Network

Network May 2018

Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/976659

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 24 of 35

NETWORK / 25 / MAY 2018 new lines and substa- tions where the existing transmission infrastruc- ture cannot be upgraded to meet transmission security standards; o Seeking to avoid nation- ally and internationally designated areas where new infrastructure is required; and o Minimising the e ects of new infrastructure on other sites valued for their amenity. • Selected route corridor (Maps 4 and 5): A consultation on the preferred route corridors was carried out with IPs. There are generally a number of potential route alignments within developers preferred corridor. • Route alignment (Maps 6 and 7): A† er this consultation the developer's preferred route alignment is chosen and forms the basis of the DCO application. Landscape and visual e ects are the principal drivers in the rout- ing of OHLs. NPS EN-5 states at paragraphs 2.8.8-2.8.9 that where there are "serious concerns" about the potential adverse landscape and visual e ects of a proposed overhead line mitiga- tion may be appropriate. Where the potential pres- ence of an OHL was considered to create a "serious concern", which could have equated to a highly signi™ cant (major) adverse impact then mitigation in the form of undergrounding should be considered. The developers concluded that undergrounding was only required to mitigate what would otherwise be highly signi™ cant (major) adverse impacts. Alternatives proposed by interested parties: In their representations, the IPs suggested their own alterna- tives to the developers preferred alignment, namely: 1. Undergrounding of the whole route – proposed at consulta- tion outset; 2. Utilising alternative technol- would clearly be outweighed by the extra economic, social and environmental impacts. In relation to the alternative 2, the developers evidence per- suaded PINS that some of the alternatives were not plausible because the IPs did not "provide the evidence for their suitabil- ity" (NPS EN-1 paragraph 4.4.3). The associated additional costs and potential landscape impacts of these alternative would not be proportionate nor be a cost e ective option. PINS recommended that rerouting and under grounding alternative 3 and 4 be included in some cases in the recom- mended DCOs. Conclusions The consideration of reason- able alternatives, when based on a clear design process that compares options in a robust and transparent manner, and in collaboration with stakeholders, can provide the foundation for more positive environmental outcomes through good design. Based on the reviews un- dertaken it can be concluded that IPs have been engaged in a transparent manner at an early stage (more than two years prior to the submission of the application) and iteratively (three rounds of consultation) by the developers. However, some stakeholders still failed to appreciate how to engage with the process of proposing alternatives. So the key messages from this review is that if IPs wish to have an alternative considered in an examination they need to: • Engage in the pre-application consultation process; • Provide substantive infor- mation on their proposed alternative; • Ensure alternatives proposed are "reasonable" i.e. in accord- ance with reason or sound thinking, be credible and ap- propriate for that project. For developers they have to ensure that all alternatives proposed have: • Undergone some form of consultation that may have in£ uenced the alternatives; • Some form of comparison between alternatives; and • Additional forms of mitiga- tion that are acknowledged alongside the alternatives. ogy – these were raised in the course of the examina- tions e.g. upgrading existing electricity networks, utilising roads; 3. Rerouting and; 4. Undergrounding of sections of the route. Under the IP (ElA) Regulations 2017 there is no requirement to assess all potential alternatives, only a requirement to provide a review of those alternatives that have actually been considered in the Environmental Statement (ES). In relation to alternative 1, undergrounding of the whole route, the key considerations were: • The landscape in which the proposed development would be set; • The additional cost of under- grounding; and • The potential environmental and archaeological conse- quences. Whilst the technical di¥ cul- ties associated with total undergrounding alternative are surmountable, the devel- opers persuaded PINS that the bene™ ts of such an option ©Crown copyright 2018 Ordnance Survey. Media 074/18

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Network - Network May 2018