Mr Hugh Brennan
Environment, Planning &
Managing Director
Enforcement
Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd
Invicta House
County Hall
MAIDSTONE
Kent ME14 1XX
BY EMAIL ONLY
Phone: 03000 412818
Ask for: Hannah Clement
Email
: xxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
10 July 2018
Dear Mr Brennan,
Re: Proposed application for the granting of a Development Consent Order (DCO) for
Cleve Hill Solar Park Limited: Proposed Solar Park and Energy Storage Facility
Thank you for your letter dated 31 May 2018 providing Kent County Council (KCC) with the
opportunity to comment on the information presented in the Preliminary Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR). The County Council has reviewed the PEIR and its comments are set
out in full below.
Chapter 7: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
KCC commissioned Land Use Consultants (LUC) on behalf of Swale Borough Council,
Canterbury City Council and KCC to undertake a review of the Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment (LVIA) submitted as part of the PEIR.
In summary, the review does not consider the PEIR to represent a robust assessment of the
landscape and visual effects of the proposed development. There are several areas
identified as lacking clarity, such as issues relating to the assessment methodology,
baseline, mitigation and potential effects. KCC requests that these are addressed for the
final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report.
The LVIA does not acknowledge the scale and extent of the proposed development, and the
effect that it may have on the key characteristics of remoteness and openness in the area.
The development is repeatedly compared to features such as pylons and an existing
substation, which are of a different form and scale. The full LVIA review is appended
(appendix 1).
Chapter 8: Ecology
KCC highlights that the surveys conducted have recorded water voles, foraging/commuting
bats (nine species), grass snake, common lizard, invertebrates and nesting birds (not
ground-nesting) within the site. KCC agrees with the conclusions that the proposed
development is likely to result in an increase in suitable habitats for these species/species
groups.
However, KCC would like to highlight concerns that the style of the solar panels will result in
an increase in shading. This is likely to alter and effect the suitability of the habitats
underneath the panels.
In addition, the site plans indicate that grassland buffers will be created along the existing
ditches. These areas appear to be very narrow and will increase the risk of shading, which
will result in less habitat than anticipated.
The PEIR also suggests that some species may utilise the habitat underneath the solar
panels. This would be encouraged but KCC has a concern that the design of the solar
panels may limit the amount of vegetation growth underneath, which would prohibit the use
of the habitat.
Technical Appendix A10.1: Flood Risk Assessment The Flood Risk Assessment does not include details of surface water drainage within the
site. As such, KCC requests that the Flood Risk Assessment should include a clear
Drainage Strategy, which adheres to policies as set out in KCC’s Drainage and Planning
Policy Statement1.
KCC also recommends that the applicant considers the “Guide for Master Planning
Sustainable Drainage into Development” to fully incorporate drainage into the overall
development to minimise flood risk2.
As the site is within the catchment of the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (IDB), KCC
recommends that the applicant consults with the IDB for any works to ordinary watercourses
in the area.
Chapter 9: Ornithology
The PEIR illustrates a good understanding of bird interest in the site, and the surveys have
confirmed that the site provides functionally linked habitats with the adjacent
SPA/Ramsar/SSSI (e.g. birds associated with the designated site were recorded within the
application site) and that the site is utilised by ground nesting birds.
The surveys were carried out over several years and KCC notes that the results indicate that
the numbers using the site fluctuated throughout the years. The applicant should take note
1
http://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/49665/Drainage-and-Planning-policy-statement.pdf
2
http://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/23578/Masterplanning-for-SuDS.pdf
2
that this may be linked to the management of the site or crops grown within the site during
that time.
KCC would expect the Environmental Statement to acknowledge that the proposed
development would result in a complete loss of habitat for ground nesting areas and birds
associated with the SPA. These birds require open vistas to be able to feel secure when
they are roosting/feeding/nesting, which will mean that the habitat directly adjacent to the
solar panels is likely to be lost.
The application is proposing to carry out habitat enhancements and ongoing management
within an area to the east of the solar panels. KCC agrees it is likely that this area will
provide suitable habitat for breeding and wintering birds.
However, the PEIR indicates that the proposal would lead to a significant reduction in habitat
areas and KCC suggests there is a need for a greater area of habitat to be actively
managed. KCC recommends that the applicant should investigate whether there are
opportunities to support the management of habitats within the wider area. This would
improve the quality of the remaining farmland for the birds that will be displaced as a result
of the proposed development.
Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA)
In line with the identification within the PEIR that development will result in a ‘Likely
Significant Effect’ on the adjacent designated sites, KCC advises that the applicant will need
to carry out a Habitats Regulation Assessment.
Chapter 10: Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Flood Risk and Ground Conditions
KCC as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) notes that within Volume 1, Chapter 10 of the
PEIR report, environmental effects such as increased surface water runoff and potential
transfer of pollutants to surface water during construction are mentioned. However, there is
no elaboration of what these effects will be and no mention of surface water drainage. KCC
recommends full consideration is given to the method of removing pollutants and to the
cleanliness of the water discharged from the site, when compiling the Flood Risk
Assessment/Drainage Strategy.
Chapter 11: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
KCC notes that this chapter is supported by a Historic Environment Desk-Based
Assessment (Technical Appendix A11.1) and a Geoarchaeological Watching Brief report
(Technical Appendix A11.2). The PEIR describes the approach to understanding and
assessing the effects of development on the historic environment and heritage assets and
breaks these down into three categories:
• Archaeology;
• Built Heritage; and
• Historic Landscape.
3
KCC would like to highlight that the study areas were discussed and agreed with the
applicant. The PEIR and its supporting technical appendices provide a good, comprehensive
account of the archaeological and historical background and baseline conditions. The report
adequately describes the designated built heritage assets within the principal and wider
study areas and includes the presence of a WW2 pillbox on the edge of the core study area.
Archaeology
KCC agrees with the applicant’s approach that has identified the potential sensitive
receptors, based on the known assets listed in the Kent Historic Environment Record, and
other findings from the desk-based study and site visit. This is supported by a
Geoarchaeological Study that has split the site into specific zones of potential importance.
The study has included the drilling of several transects of boreholes to model the below
ground profile and deposits. The study provides a good general understanding of the site’s
archaeological potential and the possible impacts of the proposed development.
The study identifies that archaeological features within the eastern part of the site would be
left preserved in the bird habitat mitigation area, which will not be subject to development
works. KCC requests that further details on the method of bird mitigation should be included
in the forthcoming EIA, in order to confirm that there will be no ground works that may affect
the archaeology in the area.
KCC agrees with the impacts on archaeology identified and with the ‘worse-case’ approach
taken by the applicant, in the absence of specific confirmation through the fieldwork
undertaken. KCC also agrees that the proposed mitigation set out in Points 11.6 and 11.8
are appropriate and would be keen to agree suitable works and a written scheme of
investigation in due course. KCC would also request that there is scope for adjustment in the
development to preserve any significant archaeological remains that may be identified.
Built Heritage
Table 11.6 of the PEIR sets out the potential sensitive receptors for built heritage. KCC
would like to highlight that these receptors are mostly designated heritage assets. KCC
requests that the applicant liaises with the Conservation Officer at Swale Borough Council
and advisors at Historic England who will lead in providing advice on the effects of
development on these assets. However, KCC can confirm that the heritage assets listed in
the PEIR conform to those that were discussed directly with the applicant’s heritage
consultants.
The PEIR also identifies a WW2 pillbox on the edge of the site. The setting and value of the
asset is described in Point 11.3.3.9. The PEIR has identified that no built heritage assets will
be directly affected by the development, but their settings may be subject to indirect effects.
KCC is pleased to see that design mitigation has included the retention of the WW2 pillbox
and has excluded areas of panels to limit visibility from designated heritage assets. KCC
would like to highlight that this is the only form of embedded mitigation set out in the PEIR.
KCC recommends that the applicant works with the Conservation Officer at Swale Borough
Council and advisors at Historic England, so they can advise on whether the impacts on the
setting of designated heritage assets is acceptable.
4
KCC agrees that there should be a full recording of the WW2 pillbox. The proposed use of
the pillbox as a bat roost is acceptable, given the limited communal value of the asset, due
to its lack of access. Any modifications should avoid damage to the asset and preferably be
reversible. The setting of the pillbox will fundamentally change, and mitigation should include
recording the present setting. This could then be used to enhance any interpretation for the
feature if appropriate. KCC would highlight that the setting of built heritage can be reversed
on decommissioning.
Historic Landscape Character
The Historic Landscape Character of the development area is described in Point 11.3.4. The
area is characterised by irregular enclosures formed by drainage ditches in reclaimed
marshland. Many of the present boundaries have been evident since the 19th Century,
though subdivision has been lost. Other areas are characterised by more regular enclosures
or square and rectangular fields. KCC favours the applicant’s proposals which intend to
retain the internal boundaries of the site, preserving the character of the area.
However, KCC would like to highlight that the PEIR does not cover in detail the nature of the
landscape in terms of its historic use or, how it will be affected by the proposed
development. The area is mainly arable farming land and the agriculture provides a
contribution to the setting of those designated heritage assets that are connected to farming
(e.g. the farm houses). The development is of a very large scale and would significantly
change the landscape. KCC would request that this should be assessed as a minor adverse
effect.
Chapter 14: Access and Traffic
KCC notes that in Point 19, the report lists the possible ports that can be considered for
freight by sea. Table 14.1 details the road distances from the site and lists the London
Medway Port as Chatham. In Point 22, the location of the London Medway Port is later
referred to as Sheerness. The applicant should ensure that the correct port is detailed in
future submission documents.
The applicant should be aware that in Point 36, the report refers to a non-existent crawler
lane on the A299, 350m from the A299/Whitstable Road junction. There is a layby on the
eastbound approach to the junction, located approximately 350m away, so it is assumed this
may be the feature to which reference is being made. This change should also be reflected
in the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan.
In Point 37, the applicant should be aware that the left turn route from the A299 onto
Whitstable Road will take vehicles in a westerly direction, rather than the easterly direction
as described in the PEIR. This will be relevant for eastbound A229 vehicles, although it
should be appreciated that westbound A229 vehicles, that may have originated their
journeys from Ramsgate, will turn left onto Staple Street in an easterly direction, before
turning right onto Staple Street Road to cross over the A229. This will be the case unless
they stay on the A229 and use the M2/A2/Homestall Lane/Brenley Lane roundabout to
approach the Whitstable Road junction from the west instead. This change should also be
reflected in the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan.
5
KCC acknowledges that the applicant has considered a transport-related effect on the
impact of the condition of the highway, due to the additional HGV traffic using the local
highway network. This is likely to deteriorate the structural integrity of the highway,
accelerate wear and tear, whilst also causing overrunning of the carriageway edges and
adjacent verges where road widths are narrow. The condition surveys referred to will be
required to identify where construction traffic has caused damage and the applicant will be
expected to detail how they will rectify the damages.
14.3.1 Method for Assessing Significance
KCC considers the methodology set out in the associated sections 14.3.1.1 to 14.3.16 and
subsequent sections 14.3.2 and 14.3.3 to be acceptable.
14.4.4 Traffic Flows
It is noted that Point 114 lists the roads that have had initial traffic surveys undertaken. KCC
will require further surveys to inform the assessment of Staple Street, Staple Street Road
and Whitstable Road, if the data cannot be extrapolated from the existing surveys.
KCC agrees that the application of TEMPRO growth factors to the survey data, in order to
set the 2018 baseline, is appropriate and can be taken through to consider the future traffic
flows at the predicted year of construction, as noted in Point 151.
14.4.5 Personal Injury Accident Data
As detailed in Point 118, the full data obtained from KCC will be used for analysis purposes,
so that the specific circumstances of the accidents can be understood. An opinion can then
be formed on whether the delivery of the development proposals are likely to influence the
probability or severity of similar accidents occurring.
14.6.1 Construction Effects
KCC has noted that the current predictions of traffic movements are likely to change as
further details are obtained. A simple “first principles” breakdown of how the figures are
derived should be provided by the applicant to demonstrate the validity of the predicted
vehicle numbers.
Whilst an estimation of the HGV and LGV movements has been provided, it would be
appropriate to consider the likely vehicle movements associated with the transportation of
site personnel during the construction period, within the final EIA. It is noted that it is
referenced in Point 169 through the CTMP in respect to staff routing, minibuses and an
associated Travel Plan.
14.7 Mitigation
The general mitigation detailed in this section of the PEIR and Point 169 are suitable
measures that KCC would expect to see to accommodate the traffic generated during the
6
construction period. Whilst it is accepted that the operational traffic generated during the life
of the Solar Park will be minimal and does not require any mitigation, it is considered that
mitigation measures may be required during the decommissioning period.
KCC welcomes the commitment given in Point 173 to continue detailed mitigation
discussions to ensure the effects of the development are minimised.
Volume IIA Figure 14.1 Construction Traffic Routing
When further details are known, KCC requests that the plan shows the A249 route from the
M2 to the London Medway Port at Sheerness, if materials are to be transported from the
Port to the proposed site.
Technical Appendix A14.1: Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
The Local Highway Issues and Constraints section of the CTMP appears to be misplaced
with the text of Section 4.4 Internal Roads. In addition, KCC recommends that Point 4.4.2
listing the common constraints/issues for construction traffic, should also reference the
impact on the condition of the road/adjacent verges and potential damage caused.
6.1 Access Route and Point Signing
KCC accepts the measures proposed through the suggested approval process.
7.0 Mitigation Measures
KCC agrees that the general measures identified are considered workable in respect of the
timing and routing of vehicle movements with the booking system, to spread these over the
whole day and allowing monitoring. However, KCC recommends that the measures should
include contingency plans to cater for a holding area, in the event of HGV traffic nearing the
site outside of the permitted timings.
7.12 Highway Condition Surveys
KCC requests that a highway condition survey should take place before the commencement
of the development. Further, the description of another survey to be undertaken after
commencement needs clarifying. The intention would also be for a final highway condition
survey to be carried out at the end of the construction period and an agreement for any
damage identified at that time to be repaired accordingly. Currently, the CTMP does not
identify what actions will be expected from the outcome of comparing the highway condition
surveys.
KCC requests there should be scope within the CTMP to identify issues associated with
damage occurring on or adjacent to the highway during the construction period, as a result
of the development traffic. The applicant should detail how they will facilitate repairs where
necessary. The detail will need to be available outside of the Traffic Management Group
timetable and structure outlined in Section 8.2.
7
Section 8.3 Monitoring and Review and Section 8.4 Compliance
Within the CTMP, KCC requests that the applicant identifies how certain mitigation
measures will be monitored and, ensuring compliance with the speed restrictions to be
imposed along the identified vehicular route.
Impacts on the PRoW Network
KCC recommends that the applicant takes account of KCC’s statutory duty to protect and
improve Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in the County. KCC is committed to working in
partnership with the applicant to achieve the aims contained within the Countryside and
Coastal Access Improvement Plan (CCAIP). Specifically, these relate to quality of life,
supporting the rural economy, tackling disadvantage and safety issues and providing
sustainable transport choices.
To this end, it is appreciated that the applicant has acknowledged the existence of the
PRoW network and considered the potential impacts of the Solar Park, during both the
construction and operational phases of the development. KCC is pleased to note that the
proposed site layout has incorporated the existing PRoW along their definitive alignments,
which should avoid the need for any path diversions or extinguishments.
Construction Phase
With regards to the construction phase of this project, the applicant has stated that a PRoW
Management Plan will be produced, setting out how PRoW will be managed. This is referred
to in technical appendix A14.1 (Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan).
It is anticipated that temporary path closures will be required during this period, to enable the
construction work to proceed safely. The applicant is reminded that a Temporary Traffic
Regulation Order (TTRO) will be required to temporarily close a PRoW. It should be noted
by the applicant that the KCC PRoW and Access Service requires a minimum of six weeks
to process this request.
KCC requests that any path closures are kept to a minimum to reduce disruption for path
users. Alternative access routes/temporary diversions should also be provided where
possible, in order to avoid fragmentation of the PRoW network.
Operational Phase
With regard to the operational phase of the site, the applicant has completed a ‘Glint and
Glare’ study (technical appendix A17.1) to assess the impacts of the Solar Park. However,
KCC notes that PRoW users have not been included in this assessment. The study has only
assessed the potential impacts of the photovoltaic (PV) development upon surrounding
roads and dwellings. Considering the proximity of Public Footpaths ZR484 and ZR485 to the
solar panels, KCC requests that the ‘Glint and Glare’ study is extended to assess the impact
on PRoW users. This is especially for users of the Saxon Shore Way, who would be walking
along an elevated sea wall overlooking the site.
8
In addition, KCC highlights that Public Footpath ZR485 currently passes through expansive
arable fields and would be significantly affected by the Solar Park. Although this footpath
would be accommodated within a green corridor, the character of the route would be
substantially transformed by the presence of solar panels and fencing enclosures. Due to the
changing nature of the route, there is a risk that the path would become obstructed by
overgrown vegetation without regular maintenance.
KCC therefore requests that the applicant clarifies what the intention is for the future surface
of this route. If the path is to be left unsurfaced, the applicant should contribute towards a
future vegetation clearance programme, to ensure that it remains open and accessible for
the public to use.
The applicant should be aware that no furniture, fence, barrier or other structure may be
erected on or across PRoW without the express consent of the Highway Authority.
Furthermore, there must be no disturbance of the surface of the PRoW, or obstruction of its
use, either during or following any approved development without the express consent of the
Highway Authority. KCC therefore requests that the applicant provides details of the
proposed surface appearance of all PRoW located within the development site, following the
completion of the construction work.
New PRoW & Access Provision
With reference to Figure 13.1 (Recreational Receptor and Study Areas), the applicant has
proposed two permissive access routes across the site. KCC supports the creation of these
new routes as they would provide valuable links to the existing PRoW network.
Consideration will need to be given to the future status of these paths.
KCC strongly advises that the applicant enters into a permissive path agreement with the
County Council for the ‘western’ link (between NGR TR 03101 63799 and NGR TR 02750
64508). Whilst the applicant could dedicate permissive access on their own, it is
recommended that a formal licence is agreed, as this would clearly define conditions and
areas of responsibility. The benefits of this approach are that the County Council would have
details of the permission registered and would be able to promote responsible use of the
route by the public. Furthermore, the landowner would be afforded greater protection against
claims for new PRoW across their land made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
With regards to the ‘eastern’ link (between NGR TR 04265 64829 and NGR TR 05008
63325), KCC requests that this route is dedicated as a Public Footpath through a Creation
Agreement with the County Council (Highway Act 1980 s25). This would allow the route to
be shown on recreational ordnance survey maps and provide a valuable PRoW link through
the site, connecting Footpath ZR484 to the wider network. The dedication as a PRoW would
also secure the long-term sustainability and protection of this route, creating a positive
legacy for the Solar Park.
In addition to these paths, KCC requests that a third new access route is created along the
eastern edge of the site, connecting Public Footpaths CW55 and CW90. Located within the
eastern boundary of the site, this walking route would provide a valuable off-road alternative
to the Faversham Road. KCC requests that this new route is dedicated as a Public Footpath
9
through a Creation Agreement with the County Council (Highway Act 1980 s25), as it would
be a valuable public amenity and address safety concerns along the Faversham Road.
KCC would welcome continued opportunity to engage throughout the progression of the
DCO. If you require further information or clarification on any matter in this letter, then please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Katie Stewart
Director for Environment, Planning and Enforcement
Encs:
•
Appendix 1 – Land Use Consultants Report: Review of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
10