Our Ref: CE120061010298-1/1 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Your Ref: 01/05/1 584
Date: 03 February 2006

Assistant Director (Planning)
Environment Directorate
Lancashire County Council
Guild House
Cross Street
Preston
Lancashire
PR1 8RD

Dear Sir/Madam

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HIGHWAY (COMPLETION OF HEYSHAM TO M6 LINK) AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HIGHWAYS LAND TO THE NORTH OF LANCASTER
THE ROUTE OF THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY STARTS AT THE EASTERN END OF THE A683 HEYSHAM TO THE M6 LINK PHASE I AND THEN RUNS IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO CONNECT WITH THE M6 AT JUNCTION 34

Thank you for referring the above application, which was received on 5 January 2006.

The Agency has considered the content of the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application, and at this time we OBJECT to the proposed development as submitted on the following grounds:

1. Flood Risk

The Environment Agency OBJECTS to the proposed application on the grounds that it is not accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) as required by PPG 25.

Parts of site are located in Flood Zone 3, which is the high risk zone and is defined for mapping purposes by the Agency’s Flood Zones. Flood Zone 3 refers to land where the indicative annual probability of flooding is 1 in 100 years or less from river sources (i.e. it has a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year) or 1 in 200 years or less from tidal/coastal sources (i.e. a 0.5% or greater chance in any given year). The ES does not include any information relating to the potential flood risk implications associated with the erection of the new road bridge across the River Lune, adjacent to the existing M6 crossing.

If you intend to approve the application contrary to our objection, paragraph 65 of PPG25 advises that you should re-consult the Agency in order to explain why and to give us the opportunity to make further representations. If you refuse the planning application and the applicant lodges an appeal, we would be prepared to support you and provide evidence at any public inquiry or informal hearing.

The River Lune is designated Main River. Therefore any works in, over or within 8 metres of the bank top of the watercourse require the prior formal consent of the Environment Agency under Section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991 or the Agency Bylaws. Please note that no works will be permitted that may exacerbate the risk of flooding in this area.

Any works to the non-main river watercourses within or adjacent to the route of the proposed road which involve infilling, diversion, culverting or which may otherwise restrict flow, will also require the prior formal Consent of the Environment Agency under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Culverting other than for access purposes is unlikely to receive Consent, without full mitigation for loss of flood storage and habitats.

Details of any proposed new surface water outfalls, which should be constructed entirely within the bank profile, must also be submitted to the Development Control Engineer for approval in accordance with the Land Drainage Act 1991.

To discuss the required consents, please contact the Development Control Engineer for the area, Mr J C Welsby on 01772 714016.

2. Aquatic Environment & Ecology

In relation to the aquatic environment and the ecology of the area, having considered the content of the ES, we OBJECT to the proposal for the following reasons:

a) Insufficient Information

Insufficient information has been provided to allow us to fully consider the impact of the proposals. In order to comment fully, we will need to see the following information:

• A stream within the Morecambe College grounds will be realigned to allow the road to cross the playing fields. No details of the design of the realigned stream have been submitted, or details of how the biodiversity value of the watercourse will be protected and enhanced. The length of new watercourse should equal that which will be lost and/or culverted. In addition, this watercourse has not been surveyed as part of the River Corridor or River Habitat surveys. A survey will be necessary before works commence to ensure that any important features, habitats or species are identified and can be translocated or recreated in the new watercourse.

• Details of the design of the sections of Howgill Brook which are to be realigned and deculverted have not been provided. We request that these details are submitted for our consideration.

• Clarification is needed over the treatment of the downstream section of the watercourse to the east of Kellet Lane. The ES states that this watercourse will be severed and the southern portion will dry up. In other sections of the ES, there is mention of installing pumps to recirculate water which will allow the watercourse to remain wet. If the watercourse will be left to dry up it will be necessary to create an equivalent section of open watercourse, or a pond of an equivalent size at an alternative location.

• It is unclear how much of Long Bank Brook (located at the southern M6 entry/exit complex) will be lost because of the works. Some sections of the ES say that the watercourses here will be protected, whilst the plans show a loss of two sections under the southbound slip road. Clarification of this, and associated mitigation, needs to be provided.

• Details of the proposed River Lune crossing are not examined sufficiently in the ES. There is no mention in the technical appendices of the impact of the “possible reprofiling of the bank and installation of scour protection” shown on Drawing number 11 063/P/B/RL1. Section 9.5.6 of the Ecology Section of the ES says that around 25 metres of the Lune will be impacted at the crossing point. This does not fit with the drawing which shows the bridge itself as being approximately 30 metres wide even without any bank protection. Similarly, there is no assessment of the geomorphological impact of the piers, or of the shading impact on the aquatic environment caused by the bridge structure.

• There is no assessment of the impacts of artificial lighting on the river and its corridor. Artificial lighting disrupts the natural diurnal rhythms of a range of wildlife using/inhabiting the river and its corridor habitat. The river channel with its wider corridor should be considered as Intrinsically Dark Areas and treated as recommended under the Institute of Lighting Engineers ‘Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution’. Lighting will also affect the ability of anglers to catch fish. A lighting study should be undertaken to establish what impacts may occur, and mitigation and compensation for potential damage be designed.

• The information provided in the River Corridor Survey only included an interpretation of the results. In order for us to make informed comments, the full survey results will need to be provided.

• The Environment Agency is concerned with the data provided in the Flowing Freshwater Invertebrates and Pond Surveys. The methodology used to obtain BMWP scores will result in only whole number scores. The BMWP scores provided in the survey contained fractions. The records have not been calculated properly and we can not therefore assess the information accurately. We require that this information is resubmitted in accordance with standard BMWP methodology.

• Appendix 6 of the Pond Survey does not take into account the loss of ditches, and therefore the magnitude of effects pre and post mitigation can not be seen. The impacts on ditches needs to be assessed and mitigated/compensated accordingly.

b) Insufficient Mitigation and Compensation

The proposed scheme will have negative impacts on various ecological receptors and whilst a section of watercourse at Howgill Brook will be deculverted, we do not consider that this will compensate for the overall loss of watercourses and their associated habitats through culverting, hard engineering and habitat damage along the entire route. The following negative environmental impacts will need to be mitigated/compensated for in order to demonstrate to us that there will be no net loss to biodiversity.

• The proposed culverts along the existing open watercourses which run parallel to each side of an access track at Hadrian Junction (see 4.3.8 of Volume 1 Part A of the Environmental Statement) will require a similar length of open water recreating in compensation for that lost.
• The extension of the culvert at Hadrian junction (see 4.3.10 of Volume 1 Part A of the Environmental Statement) will result in the loss of open watercourse. This will need to be recreated.
• The upstream section of ditch DN3 may be lost. If this is the case it will need to be compensated for.
• Ditches DN1 and DN2 will be either wholly or partially lost. Equivalent lengths of ditches will need to be created to compensate for this loss.
• Howgill Brook will be deculverted in one section but other sections are to be culverted and realigned. This will result in a net loss of open channel. This will need to be compensated for. The associated wetland habitat in the valley bottom is of particular floristic interest and will require mitigation and like for like compensation for loss.
• If pumping is not used to recirculate water compensation will be required for the loss of the southern portion of the watercourse east of Kellet Lane. Regardless of the treatment of the southern section a length of this watercourse will be lost under the new road. This will need to be compensated for.
• Two lengths of Cote Beck adjacent to the northern slip road will be culverted if the scheme proceeds. This loss of open watercourse will require compensation.
• Two sections of Long Bank Brook are shown as being lost on the plans. These watercourses should be culverted rather than filled in (where appropriate) and the loss of open channel should be compensated for.
• Once information is received about the proposed bridge crossing the River Lune suitable mitigation and/or compensation will be required. This cannot be quantified at the moment due to the Environment Agency’s objection to the current design of the bridge itself.
• Appendix 5 of the Vascular Plants Survey does not list any compensation for the loss of species rich meadows. This will be necessary, as the impacts can not be mitigated.

It is expected that habitats to be lost will be replaced like for like, and that best practice in the design of damaging features’ such as culverts will be followed.

c) Proposed Road Bridge over the River Lune

The proposed bridge over the Lune has the potential to cause geomorphological and ecological damage to the watercourse and its banks. This damage is avoidable as the bridge could be redesigned so as to minimise its impact on the river and its corridor.

The current proposed western pier is skewed to the main flow due to its positioning in the river on the outside of the bend. This will create scour of the bed adjacent to and downstream of the piers. The pier will also cause scour of the bank and would require significant bank protection at the location and up and downstream.

The river corridor at this location is in a broadly natural condition with soft vegetated banks. It provides an unobstructed corridor to wildlife (such as otters) travelling along the watercourse. It has been designated as a Biological Heritage Site because of its ecological importance.

River corridors provide for the terrestrial life stages of aquatic insects, for nesting of water-related bird species, and for bank dwelling small mammals. Additionally they bring more general benefits by linking a number of habitats and afford species a wider and therefore more robust and sustainable range of linked habitats. Such corridors are highlighted in PPS9 as being an important natural resource. It states that these corridors should be protected from fragmentation. Should this bridge be built their will be the need for extensive bank protection works which would destroy this habitat, contrary to Policy El 7 of the Lancaster District Local Plan

The proposed bridge also fails to pay adequate regard to the role of the river in terms of landscape. It has not been designed in sympathy with its surroundings and as such detracts from the visual amenity of the area. The current M6 road bridge does ‘fit’ into the landscape and the new bridge should be designed in a similarly sympathetic way. As mentioned in Section 17.2.20 of the Environmental Statement “good quality transport infrastructure should complement or enhance the character of its local area”.

In order for us to remove our objection, the bridge should be redesigned so that there are no piers in the watercourse. This will eliminate the geomorphological problems outlined above and prevent the damage to the river corridor which would occur should bank protection be employed.

3. Ground Contamination

Paragraph 16.1.8 of the ES makes reference to a site investigation report in Volume 3, Part G. Volume 3, Part G was not included in the application details submitted for consultation, so we are unable to comment at this time on the land contamination aspects of the scheme. As and when this document is submitted, we will be in a position to make further comments in relation to the impact of the proposal on controlled waters.

If you have any questions relating to the above concerns, please do not heiste to contact us.

A copy of this letter has been sent to the applicant/agent

Yours faithfully

PHILIP CARTER

Planning Liaison Officer

CC: STEVEN MCCREESH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT)

Environment Agency
P0 Box 519, South Preston, Lancashire, PR5 8GD, Tel no: 01772 714219, Fax no: 0l772 311303