EDF fail to submit adequate information to the planning committee at WSDC

Has anybody taken a look at the information that is missing from EDFs application to WSDC for preliminary works? It makes for very interesting reading....


So far EDF's tactics have included:
Failing to supply required information
Falsifying data? through the submission of incorrect information


So far EDF have failed to provide information (as required by law) on these areas:
Transport

• EDF have failed to consider all of the road junctions that the local authority via the orginal scoping report, indicated would need consideration
• Failed to carry out any senstivity testing that would indicate the change in the cumulative impacts of traffic in the event that there are changes in the development timeline
• Inadequate information on jobs relating to the highways aspect particulalry as it relates to the junctions mentioned above, as well as contingency built into the jobs numbers.
• Lack of information on traffic flows a network diagram of hourly and weekly traffic movements is required.
• Targets for car occupancy, minibus provision cycle and rail usage are inadequately justified and require further use.
• Further information on trip generation behaviour such as number of visits to the site and how their travel will be managed, as well as the likely orgin of the workers and HGV's.
• Assessment of annual average daily traffic EDF have submitted information that WSDC knows is incorrect, and that there are other areas of data that they have submitted that will be relinat on this incorrect data.
• Failure to provide data on (or even carry out) essential modelling of the proposed developments potential impact on the local transport infrastructure
• lack of justification for workforce and freight required, no freight management plan
• with respect to traffic movements through Cannington, the council don't quite believe EDFs assertion that they are going to reduce the amount of deliveries to the site during peak pedestrian times from 53 between 8am-9am & 34 between 15:00 - 16:00 down to two per minute they want a construction management plan so they can see how they are going to do this
• In a bid to avoid some roads needing to be assessed EDF have set arbritrary thresholds regarding traffic movements for assessing pedestrian delay i,e how much pesky pedestrians will hold up traffic if there is no pedestrian crossing on the road, the council believe that EDFs actions are contrary to the guidance published on these matters...

Terrestrial Ecology & Ornithology

• EDF have failed to include specific measures relating to the work that they would have to do installing the outfall pipe, building an access to this will trash SSSI UK BAP habitiat, and these works would not be fenced in.
• Failure to submit a bat report with the environmental statement.
• Failed to take into account feeding habits of other important bats who whilst living just outside of the site boundaries, these bats forage in the trees on the site that EDF want to trash. The land on which the bats live is SPA/SAC and so more consideration should have been given to these sites.

Noise & Vibration

• No indication of how they will mitigate the noise from the development in the event that 4m stockpiles of topsoil cannot be acheived, either practically or in terms of the programme (these piles of earth from excavation is what they are proposing will mitigate the noise!).

Landscape & visual impact 

• Averaging of receptors - in other words EDF have decided visal amnity is the view from the footpath as opposed to being that which is provided by at specific locations such as schools, houses etc.
• the limited number of schemes provided so far fails to adequately explain how the range of planting strategies and anticipated height and growth rates achieved after 3-5 & 10 years.
• Lack of information about what about the impact on the visual impact & screening strategy would be if the building works are delayed.
• Although EDF refer to timeframes involved in establishing structure and screen planting, over 3-5yrs and 20 yrs EDF are not clear about the timeframes that they have used to determine assessment scores, this is required information.

Historic Environment

• lack of detailed description of Pixies Mound and it's setting and the contribution of the setting to the monuments significance, this is necessary because of the impact of roundabouts and other infrastructure on the monument.

Socio-Economic Impact

• further information is required - a plan for the provision of enterprise training and small scale construction for people wnating to work in the mainstream construction industry, this is neccessary to show that mitigation is feasible and deliverable and what contingency measures might be available in the event that the mitgation was not achievable,
• no information provided about shift working patterns, the size of the peak workforce, and disturbance to the community will be greatly affected by the management of shift patterns, further information is required about proposals for shift arrangements, code of conduct & zero tolerance policies.

In fact there are another 7 pages of information so I think rather than trying to summarise the rest of it here, I'm going to put a link to the document so you can all look yourself, then I can get on with putting in my submission to the council about it which I'll put up here when I can. 

The deadline has been extended until the 31st May so please get writing telling WSDC why they shouldnt consent to these works.