February 2022

To: Bethany Rance, Planning Office, East Suffolk Council (ESC)

Dear Ms Rance,

DC/22/0078/FUL | Planning application seeking full planning permission for the geotechnical trails for the enabling works of the proposed Sizewell C power station. These works comprise (i) up to 16 ground anchor trials, in 5 locations up to 0.95 ha with a further 0.09 ha for welfare compound, 1.04 ha in total (of which 0.54 ha is above ground) and (ii) deep soil mixing trial area comprising a total area of 0.52 ha, together with welfare and compound areas to support the works and access

TASC wish to register our objection to the above planning application and ask that planning permission is refused by East Suffolk Council. At the core of TASC’s objection is that we are firmly of the opinion that this planning application should be treated as part of the Sizewell C project being considered under the DCO planning process. TASC are also of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective in preventing adverse effects.

  1. This planning application follows the request for a screening opinion carried out under reference DC/21/5408/EIA, the result being the Council deciding that this application does not constitute a ‘Schedule 1’ development as defined by Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (herein referred to as the EIA Regulations). Without ESC providing any reasoning for its decision, the scoping opinion on page 5 states: “The proposal does not constitute Schedule 1 development under the EIS Regulations as it is not any of the forms of development listed in Schedule 1.” However, the EIA regulations describe Schedule 1 developments as:

” The carrying out of development to provide any of the following—

  1. ….

2.—(1) Thermal power stations and other combustion installations with a heat output of 300 megawatts or more.

(2) Nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors…”

The application documents  contain many references to these geotechnical trials being ‘critical’ or ‘crucial’ to the Sizewell C project, as demonstrated by the following examples extracted from the planning statement:-

Para 3.2.6: “The Sizewell C geotechnical trials are a vital element of the Sizewell C Project…”

Para 3.3.1: “The anchor design is a critical part in the overall scheme design and it is crucial to demonstrate the anchors technical and practical viability.”

Para 8.1.2: “The anchor design is critical part in the overall scheme design and it is crucial to demonstrate the anchors technical and practical viability”, and from the Habitat Regulation Assessment:-

Para 2.2.1: “The anchor design is a critical part in the overall scheme design and it is crucial to demonstrate the anchors’ technical and practical viability.”

 

  1. Further, the applicant makes reference to this application being a material part of a ‘Schedule 1 development’, as referenced in the following examples:-

Planning statement para 7.3.9 states: “Therefore, in line with Policy SCLP3.4 and SCLP11.3, proposals for Major Energy Infrastructure Projects across the plan area need to mitigate the impacts arising from these and will have regard to a requirement for a robust heritage impact assessment.”

Planning statement para 8.1.2 states: “The anchors are intended to be installed as part of the main works…”

Planning statement para 8.1.5 states: “The proposals present exceptional circumstances, for the purposes of paragraph 172 of the NPPF, given the profound need for the proposed development and the public interest it serves, the lack of reasonable alternatives which avoid development within the AONB and the absence of any significant residual environmental effects.” Firstly, TASC would suggest that the reference here to para 172 of the NPPF should have referred to para 177 of the 2021 NPPF. Secondly, para 177 states: “…permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest” so the applicant clearly considers this application to be a major development, otherwise it would not be claiming exceptional circumstances. This brings us to TASC’s third point with reference to para 8.1.5 as this application, in isolation, cannot be considered ‘exceptional circumstances’ nor can it be considered ‘in the public interest’. This ground improvement work was anticipated in the DCO planning application (for example, see para 2.2.1.3 in the September 2021 DCO document 8.4K [REP7-036]). NNB blamed ‘difficult soil conditions’ for additional costs and time delays at Hinkley C so learned experience from there should have resulted in these works being carried out as preliminary works before the DCO application was submitted. Works anticipated in the DCO application, can hardly be labelled as unexpected or exceptional. Perhaps it is pure incompetence by the developer that these proposals were not included in the DCO application, or it could be a deliberate ploy by the applicant to avoid public scrutiny by the Planning Inspectorate, statutory consultees and Interested Parties, of information that will provide a critical understanding of the suitability and safety issues relating to Sizewell C’s ground conditions. The potential for adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive sites affected by these proposals, to prepare for a notional Sizewell C project that may never happen, cannot be considered to be in the public interest.

 

  1. TASC consider that the processes proposed by this application are such a fundamental part of the Sizewell C project i.e., in connection with ‘developing a nuclear power station’ that they can only be properly considered as part of the DCO process and not as a separate application subject to the Town and Country Planning Act. As a schedule 1 development under the EIA Regulations, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is mandatory.

 

  1. The Planning Statement at para 1.6.4 states: “SZC Co. has progressed two separate early works planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that are related to the Sizewell C Project – the Aldhurst Farm habitat creation scheme (application Ref. DC/14/4224/FUL – granted permission in March 2015) and the Sizewell B relocated facilities project (application Ref. DC/19/1637/FUL – granted permission in November 2019 and DC/20/4646/FUL – granted permission in February 2021).” TASC comment on this statement in order to distinguish the two planning applications quoted above, to this application, as follows: (i) Both of the above planning applications were made in advance of the Sizewell DCO submission so can be claimed as preliminary works; (ii) Both of the above planning applications represented stand-alone developments, whereas the geotechnical trials in the current application have no purpose other than as an integral part of the Sizewell C DCO application.

 

 

  1. TASC note that the Council’s screening opinion treats the development as being under Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations, due to its location in a ‘sensitive area’. However, the Council have decided that this application does not need an EIA. TASC consider ESC’s screening opinion to be flawed because:-
  2. As mentioned above, TASC contend this application is a fundamental part of the Sizewell C project ie part of developing a ‘nuclear power station’, so these geotechnical trials should be considered as a ‘Schedule 1’ development , under paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1, thereby making an EIA mandatory.
  3. The screening opinion considered the requirement under schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations due to its location close to/in various designated areas. Paragraphs iii), iv) and v) set out TASC’s reasons why the screening assessment under Schedule 2 was inadequate.
  • At frequent points in the scoping opinion, the planning officer relies upon the Outline Construction Environment Management Plan (oCEMP) as the basis for considering no likely significant adverse effects would occur (for example, on page 7 it states: “With control measures set out within the oCEMP, no likely significant adverse effects have been identified.”) There is no evidence that the oCEMP was before the Council when they issued their opinion.
  1. As far as can be seen from the limited information available on the planning portal, there is no evidence that the Council identified the necessary mitigation measures to reach the conclusion that they would be effective to prevent likely significant effects. Indeed, the Council appear to have merely copied and pasted the applicant’s screening request, even leaving in the word ‘request’ in the first line of the conclusion on page 11. Whilst all uncertainties do not need to be eliminated at the screening stage and mitigation measures may be considered, it is necessary to identify such measures and have a rational basis for considering they will be effective to prevent likely significant effects, see R(Swire) v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 1298 (Admin) at [106].
  2. There is no written evidence on the planning portal that the statutory consultees, particularly the Environment Agency and Natural England, were consulted on the screening opinion or to support the statement in paragraph 4.3.1 of the Planning Statement which states: “As part of regular key stakeholder discussions, SZC Co. discussed the proposed trials with East Suffolk Council, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Internal Drainage Board.” This statement does not confirm that Natural England, the Environment Agency or Internal Drainage Board were asked to comment on whether an EIA was required. Given the importance of this project to the safety and suitability of the site for its intended purpose, TASC believe that the Office for Nuclear Regulation should have been a consultee. TASC consider that all Statutory bodies should have been formally consulted on the screening opinion and should have provided a written response, considering the national and internationally designated sites in close proximity to the site.
  3. The poor quality of maps used in the screening opinion have continued the applicant’s low standards demonstrated in the SZC DCO process. Although clearly marked “reproduced by kind permission of Ordnance Survey”, the maps exclude many features normally found on Ordnance Survey mapping e.g. OS grid lines, contour lines, trees and water courses. This has made identification of the exact locations for the proposed works problematic.

In view of our comments in the above paragraphs, TASC invite the Council to review its screening decision.

 

  1. TASC consider that this planning application contains insufficient information to properly consider assessment of the risk to the environment, and wish to make the following comments:-
  • DCO document 8.4 Appendix 8.4K Sept 2021 [REP7-036] states in the Atkins report at para 2.2.1.3: “Ground Improvement Around certain parts of the main platform such as the north-west corner within the SSSI, around the sea defence and around the SSSI crossing, the current ground conditions are very poor and will require improvement to allow construction to proceed. The preferred method of ground improvement is still to be confirmed, however, one method that could be adopted is deep soil mixing. This method enhances the characteristic of the in-situ soil by using a soil mixing rig to mechanically mix the soil with water and a cementitious binder such as cement, fly ash, lime or bentonite. The areas that need to be improved will require multiple rigs to work concurrently to allow construction works to progress, and current planning allows for 6No rigs to be utilised, each with an expected utilisation of 50m3 of potable water per day. Note, an environmental sheet pile barrier is to be installed around the North-west corner of the platform to protect the SSSI prior to the ground improvement works commencing.” This excerpt leads to the following observations:-
  1. There is little technical detail contained in this application confirming the chemical makeup of all materials to be mixed with the soil nor the quantities involved,
  2. TASC can find no scientific analysis of the toxicity of the materials to be mixed with the soil or left in the ground because of the ground anchor trials or a scientific analysis of the ability of the said materials to leach into the groundwater and therefore the Leiston Drain, potentially adversely impacting the Ramsar and SPA sites fed by these waters,
  3. This DCO document foresees a risk of contamination of the SSSI, hence the reference to ‘an environmental sheet pile barrier’ as protection. However, TASC can find no reference in any of the geotechnical application documents, to this protective barrier despite the soil mixing trials being only a few metres from the SSSI or a reference to why such a barrier is not deemed appropriate for these tests.
  4. Why are there no tests proposed in relation to the proposed siting of the sea defences?
  • TASC have reviewed the Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) and make the followings comments:-
  1. Para 2.2.10 states: “Anchors will extend to a depth of up to 40 m below ground. The inclined anchors will be drilled at an angle between 25 to 40 degrees and be up to 70 m long.” Despite the proximity of anchor trial areas to the SSSI, TASC have seen no evidence to suggest that anchors that extend up to 70 metres do not pose a risk of adverse impact on the SSSI.
  2. Para 5.2.9 recognises marsh harrier frequent the SSSI for foraging, which means birds foraging over the proposed development site cannot be ruled out. TASC have seen no assessment of the impact of light, noise and visual disturbance on breeding Marsh Harrier, an important consideration as this development is planned to take place during their breeding season. There appears to be no inclusion of flight paths for foraging marsh harrier to assess Likely Significant Effect (LSE).
  3. Generally, TASC believe there is a lack of accurate maps (for example, we would have expected accurate ordnance survey maps showing the location of landscape features such as trees and landscape types overlaid with the proposed development site). The absence of such information makes proper assessment of the applicant’s HRA and Ecology Reports impossible. TASC are particularly concerned that trees that exist due to a requirement made in connection with the screening of Sizewell B, may be impacted.
  4. TASC believe there is a complete absence of evidence (including flight path maps) relating to the impact on bats, including the Barbastelle which, from the SZC DCO documents, we know are present in the area. There will be at least 22 occasions when work will be undertaken throughout the night, events which are likely to cause considerable disturbance during the bats’ breeding season.
  5. TASC note that HRA para 5.2.24 states that the Sizewell Marshes SSSI is not functionally linked to the Minsmere to Walberswick SPA which is contrary to how these designated sites are treated in the DCO documents. The applicant needs to reconsider the implications, as it would appear that LSE will have been inadequately considered.
  6. Para 5.2.25 states that the works are “scheduled in Summer- Autumn 2022” whereas the planning statement states they will start in March/April 2022. Clarification is important because of the implication for impacts during the bird, reptile and mammal breeding seasons and during the period that reptiles and some mammals are emerging from hibernation.
  7. Para 5.2.27 states, “Any high localised changes to groundwater and surface water flows would not influence the groundwater or surface water quality or levels within the sites and therefore no LSE on habitats is predicted” TASC believe that greater evidence needs to be supplied before there can be any agreement that groundwater in the adjacent waterways and SSSI will not be affected by the proposed works. TASC could see no evidence of hydrologist reports to support the applicants’ claims.
  8. Para 5.2.42 states, “No LSE is, therefore, predicted on any National site or designated feature as a result of the generation of dust during the proposed works.” This conclusion dismisses likely impacts from dust too easily in TASC’s opinion, given the fine nature of the soil and the close proximity of the haul road and test sites to designated sites.
  9. Para 6.2.8 recognises a potential overlap with the Sizewell B relocation works but, as with virtually all other aspects of this application, it has been concluded, with little evidence, there is no LSE. However, TASC believe this conclusion has not considered that the Sizewell B relocation works, and this application could affect different parts of the adjacent SSSI and therefore have a cumulative impact.
  • TASC have reviewed the Ecology Statement and make the following comments:-
  1. Para 1.3.9 states: “Any high localised changes to groundwater and surface water flows would not influence the groundwater or surface water quality or levels within Sizewell Marshes SSSI and no further consideration if given to this impact pathway.” TASC believe that scientific evidence needs to be supplied in the form of hydrologist reports, before there can be any agreement that groundwater in the adjacent waterways and SSSI will not be affected by the proposed works.
  2. Regarding para 1.6.1, TASC are flabbergasted that the applicants chose to undertake a site survey in December at zero degree temperature when plants are dormant/have died down and when mammals, reptiles, insects and amphibians are dormant or in hibernation. The applicants have known that there are doubts about the suitability of the ground to be able to safely construct and house two nuclear reactors on the proposed Sizewell C site since plans started over a decade ago, yet they wait until an entirely inappropriate time, to conduct a survey for works that are due to commence when plants and wildlife will be emerging from dormancy.
  3. Para 4.1.2 states: “In the event of any further mitigation being required, methods will be identified and discussed with relevant stakeholders.” TASC consider that this statement is inadequate and believe that a mitigation strategy needs to be agreed prior to works commencing and set as a condition before works can start.
  4. Para 4.3.1- this makes no sense.
  5. Para 4.5.2 states: “No evidence of hedgehogs was recorded during the survey, no further surveys are therefore considered necessary” As mentioned in para 6 (iii) b), the survey was undertaken at the wrong time of the year so it is no wonder that hedgehogs were not found. The cavalier attitude to ignoring a species that is at risk, demonstrates an unacceptable approach to the care for Suffolk’s wildlife by the applicant.
  • TASC have reviewed the Water and Contaminated Land Statement and make the following comments:-
  1. Para 4.2.2: “The proposed works will require excavation, boring and soil mixing which will disturb the soil and underlying geology and may cause ground instability issues. Earthworks and movement of heavy plant may cause changes in soil compaction and ground instability issues. The site is also identified as having a moderate UXO risk” TASC are concerned that there is a moderate risk of UXO at a location next to a working nuclear power station, which therefore represents a risk to local residents. We are also concerned about the ground stability issues identified at a location only a few metres from the Sizewell Marshes SSSI. Both issues reinforce TASC’s view that this planning application should only be considered as part of the SZC DCO- why put people and an environmentally sensitive area at risk for a SZC project that may never happen?
  2. Para 4.4.4 states: “the embankment, deep soil mixing columns, ground anchor strands and haul road would remain in place.” TASC believe there should be clarification regarding the haul road as the scoping documents said the haul road would be removed. In TASC’s view, if ESC were minded to approve this planning application, there would need to be a condition that the those works that remain in place will need to be removed if the SZC DCO project does not proceed for any reason.
  1. The guidance advises that ESC will need to carry out screening and an appropriate assessment as part of its HRA process. TASC are of the opinion that ESC do not have the expertise to assess the extremely specialised procedures proposed in this application so should, at the applicant’s expense, engage experts in the proposed procedures to advise ESC accordingly.

 

 

 

 

  1. TASC would like to correct the statement in para 1.6.3 of the Planning Statement “The site’s identification in NPS EN-6 reconfirms Sizewell as a suitable location in principle for nuclear power generation”, as EN6 actually describes Sizewell as a ‘potentially’ suitable site for a new nuclear power station, a word which fundamentally alters the government’s view of the site’s suitability, and which should be reflected in ESC’s reference to it.
  2. From reviewing ESC’s constitution, TASC are of the opinion, that this application is of considerable public interest and would have a significant impact on the environment, and so ESC’s decision should be referred directly to committee. Because the application has a wider impact and is linked to an NSIP, TASC expect such a referral to be dealt with by the Strategic Planning Committee.

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the comments made above, TASC conclude:-

  • ESC needs to revisit its screening opinion, as TASC are of the view that these geotechnical works form part of a schedule 1 development under the EIA regulations making an EIA mandatory, notwithstanding that an EIA should have been carried out anyway due to Likely Significant Effects on the sensitive sites involved, under schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations,
  • The applicant needs to provide evidence to support its contention that there will not be any Likely Significant Effects on designated wildlife sites and/or their species of interest,
  • These geotechnical trials pose a risk of adverse environmental impacts to especially sensitive wildlife habitats as part of a proposed project, Sizewell C, that may never be granted approval. The precautionary principle should be applied by ESC who have a duty of care to protect the AONB, the designation of which includes reference to its wildlife interest, so these works should not be allowed.
  • The proposed works associated with this application are planned to take place during the bird, reptile and mammal breeding season increasing the evidence requirement that needs to be presented to demonstrate no adverse impacts on designated sites and their wildlife.
  • ESC’s lack of expertise in the processes involved with these geotechnical trials, should be recognised with the appointment of experts with the appropriate knowledge to advise on the associated implications and risks.
  • ESC’s impact assessment of this planning application needs to consider the cumulative impacts associated with the Sizewell B relocation works and also needs to consider the potential increased period of disturbance to European Sites that will be caused by the SZB relocation works, this application and the SZC project.
  • This application needs to be dealt with by the Strategic Planning Committee, not under delegated authority.
  • If any works are allowed as a result of this application, they should be removed from the site if the SZC project does not proceed for any reason.
  • In the event that this planning application is approved, ESC should impose a condition that mean all trees on the site are retained.
  • In the event that this planning application is approved, ESC should impose a condition that the results from these trials are made public.