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

19 Task Install any temporary timbers and/or sand required in agreed locations. Leave temporary bridge raft in place during construction period Remove temporary bridge rafts under full road closure Remove traffic management & depart site Reason Task Required To enable vehicles to access on and off temporary bridge or raft To enable vehicles to cross the bridge as required on deliveries to the site. Mobile crane required to lift bridge raft units to waiting road transport vehicles Information Required from: Appointed civil, haulage contractor, or PfR. Appointed civil, haulage contractor, or PfR. Appointed civil, haulage contractor, or PfR. PfR (or contractors) Additional Comments on 40 trailers as HGVs. Exact positioning to be in accordance with lift plan and confirmed with discussions with council The above is a provisional proposal only that would need to be finalised with detailed method statements being agreed with Wokingham Borough Council to confirm the mitigation required. Due to the need for multiple AIL deliveries and also the fact that the 7.5te bridge weight restriction will also impact on Construction and Use traffic required to enter the eastern site access location it was agreed at the meeting on that any proposed temporary structure (either bridging or rafting) would need to be left in place for the duration of the works as it would not be practicable to install and remove on multiple occasions Wokingham Borough Council would expect the applicant, or their appointed contractors, to arrange all traffic management works. Although the council may be able to advise of contractors local to the area who have been used for similar works they are not in a position to advise of preferred contractors Although other structural approving authorities will need to be notified of AIL access movement applications prior to actual deliveries these authorities are not discussed within this report which focuses on the requirements of Wokingham Borough Council as the planning authority only. 14

20 4.2 Alternative Routes In order to consider alternative routes to avoid the Aborfield Small Bridge detailed in 4.1, it would be necessary to seek structural approval on alternative routes to the site. It has not been possible to identify an alternative route to Rushy Mead that improves on access requirements in terms of negotiability. Any route that approaches from the east to Aborfield is likely to cause significant disruption in terms of impacts on other road users and would only be likely to be at all feasible for the heavier loads subject to structural clearance Therefore no further specific structural enquiries have been made as to the suitability of other routes as they are not considered as favourable in terms of access to Rushy Mead. Wynns Ltd. therefore concludes 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 7. Therefore all efforts should be made to secure access permissions via this route as any alternative is considered to be more disruptive in terms of AIL access The identified route is considered to be the most suitable route to the site and this was communicated to Wokingham Borough Council at the meeting held on and this was accepted as reasonable by the council Further brief details as to the other routes inspected but rejected in terms of AIL access is provided in Section 5.3 of this report and is illustrated on Map 1 and Assessment of Route Negotiability The routes identified within Section 4 have been considered in terms of negotiability requirements. The route inspected is shown on Figure 7.1 which is appended to this report. 15

21 5.1 Route A summary of the negotiability issues on Route 1 from the M4 at junction 11 is now provided in the photographs and accompanying notes below The exit from the M4 onto the B3260 is considered negotiable for the 49m blades considered within these investigations. Although the junction has been recently realigned this presents no problems for the AILs. Picture 5. Exit from new alignment at M4 Jct 11 onto B The B3270 passes under Whitley Wood footbridge (no picture available). This bridge is not signed as low and is understood to be 5910mm at its lowest point. This presents no difficulties for the proposed loads The roundabout at the B3270 and A327 Shinfield Road junction is negotiable for the proposed loads. This is detailed within drawing number PRF-RM-SPA01. 16

22 Picture 6. Approach from B3270 to A327 Shinfield Road roundabout. Load moves away from camera and turns left. Negotiable for all proposed loads. Picture 7. Exit from B3270/A327 Shinfield Road roundabout. Load moves away from camera and turns left. Negotiable for all proposed loads The bridge over the M4 motorway is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. 17

23 Picture 8. A329 Black Boy Bridge over M The access to the western site access point is proposed to be via Cutbush Lane, which exits the A327 at the turn shown in the following pictures. The junction will be accessible with street furniture removal. Reading University are the land owners on the inside of the bend and therefore any remedial works that require the land on the inside to be utilised will require a S106 agreement, which is understood by Wynns Ltd. to have been agreed in principle with the University. A selection of options for access at this junction are detailed within Drawing Reference No. PRF-RM-SPA02. However the option to maximise use of the Reading University land ownership through to introduction of a temporary filter for AIL traffic into Cutbush lane is preferable as it minimises effect of disruption at the junction. Picture 9. A327 at Shinfield. Left turn to access the 3 western turbines via Cutbush Lane. Access to the eastern site continues straight ahead without difficulty. 18

24 Picture 10. A327 at Shinfield. Left turn to access 3 western turbines via Cutbush Lane. Reverse angle. Picture 11. A327 at Shinfield. Left turn to access 3 western turbines via Cutbush Lane. View of street furniture on inside of the turn which would require removal. 19

25 Picture 12. A327 at Shinfield. Left turn to access 3 western turbines via Cutbush Lane. Land on the inside of the turn is within the ownership of Reading University and could be considered for use by AILs, thus avoiding the need for removal of street furniture at the junction. This would be subject to approval and construction of a temporary access road Cutbush Lane is then negotiable to the proposed site access shown in Drawing Reference No.PRF-RM-SPA In terms of progressing east on the A327 to the eastern site access at The Lodge, this is detailed in the following notes and photographs. Picture 13. A327 Bookers Hill traffic lights. Load approaches camera. Negotiable. 20

26 Picture mph speed limit on approach to site as travelling south at Hollow Lane. 40mph sign may require removal for wider tower sections. Picture 15. New roundabout at Hollow Lane/Church Lane. Load moves away from camera. The temporary removal of street furniture is unlikely to be necessary. Drawing Reference No.PRF-RM-SPA04 refers. As this is a new roundabout it is not available on Ordnance Survey information, the precise dimensions are not currently available. However, as is shown in the picture above, the roundabout is considered to be negotiable with minimal amendments to street furniture. 21

27 Picture 16. New roundabout at Hollow Lane/Church Lane. Reverse angle. Picture 17. A327 Aborfield Road/Hollow Lane looking south. Loads move away from camera bearing left. Street furniture removal required for 49m blade trailers. Drawing Reference No.PRF-RM-SPA05 refers The remainder of the route to the proposed site entrance is negotiable. The new entrance is discussed within Section A final issue of note is that it is understood that there are plans for a new bridge to cross the M4 motorway as part of the development of the Shinfield Eastern Relief Road. This may assist with long term access to the western site access, currently proposed to be accessed from Cutbush Lane but is not expected to offer any improvement on proposed access to the eastern site access at The Lodge. In addition Wynns Ltd. are not aware of the exact time scales for this development and therefore it is not considered as a suitable option at this stage of the project. 22

28 No specific consideration of the design of this new road layout in terms of possible future AIL access has been undertaken by Wynns Ltd. although it is understood PfR have had some initial desk top reviews of this which confirm access is expected to be feasible in the future if required. 6.0 Site Access off Highway 6.1 The site entrances proposed of Cutbush Lane and at The Lodge on the A327 off the highway at the proposed access points will require consideration during design to provide adequate opportunity to leave the principal highway with expediency. The turning circles identified within the transport configuration drawings should be applied within the design phase 6.2 Much of the access design criteria on which the planning authorities relies upon is contained in Places Streets and Movement, a national document published in In particular this sets out the visibility standards at access onto the road network. The sight line information, shown in Table 2, should be considered in conjunction with the turning radii information detailed within the transport configuration drawings. 6.3 To enable drivers emerging from the access to see and be seen by drivers proceeding along the carriageway unobstructed visibility is needed within the proximity of the junction. The distance along the centreline of the new access from the carriageway edge to the point where the emerging driver should be able to see a specified distance in each direction of the principal carriageway can be derived from the aforementioned documentation. 23

29 Table 2 Junction Visibility Splays Measured Major Road Speed - Mph/kph 70/ / / 85 40/ 70 35/ 60 30/ 50 Major Road Distances (m) PfR have previously provided drawings of the proposed site entrances with swept paths of proposed blade carrying vehicles. Wokingham Borough Councils memo of expressed concern within Section in respect to the sight lines proposed for access at the Cutbush Lane site access. A revised access Drawing Reference No. PRF- RM-VS03 has been produced and is provided at the rear of this report. This shows the sight lines as requested by Wokingham Borough Council. 6.5 Wokingham Borough Councils memo of expressed concern within Section 1.6 in respect to the sight lines proposed for access at The Lodge site access. A revised access Drawing Reference No. PRF-RM-VS06 been produced and is provided at the rear of this report. This shows the sight lines as requested by Wokingham Borough Council. 7.0 Wokingham Borough Council Memo Reference 7.1 Wokingham Council provided PfR with a Memo (Reference PDB/2266 dated ) in order that PfR could address the concerns of the council in order to progress the scheme. This memo was discussed at length during the meeting held at the council offices on The following section aims to address each of the issues raised by the council in turn. Whilst there is some repetition in this Section of information previously discussed or submitted to Wokingham Council via separate s, this is reproduced or referenced in this Section for completeness in order that all appropriate information is in the same document. 24

30 7.3 It was agreed at the meeting on that the main body of text within the memo was generally for internal council discussion. The main issues to be addressed by PfR as requested by the council are those detailed within Appendix 1 of the memo. These are reproduced below and individually in the following appropriate sections. Appendix 1 Notes from Raihan Ahmed Prior to any transportation of heavy/abnormal loads movement through the Wokingham Borough, Traffic Management, Abnormal Loads and NRSWA teams will require the information below: Not enough information is provided. Vehicle tracks are not shown as to how the long vehicles will get through M4 Junction 11, (remember it has just been redesigned).has Reading Council been informed of the route as gantries and a new bridge has been erected over the roads? Whitley Wood Lane footbridge has a height of 5910 lowest to 6090 highest; will the loads be able to get through? How will the vehicles will get through Black Boy roundabout, no information has been given? The number of occasions, and more importantly, the length of time over which all the deliveries will take to traverse the route from J11, M4. The hard standing on the footway may require service diversions which will need to be discussed with the statutory undertaker A telegraph pole is required to be removed at Brookers Hill. This is not the property of the Council and as such we can not comment on its removal. The removal of the street furniture will need to be discussed at a later date, but it will need to be replaced after each occasion. The total weight of the vehicles plus each axle weight is missing for each component load (35 numbers). Although axle distances have been given. The height and width of the vehicles is missing for each component load (35 numbers). Whitley Wood Road Footbridge height is One of the bridges you intend to cross (Arborfield Small) along the A327 has a loading capacity of 7.5tonne, what alternative route could you use? Indemnity notices for each vehicle load prior to their movement should be given at least a week prior. A 4 weeks advanced notice for each load component for NRSWA team to check on utilities on the route in WBC area, (35 numbers) needs to be provided. No mention of how traffic lighted positions will be dealt with, one assumes this will be temporary foundation types, please explain? Can the loads be craned in from the M4 to Cutbush Lane as an alternative method? 7.4 The specific responses to the questions raised by Wokingham Council are provided below with supporting information attached to the rear of this report. Should any additional information be required by Wokingham Borough Council it can be provided on request. 25

31 Not enough information is provided. Vehicle tracks are not shown as to how the long vehicles will get through M4 Junction 11, (remember it has just been redesigned). Has Reading Council been informed of the route as gantries and a new bridge has been erected over the roads? Wynns Ltd. undertook an inspection of the new junction alignment on The junction is negotiable for the proposed loads in terms of both horizontal and vertical negotiability. All gantries are above the standard motorway and trunk road 5.03m height clearance below which structures must be marked as low and there are no restrictions. Therefore no specific swept path assessments are considered necessary. As the road is outside of Wokingham District Councils jurisdiction (Reading City Council and Highways Agency) this is of no further relevance to the current requirements. Whitley Wood Lane footbridge has a height of 5910 lowest to 6090 highest; will the loads be able to get through? Wynns Ltd. undertook a route inspection on The bridge is above the standard motorway and trunk road 5.03m height clearance and is not restrictive to any of the proposed loads. All loads will be able to pass beneath the bridge. The transport height of all loads is designed to be able to reduce to below 4.95m. How will the vehicles will get through Black Boy roundabout, no information has been given? Wynns Ltd. undertook an inspection of the new roundabout alignment on The roundabout is negotiable for the proposed loads in terms of both horizontal and vertical negotiability. This is detailed with the swept path drawings Drawing Reference No. PRF- RM-SPA01. The number of occasions, and more importantly, the length of time over which all the deliveries will take to traverse the route from J11, M4. This would be addressed in detail within a Traffic Management Plan following planning approval that will be produced in consultation with Wokingham Borough Council. Furtehr discussion on the constructin program is included within Table 4.2 and Section of the Rushy Mead Wind Energy Development Environmental Statement produced for PfR by Entec in October The exact movement timings of AIL will be confirmed in the period prior to delivery and after consultation with the police authority (Berkshire) by the appointed haulage contractor based on road conditions expected at the time of movement. The hard standing on the footway may require service diversions which will need to be discussed with the statutory undertaker This would be addressed within a Traffic Management Plan following planning approval. 26

32 A telegraph pole is required to be removed at Brookers Hill. This is not the property of the Council and as such we cannot comment on its removal. It is assumed that the telegraph pole referred to is that on the inside of the turn from the A329 onto Cutbush Lane. The land on the inside of this junction is within the ownership of Reading University and it is understood that remedial works can be undertaken as necessary. Despite this it is proposed that if the scheme progresses and removal of the telegraph pole is required British Telecom would be formally consulted. Access at this location is detailed within 5.1 and Drawing Reference No. PRF-RM-SPA02. The removal of the street furniture will need to be discussed at a later date, but it will need to be replaced after each occasion. The exact requirements would be addressed within a Traffic Management Plan following planning approval. As additional information, swept path drawings attached to this report show the areas where street furniture removal is required. It should be noted that not all street furniture will need to be removed for all AILs. The most onerous loads in terms of street furniture removal are the blade and bottom tower section. The removal of street furniture will be arranged prior to movements by the appointed haulage contractor specific to the exact trailer arrangements utilised for each delivery. The total weight of the vehicles plus each axle weight is missing for each component load (35 numbers). Although axle distances have been given. The total gross weight axle weight and other transport dimensions of the conceptual transport configurations are shown within the transport drawings detailed within Section 3 and attached to the rear of this report. These are subject to minor variations depending on the exact transport arrangement selected for movement upon appointment of a haulage contractor as the project progresses but the figures shown are representative of current heavy haulage industry transport arrangements. The height and width of the vehicles is missing for each component load (35 numbers). The total height and width are shown with drawings detailed within Section 3 and attached to the rear of this report. These are subject to minor variation depending on the exact transport arrangement selected for movement upon appointment of a haulage contractor as the project progresses but the figures shown are representative of current heavy haulage industry transport arrangements. One of the bridges you intend to cross (Arborfield Small) along the A327 has a loading capacity of 7.5tonne, what alternative route could you use? As discussed in Section 4.1 it is anticipated that Wokingham Council will have improved the current restrictive capacity of 7.5te on this structure by the time that actual movement applications are submitted (Assuming April 2012). In the event that the 27

33 structural restrictions remain in place a contingency plan for temporary bridge rafting is to be agreed with Wokingham Council. The general principle for such an operation is as described in Section 4.1. Section 4.2 and 5.2 confirms that although alternative routes have been considered none has been identified that is acceptable for all of the proposed loads. Any alternative s would require significant remedial works and street furniture removal and are considered to be more disruptive than the route provisionally proposed. Therefore in order to access the eastern site access at The Lodge it is recommended that all efforts are made to resolve the 7.5te weight restriction. Indemnity notices for each vehicle load prior to their movement should be given at least a week prior. The appointed haulage contractor will indemnify as part of their notification of the actual AIL movement to the site. It should be noted that the statutory requirement for notification to highway authorities is 2 days for STGO Category 1 and 2 loads (up to 80te gross) and 5 days for STGO Category 3 loads (80-150te gross loads). Special Order loads (such as the blades) will move under special permissions from the Highways Agency although again only 5 days notice of the actual movement date is a statutory requirement. PfR will advise contractors of the requirement of the council to be notified a week in advance. A 4 weeks advanced notice for each load component for NRSWA team to check on utilities on the route in WBC area, (35 numbers) needs to be provided. As above it should be noted that the statutory requirement for notification to highway authorities by the appointed haulage contractor is 2 days for STGO Category 1 and 2 loads (up to 80te gross) and 5 days for STGO Category 3 loads (80-150te gross loads). Special Order loads (such as the blades) will move under special permissions from the Highways Agency although again only 5 days notice of the actual movement date is a statutory requirement. PfR will advise contractors of the requirement of the council to be notified four weeks in advance in order for current roadworks and utility operations to be checked by Wokingham Borough Council. PfR expects to be in regular contact with the council as the scheme progresses and will update as to proposed movement timings. PfR are also aware that the council will expect there to be a high degree of public consultation and liaison in terms of possible movement timings etc. PfR will be working with the community liaison groups as the scheme progresses and it is proposed that future AIL delivery dates will be advised through this forum as they become confirmed. No mention of how traffic lighted positions will be dealt with, one assumes this will be temporary foundation types, please explain? Where it is necessary to remove traffic lights then these will be replaced, for the duration of the transit period, with temporary traffic lights, Where necessary these will be of a temporary foundation type (set in concrete base) for ease of adjustment during transit of AIL s. 28

34 Can the loads be craned in from the M4 to Cutbush Lane as an alternative method? The HA were consulted on the location of the turbines by PfR and the HA have strictly stated that no direct access can be taken from the M4 due to safety concerns. The HA advised by letter dated (attached) that the installation and maintenance of the site must be achieved locally and not from the M4 motorway. 8.0 Summary 8.1 Special Types General Order transport configurations can generally be delivered from any port within the United Kingdom, as they are unlikely to attract central government scrutiny. 8.2 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. 8.3 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. A high level provisional concept for such an operation is discussed within this report and Wokingham Borough Council are requested to confirm their acceptance of this in principle. 8.4 Alternative routes to approach the site by avoiding the Aborfield Small Bridge have not been considered in detail as they will be more disruptive to other road users. Any alternative would require a significant amount of street furniture and structural approval before it could be secured. 8.5 The swept path assessment drawings attached to the rear of this report confirm that access from the M4 motorway to the two proposed site entrance locations on Cutbush Lane and at The Lodge are considered negotiable with removal of street furniture as detailed. 8.6 This report does not constitute a full street furniture survey and this should be carried out by the appointed contractor prior to mobilisation and agreed with the appropriate authorities. 29

35 8.7 No specific consideration of the site access road within the development area has been undertaken. The design of the turn into the site will need to be considerate of wind turbine delivery vehicles. 8.8 Nothing in this report shall be construed in any way as confirming that the route has the capacity to accommodate the proposals without the legal notification procedures being followed or that agreement with governing authorities has been provided. 8.9 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. Wokingham Borough Council are requested to confirm their acceptance of this in principle. 30

36 Maps

37 Key Site boundary Abnormal and general construction route Proposed turbine location Turbine over-sail (100 metres diameter) B3270 Upperwood Farm Entrance Cutbush Lane B3349 A327 Hall Farm Entrance Rushy Mead Wind Energy Development Environmental Statement Figure 7.1 Haul Routes October E89c.ai smitv Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data Crown copyright 2010 All rights reserved. Licence number

38 Drawings

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 Selected Correspondence

63 MEMO Place & Neighbourhood Services Highways & Drainage Consultation Response FROM: Peter Bourne MY REF: PDB/2266 TO: Laura Callan DATE: 18 th November 2010 APPLICATION NO. SITE: PROPOSAL: F/2010/2266 Land at Rushy Mead, S of Lower Earley Way Wind turbines No objection No objection subject to conditions No objection subject to S106 agreement (tick this box if S106 contribution can be supported) Recommendation of refusal (reasons below) Amendments required to resolve issues which would otherwise result in recommendation for refusal 1. Highway Safety & Road Design 1.1. This proposal was the subject of pre-application discussions (PA2/2010/1760) at which time I was concerned that the access route for turbine 4 crossed land outside of the red line. This has now been addressed 1.2. The application shows details of the proposed accesses from Cutbush Lane and A327 Arborfield Road, where there are existing accesses 1.3. The access off Cutbush Lane merges with Cutbush Lane at an oblique angle. Whilst this makes it easier for lorries to manoeuvre, it is not conducive to good lines of sight. This arrangement would be acceptable as a temporary access with a banks man present to ensure lorries can emerge safely Occasional use by smaller vehicles to the wind turbines should not pose a problem, but once the construction has been completed it is recommended that the layout revert to its existing configuration A sight line of 2,4m by 215m is shown to the left which is acceptable. No sight line is shown to the right, because this route is blocked by barriers. However, cyclists (and horses and motorcyclists) can gain access and a sight line of 2.4m by 33m should also be shown to the right The access from Arborfield road has sight lines of 2.4m x 215m shown. However the access to the west is not shown correctly and in fact impinges on land not within the highway but within the red line. This needs to be properly shown so that the sight line can be secured and controlled.the10m radius allows access by most vehicles, with an over-runnable area shown for abnormal loads. All this is acceptable P:\Clients\Existing Clients\Partnership for Renewables\ Rushy Mead\ MEMO LC.doc

64 1.7. The EA assesses the accident statistics on the identified haul routes. There were no accidents in Cutbush lane over the three year period assessed. On the A327 (N of Cutbush Lane) there were 24 and on the B3270 between J11 and the A327 there were 8. No significant patterns were identified and so no mitigation measures have been put forward by the applicant. The Traffic Management Plan will need to address highway safety considerations and will be the subject of detailed discussions with Highways. I am not clear how much of this needs to be addressed as part of the planning process, since separate legislation enables the Highway Authority to deal with abnormal loads. 2. Traffic Impact 2.1. I note that minimal access is required for routine maintenance and that the major impact will be during construction phase. Abnormal loads are anticipated, and the developer has already approached my colleagues regarding the access routes, travel times and traffic management arrangements that are needed to enable materials, plant and components to be delivered. I have asked them for to let me know of any issues that may be pertinent to this application by 12 th November The EA (tables 7.6 and 7.7) indicates the likely HGV movements required during the 7 month construction phase. Few movements are expected in the last two months, and during the first 5 months the numbers vary between 50 per day to 204 per day. Apart from four days when concrete pouring takes place, the numbers are unlikely to exceed 62 vehicles (31 in/ 31 out). On the four days when concrete is poured, there is likely to be some impact on the highway network, but as this is on four days only, this is not considered unreasonable 2.3. Abnormal loads will be more disruptive and will require special arrangements including escorts, traffic management and removal of various items of street furniture at junctions to minimise disruption to traffic 2.4. The EA (para ) refers to further investigation works required to identify the nature and extent of any off-site highway measures required along the abnormal load route to provide suitable access. These may need to be secured as part of any planning consent. Given that the works cannot be clearly defined at the present time, a Grampian Condition is not appropriate, and so it is assumed that this will need to form part of a S106 agreement I attach in Appendix 1 below, a series of questions raised by Raihan Ahmed who deals with abnormal loads for WBC/highway Alliance. Can these be forwarded to the applicant? In particular it highlights further information required to assess the works needed to accommodate the delivery vehicles on the highway network Raihan s final question asks about unloading from the M4, but I believe the Highway Agency have already ruled this out The specific locations for further consideration and possible works identified in appendix 7.1 of the EA are. Only those works affecting the construction or equipment sited on highway land or public rights of way require a S278 agreement) A327 Hollow Lane left turn into Cutbush Lane: Temporary removal of telegraph pole, signal equipment, guard railing and fencing, and temporary hard surfacing possibly extending beyond limit of highway onto University of Reading land. (U of Reading would need to be a party to the S106 agreement)

65 A327 Hollow Lane/Arborfield Rd/ B3349 School Green rdbt junction: Temporary removal of signal equipment, guardrails, illuminated bollards and road signs A327: Arborfield Rd access: Temporary overrun area and trimming of trees (not within highway) Works within site affecting Public Rights of Way: Temporary removal of fences and temporary hard-standing clear of right of way Raihan has raised concerns about possible works at J11 and the Blackboy Roundabout which have not been fully assessed. There may be several height restrictions that will need to be addressed 2.8. It should be noted that the lorry routing shown assumes access will be gained along the length of Cutbush Lane. This route would not be available once the Shinfield Eastern Relief road is constructed as part of the S of M4 SDL development proposals. I assume it is intended that these works would be commissioned well before this road scheme is in place 2.9. I note public rights of way are affected by the access routes, and Rebecca Walkley will need to advise on this issue. 3. Parking 3.1. No staff are to be employed on the site in association wit the use, although occasional visits will be required for maintenance purposes. As such no additional parking is required or proposed 4. Sustainability 4.1. No comments 5. Drainage 5.1. Part of the site is within flood zones 2 and 3. I note a FRA has been submitted which indicates the required minimum levels required so that plant is above the likely flood levels for 1 in 100 years plus climate change 5.2. It also indicates the likely increased runoff from the impermeable areas of the site and proposes that this is collected and stored in gravel areas around the site 5.3. I m not clear if you require us to make a detailed appraisal of the flood risk assessment. If so, I will commission this from WSP. Please advise as soon as possible 6. Conditions 6.1. On site construction parking and storage 6.2. Removal or stopping up of temp access in Cutbush Lane at end of construction phase to revert to existing geometry. (Developer may want to keep the access for occasional maintenance vehicles and decommissioning at the end of the 25 year period) 6.3. Sight lines at Cutbush Lane access 2.4m x 215m left and 2.4m x 33m right 6.4. Sight line at Arborfield Road access 2.4m x 215m each way (to be agreed) A Section 106 agreement would also be required to secure; Off site works identified through further assessment of the Abnormal Load routes as set out in the EA (para

66 6.6. Traffic Management Plan including control of access with banks man for lorries over 3,5tonnes at Cutbush Lane access (and for abnormal loads at both accesses) Regards, Pete Bourne Highways DC Team Leader Appendix 1 Notes from Raihan Ahmed Prior to any transportation of heavy/abnormal loads movement through the Wokingham Borough, Traffic Management, Abnormal Loads and NRSWA teams will require the information below: Not enough information is provided. Vehicle tracks are not shown as to how the long vehicles will get through M4 Junction 11, (remember it has just been redesigned).has Reading Council been informed of the route as gantries and a new bridge has been erected over the roads? Whitley Wood Lane footbridge has a height of 5910 lowest to 6090 highest; will the loads be able to get through? How will the vehicles will get through Black Boy roundabout, no information has been given? The number of occasions, and more importantly, the length of time over which all the deliveries will take to traverse the route from J11, M4. The hard standing on the footway may require service diversions which will need to be discussed with the statutory undertaker A telegraph pole is required to be removed at Brookers Hill. This is not the property of the Council and as such we can not comment on its removal. The removal of the street furniture will need to be discussed at a later date, but it will need to be replaced after each occasion. The total weight of the vehicles plus each axle weight is missing for each component load (35 numbers). Although axle distances have been given. The height and width of the vehicles is missing for each component load (35 numbers). Whitley Wood Road Footbridge height is One of the bridges you intend to cross (Arborfield Small) along the A327 has a loading capacity of 7.5tonne, what alternative route could you use? Indemnity notices for each vehicle load prior to their movement should be given at least a week prior. A 4 weeks advanced notice for each load component for NRSWA team to check on utilities on the route in WBC area, (35 numbers) needs to be provided. No mention of how traffic lighted positions will be dealt with, one assumes this will be temporary foundation types, please explain? Can the loads be craned in from the M4 to Cutbush Lane as an alternative method?

67 Andrew Pearce From: Thomas Sanderson Sent: 29 November :34 To: Andrew Pearce Cc: Peter Bourne; Raihan Ahmed Subject: RE: Rushy Mead Wind Farm - AIL Access Transport Configurations Andrew, Further to our telephone conversation this morning. The loads imposed on the Arborfield Bridge by the Lorries and loads are too great for passage and I have to say you cannot use this route to transport the wind mill components. However a raft could be used but, we need to know by design of the raft, calculation of the loads imposed on the structure to safely pass over with Lorries and their loads. You will need to propose as my previous is how do you do this, in the respect of traffic and times using the route to lay a raft? Regards, Tom Sanderson Senior Structures Engineer WSP Civils/Wokingham Highways Alliance Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Shute end Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 1BN Tel: Fax: Mobile: From: Andrew Pearce [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 November :59 To: Thomas Sanderson Subject: RE: Rushy Mead Wind Farm - AIL Access Transport Configurations Tom, I tried to call you today without success. When you are back in the office could you give me a call to discuss the way forward reference the issues below. Regards Andy Pearce From: Thomas Sanderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 November :53 To: Andrew Pearce Cc: Peter Bourne; Nick Rose; Raihan Ahmed Subject: RE: Rushy Mead Wind Farm AIL Access Transport Configurations 1

68 Andrew, We like the raft, and I think this is the way forward. The gross weights of the crane are high and when you get 3 5 axles over the bridge deck at one time the weights are too great. However how are you going to lay the raft in time and remove, or is that only one lane, with traffic on the A327? Regards, Tom Sanderson Senior Structures Engineer WSP Civils/Wokingham Highways Alliance Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Shute end Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 1BN Tel: Fax: Mobile: From: Andrew Pearce [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 November :13 To: Thomas Sanderson Subject: FW: Rushy Mead Wind Farm AIL Access Transport Configurations Tom, Have you had any further thoughts reference the issue of access to Rushy Mead via the Arborfield Bridges. Kind Regards Andy Pearce From: Andrew Pearce Sent: 04 November :45 To: 'Thomas Sanderson' Cc: Martin Cleary Subject: Rushy Mead Wind Farm AIL Access Transport Configurations Tom, Following your conversation with Martin yesterday please see attached various transport configurations. These detail the various wind turbine components being considered for delivery to the proposed Rushy Mead Wind Farm. The drawings show: Nacelle Drawing Number PFR RM N01 Drive Train Drawing Number PFR RM DT01 (This has 3, 4 and 5 axle combinations shown) Rotor Hub Drawing Number PFR RM RH01 Turbine Blade Drawing Number PFR RM B01 Heaviest Tower Section & Largest Diameter Tower Section Drawing Number PFR RM TS01 Sheet 1 showing bottom tower section in clamp and beam trailer Longest Tower Section (23800mm mid tower section) Drawing Number PFR RM TS01 Sheet 2 2

69 Mobile Crane Drawing Number PFR RM C01. This drawing shows varying axle load arrangements based on operators maximum and minimum and manufacturers literature. We would expect that the most onerous loads may be those required for the mobile erection crane but would welcome your comments on the suitability of the routes detailed for the proposed loads in terms of structural clearance. I understand that the Arborfield Small Bridge is now 7.5te gross limit following a recent bridge assessment, although this is still being traversed by 44te vehicles at present. As discussed with Martin, if the loads proposed present difficulties we would be able to consider temporary relieving measures such as bridge rafting etc. I attach a couple of pictures showing AILs using a temporary structure to cross over weak bridges on other AIL routes in the UK. Whilst not saying this is definitely what we propose for Arborfield Small Bridge, it is just one option that may need to be considered in more detail to gain access to the site. We would welcome any comments you have as well as any thoughts on potential remedial measures or special cautions that could be considered to enable the proposed loads to cross the Arborfield Small Bridge, such as centre line running, no other traffic on bridge and any mitigation measures such as bridge rafting In addition are you able to provide any as built/general arrangement drawings of the bridge for our records. For the record we understand the proposed route to the site from the M4 motorway to be as shown below. Another specific question I have on this route is can you confirm who is responsible for the bridge carrying the A327 over the M4 (i.e.either Wokingham Council or Highways Agency Area 3) Proposed route 1 from M4 Jct 11 Exit M4 junction 11 onto B3270 Turn right A327 Continue A327 Shinfield Road crossing over M4 motorway Continue A327 Hollow Lane, Arborfield Road Continue A327 over Arborfield Small Bridge and Arborfield Great Bridge Turn left into proposed site access at Hall Farm entrance I would also be interested to learn as to your thoughts as to the structural status of a possible alternative access to the west of the site which would be as shown below: Proposed route 2 from M4 Jct 11 As per proposed route 1 to A327 Shinfield Road Turn left Cutbush Lane Turn right into proposed site access at Upperwood Farm entrance I trust that this information is acceptable and we look forward to your comments. If you need any further information or clarification on any matters please do not hesitate to contact either Martin or myself. Regards Andy Pearce Wynns Limited Shaftesbury House High Street Eccleshall Staffs ST21 6BZ UK Telephone: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)

70 Andrew Pearce From: Thomas Sanderson Sent: 04 November :04 To: Andrew Pearce Cc: Raihan Ahmed Subject: 147-Arborfield Small Bridge Attachments: 147-Aborfield Small.jpg Andrew, As requested, attached is a copy of the original drawing of the portal frame, 147-Arborfield Small Bridge for your files. Regards, Tom Sanderson Senior Structures Engineer WSP Civils/Wokingham Highways Alliance Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Shute end Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 1BN Tel: Fax: Mobile: DISCLAIMER You should be aware that all s received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee). The views expressed may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it. All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the detection and eradication of viruses. 1

71