this west cumbria water supplies project - … cumbria water...7) planning consent was granted for...

THIS

West Cumbria Water Supplies Project - Thirlmere Transfer

Proposed Realignment of the Approved Network Main from Cockermouth to Broughton Cross

United Utilities

Environmental Statement

Volume 6 Part 1

Non-Technical Summary

Revision | 0

April 2017

Environ ment al Im pact Ass essm entUnited Utiliti es

West Cumbria Water Supplies Project – ThirlmereTransferEnvironmental Statement Volume 6 Part 1Non-Technical Summary

West Cumbria Water Supplies Project - Thirlmere Transfer

Project no: B2707325Document title: West Cumbria Water Supplies Project – Thirlmere Transfer

Environmental Statement Volume 6 Part 1Non-Technical Summary

Revision: Revision 0Date: April 2017Client name: United Utilities plc

Jacobs U.K. Limited

5 First StreetManchester M15 4GUUnited KingdomT +44 (0)161 235 6000F +44 (0)161 235 6001www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2017 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in wholeor in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract

between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.


ContentsIntroduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11.

1.1 Purpose of this Report ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11.2 Background to the Approved Scheme .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11.3 The April 2017 Application...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

The Approved Scheme and the April 2017 Application ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................42.2.1 The Approved Scheme................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................42.2 Scheme Description and Consideration of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Brigham Realignment ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................63.Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................94.

4.1 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................94.2 Interaction of Effects ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

Environmental Mitigation........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 115.5.1 Approach to Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Obtaining Further Information ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 136.


Page | 1

Introduction1.1.1 Purpose of this Report

1) The following report is a Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of an Environmental Statement (ES) that has beenprepared to support a planning application (the April 2017 Application) associated with the approved West CumbriaWater Supplies Project – Thirlmere Transfer (the Approved Scheme). The April 2017 Application is in AllerdaleBorough and relates to a realignment of the approved Cockermouth to Broughton Cross section of Network Mainwhich is centred on the village of Brigham (the Proposed Brigham Realignment).

2) A NTS summarises the key features of a proposed development and its likely significant environmental effects.This NTS:

· Briefly introduces the Approved Scheme and the April 2017 Application (Section 1)

· Describes the Approved Scheme in more detail (Section 2)

· Explains the nature and scope of the April 2017 Application and how it relates to the Approved Scheme(Section 2)

· Describes why a new planning application is required along this section of pipeline, and the alignment optionsthat were considered (Section 2)

· Describes the likely significant environmental effects of the April 2017 Application, including the scope of datagathering and consultations required to identify and assess the main effects on the environment, and themethodology used to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Section 3)

· Examines the cumulative environmental effects of the April 2017 Application with other proposed developmentsin the West Cumbria area, and also reviews potential interacting effects at particular locations (Section 4)

· Outlines the measures to prevent, reduce or offset significant adverse environmental effects (Section 5)

· Provides details of where to obtain further information and submit comments about the proposals (Section 6).

1.2 Background to the Approved Scheme

3) United Utilities has a statutory duty to provide water supplies in the North West region, including West Cumbria.Much of West Cumbria’s water supply is currently taken from Ennerdale Water. The Environment Agencyproposes to revoke United Utilities’ licence to abstract water from Ennerdale Water on environmental grounds.United Utilities therefore needs to provide an alternative water source for West Cumbria to enable the currentEnnerdale Water abstraction licence to be revoked by 2022. The proposals also afford the opportunity to build amodern and more resilient network in this part of Cumbria. These are the main reasons for United Utilitiespromoting the project.

4) The water supplies scheme, known as the West Cumbria Water Supplies Project – Thirlmere Transfer, comprisesvarious sections of pipeline and associated water treatment and supply infrastructure which collectively extend overa distance of approximately 100 kilometres (km) from Thirlmere Reservoir in the Lake District National Park,through the north-western corner of the National Park and into the adjacent boroughs of Allerdale and Copeland.The geographical and technical details of the project are given in Section 2 of this NTS.

5) In January 2016 United Utilities submitted to the Lake District National Park Authority, Copeland Borough Counciland Allerdale Borough Council (the Three Planning Authorities) detailed planning applications (the January 2016Applications) to build and operate the West Cumbria Water Supplies Project.

6) In March 2016 further submissions in support of the January 2016 Applications were presented to the ThreePlanning Authorities, including an ES (the March 2016 ES) and amended Planning, Design and AccessStatements. Following validation of the January 2016 Applications, the Three Planning Authorities carried outextensive consultations with statutory bodies, non-statutory consultees and local people. These consultationsgave rise to suggested amendments to the January 2016 Applications. At the same time, United Utilities and itscontractors reviewed the January 2016 Applications and concluded that there were opportunities to enhance the

scheme design and improve construction efficiency at certain locations. United Utilities therefore submitted aseries of amendments to the January 2016 Applications which related to changes to the scheme design andconstruction techniques. Additionally, United Utilities submitted technical responses arising from the planningapplication consultation process.

7) Planning consent was granted for the West Cumbria Water Supplies Project by the Lake District National ParkAuthority, Allerdale Borough Council and Copeland Borough Council on 14 December 2016 (respectively,reference 7/2016/2027), 28 November 2016 (reference 2/2016/0045) and 13 December 2016 (reference4/16/2108/0F1) and together these permissions form the Approved Scheme. The location and extent of theApproved Scheme within Allerdale Borough is shown in Figure 1.

8) Further to securing planning consent towards the end of 2016, United Utilities submitted five further planningapplications to Allerdale Borough Council in January 2017 (the January 2017 Applications). These applicationsincluded additions and changes to the Approved Scheme which were necessary to enhance the design andbuildability of the project at particular locations. The five applications covered, for example: design revisions tothe Water Treatment Works (WTW) at Williamsgate; temporary construction accesses serving the WTW toQuarry Hill leg of the approved Network Main; an alternative construction technique to cross the River Ellen, alsoon the Quarry Hill leg; a new contractors’ compound off the A66 near Cockermouth; and realignment ofapproximately 1 km of the Summergrove leg of the Network Main and a new laydown area off the A5086 nearPardshaw.

1.3 The April 2017 Application

9) Further to securing planning consent for the Approved Scheme, and submission of the January 2017Applications, United Utilities wishes to submit a further application for a location in Allerdale Borough. Theapplication is not seeking to amend the planning consent for the Approved Scheme. Instead, the applicationforms a separate, free-standing planning submission relating to realignment of the Network Main in the Brighamarea. The proposed scheme is just under 3 km long and occupies an area of some 13.5 hectares (ha). Withinthe West Cumbria Water Supplies Project it carries the unique identification (UID) reference number 37.

10) The planning application boundary for the April 2017 Application is presented in Figure 2. The term ProposedBrigham Realignment is used in the NTS when referring to the proposed works which are the subject of the April2017 Application.


Page | 2

Figure 1: The extent of the Approved Scheme in Allerdale and the location of the April 2017 Application


Page | 3

Figure 2: Location Plan for the April 2017 Application


Page | 4

The Approved Scheme and the April 2017 Application2.2.1 The Approved Scheme

11) The Approved Scheme comprises a new 80 Ml/d water supply project comprising around 100 km of newpipeline infrastructure serving the West Cumbria area. The total area of the Approved Scheme during itsconstruction phase is 405 ha, which includes construction areas and working widths along the pipeline routes.

12) The pipeline elements of the project include a twin 900 millimetre (mm) Raw Water Aqueduct (RWA), singleand twin 500 – 800 mm Network Mains carrying treated water, and 150 mm sludge and foul mains. In additionto the single and twin pipelines the Approved Scheme comprises the following Scheme Components:

· Bridge End Connection: a new connection and ancillary infrastructure constructed between ThirlmereReservoir and the RWA at the site of the existing Bridge End WTW

· Water Treatment Works: an 80 Ml/ day capacity WTW to be constructed within a site extending over anarea of approximately 27 ha

· Service Reservoirs (SRs) and Pumping Station (PS): Two new SRs, one (High Leys) with a PS and asecond (Moota Hill) without PS facilities, occupying areas of some 14.8 ha and 4.8 ha respectively

· Pumping Station: A new PS at Harrot Hill

· Temporary accesses from the local road network to be used during the construction phase only

· Temporary construction compounds and laydown areas to be used during the construction phase only

· Associated apparatus such as valve chambers, washout facilities and line valve kiosks

· Permanent access points from the local road network to serve operational facilities such as the SRs andWTW

· Decommissioning of United Utilities’ existing water supplies assets, and ceasing the current waterabstraction regime.

13) The permanent easement for the pipelines comprises a 7.5 m width either side of the twin pipe sections (RWAand Network Main section from the Proposed WTW to the River Derwent Crossing) and 5 m either side of thesingle pipeline sections on the Network Main. This gives rise to an area of approximately 100 ha for thepermanent operational phase pipeline easements.

14) The total operational area of the Approved Scheme, including pipeline easements, will be some 140 ha.

15) The new water supply infrastructure would link with existing infrastructure, and the wider water supply network,at Quarry Hill, Summergrove SR, Stainburn SR and Kelton Fell SR.

16) Some of the Scheme Components, for example the RWA and the Network Main, are large and complexinfrastructure elements in their own right. Some were therefore further divided into ‘Scheme Sections’ in the ESfor the Approved Scheme. The arrangement of Scheme Components and Scheme Sections across the threeplanning authority areas is summarised in Table 1.

Agricultural land to the south of the proposed pipeline

An example of open-cut trench and pipe laying on United Utilities’ South Egremont Scheme


Page | 5

Table 1: Summary of Scheme Components and Scheme Sections

Scheme Component Scheme Section Planning Authority

Bridge End Connection 1. Bridge End Connection Lake District National Park Authority

Raw Water Aqueduct 2. Raw Water Aqueduct – Bridge End to A66 Slip Road Lake District National Park Authority

3. Raw Water Aqueduct – Keswick Lake District National Park Authority

4. Raw Water Aqueduct – Crosthwaite Roundabout to Castle Inn Lake District National Park Authority

5. Raw Water Aqueduct – Castle Inn to Proposed WTW Lake District National Park Authority

Proposed WTW 6. Proposed Water Treatment Works Allerdale Borough Council

Network Mains 7. Network Main – Water Treatment Works to Quarry Hill Allerdale Borough Council / Lake DistrictNational Park Authority

8. New Service Reservoir (SR) – Moota Hill Allerdale Borough Council

9. Network Main – Water Treatment Works to Harrot Hill Allerdale Borough Council

10. New Pumping Station (PS) – Harrot Hill Allerdale Borough Council

11. Network Main – Harrot Hill to Ullock Allerdale Borough Council

12. Network Main – Ullock to High Leys Service Reservoir and PumpingStation

Copeland Borough Council

13. Network Main – High Leys to Kelton Fell Copeland Borough Council

14. High Leys SR and PS Copeland Borough Council

15. Network Main – High Leys to Summergrove Copeland Borough Council

16. Network Main – Cockermouth to Broughton Cross* Allerdale Borough Council

17. Network Main – Broughton Cross to Stainburn Allerdale Borough Council

18. Network Main – Cockermouth to Southwaite Farm Allerdale Borough Council

19. Network Main – Southwaite Farm to Cornhow Lake District National Park Authority

Ceasing waterabstraction

Crummock Water, Overwater and Chapel House System and EnnerdaleWater

Lake District National Park Authority

Decommissioning ofexisting assets

Cornhow WTW (Scheme Section 19)Ennerdale WTW (Scheme Section 20)Quarry Hill WTW (Scheme Section 7)Existing High Leys SR

Lake District National Park AuthorityLake District National Park AuthorityAllerdale Borough CouncilCopeland Borough Council

* Proposed Brigham Realignment

2.2 Scheme Description and Consideration of Alternatives

17) The Proposed Brigham Realignment comprises approximately 2.9 km of single pipe, 800 mm internal diametertreated water main. There is very little difference in length, fewer than 100 m, between the Approved Schemeand this section of realigned pipeline. The April 2017 Application, if approved, would be delivered inconjunction with the Approved Scheme, rather than being built in isolation. The location of the ProposedBrigham Alignment is presented in Figures 1 and 2.

18) There are limited options to locate the pipeline too far from the approved alignment, because it must link intothe approved Network Main at Cockermouth to the east, and at Broughton Cross to the west. The A66 trunkroad and the River Derwent limit the northerly extent of the Network Main in this area, and the village ofBrigham combined with rising topography to the south limit the potential southerly extent of the pipeline. Inaddition, the grounds of the Grade I listed parish church of St. Bridget’s Church to the north, the proposedhousing development at Kirk Cross Quarry and properties on Low Road create a ‘pinch point’ in the Brighamarea.

19) The proposed realignment of the Approved Scheme in this location has arisen mainly from construction-relatedconstraints. The approved Network Main between Cockermouth and Brigham runs east-west along Low Road,a cul-de-sac lane, over a distance of some 1.3 km. It has been determined that construction within this narrowroad would not only be constrained by the narrow extent of the highway, but that buried utilities also run belowthe lane which would further complicate construction.

20) For these reasons the Proposed Brigham Realignment broadly follows the same corridor and alignment as theApproved Scheme. The main difference between the two is that instead of running along Low Road, theProposed Brigham Realignment, as far as St. Bridget’s Church, passes over agricultural land both to the southand north of Low Road. The Approved Scheme would have required the closure of Low Road along its entirelength between Cockermouth and St. Bridget’s Church, whereas the Proposed Brigham Realignment requires amuch shorter section of works (fewer than 100 m) within or adjacent to this lane.

21) At St. Bridget’s Church, at the junction between Low Road and the lane which descends northwards towardsthe A66, the Proposed Scheme turns north after first crossing the lane from east to west. At this location thereis development land where a proposed housing scheme has outline planning permission. This location is thesite of a former limestone quarry which was subsequently infilled with various waste materials. A wayleavewould be retained within the housing development to enable access to the pipeline in the future, should theneed arise for operational or maintenance reasons

22) The Proposed Scheme passes in front of St. Bridget’s Church, but the planning application boundary does notoverlap the church grounds at any point. Prior to reaching the A66, the Proposed Scheme once again turnswest and heads towards Broughton Cross. Here the pipeline is aligned along and to the south of the A66before traversing Stoney Beck and turning south to cross School Brow before entering Broughton Cross.

23) Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural, with pastures and fields under crop, bounded by hedgerowsand trees, accounting for most (more than 90 %) of the total length of the pipeline. The main watercoursecrossings are Eller Beck on Low Road, some 800 m from the east end of the planning application boundary,and Stoney Beck in the Broughton Cross area in the west.

24) A former limestone quarry, which has in the past been back-filled with waste material and restored to groundlevel, is located to the north of Low Road near to its junction with the lane to the west of St. Bridget’s Church.This site is presently undergoing residential development.

St. Bridget’s Church, Brigham, is a Grade I listed building


Page | 6

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Brigham Realignment3.25) An EIA examining the likely significant environmental effects of the April 2017 Application was undertaken in

accordance with the 2011 EIA Regulations.1

26) A scoping exercise, referred to in the ES as a Sensitivity Test, was undertaken to identify environmental topicswhere potential significant environmental effects could arise. Where no likely significant effects wereanticipated for a particular environmental topic, this topic was screened out of the assessment process.Table 2 summarises the outcome of the EIA sensitivity test.

27) The sensitivity test also identified the potential for interacting environmental effects, such as landscape, trafficand dust impacts combining at a location during construction, or for cumulative effects to arise from the January2016 Applications in combination with both the Approved Scheme and other, unrelated, proposeddevelopments in the West Cumbria area. This part of the assessment is described in Section 4.

28) Statutory bodies including Allerdale Borough Council, Cumbria County Council and the Environment Agencywere consulted in connection with the EIA process associated with the April 2017 Application. This enabled theregulators to understand the proposals in advance of the planning submission, and also enabled feedback onthe EIA process and the conclusions drawn.

Table 2: EIA Sensitivity Test

Environmental Topic Included in the EIA?

Landscape & Visual Effects

Arboriculture

Water Environment

Flood Risk û

Ecology

Cultural Heritage

Soils, Geology & Hydrogeology

Materials & Waste Management

Public Access & Recreation û

Socio-economics û

Agriculture

Traffic & Transport

Noise & Vibration

Air Quality û

29) Table 3 presents the outcome of the EIA process.

1 Statutory Instrument 2011 No. 1824 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011

The pipeline crosses agricultural land to the south and north of Low Road to the east of Brigham

Table 3: Findings of the EIA Process

Environmental Topic Summary of Effects

Landscape & VisualEffects

· The Proposed Brigham Realignment would result in additional disturbance to farmland and asmall additional increase in the loss of trees and hedgerows, although working widths wherethe pipeline crosses hedgerows would be narrowed to approximately 20 m.

· The pipeline would be routed across Eller Beck watercourse and Cockermouth Lonning (alocal road), resulting in the loss of mature trees and hedgerow vegetation. The effects ofvegetation loss would be reduced by narrowing the working width at the watercourse crossing

· There would be no tree or vegetation removal within the grounds of St. Bridget’s Church

· The changes to the character and pattern of the landscape would be notable locally, althoughin the broader context of the landscape character around Brigham and Broughton Cross themagnitude of effects would not increase compared with the Approved Scheme. Therefore,during the construction phase the effects on landscape character would remain ‘moderateadverse’, as for the Approved Scheme

· This section of open cut would largely affect the residents of the villages of Broughton Crossand Brigham, situated to the west of Cockermouth. The most significant effects would beexperienced by the residents at 1-3 Stoneybeck. There would be increased visual effects atthe grouped properties on Low Road within Brigham, where residents would experience verylarge adverse effects during the construction phase. These receptors would have open,direct and immediate views of the construction works, with a notable loss of hedgerow andhedgerow trees.

· A further eight properties would experience large adverse visual effects. Residentialreceptors, like those at Station Cottage, would have direct, open and short distance views ofthe works in the nearby middle ground, and a notable loss of nearby hedgerow vegetation.The closer location of the Proposed Brigham Realignment to Alleylands and The OldVicarage, and additional removal of vegetation, would increase the effects at these propertiesfrom slight adverse to large adverse. A new residential receptor within Broughton Crosswould have open and direct views of the construction phase work resulting in large adverseeffects.


Page | 7


· Views from St Bridget’s Church and church yard, an important Grade I Listed asset within thevillage of Brigham, would have open / partially filtered views of works across the localBrigham road, and notable loss of vegetation at the junction between the Brigham road andLow Road.

Arboriculture · Compared with the Approved Scheme, the Proposed Brigham Realignment involves anoverall reduction in the number of arboricultural features at risk of removal, but a net increasein Grade A2 trees and Grade C groups. These changes between the Approved Scheme andthe April 2017 Application comprise:o A net reduction of 15 B grade trees and net increase of two A grade trees considered at

risk of removal. The two new Grade A trees are also considered to be ‘veterans’, treesof particular significance and regional value which, over the operational life of the WestCumbria Water Supplies Project, represents an irreversible loss

o A net reduction of 634 m2 of A tree group and 2,507 m2 of B tree groupo A net reduction of 59 linear metres of B and C grade hedge and a net increase of

1,141 m2 of C grade group.· Overall, the Proposed Brigham Realignment gives rise to a total of:

o Thirteen individual trees at risk of removalo 6486m2 of tree groups at risk of removalo 523 linear metres of hedgerow at risk of removal.

· Trees and hedgerows would be reinstated in accordance with a planting strategy to be agreedwith Allerdale Borough Council.

Water Environment · The Proposed Brigham Realignment would cross the same watercourses as for the ApprovedScheme, Eller Beck and Stoney Beck being the more locally significant features

· Stoney Beck would be crossed about 80 m upstream of the location stated in the March 2016ES. At this point, Stoney Beck is characterised by a more natural channel, rather than aculverted section

· While this represents a potentially more notable effect at Stoney Beck, the significance wouldbe no more than local, temporary and reversible

· Watercourses would be protected during the construction phase in accordance with aproposed Construction Code of Practice (CCoP). The CCoP would define measures toprotect the edges of watercourses from erosion by plant and machinery, and reduce the levelof sediment being carried downstream

· The internationally significant River Derwent to the north would not be affected byconstruction works or the operation phase of the Proposed Brigham Realignment.

Ecology · Locally notable ecology assets affected by the Proposed Brigham Realignment would includewet grassland species, poor hedgerows, 30 m of Important Hedgerows3 and a single tree,which forms potential bat roost habitat

· In comparison with the Approved Scheme, there are no changes to the significance ofecological effects associated with the proposals. When the proposed mitigation measuresare implemented, negative ecological effects are likely to be either minimised or avoidedaltogether

· Any ecological effects would be temporary, short-term and reversible.

Cultural Heritage · There are 17 archaeological sites and ten historic buildings within 50 m of the planningapplication boundary. These include the Grade I Listed 11th century Church of St. Bridget,and Grade II Listed Buildings of mostly 19th century date including milestones, a sundial, and

2 The grading of individual trees, tree groups and hedgerows follows the guidance given in British Standard BS5837, Grade A features being the highest value.3 ‘Important Hedgerows’ are defined under the 1997 Hedgerow Regulations, based on their landscape, ecological or cultural heritage importance.


the Old Vicarage· None of the historic buildings would be physically affected by the scheme, although their

settings would be temporarily affected during the construction phase. The effect on thesetting of Listed Buildings would be short-term and reversible

· A programme of archaeological works designed in consultation with Cumbria County Councilwould be undertaken in advance of and during construction of the pipeline to record featuresof interest including the sites of demolished buildings, earthworks, and a quarry tramway

· None of the cultural heritage effects are significant when assessed against relevant policies.

Soils, Geology andHydrogeology

· Topsoil stripping during the construction phase would be undertaken in accordance with theSustainable Soil Management Plan which has been adopted for the Approved Scheme.There would be no residual effects on soil resources following temporary storage andreinstatement of soil on agricultural land

· There are no risks to hydrogeological resources or designated minerals areas· Kirk Cross Quarry is a former landfill site over which the pipeline would be aligned for a

distance of less than 50 m. Measures would be taken to prevent the release of potentialcontaminants into adjacent soils and watercourses by the use of clays bunds within thepipeline trench. There would be no risk to the humans or the natural environment.

Materials and Waste · The Proposed Brigham Realignment is slightly shorter than the Approved Scheme, andtherefore the volume of displaced material is approximately the same

· The majority of waste arising during construction of the Proposed Brigham Realignment isanticipated to be surplus excavated material which, due to technical or logistical reasons,cannot be reinstated in situ or at locations within the Approved Scheme. There are localfacilities which are licensed to accept surplus material, however, steps would be taken wherepracticable to achieve a materials balance across the construction project

· An increase in working area on agricultural land would result in a 110 % increase in topsoilstrip compared with the Approved Scheme. This would be a temporary and reversible effectand not significant

Agriculture · The Proposed Brigham Realignment would result in 14.60 ha of temporary land-take fromagricultural land, which would be required only during the construction phase

· The Proposed Brigham Realignment would result in an additional 9.69 ha of temporary land-take from agricultural land in comparison to the Approved Scheme as the new route ispredominantly aligned over agricultural land, compared with the use of Low Road in theApproved Scheme

· In total, six agricultural land interests would have direct land-take as a result of the new routealignment at Brigham. It is likely that up to 20 % of the land is classified as Best and MostVersatile (BMV) land

· The significance of impact on one land interest (Parsonage Farm) would increase from Slightto Moderate

· All agricultural land would be reinstated on completion of the construction works. Any effectsare therefore temporary and reversible.

Traffic & Transport · The Proposed Brigham Realignment is not expected to generate any additional constructiontraffic compared with the Approved Scheme. The realignment of the Network Main wouldalso prevent the need to close Low Road along its full length between the A66 and Brigham

· However, in the village of Brigham a temporary diversion may be required where the pipelineis aligned to the south of the church grounds. It is expected that Low Road may need to beclosed for some weeks, requiring a diversion along Stan Lonning and / or CockermouthLonning. This may cause local disruption for users and residents of Low Road at this location

· The Highways Authority and local community would be consulted and notified prior to anyroad closures being implemented


Page | 8


Noise & Vibration · Significant adverse noise effects during pipeline laying between Cockermouth and BroughtonCross are anticipated at certain locations. The potential for adverse vibration effects duringcompaction also exists

· Noise mitigation is likely to be required at certain residential properties. The nature andscope of noise mitigation, and noise limit values, would be agreed in consultation withAllerdale Borough Council

· The duration of noise exposure is likely to be relatively brief, approximately one week in mostcases. In addition to standard mitigation measures, mitigation in the form of temporary noisescreening and the use of low noise and vibration plant and equipment would also be adopted.This is consistent with the conclusions made for the Approved Scheme.

One of two veteran trees at risk of removal

At Brigham the pipeline avoids the grounds of St. Bridget’s Church by crossing through this hedgerow and enteringLow Road


Page | 9

Cumulative Effects and Interaction of Effects4.4.1 Cumulative Effects

30) There is potential for the environmental effects identified above to combine with those from other developmentprojects - termed cumulative effects. Table 4 examines whether such effects may occur when considering theApril 2017 Application in combination with the Approved Scheme, the January 2017 Applications and other,unrelated, developments in West Cumbria.

Table 4: Cumulative effects of the April 2017 Applications in combination with the Approved Scheme and other WestCumbria projects

EnvironmentalTopic

Cumulative Effects

Landscape andVisualAssessment

Overall, the proposed pipeline realignment and changes to the working width would result inadditional disturbance to farmland, and the loss of trees and hedgerows. Some propertieswould experience new or additional adverse visual effects, but these are short-term andreversible. Because of their limited geographical scope within a confined landscape setting,these impacts would not give rise to cumulative effects when considered in conjunction withthe Approved Scheme and other proposed developments.No cumulative effects.

Arboriculture Compared with the Approved Scheme, the Proposed Brigham Realignment involves anoverall reduction in the number of arboricultural features at risk of removal, but a netincrease in Grade A trees and Grade C groups:· Thirteen individual trees are at risk of removal· 6486 m2 of tree groups at risk of removal· 523 linear metres of hedgerow are at risk of removal, including Important Hedgerows.While the above effects would not normally give rise to cumulative effects with otherschemes, two of the newly-affected trees are veterans. When considered in combinationwith the 21 ‘at risk’ veteran trees identified for the Approved Scheme (some of which havealready been felled), and taking account of the short section of pipeline that the April 2017Application covers, this represents a significant cumulative effect.Cumulative effect.

WaterEnvironment

Three watercourses previously affected by the Approved Scheme are also affected by theProposed Brigham Realignment, albeit at slightly different locations. None of the anticipatedeffects are significantly different from those previously assessed, and none would give riseto additional effects on the wider catchment. The designated River Derwent to the northwould not be affected. The April 2017 Application therefore does not give rise to anycumulative effects over and above those considered for the Approved Scheme.No cumulative effects.

Terrestrial andAquatic Ecology

The Proposed Brigham Realignment gives rise to only minor ecological effects, such as theloss of species-poor hedgerows and wet grassland, which would be reinstated oncompletion of the construction works. The effects are therefore, in most cases, temporary induration and reversible. The loss of 30 m of Important Hedgerows represents a morenotable loss, but not one that is significant when viewed cumulatively with the ApprovedScheme and other projects in West Cumbria.No cumulative effects.

Cultural Heritage None of the historic buildings would be physically affected by the scheme, although theirsettings would be temporarily affected during the construction phase. The effect on thesetting of Listed Buildings would be short-term and reversible. None of the cultural heritageeffects are significant when assessed against relevant policies, and none would contribute to

EnvironmentalTopic

Cumulative Effects

new or additional effects when considered cumulatively with other developments in WestCumbria.No cumulative effects.

Soils, GeologyandHydrogeology

The ES reports that there would be only local and insignificant interactions between theProposed Brigham Realignment and soil, geological and groundwater resources. Nominerals safeguarding areas would be affected, and the risks associated with traversing aformer landfill would be mitigated through established engineering design practices toprevent off-site movement of potential contaminants. There is therefore little likelihood ofcumulative effects, either with the Approved Scheme, the January 2017 Applications orother proposed schemes in the region.No cumulative effects.

Materials andWaste

The construction material demands for the Proposed Brigham Realignment would not alterthe forecasts presented in the March 2016 ES, and would not give rise to cumulative effectswhen considered with both the Approved Scheme and proposed development. Similarly,there would be a negligible difference in the volume of surplus material that the pipelinegenerates. While there is a significant increase in the surface area of soil stripping due tothe pipeline crossing more agricultural land than for the Approved Scheme, this is notsignificant in the context of other schemes considered in the cumulative assessment.No cumulative effects.

Agriculture andSporting LandInterests

The Proposed Brigham Realignment would result in 14.60 ha of temporary land-take fromagricultural land, which would be required only during the construction phase. Althoughsome of this land may fall within the ‘best and most versatile’ category, it would all bereinstated on completion of the pipe laying. This would not give rise to any irreversiblecumulative effects when considered in conjunction with the Approved Scheme, the January2017 Applications and other development proposals in the West Cumbria area.No cumulative effects.

Traffic andTransport

The Proposed Brigham Realignment is likely to require temporary (some weeks) trafficmanagement in and around Brigham while the pipeline is constructed across, and alongshort sections of, Low Road. Traffic may be required to divert along Cockermouth Lonningand Stan Lonning. There would be no effect on the wider highway network. Therefore nocumulative effects are anticipated with the other development scenarios considered in thecumulative assessment.No cumulative effects.

Noise andVibration

The noise and vibration assessments undertaken in connection with these applications haveidentified only localised effects which have no influence on noise effects identified under theApproved Scheme. Similarly there are no cumulative effects considered likely in connectionwith the other West Cumbria cumulative assessment schemes.No cumulative effects.

4.2 Interaction of Effects

31) On certain development projects it is possible for environmental effects to interact with each other. This meansthat different types of environmental effect can occur at a given location, for example noise and visual impactsarising at a residential property, or pollution and alteration to the flow of a local watercourse. Interacting effectscan occur during both construction and operational phases. Table 5 examines the interaction of effects during theconstruction phase, covering environmental receptors such properties, environmental resources and local assets,and considers the significance of the potential outcomes.

32) Given the relatively small scale of the April 2017 Application, and its generally limited potential for significantenvironmental effects, the scope for interacting effects to occur at anything other than a local level is limited. The


Page | 10

interaction of construction-related factors with the human and built environment would tend to be mainly in theform of short-term, reversible impacts. No significant interacting effects would occur during the operational phaseof the April 2017 Application.

Table 5: Interaction of Effects

Receptor(s) Interacting Effects Potential Outcome

Local residential propertiesincluding East House Farm,homes on Low Road inBrigham, The Old Vicarageand Alleylands, and the localcommunities, communityfacilities and businesses inBrigham and Broughton Cross

· Landscape effects· Visual intrusion· Noise from construction· Potential severance - traffic

management plan to accommodatepotential temporary road closure of LowRoad and diversion of CockermouthLonning

· Tree and hedgerow losses.

The interaction of effects wouldreduce residential amenity duringthe construction period:· Adverse amenity effects at

particular locations would beshort-term (weeks, in somecases months) and reversible

· Adverse landscape effectsarising from loss of trees andhedgerow would be longerterm (years) but ultimatelyreversible throughreinstatement of affectedvegetation.

Farming interests · Temporary land take and severance offields

· Traffic management on local roads,including Low Road and possiblyCockermouth Lonning.

The interacting effects may serveto slightly increase disturbance offarming practices. Agriculturalland and topsoils would be fullyreinstated after the pipeline hasbeen constructed.

Cultural heritage assets,including St. Bridget’s Churchand other listed buildings

· Visual intrusion arising from constructionactivities along the lane in front of thechurch

· Noise effects during construction· Combination of noise and visual effects

leading to intrusion on the setting of thechurch and other cultural heritageassets

The interaction of effects wouldlead to a temporary andreversible effect on the setting oflisted assets and other culturalheritage features along theProposed Brigham Realignment.

Watercourses, including EllerBeck

· Increased risk of sediment loading fromexposed subsoils during theconstruction phase, prior toreinstatement of topsoil and re-seeding

· Watercourse crossings leading totemporary aquatic and riparian habitatloss.

Short-term, reversible effects andlocalised effects on the waterenvironment.


Page | 11

Environmental Mitigation5.33) The Approved Scheme will link West Cumbria into the wider United Utilities water network, involving the

construction of around 100 km of pipeline in addition to above-ground development such as the Bridge EndConnection, the SRs and the WTW. The April 2017 Application, if approved, would contribute to the scope ofconstruction and operational phase activities approved to date. These activities would result in a broad range ofpotentially adverse environmental effects which would require a co-ordinated and structured approach tomitigation to reduce, offset or avoid these impacts.

5.1 Approach to Mitigation

34) In consultation with Allerdale Borough Council and other statutory bodies, a series of mitigation measures havebeen developed and included in the design and environmental assessment process. Examples are describedbelow in Table 6.

Table 6: Example Mitigation Measures

Type ofMitigation

Purpose Phase for Implementation

EmbeddedMitigation

To reduce potential effects by including measures into thedesign of the Proposed Brigham Realignment, such asavoiding environmentally sensitive sites through carefulrouteing of the pipeline.

Design PhaseEmbedded mitigation has alreadybeen incorporated into the design ofthe Proposed Scheme throughstaged option development.

ConstructionCode of Practice

The Construction Code of Practice comprises:

· Construction Strategies detailing environmentallyresponsible approaches to constructing various elements ofthe project, including pipe laying, piling and vibratorycompaction, land drainage, working in floodplains, soilmanagement and biosecurity. The construction strategiespromote the minimum standards and methods by which theproject would be designed, constructed and operated, forexample through:o Compliance with environmental regulations

o Protection of the environment and the amenity ofUnited Utilities’ customers

o The control of pollution

· A Schedule of Mitigation detailing all mitigation measuresto be applied or established, such as the protection ofwatercourses from accidental pollution

· An Environmental Masterplan comprising drawings whichillustrate the principal mitigation measures presented in theSchedule of Mitigation. This would be used as a basis forthe development of further mitigation within constructionsites and working areas.

Construction PhaseThis would be implemented by UnitedUtilities and/or their appointedConstruction Contractors.

TrafficManagementPlan / TravelPlan

A plan which describes a range of measures which can beemployed to reduce the impact of road transportationassociated with the construction of the Proposed Scheme.

Construction PhaseThis would be implemented by UnitedUtilities and/or their appointedConstruction Contractors.

35) Through careful design, impacts on important vegetation have been avoided wherever practicable, howeverconstruction of the Proposed Brigham Realignment would result in the loss of some individual trees, groups of

trees and hedgerows. Two veteran trees are also at risk of removal. To mitigate and compensate for the lossesof trees and vegetation, United Utilities proposes to replace more trees than would be removed as a consequenceof the Proposed Brigham Realignment. Trees and hedgerows would be planted and reinstated within theplanning application boundary where practicable. In addition, United Utilities would also set up a community fundto support woodland planting schemes throughout the area.

5.2 Environmental Masterplan36) The mitigation strategy for the April 2017 Application has broadly followed that of the Approved Scheme. The ES

describes specific measures to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects. The Environmental Masterplan formsa cornerstone of the mitigation strategy, and presents proposals relating to the topics of landscape and visual,ecology, arboriculture, the water environment and cultural heritage.

37) It is intended that in the same way as the Approved Scheme, the Environmental Masterplan for the ProposedBrigham Realignment would form the basis for planning conditions and, ultimately, contractors’ contractualobligations for compliance with environmental legislation, the avoidance of pollution, the protection of certain assetsand resources, and the reinstatement of those which are unavoidably affected.

38) An extract from the Masterplan is provided in Figure 3, to illustrate the scope and level of detail of the mitigationproposals which have been submitted with the planning application.


Page | 12

Figure 3: Environmental Masterplan – Example of Mitigation Proposals


Page | 13

Obtaining Further Information6.39) Planning applications have been submitted by United Utilities for the Proposed Schemes, copies of which can be viewed at the following location during normal office hours:

Allerdale Borough CouncilAllerdale HouseWorkingtonCumbriaCA14 3YJ

40) Electronic (CD) copies of the Environmental Statement can be purchased at a cost of £10 including postage and packaging from:

United Utilities plcWest Cumbria TeamThirlmere HouseLingley MereGreat SankeyWarringtonWA5 3LP

Email: [email protected]

41) Paper copies of the Non-Technical Summary are available from United Utilities at the above address.

42) Feedback and comments on the application should be sent to Allerdale Borough Council at the above address.

this west cumbria water supplies project - … cumbria water...7) planning consent was granted for...

Documents