United Kingdom Without Incineration Network
"United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) will be submitting an objection to this proposal, calling for refusal of the application on several grounds including: lack of need for the proposed incineration capacity; the threat to recycling posed by this scheme; and the adverse climate change impacts associated with the direct emission of fossil CO2. With respect to lack of need for the proposed capacity, UKWIN will provide evidence showing how Government policies, such as the December 2018 Resources and Waste Strategy, emphasise the importance of moving towards a more circular economy and of tackling plastics and food waste meaning these materials will not be available for incineration (thereby freeing up capacity at existing incinerators and undermining any justification put forward by the applicant for this proposed new capacity). UKWIN will also set out how the proposed capacity threatens the achievement of government recycling targets by competing for feedstock with recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion. Incineration is a barrier to the Circular Economy, destroying valuable materials and nutrients, thus removing them from the circular economy. Incineration is considered to be a ‘leakage’ from the circular economy. UKWIN will argue that money invested in incineration cannot then be invested in better collection, sorting and treatment infrastructure, and that the presence of expensive infrastructure results in ‘lock-in’ into incineration that reduces the financial incentives to reduce, re-use and recycle. UKWIN will also present evidence showing how the propose incinerator would, if it were to become operational, exacerbate climate change by giving rise to unacceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions. For every tonne of waste burned, typically more than one tonne of CO2 is released into the atmosphere, meaning energy from incineration has a higher carbon intensity than the conventional use of fossil fuels. By 2050 incinerators could be more than ten times the average carbon intensity of the electricity grid, making incineration a significant barrier to the long-term decarbonisation of the power supply and an obstacle to a low-carbon economy."

Osborne Clarke LLP on behalf of Western Power Distribution
"We act for Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) plc ('WPD') whose registered office is at Avonbank, Feeder road, Bristol, BS2 0TB. WPD is the licenced distribution network operator under Section 6 Electricity Act 1989 (EA1989) for the area in which the Order is proposed to have effect. Section 9 of the EA1989 places a duty on the electricity distributor to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity distribution. The application includes land over which WPD holds assets that are subject to compulsory purchase powers. WPD needs to ensure that the powers being sought will not have a detrimental impact on WPD's electricity network including ensuring that the terms of the proposed protective provisions are acceptable. Please accept this as WPD's representation consisting of a holding objection to the application. The objection is made on the grounds that WPD will seek to agree protection of its assets with the undertaker. No formal agreement has yet been concluded and accordingly we are lodging this objection to protect WPD's position pending conclusion of an appropriate agreement. Once WPD are satisfied that its network is protected we will notify the Planning Inspectorate promptly and withdraw the objection."

Kevin Blanchard
"Transport/traffic This is the only positive thing I can agree with,by using ships it would reduce amount of lorries and traffic congestion. I object and am concerned about the application for points below Noise As I live nearby on a large residential estate concerned about 24/7 continuous running affecting my quality of life Air quality/air pollution The original PEIR report was based on guesstimates and now at last minute the technology has changed from gasification to incineration,a backward step.I am worried about small PM emissions as their is no way to stop all pollution.Appears no commercially available equipment to continuously monitor emissions.Other incinerators have exceeded the limits without public knowledge.The people of Boston are not aware of how far the pollution will travel viewing similar plumes,and it will affect the local fertile growing land. Wildlife impacts S51 advice 7/9/20.Moving the wharf upstream away from my residential area would bring it closer to designated areas on the wash.I feel people should have at least equal value to habitats.Their is some screening conifers approx 10m high,but the chimneys are 70m so pollution will go over them,and other closer residents don’t have screening. Climate change Incineration results in high levels of greenhouse gas emissions when our government wants a reduction.Company claim can only capture 20% CO2,so maybe 1 million tons off CO2 released. Overcapacity As we get nearer to reaching recycling targets will be less residual waste to burn.This is a 25 year project for 1 million tons a year.It is estimated by 2030 10 million tons of waste available,but currently we have 16 million tons capacity.So no need for any more . Recycling Concerned everything is now being burnt.Dispatches programme The dirty truth,one third of recycling is sent straight to incinerators.If only used genuine residual waste it would free up more than half of current capacity requiring no new incinerators.Our local council are encouraging and enforcing more recycling. Capacity The proposed plant is too large for a small town like Boston.Intended 1.2 million tons from 12 ports will make it one of the largest in UK.We all ready have the Boston Biomass plant in close situe for 130,000 tons.Burnt for profit at expense of residents health. Odour Stated that bunker will be under negative pressure,but numerous similar plants have had breaches and complaints. Construction Am concerned will be subject to 4 years of construction issues particularly noise and dust. Property values Am concerned if goes ahead will result in a reduction in the areas property value. I have attended all the consultation events,and the main concerns of feedback have been air pollution.noise pollution and odour which I feel will still be issues for my quality of life. Thankyou for taking the time to read my comments."

Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board
"The Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board (the Board) is an independent authority constituted under the Land Drainage Act 1930, with duties “to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to the drainage of land within its district”. The Board acts as a non-statutory consultee to Local Planning Authorities, but importantly the Board has its own statutory powers with respect to drainage which also determines how and if a development may proceed. The Board’s current powers derive from the Land Drainage Act 1991. The Board also acts as an agent and non-statutory sub-consultee to the Lead Local Flood Authority (Lincolnshire County Council) for matters regarding flood risk, surface water drainage and Section 23 consenting."

Kimberleigh Page
"I am concerned that the project will bring more low skilled migrant workers to an area already overwhelmed. The emissions and odour from the factory will not only increase greenhouse gases but will also pollute the air over an area of the country that grows the bulk of the nations vegetables and flowers and so will contaminate the ground. I am also concerned about the effect this will have on house prices and the ability to sell your house as people will not want to move into an area where contamination and odour is a problem as is already seen with the waste facility in Pinchbeck."

Nicola Richardson
"I have serious concerns that this will increase pollution around the Boston area. In addition, we do not know what the possible health consequences of burning this waste will be. As far as I can see it will release tiny particles into the air which could be detrimental to our health. Also, I have serious concerns over the smells that will emit and will hit parts of the town dependant on the wind direction. For those living nearby, it will also add extra traffic and devalue their houses. I am totally against putting a plant here to take such large amounts of waste."

Alice Tanner
"This could be a good idea for the area as long as it does not increase traffic. It would need all deliveries to the new Power Station to be made by boats. I believe that an increase in traffic would be very bad for Boston. We would also need guarantees that odour and noise polution standards are adhered to. Also a thorough investigation into posible health risks to the public. It is after all home to a possible 70,000 residents."

Marine Management Organisation
"The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) will submit relevant representation before 18th June which will include points we intend to make in relation to the application."

Vic Firth
"Dear Sirs , we want to object to the planning for the EFW facility in Boston . We do not want the small town of Boston to become the dumping ground for the whole of the UK waste . We also value our good air quality and understand a considerable amount of toxins are produced ( at a time when we should be cutting down on emissions ) in the process . Surely this facility would be better in a more remote setting rather than on the proposed site . We live about 3 miles from this site and the prevailing wind can bring these toxic contaminants our way . My brother in law lives not a mile from the proposed site and has [Redacted] and any deterioration in air quality would be detrimental to his health. I am sure there will be heavy metals and other materials which contain toxic elements in the waste which would either remain in the waste ash and potentially get into the atmosphere or be directly given off in fumes, this does not just affect the immediate area and can also get into the food chain via consumption of animal product and crops in this area and this is a large agricultural area responsible for growing most of the countries vegetables . Any particulates released can cause a variety of respiratory and cardiovascular effects and heavy metal contamination can cause a variety of neonatal abnormalities and cancers. Furthermore even if a facility is supposed to follow stringent guidelines does not mean it will always do so . This is a relatively new technology in the UK however there is evidence of health problems emerging in China where it has been used for longer . ( health impact of Thermal treatment facilities- Prof Wong Tze Wai school of public health university of Hong Kong ) Whilst I appreciate we cannot go on using landfill we cannot just lurch from one bad method of waste management to another . Yours sincerely Vic Firth Dip. HSM, CMR Frances Bradish BSC Hons (I) ASCST, ARTP. ."

Roythornes Solicitors on behalf of The Boston and Fosdyke Fishing Society Limited
"There is a considerable and significantly detrimental impact upon our clients (who are working fishermen) from the scheme. The summary points of objection (non- exhaustive) are below and unless these concerns are met with due consideration and relocation offered, our clients will find that their way of life and livelihood is destroyed, which also has Human Rights implications, which we shall make detailed representations on in due course too. 1. The scheme will cause an increase in shipping to the extent that it will result in a navigational hazard to our clients’ multiple vessels as the ships will be transiting the river earlier in the tidal cycle where there will be less water and a narrower channel to work through. 2. All the ships journeying to the new facility will have to turn in the river at the dock turning circle, which will block the river to all other vessels during this process. The promoting authority allege that this process takes up to 15 mins per ship, but our experienced clients who work in these waters constantly, advise that it takes much longer and with up to 3 ships turning on a tide cycle, this will block the river preventing our clients’ vessels leaving or returning to port. 3. It is also asserted that ships arriving to port are to be turned on arrival unless it is not possible due to time or tidal constraints, and any ship not turned on arrival will have to cross the flow of traffic. This is hugely concerning for its safety aspects as it will put a ship on the wrong side of the river, resulting in potentially hazardous conditions and accidents. For example, having a 3000 ton ship on the wrong side of the river when 26 fishing vessels are leaving to go to the fishing grounds, will see chaotic conditions result on a normal basis. 4. Finally, the mitigation proposed is that fishing vessels should work around the shipping movements and time their departures and when they leave the fishing grounds so as to avoid the ships. This is practically impossible and any delay leaving the port for our clients’ fishing vessels will result in a lost days' work. The passage of our clients’ vessels is worked around the sand banks and channels of the Wash and is time critical, as is arriving back at port. The only sensible solution to mitigate would be to relocate the affected fishermen’s quay down river of the new proposed energy plant; otherwise the fishermen will find it impossible to continue a viable industry and will lose their livelihood and generational way of life."

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
"Introduction Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT) manages nearly 100 nature reserves, gives wildlife a voice, and inspires people to take action for wildlife. Over 25,000 members and more than 1,000 volunteers work with us to make Lincolnshire wilder and make nature part of everyone’s life. Comments on the Boston Alternative Energy Facility NSIP application: LWT has engaged with consultation for Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF) since January 2019. We have the following concerns regarding the potential environmental impact of this application. Environmental survey and data do not demonstrate ‘no adverse effect’. Insufficient information is presented to demonstrate beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will be no adverse effect on the Integrity of the interest features of The Wash SPA and Wash & North Norfolk Coast (W&NNC) SAC. Worst-case scenarios for the designated interest features of The Wash SPA & W&NNC SAC. Worst Case Scenarios, or worst-case impacts, have not been defined for features within the HRA. This should include detrimental impacts and any possible compounding issues on features e.g. further decline in breeding redshank, further declines in breeding harbour seal and permanent loss of priority habitats. W&NNC SAC designated features - Impact to harbour seal is not adequately assessed Piling - Data and information specific to the planned piling scheme for BAEF should be provided and assessed. Disturbance from vessels (noise, presence and haul out sites) - Information has not been provided for sensitive periods of breeding, pupping and moulting Population decline - Recent evidence suggests a decline in population of harbour seals along the east coast. This should be investigated using up to date information, assessed and reported in the HRA. If a population is in decline, even small impacts could have a significant effect on the designated feature. The Wash Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site – Impacts on wintering redshank We support concerns raised by RSPB and Natural England on the impacts of increased vessel movements during the operational phase at the Facility and at the mouth of the Haven on feeding and roosting redshank. No mitigation or compensation packages have been suggested to address impacts. This should be considered within the EIA. Estuarine processes The loss of benthic communities due to the loss of habitat is not accounted for. Habitat loss and boat wash caused by increased vessel passage and anchorage areas may change the dynamic of the mouth of the Witham into The Wash e.g. where sediment accumulates and settles. Further dredging may be required. This should be identified and evidenced and any impacts compensated for. Permanent Loss of priority habitat We do not agree with the final conclusion of minor adverse effect on intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh in Marine and Coastal Ecology Chapter (doc ref 6.2.17). both are priority habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Additionally, we consider that the priority habitat within this part of the Haven is functionally linked to The Wash SPA habitat. Relying on natural reestablishment of this habitat post construction is not adequate. Impacts such as boats being grounded on the mudflats at low tide and increased boat wash associated with the Facility may affect natural regeneration. Impacts on bird species associated with the SPA should be assessed and considered in the EIA. We conclude a significance effect of ‘major adverse’ due to the permanent loss of 1 ha of saltmarsh and 1.4 ha mudflat. We do not agree that the permanent loss of saltmarsh and mudflat would only require net gain measures. Any permanent losses should be compensated for. The compensation should be included in the EIA."

Jenny Mason
"My concerns for this proposal are: 1. The level of performance promised will not be met. 2. There are relatively few sites in the UK running at this capacity. 3. The number of such projects in the UK that have received planning permission, but are not currently functioning. 4. The regulation of emissions from the twin exhaust stacks. 5. Although private finance is being sought, difficulties down the line may incur public finance assistance. 6. The building of a potentially explosive establishment on the outskirts of Boston, which has an expanding population. 7. Has sufficient Health and Safety modelling been produced to predict the extent of the blast effect to the surrounding area, in the event of catastrophic explosion. 8. How will the build up of potentially explosive condensates, such as Tar, be monitored and eliminated. 9. The commitment to install the wharf first, ensuring building materials are not delivered by the narrow surrounding road network."

Environment Agency
"1.0 The Environment Agency’s Role 1.1 The Environment Agency is an executive non departmental public body, established under the Environment Act 1995. We were established to bring together responsibilities for protecting and improving the environment and to contribute to sustainable development. We take an integrated approach in which we consider all elements of the environment when we plan and carry out our work. This allows us to advise on the best environmental options and solutions, taking into account the different impacts on water, land, air, resources and energy. 1.2 We help prevent hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage from flooding. Our work helps to support a greener economy through protecting and improving the natural environment for beneficial uses, working with businesses to reduce waste and save money, and helping to ensure that the UK economy is ready to cope with climate change. We will facilitate, as appropriate, the development of low carbon sources of energy ensuring people and the environment are properly protected. 1.3 We have three main roles: We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on businesses. We issue a range of permits and consents. We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in an integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. We are an environmental adviser – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. 1.2 The Environment Agency takes action to conserve and secure proper use of water resources, preserve and improve the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters and groundwaters through pollution control powers and regulating discharge permits. 1.3 We have regulatory powers in respect of waste management and remediation of contaminated land designated as special sites. We also encourage remediation of land contamination through the planning process. 1.4 The Environment Agency is the principal flood risk management operating authority. It has the power (but not the legal obligation) to manage flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The Environment Agency is also responsible for increasing public awareness of flood risk, flood forecasting and warning and has a general supervisory duty for flood risk management. We also have a strategic overview role for all flood and coastal erosion risk management. 2.0 Scope of these representations 2.1 These Relevant Representations contain an overview of the project issues, which fall within our remit. They are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that we may make throughout the examination process. We may also have further representations to make if supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. 2.2 We have reviewed the DCO application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above mentioned application, which we received on 28 April 2021. Our comments are presented under topic headings. 3.0 Flood Risk 3.1 The Environment Agency OBJECTS to the proposed DCO being granted at this time due to the impact on flood risk management infrastructure and the potential increase of flood risk to others. 3.2 We do not consider that the evidence provided is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposals will not result in an increase in flood risk to others. We believe this is contrary to the Exception Test as set out in Paragraph 5.7.16 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Disapplication of Consent Requirements 3.3 The Environment Agency seeks to support the delivery of infrastructure projects such as this. We are not opposed to the principle of disapplication of the requirement to obtain a flood risk activity permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (“EPR 2016”)subject to measures being put in place to protect the integrity of flood defences and maintaining public safety. For other applications of this nature this has been done through a combination of protective provisions and a separate legal agreement with the applicants, where possible prepared prior to submission of the application. 3.4 However, the applicant has not sought to enter into a legal agreement with the Environment Agency, and has not requested or received any consent from the Environment Agency to agree to the removal of the requirement to obtain a flood risk activity permit under EPR 2016, as required under s150(1) of the Planning Act 2008. At this time we are therefore not able to agree to the disapplication of the requirement for a flood risk activity permit. 3.6 We do not consider that the current protective provisions are adequate to ensure that harm to flood management infrastructure does not arise as a result of the proposed development. Before we can consent to the removal of the requirement for a flood risk activity permit, we will need to agree these protective provisions. 3.7 The Environment Agency has made the applicant aware of these requirements and invited it to enter into discussions regarding a legal agreement as soon as possible. Flood Risk Assessment 3.8 Further evidence is also required to ensure flood risk to others is not increased during construction, operation and decommissioning. These include, but are not limited to: • Detailed drawings and methodologies for any works affecting the existing flood defences and the proposed wharf; • Details of site and finished floor levels, including any proposed land raising; • Decommissioning of the site and long term maintenance; • Details of dredging activities and any potential impacts on flood defences; and • Details of increased shipwash and any impacts on flood defences. 3.9 The Environment Agency has notified the applicant of our position and invited it to commence detailed discussions to resolve the above matters as soon as possible. Matters relating to Flood Risk in the draft DCO 3.10 The Environment Agency considers that the protective provisions as set out in Schedule 8, Part 4 are not adequate to ensure that harm to flood management infrastructure does not arise as a result of the proposed development. We therefore OBJECT to the draft DCO as it currently stands. 3.11 With respect to deviation limits in Article 7, we request an exception is made in relation to Work No. 4, to ensure that wharf heights are not changed. A lower wharf height would not provide the standard of flood protection required. 3.12 We are unclear as to the interpretation of Article 7(1)(c), and we would be grateful for further clarification. 3.13 We are concerned that the general exception to the limits of deviation in Article 7 is without any reference to re-consultation with the relevant statutory consultees, including the Environment Agency. We request that this clause be amended to explicitly provide for appropriate re-consultation. 3.14 We request an amendment so that Article 22 does not apply to works to or that would affect the Environment Agency’s flood defence structures. 3.15 We note that Paragraph 5.117 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft DCO states that aspects of the Water Resources Act 1991 are to be disapplied. This does not appear to be reflected in Article 41 of the draft DCO. For clarity the Environment Agency does not support the disapplication of any part of the Water Resources Act 1991 at this time. 3.16 We request that Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 3 is amended to require consultation with and approval by the Environment Agency prior to confirmation that any amendments do not give rise to environmental effects not previously considered. We consider this is necessary to safeguard the integrity of flood defences and public safety, and to ensure the protection of waterbodies. 3.17 We request that, for clarity and to ensure the protection of controlled waters, the wording in the following sections is amended from ‘substantially in accordance with’ to ‘in accordance with’: • Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 5 (2) • Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 8 (1) 3.18 In Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 8 (1) it refers to a ‘surface water drainage strategy’. However in Requirement 8 (3) it refers to the ‘surface water and drainage strategy’. For clarity, we request that both references are amended to ‘surface and foul water drainage strategy’. This is to make it clear that it refers to the disposal of foul and surface water. 3.19 We consider that Schedule 2, Part1 Requirement 22 is not sufficient to ensure that the flood defences are adequately maintained following the decommissioning of the plant. We consider that a legal agreement will be required prior to consent being granted to ensure proper maintenance and aftercare. 3.20 We note that the FRA is referred to in Schedule 10 as document reference 6.4.11. It is listed as 6.4.13 on the applicant’s website page. 4.0 Compliance with the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (“WFD Regulations”) 4.1 The Environment Agency OBJECTS to the proposed DCO being granted at this time as there is insufficient evidence that the proposed development will not adversely impact on marine and transitional waterbodies beyond the effects currently identified. This is contrary to Paragraph 5.3.18 of EN-1. 4.2 The further assessment section of Appendix 13.1 Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment (Document 6.4.12) considers potential marine ecology impacts to the Witham transitional water body. We consider that the qualitative assessment undertaken does not provide robust and credible evidence that the combined impacts during construction and operation will not result in a deterioration of saltmarsh quality. 4.3 We are also concerned that the wider impacts of sediment movement as a result of both the construction and operation of the facility have not been fully assessed. We consider that further assessment of the impacts is required, including evidence of the Expert Geomorphological Assessment (EGA) undertaken. 4.4 The Outline Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Strategy (Document 7.4) is predominantly a terrestrial document and does not adequately assess the impact on intertidal saltmarsh. We are concerned that the impact of permanent intertidal habitat loss (saltmarsh and mudflat) on the marine ecology and the risks of further loss or degradation of saltmarsh at the operational stage have not been fully considered or mitigated for. 4.5 The proposed mitigation is located outside the WFD waterbody and does not mitigate for the loss off saltmarsh habitat. Plans for net gain should also consider designs that will benefit fish and invertebrates and saltmarsh plants. We do not consider that the DCO as it currently stands would adequately protect the WFD waterbody. 4.6 The Environment Agency has notified the applicants of our position and invited them to continue discussions to resolve the matter. Matters relating to Water Framework Directive in the Draft Development Consent Order 4.7 We request that the Environment Agency is a named consultee in relation to Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 14. This is to enable us to ensure that any potential risks to the marine environment are adequately understood and managed. 5.0 Waste Management 5.1 The applicant has proposed various activities which may be exempt from Environmental Permitting, provide they are carried out in accordance with the relevant processes. In principle we have no objection to this, but given the potential risk of contaminants entering into controlled waters, we consider that additional care should be taken when undertaking this work. 5.2 The application site is also located within 250m of a landfill site that is potentially producing landfill gas. The application does not currently include measures to investigate or mitigate this risk. 5.3 Given the potentially complex nature of waste management during construction and the sensitivity of receptors in the area, we request that the draft DCO is amended to include the Environment Agency is included as a required consultee in Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 10(1). This will also enable us to review the evidence in relation to surface water management and potential contamination. 5.4 We also request that Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 10(3) is amended to include reference to the need to investigate potential landfill gas intrusion and identify what measures (if any) will be implemented to mitigate any risks to the site. 5.4 Further advice has been provided to the applicant regarding the requirements for securing exemptions from Environmental Permitting in relation to waste and the need to assess potential impacts from landfill gas intrusion. 6.0 Surface and Waste Water Permitting 6.1 The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposals for the management and disposal of surface and waste water as set out in the Surface Water Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy (Document Ref 6.2.13). This is subject to the requirement for the Environment Agency to be a required consultee for the Detailed Surface and Foul Water Drainage Strategy as specified in Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 8 of the draft DCO. 6.2 Further advice has also been provided to the applicant regarding requirements for Environmental Permitting relating to the drainage of the site during construction. 7.0 Ground Water Contamination 7.1 The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposal in relation to the protection of groundwater sources. We understand the application site is greenfield in nature and the likelihood of contamination being present from previous site use is considered to be very low. In addition, the site is in an area of low sensitivity for groundwater. 7.2 Notwithstanding this, our request to amend the draft DCO to include the Environment Agency is included as a required consultee in Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 10(1) would also allow us to review the result of ground investigations and assess any contamination identified and whether further work to protect controlled waters is required. 8.0 Environmental Permit Application 8.1 This development will require a bespoke permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2016. We do not have enough information to know if the proposal can meet our requirements to prevent, minimise and/or control pollution in order to be granted an environmental permit. 8.2 We will not be able to determine an application for a permit until a full application has been made to us. We recommended that the applicant parallel tracked the planning and permit applications to enable us to identify and resolve any issues at the earliest opportunity. This position is also clearly explained in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 11, Annex D. However, this recommendation has not been taken up. We are therefore not likely to be in a position to provide the Examining Authority with any assurance before the end of the DCO examination period, as to whether it is likely that we can grant a permit for the development to be consented by DCO. We cannot predetermine a decision on a permit application; therefore we can only provide assurance as to our likely position on the permit application once we are in a position to publish a draft decision on that permit application. 8.3 Notwithstanding this The Environment Agency has reviewed the information submitted and has identified some areas of concern for both the Environmental Permit and DCO processes. Air Quality 8.4 The information submitted in relation to air quality shows that the maximum predicted pollution contribution for a range of pollutants is at receptor R35. For nitrogen dioxide the predicted environmental concentration is 94% of the annual air quality standard. This allows little headroom, although it should be appreciated that the modelling study should be conservative. This assessment has been based on a stack height of 80m, which we understand is the upper limit to avoid impacts on other planning considerations. 8.5 The data in Appendix 14.3 of the Environmental Statement does not appear to include nitrogen dioxide levels for the operational phase of the development. This data is fundamental to understanding the impact on local air quality, particularly for those areas of Boston where air quality is already poor with respect to nitrogen dioxide. This data will show the additional contribution from the BAEF and how significant the contribution is in the Air Quality Management Areas situated to the west. 8.6 The air quality study identifies the consented gas-fired peaking plant at Lealand Way as being a possible contributor to in-combination impacts. The report notes that only annual mean NOx concentrations at the Havenside LNR was considered in the peaking plant’s application and so ‘in-combination impacts of other pollutants and averaging times and impacts on other designated sites could not be considered’. However a detailed air quality impact assessment is available on-line for the peaking plant and this assesses the air quality impacts both short-term and long-term on a host of sensitive receptors in the locality. This report contains all the necessary input data to assess the in-combination impact with the BAEF and this assessment should be carried out. 8.7 We request that pollution contour maps be submitted to provide an easy to see picture of the contribution of the plant to existing background levels and the spatial extent of the stack emissions. 8.8 The application assumes that existing vessel activity movements on The Haven were included in the Defra mapped background pollutant concentrations. This may not be the case and there may be occasions when shipping movements will increase background pollution levels above the Defra levels. We consider that this will need to be reviewed. 8.9 There are two stacks associated with the Lightweight Aggregate Plants (LWA). The volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gases are modelled with one of them operating at 50% as one of the four kilns will be held in reserve. The environmental permit will need to limit operation to three kilns at any one time to reflect the operations that have been modelled in the air quality study. 8.10 The LWA plants have the potential to release metals and other pollutants that are present within the Air Pollution Control residues (APCr), a feedstock. The LWA emissions data used for the planning application air quality modelling study will need to be verified as being worst-case during as part of the assessment of the environmental permit application and also during commissioning of the facility. Visual Impact 8.11 The dispersion model used in the AQ study calculates the number of hours in each year of meteorological data that visible plumes from each stack will occur, the number of visible plume groundings, and the minimum/maximum and average visible plume length. This data could not be located in the reports, although the report did state that the maximum visible plume length was modelled at 925m. 8.12 Consequently the visible impact from the plant during unfavourable meteorological conditions will be significant as all five stacks will produce a visible steam plume and each stack has a high volumetric discharge rate meaning the plumes will be large. The steam plumes may pass over the top of sensitive receptors depending on wind direction. 8.13 The applicant does not appear to have included within the application documents a photomontage showing the plant operating with visible plumes. Nor does the public information website contain a photomontage showing visible plumes. 8.14 We would make the general point that this proposal will have a large visual impact on the landscape because of the sheer scale of the buildings and associated plant. Odour 8.15 Any RDF bale splitting should be undertaken in an enclosed building to prevent the release of odours. Noise 8.16 The applicant has worked with the assistance of Boston Borough Council on the noise and vibration study. We would highlight the noise impact from the air cooled condensers on the residential properties to the south and southeast of the site and the mitigation being planned must be effective as this will be a significant and intrusive noise source. Activities on the wharf will also have the potential to cause nuisance to those properties across the Haven and a high standard of operation will need to be maintained at all times. 9.0 Other Matters 9.1 The Environment Agency requests that the start of the DCO examination is delayed to address the issues raised in our response. This work can take time and would prevent the application being properly considered. 9.2 We are also concerned that the assessment of impacts on marine and transitional water bodies will require substantial further work before it will be at a stage where we would be able to withdraw our objections to the proposed development. 9.3 We also consider that the DCO application would be better considered alongside an application for an Environmental Permit, to ensure that both regulatory processes are properly aligned. 9.4 For these reasons we request that the Planning Inspectorate pause the application process at the current stage and does not commence to the Preliminary Meeting until the applicants have progressed these issues. 9.5 For information, the applicant sent the application information to the Environment Agency’s Head Office in Bristol. Due to the current restrictions, that information has not been available to the local Environment Agency Officers managing the case. Our comments have been based on the information made available on the applicant’s website. All future correspondence should be sent the Environment Agency’s offices at Ceres House, Lincoln."

Lincolnshire County Council
"Letter submitted separately"

Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"The MCA has an interest in the works associated with the marine environment, and the potential impact on the safety of navigation, access to ports, harbours and marinas and any impact on our search and rescue obligations. We would like to be consulted on the establishment of any infrastructure or works in or over the marine environment, and any Harbour Orders providing statutory powers for the ongoing safe operation of the facility. For works required in or over the marine environment, a Marine Licence may be required under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, at which time the MCA will be invited to comment on the licence application from the safety of navigation safety perspective. In addition, the MCA would point the developers in the direction of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and its Guide to Good Practice; they would need to liaise and consult with any relevant Statutory Harbour Authority to develop a robust Safety Management System (SMS) for the project under this code."

Neil Harris Consulting on behalf of Port of Boston
"As the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA), the Port of Boston Ltd (the Port) has duties, powers and responsibilities for the Safety of Navigation within its Jurisdiction Area. The proposed BAEF facility includes a new wharf within the Port's jurisdiction, the use of which will significantly increase the number of commercial vessels using the river. The dredging, both capital and maintenance, the construction and operation of the Wharf, the lighting of the facility, the increase in vessel numbers all have the potential to impact on the safety of navigation to current and future river users. It is the Ports intention to work closely with the developer on matters relating to safety of navigation, but the Port may make direct submissions to the Examiner, as may be appropriate to its duties and responsibilities as the SHA."

Port of Boston Ltd
"As the Statutory Harbour Authority, the Port of Boston Ltd has duties, powers and responsibilities for the Safety of Navigation within its Jurisdiction Area. The proposed BAEF facility includes a wharf, the use of which will significantly increase the number of commercial vessels using the river. The dredging, both capital and maintenance, the construction and operation of the Wharf, the lighting of the facility, the increase in vessel numbers all have the potential to impact on the safety of navigation to current and future river users. It is the Ports intention to work closely with the developer on matters relating to safety of navigation."

Anglian Water
"Anglian Water Services Limited (Anglian Water) was in dialogue with the promoter in 2019 and requested that further discussion take place regarding protective provisions with a view to agreeing a Statement of Common Ground prior to submission. As the application has been submitted and accepted without that further discussion Anglian Water has contacted the promoter's agent to enable that discussion to take place. Anglian Water is submitting this Relevant Representation following the advice in Advice Note 8.2 and having advised the promoter's agent of the intention to submit the representation in order to ensure clarity on our position as a utility provider and occupier affected by the proposed scheme and so to assist the Examining Authority. Anglian Water has no in principle objection to the scheme and seeks to ensure that through the agreement of protective provisions we continue to provide customers with uninterrupted water and waste water services during construction and then the operation of the scheme. We note that the Consultation Report states that 'The Applicant will continue to engage with Anglian Water throughout the DCO process' and we would want to agree protective provisions with the applicant. The issues on which we would welcome discussion to agree protective provisions with Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited include: a. Definitions, in particular “apparatus”. b. Anglian Water's facilities and rights when alternative apparatus has been constructed and is in operation to our reasonable satisfaction c. Cost's as a result on the undertaker's scheme which necessitate the provision of new Anglian Water infrastructure. On land and rights acquisition, Anglian Water notes that the Book of Reference records that nine of the plots of land required to deliver the project include Anglian Water assets."

Boston Borough Council
"Please refer to letter sent by email directly to [email protected] , dated 17th June 2021."

Inland Waterways Association
"The Inland Waterways Association represents ALL users of the inland waterways system of which the tidal River Witham is part. We will need to convinced that the significant increase in shipping in the Wash and the Haven can be accommodated within maritime safety codes given the small tidal windows in the Wash and the Haven. The Port of Boston are also projecting increased shipping into Boston following improvements to their wet dock. IWA will also argue for the new facility, if approved, to contribute to local community improvement projects connected with local waterways and waterways heritage. . We are not opposed to the proposal in principle but feel that it should contribute to the wider wellbeing and healthy and welfare opportunities in Boston."

Natural England
"Natural England has a number of concerns relating to unresolved nature conservation and landscape issues which we would like to submit as representations in respect of the application for the Boston Alternative Energy Facility. In the interests of issue resolution Natural England has combined Relevant Representation and Written Representations within this response. This is to provide the detail on all issues as early as possible to allow more time for discussion and resolution. We have set out our detailed response and accompanying set of appendices within an email to the Planning Inspectorate sent out today (18/06/2021)."

Peter Wilson
"The facility will not be allowed to process hazard waste which householders inadvertently or deliberately put in their waste bins. However, it will be physically impossible to screen it all out meaning it will be incinerated in the facility, resulting in dangerous pollutants being emitted from the stacks. This is not an isolated area where some pollution tolerance is justifiable, but an historic town in the centre of one of the largest produce growing areas of the country."

Public Health England
"Thank you for consulting Public Health England (PHE) regarding the above development. We can confirm that we have registered an interest on the Planning Inspectorate website. PHE welcomes the opportunity to comment on these proposals at this stage of the project: Air Quality The applicant’s Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides general assurances regarding the potential significance of human exposure to dioxin emissions to air. However, the detailed air quality assessment makes no comment on the significance of predicted concentrations of dioxins and furans, and deposition of pollutants (both dioxins and other pollutants, such as metals) is not quantitatively assessed. • Consider 1) screening of substance deposition (and, if required, further assessment of human intake) 2) a health risk assessment for human intake of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs versus tolerable daily intakes. As these assessments may be required as part of the site’s environmental permit application, comments should be sought from the Environment Agency. Noting some consultees’ past responses regarding deposition, the Food Standards Agency may have a view on deposition of air pollutants to the food chain (in terms of agriculture, shellfish and so on) • Similarly, assessments of the potential impacts of emissions to air should ideally address the potential (short-term) impacts associated with abnormal operations (eg, startup/shutdown and short-term failures of abatement technology) The applicant proposes the use of Euro VI vehicles during construction to mitigate road traffic emissions. • Consider whether similar mitigation measures can be made for shipping during the construction and operational phases of the development to reduce public exposures to exhaust emissions (and any contribution to high background concentrations of nitrogen dioxide within Boston’s Air Quality Management Areas) As a general point regarding the HIA, it is unclear to what extent pre-existing health outcomes (eg, cardiovascular diseases, asthma and other pre-existing respiratory conditions) were accounted for when defining relevant population groups, because high level summaries are given and the prevalence of relevant health outcomes is not fully detailed. Furthermore, it is unclear why the general population/vulnerable groups are considered of medium sensitivity for construction air quality effects (mentioning deprivation, health status and life stage) but not operational effects. As people also work in affected areas, it may not be appropriate to base a lower sensitivity on a lower local prevalence of working from home. Overall, whilst residual effects on air quality may be considered ‘non significant’ in planning terms if air quality standards are met, there is no threshold for health effects related to nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. Reducing public exposures to non-threshold pollutants below air quality standards has potential public health benefits. We support approaches which minimise or mitigate public exposure to non-threshold air pollutants and address inequalities (in exposure) and encourage their consideration during site design, operational management, and regulation. Contaminated Land PHE notes that identification and mitigation of any issues associated with land contamination are dependent on future site investigations and sampling. The investigation is proposed to be a requirement in the Development Consent Order. • We recommend the local authority contaminated land officer is consulted on this future strategy (and any subsequent mitigation) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) The proposal includes an electricity grid connection point and substation. PHE’s scoping response recommended that the EIA consider the public health implications of EMF exposures arising from the development in relation to the ICNIRP exposure guidelines (for the full recommendation, refer to PHE’s Scoping Response). Electromagnetic fields do not appear to have been considered. • We recommend public health implications of EMF exposures are addressed Accidents Accidents related to operation of the proposed installation will be addressed as part of the site’s environmental permit, which will include a fire prevention plan. This is needed as the current assessment of accidents focusses on external (eg, climate) hazards and, for fires, does not consider off-site impacts associated with products of combustion (smoke). • Establish whether the on-site fire prevention plan addresses risks associated with fires that could occur on ships transporting refuse-derived fuel or at berth. If not, additional measures may be needed to reduce fire risk and mitigate local impacts in the event of fires on vessels associated with the proposed facility Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."

Royal Yachting Association
"Consideration of potential impact of construction process, permanent structures and operational movements on recreational sailing."

RSPB
"The Boston Alternative Energy Facility Development Consent Order Application Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010095 Relevant Representation from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 18 June 2021 Introduction The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB) was set up in 1889. It is a registered charity incorporated by Royal Charter and is Europe's largest wildlife conservation organisation, with a membership of more than 1.1 million . The RSPB manages 220 nature reserves in the UK covering 158,725 hectares. The Society attaches great importance to the conservation of the National Sites Network (formerly known as the 'Natura 2000' network and made up of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)), the national network of internationally important wetland (Ramsar) sites, and the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) notified by Natural England . The RSPB has sought to engage constructively in pre-application discussions with Alternative Use Boston Projects Limited (the Applicant) and, in particular, their consultant Royal Haskoning DHV (RHDHV), in respect of the Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF) Development Consent Order (DCO) Application (the Application). Nature Conservation importance of The Wash The BAEF is to be constructed south of Boston on the edge of The Haven river. This river flows into The Wash; linking the proposed facility to the UK’s largest estuary and most important wetland site for birds. As part of the East Atlantic flyway, millions of birds use The Wash to breed, overwinter and refuel during their Spring and Autumn migration. Consequently, The Wash is designated as an SPA . It is also listed as a Ramsar site for its internationally important bird interest, among other things. The bird interest of The Wash is also of national importance and is the reason for The Wash’s notification as England’s largest SSSI. As well as its birds, The Wash is also important for its intertidal habitats, plants, harbour seals and other features resulting in its designation as part of The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC. During the winter, The Haven provides a valuable refuge for a range of species: notably surveys for the proposed facility have highlighted that over 1% of The Wash SPA/Ramsar/SSSI redshank population feed and roost adjacent to the application site (see Appendix 1 in Annex 1 & Table 3 in Appendix 2). The RSPB’s Freiston Shore reserve is located to the north of The Haven and c.5km from the application site. This site comprises saltmarsh, wet grasslands, saline lagoon, and mudflats that support a range of waterbirds year-round. Many of the species that use the reserve are features of The Wash SPA/Ramsar and SSSI and the reserve provides an important role in supporting the conservation objectives of the protected sites. The reserve features a regular high tide wader roost, including up to 1,000 redshanks, 2,000 oystercatchers and 10,000 knots. Breeding wader numbers include up to 30 pairs of redshanks, 45 pairs of avocets and 10 pairs of oystercatchers. There is also a large seabird colony with up to 1,500 pairs of black-headed gulls and 150 pairs of common terns. In winter, the site has a very high density of feeding waterbirds with up to 7,000 wigeon, 2,000 brent geese and a UK site record 10,000 black-tailed godwits. The RSPB’s Frampton reserve is located at the mouth of The Haven, abutting The Haven’s southern bank, and is c.3km from the application site. This site comprises saltmarsh, mudflat and wet grassland that support a range of waterbirds year-round. Many of the species that use the reserve are features of The Wash SPA/Ramsar and SSSI and the reserve provides an important role in supporting the conservation objectives of the protected sites. The reserve has very high numbers of breeding, passage and wintering waterbirds, the latter at one of the highest densities for any wetland site in the UK. Average waterbird numbers of 20,000 birds are common throughout the winter, which includes up to 12,000 each of golden plover and lapwing, 7,000 wigeon, 2,000 brent geese and 2,000 teal. In summer, up to 200 pairs of redshank breed, along with 100 pairs of avocet, 70 pairs of lapwing and many other species including several rare species such as 19 pairs of little ringed plover (more than any other RSPB nature reserve in the UK) and black-necked grebe (5% of the UK breeding population). Consideration of the full suite of conservation objectives for the protected sites that could be adversely affected by the proposed projects Natural England has produced standard Conservation objectives for the various protected sites (SPA and SAC) that need to be met to ensure that the integrity of such sites is maintained or, where necessary, restored. For The Wash SPA and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, Natural England has prepared detailed marine conservation advice packages. These support the site conservation objectives described above and identify a range of attributes that need to be managed to ensure that the sites and their features remain in, or are restored to, favourable conservation status. The Application documents must consider the full suite of conservation objectives and associated conservation advice for The Wash. Importantly, the Applicant must demonstrate that any restoration targets will not be compromised. For example, restoration targets have been set for redshank, turnstone, shelduck, oystercatcher and dunlin features of The Wash SPA; all of which were species recorded being disturbed at the mouth of The Haven. As set out below, understanding the implications of the Application for the SPA (and SAC) site conservation objectives is a key requirement of the Habitats Regulations tests. Anything that impacts overwintering survival, as well as breeding success and recruitment into the population, could therefore compromise the ability to restore the feature. For this reason, it is important to understand even apparently small effects that when considered in-combination with additional factors affecting a site or feature could significantly affect the ability to achieve the site’s conservation objectives. Concerns regarding stakeholder engagement Whilst consultations have been carried out by the Applicant, it is disappointing that these have not followed a formal Evidence Plan Process with respect to stakeholder engagement. There have been no formal Expert Topic Groups convened during the project development. We acknowledge that there have been conversations with the Applicant on the following occasions: • June 2019 – Applicant visited Frampton Marsh and discussed project with the RSPB’s Senior Sites Manager. • Sept 2019 – Applicant met with the RSPB to discuss our PEIR comments and agreed to carry out wintering and breeding bird surveys, which included a specific focus on bird disturbance at the mouth of The Haven. • 13 October 2020 – meeting to discuss survey information and plans for the Application submission. • 5 February 2021 – Update from the Applicant following withdrawal of the original Application, discussion of ornithological information and feedback from stakeholders on outstanding concerns. • 26 February 2021 – Discussion about stakeholder feedback on the draft HRA. Whilst the Applicant has convened these occasional conversations with the RSPB and other stakeholders, we regret that they have failed to address concerns about several potential environmental impacts where critical underpinning evidence was missing or inadequate. For this reason, the RSPB considers the resulting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) are not robust. This was raised with the Applicant both prior to the initial application submission in December 2020 and again prior to the application resubmission in March 2021. The RSPB therefore remains concerned that many of these issues have not been resolved in the material submitted as part of the Application and that it is not possible to properly assess the Application and all its potential impacts on protected sites and species and biodiversity in the surrounding area. We set out our concerns in more detail below. A robust stakeholder engagement plan was requested by the RSPB and other stakeholders to enable appropriate discussions to be held to address key concerns prior to the Application’s submission. The RSPB and other stakeholders reinforced the need for this in light of the withdrawal of the initial Application. The ‘Boston Alternative Energy Facility – Ornithology and Marine Ecology Stakeholder Engagement Plan’ was sent to the RSPB and others on 17 February 2021 for discussion at our meeting with the Applicant and RHDHV on 26 February. Concerns were raised at that meeting with respect to the proposed timeframes outlined within the plan and the scale of work needed to address stakeholders’ concerns. Subsequently, the Applicant chose to resubmit the application in March 2021. An updated Stakeholder Engagement Plan was sent to the RSPB and others on 4 May 2021, six weeks after the Application had been resubmitted. Whilst we will seek to “…engage pro-actively and constructively in the process” it is difficult to see how the timeframes set out can be considered reasonable or realistic in the context of a live examination, given the number of outstanding concerns left to resolve. For example, Reference (task) 5 of the revised Stakeholder Engagement Plan was to “Review of additional bird data collated over winter 2021 and additional WeBS count data received in April” in May 2021, with the aim “To determine the suitability of the bird data to provide an effective baseline for assessment.” The RSPB and others have still not received the Winter 2021 survey report or the evaluation of the WeBS data. We also understand that surveys are continuing into June, which will then take some time to write up and provide to stakeholders for review. We, therefore, consider that the outstanding issues are fundamental to the DCO determination process, as they relate to: • the scale of impact of the proposed facility; and • the scale and type of mitigation and, if required, compensation measures to ensure that The Wash’s conservation objectives will not be undermined and its overall integrity will be maintained. Consequently, the RSPB requests that consideration be given to pausing the start of the examination process to enable a realistic stakeholder engagement plan to be put in place and implemented and which provides sufficient time to review evidence that is still outstanding, meaningfully discuss outstanding concerns and develop appropriate detail for an in-principle derogation case that includes realistic and potentially viable compensation measures with the Applicant. This would enable the examination itself to proceed on a more sound and fully informed basis. The RSPB’s position on the Boston Alternative Energy Facility DCO application The RSPB objects to the Application. This is because we currently do not consider the Applicant has provided sufficient and/or appropriate evidence to demonstrate, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of The Wash SPA/Ramsar. Similarly, we cannot conclude that The Wash SSSI will not be adversely affected. The RSPB supports the views of Natural England and the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust with respect to concerns about The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, notably due to potential adverse effects on harbour seal. Below, we set out the RSPB’s overarching concerns with the Application in respect of its potential impacts on The Wash SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI and which form the focus of our representations. These relate to the information and quality of impact assessment contained in the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES) and Appendix 17.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). We consider there are significant deficiencies in both. Failure properly to assess impacts The RSPB’s concerns include the following: • A full two years of data have not been completed. This is good practice for developments, especially where there are potential adverse effects on protected sites and species. This is necessary to enable variation across seasons and years to be better understood. • There has been no assessment of disturbance to The Wash SPA/Ramsar/SSSI foraging and roosting birds along the entire length of The Haven. This is important to understand the full impact of the increased vessel movements and the overall scale of impact from the proposed development. • There is a lack of detailed assessment of ship movements, which are irregular and unlikely to allow birds to habituate to the activity. This is important, as the Applicant’s surveys have demonstrated that disturbance to birds using the mouth of The Haven occurs under the current baseline level of vessel movements. The assessments need to review in more detail the implications of an increased impact of all navigable tides being used by large vessels and their associated pilot vessels over and above the baseline levels of disturbance. • There is a lack of wider assessment of baseline disturbance effects to assess cumulative and in-combination impacts. • There is outstanding work to be reported around Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) data to assess the full impact of the significant increase in vessel movements on all relevant WeBS sectors (see Appendix 2 in Annex 1 and Appendix 2 in Annex 2). • The Applicant’s latest wintering and breeding bird surveys have not yet been provided to interested parties to review. • More robust assessments on the scale of impact are needed to enable the nature, scale, and effectiveness of mitigation measures to be assessed. This will inform discussions on whether there is a need for compensation measures. For example, greater understanding of how The Wash SPA/Ramsar/SSSI waterbirds use The Haven and the surrounding area is required to understand the full scale of impact of vessel movements on these protected areas. • The cumulative (ES) and in-combination (HRA) assessment is incomplete. For example, it incorrectly limits its scope to only considering sites and features where “project alone” impacts have been identified. This does not account for plans or projects that may have small effects but when combined they become significant. The process is deliberately designed to assess the type and scale of impacts which will be excluded by the Applicant’s current approach. The RSPB fundamentally disagrees with this approach and considers it undermines the purpose of the Habitats Regulations requirements. • Failure to define a realistic worst-case scenario of the proposed development to assess impacts against. Loss of redshank roost and impact on foraging birds adjacent the application site The RSPB’s concerns include the following: • Non-breeding redshank are a feature of The Wash SPA/Ramsar and there is a restore target in the Supplementary Conservation Advice for The Wash non-breeding redshank population . Non-breeding and breeding redshank are a feature of The Wash SSSI. Significant declines in saltmarsh breeding redshank on The Wash have also occurred and are being explored with Natural England to identify what measures are needed to restore the breeding population. Any impacts from the project alone or in-combination with other activities that affect the redshanks using The Haven therefore has serious implications for restoring both the non-breeding and breeding populations. • The Applicant’s surveys have recorded over 1% of The Wash SPA/Ramsar population of redshank roosting and feeding adjacent to the application site (see Appendix 1 in Annex 1 & Table 3 in Appendix 2). The redshank using The Haven during the non-breeding season (which includes the winter, and the autumn and spring migration periods) will also include resident, breeding birds. Birds will move between the application site and The Wash SPA/Ramsar site at different times in the tidal cycle, and potentially seasonally. Therefore, the application site is functionally linked to The Wash SPA/Ramsar. • The presented evidence indicates that the roost would be lost and that there would be impacts to foraging birds. Like other redshanks, the redshanks using The Haven are highly site faithful during the non-breeding season and will be formed from a mixture of resident, breeding birds and migrants from breeding populations elsewhere in the UK and abroad (e.g. Iceland, continental Europe). Where roost sites have been lost from other sites (e.g. Cardiff Bay), even a relative short displacement distance of 4km has been found to reduce their body condition and survival rates . In order to maintain the redshank population there would need to be an increase in recruitment of young birds to any new habitat created to replace that lost. For The Wash redshank population, however, there has been a decline in breeding numbers and therefore it is not clear that, if The Haven roost was lost, recruitment would be sufficient to compensate for a reduction in survival. This has implications for the restoration target for The Wash SPA redshank population. This highlights the complexity of understanding and addressing impacts for this species and is an area that requires significantly more attention. It also reinforces the importance of maintaining the redshank roost and feeding function of the adjacent mudflats. • More information is needed to assess the full scale of impact on these SPA/Ramsar birds and demonstrate the proposed alternative roost would avoid the risk of an adverse effect on site integrity. This includes more detailed information on the alternative roost design, location, effectiveness, and long-term management to ensure it remains effective for the life of the project. Of particular importance is the need to clearly demonstrate that noise and visual disturbance during and post-construction, and recreational disturbance, will be effectively managed to provide sufficient confidence that the proposed alternative roost will be effective for the full period of time that non-breeding redshank are present. Impact on birds roosting and foraging at the mouth of The Haven The mouth of the Haven supports one of the most important roosting and foraging areas within the SPA/Ramsar and SSSI. The RSPB’s concerns include: • The impacts of disturbance and boat wash arising from the predicted c.140% increase in large vessels and associated pilot vessels using The Haven as a result of the proposed Facility on the important concentrations of roosting and feeding birds at the mouth of The Haven, over and above existing impacts from current vessel movements. • There is insufficient information available to understand fully the impact and consequences for this area of The Wash, which appears disproportionately important for a number of The Wash SPA/Ramsar features based on WeBS data reported in The Wash Bird Decline Investigation 2014 . • More robust assessment is necessary to inform the scale and significance of predicted impacts on the SPA/Ramsar/SSSI birds using this important area. This will in turn inform the need and potential options for compensation measures. Failure to provide in-principle derogation package As described above, the RSPB is concerned that the Applicant has failed to properly assess the impacts of the Application on The Wash SPA, Ramsar and SSSI. Based on the information available and our knowledge of the bird species affected, the RSPB has concluded that it is not currently possible to rule out an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA/Ramsar site (as well as the SSSI). Our main concerns are set out above. Therefore, we consider the Applicant should submit a detailed “In Principle Derogation Package”, including a full suite of relevant and secured compensation measures in order to protect the overall coherence of the National Sites Network. Our detailed reasons are in line with recent Government advice and set out below in the section titled “The need for an “in principle derogation case” to be prepared and consulted on as part of the DCO application”. With specific reference to compensation measures, the RSPB’s concerns include: • There is uncertainty that the proposed redshank compensation measures are viable, as no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the proposed measures for this species can be secured and delivered to effectively address the loss of the redshank high tide roost. • No measures have yet been proposed to address the significant impacts on roosting and feeding birds at the mouth of the Haven. Significant reliance on developing plans to address impacts post-consent. The RSPB is concerned that a substantial amount of detail relating to, for example, mitigation, compensation, biodiversity net gain, marine pollution is being left to the development of detailed plans post consent. This does not enable proper scrutiny by the Examining Authority and interested parties during the examination process. As a consequence, we cannot have confidence that the issues highlighted with the proposed facility will be effectively addressed to ensure there will be no adverse effect on integrity of The Wash SPA/Ramsar. Additional concerns with the proposed facility In addition to the overarching points set out above the RSPB has the following concerns. Knock on effects (indirect consequences that are foreseen and will need to be robustly assessed in both the EIA and HRA) The RSPB’s concerns include: • A failure to assess the disturbance effect on features of The Wash SPA that could be created from ships stacking up along The Haven whilst vessels are turning. The Applicant’s documents indicate this could result in delays of 30-45 minutes for other vessels using The Haven, which could have significant consequences for redshank and other features of The Wash SPA/Ramsar and SSSI that maybe roosting and foraging within The Haven. • No information to assess the effect on foraging and roosting birds arising from potential changes in fishing vessel activity and behaviour to avoid the potential delays caused by the additional vessels turning. • Failure to provide more detail on the potential that the fishing fleet could relocate downstream of the facility should it be developed, as this would also have the potential to cause an adverse effect on integrity of The Wash SPA/Ramsar and result in additional habitat loss and disturbance to SPA/Ramsar and SSSI features, as a consequence of the proposed facility. Water quality The RSPB’s concerns include: • Lack of detail on water discharge from the application site to demonstrate that this will not affect water quality in The Haven and ultimately The Wash SPA/Ramsar/SSSI and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC. • Lack of detail on run-off from the application site to demonstrate that this will not affect water quality in the drainage network surrounding the site. The RSPB abstracts water directly from the main drain to maintain the wetland habitats and wildlife of Frampton Marsh (functionally linked to The Wash SPA/Ramsar/SSSI). • A failure to assess the oil, fuel oil and rubbish pollution that could be caused by an additional 580 large vessels per annum using The Haven, as well as the anchorage area on The Wash. Capital and maintenance dredging of The Haven The RSPB’s concerns include: • Lack of certainty regarding changes to the frequency of capital/maintenance dredge activity along The Haven as a result of the increased vessel movements, and/or any aspirations the Port of Boston may have to facilitate additional vessels in the future. This could have implications for intertidal habitats and The Wash SPA/Ramsar and SSSI features that forage within The Haven. Impact of recreational pressure The RSPB’s concerns include: • The adequacy of the baseline data collected. • The potential change in use of the footpath adjacent the proposed redshank compensation area due to the England Coast Path and proposed footbridge construction. • The Outline Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Plan fails to set out how recreational pressures will be managed to ensure any created habitat will function effectively. Noise and visual disturbance The RSPB’s concerns include: • Significance of noise impacts during construction and operation on the non-breeding waterbirds using The Haven (functionally linked to The Wash SPA/Ramsar). • Lack of detailed assessment of the impacts of night-time operational noise and effects on designated sites, despite regular significant activity (including vessel deliveries and unloading) scheduled to take place at night. • Limited detail presented regarding potential impacts of lighting on birds from the proposed facility and associated vessels. Consequently, the concerns set out in our letter to PINS (dated 1 April 2021 and included in Annex 1) and our recent letter to the Applicant (dated 22 April 2021 and included in Annex 2) remain unchanged. The need for an “in principle derogation case” to be prepared and consulted on as part of the DCO application As stated above, the RSPB considers the Applicant needs to submit a full “in principle” derogation case for examination, setting out its case on: • Why it considers there are no less damaging alternative solutions to the project. • Why any identified adverse effects on integrity are justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. • A detailed package of targeted and effective compensation measures that has been secured and has a reasonable guarantee of success in protecting the overall coherence of the National Sites Network. In respect of compensation measures, this is essential for impacts at the mouth of The Haven where the applicant’s own documents indicate mitigation measures would be insufficient and habitat would need to be created outside of The Wash SPA/Ramsar to accommodate displaced birds. In addition, the proposed redshank habitat creation downstream from the Application site is properly considered as compensation, as it would not avoid the adverse impact to the SPA/Ramsar site. Natural England and the RSPB made strong recommendations on the need for a derogation package to the Applicant at meetings in February and March 2021, including the need to consult with stakeholders on its content prior to resubmission. We are therefore disappointed that such critical information has not formed part of the Application and consider it is a key omission in the Applicant’s application. As discussed with the Applicant, our position is reinforced by BEIS’s advice on, and approach to, these matters set out in recent offshore wind farm decision letters and, more recently, the extended consultation for the Norfolk Boreas scheme. Both Natural England and ourselves also highlighted the Planning Inspectorate’s scrutiny of these matters at both the application and examination stages of recent Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) proposals. In practical terms, the Secretary of State has strongly advised developers to consult with SNCBs (and we recommend, other relevant stakeholders) on derogation proposals during the pre-application phase, even though the developer may disagree on the need for such proposals. This is to ensure any subsequent application includes all the necessary information for proper scrutiny during the examination. The advice for the offshore wind farm schemes is therefore pertinent to the BAEF Application. More recently, we note that BEIS has expanded on the issues it is seeking views on in relation to the compensation measures that form part of any derogation package. In his letter of 28 April 2021 seeking further information in respect of the Norfolk Boreas offshore wind farm, the Secretary of State has sought the following categories of information in respect of compensation proposals: • A description of the compensation strategies proposed for each species with an explanation of how they will effectively compensate for the negative effects of the project on the species and how they will ensure that the overall coherence of the National Site Network is protected. • Evidence of how any proposed compensation site(s) will be acquired/leased. • Any implementation timetable for when the compensation measures will be delivered and achieve their objectives in relation to the first impact of the development. • Details of any proposed routine maintenance and species population monitoring during the project lifetime, together with funding mechanisms for their delivery. This is supported by the recent questions posed by the Examining Authority dealing with examination into the East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two projects. The Examining Authority has noted the Secretary of State’s letter seeking further information on the Norfolk Boreas project and has sought views on matters including: • The level of detail required to support compensation measure proposals, • The duration of compensation measures. The RSPB supports the need to consider this level of detail in any derogation package so that it can be properly scrutinised during the examination process. The recent BEIS advice underlines that a decision not to submit such a package for examination is at the developer’s own risk. In the situation where the Secretary of State considers an adverse effect on the integrity of an SPA and/or SAC could not be ruled out he has made clear that he now expects a derogation package to be fully examined. Lack of such a package for examination means the Examining Authority and Secretary of State would not have the necessary information before them to determine whether a derogation could be approved. The Applicant’s decision not to present an in principle derogation package as part of the Application supports the RSPB’s request that the examination be paused until the scale of impact of the proposed development is known, the type and scale of compensation measures have been identified and to allow interested parties to have sufficient time to engage with the Applicant to prepare and consult publicly on a detailed “In Principle Derogation Package”. Reliance on the RSPB’s reserves at Freiston Shore and Frampton Marsh to deliver compensation For clarity, the RSPB confirms that high-level, in principle conversations took place with the Applicant in October 2020 regarding options that might be appropriate to consider as compensation (see para 17.3.2 (p.30) of Chapter 17 Marine and Coastal Ecology of the ES). These discussions included an update on work that the RSPB is looking to undertake at our Freiston Shore and Frampton Marsh reserves. However, no agreements were made regarding what measures the Applicant could take forward as compensation, as the discussions were only in principle to consider the type of measures that might be appropriate in the general location. No further discussion has taken place with the Applicant on in principle compensation and consequently the Applicant has not, to the best of our knowledge, explored the viability of any potential options. At this time, the RSPB is unable to enter into further in principle discussions with respect to compensation, as we still do not consider impacts are fully understood. This is necessary to determine the type, scale and location of compensation that might be required to address any residual adverse effects on site integrity. Note The RSPB commits to continuing to work with the Applicant in a positive and constructive manner in order to attempt to resolve the significant concerns set out in this representation. The RSPB is also in contact with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust to ensure minimal repetition of joint areas of concern and save Examination time. For now, it should be noted that the RSPB is supportive of the issues raised in the Relevant Representations by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. The RSPB reserves the right to add to and/or amend its position in light of changes to or any new information submitted by the Applicant."

Veronica Patey
"Please see attached."

Historic England
"Please see attached."