scoping opinion proposed northern hub: ordsall chord · 2016. 7. 1. · scoping opinion for the...

SCOPING OPINION Proposed Northern Hub:

Ordsall Chord

March 2012

independent impartial inclusive

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1

Background................................................................................................................. 1

The IPC’s consultation............................................................................................... 2

Structure of the document......................................................................................... 3

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .....................................................4

Introduction................................................................................................................. 4

The Applicant’s information ...................................................................................... 4

The IPC’s comments .................................................................................................. 8

3.0 ES APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS................................................11

Introduction............................................................................................................... 11

ES approach.............................................................................................................. 11

Topic areas................................................................................................................ 13

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION .....................................................................25

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) ............................................................ 25

European Protected Species (EPS) ........................................................................ 25

Health Impact Assessment...................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

Executive Summary This is the Infrastructure Planning Commission’s (the IPC’s) Scoping Opinion (the Opinion) in respect of the content of the environmental statement (ES) prepared for the proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord, Greater Manchester by Network Rail (the Applicant). This document sets out the IPC’s opinion on the basis of the information provided in the Applicant’s report entitled ‘Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord Project Scoping Report – February 2012' (the Scoping Report). This Opinion is based upon the proposals as currently described by the Applicant. The IPC has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The IPC considers that the topics identified in the Scoping Report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. The IPC draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topics in this Opinion. For the purpose of the EIA, the key potential issues identified at this stage are: • impacts on important cultural heritage assets • landscape and visual impacts • air-borne pollutants and fugitive dust emissions arising from

construction traffic and during plant operation • impacts on the River Irwell • noise and vibration impacts • transport and other related impacts as a result of the increased rail

movements

Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as being scoped out by the IPC.

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord

1.0 INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 On 13 February 2012 the IPC received a Scoping Report submitted by

the Applicant under Regulation 8 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (the EIA Regulations) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord Project (the proposed development). This Scoping Opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the Applicant’s Scoping Report.

1.2 Regulation 8 enables an applicant before making an application for an

order granting development consent to ‘ask the Commission to state in writing its opinion (a scoping opinion) as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement’.

1.3 The Applicant notified the IPC under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA

Regulations that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed development on 30 September 2011. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) the proposed development is determined to be EIA development.

1.4 Before adopting a scoping opinion the IPC (or the relevant authority)

must take into account:

(a) ‘the specific characteristics of the particular development; (b) the specific characteristics of the development of the type

concerned; (c) the environmental features likely to be affected by the

development;’. EIA Regulations 8(9)

1.5 This Opinion sets out what information the IPC considers should be

included in the ES for the proposed development. The Opinion has taken account of: i the EIA Regulations; ii the nature and scale of the proposed development; iii the nature of the receiving environments; and iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental

statements. 1.6 The IPC has also taken account of the responses received from the

statutory consultees (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion). It has carefully

120323_TR040008_1051473

1


considered the matters addressed by the Applicant and has used professional judgement and experience in order to come to this Opinion. It should be noted that when considering the ES, the Examining Authority (ExA) will not be precluded from requiring additional information from the Applicant if it is considered to be relevant in connection with the ES submitted with an application for a development consent order (DCO).

1.7 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the IPC agrees

with the information or comments provided by the Applicant in the request for an Opinion from the IPC. In particular, comments from the IPC in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the IPC on submission of the application that any development identified by the Applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) or where relevant associated development, or development that does not require development consent.

1.8 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a

scoping opinion must include:

(a) ‘a plan sufficient to identify the land; (b) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development

and of its possible effects on the environment; and (c) such other information or representations as the person making

the request may wish to provide or make.’ 1.9 The IPC considers that this has been provided in the Applicant’s

Scoping Report.

The IPC’s consultation 1.10 The IPC has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regulations to

consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is provided at Appendix 1. The IPC’s list has been compiled by the IPC in its duty to notify the consultees in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(a). The Applicant should note that whilst the IPC’s list can inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

1.11 The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and

whose comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is provided at Appendix 2 along with copies of their comments, to which the Applicant should refer in undertaking the EIA.

1.12 The ES submitted by the Applicant should demonstrate consideration

of the points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that

120323_TR040008_1051473

2


a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation bodies and how they are considered in the ES.

1.13 Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for

receipt of comments have not been taken into account within this Opinion. Late responses will be forwarded to the Applicant and will be made available on the IPC’s website. The Applicant should also give due consideration to them in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the document 1.14 This document is the Scoping Opinion and is structured as follows:

Section 1 Introduction Section 2 The proposed development

Section 3 ES approach and topic areas

Section 4 Other information

Appendix 1 Consultation bodies Appendix 2 Respondents to consultation and copies of replies Appendix 3 Presentation of the ES

120323_TR040008_1051473

3


2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Introduction 2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the proposed

development and its site and surroundings, prepared by the Applicant and included in their Scoping Report. The IPC has not verified this information, and has assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the proposed development and the potential receptors/resources.

2.2 The Applicant should be aware that this Opinion only reflects the

proposed development as described in the Scoping Report, and is based on the boundary shown on the Red Line Plan contained in Appendix A of the Scoping Report. It should be noted that if the proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to application submission, the Applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion.

The Applicant’s information

Overview of the proposed development 2.3 The Applicant proposes to develop a new two-track chord line

approximately 1.5km in length with associated overhead line equipment, plant, junction equipment and signalling. The chord would be elevated and supported on earthworks, modified existing structures, or new structures.

2.4 The chord would cross the River Irwell and the Manchester Inner Ring

Road and would provide a direct rail connection between Manchester Victoria, Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Oxford Road Stations.

Description of the site and surroundings The application site 2.5 The application site is located within an urban area on the edge of

Manchester City Centre. It crosses the River Irwell into the City of Salford and centres on Grid Reference SJ 382891 97950. The application site is identified on the Red Line Plan in Appendix A of the Scoping Report.

2.6 Present land use within the application site comprises primarily existing

railway infrastructure (including Salford Central Station). The application site covers part of the Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) and the railway sidings leading into MOSI off Liverpool Road.

120323_TR040008_1051473

4


There is a block of flats within the application site at the junction of Liverpool Road and Water Street which extends outside of the application site.

2.7 Roads within the application site include Water Street, Trinity Way

(A6042, part of the Manchester Inner Ring Road), Irwell Street, New Bailey Street, Chapel Street and Blackfriars Road. A number of car parks also exist within the application site.

2.8 The River Irwell flows through the application site and is crossed by the

following bridges:

• 1845 Brick Bridge Over River Irwell (Grade II listed structure) which carries the Bolton Lines

• Stephenson’s Sandstone Bridge (Grade I listed structure) • Girder Bridge attached to the north side of Grade I Sandstone

Masonry Bridge over the River Irwell (Grade II listed structure), and

• Prince’s Bridge which carries Cycle Route 6 and Hampson Street, however is closed to vehicular traffic. There is also a gas main attached to the outside of the bridge.

2.9 There are eight other listed structures are present within the application

site (see paragraph 4.2.5 and on the Environmental Constraints Plan in Appendix B of the Scoping Report).

2.10 The application site is located within Castlefield Conservation Area and

Cathedral Conservation Area. 2.11 No registered parks and gardens or scheduled monuments have been

identified within the application site. 2.12 The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is located to the east of

Prince’s Bridge. It leads north from the River Irwell beneath the Manchester IRR and the Chat Moss Viaduct.

2.13 The Irwell City Park Riverside Walkway passes through the application

site alongside the River Irwell. 2.14 The application site is located within Air Quality Management Areas

(AQMAs), however the Scoping Report does not identify the names of the AQMAs.

2.15 There are no ecological statutory designated sites (Special Protection

Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Ramsar sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), or Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)) within the application site.

120323_TR040008_1051473

5

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord 2.16 There are a variety of habitats within the application site that have the

potential to support protected species. 2.17 Parts of the application site are located within Flood Zones 2 and 3,

and the Conurbation Core Critical Drainage Area (areas where there is known to be either a high risk of localised flooding from ordinary watercourses, culverts, or other sources or where the sewer system is operating at, or near to, full capacity and is particularly sensitive to rainfall exceedence events and surface water runoff). Flood Zones 2 and 3 extend beyond the application site.

2.18 The application site is underlain by a Principal Aquifer, with superficial

deposits identified as Secondary Aquifer A. 2.19 Parts of the application site are located within Groundwater Inner

Protection Zones I and II. 2.20 Former mining works and existing coal seams are located within, and in

proximity to, the proposed development. 2.21 The application site is located within parts of the Water Street,

Greengate and Salford Central Regeneration Areas.

The surrounding area 2.22 The surrounding area is urbanised and comprises local hotels and

offices and the Granada Studios. There are also a number of residential areas in proximity to the application site, as identified in the Environmental Constraints Plans in Appendix B of the Scoping Report.

2.23 There are four listed structures within 500m of the application site,

which are elements of the MOSI. These are

• the former Liverpool Road Railway Station (Grade I) • the Power Hall (Grade II) • the Air and Space Museum (Grade II), and • the former Lower Byrom Street entrance building (Grade II).

2.24 The Liverpool Road area is on the tentative World Heritage Site list. No

further details are provided in the Scoping Report. 2.25 Two Scheduled Monuments (1001953 and 1020983) have been

identified within 500m of the application site, although further details, including their locations, are not provided in the Scoping Report.

2.26 The following Conservation Areas have been identified in proximity to

the application site on the Environmental Constraints Plans in Appendix B of the Scoping Report:

120323_TR040008_1051473

6


• Adelphi Conservation Area, • Flat Iron Conservation Area, and • Shudehill Conservation Area.

2.27 The closest ecological statutory designated site is The Cliff/Kersal Dale

LNR, located approximately 2.7km north-west of Victoria Station. The non statutory designated Ashton Canal (West) Site of Biological Importance (SBI) and Rochdale Canal (Stott’s Lane - Ducie Street Basin) SBI are located approximately 1.5km from the application site with no direct connectivity to the application site. The River Irwell is a SBI approximately 1.9km upstream of Victoria Station.

2.28 Downstream of the application site the River Irwell becomes the

Manchester Ship Canal (the distance from the application site is not identified in the Scoping Report).

2.29 The Scoping Report states that the area on the right bank of the River

Irwell is a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ); it does not specify whether this is the east or west bank, or the precise location of the NVZ.

2.30 Twenty five licensed surface water discharge consent points and nine

active Groundwater Abstraction Points are located within 500m of the application site, the locations of which have not been identified in the Scoping Report.

Description of the proposed development 2.31 The proposed development would comprise a new two-track chord line

approximately 1.5km in length with associated overhead line equipment, plant, junction equipment and signalling.

2.32 Three new bridge structures are proposed to cross Water Street, the

River Irwell and the Manchester IRR. These would comprise either decked pre-cast concrete or single/two span steel structures supported on columns or piers. The bridge over the River Irwell would require a new pier to be constructed in the river bed.

2.33 The existing Castlefield and Chat Moss viaducts would be widened at

the point the Chord joins these structures, to accommodate the new tracks and associated equipment and maintenance walkways. Modifications would be made to the existing overhead line structures on these viaducts.

2.34 The maximum width of the track is expected to be 12m and the

maximum height of the proposed structure above ground level is expected to be 11m (with the exception of the River Irwell).

2.35 Other works would include:

120323_TR040008_1051473

7


• alterations to the position of existing signalling structures • removal/realignment of existing tracks on the Chat Moss and

Castlefield viaducts • addition of new track switches/crossings at the Water Street and

Irwell Street Junctions • remodelling of the track and overhead line equipment at Deal

Street Junction, and • alterations to the existing platforms/track alignment within

Salford Central Station to accommodate the new line and to provide space for new platforms to be provided within the station, if required, in future.

Proposed access 2.36 The access route to the proposed development is not specified in the

Scoping Report.

Construction, operation, maintenance 2.37 If the proposed development is consented, the Applicant intends to

commence construction in 2014. The development would be operational in late 2016/early 2017.

2.38 The track infrastructure has a finite operational design life of 125 years

and would be replaced as required, as determined by routine track maintenance and asset survey findings. No details of the likely maintenance requirements have been provided in the Scoping Report.

Decommissioning 2.39 It is not anticipated that the proposed development would be

decommissioned.

The IPC’s comments 2.40 The IPC notes that the Scoping Report’s description of the chord length

differs: 1.5km (paragraph 1.1.2) and 300m (paragraph 2.2.1). The project description should be consistent throughout the ES. For scoping purposes the IPC has based this Opinion on the red line boundary provided in Appendix A of the Scoping Report.

2.41 The Scoping Report makes numerous references to the different

railways lines within and in proximity to the application site. The IPC considers that a figure clearly identifying individual elements of the existing railway infrastructure would aid in understanding the project.

2.42 The IPC welcomes the use of environmental constraints plans to aid

the reader to orientate the proposed development in its surrounding

120323_TR040008_1051473

8


area. However, the naming of listed structures in the Scoping Report, the references in the text and the labels used on the figures are inconsistent, and are confusing to readers, eg paragraph 2.2.4 of the Scoping Report refers to the ‘Grade II Listed Castlefield viaduct’, however it is not identified on the Environmental Constraints Plan in Appendix B. The Applicant should ensure consistency between text and figures in the ES.

2.43 Figure 2 of the Scoping Report identifies the Manchester, Bolton and

Bury Canal. It is not possible to discern from the figure and the text in paragraph 2.3.7 the route which the canal takes. The IPC considers that it would be useful to identify the route of the canal on a figure in the ES.

2.44 Paragraph 2.6.1 of the Scoping Report details alternative options for

the proposed development which have been considered. The ES should provide further information on these alternatives, and consider alternative routing options. Appendix 3 of this Scoping Opinion provides further information on the consideration of alternatives.

2.45 The IPC recommends that the ES should include a clear description of

all aspects of the proposed development including preparation, construction and operational stages. Although not exhaustive, the following list provides an indication of the aspects of the proposed development which are expected to be clearly set out in the ES:

• land use requirements for development and any associated

auxiliary facilities, landscaping areas and potential off site mitigation or compensation schemes

• characteristics of the land required during the construction and operational phases

• a description and relevant plans for the land corridor, horizontal and vertical alignments (embankments, cuttings, false cuttings etc), structures such as bridges, crossings and tunnels, junctions, lighting, drainage outfalls, large signs and gantries, and side roads

• construction processes and methods, including site preparation • locations, and restoration or reinstatement, of any construction

compounds and lay down areas for major components and parking areas

• the types and quantities of materials used, as well as waste arisings and plans for disposal

• a description of the reinstatement and after-use of landtake following construction

• any potential risk of accidents, having regard in particular to substances or technologies used

• emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, etc); and

120323_TR040008_1051473

9


• details of any measures required to mitigate impacts that form part of the scheme design, and

• any other information requested by statutory consultees.

Construction, operation and maintenance 2.46 The ES should provide details of the construction programme to inform

the assessment of potential impacts. This should include a breakdown of construction phases and the duration of each phase, the type of plant and equipment to be used, and key activities. Where certain construction activities are to be undertaken or restricted to a particular time of year, then this should be identified in the ES.

2.47 The Scoping Report states that an Environmental Management Plan

(EMP) would be developed to minimise the effects of the proposed development on the surrounding environment (paragraph 11.5.5). The IPC welcomes this and recommends that a draft EMP is included in the ES. As a matter of good practice the EMP should include mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures required to avoid or reduce adverse impacts that are likely to arise during the pre-construction, construction, operation and decommissioning (where relevant) phases.

2.48 The Scoping Report states that routine track maintenance would occur

during the operational period (paragraph 3.5.3), however does not provide any specific details. The ES should identify the likely maintenance requirements of the proposed development and any works that would potentially be required over its operational lifetime.

Decommissioning 2.49 Paragraph 3.5.3 of the Scoping Report states that the track

infrastructure, including bridges, has a design life of 125 years and would be replaced as required and that the proposed development would not be decommissioned. Paragraph 3.5.4 states that if the Ordsall Chord should become out of use in the future, it is not the intention of Network Rail to remove the viaduct. The IPC acknowledges these comments but considers that the assessment should consider the potential impacts associated with decommissioning. In particular the focus of the assessment should be on the design and use of materials such that, if required, structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption. Consideration should be given to elements of the project other than the viaduct which may be removed.

120323_TR040008_1051473

10


3.0 ES APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS Introduction 3.1 This section contains the IPC’s specific comments on the ES approach

and Topic Areas as set out in the Scoping Report. General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided at Appendix 3 of this Scoping Opinion and should be read in conjunction with this section.

3.2 Applicants are advised that the scope of the DCO application should be

clearly addressed and assessed consistently within the ES.

ES approach 3.3 The IPC welcomes that an overall approach to EIA methodology is

provided in Section 3 of the Scoping Report. 3.4 It is important to ensure that an up-to-date baseline is established for

each environmental topic. The ES should clearly identify the dates of baseline surveys and/or the date of publication of information gathered through a desk based study. The methodology, including temporal and spatial scopes, should be agreed with the relevant consultees. Any consultation undertaken to inform assessment methodology should be reported on within the ES and where possible, evidence provided.

3.5 All assumptions used to inform the assessment, including the baseline

and assessment years, should be fully set out and justified within the ES. The worst case scenario should be assessed in all cases and take into account type of plant used and the method of construction.

3.6 The Scoping Report provides descriptions for different levels of

environmental receptor sensitivity and magnitude of impact in Tables 3.2 and 3.3; it is unclear whether these definitions are derived from guidance documents or industry standards, this should be clarified and the ES should clearly reference any guidance documents used.

3.7 Table 3.3 of the Scoping Report describes the magnitude of impacts.

The IPC recommends that, where possible, quantitative measures of change are used, and that care is taken when using qualitative terms to ensure consistency.

3.8 Table 3.4 of the Scoping Report provides a matrix to determine the

significance of effects as a function of environmental sensitivity and the magnitude of impact. It is not clear why, for 12 of the 25 cells in the table, two levels of significance are provided (e.g. Minor/Medium Significance within one cell) and the procedure to be followed to

120323_TR040008_1051473

11


conclude on the level of significance in these cases. This should be rectified within the ES.

3.9 A number of sections of the Scoping Report *e.g. Ecology & Nature

Conservation and Waste) contain a matrix to determine significance that differs from that proposed in the general methodology (Section 3 of the Scoping Report). It is recommended that a consistent approach to significance is used in the ES. Any departure should be clearly explained and justified. It is not clear how significance would be established where more than one definition is identified within each cell in the matrix.

3.10 The IPC welcomes the intention to determine the duration of effect

within the ES, however does not agree that ‘very short term’ could be used to describe impacts that could occur for up to 2 years. The IPC recommends reconsideration of this aspect.

3.11 Paragraph 3.5.12 of the Scoping Report identifies ‘additional impacts

arising from interrelationships within the scheme’ as an aspect of cumulative effects to be assessed within the ES. There should be a clear distinction between inter-relationships and cumulative effects, see Appendix 3 of this Opinion for further details.

3.12 Paragraph 3.5.13 of the Scoping Report details how other

developments considered relevant to a cumulative assessment will be identified. The IPC directs the Applicant to Appendix 3 of this Opinion which provides further details with regards to identifying other major development which should be considered in the cumulative assessment.

3.13 The IPC notes that the ES will include details of mitigation measures

for significant adverse effects. The ES should provide details of alternative mitigation measures considered, and situations where mitigation is not possible. The IPC recommends that an integrated approach to the design of mitigation measures is adopted. When considering mitigation measures for one topic, consideration should also be given to how the proposed measures may impact on or provide mitigation for other topics.

3.14 There is little reference in the Scoping Report to the monitoring of

mitigation measures once the proposed development is operational. It would be helpful if information on monitoring plans could be included in the ES, particularly where mitigation relates to significant impacts. These mitigation measures should be included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) where appropriate.

3.15 In preparing the ES, the Applicant should also consider the responses

provided by the consultation bodies (Appendix 2).

120323_TR040008_1051473

12

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord Topic areas

General comments

3.16 Section 15 of the Scoping Report sets out the anticipated structure of the ES as follows:

• Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary • Volume 2: Main Statement • Volume 3: Technical Appendices and Supporting Information, and • Volume 4: Figures, Photographs and Plans.

3.17 The Scoping Report does not propose a chapter structure for the main report. However, the following topic areas have been considered in the Scoping Report:

• Section 4 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage • Section 5 – Air Quality • Section 6 – Noise and Vibration • Section 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation • Section 8 – Townscape and Visual Amenity • Section 9 – Water Quality, Hydrology and Hydrogeology • Section 10 – Geology, Soils and Land Contamination • Section 11 – Waste • Section 12 – Traffic and Transport • Section 13 – Socio-economics

Matters proposed to be scoped out 3.18 The Applicant has identified, in Table 17.1, the following topics to be

scoped out from the EIA:

• operational air quality • operational water quality • operational geology, soils and land contamination • operational waste, and • operational traffic and transport. The IPC agrees that operational traffic and transport can be scoped out. However, the IPC cannot agree at this stage to scope out the remaining topics from the ES as insufficient information has been provided by the Applicant to justify such an approach. Further advice is provided below.

3.19 The Scoping Report proposes to scope out operational air quality impacts from the EIA as they are ‘likely to be insignificant’ (paragraph 5.1.2). The IPC does not agree to this for the following reasons:

120323_TR040008_1051473

13


• the Scoping Report states that ‘the majority of trains on the new chord will be electric passenger trains and no significant air quality impacts are anticipated with the operation of the proposed scheme’ (paragraph 5.6.2). However, the Scoping Report does not justify this conclusion and provides no information on the number of non-electrified trains using the chord,

• the IPC does not consider that enough information has been provided within the Scoping Report with regards to the number of anticipated maintenance vehicle movements during the operational phase; all anticipated maintenance activities should be identified within the ES, and included in the operational air quality assessment, where relevant,

• the new chord has the potential to influence driving patterns by changing individuals’ travelling patterns, which may impact on air quality,

• it is unclear whether any roads will be permanently closed as a result of the proposed development, which may impact upon traffic flows and air quality, and

• there are residential properties within 5m of the existing viaducts (paragraph 6.2.2 of the Scoping Report) and an AQMA (designated due to high volumes of local road traffic and their associated exhaust emissions, paragraph 5.2.1 of the Scoping Report) which could be affected by the factors identified above.

3.20 The Scoping Report proposes to scope out operational water quality

from the EIA and states that the ‘potential for pollution of a controlled watercourse during the operational phase is considered negligible’ (paragraph 9.6.6). It is noted that the chord would be electrified, however there is no information in the Scoping Report with regards to whether non-electric trains (e.g. freight trains) will also utilise the tracks. Given that the proposed development crosses the River Irwell, the IPC cannot agree to scope out operational water quality on the basis of the information provided.

3.21 The Scoping Report states that operational effects in relation to

Geology, Soils and Land Contamination are considered to be negligible (paragraph 10.5.7), however provides no information to support this conclusion. As a result, the IPC cannot agree to scoping this out.

3.22 The IPC does not consider that there is sufficient justification provided

within the Scoping Report to agree to scoping out waste materials during operation. The ES should provide details of the anticipated volumes of operational waste, e.g. arising from maintenance.

3.23 The IPC considers that if the matters identified above in paragraphs

3.19-3.22 are covered sufficiently in the ES, the ES will broadly encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 19 of the EIA Regulations.

120323_TR040008_1051473

14

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord 3.24 The IPC agrees that traffic and transport during the operational phase

can be scoped out of the EIA and that no further detailed studies will be required. Nevertheless, the ES should not simply omit this topic but should include the justification for scoping out this topic and so demonstrate that the topic has not simply been overlooked.

3.25 If any other topics are subsequently scoped out by the Applicant from

further assessment, the ES should explain the reasoning and justify the approach taken, to demonstrate that topics have not simply been overlooked.

Topic Areas 3.26 Each of the topic areas covered in the Scoping Report are considered

in turn below. It should be noted that the general points made above and elsewhere in this Opinion are not repeated under each of the specialist topics. However, the Applicant should ensure that such issues are addressed fully before the ES is submitted to the IPC.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (Section 4 of the Scoping Report) 3.27 Data sources and study areas should be clearly defined and based on

professional guidelines and practices. The IPC notes the intention to follow the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges guidance. Assessment methodology and proposed mitigation measures should be agreed with relevant consultees including the Local Authority and English Heritage (EH).

3.28 The description of the study area for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

is confusing. Paragraph 4.2.1 states that the ‘spatial scope of works will be delimited as being up to 500 metres from the permanent works’; paragraph 4.2.4 identifies designated monuments ‘within 500 metres of the scheme footprint’; paragraph 4.2.6 identifies structures ‘within 500m of the proposed new Chord’; and paragraph 4.4.1 states direct effects ‘within and adjacent to the scheme footprint’ will be addressed. Consistent terminology should be applied throughout this section (and the remainder of the ES) (see comments of Salford City Council in Appendix 2). The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of EH (see Appendix 2) with regards to defining the study area.

3.29 The ES should detail the names, locations and characteristics of

important heritage assets that could potentially be affected by the proposed development. Attention is drawn to the comments of EH (see Appendix 2) with regards to identifying potential receptors. Any cultural heritage/archaeological features that are likely to be affected directly or indirectly should be clearly identified in the plans in the ES. This should include assets considered to be of international, national, regional and local importance.

120323_TR040008_1051473

15

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord 3.30 The IPC notes and welcomes the approach to consider the setting of

historic assets within the Cultural Heritage and Townscape and Visual Amenity Chapters in the ES (see paragraph 4.1.4 of the Scoping Report). The inter-relationship between aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected is a requirement of the EIA Regulations (see Schedule 4, Part 1 of the EIA Regulations). More information on this aspect is provided in Appendix 3 of this Opinion.

3.31 The Scoping Report does not clearly identify the potential effects on

archaeological and cultural heritage assets that may occur as a result of the proposed development. These should be clearly identified and assessed in the ES. In particular, the potential visual impacts of the removal or alteration of assets, and the effects of noise, vibration and dust on these assets should be considered.

3.32 The Scoping Report identifies the Liverpool Road area to be on the

tentative World Heritage Site list. The ES should provide further details on this designation and assess the potential impacts on the area as a result of the proposed development.

3.33 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of EH (see

Appendix 2) regarding the need to assess historic assets as a cluster, as assessing importance and impact on an asset-by-asset basis may result in an under-appreciation of significance.

3.34 Consideration should be given to designing the proposed new line in

such a way to mitigate any visual impacts on historic assets (see comments of EH in Appendix 2).

3.35 In addition to the specific references above to comments made by EH,

the IPC recommends that the Applicant addresses in the ES all the points made by EH in relation to this topic, including the approach taken to the option selection process which resulted in the choice of the proposed development as the preferred option.

Air Quality (Section 5 of the Scoping Report) 3.36 It is noted that the Applicant intends to use air quality monitoring data

from Manchester City Council and Salford City Council to establish the baseline air quality conditions. The locations of the monitoring points and their distances from the application site are not identifiable from the information provided in the Scoping Report. These should be provided in the ES.

3.37 All assumptions and limitations to assessment should be clearly

specified in all relevant sections of the ES. Assessment methodology, including the location of sensitive receptors and the need to obtain

120323_TR040008_1051473

16


further baseline data, should be agreed with the relevant Local Authorities. Predicted pollutant concentrations should be assessed against the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium, e.g. relevant European air quality limit values and National Air Quality Objectives. The potential need for a quantitative assessment of dust impacts and any requirements for post construction monitoring should also be agreed with the relevant Local Authorities.

3.38 The IPC welcomes that Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) will

be considered in the assessment. The ES should identify the names and locations of the AQMAs in relation to the application site. The reasons for declaration of the AQMA, specifying the air quality objectives that have been exceeded, should be identified.

3.39 The Scoping Report does not specifically identify potential sensitive

receptors. The IPC considers that potential receptors should include those along affected access roads, local footpaths and public rights of way (PRoW), and should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultation bodies. Receptors should not be limited to those within the human environment, e.g. the applicant should consider the potential impacts of construction dust on ecological receptors and the River Irwell (given its Wildlife Corridor status and designation as an SBI).

3.40 The IPC notes that there are a number of proposed regeneration areas

within and adjacent to the application site (paragraph 6.2.3 of the Scoping Report). Air quality impacts on these should be considered in the assessment.

3.41 Two different buffer zones for assessing air quality impacts have been

identified in the Scoping Report (350m around the application site and 200m along haulage routes in paragraphs 5.5.11 and 5.5.12 respectively). This approach should be justified within the ES.

3.42 It is unclear why the finalised construction traffic flows will not be

available for the EIA (paragraph 5.7.2). Any limitations associated with data used in the ES should be explained.

3.43 The IPC welcomes the development of a Nuisance Management Plan

and Traffic Management Plan. These will need to be provided within the ES if relied upon to provide mitigation. Consideration should be given to mitigation measures appropriate to the size and scale of predicted impacts, including the monitoring of dust and odour complaints.

Noise and Vibration (Section 6 of the Scoping Report) 3.44 The Scoping Report provides limited information on how the baseline

noise and vibration conditions will be determined; however it does state

120323_TR040008_1051473

17


that ‘an ambient noise survey will be undertaken within and adjacent to the scheme footprint’ (paragraph 6.2.1). The IPC welcomes that the methodology will be discussed and agreed with the Environmental Health Officers at both Salford City Council and Manchester City Council; this should include the spatial and temporal scope for the baseline monitoring.

3.45 Care should be taken in identifying potential receptors. The IPC

recommends that the Applicant agrees receptors to be assessed with the relevant Local Authorities. Attention is drawn to the comments of Salford City Council (see Appendix 2) regarding residential receptors.

3.46 The IPC notes that the baseline noise climate will be characterised at

‘sensitive times of the day’ (paragraph 6.7.1). These should be discussed and agreed with the relevant Local Authorities.

3.47 All design parameters and assumptions used in the noise and vibration

prediction and assessment should be clearly stated in the ES. This should include information on the construction methods, the type of plant and machinery to be employed as well as phasing, and the duration and hours of construction. It is noted that the proposed development would include bridges. This may affect the noise profile; which should be taken into account in the assessment.

3.48 The proposed development may affect the volume, speed, frequency

and type of train movements in Manchester. The ES should consider the full geographical extent of noise and vibration impacts and, where necessary, assess the likely significant effects.

3.49 Anticipated maintenance activities should be considered in the

assessment. 3.50 No reference has been made to monitoring the effectiveness of

mitigation measures implemented during the operational phase, and any potential residual impacts. Consideration should be given to putting in place a monitoring scheme for the lifetime of the development, which includes the monitoring of complaints during construction and operation.

3.51 Cross reference should be made to other sections of the ES where

appropriate such as, for example, Traffic and Transport, and Townscape and Visual Amenity (in relation to any possible noise attenuation mitigation measures) in order to ensure that there is a consistent, integrated and comprehensive approach to assessment and mitigation.

120323_TR040008_1051473

18


Ecology & Nature Conservation (Section 7 of the Scoping Report) 3.52 The Scoping Report identifies that the application site and surrounding

area has the potential to support a number of protected species, such as bats, badgers, otters, water vole, birds, reptiles and amphibians (including great crested newts) (paragraph 7.2.8). The IPC is pleased to note that the Applicant intends to undertake relevant ecological surveys to ascertain the presence of such species, and expects the findings to be clearly set out in the ES.

3.53 The IPC welcomes the consultation undertaken to date with Natural

England (NE) and recommends that this is ongoing. The study area, types of survey and methods of assessment should be agreed with NE and the relevant Local Authorities. This should include the timing and number of field surveys for habitats and protected species. Any limitations with the data should be clearly set out in the ES.

3.54 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of NE (see

Appendix 2) with regards to the need for a habitat survey. 3.55 Consideration should be given to assessing the impacts on aquatic

ecology as well as terrestrial ecology (see comments of the Environment Agency in Appendix 2).

3.56 It is noted that valued ecological receptors (VER) will be considered in

the assessment if they are, at a minimum, of local importance (paragraph 7.5.4 of the Scoping Report). The methodology used to determine importance should be clearly defined within the ES.

3.57 The significance of impacts on VER is proposed to be assessed as

‘Negative, Positive or Not Significant’ (paragraph 7.5.14 of the Scoping Report). This departs from the methodology of assessing significance as proposed in section 3 of the Scoping Report. It is recommended that a consistent approach is used throughout the ES. any departure should be clearly explained and justified, and references made to any guidance used, where appropriate.

3.58 The ES should set out in full the potential risk to any European

Protected Species (EPS) and confirm if any EPS licences will be required (see advice in Section 4 of this Opinion).

3.59 Attention is drawn to NE’s consultation response (see Appendix 2)

which identifies the potential for contributing to the provision of strategic green infrastructure opportunity areas, and to the EA’s response (see Appendix 2) regarding increasing the extent and quality of greenspace.

120323_TR040008_1051473

19

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord Townscape and Visual Amenity (Section 8 of the Scoping Report) 3.60 The approach to the Landscape and Visual Impacts Assessment

(LVIA) and viewpoints assessment should accord with best practice as set out in the Landscape Institute’s ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, and agreed with the relevant Local Authorities. See the comments of EH (Appendix 2) for further advice on relevant guidance documents.

3.61 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the ‘Greater Manchester Urban

Historic Landscape Characterisation’, compiled by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit, to provide a basis for more detailed characterisation of the study area (see comments of EH Appendix 2).

3.62 The Applicant should clearly indicate in the ES the size, dimensions

and siting of the structures which would form part of the proposed development, as well as colours and choices of material to be used. Any structures or features that will be retained or removed should also be clearly identified in the ES.

3.63 It is noted that the spatial scope has been set for 1km around the

application site (paragraph 8.5.6 of the Scoping Report) due to the location of the proposed development ‘within a highly developed urban area with limited views’. The IPC appreciates the urban setting of the proposed development, however given the elevated nature of the proposals considers that the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) should be established and the study area agreed with the relevant Local Authorities. A Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) would then be a useful aid to identify visual receptors affected by any cuttings, embankments, overhead lines, site access roads, road diversions and bridges proposed.

3.64 The IPC considers that photographs will help illustrate the views prior

to development and use should be made of photomontages, upon completion and at an agreed future date where mitigation measures are fully established. Any photomontages should be presented in a clear and accessible format that includes clear points of reference to allow the reader to identify and fully understand the potential effects of the proposed development, including in relation to the historic landscape. The locations of viewpoints should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and should enable an assessment of the worst case scenario.

3.65 Consideration should be given to both day and night time views,

including the impact of lighting. Care should be taken to ensure that photomontages are representative of the views in the area.

120323_TR040008_1051473

20

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord Water Quality, Hydrology and Hydrogeology (Section 9 of the Scoping Report) 3.66 The study areas, assessment methodology and proposed mitigation

measures for the water quality, hydrology and hydrogeology assessment should be agreed with the relevant regulatory bodies (i.e. the EA and the Local Authority).

3.67 The ES should identify and clearly map any surface water resources

(including springs and private water supplies both internal and external to the site boundary) that could potentially affect or be affected by the proposal. Potential sources of pollution and pathways to hydrological and surface water receptors should be identified.

3.68 The Scoping Report identifies 25 licensed surface water discharge

consent points, a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ), groundwater abstraction points and a Groundwater Inner Protection Zone (Zone I) and Groundwater Outer Protection Zone (Zone II) within proximity of the application state. No information has been provided within the Scoping Report as to their locations and the potential impacts of the proposed development on these features, and if so, how these will be assessed. The IPC expects this to be covered in the ES, along with details on any proposed mitigation measures if required.

3.69 The Scoping Report states that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) may

be undertaken (paragraph 9.6.1). Given the location of the proposed development within the Conurbation Core Critical Drainage Area and Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3, and as works will be undertaken within the River Irwell (paragraph 9.4.1 of the Scoping Report), the IPC recommends that an FRA should be developed in consultation with the relevant consultation bodies, including the EA and the relevant Local Authorities. The FRA should cover the risk of ground and surface water contamination in a flood event. The potential for the development itself to increase flood risk within the application site and elsewhere should also be considered in the ES. It should be clear whether any flood protection currently exists around the application site and, if so, identify the body/organisation that is responsible for maintaining it. The FRA should comply with national planning policy set out in Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). The assessment should also take into account the latest climate change projections for the UK as detailed in the UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) at http://ukclimateprojections-ui.defra.gov.uk.

3.70 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the EA with

regards to considering the effects of scour on the river bed and the potential mobilisation of contaminated sediments should any structures be located in the river.

120323_TR040008_1051473

21

http://ukclimateprojections-ui.defra.gov.uk/http://ukclimateprojections-ui.defra.gov.uk/

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Northern Hub: Ordsall Chord 3.71 The IPC recommends that a surface water management plan should

be prepared, which may include a review of existing drainage facilities, and the provision of additional interceptors on site. The plan should aim to control the direction and speed of surface water run-off and reduce the risks of ground and surface water contamination in case of accidental spillage of fuel and other chemicals.

Geology, Soils and Land Contamination (Section 10 of the Scoping Report) 3.72 Table 10.3 of the Scoping Report is a matrix to determine the level of

risk. It is not clear whether the level of risk will be used to identify the significance of effects as set out in the general EIA methodology proposed in Section 3. This should be clearly explained within the ES.

3.73 The Scoping Report indicates the likely presence of contaminated

material within the application site (paragraph 10.2.5). The EIA should consider the potential for contaminated material being excavated during the construction stage, and should identify the characteristics and variability of the material. Proposed mitigation measures to deal with any contaminated/hazardous material found on site should be detailed in the ES and should not be limited to disposal; consideration should be given to the waste hierarchy, in particular remediation and re-use on-site. Any information obtained during site investigation should be used to inform the ‘Waste’ section of the ES.

3.74 The IPC expects appropriate remediation and mitigation measures to

be identified in the ES to address all aspects of contamination, and to be incorporated in the EMP where appropriate.

3.75 This section of the ES should be cross referenced to the Water Quality,

Hydrology and Hydrogeology section.

Waste (Section 11 of the Scoping Report) 3.76 The IPC welcomes the consideration of waste within the ES. The

Applicant should ensure that the methodology used for the assessment is detailed in the ES and that any uncertainties are acknowledged.

3.77 The ES should contain details of the types and quantities of waste that

require disposal, the disposal methods, and the likely number of vehicle movements required as a result. The IPC recommends that a draft of the Site Waste Management Plan is provided within the ES.

3.78 As with section 7:Ecology and Nature Conservation, this section

provides a matrix to determine significance (Table 11.1 of the Scoping Report) that differs from that proposed in the general methodology (Section 3 of the Scoping Report). It is recommended that a consistent

120323_TR040008_1051473

22


approach to significance is used in the ES. Any departure should be clearly explained and justified. It is not clear how significance would be established where more than one definition is identified within each cell in the matrix.

Traffic & Transport (Section 12 of the Scoping Report) 3.79 The ES should detail the transport routes to be utilised during

construction both within the application site, and along the road network. Given the nature and location of the proposed development, consideration should be given to delivering materials and staff to site by rail.

3.80 Table 12.4 of the Scoping Report identifies a number of roads which

are expected to be impacted upon by the proposed development. The Applicant should ensure that the spatial scope of the assessment is sufficiently wide and encompasses roads which may be used as alternatives to closed or diverted routes. A number of additional roads are identified in paragraph 2.5.5 of the Scoping Report as being contained within the application site. The ES should justify why particular roads are considered in the assessment. See the comments of Transport for Greater Manchester in Appendix 2.

3.81 The Scoping Report states that the information used in the assessment

‘may not include all information that is required’ (paragraph 12.7.1). The IPC acknowledges that in some cases it may not be possible to obtain certain information to inform an assessment. The ES should clearly explain the information which cannot be obtained and the reasons why, together with the implications of this on the assessment. The Applicant should agree the assessment methodology with the relevant Highways Authorities and ensure that they are satisfied with the level of information provided.

3.82 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Salford City

Council (see Appendix 2) regarding the need to consider movement along the riverside and onward journeys (e.g. through a relocated bridge).

3.83 The assessment should reflect the position during the full peak period

in the regional centre (see comments of Transport for Greater Manchester in Appendix 2).

3.84 The IPC recommends that a draft Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is

provided within the ES. 3.85 Paragraph 12.3.4 of the Scoping Report identifies the potential for

Highways Agency construction works to take place within or adjacent to the proposed development. The potential for cumulative effects with

120323_TR040008_1051473

23


these works in terms of construction traffic should be considered within the ES (see the response of the Highways Agency, Appendix 2).

Socio-Economics (Section 13 of the Scoping Report) 3.86 The IPC recommends that the assessment criteria for this topic should

be locationally specific, and consider the potential significance of the impacts of the proposed development within the local and regional context.

3.87 The Scoping Report highlights that the proposed development will

create new jobs during construction and operation (paragraph 13.4.2). The baseline employment conditions in the area should be established and the types of jobs generated should be considered in the context of the available workforce.

3.88 The assessment should consider the potential impacts of the proposed

development on recreation, e.g. for users of the River Irwell, the canal system, hotels and tourist attractions which are identified in paragraph 13.2.1 of the Scoping Report.

3.89 The Scoping Report states that recognised methodologies for

calculating socio-economic effects will be used in the assessment (paragraph 13.1.2). These methodologies should be clearly explained, and any guidance used should be referenced within the ES.

3.90 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Salford City

Council (see Appendix 2) regarding assessing the impacts of the proposed development on application sites in the vicinity that have planning permission.

Cumulative Effects (Section 14 of the Scoping Report) 3.91 The IPC welcomes the proposed assessment of cumulative effects and

directs the Applicant to Appendix 3 of this Opinion for further information.

Other Matters 3.92 The Scoping Report states that new overhead lines will form part of the

proposed development. As such, the IPC considers that the potential impacts of electromagnetic effects should be identified and, where necessary, assessed within the ES.

120323_TR040008_1051473

24


4.0 OTHER INFORMATION 4.1 This section does not form part of the IPC’s opinion with regards to the

information to be provided in the ES. However, it does respond to other issues that the IPC has identified which may help to inform the preparation of the application for the DCO.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) 4.7 Where there may be potential impacts on the SSSIs, the Examining

authority has duties under sections 28(G) and 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the W&C Act). These are set out below for information.

4.8 Under s28(G), the decision maker has a general duty ‘… to take

reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest’.

4.9 Under s28(I), the IPC/SoS must notify the relevant nature conservation

body (NCB), NE in this case, before authorising the carrying out of operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. Under these circumstances 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent, and the IPC/SoS must take account of any advice received from the NCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. The NCB will be notified during the examination period.

4.10 If applicants consider it likely that notification may be necessary under

s28(I), they are advised to resolve any issues with the NCB before the DCO application is submitted to the IPC. If, following assessment by applicants, it is considered that operations affecting the SSSI will not lead to damage of the special interest features, applicants should make this clear in the ES. The application documents submitted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(l) could also provide this information. Applicants should seek to agree with NE the DCO requirements which will provide protection for the SSSI before the DCO application is submitted.

European Protected Species (EPS) 4.11 The Applicant should also be aware that the decision maker under the

Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has, as the competent authority (CA), a duty to engage with the Habitats Directive.

4.12 The IPC notes that there is potential for the presence of EPS within the

study area for the proposed development. Where a potential risk to an

120323_TR040008_1051473

25


EPS is identified and before making a decision to grant development consent the CA must, amongst other things, address the derogation tests in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations. Therefore the Applicant may wish to provide information which will assist the decision maker to meet this duty. Where required the Applicant should, in consultation with NE, agree appropriate requirements to secure necessary mitigation.

4.13 If the Applicant has concluded (in consultation with NE) that an EPS

licence is required the ExA will need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. It would assist the examination if the Applicant could provide with the application confirmation from NE whether they intend to issue the licence in due course.

Health Impact Assessment 4.14 The IPC considers that it is a matter for the Applicant to decide whether

or not to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and that the Applicant should have particular regard to the responses received from the relevant consultees regarding health. The methodology for the HIA, if prepared, should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.

4.15 The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Health

Protection Agency in Appendix 2 for further information on assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on public health.

120323_TR040008_1051473

26

120323_TR040008_1051473

APPENDIX 1

CONSULTATION BODIES

120323_TR040008_1051473

APPENDIX 1: CONSULTATION BODIES The table below includes all the consultation bodies formally consulted by the IPC under Regulation 9(1)(a) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. SCHEDULE 1 DESCRIPTION ORGANISATION The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive The Relevant Strategic Health Authority

NHS North Of England

Natural England Natural England The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

English Heritage

The Relevant Fire and Rescue Authority

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service

The Relevant Police Authority Greater Manchester Police Authority Ringway Parish Council Rixton-with-Glazebrook Parish Council

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Relevant Community Council Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council The Environment Agency The Environment Agency The Commission for Architecture and The Built Environment

CABE at Design Council

The Relevant Regional Development Agency

North West Regional Development Agency

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Commission for Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development Commission

The Homes and Communities Agency

Homes and Communities Agency

The Highways Agency The Highways Agency Greater Manchester Combined Authority Integrated Transport Authorities

(ITAs) and Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs)

Transport for Greater Manchester

Manchester City Council The Relevant Highways Authority Salford City Council The Passengers Council Passenger Focus The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

The Coal Authority The Coal Authority The Office Of Rail Regulation Office of Rail Regulation (Customer

Correspondence Team Manager) Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Approved Operator Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd

The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority

OFGEM

The Water Services Regulation Authority

OFWAT

120323_TR040008_1051473

A1-1

The Relevant Waste Regulation Authority

The Environment Agency - Regional contact

The British Waterways Board The British Waterways Board The Health Protection Agency Health Protection Agency The Relevant Local Resilience forum Greater Manchester LRF The Crown Estate Commissioners The Crown Estate

RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS Strategic Health Authority NHS North Of England

University Hospital Of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust The Christie NHS Foundation Trust Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Stockport NHS Foundation Trust

NHS Foundation Trust

Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust Special Health Authority National Institute for Health and Clinical

Excellence NHS Manchester NHS Stockport NHS Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Salford Primary Care Trust NHS Bolton NHS Oldham NHS Bury

Primary Care Trust

NHS Trafford Ambulance Trust North West Ambulance Service NHS

Trust Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd BRB Residuary Limited

Railway

Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd Light Railway Transport for Greater Manchester Water Transport The British Waterways Board

Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited Navigation Authorities Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited C/O The Bridgewater Canal Company

Dock Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group Water and Sewage Undertakers United Utilities Relevant Homes and Communities Agency

Homes and Communities Agency

Relevant Regional Development Agency

North West Regional Development Agency

Relevant Environment Agency The Environment Agency - Regional contact

120323_TR040008_1051473

A1-2

British Gas Pipelines Limited Energetics Gas Limited ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd ESP Pipelines Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited GTC Pipelines Limited Independent Pipelines Limited LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited National Grid Gas Plc National Grid Gas Plc Quadrant Pipelines Limited Scotland Gas Networks Plc Southern Gas Networks Plc SSE Pipelines Ltd The Gas Transportation Company Limited Utility Grid Installations Limited

Public Gas Transporter

Wales and West Utilities Ltd Electricity North West Limited Energetics Electricity Limited ESP Electricity Limited Independent Power Networks Limited

Electricity Distributors With CPO Powers

The Electricity Network Company Limited Electricity Transmitters With CPO Powers

National Grid

SECTION 43 CONSULTEES Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Manchester City Council Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council Rochdale Borough Council Salford City Council Stockport Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Trafford Council Wigan Council Cheshire East Council

Local Authority

Warrington Borough Council Note: the Prescribed Consultees have been consulted in accordance with the IPC’s Advice Note 3 ‘Meeting the Commission’s Obligations’ (July 2011)

120323_TR040008_1051473

A1-3

120323_TR040008_1051473

APPENDIX 2

RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES

120323_TR040008_1051473

APPENDIX 2: RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES Consultation bodies who replied by the statutory deadline are shown in the table below with copies of their replies below. Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Coal Authority Culcheth and Glazebury PC English Heritage Environment Agency E S Pipelines Ltd, ESP Networks Ltd, ESP Pipelines Ltd, ESP Electricity Ltd and ESP Connections Ltd Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Safety Executive Health Protection Agency Highways Agency National Grid Natural England Pennine Acute Hospital NHS Trust Salford City Council SSE Pipelines Transport for Greater Manchester Wigan Council

120323_TR040008_1051473

A2-1

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

1

200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries) Email: [email protected] Web: www.coal.gov.uk/services/planning

UNCLASSIFIED

FAO: Hannah Pratt – EIA and Land Rights Advisor on behalf of the IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission [By Email: [email protected]] 05 March 2012 Dear Ms Pratt Proposed Ordsall Chord Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 SI 2263 Thank you for your consultation letter of 14 February 2012 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the EIA Scoping Opinion for the above proposal. I have reviewed the document provided by the developer and can confirm that The Coal Authority is satisfied that due consideration is being afforded to the issue of coal mining legacy, given that the site falls within the defined coalfield, with reference set out in paragraphs 10.2.9, 10.3.2 and 10.4.4 of the document. The proposed Ordsall Chord falls within the defined coalfield, and therefore the Environmental Statement should afford some consideration to the legacy of past coal mining activity; although The Coal Authority records indicate there are no recorded surface hazards within the site. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Yours sincerely

Mark Harrison Mark E. N. Harrison B.A.(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

2

General Information for the Applicant The Environmental Statement should include a risk assessment of the coal mining legacy, which should interpret the coal mining risks and be based on, and add to, up-to-date information of past coal mining activities in relation to the application site. Coal Mining Reports are available from www.groundstability.com or by telephoning 0845 762 6848. This coal mining information should then be used to assess whether or not past mining activity poses any risk to the development proposal and, where necessary, propose mitigation measures to address any issues of land instability. Disclaimer The above consultation response is provided by The Coal Authority as a Statutory Consultee and is based upon the latest available data and records held by The Coal Authority on the date of the response. The comments made are also based upon only the information provided to The Coal Authority by the Local Planning Authority and/or has been published on the Council's website for consultation purposes in relation to this specific planning application. The views and conclusions contained in this response may be subject to review and amendment by The Coal Authority if additional or new data/information (such as a revised Coal Mining Risk Assessment) is provided by the Local Planning Authority or the Applicant for consultation purposes.

From: Mike DurringtonTo: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: Proposed Ordsall Chord - 120214_TR040008_1051212Date: 07 March 2012 15:33:50

Dear Hannah,The Parish Council confirm that they have no comment to make on the proposal at this stage.Regards,MikeMike Durrington Clerk, Culcheth & Glazebury Parish Council This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

mailto:[email protected]:/O=LINK/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=IPCSCOPINGOPINION

Direct dial 0161-242-1412 Your ref: 120214_TR040008

_1051212 Our ref: 839

Hannah Pratt, Infrastructure Planning Commission, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

9 March, 2012

Dear Ms Pratt, PROPOSED ORDSALL CHORD (the project) PROPOSAL BY NETWORK RAIL (the developer) INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (the EIA Regulations) I refer to your letter of 14 February 2012, seeking the views of English Heritage on the information which should be provided in an environmental statement relating to the proposed Ordsall Chord. English Heritage is the Government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment. A specific concern, therefore, is the impact of proposed developments on listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, conservation area, and other nationally important elements of the historic environment, whether designated or undesignated. Before commenting in detail on the Scoping Report, I must make it clear that English Heritage believes that the initial option selection process which resulted in the selection of the Ordsall Chord as the preferred option for creating a new link between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria was fundamentally flawed. By adopting only engineering and financial criteria in that option selection process, Network Rail has created a situation where the construction of their preferred option will almost inevitably result in substantial harm being caused to heritage assets of the highest importance. Given the importance of Manchester’s historic environment, and particularly the importance of its early railway heritage, we believe that considerations of potential impacts on the historic environment should have been factored into the initial option selection process. Manchester’s Liverpool Road Station, now part of the Museum of Science and Industry [MOSI], is the earliest surviving passenger railway terminus in the world. The complex includes highly graded buildings and structures constructed for the opening of the world’s first inter-city railway, the Liverpool and Manchester, in 1830. It is a complex of the highest importance in heritage terms. Were the Ordsall Chord to be constructed, it would inevitably impact upon the setting of MOSI and the buildings of the former Liverpool Road Station, and would have a physical impact on the grade I listed Stephenson’s Bridge, which carries the original line of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway westwards across the River Irwell.

Government guidance, set out in PPS5, Planning for the Historic Environment, makes it clear that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets, and that substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including grade I and II* listed buildings, “should be wholly exceptional” (Policy HE9.1). HE9.2 states that where an application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that “the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that out weigh that harm or loss”. In our view, it will be hard to argue that substantial harm to the Stephenson Bridge and to the setting of MOSI is necessary to deliver substantial public benefits if alternatives to the Ordsall Chord are available but have simply been ruled out at the outset on the grounds of engineering complexity or cost. Subject to these significant reservations, we have the following comments on the Scoping Report, and particularly on those sections relating to Archaeology & Cultural Heritage, and Townscape and Visual Amenity. We note that it is proposed to exclude a number of disciplines from consideration in the EIA, on the grounds that effects are considered to be negligible. Whilst we have no concerns about the majority of the disciplines to be scoped out, we consider that Transport might merit some consideration, because of the potential impact of the Ordsall Chord on rail links to MOSI, and therefore on the future operation of the museum. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Whilst there is a separate chapter on Townscape and Visual Amenity, the historic townscape should be considered as part of the cultural heritage, and therefore be included among the receptors listed at para 4.1.3. The Environmental Constraints Plans in Appendix B illustrate only listed buildings/structures and conservation areas. The Plans really need to illustrate all heritage assets, whether designated or identified as locally important, including below-ground archaeology. The spatial scope of the assessment (para 4.2.1 may need to be extended in certain areas, particularly where setting is being considered. There could potentially be an impact on the settings of listed buildings further east along Liverpool Road than the boundary shown on the Red Line Plan, for example. It is important that the historic assets within the study area, and particularly the group of transport-related assets at its core, are dealt with as a cluster. Assessing importance and impact on an asset-by-asset basis may result in an under-appreciation of significance and an under-recording of the cumulative impact upon the historic environment. The assessment method therefore needs to address what might be described as the ‘cumulative sensitivity’ of the cluster of historic assets within the study area, and not just that of each individual receptor/resource (para 4.5.2) and the ‘cumulative impact’ on the cluster, and not just that on an individual receptor/resource (para 4.53).

Townscape & Visual Impact The assessment of the sensitivity, quality and character of existing townscape and landscape features should be based upon existing historic characterisation. The Greater Manchester Urban Historic Landscape Characterisation, compiled by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit, will provide a basis for more detailed characterisation of the study area (para 8.2.3). In addition to the quoted sources of guidance, the assessment method should be based on the guidance on historic characterisation issued by English Heritage, such as Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments – Principles and Practice (English Heritage 2010), and Understanding Place: Character and context in local planning (English Heritage 2011). Mitigation of Significant Adverse Effects We note that options to reduce or remove significant adverse effects will be explored during the detailed design process (para 4.6.1), and welcome the fact that a Heritage Architect has been appointed to inform the developing design in terms of heritage impacts and mitigation of significant adverse effects (para 4.6.2). However, we can find no suggestion in the Scoping Report that any consideration is being given to creating landmark new bridge structures of exceptional design quality to carry the proposed new line over the River Irwell and the Inner Ring Road. This might, it could be argued, provide some mitigation for the significant harm which will be caused to historic assets and to their settings by the construction of the Ordsall Chord. The description of the proposed new bridges at para 2.2.5 suggests that the opportunity to create landmark new structures has not been grasped. Yours sincerely, Andrew Davison Inspector of Ancient Monuments/Team Leader e-mail: [email protected]

Environment Agency Richard Fairclough House Knutsford Road, Warrington, WA4 1HT. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.environment-agency.gov.uk Cont/d..

Infrastructure Planning Commission Temple Quay House (2 The Square) Temple Quay Bristol Avon BS1 6PN

Our ref: SO/2012/110245/01-L01 Your ref: 120214_TR040008_1051212 Date: 13 March 2012

FAO Hannah Pratt Dear Madam PROPOSED ORDSALL RAIL CHORD - SCOPING CONSULTATION PROPOSAL BY NETWORK RAIL Thank you for consulting this Agency on the above scoping opinion. We have no objection in principle to the proposed scheme and would make the following comments on the Scoping Report (127523-A-ENV-REP-PBL-0004 Revision P02):- We would prefer to see any new bridge design for crossing the river to be of free span design and avoiding new piers within the main channel. The existing channel width should also be retained in order to maintain flood flow capacity of the river. If it is proposed to locate a pier in the river, the EIA should consider the effects of scour on the river bed and the potential mobilisation of contaminated sediments. We would agree with the proposal to include a flood risk assessment in the EIA. The Scoping Report has identified the main issues to consider in relation to content of a FRA. We would be pleased to comment on any draft FRA in due course. We welcome Network Rail's commitment to undertake a full ecological assessment as part of the proposed Ordsall Chord development area as part of overall EIA process, and deliver a high quality landscape design, that encourages greater biodiversity interest, particularly with this sited along the key ecological network and wildlife corridor of the River Irwell. We note that water quality has been scoped out for the operational phase but it is important that the water quality is fully considered during the construction phase, particularly if a new pier is to be located within the river channel.

End

2

We would highly recommend that any extended Phase One survey is conducted at an appropriate time of year, to ensure the majority of ecological constraints be identified, and the need for any further protected species are fully identified. Based on current scheme proposals indicating works in the river channel may be required, through new bridge works or demolitions, aquatic as well as terrestrial ecology must also be considered as part of any EIA. We would welcome as part of any options appraisal, any opportunity to potentially open up this heavily traversed and highly shaded section of the River Irwell, and to increase the extent and quality of greenspace and riverine recreational routeway along this portion of the Irwell River Park. If you or the developer require any further information or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully Mr CHRIS WARING Planning Technical Specialist Direct dial 01925 542497 Direct fax 01925 415961 Direct e-mail [email protected]

From: Alan SleeTo: IPC Scoping Opinion; Subject: RE: PROPOSED ORDSALL RAIL CHORD - SCOPING CONSULTATIONDate: 20 February 2012 11:31:10

Dear Alison, PROPOSED ORDSALL CHORD (the project) PROPOSAL BY NETWORK RAIL (the developer)120214_TR040008_1051

scoping opinion proposed northern hub: ordsall chord · 2016. 7. 1. · scoping opinion for the...

Documents