{TOC} Applications details - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM|R/2020/0684/ESM]] Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Planning (Development Management) APPLICATION NUMBER: [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM|R/2020/0684/ESM]] LOCATION: LAND AT SOUTH BANK WHARF GRANGETOWN LACKENBY PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING REDUNDANT QUAY STRUCTURES, CAPITAL DREDGING AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW QUAY AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (PHASE 1) APPLICATION SITE AND DESCRIPTION Permission is sought for the demolition of existing redundant quay structures, capital dredging and development of new quay and associated works on land at South Bank Warf, Grangetown. The applicant within the submitted Planning Statement has summarised the proposed development as follows; //The proposed scheme comprises demolition of the existing wharf, jetties and other minor infrastructure along the river bank at South Bank (including an electrical substation), capital dredging to create a berth pocket and construction and operation of a new quay (to be set back into the riverbank). The new quay will be a solid piled quay structure up to 30m wide and 1,230m in length (with an approximate 1,050m of usable quay for berthing), set back into the riverbank. Although the useable surface of the quay itself will be up to 30m wide, the overall footprint of the quay will be up to 50m wide due to the need to construct an anchor structure further inland of the quay deck.// This application is for Phase 1 of the overall development. Phase 1 is to have an initial berth length of approximately 450m with an overall quay length of up to 630m and the provision of 1 heavy lift area. Chapter 3 of the ES set out the proposed development in greater detail than the summary given above. The development is one which it was agreed fell under Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations and it is therefore supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) which covers a range of topic areas The application has been supported by a number of technical drawings: [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.01%20RevA%20Site%20boundary%20phase%201.pdf|1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.01A Site Location Phase 1]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.03%20RevA%20Site%20boundaries.pdf|1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.03A Site plan showing overlap between Phases 1 and 2]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-EN-DR-EV-1113%20-%20DREDGING%20PLAN.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-EN-DR-EVC-1113_P01 Dredging Plan]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1380_P01.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1380_P01 General Arrangement]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1383_P01%20Quay%20Plan.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1383_P01 Quay Plan]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1384_P01%20Quay%20Sections.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1384_P01 Quay Sections]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1385_P01%20Drainage.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1385_P01 Drainage]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1386_P01%20Electrical%20Services.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1386_P01 Electrical Services]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1387_P01%20Mechanical%20Services.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1387_P01 Mechanical Services]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1388_P01%20Construction%20Sequence.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1388_P01 Construction Sequence]] The application has also been supported by the following supporting documents: [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-61586%20Quay%20Design%20and%20Access%20Statement%20November%202020.PDF|Design and Access Statement]] [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-61586%20Quay%20Planning%20Statement%2009-11-20.pdf|Planning Statement]] During the consideration of the application a [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-21%2002%2005%20-%20Quayside%20Application.pdf|response]] was received by PD Ports making comment on the proposed development. As a result of this letter the applicant has provided a response to the points raised by PD Ports which has been added to the planning file. ===== DEVELOPMENT PLAN ===== Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. ===== NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES ===== National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Policy Statement for Ports (NPSP) ===== REDCAR & CLEVELAND LOCAL PLAN (2018) ===== SD1 Sustainable Development SD2 Locational Policy SD3 Development Limits SD4 General Development Principles SD5 Developer Contributions SD7 Flood and Water Management LS4 South Tees Spatial Strategy ED6 Promoting Economic Growth N1 Landscape N2 Green Infrastructure N4 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation TA1 Transport and New Development TA2 Improving Accessibility within the Borough and Beyond TA3 Sustainable Transport Networks MWC4 Safeguarding of Minerals Resources from Sterilisation MWC8 General Locations for Waste Management Sites ===== OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS ===== South Tees Area Supplementary Planning Document (May 2018) South Tees Regeneration Masterplan (November 2019) ===== PLANNING HISTORY ===== [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0371-SCP|R/2020/0371/SCP]] SCOPING OPINION FOR NEW PORT FACILITY TO SUPPORT LANDSIDE PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND !STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION USES [[R-2020-0357-OOM-Officer Report|R/2020/0357/OOM]] OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 418,000 SQM (GROSS) OF GENERAL INDUSTRY (USE CLASS B2) AND STORAGE OR DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (USE CLASS B8) WITH OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (USE CLASS B1), HGV AND CAR PARKING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS ALL MATTERS RESERVED OTHER THAN ACCESS Approved 03/12/20 ===== RESULTS OF CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY ===== The application has been advertised by means of a press notice, site notice and neighbour notification letters. As a result of the consultation period one written response has been received from PD Ports raising the following comments: * The need for a HRO as part of the proposed development * There are extant legal agreements over parts of the application site as completed under Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 * Impacts of development activities on hazardous cargo moored on the Teesport Estate * Sufficient consideration of cumulative projects including NGCT * Potential contaminants released as part of construction process and how this can be managed and controlled * Consideration of drainage matters for both surface and foul drainage * Concern over traffic considerations with the ES * Use of private road networks as part of development * Consideration of recent flood events in the vicinity of the site and PD estate * Use of quay in support of renewable sectors is supported but concern over wider use ==== Marine Management Organisation (MMO) ==== [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-CONSULTATION%20MMO%200684.pdf|Initial Response – 14/12/2020]] //The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a non-departmental public body responsible for the management of England’s marine area on behalf of the UK government. The MMO’s delivery functions are; marine planning, marine licensing, wildlife licensing and enforcement, marine protected area management, marine emergencies, fisheries management and issuing European grants.// //Marine Licensing// ''Works activities taking place below the mean high water mark may require a marine licence in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009. //Such activities include the construction, alteration or improvement of any works, dredging, or a deposit or removal of a substance or object below the mean high water springs mark or in any tidal river to the extent of the tidal influence.// //Applicants should be directed to the MMO’s online portal to register for an application for marine licence https://www.gov.uk/guidance/make-a-marine-licence-application // //You can also apply to the MMO for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for offshore generating stations between 1 and 100 megawatts in English waters.// //The MMO is also the authority responsible for processing and determining Harbour Orders in England, together with granting consent under various local Acts and orders regarding harbours.// //A wildlife licence is also required for activities that that would affect a UK or European protected marine species.// //The MMO is a signatory to the coastal concordat and operates in accordance with its principles. Should the activities subject to planning permission meet the above criteria then the applicant should be directed to the follow pages: check if you need a marine licence and asked to quote the following information on any resultant marine licence application:// //* local planning authority name,// //* planning officer name and contact details,// //* planning application reference.// ''Following submission of a marine licence application a case team will be in touch with the relevant planning officer to discuss next steps. Environmental Impact Assessment //With respect to projects that require a marine licence the EIA Directive (codified in Directive 2011/92/EU) is transposed into UK law by the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (the MWR), as amended. Before a marine licence can be granted for projects that require EIA, MMO must ensure that applications for a marine licence are compliant with the MWR.// //In cases where a project requires both a marine licence and terrestrial planning permission, both the MWR and The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/571/contents/made may be applicable.// //If this consultation request relates to a project capable of falling within either set of EIA regulations, then it is advised that the applicant submit a request directly to the MMO to ensure any requirements under the MWR are considered adequately at the following link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/make-a-marine-licence-application // //Marine Planning// //Under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 ch.4, 58, public authorities must make decisions in accordance with marine policy documents and if it takes a decision that is against these policies it must state its reasons. MMO as such are responsible for implementing the relevant Marine Plans for their area, through existing regulatory and decision-making processes.// //Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal areas. Proposals should conform with all relevant policies, taking account of economic, environmental and social considerations.// //At its landward extent, a marine plan will apply up to the mean high water springs mark, which includes the tidal extent of any rivers. As marine plan boundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark, there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generally extend to the mean low water springs mark.// //The East Inshore and Offshore marine plans were adopted on the 2nd April 2014. The South Inshore and Offshore marine plans were adopted on the 17th July 2018. Both plans are a statutory consideration for public authorities with decision making functions. The East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans cover the coast and seas from Flamborough Head to Felixstowe; the South Inshore and South Offshore Marine Plans cover the coast and seas from Folkestone to the River Dart in Devon.// //From 14 January 2020 the draft North East, draft North West, draft South East, and draft South West Marine Plans are now a material for consideration for public authorities with decision making functions. This is the final stage of statutory public consultation before the marine plans are submitted. A map showing how England's waters have been split into 6 marine plan areas is available on our website. For further information on how to apply the marine plans please visit our Explore Marine Plans service.// //Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO’s licensing requirements and any relevant marine plans to ensure that necessary regulations are adhered to. All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the UK Marine Policy Statement unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. Local authorities may also wish to refer to our online guidance and the Planning Advisory Service soundness selfassessment checklist. If you wish to contact your local marine planning officer you can find their details on our gov.uk page.// //Minerals and waste plans and local aggregate assessments// //If you are consulting on a mineral/waste plan or local aggregate assessment, the MMO recommend reference to marine aggregates is included and reference to be made to the documents below;// *// The Marine Policy Statement (MPS), section 3.5 which highlights the importance of marine aggregates and its supply to England’s (and the UK) construction industry.// *// The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out policies for national (England) construction minerals supply.// *// The Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS) which includes specific references to the role of marine aggregates in the wider portfolio of supply.// *// The National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020 predict likely aggregate demand over this period including marine supply.// //The NPPF informed MASS guidance requires local mineral planning authorities to prepare Local Aggregate Assessments, these assessments have to consider the opportunities and constraints of all mineral supplies into their planning regions – including marine. This means that even landlocked counties, may have to consider the role that marine sourced supplies (delivered by rail or river) play – particularly where land based resources are becoming increasingly constrained.// //If you require further guidance on the Marine Licencing process, please follow the link https://www.gov.uk/topic/planning-development/marine-licences // [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-MMO.pdf|Final Response – 18/12/2020]] //Further to ongoing discussions regarding the case above, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is of the opinion that the proposed works fall under Schedule A2 (88) (Any change to or extension of development of a description listed in Schedule A1 (other than a change or extension falling within paragraph 31 of that Schedule) where that development is already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed). Article 10(1)(b)(i and ii) of the Regulations provides an appropriate authority (the MMO) the ability to determine that an EIA is not required in relation to a regulated activity if it is satisfied that assessment of the effects on the environment of the project in question has already been, is being, or is to be carried out by the appropriate authority or by another consenting body, and such assessments are (or will be) sufficient to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive in relation to that project.// //Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council are in the process of carrying out their planning and EIA assessment surrounding the scheme. The MMO has determined that an EIA consent decision under the Regulations is not required for the proposed regulated activity, by virtue of article 10(1)(b)(i and * ii) of the Regulations, on the basis that assessment of the effects of the project will be carried out under the Town and Country Planning Regulations (2012) accompanied by EIA.// //If you have any queries or would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me directly.// ==== Natural England - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-336521%20R_2020_0684_ESM%20-%20Demolition%20of%20existing%20quay%2C%20capital%20dredge%20and%20development%20of%20new%20quay%20at%20South%20Bank%20Wharf%2C%20Grangetown%2C%20Redcar%20-%20Phase%201.pdf|Response]] ==== //NO OBJECTION - SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE MITIGATION BEING SECURED// //We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would:// //* have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/ .// //* damage or destroy the interest features for which the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) has been notified.// //In order to mitigate these adverse effects and make the development acceptable, the following mitigation measures are required:// //* All environmental mitigation measures identified within the Environmental Statement must be included in a Construction Environment Management Plan and implemented in full.// //We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any planning permission to secure these measures.// //Natural England’s further advice on designated sites and advice on other natural environment issues is set out below.// ==== Environment Agency - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-EA%20R_2020_0684_ESM%204%20March%202021%20OFFICIAL.pdf|Response]] ==== //We have reviewed the submitted proposal and have no objections subject to the following CONDITIONS.// //Condition – Environment and Biodiversity Strategy// //Part A – Biodiversity Assessment // //No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Assessment is submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.// //The assessment will:// //* Identify and measure biodiversity unit loss (in habitats and river units) resulting both directly and indirectly from the approved development.// //Any subsequent variations to this assessment, shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority// //Part B – Submission of Environment and Biodiversity Strategy// //Following the Biodiversity Assessment, and within 12 months of the grant of this planning permission, an Environment and Biodiversity Strategy shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority which confirms the approach to ensuring biodiversity loss (identified in Part A) is to be mitigated within the development site, and where demonstrated not to be feasible, to be compensated for off-site, together with the mechanisms for its provisions and on-going management. The Strategy shall include the following:// //* The details of any new and enhanced biodiversity created on site, relevant to this development site;// //* The details of compensatory habitat where onsite mitigation is demonstrated to not be feasible, relevant to this development site;// //* The details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies, relevant to this development site;// //* The details of long-term maintenance regimes and management responsibilities, relevant to this development site.// //The Strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The identified mitigation and, where demonstrated to be necessary and feasible, compensation, shall be provided in accordance with the Strategy and any subsequent agreed amendments to it, and shall be implemented within 12 months of occupation.// //Reason// //This approach is supported by paragraphs 170 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which recognise that the planning system should conserve and enhance the environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort compensated for, planning permission should be refused.// //Biodiversity Assessment – Advice to Applicant// //We would recommend using the Defra biodiversity metric to measure and account for biodiversity losses from the development/land use change.// //Condition – Programme of site characterisation and remediation // //Prior to commencement of construction activities/relevant phase, a programme of site characterisation works is to be submitted to ascertain if contaminants are present in concentrations that could result in pollution to controlled waters. The programme shall include the following components:// //1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:// //* all previous uses// //* potential contaminants associated with those uses// //* a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors// //* potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site// ''2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site. //3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.// //4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.// //Any changes to these components require the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.// //Reason// //To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.// //Condition – Construction Environmental Management Plan// //No development shall commence until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The construction environmental management plan shall be carried out as approved and any subsequent variations shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.// //The scheme shall include the following elements:// //* Details of the control measures to reduce spill of soils during landside excavation.// //Reason// //To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework. // //Conditions// //As you are aware, the discharge and enforcement of planning conditions rests with your authority. You must therefore be satisfied that the proposed conditions meet the requirements of the 6 tests in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Further guidance on the 6 tests is provided in the planning practice guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/useof-planning-conditions ).// //Please notify us immediately if you are unable to apply our suggested conditions, to allow further consideration and advice.// Please consult us on the details submitted to your authority to discharge this condition and on any subsequent amendments/alterations. //Beyond this, we wish to add the following informative comments:// //Flood Risk – Advice to LPA We have assessed the submitted application and we do not consider it to have an increased risk of on or off-site flooding, we therefore have no objection to this development.// //Environmental permit - advice to applicant The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 require a permit or exemption to be obtained for any activities which will take place:// //* on or within 8 metres of a main river (16 metres if tidal)// //* on or within 8 metres of a flood defence structure or culverted main river (16 metres if tidal) on or within 16 metres of a sea defence// //* involving quarrying or excavation within 16 metres of any main river, flood defence (including a remote defence) or culvert// //* in a floodplain more than 8 metres from the river bank, culvert or flood defence structure (16 metres if it’s a tidal main river) and you don’t already have planning permission// //For further guidance please visit https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-riskactivities-environmental-permits or contact our National Customer Contact Centre on 03708 506 506 (Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm) or by emailing enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk.// //The applicant should not assume that a permit will automatically be forthcoming once planning permission has been granted, and we advise them to consult with us at the earliest opportunity.// //Decision Notice// //In accordance with the planning practice guidance (determining a planning application, paragraph 019), please notify us by email within two weeks of a decision being made or application withdrawn. Please provide us with a URL of the decision notice, or an electronic copy of the decision notice or outcome. // ==== Highways England ==== [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-2020%2012%2017%20South%20Bank%20Wharf%201%20RecNOnDet%20.pdf|Initial Response – 18/12/2020]] //Recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period. The recommendation shall be maintained until 17 March 2021 or until sufficient information has been received to enable Highways England to reach an alternative view at which point a further notice will be issued.// [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-HIGHWAYS%20ENGLAND.pdf|Final Response – 30/12/2020]] ''Following a review (attached) of the documents submitted in support of this application, in consideration of how multiple developments should proceed as the South Tees Development Corporation progresses, we consider that these two developments are unlikely to have a significant impact on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in close proximity to the site (with particular reference to the 1053). However, to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the SRN, we consider that the production of a Contraction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and accompanying Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be appropriate. ==== Stockton Borough Council ==== //No objection// ==== Middlesbrough Borough Council - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-0684%20Middlesbrough.pdf|Response]] ==== //Middlesbrough Council have no specific comments to make on the proposed scheme and raise no objections to the principles of the development recognising that Redcar and Cleveland Council, as Local Planning Authority will consider all material planning considerations as part of their assessment.// ==== NEAR ==== //There is not a great deal of archaeological interest apparent on site. I am also satisfied, as per the heritage assessment, that there will be no adverse impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets. Other than photographic recording before demolition of any early (20th century ?) structures on site (including the jetties), my main concern - again as per the heritage assessment - is that there is an agreed strategy for dealing with any unsuspected archaeological finds, and a pre-development archaeological evaluation of GI data.// //My understanding from the applications is that although called 'phase 1' and 'phase 2', these are in fact distinct applications, with phase 2 being for an extension of the development area (and assessment has been for the maximum extent of the phases combined).// //I would therefore suggest that the condition below be attached to both permissions. // //(a) No development shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) for archaeological work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The WSI shall make provision for:// //* Before development commences, archaeological evaluation of relevant borehole and vibrocore data// //* Before development commences, and taking into account the evaluation where relevant, an agreed site monitoring strategy that provides for interpretation and recording of areas of expected archaeological sensitivity, and for any unexpected discoveries of archaeologically significant deposits or structures// //* The systematic recording by photographic and photogrammetric means (including drone survey where appropriate) of structures to be demolished (including old jetties, pumpding and custom houses)// //* Reasonable notification to the local planning authority of commencement and completion of archaeological work// //* Details of staff involvement in carrying out of archaeological work, and their qualifications and responsibilities// //* The timetable for completing any post-excavation assessment, archiving and report (b) The development shall not without the prior written approval of the local planning authority be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved WSI.// //REASON: The site may contain remains of archaeological interest, which should be recorded before they are destroyed.// ==== Cleveland Police ALO ==== //With regards to this application, applicant is free to contact me for any advice they believe I could assist with.// ==== Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Development Engineers) ==== //No adverse comments received// ==== Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Local Lead Flood Authority) - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-LLFA%200684.pdf|Response]] ==== //The LLFA would offer the following comments; Extract from FRA "Nevertheless, major developments will be required to submit a drainage plan to show the site drainage can be adequately dealt with. The proposed drainage scheme should incorporate SuDS unless it can be demonstrated that they would be inappropriate. The drainage system must be designed and constructed so surface water discharged does not adversely impact the water quality of receiving water bodies, both during construction and when operational. New development should seek to improve water quality where possible, as well maintaining and enhancing the biodiversity and habitat of watercourses."// //It is acknowledged that the proposed development in is accordance with Policy SD7, however the LLFA would require for areas where a formal drainage system is proposed, namely heavy lift areas, that a detailed design is to be submitted.// //The LLFA would be happy to support the recommendation of Northumbrian Water condition as follows “Development shall not commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Northumbrian Water and the Lead Local Flood Authority. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved details”// //Please further condition the submitted documents as approved plans/documents// ==== Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Environmental Protection) (Contaminated Land) - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-EP%20CL.pdf|Response]] ==== //I note that a Land Quality Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment Report has been carried out in support of this application.// //The report states that the site is located in an area of former industrial use with the potential for contamination to be present including, electricity substations, oil depot with subsequent tanks and pipelines, a former benzole plant and associated tanks and the Tarmac Asphalt and Concrete plant (formerly slag crushing works).// //Based on the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment recommendations are proposed including the decommissioning of the oil depot and a further phase 2 Intrusive site to better determine characterise the site for the presence, magnitude and extent of contaminants on site and any risks and constraints they may pose to the proposed development, with any subsequent remediation required as necessary.// //In order to minimise the environmental impact, I would recommend the inclusion of the full standard contaminated land condition onto any planning permission which may be granted:// //Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors // ==== Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Environmental Protection) (Nuisance) - [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PN%200684.pdf|Response]] ==== //Noise and Vibration// //I note that section 17 of the Environmental impact statement covers noise and vibration.// //The statement states that construction works including piling operations will not have a significant impact on noise sensitive receptors.// //The model calculation (sound plan) assumes that all piling activities will be operational for 30% of the time over a 24hr period but does not state when these operations will take place during this construction period.// //In order to minimise the environmental impact, I would recommend the inclusion of the following conditions onto any planning permission which may be granted:// //The working hours for all piling operations activities wherever possible on this site shall be limited to between 08:00 and 18:00 everyday// //REASON: In the interest of neighbour amenity.// //Air Quality// //Section 18 of the Environmental impact statement covers Air Quality. Appendix 7 desktop survey and preliminary risk assessment indicates the potential of contamination on site and the Air Quality impact statement describes the risk of dust soiling impacts during the construction phase as ‘high risk’ for demolition and ‘medium risk’ for earthworks.// //There is therefore a great potential for the generation of contaminated dust and subsequent effects on human health and ecological receptors.// //The dust assessment determined that there was a risk of impacts resulting from construction activities without the implementation of mitigation measures and para 18.4.1.5 highly recommends Site-specific mitigation measures to be incorporated during the demolition and construction phase.// //The Operation phase assessment is satisfactory.// //In order to minimise the environmental impact, I would recommend the inclusion of the following conditions onto any planning permission which may be granted:// //Prior to commencement of construction/demolition, a CEMP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall incorporate all the recommendations of para 18.4.1.5. // //REASON: To protect on site workers and the amenity of nearby residents.// ==== Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Natural Heritage Manager) ==== //No objections// ===== CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES ===== The main considerations in the assessment of the application are; * The principle of development and compliance with development plan policy * Consideration of the impact of the development as set out in the supporting ES * General development management issues as identified in the ES and the * Effectiveness of the mitigation strategy set out in the ES **Development Plan Context and General Policy Assessment** The Development Plan for the purposes of the Act is the adopted Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan May 2018. **Assessment of the Environmental Statement topic areas and relevant planning policy** The remainder of this report deals with topic areas set out in the ES, the responses of key consultees and the proposed mitigation strategy informed by the ES. The ES confirms the development is Schedule 1 development **Project Overview** South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) are proposing to construct a new quay at South Bank in the Tees estuary. The proposed development is required to support STDC’s landside proposals for general industry and storage or distribution uses within part of the South Industrial Zone which was consent in December 2020 ([[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0357-ESM|R/2020/0357/ESM]]). The new quay is expected to be largely utilised by the renewable energy industry, as well as supporting more general industrial and storage/distribution activities within the wider STDC site. The proposed development can be broadly summarised as the demolition, capital dredging, offshore disposal of dredged material and construction and operation of a new quay. The proposed quay length has been designed based on the function of the operations that are predicted to be undertaken at the site. The quay has been designed to accommodate up to five vessels at the same time, including two large windfarm installation vessels as well as up to three smaller vessels which are predicted to import products to the site. Similarly, the beam of the widest design vessel has informed the size of the berth pocket required (90m wide) and the associated dredging requirements. Given the nature of the predicted operations at the site, the quay has been designed to include two heavy lift areas. The number of heavy lift areas required and consequently the number of cranes to be utilised on these areas (i.e. one per heavy lift area) is linked to the number of large windfarm installation vessels that are predicted to berth at the quay simultaneously once operational. Reducing the number of heavy lift areas and consequently the cranes at the proposed port facility was not considered to meet the objectives of the proposed development during the operational phase. It is acknowledged that this application is for Phase 1 of the Development there not providing the full length of quay and the two heavy lift arms below. The ES has however been prepared on a worst case scenario based on the provision of the full development therefore any impacts for Phase 1 are considered as part of the wider development. Each of the technical assessments are formatted as follows: * Overview: Brief review of relevant policy and legislative context * Methodology: Confirmation of the detailed topic specific assessment methodology, consultation undertaken and confirmation on how the assessment relates to the standard significance criteria adopted for the EIA * Baseline: Consideration of Baseline Conditions including an identification of sources of information, site history, current environmental conditions and future trends/anticipated changes to current conditions that could be anticipated without the scheme * Assessment of Impacts: Identification of the potential effects including a summary of those resources/receptors likely to be affected, the sensitivity of those receptors to accommodate change; the degree of change resulting from the proposal; the change of events or pathways linking cause to effect and a prediction of the significance of effects in terms of nature, extent and magnitude including whether it is direct/indirect, short/long term, permanent/temporary, beneficial/adverse; * Mitigation: The scope for incorporating mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for any identified effects; and * Residual Effects: Identification of any effects remaining after mitigation. The ES also addresses the processes, assumptions and difficulties that were undertaken and encountered in the preparation of individual topic areas. As part of the design process, alternative locations and design solutions have been considered as required by the EIA Regulations. The alternative locations included Redcar Bulk Terminal and Bran Sands. The current site was chosen due to technical and commercial reasons. Consideration was also given to design alternatives in relation to the development. These related to; construction techniques for the quay wall, alternative dredging plant, approach channel and berthing pocket dredge, phasing of the development and alternative positions along the river axis. Alternatives have also been considered with regard to the use of the dredged material from engineering infill to creation of bird roosts/breeding areas. All of the above consideration of alterative have resulted in the end design that his currently considered as part of the ES. ==== Chapter 6 – [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_6.%20Hydrodynamic%20and%20sedimentary%20regime.pdf|Hydrodynamic and Sedimentary Regime]]''' ==== This chapter of the ES presents the baseline conditions with regard to the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime of the Tees estuary and describes the predicted effects of the proposed scheme on the estuarine system. While the proposed development has the potential to alter hydrodynamic and sedimentary processes, the significance of such changes or effects have not been defined in this section as ‘impacts’. This is because coastal processes themselves are not considered to be receptors sensitive to change. Hence, while a change to a physical process can be predicted and described with respect to the known baseline in terms of its magnitude, it is not appropriate to predict the significance of an impact on the physical process. The significance of this change is nevertheless assessed with respect to those environmental receptors that could be influenced, such as water quality, marine ecological interests, navigation and marine waterbird populations, within the other relevant chapters of the ES. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline position the study area as illustrated on Figure 6.1 of the ES was identified. A review of existing information and survey works from a number of schemes has also been considered as set out in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 of the ES. In establishing the hydrodynamic regime a number of assessments took place including; water levels, tidal currents, flow discharges and mixing, waves and climate change. Similarly in establishing the sedimentary regime the following assessments took place; suspended sediment concentrations, sediment sources and transport and dredging activities. **Potential Effects of Development** As detailed above the consideration of impacts within this chapter does not establish the significance of the potential impacts. These positions are reserved for the more relevant chapter topics set out below in the report. Therefore an overview of the potential impacts is set out below, with further discussion provided throughout the rest of the report. '__Construction Phase__' With regard to activities that could result in potential impacts during the construction phase the following have been identified: * Demolition of the existing wharf and jetties * Capital dredging and offshore disposal of dredged sediments * Construction of a new quay (to be set back into the riverbank) '__Operational Phase__' With regard to potential impacts during the operational phase the following have been identified: * Direct effects on inter-tidal and sub-tidal morphology * Changes in hydrodynamics * Changes in tidal prism of the estuary * Maintenance dredging and offshore disposal of dredged sediments **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime are not matters that the Local Planning Authority have control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land based development up until the mean low water mark. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marine Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime will be regulated through the Marine Licence and any other relevant regulatory regimes. ==== Chapter 7 – [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_7.%20Marine%20sediment%20and%20water%20quality.pdf|Marine Sediment and Water Quality]]'' ==== This chapter deals with the conditions with regard to sediment and water quality of the Tees estuary and describes the predicted effects of the construction and operational phases of the proposed development on water quality. The chapter incorporates work undertaken to assess the potential effects on hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime (Chapter 6) as well as recent survey data collected to inform other project EIAs within the estuary. The findings of this assessment are considered to have the potential to influence other technical chapters within this EIA, including: * [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_9.%20Marine%20ecology.pdf|Chapter 9 Marine ecology]] * [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_13.%20Fish%20and%20fisheries.pdf|Chapter 13 Fish and fisheries]] * [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_28.%20Water%20Framework%20Directive%20compliance%20assessment.pdf|Chapter 28 WFD compliance assessment.]] **Baseline** In establishng the baseline with regard to marine sediment and water quality various data sources have been used to examine the following: sediment quality and water quality. Sediment data survey work was carried out in 2019 for the Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT) scheme by PD Ports which is located approx. 1km downstream from the site. The location of the survey works, and the findings of the work are illustrated in Figure 7.1 of the ES and Table 7.6 of the ES. Other less recent survey work has also been considered from 2014 for the Anglo American Harbour Facilities project, 2012 for works for the strengthening of the existing No.1 Quay at Tees Dock and 2006 for the NGCT original application. With regard to water quality the proposed development is located within the Tees transitional water body which is heavily modified and is considered to have an overall potential of ‘Moderate’. Water quality data has also obtained from the Environment Agency for the latest classification. This information is for the period 2016 to 2018 and is presented in Table 7.7 of the ES from the location at Tees at Smiths Dock as illustrated on Figure 7.2 of the ES. Consideration has also been given to bathing waters for which the EA take samples between May and September to assess bathing water quality. It is acknowledged that the site is not located within a designated bathing water however there are sites to both the north and south of the site with the following assessment being made of these; * //Seaton Carew North Gare - Carew North Gare Beach is the southern end of an extensive sandy beach close to the mouth of the Tees. The water quality has been classified as Excellent.// * //Seaton Carew Centre - this designated bathing water is at the southern end of an extensive sandy beach fronting the town of Seaton Carew, approximately 1.5km north of the mouth of the Tees estuary. This bathing water has a classification of Excellent.// * //Seaton Carew North – this designated bathing water is at the northern end of an extensive sandy beach fronting the town of Seaton Carew, approximately 2.5km north of the estuary mouth. This bathing water has a classification of Good.// An assessment has also been made of suspended sediment concentrations. In the vicinity of the proposed development (i.e. in the Tees Dock area) suspended solid concentrations, for the most part, are less than 20mg/l with short-term peaks from 40-80mg/l, as taken from survey work in 2006. More recent survey data has been taken in 2020 that shows that during the survey period, concentrations of suspended sediment were very low as illustrated in Table 7.8 of the ES. This data is however only considered to be reflective of spring/summer conditions due to the survey conditions at the time being very dry. Additional survey work is also expected to be undertaken as has been agreed with the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). This additional survey work will relate in greater detail to the marine licence being sought from the MMO. //Potential Effects of Development// '__Construction Phase__' In considering the impacts of the proposed development during the construction phase the following has been considered; dispersion and redistribution of sediment during capital dredging, effects on water quality physical parameters during capital dredging, remobilisation of contamination during capital dredging, release of sediment during riverbank excavation to create the berth pocket, remobilisation of contaminants due to construction and riverbank excavation, effects on water quality associated with other construction works. Consideration has been given to the dispersal and redistribution of sediment during the process of capital dredging. In carrying out the assessment 4 stages of dredging have been established to allow for the timing of the phasing of the development. Consideration of these 4 stages are set out in the ES and illustrated in Figures 7.3 to 7.6. The ES concludes that; //the magnitude of effect on water quality in the Tees estuary is deemed to be medium as there will be exceedances over baseline conditions throughout Stage 2 of the dredging schedule (as noted above, a period of approximately four weeks within the approximately four month dredging programme). The effect is, however, temporary and reversible. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is medium, the overall impact is of minor adverse significance.// With regard to water quality during capital dredging it is considered the relatively limited nature of the plume extents predicted for the proposed capital dredging indicates that long term effects on dissolved oxygen concentrations are unlikely to be experienced within the Tees estuary. Additionally, it is considered that a significant component of the dredged material is likely to be geological sediment, which is unlikely to contain significant amounts of organic matter. Any effect is therefore likely to be temporary for the duration of the dredge and then be reversible. The ES concludes; //the magnitude of effect is deemed to be low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is medium, the overall impact is of minor adverse significance. // Consideration has been given to the impact of capital dredging and the resulting remobilisation of contamination. In making this assessment consideration has been given to the volume of material to be dredged, the potential for sediment loss during the process and the likely amount of contamination to be released as a result. This information was then built into the volume of water that the contaminants may be released into at both mean low water and mean high water. The results of these assessments are set out in Tables 7.9 and 7.10 of the ES. The ES concludes; //the magnitude of effect is deemed to be low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be medium, the overall impact is of minor adverse significance.// During the creation of the berth pocket, the proposed development requires the excavation of soils/landside materials from the riverbank in front of the proposed new quay wall. These operations have the potential for some of the soils to spill into the river during the excavation process as some of the material is likely to be excavated below the water line. In order to reduce the potential deposition, control measures would be put in place to reduce spill as far as possible. It is proposed that this will be achieved by way of a backhoe. The ES concludes; //the magnitude of effect is deemed to be very low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be medium, the overall impact is of negligible significance.// Construction works associated with the development will involve the excavation and removal of a significant amount of made ground and superficial deposits. Land-based construction is therefore considered to have the potential to increase the infiltration of rainwater and surface run-off to the underlying strata, potentially mobilising any residual contamination that may already be present within the overlying strata, which may ultimately migrate to the estuary. In order to address this a pre-commencement site characterisation is to be required to identify any potential sources and pathways of contamination and provide suitable mitigation where necessary. The ES concludes //the magnitude of effect would be significantly reduced by the proposed mitigation measures outlined above to low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be medium, the overall impact is of minor adverse significance.// It is acknowledged that there is the potential for sediment to be suspended when working in and around the riverbed. It is considered however that any increases in suspended solids concentrations are likely to be highly localised and reduce to baseline conditions quickly following completion of works. The ES concludes that the magnitude of effect would be very low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be medium, the overall impact is of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' In considering the impacts of the proposed development during the operation phase the following has been considered; dispersion and redistribution of sediment during maintenance dredging and surface water discharge to the Tees associated with run off. As set out in chapter 6 of the ES there are predicted reductions in current speeds in the reach of the channel local to the proposed new quay. It is considered that this combined with the creation of a new berth pocket at the quay has the potential to lead to a small increase in deposition rates. Due to the potential increase in deposition rates there is the possibility to require more material to be dredged from this local reach annually. An estimate of 10% increase has been included within the ES. PD Ports already carry out maintenance dredging within the Tees, however the 10% increase predicted is not expected to be significant and would be managed within existing maintenance dredging and offshore disposal regimes. The ES concludes on this matter that; //the magnitude of water quality effects above those already experienced during maintenance dredging operations is predicted to be very low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be medium, the overall impact is of negligible significance.// With regard to surface water, the quay has been designed to include a large area of crushed stone thus allowing uncontaminated surface water to drain into the underlying material without the need for a formal drainage system. Where areas of potential contamination may result i.e the heavy lift areas of the quay, these areas are to be concreted with surface water being captured in gullies and then passed through interceptors to remove contaminants before discharging in to the Tees estuary via the quay wall. No welfare facilities are proposed on the quay therefore removing the risk of foul sewage. The ES concludes on this matter; //the magnitude of effect is deemed to be very low. Given the sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be medium, the overall impact is of negligible significance.// **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' No mitigation measures are required. The residual impact are predicted to range between negligible and //minor adverse// significance. '__' No mitigation measures are required, and the residual impact is predicted to be of //negligible// significance. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to marine sediment and water quality within the Tees Estuary are matters that the Local Planning Authority have limited control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land based development up until the mean low water mark. It is acknowledged that some of the land based works have the potential to result in impacts to water quality within the Tees estuary. These have been addressed in combination with the EA through the request of a condition relating to final surface water drainage system details and through the site characterisation prior to the commencement of development relating to contamination. In view of the above the development complies with policy in the NPPF, policies SD4 and SD7 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marine Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to marine sediment and water quality within the Tees estuary will be regulated through the Marine Licence. ==== Chapter 8 – [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_8.%20Land%20quality%20and%20geology.pdf|Land Quality and Geology]] ==== This chapter of the ES considers the likely effects of the proposed development with respect to land quality and geology and how this could affect human health, the natural and the built environment. '__Baseline__' In establishing the baseline for the site with regard to land quality and geology a number of data sources and literature have been examined. These are set out in Table 8.8 of the ES. Other pre-exiting public reports have also been utilised. The geology of the site has been collated and the site is considered to contain; made ground, superficial deposits and bedrock, the details of which are set out in Table 8.9 of the ES. The ES also notes that there are no designated geological sites within the application site or within 250m of it. The hydrogeology of the site has been established through the land quality PRA and the links to surface water drainage. Consideration has also been given to sensitive land use sites which are of special importance due to their intrinsic qualities which are unique to those areas. It is acknowledged that there are no designated sites located within the landward parts of the application site, however, the Tees estuary is designated as the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. The sensitivity of the designated sites within 250m of the proposed development is therefore considered to be very high. The identified receptors to the proposed development are identified in Table 8.12 of the ES. Given the historic use of the site and the surrounding area, consideration has been given to the potential sources of contamination which are either within the application site or adjacent to it. These include made ground, pipeline, oil depot tanks and pipes and various other bits of plant and associated infrastructure. These are set out in full in Table 8.11 of the ES. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the consideration impacts during the construction phase of the development the following topics have been considered; groundwater quality during earthworks and piling, surface water quality from the discharge of dissolved phase contaminants in ground water and surface runoff and human health. The proposed development will involve significant earthworks and piling during construction. It is proposed that the development will require up to 1,415,000m3 of soils being excavated in order to facilitate the creation of the berthing pocket and construction of the quay wall. Approximately 3,000 piles will also be required to construct the quay. Both of these activities are acknowledged to have the potential to impact on groundwater pathways and underlying strata at the site. An outline remediation strategy has been prepared which has been considered acceptable, therefore not requiring any further active remediation of groundwater. The ES concludes that //the overall impact on groundwater quality during construction is considered to be of negligible significance.// As has been identified the application site is adjacent to the Tees Estuary, with Mill stream present in culvert form under the site that connects into the Tees Estuary. The site is also in close proximity to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI, SPA and Ramsar and therefore there is potential for there to be hydraulic connectivity between the site and the above. It is acknowledged that the site does contain contaminants that have the potential to migrate during construction activities to both the Tees Estuary and the above designated sites. The sensitivity of the Tees estuary is considered to be //very high'' due to the European and national designations protecting it, however with the implementation of suitable embed mitigation including a CEMP the overall impact during construction works is considered to be of ''moderate// adverse significance. With regard to human health, the land quality PRA has confirmed the potential for contaminants including asbestos to be present within the application site. These are considered to have the potential to have an impact on construction workers and off-site users if exposed to. The exposure may come from a range of pathways including ingestion, inhalation and direct dermal contact. These impacts are however acknowledged to be temporary in so far as they relate to the construction phase of development. The sensitivity of human health receptors, is considered to be //medium'' to ''very high''. It is however proposed that suitable mitigation measures can be put in place at the site through the provision of a CEMP and through the implementation of best practice measures in relation to construction activities. Through the implementation of these the overall impact during construction on human health is considered to be of ''negligible'' to ''minor adverse// significance '__Operational Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the operational phase of the development the following topics have been considered; controlled waters, human health, built environment. The proposed development is to involve the re-use of excavated soils on-site. The re-use of soils therefore has the potential to affect the Tees estuary due to leaching of contaminants. Any soils that are to be re-used will however be assessed for their chemical stability to ensure their suitability for use on the site. As well as the screening of materials to be re-used the provision of an impermeable or low permeable hard standing at the site is also to be installed minimising the potential for leaching of contaminants. The creation of the piled wall along the river frontage also has the potential to create a different hydraulic flow regime. This has the potential for contaminated groundwater if present to impact areas outside the proposed development footprint, however through the carrying out of pre-construction ground investigation it will be possible to determine the presence of such contaminants and any methods required to control them. The ES concludes that the sensitivity of the surface water is very high and the magnitude of impact following mitigation is very low beneficial. The overall impact to controlled waters during operation is therefore considered to be of //minor beneficial// significance. The proposed development involves very limited buildings on the site, with the only building in on the quay being a substation. The substation would only be occupied during maintenance periods which would be limited, therefore providing limited risk to human health from inhalation of potential ground gases or vapours. With regard to other workers on the development, remediation works are proposed to take place, resulting finally in the quay being covered with hard-standing and/or a gravel layer which would break the potential for pollutant leakage. The ES concludes the sensitivity of human receptors during operation is medium and the magnitude of effect is considered to very low, therefore the impact to human receptors is of //negligible// significance. With regard to the built environment the ES has considered the impact on building materials (including concrete) from attacks from ground conditions should acids or sulphates be present. It is considered that this has the potential compromise the integrity of structures associated within the development. The intention is to provide clean or lined service corridors to protect land users and associated utilities. It is considered that through the provision of these corridors, this has the potential to mitigate material degradation during operational phase of development. The impact to the built environment is therefore considered to be of //minor// significance. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to groundwater quality no mitigation measures are required and residual impact would be of negligible significance. It is acknowledged that a programme of site characterisation works will be undertaken which will comprise intrusive ground investigation works to facilitate the recovery of soil and groundwater samples for laboratory analysis, and to facilitate the monitoring of groundwater. Should any unacceptable risks be identified a remediation strategy will be prepared to address these. Along with the embedded mitigation further mitigation with regard to ground water and surface runoff is likely to be required in the form of further supplementary intrusive investigation and groundwater monitoring to characterise the soils and groundwater within the application site and assess the potential impact to surface water from construction activities. If unacceptable risks are identified, a detailed remediation strategy will be designed and implemented prior to construction. These works will in addition to the currently agreed outline remediation strategy (Wood, 2019). The ES concludes that following the implementation of the above mitigation the impact * is considered to be minor adverse for surface waters (very high sensitivity) which is not considered significant in terms of this EIA assessment. No further mitigation is proposed beyond the implementation of a CEMP and best practice methods in terms of construction activities as have been identified at various parts of the ES. The residual impact is therefore considered to be of negligible to minor adverse significance. '__Operational Phase__' No additional mitigation measures required with regard to controlled waters. The residual impact is therefore considered to be of minor beneficial significance. No additional mitigation measures required with regard to human health. The residual impact is therefore considered to be of negligible significance. In order to address the issues within regard to material degradation it is proposed that any materials to be used will be selected based on ground conditions. It is considered that through the provision of this mitigation of suitable material selection, the residual impact would be of negligible significance. **Planning Assessment** The ES provides an appropriate assessment of ground conditions and remediation related matters. The application has been considered by the Council’s EHO who has offered the following comments on the submitted information; //I note that a Land Quality Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment Report has been carried out in support of this application.// //The report states that the site is located in an area of former industrial use with the potential for contamination to be present including, electricity substations, oil depot with subsequent tanks and pipelines, a former benzole plant and associated tanks and the Tarmac Asphalt and Concrete plant (formerly slag crushing works).// //Based on the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment recommendations are proposed including the decommissioning of the oil depot and a further phase 2 Intrusive site to better determine characterise the site for the presence, magnitude and extent of contaminants on site and any risks and constraints they may pose to the proposed development, with any subsequent remediation required as necessary.// //In order to minimise the environmental impact, I would recommend the inclusion of the full standard contaminated land condition onto any planning permission which may be granted:// //Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors// The application has also been considered by the Environment Agency (EA) with regard to these matters. The EA have also requested a condition relating to site characterisation and remediation. //Condition – Programme of site characterisation and remediation// //Prior to commencement of construction activities/relevant phase, a programme of site characterisation works is to be submitted to ascertain if contaminants are present in concentrations that could result in pollution to controlled waters. The programme shall include the following components:// //1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:// //* all previous uses// //* potential contaminants associated with those uses// //* a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors// //* potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site// //2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site.// //3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.// //4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. // //Any changes to these components require the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.// //Reason// //To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.// Based on the comments above, the survey work carried out as part of the ES and the conclusions that have been reached within the ES it is considered that a number of conditions are required. These include the provision of a CEMP, additional ground investigation reports and associated remediation strategy. Given the provisions within these requirements any future development is considered to be suitably controlled and potentially mitigated against any adverse impacts. A condition is also proposed with regard to the final construction materials to be used at the site that take into account and aggressive ground conditions that may impact on the suitability of materials for the site location. In view of the above the development complies with policy in the NPPF, policy LS4 (e) of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 9 – [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_9.%20Marine%20ecology.pdf|Marine Ecology]] ==== This chapter of the ES considers the following potential environmental impacts for the construction and operation phase of the proposed development: * Removal of marine habitat due to removal of existing structures, quay construction and capital dredging. * Impacts on marine ecology from increased suspended sediment during capital dredging and smothering as a result of dredging. * Impacts on marine communities due to the creation of new subtidal habitat. * Impacts on marine communities due to changes in flow regime. * Impacts associated with decreased exposure of intertidal areas at North Tees mudflat. * Impacts on marine communities due to changes in the maintenance dredge regime. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline an overview of the application site has been provide that states; //The majority of the proposed dredge footprint is located within the subtidal zone. However, given the proposals to locate the quay in the riverbank (i.e. on existing land), dredging and excavation in front of the quay wall to create the berth pocket will remove both intertidal sediments and landside materials / soils.// //A review of the Priority Habitats Inventory (available on the MAGIC maps website) has determined that localised areas of intertidal mudflat are present within the proposed berth pocket, as well as a much larger area of intertidal mudflat on the opposite side of the river (North Tees Mudflat) (Figure 11.2). Further information regarding these areas of habitat is provided below. No other priority habitats are reported to be present within the immediate vicinity of the proposed scheme.// //Within the Tees estuary, the extent of intertidal habitat has been significantly reduced as the banks of the estuary have been developed. Existing areas of intertidal habitat, especially intertidal mudflat, within the Tees estuary are fragmented and, in this context, intertidal areas are a sensitive resource. Intertidal mudflat is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. In 2012, the UK BAP was succeeded by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, but the UK list of priority BAP habitats remains an important reference source.// Consideration has also been given to designated sites for nature conservation. It is acknowledged that the site is within and immediately adjacent to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and is adjacent to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar site. These sites are however noted as being designated for waterbird and seabird interest and therefore are assessed further within Chapter 12 of the ES. The site is also located within and adjacent to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI. Table 9.3 of the ES sets out the reasons for its designation and the relevant chapters within the ES where these matters are considered further. Information has also been collated from previous surveys within the Tees Estuary, namely; //* 2006 NGCT benthic survey (Royal Haskoning, 2006)// //* 2014 Anglo American Harbour Facilities benthic survey (Fugro, 2014)// //* 2019 NGCT benthic survey (Ocean Ecology, 2019)// As has been noted previously, further benthic survey work is due to take place to provide a detailed understanding of benthic ecology within and adjacent to the proposed development and to validate the information derived from the above reports. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the consideration impacts during the construction phase of the development the following topics have been considered; direct loss of habitat due to demolition of existing structures and dredging, effects of increased suspended sediment concentrations during dredging on marine species and habitats, effects of increased suspended sediment concentrations during dredging on marine species and habitats. Demolition of existing structures including the wharf and jetties has the potential to temporarily disturb the intertidal and subtidal habitats and species immediately adjacent, and would result in the permanent loss of species that are currently colonising these structures. The removal of the structures will result in an impact however the ES concludes that //the non-unique nature of the habitat and species the structures to be removed are predicted to support and the small scale of the impact, the magnitude of the impact is considered to be low. This results in an impact significance of minor adverse.// The proposed capital dredging will result in direct impacts to existing areas of intertidal and subtidal habitat that lie within the proposed dredge footprint. It is also acknowledged that the proposed dredge footprint is in close proximity to the North Tees mudflat and is within the Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA and Ramsar site. The proposed capital dredging that will form the berth pocket, and the rock blanket that will be laid in front of the quay wall, will result in a permanent loss of existing benthic habitat and change to the habitat type. The permanent loss of existing intertidal habitat due to the requirement to create the berth pocket equates to approximately 2.5ha. The permanent loss of existing subtidal habitat due to the placement of the rock blanket in front of the quay wall during operation is estimated to be 5ha. The area of subtidal to be disturbed by the dredging activities (including within the turning circle) is estimated to be 32.5ha. In assessing the impact of the dredging, consideration has been given to both the species and their sensitivity to change. This has been summarised in Table 9.5 of the ES. Based on this assessment the ES has concluded that //the potential impact on the subtidal habitat and benthic community as a result of habitat loss caused by dredging would be of moderate adverse significance.// The proposed development will require the dredging of approx. 1,800,000m3 of material with approx. 155,000m3 of this coming from intertidal area. The dredging activity is acknowledged as resulting in a localised and short-term increase in suspended sediment concentrations. Matters relating to this have also been considered further within chapters 6, 7, 13 and 26 of the ES. The ES has concluded that //given the temporary and localised nature of the predicted increase in suspended sediment, in addition to the low/very low sensitivity of the key species present in the estuary to increased suspended sediment, an impact of negligible significance is predicted.// //No impact on the priority habitat ‘saltmarsh’, a designated feature of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI, is anticipated as there is not considered to be a pathway of impact due to the location of the saltmarsh areas in relation to the proposed scheme. // '__Operational Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the operational phase of the development the following topics have been considered; creation of habitat from the berth pocket installation of the quay wall, change in flow regimes affecting marine communities and change in maintenance dredging regime affecting marine communities. The proposed development while resulting in a loss of existing subtidal and intertidal habitat, it will however result in the creation of a new habitat from the berth pocket and the quay wall. The created intertidal and subtidal habitats will however be subject to high levels of disturbance form ship wash and maintenance dredging when required. It is therefore considered that the new habitat is likely to be an artificial habitat of low quality. The ES concludes that //the magnitude of this effect is likely to be of medium magnitude due to the size area being created (both intertidally and subtidally), even if the habitat will be of low quality. This results in an impact of minor beneficial significance on the intertidal and benthic communities from the installation of the quay wall and the creation of the berth pocket.// Consideration has been given to the flow regimes affecting marine communities. The ES acknowledges that the proposed development will result in changes to flow regimes, current speeds, cross section of the estuary however none of these are considered to be significant. The ES concludes that //no impact on the priority habitat ‘saltmarsh’, a designated feature of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI, is anticipated as there is not considered to be a pathway of impact due to the location of the saltmarsh areas in relation to the proposed scheme. Overall, the impact of the proposed scheme on marine communities due to changes in the hydrodynamic and tidal regime is predicted to be of negligible significance.// As has been discussed previously within the ES the predicted need for additional maintenance dredging is not considered likely, with the frequency and general location remaining similar to that which currently exists, except for the new berthing pocket to be created. With regard to the berthing pocket due to the anticipated shipping activity and maintenance dredging this will prevent the establishment of a diverse or sensitive benthic community. The ES concludes that //there would be no impact on marine communities as a result of the maintenance dredging requirement arising from the proposed scheme.// **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the impacts from the proposed capital dredging, it is acknowledged that this is a key requirement for the proposed development and therefore the proposed impacts are unavoidable. Any loss of biodiversity as a result of these actions is to be addressed by offsetting measures that will be delivered through the implementation of the South Tees Regeneration Masterplan Environment and Biodiversity Strategy that will in some measure be conditioned as part of this application. The ES concludes that residual impact is therefore predicted to be of //minor adverse// significance. With regard to suspended sediment concentrations no mitigation measures are required. The residual impact is predicted to be of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation measures are required with regard to the creation of the habitat in the berthing pocket and quay wall. The residual impact would be of //minor beneficial// significance. No mitigation required and the residual impact with regard to flow regime affecting marine communities would be of //negligible// significance. No mitigation required and no residual impact with regard to dredging regime affecting marine communities. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to marine ecology within the Tees Estuary are matters that the Local Planning Authority have limited control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land-based development up until the mean low water mark. It is acknowledged that some of the land-based works including the demolition of existing structures have the potential to result in impacts to marine ecology within the Tees estuary. These have been addressed in combination with the EA through the request of a condition relating to a bio-diversity assessment relating to the proposed development. The matter of loss of habitat and result impacts on affected species is detailed within the submitted HRA. NE note the preparation of the HRA by the applicant that is intended to be adopted by the Local Authority. Again within the assessment of the HRA suitable mitigation is considered necessary to avoid adverse impacts. With regard to marine ecology and any compensatory habitat the following is considered applicable. * //The application indicates that an area of SPA habitat will be lost as a result of dredging in front of the new quay. While this habitat does not support significant numbers of SPA and SSSI birds, suitable alternative habitat to offset this loss should be provided through the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan for STDC, and this should be secured via condition.// As detailed above a condition has been agreed with the applicant and the Environment Agency with regard to the provision of a biodiversity assessment and the provision of suitable compensatory habitats. This condition is considered to address bullet point 2 above. In view of the above the development complies with policy in the NPPF, Policies SD4 (c) (e) (o) and N4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marine Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to marine ecology within the Tees estuary will be regulated through the Marine Licence. ==== Chapter 10 – [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_10.%20Marine%20mammals.pdf|Marine Mammals]] ==== The proposed new quay and the associated piling works are to be on land. The potential impacts for marine mammals are therefore primarily associated with the proposed capital and maintenance dredging, movement of vessels and installation of rock blanket within the berth pocket. The potential impacts on marine mammals from the offshore disposal of dredged sediments have been considered within [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_26.%20Offshore%20disposal%20of%20dredged%20material.pdf|Chapter 26 of the ES]]. The potential impacts that have been assessed within this section are: * injury and behavioural impacts from underwater noise; * vessel interactions (collision risk); * disturbance at seal haul-out sites; * changes in water quality; * and changes to prey resource. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline position with regard to marine mammals, various information sources have been considered. INCA have been surveying the Tees estuary since 1989 with this focusing on the harbour seal and the grey seal. Further reviews have been considered including; //Sea Watch Foundation sightings (Sea Watch Foundation, 2020), Yorkshire Naturalist Union sightings (YNU, 2010), Joint Cetacean Protocol (JCP) data (e.g. Paxton et al., 2016) and SCANS surveys (Hammond et al.,2013, 2017)// which also indicated the most likely mammals will be grey and harbour seals. It is however acknowledged that the estuary and the mouth of the river have the potential to support further species including harbour porpoise, minke whale. Taking the above into account the ES chapter has considered the most common and regular marine mammal species that could be present in the area these being; * harbour porpoise * minke whale * grey seal * harbour seal **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' In assessing potential impacts as a result of the construction phase of development the following have been considered; underwater noise, vessel interactions (collision risk), disturbance at seal haul-out sites, changes in water quality. In assessing underwater noise impacts consideration has been given to permanent auditory injury (PTS) and temporary auditory injury (TTS). With regard to PTS an assessment has been made with regard to the maximum predicted impacts ranges and maximum number of individuals that could be at risk. These are set out within Tables 10.8 and 10.9 of the ES. These assessments led to the conclusions and the assessment of impact significance which are set out within Table 10.10 of the ES. A summary of this is that the significance to all receptors would be negligible. With regard to TTS an assessment has been made with regard to the maximum predicted impacts ranges and maximum number of individuals that could be at risk. These are set out within Tables 10.11 and 10.12 of the ES. These assessments led to the conclusions and the assessment of impact significance which are set out within Table 10.13 of the ES. A summary of this is that the significance to all receptors would be negligible. An assessment has been made with regard to the potential to vessel interactions/collision risk. The risk of strike is considered to be low, however a worst-case scenarios has been undertaken in making the assessment. An estimated number of harbour porpoise, minke whale, grey seal and harbour seal that could be present in the dredge footprint that could be at potential increased vessel collision risk has been assessed and set out within Table 10.14 of the ES. This has led to the assessment of likely significance of such strikes as set out within Table 10.15 of the ES. A summary of this is that the significance to all receptors would be //negligible//. With regard to disturbance at seal haul-out sites it is acknowledged that the proposed development is within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI and breeding harbour seal are listed as a feature. Pupping tends to occur in June and July on the intertidal mud of Seal Sands. The closest seal haul-out site is approximately 3km from the closest point of the proposed dredge footprint. The ES concludes that there would be no significant or additional disturbance of seals hauled out at the site at Seal Sands resulting in an overall impact of //negligible// significance. With regard to changes in water quality the ES concludes that any increases in suspended sediments during dredging or other activities will have a negligible impact on marine mammals due to their prey detection methods and vision. '__Operational Phase__' In assessing potential impacts as a result of the operational phase of development the following have been considered; underwater noise during dredging, vessel interactions (collision risk) during dredging and operational use of the quay, disturbance at seal haul-out sites during dredging, changes in water quality during dredging and changes to prey resource during dredging. It is acknowledged that there will be no changes to the overall maintenance dredging strategy currently undertaken by PD Ports. It is therefore considered that there will be no increased risks or impacts associated with the maintenance dredging during the operational phase of the proposed development. The proposed impacts regarding maintenance dredging are considered to be comparable of less than those addressed with regards to capital dredging in the construction phase of development. With regard to an increase risk as a result from operational vessels, it is estimated that there will be up to 390 vessel calls per year. There are generally between 800 and 950 vessel movements per month within the Tees estuary, therefore it is considered unlikely that there would be increase in disturbance to marine mammals as a result of the increase in vessels during the operational phase. With regard to the risk of strike, this is considered to be low given the slow movement speed of the vessels. The ES concludes that the //impact on harbour porpoise, minke whale, grey seal and harbour seal is negligible// **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to underwater noise no mitigation measures are required. The residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. With regard to vessel interactions no mitigation measures are required beyond the implementation of good practice during construction works. The residual impact would be of negligible significance No mitigation measures are required with regard to seal haul-out sites. The residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. No mitigation measures are required with regard to water quality. The residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation measures are required beyond the implementation of good practice. The residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to marine mammals within the Tees Estuary are not matters that the Local Planning Authority have control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land-based development up until the mean low water mark. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marie Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to marine mammals within the Tees Estuary will be regulated through the Marine Licence. ==== Chapter 11 – [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_11.%20Terrestrial%20ecology.pdf|Terrestrial Ecology]]''' ==== This chapter of the ES considers the following potential environmental impacts: * impacts to nature conservation designated sites; * direct loss of habitat; * and, death, injury or disturbance of legally protected and/or notable species. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline with regard to terrestrial ecology the following has been considered; designated sites, habitats and protected notable species. The ES has established that there is one statutory designated site within 2km of the proposed development, this being the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site. There are also two LNRs, an NNR and an LWS within 5km of the site. The location of these designated sites and a greater description of them is set out in Figure 11.1 and Table 11.9 of the ES. Consideration has been given to the habitats present within the application site. It is acknowledged that there is one priority habitat within the site as shown on Figure 11.2 of the ES, this being the mudflat located within the intertidal area, which has been described further within Chapter 9 of the ES. With regard to the terrestrial habitats these are mainly characterised as modified grassland, with some neutral grassland, ephemeral / ruderal and mixed scrub. The quantum of these habitats is set out within Table 11.10 of the ES; however it is noted that approximately a third of the site is classed as urban / developed land with a sealed surface and therefore of no ecological value. The ES has concluded that the habitats at the site range in value from //negligible'' to ''low//. Assessment work has taken place with regard to notable flora and species at the site. No records of protected or notable plant species are recorded at the site. With regard to individual species the following have been considered; bats, badger, water vole, otter, brown hare, hedgehog, amphibians, reptiles, breeding birds, invertebrates and invasive non-native species. An assessment of these has been made with regard to the site specifics and the resulting ecological value in relation to the proposed development, a summary of which can be found within table 11.12 of the ES. A number of them are considered to be of negligible ecological value and therefore have not been considered further in the assessment of the site. Those that are considered to have Local or County value have been further assessed with the potential impacts set out below. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the construction phase of development the following topics have been considered; removal of broadleaved woodland, loss of foraging and commuting habitats for bats, indirect disturbance or injury to commuting otter, disturbance/harm to breeding birds or destruction of nests, loss of foraging and breeding resource for invertebrates and disturbance and habitat loss of brown hare/hedgehog An area of approx. 0.04ha of the broadleaved woodland is proposed to be removed as part of the construction process. The trees are not mature and are low in number, with low ecological value. Due to the small area of woodland that will require removal, the ES concludes that a minor adverse impact to local woodland resource is anticipated. The site provides limited potential foraging/commuting opportunities for bats. This is primarily linked to the food source which is restricted to the small area of ephemeral/ruderal habitat. The bat assemblage is of local value, and as European Protected Species (EPS), bats are considered to be of high importance. The impacts on bats will mainly result from night-time working and the lighting requirements associated with such works. The potential impact to foraging and commuting bats is considered to be negative, temporary and of a long duration with construction to take place over an estimated three-year period. The magnitude of the impact is assessed to be low due to the exposure, limited habitat potential and low activity of bat species. The ES concludes that a moderate adverse impact is predicted. Otter are acknowledged to be a highly mobile species, with a potential home range of up to 5km in coastal areas. Otter are known to occur within the river however no suitable holt or resting site habitats have been recorded within the application site. Various impacts have been considered with regard to impacts on otters ranging from spills, strikes from construction vessels (minor adverse significance), noise and vibration (negligible significance) emissions, water quality (minor significance), dust and particle matter (not significant) and light disturbance (moderate adverse significance). The proposed development as has been previously acknowledged requires the demolition of the dilapidated wharf, jetties, an electrical substation and clearance of areas of bramble scrub and young trees. It is considered that these features have potential to support nesting birds and a number of ground nesting bird species have also been recorded utilising these habitats within the application site. It is considered that the breeding birds that potentially occupy the site are of county value and are therefore of medium importance. Permanent habitat loss will occur as a result of the development although this is considered to be small in extent and is relatively localised. Birds are considered to have some ability to tolerate the anticipated changes by locating to more preferable areas to breed in future years. The ES concludes that the impact significance for breeding birds would be of //minor// adverse significance. The site provides limited habitat for invertebrates notably dingy skipper and grayling. The development is however likely to result in a loss of foraging and breeding habitat for these species, however the area of suitable habitat is small and unlikely to support significant numbers of invertebrates. The invertebrate assemblage is considered to be of local significance, and negligible importance within the footprint of the proposed development. The impact is therefore considered to be of medium magnitude with permanent localised habitat loss. The ES concludes that the impact significance of loss of habitat and breeding resource would be //minor// adverse. The application site provides a small extent of habitat potential for hedgehog and brown hare. The construction phase is likely to cause permanent habitat loss for these species and has potential to result in temporary disturbance/injury or death to these species. Both of these species are considered to be of local value. It is however considered that due to the limited extent of the habitat within the site, the magnitude of impact is assessed as being low. Any potential impact is therefore considered to be //minor adverse// in significance. '__Operational Phase__' It is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in the complete loss of habitat, therefore resulting in permanent effects. The existing parcels of land will become operational quay, resulting in no habitat potential during the operational phase of the development for the following ecological receptors; * INNS * Invertebrates * Brown hare * Hedgehog Consideration has been given to the impact of light pollution on foraging and commuting otters and bats during the operational phase of the development. It is however acknowledged that there will be no habitat potential within the application site once the site is operational, therefore the loss of the limited existing habitat within the site is considered to result in impacts of //minor - moderate adverse// significance **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' Compensatory habitat is to be sought by way of a suitable planning condition, however further consideration is given to each of the individual species below. No direct mitigation is proposed with regard to the loss of woodland. The residual impact is of //negligible// significance. In order mitigate against impacts on bats night-time lighting of construction working areas will be avoided where possible and should night-time working be necessary, then lighting will be designed accordingly. These again will be considered through the submission of the CEMP. It is considered that following the implementation of the mitigation measures, the residual impact is of //negligible// significance. A number of mitigation methods are proposed with regard to the impacts on otters. These include the //screening will be used (where possible and feasible to do so) against the river edge to reduce the visual and noise impacts from construction works on foraging/commuting otters and where artificial light is required, lights will be directed away from the river to allow otters to migrate through the area undisturbed. Any lighting required at these areas will be of low intensity.'' A number of other methods are to be built into the construction process likely through the CEMP with regard to the risk of vessel strikes or other associated construction activities. It is considered that following the implementation of the mitigation measures, the residual impact is of ''negligible// significance. To avoid disturbance of breeding birds any clearance works will take place outside the bird breeding season where possible. Should this not be possible a checking survey will be required. With the implementation of these measures, the residual impact is of negligible significance. No additional mitigation is proposed with regard to loss of foraging and breeding resource for invertebrates. The residual impact is of minor adverse significance. With regard to impacts on hedgehog and brown hare, additional mitigation in the form of a plan to relocate any species found during construction works to a safe location is proposed. It is also the intention to cover deep trenches or excavations overnight or a plank be left to allow safe egress should any animals fall in. These measures will again be able to be built into the proposed CEMP. The residual impact to brown hare and hedgehog is therefore considered to be minor adverse. '__Operational Phase__' The impacts of operational light will be assessed through a lighting strategy to seek to minimise any light spill. It is considered that following the implantation of this mitigation the impact to commuting bats and otters is anticipated to be of minor adverse significance. **Planning Assessment** Based on the assessment set out in the ES the development raises no issues in terms of ecological matters through the implementation of suitable mitigation measures as set out above. Due to the scale and location of the application, both Natural England and the Environment Agency have considered the application. These considerations as set out above relate to the impact of the development on nearby designated assets including SPA SSSI and Ramsar site, as well as detailed consideration with regard to individual species. Consideration has also been given to Biodiversity Net Gain at the site, with a condition requiring an assessment to be made to set the level of compensation/mitigation that will be required. This has been agreed with both the EA and Natural England. Natural England (NE) have considered the information submitted within the ES and the accompanying HRA. NE have advised that without suitable mitigation measures being put in place the development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and/or damage or destroy the interest features for which the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) has been notified. The proposed method of mitigation as set out throughout the ES in various chapters is considered to be the provision of a CEMP. AS detailed above this is to be provided by way of a planning condition that has been agreed with the applicant. A number of discussions have taken place between the applicant and the EA about a number of matters relating to the proposed development. These discussions resulted in no objection being raised to the development however a number of conditions were suggested that have been agreed with the applicant in advance of the application being determined. The ES has been the subject of consideration by the Council’s Natural Heritage Manager who has raised no objection to the proposed development. The LPA is satisfied that the development will have no impacts in terms of ecology matters that cannot be mitigated to an appropriate level by planning conditions or other regulatory regimes. The development raises no issues in respect of National Policy within the NPPF and Policies SD4 (c) (e) (o) and N4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 12 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_12.%20Marine%20and%20coastal%20ornithology.pdf|Marine and Coastal Ornithology]] ==== The proposed scheme footprint is located within and adjacent to sensitive areas for seabirds and waterbirds, namely the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. Potential impacts on waterbirds and seabirds assessed in this section of the EIA Report are broadly categorised into the following: * direct and indirect impacts on supporting habitat * impacts on prey resources; and, * acoustic and visual disturbance of birds. The assessment of potential impacts has been informed by the following sections of this EIA Report: * hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime (Chapter 6) * marine sediment and water quality (Chapter 7) * marine ecology (Chapter 9) * fish and fisheries (Chapter 13) * noise (Chapter 17) * air quality (Chapter 18) **Baseline** In establishing the baseline position with regard to marine and coastal ornithology , various information sources have been considered. It is acknowledged that the site is in close proximity to a number of designated and no-statutory sites. The ES details these as: * Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site * Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI The status and qualifying features of these have been set out within Table 12.4 of the ES. Birds count data has also been considered in establishing the baseline with this data set out in Tables 12.5 to 12.12 of the ES. The ES also includes site specific estuarine bird survey which included counts at both low and high tides set out in Tables 12.13 and 12.14. A tern survey has also been undertaken. Based on the various information sources detailed above and other set out in the ES, the following receptors have been included in the impact assessments; * //Wintering (non-breeding) waterbirds, including features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA / Ramsar site and SSSI, which are notably present on intertidal areas of the North Tees Mudflat and the Vopak Foreshore. // * //Breeding terns, which are features of the SPA and could potentially forage within the Tees estuary, including within the footprint of the proposed scheme.// **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the construction phase of the development the following topics have been considered: loss of supporting habitat due to dredging / excavation and demolition works, impacts on feeding and food resources due to reductions in water quality, effects of sediment deposition on intertidal food resources and construction-phase disturbance With regard to loss of supporting habitat during dredging and demolition works it acknowledged that 2.5ha of intertidal area will be excavated along with the removal of the wharf and jetty structures and these works will take place within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, therefore such changes may represent a loss of potential foraging habitat and roosting habitat for waterbirds, including SPA / Ramsar site and SSSI features. The dredging footprint in the main channel does not overlap with the intertidal habitat available at North Tees Mudflat or any other intertidal areas along the river, therefore there is no direct impact on supporting habitat beyond those stated above. The ES states that the area which is to be subject to demolition and excavation (including the artificial structures) is of low value to roosting or foraging birds at high tide. It is also acknowledged that there are other comparable artificial structures within the estuary providing alternative roosting locations. The low tide surveys also indicate a preference by waterbirds for North Tees Mudflat over South Bank and the intertidal area within the footprint of the proposed development. Taking the above into consideration and the existing literature and information into account, the loss of supporting habitat within the footprint of the proposed development is considered to be of minor adverse significance. Consideration has been given to the potential impacts on feeding and food resource within the estuary due to reductions in water quality. Potential impacts on water quality are likely to result from dredging and excavation operations that have been detailed within Chapters 6, 9 and 13 of the ES. Consideration has been given to the various species, including terns, that may be impacted by such construction activities as well as the location at which they are anticipated to feed, with these areas situated within the SPA and Ramsar site. The ES concludes that //given the high value and medium sensitivity of common tern as a breeding SPA / Ramsar site and SSSI feature, and the low-level magnitude predicted, it is predicted that impacts on common tern as a result of increased SSC would be minor adverse. // With regard to deposition of sediment on intertidal food resources, the ES states that there is no measurable modelled deposition at waterbird supporting habitats including North Tees Mudflat, Seal Sands, Brand Sands and North Gare Sands. The ES therefore concludes there will be no adverse effect on intertidal food resources as a result of the effects of capital dredging and therefore a negligible impact is predicted on the waterbirds relying on such resources. With regard to construction phase disturbance a number of areas have been considered. Noise disturbance has been assessed with piling considered to be the most significant noise generating activity. Noise predications associated with the construction activities have been detailed within the Table 12.19 of the ES. Based on the assumed methods of piling including the regularity and location, the ES concludes that the potential for construction related noise disturbance to waterbirds will be //moderate adverse.// Visual disturbance has also been considered in regard to construction activities. This is considered to result from the presence of construction personnel, plant / machinery, dredgers / other vessels and construction lighting. The ES concludes that visual disturbances from dredging operations would have a minor adverse impact on waterbirds using areas of intertidal within the Tees estuary. '__Operational Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the operational phase of the development the following topics have been considered: noise disturbance, disturbance due to increased vessel activity, effects of artificial lighting and effects on intertidal habitats due to hydrodynamic changes. Consideration has been given to the impact of noise disturbance. Any noise generated is expected to come from the day to day operations of the quayside activities. These have been modelled and are set out in Table 12.21 of the ES. The noise associated with the propose development is considered to be similar in type to those already present within the Tees estuary environment. It is therefore considered that foraging birds are somewhat tolerant to this activity and that proposed would not result in adverse impacts. The impact from the operations is therefore considered to be of negligible significance. Consideration has been given to the impact of increased vessel activity within eh estuary. It is acknowledged that vessels have the potential to disturb waterbirds in particular feeding patterns. Some of the habitats on the north side of the estuary including Vopak Foreshore and the North Tees Mudflat have the potential to be impacted by shipwash from manoeuvring vessels. The impacts are however considered to be low given the slow speeds of vessels within this location. It is also noted that there is an existing level of disturbance within the estuary from the estimated 800 to 950 vessel movements a month. The proposed development is considered to result in 390 vessel calls per year, therefore not significantly adding to the current base level. The ES concludes the potential additional impact of vessel disturbance associated with the proposed scheme is assessed to be of negligible significance. As has been established in other chapters of the ES the development will include lighting columns along the quayside. There is limited light within the existing quay which is largely derelict, however there is light spill within the wider estuary associated with the current activities. Given the assessment with regard to light spill on fish population, there is not considered to be any adverse impact on food resources for foraging birds. Areas of higher value, such as North Tees Mudflat, are considered to be sufficiently distant to avoid impacts on roosting or foraging behaviour. As such, impacts on foraging or roosting waterbirds and terns is predicted to be //negligible.// The long-term changes to the hydrodynamic regime and tidal prism as a result of the deepened channel and new alignment of the South Bank are have been considered within Chapter 6 of the ES. It is acknowledged that the reduction in flow speed has the potential to lead to a slight increase in deposition at North Tees Mudflat, however this is considered to be millimetres, therefore not significant. The potential increase are considered to have a negligible impact on foraging and wintering birds within the SPA/Ramsar site and would not adversely affect the availability of invertebrate prey to feeding birds. The predicted deposition is also considered to have the potential to sustain the mudflat in the long-term due to sea level rises. The ES concludes that longterm impacts on water birds using the North Tees Mudflat as a result of hydrodynamic changes would be //negligible//. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' It is acknowledged that while the structures and habitat may be considered of low value any disturbance to nesting birds would contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In order to avoid this a checking survey should be undertaken prior to any demolition works taking place. It is considered that this can be secured by way of a requirement though the proposed CEMP. With the inclusion of the mitigation the residual impact would be //minor adverse.// With regard to food resource availability associated with water quality the following mitigation measures is proposed; //Limiting the TSHD and backhoe to working within one side of the river at a time. Operations will therefore be undertaken in long strips along the axis of the estuary rather than dredging across the width of the river. This is to reduce both the extent and impact of the dredged plume, as any plume generated by operations is predicted to collectively occupy around half the width of the river channel. This approach has been proposed for other capital dredge operations in the Tees, such as in the NGCT scheme (Royal HaskoningDHV, 2020). // With the implementation of this measure, the residual impact is predicted to be of //minor adverse// significance. No mitigation measures are required with regard to deposition on intertidal food resources and the residual impact is of //negligible// significance. Mitigation is proposed with regard to piling methods in the form of noise reduction shrouding for the piling rigs which has the potential to provide a 14dB reduction. Assuming the implementation of such methods the residual impact is predicted to be //minor adverse.// Mitigation with regard to visual disturbance will result from the direction and location of dredging activities that will minimise the frequency by which a dredger operates adjacent to the mudflats. Mitigation can also be provided with regard to construction lighting in terms of its location and the resulting light spill. As such, the residual impact is considered to be minor adverse. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation is proposed with regard to noise disturbance. The residual impact is negligible. No mitigation is proposed with regard to vessel movements. The residual impact is negligible. While impacts are anticipated to be negligible, the implication of best practice mitigation measures regarding the proposed lighting will further reduce the impact on foraging / roosting waterbirds. This is to be secured by way of a planning condition relating to a lighting strategy for the site. The residual impact is therefore considered to be //negligible//. No mitigation measures are considered necessary with regard to intertidal habitats due to hydrodynamic changes, therefore the residual impact is //negligible//. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to marine and costal ornithology within the Tees Estuary are not matters that the Local Planning Authority have significant control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land-based development up until the mean low water mark. Matters relating to construction lighting and noise related to piling can be managed by way of planning conditions. Conditions have been agreed with the applicant with regard to the provision of a CEMP that will include construction light best practice. A condition is also proposed with regard to Piling Risk Assessment that will have the ability to mitigate the matters associated with noise generation. Natural England (NE) have considered the information submitted within the ES and the accompanying HRA. NE have advised that without suitable mitigation measures being put in place the development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and/or damage or destroy the interest features for which the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) has been notified. The proposed method of mitigation as set out throughout the ES in various chapters is considered to be the provision of a CEMP. AS detailed above this is to be provided by way of a planning condition that has been agreed with the applicant. NE also note the preparation of the HRA by the applicant that is intended to be adopted by the Local Authority. Again within the assessment of the HRA suitable mitigation is considered necessary to avoid adverse impacts. The suitable mitigation is considered to be; * //The Environmental Statement includes a number of measure designed to minimise the potential for impacts on species associated with the designated sites, including noise shrouds on piling rigs, and dredging follow the route of the river, rather than crossing it, to enable passage for marine mammals – these should be secured via condition to ensure they are implemented in full.// * //The application indicates that an area of SPA habitat will be lost as a result of dredging in front of the new quay. While this habitat does not support significant numbers of SPA and SSSI birds, suitable alternative habitat to offset this loss should be provided through the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan for STDC, and this should be secured via condition.// Both these maters again have been addressed by way of planning conditions. As detailed above a Piling Risk Assessment is to be submitted. This along with the proposed CEMP are considered to address bullet point 1 above. A condition has also been agreed with the applicant and the Environment Agency with regard to the provision of a biodiversity assessment and the provision of suitable compensatory habitats. This condition is considered to address bullet point 2 above. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marie Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that a number of matters detailed above relating to marine and coastal ornithology within the Tees Estuary will be regulated through the Marine Licence. ==== Chapter 13 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_13.%20Fish%20and%20fisheries.pdf|Fish and Fisheries]] ==== The ES acknowledges that as well as the terrestrial environment, the proposed development will occupy subtidal and intertidal areas of the Tees estuary that may provide suitable habitat for finfish and shellfish species of commercial and ecological importance. The potential impacts on fish resources and fisheries activities that are assessed within this chapter of the ES are broadly the following: * impacts on marine water quality * noise-related injury or disturbance to fish stocks * direct impacts on supporting habitat for fish stocks * obstructions to fishing activity within the Tees **Baseline** In establishing the baseline environment, a review has been made of existing studies within the Tees estuary and adjacent marine areas. These have included the following: * 2019 benthic trawls within the lowers Tees estuary (summary within Table 13.3 of the ES) * 2014 epibenthic beam trawl survey in the lower Tees estuary (summary within Table 13.4 of the ES) * 2018 benthic trawls for the Hartlepool Approach Channel project * 2012 and 2013 fish surveys in the Dogger Bank Teesside A & Sofia export cable corridor Consideration has also been given to migratory fish within the Tees including salmon, brown trout, European eel, sea lamprey and river lamprey. Information has been obtained from the EA with regard to a number of these species including that set out in Figure 13.1 of the ES relating to salmonoid number at the Tees Barrage since 2012. Consideration has also been given to commercial species given the works that will be undertaken within the lower Tees estuary and within Tees Bay. Table 13.5 of the ES lists the species for which there have been significant landings. Species of conservation interest have also been considered. Table 13.6 of the ES details those species of conservation interest that have been recorded in the Tees estuary and marine areas around the Tees. The ecological resource of the area as well as the potential for spawning and nursery grounds has also been considered. Table 13.7 of the ES sets out the defined spawning and / or nursery areas that overlap with the proposed development and / or Tees Bay C disposal site. The proposed development involves areas within both the Tees estuary and Tees Bay which have the potential to relate to commercial and recreational fishery areas. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the construction phase of the development the following topics have been considered; changes in marine water quality due to dredging, entrainment of fish and fish eggs by dredging gear, underwater noise during dredging, underwater noise from land-based piling activities, direct loss/alteration of habitat and food resources and displacement or disturbance of fishing activities. Consideration has been given to marine water quality during dredging activities. Matters relating to water quality have also been addressed within Chapters 6 and 7 of the ES. Based on the impacts resulting from dredging at a worst case scenario, there is predicted to be a moderate adverse impact on fish populations within the estuary, particularly when considering migratory species that may be prevented from undertaking their migratory journeys throughout the dredging campaign. Eggs of benthic fish species that remain in close contact with the seabed, , are likely to be sensitive to entrainment from dredging activities. The area is however acknowledged as encountering regular maintenance dredging within the proposed dredge footprint therefore suggesting that the riverbed is likely to be characterised by regular disturbance events, making it unsuitable for spawning activity by any fish/shellfish species and reducing the risk of direct uptake of eggs during the capital dredge. The ES concludes that //the impact is therefore predicted to be of negligible significance.// Underwater noise has been considered as result of dredging activities. These affects have been considered against physical effects on fish and on migratory fish. With regard to physical effects on fish the ES concludes //the risk and magnitude of recoverable injury or temporary auditory impairment is considered to be very low, and the significance of the impact is negligible.// With regard to migratory species it is acknowledged that there is likely to be a minor adverse impact on these due to the activities. However the use of dredging vessels is required to carry out the development and while smaller heads could be used this would prolong the activity. As set out above the most suitable form of mitigation relates to the location of dredging and the axis on which it occurs. An assessment has also been made with regard to land based pilling activities and their impact on underwater noise. It is acknowledged that pilling works are likely to take place 20m back from the river edge however the EA have advised that there remains a potential for this to be transmitted within underwater environments. The estimate is that pilling activities are likely to last approx. 40 mins a day due to experience of similar works within the estuary. Under water noise levels have been predicted for the piling activities and these are set out within Table 13.11 of the ES. The ES concludes that there is no risk of injury or TTS to even the most sensitive species of fish. An assessment has also been made with regard to impacts on migratory species. The ES concludes on this matter that //outside the key migration period there would be no effect on migration; however, even if piling takes place during the peak months of July and August the magnitude of the impact would be low since movement of fish along the river would be unimpeded for the majority of the time. The impact of underwater noise of piling activities is therefore considered to have a negligible impact on migration up and downstream.// With regard to a loss of habitat it has been acknowledged at various parts of the ES that the proposed development will result in both potentially temporary and permanent loss of habitat. This has been summarised within the ES which states //the assumption has been made that the structure is likely to provide sheltering habitat for juvenile fish. Removal of the wharf would result in a permanent loss of such habitat. Additionally, capital dredging and excavation of the subtidal and intertidal will result in temporary or permanent loss or alteration of habitat that could potentially be used for foraging and/or shelter by both adult and juvenile fish and shellfish.'' With regard to loss and alterations of subtidal habitat as a result of dredging activity there is considered to be a ''negligible// impact on fish species within the Tees. With regard to the removal of the wharf and jetties this will result in an permanent loss of habitat, however this is compensated for by way of the provision of verti pools within the quay face. The construction vessels within the river have the potential to lead to localised displacement of fishing activities adjacent to the application site. It is however acknowledged that most fishing activity takes place outside the Tees estuary with the area adjacent to the site having limited potential due to existing vessel traffic and maintenance dredging. The effect on fishing vessels is therefore considered to be negligible. Consideration has also been given to the restriction of access and passing of vessels commuting to fishing grounds downstream. This topic has been considered further in chapter 14 of the ES, however any conflict is considered to be negligible when co-ordinated by the Harbour Master. The ES concludes //impacts on local fishing activities taking place within the Tees estuary or adjacent coastline are predicted to be negligible.// '__Operational Phase__' With regard to the consideration of impacts during the operational phase of the development the following topics have been considered; noise disturbance from increased vessel traffic, impacts from quayside lighting and change in maintenance dredging regime affecting supporting habitats and benthic prey resources. The Tees estuary currently experiences between 800 and 950 commercial vessel movements per month, therefore up to 11,400 per year. This is also only commercial vessels, therefore it is considered the actual number using the estuary will be higher. The proposed development is predicted to generate 390 vessel calls per year. Given the existing level of movement and resulting disturbance through the estuary The minor increase in motorised vessel traffic is therefore considered to have a negligible impact on fish populations or behaviour. Currently there is none/limited quay side lighting associated with the site therefore resulting in limited light spill. The development proposes 18 new lighting towers up to 30m in height, therefore resulting in the potential for light spill that has the potential to disturb fish compared to that which currently exists at the site. The reaction of many fish is attraction to the light sources. Therefore, there is the potential for some attraction of fish to the operational area, although noise generated from vessels using the quay will counteract this effect to an extent. The ES concludes that the impact on fish populations of the estuary as a whole predicted to be of negligible significance. The predicted changes to the rate of infill of the navigation channel as a result of the proposed development are considered minimal. The ES has concluded that the predicted changes are insignificant with respect to potential effects on the existing maintenance dredging strategy, and no changes to the presentday maintenance dredging strategy will be necessary. There would therefore be no additional impact on supporting benthic habitats and prey resources beyond those already associated with the existing maintenance dredging regime. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' Mitigation is proposed relating to impacts of dredging on water quality. This includes limits to dredging activity within the river to one side at a time and the operations being undertaken in long strips along the axis of the estuary. With the implementation of the above measure, the residual impact is considered to be //minor adverse// to both resident and migratory fish. No mitigation measures are required with regard to entrainment of fish and fish eggs. The residual impact would remain of negligible significance. With regard to underwater noise from dredging, the proposed mitigation is considered to include limits to dredging activity within the river to one side at a time and the operations being undertaken in long strips along the axis of the estuary. With the implementation of the above measure, the residual impact is considered to be minor adverse. No mitigation is proposed with regard to noise generated from land side pilling activities. The residual impact remains //negligible.// Mitigation in the form of verti pools is proposed within the quay wall relating to habitat resource. With the provision of such enhancements the residual impact on sheltering fish would be reduced to //minor adverse.// No mitigation is proposed relating to fishing vessels however this will be managed by the Harbour Master. The residual impact would remain //negligible.// '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation measures are required with regard to noise disturbance. The residual impact will remain negligible. With regard to light disturbance no direct mitigation is proposed, however a condition is to be required for a lighting scheme to be submitted prior to installation that will likely implement best practice guidelines. The residual impact would be negligible. No mitigation measures are required with regard to dredging regime affecting supporting habitats and prey resources. There would be no residual impact. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to fish and fisheries within the Tees Estuary are not matters that the Local Planning Authority have control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land-based development up until the mean low water mark. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marie Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to fish and fisheries within the Tees Estuary will be regulated through the Marine Licence and not this planning application. ==== Chapter 14 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_14.%20Commercial%20and%20recreational%20navigation.pdf|Commercial and Recreational Navigation]] ==== This chapter of the ES considers the potential impact of the development to commercial navigation. The impacts considered are as follows: * Conflict between construction activities and commercial navigation. * Increased collision risk and delays to shipping due to increased vessel traffic during operation. * Effects on safety of shipping movements due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime during operation **Baseline** The policy context has been considered against the Marine Policy Statement. The ES has established that the riverside industrial plants along the 17km stretch of the River Tees have a variety of docking and cargo facilities. As a result of these the River Tees experiences significant commercial traffic with PD Teesport confirming that there can be between 800 and 950 movements per month within the Tees Estuary. The tees estuary is accessed from the north-east through a deep-water channel in Tees Bay. Figure 14.1 of the ES details the advertised depths of the channel; however it is recognised that these do vary due to sedimentation within the channel. The advertised depths range from 15.4m below CD to 4.5m below CD. There are currently 2 turning points within the estuary, one within the Seaton Channel area and one within Tees Dock. The channel is maintained by PDT which has a statutory responsibility to maintain the channel for safe navigation. Additionally, traffic in the Tees estuary is controlled by a sophisticated vessel traffic system. The site of the proposed development is currently occupied by a dilapidated wharf and 3 concrete jetties. The facility has not been used for a number of years and has fallen into a state of disrepair. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' The ES has considered the potential conflict between construction activities and commercial navigation within the Tees estuary. It is acknowledged that the proposed construction of the new quay is to be undertaken largely on land, therefore predominantly using land-based plant and equipment. Any potential conflict during the construction phase therefore arises between any dredgers/barges and those existing vessels within the estuary. The potential impacts from the construction activities include delays to shipping, increased risk of collision, obscuring navigational aids and the interference of other operators within the vicinity to the development site. A Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) has been submitted in support of the application. The assessment has been prepared to assess the impact of the construction and operation of the development to the existing navigation risk profile of the River Tees. Within the NRA are a number of embedded mitigation measures that are already enforced by PD Teesport as Harbour Master. The embedded mitigation measures set out in the ES include: * //Adherence to risk control measures listed within the current Port Navigation Risk Assessment.// * //Use of the existing VTS.// * //Post dredge surveys and promulgation.// * //Issue of Notices to Mariners.// Given the content of the submitted NRA, the embedded mitigation measures and the control exercised by PDT as Harbour Master, the construction phase of the development has been assessed as being as //low as reasonably practicable// and therefore will have a minimal effect on existing navigation profile of the area. The ES therefore concludes that //based on the above, the magnitude of the impact is anticipated to be very low on a medium sensitivity receptor. The proposed scheme is, therefore, predicted to have an impact of negligible significance on commercial navigation during the construction phase.// '__Operational Phase__' The ES has considered the increased collision risk and delays to shipping due to increased vessel traffic during operation and the potential effects on navigation safety due to changes in hydrodynamic regime. With regard to the increased number of vessels the ES states: //During the operational phase, there would be an increase in shipping traffic within the estuary as a result of the proposed scheme. It has been estimated that up to 390 offshore wind vessel calls would take place at the facility on an annual basis. This includes approximately 300 vessel calls per year associated with offshore wind staging and 90 vessel calls per year associated with offshore wind manufacturing activities. Such an increase in vessel numbers has potential to impact on the existing vessel movements within the estuary, due to increased collision risk of delays to shipping movements.// As with the construction phase of development there are a number of embedded mitigation measures that are currently enforced by PDT. These include: * //Adherence to risk control measures listed within the current Port Navigation Risk Assessment.// * //Use of the existing VTS.// * //Movements associated with barges carrying windfarm cargos would be treated as ‘project moves’ in accordance with PDT procedures.// * //Review navigation aids in the vicinity of the proposed berths as directed by PDT,// * //Establishment of a 15m safety zone on the riverside of stowed windfarm blades.// As a result of the NRA supporting the application, there are additional embedded mitigation measures that are considered appropriate for the proposed development including: * //marking and lighting of overhanging blades; and,// * //introduction of a safety zone in the vicinity of overhead cables whereby vessels may not enter if they or their load exceeds the given height restrictions.// The ES concludes that based on the above, the magnitude of the impact is anticipated to be //very low'' on a ''medium'' sensitivity receptor. The proposed development is, therefore, predicted to have an impact of ''negligible// significance on commercial navigation during the construction phase. With regard to the effects on navigation due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime, it is noted that these matters are further explored within Section 6.6 of the ES. The proposed changes to the hydrodynamic regime are summarised within the ES as follows: * //The proposed new quay alignment and capital dredging to deepen the Tees Dock turning circle and approach channel and to create a berth pocket will not significantly affect the existing baseline hydrodynamic conditions.// * //There will be flow newly occurring in the area of the new quay because it is being set-back from the existing riverbank, but even the peak flows in this area will be low.// * //Elsewhere, there will be a general small magnitude reduction in baseline flows varying during different phases of the tidal cycle, but always remaining largely within the reach immediately opposite the new quay. This reduction in baseline flows is caused by both a slight widening of the channel (due to the new quay alignment) and the local deepening of the bed due to the capital dredging.// * //The reductions in baseline current speeds in these areas may lead to a slight increase in deposition of sediment. In areas adjacent to the north bank opposite the quay, this is positive as it will help the existing North Tees Mudflat be sustained in light of sea level rise. In the main channel the deposition will require periodic dredging to maintain the design depths.// * //There is no measurable change caused by the capital dredging at the Tees Dock turning circle.// * //There is no predicted effect on local wind-generated waves at the site since the changes in hydrodynamics are so small and localised.// * //There are no estuary scale effects on baseline hydrodynamic conditions.// The ES concludes that based on the above summary and the further assessment set out in Section 6.6 of the ES that the magnitude of the impact is anticipated to be very low on a high sensitivity receptor (human health/safety). The proposed development is, therefore, predicted to have an impact of //negligible// significance on navigation safety during the operational phase. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the development that no mitigation is required and that there would be residual impacts of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' The ES concluded that no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those that are to be built into the proposed development and the residual impact is predicted to be of //negligible// significance. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to commercial and recreational navigation within the Tees Estuary are not matters that the Local Planning Authority have control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land-based development up until the mean low water mark. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marie Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. PDT will also have a regulatory responsibility in relation to these matters as Harbour Authority. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to commercial and recreational navigation within the Tees Estuary will be regulated through the other regulatory regimes and not this planning application. ==== Chapter 15 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_15.%20Traffic%20and%20transport.pdf|Traffic and Transport]] ==== The traffic and transport impacts of the proposed development are set out within the supporting Transport Statement (TS) which is included at Appendix 10 of the ES. The TS includes: * a review of the relevant policy and consultation and details of the proposed schemes compliance with such policy * a review of the existing highway environment, including accessibility, road safety and baseline traffic flows * details of the forecast increases in traffic that would be generated by the proposed scheme and the distribution onto the highway network **Baseline** The ES has been supported by a Transport Statement at Appendix 10 which sets out the baseline conditions. In establishing the baseline consideration has been given to the following: local highway context, accessibility and road safety. The site is located in close proximity to a number of key local roads. These have been detailed within the TS as follows: * Tees Dock Road * The A1053 * Dockside Road * Old station Road * A66 The TS has established base traffic flows on these highways which is set out in Table 3.1 of the TS as summary of which is below |h Road|h All Vehicles|h HGV's| |Tees Dock Road|{{4,830}}|{{1,486}}| |Old Station Road|{{5,013}}|{{795}}| |Dockside Road|{{5,446}}|{{776}}| |A66 (East)|{{47,977}}|{{3,763}}| |A66 (West)|{{22,383}}|{{2,999}}| |A1053|{{22,378}}|{{1,736}}| An assessment has also been made with regard to the accessibility of the site by walking, cycling, bus and rail. The TS has demonstrated that the site has a limited level of accessibility by these various modes of transport. It is however considered that due to the relatively remote location of the site and the nature of the construction activities, it is envisaged that sustainable transport would not be a prominent mode of transport to the site. With regard to the operation of the site this has been considered as part of the wider development of the South Industrial Zone as detailed below. Road safety has been considered with an assessment of the collision data for the local highway network. Table 3.3 of the TS summarises the collision data which illustrates that there are no potential road safety issues on all roads and junctions within the immediate vicinity of the application site. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' An assessment has been made of the anticipated traffic flows associated within the construction phase of the development. The assessment has considered local highways to the site including Tees Dock Road, Old Station Road, Dockside Road, A66 and the A1053 and the resulting impact on traffic flow with this being split between all vehicles and specifically HGV’s. It is anticipated that there will be an increase on all the local roads detailed above with increases ranging between 141 and 242 extra vehicles and 42 HGVs daily. This equates to an addition of between 0 and 5% in terms of all vehicles and 1.1 and 5.4% for HGV’s. The full breakdown of the anticipated changes is set out within Table 15.1 of the ES. The ES concludes that the peak daily construction traffic movements would be significantly less than 10% of existing traffic flows and therefore there is considered to be no discernible environmental impacts. The impact of the proposed development’s construction traffic is therefore considered to be of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' It is acknowledged that the Transport Statement does not include a detailed assessment of the operational traffic associated with the proposed development. This approach has been taken as the proposed quay is required to support the landside development that has been assessed and consented as part of the landside works at the South Industrial Zone ([[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0357-ESM|R/2020/0357/ESM]]). This application was supported by an ES with an accompanying Transport Statement which assessed operational phase impacts with regard to traffic and transport. Within the South Industrial Zone application, it was assumed that the development could potentially generate up to 3,870 employees. The current application for the quay is predicted to generate 10 employees. In the context of the job generation on the South Industrial Zone the generation of 10 employees relating to the quay is not a material consideration. The ES concludes that the impact of the proposed developments operational traffic is therefore assessed as //negligible// significance. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' No mitigation measures are required. The residual impact is therefore considered to be of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation measures are required. The residual impact is therefore considered to be of //negligible// significance. **Planning Assessment** Based on the assessment set out in the ES the development raises no issues in terms of the generation of transport matters The ES and supporting Transport Statement have been the subject of consideration by the Council’s development engineers who have offered no objection to the proposed development. Due to the location of the proposed development and its proximity to the strategic road network, the application has been considered by Highways England (HE). Initially HE placed a holding direction on the application to allow further consideration of the impacts of the development on the strategic road network that falls under HE authority. Discussions took place between HE and the applicants highways consultants to ensure that the proposed development would not result in adverse conditions. Following these discussions, HE have advised that they have no objection to the proposed development. It is however noted that this development forms only part of the wider aspirations of the STDC site and therefore further consideration will need to be given to the strategic road network when future application are considered with the potential for suitable mitigation where required. In dealing with the above comments, conditions have been proposed to require the preparation of a CEMP and a construction traffic management plan. These conditions have been agreed with the application in advance of the decision being issued. The LPA is satisfied that the development will have no impacts in terms of transport matters that cannot be mitigated to an appropriate level by planning conditions or other regulatory regimes. The development raises no issues in respect of National Policy within the NPPF and Policies SD4 TA1 TA2 and TA3 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 16 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_16.%20Archaeology%20and%20cultural%20heritage.pdf|Archaeology and Cultural Heritage]] ==== This chapter of the ES sets out the results of an archaeological desk-based assessment and settings assessment, and presents the assessment of likely * impacts upon the known and potential archaeological resource as a result of the proposed development. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline, the location of the known designated heritage assets have been mapped against the footprint of the proposed development up to 3km from the development site. This illustrated 9 Listed Buildings, which are detailed within Table 16.7 and illustrated on Figure 16.2 of the ES. It is acknowledged that none of these assets are within the application boundary with the closest being 1.5km to the south of the site. It is also acknowledged that there are no other types of designated assets within the 3km study area. The Redcar and Cleveland Historic Environment Record (HER) has also been examined. This took place as part of the assessment of the land-based development. The HER records detail that there are 9 entries that fall either within the application site or in the immediate vicinity. These are set out within Table 16.8 of the ES. HER data has also been sought for the north bank of the River Tees. There are however no records located on the opposite bank of the river. The CITiZAN interactive coastal map and the NERCZA GIS (and associated reporting) were also checked for any records of finds or features. No records additional to those reported from the HER were identified. The ‘Wrecks within UK EEZ’ GIS data demonstrates the presence of a single wreck, outside but in the vicinity of the proposed development footprint. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' The proposed development will result in the demolition of the dilapidated remains of the early 20th century South Bank Wharf and three jetties. It is acknowledged within the ES that these are considered to be of low heritage significance, however as they are to be fully removed the magnitude of effect is considered to be moderate adverse. It is considered that through suitable mitigation the residual impact can be reduced to minor adverse. The proposed development will also result in the removal of other buildings and infrastructure. Given the nature of these structures they are not considered to be of heritage value and will result in no impact. There will also be associated grubbing out / excavation / diversion / capping of underground utilities as part of the demolition process along with the removal of the riverside pumping station. The proposed development also involves works within the river that have the potential to have direct physical impacts to submerged or buried archaeology through the following activities: * removal of the piles supporting the jetties and wharf and pipework feeding the pumping station * capital dredging (to deepen the northern half of the Tees Dock turning circle, a section of the existing approach channel and to create a berth pocket) * construction of the new quay (to be set back into the riverbank) * placement of jack up feet/vessel anchors. Given the unknowns about what may be encountered, the ES states that any discovery will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Consideration has been given within the ES to the potential for wreck or aircraft remains within the channel and intertidal areas, although it is considered that there is limited potential for remains to be present. Should such remains be encountered during dredging or during excavations, these could be of potentially high heritage significance in a worst-case scenario. Should these be encountered there is potential for a moderate or major adverse impact, however suitable methods of mitigation are also proposed through the ES to limit such impacts. Consideration has also been given to the listed Transporter Bridge during construction activities. '__Operational Phase__' It is considered that any potential direct impacts to archaeology and cultural heritage are expected to occur during the construction phase of development. Consideration has been given to indirect physical impacts. These have been considered in detail through the hydrodynamic modelling contained within Chapter 6 of the ES. These are set out in the ES as follows: * //The proposed new quay alignment and capital dredging to deepen the Tees Dock turning circle and approach channel and to create a berth pocket will not significantly affect the existing baseline hydrodynamic conditions. Therefore, there will be no impact upon heritage assets.// * ''Reductions in baseline current speeds may lead to a slight increase in deposition of sediment: *//-in areas adjacent to the north bank opposite the quay, this will help the existing mudflat be sustained in light of sea level rise. This could be considered a minor beneficial impact to any buried archaeology within these mudflats (in maintaining ongoing burial rather than erosion and exposure), although there are no existing records of archaeological material from this area of the north bank; and,// *//-in the main channel the deposition will require periodic dredging to maintain the design depths which would result in no additional impact over and above that assessed above for construction as impacts are expected to already have occurred during the capital dredge// * //There is no measurable change caused by the capital dredging at the Tees Dock turning circle. Therefore, there will be no impact upon heritage assets// * //There is no predicted effect on local wind-generated waves at the site since the changes in hydrodynamics are so small and localised. Therefore, there will be no impact upon heritage assets// * //There are no estuary scale effects on baseline hydrodynamic conditions. Therefore, there will be no impact upon heritage assets// Consideration has also been given to potential visual impacts from the development. These impacts are set out in greater detail within Chapter 19 of the ES, however with regard to heritage assets, specific interest has been given to the Grade II* Transporter Bridge. The impact on the Transporter Bridge has been considered through viewpoint 12 within the LVIA. It is acknowledged that views of the site will be possible from this viewpoint. The views will however include the Tees Biomass Building that will partially obscure the cranes towers with the lattice arms being visible above. Given the relative ‘lighter’ appearance of these arms and given the intervening buildings, there is not considered to be any impact upon the heritage value of the Transport Bridge as a result of the change to its wider setting. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to the demolition and removal of the dilapidated remains of the early 20th century South Bank Wharf and three jetties it is considered that suitable mitigation is required in order to retain a record of the structures. This record is proposed to be in the form of photographic record and drone footage of the wharf and jetties prior to their demolition. This is to then be submitted to the RCBC HER. With imposition of the appropriate mitigation, the residual impact is considered to be //minor adverse'' and ''not significant// in EIA terms. No mitigation is proposed with regard to the removal of other buildings and infrastructure across the site. With regard to the potential to archaeological remains within the river, depending on those remains the ES concludes that there is potential for //moderate'' or ''major adverse// impacts. In order to mitigate such impacts, it is proposed that a WSI be required allowing for a reduction in the impact resulting in a residual impact predicted to be of minor adverse in significate. No mitigation is proposed with regard to the setting of the Transporter Bridge. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation proposed **Planning Assessment** The ES has examined appropriate resources for information in respect of the archaeological potential of the site and the impact of the development on heritage assets. It correctly identifies those designated and non-designated assets that lie within the study area. The ES concludes that given the location of the site there will be no direct adverse impact on heritage assets. The ES recognises that the archaeological resource will be impacted by the development in terms of removal of historic features including the South Bank Warf and jetties. The Council’s consultant archaeologist comments: //I am also satisfied, as per the heritage assessment, that there will be no adverse impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets. Other than photographic recording before demolition of any early 20th century structures on site (including the jetties), my main concern - again as per the heritage assessment - is that there is an agreed strategy for dealing with any unsuspected archaeological finds, and a pre-development archaeological evaluation of GI data.// A condition in respect of archaeological investigation is therefore recommended. With regard to the impact on the Grade II* Transporter Bridge, the assessment and conclusion of the ES are accepted. When considered in the context of the viewpoint produced within Chapter 19 of the ES, it can be seen that the view will include other Industrial buildings and structures, therefore not resulting in impacts that would have an adverse impact on the bridges wider setting. In view of the above it is concluded the development complies with policy in the NPPF and policy SD4(c) HE1 HE2 and HE3 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 17 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_17.%20Noise%20and%20vibration.pdf|Noise and Vibration]] ==== This chapter of the ES considers the potential airborne noise and vibration impacts of the proposed development. The chapter provides an overview of the baseline noise environment, identifies potentially sensitive receptors to noise and vibration and predicts noise levels associated with construction and operational phases of the proposed development at the receptor locations. The assessment focuses on noise and vibration impacts at human receptors only. Noise predictions at waterbird and seabird receptor locations are outlined however their impacts are assessed in Chapter 12. Cumulative noise and vibration impacts are addressed in Chapter 27 of the ES. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline level at the site, a noise assessment was undertaken. This took place over the 10th and 11th September 202 with the results set out in Table 17.9 of the ES. Measurements of the ambient noise level were taken both on-site and at off-site locations that were representative of nearby NSRs that had the potential to be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed development. It was established that the nearest potential noise sensitive area was within South Tees Business Parks. The noise monitoring locations are detailed on Figure 17.1 and Table 17.3 of the ES. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' In assessing the impacts associated with the construction of the proposed development the following have been considered: road traffic noise and onsite construction noise. With regard to road traffic noise, road traffic data has been collated for the surrounding area taking account of weekday traffic and a percentage of that as heavy goods vehicles. The assessment considered local roads including: Tees Dock Road, Dockside Road, Old Station Road, A66 and the A1053. The information is set out in full in Table 17.9 of the ES. Based on the assumptions of vehicle numbers a prediction was then made with regard to noise levels resulting from the change in vehicle numbers. The proposed road traffic impacts are set out in Table 17.10 of the ES. Based on the predicted changes to the BNL the magnitude of change is predicted to range between no change and very low with the impacts of this ranging between no impact and negligible. Due to the current level of unknowns regarding the construction operations, an indicative construction programme and construction plant estimate has been developed based on other comparable projects within the Tees estuary. The most intensive period of this programme has been used to create a worst case scenario. The works proposed to be undertaken at this time are; * //Demolition of the existing South Bank Wharf;// * //Installation of tubular king piles and spigots;// * //Installation of infill sheet piles;// * //Installation of anchor wall;// * //Installation of heavy load area piles;// * //Heavy load slab;// * //Filling and compaction;// * //Installation of pile plugs and cope beam;// * //Installation of quay furniture;// * //Lighting and ducts;// * //Excavation of front wall;// * //Dredging; and// * //Vessel deliveries// As well as the above assumptions, it has also been assumed that the operations will be undertaken 24 hours a day. All of the above assumptions have been compiled into tabular form within the ES at Table 17.11. Within this the on-time of each equipment has been set out along with the sound power (dB). Using the information within this table noise predications have been made for the nearest receptors. Table 17.13 of the ES illustrates that at the NSR a noise level of 52.2-59.2 is predicted which falls below the recommended 65dB. It is therefore considered that there would be a negligible impact on human receptor that would be //not significant//. Further assessment on ecological receptors has been set out in Chapter 12 of the ES above. '__Operational Phase__' In assessing the impacts associated within the operation of the proposed development the following activities were considered: * //Movement of materials over the quay via crane// * //Operation of the substation on the quay and use of shore power// * //Vessel movements and docking// With regard to crane movements predictions were undertaken assuming that 2 cranes were operating in the heavy load area and both were operating with an on-time of 100%. This is considered to be a very worst-case scenario based on the on times, and therefore may be considered to be precautionary. As with the cranes, the assumption was made that any substation and shore power infrastructure would be operating 100% of the time. As with the cranes this is considered to be a very worst-case scenario based on the on times, and therefore may be considered to be precautionary. With regard to vessel movements and docking, as has been stated through the ES that 390 vessel calls will be made a year. At this time the vessel duration is unknown and therefore it has been assumed that 4 vessels are docked at one time, connected to onshore power with engines off but * ventilation and pump systems still operating. This again is considered to be a precautionary approach. Based on the above assumptions, noise predications have been made for the various sources. These are set out in table 17.13 of the ES. Based on these assumptions, operational noise predictions have been made for nearest receptors. These have been set out in Table 17.14 of the ES. Taking these assumptions into consideration, based on the WHO guidance that external noise level at industrial and commercial premises of 70 dB LAeq,T during both daytime and night time is appropriate, the predicted noise level at the NSR on the eastern boundary of the South Tees Business Park is predicted to be 17.1dB below the WHO guidelines. Based on these assumptions, noise impacts at the NSR is considered to be not significant. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' With regard to road traffic noise no mitigation is proposed and the residual impact would be of negligible significance. With regard to on-site construction noise no mitigation is proposed and the residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation proposed. **Planning Assessment** Based on the assessment set out in the ES the development raises no issues in terms of the generation of noise and vibration. The ES has been the subject of consideration by the Council’s environmental health section who have offered the following advice: //Noise and Vibration // //I note that section 17 of the Environmental impact statement covers noise and vibration.// //The statement states that construction works including piling operations will not have a significant impact on noise sensitive receptors.// //The model calculation (sound plan) assumes that all piling activities will be operational for 30% of the time over a 24hr period but does not state when these operations will take place during this construction period.// //In order to minimise the environmental impact, I would recommend the inclusion of the following conditions onto any planning permission which may be granted:// //The working hours for all piling operations activities wherever possible on this site shall be limited to between 08:00 and 18:00 everyday// //REASON: In the interest of neighbour amenity.// Based on the assessment of the ES by the Council’s EHO no objection is raised in principle to the proposed development. The EHO has noted that the application has been based on the assumption that pilling operations could take place over a 24 hour period, however only being active 30% of the time. A request has been made with regard to the control of pilling works between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 everyday by way of a planning condition. This request has been considered, however based on the lack of sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site and the fact operations are capable of taking place 24 hours a day on the land side development at the South Industrial Zone that has recently been consented, the proposed condition is considered to be onerous and unnecessary to ensure that the development does not result in adverse impacts. The EHO has not made comment on the direct impact in relation to noise as a result of traffic movement to and from the site. It is acknowledged that the ES predicts no change to very low change due to the nature of the proposed works. This is not disputed, and it would be expected that any developer on the site will adopt the principles that limit the impact from such activities where possible. The provision of a CEMP by way of a condition continues to be proposed by the applicant as a means of addressing a number of mitigation scenarios across the development. It is considered that this will include best practice guidance for construction activities that will include matters relating to noise. Conditions have also been proposed with regard to the submission of a Pilling Risk Assessment as well as a condition allowing 24-hour activities 7 days a week at the site. While the condition for activities does not preclude any time when works/development cannot take place and therefore may be questioned to as whether it is necessary, it is considered that the imposition of the condition adds clarity to any future occupants to the site as to working hours allowed on the site. The LPA is satisfied that the development will have no impacts in terms of noise and vibration that cannot be mitigated to an appropriate level by planning conditions or other regulatory regimes. The development raises no issues in respect of National Policy within the NPPF and Policy SD4(b)(e)(m)(n) of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 18 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_18.%20Air%20quality.pdf|Air Quality]] ==== This chapter of the ES provides an overview of baseline air quality within the area, identifies appropriate receptors to air quality impacts and considers the potential for impacts on these receptors as a result of the following: * construction phase dust and particulate matter emissions * construction and operational phase plant exhaust emissions * construction and operational phase vessel exhaust emissions * construction and operational phase road traffic exhaust emissions **Baseline** The ES has established a baseline position with regard to air quality within the area of the application site. The ES has identified the potential receptors and the potential impacts resulting from the following: * //construction phase dust and particulate matter emissions// * //construction and operational phase plant exhaust emissions// * //construction and operational phase vessel exhaust emissions// * //construction and operational phase road traffic exhaust emissions// The ES has also established the existing environment within which the development is proposed. It is acknowledged that the site is not situated within or in the vicinity of any AQMA’s. RCBC currently undertakes monitoring within the Teesside area with the closest location to the site illustrated in Figure 18.1 of the ES. The findings of the most recent monitoring data is set out in Table 18.6 of the ES, where it can be seen that the concentration of NO2 have been below the objective of 40 μg.m-3 over the last five years therefore indicating that air quality in the area I generally good. Background concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 have been obtained from the latest air pollutant concentration maps provided by Defra for the application site. The maximum, minimum and average values are set out in Table 18.7 of the ES. It is acknowledged that the levels within the proposed application site are well below the mean air quality objectives. Work has also been undertaken to establish the potential sensitive receptors to the proposed development. The ES states that, //The UK’s health-based air quality objectives only apply where there is relevant human exposure; annual mean objectives apply at locations were members of the public may be regularly exposed, such as residential properties, schools, hospitals and care homes.// It is acknowledged that the site within an industrial area within no residential receptors in the vicinity. The closest residential receptors are approx. 1.1km to the south of the site. The nearest receptors will be those at places of work, which are within 350m of the site and associated construction works. Consideration has also been given to other potential sensitive receptors. Due to the location of the site consideration has been given to Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' In assessing the potential effects of the development consideration has been given to construction dust and particulate matter, road traffic emissions and vessel exhaust emissions. A qualitative assessment of construction phase dust and PM10 emissions has been carried out in accordance with the IAQM guidance. The construction works associated with the proposed development has the potential to impact on local air quality as follows: * //Dust emissions generated by demolition, excavation, construction and earthwork activities required during the construction phase have the potential to cause nuisance to, and soiling of, sensitive receptors.// * //Emissions of exhaust pollutants, especially NO2 and PM10 from construction traffic on the local road network, have the potential to adversely impact local air quality at sensitive receptors situated adjacent to the routes utilised by construction vehicles.// * //Emissions of NO2 and PM10 from NRMM operating within the proposed scheme footprint have the potential to adversely impact local air quality at sensitive receptors in close proximity to the works.// It is acknowledged that the potential for sensitive receptors to be affected will depend on where within the site the dust raising activity takes place, the nature of the activity and controls, and meteorological dispersion conditions. A step by step analysis of the site and the proposed development activities has been undertaken to determine the potential impacts. Given the assessment and the potential risk given the proposed development, site specific mitigation is recommended and set out below. With regard to traffic emissions a review has been made of the anticipated vehicle movements expected for phase 1 and 2 of the development. These details are set out in Table 18.11 of the ES. Due to the anticipated level, the impact on local air quality is considered to be not significant. As a result, a detailed road traffic exhaust emissions has not been undertaken. The proposed development will result in additional vessel movements during construction. These have been detailed within Table 18.12 of the ES within which the number of vessels and duration of the works are set out. Given the number of additional vessels, the length of time they will be operational and the location of the movements in relation to the sensitive receptors, impacts on human and ecological receptors as a result of construction phase vessel emissions are considered to be not significant. '__Operational Phase__' In assessing the potential effects of the development consideration has been given to road traffic emissions, vessel emissions and plant emissions. It is anticipated that the development will generate approximately 10 employees, therefore generating 20 trips a day. This increase in vehicle trips beyond that which will be associated with the land-based permission associated with the development, is considered to //not be significant//. As set out within Chapter 3 of the ES, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 390 vessel calls per year. A comparison has been made to the vessel movements within the River Tees in 2019, when there were 16,433 movements. Consideration has also been given to the fact that the vessels will be moving through the channel and therefore past sensitive receptors, therefore subjecting the emissions to greater levels of dispersion and dilution. As detailed within Chapter 26 of the ES it is also planned for the quay to provide shoreside power, therefore reducing the vessels reliance on main and auxiliary engineers while berthed. The ES concludes that given the number of additional movements, shoreside power and the distance to receptors, impacts during operation are considered to be //not significant//. Due to the nature of the development there will be a variety of plant and machinery used in the operations. This will include cranes, SPMT’s and generators to power smaller tools. These will require the use of electricity to power them there potentially giving rise to increased air emissions. It is however considered that given the proximity of receptors and the intermittent use of the equipment that their impacts will be //not significant//. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' As set out in the ES at 18.4.1.5, it is considered that site specific mitigation is required. This can take the form of a CEMP which should include the recommendations set out within the ES. The ES concludes that with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the residual impacts from the construction phase of the proposed development are considered to be //not significant//. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation is proposed. **Planning Assessment** Based on the assessment set out in the ES the development raises no issues in terms of emissions that would not be dealt with through the suitable mitigation measures. Whilst the LPA must be mindful of the advice set out in the NPPF (para183) //The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.// The ES has been the subject of consideration by the Council’s environmental health section who have offered the following advice; //Air Quality// //Section 18 of the Environmental impact statement covers Air Quality. Appendix 7 desktop survey and preliminary risk assessment indicates the potential of contamination on site and the Air Quality impact statement describes the risk of dust soiling impacts during the construction phase as ‘high risk’ for demolition and ‘medium risk’ for earthworks.// //There is therefore a great potential for the generation of contaminated dust and subsequent effects on human health and ecological receptors.// //The dust assessment determined that there was a risk of impacts resulting from construction activities without the implementation of mitigation measures and para 18.4.1.5 highly recommends Site-specific mitigation measures to be incorporated during the demolition and construction phase.// //The Operation phase assessment is satisfactory.// //In order to minimise the environmental impact, I would recommend the inclusion of the following conditions onto any planning permission which may be granted:// //Prior to commencement of construction/demolition, a CEMP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall incorporate all the recommendations of para 18.4.1.5. // //REASON: To protect on site workers and the amenity of nearby residents.// The LPA is satisfied that the development will have no impacts in terms of emissions and impact on human health that cannot be mitigated to an appropriate level by planning conditions or other regulatory regimes. As has been stated previously a CEMP is proposed that is considered the most appropriate mechanism for managing air quality impacts from the proposed development. The development raises no issues in respect of National Policy in the NPPF and Policy SD4(b)(e)(m) and LS4 (x) of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 19 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_19.%20Landscape%20and%20visual.pdf|Landscape and Visual]] ==== This chapter of the ES presents the findings of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The chapter considers the following potential environmental impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development: * direct impact to physical landscape features * direct and indirect effects on landscape character * effects on views, as experienced by a range of receptors within the study area. **Baseline** In establishing a baseline and then the resulting impacts from the development, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been prepared. The LVIA has sought to consider the potential impacts during both construction and operational phases of development. The baseline has been prepared based on the following considerations: * existing physical landscape characteristics of the proposed scheme footprint and its immediate surroundings * surrounding landscape context, including physical and human characteristics, landscape character and planning context * visual analysis including factors which influence both the character and availability of views to the site (e.g. visual detractors, local horizons etc.) To establish the baseline for the LVIA an assessment has been made of the local landscape character. In making this assessment it has been established that there are a number of Landscape Character Zones (LCZs) to be considered in the assessment of the development. These are detailed in the ES on Figure 19.1 as follows: * //Redcar Flats// * //Eston Hills// * //East Bellingham to Teesworth// * //Seaton Sands Costal Fringe// * //Newton Bewly Undulating Farmland// * //South Hartlepool to Teesmouth// * //Urban Area// * //North Middlesbrough to Teesside// An assessment of each LCZ has been made with regard to their form, value and sensitivity. With regard to the visual assessment of the site this has been done by considering both the broad context of the site by way of a desk-based assessment and also through the consideration of individual viewpoint analysis. The viewpoints are considered to identify key views of the site from varying distances to provide an overall context of the site. The assessed viewpoints (12) are detailed on Figure 19.2 of the ES and address visual receptors including residential properties, recreational routes and PROW, heritage assets and recreational sites. A further assessment has also been made of each viewpoint with regard to who this will largely impact, the susceptibility to change, the value of the view and the visual sensitivity. These considerations are set out in Appendix 12 of the ES. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' In considering the impacts/effects during construction, the following have been considered: physical landscape features, landscape character and visual receptors. The proposed development is not considered to result in any loss of significant landscape features. The development will result in the loss of areas of rough grassland and scattered scrub; however these features are considered to be of low sensitivity to change. The resulting loss of these features are therefore considered to result t in a low adverse magnitude effect with a //negligible// overall significance of effect. The proposed construction activity at the site will include the introduction of site cabins, vehicular parking areas, materials storage areas and processing facilities and hoarding and associated fencing/means of enclosure. The development will also result in an increase in vehicular movements to and from the site which will vary depending on current works, while the construction process will also require the use of relatively tall plant and equipment in the form of cranes and pilling rigs. It is acknowledged that the proposed operations will result in a change to the appearance of the site, however those visual receptors that are located to the south and east of the site will either have their views partially screened by existing features within the landscape including buildings and plant as well as existing vegetation. While longer range views from elevated positions will allow greater visibility of the site, it is considered that given the setting within the industrial landscape that the associated construction activities will be barely perceivable. The changes with regard to highway movements have been addressed in the report above with regard to overall volume. With regard to impacts on visual receptors there is not considered to be a significant change due to the existing vehicular movement associated within the surrounding area. No significant effects are predicted to landscape character during the construction phase. The existing site and wider setting are heavily industrial in character, including brownfield areas, buildings, very tall infrastructure, towers and stacks. Construction activity is not considered to alter the existing character, with plant, structures and activity being comparable in nature and appearance to the existing site characteristics. Effects on landscape character during the construction phase will be low adverse magnitude and incur a negligible overall significance of effect. '__Operational Phase__' In considering the impacts/effects during operation, the following have been considered, landscape effects and visual effects. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in a change to the characteristics of the local landscape, however these are not considered to be significant. The proposed development tis considered to be compatible with the existing industrial landscape that already includes large scale industrial buildings and associated infrastructure. The proposed development will also result in the removal of existing derelict and dated structures along the riverbank allowing for the introduction of the new quay features. This is considered to have the potential to result in a benefit to the river front character and appearance. The development will result in the introduction of large scale cranes and stored wind turbine components which are acknowledged as being theoretically visible across most of the survey study area, however the effect on those views is not considered to significantly alter the existing visual character of the site when perceived within the already industrial surroundings. Consideration has also been given to the effect on the night-time character of the landscape. The proposed quay will be lit from high level mast, therefore introducing a greater level of illumination than currently exists at the site. It is however considered that when this additional level of illumination is taken in the context of the existing lit night-time industrial area, the magnitude of change will not be significant. The ES concludes that the changes to the landscape will be permanent in so long as the cranes are present at the site. The proposed development is therefore considered to result in a //low adverse'' magnitude of effect on landscape character within the site and the wider environs with the overall significance of effect being considered to be ''negligible//. Consideration has also been given to the visual impact of the development with regard to prominent views that area experienced by visual receptors. In order to make this assessment 12 viewpoints have been selected to represent the typical views from key receptors from varying distances. The location of the viewpoints is set out in Figure 19.3 of Appendix 14 of the ES. The assessment of visual impact has been made based on a worst-case scenario based on two tall cranes and the storing of full height wind turbine towers up to 150m in height stored vertically on the quayside. In actual operations this is not considered to be the normal impact with the times and numbers of towers varying depending on operational demand. Along with the towers the most prominent permanent feature of the site is the heavy lift cranes with the main tower being 106m and the lattice boom extending up to 192m. In assessing the visual impacts for the development, consideration has been given to; residential properties, recreational routes and PROW, heritage assets and recreational sites. Varying viewpoints are considered appropriate for each receptor and this is set out in the ES. The ES has concluded the following on the various receptors: Residential - ''The overall assessment of the significance of effect in views from residential property to the south of the proposed scheme footprint ranges between minor moderate adverse to minor adverse. In terms of EIA these effects are not significant. * Recreational Routes and PROW - //The overall assessment of the significance of effect in views from recreational routes to the south of the site is minor adverse. In terms of EIA these effects are not significant.// Heritage Assets - //The predicted magnitude of change in the view is low adverse. The assessment of the significance of effect in views from the site of the transporter bridge is minor adverse. In terms of EIA the effect is not significant.// Recreational Sites - //The predicted magnitude of change in both the Eston Nab and Errington Wood views is considered low medium adverse. The assessment of the significance of effect in the views is minor moderate adverse. In terms of EIA these effects are not significant.// //Cargo Fleet River View Park is located to the south west of the proposed scheme footprint on an elevated knoll of land. Outward views are limited by surrounding dense vegetation. The most open aspect, and focus of the view, is upstream, away from the proposed scheme footprint. Proposed taller features will be seen in filtered / glimpsed views through existing vegetation and in context of existing tall industrial and riverside features, including moored windfarm installation vessels and cranes. The assessment of the significance of effect in the view is minor negligible adverse and not significant.// //Other recreational receptor sites include those within sensitive coastal margin landscapes to the north east of the site at South Gare peninsula and Coatham Marsh Local Nature Reserve. In both cases the existing view is strongly influenced by tall industrial features clearly seen in the skyline and often forming the visual horizon. The magnitude of change in these views is predicted to be low adverse and the assessment of the significance of effect in the view is minor negligible adverse. In terms of EIA these effects are not significant.// //No significant effects visual will occur to road and rail users. Both receptor groups are considered to be low sensitivity and any magnitude of change in existing, transitory views towards site will be low adverse or negligible.// The ES concludes that the range of representative viewpoints from various receptors demonstrates that the proposed development will not result in significant adverse visual effects. It is acknowledged that the existing views towards the proposed development are strongly influenced by industrial and urban features. There are also no views to ground level, quayside activity and where proposed tall structures are visible in close range views, these are considered to be seen in the context of other comparable tall features. The more distant or elevated views result in the proposed tall structures being seen in the skyline but the magnitude of change in the view will be diminished by the wide and varied context of the scene given the industrial commercial nature of the sites setting. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' No mitigation is proposed with regard to impacts during the construction phase of development. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation is proposed with regard to impacts during the operational phase of development. **Planning Assessment** The Landscape and Visual Impact analysis provides a robust assessment of the impact of the development. The ES is considered to have assessed a worst-case scenario based on the plans and supporting information. The overall conclusion of the ES in terms of landscape and visual impact are accepted, the application site is noted as being in an area allocated for employment and port related development in the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. The location of the site and the prevailing built form is industrial with a number of buildings and structures of significant scale in the surrounding area. The ES does conclude that there will be negligible impacts during the construction phase. This view is accepted, and it is considered that any changes will be temporary during construction, albeit that this may be a 3 year period, however any changes would be necessary to form part of any redevelopment of such a site. Given the site is allocated for employment/port uses is considered reasonable that such impacts occur in the short term. With regard to the viewpoint assessments, there is the potential for these to range between negligible to minor adverse. Many of the views considered also take in the wider industrial views of Teesside and the redevelopment of the site for employment/port uses is considered result in changes to these views. A balance therefore needs to be given to the adverse impacts against the benefits from the investment and resulting jobs that result from the support the development will give to the wider STDC site, in particular the South Industrial Zone that has the potential to generate in excess of 3870 jobs to which this development will provide direct support. In view of the above the development complies with National Policy in the NPPF and policy SD4 (b)(i)(j) and (k) of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 20 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_20.%20Flood%20risk%20and%20coastal%20defence.pdf|Flood Risk and Coastal Defence]] ==== This chapter of the ES considers the following potential environmental impacts: * Impacts to coastal / tidal protection and flood defence. * Effects on the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime. * Effects on the integrity of flood defences and the risk of tidal flooding. * Effect of fluvial flows on flood risk. * Effects of the frequency of overtopping. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline with regard to flood risk and coastal defence matters the following tasks have been undertaken; a review of existing flood risk studies (including Tees Tidal Risk Management Strategy, Tidal Tees Integrated Flood Risk Modelling and the South Industrial Zone ES), an FRA for the proposed development which is included in full at appendix 15 of the ES. Within the FRA consideration has been given to flooding from sea (tidal/coastal). The site is acknowledged as falling within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 on the EA Flood Map. The majority of the site is considered to be located within zones 2 and 3 as a large proportion of the development is contained within the banks of the River Tees. The small area of land-based works is located within flood zone 1. The ES states that; //due to the proposed scheme being partially located within the banks of the tidally influenced River Tees, the risk of tidal and coastal flooding is assessed to be high. However, it is noted that as a new port facility, the proposed scheme is considered ‘Water Compatible’ under the NPPF.// This summary of the position relating to tidal flooding is one that is accepted. Consideration has also been given within the FRA to flooding relating to groundwater. The ES states: //borehole records indicate that groundwater levels could be linked to tidal levels in the River Tees. This is considered highly likely as the proposed scheme footprint is adjacent to the watercourse and there is likely to be percolation of water through the existing banks into adjacent ground.// The links between groundwater and coastal flooding are considered within the FRA, however as groundwater in the location of the development is considered to be linked to tidal flooding, groundwater is considered to pose limited risk at the site. With regard to surface water, the Environment Agency Surface Water Flood Risk map illustrates that the proposed development footprint is largely in areas at ‘very low’ risk of surface water flooding. It is acknowledged within the ES that there are 2 areas of the application site that pose an increased risk from surface water flooding: * //The southernmost corner of the proposed scheme footprint includes areas at ‘low’ (i.e. between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 100 years) and ‘medium’ risk (i.e. between 1 in 100 and 1 in 30 years); and,// * The area of the proposed scheme footprint associated with the oil depots, boiler house and offices (to be removed prior to the proposed scheme) contains areas at ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ (i.e. greater than 1 in 30 years) risk.'' The ES states that the site is assessed to be at Very Low risk of surface water flooding. The ES has included a summary of the flood risk to the proposed development site. Table 20.6 of the ES sets out the summary, however the development as a whole is considered to be a low risk to flooding. It is also considered that the proposed development may be considered to be ‘water compatible’ given the nature and location of the development. In the establishment of the baseline, consideration has also been given the impacts of climate change. The impacts of climate change have been assessed against rainfall and sea level rises. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' Consideration has been given to the impact during the construction phase of development on; flooding at and adjacent to the proposed development and the vulnerability to flooding of those using the site. The FRA and ES identifies that tidal and groundwater flooding represent the main sources of risk in the vicinity of the development site. It is however considered within the ES that the proposed development will not increase this risk during construction as there are very limited alterations to the existing defence line at the site. Due to this assessment, there is considered to be a very low magnitude of effect, resulting in //no impact// being predicted. The FRA and ES again identify that due to the location of the site being within and adjacent to the Tees estuary, this presents risks to construction workers. Given the fact that any flood event would be the controlling factor in impacts on workers, the site users are designated as //very high'' sensitivity receptors and the magnitude of impact to these site users is ''high'' magnitude. Therefore, without the implementation of mitigation measures the impact is of ''major adverse// significance. '__Operational Phase__' Consideration has been given to the impact during the construction phase of development on; flooding at and adjacent to the proposed development, effect on tidal flooding elsewhere in the estuary, surface water runoff and foul sewage and effect on frequency of overtopping. The FRA and ES have as stated above identified that the site lies largely within Flood Zones 2 and 3 with part of the land works within Flood Zone 1. The quay is proposed to be at a level 5.84m AOD, which is above the 5.0m AOD threshold which the Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management (FRM) Strategy identified as being at risk during a 1 in 1000-year event. It is also acknowledged that the proposed development is ‘water compatible’ and the resulting development will provide the revised defence line that would not impact on flood risk of the site. Taking this into consideration the receptor sensitivity is considered to be //very low'' with a ''low'' magnitude effect. The ES therefore concludes that the impacts from tidal and coastal flooding has ''negligible// significance. The proposed development is not considered to have any impact on tidal risk throughout the estuary as a result of the proposed development. The FRA and ES has considered the impact of surface water flooding. With regard to landside works, it is acknowledged that the development will result in the levelling off of existing land that will address any existing areas of pooling. Based on this assumption no further assessment is made, with the consideration being that any assessment should be of the performance of the drainage systems serving the site. With regard to the proposed system the ES states //as part of the proposed scheme the quay would be surfaced with crushed stone and surface water would drain into the underlying material without the need for a formal drainage system. A drainage system collecting surface runoff through gullies would be required on the heavy lift areas, as such areas are proposed to be surfaced with concrete. The collected water will be discharged into the Tees estuary through the quay wall, via an interceptor.'' Given this description and the lack of welfare facilities on the quay itself, it is considered that there would be a ''very low'' magnitude effect on a ''low'' sensitivity receptor. As a result of this there is considered to be ''negligible// impact. The FRA and ES have assessed the potential impact with regard to overtopping. The ES states that //the baseline swell waves do not extend up the Tees estuary to the proposed scheme footprint, indicating that the site is well sheltered from the North Sea waves.'' As stated above the proposed quay is to be constructed at a level of 5.84m AOD, providing suitable protection against the worst-case scenario for wind waves and still water levels, including climate change. As a result of these assumptions, the effects of the locally generated wind waves are determined to have a medium magnitude effect on a low sensitivity receptor. As a result, there is considered to be a ''negligible// impact. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' The ES details that as part of the proposed development the quay wall will comprise the maintenance of the existing defence line which will then incorporate a revised defence line, set at a level of 5.84m AOD. It is however acknowledged that during the construction phase, a continuous defence line will need to be retained, using the existing, revised or a combined defence line. Providing this is provided as part of the construction methods no further mitigation measures are required. There would be no residual impact. With regard to the impact on construction workers, it is acknowledged the need for mitigation. It is considered that this can take many forms including the following: * Development of a construction phase Flood Risk Emergency Plan (FREP). * Prior to works commencing, all construction workers will undergo site induction training prior to being allowed access to the proposed scheme site. This will include actions required in the event of a flood risk emergency incident, such as those included in the FREP including obtaining flood warnings /alerts, responding to warning sirens and following escape routes in the event of a site evacuation. * No workers would be allowed on site unless they have undergone a site induction. * Arrangements will be identified and made for safe access to and from the site. * In the event of tidal surge and / or significant storm events, prior warning will be given to the site users in order to cease construction works and evacuate site workers to higher ground. It is considered that the implementation of the above measures has the ability to reduce the potential risk to human health as far as possible. Following the implementation of the above, the residual risk to site users is considered o be of minor adverse significance. '__Operational Phase__' The proposed quay is to be constructed with a defence line at a level of 5.84m AOD. Given this design standard, the level of protection is considered to be comparable to that which currently exists at the site. It is therefore considered that no further mitigation is required and that there would be //no residual impact// with regard to tidal and coastal flooding. No mitigation required relating to the rest of the estuary and //no residual impact//. No further mitigation is required beyond the final design solution and there would be //no residual impact//. No mitigation measures are required in regard to the impact of swell waves or locally generated waves. The residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. '__Planning Assessment__' The ES provides an appropriate assessment of flood risk and related matters. The proposed development is acknowledged as falling largely within Flood Zones 2 and 3 with parts situated within Flood Zone 1 on the land side works. Due to the location of the site within Flood Zones 2 and 3 consideration is required to be given to the protection of construction workers. It is considered necessary for this protection to be built into the proposed CEMP in the form of a Construction Phase Flood Risk Emergency Plan. This has been agreed with the applicant and is proposed to form part of the proposed CEMP. The proposed development will also involve demolition of existing structures, and therefore existing flood protection measures for the site. It is considered necessary during the construction phase of development that the current level of protection afforded to the sit is maintained. A planning condition is therefore proposed relating to the continued provision of flood defence line during the construction phase of the development. This has been agreed with the applicant in advance of the application being determined. Due to the location of the proposed development the application has been considered by the LLFA within Redcar and Cleveland Council. The advice offered by the LLFA was as follows: //"Nevertheless, major developments will be required to submit a drainage plan to show the site drainage can be adequately dealt with. The proposed drainage scheme should incorporate SuDS unless it can be demonstrated that they would be inappropriate. The drainage system must be designed and constructed so surface water discharged does not adversely impact the water quality of receiving water bodies, both during construction and when operational. New development should seek to improve water quality where possible, as well maintaining and enhancing the biodiversity and habitat of watercourses."// //It is acknowledged that the proposed development in is accordance with Policy SD7, however the LLFA would require for areas where a formal drainage system is proposed, namely heavy lift areas, that a detailed design is to be submitted.// //The LLFA would be happy to support the recommendation of Northumbrian Water condition as follows “Development shall not commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Northumbrian Water and the Lead Local Flood Authority. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved details”// //Please further condition the submitted documents as approved plans/documents// Policy requires that new major development is supported by appropriate infrastructure; the final detail of the drainage system is required to be agreed with the LLFA and Northumbrian Water. It has been agreed with the applicant that this will be achieved by way of a planning condition that can be added to facilitate the granting of panning permission. In view of the above and subject to the imposition of the proposed conditions, the development complies with policy in the NPPF, policies SD7 and SD4(f) of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 21 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_21_Socio-economics.pdf|Socio Economics]] ==== This chapter of the ES provides an assessment of key planning and economic strategy documents of relevance to the proposed development at a national, regional and local level. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline position consideration has been given to the current local economic conditions and labour market within the AOI, which for the purposes of the application has been defined as Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees local authorities. The population of the AOI in 2019 was 475,478 which resulted from a 2.7% increase over the period of 2009-2019. This rate of growth is however lover than the north east region (3.7%) and nationally (7.8%). With regard to employment growth within the AOI table 21.5 of the ES illustrates the current total jobs, jobs density and %’age change when compared against the north east and GB. The table illustrates that both the job density and %’age change between 2008 and 2018 within the AOI preformed less favourably than the other areas considered. An assessment of sectoral structure has also been carried out which identifies that, as a proportion of total employment, the largest sectors in the AOI in 2018 were health (17.3%), retail (10.3%), education (9.5%), manufacturing (9.2%) and business administration & support services (7.6%). Collectively, these five sectors constituted 53.8% of total employment. Consideration has also been given to employment change within the AOI over the period of 2009-2018 in comparison to the north east and GB. Table 21.6 of the ES details these changes across the various sectors, with those most relatable to the proposed development being: * //Manufacturing: employment in the AOI declined substantially (-8.1%) despite remaining relatively static at the regional and national level; and// * //Transport and logistics (including postal): employment in the AOI increased (5.3%) albeit at a rate below the regional and national level.// An assessment has also been made of the labour market conditions. With regard to unemployment rate, using the most recent data in August 2020 the rate in the AOI was 8.3%. This rate is higher than the north east (7.5%) and nationally (6.6%). The data therefore suggests that there is greater scope locally to accommodate employment growth. With regard to the skills base in the AOI this is detailed within figure 21.3 of the ES, however it can be summarised as follows: * //A lower proportion of working-age residents with graduate level (NVQ level 4+) qualifications (29.6%) than that of the North East region (31.9%) and nationally (40.3%)// * //A lower proportion of working-age residents at all other NVQ levels (NVQ1 – 3) in comparison to the regional and national averages// * //A higher proportion of working-age residents with no qualifications (12.0%) than that of the wider region (9.4%) and nationally (7.7%)// With regard to earnings, the latest figures in 2019 illustrate that the median earnings within the AOI where higher than that of the north east but lower than that nationally. An assessment of deprivation has also been made and is illustrated in Figure 21.5 of the ES. It can be seen that there are significant pockets of deprivation across the AOI with the most significant pockets located in Middlesbrough but also along the banks of the River Tees in both Stockton-on-Tees and Redcar and Cleveland, including the proposed development footprint. The LSOA within which the proposed development is located (Redcar and Cleveland) is categorised as being within the 10% most deprived nationally. With regard to economic output, this has been calculated with regard to GVA per job. Table 21.8 of the ES indicates that the AOI performs marginally better (£46,578) than the north east region (£45,300) but lower than the national figure (£54,766) Within the ES a summary of the existing environment within the AOI has been provided at para 21.3.4 which states: * //Lower jobs growth performance relative to the regional and national levels.// * //A lower jobs density ratio compared to both regional and national averages.// * //Higher business growth relative to regional and national averages, with particularly strong growth in Micro (0-9 employees) firms.// * //An economic activity rate that is lower than the regional and national averages. Both the modelbased unemployment rate for the AOI and the proportion of economically active population claiming out-of-work benefits are higher than the regional and national averages.// * //Worse performance compared to regional and national averages in terms of skills and occupational profile of the resident workforce. The AOI has a lower proportion of residents with higher skills (NVQ Level 4+) and a lower proportion of the workforce in higher skilled occupations (SOCs 1-3). In addition, it has a higher proportion of residents with no qualifications and a greater proportion of the workforce in lower skilled occupations (SOCs 7-9).// * //On average lower resident-based earnings compared to workplacebased earnings but in both cases sitting above the regional average but below the national average.// * //Significantly higher levels of deprivation within the context of all English local authorities.// * //Productivity (as measured by GVA per job) is marginally higher than the regional average but lower than the national average.// **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' Consideration has been given to the impact during the construction phase of development, these include creation of direct and indirect employment, demand for temporary accommodation by construction employees and economic output. With regard to the creation of direct employment, this is usually based against the construction cost of a development. However it is considered that given the specialist nature of the proposed development this is not an appropriate approach for this development. In order to make an appropriate assessment, consideration has been given to comparable schemes, with the site specifics of the development allowing for appropriate adjustments in respect of: * //the dimensions of the proposed quay// * //the phasing of delivery// * //the technical specification of works (including the extent of excavation and mechanical/electrical engineering works assumed)// Based on the above adjustments, the following is estimated for the proposed development: //The proposed scheme could support a maximum of 110 direct FTE construction jobs during the peak requirement, which is expected to occur during demolition, quay construction, excavation and dredging phases. Assuming a gradual ramping up and down from the peak, it is estimated that the works could support approximately 2,600 person-months of employment. Over the course of approximately three year construction phase , this could support an average of 79 direct FTE jobs.// While it is difficult to determine the extent to which these jobs will be taken up locally, it is understood that STDC is committed to maximising the number of Tees Valley firms that are able to access and succeed in tendering for opportunities. Within this context, it is noted that the construction industry is particularly strong within the AOI. Such a development is also considered to contribute to indirect and induced employment. As with the above assessment it is difficult to accurately anticipate the levels associated with the development; however, the ES states; //the proposed scheme could be expected to support 172 direct and indirect FTE jobs per annum over the course of the construction period.// Taking all of the above into consideration the employment impacts of the proposed development during the construction phase are considered to be temporary and //minor beneficial//. The development has the potential to generate a temporary need for accommodation for construction employees. The ES considers that the majority of those working on the development would-be home-based workers, therefore the likely requirement is expected to be low resulting in a //negligible// impact. '__Operational Phase__' It is acknowledged that the proposed development is linked to other landside development within the STDC area. The current application has however been assessed independently from the landside works with regard to job generation, with consideration only been given through the cumulative assessment. It has been estimated that the proposed development would create 10 gross FTE jobs once operational. Further assessment has been carried out however with regard to job displacement as a result of the development. This matter has been considered in the context of the principles set out within the South Tees Regeneration Master Plan that seeks to limit such displacement from existing operators. As a result a displacement allowance of 25% has been applied, therefore resulting in an conclusion that the development will generate in the order of 8 direct FTE jobs. Similarly within regard to indirect and induced jobs, while it is acknowledged the link to the landside works, this has been considered separately. It has been calculated that 12 FTE jobs at a reginal level would be generated, equating to approx. 0.01% of the total employment within the AOI. This is therefore considered to be result in a //negligible// impact. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' No mitigation measures are required. The residual impact would be of //minor beneficial// significance. '__Operational Phase__' No mitigation measures are required. The residual impact would be of //negligible// significance. **Planning Assessment** The ES provides an appropriate assessment of socio-economic related matters. The site forms part of the wider STDC area and therefore Policy LS4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan is relevant. In relation to the economy, Policy LS4 states that the Council and its partners will aim to deliver the following objectives; //a Deliver significant economic growth and job opportunities through the South Tees Development Corporation and Tees Valley Enterprise Zone at Wilton International and South Bank Wharf; // //b Support the regeneration of the STDC area through implementing the South Tees Area Supplementary Planning Document; // //c Investigate opportunities to create a new energy hub to support the offshore wind and sub-sea engineering sectors; // //d Support the expansion and protection of the port and logistics sector; // //e Improve existing employment areas and provide a range of modern commercial premises that meet contemporary business requirements including the target sectors of the South Tees Area Supplementary Planning Document; // //f Give the area an identity and make it attractive to inward investment; and // //g Enhance the quality and range of services and facilities that serve the needs of those working in the South Tees employment area.// It is considered that the proposed development responds to the policy requirements of LS4 and the South Tees SPD to deliver economic growth and the regeneration of the STDC area. It is acknowledged that the proposed development has the potential in aiding the delivery of significant benefits with regard to job creation and spending within the economy through the facilitating of the development of the South Industrial Zone on the wider STDC site. Given the proposed benefits from the development and the lack of adverse effects from the development, no mitigation measures are proposed. As stated above it is acknowledged that there are direct links between the proposed development and the South Industrial Zone development. In consideration of the South Industrial Zone application it was stated that STDC //is committed to working with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, where possible, to deliver training and apprenticeship schemes during the construction phase//. This application was also supported by an undertaking to support the Council in the provision of employment hubs and other appropriate training and employment programmes. An agreement was reached between all parties that resulted in TVCA making financial contributions to the LPA for the matters set out above, however this is not controlled by a Sec 106 and has been agreed in a letter (27/11/2020) signed by the Chief Executive of TVCA, a copy of which was attached to the planning record. It was agreed at the time that this contribution related to all development on the STDC site, therefore negating the need to enter into further discussions on this application. In view of the above the development complies with policy in the NPPF, policy LS4 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(h)(k)(l) of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 22 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_22.%20Climate%20change.pdf|Climate Change]] ==== This chapter of the ES describes the existing environment in relation to climate change and details the assessment of the potential impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. The climate change assessment comprises a calculation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions likely to arise from construction and operational activities associated with the proposed development. **Baseline** In establishing the baseline relating to the development a Green House Gas (GHG) Assessment has been carried out along with an assessment of the regional GHG emissions. Table 22.9 of the ES details the CO2 emissions for Redcar and Cleveland region for a period between 2005 and 2018. It is acknowledged that industry and commercial sector was the largest contributing sector for GHG emissions within Redcar and Cleveland. Table 22.9 does illustrate that between 2005 and 2018 CO2 emissions have fallen by 75% mainly due to changes in the area including on Wilton Internarial and the former SSI site. This reduction is larger than that seen across the UK with the average reduction being 35%. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' Consideration of the impact on GHG emissions has been made with regard to the construction phase of the development. These have been set out in Table 22.10 of the ES which considers emissions from construction dredger, construction vessels, construction plant, construction vehicles, construction materials. These are considered to generate 62,532 tonnes during the construction phase. The largest contributor to emissions is the construction materials (58,536) which equates to approx. 94% of total emissions. The construction of the proposed development is anticipated to take approximately three years. The ES states that assuming an even distribution of emissions over the three-year period, construction of the proposed development would contribute less than 1% of emissions within the RCBC region, based upon the most recent figures for 2018. When compared to UK carbon budgets, the emissions would equate to 0.006% of the national budget based on latest figures. The development is therefore not considered likely to compromise the UK’s ability to meet its targets. The ES concludes that GHHG emissions from the construction phase of the project are //not'' considered to be ''significant// in terms of regional or national carbon budgets. '__Operational Phase__' Consideration of the impact on GHG emissions has been made with regard to the operational phase of the development. These have been set out in Table 22.11 of the ES which considers emissions from vessels cruising, vessels hotelling at berth and emissions from cranes. These are considered to generate 51,018 tonnes per year. It is acknowledged within the ES that the primary use of the quay is likely to be the support of the off-shore wind farm industry. Without this development that industry would be required to use another facility to provide the service, therefore the provision of the proposed development only displaces emissions that would be released as part of construction of other projects. The development will also aid the support of the construction of off-shore wind farms helping to address the UK’s carbon intensity of electricity generation. The ES therefore concludes that the impact from the operational emissions from the development are not significant. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' Due to the level of detail currently available with regard to construction strategies there are still a number of unknowns. The ES does however suggest a number of mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce GHG emissions during construction. These are; * reduce quantities of materials required during construction through efficient design, and use materials with a lower embodied GHG intensity where possible * ensure preference for materials that are locally sourced to minimise transport distances * implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan to minimise the number of journeys required during construction * use electrical powered construction plant over fossil fuelled construction plant. While the above may be used to help reduce GHG emissions, some of those emissions are unavoidable such as those within construction materials. '__Operational Phase__' The proposed development will seek to provide shoreside power therefore vessels would not need to operate main or auxiliary engines whilst berthed. It is acknowledged that some vessels may not have the capability to utilise this technology, however those that can utilise it will likely lead to a significant reduction in emissions from berthed vessels. Table 22.11 of the ES details emissions from vessels hotelling at the berth. These vessels could be responsible for 1,397 tonnes per year. With the potential for the above technology to result in a 50% reduction in auxiliary engine use, this could equate to a saving of up to 698 tonnes per year, depending on the carbon intensity of the UK electricity network. It is however acknowledged that reductions in emissions from shipping vessels will be largely driven by wider sector legislation changes, or the uptake or technological improvements within the industry, therefore limiting the potential for this development to address a wider industry matter. **Planning Assessment** Based on the assessment set out in the ES the development raises no issues in terms of climate change that would not be dealt with through the implementation of suitable mitigation measures as set out above. Consideration within the chapter of the ES has been given to the impact of the development with regard to GHG emissions resulting from the development and the way in which these can be mitigated against. The Council within the Local Plan have polices that seek to address climate change. References to these specific polices are made in the ES chapter and are included below; //Policy SD 6 encourages the incorporation of low carbon energy initiatives into developments, particularly as part of major schemes. The policy states that the Council will “actively support community-led renewable energy schemes which are led by, or meet the needs of, local communities. Development of district heating schemes will also be supported.”// //Policy LS 4 states that the Council will “encourage clean and more efficient industry in the South Tees area to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions and risk of environmental pollution; support the development Carbon Capture and Storage to de-carbonise the local economy” and “promote the reduction of transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change”.// RCBC declared a climate emergency in 2019 and have committed to the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland becoming carbon neutral by 2030, taking into account both production and consumption emissions. RCBC are in the process of developing an Environment Strategy which will reflect this commitment, as well as wider environmental priorities for the Borough. These commitments as well as the policy drivers within the Local Plan are considered to align to the aspirations that are set out for the STDC site. It is acknowledged that STDC are in the process of preparing an energy strategy for the wider site which will assist in minimising the overall carbon emissions associated with the proposed development. In view of the above the development complies with National Policy in the NPPF and Policies SD6 and LS4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan. ==== Chapter 23 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_23.%20Use%20of%20natural%20resources.pdf|Use of Natural Resources]] ==== As required by both the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendments) Regulations 2017 and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2017 consideration is required to be given to the use of natural resources. An assessment has been made as part of the ES with regard to the use of natural resources. The ES establishes that the use of natural resources during both construction and operation of the development will be fairly limited and not considered to be significant for a project of the nature proposed. No further assessment of the use of natural resources is therefore proposed as part of the development. ==== Chapter 24 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_24.%20Disaster%20risk.pdf|Disaster Risk]] ==== Within the scoping note prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV in 2020, it established that disaster risks (e.g. earthquakes) are not applicable to the proposed development given its geographic location. It is however recognised that there are a series of pipe tunnels that cross under the Tees estuary linking land within RCBC to land within Stockton Borough Council. These tunnels are within the vicinity of the proposed development, however, the proposed development has been designed to ensure that works are not required above the pipe tunnels and therefore no disaster risk associated with the pipe tunnels is envisaged. It is also acknowledged that there are electricity pylons located upstream of the proposed development, with electricity cables passing over the river channel. Impacts to such infrastructure could lead to disaster risks from a health and safety perspective, however due to the location of the proposed development in relation to the pylons it is considered that any such impacts have been designed out of the scheme. The main disaster risk associated with the development due to its location within/adjacent to the Tees estuary is coastal flooding. Consideration of such risks have been considered within Chapter 20 of the ES with this being appropriately dealt with and therefore not requiring any further assessment of disaster risk. ==== Chapter 25 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_25.%20Health%20risk%20assessment.pdf|Health Risk Assessment]] ==== As required by both the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendments) Regulations 2017 and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2017 consideration has been given to the impact of the development on human health. In the establishment of the EIA regulations detailed above, the general interpretation was that effects of a development on local community health would particularly apply in the combustion, waste and chemicals sectors. It is acknowledged that the proposed development does not involve such activities. Due to the nature and location of the proposed development the health impact assessment associated with the development has therefore been limited to a concise assessment relating to air quality and noise and vibration, with consideration also being given to the findings of the land quality assessment set out within Chapter 8 of the ES. Given the scale of the proposed development, it was not considered necessary to undertake a full human health impact assessment a point that was agreed with the MMO and RCBC. **Potential Effects of Development** '__Construction Phase__' Consideration has been given to the aspects of the development that have the potential to give rise to impacts on human health. During the construction phase of the development these have been identified as construction related noise, construction related air quality reductions and ground related contamination. These matters have been addressed in detail within Chapters 17, 18 and 8 of the ES and have been set out above in the report. With regard to construction related noise, consideration has been given to the impacts on local commercial receptors, with impacts on residential receptors being scoped out prior to the submission of the application due to the location of the development. The assessment of the impacts on the commercial receptors is considered to be negligible as set out within Chapter 17 of the ES. With regard to air quality Chapter 18 of the ES has assessed the potential impacts of the development on the nearest human receptor locations to the development. The assessment has considered the pollutant levels and their exposure to sensitive/vulnerable members of the public including young, elderly, those with pre-existing lung or coronary conditions). The assessment of potential emissions from the construction works concluded that no air quality objective would be breached during the construction phase, and that the proposed development would have no significant air quality effects on human receptors from the following; construction dust and particulate matter, construction traffic or construction phase vessel exhaust emissions. Consideration has also been given to the impacts on construction workers as well as that of those off site. It is acknowledged that the historic use of the site does give rise to the potential for contamination to be present at the site within on-site soils or structures to be demolished. These risks have the potential to be mobilised during construction activities resulting in risks to human health through a range of pathways. It has however been concluded that through the implementation of suitable embedded mitigation in the form of a CEMP, implementation of best practices and use of PPE, the impacts to human health would be negligible to minor adverse in significance. Taking the above into account, the ES concludes that the combined impact to human health from construction activities as a result of noise and air quality disturbance would be //negligible//. '__Operational Phase__' Consideration has been given to the aspects of the development that have the potential to give rise to impacts on human health. During the operational phase of the development these have been identified as operational related noise and air quality reductions and ground related contamination/quality. As detailed above in relation to construction activities these matters have been addressed in detail within Chapters 17, 18 and 8 of the ES and have been set out above in the report. The relevant ES chapters have identified that the operational phase noise and air quality disturbance is predicted to be of negligible significance and not significant respectively due to the nature of the operation and its location. With regard to land quality the ES has also concluded that this considered to be of //negligible// significance. Taking the above into account, the ES concludes that the combined impact to human health from operational activities as a result of noise and air quality disturbance and land quality would be negligible. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Construction Phase__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the development that no mitigation is required and that there would be residual impacts of //negligible// significance. '__Operational Phase__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the development that no mitigation is required and that there would be residual impacts of //negligible// significance. ==== Chapter 26 – [[https://northeastfc.uk/Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084_RHD-ZZ-XX-RP-Z-1100_26.%20Offshore%20disposal%20of%20dredged%20material.pdf|Offshore Disposal of Dredged Material]] ==== The proposed development due to the nature of the works will generate a large volume of dredged sediment. It is predicted that the volume of material that will be generated will be up to 1,800,000m3 from the Tees Estuary. Consideration through the ES has been given to means of disposal of the material, however the only feasible solution at this time is considered to be offshore disposal. **Baseline** In order to inform the assessment of the environmental impacts of the disposal of the sediment offshore, hydrodynamic modelling has taken place, including the area known as Tees Bay C. The results of this modelling has been detailed within Chapter 6 of the ES and has been discussed in detail above in the report. **Potential Effects of Development** The potential impacts from the disposal of the dredged material within Tees Bay C have been assessed within the ES. It has been established that the relevant environmental topics in relation to the disposal are: * Fish populations and fisheries * Benthic ecology * Commercial navigation * Marine mammals''' Each of these individual topic areas are discussed further below. '__Fish populations and fisheries__' Consideration has been given to the impacts on fish population by way of a reduction in water quality and through the smother of existing habitat. The modelling that has been carried out in relation to the resulting sediment plume at the disposal site concludes that there is limited potential for an impact on water quality and therefore any impact within the disposal site and beyond, with seabed deposition predicted to be negligible beyond the boundaries of the Tees Bay C disposal site. Consideration has also been given to the long-term history of Tees Bay C being a licensed disposal site. It has therefore been concluded that the site would be utilised by fish species for feeding, spawning or as a nursery ground, and therefore for these reasons is also unlikely to represent an important fishing ground. Based on the above assessment it is concluded within the ES that there would be negligible impact on fish or fisheries due to the proposed deposition within Tees Bay C. '__Benthic ecology__' Assessment work has previously been undertaken within Tees Bay C and A with regard to dredged material disposal. As part of this assessment consideration was given to the impact of smothering of existing habitats. In order to assess this consideration was given to the species found within the samples. A summary of the findings are set out within Table 26.1 of the ES. The assessment of the disposal site acknowledges that there will be changes to the environment during the disposal process. However the ES concludes; //overall, it is recognised that there would be an impact on the benthic ecology within and adjacent to the disposal site (an area which is designated specifically for the disposal of dredged material), however the dominant species within the disposal site is not sensitive to the effects of smothering and is reported to have an immediate recoverability following smothering. It is therefore concluded that the impact would be of negligible significance.// Consideration has also been given to the spread of invasive species within the disposal site. Survey work was undertaken in 2019 that found 2 individuals of one invasive species while a further species was found within the Tees Estuary, Tees Bay C and Tees Bay A. On this matter the ES concludes; //given the very small number of individuals encountered during the 2019 survey (the results of which have been used as a proxy to inform this EIA in the absence of data at the time of writing), it is concluded that the species are not present at levels of concern within the Tees estuary. Maintenance dredged material from the Tees (which contains both invasive species) has been disposed of at the offshore disposal sites in Tees Bay for many years and will continue into the future. As a result, the disposal of dredged material within Tees Bay C as a result of the proposed scheme would not introduce a further source of potential impact (beyond that which has already occurred from previous and ongoing maintenance dredge disposal operations). Overall, the potential impact would be of negligible significance.// '__Commercial navigation__' Consideration has been given to the potential conflict between the disposal barges and the existing vessel movements within the area. In order to undertake the proposed disposal operation, the TSHD and/or the disposal barges would transport the dredged material from the dredging works site to the disposal site within Tees Bay C. Due to these actions it is recognised that there is potential for a conflict between these vessels and others using the approach channel and the waters within Tees Bay. Due to the nature of the development and the quantum of material to be dredged, it is likely that regular movements of vessels between the dredging site and the disposal site would be required. Consideration has however been given to these movements in the context of the existing number of vessel movements in and out of the Tees Estuary as considered in detail within Chapter 14 of the ES. When the proposed movements are considered in the context of existing movements, the ES concludes that there is no impact predicted. Consideration has also been given to the impact of the deposition of the material and the resulting shallowing of the water depth within the Tees Bay C disposal site. The potential disposal area within Tees Bay C is approx. 294ha (2,940,000m2) with a water depth ranging between 39m and 42m. Given volume of material to be deposited and the area over which the deposition can take place, the ES concludes that there would be no impact in terms of the shallowing of waters and the resulting impact on navigation of vessels. '__Marine mammals__' Consideration has been given to the impact of offshore disposal on marine mammals. These considerations have included; noise disturbance, vessel interactions, changes in water quality and changes to marine mammal prey. The mammals that have been considered in the assessment are harbour porpoise, minke whale, grey deal and harbour seal. With regard to the all the impacts considered as a result for the deposition of material, there are considered to be negligible impacts on marine mammals as set out in Tables 26.4, 26.5, 26.6, 26.7, 26.8 and 26.9. **Mitigation and Residual Effects** '__Fish populations and fisheries__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the deposition of material within the Tees Bay C that no mitigation is required and that there would be a residual impact of negligible significance. '__Benthic ecology__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the deposition of material within the Tees Bay C that no mitigation is required and that there would be a residual impact of negligible significance. '__Commercial navigation__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the deposition of material within the Tees Bay C that no mitigation is required and that there would be no residual impact. '__Marine mammals__' The ES has concluded that due to the proposed impacts from the deposition of material within the Tees Bay C that no mitigation is required and that there would be a residual impact of negligible significance. **Planning Assessment** Matters relating to Offshore Disposal of Dredged Material are not matters that the Local Planning Authority have control over. The Local Planning Authority are responsible for the land-based development up until the mean low water mark. The Local Planning Authority are aware the applicant is pursuing a Marie Licence with the MMO that will be required prior to the implementation of the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the view that matters relating to Offshore Disposal of Dredged Material will be regulated through the Marine Licence and other regulatory regimes. **Cumulative Impact Assessment** A cumulative impact assessment was carried out to consider the potential for environmental impacts as a result of interactions between the proposed development and other consented projects in the locality (the ‘cumulative projects’). The applicant in dialogue with The Council identified a number of projects that required consideration as to the likely cumulative impacts. Table 27.1 of the ES sets out the projects that were considered. Of the projects considered a number of them have been screened out of further consideration with regard to cumulative impacts assessment. The cumulative projects that were screened in for consideration an assessment has been made of each technical topic for potential construction and operational phase impacts. The assessment identified that there were likely to be no significant adverse cumulative impacts. No additional mitigation is proposed beyond that suggested within the ES already and that will be achieved by way of planning conditions attached to this application or other regulatory regimes outside of planning. No evidence has been proffered to suggest this is an incorrect conclusion. **Other matters** **Planning Obligations** Policy SD5 of the Development Plan sets out those developer contributions that may be sought in respect of new developments, this includes the delivery of local employment and training. The application site is located within the STDC area and will be developed on STDC land however, RCBC remain the planning authority and it has been agreed the Council will lead on the delivery of planning obligations. Discussion have taken place between the applicant, the Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority with regard to the provision of a financial contribution with regard to training and employment opportunities. An agreement has been reached between all parties that results in TVCA making financial contributions to the LPA for the matters set out above by way of a letter (27/11/2020) signed by the Chief Executive of TVCA, a copy of which is attached to the planning record for the South Industrial Zone development ([[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0357-ESM|R/2020/0357/ESM]]). The agreement reached in 2020 was for all developments relating to land within the STDC site that are brought forward by the Development Corporation. No further contributions have therefore been sought through this application. **HRA** Natural England advise that the Authority can adopt the HRA as competent as a likely significant effect can be ruled out subject to suitable mitigation. They have suggested that the following mitigation measures should be secured by way of planning conditions: * The Environmental Statement includes a number of measure designed to minimise the potential for impacts on species associated with the designated sites, including noise shrouds on piling rigs, and dredging follow the route of the river, rather than crossing it, to enable passage for marine mammals – these should be secured via condition to ensure they are implemented in full. * The application indicates that an area of SPA habitat will be lost as a result of dredging in front of the new quay. While this habitat does not support significant numbers of SPA and SSSI birds, suitable alternative habitat to offset this loss should be provided through the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan for STDC, and this should be secured via condition. These measures have been secured by way of planning conditions, therefore the recommendation is that the HRA can be adopted by the Local Authority. ===== Conclusions ===== The application for demolition of existing redundant quay structures, capital dredging and development of new quay and associated works (phase 1) is consistent with development plan policy which allocates the area for employment and port related development. In addition, the development is consistent with the STDC Master Plan and South Tees Area SPD and the Tees Valley Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Policies and Sites DPDs. There is therefore no policy objection to the principle of the proposed development. In terms of the detailed assessment of the application the application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment as Schedule 1 development. The background to the development is fully explained along with additional information provided in the Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement. The methodology of the ES is acceptable and is considered a robust document which properly outlines the baselines conditions of the site, the impact of the development of the site and its future operation. The scope of the ES is that which was previously agreed with the LPA and other stakeholders. In terms of mitigation these matters have been addressed through a suite of planning conditions that have been drafted in response to advice offered by statutory consultees and in response to the findings and conclusions of the ES. Further consideration of a number of matters will be addressed though the licencing regime delivered by the Marine Management Organisation. It is acknowledged that throughout the ES adverse impacts will result from the development, however these have been balanced against the positive benefits including the redevelopment of a vacant site, inwards investment to the area, job creation and other associated economic benefits. The Authority therefore on the basis of the expert advice received is confident that there is sufficient environmental information with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures that no significant long term adverse impacts would occur and thus the conclusion is that the requirements of the Regulations have been met. Further as set out in the report above the HRA can be adopted. Taking all of the above into consideration the proposed development is recommended for approval subject to conditions. ===== RECOMMENDATION ===== Taking into account the content of the report the recommendation is to: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.01%20RevA%20Site%20boundary%20phase%201.pdf|1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.01A Site Location Phase 1]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.01%20RevA%20Site%20boundary%20phase%201.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.03%20RevA%20Site%20boundaries.pdf|1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.03A Site plan showing overlap between Phases 1 and 2]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-1305-STDC-PD-SD-10.03%20RevA%20Site%20boundaries.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-EN-DR-EV-1113%20-%20DREDGING%20PLAN.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-EN-DR-EVC-1113_P01 Dredging Plan]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-EN-DR-EV-1113%20-%20DREDGING%20PLAN.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1380_P01.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1380_P01 General Arrangement]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1380_P01.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1383_P01%20Quay%20Plan.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1383_P01 Quay Plan]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1383_P01%20Quay%20Plan.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1384_P01%20Quay%20Sections.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1384_P01 Quay Sections]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1384_P01%20Quay%20Sections.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1385_P01%20Drainage.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1385_P01 Drainage]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1385_P01%20Drainage.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1386_P01%20Electrical%20Services.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1386_P01 Electrical Services]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1386_P01%20Electrical%20Services.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1387_P01%20Mechanical%20Services.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1387_P01 Mechanical Services]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1387_P01%20Mechanical%20Services.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} [[this>Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1388_P01%20Construction%20Sequence.pdf|PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1388_P01 Construction Sequence]] received by the LPA on 09/11/2020 {html}<img src="./Teesworks/Planning/R-2020-0684-ESM/images/R-2020-0684-ESM-PC1084-RHD-SB-DN-DR-C-1388_P01%20Construction%20Sequence.jpg" alt="alt text" width="100%" />{/html} REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP, or any other subsequent variation approved in writing by the Council, will include measures relating to: * Invasive Non-Native Species (‘INNS’) Management Plan * Construction Traffic Management Plan (‘CTMP’) * Construction Waste Management Plan (‘CWMP’) * Materials Management Plan (‘MMP’) * Construction Phase Flood Risk Emergency Plan (‘FREP’) * Details of the control measures to reduce spill of soils during landside excavation * Site Induction Training The development shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To ensure the environmental effects of construction are appropriately managed and the potential risk to human health minimised as far as possible. REASON FOR PRE-COMMENCEMENT: A pre-commencement condition is required as the environmental impact of the development will occur on the commencement of development. //Partial discharge by [[R-2021-0943-CD-Officer Report|R/2021/0943/CD]]// 4. Prior to commencement of construction activities/relevant phase, a programme of site characterisation works is to be submitted to ascertain if contaminants are present in concentrations that could result in pollution to controlled waters. The programme shall include the following components: 1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: * all previous uses * potential contaminants associated with those uses * a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors * potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site. 3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. //Discharge of condition 3 [[R-2021-0943-CD-Officer Report|R/2021/0943/CD]]// 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. REASON: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework. REASON FOR PRE-COMMENCEMENT: A pre-commencement condition is required as the environmental impact of the development will occur on the commencement of development. //Partial discharge of condition 4 (parts 1, 2 and 3) [[R-2021-0855-CD-Officer Report|R/2021/0855/CD]]// 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Northumbrian Water and the Lead Local Flood Authority of the Surface Water Management and Maintenance Plan. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To ensure the development is supported by a suitably designed surface water disposal infrastructure scheme which is appropriately maintained and to minimise the risk flooding. REASON FOR PRE-COMMENCEMENT: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that excavations and groundworks do not compromise the installation of the approved surface water drainage infrastructure. //Granted non-material amendment of condition 5 -[[R-2021-0674-NM-Officer Report|R/2021/0674/NM]]// //Discharge of condition 5 - [[R-2022-0587-CD-Officer Report|R/2022/0587/CD]]// 6. (a) No development shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) for archaeological work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The WSI shall make provision for: - Before development commences, archaeological evaluation of relevant borehole and vibrocore data - Before development commences, and taking into account the evaluation where relevant, an agreed site monitoring strategy that provides for interpretation and recording of areas of expected archaeological sensitivity, and for any unexpected discoveries of archaeologically significant deposits or structures - The systematic recording by photographic and photogrammetric means (including drone survey where appropriate) of structures to be demolished (including old jetties, pumping and custom houses) - Reasonable notification to the local planning authority of commencement and completion of archaeological work - Details of staff involvement in carrying out of archaeological work, and their qualifications and responsibilities - The timetable for completing any post-excavation assessment, archiving and report (b) The development shall not without the prior written approval of the local planning authority be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved WSI. REASON: The site may contain remains of archaeological interest, which should be recorded before they are destroyed. REASON FOR PRE-COMMENCEMENT: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that no remains are disturbed or otherwise compromised by site excavation of other ground works. //Discharge of condition 6 - [[R-2022-0145-CD-Officer Report|R/2022/0145/CD-Officer Report]]// 7. Part A) No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Assessment is submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The assessment will: - Identify and measure biodiversity unit loss (in habitats and river units) resulting both directly and indirectly from the approved development. Any subsequent variations to this assessment, shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority Part B) Following the Biodiversity Assessment, and within 12 months of the grant of this planning permission, an Environment and Biodiversity Strategy shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority which confirms the approach to ensuring biodiversity loss (identified in Part A) is to be mitigated within the development site, and where demonstrated not to be feasible, to be compensated for offsite, together with the mechanisms for its provisions and on-going management. The Strategy shall include the following: - The details of any new and enhanced biodiversity created on site, relevant to this development site; - The details of compensatory habitat where onsite mitigation is demonstrated to not be feasible, relevant to this development site; - The details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies, relevant to this development site; - The details of long-term maintenance regimes and management responsibilities, relevant to this development site. The Strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The identified mitigation and, where demonstrated to be necessary and feasible, compensation, shall be provided in accordance with the Strategy and any subsequent agreed amendments to it, and shall be implemented within 12 months of operation. REASON: This approach is supported by paragraphs 170 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which recognise that the planning system should conserve and enhance the environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. REASON FOR PRE-COMMENCEMENT: A pre-commencement condition is required as the impact of the development will occur on the commencement of development 8. Prior to the occupation of development, a Lighting Strategy will be submitted to approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter development will be implanted in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory implementation of the approved scheme in the interests of the visual amenity of the locality, the appearance of the development and impacts on ecological receptors. 9. Prior to the commencement of piling works, a Piling Risk Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any mitigation measures identified as part of the assessment shall be implemented throughout the construction phase of the development, unless agreed in writing. //Discharge of condition 9 - [[R-2021-0943-CD-Officer Report|R/2021/0943/CD]]// REASON: To ensure the satisfactory implementation of the approved scheme in the interests of the amenity of the locality. 10. In order to provide shelter for small and juvenile fish, ‘verti-pools’ shall be incorporated into the quay face at different heights within the tidal frame. REASON: To help to offset the loss of the existing structures on fish. 11. During the construction phase, a continuous flood defence line should be retained, using the existing, revised or a combined defence line (i.e. quay) such that a continued standard of protection will be provided throughout construction that is comparable with the existing. REASON: To minimise the risk of flooding during the construction period. 12. The construction material for use in the development must be specified taking into consideration aggressive ground conditions at the design/ construction phase. The assessment methodology set out in BRE Special Digest 1 (20015) should be adopted to determine concrete classification in the development. REASON: to ensure the integrity of the structures. 13. The following measures must be adopted as part of the proposed scheme: - marking and lighting of overhanging blades; and, - introduction of a safety zone in the vicinity of overhead cables whereby vessels may not enter if they or their load exceeds the given height restrictions. REASON: To reduce collision risk and delays to shipping. 14. There shall be no site vegetation clearance between March to the end of August unless the project ecologist has first undertaken a checking survey immediately prior to the clearance and confirms in writing to the Local Planning Authority that no active nests are present. REASON: To conserve protected species and their habitat in accordance with policy N4 of the Local Plan. 15. During construction and operation, works at the site can take place 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. REASON: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the terms of the Environmental Statement. ===== SUGGESTED REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION ===== The application has been supported by an Environmental Statement and additional supporting documentation. The Authority on the basis of the expert advice received is confident that there is sufficient environmental information with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures that no significant long term adverse impacts would occur and thus the conclusion is that the requirements of the Regulations have been met. ===== STATEMENT OF COOPERATIVE WORKING ===== Statement of Co-operative Working: The Local Planning Authority considers that the application as originally submitted is a satisfactory scheme and therefore no negotiations have been necessary. ===== INFORMATIVES ===== Informative Note: Future construction contractors and occupiers of the site are advised that contact should, where feasible, be made with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to explore the opportunities of employment and training programmes in the local area. Case Officer Mr D Pedlow Principal Planning Officer David Pedlow 18 March 2021 Delegated Approval Signature Claire Griffiths Development Services Manager 18/03/2021