xxxxxx - Tidal Lagoon Power

www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com

xxxxxxxxxxxx

www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com

VOLUME 5: FOLDER 1

Consultation ReportChapter 4. PHASE 1B: EIA scoping

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay – Consultation Report Chapter 4 – Phase1B: EIA Scoping Page 4- 1

Consultation Report – Chapter 4

4 PHASE 1B: EIA scoping ........................................................................................... 2

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 2

4.2 Scoping process ....................................................................................................... 2

4.3 Scoping Opinion ...................................................................................................... 3

Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion ........................................................... 3 4.3.1

Natural Resources Wales Scoping Opinion ...................................................... 8 4.3.2

Summary ........................................................................................................ 12 4.3.3



4 PHASE 1B: EIA scoping

4.1 Introduction

4.1.0.1 As set out in Chapters 1 and 3 above, consultation reports submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as part of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application must include: what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008; any relevant responses to that consultation; and the account taken of any relevant responses. By its very nature, non-statutory consultation is not regulated in this way. However, these requirements were used as a template to inform the planning and reporting of all non-statutory consultation set out below.

4.1.0.2 Phase 1, non-statutory consultation in respect of the Project was undertaken from March 2011 to June 2013 and comprised three phases (1A, 1B and 1C). The second phase 1B of this non-statutory consultation is reported here in Chapter 4 under the title “EIA scoping”, commencing in October 2012 and ending in March 2013. In parallel and throughout this period, TLSB embarked on site surveys, viability testing and power optimisation work which informed the consultation process and vice versa.

4.1.0.3 The design of the Project as a generating station is dependent on its purpose to hold back water prior to its controlled release. Under Schedule 1 Regulation 15 (Dams and other installations designed for the holding back or permanent storage of water exceeding 10 million cubic metres) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (2009 No. 2263) (the ‘EIA Regulations’) and the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required as part of the application for a DCO and ML. Schedule 2 Regulation 3(h) of these regulations (installations for hydroelectric energy production) is also engaged. It is therefore considered that the Project constitutes Schedule 1 development.

4.1.0.4 Pursuant to Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, TLSB submitted an EIA Scoping Report and requested scoping opinions from both the Planning Inspectorate and Natural Resources Wales.

4.2 Scoping process

4.2.0.1 Defining the scope of the EIA up to submission of the Scoping Report was integral to the consultation process described above in Chapter 3 and is not repeated here. However key principles, actions and dates in the formal process of defining the scope of the EIA are summarised below for clarity

4.2.0.2 To facilitate initial feedback, the EIA Scoping Report was structured to:

i. Provide an overview of the proposed Project. ii. Describe the proposed structure of the Environmental Statement (ES).



iii. Outline the content of the ES chapters. For each environmental subject area: an overview of the existing environment was provided and the available existing baseline data was identified; the need and scope of further survey work was given where appropriate; and the scope of the proposed assessment was outlined.

iv. Provide a summary of survey works associated with the EIA process.

4.2.0.3 The EIA Scoping Report was formally submitted to the Inspectorate on 15 October 2012. The Inspectorate provided their EIA Scoping Opinion on 21 November 2012. The Scoping Opinion formally established the Project’s statutory consultees under s42(1)(a). Both documents are available for review on the Inspectorate’s website, in the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay section, under ‘pre-application documents’1. All responses to the Planning Inspectorate’s consultation on TLSB’s Scoping Report were tabulated, and the account taken of each response is presented in Appendix 4.1 to this Report. The Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion, arising from its consultation, is summarised in section 4.3 (below) with notes on how TLSB has had regard to that Opinion.

4.2.0.4 The same EIA Scoping Report was formally submitted to the Marine Consents Unit (MCU) of the Welsh Government on 28 November 2012. The MCU provided their EIA Scoping Opinion on 25 March 2013. Shortly afterwards, in April 2013, the MCU was incorporated into Natural Resources Wales (NRW) which has been a consultee on the Project ever since. For ease of reference, TLSB has referred only to NRW below.

4.2.0.5 NRW’s Scoping Opinion is not available online so is provided for reference in Appendix 4.2 to this Report. The Scoping Opinion, and the account taken of each response by TLSB, is summarised below in section 4.3.

4.2.0.6 Following the scoping process, the chapters of the EIA were commissioned to independent specialists in accordance with the agreed scope and work commenced accordingly.

4.3 Scoping Opinion

Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion 4.3.1

4.3.1.1 This section summarises the Secretary of State’s (SoS) comments that form part of the opinion issued by the Planning Inspectorate, and TLSB’s response to these comments. This is presented under the themes presented below.

4.3.1.2 Description of development: The SoS commented that the figures provided in the Report were of a low resolution with insufficient labelling. It was advised that the ES should contain a clear description of development and the land-take both on- and offshore. The SoS stated that the location of receptors referenced in the Report should also be clarified. This clarification should

1 http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/wales/tidal-lagoon-swansea-bay/?ipcsection=docs

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/wales/tidal-lagoon-swansea-bay/?ipcsection=docs



include historic features and residential areas in the vicinity of the development.

4.3.1.3 The SoS commented that the Report did not set out specifically which elements of the Project were considered integral and therefore consented in the DCO. The SoS commented that details of the infrastructure required for “stepping up” of the electricity for 132kV transmission should be included in the Report. It was recommended that further specific details of the turbine location and elements such as the proposed trash screens should be included in the ES. Details of construction materials and waste were also recommended for inclusion in the ES.

4.3.1.4 The SoS welcomed the flexibility of the Project at the time of the Report, as proposals were to be shaped by pre-application consultation. In relation to the cable, it was highlighted that the route should be defined within the ES including corridors required for access and works. In terms of proposed access, the opinion stated that construction access and the proposed method of transporting materials should be included in the ES. It also stated that access arrangements for pedestrians and vehicles should take into account variations in weather conditions, access for emergency vehicles and health and safety.

4.3.1.5 The SoS’ opinion stated that a construction programme should be set out in the ES. The submission of an outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is also recommended. The opinion highlights that the ES should also set out assessment of the type and volumes of dredged material used or dredged in the construction of the Project.

4.3.1.6 The opinion stated that the operation and decommissioning of the scheme should also be included in the assessment. It is also stated that the extent of impacts on coastal processes as a result of decommissioning should be assessed.

4.3.1.7 TLSB comment: The figures in the submitted ES are high quality and the location of receptors is clarified in the relevant chapters. Chapter 4 of the ES provides details on all elements of the Project. The position of the cable, proposed access and considerations of public access, health and safety are considered in Chapter 4 and assessed in Chapter 15 of the ES.

4.3.1.8 A construction programme is set out in Chapter 4 of the ES and impacts of construction are assessed in each chapter of the ES. The CEMP is appended to Chapter 4 of the ES and presented at Document 8.3 of the Application. The extent and volume of dredged material is presented in Chapter 4 of the ES and assessed in the relevant chapters.

4.3.1.9 The construction, operation and proposed decommissioning phases are all assessed in the relevant chapters of the ES.



4.3.1.10 General comments: The SoS stated that TLSB should undertake proper consultation with prescribed consultees in order to agree wherever possible the surveys carried out to support the assessment.

4.3.1.11 The SoS did not agree to the matters assumed to be scoped out of the ES (an assumption made on the basis that they were not included in the Report). These matters were: impacts on Registered Historic Landscapes; land quality; hydrology and flood; and noise and vibration.

4.3.1.12 The SoS suggested that clarity should be provided regarding how consultation has influenced the extent and scope of the consultation undertaken to inform the Scoping Report. It was also suggested that the applicant makes clear how consultation influenced the assessment in the ES, submitting statements of common ground where possible. It was advised that study areas and receptors could be shown on plans in the ES, and that baseline years should be stated.

4.3.1.13 TLSB comment: Proper consultation took place from the inception of the Project as demonstrated in Chapter 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this Report. Those matters assumed to be scoped out have been included for assessment in the ES. The Consultation Report, and where relevant the ES, sets out how the consultation has shaped the assessment of the scheme. Clarity is provided on receptors and exact baselines in the ES.

4.3.1.14 Coastal processes: The SoS suggested more clarity on the scope and methodology of the geophysical surveys carried out and the extent to which this had been agreed with consultees. It was suggested that the assessment also considers Baglan Dunes, Aberavon and Margam Burrows system, and addresses mitigation measures concerning sediment build-up highlighted by Neath Port Authority. Impacts on port safety as a result of increased waves should also be presented. It was suggested the assessment should also consider loss of sand on surrounding beaches.

4.3.1.15 TLSB comment: Clarity on the methodology and scope of the supporting surveys has been provided. The receptors and impacts suggested have been included in the assessment. Mitigation measures are presented as part of Chapter 6 and also Chapter 23 of the ES.

4.3.1.16 Marine water quality: The SoS suggested that the assessment utilises a 3D model, noting that a 2D model had been agreed with some consultees. It was suggested that the assessment consider the potential for increased turbidity and risk from spills and hazardous substances. Outfalls extra to the Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) outfall that is considered should also be included in the assessment. The impacts arising from the impoundment of the DCWW outfall were suggested for careful consideration and should be agreed with consultees.

4.3.1.17 TLSB comment: In agreement with consultees (including DCWW), water quality is assessed on the basis of a 2D model. TLSB is satisfied, following



consultation, that this forms the basis of a robust assessment of the impacts of the Project on water quality. The impacts suggested have been assessed.

4.3.1.18 Intertidal and sub-benthic ecology: The SoS suggested that larger figures be provided. The SoS highlighted the extent of surveys suggested for inclusion by consultees regarding the baseline. It was advised that the ES includes consideration of potential restriction of movement due to the seawall, and the impact of activities proposed to take place on and associated with the lagoon. The ES should also consider the impacts of dredging.

4.3.1.19 TLSB comment: Larger figures have been provided. The surveys to support the baseline have been agreed with consultees. The potential impacts suggested have been assessed in the ES.

4.3.1.20 Fish: The impact of the loss of fishing grounds should be considered in the ES, as well as how this loss may impact other fishing grounds through increased pressure. It was advised that disturbance should also be considered, as well as the impact of creating a seawall and the associated collision and turbine risk. These assessments should include the impacts of water quality.

4.3.1.21 TLSB comment: Chapter 9 of the ES (Fish, including recreational and commercial fisheries) of the ES incorporates the water quality assessment and assesses the impacts suggested.

4.3.1.22 Marine mammals: The SoS suggested that further surveys should be undertaken in agreement with the relevant consultees to establish the baseline. It was also advised that the Environment Agency Wales (EAW, as was) had advised the SoS that Grey Seals and Harbour Porpoise were present in the Bay.

4.3.1.23 TLSB comment: The surveys to support the assessment carried out for the ES Chapter 10 (Marine mammals and turtles) have been agreed with consultees where possible and justification for the use of assessment techniques is included in the ES. An application for an EPS licence will be considered concurrently with the Application.

4.3.1.24 Coastal birds: It was advised that clarity should be provided regarding whether the assessment covered just coastal birds or all ornithological impacts. It was suggested that agreement be sought with consultees regarding the baseline information and supporting surveys. It was advised that the ES consider potential impacts on birds at the Crymlyn Bog SAC site.

4.3.1.25 TLSB comment: Clarity has been provided in Chapter 11 of the ES (Coastal birds). Agreement has been sought for the baseline underpinning the assessments carried out. The potential impacts on Crymlyn Bog have been considered.

4.3.1.26 Navigation and marine transport: The SoS suggested that the ES defines the dredging requirements needed for safe passage of vessels to the Ports. This assessment should also include the effects of changing coastal processes on



the approach channels to the Ports. The displacement of recreational vessels and the requirements for navigational lighting was also highlighted.

4.3.1.27 TLSB comment: The lagoon design ensures no impact on safe passage of vessels to the Ports and has consulted with the Port Authorities regarding dredging requirements. All items suggested have been considered in Chapter 14 of the ES (Navigation and marine transport).

4.3.1.28 Terrestrial ecology: It was suggested that surveys underpinning the baseline be agreed with prescribed consultees, in particular CCW. The conservation verge surrounding Fabian Way was highlighted. The crossing of the River Neath and the need to take account of downstream impacts was also highlighted. It was recommended that the proposals address the needs of protecting biodiversity.

4.3.1.29 TLSB comment: Agreement was sought regarding the surveys underpinning assessment. The Fabian Way conservation verge has been considered and protected where possible. These requested impacts have been assessed.

4.3.1.30 Seascape and visual assessment: The SoS recommended flexibility in the use of viewpoints to allow for further viewpoints to be added in consultation with prescribed bodies. Views from the seaward side were also suggested for inclusion.

4.3.1.31 TLSB comment: TLSB has consulted extensively on the viewpoints and the number assessed has grown from 14 to 22. Consideration of seaward views was undertaken and appropriate views have been included in the ES.

4.3.1.32 Marine and terrestrial archaeology and the historic seascape assessment: the Opinion stated that the ES should demonstrate that an archaeological assessment has been carried out on the cable corridor. It was advised that an assessment of impact on the elements identified in the Sites and Monuments Record could be identified and assessed based on the ZTV.

4.3.1.33 TLSB comment: The assessment has been carried out in line with these suggestions.

4.3.1.34 Marine and terrestrial noise assessment: It was advised that the assessment should present the “worst case” in relation to potential noise impacts. It was suggested that the location of noise monitoring should be agreed with consultees to take account of impacts on sensitive receptors. It was advised that the assessment should also present and where appropriate take account of: working outside normal hours; the increase in all traffic movement; construction machinery; terrestrial noise during operation. Clarity on the impacts of turbine and other operational underwater noise should also be ensured in the ES.

4.3.1.35 TLSB comment: These potential impacts have been taken into account as part of the assessment presented in Chapter 19 of the ES (Noise and vibration). The assessment discusses a “worst case” scenario where appropriate.



4.3.1.36 Onshore transport and air quality: It was advised that the likely construction route should be presented and agreed with the relevant highway authorities. It was also suggested that an assessment of vehicle movements as a result of operation and maintenance should also be presented. An assessment of the impacts on the road network as a result of increases in visitors should also be included.

4.3.1.37 TLSB comment: Agreement has been sought from the relevant Highway Authorities. The assessment includes those potential impacts suggested, see Chapter 15 (Onshore transport assessment).

4.3.1.38 Economy, tourism and recreation: The SoS suggested that effects on tourism and the economy should be addressed and quantified where possible. The Opinion states that the ES should also consider the impact of potential effects on local and regional beaches.

4.3.1.39 TLSB comment: These potential impacts have been assessed in Chapter 22 of the ES (Economy, tourism and recreation).

4.3.1.40 Habitats Regulations Assessment and other matters: The Opinion sets out the requirement for applicants to provide information in the Application that identifies any European sites that may be affected by the proposal. This information should be sufficient to allow the SoS as the competent authority (CA) to undertake an assessment as to whether there is likely to be a significant effect on a designated site. The SoS also highlights the possible requirement for an EPS licence, and the responsibility of the SoS as the CA to be satisfied that there would be no impediment to the grant of a licence.

4.3.1.41 TLSB comment: A Report to inform Habitats Regulations Assessment is included at Document 5.5 of the Application. An EPS licence will be considered concurrently alongside the DCO.

Natural Resources Wales Scoping Opinion 4.3.2

4.3.2.1 Please note: at the time the Scoping Opinion was issued, the responsible body was the Marine Consents Unit (MCU) of the Welsh Government. This body was incorporated into Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in April 2013. For ease of reference, TLSB has referred only to NRW below.

4.3.2.2 This section sets out the main issues raised in NRW’s Scoping Opinion (Appendix 4.2) and how TLSB has had regard to the issues raised in the Opinion.

4.3.2.3 General comments: NRW recommended that TLSB should follow best practice and undertake consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees, including water sports and fishing clubs, in the drafting of the ES. Clarification on the preferred options, including the deployment of gantry cranes, was recommended for inclusion in the ES. Clarification on other elements of the Project was also highlighted for inclusion in the ES.



4.3.2.4 NRW commented that figures provided in the Scoping Report were of insufficient quality and should be improved for the ES. It was recommended that a timeline detailing the aspects of the EIA and when they were carried should be produced. NRW further stated that the ES should include a worst case scenario assessment of decommissioning, which encompasses the removal of the structure. If not, the rationale for non-inclusion should be provided within the ES.

4.3.2.5 TLSB comment: Best practice has been followed in carrying out the EIA. This Report sets out the extensive consultation carried out with a wide range of bodies. The preferred option has been assessed in the ES, with the application of ‘Rochdale Envelope’ principles where appropriate, for example in the micro-siting of the turbine housing. Gantry cranes are expected to be placed within the structure and all elements of the Project are set out in detail in Chapter 4 of the ES.

4.3.2.6 The ES contains high quality images that are adequate for understanding the information conveyed. TLSB has assessed the decommissioning method it considers appropriate for the ES, namely ongoing maintenance and the removal of the turbines and sluice gates (leaving the seawall and turbine housing in place). TLSB asserts that complete removal of a structure with a lifespan of over 100 years is not appropriate (in light of habitats which will by then be well-established) and has therefore not been assessed. The rationale for this is contained in the ES Chapter 3 (site selection and option appraisal).

4.3.2.7 Coastal processes and sediment transport: NRW stated that there must be confidence in the model used for the assessment of coastal processes, and that consultation on the draft ES prior to submission should be undertaken. NRW highlighted a lack of evidence for claims as to the limit of the effects stated and recommended that this be provided in the ES. Generally, it was stated that all evidence and studies used when submitted must be timely. It was recommended that this include the Lavernock to St Anne’s Head Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2).

4.3.2.8 In relation to the baseline, NRW suggested clarification of the justification for evidence used should be presented in the ES. This should include clarification of the temporal coverage of the assessment period; the understanding of river discharge; and salinity and temperature range.

4.3.2.9 NRW recommended that the effect of windblown sand should be included as a potential effect. Assessment of the maintenance events required for the scheme, such as dredging, should also be included. The Opinion also recommended the inclusion of potential changes to baseline elements, such as tidal range and wave climate. NRW stated that cumulative impacts should be set out clearly in the ES.



4.3.2.10 NRW suggested a requirement for 3D modelling to assess impacts and suggested that justification must be stated in the ES if this is not required or used.

4.3.2.11 TLSB comment: TLSB is confident that the model used provides the basis for a robust assessment. Clarification and justification of the extent of the assessment is provided in Chapter 6 of the ES (Coastal processes, sediment transport and contamination). This is also provided in relation to the baseline underpinning assessment. Recommended studies and plans such as SMP2 have been included where appropriate.

4.3.2.12 The potential effects outlined in the Scoping Report have been increased in scope to include the elements recommended and further elements that have arisen as a result of consultation. TLSB is satisfied that the 2D model used for assessment is sufficient to provide a robust assessment in the context of the Bay, as justified in Chapter 6 of the ES and further discussed with NRW.

4.3.2.13 Sediment contamination: NRW highlighted the likelihood of the existence of contaminated sediments in the area and that the ES should assess this. It was advised that the proposed survey sites should be agreed with Cefas. The presence of munitions in the Bay was also highlighted.

4.3.2.14 TLSB comment: Sediment contamination has been fully assessed in Chapter 6 of the ES, the findings of which have been used to inform Chapter 7, marine water quality, and other assessments which would have the potential to be impacted by the findings. A “UXO assessment” has also been undertaken.

4.3.2.15 Sediment resources and dredging: NRW recommended that the ES should include assessment of the type of sediment resources to be dredged and used in the construction of the scheme. Further to this, it was suggested that maintenance dredging for the Project should be included in the assessment. Any potential for damage to the DCWW outfall should also be included.

4.3.2.16 TLSB comment: The assessment presented in Chapter 6 incorporates all of these points. Protection of the DCWW outfall will form part of the dredging arrangements in the construction and maintenance of the Project.

4.3.2.17 Water Framework Directive: NRW highlighted that the assessment undertaken must underpin findings that the Project will not cause deterioration in the status or potential status of any affected water bodies. It was also suggested that potential mitigation measures, such as saltmarsh creation, could be included as part of the Project to ensure the fulfilment of this requirement.

4.3.2.18 TLSB comment: A Water Framework Directive assessment has been included at Document 8.5 of the ES. TLSB does not consider that the Project will cause the engagement of the provisions of the Directive. Though not proposed as direct mitigation to fulfil the requirement of the Directive, the Project incorporates the creation of salt marsh as part of its design.



4.3.2.19 Water Quality: NRW highlighted concerns regarding the potential of the Project to undermine efforts to meet the requirements of both Bathing Water and Water Quality directives due to effects on water quality in the Bay. These effects were characterised, non-exhaustively, as twofold: effects arising from the impoundment of the DCWW outfall, and the impact of disturbing contaminated sediment. Specific suggestions for further information to be included in the ES were also provided.

4.3.2.20 TLSB comment: The assessment has been carried out, and options and mitigation proposed, on the basis of ensuring compliance with the Water Framework Directive (see comment above) and the Bathing Water Directive. Chapter 7 of the ES assesses the options for the DCWW outfall. Chapter 6 of the ES assesses the impacts of possible contaminated sediments, the impact of which on water quality is assessed in Chapter 7. NRW has been consulted on the assessments carried out in respect of water quality, as detailed in this Report.

4.3.2.21 Ecology: NRW advised that surveys used to inform the ecology chapter should be conducted at an appropriate time, by an experienced surveyor, using recognised methodology. The Opinion set out suggestions for information on: intertidal and sub-tidal benthic ecology; spawning areas, recreational and commercial fisheries; shellfisheries; marine mammals; and ornithology.

4.3.2.22 TLSB comment: The impacts on ecological receptors have been assessed in line with the latest methodologies and guidance. Since the Opinion of NRW was issued, TLSB has agreed detailed assessment approaches with NRW in Phases 1, 2 and 3 of pre-application consultation. This consultation and its outcome in relation to where TLSB has undertaken suggested approaches, and the justification for not doing so in cases where TLSB has not, is detailed in Chapters 3, 5, 7, 11, and Appendices 7.9 and 11.3 of this Consultation Report. The assessments of these matters are set out in Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the ES.

4.3.2.23 Designated sites: NRW highlighted that, though the Project is not within a designated site, there is some potential to affect designated sites in the vicinity. NRW recommended the inclusion of Crymlyn Bog SAC into the list of identified sites and commended TLSB’s recognition that the EIA will have to be sufficient to allow the Competent Authority (CA, in this case the SoS for Energy and Climate Change) to be satisfied that an Appropriate Assessment need not be carried out. In terms of nationally designated sites, NRW highlighted that the ES should present information on how these sites will be affected by the Project, and in the case of Crymlyn Burrows SSSI that this should incorporate the effects of coastal processes.

4.3.2.24 TLSB comment: A Report to inform Habitats Regulations Assessment has been submitted with the Application in order for the CA to satisfy him or herself of the need for an Appropriate Assessment. The ES presents the effects on



Crymlyn Bog SAC, Crymlyn Burrows SSSI and other sites as a result of coastal processes and other impacts of the Project.

4.3.2.25 Other matters: NRW set out recommendations for assessments relating to: flood risk; historic environment; pollution prevention; navigation and safety; waste management; seascape, landscape and visual assessment.

4.3.2.26 TLSB comment: As with ecological assessments above, since the Opinion of NRW was issued, TLSB has agreed detailed assessment approaches with NRW in Phases 1, 2 and 3 of pre-application consultation. This consultation and its outcome in relation to where TLSB has undertaken suggested approaches, and the justification for not doing so in cases where TLSB has not, is detailed in Chapters 3, 5, 7, 11, and Appendices 7.9 and 11.3 of this Consultation Report. The assessments of these matters are set out in Chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the ES.

Summary 4.3.3

4.3.3.1 TLSB has taken into account the scoping opinions of the SoS for Energy and Climate Change and the Welsh Government (through NRW). The scope, method and content of the ES was further refined throughout the subsequent pre-application consultation detailed in this Report.

Documents

xxxxxx - Tidal Lagoon Power