Transportation of Abnormal Indivisible Loads. Rushy Mead Wind Farm. Prepared for

Transcription

1 Transportation of Abnormal Indivisible Loads Rushy Mead Wind Farm Prepared for by February 2011 Shaftesbury House, High Street, Eccleshall, Staffs ST21 6BZ Telephone: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)

2 Disclaimer This report has been prepared in a working draft form and has not been finalised or formally reviewed. As such it should be taken as an indication only of the material and conclusions that will form the final report. Any calculations or findings presented here may be changed or altered and should not be taken to reflect Wynns Ltd opinions or conclusions. Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wynns Ltd save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wynns Ltd under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wynns Ltd. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wynns Ltd at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wynns Ltd excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Document Revisions No. Date Details First Issue Draft Second Issue Draft Third Issue Draft Fourth Issue Final Shaftesbury House, High Street, Eccleshall, Staffs ST21 6BZ Telephone: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)

3 Transportation of Abnormal Indivisible Loads Rushy Mead Wind Farm Contents of Report Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Legislation 2.1 Definition of Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) 2.2 Legislation 2.3 Temporary Traffic Orders and Section 59 agreement (Highways Act 1980) 3.0 Transport Configurations 4.0 Road Route Structural Information. 4.1 Route Alternative Routes 5.0 Assessment of Route Negotiability 5.1 Route Site Access off Highway 7.0 Wokingham Borough Council Memo Reference 8.0 Summary Appendices Maps Drawings Selected Correspondence

4 Transportation of Abnormal Indivisible Loads Rushy Mead Wind Farm Executive Summary Partnership for Renewables (PfR) has identified a site for a wind farm on land to the south of the M4 motorway within the borough of Wokingham. The western section of the site (3 turbines) is proposed to be accessed via Cutbush Lane. The eastern section of the site is proposed to be accessed from the A327 at The Lodge. The access work already undertaken by PfR for the proposed turbines identified a preferred access route to the site from junction 11 of the M4 Motorway. During October 2010 it became apparent that site access to the eastern section of the site via the route above would potentially be restricted by a 7.5te gross vehicle weight restriction identified by Wokingham Borough Council. On 16 th December a meeting was held between PfR, Wokingham Borough Council Highways Department and Wynns Ltd. at the council offices in Wokingham. This discussed the main issues of concern in terms of transport to the site. This report focuses on addressing the issues concerning Wokingham Borough Council. This report does not consider any onsite access issues and is solely concerned with access within the public highway and the implications for movement requirements as far as Wokingham Borough Council are concerned. The report is intended to be a summary of the AIL route access at the current time to support the discussions required with Wokingham Borough Council. Specific movements will need to be assessed at the time on an individual basis via the formal AIL notification process. If any further information is required, it is available on request. Route 1 is the most favorable access route to the site and all efforts should be made to securing access on this route, including any remedial measures required by Wokingham Borough Council on Aborfield Small Bridge.

5 In the event that Wokingham Borough Council do not manage to undertake improvement works on Aborfield Small Bridge a contingency plan for the temporary bridging of the structure will need to be agreed. Alternative routes to approach the site by avoiding the Aborfield Small Bridge have not been considered further as they will be more disruptive to other road users. No on site movement requirements have been considered and the access investigations conclude at the proposed access locations. It is concluded that subject to appropriate street furniture removal and resolution of the Arborfield Small Bridge restriction access to the site for wind turbine components will be feasible. The report is intended to be a summary of the Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) route access at the current time and is not a guarantee that the route will be cleared in the future. Date: February 2011 Report prepared by: A Pearce, Route Coordinator Report approved by: M Cleary, Director, Environment and Planning

6 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Partnership for Renewables (PfR) has contracted Wynns Ltd to carry out a review into access for wind turbine equipment to the proposed Rushy Mead Wind Farm, near Reading in the administrative boundary of Wokingham Borough Council in Berkshire. Access is considered in terms of Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) requirements. 1.2 PfR has identified a site for a wind farm development proposal on land to the south of the M4 motorway on land belonging to Reading University. The site is understood to have 4 wind turbines proposed but is arranged in two compartments. The western section of the site (3 turbines) is proposed to be accessed via Cutbush Lane. The eastern section of the site is proposed to be accessed from the A327 at The Lodge (Approximate OS Reference SU ). Figure 7.1 as provided by PfR shows the potential site location. 1.3 PfR has undertaken some initial work into access to the site for the proposed wind turbine components. This work was a high level negotiability assessment only. These works identified a preferred access route to the site from the M4 motorway and this is detailed within Section 4 of this report and also with the Rushy Mead Wind Energy Development Environmental Statement produced for PfR by Entec in October 2010 which details the preferred route to site within Section 4.6 and Chapter During October 2010 it became apparent during discussions between Entec and Highways engineers at Wokingham Borough Council that site access to the eastern section of the site via the route above would be restricted by a 7.5te gross vehicle weight restriction identified by Wokingham Borough Council. It was at this time that Wynns Ltd. were appointed to undertake a detailed review of the issues associated with AIL access to the site. 1.5 Wokingham Borough Council is the planning authority responsible for considering the development application by PfR. Wokingham Borough Council has produced a detailed internal memo which has been forwarded to PfR for comment and review in order to progress the planning application. 1

7 1.6 On 16 th December a meeting was held between PfR, Wokingham Borough Council and Wynns Ltd. at the council offices in Wokingham. This discussed the main issues of concern in terms of transport to the site and Wokingham Borough Council requested that a formal response to their memo be provided by PfR. 1.7 This report therefore focuses on addressing the issues of concern to Wokingham Borough Council. The report considers the traffic and transport issues of concern to the council only and no detailed consideration is given to other interested highway or structural approving authorities who would need to be approached for formal AIL notification procedures as the scheme progresses. The report is intended to resolve the uncertainties with respect to access for AIL, in order to facilitate the determination of the planning application by Wokingham Borough Council. Any other issue relating to any other interested party would need to be considered outside of the remit of this report. 1.8 The turbine components that have been considered for the purposes AIL access are considerate of the Nordex N100 turbine, which is presently understood to be a potential candidate turbine likely to be considered for installation at the site. Provisional transport drawings depicting the items specifically considered within these investigations in terms of the anticipated worst case length, width and weight of Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL) have been constructed and are attached the rear of this report. These dimensions are based on file information available to Wynns Ltd. and the transport configurations are discussed further in Section 3 of this report. 1.9 We are aware of projects where turbine dimensions can vary, specifically with regard to tower sections diameters. Therefore caution should be noted and clarification given as to the current manufacturing specifications of any proposed tower sections to allow AIL access issues to be confirmed. Despite this the information provided is adequate in terms of the general requirements for turbine sizes of the class to be installed at Rushy Mead No consideration has been given in these studies for government policy requirements in terms of the delivery of wind turbine components at Special Order category, where Highways Agency policy is to deliver via the nearest suitable and advisable port. 2

8 1.11 It has been assumed for the purposes of these investigations that a route from a potential port of delivery such to the M4 motorway will be accessible and this has not been explored in detailed within these works. No major technical problems are anticipated with AIL routes from potential ports of delivery in the UK to the M4 via the UK motorway and trunk road network although permissions from the Highways Agency would be required for Special Order loads This report does not consider any onsite access issues and is solely concerned with access within the public highway and the implications for movement requirements as far as Wokingham Borough Council are concerned The report is intended to be a summary of the AIL route access at the current time to support the discussions required with Wokingham Borough Council and is not a guarantee that the route will be cleared in the future. Specific movements will need to be assessed at the time on an individual basis via the formal AIL notification process. If any further information is required, it is available on request. 2.0 Legislation 2.1 Definition of Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) The Department for Transport state that the strict definition of an AIL refers to a load which cannot, without undue expense or risk of damage, be divided into two or more loads for the purpose of carriage on roads and which, owing to its dimensions or weight, cannot be carried on a vehicle which complies in all respects with the standard vehicle regulations these are: The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended) The Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 (as amended) The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (as amended) All equipment should be stripped of any ancillaries before they are transported. The requirement for further dismantling is only likely to be acceptable to the HA where it 3

9 cannot be economically achieved due to the requirement to construct to extremely high tolerances within specific factory environments Conventional heavy goods vehicles have an operating weight limit of 44 tonnes. The category known as abnormal indivisible loads (AIL) covers those vehicles where the gross weight exceeds 44 tonnes. An Abnormal Load is defined as that which cannot be carried under Construction and Use (C&U) Regulations. Items which, when loaded on the load carrying vehicle exceed the weights encompassed by the C&U Regulations, but do not exceed Special Order Permission Limits, are governed by Special Types General Order (STGO) categories 1 to 3 depending on size. Where dimensions exceed 6100mm in width, 30000mm in rigid length, 150 tonnes gross weight or where axle loads exceed 15.0 tonne (16.5 tonne provided the distance between adjacent axles is at least 1.35m), Special Order from the Highway Agency (HA), is required Special Order category AIL movements are authorised by the Highways Agency (HA) Abnormal Loads team, an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), based in Birmingham. 2.2 DfT Policy on the movement of Special Order Category Loads The Department for Transport has adopted a water-preferred policy for the transport of AILs. This means that, where an application is sought for the movement of a Special Order or VR1 category load (more than 5.0m width) by road, the Department, via its executive agency, the HA, will turn down the application where it is feasible for a coastal or inland waterway route to be used instead of road. The HA advise that this decision is based on a number of factors including whether the load is divisible, the availability of a suitable route, the amount of traffic congestion that is likely to be caused and the justification for the load to be moved. The Highway Agency Abnormal Loads Team is the department responsible for the authorisation of Special Order AIL s and government policy is that the closest available port of access should be used for the delivery of such oversize items. 4

10 2.2.2 No specific approach has been made to the Highways Agency Abnormal Loads Team in terms of government policy requirements in terms of the delivery of wind turbine components at Special Order category, where Highways Agency policy and it is assumed for the current study purposes that turbine components will be delivered via an east coast UK port. PfR should be aware that it will be necessary to get Agreement in Principle (AiP) from the Highways Agency in terms of the port of delivery for Special Order items prior to delivery. 2.3 Temporary Traffic Orders and Section 59 agreement (Highways Act 1980) Temporary Traffic Orders are used where the local highway authority considers that works on the highway, or some large deliveries, require a road to be closed temporarily to general through traffic. Such closures require a temporary traffic regulation order issued by the Highway Authority. In terms of the wind farm component deliveries it is possible that the council will require such an order for the travel of the loads to site from the more major roads as the whole road width will be taken up by the loads for much of the final approaches to site. This is only expected to be an issue at Rushy Mead in the event that to access the eastern site a temporary measure is required to overcome the 7.5te weight restriction. This is discussed further within Section In addition to any Temporary Traffic Orders the County Council may wish to ensure that a Section 59 agreement (Highways Act 1980) has been entered into in order to enable AIL access to be agreed. Such agreements are not always, in our experience, asked for as the matter of damage to the carriageway is usually covered by the appointed haulage contractors indemnity. A Section 59 agreement enables the highway authority to recover certain expenses involved with maintaining the highway due to extraordinary traffic It is understood that PfR are seeking to apply for a Section 106 agreement with Wokingham Borough Council. Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. 5

11 2.3.4 This document is intended to support PfR in any discussions with the planning authority to obtain a Section 106 agreement but is not a formal request for such an agreement to be entered into. Any formal discussions on such matters will be addressed by PfR. 3.0 Transport Configurations 3.1 Due to the size of the components it is not possible to transport them under the regulations governing Construction and Use (C&U) vehicles (44 tonne gross, m long and 2.9m wide). It will therefore be necessary to comply with legislation regarding Special Types General Order (STGO). 3.2 As stated, the movement of abnormal indivisible loads is controlled by the requirements of the Department for Transport (DfT) that stipulate varying notice procedures and notice period s dependent upon overall dimensions. 3.3 The following drawings have been constructed to provide guidance with regard to the probable transport arrangements necessary to deliver the turbine components under consideration based on a Nordex N100 turbine. These drawings are conceptual drawings based on those typically in operation within the UK heavy haulage market. The actual transport configurations selected for deliveries will be confirmed upon the appointment of a haulage contractor and may differ slightly to those discussed below. Notwithstanding this the trailer arrangements provided can be procured and are representative of available haulage equipment detailing potential weights and dimensions of transport vehicles loaded with wind turbine components. Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-B01 shows a typical transport arrangement for the movement of a 49m blade (Nordex N100 Blade) carried on a 3 axle extendable trailer. Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-N01 shows the transport arrangements for a 97te nett Nacelle (Nordex N100 Turbine) carried on a 3bed4 trailer. Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-DT01 shows the transport arrangements for a Drive Train (Nordex N100 Turbine) carried on a 3, 4 and 5 axle Goose Neck trailer. 6

12 Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-RH01 shows the transport arrangements for a Rotor Hub (Nordex N100 Turbine) carried on a 3 axle Goose Neck trailer. Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-TS01 Sheet 1 of 2 shows the transport arrangements for a 4.3m diameter flange on Nordex N100 Turbine bottom tower section of 13.68m length Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-TS01 Sheet 2 of 2 shows the transport arrangements for a 4.03m diameter flange on Nordex N100 Turbine mid tower section of 23.8m length Drawing Ref No. PfR-RM-C01 shows the transport arrangements for a typical 800te mobile crane. 4.0 Road Route Structural Information 4.1 Route The proposed route 1 from the M4 is detailed below. Based on existing knowledge of established AIL routes it is assumed that access from potential ports of access to the major motorway junctions will be achievable in terms of structural clearance although this would need to be confirmed prior to delivery by appointed haulage contractors. Proposed Route 1 from M4 For 3 Western Turbines: Exit M4 junction 11 onto B3270 Turn right A327 Shinfield Road Turn left Cutbush Lane Turn right proposed site access for western site For 1 Eastern Turbines: For eastern site access continue A327 towards Aborfield Turn left at South Lodge to site at approximate OS Reference SU It became apparent during discussions between Entec and Highways engineers at Wokingham Borough Council in October 2010 that the route to the eastern site access was structurally limited by a 7.5te gross vehicle limit on the A327 immediately to the west of the proposed site access at The Lodge. There are two bridges at this location. The western bridge is over a tributary to the River Loddon and the eastern bridge is a bridge over the main River Loddon itself. It is the western bridge, referred to as Aborfield Small 7

13 Bridge, that Wokingham borough Council advises has a 7.5te gross vehicle limit in place at the present time. Picture 1. Aborfield small bridge looking west. Picture 2. View from Aborfield small bridge looking east towards Aborfield Main Bridge. 7.3m road width. Footpath stops at the main bridge Discussions during October-December 2010 inclusive between Wynns Ltd. and Wokingham Borough Council confirmed that this restriction only came to the councils attention following general assessment works in October Although the council have advised that a 7.5te weight restriction is in place, there is no physical sign on site confirming this restriction and the route is currently still used by vehicles of up to 44te. It is theoretically possible for two 44te vehicles to oppose each other on the bridge, thus the overall loading currently that could be placed onto the structure without the council 8

14 even being aware would be the axles of 2 fully loaded 44te HGVs. Consideration of the span of this structure would suggest that the bridge is regularly subject to a loading of about 60te under normal road traffic conditions Wokingham Borough Council is clearly aware of this as an important issue for access to the eastern site access point and the structure is a concern for general traffic using the A Initially discussions focused on confirming the various potential loadings expected by AIL vehicles and these were presented to Wokingham Borough Council by dated Wokingham Borough Council subsequently confirmed by dated that all of the loads were exceeding the stated capacity of the bridge and could not be permitted. They advised that when 3-5 axles (of the abnormal load vehicle configurations) are loaded on the bridge deck at one time, the weights are too great to be accommodated It is understood that consideration of special cautions that could be considered to enable the proposed loads to cross the Arborfield Small Bridge, such as centre line running and no other traffic on bridge, do not assist the situation and the loads remain unacceptable to the council at this time Wynns Ltd. also suggested conceptual designs of potential remedial measures that could be considered to enable access over the bridge. This included examples of AILs using a temporary structure to cross over weak bridges on other AIL routes in the UK. This is one option that may need to be considered in more detail to gain access to the site. Initial consideration was also given to whether temporary propping of the structure would be a feasible option. At the meeting Wokingham Borough Council indicated that they would prefer the solutions to be considered in the following order of preference: i. Assessment and repair of the structure ii. Temporary Propping iii. Temporary Bridging iv. Temporary Rafting 9

15 4.1.9 The temporary options would require design assessment to show that their effect was no injurious in any way. Temporary facilitation would also have to be considerate of aspects of the environment such as affect on water courses. Should it become necessary then the temporary facilitation would need close liaison with the local authority and the Environment Agency for work associated with the water course or its flood plain. Wokingham Borough Council have provided a general arrangement drawing of the bridge and this is reproduced with a number of outline mitigation proposals at the rear of this document for reference At the meeting on PfR advised Wokingham Borough Council that, subject to the planning application proceeding to current expectations, the AILs would be expected to be delivered to the site during April 2012 at the earliest As the immediate requirement for access via the restricted structure is not necessary, Wokingham Borough Council confirmed at the meeting that they would progress with proposals for remedial works to the bridge during early 2011 as it was recognised by the council that the 7.5te weight restriction was not acceptable and would need to be resolved in time, whatever the results of the Rushy Mead Wind Farm planning application Therefore it is assumed that Wokingham Borough Council are currently progressing with a scheme to improve and strengthen the capacity of the bridge and this will be in place prior to AIL deliveries to the site in However, as contingency against this work not being completed in time it was agreed that the alternative option would be to consider a temporary solution for the AIL transit of Arborfield Small Bridge. These would be based on the outline proposals identified in above. 10

16 Picture 3. Aborfield small bridge viewed from northern side Bridge propping is expected to be difficult to achieve due to the nature of the watercourse and bridge supports under the structure. Any works at this location would be expected to require approval from the Environment Agency, and whilst this may be feasible to obtain following further detailed discussions it adds a further risk to the project In addition it was noted from site inspection that the actual water channel under the bridge appears to have been modified from that on the drawing provided by the council. This may indicate that the watercourse channel has been under scrutiny in the past and that certain sensitivities may exist that could result in any propping proposal being discouraged As stated the exact plan for temporary solutions would need to be discussed with Wokingham Borough Council if planning permission is granted as part of a formal traffic management plan but in principle the method statement for undertaking such an operation by way of installing a temporary bridging arrangement would be as briefly described in Table 1 below Temporary bridging or rafting has been installed on numerous occasions to enable AILs to cross structures of lower capacity than that required to accommodate the notified loads. Such installations could be installed by delivery of bridge beams to the site, offloading from vehicles by mobile crane and then packing and securing to enable the bridge to be crossed by avoiding imparting loading on the structure itself. 11

17 Aborfield Small Bridge has a carriageway span of 7.544m, as advised by Wokingham Borough Council, and various potential temporary bridge beams are available. Alternatively it may be necessary to design a bespoke system for this bridge. If in principle the bridging or rafting proposal is agreeable to the council then further detailed calculations as to the exact positioning of any beams and supports would need to be undertaken. This is not specifically discussed within this report but is considered achievable with future engineering proposals and discussions with Wokingham Borough Council if the project progresses An example of a temporary bridge arrangement is shown in Picture 4 where beams of approximately 17.5m were used to enable heavy AIL access over a bridge of some 15.2m span. The load shown is a circa 125te nett transformer being transported on a 16 axle girder frame trailer. Although this is a different trailer arrangement than that which would be utilised to deliver wind turbine equipment the principle of access is the same Detailed consideration of the positioning of the crane required for the laying of the temporary arrangement will be required due to the close proximity of the Aborfield Main Bridge immediately to the east. In a Rafting scenario it would be necessary that the distribution of the load into the existing bridge beams (deck) was acceptable to WBC and in a bridging proposal then the loads transferred into the bridge abutments would have to be tolerable. Source: Allelys Heavy Haulage. Picture 4. Temporary Bridge on the heavy load route used to Coalburn Substation in Scotland. 12

18 Table 1. Provisional Outline Scope of Work for Temporary Mitigation of Aborfield Small Bridge. Task Apply for Traffic Regulation Order from Wokingham Borough Council Apply for Road Closure Order from Wokingham Borough Council Arrange traffic management plan for any road signs and diversion routes. Install traffic management system on A327 adjacent to The Lodge site access Delivery of temporary bridge beam/rafts to site Arrival of circa 70te crane to offload bridge beam/rafts Install temporary bridge beams on site over Aborfield Small Bridge Reason Task Required To account for temporary access whilst Aborfield Small Bridge is temporarily relieved by bridging or rafting. To enable temporary bridge or rafting to be installed at Aborfield Small Bridge To manage other traffic on the A327 in a safe manner whilst temporary bridge scheme is in place. Manage traffic into and out of the site access point and also where road down to single carriageway to enable rafting of Aborfield Small Bridge. To prepare bridge for future crossing of AILs & other site traffic as necessary To offload from HGV to site To prepare bridge for future crossing of AILs Small mobile crane of circa 70te required to lift bridge raft units into place on A327 from 40 trailers. Information Required from: Wokingham Borough Council PfR (or contractors) Wokingham Borough Council PfR (or contractors) PfR (or contractors) PfR (or contractors) as part of Traffic Management Plan. Appointed civil, haulage contractor, or PfR. Appointed civil, haulage contractor, or PfR. Appointed civil, haulage contractor, or PfR. Additional Comments This will require that the road is restricted to single carriageway whilst one of the carriageways (to be agreed) is closed off to enable bridge raft to be installed. It is expected to take 6 weeks to process the road closure order. The road itself will not be closed other than for a short period to enable temporary measures to be installed. It is proposed that temporary traffic lights would be used to manage traffic. These would be located to the west of Aborfield Small Bridge and to the east of the proposed site access location. Temporary bridge beams would be delivered on 40 HGV trailers. The exact positioning of the bridge raft to be in the form of an appointed person, lift plan and agreed with Wokingham Borough Council. Bridge rafts delivered 13