our FoE group see the EIA Screening by the Vale Council last April as completely wrong. They failed to require information on the future of the whole of the site, including the seawalls, ash mound and nature reserve.
The power stations have completely changed the whole of the site, including the historic Aberthaw port and river Thaw estuary. On pulling out, they have to put this artificial environment into sustainable condition, if not some approximation of the original green fields. Quarries have to come up with an afteruse plan - why don't the Vale Council require one here?
Request for an EIA Screening Direction by the Welsh Minister FoE letter of 23 Nov.2021
WG Planning Directorate, Decisions Branch
Demolition of Aberthaw Power Station and withdrawal from the site
Aberthaw Power Station, West Aberthaw, Barry
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017
Dear Mr Litherland,
The Vale Council gave a screening decision (28 April 2021) on demolition 2021/00162/SC1 without considering all parts of the site and the planned withdrawal from the site. They have subsequently approved demolition of the Ash plant 2021/00608/PND and the Carbon-capture plant 2021/00288/PND.
This the demolition and withdrawal from the site is being considered piecemeal despite being part of a single development. RWE did put the site up for sale, but withdrew as, it seems, the liabilities far exceed the site value. The way-out proposal to use the site for a Fusion Reactor came to nought. The company apparently now intends to withdraw from the site without assessing the longer term liabilities, which could fall on the community.
Faulty Screening decision by VoG Council
The Council's Screening report (see the file 2021/00162/SC1) said the project is
EIA Schedule 2, Part 10 ‘Infrastructure projects’, (b) ‘Urban development projects’
This was wrong.
It is an amendment to an EIA Schedule 1 part 2 (a) Thermal Power Stations.
and thus a project under Sch 2: 13 (Any change to... a Sch 1 development)
It follows that in your new screening, you have to consider whether
The development as changed or extended may have significant adverse effects on the environment.
RWE presented no information on the future management of the site, except for saying they intend to leave the seawater intake and discharge structures in place. Likewise the seawalls , artificial river channel and bridge, site railway bridges, lagoon created by cutting off the old harbour, and ash mound with its drainage would be left in place, but unmentioned in RWE's application.
We consider that in the absence of information, your screening will have to conclude that the changes may have significant adverse effects on the environment.
Let us point out
The environmental sensitivity of the location
The coast is vulnerable to erosion from the sea; the stones on the beach on the west section of the seawall need to be regularly pulled up the beach by JCB. The seawall was overtopped by the sea last winter.
Rising sea levels and storm surges will increasingly overtop the seawall under the Welsh Climate Change predictions.
The river mouth is tidal, causing flooding upstream. If the channel is not cleared, storm surges will block it with stones and cause flooding upstream a km or two.
The Council's screening report failed to see any environmental sensitivity of the location.
Let's point out relevant criteria in EIA Schedule 3
(e) pollution and nuisances; covers the natural storm processes blocking the river channel and worsening flooding upstream
(f) the risk of accidents and/or disasters including those caused by climate change ;
covers the sea overtopping the seawall and destroying it in time. It also covers the ash-mound slipping due to long-term erosion and water penetration (long-term issues akin to a coal tip)
(b) the cumulation with other development; covers the issues unmentioned by RWE consequent on neglect of
# aftercare of the 65metre ash mound
# maintenance of the seawall or managed retreat of the western section
# ongoing management of the artificial river Aberthaw channel
# management of the biodiversity area and SSSI of the old Harbour (blocked by the power station diversion of the pre-1960 river and construction of the seawall)
# the seawater intake tower and discharge structure.
# the site railway bridges.
Let us point out the complexity criterion in Schedule 3
3 (d) the intensity and complexity of the impact;
It's clear the issues in this case involving potential coastal retreat, climate change and restoration of a quasi-natural sustainable environment after 65 years of power stations are unusually complex. They also require the Welsh Minister's planning section to consult on and reach a properly broard view of the issue, which the single VoG case officer could not be expected to do.
We look forward to your Screening Direction, based on the information in the VoG Planning file 2021/00162/SC1.
