage 4 The Application (public consultation)
Stage 5 Consideration of the application by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and
Secretary of State.
Stage 1
NGET undertook an informal consultation on six Strategic Options between 11 May
2012 and 19 July 2012. NGET's appraisal work concluded that that Option 3
(Cumbria Ring onshore) achieved the best balance between the technical, socioeconomic and environmental considerations. The County Council's assessment of
the Strategic Options concluded that Options 3 and 4 (Cumbria Ring Offshore)
should be taken forward for further consideration by NGET, with Option 4 being the
County Council's preferred Option1. Indeed a consensus was reached by all the
planning authorities in Lancashire and Cumbria potentially affected by the NWCC
Project, with the exception of the Lake District National Park, which concluded that
offshore only Options should be taken forward.
Stage 2
Based on consultation feedback and further technical appraisal of the options, NGET
has identified potential route corridors where new infrastructure could be located.
These route corridor options fall into three groups:
1. Onshore North and Onshore South Group Options;
2. Onshore North and Onshore South with Tunnel Group Options;
3. Onshore North and Offshore South Group Options.
Maps of the Options are attached to this report at Appendix 'A1' to 'A3' along with a
key to the maps at Appendix 'A4'.
As NGET's technical appraisal of the Options has progressed, NGET has an
emerging preference (shown in green on the Map). The impacts of the emerging
preference on Lancashire are considered in the next section of this report.
The current informal consultation commenced on 4 September 2014 and will
conclude on 28 November 2014.
The feedback from the consultation process will inform NGET's consideration of
Detailed Routeing / Siting (Stage 3) and the Application (Stage 4). There will be
formal consultation on the application for a Development Consent Order.
NGET'S EMERGING PREFERENCE – IMPACTS ON LANCASHIRE
In so far as the emerging preference affects Lancashire, there would be a Tunnel
under Morecambe Bay from Roosecote, near Barrow in Furness to Heysham
(Section H2.1 on Map) to enable electricity distribution cables to connect into the
national grid at Heysham substation. NGET prefer this option because the siting of
the potential connection point at Heysham would allow the most effective connection
from Section H2 to the National Electricity Transmission System. NGET has
considered whether there would be any benefit to connecting to a location other than
at Heysham and has concluded that such an approach would require constructing
new, and additional, infrastructure to connect the tunnel head to the connection point
and there would be no electrical or system benefit in doing so.
Tunnel Head Outline Siting Area (H2T1) is located to the east of Heysham, north
east of Heysham substation adjacent to A683. H2T1 is co-located with a new
substation that is currently under construction. The overall site area is 10 hectares.
NGET's tunnel head outlining siting area identification process in the Heysham
peninsula has sought to avoid internationally and nationally designated areas of the
highest amenity, cultural or scientific value, as far as reasonably practicable, and
1
Decision by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Environment and Planning on 16 July
2012
areas of local amenity value such as ancient woodland, groundwater sources and
nature conservation areas. Where possible, the process has also taken advantage
of screening provided by landform and opportunities to group similar land uses
together. NGET have also taken into account the location of settlements although it
has not been possible to avoid proximity to all settlements. This will be a key
consideration at the next stage (Stage 3 Detailed Routeing and Siting) in the NWCC
Project. The new substation is a key factor that has influenced tunnel head outlining
siting area identification, as the cables passing through the tunnel would have to
connect to this substation. It is worth noting that the other tunnel options (H2.2 and
H2.3) would emerge at the same point in Lancashire so the above considerations
would also apply.
The tunnel under Morecambe Bay would be constructed using two Tunnel Boring
Machines – one from Lancashire and one from Cumbria. The length of the tunnel in
H2.1 is 22km. Each Tunnel Boring Machine would advance 20-25m per day
depending on geology (rock or glacial till).
Large volumes of material would have to be imported to the tunnel construction
project at Heysham and 400,000 tonnes of tunnel spoil would have to be exported
from the site for recycling or disposal [the same would apply in Cumbria]. NGET see
the A683/link road/M6 being important for the import and export of construction
materials.
When in service the tunnel head would incorporate a secure entrance to the tunnel,
a road access and ventilation equipment would be housed in a building, the
dimensions of which would be dependent on the design of the tunnel chosen, and its
ventilation requirements. The maximum dimensions of the building could be 40m
long, 30m wide and 12m high.
The Planning Performance Agreement Authorities commissioned WYG to peer
review the assumptions used by NGET in developing the tunnel option. WYG's
review has found that there are no major issues regarding the assumptions. The
review has highlighted a number of technical matters that need to be considered if
NGET select the Onshore South with Tunnel Option to the next stage of the Project.
NGET'S ALTERNATIVE ROUTE CORRIDORS AND SEARCH AREAS
NGET have considered alternative Route Corridors and Siting Areas options, which
have been "parked" or are not being taken forward.
"Parked" options that would impact on Lancashire are:
1. Onshore South Group (Sections G3 and G4): Lindale (Cumbria) via Nether
Kellet to either a substation currently under construction at Middleton or a new
substation at Quenmore.
2. Offshore South Group (Section L): offshore cable landfall between Blackpool and
Lytham St Annes to an existing substation at Stanah.
The "parked" alternatives may be revisited by NGET if any "showstoppers" emerge
through the current consultation or further assessment by NGET of the emerging
preference.
Options not being taken forward not being taken forward by NGET that would impact
on Lancashire are:
1. Morecambe Bay sub-sea cables and Overhead Lines
2. Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AoNB).
THE COUNTY COUNCIL'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EMERGING PREFERENCE'S
IMPACT ON LANCASHIRE
The Appraisal has utilised the same headings as NGET for assessing the impact of
the emerging preference.
Existing and Proposed Infrastructure
The 132kV overhead line from Lancaster to the existing Heysham substation passes
to the east of Heysham and the larger 400kV overhead line extends from the
Heysham substation across the Heysham Peninsula, to the south of the A683.
NGET is currently constructing a new substation at Middleton on land that is
identified as being suitable for energy related activities in Lancaster City Council's
Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD).
The existing and proposed infrastructure has influenced NGET's designation of
H2T1. H2T1 would be co-located with the new substation.
Co-locating the tunnel head with the new substation would obviate the need to
construct new, additional infrastructure to connect the tunnel head to the connection
point. It is likely that other siting options would result in increased impacts by virtue of
the requirement for new, additional infrastructure.
Landscape, Seascape and Visual Amenity
The tunnel head and associated infrastructure are the only elements of the emerging
preference that would have a permanent presence above ground in Lancashire.
Much of the area to the west, south and south east of Heysham has a number of
significant energy related structures such as Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power
stations, wind turbines, electricity sub-stations and pylons which exert a strong
industrial influence over the landscape character suggesting a likely low level of
landscape sensitivity to a tunnel head development.
The County Council's
assessment concludes that there would be no significant effects on the setting,
character and visual amenity of any nationally designated landscape, nationally
registered historic designed landscape, Green Belt, Conservation Area, listed
building or regionally important historic designed landscape. The tunnel head would
not have a material impact on seascape.
The detailed design for the Tunnel is a matter for Stage 3 of the project. Up to three
'ventilation islets' would be required in Morecambe Bay for tunnel ventilation and to
provide a safe means of exit for workers in the event of an emergency. The number
of 'ventilation islets' has still to be agreed by the Health & Safety Executive. Each
'ventilation islet' would be 55m in diameter and 20m above the sea bed. Part of each
structure would be permanently under water. The amount visible above the
waterline would vary according to tide. If it is assumed that three 'ventilation islets'
are required and that these are equally spaced, the nearest 'ventilation islet' would
be at a distance of 5-6km from the Heysham coast. The County Council's
assessment concludes that at this distance the nearest 'ventilation islet' (and more
distant 'ventilation islets') and the tunnel head would not have a material impact on
seascape.
Ecology
Within the emerging preference, only Section H2 includes elements that affect
Lancashire. On the basis of the proposed scale of development within Lancashire
compared to other options it appears that this option is likely to have the least
ecological impact on Lancashire2.
If Onshore South with Tunnel is selected by NGET to proceed to the next stage of
the Project, a detailed ecological survey and assessment of impacts will be required
to demonstrate that routes and siting locations of least impact within the study
corridor have been selected. The ecological survey and impact assessment will also
need to inform the necessary measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for
ecological impacts. Measures will be required to avoid impacts on designated sites
(SSSI and BHS) at Heysham Moss.
Historic Environment
Impacts are limited to (i) potential wrecks or early prehistoric remains within
Morecambe Bay that may be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed
'ventilation islets'; and (ii) potential for prehistoric or later medieval/post medieval
remains at H2T1. The potential in the first case is perhaps low to very low, in the
second it is probably a little higher. There is no indication that any discoveries made
would be of such significance as to require preservation in situ at the expense of the
development.
Soils and Geology
There are no geological designations, landfill sites or significant areas of land in
H2T1. The area is Grade 3 agricultural land.
There may be the presence of peat and soft organic silts associated within
Heysham Moss. This could be an issue which may need additional consideration if
tunnel infrastructure is to be sited within this area. The County Council already have
issues with settlement of some of the existing roads in this area.
2
Ecological impacts on the marine environment have not been addressed as these fall outside
Lancashire. Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation, the appropriate bodies for
commenting on the marine environment, have been consulted separately by NGET. Natural England
is the body responsible for assessing any ecological impacts on statutory sites such as those
associated with the proposed 'ventilation islets'.
Water Environment
H2T1 would not impact on Source Protection Zones, Principal Aquifers or superficial
deposits designated as aquifers.
Part of H2T1 is located within an area with a risk of tidal flooding (Flood Zones 2
and 3). H2T1 is protected from coastal flood defences, which are maintained to the
standard of a 0.5% annual probability flood event (1 in 200 year frequency). NGET
anticipate that there is sufficient space available within H2T1 to identify a tunnel
entrance outside of the area susceptible to flooding if the flood defences failed. This
issue will need to be addressed at the next stage (Stage 3) in the NWCC Project.
The detailed siting of the tunnel head is a matter for Stage 3 of the Project. The
siting and design of the tunnel head should evaluate the need for flood protection
measures on site to provide mitigation against flooding in the event of flood defence
failure.
Noise and Vibration
Lancaster City Council Environmental Health, on behalf of the County Council, has
identified potential for noise and vibration impacts from the following identified
sources linked to the H2T1 proposal:1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Noise and vibration from tunnelling works
Noise from tunnel ventilation system
Noise from other plant and machinery
Noise and vibration from general construction activity
Noise from traffic or other transport (e.g. rail/ship) serving the proposed
development.
Noting the proposed area for the siting of the tunnel head at Heysham, the impact on
noise sensitive uses at elevated position in the locality requires specific
consideration. The potential noise/vibration impact will be a consideration in the
detailed design and positioning of the scheme (Stage 3 of the Project). A noise
assessment should be undertaken to properly assess the current noise climate and
noise arising from the proposed development in both construction and operational
phases. The noise assessment should also consider and assess any mitigation
measures where proposed to control noise levels and any noise limits or other
controls that may be used to limit exposure to noise.
In relation specifically to vibration reference is made by National Grid in the
consultation documentation to the requirements currently imposed on some quarries.
This standard may not provide sufficient mitigation against the vibration caused by
tunnel-boring, which will have different characteristics from the vibration experienced
from the use of explosives in quarries. Also if there are existing weakened
structures close to the tunnel route (these would need to be identified through the
assessment process), tighter standards may be appropriate. An impact assessment,
referring to knowledge gained from similar projects, will therefore need to consider
the impact of vibration arising from tunnelling/construction activities and any
measures used to control levels or reduce exposure.
The assessment methodology for noise/vibration should be agreed in writing through
the Development Consent Order process. Informed by the findings of the
assessment, the local authority may look to place control requirements on the
development through powers granted under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution
Act 1974.
Other environmental health considerations that are relevant, but fall outside the
'noise and vibration' heading are set out below. Whilst these considerations are
relevant to later stages in the Project, they are worth signposting to NGET.
Air Quality/Odour/Dust
During the construction phase there is potential impact from the following sources:1) Dust arising from tunnelling and other construction work, particularly the
handling of excavated material.
2) Dust associated with vehicles accessing and leaving the site (e.g. tracked/spilt
material along access routes).
3) Potential odour impact from material excavated from the tunnel e.g. odorous
silts
4) Pollutant emissions arising from plant, construction plant, road vehicles or
other transport.
An assessment of the above impacts (dust, odour and air quality impacts) should be
undertaken, again the methodology being agreed in writing through the Development
Consent Order process. Where impacts are identified the assessment should include
measures to mitigate the impacts and proposed monitoring if considered appropriate.
Existing identified air quality issues in the Lancaster area (identified through the
Local Air Quality Management regime) are linked to the road transport emissions.
The addition of road traffic, particularly HGVs will provide an additional source to the
wider road network. It is therefore strongly recommended that alternative transport
options are considered (rail / ship) particularly in relation to the removal of excavated
material. Enhancements to the rail transport system could provide a transport legacy
to Heysham which may also bring air quality benefits.
Land Contamination (Heysham Tunnel Head Site)
There are some alluvial and lacustrine deposits in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel
head that are known to be gas bearing/generating. Additionally, the tunnel entrance
will be close to the former railway sidings and some contamination is possible.
However, the immediate area has been subject to site investigation and little by way
of significant contamination was noted.
Economic Activity
Whilst the H2T1 interacts with a number of economic activity receptors in the
Heysham peninsula, development would not prejudice the operation of these
receptors.
Development within H2T1 could have temporary negative impacts on accessibility
during the construction phase, which could impact on the economic productivity of
the workforce and business transport logistics. Having regard to the existing and the
proposed highway network (A683/Heysham M6 link/M6), NGET considers that these
impacts would be "minor" at worst, and would not be material consideration in the
appraisal of H2T1. This impact could be mitigated by the use, if feasible, of a rail
based solution for the export of tunnel spoil and import of construction materials.
Development of H2T1 could also have temporary positive impacts during the
construction phase through expenditure on local labour goods and services (and
multiplier effects). NGET do not identify any 'legacy' impacts 3 at this stage in the
NWCC Project.
The tunnel and associated development would be consistent with the statement in
Lancaster City Council's Site Allocations DPD that "through the energy coast the City
Council will look to support proposals that contribute to the economic growth of the
district within this sector, supporting job creation and the development of local supply
chains."
If, following an assessment of the consultation responses, NGET selects
Onshore North and Onshore South with Tunnel Group Options to take forward to the
next stage in the Project (Stage 3) the temporary positive impacts of the Project in
the construction phase should be assessed in more detail. NGET should also to
identify, in consultation with impacted local authorities, 'legacy' impacts.
Planning Policy
H2T1 is located in the 'Heysham Energy Coast' in Lancaster City Council's Site
Allocations DPD. The City Council anticipates further energy investment and energy
related development, including "the construction of new substations and other grid
required infrastructure" (Policy HEY1). The development of the tunnel head would
be consistent with this policy.
H2T1 is not located in an area that is constrained by a policy in the adopted
Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Traffic and Transport
In the consultation documentation, NGET highlight the importance of A683, the
Heysham-M6 link road (currently under construction) and M6 for the import of
construction materials to the tunnel head. If, following an assessment of the
consultation responses, NGET selects H2.1 to take forward to the next stage in the
NWCC Project, NGET will undertake a multimodal Strategic Transport Network
Assessment to assess how construction materials will be imported to the site and
tunnel spoil arising from boring the tunnel will be exported from the site.
Whilst these impacts would be temporary in nature, construction of the Tunnel,
subject to NGET securing a Development Consent Order, would commence in 2018
3
This could include, for example, the conversion of Houses in Multiple Occupation in Morecambe into
self contained units to house workers during the construction phase rather than housing workers in
caravans, short term lets or B&Bs, which is the case with other NGET projects.
and conclude in 2024. The export of 400,000 tonnes of spoil would result in more
than 14,000 HGV movements over the period. The import of construction materials
is not yet quantified but the combined imports and exports to and from the site would
have a significant impact on the road network.
The feasibility of non-road based options should be examined in the
Strategic Transport Network Assessment. It is understood that rail freight operators
are able to utilise wagons with a capacity to carry 72 tonnes and that, even with the
known constraints on the Morecambe line, could accommodate a train with eight
72 tonnes wagons. The presence of a dismantled railway to the east of the site,
which runs south from the existing Morecambe line, offers potential for a rail based
solution to be implemented from the export of spoil excavated from the Tunnel during
construction. NGET should be encouraged to pursue a rail based option if this
proves to be technically feasible.
Aviation and Defence
H2T1 is marginally within the 3.6km Obstacle Limitation Surface4 for the Middleton
Sands micro-light flying site. This facility is an unlicensed aerodrome and is not,
therefore, formally safeguarded. NGET considers that a 12m high tunnel head
building would be unlikely to impact on micro-light flying activities.
The County Council's Assessment of NGET's Alternative Route Corridors and
Search Areas that would impact on Lancashire
Parked Alternatives:
1. Onshore South Group (Sections G2, G3 and G4): Lindale (Cumbria) via Nether
Kellet to either a substation currently under construction at Middleton or a new
substation at Quenmore.
2. Offshore South Group (Section L): offshore cable landfall between Blackpool and
Lytham St Annes to the existing substation at Stanah.
Onshore South Group (Sections G2, G3 and G4):
The Onshore South Group of sections would connect Moorside to either a new
substation, currently under construction at Middleton, or to an existing substation at
Quernmore.
In Lancashire the route would be around the head and eastern shore of Morecambe
Bay, designated as a Ramsar Site, SAC, SPA and SSSI. The Search Area for
Section G3 includes a large area of open access land within the Arnside and
Silverdale AoNB at Leighton Moss.
Sections G2, G3 and G4 benefit from an opportunity corridor for the installation of
new 400kV circuits, which would replace the existing 132kV overhead line. In
Sections G2, G3 and G4, where alternative route corridors have been proposed,
NGET have concluded that the use of the opportunity corridor is preferable.
4
Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are used for safeguarding for licensed aerodromes in accordance with
the Civil Aviation Authority's Civil Aviation Publication 168.
NGET has expressed a marginal preference to connect into the substation at
Middleton that is currently under construction, notwithstanding it would require
modification to connect this option.
NGET's decision to "park" this option is supported because it would have greater
adverse impacts on Lancashire in comparison with NGET's emerging preference
(see section below on the County Council's assessment of the relative merits of
NGET's emerging preference (Onshore South with Tunnel Option) and NGET's
alternative Route Corridors and Search Areas).
Offshore South Group (Section L):
The Offshore South Group is a strategic option with mainly offshore circuits to
distribute electricity generated at Moorside to the NGET substation at Stanah. The
option would comprise High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cables laid offshore
(Sections I, J and K), together with relatively short onshore underground HVDC
cable connections (Section L). HVDC is necessary due to the length of the offshore
connections involved. As the national grid distributes electricity at 400kV (and
275kV) Alternating Current (AC) two converter stations would be required to convert
HVDC to AC before connecting to the Stanah substation. Each converter station
would require a site 550m x 350m, with 28m high transformer buildings.
Two Outline Siting Areas (LC1 and LC2) have been identified between the former
Poulton-le-Fylde to Fleetwood railway and the Wyre Estuary. One of the key
considerations for Converter Station siting is the need to transport heavy
transformers to the site, which would weigh between 200 tonnes and 400 tonnes
each. Depending on the size selected between 7 and 26 transformers would be
required. The transformers would be transported to the UK by ship and, ideally,
would be transported to the converter station site by barge. Alternatively, transport
by road is likely to require selective road strengthening. The converter stations
would export electricity via the Stanah substation, which connects into the national
electricity transmission system. These considerations, together with the existing
industrial uses, have determined the general location of the Converter Station
Outline Siting Areas.
The converter stations would be sited on land allocated by Wyre Borough Council in
the Fleetwood – Thornton Area Action Plan for industry to the north of the Stanah
substation.
The onshore cable route (L1) would avoid or mitigate any potential effects on the
internationally important Ribble and Alt Estuary (SPA and Ramsar designations) and
the nationally important Lytham St Annes Dunes Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). Route L2.1 is preferred by NGET to L2.2 as it would avoid two crossings of
the River Wyre which is designated as a SSSI and as part of the Morecambe Bay
Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar
site5.
NGET's decision to "park" this option is supported because it would have greater
adverse impacts on Lancashire in comparison with NGET's emerging preference
5
Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. In
the UK, the first Ramsar sites were designated in 1976.
(see section below on the County Council's assessment of the relative merits of
NGET's emerging preference (Onshore South with Tunnel Option) and NGET's
alternative Route Corridors and Search Areas).
Alternatives not being taken forward:
1. Morecambe Bay sub-sea cables and Overhead Lines
NGET have assessed the installation and direct burial of cables under Morecambe
Bay the installation of overhead lines across the Bay and consider both to be
technically feasible. However, the provisions of the Habitats Regulations6 act as a
major constraint. Construction would be limited to seasonal and or tidal construction
windows to avoid disturbance, particularly birds. Construction may also damage
inter-tidal habitats. The highly dynamic tidal and sediment environment of the Bay
would affect the cables, once installed, as a result of over burial or exposure, or
would affect the foundations of pylons for overhead lines through scour. Regular
maintenance, including protecting cables or foundations with rock armour, would be
likely to change the habitat over time, and could interfere with the coastal processes
that contribute to the ecological interest for which the sites within the Bay are
designated. The overhead lines option would also have significant landscape and
visual impacts, which may have impacts on tourism around the Bay.
The provisions of the Habitats Regulations mean that either of these options could
only be taken forward if there are no less damaging alternatives available. NGET
accept that there is potential for less damaging, more easily deliverable and
maintained options that could be brought forward and, therefore, propose that
subsea cables or overhead line options are not taken forward.
The County Council agrees with NGET's assessment and consequent decision not
to take forward these options for the reasons given.
2. Arnside and Silverdale AoNB
A direct connection across the AoNB could be achieved using overhead lines or
underground cables. It provides the shortest potential connection between Lindale
(in Cumbria) and either Middleton or Quernmore. NGET initially considered this
option, but formed the view, in conjunction with stakeholders (including the
County Council), that as the AoNB is associated with significant amenity,
environmental and cultural heritage assets and that there are alternatives to this
route corridor, it should be avoided. This view accords with the Holford Rules7, the
Habitats Regulations and the principles of the AoNB – to protect the natural beauty.
NGET's decision not to take forward this route corridor is supported because of the
significant adverse impacts on landscape, ecology and cultural heritage assets.
6
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations,2010.
These are non-statutory principles for routeing overhead transmission lines formulated by Lord
Holford in 1959 and updated in the 1990s.
7
The County Council's Assessment of the Relative Merits of NGET's Emerging
Preference (Onshore South with Tunnel Option) and Nget's Alternative Route
Corridors and Search Areas
Existing and Proposed Infrastructure
In Lancashire, the Onshore South with Tunnel Option provides the opportunity to colocate the tunnel head with the new substation (under construction), which connects
into the national electricity transmission system. This would obviate the need to
construct new, additional infrastructure for other grid connection options.
Existing 132kV electricity transmission lines run from Natland substation to
Lancaster. In the Onshore South group Options, this infrastructure represents
opportunity corridors for the replacement of regional electricity transmission lines
owned by Electricity North West Limited (ENW) with national grid electricity
transmission lines operating at 400kV. New substations would be required at the
interfaces between the new national grid electricity transmission lines and the
unaffected regional electricity distribution network.
In Lancashire, the Offshore South Group Options underground cables would be
required from the landing point between St Annes and Blackpool to the proposed
converter stations at Stanah. The Option provides the opportunity to co-locate the
converter stations with the Stanah substation, which connects into the national
electricity transmission system. This would obviate the need to construct new,
additional infrastructure for other grid connection options.
From a Lancashire perspective the opportunity to co-locate infrastructure and the
restricted geographical footprint favour the Onshore South with Tunnel Option
Landscape, Seascape and Visual Amenity
In Lancashire, the Onshore South with Tunnel Option would result in no significant
effects on landscape and seascape character.
The Onshore South Group Options have the likely potential for significant effects on
the setting and character of the nationally important Arnside and Silverdale and
Forest of Bowland AoNBs. The elevated topography within these designated areas
and wider landscape would contribute to maximising likely visual effects. The M6
motorway corridor is becoming increasingly congested with tall vertical structures,
especially the section to the east of the Arnside and Silverdale AoNB where there is
the potential for significant cumulative effects with wind energy development.
Whilst the visual amenity of Lancaster's Green Belt would likely be adversely
affected by this option, it is worth noting that the area between the AoNBs and
Lancaster has considerable historic interest. Thus, there could be significant effects
on the setting and character of the nationally important registered historic designed
landscape at Capernwray Hall Park, various Conservation Areas, listed buildings and
regionally important historic designed landscapes.
Cable undergrounding is not considered to be a viable option in much of the search
area as it would result in significant losses of key features of the landscape's
character. Many of these features would take an unacceptably long period of time to
re-establish.
Due to the substantial mitigating effect of distance, the Offshore Group South Option
would likely have no significant effects on the setting, character and visual amenity of
any nationally designated landscape. However, due to extensive use of cable
undergrounding there would, overall, likely be a substantial loss of landscape fabric
which, in turn, could result in significant effects on the setting, character and visual
amenity of Fleetwood, Blackpool and Lytham's Green Belt, the nationally important
registered historic designed landscapes at the Mount Fleetwood, Fleetwood
Memorial Park, Stanley Park and Lytham Hall, various Conservation Areas and listed
buildings.
Due to the large scale of the proposed HVDC converter stations and the close
proximity of the proposed siting areas to residential receptors and the open,
windswept landscape to the east of the River Wyre it is unlikely that all of the
landscape, visual and seascape effects could be adequately mitigated.
Having undertaken a strategic level analysis and assessment of the characteristics
of the development proposals, baseline landscapes of the search areas and their
sensitivity and capacity for change together with a consideration of likely effects it is
clear that the Onshore South with Tunnel Option is the best option for Lancashire's
landscapes by a considerable margin.
Ecology
The County Council's assessment of the options in so far as they would impact on
Lancashire concludes that, having regard to the ecological constraints present (SSSI
and BHS) at Heysham Moss and the small development footprint of H2T1 compared
to other options, the emerging preference is likely to have the least ecological impact
on Lancashire compared to the other options.
Whichever option progresses to Stage 3 will require a detailed ecological survey and
assessment of impacts to demonstrate that routes and siting locations of least
impacts within the study corridor have been selected. The ecological survey and
impact assessment will also need to inform the necessary measures to avoid,
mitigate or compensate for ecological impacts.
Historic Environment
The Onshore South with Tunnel Option has the least impact on Lancashire. Impacts
are limited to (i) potential wrecks or early prehistoric remains within Morecambe Bay
that may be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed 'ventilation islets'; and (ii)
potential for prehistoric or later medieval/post medieval remains at H2T1. The
potential in the first case is perhaps low to very low, in the second it is probably a
little higher. There is no indication that any discoveries made would be of such
significance as to require preservation in situ at the expense of the development.
All other proposed routes that have been considered will have higher potential
impacts but again there seems to be no reason to suspect that an acceptable route
could not be constructed.
Soils and Geology
The Onshore South with Tunnel Option has the least impact on Lancashire. From a
County Council perspective this option has the least impact on the highway network
because of the limited area of highway network that is affected.
The Onshore South Group Options should not have a significant affect on the
highway network in relation to soils and geology, as pylons would be used along the
route and would be sited away from the existing highway network. Mitigation by
undergrounding cables in sensitive locations has the potential to increase the impact
on the highway network in relation to soils and geology.
The Offshore South Group Option could potentially have the most impact on the
highway network in relation to soils and geology. This route corridor travels east
from the coast to the south of Blackpool Airport and then north to Stanah. As it is a
shallow below ground cabling exercise, it will cross numerous highways in areas
were the ground conditions are poor and the existing road construction is thin and
therefore there is the potential for settlement of the existing carriageways as a result
of the works. This would be an option that should be avoided in relation to soils and
geology.
For all options, any impact on the existing highway network as the result of
underground/trenching or tunnelling construction would require pre works surveys
(SCANNER, Deflectograph etc.) to establish a baseline condition for the highway
network followed by subsequent condition surveys to establish whether settlement or
deterioration had occurred.
Water Environment
The Onshore South with Tunnel Option would not impact on Source Protection
Zones or major aquifers. This would be within an area with a risk of tidal flooding
(Flood Zones 2 and 3). If necessary flood defences could be reinforced to mitigate
risk from flooding.
The Onshore South Group Options would not impact on Source Protection Zones or
major aquifers. The Option connecting to Heysham substation would be within an
area with a risk of tidal flooding (Flood Zones 2 and 3). The River Keer fluvial
floodplain, Pine Lake and neighbouring enclosed water bodies, and Island Pond
(Quernmore substation option) would have to be crossed by Onshore South Group
Options.
In the Offshore South Group Options, NGET consider that aquifer designations,
surface water quality designations and consideration of surface water resource
protection have not been material in identification of cable route corridors. NGET
has had regard to the need to avoiding extensive areas of flood risk and static water
bodies in the outline siting of Converter Station infrastructure process. Outline Siting
Area LC1 lies outside Flood Zones 2 and 3 due to the presence of landfill which has
built up ground levels. Outline Siting Area LC2 lies partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3
but has formal flood defences.
The water environment is not a significant differentiator as flood defences could be
installed or reinforced in areas at risk from flooding.
Noise and Vibration
In the Offshore South Group Options, the location of settlements has been a key
consideration in the outline siting of Converter Station infrastructure process. Due to
settlements being located quite closely together in the search area it has not been
possible for NGET to avoid identifying the outline siting areas in proximity to all
settlements.
Noise and vibration impacts will be a consideration at the detailed design stage
(Stage 3) of the Project. Potentially noise and vibration impacts will be more
significant for the Onshore South with Tunnel Option (in respect of the tunnel
construction and operational phases) and the Offshore South Group Options (in
respect of the operation of the Converter Stations) than the Onshore Group South
options in the absence of mitigation.
To inform the next stage in the Project noise assessments should be undertaken to
properly assess the current noise climate and noise arising from NGET's selected
Option in both construction and operational phases. The noise assessment should
also consider and assess any mitigation measures where proposed to control noise
levels and any noise limits or other controls that may be used to limit exposure to
noise.
Economic Activity
Minimising interaction with settlements and other economic activity receptors is a
feature of all the options. Whilst the geography of the impacts will vary depending on
which option is chosen, it is not considered to be a significant differentiator between
the options at this stage. ????? looks like some words are missing here
Planning Policy
In so far as the Onshore South with Tunnel Option affects Lancashire it is supported
by policy in that the tunnel head and associated infrastructure is located in the
'Heysham Energy Coast' identified in Lancaster City Council's Site Allocations DPD.
In respect of Onshore South Group Options and the onshore elements of the
Offshore Group Options, planning policy offers protection to broad areas of
environmental and socio economic impact. No policies place an absolute constraint
on the route corridors identified at this stage in the Project.
Traffic and Transport
The Onshore South with Tunnel Option would potentially have significant impacts
during the construction phase (2018 – 2024) if a road based solution is adopted.
The export of 400,000 tonnes of tunnel spoil would result in more than 14,000 HGV
movements over the period. The import of construction materials is not yet
quantified but the combined imports and exports to and from the site would have a
significant impact on the road network between the tunnel head and the M6.
The presence of a dismantled railway to the east of the site, which runs south from
the existing Morecambe line, offers the potential for a rail based solution to be
implemented for the export of spoil excavated from the Tunnel during construction
and the import of materials for tunnel construction. NGET should be encouraged to
pursue a rail based option if this proves to be technically feasible as would provide
significant mitigation against the impacts of traffic and transport.
For the Onshore South Group Options impacts would be less if conventional pylons
are used (modular design) rather than T pylons (pre-assembled). The use of T
Pylons may require the construction of temporary access roads. Undergrounding, to
mitigate visual impacts may also require the construction of temporary access roads.
The Offshore Group Options would potentially have significant impacts on the road
network during the construction phase if there is a need for the converter station
transformers to be delivered by road. NGET's preference would be to deliver the
transformers to site by barge. There are potential issues of settlement associated
with this option relating to the nature of soils and geology beneath highways.
Aviation and Defence
In Lancashire it is concluded that use of any of the identified route corridor options
would not be expected to result in negative impacts on aviation interests.
Comparative Costs
This Report focuses on the impacts of the Project on Lancashire, not the costs of the
project. The overall comparative costs of the substantive route corridor options
(excluding mitigation) are included for information:



Onshore South Group Options Overhead Lines
Onshore South with Tunnel Options (NGET's
preference)
Offshore South Group Options
£ 770 million
emerging £1,296 million
£1,828 million
Mitigation of impacts will be considered in the 'planning balance' by the Panel at the
Examination stage of the Project. If the Secretary of State approves the
Development Consent Order, OFGEM (the electricity industry regulator) will consider
whether the costs of mitigation are acceptable.
Conclusion
The assessment of the impacts on Lancashire of the emerging preference (Onshore
South with Tunnel Option) and the alternative options (Onshore South Group
Options and Offshore South Group Options) leads to the conclusion that the
Onshore with Tunnel Option performs better in terms of impacts than the alternative
options in respect of 'existing and proposed infrastructure', 'landscape, seascape and
visual amenity', 'ecology', 'historic environment', 'soils and geology'. The emerging
preference is the only option supported by planning policy.
'Water environment' and 'aviation and defence' are not significant differentiators
between the options. 'Noise and vibration' is not a significant differentiator at this
stage, but impacts and potential mitigations will need to be addressed at the detailed
design stage. 'Economic activity' is not a significant differentiator at this stage, but
there is the opportunity achieving legacy impacts from the Project.
In respect of 'traffic and transport' impacts on Lancashire, the emerging preference
may perform less well than Onshore Group South Options if a road based solution
for the export of tunnel spoil and import of construction materials is utilised. If a rail
based solution is feasible, the traffic and transport impacts on Lancashire would be
significantly reduced.
It is recommended that:
1. Onshore South Tunnel Option Section H2.1 and Tunnel Head Outline Siting Area
H2T1 should be supported as this route corridor option has the least impacts on
Lancashire compared to other route corridor options.
2. Onshore South Group Options should be opposed due to the high level of
environmental impacts on Lancashire compared to Onshore South Tunnel Option
Section H2.1 and Tunnel Head Outline Siting Area H2T1.
3. If Onshore South with Tunnel Group Options is selected by NGET to proceed to
the next stage (Stage 3) of the NWCC Project, NGET should be encouraged to
assess the feasibility of:
 Utilising a rail based option to export tunnel spoil from, and to import
construction materials to H2T1 during the construction phase of the Project;
 Maximising local labour, expenditure on goods and services;
 Achieving legacy impacts from the project, which should include investment in
the local housing stock to provide workforce accommodation.
Consultations
N/A
Implications:
This item has the following implications, as indicated:
Risk management
No significant risks have been identified in relation to the proposals contained within
this report.
Financial
The PPA is a means by which the County Council (and other local planning
authorities affected by the proposals) can participate and engage in a positive way
with the developer and reach a fully informed view on the local impacts of the
proposals.
The PPA would provide funding from NGET to the County Council (and other local
planning authorities affected by the proposals) for three of the four major work
streams relating to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) process for local
authorities; considering the applicant's Statement of Community Consultation;
commenting on the quality of the applicant's consultation process and producing a
technical Local Impact Report. Preparation of the Local Impact Report in particular is
likely to be resource hungry.
The PPA would not fund the County Council (and other local planning authorities
affected by the proposals) to make its own representations on the application by
NGET for a DCO.
Legal
A PPA does not fetter the participating Authorities in the view they take on the merits
of a proposal.
Equality and Diversity
The PPA allows the County Council (and other local planning authorities affected by
the proposals) to be properly resourced to ensure the views and concerns of local
communities are given voice within the planning process which is essential given
that the ultimate decision on NGET's proposal will be made at a national level.
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Contact/Directorate/Tel
NWCC Project Planning
Performance Agreement
14 May 2012
Phil Megson/Environment
Directorate/01772 534162
NWCC Main Report (3
volumes) NGET
1 August 2014
Phil Megson/Environment
Directorate/01772 534162
NWCC Appendices 1- 5
NGET
1 August 2014
Phil Megson/Environment
Directorate/01772 534162
NWCC Tunnel Proposal
Technical Overview (WYG)
October 2014
Phil Megson/Environment
Directorate/01772 534162
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A