SCOPING OUT REQUEST FROM NATIONAL GRID TO PLANNING INSPECTORATE

Below are the areas National Grid requested to scope out of further scrutiny from the Planning Inspectorate in 2022, along with the Planning Inspectorate response:

4.1 Landscape and Visual:

• Assess Operational Lighting at Converter Station (Operation): Do not scope out operational lighting assessment at this stage.

• Alteration to visual amenity from the Operational HVAC overhead line (to be decided) (operation): Scope assessment in for wirescape effects.

• Alteration to landscape character and visual amenity from operational HVDC underground cable (and HVAC if underground): The Inspectorate considers that the ES should address the potential for permanent landscape character effects due to any planting restrictions for easement requirements.

• Permanent alteration to landscape character and perceptual qualities as a result of the operational converter station on specific receptors: The Inspectorate agrees that TDLCA LCA A1: Manston Chalk Plateau, and Dover District Council (DDLCA) LCAs B1: Great Stour Sandwich Corridor, D1: Preston, and H1 Richborough Buff: Can be scoped out

• Representative Viewpoints: Viewpoints should be agreed with relevant consultation bodies, including the Local Authorities. The Applicant's attention is directed to the comments of Thanet District Council's comments in Appendix 2 of this Opinion with regards to requested additional viewpoints.

• Viewpoints and cultural heritage receptors: The Applicant is advised to consider and include heritage specific viewpoints to support the heritage assessment. Suitable cross-referencing between LVIA and Cultural Heritage chapters should be included.

4.2 Ecology and Biodiversity:

• Permanent habitat loss (intertidal) as a result of construction: The Inspectorate does not agree to scope out assessment of permanent habitat loss in the intertidal zone at this stage due to a lack of information on likely activities and habitats present. The ES should include an assessment of permanent habitat loss in the intertidal area.

• Temporary habitat loss/disturbance (terrestrial and intertidal) from temporary works areas and traffic movements during maintenance works (operation): The Inspectorate agrees that operational habitat loss/disturbance can be scoped out but clarifies that 'traffic movements during maintenance works' during construction and maintenance stages should be scoped in.

• Permanent habitat loss to Margate and Long Sands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Outer Thames Estuary SPA (all stages): The Inspectorate agrees these sites can be scoped out of the Kent Onshore Scheme assessment due to no likely effect pathway from onshore activities, with offshore impacts considered elsewhere in the document.

• Permanent habitat loss to Stodmarsh SAC and Thanet Coast SAC (all stages): Stodmarsh SAC and Thanet Coast SAC are stated to be screened out due to an absence of impact pathway. The ES should include evidence to demonstrate that activities during construction, operation and decommissioning would have no potential to affect these sites or their features. If this information is provided the Inspectorate agrees to scope out the assessment of permanent habitat loss to these designated sites from the ES.

• Permanent habitat loss of Notable Habitats (all stages): The Inspectorate cannot agree to scope out permanent loss of notable habitats at this stage due to a lack of information on location, routing, installation, and mitigation. The ES should include an assessment of this matter, where likely significant effects could occur.

• Incidental mortality of protected or notable: invertebrate species, intertidal and terrestrial non-breeding bird species, riparian mammal species (otter, water vole and beaver): The Inspectorate cannot agree to scope out this matter.

• Study area for designated sites: The ES should clearly define and justify the study area, based on the Zone of Influence (ZoI) from the Proposed Development.

• Surveys for bird species: The ES should confirm the extent of bird surveys undertaken, supported by clear figures.

• Baseline and effects on waterbodies, fish and freshwater species: The ES should state if fish and other freshwater species are important receptors and include an assessment of effects, where likely significant effects could occur. This should be supported by desk study information and surveys as necessary. Effort should be made to agree the methodology with the relevant consultation bodies.

• Confidential Annexes: Public bodies have a responsibility to avoid releasing sensitive ecological information, which should be provided in the ES as a confidential annex.

• Beaver: The Applicant should note that from 1 October 2022, Eurasian beavers in England became a European Protected Species.

4.3 Cultural Heritage:

• Physical impacts on non-designated assets (maintenance and decommissioning): The ES should clearly state the approach to non-designated assets encountered during construction and consider potential effects during maintenance and decommissioning stages.

• Temporary impacts on the setting of heritage assets from plant/machinery (maintenance and decommissioning) and construction compounds introducing light and noise pollution (decommissioning): The Inspectorate agrees that significant setting effects on heritage assets arising from light and noise are unlikely. The ES should outline the mitigation measures required for decommissioning and the likely duration of decommissioning activities to demonstrate why such effects would not be significant.

• Sources of construction impacts - groundwater: The ES should consider and assess effects to archaeological receptors resulting from impacts to groundwater level impacts from the Proposed Development, where likely significant effects could occur. The ES should include suitable cross-references between the Cultural Heritage and the Geology and Hydrogeology aspect chapter.

• Proposed assessment methodology: The Inspectorate notes that the need for any additional survey work will be determined following the desk-based assessment (DBA). Investigative works should be accompanied by a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), it is recommended that a draft WSI by provided with the ES. The Applicant is advised to seek to agree the scope of the site investigations and WSI with relevant consultation bodies, including the Local Authority and Historic England.

• Assessment methodology – heritage value: The ES should consider likely effects on the setting of the scheduled monument ‘A Saxon Shore fort, Roman port and associated remains at Richborough’ (1014642), where likely significant effects could occur. Although this scheduled monument is located beyond the 2km study area, the Inspectorate notes the settings assessment will be informed by the ZTV and the statement that some assets beyond the ZTV and 2km study area may also be considered. Cross-referencing to relevant information in the LVIA aspect chapter and/or supporting appendices should be included.

• Wantsum Sea Channel: Kent County Council (at Appendix 2 to this Opinion) have identified Wantsum Sea Channel as a heritage asset that should be included in the assessment but is not identified in Scoping Report Chapter 3.4 or in Appendix 3.4.A. The Applicant should seek to agree the heritage receptors to be included within the heritage assessment with relevant consultation bodies and include an assessment on this receptor where significant effects are likely to occur.

4.4 Water Environment:

• Various – Proposed scope of the assessment: The ES should include robust justification for scoping matters out, clarifying discrepancies in tables and phases of development in scoping decisions.

• Pollution of watercourses associated with operational discharges and runoff from above ground infrastructure (AGI) – water quality effects (operation): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway given treatment through SUDs provision.

• Increased flood risk from operational discharges and runoff from AGI and loss of floodplain storage (operation): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway given attenuation of runoff through SuDS provision.

• Physical disturbance, impact to flow regimes (watercourse crossings) from operational infrastructure (AGI and watercourse crossings) (operation): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that there would be no impact pathway, as there would be no physical disturbance during operation.

• Increased surface water runoff from converter station drainage during operation on receptors ‘existing land uses and infrastructure’ for specific converter site options: This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway, given the attenuation of runoff through the SuDS provision.

• Increased flood risk due to permanent loss of floodplain storage/impediment of floodplain flows on receptors ‘Fluvial and coastal floodplain’ for specific converter site options: Scoped out on the basis that there would be no impact pathway as there would be no above ground operational infrastructure in the floodplain and therefore no construction works required in the flood plain. Provided this is demonstrated in the ES, supported by the FRA, the Inspectorate agrees to scope this matter out.

• Permanent physical disturbance and change to flow regime on ‘Unnamed ordinary watercourses’ for specific converter site option: This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that there would be no impact pathway as cables would be buried.

• Pollution of watercourses and physical disturbance during maintenance on the following receptors (maintenance): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway for a significant effect given the likely nature and scale of maintenance activities.

• Temporary loss of floodplain storage/impediment of floodplain flows due to spoil storage during construction and decommissioning on receptors ‘Coastal and fluvial floodplain’ for specific converter site options: This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that areas of floodplain are very localised and could be avoided.

• Reduced water availability to support abstractions and assimilate discharges (‘existing water interests’) for all stages and all options: The existence, location and number of abstraction sites in the Kent Onshore Scheme scoping boundary are currently unknown and are proposed to be determined through review of the EA’s register. The Suffolk Onshore Scheme at Table 2.5.9 requested to scope out ‘Reduced water availability to support abstractions and assimilate discharges’ on ‘existing water interests’, although this does not feature in the scoping in/out tables for the Kent Onshore Scheme. The ES should provide information on the water abstractions/interests that may be affected by the Proposed Development and include an assessment on these receptors, where likely significant effects could occur..

• Study area: The ES should clearly define and justify the study area, based on the ZoI from the Proposed Development, together with a justification for the selection.

• Embedded measures/design – watercourse crossings: The Applicant's attention is directed to the comments of the EA at Appendix 2 to this Opinion with regards to the culverting of watercourses, which the EA would oppose.

• Receptors: The ES should provide justification for the receptors identified for the assessment.

• Assessment methodology – magnitude criteria: The Water Environment aspect chapter of the ES should include appropriate cross-references to other relevant aspect chapters such as Ecology and Biodiversity.

4.5 Geology and Hydrogeology:

• Connection of two aquifer units at trenchless crossings as a result of the excavation of trenchless crossings (construction): T This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that it is not likely to result in a significant effect due to the incorporation of the mitigation by design. Table 3.6.2 does not expand on the specific ‘mitigation by design’ proposed to ensure this does not occur. It is noted that CoCP measure GH02 comprises “Construction methods such as appropriate piling techniques (if required) to minimise the risk of mixing of aquifer bodies through the creation of new pathways…” However, it is unclear whether this reference to piling methods would apply to trenchless crossings such that it would mitigate for effects. In the absence of supporting information on the location of crossings, proposed techniques including depths, and mitigation, the Inspectorate cannot agree to scope out this matter. The ES should include an assessment where likely significant effects could occur or provide further justification as to why this would not arise.

• Introduction of new potential contaminants to the environment from leaks, spills, fuels and oils from construction activities (construction, maintenance, and decommissioning): Provided specific mitigation details are provided in the ES and secured in the dDCO and protocols/measures are in place to prevent break outs or frack-outs of bentonite during HDD activities, this matter can be scoped out.

• Physical and chemical changes to groundwater as a result of discharge of groundwater from dewatering (construction): Provided control measures are applied to ensure no change to physical and chemical changes to groundwater, and these measures are described in the ES, this matter can be scoped out.

• Effects on construction activities and the built development (at the operational phase) from natural geological hazards (ie dissolution features/soft ground/landslides/ aggressive ground conditions etc) (construction): Provided natural hazards are considered during engineering design of the Proposed Development and avoided where possible, the Inspectorate is in agreement that this matter can be scoped out of the ES. The Applicant should clearly describe this consideration in the ES.

• Sterilisation of safeguarded minerals for all converter site options (maintenance and decommissioning): On the basis that the nearest feature of any designated sites of geological importance is located approximately 9km from the Suffolk Scoping Boundary and there are no potential effect pathways, the Inspectorate agrees that this matter can be scoped out of the assessment for all converter site options.

• Assessment methodology: The Applicant should seek to agree the methodology with relevant consultation bodies, including the EA.

• Mitigation by design and scoping out: The ES should make clear what measures are being relied upon to avoid/reduce impacts, and how these are to be delivered/secured through the dDCO.

4.6 Agriculture and Soils:

• Temporary removal of land from agricultural production - construction, maintenance and decommissioning: Effects of temporary removal may be scoped out from further assessment; however, the ES should provide an estimate of the quantity of BMV land affected by temporary works, duration of works, and long term changes in land use.

• Permanent removal of land from agricultural production - operation: Provided the ES confirms the amount of agricultural land to be permanently lost is 'limited' and not likely to lead to significant effects, this matter can be scoped out. Reinstatement, soil management, and handling measures should be clearly described and secured in the dDCO.

• Temporary disruption and disturbance to agricultural operations - construction, maintenance and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees to scope out this matter on this basis.

• Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) on land use - operation: On this basis, the Inspectorate agrees to scope out operational effects from EMFs on land use.

• Economic effects on landowners – construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees that significant effects are unlikely and is therefore content that this matter can be scoped out of further assessment.

• Temporary loss of BMV land and temporary disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services – construction, maintenance, and decommissioning: The ES should include the necessary information to demonstrate impacts can be avoided or reduced to exclude significant effects or provide an assessment where likely significant effects could occur.

• Permanent loss of BMV land and permanent disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services - operation: The Inspectorate is satisfied with this approach.

• Temporary loss of BMV land and temporary disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services – maintenance: The ES should clearly define the scope for the aspect and the Inspectorate considers that an assessment of the effects arising from the temporary loss of BMV land and temporary disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services should be included within the ES, where significant effects are likely to occur.

4.7 Traffic and Transport:

• Traffic and Transport effects – operational and maintenance phase: The Inspectorate agrees that on this basis, this matter can be scoped out from further assessment. The ES should provide a description of the likely number and type of vehicles required during all phases of development to support this conclusion.

• Hazardous loads – operational and maintenance phase: The Inspectorate agrees to scope this matter out but would expect the ES to provide a reasoned justification as to why such loads are likely to be infrequent during the operation and maintenance phase.

• Driver delay on PRoW and National/regional walking and cycling routes for all converter site options – construction and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees to scope these matters out on the basis that PRoW and national and regional walking and cycling routes are not utilised by drivers limiting the impact pathway.

• PRoW diversions or closures impacts to road links, road junctions and national/regional walking and cycling routes for all converter site options – construction and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees that significant effects on road links, road junctions and national/regional walking and cycling routes as a result of closures or diversions of PRoW during construction and decommissioning are unlikely and this matter can be scoped out.

• Study area: While it is acknowledged that the study area is yet to be confirmed, this should be informed by the extent of the affected road network.

• Receptors – ‘England Coast Path’ National Trail: The Applicant’s attention is directed to the comments of Suffolk County Council and Natural England at Appendix 2 to this Opinion with regards to the recent approval of the England Coast Path National Trail within Suffolk, which is located within the Suffolk Onshore Scoping Boundary. The ES should include an assessment of effects on this proposed National Trail, where likely significant effects could occur.

4.8 Air Quality:

• Air quality impacts from an increase in vehicle emissions - construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning: The Inspectorate would expect the ES to provide a detailed explanation of the likely traffic flows during all phases of the Proposed Development to justify not undertaking further assessment. Cross-reference should be made to the assessments of effects on Ecology and Biodiversity and on Human Health.

• Emissions from Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) - construction and decommissioning: Whilst the Inspectorate considers that emissions from NRMM are unlikely to be significant in most cases, in the absence of detail regarding the location of construction works with respect to receptors and the type and duration of NRMM to be deployed, the Inspectorate does not consider that this matter may be scoped out based on current evidence. The ES should include an assessment of emissions from NRMM on sensitive receptors where significant effects are likely.

4.9 Noise and Vibration:

• Operational vibration – all options: The Inspectorate does not agree to scope this matter out. The ES should provide an assessment or information demonstrating agreement with relevant stakeholders and absence of likely significant effects.

• Operational road traffic noise and vibration – all options: The Inspectorate agrees to scope this matter out on the basis that operational traffic movements are likely to be infrequent and unlikely to give rise to likely significant effects.

• Construction traffic vibration: The Inspectorate does not agree to scope out construction traffic vibration at this time.

• Switchgear operational noise: The Inspectorate agrees that this matter can be scoped out of further assessment.

• Operational noise and vibration from underground cables - operation: The Inspectorate agrees that this matter can be scoped out of the ES.

• Overhead line noise (operation): The Inspectorate agrees to scope out the operational effects of overheard line noise based on distance to receptors and noise emissions.

• Mitigation measures: The ES should address the potential adverse effects of noise mitigation measures (e.g. screening and enclosures) in relevant aspect chapters of the ES (e.g. Landscape and Visual) where significant effects are likely to occur.

4.11 Health and Wellbeing:

• All phases – EMF: The Inspectorate agrees this matter can be scoped out on the basis that the ES demonstrates the design is compliant with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines (1998) in ensuring that the threshold for impacts to humans is not met/exceeded.

• Census data: Where new census data from 2021 is available, this should be used to inform baseline data and the ES assessment.

• Study area (Severance): The assessment of potential severance impacts should consider the entirety of the affected road network.

• Judgement of significance: The ES should describe the methodology for determining the significance of effects and report the significance of effects on human health.

4.12 Cumulative Effects:

• Intra-cumulative/intra-project effects on ecological, notable habitats, and non-designated heritage assets: The ES should appropriately justify where impacts are omitted from the intra-cumulative assessment or else include them in the assessment.

• Projects to be included in the assessment: The ES should ensure these lists are consistent and effort is made to agree them with relevant statutory consultees.