10.2.64 ES Annex B19.C Abnormal Indivisible Loads Access Study

Volume 2
Environmental Statement Annexes

Walney Extension
Offshore Wind
Farm
Document Reference:
10.2.64
APFP: 5(2)(a)
Date: June 2013
A
n
n
e
x

B
1
9
.
C
Annex B19.C: Abnormal Indivisible Loads Access
Study

Prepared for
DONG Energy
33 Grosvenor Place
London
SW1X 7HY

Walney Offshore Wind Farm Extension.
Abnormal Indivisible Loads Access Study

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

Name

Signature

Date

Prepared by:
Andy Pearce

22.05.13

Checked by:
Martin Cleary

24.05.13

Approved by:
Martin Cleary

24.05.13
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.

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

0 26.04.13 Draft Report
1 24.05.13 Final Report
2 31.05.13 Final Report with amendment to work area numbers

DONG Energy I 13-760 Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm I AIL Access I 31.05.13 I V2
Contents & Executive Summary I Page i of iii

Contents

Executive Summary iii
1. Introduction 1
2. Highways Agency and Vehicle Legislative Requirements 3
2.1. Definition of Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) 3
2.2. Legislation 3
2.3. Water Preferred Policy Requirements 4
3. Abnormal indivisible load movements - Highways Act 1980 4
3.1. Planning Permission 4
3.2. Recovery of excessive maintenance costs - Section 59 agreements 5
3.3. The removal and replacement of street furniture 5
4. Physical Restrictions affecting a Road Movement 5
4.1. General 5
4.2. Headroom 5
4.3. Negotiability 7
4.4. Structural Capability and Highway Capacity 8
4.5. Road Crust 8
4.6. Bridges 9
4.7. Underground Services 10
4.8. Speed 11
4.9. Road Works 11
5. Loads Considered for Delivery as part of the Walney Extension Project 12
6. High Level Review of Existing Information 13
6.2. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from Heysham Port to New Substation 16
6.3. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from Relevant to Cable Drum Access via
Middleton 17
6.4. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from M6 Motorway 18
7. Transformer Access to Proposed Walney Offshore Wind Farm Onshore Substation 19
7.1. Transport Configurations 19
7.2. Structural Information 20
7.3. Negotiability Information 21
8. Cable Drum Access to Proposed Cable Trench Access Points 25
Contents & Executive Summary I Page ii of iii

8.4. On site engineering requirements for haul road 36
8.5. Additional Access Requirements to Beach Area for Other Plant 36
9. Swept Path Assessment of Carr Lane for Cable Drum Access 41
10. Site Access off Highway 43
11. Hedgerows (permitted work), Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and Bird Nests 43
11.1. Hedgerows 43
11.2. Permitted work 44
11.3. Tree Preservation Orders 44
11.4. Bird Nests 45
12. Transport General 45
13. Summary and Conclusions 46

Maps

Drawings

Contents & Executive Summary I Page iii of iii

Executive Summary

DONG Energy (DONG) are preparing a Development Consent Order Application for the offshore
Walney Extension Wind Farm including an Environmental Impact Assessment for the up to 750MW
scheme. The onshore elements of the project, including the substation and cable route are located in
the vicinity of Heysham, Lancashire. An onshore cable route has been selected from Potts Corner to a
site selected for the proposed construction of a substation adjacent to a new National Grid Electricity
Transmission (NGET) site on the A683.

The Project will require the delivery of Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AILs) for the substation, including
transformers, and the cable will be delivered on drums also considered to be AILs. This report
considers the availability of a suitable AIL route to the proposed substation location and also the
primary route into the core of the alignment proposed for the buried power cables, from landfall to the
substation site, for a vehicle carrying an optimum drum specification.

Notwithstanding government policy and guidance the transformer height of 6000mm most probably
precludes the possibility of delivery of the transformer from the motorway network. It is therefore
most probable that the transformer will be shipped to Heysham Port. Although a 20 axle frame trailer
vehicle has been considered within this review it should be noted that without a formal approach to
the highway structural authorities there remains some doubt over the final arrangements that will be
acceptable to and structural restrictions en route.

It has been recognised that a variety of trailer configurations are possible candidates for the delivery
of the 30te cable drum. We have therefore considered both a worst case scenario and other less
rapacious vehicle arrangements in our assessment. It has been demonstrated that the plant and the
other vehicle arrangements presented by DONG Energy associated with the project can be embraced
by the envelope of the 30te cable drum vehicle configurations.

Access for 30te cable drums becomes difficult in Carr Lane beyond OS Reference SD 41597 57704 and
may necessitate temporary land acquisition which is also a high probability requirement for
construction plant vehicles considered within the report. Access onto the construction alignment at
this location can easily be achieved but will necessitate enabling works beyond track construction.

Detailed assessment of the route beyond this location would necessitate topographical survey to
confirm access. The 21te Excavator transport configuration cannot negotiate the left hand turn to exit
Carr Lane at Potts Corner where there exists a ramp onto the foreshore.

On narrow or single track roads of the nature of Carr Lane there is an increased probability that
vehicles will transgress onto the verges. This should be avoided as it can threaten services as well as
open drainage systems. The provision of laybys and traffic management systems is strongly advised.

DONG Energy I 13-760 Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm I AIL Access I 31.05.13 I V2.
Contents & Executive Summary I Page i of iii

Contents

Executive Summary iii
1. Introduction 1
2. Highways Agency and Vehicle Legislative Requirements 3
2.1. Definition of Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) 3
2.2. Legislation 3
2.3. Water Preferred Policy Requirements 4
3. Abnormal indivisible load movements - Highways Act 1980 4
3.1. Planning Permission 4
3.2. Recovery of excessive maintenance costs - Section 59 agreements 5
3.3. The removal and replacement of street furniture 5
4. Physical Restrictions affecting a Road Movement 5
4.1. General 5
4.2. Headroom 5
4.3. Negotiability 7
4.4. Structural Capability and Highway Capacity 8
4.5. Road Crust 8
4.6. Bridges 9
4.7. Underground Services 10
4.8. Speed 11
4.9. Road Works 11
5. Loads Considered for Delivery as part of the Walney Extension Project 12
6. High Level Review of Existing Information 13
6.2. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from Heysham Port to New Substation 16
Middleton 17
6.4. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from M6 Motorway 18
7. Transformer Access to Proposed Walney Offshore Wind Farm Onshore Substation 19
8. Cable Drum Access to Proposed Cable Trench Access Points 25
Contents & Executive Summary I Page ii of iii

8.4. On site engineering requirements for haul road 36
8.5. Additional Access Requirements to Beach Area for Other Plant 36
9. Swept Path Assessment of Carr Lane for Cable Drum Access 41
10. Site Access off Highway 43
11. Hedgerows (permitted work), Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and Bird Nests 43
11.1. Hedgerows 43
11.2. Permitted work 44
11.3. Tree Preservation Orders 44
11.4. Bird Nests 45
12. Transport General 45
13. Summary and Conclusions 46

Maps

Drawings

Contents & Executive Summary I Page iii of iii

Executive Summary

DONG Energy (DONG) are preparing a Development Consent Order Application for the offshore
Walney Extension Wind Farm including an Environmental Impact Assessment for the up to 750MW
scheme. The onshore elements of the project, including the substation and cable route are located in
the vicinity of Heysham, Lancashire. An onshore cable route has been selected from Potts Corner to a
site selected for the proposed construction of a substation adjacent to a new National Grid Electricity
Transmission (NGET) site on the A683.

The Project will require the delivery of Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AILs) for the substation, including
transformers, and the cable will be delivered on drums also considered to be AILs. This report
considers the availability of a suitable AIL route to the proposed substation location and also the
primary route into the core of the alignment proposed for the buried power cables, from landfall to the
substation site, for a vehicle carrying an optimum drum specification.

Notwithstanding government policy and guidance the transformer height of 6000mm most probably
precludes the possibility of delivery of the transformer from the motorway network. It is therefore
most probable that the transformer will be shipped to Heysham Port. Although a 20 axle frame trailer
vehicle has been considered within this review it should be noted that without a formal approach to
the highway structural authorities there remains some doubt over the final arrangements that will be
acceptable to and structural restrictions en route.

It has been recognised that a variety of trailer configurations are possible candidates for the delivery
of the 30te cable drum. We have therefore considered both a worst case scenario and other less
rapacious vehicle arrangements in our assessment. It has been demonstrated that the plant and the
other vehicle arrangements presented by DONG Energy associated with the project can be embraced
by the envelope of the 30te cable drum vehicle configurations.

Access for 30te cable drums becomes difficult in Carr Lane beyond OS Reference SD 41597 57704 and
may necessitate temporary land acquisition which is also a high probability requirement for
construction plant vehicles considered within the report. Access onto the construction alignment at
this location can easily be achieved but will necessitate enabling works beyond track construction.

Detailed assessment of the route beyond this location would necessitate topographical survey to
confirm access. The 21te Excavator transport configuration cannot negotiate the left hand turn to exit
Carr Lane at Potts Corner where there exists a ramp onto the foreshore.

On narrow or single track roads of the nature of Carr Lane there is an increased probability that
vehicles will transgress onto the verges. This should be avoided as it can threaten services as well as
open drainage systems. The provision of laybys and traffic management systems is strongly advised.

Page 1 of 46

1. Introduction
1.1. The contents of this report include land transport feasibility investigations into achieving
access for the future delivery of transformers and cable drums as planning in preparation for
future Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) movement delivery requirements to potential
development areas within the corridor of works that is being considered for construction of a
new connection to the Walney Offshore Wind Farm Onshore Substation.
1.2. DONG Energy (DONG) are preparing a Development Consent Order Application for the
offshore Walney Extension Wind Farm including an Environmental Impact Assessment for the
up to 750MW scheme. The onshore elements of the project, including the substation and cable
route are located in the vicinity of Heysham, Lancashire. An onshore cable route has been
selected from Potts Corner to a site selected for the proposed construction of a substation
adjacent to a new National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) site on the A683.
1.3. The Project will require the delivery of AILs for the substation, including transformers, and the
cable will be delivered on drums also considered to be AILs.
1.4. DONG requires an indication as to the availability of a suitable AIL route to the proposed
substation location and also to the numerous sites that have been identified as potential
delivery locations for cable carrying vehicles. The potential locations where cable drum access
could be required is considered and the purpose of this report is to identify potential AIL
routes worthy of more detailed examination.
1.5. Each site is discussed in terms of AIL access within this report in terms of physical
negotiability requirements only. Structural investigations have not been carried out and, if
required, will follow consultation with the relevant stakeholders. It will be necessary as the
project proceeds to undertake structural investigations on the preferred routes to site in order
to confirm the structural capacity of the preferred routes identified to the selected sites. In
addition to the cable transporters it will also be necessary to consider other AILs such as plant
vehicles and heavy lift cranes.
1.6. The report aims to provide a preferred route to the proposed substation access point from the
public highway and also to each location being considered for cable drum deliveries with
details on remedial actions required to enable access to be achieved.
1.7. It should be noted that the routes detailed within this report apply to the transport of AILs
only. No specific consideration is given to general Construction and Use Traffic that would be
associated with the scheme as it is developed and may be considered, by the local authorities,
to be equally or possibly more disruptive to the local environment.
1.8. The routes detailed are considered from a transport perspective only and the
recommendations are not intended to account for the overall project and Environmental
Impact Assessment requirements will consider many additional aspects that are outside of the
remit of this report.
Page 2 of 46

1.9. The report considers a conceptual load based on cable drum dimensions advised to Wynns Ltd.
by DONG at the commencement of the investigations. This is discussed further within Sections
5.2 and 8.1.
1.10. No specific consideration has been given to an onsite cable carrying vehicle that is often
deployed during onsite movement of cables from storage to installation point.. Wynns Ltd. are
aware from other similar projects that on occasions the site installation vehicles will also need
to be road routed to the site as it is not built up on site. This vehicle could, based on previous
experience, also be an AIL due to its excessive width (>3.0m).
1.11. This document identifies a preferred route to the various locations detailed but does not
constitute a formal agreement for movement. Any future movement to the substation at
Special Order category or for the cable drums within Special Types General Order (STGO)
Regulations will require the appointed haulage contractor to notify the relevant statutory
authorities in the statutory manner. The legislative requirements for movement of the
transformers and cable drums are discussed in detail within Section 2.
1.12. The status of the entire road route proposed from and UK port of access or manufacturing
facility would need to be notified by the appointed haulage contractor prior to movement. For
the purposes of these investigations it is assumed that the proposed loads will be delivered by
sea to Heysham Port, although an additional high level review of the route to the general area
from the M6 motorway is also included in respect to STGO loads. No restrictions are
anticipated with STGO loads via the national motorway and trunk road network and this
report concentrates on access to the proposed site access locations from the Port of Heysham.
1.13. No specific on site movement requirements at the substation or within the areas being
considered for cable handling within the development corridor have been considered and the
access investigations conclude at the proposed site access locations where they exit the public
highway, although generic information in terms of the likely turning and loading requirements
necessary for the delivery of circa cable drums and transformers for consideration during
future design of the site entrances and access roads.
1.14. Specific on site access issues can be considered under separate work instructions if requested.
1.15. Potential transport configurations considerate of the delivery requirements from Heysham
Docks have been constructed and are discussed in detail within the report.
1.16. 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. Specific
movements will need to be assessed at the time on an individual basis. If any further
information is required, it is available on request.

Page 3 of 46

2. Highways Agency and Vehicle Legislative Requirements
2.1. Definition of Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL)
2.1.1. The Department for Transport, of which the Highways Agency (HA) is an executive agency,
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).
2.1.2. All equipment should be stripped of their ancillaries before they are transported. The HA will
only accept that further dismantling is not required where it cannot be economically achieved
due to the requirement for its construction within specific factory environments or where
extremely high tolerances have to be maintained.
2.2. Legislation
2.2.1. 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.
2.2.2. Where dimensions exceed 6100mm in width, 30000mm in rigid length or 150 tonnes gross
weight, Special Order from the Highway Agency (HA), is required.
2.2.3. 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.
2.2.4. STGO loads orders grant consent for loads that satisfy the following criteria:
Category 1 weight 44 50 tonnes and 11.5te axle weights
3.0m 5m width
5.0m 6.1m width (VR1 Required)
18.65m 30.0m length
2.2.5. The cable drums considered within these investigations are expected to be transported at
STGO Category 2 or 3. Category 3 loads are required to provide two clear working weekdays
notice to be given to the Police forces on the proposed route and are required to provide 5
Page 4 of 46

clear working weekdays notice together with an indemnity to the highway and bridge
authorities on the route.
2.2.6. Any increase in the weight (or width) of cable drums into Special Order Category by adding
cable would need discussion with the appropriate permitting authorities such as the Highways
Agency. It should be noted that, as per point 2.1.1, increasing the length of cable may meet with
resistance as it would not be Indivisible and the load could be moved within STGO
regulations if required at smaller dimensions.
2.3. Water Preferred Policy Requirements
2.3.1. 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 AILs and government policy is that the closest available port of access should be
used for the delivery of such oversize items.
2.3.2. In consideration of the water preferred policy to maximise the use of water for the movement
of Special Order (Above 150te gross) AILs wherever practicable, Wynns Ltd. are aware that in
the past transformers delivered to Heysham Substation have been required to utilise the
nearest available marine delivery location at the Port of Heysham.
2.3.3. It will be necessary to obtain an Agreement in Principle (AIP) from the HA but it is expected
that the HA will direct any Special Order loads to the Port of Heysham.

3. Abnormal indivisible load movements - Highways Act 1980
3.1. Planning Permission
3.1.1. Where a project is subject to Planning Permission (PP) and the development effects the
Motorway and Trunk Road network (Highway Agency Roads) then a legally binding agreement
between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Developer may be required under Section
278 of the Highways Act 1980. Highway improvement works on roads which are under the
control of the Local Highway Authority (LA) and where the LA identify it as a benefit to the
public they would also follow the same guidance to ensure the developer pays the cost
associated with the street furniture removal and replacement or other works of that nature
that are caused by the mobilisation of construction plant and installation equipment such as
transformers (abnormal indivisible loads).
Page 5 of 46

3.2. Recovery of excessive maintenance costs - Section 59 agreements
3.2.1. Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 allows the highways authority to raise a charge against a
user of the highway to cover repair works necessitated by excessively heavy or unusual loads
being carried on the road by that user. This provision is typically used where the passage of
heavy lorries to and from industrial premises or building sites causes excessive damage to the
road, requiring expensive remedial works by the Council. Under Section 59, the Council may
charge on such costs to the organisation responsible for the damage, the amount payable being
calculated as the excess cost of repair compared to normal maintenance costs for the road.
Rather than wait to be charged such excessive repair costs, the Council and the third party may
enter into an agreement under Section 59 whereby the third party accepts liability and makes
payment of an agreed sum to the Council to cover the excessive repair costs.
3.3. The removal and replacement of street furniture
3.3.1. The removal and replacement of street furniture required for the mobilisation of out of gauge
vehicles into existing sites then these are generally managed under Temporary Traffic
Regulation Orders (TTRO) and Street Works Legislation. These are normally, but not
necessarily, organised by the haulage contractor. These requirements are generally to ensure
that the supervisors and operatives are competent and that the works will be carried out to a
prescribe standard with the appropriate traffic management in place. In some circumstance
the Highway Authority or LA will insist that their preferred contractors will carry out such
work.

4. Physical Restrictions affecting a Road Movement
4.1. General
4.1.1. Construction will entail the movement of many AILs to site during the period of its
construction. Not only the cable drums, but also construction plant.
4.1.2. As previously stated an abnormal load is one that is incapable of division into two or more
loads by reason of expense or risk of damage and which cannot be carried by a trailer
complying in all with the Road Traffic; Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
(SI No.1078) (C12) (S38) as amended (the Construction and Use Regulations) or where the
trailer does so comply the total laden weight exceeds 44 tonnes.
4.1.3. The following details within Section 4 discuss the general principles that should be considered
when moving AILs. The specific requirements of the routes for the proposed Walney
Extension project are discussed in later sections.
4.2. Headroom
4.2.1. Movement is impossible unless sufficient headroom is available along the proposed route to
accommodate the travelling height of the load. Generally maximum headroom of 5.03 metres
(166) is maintained within the UK on major motorway and trunk road routes, but this is not
Page 6 of 46

guaranteed and the actual height is posted on structures, such as bridges and gantries, which
are below this figure. The UK electricity supply industry and plant manufacturers generally
work to a travelling height of 4.95 metres (163) to allow for a safe margin.
4.2.2. Nationally, a system of High Load Routes exists in principle which provides for the movement
of high loads with travelling heights in excess of 4.95 metres and up to 6.0 metres (200).
These routes are normally off motorways and their load carrying capability varies as high
loads are not always exceptionally heavy loads. They have to be assessed carefully for each
individual high load.
4.2.3. The height of the load will be increased by the height of the trailer and any packing that may be
utilised to give a gross travelling height.
4.2.4. Where restrictions are caused by overhead services such as telephone lines and local power
distribution lines, it is feasible to raise or underground these along relatively short routes.
Arrangements are made with the responsible undertakers. This is, however, not usually
feasible over longer routes or where there are a large number of lines involved. It is usually
impossible to do anything to raise low bridges, but steel gantries with bolted connections can
sometimes be temporarily lifted.

Photograph 1
Overhead services being lifted to accommodate the transit of a vehicle height in excess of 6.0m en-
route between London Thamesport and Grain Power Station, Kent. Source: Abnormal Load Engineering.

Page 7 of 46

Photograph 2
Transformer being carried on a girder frame trailer under an unmarked bridge. Unmarked overhead
structures provide a minimum height clearance of 5.03m. Below this height obstructions are clearly
marked.
4.2.5. Although there is no legal limit on the travelling height of a vehicle and its load, the
Department for Transport does advise hauliers to inform the Regional Electricity Companys
(REC), British Telecom and any other company with overhead service lines, of the route of the
proposed movements with a travelling height in excess of 5.0 metres. This enables
arrangements to be made for temporary or permanent re-arrangement of facilities.
4.2.6. It should be noted that the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 refer to the minimum height
for overhead lines. Part IV, Section 13 of these regulations states that the height above ground
of any overhead line or wire shall not be less than a specific height at any point where the line
is over a road depending on the voltages outlined below.
Not Exceeding 33000 Volts 5.8m
Exceeding 33000 Volts but Not Exceeding 66000 6.0m
4.2.7. It is recommended that overhead line authorities are approached to confirm recorded and safe
height clearances for all wires above the often referred to high load cut of point of 166
(5.03m). Just because a line is of a given height it does not mean that high loads will
automatically be permitted to pass underneath due to flashover and safe height clearance
requirements of the line owner. Further information can be obtained from the Health & Safety
Executive Guidance note GS6 'AVOIDANCE OF DANGER FROM OVERHEAD ELECTRIC POWER
LINES' (HSE Books 1997 ISBN 0717613488).
4.3. Negotiability
4.3.1. Assuming that sufficient headroom is available, or can be achieved, it is necessary to establish
that the route can be negotiated in terms of the overall width and length of the arrangement.
Selection of transporter is often influenced by the load carrying capability of the route. If a
Page 8 of 46

large number of axles are needed in order to support the required load on the road and bridge
decks, this may result in a configuration that is unable to negotiate the particular route.
4.3.2. Where negotiability is restricted by the width or the curvature of the route, it can be increased
by the temporary removal of street furniture such as lamp posts, traffic signs etc., but
normally little can be done if passage is restricted by more permanent objects such as
buildings. These works are done with the agreement of the relevant local and highway
authorities. The negotiability of the route for transformer delivery is further discussed in
Section 7.1.
4.4. Structural Capability and Highway Capacity
4.4.1. The load carrying capability of roads depends to a great extent on axle loading rather than total
weight of the load being transported. There are three main limiting factors on the capability of
roads to bear heavy loads.
4.4.2. The load carrying capability of the route has to be assessed in relation to the loadings that
would be imposed by the total gross weight of the load plus transporter for each item to be
transported. The factors to be considered are the axle and wheel pair loadings; the road crust;
the effect of such loadings on bridges; underground services and speed. The tractor unit is
normally considered as a separate unit in terms of imposed axle and wheel loadings provided
that the tractor unit us not supporting any load through a fifth wheel. Indemnities are given to
highway and bridge authorities for any damage caused, usually by the appointed haulage
contractor.

Photograph 3
Small culvert and evidence of damage to the structure and carriageway on Carr Lane at approximate
OS Reference SD 4140 5740.
4.5. Road Crust
4.5.1. Road crust strength is important, but with the spread of load obtained with modern multi-
wheeled transporters, it is not normally a problem, providing the road is maintained to a
reasonable standard.
Page 9 of 46

Photograph 4
Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4160 5760. Load moves away from camera. Damage to current carriageway
condition. Failure of the road surface due to sub-base movement towards soft verges. Pre and post
inspection of the highway is advisable.
4.6. Bridges
4.6.1. Bridges in Great Britain are designed and constructed in accordance with the loading standard
set down in British Standard BS 5400-2:2006 Steel, concrete and composite bridges.
Specification for loads, which in 2006 replaced the British Standard BS 5400: Part 2: 1978. This
Part of BS 5400 specifies nominal loads and their application, together with the partial factors,
to be used in deriving design loads. The loads and load combinations specified are for highway,
railway and foot/cycle track bridges in the UK.
4.6.2. This standard provides for two types of loading: Type HA and Type HB. Older bridges may not
have necessarily been designed to these standards but that does not prevent them from being
assessed for abnormal load carrying capability.
4.6.3. Type HA is the normal design loading in Great Britain suitable for normal vehicles permitted
under the Construction and Use Regulations rather than for those used for the carriage of
abnormal loads.
4.6.4. Type HB loading is a rating for exceptional industrial loads, e.g. electrical transformers,
generators, pressure vessels, machine presses etc., likely to use the roads in the area. It takes
account of the loading that would be imposed on to the highway by a standard 4 axle, 16
wheeled HB vehicle, conforming to the dimensions set down in the Standard.
4.6.5. Unless the axle configuration of the transporter matches that of the standard exactly, it is not
possible to say directly whether passage of a particular abnormal load would be permissible. If
it is known that a road meets a particular HB loading standard (or not), it is necessary to assess
routes with respect to individual loads. However, if bridges have been designed to meet a
known standard this greatly assists the assessment process.
4.6.6. In general terms the UK motorway and trunk road network is nominally designed to be able to
accommodate 45HB units. Depending on the class of roads, and the age of a structure, county
roads are often lower rated at 37.5HB/30HB etc.
Page 10 of 46

4.6.7. For example, 45 units of HB therefore correspond to a 180te vehicle on four axles at the worst
case spacing of those given above and with the vehicle fully aligned with the structure. None of
this is precisely duplicated within any of the transport configurations or in the track geometry
during transit of structures hence the variations indicated.
4.7. Underground Services
4.7.1. When assessing the effect of weight on underground services, such as water pipes, sewers and
service ducts, the loading imposed by individual wheels is normally considered.
4.7.2. The weight that can be safely borne by underground services varies depending on their age
and condition; the depth to which they are buried; and the strength of the road crust covering.
All these factors have to be considered when assessing the suitability of a road for the passage
of abnormal loads and assessment is usually carried out by the relevant authority or statutory
body concerned.
4.7.3. Risk to services can be considered in relation to the weight to which they could be exposed by
the passage of normal vehicles permitted by the Construction and Use Regulations. This can
then be compared with that which would be imposed by the passage of the proposed abnormal
load movements, and with the pressure to which they may have been subjected by previous
movements of abnormal loads.
4.7.4. Experience gained by the heavy haulage industry generally is that underground services are
not damaged providing that road crust strength is to a reasonable standard and that the depth
of cover and condition of services are normal. The haulage contractor would be required to
provide indemnities against possible damage as a result of the movements. Where there are
known problems of particular concern, it is quite often the case that the consignor has to
provide the indemnity, or insurance cover.
4.7.5. On narrow or single track roads there is an increased probability that vehicles will transgress
onto the verges. This should be avoided as it can threaten services as well as open drainage
systems. The provision of laybys and traffic management systems is strongly advised.

Page 11 of 46

Photograph 5
Carr Lane at approximate OS Reference SD 4150 5750. The road width has been overrun by vehicles.
Generally the condition of the road is good although C&U traffic is likely to lead to deterioration.
Passing points will need to be constructed.

Photograph 6
Evidience of underground services on Carr Lane at approximate OS Reference SD 4151 5823.
Consultation as to the presence of underground infrastructure should be made.
4.8. Speed
4.8.1. STGO Category 3 loads have a 30 kph (20 mph) speed restriction when exceeding 4.3m wide
on non-motorway or dual carriageway roads.
4.9. Road Works
4.9.1. Road works were observed during the site inspection of Carr Lane these significantly restrict
access and liaison with the highway authority and utilities is necessary throughout the project
to minimise conflict. In some circumstances it may be necessary to agree temporary closure of
excavations to ensure road safety; this is particularly relevant during the movement of out of
gauge transport configurations.
Page 12 of 46

Photograph 7
Carr Lane. Load moves away from camera. Example of widening works in progress with associated
traffic management at the time of route inspection.

5. Loads Considered for Delivery as part of the Walney Extension Project
5.1. Transformers
5.1.1. The transformer transport dimensions advised by DONG on 19.04.13 for consideration within
the report are as detailed below.
Length 13m
Width 5m
Height 6m
Weight 325te
5.1.2. The height of the transformer is larger than those typically transported in the UK but for the
purposes of these investigations it is assumed the 6m height is the worst case transport height.
5.1.3. Despite the above, some observations which need to be accounted for during the planning of
transformer delivery to the proposed site including the potential trailer arrangements are
included within Section 7.1.
5.2. Cable Drums
5.2.1. At the commencement of these investigations it was expected that the cable drums to be
delivered are to be of the following transport dimensions:
Width 3m
Height 4m
Weight 30te
5.2.2. The conceptual transport dimensions for the cable drums are discussed within Section 8.1

Page 13 of 46

5.3. Other Plant
5.3.1. The vehicles detailed in Table 1 will also be required to access the beach from the bottom of
Carr Lane to complete the works.
Table 1. Other Plant Requiring Access via Carr Lane
Item Length (m) Width (m) Weight (te)
Flatbed Lorry 18 3 44
Excavators 10 3 25
Mobile Crane 11 2.6 40
5.3.2. It has been demonstrated that the plant dimensions above are within the envelope of the 30te
cable drum vehicle configurations (see Drawing Ref. Dong-WE-Comp01) considered during the
swept path assessment process and discussed further within Sections 8.4 and 9.. However, a
specific transport drawings, for these items, have been produced which detail conceptual
delivery arrangements for the additional items of plant and there access requirements.
5.3.3. It should be noted that due to the concentrated wheel loadings of mobile cranes it is possible
that these transport arrangements will be considered more onerous to the structural
authorities than the vehicles carrying the cable drums.

6. High Level Review of Existing Information
6.1. Port of Heysham Historical Review
6.1.1. No specific review of the current status of Heysham Port for the delivery of transformers and
cable drum components has been undertaken within this report and the following information
is based on existing information known to Wynns Ltd. The report was last investigated in
detail during 2010 and information obtained at that time is discussed below. A plan of the port
environment in terms of the opportunities for offloading AILs is attached as D-WDS HP01
(consrtructed during the West Duddon Sands Investigations and reviewed).
6.1.2. Heysham Port is part of the Peel Ports Group. The harbour comprises several alongside berths
and Ro/Ro ferry terminals connected to Heysham Lake by a 91m wide channel. The harbour is
subject to a Spring tidal range of 8.3m and a Neap tidal range of 4.5m.
6.1.3. The entrance channel is dredged regularly to a depth of 4.1m @ LAT (Lowest Astronomical
Tide); general depth in the harbour is also 4.1m @ LAT.
6.1.4. The maximum vessel size to date handled by the harbour is 25,000te dwt, length 160m, 26m
beam and 9m draught.
6.1.5. Strong West winds can cause swell near the harbour entrance and such conditions should be
taken into account when programming a move.
Page 14 of 46

6.1.6. There are various available sites for offloading of transformers. These are the North Quay and
the South Quay within Heysham Port and the Ro/Ro berth situated on the quay at Heysham
Power station, known as the West Wall. In addition there is also a 200te capacity link span
within the port.
6.1.7. The Power Station/West Quay is situated close inside the Southern side of the port entrance
and is 170m long. It is considered suitable principally for Roll on/Roll off (Ro/Ro) operations.
Use of a floating crane would be feasible. However the use of geared vessels and coasters and
mobile heavy lift cranes is restricted by the limited depth of water alongside the quay wall and
the very limited rigging area adjacent to the quay and there is a probability that the use of a
mobile crane would require significant temporary works to provide a sufficient crane pad and
mobilisation area. The Power Station/West Quay would not be expected to be an option for
loads for the Walney Extension project and is primarily used for deliveries to the adjacent
power station.
6.1.8. The South Quay is 460m long and whilst it could possibly be considered for offloading by way
of Lift on/Lift off (Lo/Lo) operations with a mobile crane but in 2010 this was not a preferred
location of the port to deliver transformers. It is understood that due to concerns about the
crane rails it would be necessary for mobile cranes to sit at least 11-16m from the quay edge.
Heysham Port advised in 2010 that at present they have no specific guidance as to which parts
of the quay are able to accommodate the use of a mobile crane and which are not. The port
indicated that this is to be addressed in the future internally and further information may be
available in the future. Geared vessels would however be able to work at the quay and offload
directly to waiting road transport vehicles. The suitability of the South Quay for Lo/Lo would
need to be confirmed.
6.1.9. Historically Heysham Port Ltd, have advised that the area most suitable for the handling of
heavy cargoes within the harbour was the North Quay (notwithstanding the Ro/Ro berth on
the West Wall at the Power Station).
6.1.10. The North Quay is situated along the North side of the Harbour. It is 290m long, the outer
140m of which form part of a marine supply base for the South Morecambe Gas Field and is
frequently used by supply vessels. The inner section (Eastern end) of the quay is a general-
purpose berth.

Page 15 of 46

Photograph 8
Heysham Port North Quay looking west.
6.1.11. The Westward section of the quay is regularly dredged to a depth of 4.5m at LAT, however the
Eastern end of the quay is not included in the dredging regime and the berth is likely to be dry
at low water during spring tides.
6.1.12. Height above CD is 12.04m for all quays at Heysham (-4.9m OD), this results in a water to quay
height of 2.64m @ MHWS and 4.64m @ MHWN.
6.1.13. To avoid grounding at the eastern end of the quay, unloading operations would have to be
performed within a window either side of high water. The duration of this window will be
dependent on whether the tide is spring or neap and the draft of the vessel utilised and is
subject to determination of the exact berth bottom depth.
6.1.14. Although technically it is expected the North Quay would be suitable, it is necessary to
maintain a sterile area for the period of time needed for the erection of the crane, unloading of
the unit and decommissioning. The availability of sufficient space for the erection and
operation of a mobile crane suitable to unload the transformers under consideration would be
dependent on operations within the port at the time of requirement and would need to be
confirmed with the port authority.
6.1.15. It would be necessary to also consider the timings of ferry services that operate to Ireland and
the Isle of Man to ensure that they are not affected by operations within the port.
6.1.16. It is understood that in 2012 3No. transformers of circa 170te nett transport weight were
offloaded from a coastal vessel via mobile crane within the port and therefore the use of
mobile cranes has been recently proven to be acceptable but we are not certain exactly where
within the port this operation took place.
6.1.17. The port advised in 2010 that storage of transformers could be accommodated if necessary to
enable construction plans at the substation to be achieved. The port has various areas where
transformers could be temporarily left on stands prior to road transport. No specific
commercial discussions have been entered into with the port in terms of the costs associated
with temporary storage of transformers or cable drums but in principle storage can be
expected to be achievable.
Page 16 of 46

6.1.18. Egress through the port complex to the public highway was advised in 2010 as being feasible
by the port authority. All roads are marked by temporary barriers and can be changed to
enable access as required. Specific access requirements will need to be confirmed at the time
of movement in terms of how they impact on existing operations but are expected to be able to
be accommodated.
6.1.19. Egress from the port is achievable from the North Quay via the port gates onto Shore Road and
Port Way.
6.1.20. An alternative egress via Princess Alexandra Way exists but it is not recommended that this is
considered for transformer access. This is due to the need to cross the port level crossing,
which is understood to be under the ownership of EDF Energy (formally British Energy), which
has negotiability limitations as well as third party access to be confirmed. In addition access
would require to travel over the Princess Alexandra Road Railway Bridge which has been
subject to ownership disputes in the past. Although at present it is understood that Network
Rail are responsible for the bridge, long term assessment regimes need to be confirmed with
the highway authority (Lancashire County Council) and principle inspection and assessment
programs have not resulted in recent routine assessments being completed to our knowledge.
6.1.21. From the Power Station Quay there are two possible options to access the public highway.
Firstly access through the power station to the port complex, at which point it would be
necessary to removing fencing to enter the port. This would then require egress from the port
via the methods already discussed above. Such access would require agreement from EDF
Energy as operators of the Heysham Power Stations.
6.1.22. In summary there are various options for offloading and storage of transformers within the
port and no problems are expected with the need to deliver transformers of circa 200te nett
weight to Heysham. Heavier transformers would require further investigative works to
confirm access.
6.1.23. No specific consideration has been given to the access requirements for cable drums but no
technical limitations are expected with the main issue to overcome expected to be the
negotiation of commercial agreements with the port for offloading and storage.
6.2. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from Heysham Port to New Substation
6.2.1. It is expected that heavy loads would be encouraged to exit the port via the main gate onto Port
Way. This avoids the need to use the port level crossing and also any uncertainty with respect
to the Princess Alexandra Road Railway Bridge which has been a problem in terms of disputed
ownership and assessment records in the past.
6.2.2. The railway bridge on the A683 to the east of the Middleton Road roundabout is understood to
be within the ownership of Lancashire County Council. The status of the bridge in terms of its
suitability to accommodate heavy AILs associated with the delivery of transformers to the new
substation location would need to be confirmed.
Page 17 of 46

6.2.3. Available information indicates that in 2010 Lancashire County Council advised that 14 and 20
axle girder frame trailers and 14 axle flattop trailers were able to cross this structure when
loaded with 200te nett transformers. The current suitability would need to be clarified,
especially as the size of transformer now being considered is understood to be 325te.
6.2.4. There are no other significant structures on the route from Heysham to the proposed
substation access gate.
Middleton
6.3.1. Wynns Ltd are aware from other works in the area that transformers of approximately 190te
nett transport weight have been delivered to the National Grid Heysham Substation in the past
and the access to this site has traditionally been via Middleton Road and Borras Lane from the
A683 and A589 roundabout.
6.3.2. The Middleton Road Railway Bridge is owned by Network Rail (Reference MHH/B/6) and it
would be necessary to confirm the bridge is able to accommodate the proposed cable drum
carrying vehicles but no problems are expected for this size of load. Publically available
information from Network Rail indicates that the bridge is able to accommodate loads of at
least 66te gross weight without the need for any specific assessment checks by Network Rail
engineers. Loads in excess of this weight would need to be considered by Network Rail in
more detail.
6.3.3. Previous work undertaken for DONG in respect to the West of Duddon Sands project
considered this route for transformers of up to 200te transport weight. Network Rail advised
in 2010 that the Middleton Road Railway Bridge was able to accommodate the 14 and 20 axle
girder frame trailers for 200te nett loads but they did not approve access over the bridge for
flattop configurations.
6.3.4. We are not aware of the final as built weight for the West of Duddon Sands Substation
transformers at the substation that is presently under construction.
6.3.5. This route from Heysham via Middleton Road was according to available records used to
deliver a 151te nett transformer to the existing National Grid Substation in 2005.
6.3.6. The main sections of this report consider access from Heysham Port to both the substation and
also to potential access points for cable drum vehicles. The legislative requirements for the
transport of AILs are as discussed in Section 2. Whilst Heysham Port will need to be utilised
for transformer delivery of loads in excess of 150te gross weight moved at Special Order
classification, the port could also be utilised as a project port for cable components. However,
if commercial agreement cannot be secured with the port authority the feasibility of delivering
STGO Category loads to the development locations could be considered further. Although not
specifically included within this scope of work Wynns Ltd. do hold historical information with
respect to access routes into the Heysham area to and from the M6 motorway and this is
discussed within Section 6.4.
Page 18 of 46

6.4. Structural Information Historical Review of Access from M6 Motorway
6.4.1. The route from M6 junction 34 via Lancaster City Centre has traditionally been limited in
terms of the weight of loads able to cross over the Rive Lune Bridges (Greyhound Bridge) in
Lancaster. In the past this route has been limited to loads with axle weights of no more than
12te. Physically there is not expected to be a restriction to the cable drums currently expected
to be required when routing from junction 24 through Lancaster although caution will be
required on the one way system through the city where the loads would be taking up the full
width of the road. Detailed discussions with Lancashire County Council will be necessary to
confirm which loads could be structurally approved by Lancashire County Council on the
bridges over the River Lune.
6.4.2. An alternative to access through Lancaster is to travel via the A589, A5105 and A6 coastal
route via Hest Bank and Carnforth to and from M6 junction 35. This requires consideration of
a low bridge at Carnforth. Our records suggest that the marked height is 139 (4.119m) but
that the centre clearance recorded by Lancashire County Council is 4.8m. Should any of the
loads be approaching the maximum height permitted by Lancashire County Council then it
would be appropriate for a more detailed survey of the bridge to be undertaken if this route is
considered further. Measurements taken in 2005 showed that the centre of the arch has a
height of 4.995m although these measurements would need to be confirmed but it is expected
that access could be achieved for cable drum components subject to clarification.

Photograph 9
Carnforth Railway Bridge looking south, marked height 139 (4.119m).
6.4.3. It is understood that this is commonly used as the AIL route for STGO loads both from the
existing Heysham Nuclear Power Stations and also from Heysham Port, but again the
suitability in terms of structural clearance will need to be confirmed with Lancashire County
Council.
6.4.4. There is a Network Rail bridge at Hest Bank (Ref CGJ7/B/11D) which has been the subject of
debate in terms of the long term access for AILs in the past and the status of this bridge would
need to be confirmed with Network Rail prior to any use. There have previously been
Page 19 of 46

indications from Network Rail and Lancashire County Council that the structure would be
filled in or propped in the future. Publically available information from Network Rail indicates
that the bridge is able to accommodate loads of at least 105te gross weight without the need
for any specific assessment checks by Network Rail engineers. Loads in excess of this weight
would need to be considered by Network Rail in more detail.
6.4.5. The new Heysham link Lancaster Bypass was awarded planning consent during March 2013
and it is understood to be being planned for construction at 45HB units and therefore is
expected to offer potential for AIL access from the M6 to Heysham but the exact timescales and
suitability for loads associated with the Walney Extension project would need to be confirmed
with Lancashire County Council. This would potentially offer a more appropriate route from
the M6 to the development area as it will rejoin the A683 to the west of Lancaster City centre.
6.4.6. The route from the M6 motorway would not be expected to be technically feasible for the
delivery of transformers of the size considered in this report, irrespective of the Water
Preferred Police previously discussed. This is due to both structural and negotiability
limitations on potential routes from and including the M6.

7. Transformer Access to Proposed Walney Offshore Wind Farm Onshore Substation
7.1. Transport Configurations
7.1.1. The current proposals for transformer transport heights of 6m will increase the difficulties
associated with the delivery from Heysham Port to the proposed Substation. The issues on the
route are discussed in Section 7.2 and 7.3 and although there are no overhead bridges on the
route, there are overhead power lines and telephone lines where it may be difficult to secure
access. The height of 6m would make delivery of flattop and SPMT trailers difficult to achieve
due to the presence of overhead power lines and the use of girder frame trailers would be
expected to be necessary to reduce the impact on overhead wires, although at 6m height, even
when loaded in a girder frame the load would be regarded as high.
7.1.2. Girder frame trailers are presently operated in the UK by Abnormal Load Engineering (ALE) up
to 400te capacity, Allelys Heavy Haulage Ltd. up to 370te capacity and J B Rawcliffe/GCS
Johnson up to approximately 180te capacity.
7.1.3. Large capacity frame trailers could most probably also be economically sourced on the
continent especially where the size of the overall project brings about economy of scale.
7.1.4. The transport arrangements likely to be mobilised for the delivery of the 325te transformer
specified by Dong Energy are discussed below:
Notwithstanding government policy and guidance the transformer height of 6000mm most
probably precludes the possibility of delivery of this unit from the motorway network. It is
most probable that the transformer will be shipped to Heysham Port. Drawing Reference
Dong-WE-TC01 shows what we believe will be the minimum transport arrangement required
Page 20 of 46

to move the transformer from Heysham Port. There is a high probability that following
presentation of these transport proposals to the highway authorities that the vehicle could
increase in size.

There is a remote possibility that a 6000mm high transformer could be transported ion a flat
top trailer arrangement as depicted in Dong-WE-TC02.
7.1.5. There are numerous haulage contractors within the UK who are currently operating flat top
trailers of the capacity required:
Abnormal Load Engineering
Allelys Heavy Haulage
Mammoet
J B Rawcliffe and Sons
R Collett & Sons Ltd
Sarens
7.1.6. The omni-direction manoeuvrability of the SPMT vehicle provides for the most effective
installation process to be developed on site. The turning radii and vertical curve requirements
of the vehicle should be considered during the site design process if these arrangements are to
be utilised.
7.1.7. The limitation to flattop and SPMT trailers is the fact that they increase the overall transport
height of the load by approximately 1m plus of minor ground clearance levels specific to each
equipment provider. Typically girder frame trailers are used to reduce the transport height to
the minimum feasible to achieve access underneath structures and overhead wires etc as
previously discussed. However, girder frame trailers are also sometimes required due to their
load spreading characteristics and increased axles which reduce the axle loads imparted by the
vehicle on to structures which are crossed.
7.1.8. It is possible that, irrespective of the preference for access on a flattop of SPMT trailer for
general negotiability requirements that the structural authorities may require that a larger
girder frame trailer is necessary to obtain structural approval for the 325te transformers when
crossing the A683 Railway Bridge.
7.1.9. Ultimately the site access delivery vehicle will be determined by the final transport dimensions
of the transformer and the loaded trailer arrangement required to secure structural clearance
on the proposed route from the Port of Heysham.
7.2. Structural Information
7.2.1. The access requirements within the Port of Heysham are discussed in Section 6.1 and the
historical information on the road access within 6.2.
7.2.2. It is expected that transformers would be encouraged to exit the port via the main gate onto
Port Way. Therefore the proposed route to the proposed new Walney Extension Substation
would be expected to be as follows:
Page 21 of 46

Exit Port on North Quay and Shore Road
Turn right u/c Port Way
Turn left A589 Rothesay Road
Continue A589 Trumacar Lane
Continue on A683
Turn left at roundabout and into new access road to be constructed.
7.2.3. The above access from the port would need to be confirmed with the port authority and other
egress points may be preferred but in general access is expected to be feasible.
7.2.4. As previously stated the railway bridge on the A683 to the east of the Middleton Road
roundabout is understood to be within the ownership of Lancashire County Council and the
suitability of the bridge to accommodate heavy AILs associated with the delivery of
transformers to the new substation location would need to be confirmed.
7.2.5. There are no other significant structures on the route from Heysham to the proposed
substation access gate.
7.2.6. No specific enquires have been made to the structural authorities who need to be approached
to confirm the route is structurally acceptable and it is recommended that this is undertaken to
confirm the route is acceptable and what size of trailer would be required to obtain structural
clearance.
7.3. Negotiability Information
7.3.1. The negotiability of the proposed route from the Port of Heysham to the substation entrance
point on the A683 is discussed in the following notes and photographs.

Photograph 10
Heysham Port main access gate. Load approaches camera. The exact requirements for egress from the
port will need to be confirmed with the port and will depend on the transport arrangement required
but removal of gates and street furniture at the port gate is feasible if required.

Page 22 of 46

Photograph 11
Port Way exit from Heysham Port. Load approaches camera from left of photograph. Girder frame
trailers in excess of 20 axles may require removal of street furniture on the inside of the bend. The
exact requirements should be confirmed when the final transport weight of the transformers is
confirmed.

Photograph 12
Port Way/A589 Rothesay Road junction. Load moves away from camera and turns left. Street
furniture removal will be required for girder frame trailers of 20 axles or more. The exact
negotiability requirements should be clarified once the final transport weight of the transformer, and
therefore associated carrying arrangement, has been confirmed.

Page 23 of 46

Photograph 13
A589 looking west. Load approaches camera. Note overhead wires (telephone). This is an example of
one of four areas on the A589 Rothsay Road/Trumacar Lane where telephone wires cross the A589.
Any load in excess of 5m will need to consult with British Telecom to confirm access requirements
including possible temporary lifting of wires.

Photograph 14
A589/Middleton Road Roundabout looking east. Load moves away from camera.

Photograph 15
A683 railway bridge looking east. Load moves away from camera. Structural status to be confirmed
with Lancashire County Council.

Page 24 of 46

Photograph 16
A683 looking west. Load approaches camera. Note overhead wires (power). Confirmation of
acceptable height clearances for any loads in excess of 5m transport height will be required.

Photograph 17
A683 looking east at the approach to the roundabout where proposed site access is to be developed.

Photograph 18
A683 looking east at the approach to the roundabout where proposed site access is to be developed.
7.3.2. Site access off the public highway should be designed to accommodate a minimum of the 20
axle trailer arrangement shown in Drawing Ref. Dong-WE-TC01 & TC02; these show the
Page 25 of 46

overall transportation dimensions, minimum turning radii, vertical curve axle, wheel and
ground loadings. These conditions should be considered during the design phase. However, as
previously stated the exact requirements for access will be determined by the trailer required
to obtain structural clearance over the A683 railway bridge owned by Lancashire County
Council.
7.3.3. It should be noted that no specific work has been undertaken in terms of on-site access and
movement of the transformer, where very high ground loadings should be anticipated, have
been considered within this report.

8. Cable Drum Access to Proposed Cable Trench Access Points
8.1. Transport Configurations
8.1.1. Based on information available at commencement of these investigations and with regard to
the issues detailed in Section 5 in terms of generally available load heights, it is assumed that
road transport configuration would utilise a bed trailer or cylinder bridge type configuration
similar to that shown in the photographs below. Specific transport configurations are
discussed further within Paragraph 8.1.7.

Photograph 19
General arrangements of Low Loader, Goose Neck Semi Trailer. Source: ZizEgineering

Page 26 of 46

Photograph 20
General arrangements of Vessel Bridge. Source: Mar-Train
8.1.2. There are numerous haulage contractors with equipment able to carry the cable drums within
STGO Category 2 and these have been used to inform and produce the conceptual transport
drawings considered within this report. As various haulage contractors are available,
competitive tendering for the transport of cable drums is viable. For the general purposes of
this investigative work we have produced transport arrangements considerate of a maximum
30te nett cable drums as initially requested by DONG at the commencement of these
investigations.
8.1.3. Varying incremental size of drums up to say 100te (to remain within STGO categories) can be
determined too if necessary for specific sites but loads particular to these variations have not
been produced at this moment in time.
8.1.4. Due to the expected size of the components it is proposed to transport within the Special Types
General Order (STGO) regulations as a Category 2 or 3 as the gross load will be less than 150te.
It will therefore not be necessary to comply with legislation regarding Special Order
movements, unless structural limitations on any route identified in the future require larger
trailer arrangements (for example to reduce axle loadings) to deliver to site. These loads,
although still AILs, are not in need of Special Order permissions and therefore are not directed
by the HA to be delivered via the nearest port of delivery. These loads are expected to be
delivered by road from the UK port of delivery or manufacturing facility.
8.1.5. To maximise expediency during emergency mobilisation we suggest that the most appropriate
way forward is to avoid the abnormal load Special Order (SO) process (8 to 12 weeks
submission and consent period). To achieve this it will be necessary to ensure that the overall
transport width would be less than 5.0 metres and the gross weight of the vehicle carrying the
fully laden drum does not exceed 150te.
8.1.6. It is our understanding that the onsite installation vehicle is not built up onsite and is required
to be delivered to site. This in itself is an AIL that needs to be considered due to the width of
the vehicle proposed. In the past on other similar projects it is understood that vehicles have
been driven to site themselves in conventional fashion and have also been transported to site
by low loader.
Page 27 of 46

8.1.7. Dong Energy has advised that the cable drum dimensions being considered for the project are
400mm diameter, 3000mm deep and 30te. The manufacture has not been advised and it has
therefore been assumed that the drums could be delivered from the continent possibly using
scheduled ferry crossings to anywhere within the UK using the manufacturers preferred
transport contractor. In these circumstances it is possible that varying trailer arrangements
could be presented; we have therefore considered a number of transport configurations within
this study. Because they have a small area of contact, large cable drums cause high point loads.
This means that the demands on the support arrangements and transport are very high. In
order to avoid point loads, load distribution frames must be used with heavy cable drums.
These load distribution frames must be chosen to match the weight of the cable and the
packaging and the expected load-bearing capacity of the loading area. The transport of 30te
drums requires the use of heavy duty trailers specially designed for abnormal loads. A series of
drawings have been constructed and are discussed below:
Drawing Reference Dong-WE-CD02 shows the 30te carried within a vessel bridge. This is often
a preferred transport arrangement as it affords some side protection to the cable drum and
minimises the height of the transport arrangements. The disadvantage of this arrangement is
that it increases the overall width of the transport arrangements and the likely-hood of conflict
in narrow lanes with tight bends such as is the case with Carr Lane. Underside protection is
also required with this arrangement. The 4 axle arrangements shown in this drawing is what
we believe is likely to be a worst case scenario for the 30 tonne cable drum manufactured
anywhere within the European Union.

Commonly 30te drums are carried on the bed of a low loaders. In this arrangement it is
possible to narrow the vehicle to the same width of the cable drum therefore minimising the
impact of negotiability. It does have an increased transport height although the transportation
of a 4000mm drum on such a trailer does not exceed the standard height of unmarked
structures within the UK. Drawing Reference Dong- WE-CD04 shows the drum carried in a
similar fashion to that of 2) above but on a bed rather than within a vessel bridge the overall
transport height will be circa 4790mm reducible to about 4540mm.

Drawing Reference Dong-WE-CD04 is the same arrangement as 3) but with a 3 axle
arrangement rather than 4 this has a slight impact on ground loadings of approximately 12%.

Drawing Reference Dong-WE-CD05 is also a regularly available cable drum transporter but
differs to that shown within 4) in that is provides a 4 wheel axle line rather than the 8 wheel
arrangements. Although the axle line load is similar the ground loading impact beneath the
wheels is significantly increased.
8.2. Structural Information
8.2.1. The access requirements within the Port of Heysham are discussed in Section 6.1 and historical
information on the road access within 6.2.
Page 28 of 46

8.2.2. It is expected that cable drum loads would be encouraged to exit the port via the main gate
onto Port Way. Therefore the proposed route to the potential cable drum installation channels
new would be expected to be as follows:
Exit Port on North Quay and Shore Road
Turn right u/c Port Way
Turn left A589 Rothesay Road
Continue A589 Trumacar Lane
Turn right Middleton Road
Turn right
Continue Carr Lane to potential access location at OS Reference SD 4160 5760 (Work Area 9)
8.2.3. As previously stated the status of the railway bridge on Middleton Road roundabout is
understood to be within the ownership of Network Rail and the suitability of the bridge to
accommodate heavy AILs associated with the delivery of cable drums and other plant would
need to be confirmed.
8.2.4. There are no other significant structures on the route but the suitability of the road in general
will need to be confirmed with Lancashire County Council as the highway authority. No
specific enquires have been made to the structural authorities who need to be approached to
confirm the route is structurally acceptable and it is recommended that this is undertaken to
confirm the route is acceptable.
8.2.5. In addition to the route highlighted above from Heysham Port it is possible that access from
the M6 motorway will be considered for STGO Category loads. The historical information on
this possible access is discussed in Section 6.4 but there are two possible alternative access
routes to the general Heysham area that could reasonably be considered. Again, further
discussions with all structural authorities would be required to confirm these are acceptable.
8.2.6. The first alternative option from the M6 would be from junction 34 as below:
Exit M6 at junction 34, travelling west on A683 Caton Road
Bear left A6 Caton Road One Way System (possibly avoid by contraflow if necessary)
Turn right A589 Bulk Road
Continue Greyhound Bridge Road over River Lune
Continue A589 Morecambe Road
Turn left A683
Turn left Middleton Road and continue as per original route detailed in 8.2.2
8.2.7. This option may be improved in the future by the construction of the new Lancaster Bypass
discussed in Section 6.4.
8.2.8. The second option for access from the M6 would be as show below.
Exit M6 at junction 35, travelling west on M601 Spur Road
Turn left A6
Continue A6 via Carnforth and low railway bridge
Turn right A5105 Coastal Road
Continue A589 via Morecambe
Page 29 of 46

Continue Middleton Road and continue as per original route detailed in 8.2.2
8.2.9. As discussed in Section 6.4 this would involve access through the low railway bridge at
Carnforth and over the Network Rail Bridge at Hest Bank on the Coastal Road (A5105).
8.3. Negotiability Information
8.3.1. The route from the A683/Middleton Road roundabout is shown in the following notes and
photographs:

Photograph 21
Middleton Road Railway Bridge looking south. Load moves away from camera. Structural status to be
confirmed with Network Rail.

Photograph 22
Middleton Road. Load moves away from camera.

Page 30 of 46

Photograph 23
Middleton Road/Carr Lane. Load moves away from camera and turns right into Carr Lane for sites
accessed on Carr Lane. For access to the site to the east of Middleton village (DONG Work Areas 14, 15
and 16) the load bears left, remaining on Middleton Road.

Photograph 24
Middleton Road/Carr Lane. Reverse angle.

Photograph 25
Carr Lane, Middelton. Load moves away from camera. Communication with local residents is
advisable to ensure parked cars do not restrict access for AILs.

Page 31 of 46

Photograph 26
Carr Lane, exiting Middelton. Load moves away from camera.

Photograph 27
Carr Lane, Middelton. Load moves away from camera. Site compound presently on right associated
with the West of Duddon Sands project.

Photograph 28
Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4206 5850. Load moves away from camera.

Page 32 of 46

Photograph 29
Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4206 5850. Load approaches camera.

Photograph 30
Carr Lane. Load moves away from camera.

Photograph 31
Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4170 5846. Load moves away from camera. Most limiting turn on the route.
Overun of property entrance may be necessary.

Page 33 of 46

Photograph 32
Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4170 5846. Load approaches camera.

Photograph 33

Photograph 34
Carr Lane. Load approaches behind camera and turns left. Carr Lane has been accessed this far for the
access to the West of Duddon Sands cable installation works.

Page 34 of 46

Photograph 35
Carr Lane. Load moves away from camera. Construction compound for West of Duddon Sands
Offshore Wind Farm cable works is shown on the right. Cable laying in progress. A temporary access
point for cable drum vehicles has been provided.

Photograph 36

Photograph 37

Page 35 of 46

Photograph 38
Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4160 5760. Load moves away from camera. Damage to current carriageway
condition. Potential alternative access to land would be to avoid turning right and create and access
straight ahead into land shown on the landowners and work area maps provided by DONG Work Area
10 refers.
8.3.2. The location shown above is understood to be the most southern of the proposed site access
points for cable drums and is located at approximate OS Reference SD 4160 5760. Access
beyond this location for 30te cable drums becomes difficult and may necessitate land
acquisition which is also high probability for construction plant vehicles. Detailed assessment
of this would necessitate topographical survey to confirm access. It is proposed that a new
access road is constructed to continue straight ahead away from the camera.
8.3.3. The remainder of the route via Carr Lane to the beach is discussed in Section 8.5 in terms of
potential access requirements for other items of construction plant.
8.3.4. In addition to Carr Lane and the possible access points for cable drum vehicles discussed above
as far as DONG Work Area 9, it is understood that access could also be considered for cable
drum access from Middleton Road to the east of Middleton village providing access to the
proposed DONG Work Areas 14, 15 and 16. No restrictions are anticipated with obtaining
access to these locations from Middleton Road as long as site access off the public highway is
designed to accommodate cable drum vehicles.
8.3.5. A further location where access may be needed for cable drums is to the north of the cable
trench area opposite the substation location on the A683 which is shown in plans provided by
DONG to be proposed Working Area 19. Access to this working area could be achieved either
from the A683 or the adjacent unclassified road that provides access to the Lancashire County
Council waster transfer facility as shown in Photograph 35.
Page 36 of 46

Photograph 39
Road to waste transfer facility. Possible site access for cables to the left (east) of this road at
approximate OS Ref SD 4231 5989. DONG Work Area 19 refers.
8.4. On site engineering requirements for haul road
8.4.1. As outlined in Section 5.3 DONG Energy have requested consideration of other plant and
Construction and Use vehicles auxiliary. The vehicle profiles of the templates constructed for
consideration during swept path assessment are listed below:
DONG Energy have advised that the excavation equipment will include 21te excavators. A
typical transport arrangement for this of plant has been portrayed within Drawing Reference
Dong-WE-EX01

Drawing Reference Dong-WE-Aux01 shows the negotiability characteristics of a typical heavy
lift crane auxiliary Construction and Use Vehicles that are likely to require access to the site
and have therefore been considered within this study.

Drawing Reference Dong-WE-Comp01 is a composite of all the above drawings and shows that
the worst case transport arrangement is the 30te cable drum carried within a 4 axle bridge
trailer.

The swept path assessment has therefore been primarily based on the 30te cable drum
configuration; impact of this vehicle and the aforementioned vehicles upon Carr Lane is further
discussed within Section 9 which considers impact of their swept path.
8.5. Additional Access Requirements to Beach Area for Other Plant
8.5.1. The following notes and photographs detail the final approach on Carr Lane to the beach
(DONG Work Area 5) where a temporary access ramp/track running South West from Carr
Lane turning North and then North West to join works 8 avoiding crossing the existing car
park is proposed.
Page 37 of 46

8.5.2. It is understood that DONG Energy requires general advice as to the suitability of this final
section of road for general construction traffic, but not specifically for the cable drum loads
previously discussed.
8.5.3. It has been demonstrated that delivery of the 30te cable drum is achievable without
disturbance to third party ownership to Carr Lane at OS Ref SD 4160 5760. After this location
there is a high probability of conflict with third party ownership. Indications are that conflict
may extend into the transport arrangements necessary for the delivery to site of a 21te
excavator. An assessment of this vehicle (Drawing Ref. Dong-WE-Ex01) is discussed within
Section 9 which considers swept path implications. Discharge of excavation plant for self
travelling is sometimes carried out but remains subject to highway and police authority
notification.

Photograph 40
Carr Lane at Middle Brows Farm. Load moves away from camera. Use of the outside of the corner on
potentially private land would assist access. However the swept path assessment indicates that there
is a high probability of oversail of the land to the inside of the bend (see Drawing Ref. Dong-WE-
SPA01-Sheets 18-21).

Photograph 41

Page 38 of 46

Photograph 42
Carr Lane at OS Reference SD 415 714. Load moves away from camera.

Photograph 43

Photograph 44

Page 39 of 46

Photograph 45
View from beach access road adjacent to caravan park which has had access for caravans of approx.
10m x 3.6m dimensions. Road width measured at 4.1m. Load approaches camera.

Photograph 46
Carr Lane. Load moves away from camera. This is the beach access.

Photograph 47
View of beach access road from the beach. DONG Energy Work Area 12 refers. The current
arrangements here do not permit access for plant of the scale being considered.

Page 40 of 46

Photograph 48
View of beach access road from the beach.

Photograph 49
View looking south from end of beach access road towards Landfall sites and DONG Work Area 4. New
access road would need to be developed.

Photograph 50
View looking south towards Landfall sites DONG Work Area 4.

Page 41 of 46

Photograph 51
View looking east at approximate location of Landfall sites and DONG Work Area 6. Note flood
defences.

9. Swept Path Assessment of Carr Lane for Cable Drum Access
9.1. The swept path assessment has been carried out using OS Mastermap information. It should be
noted that this information is reliably representative the information shown is not necessarily
absolute in its detail and accuracy. The assessment has been carried out primarily considerate
of the worst case 30te cable drum vehicle. We have also indicated where we believe the
delivery of a heavier drum may be feasible. From the termination location of viable 30te drum
deliveries we have continued our assessment using the typical vehicle arrangements for
highway movement of a 21tonne Excavator. The drawings compiled forming the swept path
assessment are discussed in the following paragraphs.
9.2. Drawing Ref. Dong-WE-SPA01, Sheets 1 and 2 show the whole of Carr Lane in two sections,
North and South. And identifies the location at the specific pinch points.
9.3. Sheets 3, 4 and 5 show:
The 30te drum transport configuration can negotiate the left hand turn near Westmoor
Farm (3),
the extent of over-sail and vehicle track requirements (4) and
9.4. Sheets 6 and 7 show:
The 30te drum transport configuration can negotiate the right hand turn after
Westmoor Farm (6) and
the extent of over-sail and vehicle track requirements (7).
9.5. Sheets 8, 9 and 10 show:
Page 42 of 46

The 30te drum transport configuration can negotiate the left hand turn at Melbreak
(8),
the extent of over-sail and vehicle track requirements (9) and
The 30te drum transport configuration can negotiate the left hand turn at Greendales
(11) and ,
the extent of over-sail and vehicle track requirements. Some cut back of the hedgerow
would be advisable able (12.
9.7. Sheets 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 show:
The 30te drum transport configuration can negotiate the right hand turn before Middle
Brows Farm but would require ground strengthening within the verge to the outside of
the turn.(13),
the extent of over-sail, vehicle track and ground strengthening requirements needed to
negotiate the turn (14),
that with the ground strengthening in place then a 21te Excavator transport
configuration can negotiate the right hand turn (15),
the 30te drum transport configuration could continue straight on at this location to
access the cable trench. There would be a requirement to construct a culvert to protect
a watercourse as the new access left the highway (16) and
the extent ground strengthening necessary to leave the highway (17).
9.8. Sheets 18, 19, 20 and 21 show:
The 30te drum transport configuration is most likely to conflict with the hedgerow and
field boundary to the inside of the bend at the left hand turn at Middle Brows
Farm(18),
the over-sail, vehicle track and Third Party intrusion necessary to negotiate the turn
with the 30te drum vehicle (19),
The 21te Excavator transport configuration is most likely to conflict with the hedgerow
and field boundary to the inside of the bend at the left hand turn at Middle Brows Farm
(20) and
the over-sail, vehicle track and Third Party intrusion necessary to negotiate the turn
with the 21te Excavator vehicle (21).
Page 43 of 46

The 21te Excavator transport configuration can most probably negotiate the right hand
bend after Middle Brows Farm but is likely to require ground strengthening, within the
verge, to the outside of the bend (22) and
the over-sail, vehicle track and ground strengthening requirements (23).
9.10. Sheet 24 shows:
The 21te Excavator transport configuration cannot negotiate the left hand turn to exit
Carr Lane at Potts Corner where there exists a ramp onto the foreshore (24).

10. Site Access off Highway
10.1. Any site entrances proposed 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
10.2. 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 1998. In particular this sets
out the visibility standards at access onto the road network. The sight line information, shown
in Table 3, should be considered in conjunction with the turning radii information detailed
within the transport configuration drawings.
10.3. 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.
Table 2 Junction Visibility Splays
Measured Major Road Speed - Mph/kph 70/120 60/100 50/85 40/70 35/60 30/50
Major Road Distances (m) 295 215 160 120 90 70

11. Hedgerows (permitted work), Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and Bird Nests
11.1. Hedgerows
11.1.1. In England and Wales the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are intended to protect important
countryside hedges from destruction or damage. The legislation is very complicated and has
been the subject of much criticism - not least from those who have to administer the process. It
is our understanding that there is a possible review of the regulations pending.
Page 44 of 46

11.1.2. Other field boundaries such as stone-walls are not covered within these regulations unless
they support a hedgerow. This however does not hedgerows which are within or forming the
boundary of a residential property.
11.1.3. To qualify for the regulations a hedgerow must be at least 20m in length or connected at both
ends to another hedgerow of any length. Any stretch within such a hedgerow also counts. Gaps
of up to 20m are counted as a part of the hedgerow. To uproot or otherwise destroy a
hedgerow would be considered removal. Where excavations, for example, are carried out for
road widening alongside a hedge that results in roots being destroyed and consequentially the
hedge too, this is removal even if the hedge itself remains untouched.
11.1.4. Any landowner or developer who wishes to remove a hedgerow, if it is not exempt must serve
a Hedgerow Removal Notice in writing on their local planning authority. The authority then
has 42 days (this period can be extended if the applicant agrees) to determine whether or not
the hedge is considered 'important' under the regulations, and if so, whether or not to issue a
Hedgerow Retention Notice. The local authority does not have to issue a Retention Notice, even
if the hedgerow counts as important. If the regulatory body do not issue a notice for an
important hedge this is often on condition that certain mitigation is carried out, e.g.
reinstatement or replanting to a certain standard, or creation of an equivalent boundary
elsewhere.
11.1.5. The local authority will often and where appropriate consult the local parish or community
council and consider their views.
11.2. Permitted work
11.2.1. The removal of any hedgerow to which the Regulations apply is permitted if it is required in
particular circumstances, those operating within Electricity Act 1989 may constitute such
permitted works:
...... for carrying out any felling, lopping or cutting back required or permitted as a consequence of
any notice given or order made under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989
(felling, lopping or cutting back to prevent obstruction of or interference with electric lines and
plant or to prevent danger);
11.3. Tree Preservation Orders
11.3.1. Not all trees are protected, and, despite 'urban myths' to the contrary no particular species or
size of tree are protected. To be protected, a tree must meet one or more of these three
conditions:
A Tree Preservation Order or TPO has been made at some time to cover that tree
A planning condition has been made at some time to cover that tree or
The tree is within a conservation area
11.3.2. Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
and the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999. To identify whether or not a
tree or trees are protected the local Planning Authority - usually the local borough or district
Page 45 of 46

Council should be contacted. If a tree(s) is/are protected then written permission to remove
them, or to do any tree surgery is required. Mitigation in the form of plant replacements of the
same species and in the same location are often required.
11.3.3. A TPO is made by the local planning authority (usually a local council) to protect specific trees
or particular woodland from deliberate damage and destruction. TPOs prevent the felling,
lopping, topping, uprooting or otherwise wilful damaging of trees without the permission of
the local planning authority. Details of Orders, applications for work and decisions are kept by
the local authority and should be available for public inspection. A landowner is also served
notice if a new order is made on their land.
11.4. Bird Nests
11.4.1. All wilds birds are protected under the Wildlife and Country side Act 1981 (as amended),
whilst they are actively nesting or roosting. Section 1 of this Act, makes it an offence to kill,
injure or take any wild bird, and to intentionally take damage or destroy the nest of any wild
bird while that nest is in use or being built. It is also an offence to take or destroy any wild bird
eggs.
11.4.2. It is an offence to disturb a birds nest which is in use with eggs, chicks or birds using it, even if
they are not actually in it at the time. There are no set timescales for this in law, and obviously
this varies from region to region. If work has to be carried out on hedges trees, or bushes,
including undergrowth it is still possible to carry out the work providing an inspection of the
area is carried out to ensure there are no bird nests. Where nests are identified then delays are
likely to occur until such time that the nest(s) becomes redundant.
11.4.3. In addition it should be noted that specific bird species listed under Schedule 1 of the Act
receive extra protection. The Act states that it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb
any wild bird listed in Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at (or near) a nest containing eggs or
young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

12. Transport General
12.1. Transport contractors should carry indemnity that allows the highway authorities to recover
extraordinary expenses in repairing roads damaged by heavy vehicles, having regard to the
average expense of maintaining the road.
12.2. All out of gauge transport arrangements should be correctly identified with the appropriate
marker-boards and orange warning lights. Where appropriate then they should also be
accompanied with escort vehicles. Where the is a requirement in negotiating the route to
contravene Highway Law then traffic management and police authorisation and escorting will
be necessary.
Page 46 of 46

13. Summary and Conclusions
13.1. Notwithstanding government policy and guidance the transformer height of 6000mm most
probably precludes the possibility of delivery of the transformer from the motorway network.
It is therefore most probable that the transformer will be shipped to Heysham Port. Although a
20 axle frame trailer vehicle has been considered within this review it should be noted that
without a formal approach to the highway structural authorities there remains some doubt
over the final arrangements that will be acceptable to and structural restrictions en route.
There is a possibility that following presentation of these transport proposals to the highway
authorities that the vehicle could increase in size.
13.2. Dong Energy has advised that the cable drum dimensions being considered for the project are
400mm diameter, 3000mm deep and 30te. A variety of trailer configurations are possible we
have therefore considered both a worst case scenario and other less rapacious vehicle
arrangements in our assessment.
13.3. It has been demonstrated that the plant and the other vehicle arrangements presented by
DONG and associated with the project can be embraced by the envelope of the 30te cable drum
vehicle configurations.
13.4. The swept path assessment has been carried out using OS Matermap information. It should be
noted that this information is generally reliably representative for this type of assessment
although, it should be noted, that the information shown is not necessarily absolute in its
detail and accuracy. Where infringement remains a doubt then verification using captured
topographical information should be considered.
13.5. Access for 30te cable drums becomes difficult in Carr Lane beyond OS Reference SD 4160 5760
and may necessitate temporary land acquisition which is also a high probability requirement
for construction plant vehicles considered within the report.
13.6. Access onto the construction alignment at this location (13.5) can easily be achieved but will
necessitate enabling works beyond track construction.
13.7. Detailed assessment of the route beyond this location would necessitate topographical survey
to confirm access.
13.8. The 21te Excavator transport configuration cannot negotiate the left hand turn to exit Carr
Lane at Potts Corner where there exists a ramp onto the foreshore.
13.9. On narrow or single track roads there is an increased probability that vehicles will transgress
onto the verges. This should be avoided as it can threaten services as well as open drainage
systems. The provision of laybys and traffic management systems is strongly advised.


Maps
Map 1. Overview of AIL Routes
Map 2. Heysham and Carr Lane Study Area

Key

NewSubstation Location

Potential Cable DrumAccess Location
Point of Interest

Route 1 fromHeyshamto Substation for
Transformers

Route 2 fromHeyshamto various cable
drumlocations

Route 3 fromM6 Jct 34 to various cable
drumlocations

drumlocations

Other Plant Access fromCarr Lane to
Beach

B
A
0 25.04.13
Rev Date Amendments:
Revisions

Client:

Project:

Title:

Drawing Status:

Scale (A4):

Drawn by: Checked by:
Ref No.:

Sheet: Rev.:
Wynns Ltd. This drawing is not to be reproduced in whole or
in part, in any formor by any means, without prior written
consent.
Crown Copyright.
All rights reserved. Licence No AL100035894

Overviewof AIL Routes
Walney Extension Offshore Wind FarmAIL
Access
Wynns Ltd,
Shaftesbury House,
2 High Street,
Eccleshall,
Stafford,
ST21 6BZ

DONG Energy
33 Grosvenor Place,
Belgravia
SW1X 7HY London
1 DONG-WE-Map 1
NTS ARP MJC

Hest Bank
Railway Bridge
Carnforth low
Railway Bridge
Lancaster one way
loop and River Lune
Bridges
Approx location of
new Lancaster
bypass
Port of
Heysham
A683 Rail
Bridge
See Map 2 for
Carr Lane
detail
Middleton
Road Rail
Bridge

Key

NewSubstation Location

Potential Cable DrumAccess Location
Point of Interest

Route 1 fromHeyshamto Substation for
Transformers

Route 2 fromHeyshamto various cable
drumlocations

drumlocations

drumlocations

Other Plant Access fromCarr Lane to
Beach

B
A
0 25.04.13
Rev Date Amendments:
Revisions

Client:

Project:

Title:

Drawing Status:

Scale (A4):

Drawn by: Checked by:
Ref No.:

Sheet: Rev.:
Wynns Ltd. This drawing is not to be reproduced in whole or
in part, in any formor by any means, without prior written
consent.
Crown Copyright.
All rights reserved. Licence No AL100035894

Heyshamand Carr Lane Study Area
Walney Extension Offshore Wind FarmAIL
Access
Wynns Ltd,
Shaftesbury House,
2 High Street,
Eccleshall,
Stafford,
ST21 6BZ

DONG Energy
33 Grosvenor Place,
Belgravia
SW1X 7HY London
1 DONG-WE-Map 2
NTS ARP MJC

A683Railway
Bridge
Carr Lane. See
swept path
drawings for detail
Port of Heysham
(See port plan for
details)
West of Duddon
Sands Cable
compound
Middleton
Road Rail
Bridge
Existing NG Substation
& West Duddon Sands
Substation under
construction
Beach where
access for plant
also required
Limit of access
for cable drums

10.2.64 ES Annex B19.C Abnormal Indivisible Loads Access Study

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

10.2.64 ES Annex B19.C Abnormal Indivisible Loads Access Study

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Volume 2

Environmental Statement Annexes

Você também pode gostar