Nid safbwyntiau’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio yw’r rhai a fynegir ar y dudalen hon. Yr hyn a ddangosir yma yw cynnwys a gyflwynwyd i’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio gan y cyhoedd a phartïon eraill â buddiant, sy’n rhoi eu barn ynglŷn â’r cynnig hwn.
Piblinell Carbon Deuocsid HyNet
Gan Natural Resources Wales
“PROPOSED HYNET CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: EN070007 RELEVANT REPRESENTATION FROM NATURAL RESOURCES WALES (NRW) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. NRW have identified key concerns relating to the following matters, as set out in the Environmental Statement (ES): • Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (“the WFD Regulations 2017”) • Flood Risk The above matters are those that require amendments to the scheme, substantial additional information, or a revised Development Consent Order (‘DCO’). The topic headings for these matters are marked “Key Concern” in the relevant sections below. We also provide comments below on matters that may need minor amendments and / or clarification. These are matters that we can provide further details on in our Written Representations and / or can be addressed in our ongoing dialogue with the Applicant in the preparation of our Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). 1.2. NRW shall continue to provide advice to the Applicant on all the required matters, through correspondence and meetings, with the aim of reaching as many positions of agreement and common ground as possible prior to the examination of the proposals. Our Relevant Representation is based solely on the information provided within the application documents. Any changes in our position will be reflected in our full Written Representation and SoCG. 1.3. NRW has reviewed the DCO submission and, notwithstanding our key concerns and other issues raised in this representation, consider the submission, on balance, to be comprehensive and of a good quality. NRW is pleased to note that many of our previous concerns, as raised during the pre-application process, have been appropriately addressed. 1.4. Our comments are made without prejudice to any further comments NRW may wish to make in relation to this application and examination whether in relation to the ES, provisions of the draft DCO and its Requirements, SoCG or other evidence and documents provided by Liverpool Bay CCS Ltd. and their consultants (‘the Applicant’), the Examining Authority or other interested parties. The following paragraphs comprise our Relevant Representation as a Statutory Party under the Planning Act 2008 and Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2015 and as an ‘interested party’ under s102(1) of the Planning Act 2008. 1.5. In addition to being an interested party under the Planning Act 2008, NRW exercises functions under distinct legislation including (but not limited to) the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (EPR) 2016 (as amended) and the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MACAA) 2009. For the purpose of clarity, comments from NRW Regulation and Permitting Service are titled as such, and include comments in Annex A. We provide a comment on NRW’s general purpose in section 2. 1.6. Water Framework Directive (WFD) – Key Concern The following comments are based on our review of ES Appendix 18.3: Water Framework Directive Assessment (APP-165). We would advise that in our view the WFD compliance assessment does not contain sufficient detail or confidence that compliance with the WFD Regulations 2017 can be reasonably assured, in particular: • There is insufficient evidence to agree that "potential construction and operation impacts are unlikely to cause a deterioration in the status of quality elements or overall status at the Wepre Brook water body scale with the mitigation within the CEMP, REAC and monitoring measures implemented" (para. 5.5.7), and; • There is insufficient evidence to agree that "The DCO Proposed Development therefore would not compromise the ability of the water bodies potentially impacted to achieve Good Ecological Potential/Status." (para. 5.5.20). If sufficient evidence is not forthcoming it is our view that deterioration of Wepre Brook water body cannot currently be ruled out and the requirements of Regulation 19 of the WFD Regulations 2017 may therefore need to be met for the development to proceed. We will discuss this further with the applicant with the aim of reaching common ground where possible. Under a worst-case scenario, flow could be lost to the ground and cause watercourses to dry up downstream of the open-cut crossings. In particular, the submission fails to fully consider impacts to the Wepre Brook water body. There is a risk that the engineering works on the Alltami Brook open-cut crossing create a pathway for water to be lost to the ground/contaminated mine workings via disturbance, cracks, faults and joints between proposed bedrock removal and concrete backfill. Such flow losses, and any resultant contaminated mine water upwelling elsewhere, are difficult to address in the long term and could feasibly cause deterioration of hydromorphology, water quality and ecological elements downstream. Chapter 18 of the ES (APP-070) also states that the effects on the hydrology and hydromorphological processes of Alltami Brook and the effects of the installation of permanent artificial structures in watercourses are anticipated to be “Slight Adverse (not significant)”. However, currently the submission does not provide sufficient assurance that this would be the case as insufficient geological, hydrogeological, hydrological, geomorphological and ecological information has been provided to justify the proposed open-cut crossing option for Alltami Brook. The submission does not appear to acknowledge NRW’s email to the applicant during pre-application engagement, dated 8 August 2022, regarding the proposed options for the crossing at Alltami Brook. This email highlighted the issues associated with the open-cut proposal now submitted in comparison to the lesser environmental impacts of the other options considered, but we note that the applicant maintains that their proposed method is the only viable option. We advise that a detailed Options Appraisal for the various crossing options should be provided, to enable the advantages and disadvantages of each option to be fully assessed. The proposals seek to address the geomorphological concerns through assessment, monitoring, and adaptive mitigation at the detailed design phase, but this assumes that the mitigation measures would be technically and financially feasible. For some elements of the proposals, we concur that this is reasonable. However, we do not consider this is reasonable for site-specific elements, decommissioning, and cumulative impacts, based on the lack of sufficient evidence included with the submission. Further information is needed to inform a risk assessment of the proposed Alltami Brook crossing open-cut option so that its viability can be assessed, as follows: a) Whether or not the affected reach of the Alltami Brook is ‘losing’ or ‘gaining’ water to/from the bedrock. If the stream is losing water, this loss could be enhanced with stream bed disturbance/excavation. A site investigation would enable more certainty on this point. b) The depth to the local groundwater and the thickness of any vadose zone beneath the streambed if the stream is ‘losing’ water to bedrock. c) Local stratigraphic control, the permeability of the local bedrock and the thickness of the streambed on that bedrock. Cutting through a streambed for excavation purposes may for example directly facilitate the ingress of stream water into the unsaturated bedrock. If the bedrock is fractured, and because fractures can possess high permeabilities, the streambed water may become lost to the sub-surface. d) The degree to which the bedrock can be excavated. This would depend upon the hardness of the bedrock at the crossing point. We advise that blasting the bedrock would not be suitable but the method of bedrock excavation has not been provided to date, and should therefore be provided for review. e) Whether stream diversion would be required and how this would be achieved from a practical perspective. f) The nature of legacy mine workings in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point and the influence that they may have on activities related to the crossing point, both for the excavation, construction, and operational phases. g) The potential that streambed excavation works could significantly damage the current stream flows (worst case: all the flow is lost to the unsaturated bedrock below) and remove flow that is relied upon downstream. This would lead to deterioration of the hydromorphology element and potentially other WFD elements including water quality and biological. We note that the channel and banks of open-cut crossings “will be reinstated to mimic baseline conditions as far as practicable” (Table 5.3, ES Appendix 18.3: Water Framework Directive Assessment, APP-165). However, we consider that “as far as practicable” potentially permits deterioration. Given the expansive extent of the proposals and substantial number of sites requiring reinstatement mitigation (e.g., temporary culverts, open-cut crossings), this could cause a cumulative impact that causes non-compliance with the WFD Regulations 2017. As there is no reference to cumulative effects in the WFD compliance assessment we advise that this should be included and any relevant information from the ES should be signposted. As the Competent Authority for the WFD in Wales, we need to ensure developments are compliant with Regulation 19. We must therefore be satisfied that if deterioration cannot be avoided in Wepre Brook water body the conditions of Regulation 19 are met and that no deterioration will occur in other water bodies as a result of the development in order for it to be compliant with the WFD Regulations. If it is considered that deterioration would be caused by the proposed Alltami Brook crossing option, we would advise that in order for the development to proceed the requirements of Regulation 19 of the WFD Regulations 2017 would need to be met. We also have the following comments on the WFD Compliance Assessment: • Calculations of the works footprint (in km² and % of water body area) have not been presented in Annex B, Table B.2 and therefore NRW cannot agree with its conclusions. We advise that these calculations should be presented. • While construction impacts have been included in the assessment, the document notes (para. 2.3.5) “that the assessment of potential construction impacts is not required as part of a WFD assessment”. However, contrary to this we advise that a WFD compliance assessment should include all stages of project activity (construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning), as per NRW internal guidance (OGN 72: Complying with the Water Framework Directive Regulations 2017: how to assess and appraise projects and activities) previously shared with the applicant. • Section 1.2 - Study area: we advise that the England / Wales split of WFD Regs 2017 waterbodies is slightly misleading. Some waterbodies are transboundary and were formally assigned to either NRW or Environment Agency for reporting purposes. We note that there is a pipeline crossing in Finchett’s Gutter water body, reported as being in England, but the crossing is in the Welsh part of the water body. • WFD protected areas. A WFD compliance assessment should consider how the project might prevent the achievement of protected area objectives. However, not all protected areas have been identified in this case. There is no mention of groundwater drinking water protected areas (DWPA) - we advise that all groundwaters in Wales are DWPAs. The Dee Estuary Ramsar site is also a protected area (NRW published a Protected Area Register with the River Basin Management Plans last year). The Dee estuary shellfish water protected area is also not assessed. However, given that it falls within the Dee Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA), and these are assessed separately, it does not require further consideration. • Para. 5.6.2 - Nitrates Directive: in Wales the Nitrate Pollution Prevention (Wales) Regulations (2013) have been revoked and replaced by the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. • Table 5.12 and Table 5.13: we note that different sets of information have been extracted for the Dee compared to North West and Western Wales River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) but it is unclear why. We also note that different versions of the RBMPs were used – 2015 plan for Western Wales and draft 2021 RBMP for the Dee, even though the Dee and Western Wales RBMPs were always published (drafts for consultation opened Dec 2020 and final plans published July 2022) at the same time. Clarification should therefore be provided on this. 1.7. Water Resources and Flood Risk - Flood Consequences Assessment – Key Concern The site boundary lies partially within Flood Zones C1 and C2 according to the Development Advice Map (DAM) contained within Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development and Flood Risk. The Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA, APP-168-170) also refers to the Flood Risk Assessment Wales (FRAW) maps. However, as the FRAW maps should not be used for planning purposes we advise that reference to these is removed. The FCA should be updated to refer to the Flood Map for Planning (FMfP) which represents the best and most up-to-date information on areas at flood risk than the DAM. We note there is no reference in the submission regarding the impact of the construction compounds and equipment yards on NRW’s access arrangements. These concerns were highlighted in our Section 42 Preliminary Environmental Information Report consultation response (paragraphs 67 to 69, dated 22/03/22, our ref: CAS-181472-B2Q1), and relate to NRW’s access to the Hawarden and Northern Embankments, and to several main rivers in Sandycroft and Pentre. Retaining our ongoing access to maintain assets which protect people and properties from flooding is vital. The FCA and ES (Chapter 18, APP-070) should therefore be updated to address this. The ES (Chapter 18, APP-070) refers briefly to the construction compounds, and paragraph 18.8.4 states that “all centralised compounds are located outside the fluvial and coastal floodplain”. However, this does not appear to be correct based on Sheet 14 of Drawing EN070007- D.2.4 – WP, as the centralised compounds “30D Wood Farm Compound” and “31A River Dee” are both located within the floodplain of the Tidal River Dee. This section of the ES should therefore be updated to reflect this and a plan showing the location of the Cathodic Protection cabinet north of the River Dee should be submitted for review. We note that paragraph 3.7.7 of the ES (Chapter 3, APP-055) refers to a 24.4m permanent rights corridor which would place restrictions on this land. This could have implications for NRW, particularly where the pipeline runs under/close to flood defence assets, such as the Northern and Hawarden Embankments. Further information should therefore be submitted to enable NRW to assess how this could affect NRW maintenance works, which are completed regularly at these locations, and any major civil engineering improvements likely to be required to the defences within the design life of the pipeline (c. 40 years). If pipe locations deviate from agreed locations this could significantly affect NRW’s Flood Risk Management activities and hence any change in location during the construction phase will have to be carefully managed. The measures proposed for managing flood risk during the construction phase are referred to in the ES (Chapter 18) and the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (APP-225). However, there is no reference to what would happen to any arisings resulting from the installation of the pipeline. The CEMP should therefore be updated to address this, confirming that any arisings resulting from the works would be stored outside the floodplain. We note that the Outline CEMP (APP-225) refers to the trenchless crossing of the River Dee (Table 6.6 D-BD-019) stating that all entry and exit pits will be 16m away from any tidal watercourses. However, in order to ensure that associated flood defence structures are also considered and safeguarded this should be updated to specify a distance of 16m away from any tidal watercourse and any flood defence structures on that watercourse. For the operational phase of the works, we have no significant flood risk concerns based on the submitted FCA (APP-168). However, paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.4 of the FCA (APP-168) should be updated to refer to potential risk from a breach in the River Dee defences along the River Dee corridor. Table 1 of the FCA provides a list of the proposed crossing types at several watercourses and Appendix 3.1 provides a table of Trenchless Crossings. This should be accompanied by location plans for each proposed crossing point. The FCA should be updated to advise on the typical design principles that would be followed for the crossings, such as minimum cover requirements below hard / firm bed levels, and how far this level would extend either side of the bank. - Flood Risk Activity Permit For open cut crossings located on main rivers, a bespoke Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP) would be required under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (EPR) 2016, for both the permanent and temporary works. The permanent works application would need to include details such as depth of cover beneath the bed of the main river and level of pipe/cable within an 8m/16m distance from the banks of the main river/toe of any associated flood defence structures, and the final route alignment. A temporary works application would need to be supported by a detailed method statement, including the cable’s installation method and how flood risk would be managed during installation. NRW would need to consider impacts on access for inspection, maintenance and incident response, and impacts on the structural integrity of any flood risk assets in the vicinity. Service crossings below the bed of a main river using trenchless techniques (such as Horizontal Directional Drilling) can be registered as an exempt flood risk activity under the EPR 2016, subject to certain key conditions being met as per part 4 of Schedule 3 of the EPR 2016. We advise that these points are addressed in the ES (Chapter 18, APP-070). We note that some of the proposed crossings affect watercourses in Sandycroft. There is a complex network of multiple infrastructure in this urban area i.e., many mixed age culverts very close to residential property, within roads, with multiple utility pipes present. The crossings at these locations will require careful consideration, with input from NRW. A FRAP may also be required for any works in, over, under or within 8m of a fluvial main river (including any defences on that main river), or 16m of a tidal main river (including any defences on that main river), or within a flood plain. Please see our website for further information: Natural Resources Wales / Flood risk activity permits. 1.8. Air Quality The proposed dust deposition mitigation appears reasonable, in particular the creation of a Dust Management Plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority (REAC, D-AQ-004, APP-222). However, as this would be a key aspect of mitigation to address potential dust impacts on the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, NRW would also wish to be consulted on this document. 1.9. Climate Resilience Chapter 7 of the ES (APP-059) is chiefly focussed on national (UK) and English legislation and policy, e.g., there is no mention of the Welsh Climate Change Adaptation Plan – Climate Conscious Wales, but reference is made to the English National Adaptation Programme. Since the proposals would be located within England and Wales, we advise that the relevant Welsh climate change policies should also be acknowledged. 1.10. Biodiversity Great crested newt, bat species, otter, and water vole. NRW consider the survey and assessment to be satisfactory in respect of great crested newts (GCNs), bats, otters and water vole and agree with the conclusions of the ES. We note the outline recommendations and proposed principles for mitigation in the ES, OCEMP and the OLEMP. We note that the OLEMP (APP-229) and OCEMP (APP-225) form the basis for a detailed LEMP and CEMP to be produced at detailed design stage, to be approved by the LPA. NRW agrees with this approach. However, NRW considers that the final LEMP should include revised details regarding long-term monitoring and management. Given the confirmed presence of GCN in ponds within or adjacent to the working DCO corridor, an EPS Licence will be required to enable the construction of the DCO Proposed Development. The ES sets out some outline provisions for habitat clearance. We advise that these are developed further and set out in a GCN conservation plan to be submitted as an Annex to the detailed CEMP. We would be comfortable with this information being submitted to and approved by the LPA, in consultation with NRW. Schedule 1 bird species (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended) With regards to Appendix 9.7: Barn Owl Survey Report – Part 1 (APP-108), while we note the comments regarding changes in the proposed pipeline route, clarification is needed as to whether the barn owl survey area included a buffer to consider potential disturbance to breeding barn owls outside of the Newbuild Infrastructure Boundary; it would be pertinent to map these different boundaries. Identifying Welsh and English sites in the results (e.g., Table 1) would be useful for interpretation. In terms of mitigation, alternative barn owl nest locations away from the Zone of Influence should be provided, especially where exclusion techniques are concerned. The scheme could also deliver other enhancements for barn owls in the local area (e.g., nest boxes). Paragraphs 4.10.4-5 of Appendix 9.8: Breeding Bird Survey report (APP-112) should highlight the potential impacts on breeding Schedule 1 bird species (e.g., Cetti’s warbler). Fish Regarding Appendix 9.9: Aquatic Ecology Report (Watercourses) (APP-113), whilst NRW accept the usage of e-DNA techniques there are some anomalous results (e.g., 0.17% European Bass in Wepre Brook). For a more realistic reference to species composition at the crossing sites a more thorough electrofishing survey would have been beneficial. Further explanation is therefore needed as to why some sites were ruled out from electrofishing surveys. Regarding paragraph 3.4.205 of Appendix 9.9, we note that no data could be produced from the Northop Brook e-DNA survey. NRW note the presence of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) and brown/sea trout (Salmo trutta) in this brook. NRW also note that there are plans to improve fish passage on the reservoir at Broughton Brook (SJ26302 71084), which will improve eel passage up- and downstream. Mitigation should therefore be considered for crossings on this brook. With regards to the ES, Chapter 9 (Biodiversity): Table 9.6 (APP-061) please note that river and sea lamprey are Annex II qualifying features of the Dee Estuary SAC, and European smelt, river and sea lamprey are features of the Dee Estuary SSSI, but these do not appear to have been referenced. Regarding Table 9.11 (LSE – Fish) further information should be provided about how long the temporary culverts are expected to present in the watercourses as a ‘temporary’ feature and their locations (with National Grid References). In watercourses where salmonids are known to be present there is a need to avoid open-trench crossings through spawning periods; this is to avoid damaging redds, ova and alevins. With regards to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), paragraphs 6.2.30 & 6.2.31 (APP-226) we note that ‘frac-out’ has been deemed unlikely, but that should ‘frac-out’ occur there would be mortalities of fish in the area. Therefore, the final HRA should include mitigation for avoiding the main run-time for key fish species to ensure such effects are minimal. Clarification should be provided on the expected maximum timescale for completing the HDD underneath the River Dee. National Grid References should be provided for the open-cut crossings (paragraph 6.2.33). Designated Sites for Nature Conservation We note that the existing natural gas pipeline to be repurposed for conveying carbon dioxide is already located below the Halkyn Mountain Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Flint Mountain SSSI, and a new pipeline is not proposed at these locations. However, any maintenance of this pipeline that would involve potentially damaging operations within the designated sites would need prior section 28 approval from NRW unless permitted directly through planning condition. Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) NRW’s scoping advice identified the potential for impacts arising from the introduction and spread of INNS, including Chinese mitten crab via water transfer during hydrostatic testing of the completed pipeline. We advise that this species is present in the River Dee, and possibly the Mersey, but note that the source of water for this activity is yet to be confirmed. The possibility of Chinese mitten crab transfer during hydrostatic testing should therefore be addressed in the Final Biosecurity Management Plan, which should be agreed with NRW prior to the work commencing. 1.11. Land and Soils Pipeline excavation and groundwater dewatering could result in interaction with existing groundwater contamination from local landfills and petrol stations. A site investigation has been performed, but it is unclear if the boreholes drilled to date are located between the proposed pipeline alignment and potential sources of contamination. Such boreholes would be used to assess groundwater levels and local permeabilities before any excavation and dewatering works, as these would inform the nature and extent of dewatering/permitting that may be required in a particular location. In addition, the quality of the groundwater in these locations is important as this will indicate the degree to which local groundwater within a section of pipeline excavation requiring dewatering is polluted and hence requires treatment. This would require an acceptable methodology to be developed to determine the disposal of any pumped groundwater generated from pipeline dewatering activities. Additional boreholes should also be installed to assess the ground conditions around the proposed Alltami Brook crossing point. Hydrostatic Testing – a validation process/report for the disposal of any pipeline purge water should be developed due to the purge water volumes generated and to ensure that the final discharge of any purge water, treated or otherwise, is acceptable from a permitting perspective. 1.12. Major Accidents and Disasters Chapter 13 of the ES (APP-065) identifies the risk of the loss of containment of carbon dioxide and asserts that, based on the assumptions and mitigation measures, these will be managed to be as low as reasonably practical (ALARP). However, the risk assessment should include the impact of a major loss of containment of carbon dioxide and how significant adverse environmental effects would be prevented or mitigated, including details of emergency preparedness. 1.13. Water Quality NRW agree with the conclusions of the ES, WFD compliance assessment and HRA in terms of Marine Water Quality based on the provision that the mitigation for pollution and biosecurity listed in the Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC, APP-222) can be secured within the CEMP. We have the following advice regarding water pollution and the Outline CEMP: • Paragraph 4.2.2 and Table 6.1 (D-GN-003): Any pollution incident in Wales should be self-reported to NRW, without delay. • Paragraph 5.2.2: We note that the detailed CEMP will include a Biosecurity Management Plan. Site monitoring should include identifying the presence of INNS to minimise their spread. • Table 6.1 (D-BD-054) should also include ordinary watercourses as it refers to a water discharge activity, not a Flood Risk Activity. Reference should also be made to NRW as it currently only refers to the EA. • Table 6.15 - Water resources and flood risk: It is important that all identified measures are transferred and elaborated on in the detailed CEMP and surface water management and monitoring plan, particularly regarding soil management and prevention of silt pollution. • Table 6.15 (D-WR-025): If sewage from welfare facilities is to be disposed via a septic tank to ground in Wales, this discharge activity will require either a registration of an exemption with NRW or a discharge permit, depending on location and flows. • Table 6.15 (D-WR-035): Dewatering activities in Wales may require a water resources permit from NRW. Reference should therefore be made to NRW as this currently only refers to the EA. • Given the size and length of time to complete this project we advise that the appointed construction contractor(s) and/or appointed environment manager make proactive contact with the local NRW environment team at the start of the construction phase. 1.14. Dee Conservancy Trust NRW’s comments with regards to the Dee Conservancy Trust estate centre around the need for a lease agreement to be in place, which covers the installation and operation of the HyNet infrastructure beneath NRW’s estate. NRW’s ability to undertake its statutory duties as Harbour Authority and Local Lighthouse Authority for the River Dee must not be impeded as a result of the proposal. The wording of any agreement must allow NRW, as the statutory harbour authority, to carry out navigation works within the lease area with notification to the applicant, rather than with their permission. We would also advise that an annual payment is attached to the lease and that this is discussed further with the Dee Conservancy Trust. 2. NRW’S GENERAL PURPOSE 2.1 NRW is satisfied that this advice is consistent with its general purpose of pursuing the sustainable management of natural resources in relation to Wales, and applying the principles of sustainable management of natural resources. In particular, NRW acknowledges that the principles of sustainable management include taking account of all relevant evidence and gathering evidence in respect of uncertainties, and taking account of the short, medium and long term consequences of actions. NRW further acknowledges that it is an objective of sustainable management to maintain and enhance the resilience of ecosystems and the benefits they provide and, in so doing meet the needs of present generations of people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs, and contribute to the achievement of the well-being goals in section 4 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. --- CONTINUED --- ? ANNEX A – NRW Regulation and Permitting Services 1. Marine Licensing: Regulatory Response Works proposed under the DCO that are within Welsh Waters may require a marine licence under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, for which NRW is the licensing authority. The applicant has noted that the project includes works that will require a marine licence under the MACAA, including crossing the Dee Estuary. To date no formal marine licence application or request for formal pre-application advice has been received. We would strongly encourage the applicant to engage with the Marine Licensing Team.”