consultation report - gov.uk...consultation report wentlooge farmers’ renewable energy hub...

www.savills.co.uk

Wentlooge Farmers’ Solar Scheme Limited April 2020

Consultation Report

Wentlooge Farmers’ Renewable Energy Hub

Consultation Report Wentlooge Farmers’ Renewable Energy Hub

Wentlooge Farmers’ Solar Scheme Limited April 2020 1

Project: Gwent Farmers’ Community Solar Scheme

Client: Gwent Farmers’ Community Solar Partnership Ltd

Job Number: TRP 1768

File Origin: Internal

Document Checking:

Prepared by:

Nick Beddoe

Signed:

Checked by:

Peter Grubb

Signed:

Verified by:

Peter Grubb

Signed:



Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 A Draft Application ........................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Statutory Consultees ................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Identifying Interested Parties ........................................................................................... 6

2.2 Community Consultees .................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Specialist Consultees....................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Relevant Persons ............................................................................................................. 9

3.0 Statutory Publicity ................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Website .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Site Notices .................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Written Notice ................................................................................................................ 12

3.4 Newspaper Advert ......................................................................................................... 12

4.0 Number of responses .............................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Ward Councillors ............................................................................................................ 13

4.2 Adjacent landowners...................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Website Responses ....................................................................................................... 13

5.0 Statutory Consultees: Responses and Actions ................................................................... 14

5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 14

5.2 Responses received from Statutory Consultees: Specialist Consultees ....................... 14

5.3 Responses received from Statutory Consultees: Community Consultees .................... 23

5.4 Responses received from Statutory Consultees: Relevant Persons ............................. 23

6.0 Responses received from Non-Statutory Consultees ......................................................... 26

6.2 RSPB ............................................................................................................................. 26

6.3 CADW and Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) ....................................... 26

6.4 Public Exhibition ............................................................................................................. 27



7.0 Main issues discussed ............................................................................................................ 30

7.1 Summary of all responses ............................................................................................. 30

7.2 Main Issue 1. .................................................................................................................. 31

7.3 Main Issue 2. .................................................................................................................. 33

7.4 Main Issue 3. .................................................................................................................. 35

7.5 Main Issue 4. .................................................................................................................. 37

8.0 Responding to feedback ......................................................................................................... 39

8.1 Summary of Changes .................................................................................................... 39

9.0 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................... 42

9.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 42

Appendix 1: Declarations of Compliance .......................................................................................... 43

Appendix 2: Notices, Publicity and Letters....................................................................................... 46

Appendix 3: Site and Adjacent Land Ownership ............................................................................. 53

Appendix 4: Statutory Consultee Responses .................................................................................. 55



1.0 Introduction

1.1 Scope

1.1.1 This report provides a full account of the statutory consultation activities undertaken in

preparing the proposals for the renewable energy hub. It specifies all of the notices,

publications and events which have been used to engage interested parties in the

development process. These are summarised in the following list:

Written notification of the scheme to National Resources Wales (NRW), Newport City

Council and Wentlooge Community Council

Arranged meetings with the Planning Inspectorate to agree an approach for wider

pre-application engagement. This prompted the arrangement of further engagement

with the following ‘specialist consultees’, ‘relevant persons’ and other interested

parties:

o Newport City Council (Relevant Person in respect of secondary consent)

o NRW (Specialist Consultee)

o RSPB

o Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT)

Meetings with NRW, Newport City Council and RSPB were held to discuss the

emerging plans

Public exhibition at Peterstone Village Hall

Prepared website (https://wentloogecommunityenergy.com) providing information on

the scheme and containing all draft EIA documents and Planning Statement

Written notification of all adjoining landowners

Written notification to all ward councillors within the district

Placed advertisement in the local newspaper – The South Wales Argus

Displayed site notices around the site

https://wentloogecommunityenergy.com/



1.1.2 The report summarises the issues raised by specialist consultees, key stakeholders and the

general public. It sets out the account given to these issues and explains how these have

been addressed in the final preparation of the DNS planning application. In doing so, the

report demonstrates that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of article 11 of the

Developments of National Significance (Procedure) (Wales) Order 2016.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Initial planning for the scheme began in early 2018 and involved engagement with landowners

and the commencement of bird survey work. The conceived scheme at this stage was to

comprise a solar farm , battery storage units and three wind turbines with associated

infrastructure.

1.2.2 A formal EIA screening and scoping request was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on

19th November 2018. A response was received on 14th January 2019, which gave a clear

steer as to the scope of technical work required to complete the EIA and support the DNS

application

1.2.3 A meeting with Planning Officers at the LPA on the 13th February 2019 in order to discuss the

key planning policy considerations. A further meeting was held with Planners at the Planning

Inspectorate (PINS) on 26th April 2019, at which key procedural issues were discussed in

relation to the DNS process and related secondary consents.

1.2.4 PINS were ‘notified’ of the proposals in October 2019 and this was formally accepted on the

2nd December 2019, commencing the 12 month period in which a submission must be made.

1.2.5 Further works ensued to prepare draft plans and technical material upon which to consult with

key consultees and the local community. The statutory pre-application consultation period

was subsequently commenced from 19th December 2019. From this point, the full scope of

required consultation activities were undertaken and all consultees were given more than the

statutory 6 weeks to provide feedback.

1.2.6 In response to the feedback some key changes to the plans were made, including the removal

of the proposed wind turbines and reducing the scale of the solar panelled areas. In turn, the



supporting technical material to the Environment Statement was also updated and

incorporated into the wider DNS application now being submitted.

1.3 A Draft Application

1.3.1 Due to the background pre-application work which had previously been undertaken, there

was already an awareness of the emerging proposals amongst the consultees. However, for

the purposes of the DNS application it was necessary to firm up plans and prepare a suite of

supporting documents in order to satisfy the statutory requirements of the pre-application

stage. Essentially this amounted to the preparation of a draft application upon which to

consult.

1.3.2 In preparing these plans and documents it was necessary to consider the level of detail which

these should comprise. Being aware that certain matters would be resolved and finalised as

a direct result of the impending pre-app engagement, it would not have been sensible to fix

the details of these issues at this draft stage of the project. As such, there was a balance to

strike between the need to provide sufficient detail for meaningful consultation, and the need

to allow for the resolution of specific issues through the process.

2.0 Statutory Consultees

2.1 Identifying Interested Parties

2.1.1 In preparing the application, the DNS Order requires that specific persons and organisations

be consulted during the pre-application stage of the process. In reference to 61z of Section

17 of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, the DNS guidance separates these into three different

categories; community consultees, specialist consultees and relevant persons.

2.1.2 With reference to the procedural guidance and associated legislation, each of these

consultees were specifically identified and were notified of the proposed development. This

process is described within the following paragraphs.

2.2 Community Consultees

2.2.1 The DNS guidance sets out that Community Consultees will comprise:



1) Each Councillor representing each electoral ward in the County or County Borough

Council in which the site is situated.

2) The Community Council(s) in which the site is situated

Ward Councillors

2.2.2 Each of the Councillors from Newport City Council were identified via the Council’s website.

A letter and a copy of the site location plan was then sent to each councillor, inviting their

views and comments on the draft proposals scheme at the draft application stage. Details of

the scheme’s website were also provided so that further information and all related planning

documents could be considered.

2.2.3 Each councillor was again contacted once the initial process of pre-application engagement

had concluded and the resultant changes to the scheme were clearly set out. This provided

an additional opportunity to comment on the submission documents.

2.2.4 To confirm that all statutory duties were fulfilled, a completed form shown in Appendix 2 was

also sent to each Councillor with all relevant correspondence.

Community Council

2.2.5 The site lies entirely within the boundary of Wentlooge Community Council as shown below

in Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1.



Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Site location within the boundary of Goldcliff Community Council

2.2.6 On 14th January 2020 the Community Council were notified of the website containing the draft

application documents and were subsequently notified of the forthcoming public exhibition

held on the 10th February.

2.3 Specialist Consultees

2.3.1 With reference to Schedule 5 of the Developments of National Significance (Procedure)

(Wales) Order 2016 it is apparent that the proposed development would only require

consultation with one ‘Specialist Consultee’ - Natural Resources for Wales (NRW). This

accords with Paragraph (n)(i) of the Schedule, which refers to proposals for development ‘in

or likely to affect a site of special scientific interest’. No other criteria within Schedule 5 apply

to the development proposals.

2.3.2 Due to the specific sensitivities of the site it was also decided that additional consultation

should take place with the organisations listed within the following table:



Organisation consulted at pre-application stage

Reason for consultation

RSPB

Proximity of the site to Severn Estuary which is subject to

the following designations – Special Protection Area (SPA),

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a RAMSAR site.

GGAT

Site lies within an area registered as a ‘Historic Landscape

of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales’ and an

Archaeologically Sensitive Area.

2.3.3 These organisations do not, strictly speaking constitute a ‘specialist consultee’ under the DNS

Order (2016) and there is no statutory requirement for the applicant to consult with them.

However, their technical fields of expertise were relevant to the proposals and it was therefore

sensible to engage with them in order to resolve certain technical matters at the pre-

application stage. Hence, for the purposes of this report, the details of this interaction will be

dealt with alongside the ‘specialist consultee’ response received by NRW.

2.3.4 Each of these organisations (including NRW as ‘Specialist Consultee’) were sent links to the

website containing the draft plans, Environmental Statement and Planning Design and

Access Statement. They were also consulted on specific aspects of proposed survey

methodologies and the scope of required assessment work.

2.3.5 Following these meetings, a formal written response was received from each consultee,

which set out the main issues relating to the proposals.

2.4 Relevant Persons

2.4.1 The DNS (Specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) Regulations 2016

specifies the range of developments that constitute a Development of National Significance.

Of relevance to these proposals is Part 2, 3, 1(a) which states that:

“Development is of national significance for the purposes of section 62D(3) of the 1990 Act if

it consists of any of the following — (a) the construction, extension or alteration of a generating

station that generates electricity;”



2.4.2 In this instance, it is considered that the proposals for battery storage units would not meet

this definition (nor any other definition outlined within the regulations) and would hence fall

outside of the remit for the DNS regime. This element of the proposals would therefore require

permission as a secondary consent connected to the application.

2.4.3 Where a proposal includes one or more secondary consent, the DNS Order requires that the

appropriate ‘relevant person’ be consulted through the pre-application consultation. In this

regard, Section 62G of The Planning Wales Act (2015), states that “The relevant person is

the person by whom (but for section 62F) the decision as to whether to grant the secondary

consent would have been made”.

2.4.4 Were it not associated with this DNS application, the proposed erection of the battery storage

units would typically require planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. As such,

it follows that Newport City Council (NCC) would require consultation as the ‘relevant person’

to this element of the proposals (the Secondary Consent).

2.4.5 As NCC are also required to produce a Local Impact Report (LIR) in relation to the overall

proposals it was sensible that any consultation should refer to the scheme as a whole and

not just the battery storage area.

2.4.6 In this respect, NCC were treated in the same manner as the Specialist Consultee and were

notified and informed in the same way. A written response was also received which set out

their main issues and this has informed some minor changes to the submission which are

described Chapter 5 of this report.



3.0 Statutory Publicity

3.1 Website

3.1.1 In commencing the pre-application process, the DNS Order (2016) required that a website be

set up containing the following documents:

i. Draft application form published by Welsh Ministers

ii. A plan which identifies the land to which the proposed application relates;

iii. Any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development

which is the subject of the proposed application;

iv. A copy of the notice confirming the acceptance of the intention to submit the

application for a Development of National Significance

v. The Planning, Design and Access Statement

vi. Evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as deemed necessary

by the Local Planning Authority

vii. A statement referred to as the environmental statement for the proposed

development; and

viii. A written statement, draft application form(s) and documents associated with related

secondary consents to be determined by Welsh Ministers,

3.1.2 A suitable page was therefore created as https://wentloogecommunityenergy.com. The page

provides a description of the proposals and contains all of the necessary documentation. All

notices and publications refer to this website as a source of related information.

3.2 Site Notices

3.2.1 Numerous site notices were displayed around the site and within the local area. The notice

itself is displayed in Appendix 2.

3.2.2 The notice provided details of the scheme’s website and provided contact details so that

interested parties could comment on the application.

https://wentloogecommunityenergy.com/



3.3 Written Notice

3.3.1 As explained, in Chapter 2 of this report, letters were sent to all Statutory Consultees and

accompanied by the relevant form shown in Appendix 2. Adjacent Landowners were also sent

a copy of the notice.

3.3.2 This ensured that all relevant information was provided to the recipients and that all statutory

duties were fulfilled in the process of consultation.

3.4 Newspaper Advert

3.4.1 An advert was placed in the local newspaper, the South Wales Argus. The first advert was

published on the 24th January 2020 under the initial pre-application consultation period.

3.4.2 The advert provided a description of the proposals and the details of the website containing

all relevant technical information listed in this report. It also set out the means by which

responses could be made, and the timescales within which these would be received. The

advert can be viewed in Appendix 2 of this report.

3.4.3 The newspaper has a large circulation and is available across the Gwent region, making it

entirely appropriate for this form of publicity.



4.0 Number of responses

4.1 Ward Councillors

4.1.1 Letters were sent to all ward Councillors within Newport City Council.

4.1.2 No responses were received from Councillors during the pre-application consultation.

4.1.3 A list of the contact details of all consultees is provided in Appendix 2.

4.2 Adjacent landowners

4.2.1 Of the adjacent landowners only one response was received.

4.3 Website Responses

4.3.1 A total of three responses were received through the website.

4.3.2 The main areas of interest and concern related to the following:

The visual impact of the proposals upon the landscape and character of the area

The need to adequately address the site’s SSSI designation and wider impacts upon

ecology and ornithology

The impacts on rural business in the area

The use of agricultural land for the scheme

The effect on property value



5.0 Statutory Consultees: Responses and Actions

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 This section of the report sets out the responses received by all Statutory Consultees in

accordance with Article 11(2) of the DNS (Procedure) (Wales) Order 2016. It explains the

process of the engagement with these consultees and sets out the actions taken in response

to each of the issues raised through the consultation process.

5.2 Responses received from Statutory Consultees: Specialist Consultees

5.2.1 With reference to Schedule 5 of the Developments of National Significance (Procedure)

(Wales) Order 2016, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) are the only specialist consultee

relevant to these proposals.

5.2.2 Their formal written response was received on 24th February 2020. This is provided within

Appendix 4 of this report. Their response set out six ‘requirements’ to be met before

permission is granted and also suggested a range of necessary conditions in order to control

the implementation of the development.

5.2.3 Since receiving this response, efforts have been made to address the key areas of concern.

These are set out below in relation to each ‘requirement’.

Requirement 1: Ecology and Nature Conservation - St Brides Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI)

Summary

5.2.4 The response noted the key features for which the SSSI is designated. Accordingly, their

response focused upon the reen and ditch habitats and sought to ensure that any impacts

affecting these would be addressed in full, with appropriate mitigation and enhancement

carried out. To this end, further information was requested required in the Environmental

Statement to demonstrates that the proposal would have no adverse effects / likely significant

effects on the St Brides SSSI. The response requested further information on nine issues

which are now addressed in this report.



1) Gripped fields and drainage function of the site

5.2.5 This related mainly to the function of the gripped fields and the wider drainage system across

the site, stressing the need to ensure that this would be unaffected by the scheme. However,

acknowledged that “there could be a positive significant effect on the watercourses provided

an appropriate ditch management plan was implemented”.

5.2.6 The concerns regarding hydrology have been comprehensively addressed in an update to

the submitted Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) and Hydrology chapter of the ES. A

description of this hydrological function is set out under the following paragraphs

5.2.7 Rainfall lands on the fields and because the land is generally flat with local gentle undulations,

water tends to percolate into the soil and be managed locally where it lands by evaporation,

evapotranspiration and infiltration into the soil, moving through the soil to the receiving waters

– this is the normal process in low lying ground. And the successful management of the water

levels in the reens has proved over the centuries that the groundwater level is varied by the

water in the reens. In exceptional wet periods localised ponding occurs in low areas, while

the above processes manage the water. This has also been managed by farmers introducing

‘ridge and furrow’ features, which will remain in place.

5.2.8 The ridge and furrow features have prevailed during all the times of modern farming, as they

can be seen today. The construction of the solar farm will use low pressure wheel load farm

type machinery, and will undertake construction in suitable weather to enable safe access.

This is no different to the farming activity, and on completion the land will not be traversed by

any machinery, preserving the ridge and furrow more reliably than during farming and

particularly ploughing practices. The consequence of the solar farm will therefore be to

preserve the ridge and furrow for the 40 year lifetime of the solar farm.

5.2.9 The changes caused by the solar farm equipment will be positive – the same character of rain

will still fall on the land. Any farming practices with potential for polluting water with pesticides

and fertilizers will cease. Eliminating intense grazing (which compacts the soil and reduces

infiltration) will also stop. Stopping these activities will allow the ground to vegetate naturally

and the soil to improve, will improve the quality of the water entering the environment,



eliminate silt runoff and create more steady flow conditions in the reens. These are all positive

benefits. The battery and connection area will be constructed on permeable gravel, which will

encourage infiltration and eliminate pollution by pesticide, fertilizers and mimic the natural

conditions (albeit without grass on top).

5.2.10 Form an ecological perspective, more uniform flows in the reens are favourable as they don’t

get hit by high runoffs and high water levels with silt when it rains in winter, and this is also

easier to manage through the seasons and with tide lock situations.

2) Shrill Carder Bee information

5.2.11 These clarifications related to shrill carder bee habitat and previous survey data for the reen

bank habitats. In particular, concerns were expressed with regards to the following issues

which are each addressed in turn;

i. Potential habitat loss – and the need to retain well-connected semi-improved

grassland fields on the site.

a. Through reconfiguration of the site plans, there are now three fields to the

west which will benefit from a late-flowering seed mix for Shrill Carder Bee.

A large area of land to the centre of the site is no longer being developed and

this was identified as one of the better areas for the species. In addition to

the three fields and with field margins managed (low stocking densities to

prevent over grazing) there will be clear benefits to support the species and

to improve habitat connectivity.

ii. Solar panel shading and effects on habitat loss and amount of habitat loss.

a. The shading caused by solar panels must be viewed in the wider context of

the changing use of the site and the reduced intensity of its agricultural use.

The panels themselves do not preclude all sunlight from reaching the ground,

due to the height at which they are mounted and the path of the sun

throughout the year. Studies by the BRE have shown that habitats beneath

solar panels can flourish despite the increased shading.



iii. Proposed mitigation – The need for clear mapping and apparent discrepancies in ES

and LEMP

a. Addressed through amendments to the text and associated mapping

3) Queries regarding Watercourses

5.2.12 Consultee queried whether the runoff response referred to under 1) Gripped Fields might

have further consequences in respect of the watercourses around the site. However, the

consultee agreed that well implemented CEMP and water quality monitoring plan is likely to

address water quality issues during construction and a period of operation.

5.2.13 These issues raised are largely Covered in relation to 1) Gripped fields above. As

recommended, water quality issues would also be addressed in CEMP and water quality

management plan.

4) Queries relating to Aquatic Invertebrates

5.2.14 The response referred to potential changes to poaching levels from livestock and potential for

the aquatic invertebrate features to egg-lay on the panels rather than SSSI watercourses.

5.2.15 An assessment of such impacts has been included within the in ES. A Summary in paper

Taylor et al, 2019 reviews available data on this subject suggests that that solar farms should

be sited away from important/sensitive aquatic invert populations.

5.2.16 The proposed scheme will incorporate site-wide buffer zones so that the panels themselves

will be off-set from the watercourses.

5.2.17 Most of the key invert species are water beetle, dragonflies and soldierfly which do not lay

their eggs on the water surface so should not be impacted. There is the potential to trial white

gridding and anti-reflective coatings if aquatic invertebrates are noted to be laying eggs on

the panels following the construction of the scheme.

5.2.18 The proposed ditch management covered by the LEMP encompasses all ditches whilst some

reens are already managed by NRW.



5) SSSI Condition and Ditch Management / Surveys

5.2.19 The comments referenced NRW’s own survey efforts of the ‘SSSI Blocks and noted that one

of these (43) was shown to be in an unfavourable condition as there were a high proportion

of heavily shaded ditches. The consultee requested that the referencing of ditches in this area

be amended and also sought more data on the flora for the ditches in this area.

Figure.2 NRW Field surveys showing block 43 as unfavourable

5.2.20 References to these hedgerows were updated accordingly. There is potential to increase the

removal of hedgerow and to record the flora in specific detail. This would be secured through

the Hedgerow Management Plan at the discharge of conditions stage.

6) Reen Locations

5.2.21 A slight discrepancy in the identification of ‘reens’ and ‘main rivers’ was detected. This is

relevant to the distance of the buffer zones to each watercourse and has since been resolved

in the subsequent reporting.



7) Amendments to the LEMP

5.2.22 Where ditches are shaded from both sides, NRW expressed a preference for the removal of

the hedgerow on the eastern or southern side of the ditch. This would be for double hedged

ditches and those with intermittent hedging on both sides of the ditch.

5.2.23 It was further stated that the north/west side of the ditch should be planted up when hedges

are ‘gappy’, to provide enhancement of the site for dormice with the locations of planting and

hedgerow removal to be secured and agreed post determination, if permission is granted.

5.2.24 Amendments were made to the LEMP to incorporate the suggested changes and were also

referenced in the preferred manner.

8) Desilting of ditches

5.2.25 It was advised that desilting should be undertaken in late summer, autumn or winter not spring

and summer and that a 7-year cycle is implemented not a 7-10 year cycle.

5.2.26 Changes were made to the LEMP to specify a 7 year rotation (rather than 7-10) and that initial

management of reens and ditches would begin at the start of the project.

9) Invasive Species

5.2.27 Further recommendations were made in respect of managing invasive species including

Azolla filiculoides, including that a pre-commencement condition should be secured to the

permission.

5.2.28 The recommendations were accepted and it is acknowledged that such a survey would be

conditioned.

10) More information requested in respect of HRA and eel species

5.2.29 NRW expressed their view that Eel species would have the potential to be impacted by the

proposed development and advised that it should therefore be covered within the scope of

the ‘Appropriate Assessment’.



5.2.30 Appropriate updates made to ES chapter and sHRA to cover this species.

Requirement 2: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Protected Species

5.2.31 Further information for inclusion in the Environmental Statement was requested to

demonstrate that the proposal has no adverse effects / likely significant effects on European

Protected Species (Bats, Otters and Great Crested Newts). A requirement for pre-

commencement surveys for Water Vole was also expressed

5.2.32 NRW also highlighted the recent Chief Planning Officer letter from Welsh Government on

Securing Biodiversity Enhancements. This directs that where biodiversity enhancement is not

proposed as part of an application, significant weight will be given to its absence, and unless

other significant material considerations indicate otherwise it will be necessary to refuse

permission.

5.2.33 Following the removal of the wind turbines from the scheme, the information relating to bats

is no longer required.

5.2.34 Additional information for Dormice and Otters has been provided in the related sections of the

ES Ecology chapter and amendments also made to the LEMP and the CEMP as appropriate.

5.2.35 Pre-commencement Water Vole surveys are also envisaged and would be required by

planning condition.

5.2.36 It is considered that the scheme would provide for significant Biodiversity Enhancements, to

the satisfaction of the Chief Planning Officer at Welsh Government.

Requirement 3: Ornithology

5.2.37 NRW’s queries here were set out against 4 main topic areas:

1. Survey and Methodology

2. ES Assessment

3. Collision Risk



4. Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA)

5.2.38 With regards to Point 1 (Survey and methodology) the response set out six points on which

further information was required and which are now cited and addressed below;

1) Clarification on why the nocturnal wintering bird surveys did not have the same survey

window as the diurnal wintering bird surveys.

a. This follows previous advice which was received in relation to the Gwent Farmers

Community Solar Scheme at Llanwern 1 and is now explained within the updated

reporting.

2) Appendix 12.1 states the site was spilt in three, with each sector being counted on a

different evening, but it’s not clear how the results account for this. For example, birds

may have been using a different part of the site to that being surveyed.

a. This situation arises due to the sheer size of the site and availability of surveyors

to do night-time work at the time. This is a limitation that is now explained in the

ES methodology.

3) There is a disparity in the buffer zones reported under chapter 12 (12.5.1) stating 500m,

to those in the relevant Appendices which state 250m. We seek clarity as to which buffer

was used.

a. Amendments made to correct the discrepancy.

4) Appendix 12.2: Breeding Bird Survey (breeding season and vantage point surveys) - the

dawn and dusk times absent from appendix two, these should be provided.

a. Appendix amended to include these references.

5) The timings of the breeding bird surveys mean that some early nesting lapwing may have

been missed.

a. Lapwing records from March are now included in the report and plans and

additional explanatory text also incorporated.

6) The results for several of the surveys are noted as being incomplete at the time of writing.

These should be made available at final submission. Depending on the results, we may



have new concerns with this information.

a. Remaining survey data all incorporated into final submission

5.2.39 In relation to point 2 (ES Assessment), the response set out four points on which further

information was required and which are now cited and addressed below

1) Sought further information in relation to the Greater white-fronted goose

a. This has since ben scoped into the assessment as requested.

2) Request for clearer tables and assessment on peak counts

a. Presentation of tables has since been changed and the data is now clearer to

view and interpret.

3) Response suggested the potential for functionally linked land between the site and the

SPA

a. This is now explored in more detail within the ES and the HRA.

4) Queried the visual disturbance caused by the turbines

a. This is no longer relevant since the turbines are now excluded from the proposals

5.2.40 Issues relating to Collision Risk Analysis were also raised by the consultee. However these

related to the wind turbines which are now excluded from the proposals.

5.2.41 General updates to the HRA have also been made, noting the full suite of comments set out

in the response.

Flood Risk and Drainage

5.2.42 The response here related to the management of water levels within the IDD and also the

potential for dewatering as a result of the wind turbine foundations (Requirement 4).

5.2.43 Matter relating to hydrology are addressed earlier in this statement in relation to surface water

runoff and the gripped fields.



5.2.44 It is also worth noting that a water quality monitoring plan would be implemented as part of

the proposals to ensure that the quality of the reen and ditch systems are protected through

the construction and operational phases of the proposed development.

5.2.45 Given that the proposals now exclude the wind turbines, issues relating to dewatering are no

longer relevant.

5.3 Responses received from Statutory Consultees: Community Consultees

5.3.1 The relevant community consultees to the scheme are Wentlooge Community Council and

all Ward Councillors within the Newport City Council District.

5.3.2 Under the initial period of consultation, no formal responses were received from either the

Community Council or the Ward Councillors.

Wentlooge Community Council

5.3.3 Wentlooge Community Council were written to on the 14th January 2020 and were informed

of the draft proposals and the forthcoming public exhibition.

5.3.4 Members of the Community Council were present at the exhibition in Peterstone Hall on the

10th February 2020.

5.3.5 Although discussions were held at the public exhibition, no formal written response was

received from the Community Council. However, the applicant is willing to continue to engage

with the Community Council as the proposals proceed through the DNS planning process.

5.4 Responses received from Statutory Consultees: Relevant Persons

Local Planning Authority – Newport City Council

5.4.1 Engagement with Newport City Council has involved the following scope of activities:

A meeting with two planning officers at NCC offices

Written notification in accordance with Article 9(1)(c) of the Developments of National

Significance (Procedure) (Wales) Order 2016



Pre-application Meeting

5.4.2 The pre-application meeting was held with Newport City Council on 13th February 2019. The

meeting covered the key planning policy considerations and the likely balance between the

environmental benefits and impacts of the proposals. More specifically, the following key

matters were discussed with officers:

Proposed site area and configuration of development

Scope of supporting technical work, EIA scoping and pre-app with NRW

‘Interim’ DNS arrangements and the inclusion of battery storage within the application

Significance of the ‘Green Wedge’ Planning Policy

Formal Response to Notification under Article 9(1)(c)

5.4.3 In general terms, the LPA’s response confirmed that the principle of the proposed

development is broadly supported by the provisions set out in Policy CE10 (Renewable

Energy), subject to there being no overriding environmental or amenity issues and providing

that the site’s location is justified on the basis of a sequential assessment.

5.4.4 In this respect, the response then set out the three key issues needing to be addressed in

the scope of the sequential assessment. These include the following matters:

1. In order to satisfy policy CE10, where the assessment proves the suitability of its

location compared to brownfield land.

2. In order to satisfy policy CE9, criterion i) where development is required to be on the

coast to meet an exceptional need which cannot be reasonably accommodated

elsewhere; and

3. In order to satisfy of TAN 15, where development should be directed away from flood

risk areas and their location within a flood risk zone is justified. And to satisfy either

tests i) of section 6 of the TAN, i.e. to prove that the development is necessary to

assist a regeneration initiative or strategy for the local authority.



5.4.5 Other important issues relating to planning policy designations and related development

issues were covered as follows:

o Ecology – And scope of required survey work

o Landscape and visual impact – Noting Strategic Landscape (SLA) designation

o Historic landscape and archaeology

o Highways and access,

o General rural character and residential amenity

5.4.6 The written response is provided in the Appendix to this report.



6.0 Responses received from Non-Statutory Consultees

6.1.1 In addition to the consultation undertaken with all Statutory Consultees, efforts were also

made to engage with the RSPB, the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust and CADW.

Although there was no statutory duty to consult with these organisations, this approach

followed best practice in acknowledgement of the specific sensitivities of the site. A brief

summary of the consultation with each organisation is provided below.

6.2 RSPB

6.2.1 A meeting was held with the RSPB on Thursday 1st August 2019. At this meeting a breakdown

of both the completed and remaining bird survey work was presented and this was considered

by RSPB as part of their written pre-application response, which followed the meeting.

6.2.2 A draft Ornithology Chapter of the Environmental Statement was subsequently provided and

was addressed in a written response to the document by RSPB. Their main areas of concern

related to the survey methods and the presentation of the data.

6.2.3 Specifically, further information was requested to clarify elements of the survey methodology,

the assessment on greater white-fronted geese, presentation of survey results and collision

risk/ visual disturbance (of turbines, which have now been dropped from the scheme). The

ES chapter was subsequently updated in response to the pre-application comments.

6.3 CADW and Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT)

6.3.1 Correspondence with CADW and Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) has

informed the preparation of the ASIDOHL2 assessment and the Cultural Heritage Chapter of

the Environmental Statement.

6.3.2 Dialogue with these consultees would continue through the consenting process, including at

any discharge of conditions stage in order to agree a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI),

which would specify the details of the watching brief in order to mitigate potential impacts

upon below ground archaeology.



6.4 Public Exhibition

6.4.1 A public exhibition was held on 10th February 2020 at Peterstone Hall at St Brides, Peterstone.

This venue was selected due to its accessible location nearby to the site. The event ran

between 4pm-7pm and was open to all members of the public. The date and time of the event

was selected so as to cater equally for working and non-working people.

6.4.2 The exhibition was publicised through the following activities:

Notices around the site and local area

Notifying Wentlooge Community Council by email

Advert in the South Wales Argus on 24th January 2020

6.4.3 The site notices and the advert in the local paper are provided within the Appendix to this

report.

6.4.4 The purpose of the public exhibition was to give members of the public and other interested

parties the opportunity to view the emerging proposals. A set of seven A1 boards were

displayed at the event. These detailed the location of the application site and provided an

overview of the development proposal and the DNS planning process.

6.4.5 In the main, the discussions at the meeting focussed on matters relating to the visual and

acoustic impacts, the SSSI designation and the impacts upon nearby houses and local

businesses.

6.4.6 Three representatives of Savills were present at the event to discuss the proposals and

answer any questions raised by members of the public.

6.4.7 The event was well attended, with over 50 visitors recorded. Included among the attendees

were members of the Wentlooge Community Council and general public. Visitors were invited

to submit their comments on the feedback forms provided and either deposit them in the

designated box, or alternatively post or email them to the Savills office in Taunton within seven

days.



6.4.8 A blank copy of the feedback form is provided in the Appendix. Copies of the completed

feedback forms can be made available upon request

Feedback

6.4.9 Set out below is a summary of the key issues that were raised by attendees of the event,

either in writing on the feedback forms or during discussions at the event itself.

Topic of discussion Application Response

Concern over noise generation issues from construction/installation and the general function of the wind turbines.

During construction phase, noise impacts would be relatively short term and efforts would be made to minimize these through a range of measures to be included in the CEMP.

The wind turbines have since been removed from the proposals and the solar panels themselves are inert and generate no operational noise.

Concern over the structural soundness of the local roads and its ability to withstand HGV traffic.

The proposed delivery routes have been fully assessed within the Construction Traffic Management Plan which has shown that the site can be accessed safely and securely for the duration of the construction and operational phase.

The proposed is not in keeping with the intrinsic character, quality, feature and conservational value of this special landscape area.

Since the public exhibition, measures have been taken to reduce the visual impacts of the proposals. These include, the removal of the three wind turbines, which would have caused the greatest impact upon the local landscape. The site has also been reconfigured so that the fields closest to the site boundary would be largely avoided through the revised site layout.

Damage to the natural habitat of migrating wildlife and domestic birds such as Canada Geese and Swans – which congregate in the open fields.

Since receiving feedback, amendments have been made to the scope of reporting and assessment contained within the Ornithology chapter of the ES.



Confusion on site being designated as a Green Belt designation.

The site is actually subject to a local plan policy designation known as Green Wedge. The submitted Planning Statement addresses the requirements of this policy in full and concludes that the proposals would comply with the key tests of the proposals.

In particular, the submitted LVIA has concluded that the scheme would not cause significant residual effects, demonstrating that the proposed development is compliant with the key planning tests relating to the Green Wedge designation

The proposal would have a significant impact on local businesses including those operating in the tourism industry.

The main concerns here related to the visual impacts upon the rural character of the site. Since the abovementioned measures were taken to amend the proposals, it is considered that the scheme would preserve the rural character within the area and that consequently, the local tourism industry would not be impacted by the scheme.



7.0 Main issues discussed

7.1 Summary of all responses

7.1.1 This section provides a summary of the main issues raised by all respondents during the

consultation period. These issues have been identified following an analysis of all responses,

including statutory and non-statutory consultees, community consultees and interested

parties.

7.1.2 The issues are summarised in the following list, and are addressed in greater detail below:

1) Impacts upon the SSSI designation

2) Impacts upon birds and the nearby Severn Estuary (as an SPA and RAMSAR site)

3) Impacts upon the hydrology of the site and the associated flood risk

4) Concern with regards to the visual impact of the development (the landscape

character and historic value)



7.2 Main Issue 1.

Main issue: 1) Impacts on the St Brides Site of Special Scientific Interest over which the site is located

Relevant application documents:

Environmental Statement (Chapters 11, 12 and 13) and associated appendices Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP)

Respondents: Natural Resources Wales (NRW) RSPB Wentlooge Community Council Interested third parties expressing views through the website and Public Exhibition

Applicant’s summary of the responses:

The responses referred to the significance of the designation and the need to protect the land from any adverse impacts resulting from the proposals. The responses ranged in detail with specialist consultees (such as NRW) providing a more in-depth assessment of the proposals and the content of the draft application. Other responses expressed concern with the very principle of allowing the prospective development to proceed in this location, given its SSSI status.

Applicant’s response, including reasons:

Before discussing the actual impacts of the proposals, it must first be noted that any assessment of such impacts must be considered within the appropriate decision-making context so that a view can be reached on the proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning and legal requirements. In this respect, applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Regarding proposals affecting SSSIs, it is necessary to refer to Policy GP5 of Newport City Council’s adopted Local Development Plan (2011 – 2026). In relation to sites within areas of ‘nature conservation‘ (including SSSIs) this states that development will be permitted where (inter-alia) the proposals “demonstrate how they avoid, or mitigate and compensate negative impacts to biodiversity, ensuring that there are no significant adverse effects”. More specifically, paragraph 4.51 of the supporting text to Policy CE10 (Renewable Energy) states that “Proposals which affect the special qualities of the Gwent Levels, or any other protected site, will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse effects”. Therefore, it is clear that there are no in-principle reasons why the SSSI designation should prohibit the development, providing that the necessary planning tests are satisfied. Hence, the principal aim of the proposals has been to ensure that they would not result in significant adverse impacts upon the biodiversity of the area or the special features of the SSSI. These are:



Reen and ditch habitats Insects and other invertebrates The Shrill Carder Bee

Assessment of Impacts A full suite of ecology surveys have been completed over the period 2017 - 2020 as detailed within the Environmental Statement and appendices. This reporting has assessed the impact of the proposed development upon the range of habitats and species identified within the area. Specific attention has been paid to the assemblage of species for which the SSSI are designated. Other protected species found on site, for example, water vole and bat species have also been considered. In accordance with pre-application guidance received from Natural Resources Wales (NRW), the scheme proposes to observe buffer zones around the reen habitats on the site. These are; 12.5m from Main Rivers and 7m from field ditches. A stock proof fence would be installed at the edge of these buffer zones (solar array areas) that would leave unhindered access for routine reen and ditch management.

Hedgerows across the site will be carefully managed on a rotational basis to promote structural and botanical diversity, and to encourage a diverse ground flora to develop along hedgerow bases. A targeted programme of hedgerow removal will also take place in order to enhance the habitats within the adjacent watercourses. Specific areas of the site will be set aside for wildflower planting. All mitigation proposed is detailed in the Landscape and Ecology management Plan (LEMP). During the construction phase, a strategy for the installation of the panels and associated infrastructure will ensure minimal disruption to ecology which will be identified in a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The Environmental Impact Assessment has determined that, the proposed development will not create any adverse ecological impacts and will provide ecological enhancements to the benefit of biodiversity.



7.3 Main Issue 2.

Main issue: 2) Impacts upon birds and the nearby Severn Estuary (as an SPA and RAMSAR site)


Environmental Statement (Chapter 12) and associated appendices Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP)

Respondents: Natural Resources Wales (NRW) RSPB Goldcliff Community Council


The consultees were concerned that the proposals could result in significant adverse impacts to the various bird species using the site. From a technical perspective, both NRW and RSPB were keen to ensure that the scope and methodology of the accompanying bird survey work were appropriate to establish accurate baseline data upon which to assess the impacts of the proposals. In particular, the need to address the Greater white-fronted goose was clearly set out following a review of the draft submission. They also expressed the need for all survey data (and any proposed mitigation) to be clearly presented so that a comprehensive understanding of all impacts could be gleaned from the reporting.


Before discussing the actual impacts of the proposals, it must first be noted that any assessment of such impacts must be considered within the appropriate decision-making context so that a view can be reached on the proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning and legal requirements. In this respect, applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Regarding proposals affecting the Severn Estuary, it is again necessary to refer to paragraph 4.51 of the supporting text to Policy CE10 (Renewable Energy). This states that “Proposals which affect the special qualities of the Gwent Levels, or any other protected site, will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse effects”.

Therefore, in preparing the proposals, care has been taken to ensure that any adverse impacts are identified, and suitably mitigated against. To assess these impacts, a thorough scope of bird survey work has been undertaken in relation to the key species associated with these sites. Through this survey work, no SPA and Ramsar qualifying species were found to be using the site at high tide during the winter months in any significant numbers. During the breeding season most species were confined to hedgerows and reens. Lapwing were found to be breeding



(with limited success) in a number of fields within the application area and surrounding area. These surveys have enabled a detailed understanding of how the site is used so that suitable mitigation and enhancement measures could be properly planned for and incorporated into the scheme.

In this respect, a large area of land to the west of the site has been set aside for specific land management to suit the use of the fields for Lapwing. The construction of the solar farm would take place outside of the breeding bird season thus minimising any prospective impacts which may otherwise occur.

Overall the impacts of the solar farm on birds are not predicted to be significant and habitat will be enhanced for species associated with reens, ditches and field margins. The loss of some fields used by breeding lapwing will be compensated for by the provision of a large area of specifically managed fields for this species. Hence, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant adverse impacts on bird species using the site or the surrounding area. The proposals therefore satisfy the requirements of Policy CE10 of the NLDP.



7.4 Main Issue 3.

Main issue: 3) Impacts upon the hydrology of the site and associated flood risk


Environmental Statement (Chapter 13) And Appendix 13.1 containing the Flood Consequences Assessment Site Selection Sequential Test Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP)

Respondents: Natural Resources Wales (NRW) Interested third parties


The site was recognised to lie within a sensitive area in terms of surface water runoff. Therefore, respondents were keen to ensure that the proposed development would not disrupt the delicate hydrology of the site nor impact upon the management of the key features, pertaining to drainage and flood risk. The ditches and reens at the site were of particular interest in this regard, due to the key functions they perform as part of the existing drainage strategy, and their inherent ecological value. It was also stressed that the proposed development must not increase flood risk within the site or the surrounding area.


The site is located within Flood Zone C1 and as such the proposals must satisfy the planning tests as set out within TAN15, and must pass the justification test detailed within the policy. To this end, the Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) has addressed all relevant technical issues, whilst a separate report has been completed, which demonstrates how the proposals satisfy the Flood Risk Justification Test. In addressing this ‘Main Issue’ it has been necessary to consider a multitude of issues relating to surface water management and the anticipated flood risk. Indeed, the current plans have been informed by an in-depth understanding of the site-specific drainage issues obtained from the following sources:

Detailed scientific modelling and analysis completed as part of the Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) included within the ES

Meaningful and ongoing engagement with the Drainage Officer at NRW who holds a detailed knowledge of the drainage management practices on the Gwent Levels and the challenges faced within the locality

Discussions with NRW with regards to the maintenance of the reen and ditch habitats and the interaction between agricultural practices and the drainage response of the site.

Accordingly, the following actions have been taken to ensure that the proposed development would, as far as possible mimic the existing drainage response of the site and prevent any increase in flood risk:



In each solar array, the panels would be spaced apart to prevent any rapid accumulation of surface runoff across the entire array. The submitted FCA explains the process by which any water landing off the panels would then disperse evenly onto the vegetation below the panels

Areas of impermeable surfaces have been minimised and are limited to the following features:

- Piling for the solar array frames - Metal bridge structures crossing reens and ditches - The base of the grid yard and telecommunications

tower All battery storage units and associated infrastructure (including

inverter and transformer units) would be mounted above a gravel bed at a height exceeding the anticipated flood levels.

The stone track through the site would be fully permeable and would only be lightly trafficked following the initial construction period.

In addition to these features of the scheme, the proposals would bring added virtues for the following reasons:

The proposals would remove intense cattle grazing from the site, which can cause increased soil compaction, resulting in siltation of the watercourses

The management of trees and hedgerows would prevent the cumulation of debris within the reens (as is known to currently occur), which can cause blockages and damage to these sensitive habitats

Consequently, the FCA has concluded that the proposed development will “The site will therefore be safe for people and property, and in conclusion the proposed change of use will provide a positive contribution to soil characteristics, water characteristics and biodiversity, and allow a more manageable approach to the control of the reens through the seasons bringing significant overall benefits to the environment. The proposal complies with the guidance given in TAN 15 and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.”



7.5 Main Issue 4.

Main issue: 4) Concern with regards to the visual impact of the development (the landscape character and

historic value)


Environmental Statement (Chapters 9 and 10) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) ASIDOHL 2 Assessment

Respondents: Natural Resources Wales (NRW) Newport City Council Members of Wentlooge Community Council Website Respondents


Concern has been raised that the proposals would create an adverse impact upon the rural character of the area. Furthermore, the site is noted to lie within a designated historic landscape area and concerns were raised that the proposed development would impact upon the distinct cultural heritage of the area. Consultees stressed the need to undertake an appropriate technical assessment of work in order to assess the impacts of the proposed scheme. Specific discussions was also held from NRW in relation to the prospective use of visual screening measures. Through these discussions, it was agreed that preserving the flat, open character of the site would be paramount to any mitigation strategy.


In addressing this issue, careful consideration has been given to the relevant planning policy requirements set out in the development plan and the advice provided by key consultees. In this respect, Local plan policy CE10 acknowledges that landscape and visual impact is a key consideration in the assessment of solar energy proposals. More specifically, the site lies within the Caldicot Levels ‘Special Landscape Area’ and the supporting text to policy CE10 explains that “Proposals which affect the special qualities of the Gwent Levels, or any other protected site, will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse effects”. Furthermore, Policy SP8 relates specifically to Special Landscape Areas and requires that proposals must “contribute positively to the area through high quality design, materials and management schemes that demonstrate a clear appreciation of the area’s special features”. For the Wentlooge Levels, the special features are:

The field patterns (reflecting the historic period of enclosure) The lines of vegetation which follow the drainage ditches



The flat, open landscape Efforts have been made to carefully plan the scheme in order to reduce the visual impacts of the proposals and preserve these special features. In particular, the site selection process and the final layout of the scheme have been carefully reviewed so that the proposed development is distanced from sensitive receptors including residential dwellings, users of the National Cycle Network (NCN), walkers on the Wales Costal Path, and road users. However, in response to the pre-application consultation, further actions have been taken in order to further reduce the visual impacts of the scheme. These include:

The removal of all wind turbines from the scheme in order to avoid new vertical infrastructure and to preserve the open character of the site

The removal of solar panels from fields along the side of Broadway in the west of the site

Hence, the proposals now benefit from both inherent design mitigation and additional measures taken in response to pre-application engagement. As a result, it is considered that the proposals would not cause significant adverse impacts upon the special features of the landscape. Furthermore, the ASIDOHL2 assessment submitted as part of the ES has found that the installation of the solar panels will represent an obscuring rather than destruction of the features of the Historic Landscapes and that overall, the impact on the value of the Historic Character Areas is considered to be Low. Therefore, it is apparent that the proposals would not cause significant adverse impacts in this regard and would therefore comply with policy CE 10, Renewable Energy.



8.0 Responding to feedback

8.1 Summary of Changes

8.1.1 The following images show the main changes that have been made to the scheme in

response to the feedback received through the consultation process. Figure 3 Shows the

plans which were consulted upon during the pre-application period and Figure 4 shows the

revised scheme which are now submitted for approval under this DNS application.

Figure 3 Draft Site Layout Submitted at Pre-application stage



Figure 4 Changes made in response to feedback received through pre-application stage

8.1.2 The main changes to the proposed scheme can be summarised as follows:

The removal of the three wind turbines from the proposals

o Thus reducing the visual impacts of the scheme and removing any ecological

impacts in this regard

The removal of panelled fields around the perimeter and centre of the site

o Reducing the visual impact and perceived impacts upon local businesses

o Minimising impacts upon the local Lapwing population by preserving

favoured habitat

Introducing dedicated wildflower planting areas to the west of the site

o Providing clear enhancement for the Shrill Carder Bee and other

invertebrates and pollinators



9.0 Concluding Remarks

9.1 Summary

9.1.1 This report has provided details on the outcomes of the pre-application consultation in respect

of the development proposals.

9.1.2 It has set out the full scope of pre-application activities which have been undertaken and it

has demonstrated that all statutory duties have been fulfilled in respect of the Developments

of National Significance (Procedure) (Wales) Order 2016.

9.1.3 The report sets out the representations received by all statutory and non-statutory consultees

and has explained the actions taken in response to the issues raised by each organisation.

9.1.4 In acknowledgement of all representations received, it is considered that there are 5 main

issues which have been addressed. These are:

1) Impacts upon the SSSI designation

2) Impacts upon birds and the nearby Severn Estuary (as an SPA and RAMSAR site)

3) Impacts upon the hydrology of the site and the associated flood risk

4) Concern with regards to the visual impact of the development (the landscape character

and historic value)

9.1.5 These issues are set out within the specific tables under chapter 7 of this report. These tables

summarise the responses relating to each issue and explain the corresponding actions taken

in order to address the key areas of concern.

9.1.6 A thorough and meaningful process of pre-application consultation has been undertaken. This

has informed the planning and design process and has resulted in an improved proposal,

which responds to the key concerns raised by technical consultees and other interested

parties.



Appendix 1: Declarations of Compliance



Appendix 2: Notices, Publicity and Letters



Site Notice Displayed Around Site



Forms sent with notification letters to Specialist Consultee



Forms sent with notification letters to Community Consultees, Relevant Persons and Adjacent Landowners



Advert in South Wales Argus from 24th January 2020



List of Ward Councillors notified during pre-application stage

Councillor Miqdad Al-Nuaimi, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Graham Berry, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR, Councillor James Clarke, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Janet Cleverly, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Paul Cockeram, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, NP20 4UR, , , ,

Councillor Margaret Cornelious, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Ken Critchley, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR Councillor Deb Davies, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR, ,

Councillor Val Dudley, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Chris Evans, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Matthew Evans, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Charles Ferris, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Yvonne Forsey, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor David Fouweather, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Gail Giles, C/O Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR, ,

Councillor John Guy, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR, ,

Councillor Debbie Harvey, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Ibrahim Hayat, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Rehmaan Hayat, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Tracey Holyoake, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, NP20 4UR, ,

Councillor Phil Hourahine, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Jason Hughes, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR ,

Councillor Roger Jeavons, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , ,

wport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Martyn Kellaway, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR, ,

Councillor Laura Lacey, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Malcolm Linton, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR, ,

Councillor Stephen Marshall, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,



Councillor David Mayer, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Ray Mogford, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Allan Morris, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Jane Mudd, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Abdul-Majid Rahman, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor John Richards, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor William Routley, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Mark Spencer, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Tom Suller, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Herbie Thomas, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Kate Thomas, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR ,

Councillor Carmel Townsend, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Holly Townsend, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Ray Truman, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Joan Watkins, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, NP20 4UR, , ,

Councillor Trevor Watkins, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,

Councillor Mark Whitcutt, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Richard White, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR

Councillor Kevin Whitehead, c/o Civic Centre, Newport City Council, Newport, Gwent, NP20 4UR,

Councillor Debbie Wilcox, c/o Civic Centre, Newport, S Wales, , NP20 4UR, , ,

Councillor David Williams, c/o Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, , NP20 4UR,



Appendix 3: Site and Adjacent Land Ownership



Appendix 4: Statutory Consultee Responses

Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg Correspondence welcomed in Welsh and English

Ein cyf/Our ref: CAS-107058-K8Q6 Eich cyf/Your ref: TRP 1768 Rivers House, St Mellons Business Park, St Mellons, Cardiff, CF3 0EY ebost/email:

Ffôn/Phone:

Savills Kingston House Blackbrook Business Park Taunton Somerset TA1 2PX 24/02/2020 Annwyl Syr/Madam / Dear Sir/Madam, PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION: DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (PROCEDURE) (WALES) ORDER 2016 BWRIAD / PROPOSAL: RENEWABLE ENERGY HUB LLEOLIAD / LOCATION: LAND ON THE WENTLOOGE LEVELS TO THE WEST OF HAWSE LANE Thank you for providing a requisite notice to us under Article 2D of the above Order. We received a copy of your proposed application on 14 January 2020. Based on the information provided, we have significant concerns with the proposed development. To overcome these concerns, we would recommend to the planning authority that the following requirements should be met before permission is granted and the conditions listed below are attached to the permission. Otherwise, we would object to the planning application. Requirement 1: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Further information is required in the Environmental Statement which demonstrates the proposal has no adverse effects / likely significant effects on the Gwent Levels SSSI. Requirement 2: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Further information is required in the Environmental Statement which demonstrates the proposal has no adverse effects / likely significant effects on European Protected Species (Bats and Great Crested Newts). Requirement 3: Ornithology – Further information is required in the Environmental Statement which demonstrates the proposal has no adverse effects / likely significant effects on the Special Protection Area (SPA) Requirement 4: Drainage and Flood Risk – further information is required to demonstrate the proposal will not have a likely significant effect on IDD water level management.

www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 2 of 19

Requirement 5: Drainage and Flood Risk – further information is required in the FCA to allow for an assessment of flooding consequences over the lifetime of development in line with national planning policy. Requirement 6: Protection of Groundwaters – further information is required in the final submission to demonstrate there will be no adverse effects on groundwaters in line with national planning policy. Condition 1: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Construction and Environment Management Plan. Condition 2: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Water quality monitoring plan. Condition 3: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Landscape and Environmental Management Plan. Condition 4: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Invasive species risk assessment. Condition 5: Ecology and Nature Conservation – Pre-construction water vole surveys. Condition 6: Drainage and Flood Risk – Surface water management scheme to be agreed. Please note, if further information is provided to satisfy the above requirements, it may then be necessary to request conditions to avoid / mitigate any residual environmental effects. Further details in relation to each requirement and condition is given below. Ecology and Nature Conservation Requirement 1: Gwent Levels – St Brides Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The proposal is located entirely in the Gwent Levels – St Brides SSSI. The SSSI is notified for its range of aquatic plants and invertebrates associated with the reens and ditches of the drainage system. The reens are rich in plant species and communities, many of which are rare or absent in other Levels systems. This is due to the variety of reen types, their management regimes and regular maintenance of reens. The management of water levels through the Internal Drainage District (undertaken by NRW) is an important part of the on-going management of the SSSIs. In summary, the special interests of the SSSI are dependent on the water quality, water quantity, the existence of the drainage system and its continued management. Any development which has an adverse impact on any of these factors will have an adverse impact on the wildlife for which the area was notified. The ES (4.9.12) reflects this by confirming the “Gwent Levels are recognised as an internationally important resource in terms of landscape and heritage and nationally important for ecology. Proposals which affect the special qualities of the Gwent Levels, or


any other protected site, will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse effects.” The Scoping Report prepared by the Planning Inspectorate endorses our advice regarding matters to be scoped in and down for ecology and nature conservation. However, we advise that not all matters have been adequately assessed in the ES and therefore it has not demonstrated there will be no significant adverse effects. We advise that further information and/or assessment is required in the ES on the following matters: 1) Gripped fields – Requirement 1: further information required Aerial images show that there are a high proportion of fields containing historic ‘grips’ within the site. Evidence of the grip system can also be seen in the Lidar image in figure 22 of the submitted FCA. The FCA appears to describe grips as ‘shallow undulations’ or ‘local gentle undulations’. It appears grips are present in fields 1, 2, 3, 14, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39, 46, 47 48, 53 (field numbers on figure 11.2.1: Phase 1 Habitats Results plan) and the un-numbered rectangular field between 25 and 27. Further on-site survey is required to confirm the presence of grips. Grips are part of the Gwent levels historic landscape that is unique to Wales, they provide hydrological connections to the ditches and reens and provide wetter channels in the field which provide habitat for invertebrates (see advice under Aquatic Invertebrates). The historic grips which are present on some fields have the potential to be permanently damaged by the proposal and therefore alter the existing drainage patterns. Damage to the grips can affect the hydrological connectivity of the interconnected drainage system and therefore could significantly affect the quantity and flow rate of water entering the SSSI reen and ditch network. In turn, this has the potential to affect the ability of the SSSI flora and fauna to survive in the watercourses. The ES should assess how the introduction of solar panels and wind turbines will alter the grips’ function and whether this will result in changes to local hydrology and drainage. This should include likely effects from any underground cabling; installation and depth of the mounted frame system that support the solar panels; installation of turbines and their foundations and the decommissioning effects on site hydrology of removing these structures. An assessment on the potential loss, damage and shading of wet gripped areas which provide wet habitat areas to invertebrates should also be assessed. 2) Shrill carder bee – Requirement 1: further information required Shrill carder bee is a qualifying feature of the Gwent Levels SSSI, the area is of national importance and a strong hold for the species. We note the surveys prepared for this feature:


- Figure 11.2.1 Phase 1 Habitats Results plan; - The Wentlooge Renewable Energy Hub Appendix 11.2: Extended Phase 1 Habitat

Survey report by Green Ecology dated November 2019; - Wentlooge Level Invertebrate Survey 2019 by David Boyce

We note Shrill carder bee were found in blocks A2,3; B2; C1,2,3; D3 in the 2019 survey which corresponds to semi improved grassland fields Field 15, 14, 35, 36 and 50 and 30 and improved grassland Field number 2 on Figure 11.2.1 Phase 1 Habitats Results plan. Habitat loss To maintain a resilient habitat on the site there should be retention of well-connected semi-improved fields for shrill carder bee foraging. We do not agree that retention of only buffer zones (adjacent to the reens and ditches) is acceptable to retain the extent of foraging habitat required. We advise further assessment is provided on habitat loss and proposed habitat gain from the proposal, i.e. net benefit. We advise that the ES also includes assessment of whether shading from the solar panels could effectively result in loss of habitat, and if so, to what extent. When the extent of loss has been agreed, the ES should propose measures to mitigate the loss. We note the ES (11.9.15) refers to a lack of research in this area, however we do not consider there is sufficient evidence provided in the ES to conclude that the solar panels (change in land management) “will not affect the habitat overall and it will not be lost; any changes will also not be permanent at this time.” We also note solar panels are proposed on semi-improved grassland that is assessed as not being poor (orange on Figure 11.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Results Plan) but this does not appear to be referenced in the ES. Assessment conclusions Table 26 of the ES provides a summary of the ecological assessment for 1) Coastal & floodplain grazing marsh; 2) Grassland including: Poor Semi improved Neutral grassland, Marshy Grassland, semi-improved grassland, and Improved grassland; and 3) Shrill carder bee. The Table predicts that following mitigation works of wildflower seeding for all three features above, there would be a significant positive effect. However, we do not agree that there is sufficient evidence in the ES to demonstrate this. The solar panels would cover areas of a semi improved fields that are currently providing good foraging habitat for shrill carder bee. We require further information on the location and size of the wildflower areas proposed within and outside of the application boundary and how the 7m and 12.5m wildflower buffer zones would be safeguarded from overgrazing by sheep.


Proposed mitigation Notwithstanding the above, we require a clear map showing the areas where seeding for shrill carder bee is proposed. There appears to be a discrepancy in your draft submission regarding the areas proposed for seeding/shrill carder bee and the seed mix source proposed. The ES (11.10.26) appears to be different to the LEMP (5.1.3). Any sections of grassland for mitigation outside of the application boundary will need to be secured through the consent. 3) Watercourses (reens and ditches) – Requirement 1: further information required Referring Table 26 again, we do not agree with the conclusions on effects for the SSSI (including water courses) feature, it has not been established what impacts the loss of grips could have on hydrology of the SSSI. Therefore, the assessment of loss of grips (as above) is relevant to the conclusions of effects in SSSI watercourses. Regarding significance of effects from operational stage on this feature, if the hydrology is demonstrated not to be significantly affected, then there could be a positive significant effect on the watercourses provided an appropriate ditch management plan was implemented (see below under LEMP). We agree a well implemented CEMP and water quality monitoring plan is likely to address water quality issues during construction and a period of operation. Given the sensitive location and risk to the SSSI through construction and during operation, we will advise that a separate CEMP and water quality management plan is secured through pre-commencement planning conditions, if permission is granted (Conditions 1 and 2) 4) Aquatic invertebrates – Requirement 1: further information required We note the survey of the aquatic invertebrates of the reens and ditches by David Boyce (May 2019). Our advice on the loss of gripped fields above is relevant here. Any change in the grips has the potential to have a significant effect on the aquatic invertebrates which are a designated feature of the SSSI. The assessment on the loss or damage of grips will therefore inform assessment to aquatic invertebrates. In addition, the ES has not assessed potential changes to poaching levels from livestock and potential for the aquatic invertebrate features to egg-lay on the panels rather than SSSI watercourses:

• Lightly poached margins of reens and ditches provide habitat and egg laying sites for aquatic invertebrates. Changes to the poaching regime from the development should be assessed within the ES as advised at scoping.

• We note some consideration of the impacts from solar panels on invertebrate egg laying has been undertaken in the ES (11.9.55-56). It states the ‘ditch management programme would benefit aquatic invertebrates, and this is considered to outweigh any potential impacts as discussed above, therefore would be considered to be a significant positive effect at the Local to County level.


In our opinion, for the ditch management program to be beneficial to aquatic invertebrates, it would need to encompass maintaining the ditches that are currently unshaded as well as opening up new ditches (see LEMP Hedgerow removal alongside SSSI ditches below). We refer you to the paper by BSG Ecology: Taylor, R; Conway, J; Gabb and Gillespie, J. (2019) ‘Potential ecological impacts of ground-mounted photovoltaic solar panels [attached] Section 2.3 states ‘some consideration would be appropriate in siting and design of solar panels where important populations of aquatic invertebrates are likely to be present locally’. As this proposed solar farm is within a nationally protected area for aquatic invertebrates, we recommend the ES assesses whether there are any design measures for the solar panels that could minimise the likelihood of invertebrate features of the SSSI egg laying on the panels.

5) SSSI Condition and Ditch Management / Surveys – Requirement 1: further information required There are 4 field block SSSI units within the site. From the surveys undertaken of the field ditches in 2011, three of the field blocks (Field blocks 44, 45 and 50) passed the SSSI performance indicators (PIs) for the number of unshaded ditches in the surveys (favourable condition) and one field block failed (unfavourable condition) (Field block 43).

Map showing field block 43 (unfavourable condition/pink) and blocks 44 45 50 (favourable condition/pale green) within the application boundary (assessed from 2011 CCW/NRW survey)


Field block 43 was in unfavourable condition as there were a high proportion of heavily shaded ditches, but field block 44, 45 and 50 were favourable due to a high proportion of unshaded ditches. We welcome the numbered plans of the ditches and hedgerows surveys: Figure 11.2.2 Hedgerow reference plan and 11.2.3 Ditch and reen reference plan. We note that ditches assessed as open on both sides do not have a hedge reference code on Figure 11.2.1. This provides some updated information to the CCW/NRW survey of these field blocks in 2011. However, we recommend baseline data for the flora for each unshaded ditch on site is submitted, rather than summarising in one row of table 11.2.1 of the Phase 1 Habitat report. 6) Reen locations – Requirement 1: further information required The map below is the correct version of reen locations. The reens should have a buffer zone of 12.5m. There is a slight difference in the reen routes shown on your plan under Figure 1: LEMP. We advise you use the map below to demonstrate the 12.5m buffer zones are implemented at appropriate locations alongside NRW managed reens.

Map showing the reens of the SSSI for which a 12.5m buffer applies


7) Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) - Hedgerow removal alongside SSSI ditches –Condition 3 We note from Appendix 4 of the LEMP that the ditches outlined for removal on Figure 1 are indicative and to be agreed with NRW. We note there are discrepancies in the amount of hedgerow proposed for removal. Figure 1 which accompanies the LEMP states 1545m of hedgerow will be removed, 5.1.1 of the LEMP states approximately 1300m and Appendix 4 of the LEMP states approximately 1500m. Where ditches are shaded from both sides, we advise removal of the hedgerow on the eastern or southern side of the ditch. This would be for double hedged ditches and those with intermittent hedging on both sides of the ditch. The north/west side of the ditch should be planted up when hedges are gappy, to provide enhancement of the site for dormice with the locations of planting and hedgerow removal to be secured and agreed post determination, if permission is granted. As three of the four field blocks on this site pass the PI for the SSSI, we advise the ditches that were open to sunlight on one or both sides (open ditches, single hedge ditches) to be maintained as such, and not become scrubbed up over the life time of the development. This would require annual maintenance to maintain this openness to sunlight throughout the lifetime of the development. The map below shows ditches that NRW/CCW 2011 survey found to be open, shaded on 1 side or intermittently hedged (respectively blue, green and pink ditches) which should be maintained as unshaded. A larger copy of this map was provided to you in May 2019. Ditches in favourable condition are Category 1 (green), Category 4a/b (annotated with 4a/b) and Category 5 (blue).


Map showing the Ditch survey results from the CCW/NRW 2011 survey Given the amount of favourable condition and presence of dormice (northwest of the site), to manage this site as resilient habitat for the SSSI and dormice, we advise the LEMP include a table specifying for each ditch/hedge (numbers shown in Figure 11.2.2 and Figure 11.2.3) what the management will be for the lifetime of the project. This could include:

- maintain existing single hedge ditch so it remains open to sunlight from south/east side;

- maintain ditch as open on both sides with no shading; - plant up gappy hedge on north side of ditch to enhance habitat for dormice, remove

hedge on south side and maintain south side as open We recommend 5.1.2 of the LEMP refers to enhancement of north side of hedges for dormice rather than no hedgerow enhancement. This detail should be included in the approved LEMP. See advice below regarding LEMP under dormice. 8) Desilting/casting of ditches – Condition 3 We recommend section 6.3.2 and 7.1 of the LEMP is altered to state management of desilting should be undertaken in late summer, autumn or winter not spring and summer and that a 7-year cycle is implemented not a 7-10 year cycle.


The LEMP or Ecological Monitoring and Contingency Plan (or another approved document secured through the permission) should ensure there will be initial siltation monitoring/casting of a proportion of ditches each year at the start of the project, and then once appropriate management has been undertaken of ditches that require desilting, the program of monitoring and casting on 7 years rotation will be undertaken. For the avoidance of doubt, the first de-siltation monitoring and inspection must not be undertaken 7 years into the project. The desilting/casting is required to improve the condition of ditches in the area. 9) Invasive species – Condition 4 We advise that a plan should be in place should water fern (Azolla filiculoides) remain dominant in reens or ditches on the site. You should have plans in place to prevent the spread of invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan balsam that has been found on the site. Therefore, we will advise that a pre-commencement condition is secured to the permission. This will ensure that an approved Biosecurity Risk Assessment is implemented to secure measures to control the spread and effective management of any invasive non-native species at the site. 10) Habitat Regulations Assessment – SAC feature (eel) Based on the information in your draft submission, we are unable to state that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on the eel features of Severn Estuary. We disagree with the ES (11.9.3) as there are ways the development could affect the eel feature of the SAC which is not addressed in the draft submission. The eel is part of both the SAC and Ramsar features (notable estuarine assemblages: assemblage of fish species subfeature). Our Scoping advice stated the impacts from the proposal on eel are assessed to allow the competent authority to carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’ (AA). In terms of the eel feature, we advise acceptable information is submitted to address the following points as part of the AA:

- the water quality of the reens and ditches would not be negatively impacted by the development;

- the water quantity within the reens and ditches would not be negatively impacted by the development (further information is required on likely impacts if solar panels and turbines are sited in gripped fields);

- the ditches are maintained as open and not allowed to become silted up during construction and operation;

- and the development will not create barriers, e.g. cabling to the eel migration.


Requirement 2: Protected Species The ES has assessed the predicted likely significant effect on various protected species from the proposal, drawing upon relevant surveys. We consider that there is further information or assessment required for us to be able to advise on the impacts from the proposal on protected species, or that additional details or survey are secured through planning conditions. Further details are provided: Bats – Requirement 2: further information required We note the ES concludes that the proposed wind turbines will have moderate negative impacts on noctule, common pipistrelle/pipistrelle species. The ES (11.10.17) states there will be a programme of monitoring as mitigation for any impacts (i.e. kill or injure) to bats after the turbines are operational. However, we do not consider this is acceptable. Further assessment is required prior to determination to minimise and mitigate potential significant risks. It is not appropriate to propose monitoring as mitigation alone. The ES should consider issues such as appropriate siting of turbines, i.e. suitable distance from field boundaries or discussion on whether curtailment is necessary. Therefore, we advise that further information and assessment is required for us to advise on the proposal’s effects on bats. Great Crested Newts – Requirement 2: further information required We note that eDNA produced a positive record for pond 2, but the traditional survey methods were done relatively late in the season. We welcome the proposal to assume presence of a small population of Great Crested Newts (GCN) in the area of the fishing ponds. However, we do not consider the assessment in the ES is adequate. The ES should set out the likely impacts from the proposals, and we can advise further once that information is available. Should impacts be identified and likely significant effects predicted, the ES should set out the measures to put in place to offset the effects on GCN. At this stage, we would advise particular attention on impacts from the construction stage. Dormice – Condition 3 We note the surveys for dormice were undertaken to inform the ES and dormouse nests were found in habitat in the north-west corner of the site, bordering the railway line. The ES (11.9.48) refers to hedgerow removal and loss of dormouse habitat as part of the proposals, which may also have the potential to injure or kill dormice. No further details are provided, or mitigation measures proposed. The assessment concludes potential impacts are predicted to be negative and significant at the County Level. The ES (11.10.18) states a detailed method statement will be included when seeking an European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) for hedgerow removal during construction.


During operation the ES (11.10.19) states the LEMP will ensure retained hedgerows are managed sensitively for dormice. We note the following points regarding the LEMP:

• indicative locations for this hedgerow removal are shown on Figure 1 entitled ‘Landscape and Ecology Management Plan’ dated 26/11/19, with the final details proposed to be agreed with NRW post permission;

• There will be a focus on removing the hedgerows on the south side of east-west reens/ditches;

• Double hedgerows on the outer edges of the application site will be retained to

provide visual screening;

• No compensation for removed hedgerows is proposed, and there are no plans to enhance hedgerows.

We note the descriptions of the hedgerows to be removed, which are listed on page 12 of Appendix 11.2 (Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey). They all appear to be species poor, having formed through lack of management rather than being purposefully planted, with the majority (H4, H23, H39, H43, H44) having poor structure and little continuity. Based on the information provided, we consider there should not be a detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of the dormice present, subject to agreeing the detail of the final and approved version of the LEMP, prior to development commencing on site. Therefore, we would advise a LEMP is secured to any permission granted. The approved LEMP should include:

• Details of habitats, landscape, environmental and ecological features present or to be created at the site;

• Details of the protected species mitigation, including for dormice; • Details of the desired conditions of features (present and to be created) at the

site; • Details of scheduling and timings of activities; • Details of short and long-term management, monitoring and maintenance of new

and existing landscape, environmental and ecological features at the site, to deliver and maintain the desired condition;

• Details of management and maintenance responsibilities • Details of the method to review and update plans (informed by monitoring) at

specific intervals as agreed The LEMP shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. It is likely the proposal will require a European Protected Species (dormouse) licence and we envisage that the agreed LEMP will comprise part of the licence application.


Otters – Condition 1 We note that evidence of otter was found on the Horsecroft Reen, in the centre of the site. We advise the ES sets out measures to be put in place to ensure that otters can continue to move along the reen network, i.e. details of crossing points. This information can be provided post determination, secured through condition of a document such as a CEMP. We note the development will observe stand-off distances of 12.5m and 7m from the main reens and field ditches as appropriate, and that there will be no nocturnal working/lighting. We are likely to advise that these measures are secured through appropriately worded condition, likely to be in an overarching document such as a CEMP. Water Voles – Condition 4 We note that evidence of water voles was found immediately to the west of the site, in the Broadway Reen, and although no evidence of the species was found within the site, the reens are inter-connected. The reens that may be affected by the works (for example, installation of access tracks or cables crossings) should be the subject to pre-commencement species surveys. We consider that this can be secured through appropriately worded pre-commencement condition as follows: No development with the potential to impact on water vole, shall commence until a pre-construction species survey has been carried out for the development. If the survey confirms the presence of water vole the results of the survey together with proposed mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Ecology and Nature Conservation Summary There are six matters that require further information or assessment (i.e. Requirement 1) in the ES to demonstrate proposal is acceptable in terms of its likely significant effects on the SSSI. At this stage, we consider the three other matters can be secured by condition based on the information submitted so far. We do not consider there is sufficient information provided regarding the eel features of the Severn Estuary for HRA purposes. Further information and/or assessment in the ES is required for Bats and GCN interests (i.e. Requirement 2). We consider that mitigation can be secured to address concerns regarding dormice, otter and water vole. However, we recommend this information is submitted in your final ES if practical. This advice is provided in context of national planning policy (PPW10), specifically: paragraph 3.32 which refers to the key features of the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) approach which can contribute to improving the resilience of ecosystems and ecological networks, i.e. the SSSI and its reen and ditch network; and


paragraph 6.4.17 which sets the policy position where there is a presumption against development likely to damage a SSSI. We also wish to highlight the recent Chief Planning Officer letter from Welsh Government on Securing Biodiversity Enhancements. This directs that where biodiversity enhancement is not proposed as part of an application, significant weight will be given to its absence, and unless other significant material considerations indicate otherwise it will be necessary to refuse permission. Ornithology We note the ES provides assessment on Ornithology interests under a separate and standalone chapter. However, this chapter is missing from your contents page. We do not consider the ES has demonstrated that there will not be a significant effect on the interests of bird species as a result of the proposal. We advise that further information is provided before we can assess the proposal’s impacts. We consider the following elements are inadequate: Survey and Methodology – Requirement 3: further information required Further information is required to clarify and, if necessary, justify the following points regarding survey effort:

1) Clarification on why the nocturnal wintering bird surveys did not have the same survey

window as the diurnal wintering bird surveys.

2) Appendix 12.1 states the site was spilt in three, with each sector being counted on a different evening, but it’s not clear how the results account for this. For example, birds may have been using a different part of the site to that being surveyed.

3) There is a disparity in the buffer zones reported under chapter 12 (12.5.1) stating 500m, to those in the relevant Appendices which state 250m. We seek clarity as to which buffer was used.

4) Appendix 12.2: Breeding Bird Survey (breeding season and vantage point surveys) - the dawn and dusk times absent from appendix two, these should be provided.

5) The timings of the breeding bird surveys mean that some early nesting lapwing may have been missed.

6) The results for several of the surveys are noted as being incomplete at the time of writing. These should be made available at final submission. Depending on the results, we may have new concerns with this information.

https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-11/securing-biodiversity-enhancements.pdf


ES Assessment – Requirement 3: further information required Notwithstanding our concerns above, we have reviewed the ES assessment on Ornithology. We have concerns with following elements of the assessment: 1) We consider further assessment, or acceptable justification, is provided regarding

Greater white-fronted goose (12.7.19). We question why this species has been scoped-out of the assessment at such an early stage. The species is irregular in its occurrence, but that is in part due to its declining population. The ES should assess this species given its presence is over the 1% threshold. We note that Gadwall has been screened in, but occurred at a similar frequency.

2) Generally, the way the results are presented in the appendices makes them difficult to interrogate. We strongly advise they are presented in a clearer table with the results from each survey visit clearly displayed for each species. This makes it difficult to ascertain how representative the mean counts under 12.7.16 to 12.7.32. The “worst case” scenario should also be presented, i.e. %SPA based on the peak count not the mean; surveys represent a snapshot. This would be in line with the precautionary principal. Currently, the way the results are presented, we are unable to robustly assess whether the assessment is appropriate.

3) It would also appear from the results that there is a possibility of functional linkage between the application site and the SPA, however no assessment has been made of this. We consider this should be assessed to ensure there is sufficient evidence to inform the Habitat Regulations Assessment.

4) The assessment also concentrates on species using the site but makes no mention of visual disturbance from the turbines on the SPA. This chapter should address this point and determine whether an assessment is required.

Risk Collision – Requirement 3: further information required We note Collision Risk modelling was done under three avoidance scenarios: 95%, 98% and 99%. The ES (12.9.13) states that a precautionary approach has been taken, yet the results for the 98% not 95% scenario have been presented. The 95% would be more in line with the precautionary principal. These figures should also be presented in relation to the life time of the scheme. Habitat Regulations Assessment – SPA features Based on the information in your draft submission, we cannot rule out a significant effect on the features of Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). The above concerns regarding survey methodology and assessment need to be addressed before we can advise the information can be used to inform an Appropriate Assessment.


Flood Risk and Drainage The site lies entirely within the Caldicot and Wentlooge Levels Drainage District. Drainage districts are at risk from various sources of flooding. In this case, the management of water levels in the reens, by the Internal Drainage District (IDD) is an important part of managing flood risk in the district. The IDD area is also sensitive to increased surface water run-off, silt deposition and watercourse and soil erosion. The on-going management of the IDD plays an important part in maintaining the SSSI, therefore some issues are set out under advice for Gwent Levels SSSI.

We note the ES (13.4.3) states we have been consulted on a similar and approved proposal in Llanwern, and that those principles have informed this assessment. However, the proposal is different, specifically the proposed wind turbines and their effect on the environment. The ES and supporting FCA require further information to demonstrate that flood risk and drainage issues can be properly assessed and shown to have no significant effects. We consider at this stage surface water drainage matters can be secured through planning condition 5. We therefore advise that the following matters are addressed: Requirement 4: Water level management Construction and dewatering – Requirement 4: further information required The submission provides no details on turbines installation and what methods will be used for construction, especially the foundations and excavations. We advise that excavation depths are required, as groundwater levels are likely to be high in the local area with a limited vadose zone thickness, i.e. approximately less than a metre before the water table is encountered. If excavation is required, the ES should state what the likely excavation invert level will be and what provisions would be required for dewatering the excavations. The nature of dewatering, given the likely high groundwater levels, has the potential to impart a sizeable area of drawdown influence which could dewater reens or ditches some considerable distance away from the foundation location. The ES should detail what measures are available to address this, as the proposed turbine locations and foundations are sited approximately 0.5km from each other (ES Volume 2 Figures). The type of foundations adopted for the turbines may impart some degree of compressibility and/or heave on the fields. This may affect the operational performance of reens or ditches through ground swell affecting the reen bed height resulting in adverse effects on levels and flow direction. The ES should consider and assess the significance of this, providing mitigation measures if appropriate.


Requirement 5: Tidal Flood Risk Acceptability of flooding consequences – Requirement 5: further information is required The site lies entirely within zone C1 as defined by the Development Advice Maps referred to in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15). A flood consequences assessment (FCA) has been prepared which supports Chapter 13 of the ES. We agree the proposal could be classed as ‘less vulnerable development’. Therefore section 6 of TAN15 requires the planning authority to determine whether the development at this location is justified. We refer you to the tests set out in section 6.2 of TAN15. If the planning authority considers the proposal meets the tests set out in criteria (i) to (iii), then the final test (iv) is for you to demonstrate through the submission of an FCA that the potential consequences of flooding can be managed to an acceptable level. The FCA has not fully assessed the consequences of flooding against TAN15 criteria and we require further information before we can advise the planning authority on the consequences of flooding under all predicted flood events. The FCA does not contain an assessment of flooding consequences during a 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability tidal event in 2059. The FCA has provided a predicted flood level during the 0.5% (1 in 200 year) annual probability tidal event in 2059 of 5.09m AOD. It should be noted that in Figure 20 of the FCA, the sea level rise for 2085 – 2059 should be calculated using 11.5mm and not 8mm, giving a level of 5.00m AOD. However, as the figure used by the FCA of 5.09mAOD is greater, we are satisfied this is fit to inform the design proposals and assessment of A1.14 criteria. Therefore, based on the assessment the solar panels, associated equipment and battery container units are predicted to be flood free for the 0.5% (1 in 200 year) annual probability tidal event in 2059. We advise this meets criteria in paragraph A1.14 of TAN15. In terms of the acceptability criteria in paragraph A1.15, the FCA has not provided any predicted depths or velocities to assess against the extreme 0.1% tidal event during 2059. The FCA is required to assess the effects of climate change in this event. This has been set out by Welsh Government in a policy clarification letter: Climate Change Allowances for Planning. Therefore, we require the criteria in A1.15 to be assessed in the FCA against the flood risk during a 0.1% tidal event during 2059. We can provide further advice on this assessment and whether it is acceptable when the FCA is complete. Condition 6: Surface Water Drainage We note the FCA Section 6: Drainage and Section 9: Management and Maintenance, which discusses site drainage. Notwithstanding our advice under Requirement 1 (gripped fields), if the proposal can demonstrate there will be no significant effect on the SSSI

https://gov.wales/climate-change-allowances-and-flood-consequence-assessments-cl-03-16


through changes in local hydrology and drainage, we agree that full details of the surface water drainage scheme should be controlled through planning condition, if permission is granted. We note the proposal in Section 9 that states ‘it is important that the drainage is effectively monitored, and that the drainage works effectively avoid causing increased nuisance off site’. At this stage, we recommend the actions set out in the bullet points are included in the surface water management scheme. Protection of Groundwaters Groundwater quality and quantity – Requirement 6: further information required The impacts on groundwater quality and quantity was not a matter scoped into the ES. However, the ES (13.7.1) states that ‘the soil properties and groundwater characteristics improve and manage water better’. We do not consider this has been demonstrated based on information submitted so far. We consider that your submission should provide further details and information to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse effect on groundwaters (. As discussed above, there is likely to be some dewatering required as part of the construction of turbines. If dewatering is a method for preparation of foundation, the submission should demonstrate how will the abstracted groundwater be managed, treated and disposed. If excavation is required, the submission should provide details such as: what time period this would take place, would the excavation for each of the turbine foundations be performed sequentially or at the same time. If at the same time, there is potential to have cumulative drawdown effects that could impact a larger area if dewatering is implemented. Sequential construction of the wind turbine rafts may take longer but would likely have a lower impact on the local water environment. The submission should consider the potential for sub-artesian conditions to be encountered which could pose challenges from a groundwater perspective. We also advise that the submission considers whether the construction and operational stages will have an impact on local private water supplies. Advice on Habitat Regulation Assessment Should the competent authority (Welsh Minister) conclude that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the Severn Estuary, we will advise on the appropriate assessment under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The purpose of the appropriate assessment would be to assess the implications of the proposed development with respect to the conservation objectives of the Severn Estuary.


The conclusions of the appropriate assessment should enable the Welsh Ministers to ascertain whether or not the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. Based on the information submitted so far, we advise there is not sufficient information for the appropriate assessment to be carried out, as advised under both ecology and nature conservation and ornithology. Advice on Watercourse Consenting It should be noted that the Broadway Reen is a designated ‘Main River’ therefore any works within 16 metres may require a Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP) from us. Other ‘ordinary’ watercourses within or adjacent to the site boundary may require Land Drainage Consent from us as the IDD. This includes all watercourse crossings. Other Matters Please note, if further information is prepared to support your final submission, it may be necessary for us to change our advice in line with the new information. Our comments above only relate specifically to matters included on our checklist, Development Planning Advisory Service: Consultation Topics (September 2018), which is published on our website. We have not considered potential effects on other matters and do not rule out the potential for the proposed development to affect other interests. Specifically, we have not considered potential effects on the Historic Landscape. We recommend you seek advice on this matter from the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust. In addition to planning permission, you are advised to ensure all other permits/consents/licences relevant to the development are secured. Please refer to our website for further details. Further advice on the above matters could be provided prior to your planning application being submitted, however there would be a charge for this service. Additional details are available on our website. If you have any queries on the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yn gywir / Yours faithfully James Davies Uwch Gynghorydd - Cynllunio Datblygu / Senior Advisor - Development Planning Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales

https://cdn.naturalresources.wales/media/686847/dpas-consultation-topics-august-2018-eng.pdf?mode=pad&rnd=131909112110000000

http://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/?lang=en

https://naturalresources.wales/guidance-and-advice/business-sectors/planning-and-development/advice-for-developers/our-service-to-developers/?lang=en

Land Near Hawes Lane Coast Road St Brides Wentlooge Newport 26 February 2020 Dear Mr. P. Grubb, PROPOSAL: DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE - SECONDARY

CONSENT FOR PROPOSED RENEWABLE ENERGY HUB SITE: Land Near Hawes Lane, Coast Road, St Brides Wentlooge,

Newport REF NUMBER: PS/20/0007 I refer to your recent request for pre-consultation response in respect of the above. In formulating this response I have had regard to comments obtained from the parties listed below: - Environmental Health - Ecology - Landscape Architect - Waste - Policy Section Outlined below is a preliminary assessment of the proposal, including an indication of the main issues that should be addressed. Please note that the views expressed in this letter represent officer opinion only and cannot be taken to prejudice any formal decision of the Council in respect of any application, on which a more extensive consultation would be carried out which may raise additional issues. In addition, the depth of analysis provided corresponds with the scope of information made available to officers. Relevant Site History PN/18/0213- Scoping Opinion for Proposed Solar Farm and Wind turbine Development (49.9MW) accompanied by Battery Storage Units, Substation Buildings and Associated Plan- Scoping information set out in response **There is planning history across different sections of the large plan area covering the relevant farms and golf clubhouse but none that would be relevant to the DNS application

Ask

for/Gofynnwch

am

Morgan Howell Regeneration, Investment and Housing Adfywio, Buddsoddi a Thai

Our Ref/Ein Cyf PS/20/0007 Your Ref/Eich

Cyf

Tel/Ffôn Direct Dial/Rhif

Union

DX E-Mail/E-Bost

Civic Centre/Canolfan Ddinesig Newport/Casnewydd

South Wales/De Cymru NP20 4UR

Savills (UK) Ltd York House, Blackbrook Business Park, Taunton, TA1 2PX

www.savills.co.uk

Site Constraints / Designations

Undeveloped Coastal Zone Special Landscape Area- Wentlooge levels Green Wedge- Newport and Cardiff Countryside (outside urban boundary or village settlements) Archaeological Sensitive area Agricultural land C1 Flood Zone Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest- Gwent Levels A Site of Special Scientific Interest- Gwent Levels (SSSI) Close proximity to residential dwellings

Relevant Policy Context and material considerations National Planning Policy- Planning Policy Wales (Edition 10, 2018) National planning policy in the form of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 10, 2018) (PPW) is of relevance to the determination of this application. The primary objective of PPW is to ensure that the planning system contributes towards the delivery of sustainable development and improves the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales National Planning policy is clear that a Globally Responsible Wales is promoted by reducing our carbon footprint through measures such as the promotion of renewable energy over carbon-emitting sources. The benefits of renewable and low carbon energy, as part of the overall commitment to tackle climate change and increase energy security, is of paramount importance. The policy notes that the planning system should optimise energy storage and maximise renewable and low carbon energy generation. The Welsh Government has set targets for the generation of renewable energy: for Wales to generate 70% of its electricity consumption from renewable energy

by 2030; for one Gigawatt of renewable electricity capacity in Wales to be locally owned by 2030;

and for new renewable energy projects to have at least an element of local ownership by 2020. PPW notes that Planning authorities should give significant weight to the Welsh Government’s targets to increase renewable and low carbon energy generation, as part of the overall approach to tackling climate change and increasing energy security. In circumstances where protected landscape, biodiversity and historical designations and buildings are considered in the decision making process, only the direct irreversible impacts on statutorily protected sites and buildings and their settings (where appropriate) should be considered. In all cases, considerable weight should be attached to the need to produce more energy from renewable and low carbon sources, in order for Wales to meet its carbon and renewable targets. Planning authorities should also identify and require suitable ways to avoid, mitigate or compensate adverse impacts of renewable and low carbon energy development. The construction, operation, decommissioning, remediation and aftercare of proposals should take into account:

the need to minimise impacts on local communities, such as from noise and air pollution, to safeguard quality of life for existing and future generations;

the impact on the natural and historic environment; cumulative impact; the capacity of, and effects on the transportation network; grid connection issues where renewable (electricity) energy developments are proposed;

and

the impacts of climate change on the location, design, build and operation of renewable and low carbon energy development.

It is clear that PPW notes that the planning system has an active role to help ensure the delivery of these targets, in terms of new renewable energy generating capacity and the promotion of energy efficiency measures in buildings. Therefore, it is considered that planning authorities should facilitate all forms of renewable and low carbon energy development. In doing so, planning authorities should seek to ensure their area’s full potential for renewable and low carbon energy generation is maximised and renewable energy targets are achieved. It is also worth noting in this instance that PPW states that certain other forms of development may be appropriate in the Green Belt or green wedge provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These include renewable and low carbon energy generation. Welsh National Marine Plan: National marine planning policy in the form of the Welsh National Marine Plan (2019) (WNMP) is of relevance to the determination of this application. The primary objective of WNMP is to ensure that the planning system contributes towards the delivery of sustainable development and contributes to the Wales well-being goals. The following chapters and sections are of particular relevance in the assessment of this planning application:

Achieving a sustainable marine economy – o Contribute to a thriving Welsh economy by encouraging economically productive

activities and profitable and sustainable businesses that create long term employment at all skill levels.

o Provide space to support existing and future economic activity through managing multiple uses, encouraging the coexistence of compatible activities, the mitigation of conflicts between users and, where possible, by reducing the displacement of existing activities.

o Recognise the significant value of coastal tourism and recreation to the Welsh economy and well-being and ensure such activity and potential for future growth are appropriately safeguarded.

Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society o Contribute to supporting the development of vibrant, more equitable, culturally

and linguistically distinct, cohesive and resilient coastal communities. o Support enjoyment and stewardship of our coasts and seas and their resources

by encouraging equitable and safe access to a resilient marine environment, whilst protecting and promoting valuable landscapes, seascapes and historic assets.

o Improve understanding and enable action supporting climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Living within environmental limits o Support the achievement and maintenance of Good Environmental Status

(GES) and Good Ecological Status (GeS). o Protect, conserve, restore and enhance marine biodiversity to halt and reverse

its decline including supporting the development and functioning of a well-managed and ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and resilient populations of representative, rare and vulnerable species.

o Maintain and enhance the resilience of marine ecosystems and the benefits they provide in order to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Promoting Good Governance o Support proportionate, consistent and integrated decision making through

implementing forward-looking policies as part of a plan-led, precautionary, risk-based and adaptive approach to managing Welsh seas.

Using Sound Science Responsibly o Develop a shared, accessible marine evidence base to support use of sound

evidence and provide a mechanism for the unique characteristics and opportunities of the Welsh Marine Area to be better understood.

Technical Advice Notes:

The Welsh Government has provided additional guidance in the form of Technical Advice Notes. The following are of relevance:

Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning Technical advice Note 8: renewable energy Technical Advice Note 11 – Noise (1997) Technical Advice Note 12 – Design (2016) Technical Advice Note 14 – Coastal Planning Technical Advice Note 15 – Development and Flood risk Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport

Local Planning Policy

Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (Adopted January 2015)

There are a number of policies relevant to the proposed development, including:

SP1 (Sustainability)

SP3 (Flood Risk)

SP4 (Water Resources)

SP5 (Countryside)

SP7 (Green Wedge)

SP8 (Special Landscape Area)

SP9 (Conservation of the Natural and Built Environment)

GP1 (General Development Principle – Climate Change)

GP2 (General Development Principle -General Amenity)

GP3 (General Development Principle -Service Infrastructure)

GP4 (General Development Principle -Highways and Accessibility)

GP5 (General Development Principle – Natural Environment)

GP6 (General Development Principle -Quality of Design)

GP7 (General Development Principle – Environmental Protection and Public Health)

CE4 (Historic Landscapes, Parks, Gardens and Battlefields)

CE6 (Archaeology)

CE9 (Coastal Zones)

CE10 (Renewable Energy)

T2 (Heavy Commercial Vehicle Movements)

T5 (Walking and Cycling)

T7 (Public Right of Way and New Development)

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance

Archaeology and Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (SPG)

Wildlife and Development (SPG)

Trees, Woodlands, Hedgerows and Development Sites (SPG)

Air Quality (SPG)

Draft Sustainable Travel (SPG)

https://gov.wales/technical-advice-note-tan-8-renewable-energy

Officer Assessment Principle of Development The proposal will result in the creation of renewable energy of up to 125MW. It is also considered to be a diversification to a rural economy and is therefore considered to be a sustainable development in these terms. However, the site is greenfield and the development will result in the urbanisation of agricultural land and in this sense does not result in the sustainable development of land. The temporary nature of the scheme will mean that this take up of land is temporary but its impact will affect a generation which is significant. Policy CE10: Renewable energy encourages the development of such schemes as long as they do not have any over-riding environmental or amenity issues. It is clear that the proposal will deliver a high level of renewable energy which is welcomed. The development is located in countryside as well the greenwedge and therefore the use must be appropriate for this location. Policy CE10 notes that some renewable energy schemes may be more appropriately located outside the defined settlement boundary and therefore the use could be considered appropriate. However, the proposal should also respect the landscape character and biodiversity and is appropriate in scale and design. These are considered further in the following sections. Planning Policy Wales does indicate inappropriate and appropriate development within the green wedge and sets out in para 3.73:- 3.73 Certain other forms of development may be appropriate in the Green Belt or green wedge provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These are:

mineral extraction; renewable and low carbon energy generation; engineering operations; and local transport infrastructure.

Policy CE10 also requests that a sequential type assessment is undertaken in order to satisfy the policy in terms of the appropriateness of the chosen location of the scheme. The policy is clear that there is the potential for such schemes to be placed within the urban environment on brownfield land. The sequential assessment must therefore justify the chosen location beyond the settlement boundary which is permissible on the basis of a justified approach. A possible need to consider alternative sites also stems primarily f r o m the r e q u i r e m e n t s u nder EIA Regulations, which state "An outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for this choice taking into account the environmental effects" should be included in an Environmental Statement. Paragraph 83 of Welsh Office Circular 11/99 which accompanies the Regulations notes that: "Although the Directive and the regulations do not expressly require the developer to study alternatives, the nature of certain developments and their location may make the consideration of alternatives a material consideration. A sequential type assessment is considered relevant in this case due to three factors.

1. In order to satisfy policy CE10, where the assessment proves the suitability of its location compared to brownfield land.

2. In order to satisfy policy CE9, criterion i) where development is required to be on the coast to meet an exceptional need which cannot be reasonably accommodated elsewhere; and

3. In order to satisfy of TAN 15, where development should be directed away from flood risk areas and their location within a flood risk zone is justified. And to satisfy either tests i) of section 6 of the TAN, i.e. to prove that the development is necessary to assist a regeneration initiative or strategy for the local authority.

As such, it is considered that there is potential for the development to be contrary to local policy and EIA regulations unless appropriate information is provided to justify the location of the site over and

above alternative locations that could be used that are less sensitive greenfield protected landscapes outside of C flood zones or on previously developed land. Flooding Policies SP3- Flood Risk, GP1- Climate Change and GP7- Environmental protection and Public Health of the Council’s Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026 are of relevance insofar as it relates to ensuring vulnerable development is directed away from flood zones and development will only be permitted in flood zones where the flooding risk is mitigated to an acceptable level. Policy GP1 indicates that proposals should be designed to withstand the predicted changes in local climate and to reduce the risk of flooding on a site and elsewhere by demonstrating, where appropriate, that the risks and consequences of flooding can be managed. GP7 states that development will not be permitted, which would cause unacceptable harm to human health because of flooding. TAN 15 was adopted in July 2004 and provides advice on matters relating to development and flooding. The overarching aim of the precautionary framework outlined in TAN 15 is to direct new development away from those areas which are at risk of flooding. However, where development has to be considered in high risk areas (Zone C), only those developments which can be justified on the basis of the tests outlined in Section 6 and 7 can be located in such areas. The proposal is located within a C1 flood zone but the scheme would be considered a ‘less vulnerable development. The category of ‘less vulnerable development’ is used to describe development where the ability of occupants to decide on whether they wish to accept such risks is greater than that in the highly vulnerable category (e.g residential development, public buildings such as schools or hospitals) In zone C the tests outlined in sections 6 and 7 of TAN15 would have to be applied. All new development (other than highly vulnerable) should only be permitted within zones C1 and C2 if determined by the planning authority to be justified in that location. Development, including transport infrastructure, will only be justified if it can be demonstrated that:-

i. Its location in zone C is necessary to assist, or be part of, a local authority regeneration initiative or a local authority strategy required to sustain an existing settlement1; or, ii Its location in zone C is necessary to contribute to key employment objectives supported by the local authority, and other key partners, to sustain an existing settlement or region;

and,

iii It concurs with the aims of PPW and meets the definition of previously developed land (PPW fig 2.1); and, iv The potential consequences of a flooding event for the particular type of development have been considered, and in terms of the criteria contained in sections 5 and 7 and appendix 1 of TAN15 found to be acceptable.

As indicated in the Council’s response to the EIA scoping report, the proposed development would not, in the Council’s view, comply with i, ii or ii of the above mentioned guidance, even if a Flood Consequence Assessment was submitted to indicate that the risk of flooding could be managed on site and would not create flooding elsewhere. As such, the Council would suggest that justification would also need to be provided in the submitted proposals to indicate why the development should be approved in this instance despite not complying with the clear requirements set out within TAN15. I would suggest that the consideration of alternative sites (mentioned above) might go some way to demonstrating that this is the only viable or available site to provide a renewable energy scheme of this scale. Landscape and Visual Impact

Policies SP7 (Green Wedge) SP8- Special Landscape Areas, SP9- Conservation of the Natural, Historic and Built Environment, GP1- Climate Change, GP2- General Amenity, GP6- Quality of Design, CE3- Environmental Spaces and Corridors of the Adopted LDP 2011-2026, seek to ensure that the appropriate development proposals are of a good quality of design and reflect the scale and context of the locality. Schemes should also be sensitively designed to mitigate any adverse impact upon the protected built environment (listed buildings and conservation areas) and wider landscape features. The whole development is located within the Wentlooge Special Landscape Area (SLA) which was designated to ensure proposals contribute positively to the area through high quality design, materials and management schemes. The Wentlooge Levels SLA was designated for the following reasons: Part of an extensive tract of low lying, reclaimed marsh and wetlands that extends from Cardiff to Chepstow. Rarely rising above 10 metres AOD they form a large, open expanse of primarily pastoral agricultural land. Having been subject to reclamation work since Roman times, a key landscape feature is the distinctive pattern of drainage ditches or “reens”. Their pattern reflects the differing periods of reclamation. Thus the fields on the western side of the area are more rectangular in pattern, and enclosed by cut hedges or lined with willows. To the east the pattern in more sinuous and less defined by vegetation . The pattern of these reens is reflected in the settlement pattern. There are a number of linear settlements, such as Broad Street Common which is a fine example of an unenclosed street common with farmsteads alongside but set back from the road (B4239). Whereas Peterstone Wentlooge and St Brides Wentlooge are more typical nucleated settlements. The area is traversed by the London-Cardiff railway engineered by IK Brunel for the then Great Western Company. This had an enormous effect upon people of the area through the associated economic benefits of its construction. The area beyond the seawall is included, and the inter-tidal zone is both an important wildlife and archaeological resource. The importance of the landscape is reflected not only in its designation as a Site of Special Scientific Interest but also its inclusion on the CCW/Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales. The characteristics of the area are clear and although the development has respected the field boundaries and patterns it would still result in an urbanisation of what are currently flat open fields, which when developed over a large area of land could be considered to have a detrimental impact to the wider visual amenities of the landscape area. The Landscape Assessment requested via the Scoping report will provide an assessment of that impact and whether the development can be justified in that regard. The landscape architect at this stage indicates the following should be submitted with the application: - Levels information [existing and proposed].

Professional tree survey to BS5837 resulting in a clear constraints plan and protection plan, to include change in levels, surfacing, visibility splay requirements, impacts from service runs, operational or construction phase access/storage etc. Professional landscape architect input to:

- undertake a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - identify site assets and constraints - provide a Green Infrastructure Plan to show how the proposals will link to and

enhance existing green infrastructure within the site and adjoining the site.

- clearly demonstrated input to the layout of the proposals - provision of landscape plans covering hard and soft landscape elements - maintenance plan for five years to cover new planting until established - management plan for ten years for existing vegetation and new planting beyond

establishment phase - detail a hard and soft landscape plan (including condition and management of

existing

Trees and hedgerows). Planting, boundary and surface treatment should be appropriate to conserving the strong landscape character.

Proposals for new tree and hedgerow planting, and wildflower seeding should be discussed with NCC Biodiversity to ensure they are appropriate for the site location given the SSSI designation.

At this stage, and without detailed information to comment on, it is not possible for the Council to comment further and the visual assessment of the proposals would be carried out when the application is submitted with detailed information. Archaeology and Heritage The Gwent levels are designated as a landscape of outstanding historic interest. This is a non-statutory designation which does not preclude development but one which should be used when determining a planning application. This development of national significance will clearly have a larger than local impact on the historic environment and therefore an Assessment of the Significance of the impact of Development on Historic Landscape (ASIDOHL2) will be required. In addition, the site is also located within the Archaeologically Sensitive Area of the Caldicot Levels which requires an archaeological impact assessment This has been requested as part of the Scoping opinion for the Environmental Impact Assessment and should be addressed with the formal application once submitted. It is advised that the applicant contact Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust for detailed comments concerning these factors. Comments on the impact on the historic environment including the sites impact on Listed Buildings can be provided at the application stage by the Councils Conservation Officer. Highway safety and Transport issues Policies GP2- Quality of design, GP4- Highways and Accessibility of the Adopted LDP and the Adopted Parking Standards SPG and TAN18- Transport would be relevant in respect of highways and parking implications of the scheme. There are two aspects of the scheme, the construction and decommissioning period the scheme and the operational phase of the scheme, would have the potential to impact upon the highway network and surrounding area. Construction Phase and decommissioning period Experience of small scale solar farm proposals has shown that the construction phase of the development would be the principal area of interest to the Highways Authority, especially given the size and number of construction vehicles that would be visiting the site and travelling along the rural lanes to and from the site. The submissions with the application should clearly indicate the construction and decommission phases traffic movement to and from the site and how the wider impacts of this period would be mitigated as much as possible. This could be by deliveries being restricted to certain hours to avoid peak traffic times as well as a preferred haulage route to the site. It is assumed that the potential traffic impact associated with the construction of this development would be limited to an increase in the number of vehicles using the roads around the site for a a temporary construction period, but until this information is provided to the Council we are not able to comment much further on this aspect of the proposal. Operational Phase The operational phase of a solar farm would generally have far less traffic to and from the site but again this would have to be detailed in the submitted scheme and the Council would consider any potential impacts and issues with the proposed operational traffic to and from the site.

Ecology and ground water contamination The site is located within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and has the potential to impact upon the River Usk Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar designations as well as European Protected Species (EPS). The assessment should consider the habitats present, the potential for protected species to be present and assessment of any potential impacts of the development on the habitats and species, both present on site and within the zone of influence. The particular interest lies within the reen system and the assemblages of aquatic plants and animals that live within the reens and ditches. Specific issues arise during construction and de-commissioning, including the mobilisation of sediment and increased risk of pollutants affecting water quality. The operational phase will potentially cause issues to arise from shading or restrictions on reen maintenance. Other issues arise from impacts of the development (including de-commissioning and operational phases) on the Severn Estuary SPA / SAC / SSSI. The Council have also responded within the scoping report to indicate the following surveys are provided: -

i. Bat surveys-impacts from solar farm and wind turbine need to be assessed/surveyed, over several seasons to capture full understanding of the potential impacts;

ii. Bird surveys-wintering and breeding-again this needs to consider the potential impacts from the solar farm and the wind turbines;

iii. Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate surveys-at least one season if surveying to assess potential impacts upon both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. This would need to be agreed with relevant statutory authorities;

iv. Badger survey; v. Water vole survey; vi. Phase 1 survey; vii. Reptile survey;

Any impact of trees or hedgerows should be limited and justified and therefore there is a requirement to meet the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) document Wildlife and Development and the draft SPG (post consultation) on Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows and Development Sites. Detailed comments will be provided by the Councils Ecologist and National Resource Wales following submission of the application and appropriate surveys to determine the acceptability of the scheme in this regard. It is difficult for the LPA to provide any detailed comments at this stage but it there is potential for significant impact from the proposed development and must be addressed thoroughly in any EIA submission. Impact on residential amenity The nearest residential properties to the site relate to the sporadic dwellings long the rural lanes that surround the application site. The impacts of the proposed development would come from the physical impacts of the operational development on the surrounding properties and its use. In terms of impact of the operational development, the only element of the scheme that is likely to have some impacts would be the wind turbines, given the scale and the proximity to any residential dwelling. However, it is considered that appropriate siting of the turbines would remove any concern in that regard and, therefore, the main concern from the proposed development is the noise and disturbance to the nearest residents. The likely noise sources would be from the proposed turbines (operational), glint and glare issues from the solar panels and the impacts of traffic, noise, dust etc during construction/decommissioning phases.

The Councils Environmental Health department have indicated that these matters should be addressed with any submission by including further information assessing the noise impact of the external noise sources on the residential dwellings/sensitive receptors. An assessment of potential glint and glare from panels and supporting structures should also be submitted, which will enable identification of any mitigation measures required in order to ensure there is no detrimental impact on nearby sensitive receptors. Also a Construction Envionmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be provided upfront. Again, until this detail has been submitted, the Council would reserve the right to comment any further and would await for the formal submission before providing any conclusions on the acceptability of the scheme in this regard. Agricultural land Classification Agricultural Land Classification Map layers available to the Council indicate that the site is Grade 4, but this could vary across the whole areas of the 164ha. The best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be protected from irreversible development, save where overriding need can be demonstrated. It should be noted that although the Council information indicates the land is of poor agricultural quality, the application should include detailed surveys of the land to demonstrate that the development would not result in the loss of good quality agricultural land. SAB application From 7th January 2019 developments (whether permitted development or not) with a construction area of 100square metres or more or more than 1 dwelling*, will require the prior approval of the Sustainable Drainage Approving Body (SAB) to a system of sustainable drainage to serve the project. This is mandatory and projects cannot lawfully commence without such approval. The process of obtaining SAB approval is separate to the planning application process. The granting of planning permission does not convey approval to sustainable urban drainage systems and a separate application to the SAB will be required. Applicants for projects that meet or exceed the above thresholds are advised to obtain early professional drainage advice in relation to this matter. *exemptions include construction areas less than 100 sqm, existing sites with planning permission prior to 7th January 2019; sites for which a valid planning application has been received by 7th January 2019; and sites for which outline permission has been granted by 7th January 2019 and an associated reserved matters submission is made by 7th January 2020. Conclusion While the Council will endeavour to keep pre-application enquiries confidential you should be aware that if for any reason any request for submitted information to remain confidential is subsequently found to be inadequate by the Information Commissioner, following any request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Council will not be held responsible. E-planning We strongly encourage you to submit your applications to the planning department online via the ‘Planning Portal’ (www.planningportal.gov.uk). This will save money on printing costs and travelling/postage together with speed up the processing of your submission. You can attach drawings and supporting documents, including a professional quality site location plan; downloading the appropriate Ordnance Survey map and calculate the fees as part of submitting your application online. Please contact myself to discuss any of the above further.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/

Yours sincerely Morgan Howell

Morgan Howell

consultation report - gov.uk...consultation report wentlooge farmers’ renewable energy hub...

Documents