navitus bay wind park · 4a_29339951_1 4 1 introduction 1.1 this statement of common ground (socg)...

NAVITUS BAY WIND PARK Response to Deadline VI

Appendix 29 Updated Statement of Common Ground with Natural

England (ecology excluding fish and shellfish)

29 January 2015

Application Reference: EN10024

Navitus Bay Development Limited

navitusbaywindpark.co.uk

4A_29339951_1 1

Navitus Bay Wind Park Order

PINS Ref: EN010024

Statement of Common Ground

(1) Navitus Bay Development Limited

(2) Natural England

4A_29339951_1 2

Signed

Name Roger Covey

Position Principal Advisor

For Natural England

Date 28th

January 2015

Signed

Name Marlene Biessy

Position Environment Manager

For Navitus Bay Development Limited

Date 28th

January 2015

4A_29339951_1 3

Contents

1 Introduction

2 The Development

3 Application elements under Natural England remit

4 Consultation with Natural England

5 Matters agreed in relation to Physical processes

6 Matters agreed in relation to Benthic Ecology

7 Matters agreed in relation to Marine Mammals

8 Matters agreed in relation to Offshore Ornithology

9 Matters agreed in relation to Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

10 Matters agreed in relation to Onshore Ornithology

11 Matters agreed in relation to HRA

12 Matters under discussion

Appendices*

1 Clarification of assessment with regard to the Wight Barfleur SCI

2 Clarification of the assessment with regard to sandwave clearance

3 Clarification of the precautionary nature of the marine mammals and

Megafauna assessment

4 Clarification of the cumulative impact assessment for marine mammals

5 Clarification notes regarding the offshore ornithological assessment

* Appendices have not been included within this updated version of the Statement of Common Ground.

This is because these documents have not altered since their submission as Appendix 64 of the

Response to Deadline II.

4A_29339951_1 4

1 Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) has been prepared in respect of Navitus Bay

Development Limited’s (the Applicant) application for a development consent order (DCO) to

the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) under the Planning Act 2008 (the Application).

1.2 This SoCG with Natural England is a means of clearly stating any areas of agreement and

disagreement between two parties in relation to the Application. The SoCG has been structured

to reflect topics of interest to Natural England on the Application. Matters regarding the

Seascape, Landscape and Visual Assessment, the Onshore Landscape and Visual Assessment

and Fish and Shellfish Ecology are dealt with in separates SoCG.

1.3 This SoCG has been updated since its original submission at Deadline II. Where changes have

been made to the text these have been highlighted to enable comparision between the two

documents.

1.4 The structure of the SoCG is as follows:

Consultation with Natural England

Matters agreed in relation to Physical Processes

Matters agreed in relation to Benthic Ecology

Matters agreed in relation to Marine Mammals

Matters agreed in relation to Offshore Ornithology

Matters agreed in relation to Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

Matters agreed in relation to Onshore Ornithology

Matters agreed in relation to Habitat Regulations Assessment

Matters under discussion.

1.5 Throughout this SoCG the phrase “It is agreed…” is used as a precursor to any point of

agreement that has been specifically stated by agreement between the Applicant and Natural

England. The phrase “It is not agreed…” is used as a precursor to any point that the Applicant

and Natural England wish to clearly state as not yet agreed. Points that are “not agreed” will be

the subject of ongoing discussion wherever possible to resolve, or refine, the extent of

disagreement between the parties.

4A_29339951_1 5

2 The Development

2.1 The Application is for development consent to construct and operate the proposed Navitus Bay

Wind Park, which comprises up to 194 wind turbine generators and associated infrastructure,

with an installed capacity of up to 970 MW (the Project). The proposed wind farm will cover an

offshore area of approximately 153 km2 and will connect to the national grid via underground

cables to the 400 kV substation at Mannington in Dorset.

2.2 The DCO, if made, would be known as the Navitus Bay Wind Park Order. It will comprise the

following elements:

2.2.1 Offshore wind turbines and foundations (up to 194 wind turbines to provide an

installed capacity of up to 970 MW).

2.2.2 Up to one meteorological mast.

2.2.3 Up to three offshore substations.

2.2.4 Undersea cables between the wind turbines, meteorological mast and offshore

substations.

2.2.5 Up to six offshore undersea export cables to transmit electricity from the offshore

substations to the shore.

2.2.6 A landfall located at the Taddiford Gap between Barton-on-Sea and Milford-on-Sea

with onshore transition joint bays to connect the offshore and onshore cables.

2.2.7 Up to six onshore underground cable circuits with jointing bays to transmit electricity

to a new onshore substation.

2.2.8 An onshore substation on land in the vicinity of the existing National Grid substation

at Mannington, Dorset and up to two underground cable circuits to connect the

offshore wind farm to the national grid.

2.2.9 The permanent and/or temporary compulsory acquisition of land and/or rights for the

Project.

2.2.10 Overriding of easements and other rights over or affecting land for the Project.

2.2.11 The application and/or disapplication of legislation relevant to the Project including

inter alia legislation relating to compulsory purchase.

2.2.12 Such ancillary, incidental and consequential provisions, permits or consents as are

necessary and/or convenient.

2.3 The Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10th April 2014 and accepted for

examination on 8th May 2014.

4A_29339951_1 6

3 Application elements under Natural England remit

3.1 Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment

and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“NERC Act”). Natural England is the statutory adviser to

Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England's

wildlife and natural features.1 Natural England’s remit extends to the territorial sea adjacent to

England, up to the 12 nautical mile limit from the coastline.2

3.2 Natural England is a statutory consultee:

In respect of environmental information submitted pursuant to the Infrastructure Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (‘the EIA Regs’);3

in respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the “Habitats Regulations”) which are

likely to have a significant effect on European protected sites – that is, sites designated as

Special Areas of Conservation (“SACs”) and Special Protection Areas (“SPAs”) for the purposes

of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives;4

in respect of proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical

features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified pursuant to the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the “1981 Act”);5 and

in respect of all applications for consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which

are likely to affect land in England.6

3.3 It is also the Government’s policy to consult Natural England in respect of sites listed for the

purposes of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl

Habitat signed at Ramsar on 2nd February 1971 (“Ramsar sites”) as if they were European

protected sites.7

3.4 Natural England is also the statutory advisor to Government on the conservation of England’s

landscape and biological and geological diversity and also on the promotion of access to the

countryside and open space for recreation. Natural England has statutory powers and duties to

support the conservation and enhancement of nationally protected areas, including advice to

Government on matters relating to nationally protected landscapes (section 84(1) Countryside

and Rights of Way Act 2000).

3.5 The Examining Authority should note that pursuant to an authorisation made on the 9th

December 2013 by the JNCC under paragraph 17(c) of Schedule 4 to the Natural Environment

1 NERC Act ss.1 (2), 2 and 4

2 NERC Act, s.1 (3)

3 Regs. 2(1), 8(6), 9(1), 13(2)(b), 17(3)(g), 18(3)(f), 19(3)(e) of the EIA Regs.

4 Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations

5 Section 28I of the 1981 Act

6Planning Act s.42; Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, reg. 3

and sch.1. 7 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), para 118; PINS Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulation

Assessment for nationally significant infrastructure projects, p.4.

4A_29339951_1 7

and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England is authorised to exercise the JNCC‘s

functions as a statutory consultee in respect of applications for offshore renewable energy

installations in offshore waters (0-200nm) adjacent to England. This application was included in

that authorisation and therefore Natural England will be providing statutory advice in respect of

that delegated authority. However, JNCC retains responsibility as the statutory advisors for

European Protected sites that are located outside the territorial sea and UK internal waters (i.e.

more than 12 nautical miles offshore), in this instance the Wight Barfleur SCI and as such

continues to provide advice to Natural England on the significance of any potential impacts on

interest features of the site.

3.6 In determining this application, the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority

for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations and the 2007 Regulations. The Secretary of State is

also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act in

respect of SSSIs.

3.7 Natural England defers to the following bodies in relation to specified matters:

3.7.1 The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) on matters related to water quality

3.7.2 The MMO and the Southern Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (SIFCA) on matters related to commercial fisheries

3.7.3 The Local Planning Authority on matters related to in-Air and onshore noise

3.8 With regard to the assessment of air quality Natural England confirm there are no matters

outstanding.

4A_29339951_1 8

4 Consultation with Natural England

Pre-Application

4.1 The Applicant engaged with Natural England on the Project during the pre-application process,

both in terms of informal non-statutory engagement and formal consultation carried out pursuant

to section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

4.2 During formal consultation, Natural England provided comments on the draft Environmental

Statement (ES) by way of letter dated 11th October 2013 (the Consultation Response). The

Applicant addressed these comments in its Application submitted to the Planning Inspectorate

on 10th April 2014.

4.3 Specific consultation with regard to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

(as amended) was undertaken by following the Defra guidance “Habitats Regulations – Evidence

plans for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (2012)”. This process is outlined in the

Evidence Plan Report (an Appendix to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II).

Post-Application

4.4 Natural England made a relevant representation on the Application to the Planning Inspectorate

on 23rd

June 2014 (the Relevant Representation).

4.5 A summary of the communications undertaken following the submission of the Application are

set out in the table below.

Activity Date Subject

Meeting 29/05/2014 Statement of Common Ground

process and updates on

Offshore Ornithology, Onshore

Ornithology and Terrestrial and

Freshwater Ecology

Tele-conference 05/06/2014 General biodiversity update

Tele-conference 11/07/2014 Relevant Representation for

Offshore Ornithology

Meeting 14/07/2014 Relevant Representation for

Terrestrial and Freshwater

Ecology and Onshore Birds


Physical Processes

4A_29339951_1 9


Benthic Ecology




Marine Mammals


Terrestrial and Freshwater

Ecology and Onshore

Ornithology



Meeting (joint meeting with

LPAs and Wildlife Trusts)

02/09/2014 Statement of Common Ground

for Terrestrial and Freshwater

Ecology and Onshore

Ornithology

Meeting 15/09/2014 Statement of Common Ground

for all matters excluding

Seascape, Landscape and

Visual.

Tele-conference 29/09/2014 Statement of Common Ground

for ornithology and terrestrial

ecology.

Tele-conference 13/10/2014 Statement of Common Ground

for all matters excluding

Seascape, Landscape and

Visual.

Tele-conference 22/10/2014 Updates and ongoing task

discussions for all topics within

Natural England remit.


discussions for all Terrestrial

4A_29339951_1 10

and Freshwater Ecology,

Onshore Ornithology and

Offshore Ornithology.


discussion for all ecological

topics.

4.6 Following meetings listed in the table above and subsequent communication with Natural

England, agreement was reached on certain matters previously raised by Natural England in

their Relevant Representation. These are outlined in the sections below.

4A_29339951_1 11

5 Matters Agreed in relation to Physical processes

5.1 The following paragraphs of this SoCG set out those aspects of the Environmental Impact

Assessment of physical processes that are agreed.

5.2 Where the agreements set out in the following paragraphs refer to sections of the ES, it is

agreed that those statements apply equally to all application documents. Unless otherwise

indicated, all paragraph references in this section are to Volume B, Chapter 5 of the ES.

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

5.3 It is agreed that the assessment methodology is appropriate and follows standard practice in

relation to the Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and the National

Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) and that specific considerations

with regards to physical processes as have been considered. In addition specific regard to

paragraphs 2.6.81, 2.6.113 and 2.6.194 of EN-3 has been given.

5.4 It is agreed that the ES has considered and referred to all appropriate legislation, policy and

guidance in relation to the potential impacts on physical processes in preparing the impact

assessment undertaken.

5.5 It is agreed that Volume B, Chapter 5 of the ES, and subsequent clarification notes still under

discussion (see Section 12 ‘matters under discussion’), contains a complete assessment of all

the issues relevant to physical processes that should be included for this type of development in

this location and as defined by the NPS and any other policy or guidance considered relevant.

Study Area

5.6 It is agreed that an appropriate study area for the consideration of physical processes has been

assessed, in accordance to the agreed scope of work discussed at the Project outset and agreed

in writing on 15th August 2013.

Assessment Methodology

5.7 It is agreed that the methodology employed and set out in Section 5.3 provides an appropriate

description of the approach to defining the assessment criteria and assignment of significance

that has subsequently been used in the impact assessment undertaken.

Baseline conditions

5.8 It is agreed that the surveys and modelling undertaken, including sediment dispersion modelling,

and methodology employed were appropriate and of sufficient scale and timing to characterise

the area in relation to the physical processes environment, in accordance to the agreed scope of

work discussed at the Project outset and agreed in writing on 15th August 2013.

5.9 It is agreed that the information presented to describe the baseline conditions within Volume B,

Chapter 5 of the ES and supporting characterisation and assessment reports at Appendices 5.1

and 5.2, provide an accurate representation of the physical processes environment of the study

4A_29339951_1 12

area and utilises best available information, as confirmed in writing with Natural England on 15th

August 2013.

5.10 It is agreed that the information presented to describe the microclimate conditions within Volume

B, Chapter 5 of the ES and supporting micro climate reports at Appendices 5.3 to 5.5, provide an

accurate representation of the microclimate conditions of the study area.

Parameters for assessment and Realistic Worst Case Scenario (RWCS)

5.11 It is agreed that the key parameters for assessment and the RWCS, as defined in table 5.13.

Clarification was provided to Natural England to enable the agreement that the key parameters

for assessment of the RWCS are appropriate for assessing the potential maximum impacts upon

physical processes during construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project

and allows the full impacts of the proposals to be assessed.

5.12 It is agreed that a RWCS for the development has been established according to the Design

(Rochdale) Envelope principles.

5.13 It is agreed that the rationale for the RWCS of chalk release from pin pile installation and gravity

base bed preparation are appropriate and allows the full impacts of both scenarios to be

assessed.

5.14 It is agreed that the cable protection requirements are provided in sufficient detail to allow

potential impacts to be assessed. Further consideration will be undertaken once data from pre-

construction benthic surveys and likely areas of cable protection are identified in more detail as

part of the Scour Protection Management and Cable Armouring Plan.

5.15 It is agreed that there are no other design permutations, when considering the project details as

set out the Project Description Chapters (Volume A and Volume B, Chapter 2), which could lead

to any greater effect on physical processes than the RWCS as set out in Table 5.13.

Impact Assessment

5.16 It is agreed that for all physical processes pathways, effects and receptors identified, the ES

presents a detailed and adequate assessment of potential impacts, arising from all phases of

development. Clarification has been provided to Natural England to enable this agreement to be

reached.

5.17 It is agreed that the level of sensitivity assigned to each physical processes receptor is

appropriate and takes into account previous advice received from Natural England as part of the

Section 42 process in October 2013.

5.18 It is agreed that the use of Horizontal Directional Drilling will remove the potential for cabling

impacts arising in the intertidal area. Clarification has been provided to Natural England in order

to reach this agreement, which is based on no scour protection being placed at the cable exit pit

in the shallow offshore zone.

4A_29339951_1 13

5.19 It is agreed that the impacts on all physical process pathways, effects and receptors identified

and assessed, including the Wight Barfleur SCI (see Appendix 1) and with reference to potential

sandwave clearance (see Appendix 2), will be negligible or minor and therefore not significant.

5.20 Cumulative impact assessment

5.21 It is agreed that the projects and plans considered within the cumulative assessment are relevant

and appropriate to allow the potential cumulative impacts of the Project to be assessed.

5.22 It is agreed that the Applicant has sufficiently considered all potential cumulative impacts to

inform the assessment and that the cumulative impacts presented in Section 5.7 are appropriate,

which concludes that there are unlikely to be any significant impacts.

Agreed Mitigation Measures/DCO requirements

5.23 It is agreed that the Deemed Marine Licences (DMLs) for the Project contain a provision at

Condition 11(g) for a cable specification and installation plan and at Condition 11(e) for a scour

protection management and cable armouring plan, which will provide details of the need, type,

sources, quantity and installation methods for scour protection.

5.24 It is agreed that the DMLs for the Project have been updated at Condition 11(c), regarding

suspended sediment concentrations, and Condition 11(e), regarding scour protection, to allow

for consultation with Natural England, as requested by Natural England.

6 Matters Agreed in relation to Benthic Ecology


Assessment of benthic ecology that are agreed.


agreed that those statements apply equally to all application documents. Unless otherwise

indicated, all paragraph reference in this section are to Volume B, Chapter 9 of the ES.





with regards to benthic ecology as set out in paragraphs 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of EN-1 and paragraphs

2.6.64 – 2.6.67 and 2.6.13 and 2.6.14 of EN-3 has been given.

6.4 It is agreed that the ES has considered and referred to all appropriate legislation, policy and

guidance in relation to the potential impacts on benthic ecology in preparing the impact

assessment undertaken.

6.5 It is agreed that Volume B, Chapter 9 of the ES contains a complete assessment of all the

significant issues relevant to benthic ecology that should be included for this type of development

in this location and as defined by the NPS and any other policy or guidance considered relevant.

4A_29339951_1 14

Study Area

6.6 It is agreed that an appropriate study area for the consideration of potential effects on benthic

ecology receptors from the Project has been assessed, in accordance to the agreed scope of

work discussed and agreed with the MMO on 1st May 2012.





6.8 It is agreed that the intertidal survey undertaken, was appropriate and of sufficient scale and

timing to characterise the area in relation to benthic ecology.

6.9 It is agreed that the methodology used to characterise the level of reef resemblance to Annex I

stony (geogenic reef) is appropriate as advised by Natural England and presented within the

benthic ecology characterisation technical report (Appendix 9.1) and that no habitats of high

resemblance to the definitions of Annex I stony (geogenic) reef were identified within the

boundaries of the Offshore Development Area, as agreed with Natural England on 16th July

2014.

Baseline conditions

6.10 It is agreed that the benthic ecology survey undertaken, including beam trawl samples, sediment

samples and seabed video footage and photographs, was appropriate and of sufficient scale and

timing to characterise the area in relation to benthic ecology, in accordance to the scope of work

agreed in correspondence with the MMO and their advisors Cefas on 1st May 2012.

6.11 It is agreed that the offshore development area including the turbine array and export cable

corridor has been appropriately mapped with regards to biotope classification and valued

ecological components (VECs) using a combination of grab samples and acoustic data, following

advice from Natural England in response to PEI3 (October 2013).

6.12 It is agreed that the information presented to describe the baseline conditions within Volume B,

Chapter 9 of the ES and supporting benthic ecology characterisation technical report at

Appendix 9.1, provide an accurate representation of benthic ecology of the study area and

utilises best available information, as agreed in writing with Natural England on 15th August

2013.


6.13 It is agreed that the key parameters for assessment and the RWCS, as defined in table 9.11 are

appropriate for assessing the potential maximum impacts upon benthic ecology receptors during

construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project and allows the full impacts of

the proposals to be assessed. This agreement has been reached following the provision of

clarification to Natural England.

4A_29339951_1 15


(Rochdale) Envelope principles.

6.15 It is agreed that the RWCS for suspended sediment concentrations is based on a maximum of

two gravity base foundations being installed at any one time as presented within Volume B,

Chapter 5.

6.16 It is agreed that the cable protection requirements are provided in sufficient detail to allow

potential impacts to be assessed. Clarification has been provided to Natural England in order to

reach this agreement.

6.17 It is agreed that there are no other design permutations, when considering the Project details as

set out in the Project Description Chapters (Volume A and Volume B, Chapter 2), which could

lead to any greater effect on benthic ecology than the worst case scenarios as set out in Table

9.11. Clarification has been provided to Natural England to enable this agreement to be reached.

6.18 It is agreed that for all benthic ecology receptors identified, the ES presents a detailed and

adequate assessment of potential impacts, arising from all phases of development. However, the

Applicant notes Natural England’s comments raised within their Relevant Representation over

the use of Valued Ecological Components (VEC) to assign receptor sensitivity and Natural

England would wish to consult if the approach was to be used in future applications.

6.19 It is agreed that for all benthic ecology receptors identified, consideration of importance and the

assignment of sensitivity used within the assessment is appropriate.

6.20 It is agreed that the conclusions based on the methodologies used is appropriate to assess the

likely recovery (re-colonisation) rates of species and biotopes.

6.21 It is agreed that the impacts on all benthic ecology receptors identified and assessed, including

direct and indirect impacts, will be negligible or minor and therefore not significant.

Cumulative impact assessment


and appropriate to allow the potential cumulative impacts of the project to be assessed.

6.23 It is agreed that the Project has sufficiently considered all potential cumulative impacts to inform

the assessment and that the cumulative impacts presented in Section 9.7 are appropriate, which

concludes that there are unlikely to be any significant impacts.


6.24 It is agreed that the DMLs for the Project contain a provision at Condition 11(g) for a cable

specification and installation plan and at Condition 11(e) for a scour protection management and

cable armouring plan, which will provide details of the need, type, sources, quantity and

installation methods for scour protection.

4A_29339951_1 16

6.25 It is agreed that all export cables will be installed through the intertidal area using Horizontal

Directional Drilling and this forms a Requirement with the draft DCO for the Project (Requirement

10).

6.26 It is agreed that best practice will be followed and implemented and a Construction Method

Statement (CMS) and project Environmental Management Plan (PEMP) would be developed in

consultation with Natural England prior to the commencement of construction activity (Condition

11 (Pre-construction plans and documentation)).

7 Matters Agreed in relation to Marine Mammals and Megafauna


Assessment for marine mammals and megafauna that are agreed.


agreed that those statements apply equally to all Application documents. Unless otherwise

indicated, all paragraph reference in this section are to Volume B, Chapter 11 of the ES.





with regards to marine mammals and megafauna as set out in paragraphs 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of EN-

1 and paragraphs 2.6.92 and 2.6.93 of EN-3 has been given.

7.4 It is agreed that the ES has considered and referred to all appropriate international and national

legislation, policy and guidance in relation to the potential impacts on marine mammals and

megafauna in preparing the impact assessment undertaken.

7.5 It is agreed that Volume B, Chapter 11 of the ES contains a complete assessment of all the

issues relevant to marine mammals and megafauna that should be included for this type of

development in this location and as defined by the NPS and any other policy or guidance

considered relevant.

Study Area

7.6 It is agreed that an appropriate study area for the consideration of marine mammals and

megafauna has been assessed, in accordance with available information and datasets, as

agreed in writing with Natural England on 7th and 11

th June 2013.





4A_29339951_1 17

7.8 It is agreed that the method of assessment, using a quantitative approach to assigning effect

magnitude and sensitivity of receptors is clear and reasonable and that necessary limitations and

assumptions are recorded appropriately.

Baseline conditions

7.9 It is agreed that the data sources used and marine mammal surveys undertaken, including aerial

and boat based surveys and static passive acoustic surveys, were appropriate and of sufficient

scale and timing to characterise the area in relation to marine mammals and megafauna, as

discussed and agreed with Natural England on 28th July 2014.

7.10 It is agreed that that the information presented to describe the baseline conditions within Volume

B, Chapter 11 of the ES and supporting technical reports at Appendices 11.1 to 11.3 provide an

accurate representation of marine mammal and megafauna within the study area and utilises

best available information, as agreed in writing with Natural England on 7th and 11

th June 2013.


7.11 It is agreed that the key parameters for assessment and the RWCS, as defined in table 11.18

are appropriate for assessing the potential maximum impacts upon marine mammal and

megafauna during construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project and

allows the full impacts of the proposals to be assessed.


(Rochdale) Envelope principles and that this provides a suitable basis for undertaking the impact

assessment, as discussed and agreed with Natural England on 28th July 2014.

7.13 It is agreed that the survey area and data collected for the previous PEI3 layout remain

appropriate and assessment using this information is likely to be more precautionary as a result

of the layout change which resulted in movement of the turbine array away from the coast.

7.14 It is agreed that there are no other design permutations, when considering the project details as


to any greater effect on marine mammals and megafauna than the worst case scenarios as set

out in Table 11.18. This follows clarification provided to Natural England and agreed on 28h July

2014.

Impact Assessment

7.15 It is agreed that for all marine mammal and megafauna receptors identified, the ES presents a

detailed and adequate assessment of potential impacts, arising from all phases of development.

Although it is acknowledged there are uncertainties associated with understanding the impact

significance of noise on marine mammals and a precautionary approach has been undertaken

as appropriate.

7.16 It is agreed that for all marine mammal and megafauna receptors identified, consideration of

importance and the assignment of sensitivity used within the assessment is appropriate.

4A_29339951_1 18

7.17 It is agreed that the most significant potential impact would arise from pile driving noise during

construction and that the assessment correctly focuses on this impact.

7.18 It is agreed that the impacts on all marine mammals and megafauna receptors identified and

assessed, including direct and indirect impacts, will be negligible or minor and therefore not

significant. This follows provision of a clarification note issued on the 14th August 2014 (see

Appendix 3).

Cumulative impact assessment


and appropriate to allow the potential cumulative impacts of the project to be assessed.

7.20 It is agreed that the Project has sufficiently considered all potential cumulative impacts to inform

the assessment and that the cumulative impacts presented in Section 6.7 are appropriate, which

concludes that there are unlikely to be any significant impacts. This follows provision of a

clarification note issued on the 14th August 2014.


7.21 It is agreed that an area within the Turbine Area has been demarcated for the exclusion of

monopile foundations, reducing the total number of monopile foundations used. This forms a

condition within the transmission assets DML for the Project (Condition 1 (Design parameters)).

7.22 It is agreed that best practice will be followed and implemented and a Marine Mammal Mitigation

Protocol (MMMP) will be developed in consultation with Natural England and the MMO prior to

the commencement of construction works (as per Condition 11(f) (Pre-construction plans and

documentation) of the DMLs. This will include provision for a soft start procedure for pile driving,

and will include a qualitative assessment of potential collision risk of seals with construction

vessels, should a construction port other than Portland or Poole be selected.

7.23 It is agreed that the DMLs for the Project includes a provision at Condition 11(c)(v) and (vi) (Pre-

construction plans and documentation) with respect to vessel routeing and the production of a

vessel routeing protocol which will have the impact of reducing potential collision risk.

7.24 It is agreed that the Applicant will continue to consult with oil and gas operators in the area and

will enter into an agreement and if necessary programming arrangement, to ensure that piling

does not occur concurrently with seismic surveys for oil and gas exploration.

7.25 It is agreed that Rampion and Navitus Bay wind farms have entered into a an agreement to

ensure that both projects work together to propose a joint approach to mitigation measures as

required, to be taken during the construction of each individual wind farm.

7.26 It is agreed that the Applicant will continue to consult with French wind farm developers, to

enable projects to work together to coordinate activities to develop mitigation measures, as

required.

4A_29339951_1 19

7.27 It is agreed that provided the design envelope for the Project remains the same and no material

changes are made to the Application, an EPS licence would be granted prior to construction, this

conclusion based on further clarification provided with regard to cumulative impact assessment

(Appendix 4).

8 Matters Agreed in relation to Offshore Ornithology


Assessment of offshore ornithology that are agreed.



indicated, all section and paragraph references in this section of the SoCG are to Volume B,

Chapter 12 of the ES. All references to appendices made are to those accompanying Volume B,

Chapter 12 of the ES.

8.3 The offshore ornithology chapter includes an assessment of the potential impacts on seabirds,

seaducks and birds that may pass through the Turbine Area when migrating between different

land masses (e.g. the British Isles and continental Europe). Birds wintering or breeding within or

adjacent to the Onshore Development Area are considered separately in section 10 of this

SoCG.


8.4 It is agreed that the relevant international, national and local legislation and policy is identified

within Section 12.2, and that the relevant aspects of these documents are addressed in the

information provided within the chapter. This includes, but is not restricted to, part 5.3 of the

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and part 2.6 of the National Policy

Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

8.5 It is agreed that the guidance documents identified within Section 12.2 are those most relevant to

the assessment of impacts of offshore wind farm on birds.

8.6 It is agreed that Volume B, Chapter 12 of the ES and subsequent information provided post-

application (Appendix 5 sections 5.1 to 5.10) provide a complete assessment of the issues

relevant to offshore ornithology that should be included for this type of development in this

location as defined by the NPS and any other policy or guidance considered relevant.

Study Area

8.7 It is agreed that the definition of the study area, comprising the Turbine Area, a 4 km buffer zone

and Zone 7 (see Section 12.3), provides a suitable scale across which to describe the baseline

(Appendix 12.1 of the ES) and on which to determine the potential impacts on offshore

ornithology due to the Project.

8.8 It is agreed that the use of the PEI3 boundary to determine the densities of individual bird

species (as outlined in paragraphs 12.1.6 and 12.3.3) is suitable as the basis of the general

assessment as there is no pattern regarding distribution of birds noticeable within the data (in

4A_29339951_1 20

comparison between the PEI3 and Application boundary), except for guillemot and razorbill

where further information has been provided (see Appendix 5.4 and 5.5).

8.9 It is agreed that the updating of the density figures for guillemot and razorbill used within the

displacement matrices, to reflect the Application boundary, is both required and reasonable

given the changes in design parameters (e.g. reduction in the maximum number of wind

turbines).

Methodology

Desk-study and Field Survey

8.10 It is agreed that the desk-study information gathered from the scientific and grey literature and

locally gathered historical ornithological data (as described in paragraphs 12.4.1 to 12.4.3)

provides a suitable context within which to frame the impact assessment provided in Section

12.4 and Appendix 12.1 of the ES.

8.11 It is agreed that the methodology used to undertake the field survey programme (including level

of survey effort) was discussed and regularly reviewed by Natural England resulting in the

baseline data (Appendix 12.1 of the ES) being considered suitable for informing the assessment

on 13th June 2013.

8.12 It is agreed that the boat-based transect surveys (both in method and level of survey effort)

undertaken within the Turbine Area, buffer zone and Zone 7 provide suitable baseline

information on which to base an assessment of the impacts of the Project on offshore ornithology

when combined with the desk-study information, other field survey data and modelling outputs

described in Volume B, Chapter 12 and accompanying appendices. This includes providing

adequate data to undertake collision risk modelling (following the basic Band model) and the

derivation of displacement matrices (as per JNCC / Natural England interim guidance).

8.13 It is agreed that the aerial transect surveys (both in method and survey effort) undertaken within

the Turbine Area, buffer zone and Zone 7 provide suitable additional information in order to

provide context to the assessment.

8.14 It is agreed that the migration surveys (land and boat-based surveys run concurrently) did not

provide sufficient information on which to provide an assessment of this aspect of the offshore

ornithology. It is also agreed that the options for gathering suitable field data on migrating birds is

limited and that this has resulted in the necessity to determine impacts on migratory birds

following a modelling approach.

Modelling

8.15 It is agreed that Migropath modelling (as described in Appendices 12.2 and 12.5 of the ES) is

suitable for providing baseline information on which to base a collision risk assessment of the

following species; common scoter, little egret, avocet, golden plover, grey plover, knot, black-

tailed godwit and bar-tailed godwit (UK non-breeding population). It is agreed that further

corroboration of the Migropath model outputs for common tern, Sandwich tern, great skua, Arctic

4A_29339951_1 21

skua, Dark-bellied brent goose and bar-tailed godwit (Taymyrensis sub-species) was required, in

the form of an apportionment exercise, and has been completed to Natural England’s

satisfaction (Appendix 5.1).

8.16 It is agreed that the method used to determine which migratory birds should be assessed is

adequate and that modelling of all migratory species listed in Appendix 12.9 is not necessary.

8.17 It is agreed that the method for the apportionment exercise (see Appendix 5.1) for common tern,

Sandwich tern, great skua, Arctic skua, Dark-bellied brent goose and bar-tailed godwit

(Taymyrensis sub-species) enables conclusions on the likely level of impact on these species to

be drawn.

8.18 It is agreed that the use of the JNCC / Natural England interim guidance for determining losses

to displacement is appropriate following further input post submission (Appendix 5.9).

8.19 It is agreed that the approach to collision risk modelling used to inform the assessment is

suitable following the provision of clarification. Use of Option 1 of the Band model (see Appendix

12.4 of the ES) is appropriate and precautionary for the key seabirds and migratory birds listed in

Tables 12.31 and 12.41 and Option 2 for migratory seabirds (Appendix 5.1 and 5.8). It is also

agreed that the range of avoidance rates presented are appropriate.

8.20 It is agreed that the collision risk modelling scenarios undertaken for nightjar (see Appendix 12.8

of the ES) provide a range of scenarios that are highly precautionary. The highly precautionary

outputs account for the lack of information on the migratory behaviour of this species.

8.21 It is agreed that the collision risk modelling of linnet (used as an exemplar passerine), as

described in paragraph 12.4.111, provides a precautionary basis for the assessment of collision

risk for passerine species.

Impact Assessment Methodology

8.22 It is agreed that the impact assessment methodology outlined in paragraphs 12.3.15 to 12.3.48,

although it is not supported by Natural England, results in valid conclusions being drawn.

8.23 It is agreed that the thresholds for determining significance at the regional, national and

international population for the assessment of displacement and collision risk (see Table 12.30)

are appropriate (i.e. the use of changes relative to background mortality rates of 1% or greater

being associated with potential significant impacts).

Baseline Environment

8.24 It is agreed that the desk-study and field survey information presented within Appendix 12.1

provide a suitable baseline to inform the impact assessment of the Project. It is noted that this

baseline was agreed as suitable by Natural England as part of the Evidence Plan process on

13th June 2013.

8.25 It is agreed that the Migropath model outputs described in paragraphs 12.4.53 and 12.4.111,

when allied with the outputs of the apportionment exercise (Appendix 5.1), adequately describe

4A_29339951_1 22

the baseline for migrating birds. Central to this agreement is the understanding that the

practicable collection of robust field data that could be used to parameterise the impact

assessment of migratory birds was not possible.

8.26 It is agreed that the Applicant and Natural England discussed the potential methods for the

recording of migratory bird movements on a number of occasions during the data collection

period, and that the conclusion of these discussions (following a review of the data collected

during concurrent migration boat and land based surveys) was the recognition that a modelling

approach was the best way to enable quantification of the baseline.

8.27 It is agreed that the baseline environment described by field survey, desk-based research and

estimates of migration movements through the Turbine Area (using Migropath and / or

apportionment) provides adequate information on which to base an assessment of the Project on

offshore ornithology.


8.28 It is agreed that Table 12.19 provides the RWCS for the Project with regard to the potential

ornithological impacts at the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning

phases of the Project.

8.29 It is agreed that the scenario that presents the greatest potential collision risk for the Project is

that which specifies the installation of 194 turbines, each with an output of 5 MW (see Appendix

12.4, Volume B, Chapter 12).

8.30 It is agreed that there are no other design permutations, when considering the Project details as


to any greater effect on offshore ornithology than the RWCS as set out in Table 12.19.

Assessment of impacts

8.31 It is agreed that the following species that were noted within the survey area, but did not occur

either in large numbers or frequently or were judged to be of limited nature conservation

importance, should remain scoped out of the assessment:

Red-breasted merganser

Black-throated diver

Storm petrel

Manx shearwater

Cormorant

Shag

Merlin

Coot

4A_29339951_1 23

Whimbrel

Pormarine skua

Black-headed gull

Common gull

Little gull

Yellow-legged gull

Arctic tern

Feral pigeon

Passerines noted at sea.

8.32 It is agreed that the potential impacts on the key seabird species during the construction and

decommissioning phases of the Project of disturbance and displacement and habitat

loss/change would not result in an impact on the populations of these species that would be

deemed Significant in EIA terms.

8.33 It is agreed that the potential impacts on the key seabird species, during the construction and

operation phases of the Project of disturbance and displacement, losses due to collision and the

barrier effect would not result in an impact on the populations of these species that would be

deemed Significant in EIA terms.

8.34 It is agreed that the migratory species considered (dark-bellied brent goose, common scoter,

little egret, avocet, golden plover, grey plover, knot, black-tailed godwit, bar-tailed godwit (UK

non-breeding population and Taymyrensis sub-species), common tern, Sandwich tern, great

skua, Arctic skua, nightjar and linnet) within the impact assessment provide the information

necessary (alongside that provided in Appendix 12.9 of the ES and Appendix 5.1) to conclude

that there will be No Significant Impacts, in EIA terms, on any population of migratory birds due

to the potential passage through the Navitus Bay Wind Park.

Agreed mitigation measures / DCO requirements

8.35 It is agreed that the measures adopted as part of the Project (see paragraphs 12.3.52 to

12.3.55), implemented through Project design and the adoption of best practice measures (e.g.

pollution control measures), reduce or eliminate any identified potential impacts as none are

judged to be Significant in EIA terms.

8.36 It is agreed that there is no requirement for ornithological monitoring for areas under Natural

England’s remit during the construction and operation of the Navitus Bay Wind Park as no

significant impacts on any birds within the marine environment have been predicted.

Inter-relationships

4A_29339951_1 24

8.37 It is agreed that the inter-relationships identified within Volume B, Chapter 12 and Volume D,

Chapter 6 are appropriate and all potential impacts relevant to the Project have been identified

and assessed.

8.38 There is ongoing discussion to agree that none of the inter-relationships identified result in a

significant impact on any receptor. Further information on this point is outlined within Section 12

‘Matters under discussion’

Cumulative Impacts

8.39 It is agreed that the Project makes no significant contribution to cumulative impacts to birds at

any relevant population scale.

Transboundary Impacts

8.40 It is agreed that transboundary impacts are dealt with through the assessment of impacts at the

regional (including British and French waters), national and international levels.

8.41 It is agreed that as there are no impacts identified as Significant in EIA terms, there are no

significant transboundary issues.

9 Matters Agreed in relation to Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

Introduction


Assessment of terrestrial and freshwater ecology that are agreed.



indicated, all section and paragraph references in this section of the SoCG are to Volume C,

Chapter 10 of the ES. All references to appendices made are to those accompanying Volume C,


9.3 The terrestrial and freshwater ecology chapter includes an assessment of the potential impacts

of habitats and species that may interact with the construction, operation and maintenance and

decommissioning of the onshore infrastructure. The exception to this is with regard to migrating

bats and Lepidoptera which are considered with regard to the offshore infrastructure.

9.4 Migratory fish when in the freshwater environment are considered within a separate SoCG.

9.5 This section is focused on terrestrial and freshwater ecology receptors with regard to the EIA

Regulations. Section 11 of this SoCG lists the agreements with regard to terrestrial and

freshwater ecology and the Habitat Regulations.




4A_29339951_1 25


Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), part 2.6 of the National Policy

Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) and part 2.7 of the National Policy

Statement for Electrical Networks Infrastructure (EN-5).


the assessment of impacts of onshore infrastructure projects (e.g. the installation of onshore

electrical transmission cables) on terrestrial and freshwater ecology receptors.

9.8 It is agreed that Volume C, Chapter 10 of the ES and subsequent information provided post-

application (an Appendix to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II) provide a complete

assessment of the issues relevant to terrestrial and freshwater ecology that should be included

for this type of development in this location as defined by the NPS and any other policy or

guidance considered relevant.

Study Area

9.9 It is agreed that the definition of the study area described in Section 10.3 is of a suitable scale to

enable the determination of the potential impacts of temporary habitat loss, degradation of

adjacent habitats and disturbance of fauna due to the construction, operation and maintenance

and decommissioning of the Project. This position having been confirmed with Natural England

originally on 14th June 2013.

9.10 It is agreed and acknowledged that full access to the study area was not available for terrestrial

ecology surveys until October 2013 (i.e. seasonally dependent surveys could not be completed

until after the submission of the application for development consent). It is agreed that the

surveys undertaken in late 2013 and 2014 (an Appendix to the Applicant’s response to Deadline

II) ensure full coverage of the study area has been achieved.


9.11 It is agreed that the Ecological Impact Assessment guidance provided by the Chartered Institute

of Ecology and Environmental Management provides a suitable framework within which to carry

out the impact assessment for the Project. It is agreed that this guidance has been interpreted

correctly and implemented accordingly within Volume C, Chapter 10.

9.12 It is agreed that species, within the study area, that have been determined as having a nature

conservation value of ‘local’ or lower do not require detailed impact assessment. This is because

there is no potential for the Project to result in a significant impact, in EIA terms, on the

populations of these species.


9.13 It is agreed that the desk-study information gathered from the local biological record centres

(based in Hampshire and Dorset), internet based databases and through consultation with

relevant bodies (as described in Tables 10.2 and 10.4) provides a suitable context within which

to frame the impact assessment provided in Volume C, Chapter 10.

4A_29339951_1 26

9.14 It is agreed that the use of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey method to classify habitats

within and adjacent to the Onshore Development Area was appropriate.

9.15 It is agreed that the hedgerow survey methodology used to classify hedgerows within and

adjacent to the Onshore Development Area were appropriate for determining the value of this

habitat.

9.16 It is agreed that the use of the National Vegetation Classification survey methodology within the

Onshore Development Area as it passes through the Dorset Heaths Special Area of

Conservation (SAC) was appropriate to provide a detailed description of the types of habitats

present.

9.17 It is agreed that the arboriculture survey used to identify individual trees and groups of trees

within and adjacent to the Onshore Development Area was appropriate for providing a baseline

for this resource.

9.18 It is agreed that the great crested newt survey methodology employed within suitable habitats

within and adjacent to the Onshore Development Area was appropriate for identifying the

presence of this species.

9.19 It is agreed that the reptile survey methods employed within suitable habitats within the Onshore

Development Area were appropriate for identifying the presence of reptile populations.

9.20 It is agreed that the bat survey methods (tree climbing, emergence surveys, transect surveys

and static detector surveys) within and adjacent to the Onshore Development Area were suitable

for identifying the bat species present and their relative levels of activity.

9.21 It is agreed that the dormouse survey methodology employed within suitable habitats within and

adjacent to the Onshore Development Area was appropriate for identifying the presence of this

species.

9.22 It is agreed that the badger survey method employed within suitable habitats within and adjacent

to the Onshore Development Area was appropriate for identifying the presence of badger

activity.

9.23 It is agreed that the otter survey methodology employed within suitable habitats within and


species.

9.24 It is agreed that the water vole survey methodology employed within suitable habitats within and


species.

9.25 It is agreed that the aquatic invertebrate survey methodology employed within suitable habitats

within and adjacent to the Onshore Development Area was appropriate for identifying the type of

species present.

4A_29339951_1 27

9.26 It is agreed that the baseline environment, derived from field survey and desk-based study is

adequately described in Section 10.4, in Appendices 10.1 through 10.6 of the ES and in the

Ecology Survey Report 2014 Appended to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II.

9.27 It is agreed that the results from the surveys undertaken in 2014 do not alter the baseline

situation assessed within Volume C, Chapter 10, as the types of habitats and species present

were in keeping with those in adjacent parts of the study area.


9.28 It is agreed that the impact assessment is based on the RWCS – i.e. all habitat is lost within the

Onshore Development Area during the construction period, apart from that where cable

installation will be undertaken using trenchless techniques (see Volume C, Chapter 2 and the

updated trenchless crossing plan).


9.29 It is agreed that the following potential impacts on ecological receptors determined to be of

‘county’ conservation value or greater (see Table 10.8) can be scoped out of detailed

assessment due to the implementation of the measures adopted as part of the Project in

paragraph 10.3.43 and 10.3.44 and in the updated trenchless crossing plan (see Appendices to

the Applicant’s response to Deadline II):

Statutory and non-statutory designated sites outside of the Onshore Development

Area;

Statutory and non-statutory designated sites crossed using trenchless crossing

techniques;

Bats migrating or feeding within the marine environment;

Butterflies and moths migrating across the Turbine Area;

Marsh/marshy grassland;

Soft cliff and intertidal shingle/cobbles;

Migratory fish reacting to electro-magnetic fields.

9.30 It is agreed that the impacts that required assessment for the Project, in relation to terrestrial and

freshwater ecology, once all measures adopted as part of the project are considered, were:

Statutory and non-statutory designated sites to be crossed using open trenching

techniques;

Temporary loss of broad-leaved and mixed woodland, hedgerows, lowland heath and

rivers and streams;

Disturbance of badger and destruction of their resting places;

Disturbance of bats and temporary loss of foraging and commuting habitats;

4A_29339951_1 28

Killing or injury of common reptiles and temporary loss of habitat;

Killing, injury or disturbance of rare reptiles and temporary loss of habitat;

Loss of aquatic invertebrates through pollution and sedimentation;

Loss of migratory fish through pollution and sedimentation or blocking of freshwater

channels.


9.31 It is agreed that the implementation of the measures adopted as part of the Project outlined in

paragraphs 10.3.43 and 10.3.44 and described within the draft Landscape and Ecological

Management Plan (LEMP - see the Applicant’s response to Deadline II) would ensure that

relevant legislation aimed at the protection of flora and fauna would be complied with. There is

ongoing discussion as to how these should be secured within the DCO.


paragraphs 10.3.43 and 10.3.44 and additional mitigation described in Section 10.6 and the

LEMP (Appended to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II) ensure that the potential to reduce

the extent and quality of habitats or suppress the populations of the species listed in this SoCG

listed in Section 13.7 of this SoCG in the medium to long term is negligible.

9.33 It is agreed that the implementation of the additional mitigation outlined in Section 10.6 and the

LEMP (Appended to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II) would ensure that the Project

provides biodiversity gain in the medium to long-term.

Inter-relationships

9.34 It is agreed that the inter-relationships identified within Volume C, Chapter 10 and Volume D,


and assessed.

Cumulative Impacts

It is agreed that as the information available at the date of the preliminary meeting (11th

September 2014) on the St Leonards Hospital re-development has not altered since the

submission of the application for development consent then the assessment within the ES

remains valid.

It is agreed that the mitigation measures outlined within the LEMP (Appended to the Applicant’s

response to Deadline II) provide the necessary management tools to ensure that displacement of

recreational users will not result in increased impacts on habitats and species in Hurn Forest or

surrounding areas.


9.35 It is agreed that transboundary impacts are not relevant to the consideration of terrestrial and

freshwater ecology for this Project.

4A_29339951_1 29

10 Matters Agreed in relation to Onshore Ornithology

Introduction


Assessment of Onshore Ornithology that are agreed.



indicated, all section and paragraph references in this section of the SoCG are to Volume C,

Chapter 11 of the ES. All references to appendices made are to those accompanying Volume C,


10.3 The Onshore Ornithology chapter includes consideration of resident birds, breeding birds and

wintering birds within or in close proximity to the Onshore Development Area. Impacts on birds

whilst on migration are dealt with in the Offshore Ornithology section of this SoCG.

10.4 This section is focused on onshore ornithological aspects with regard to the EIA Regulations.

Section 11 of this SoCG lists the agreements with regard to onshore ornithology and the Habitat

Regulations.





Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), part 2.6 of the National Policy

Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) and part 2.7 of the National Policy

Statement for Electrical Networks Infrastructure (EN-5).


the assessment of impacts of onshore infrastructure projects (e.g. the installation of onshore

electrical transmission cables) on onshore ornithological receptors. Agreements with regard to

suitable implementation of guidance documents are provided in Section 13.4 of this SoCG.

10.7 It is agreed that Volume C, Chapter 11 of the ES and subsequent information provided post-

application (Ornithology Survey Report 2014 appended to the Applicant’s response to Deadline

II) provide a complete assessment of the issues relevant to onshore ornithology that should be

included for this type of development in this location as defined by the NPS and any other policy

or guidance considered relevant.

Study Area

10.8 It is agreed that the definition of the study area described in Section 11.3 is of a suitable scale to

enable the determination of the potential impacts of temporary habitat loss and disturbance on

onshore ornithological receptors due to the Project. This position having been confirmed

originally on 14th June 2013.

4A_29339951_1 30

10.9 It is acknowledged that full access to the study area was not available for breeding bird surveys

until spring / summer 2014 (i.e. after the submission of the application for development consent).

It is agreed that the surveys undertaken in 2014 (appended to the Applicant’s response to

Deadline II) ensure full coverage of the study area has been achieved.

Methodology

Impact Assessment Methodology

10.10 It is agreed that the Ecological Impact Assessment guidance provided by the Chartered Institute

of Ecology and Environmental Management provides a suitable framework within which to carry

out the impact assessment for the Project. It is agreed that this guidance has been interpreted

correctly and implemented accordingly within Volume C, Chapter 11.

10.11 It is agreed that species, within the study area, that have been determined as having a nature

conservation value of ‘local’ or lower do not require detailed impact assessment. This is because

there is no potential for the Project to result in a significant impact, in EIA terms, on the

populations of these species.


10.12 It is agreed that the desk-study information gathered from the local biological record centres

(based in Hampshire and Dorset), ornithological literature and locally gathered historical

ornithological data (as described in Table 11.4) provides a suitable context within which to frame

the impact assessment provided in Volume C, Chapter 11.

10.13 It is agreed that the breeding bird survey programme undertaken using a methodology based on

that of the Common Bird Census (CBC) provides suitable baseline information, when used

alongside the data gathered during the desk-study, to determine the nature conservation value of

each breeding species within the context of the Onshore Development Area.

10.14 It is agreed that the breeding bird survey programme provides suitable baseline data on which to

base an assessment of the impacts of the Project on breeding birds when within the terrestrial

environment.

10.15 It is agreed that the winter bird surveys undertaken provided an overview of the types and

distribution of species commonly wintering within the Onshore Development Area and provides

suitable baseline information, when used alongside the data gathered during the desk-study, to

determine their nature conservation value.

10.16 It is agreed that the wintering bird survey programme provides suitable baseline data on which to

base an assessment of the impacts of the Project on wintering birds when within the terrestrial

environment.

10.17 It is agreed that the baseline environment, derived from field survey and desk-based study is

adequately described in Section 11.4, Appendices 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4 of the ES and in the

Applicant’s response to Deadline II.

4A_29339951_1 31

10.18 It is agreed that the reports within Appendix 11.2 and 11.3 of the ES were agreed as suitable by

Natural England on 14th June 2013 as part of the Evidence Plan process. It is also agreed that a

further survey report (Volume C, Chapter 11, Appendix 11.4) was provided to Natural England

on 4th November 2013 and it was confirmed as adequate within a meeting on 18th November

2013.


10.19 It is agreed that the impact assessment is based on the RWCS – i.e. all habitat is lost within the

Onshore Development Area during the construction period, apart from that where cable

installation will be undertaken using trenchless techniques (see Volume C, Chapter 2).


10.20 It is agreed that the majority of potential impacts on onshore ornithological receptors determined

to be of ‘county’ conservation value or greater can be scoped out of detailed assessment due to

the implementation of measures adopted as part of the project outlined in paragraphs 11.3.30

and 11.3.31. These species are listed below:

Dark-bellied brent goose

Shelduck

Wigeon

Teal

Grey partridge

Quail

Marsh harrier

Hen harrier

Merlin

Peregrine

Lapwing

Green sandpiper

Mediterranean gull

Black-headed gull

Lesser black-backed gull

Turtle dove

Skylark

Tree pipit

4A_29339951_1 32

Yellow wagtail

Redstart

Winchat

Mistle thrush

Grasshopper warbler

Marsh tit

Eurasian tree sparrow

Linnet

Lesser redpoll

Crossbill.

10.21 It is agreed that the impacts that required assessment for the Project, in relation to onshore

ornithology and once all measures adopted as part of the project (paragraph 11.3.30 and

11.3.31, Volume C, Chapter 11) are considered, are:

The disturbance of wintering birds within the Avon Valley;

The disturbance of birds breeding on heathlands;

Temporary habitat loss for birds breeding on heathlands.

10.22 It is agreed that the impacts outlined above are addressed within Volume C, Chapter 11.



paragraphs 11.3.30 and 11.3.31 would ensure that relevant legislation aimed at protecting

individual birds, their eggs, young and active nests would be complied with. Provision of the

Landscape and Ecological Management Plan is secured in the DCO at Requirement 18

(Landscape and ecological management plan).


paragraphs 11.3.30 and 11.3.31 and the LEMP (appended to the Applicant’s response to

Deadline II) ensure that the potential to suppress the populations of birds in the Onshore

Development Area in the short, medium and long term is negligible and there is the potential for

bird populations to expand in habitats created as part of the Project in the medium to long term.

10.25 It is agreed that the implementation of the additional mitigation outlined in paragraphs 11.6.2 to

11.6.4 and the LEMP (appended to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II) would ensure that

the populations of species associated with the Avon Valley would not be challenged by the

Project and therefore the impact is Not Significant.

4A_29339951_1 33

10.26 It is agreed that the implementation of the additional mitigation outlined in paragraphs 11.6.6 to

11.6.13 and the LEMP (appended to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II) would ensure that

the populations of species associated with the Dorset Heathlands would not be challenged by

the Project and therefore the impact is Not Significant.

10.27 It is agreed that Requirement 27 of the draft Development Consent Order has been updated to

allow for consultation with Natural England, as requested by Natural England.

Inter-relationships

10.28 It is agreed that the inter-relationships identified within Volume C, Chapter 11 and Volume D,


and assessed.

Cumulative Impacts

It is agreed that as the information available at the date of the preliminary meeting (11th

September 2014) on the St Leonards Hospital re-development has not altered since the

submission of the application for development consent then the assessment within the ES

remains valid.

It is agreed that the mitigation measures outlined within the LEMP (appended to the Applicant’s

response to Deadline II) provide the necessary management tools to ensure that displacement of

recreational users will not result in increased impacts on birds in Hurn Forest or surrounding

areas. This is supported by the clarification of the assessment of recreational disturbance

provided in an appendix to the Applicant’s response to Deadline II.


10.29 It is agreed that transboundary impacts are not relevant to the consideration of birds resident,

breeding or wintering within or in close proximity to the Onshore Development Area. This is on

the understanding that birds on migration are considered separately within Volume B, Chapter

12 Offshore Ornithology.

11 Matters Agreed in relation to Habitats Regulation Assessment

Introduction

11.1 This section outlines the areas of agreement between the Applicant and Natural England in

relation to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (Document references 5.2 and 5.3). This

includes consideration of the potential impacts of the Project on all European sites and their

designated features.

11.2 Where the agreements set out in the following sections refer to sections of the HRA Screening

Report or the HRA Assessment Report, it is agreed that those statements apply equally to all

application documents. Unless otherwise indicated, all section and paragraph references in this

section of the SoCG are to HRA Screening Report (in the relevant titled section) or the HRA

4A_29339951_1 34

Assessment Report. All references to appendices made are to those accompanying HRA

Screening Report.

11.3 The agreement of survey methodology, analytical processes (e.g. mathematical modelling) and

baseline information is covered in the topic specific sections is dealt with within the relevant

sections of this SoCG and not repeated. However, it is agreed that these are equally applicable

to the HRA process unless otherwise stated.

11.4 It is agreed that the definition of European sites provided in footnote 1 of the HRA Screening

Report is a suitable basis on which to base the assessment. This was agreed during the

Evidence Plan process on 15th August 2013.

11.5 It is agreed that the European Commission guidance, that provides a basis for the screening

process (see Section 2.1), provides a framework for the assessment. This was agreed during the

Evidence Plan process on 15th August 2013.

11.6 It is agreed that the HRA screening methodology employed for the Project provides a logical

basis, as described in Section 2.2, for identification of European sites that could be subject to

Likely Significant Effects. This was agreed during the Evidence Plan process on 15th August

2013.

11.7 It is agreed that the methodology for determining which plans and projects to include within the

in-combination assessment, as described in Section 2.3. This was agreed during the Evidence

Plan process on 15th August 2013.

11.8 The Applicant and Natural England acknowledge that the threshold for determining whether or

not a potential impact is judged to be a Likely Significant Effect differs between the two parties.

Due to PINS advice on the structure of the HRA document, consideration of mathematical

modelling outputs and other analytical processes was considered with regard to the

determination of Likely Significant Effects. Natural England would prefer that this assessment

was undertaken at the consideration of Adverse Effects stage (i.e. that detailed in the HRA

report).

11.9 It is agreed that there will be no adverse effects on the following Special Protection Areas (as

identified in Natural England’s Relevant Representation):

Avon Valley SPA;

Dorset Heathlands SPA;

Alde-Ore Estuary SPA;

Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA;

Flamborough and Bempton Cliffs SPA

Poole Harbour SPA;

Solent and Southampton Water SPA;

Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA.

4A_29339951_1 35

11.10 There is ongoing discussion regarding the level of effects on the following Special Protection

Areas (as identified in Natural England’s Relevant Representation) with regard to various

species of tern (see matters under discussion in Section 12):

Poole Harbour SPA;

Solent and Southampton Water SPA;

Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA.

11.11 It is agreed that there will be no adverse effects on the following Special Areas of

Conservation(as identified in Natural England’s Relevant Representation):

Dorset Heaths SAC.

11.12 There is ongoing discussion regarding the level of effects on the following Special Areas of

Conservation (as identified in Natural England’s Relevant Representation) with regard to Atlantic

salmon (see matters under discussion in Section 12):

River Avon SAC;

River Itchen SAC.

11.13 It is agreed that there will be no adverse effects on the following Ramsar sites(as identified in

Natural England’s Relevant Representation):

Avon Valley Ramsar Site;

Dorset Heathlands Ramsar Site;

Poole Harbour Ramsar Site;

Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Site;

Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands Ramsar Site

Chichester and Langstone Harbour Ramsar site.

11.14 It is agreed that Natural England have provided advice and appraisal of the Applicant’s

assessment of the gannet colony on the Alderney and West Coast and the Burhou Islands

Ramsar Site. However, it is acknowledged that this site is outside the remit of Natural England.

11.15 It is agreed that there will be no likely significant effects on any of the other European sites within

the UK or other EEA member states identified within the HRA Screening Report (Document

reference 5.2).

4A_29339951_1 36

12 Matters under discussion

12.1 The following section sets out a summary of those issues where Natural England and the

Applicant have not yet reached agreement.

Matters under discussion in relation to Physical Processes

12.2 There are no matters outstanding with regard to the assessment of Physical Processes.

Matters under discussion in relation to Benthic Ecology

12.3 There are no matters outstanding with regard to the assessment of Benthic Ecology.

Matters under discussion in relation to marine mammals

12.4 There are no outstanding points of discussion between the Applicant and Natural England with

regard to the assessment of marine mammals.

Matters under discussion in relation to Offshore Ornithology

12.5 There are no outstanding points of discussion between the Applicant and Natural England with

regard to the assessment of offshore ornithology.

12.6 The following table sets out a summary of those issues where Natural England and the Applicant

have not yet reached agreement and issues are therefore under discussion.

Topic Comment/Status Response/Action

Clarifications as

raised by Natural

England with regard

to terns

Natural England have requested further

assessment of the potential for subsea noise

created during the construction phase to

displace the prey (small fish etc.) of terns

associated with breeding colonies on the south

coast.

Natural England and the Applicant are

awaiting conclusion of discussions

between the parties with regard to

subsea noise (see separate SoCG

with Natural England on fish) prior to

concluding discussions regarding

impacts on terns.

12.7 Matters under discussion in relation to Habitat Regulations Assessment

12.8 The following table sets out a summary of those issues where Natural England and the

Applicant have not yet reached agreement and issues are therefore under discussion

Topic Comment/Status Response/Action

4A_29339951_1 37

Determination of

no adverse effects

For a number of European sites further receptor

specific discussions (described above) need to

be concluded prior to a determination of no

adverse effects being drawn for a number of

designations.

These receptor specific discussions cover:

Terns;

Atlantic salmon.

See above and the

SoCG with Natural

England with regard to

fish.

Appendices

Appendices have not been included within this updated version of the Statement of Common Ground.

This is because these documents have not altered since their submission as Appendix 64 of the

Response to Deadline II.

navitus bay wind park · 4a_29339951_1 4 1 introduction 1.1 this statement of common ground (socg)...

Documents