hornsea two onss - nma supporting information final · 2020-01-28 · the hvdc converter substation...

REPORT

Hornsea Two Offshore Wind Farm

Order 2016 – Onshore Substation Site

(ONSS)

Non-Material Amendment – Supporting Information

Client: Ørsted (formerly Dong Energy Ltd).

Reference: I&BPB6092R001F0.1

Revision: 0.1/Final

Date: 30 October 2017

P r o j e c t r e l a t e d

30 October 201730 October 2017

HORNSEA TWO - ONSS NMA I&BPB6092R001F0.1 i

HASKONINGDHV UK LTD.

2 Abbey Gardens

Great College Street

London

SW1P 3NL

Industry & Buildings

VAT registration number: 792428892

+44 207 2222115

[email protected]

royalhaskoningdhv.com

T

E

W

Document title: Hornsea Two Offshore Wind Farm Order 2016 – Onshore Substation Site (ONSS)

Document short title: Hornsea Two - ONSS NMA Reference: I&BPB6092R001F0.1

Revision: 0.1/Final Date: 30 October 2017

Project name: Hornsea P2 - DCO Amendment Project number: PB6092

Author(s): William Wheeler, Sam Taylor, Patrick West

Drafted by: Marc Pieris

Checked by: David Morgan

Date / initials: 19/10/2017

Approved by: Marc Pieris

Date / initials: 27/10/2017

Classification

Project related

Disclaimer No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by any other means, without the prior written permission of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd.; nor may they be used, without such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. accepts no responsibility or liability for these specifications/printed matter to any party other than the persons by whom it was commissioned and as concluded under that Appointment. The integrated QHSE management system of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001:2015, ISO 14001:2015 and OHSAS 18001:2007.



HORNSEA TWO - ONSS NMA I&BPB6092R001F0.1 ii

Table of Contents

1 Hornsea Project Two Offshore Wind Farm 1

2 Onshore Substations 1

3 Consented parameters for substations 1

4 Required changes to Requirement 2(24) 2

5 Materiality of Change 2

5.1.1 EIA considerations 3

5.1.1.1 Flood Risk and Drainage 14

5.1.1.2 Traffic and Transport 17

5.1.1.3 Landscape and Visual 17 5.1.2 HRA and EPS considerations 23 5.1.3 Compulsory Acquisition 24 5.1.4 Local Population 24

6 Stakeholder Engagement 24

7 Conclusion 24

8 References 25

Table of Tables

Table 5-1 - Assessment of the changes to the substation developable area and its effect on EIA topic impact significance 4

Table of Figures

Figure 5-1 Left: EA Flood Zones (2 and 3) published in 2011 as reported in the RPS FRA, 2015, Right: current flood zones (August 2016). 14

Figure 5-2 EA Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 1,000 year overtopping scenario for the 2115 epoch within the RPS FRA 2015 (with the Site red line boundary overlaid) 15

Figure 5-3 Environment Agency Hazard Map for the 1 in 1,000 year overtopping scenario for the 2115 epoch provided in the updated Environment Agency Product 4 request on 11/09/17 (with the Site red line boundary overlaid) 16



HORNSEA TWO - ONSS NMA I&BPB6092R001F0.1 iii

Appendices

1. Pre Application Consultation Responses

2. Works Plans

3. Landscape Assessment Figure



HORNSEA TWO - ONSS NMA I&BPB6092R001F0.1 1

1 Hornsea Project Two Offshore Wind Farm

Project Two is the second project to be developed in the Hornsea Zone, with a total generation capacity of up to 1,800 MW. The Hornsea Two Offshore Wind Farm Order 2016 (SI 2016 No. 844 as amended by SI 2016 No. 1104) (the “Order”) was granted on the 16 August 2016, and came into effect on 7 September 2016. Optimus Wind Limited and Breesea Limited are the named undertakers in the Order and are hereinafter together referred to as the “Applicant”. Ørsted (formerly DONG Energy Wind Power) A/S is the ultimate owner of Optimus Wind Limited and Breesea Limited. Project Two received a Contract for Difference from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on the 11th of September 2017 for 1,386 MW. The Applicant is making an application for a non-material amendment to the Order (the “Application”) to the Secretary of State. The purpose of this document is to support that application and it therefore outlines the implications of the proposed change and the case for this being a non-material amendment to the DCO. The document outlines the change sought to the Order, which is a change to paragraph 2(24) of Part 3 (Requirements) of Schedule 1 (Authorised project) to increase the permitted total area of the site of Works No. 8A and Works No. 8B (to bring the permitted area in line with the total combined area shown on the certified plans), and sets out the need for that change.

2 Onshore Substations

The onshore infrastructure required for Project Two includes onshore export cables and either an onshore HVDC or HVAC substation depending on which technology is selected. If the HVDC export option is used, an onshore HVDC converter substation will be required to allow Project Two to be connected to the National Grid. The HVDC converter substation is required to convert HVDC electricity back into HVAC suitable for connection to the grid. The footprint and layout of the substation is determined in part by the equipment, connections, safety clearances and access required for components. If the HVAC export option is used, an onshore HVAC substation will be required to allow Project Two to be connected to the National Grid. The onshore HVAC substation will allow transformation of the voltage to the required transmission system level and will provide reactive power compensation and filtering equipment to ensure that the wind farm complies with the technical requirements to connect to the National Grid.

3 Consented parameters for substations

The Order imposes certain restrictions on the design parameters for the onshore substation site in paragraphs 2(23) and 2(24) of Part 3 (Requirements) of Schedule 1 (Authorised project) as follows: No main building forming part of Work No. 8A or 8B may 2(23) (a) where the mode of transmission is HVDC, exceed

(i) 40 metres in height; (ii) 69.5 metres in width; (iii) 135 metres in length; or

(b) where the mode of transmission is HVAC, exceed (i) 15 metres in height;




(ii) 18.5 metres in width; (iii) 82.5 metres in length.

2(24) The combined total area of the site of Work Nos. 8A and 8B must not exceed 35,672 square metres, excluding any area of land required for landscaping and mitigation.

4 Required changes to Requirement 2(24)

Subsequent to the Order being granted it has been assessed that the permitted area of Works No 8A and 8B needs to be revised in order to safely accommodate the required infrastructure for the onshore substation. This does not require an increase to the physical size of the buildings or plant within Works No 8A amd 8B but does require an increase to the overall developable area occupied by Works No 8A and 8B (the additional space mainly being occupied by gravel). Works No. 8A and 8B will still be located fully within the area shown on Sheet 27 of the certified Works Plans (see Appendix 2 - Works Plans). The only change to the Order required therefore is an amendment to the area specified in paragraph 2(24) of Part 3 (Requirements) of Schedule 1 (Authorised project). Table 4.1 details the consented and the new required wording for Requirement 2(24). Table 4.1: Consented and required design envelope f or Works No 8A and 8B

Works No 8A and 8B: Current envelope

The combined total area of the site of Work Nos. 8A and 8B must not exceed 35,672 square metres, excluding any area of land required for landscaping and mitigation.

Works No 8A and 8B: Required envelope

The combined total area of the site of Work Nos. 8A and 8B must not exceed 49,326 square metres, excluding any area of land required for landscaping and mitigation.

5 Materiality of Change

There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a material or non-material amendment for the purposes of Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 and Part 1 of the 2011 Regulations. However, DCLG Guidance (2015) on ‘Changes to Development Consent Orders’ includes guidance on the following characteristics which are more likely to be considered ‘material’.

1. Where any new or materially different likely significant effects on the environment as a result of the change mean that an update to the original Environmental Statement (from that at the time the original DCO was made) is required (to take account of those effects);

2. Where the proposed change invokes a need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment, or the need

for a new or additional licence in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) (in addition to those at the time the original DCO was made);

3. Where the change would involve compulsory acquisition of any land, or an interest in or rights

over land, that was not authorised through the existing DCO; and

4. The potential impact of the proposed changes on local people will also be a consideration in determining whether a change is material.




The proposed variation to the DCO in relation the substation developable area has been considered in light of the guidance as follows.

5.1.1 EIA considerations

1. Where any new or materially different likely significant effects on the environment as a result of the change mean that an update to the original Environmental Statement (from that at the time the original DCO was made) is required (to take account of those effects).

Table 5.1 compares the environmental topics and the potential effects and impacts that were identified within the Hornsea Project Two Environmental Statement (ES) with the changes proposed to the substation developable area. Consideration has been given to the effects of the proposed changes and whether these changes could result in impacts of significance (in EIA terms) off greater significance to those identified in the existing assessment as submitted to the Secretary of State in 2015. Table 5.1 concludes that the potential impacts associated with the proposed changes to the substation developable area are of no greater significance than those identified in the original Hornsea Project Two ES. Chapters not relevant to the substation have not been listed (e.g. offshore or intertidal) as the proposed changes have no relevance.




Table 5-1 - Assessment of the changes to the substation developable area and its effect on EIA topic impact significance

EIA Topic and PINS Document Reference

Impacts identified in EIA Changes in Impact Significance

Geology and Ground Conditions (7.3.1)

Effects identified on geology and ground conditions associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• Impacts of construction may affect designated geological sites.

• Impacts of construction may cause disturbance or contamination of secondary aquifers. The WFD status of the groundwater might also be affected.

• Impacts of open cut trench construction may affect the groundwater quality of the principal aquifer including at Source Protection Zones (SPZ). The WFD status of the groundwater might also be affected.

• Impacts of trenchless conduit construction and piling works may affect the groundwater quality of the principal aquifer, including conduit construction within an SPZ1. The WFD status of the groundwater might also be affected.

• Impacts of operation and maintenance may affect the water quality of secondary aquifers and any associated surface waters together with the principal aquifer. The WFD status might also be affected.

• Impacts of decommissioning may cause disturbance or contamination of secondary aquifers and may affect their WFD status.

The geology and ground conditions assessment was based on a worst case substation size of 60,000m2, as per the project description. The proposed increase to the substation developable area falls within this threshold and would not result in additional impacts to underlying aquifers/groundwater. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on developable area. No further consideration of this topic is required.






The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, included a substation area of 60,000m2. The receptors in this scenario were the aquifers that underlie the Project Two development and the groundwater therein.

Hydrology and Flood Risk (7.3.2)

Effects identified on hydrology and flood risk associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The impacts of construction may affect flood risk and temporary flood risk.

• The impacts of construction may affect field drainage and irrigation.

• The impacts of operation may affect flood risk. • The impacts of operation and decommissioning may

affect main and minor surface watercourses. • The impacts of decommissioning may affect

temporary flood risk. The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of the maximum dimensions of the onshore HVDC converter/HVAC substation (60,000m2), as this would result in the largest possible area of disturbance and flood storage and therefore, the greatest potential impact on flood risk due to installation works in flood risk areas.

The hydrology and flood risk assessment was based on a worst case substation size of 60,000m2. The proposed increase to the substation developable area falls within this threshold, however it is noted that the worst case scenario referenced in the ES differs from that referenced in the Flood Risk Assessment (an annex to the ES Chapter). A review of the FRA (RPS, 2015) has been undertaken (see Section 5.1.1.1) which concludes that the revi sed proposals would not have a material effect on flood risk or drainage.

HVDC converter/HVAC Effects identified on flood risk associated with the A review of the FRA (RPS, 2015) has been undertaken






Substation Flood Risk Assessment (7.6.2.3)

construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The potential impacts of the proposed built development located within Flood Zone 1 (‘low’ risk of flooding).

• The potential impacts upon runoff rates and changes in land use and impermeable areas.

A developable area of 35,672m2 was considered as part of the 2015 FRA. This area was assessed as being an entirely impermeable surface inside of the limits of deviation of Works 8A and 8B shown on Sheet 27 of the Works Plans.

(see Section 5.1.1.1) which concludes that the revi sed proposals would not have a material effect on flood risk or drainage.

Ecology and Nature Conservation (7.3.3)

Effects identified on ecology and nature conservation associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The loss of field boundary woodland and hedgerow during construction.

• Potential impacts of pollutants and associated disturbance of watercourses during construction.

• Potential disturbance and displacement of badgers and loss of potential foraging habitat.

• The loss of habitat of value to foraging and commuting bats, and the disturbance and displacement of bats.

The proposed increase in developable area would not change the impact significance identified in the ES, as the types and quantities of habitat loss remain as assessed. The proposed mitigation for habitat loss will not change with the increased developable area. The area of planting will cover up to 6,874 m2 tree planting, 449 m2 shrub planting and 3,692 m2 wildflower meadow planting which will include a diverted footpath. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on developable area. No further consideration of this topic is required.






• The loss of habitat of potential value to breeding birds, and displacement of birds, primarily breeding birds, and temporary displacement of limited numbers of wintering and migratory birds. Operation will result in low-level visual disturbance, noise and vibration disturbance of, habitats and wildlife during routine maintenance operations, and could result in potential contamination of local water bodies through accidental spillage of chemicals or fuels during routine maintenance operations, and/or increased sedimentation as a result of physical disturbance of soils.

• Decommissioning may result in potential impacts upon hedgerows, watercourses and woodland via pollutants, and potential disturbance/displacement of badgers, bats and birds.

The assessment assumed a substation size of up to 38,261m2. The assessment included for loss of up to approximately 600m of hedgerow and approximately 4019 m2 linear strip of woodland (to be replaced with native tree and shrub planting).

Landscape and Visual Resources (7.3.5)

Effects identified on landscape and visual resources associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The temporary impact of the onshore HVDC converter station and HVAC substation construction

A detailed review of the LVIA has been completed and the results are presented in Section 5.1.1.3 . The review has concluded that there will be no chan ge in impact significance from the proposed increase i n substation developable area.






may affect designated and undesignated landscape resources, and undesignated seascape resources.

• The temporary impact of the construction of the onshore HVDC converter stations may affect close, medium and long range receptors, including residential, community, commercial/industrial, recreation and tourism, Public Rights of Way (ProW) and dynamic receptors.

• The operational impact of the substation may affect all close range visual receptors.

• The operational and decommissioning impact of the onshore HVDC converter station and HVAC substation construction may affect designated and undesignated landscapes resources, and undesignated seascape resources.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration that the combined onshore HVDC converter station and HVAC substation would have the most impacts on landscape resources as a result of greater land-take.

Historic Environment (7.3.6).

Effects identified on historic environment associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• Potential permanent loss of, or damage to, buried archaeological remains during construction and decommissioning.

The historic environment assessment was based on a worst case substation size of 60,000m2. The proposed increase to the substation developable area falls within this threshold and would not result in additional impacts to heritage receptors. The nearest Scheduled Monument to the substation is approximately 700m to the west at Baysgarth Farm, at this distance there is no material difference to setting.






• Potential temporary impacts on the settings of heritage assets including Scheduled Monuments (SMs), Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens during construction and decommissioning.

• Construction and decommissioning works at the onshore HVDC converter/HVAC substation could result in temporary impacts on the overall historic landscape.

• The operation and maintenance of the onshore HVDC converter/HVAC substation could result in long-term reversible impacts on the settings of heritage assets including SMs, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens, and the overall historic environment.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, included a substation size of 60,000m2.

There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on developable area. No further consideration of this topic is required.

Land Use, Agriculture and Recreation (7.3.7)

Effects identified on land use, agriculture and recreation associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The permanent impacts of the construction of the onshore HVDC converter/HVAC substation, link boxes, and TJBs may affect agricultural land and soils, and may affect the farming framework.

• The impacts during the operational phase of this

The land use, agriculture and recreation conditions assessment was based on a worst case substation size of approximately 7ha.The proposed increase to the substation developable area falls within this threshold. The increased area would not have any additional impacts on these parameters. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on developable area.






project many affect agricultural land quality and soils, recreational receptors, and may affect the farming framework.

• The impacts during the decommissioning phase of the project may affect agricultural land, including soils and farming frameworks.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of the maximum length of the construction period and the maximum area of land likely to be affected by HVDC converter /HVAC substation.

No further consideration of this topic is required.

Traffic and Transport (7.3.8)

Effects identified on traffic and transport associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The temporary impact of the construction work may affect severance of routes, pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation, accidents and road safety, and hazardous, dangerous and abnormal loads during construction works.

• Impacts arising from traffic associated with operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the HVDC converter/HVAC substation may affect traffic and transport receptors.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of 14,000

A review of the parameters included within the Transport Assessment (RPS, 2015) has been completed and is presented in Section 5.1.1.2 . No changes to construction or operational traffic movements are expected. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on developable area.






HGV movements (number and location), peak daily HGV movements (51) and the assumption of operational traffic volumes.

Noise and Vibration (7.3.9) Effects identified on noise and vibration associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The temporary impacts of HVDC converter/HVAC substation construction may affect receptors sensitive to noise or vibration

• The permanent impact of the substation operation may affect receptors sensitive to noise or vibration.

• The temporary impact of onshore HVDC converter/ HVAC substation decommissioning may affect receptors sensitive to noise or vibration.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of differing noise volumes as a result of varying methods of construction.

The noise and vibration assessment did not include reference to a substation developable area as this is not relevant to the assessment. An increase in the developable area for the substation would not have an impact on noise and vibration receptors. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on developable area. No further consideration of this topic is required.

Air Quality and Health (7.3.10)

Effects identified on air quality and health associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• The temporary construction and decommissioning impacts of the onshore HVDC converter / HVAC substation, as well as permanent operation impacts,

The air quality and health assessment did not include reference to a substation site developable area as this is not relevant to the assessment. Furthermore, an increase in the developable area for the substation would not have an impact on air quality and health receptors. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in substati on






may affect receptors sensitive to dust (human and ecological).

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of the potential for dust generation during demolition, earthworks and construction in relation to: the size of earthworks/demolition/construction and vehicle movements, methods used, ground material (e.g. soil type), and the works duration.

developable area. No further consideration of this topic is required.

Socio Economics (7.3.11) Effects identified on socio economics associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• Impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning with regards to employment, GVA, performance of the renewable energy sector, and tourism and recreation activity and resources.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of construction period and local and UK economic variants.

The socio-economics assessment did not include reference to a substation site developable area as this is not relevant to the assessment. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in developable area for the substation. No further consideration of this topic is required.

Inter-related Effects (Onshore) (7.3.12)

Effects identified on inter-related onshore effects associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project Two substation development within the ES included:

• Potential inter-related impacts upon people living at

No additional inter-related effects have been identified as a result of the revised proposals. There will therefore be no change in impact significance from the proposed increase in developable area for the substation.






dwellings closest to the development. • Potential inter-related impacts upon people using

public rights of way and other linear routes such as the permissive path along the sea defences closest to the development.

The key parameters for assessment, which informed a ‘worst case scenario’, include the consideration of impacts identified in the traffic and transport, noise and vibration, air quality, and landscape and visual assessments.

No further consideration of this topic is required.




5.1.1.1 Flood Risk and Drainage

A review has been completed of Chapter 2 (Hydrology and Flood Risk) of the ES (RPS, 2015) and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (RPS, January 2015) submitted with the DCO application to assess the impacts of a proposed increase in the developable area occupied by Works No 8A and 8B. Whilst undertaking the review, the Applicant has also considered potential changes to Environment Agency (EA) flood mapping since the original application. Flood Risk The flood mapping within the 2015 FRA has been compared with the current EA Flood Zone outlines and the flood maps provided in the SFRA produced by North Lincolnshire District Council and North East Lincolnshire District Council (2011). Figure 5.1 presents the EA Flood Zone outlines as provided within the 2015 FRA, compared with the current (August 2016) EA Flood Zones.

Figure 5-1 Left: EA Flood Zones (2 and 3) published in 2011 as reported in the RPS FRA, 2015, Right: current flood zones (August 2016).

Comparison of these maps shows that there are no material differences in the extent of the Flood Zones. There is a small increase in the risk of flooding to the access road to the Site from Chase Hill Road but there is no change to the flood risk in the location of the proposed substation, which remains within Flood Zone 1 with a low risk of fluvial and tidal flooding. Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 compare the 2115 epoch 1 in 1,000 year EA Overtopping Hazard Map as reported in the 2015 FRA and the updated Environment Agency Product 4 dataset (received September, 2017), respectively.

Extension to Flood Zone 2

Extension to Flood Zone 2 and 3

Work Nos 8a and 8b

Work Nos 8a and 8b




Figure 5-2 EA Flood Hazard Map for the 1 in 1,000 year overtopping scenario for the 2115 epoch within the RPS FRA 2015 (with the Site red line boundary overlaid)

Works Nos. 8a & 8b Works Nos. 8a & 8b Works Nos. 8a & 8b




Figure 5-3 Environment Agency Hazard Map for the 1 in 1,000 year overtopping scenario for the 2115 epoch provided in the updated Environment Agency Product 4 request on 11/09/17 (with the Site red line boundary overlaid)

Comparison of these maps shows that the revised hydraulic modelling of the area has not resulted in a material change in the extent and nature of the overtopping hazard. In conclusion, while the Environment Agency Flood Zones have been updated since the DCO application, there has been no material change in the risk to the Site, including the risk from overtopping and breaches. Therefore, the flood risk as reported in the 2015 FRA remains applicable to the revised substation proposals. Developable Area and Drainage As noted above the “35,672 square meters” parameter was considered as part of the 2015 FRA. This area was assessed as being an entirely impermeable surface inside of the limits of deviation of Works 8A and 8B shown on Sheet 27 of the Works Plans. This assumption was used as part of the FRA to demonstrate that even with the development in place it was still possible (with mitigation) to maintain greenfield volumes and rates of site run off. With the proposed changes to the developable area, this remains true. The attenuation of the run-off related to the 1 in 100 year rainfall event plus 20% climate change is a requirement of the North East Lindsey IDB as stated in the original FRA (RPS, 2015). As part of pre-application consultation, North East Lindsey Internal Drainage Board (IDB) has confirmed the board has no objections regarding the originally agreed surface water run-off rate for the substation drainage. This requirement will continue to be met (once all detailed plans are available) as part of the requirement to have a detailed surface water drainage scheme approved by the local planning authority (Requirement

Works Nos. 8a & 8b Works Nos. 8a & 8b Works Nos. 8a & 8b




13). The proposed greenfield volumes remain the same with the increase in the developable area and no additional mitigation is required.

5.1.1.2 Traffic and Transport

A review of the original Transport Assessment (TA) (RPS, 2015) has been undertaken to confirm whether the proposed increase in the substation developable area is likely to result in an increase in the vehicle movements required for construction/operation. The TA assumed a total of 14,000 HGV movements for construction of the substation, including 3,000 HGV movements for the export of topsoil and subsoil, over a 12 month programme which was based on numbers for comparable substation projects. This results in a peak of 51 HGV movements per day (assuming the 12 month programme) which was used to assess the impact of construction traffic from the substation. The parameters (and included contingency) used within the TA remain sufficient for the revised scheme based upon a further review of comparable projects. Compliance with the 51 HGV daily movements threshold would be an objective of the Construction Traffic Management Plan and would be monitored and enforced accordingly during construction. The proposed increase in the substation developable area would not result in any additional operational traffic movements. To conclude, the development proposed with the revised developable area figure in Requirement 2(24) can be delivered inside of the traffic and transport assessment envelope.

5.1.1.3 Landscape and Visual

A desktop review and site visit have been undertaken to establish whether the assessment findings set out within Chapter 5: Landscape and Visual Resources (January 2015) of Volume 3 – Onshore of the submitted Environmental Statement remain valid for the required combined total developable area for Work Nos 8A and 8B of 49,326m2. This compares against the 35,672m2 of development area permitted under the original DCO. Figure LA3420_001 in Appendix 3 identifies the developable area for which the DCO amendment is sought. Whilst the developable area within which the substation and associated infrastructure will be sited is greater than that assessed within the LVIA, the siting of the main buildings will remain as assessed within the ES. Other smaller associated infrastructure elements will be distributed across the developable area in accordance with technical requirements. This implies a potentially lighter density of development, depending upon the detailed siting of the smaller infrastructure elements, which would be dispersed, or clustered, across a greater developable area. This review seeks to establish whether this would have any implications for the assessment judgements and findings contained within the LVIA submitted as part of the ES. The focus of this review has therefore been to consider whether the change in the developable area could result in a change in the magnitude of impact upon receptors. Had a change in magnitude occurred it would then have been necessary to consider whether that change would result in a material change in significance. As the review below sets out no change in magnitude upon either landscape or visual receptors was judged to occur and therefore there will be no change to the significance conclusions as set out within the ES.




Review – Methodology Paragraphs 5.7.1 – 5.7.3 of the LVIA (Chapter 5, Part 2 of 3) (PINS doc. Ref 7.3.5) refer to the key parameters for the assessment and make reference to the identification of the worst-case scenario (WCS) for assessment purposes. This was considered to be different for landscape and visual receptors:

• WCS for landscape receptors – taken as being the combined HVDC converter and HVAC substation on the basis of greatest land take

• WCS for visual receptors – taken as being the two HVDC converter stations on the basis of height, mass and location of the two main buildings

The LVIA considered construction, operation and decommissioning phases with no potential impacts scoped out. It also factored in embedded mitigation in terms of siting the largest buildings within the site where they will bring about the least impacts upon both landscape and visual receptors. The adjusted developable area of 49,326m2 would incorporate the same embedded mitigation and this review assumes that there will be no changes to the assumptions set out within the ES. Paragraphs 5.7.7 – 5.7.49 (Chapter 5, Part 2 of 3) summarise the assessment methodology with paragraph 5.7.27 stating that those effects identified as either Major or Substantial significance are to be regarded as ‘significant’. It goes on to state that ‘Effects of moderate or lesser significance have been identified in the assessment, but are not considered to be significant.’ The same paragraph also acknowledges that the significance of effect associated with the more temporary changes associated with the construction and decommissioning stages of the project ‘…are likely to be diminished due to their transitory nature.’ Bearing this in mind, this review focuses upon the operational stage of the project. Paragraph 5.6.2 (Chapter 5, Part 1 of 3) sets out the methodology utilised to inform the baseline environment. In particular, it notes that Hornsea Project One (consented on 10 December 2014 just prior to completion of the LVIA) was not included within the baseline for the purposes of the assessment. It was, however, included within the cumulative assessment. This means that the baseline environment against which the LVIA was undertaken did not include the substation and associated infrastructure associated with the Hornsea Project One which is now under construction on site and clearly a part of the accepted existing baseline environment. Were the LVIA to be undertaken now this would potentially have the effect of moderating some of the identified impacts arising from Project Two as this would now include a changed existing baseline within very close proximity to the Hornsea Project Two developable area. For consistency with the original ES this has not been factored into this review. Project selection This review adheres to the two worst-case scenarios identified within the LVIA. In this regard, it is noted that an HVAC substation option requires a main building height of 15m which is substantially lower than the 40m worse-case scenario assumption captured within the parameters of the LVIA. This means that, the magnitude of visual impacts arising from the HVAC option will be noticeably less than those identified within the LVIA whilst those for the HVDC option would be as identified within the LVIA. Landscape Receptors and Impacts The key baseline designated landscape receptors identified within the LVIA for the onshore substation and associated infrastructure are shown on Figure 5.8 (Chapter 5, Part 1 of 3). These include:




• The Lincolnshire Wolds AONB • Brocklesby Park Registered Park and Garden (RPaG) • West Lindsey AGLV

In addition, two further RPaGs are located in Kingston-upon-Hull. A wide range of other, undesignated landscape receptors are also identified within the LVIA and include:

• National Landscape Character Areas • 2 National Seascape Character Areas • The Humber Estuary Regional Landscape Character Area • The Humber Estuary – Open Undulating Farmland Local Landscape Character Area • Numerous townscape character areas for Kingston-upon-Hull

These are identified on Figures 5.31, 5.32, 5.33 of the LVIA (Chapter 5, Part 2 of 3) with further baseline descriptive material set out within Annexes 6.5.2 – 6.5.5 included within volume 6 of the ES. Annex 6.5.11, Table 1.2, records and tabulates the effects on the different landscape resources arising during the operational stage following implementation of the substation works.

1. Designated Landscapes –Figure 5.8 identifies the location of designated landscapes within the 15km radius study area around the substation site. The magnitude of impact upon the designated landscapes (which includes the AONB, AGLV and RPaGs) is consistently recorded within the LVIA as ‘No Change’ or ‘No Change to Negligible’.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. The magnitude of impact judgements upon these designated landscapes do not therefore require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

2. National Seascape Character Areas (NSCAs) – The LVIA records impacts upon two NSCAs recording a ‘Negligible’ magnitude of impact for the Humber Waters (NSCA 6) and a ‘No Change’ magnitude of impact for the East Midlands Coastal Waters (NSCA 7).

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. The magnitude of impact judgements upon these two NSCAs do not therefore require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

3. National Landscape Character Areas (NLCAs) – The LVIA records the impacts upon six NLCAs. For all six NLCAs the magnitude of impact arising from the presence of the substation is either ‘No Change’ or ‘No Change to Negligible’. From within four of these NLCAs it is noted that the HVDC converter/HVAC substation (identified as the worse-case scenario for the landscape assessment) would not be visible/discernible and that from within the Humber Estuary (NLCA no 41) and the Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes (NLCA no 42) it would not be visible from within many parts of the area, nor would it alter the character of either of these landscape areas.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme and therefore the




magnitude of impact judgements upon NLCAs do not require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

4. Regional Landscape Character Areas/Types (RLCA/Ts) – The LVIA assesses the impacts

upon a range of regional landscape character areas/types including two within North East Lincolnshire; one within West Lindsey; four within North Lincolnshire and five within the East Riding of Yorkshire. With the exception of those specifically referenced below, the LVIA records the magnitude of impacts arising from the presence of the HVDC converter/HVAC substation and the associated ancillary infrastructure equipment upon the remaining local character areas/types as either ‘No Change’ or ‘Negligible’ or somewhere between the two.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme and therefore the magnitude of impact judgements upon RLCA/Ts do not require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

5. Humber Estuary LCA – The magnitude of impact upon the character of this LCA is identified as

‘Low’ this representing ‘a minor loss or addition of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/patterns of the baseline….’.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. The magnitude of impact judgement for the Humber Estuary LCA does not therefore require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

6. Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs) – The LVIA also assess the potential impacts

arising from the substation upon a large number of local landscape character areas including 14 in North Lincolnshire and 9 in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The magnitude of impact upon all of these was identified as either ‘No Change’ or ‘Negligible’ or ‘No change to Negligible’. This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. The magnitude of impact judgement for these LLCAs do not therefore require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

Two of the LLCAs were identified within the LVIA as being likely to experience a ‘Medium’ magnitude of impact upon their character as a result of the Hornsea Project Two substation and associated site infrastructure and these are considered further below.

7. Humber Estuary: Open Undulating Farmland – South Ki llingholme - The magnitude of impact

upon the character of this LCA is identified as ‘Medium’ this representing ‘a partial loss or addition of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/patterns of the baseline….’. It is also noted that the Open Undulating Farmland is attributed with a ‘Medium’ sensitivity to change.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. Thus, the magnitude of impact judgement for this LLCA does not require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.




8. Humber Estuary: Wooded Farmland – East Halton, Nort h Killingholme - The magnitude of impact upon the character of this neighbouring LCA is also identified as ‘Medium’ this representing ‘a partial loss or addition of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/patterns of the baseline….’. It is also noted that this LLCA is attributed with a ‘Medium’ sensitivity to change and that the substation is noted as not being visible from much of the area.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. Thus, the magnitude of impact judgement for this LLCA does not require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

9. Local Townscape Character Types/Areas (LTCT/As) - Kingston-upon-Hull - For all 19 of the

types/areas identified within the LVIA (see ES Figure 5.33) the magnitude of impact arising from the presence of the substation is either ‘No Change’ or ‘Negligible’.

This will not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. Thus, the magnitude of impact judgements for these LTCT/As do not require alteration. The LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

Annex 6.5.9, Table 1.2, records and tabulates the effects on landscape resources arising during the construction stage of the substation. The findings of the LVIA for this stage of the works are consistent with the operational stage in that the same landscape receptors potentially most affected by the construction of the substation are the Humber Estuary RLCA, the Open Undulating Farmland – South Killingholme and the Wooded Farmland – East Halton, North Killingholme. Given the review above for the operational stage it is judged that there would be no changes arising for the construction stage arising from the amended developable area. Visual Receptors and Impacts Paragraphs 5.7.1 – 5.7.3 (Chapter 5 Part 2 of 3) advise that the worse-case scenario for visual receptors was identified as being the two HVDC converter stations on the basis of the height, mass and location of the two main substation buildings In reviewing the validity of the LVIA for the corrected substation developable area viewpoints 31 – 35 and 40 were visited as these were the closet viewpoints to the site included within the original ES from which any potential change in the extent of the developable area might be detected. Accordingly, an assessment was then made on site as to whether the adjustment in the developable area would require an uplift in the magnitude of impact identified at the viewpoint locations (identified on Figure LA3420_001). At each viewpoint it was concluded that the magnitude of impact would not change with the increase in the developable area as there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements or the siting of the main building which remain as per the submitted scheme. Thus, the magnitude of impact judgements do not require alteration and the LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area. Chapter 5 of the ES also considered the potential visual impacts upon a wide range of visual receptors that might be affected by the proposed substation development and these were summarised within the original ES in Annex 6.5.12. The range of visual receptors identified include: local residents; community receptors; commercial and industrial receptors; users of Public Rights of Way; recreational receptors and




tourists. The effects upon these are identified and considered at different distances from the substation site, namely: close views at under 1km; views between 1-5km; and, views over 5km. Given the findings of both the viewpoint review and the site visit, it is not considered necessary to review the validity of the ES assessment findings for those receptors located beyond 1km from the Hornsea Project Two substation developable area noting that there is no change in the substation infrastructure elements which remain as per the submitted scheme. However, for completeness, these are briefly referenced below.

1. Close range visual receptors – These embrace a range of visual receptors including local residents and Public Right of Way users (High sensitivity); community, recreation and tourism receptors (Medium sensitivity); and commercial/industrial receptors (Low sensitivity).

Residential receptors of East Halton - The LVIA already acknowledges that for residents of some of the properties along Brick Lane there will be a ‘Moderate to Major’ significance of effect derived from a ‘Medium’ magnitude of impact. For all other residents of East Halton and the lanes along its eastern edge the magnitude of effect has been identified as no more than ‘Low’

Following the visit to site and the findings of the viewpoint appraisal it is judged that no adjustment to the magnitude of visual impact upon these different visual receptor groups is required. It is also noted that the substation infrastructure elements that may be seen and the siting of the main substation building remain as assessed within the ES. Given this the magnitude of impact judgements do not require alteration and the LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area.

Public Right of Way users – The close-range users of footpaths 77, 78, 79 and 86 are identified as experiencing anything between a ‘No Change’ and ‘Medium’ magnitude of impact. It is noted that no ‘High’ magnitude of impacts were identified for these receptors within the LVIA reflecting both the filtering of views and the context of the existing industrialised landscape that the new substation would be seen against.


Commercial/Industrial receptors - These close-range receptors (with an attributed ‘Low’ sensitivity) are identified within the LVIA as experiencing between a ‘Low’ to a ‘Medium to High’ magnitude of impact.





2. Medium range visual receptors - These also embrace a range of visual receptors including residents, recreational and Public Right of Way users (High sensitivity); community and recreation receptors (Medium sensitivity); and, commercial/industrial receptors, users of the local road network and those on marine vessels (Low sensitivity). For all these receptor groups the magnitude of change within the LVIA is never identified as being more than ‘Low’ at most and is frequently ‘No Change to Negligible/Low’.


3. Long range visual receptors – These embrace a range of visual receptors including Public Right

of Way users, those using Sustrans routes, recreational users and tourists (High sensitivity) and road users, railway travellers and those on marine vessels (Low sensitivity). For all receptors the magnitude of change within the LVIA is identified as either ‘No Change’ or ‘Negligible’ or between the two.


Annex 6.5.10, Table 1.2, records and tabulates the effects on visual receptors arising during the construction phase of the substation. The findings of the LVIA for this stage of the works are broadly consistent with the operational stage in that the same visual receptors are potentially most affected by the construction of the substation albeit some may experience a short-term uplift in the magnitude of impact experienced and this is identified within the LVIA. Given the review above for the operational stage it is judged that no adjustment to the magnitude of visual impact upon these different visual receptor groups is required. It is also noted that the substation infrastructure elements that may be seen and the siting of the main substation building remain as assessed within the ES. Given this the magnitude of impact judgements do not require alteration and the LVIA findings set out within the ES therefore remain valid for the 49,326m2 developable area. In summary, through the document review and site visit to test the implications of the corrected developable area for the Hornsea Project Two substation site, it is concluded that the findings of the LVIA as identified within Chapter 5, Parts 1 -3 and supporting annexes, remain valid and applicable to the 49,326m2 developable area.

5.1.2 HRA and EPS considerations

2) Where the proposed change invokes a need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Similarly, the need for a new or additional licence in respect of European Protected Species is also likely to be indicative of a material change.




The changes to the substation developable area will not introduce the need for a new HRA or change the position with regard to EPS licensing. This flows from the same rationale presented above for the conclusion that there is no change to the EIA impact significance (see Table 5.1 ). The change gives rise to no additional impact in HRA or EPS terms.

5.1.3 Compulsory Acquisition

3) A change should be treated as material that would authorise the compulsory acquisition of any

land, or an interest in or rights over land that was not authorised through the existing DCO. The proposed change applies to activities being undertaken within the existing DCO Order limits. As such, the possible requirement for compulsory acquisition does not arise.

5.1.4 Local Population

4) The potential impact of the proposed changes on local people will also be a consideration in determining whether a change is material.

As described in Table 5.1 , the proposed amendment to the substation developable area will have no material effect on the local population.

6 Stakeholder Engagement

The Applicant is conducting a programme of informal pre-application consultation to brief stakeholders on the nature of the proposed Order variation. Pre-application consultation has been undertaken with:

• The Planning Inspectorate (PINS); • Natural England; • Environment Agency; • North Lincolnshire Council; • North East Lindsey Drainage Board; • The Heritage Steering Group (specifically the North Lincolnshire Council representative); • C.GEN; • Uniper; • Marine Management Organisation • Hornsea Project One.

No concerns over the proposed changes were raised by these organisations during the course of these discussions to date. The minutes/records of these meetings/discussions are contained within Appendix A of this document.

7 Conclusion

The purpose of this document is to outline the implications of the proposed change and the case for this being a non-material amendment to the DCO and to justify this change. The Applicant has considered whether amending the figure in Requirement 2(24) from 35,672 square metres to 49,326 square metres would alter any of the conclusions in the Environmental Statement.




Each Environmental Statement (ES) chapter has been considered. In most instances, it was clear that the parameter was not relevant to the original assessment and that the proposed change would have no effect. For three topics the assessments have been reviewed in this document and it has been concluded that all the assessments made for those topics remain correct and the change will not affect any of the conclusions made. It is not considered therefore that any new or materially different impacts on the environment (including businesses or residents) beyond those considered in the original Environmental Statement will result from the proposed amendment. There is no requirement for compulsory acquisition powers beyond those originally granted. Considering the above responses to the four tests, as set out in the DCLG guidance on non-material amendments, it is the opinion of the Applicant that the proposed changes to the DCO in relation to the substation developable area should be regarded as a non-material amendment.

8 References

Department for Communities and Local Government (2015) Guidance on Changes to Development Consent Orders RPS (2015) Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two Environmental Statement RPS (2015) Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two Flood Risk Assessment




1. Pre Application Consultation Responses




Marine Management Organisation




Wiltham and Humber Internal Drainage Boards




2. Works Plans




3. Landscape Assessment Figure

hornsea two onss - nma supporting information final · 2020-01-28 · the hvdc converter substation...

Documents