Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

Sylwadau a dderbyniwyd ynghylch Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

Mae’r rhestr isod yn cynnwys pawb a gofrestrodd i gyflwyno eu hachos ynghylch Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks a’u sylwadau perthnasol. Cyhoeddwyd y sylwadau yn yr iaith y cawsant eu cyflwyno ynddi’n wreiddiol.

FfynhonnellSylw – cliciwch ar unrhyw eitem i weld rhagor o fanylion
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Civil Aviation Authority
"On behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority I can confirm that the Authority's position related to the proposed development (which would include a pair of chimney stacks a mximum of 80m high) is as described within associated material submitted by Tata Steel UK Ltd (notably the Consultation Report)."
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
response has attachments
Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Services
"Please click on the link below to see the full representation: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/20140923153644065.pdf If the link doesn't open, please copy paste it into your browser."
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
City and County of Swansea
"This relevant representation is submitted in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010. The City & County of Swansea Council adjoins the host administrative Council area (Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council). The main potential issues affecting the City & County of Swansea are to be restricted to: • Socio economic impacts; • Landscape and visual impacts; • Ecological impacts; • Air quality impacts; • Surface water environment impacts. The issues highlighted above will be further considered as part of the Council’s Written Representation in accordance with the timetable set by the Examining Authority’s Rule 8 letter. This relevant representation is made by Richard Jones, Major Projects Team Leader, on behalf of CCS. Contact details are as follows: Economic Regeneration and Planning, Oystermouth Road, Swansea, SA1 3SN. Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01792 635735. The Council respectfully reserves the right to appear at any associated issue-specific or open-floor hearing. "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Network Rail
"Registration Number 10030011. We are an interested party as the steel making operations rely on rail. Port Talbot – Tata Steel DCO This is the section 56 representation by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“Network Rail”) regarding the proposed steel works at Port Talbot. Network Rail is a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the country’s railway infrastructure and associated estate. It owns, operates, maintains and develops the main rail network and has statutory obligations in respect of it. Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure and therefore any proposed development which is in close vicinity to the railway line or potentially affects Network Rail’s specific land interests will be carefully considered. On specific matters, clearly our interest is to protect the physical railway infrastructure and we need to be satisfied that there will be no adverse safety issues arising as a result of the development to users of the railway. Network Rail is also an affected land owner. There are references in the Book of Reference to land owned by Network Rail Limited. Network Rail objects to any proposed compulsory acquisition of its land or any rights in, over or under its land. Network Rail has already been in discussions with the promoter for the inclusion of standard protective provisions in the draft Order for the benefit of Network Rail and the agreed form has been included within the application, save that paragraph 5(1) of those provisions should appear as paragraph 4(5). Network Rail has highlighted this to the promoter and requests that it seeks an amendment to the draft Order to reflect this apparent typographical error. Network Rail reserves its position, both in representations and in submissions at hearings, to seek this amendment and to ensure that protective provisions remain in the DCO for the benefit of Network Rail’s operational infrastructure, which is affected by the proposal. Specifically, Network Rail is aware that the proposed scheme crosses the railway. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter into an easement agreement regarding the rights sought by the promoter over Network Rail’s land and this necessitates a land clearance application, which is an internal consultation with various stakeholders across the business. In order to mitigate the risks to the rail infrastructure Network Rail would also expect that the promoter of the scheme enters into an Asset Protection Agreement with Network rail to ensure that the technical, engineering and safety requirements for working on Network Rail’s land are met. The promoter should email [email protected] prior to any works taking place. The department will provide all necessary Engineering support subject to the Basic Asset Protection Agreement. "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
South Wales Police
"As the Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) I have consulted with WECTU (The Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit) and they have not received any notification from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) indicating that this development will form part of the critical national infrastructure (CNI). WECTU would therefore have no requirement to advise on this site above the advice provided by myself. The proposed site is within the confines of the existing steelworks which maintains high levels of security. It has its own security staff who work on site 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Access onto site is controlled with no public access. Whilst I am unaware of any specific crime or community safety issues, the nature of the development requires certain security precautions to be put in place as any loss of electricity supply could have a significant impact on business activity. My recommendations are made on the basis that the development will have staff working on site 24 hours every day. Recommendations (i). Perimeter security. To prevent unauthorised access onto the site it should be protected by a weld mesh security fence at least 2.4 metres in height that meets Secured by Design standards and specifications. (ii). Access control Suitable access control facilities must be put in place for both vehicles and pedestrians, again to prevent unauthorised access to site. Access control should also be considered to protect areas where critical equipment or items of significant value are located. (iii). Door security. Buildings that contain critical equipment or other items of significant value should be protected by entrance doors that meet LPS1175 SR2 or similar standards. (iv). Intruder alarm. All buildings that are not occupied 24 hours per day and contain critical equipment or items of significant value should be protected by a monitored silent intruder alarm system that should meet the relevant British Standards for alarm installations. (v). CCTV. A monitored CCTV system should be installed capable of producing evidential quality imagery with day/night time full functionality and be capable of detecting movement around the site and providing recognition of persons. The Data Protection Act must be complied with and signs informing persons that CCTV is in operation must be sited in prominent positions. (vi). Lighting. Adequate lighting should be installed to cover vehicle and pedestrian areas during the hours of darkness. A scheme of work and lux plan should be provided and the lighting must compliment and enhance any CCTV cameras operating on site. (vii). Landscaping. Any trees must be bare stemmed up to 2 metres from the ground and must not interfere with lighting or CCTV. Trees must not be located adjacent to buildings or any perimeter security. (viii). Building Access to the roof of any buildings must be prevented or made difficult. Any features that assist climbing must be designed out. Access points to the roofs must be gated, the gates having access control fitted to prevent unlawful persons accessing. "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (NGET) to the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks DCO National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (NGET) wishes to make a relevant representation to the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure and any other equipment not already identified which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. National Grid’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on NGET’s existing apparatus located within this area, and it has been identified that NGET will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus is adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET will liaise with the promoter to agree a form of protective provisions for inclusion within the DCO. NGET has the following assets located within the proposed order limits and these assets form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales: ? 66kV Underground Cable – Grange to Margam ? Pilot Cables between Grange and Margam substations ? Electrical apparatus located at Grange substation As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue negotiations with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Natural Resources Wales
" The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Ein cyf / Our ref: SH/2014/117386 Planning Inspectorate ref. EN 010062 Dyddiad/Date: 21 October 2014 Annwyl Syr/Madam / Dear Sir/Madam PROPOSED PORT TALBOT STEELWORKS (POWER GENERATION ENHANCEMENT) ORDER. PROJECT REFERENCE: EN 010062 RELEVANT REPRESENTATION FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES BODY FOR WALES (NRW). 1. Our purpose is to ensure that the environment and natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, enhanced and used, now and in the future. Our functions are set out in the Natural Resources Body for Wales (Functions) Order 2012. 2. Our advice and comments to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) are therefore provided in the context of the above remit. 3. We are a Statutory Party under the Planning Act 2008 and Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 as amended and an Interested Party under s102 (1) of the Planning Act 2008. The operation of this development gives rise to Combustion Activities under Part A1 (a) of Schedule 1 Part 2 of the Environmental Permit Regulations 2010 and NRW is the determining authority for an Environmental Permit for such activity. The Environmental Permit is determined under distinct and separate legislation and our comments in relation to the DCO application are independent and without prejudice to any comments made in respect of the Environmental Permit application. At this time no application for an Environmental Permit has been made. 4. Our comments are made without prejudice to any comments we may wish to make in relation to this application and examination whether in respect of the Environmental Statement (ES) and subsequent revisions, provisions of the draft DCO and its ‘requirements’, Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) or other documents provided by Tata Steel UK limited (the Developer), the Examining Body or any other party. 5. The following paragraphs comprise our relevant representation in the context of the DCO application, as an Interested Party under the Planning Act 2008 and Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010. 6. We provided pre-application advice to the developer. In particular responses to the scoping report, Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and draft ES. The pre-application stage has been a thorough and extensive process, which has resulted in a number of issues being scoped out and a comprehensive ES submission. 7. We continue to provide advice to the developer through correspondence and meetings on specific issues with the aim of reaching as many positions of agreement and common ground as possible prior to examination. Our relevant representation is based solely on the information provided within the application documents. Any change in position will be reflected in our full written representation and SoCG. 8. As the applicant has submitted two construction schemes within the Environmental Statement, we will make reference to the individual options, where appropriate. Those options comprise: • Option 1. Full construction in a single phase; • Option 2. Construction over two phases with only one boiler, one stack and associated turbine sets being constructed at each phase (the first installation known as Phase 1 and the second installation as Phase 2). 9. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) including aerial emissions in relation to nature conservation interests I. The ‘No significant effects report’ (Document 5.03) as currently submitted, requires further refinement in relation to its content and conclusions. Based on the information provided in the report, we cannot currently agree with the applicant’s conclusions of no likely significant effect (LSE) from this project in-combination, in relation to Crymlyn Bog SAC. A ‘shadow’ Appropriate Assessment will be required to fully assess in-combination effects between Option 2-Phase 1 of this project and other power stations within the vicinity, in relation to Crymlyn Bog SAC. II. We advise that the HRA (Habitats Regulations Assessment) must base its conclusions, whether screening or appropriate assessment, on the worst-case scenario for the project. III. Option 2 will contribute to a temporary increase in aerial emissions in terms of acid/nutrient Nitrogen deposition (and NOx/SOx emissions). Whilst these emissions will amount to no LSE alone (<1% of relevant critical loads/levels for sensitive features), there will nevertheless be residual effects on nearby Natura 2000 sites. IV. In-combination tests should be carried out based on the residual effects of the plan/project in question, cumulatively/synergistically etc. with other plans and projects, subject to those plans/projects not effectively being completed. When the residual effects from this project are combined with similar residual effects from the aforementioned other power station projects, the data as presented in Document 5.03 suggests an LSE on Crymlyn Bog SAC in-combination, in relation to acid deposition. 10. Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) I. We provided advice during the pre-application stage on the potential flood consequences associated with this development and the requirements of a FCA as required by Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk. II. We are satisfied that the risk of flooding to the site has been properly assessed in line with our current recommendations. We accept that the risk can be managed in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the FCA and that there is no increased flood risk elsewhere as a result of the development. III. However, we would draw your attention to Welsh Government’s letter, dated 09 January 2014 which addressed Planning Policy on Flood Risk and Insurance Industry Changes. This letter was directed to all Chief Planning Officers in Wales and clarified flood risk assessment requirements, including the need to take account of climate change over the lifetime of development including a flood event which has a 0.1% (or 1 in 1000 chance) probability of occurrence. IV. Climate Change has not been considered for the 1 in 1000 annual probability flood for either fluvial or tidal. However, we understand that where the preparation of a FCA commenced prior to the publication of the above letter, the requirement to include an allowance for climate change on the 0.1% event may not be required. However, we would recommend you, as the Examining Authority seek further clarification from Welsh Government on this matter. 11. Local Air Quality Management I. The completed development (Option 1) proposes to have a benefit to Air Quality in that it would appear to reduce flaring emissions, provide a more efficient power generation infrastructure and cleaner stack emissions. However, we still require assurances that overall air emissions from the steel works will not increase if all of the current (older) power generating equipment remains online following completion of Phase 1 of Option 2. II. An Environmental Permit would be required from NRW to operate the proposed development. Air quality impacts would be considered in further detail during the determination of that permission. No application has been made at this time and we are therefore not in a position to provide detailed advice at this time. 12. Noise I. The exclusion of technical data relating to the design specification of the proposed plant prevents full analysis of operational noise. Best Available Techniques should be employed in the design of the installation to ensure that sound levels are reduced where appropriate, to a minimum of 10dB below the measured background levels. II. We will however be examining thoroughly the noise aspects of operational activity during the course of a permit application. We would need to be satisfied that the public and the environment are protected from Noise and vibration from the development before granting a permit. 13. Groundwater and Contaminated Land I. The proposed site lies within the existing EPR installation boundary, which is potentially contaminated from previous industrial use. We are aware that Site Investigations are being carried out to determine the extent of contamination and await the results of these investigations before commenting further on proposed remediation. Please contact Louise Edwards ([email protected]) should you require further advice or information regarding this representation. Yn gywir / Yours faithfully, Martyn Evans Rheolwr Cynllunio Ecosystemau a Phartneriaethau De Cymru / Ecosystems Planning & Partnerships Manager South Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales Ffon / Tel 02920 772400 Symudol / Mobile 07718 358656 Ebost / E-mail [email protected] Gwefan / Website www.naturalresourcerswales.gov.uk Ein diben yw sicrhau bod adnoddau naturiol Cymru yn cael eu cynnal, eu gwella a’u defnyddio yn gynaliadwy, yn awr ac yn y dyfodol. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, enhanced and used, now and in the future. Twitter twitter.com/NatResWales Facebook facebook.com/NatResWales Flickr Flickr.com/NatResWales Youtube youtube.com/NatResWales Rwy'n siarad Cymraeg "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Royal Mail Group Ltd
"Royal Mail Group Ltd (Royal Mail) is responsible for providing efficient mail sorting and delivery nationally. As a Universal Service Provider under the Postal Services Act 2011, Royal Mail has a statutory duty to deliver mail to every residential and business address in the country as well as collecting mail from all Post Offices and post boxes on a daily basis. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, potentially affecting Royal Mail’s ability to meet its obligations as a Universal Service Provider and resulting in financial loss. In exercising its statutory duties, Royal Mail uses on a daily basis all of the roads that are expected to be affected by the construction of the proposed Port Talbot Steelworks Power Generation Enhancement infrastructure. The Royal Mail operational property that would have the highest risk of experiencing disruption to mail distribution activities is: • Port Talbot Delivery Office, Eagle Street, Port Talbot SA 13 1AA (circa 1km from the application site) There are also important Royal Mail operational facilities at various locations in Swansea as well as in in Neath, Bridgend and Porthcawl that may be at risk of operational disruption. The proposal site is adjacent to the M4 corridor between Swansea and Bridgend and close to Swansea Tidal Lagoon Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Consequently, there is potential for cumulative construction traffic impact which could be disruptive to Royal Mail operations. Royal Mail has no issue with the principle of the proposed Port Talbot Steelworks Power Generation Enhancement going ahead. However, it is concerned about the potential for disruption to its mail collection, transport and delivery during the construction phase for this infrastructure project and cumulative impact from other major development proposals. At present the level of risk to Royal Mail cannot be accurately quantified and it is possible that remedial measures may be required. Royal Mail therefore wishes to an Interested Party to the Examination because it is concerned that its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in the area in accordance with its statutory obligations may be adversely affected. Royal Mail has not been able to satisfy its concerns based on the information that has been made available to date. Royal Mail reserves the right to alter its position or make further representations in due course once further information is available and advice is provided by its consultants on whether it satisfactorily addresses Royal Mail’s concerns. "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
The Coal Authority
"The Coal Authority's interest in this proposal relates to the presence of surface coal resources within the application site and the legacy of past coal mining activity. We have previously submitted comments to the EIA scoping in a letter dated 28 October 2013 and the PEIR in a letter dated 11 March 2014. The Coal Authority has the following comments to make on the information submitted in support of this application: Having reviewed the Environmental Statement (July 2014) submitted in support of this proposal, The Coal Authority is pleased to note that its earlier comments have been acknowledged and that Chapter 9 of the ES considers ground conditions, informed by appended Coal Mining Reports for the site. The Coal Authority is satisfied with the conclusions of the ES that coal mining legacy does not create any risk of land instability to the proposed development. As we previously identified, the new built development falls outside of the defined development high risk area. The southern part of the application site, containing the electrical connection, does fall within the high risk area, but coal mining legacy should not pose a risk. The closest recorded mine entry on our records is located just over 20m to the west of the proposed line of the electrical connection. However, The Coal Authority is disappointed to note that Chapter 9 of the ES does not appear to afford due consideration to the sterilisation of surface coal resources and the potential for prior extraction of the resource, despite comments at the start of the chapter that this issue will be considered. Paragraph 42 of Mineral Technical Advice Note 2: Coal requires consideration of the pre-extraction of coal as part of development proposals. It is noted that the ES proposes that issues associated with ground conditions will be generally assessed at a later date following intrusive site investigations, which would be a made a requirement of the DCO. In the apparent absence of the required consideration in the ES, The Coal Authority would request that due consideration of the potential to pre-extract surface coal resources prior to construction forms a key part of this required assessment of ground conditions."
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
"Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board in consultation with Public Health Wales seeks to provide relevant public health comments. Our collegues at PHE which includes PHE’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (Wales), have commented as below (text in italic) we would concur with those comments. We are also particulary interested in the cumulative impacts of the proposal and the associated health impact mitgation measure during the construction and operational phases. "Tata Steel UK Limited intends to develop an internal power generation enhancement at Port Talbot. The currently total onsite power generation capacity is 115.7MWe and this capacity provides electrical power and process steam to the major onsite production units. The Applicant therefore proposes to enhance this onsite capacity by installing two new boilers (nominally 164Mega Watt thermal (MWth) each) and two new steam turbines (nominally 65MWe each). There are two options for completing the project: Option 1 represents the full installation of the proposed development in a single phase and involves installation and construction of the boilers and their associated stacks, the turbine sets and the full installation of the electrical connection to the existing onsite substations. Option 2 is an alternative scenario where the project components (boiler and turbine sets) are installed in two phases - (i.e. one boiler and one stack at a time with corresponding turbine sets). The first installation (Phase 1) would be after development consent is granted and the second installation (Phase 2) at a later stage (which could be up to 10 years later). Previous Responses PHE which includes PHE’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (Wales), have reviewed the preliminary environmental information report (PEIR) submitted in January 2014. Specific recommendations suggested by PHE in our scoping response on 28th October 2013 have been considered and are included in the PEIR. The PEIR also states that the Environmental Statement will assess effects on health in terms of air quality and dust, noise, water quality, ground and soil, traffic and transport and potential for contamination in each of the individual chapters and cumulatively as part of the inter-project cumulative impact assessment. PHE is satisfied with the information provided in the PEIR and will review the Environmental Statement of this project proposal when it becomes available. PAST PHE / HPA CORRESPONDENCE Scoping response 28th October 2013 Section 42 Consultation 26th February 2014 SUMMARY OF ES Air Quality Mitigation measures have been addressed during the construction phase, construction traffic and exhaust stack emissions. Construction-phase dust effects have been assessed to be low to medium risk if unmitigated, but are expected to be negligible following the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Construction related traffic effects on air quality are predicted to be negligible at receptors adjacent to the main access routes used by traffic associated with the proposed development. Ground Conditions Potential impacts on geology, soils and hydrogeology resulting from the proposed development during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases have been identified. After mitigation, the significance of any residual effect is negligible. Surface Water There is potential for adverse effects on controlled waters from intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water associated with ancillary equipment and rainwater run-off from associated construction activities. However, this will be mitigated via adherence to a CoCP and by managing and pre-treating site drainage, as necessary, before discharging via consented discharge points, which are controlled through the conditions of an environmental permit. Additionally, surface water runoff effects on the drainage channel (Middle Mother Ditch) outside the Order Limits, and other downstream water bodies / courses will be mitigated via the attenuation ponds constructed as part of the Harbour Way development. Therefore, the effect on controlled waters from intermittent miscellaneous discharges is not significant and presents a residual negligible effect" "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Associated British Ports
"Associated British Ports (“ABP”) is a statutory body incorporated under the Transport Act 1981. ABP is the largest ports group in the UK being the owner and operator of 21 ports, including Port Talbot, together with other transport-related businesses. ABP’s undertaking at Port Talbot is situated adjacent to the Tata Steel steelworks and comprises a tidal harbour and the original impounded docks, the latter accessed via lock gates. The tidal harbour is one of four deepwater harbour facilities in the UK with the capability of handling the largest ocean going vessels up to 170,000 dwt. Tata Steel is a customer and tenant of ABP at the port and import over 8 million tonnes of coal and iron ore at the harbour annually for the steelworks. A large range of other general cargoes are also handled at the port including processed slag, sand and steel. The port is therefore extremely important in terms of both the local and regional economy and ABP’s corporate strategy envisages further development of port-related trade. Although ABP does not object in principle to the development of a process gas-fired electricity generating station by Tata Steel at the steelworks, it does have concerns regarding the water abstraction requirements for the facility. Tata Steel currently extracts some of the water it needs to support its existing operations from ABP’s dock system at Port Talbot under a Licence agreement with ABP. ABP will require assurances that the proposal to abstract additional water from both the River Afan (Dock Feeder Channel) and also any part of the proposal affecting the impounded dock at Port Talbot, which is fed from the same source, ensures that there is sufficient water available, particularly during prolonged dry weather periods, for the safe and efficient operation of the port and to address the Water Framework Directive requirements reasonably. ABP is in discussion with the applicant and its engineering consultants on this issue but until such time as it is satisfied that its concerns on water abstraction have been resolved ABP objects to the scheme. ABP is also continuing to review the application documents and wishes to reserve its position to raise additional representations in due course in respect of any other aspects of the project which are considered to have the potential to act to the detriment of the operational integrity and commercial best interests of ABP and or the port of Port Talbot "
Awdurdodau Lleol
Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
"Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Relevant representation. New gas fired electricity generating station of up to 150MW and integral electrical and gas connections on land at Port Talbot steelworks, Port Talbot. The following comments are made in relation to the above Nationally Infrastructure Project (NSIP) as a statutory consultee under the planning act 2008. These Relevant Representations contain an overview of the project and are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that may be made during the examination process. We may also have further representations to make when supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. We have reviewed the draft Development Consent Order (DCO), Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents received on the 15/9/2014 submitted as part of the above mentioned application. The Local Planning Authorities comments in respect of this application are set out below. Air quality: We have reviewed the Environmental Statement (Chapter 5) and are able to comment on matters relating to the impact on air quality and human health. Effects of stack emissions The report shows that dispersion modelling has been carried out to assess the impact of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). The assessment was made at thirty three nearby residential receptors. The modelling also accounted for the effect of terrain. Locally derived meteorological data was used. Stack emissions from the new development (Option 1) were predicted to be not significantly different from the existing scenario. Consequently it is considered that no further mitigation is required. However, further clarification that there will be no increase in overall air emissions should existing power generation and phase 1 of Option 2 be operational concurrently are sought. Effects of construction An assessment was made of the effect of dust from construction. This has been carried out in accordance with the guidance published by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM). This showed that in the absence of mitigation the potential exists for moderate adverse dust and PM10 impacts to occur due to earthworks and trackout. There was also potential for slight adverse dust and PM10 impacts to occur during construction activities. However, these adverse effects may be reduced to negligible significance if effective mitigation measures are implemented and enforced within a Dust Management Plan (DMP). Consequently, it is recommend that a planning condition be inserted requiring the applicant to agree a DMP with the Authority. Noise: The following comments from the Environmental Health section. Chapter 8 and Appendix 8.1 of the Environmental Statement consider the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed development, these comments are in relation to the construction phase of the development only. The Environmental Health section are satisfied with the standards and methodologies used to assess noise and vibration impacts, and agree with the conclusions of the Assessment. This section therefore has no objections in principle to the development, subject to the imposition of suitable controls to the Construction Phase. However, Environmental Health sees no justification for extended hours ie bank holidays and additional start up and shut down periods, and would suggest Condition 13 be amended to reflect the hours put forward by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement, with an explicit restriction on working on Sundays and Public Holidays without prior approval by NPTCBC. Section 3.7.31 identifies that the construction will require piled foundations and that piling operations are the part of Construction phase most likely to give rise to noise disturbance. As a result of this uncertainty, Chapter 17 – Schedule of Mitigation currently has no information on piling noise mitigation. Therefore, prior to commencement of works, Environmental Health would recommend that a requirement for a Piling Method Statement be added to Condition 11(1). Environmental Health is satisfied with the requirements and wording of Conditions 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Draft Development Control Order. The Draft Dust and Noise Management plans are contained in Appendix 15.1.3 and 15.1.5 respectively.. It is noted that the Management Plans do not mention requirements to investigate failures of dust or noise controls and to implement mitigation or remedial works in response. The Environmental Health section agrees with the submission 5.02 that the proposed development should not give rise to Statutory Nuisances however this does not affect the Authority’s Statutory Nuisance powers under section 80 of the Act, however the proposed defence condition relies on the nuisance occurring under the control of s.60, s.61 or s.65 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Visual impact: Due to the prominent location of the site concern has been has been expressed with regard to the design of the power station buildings. It is made clear that The Council has expectations of a high quality of design for this development . A comprehensive visual impact assessment has been carried out and although the Environmental Statement includes the maximum dimensions envisaged including the stack and elevations of the proposed buildings the final design and landscaping scheme will be subject conditions included within the draft DCO conditions 4 and 6. Ecology: The biodiversity section has confirmed that the appropriate ecological survey work has been undertaken. It is noted that a protected species (kidney vetch) has been identified on the site, subsequent work has been carried out with representatives of the applicant with regard to the identification of a suitable translocation site within the application site. Any further surveys should include those for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder Bees and these should be considered in any future landscaping proposals. It is confirmed that the Habitat Management Plan (Appendix 6.7) is fit for purpose and can be agreed under condition 9 of the draft DCO. Highway network: The traffic generated during the construction phase will utilise junction 38 off the M4 and the Peripheral Distributor Road (Harbour Way) to access the site. This route is part of the strategic road network and is of sufficient road width turning radii to accommodate the construction traffic envisaged. There is likely to be little difference in impact if the two phase option is implemented. The applicant will be required to produce a construction traffic management plan subject to condition to be agreed with the Local Highways Authority subject to the approval of the CTMP no concerns have been raised by The Head of Engineering and Transport (Highways). Ground contamination: The desk study has highlighted a need for further intrusive works to fully characterise the area of the proposed development and along the route of the new cable conduit. It is understood these works are currently underway. As noted in the Consultation Report, Section 7.45; the Site Investigation (SI) should include a specific petroleum hydrocarbon analysis in order to provide an accurate indication of human health risk. NPTCBC look forward to reviewing the findings of the site investigation in due course. Socio economic impacts: The development will be a major economic generator during the construction phase and it is clear that the long term viability of the site will be enhanced by the proposal, "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Public Health England
"PHE notes that we have replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence. Scoping response 28th October 2013 Section 42 Consultation 26th February 2014 PHE, which includes PHE’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (Wales), has considered the Environmental Statement regarding the above consultation (July 2014) and can confirm that we are satisfied with the approach taken and the conclusions drawn. Air quality, soil and water PHE notes the conclusion that potential human health impacts due to historically contaminated land, construction related dust emissions, groundwater contamination and air pollution due to traffic and the development will have a negligible to minor public health significance if mitigations are implemented. Conclusion On the basis of the submitted information PHE is satisfied that the development’s potential impacts on public health have been adequately addressed and, where necessary, suitable mitigation has been proposed. We note that the development is within an air quality management area and that the likely impacts have been considered and addressed within the report. However given that the area has a history of poor air quality and that local health on a number of indicators is below the national (Welsh) average, PHE wishes to remain informed and involved during the rest of the planning decision process. "
Ymgyngoreion Statudol Eraill
Western Power Distribution
"WPD have some 11kV underground cables and 66kV cables that are within the development boundary and along the route of the proposed interconnecting pipe between the proposed and existing power stations. WPD would normally seek to retain the position of electricity circuits operating at 132,000 Volts (132kV) and 66,000 Volts (66kV) and in some cases 33,000 Volts (33kV), particularly if the diversion of such circuits placed a financial obligation on WPD to either divert or underground them. WPD would not be party to any development consent order and any financial obligation that would also go against the statutory and regulatory requirement on WPD to operate an economic and efficient electricity distribution system. During and following any development, WPD will require access to its substations, overhead lines and underground cables. Development over or in close proximity to underground cables or substations will require further analysis and confirmation from WPD as to suitability before it proceeds. Assuming access is available and the required minimum statutory clearances can be maintained to its overhead lines, WPD does not generally have any restriction on development in proximity to its strategic overhead lines but it would be sensible for the layout of the development to take WPD's requirements into account. Should the above apparatus be affected by the development, WPD would seek an agreement with the developers to either modify the development plans or agree to protect or divert these assets. On the basis that WPD and Tata Steel enter into an agreement ahead of examination, WPD would normally seek to remove its registration and would not seek any further participation in the DCO process. "