VPI Immingham OCGT

Representations received regarding VPI Immingham OCGT

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on VPI Immingham OCGT and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nottinghamshire County Council
"Thank you for your letter dated 16th May 2019 requesting strategic planning observations on the above application. Given the location of the proposed development, the County Council does not have any significant issues to raise in relation to the proposal for the project. Should you require any further assistance in relation to any of these matters please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully Emma Brook Planning Officer Nottinghamshire County Council"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Humberside Fire & Rescue Service
"Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Coal Authority
"I have checked the proposed development area (Figure 4.1 - Location Plan) for the proposed new gas-fired power station at Land to the West of Rosper Road, South Killingholme, against the information held by the Coal Authority and can confirm that the proposed development site is located outside of the defined coalfield. Accordingly, I can confirm that the Coal Authority has no comments or observations to make on this proposal. In the spirit of efficiency of resources and proportionality, it will not be necessary for you to consult the Coal Authority at any future stages of the Project. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements."
Members of the Public/Businesses
NATS LTD
"Dear Sirs, we refer to the further consultation received from DWD. Having assessed the proposal, NATS do not anticipate any impact, our nearest infrastructure being over 10km away. Accordingly we have no comments to make on the application. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC and National Grid Ga
"RELEVANT REPRESENTATION Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas Plc (together “National Grid”) to the VPI IMMINGHAM OCGT Project (“the Project”) National Grid wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. National Grid’s rights to retain their apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area. NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WORKS The following assets, which form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales are within, or in close proximity to, the Order limits: Overhead Lines • 2AD Over Head Line • 2AJ Over Head Line • Above and below ground associated apparatus Substation • Humber Refinery 400kV Sub Station NATIONAL GRID GAS INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WORKS National Grid Gas has an Above Ground Installation (AGI) and high pressure gas transmission pipeline located within or in close proximity to the proposed order limits. The AGI and transmission pipeline form an essential part of the gas transmission network in England, Wales and Scotland: • Thornton Curtis ‘A’ AGI and offtake; • Feeder Main 9 (Paull to Hatton and associated apparatus). National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that it’s interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. National Grid will liaise with the Promoter in relation to the protective provisions for inclusion within the DCO, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. National Grid will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet their statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will negotiate with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"This application relates to a site outside of Ministry of Defence (MOD) statutory safeguarding areas (SOSA). We can therefore confirm that the MOD has no safeguarding objections to this proposal. In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests the single proposed exhaust stack is fitted with aviation warning lighting. The stack should be fitted with a minimum intensity 25 candela omni directional flashing red light or equivalent infra-red light fitted at the highest practicable point of the structure. Whilst we have no safeguarding objections to this application, the height of the development will necessitate that aeronautical charts and mapping records are amended. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Safeguarding therefore requests that, as a condition of any planning permission granted, the developer must notify UK DVOF & Powerlines at the Defence Geographic Centre with the following information prior to development commencing:a. Precise location of development. b. Date of commencement of construction. c. Date of completion of construction. d. The height above ground level of the tallest structure. e. The maximum extension height of any construction equipment. f. Details of aviation warning lighting fitted to the structure(s) This information can be sent by e-mail to the Defence Geographic Centre at: [email protected] or post it to: D-UKDVOF & Power Lines Geospatial Air Information Team Defence Geographic Centre DGIA Elmwood Avenue Feltham Middlesex TW13 7AH"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP on behalf of Air Products (BR) Limited (Air Products (BR) Limited)
"These representations are made on behalf of Air Products (BR) Limited (“APBR”), in response to the application for a Development Consent Order (“DCO Submission”) submitted by VPI Immingham B Ltd (“Applicant”) to the National Infrastructure Directorate on 15 April 2019. APBR has interests in and in the vicinity of the area proposed for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”). The Development Consent Order Pre-Application Consultation Response submitted by APBR on 30 November 2018 is referred to as PCR. Concerns raised in the PCR by APBR have not been properly addressed by the DCO Submission. Whilst some amendment to the proposals has been made, it does not in any way fully satisfy APBR’s concerns, and APBR formally objects to the DCO Submission both for the reasons set out in the PCR and those summarised below (and which will be supplemented by further more detailed representations in due course). APBR has failed to address many of the issues raised by APBR in its PCR and in particular but not restricted to the following:- 1) The documentation provided by the Applicant falls short of demonstrating that the DCO will be delivered in a way that supports the needs of the DCO whilst not compromising or risking the integrity and/or maintenance needs of APBR’s own gas pipeline infrastructure and/or such infrastructure in respect of which it has rights (and which is vital to the local energy industry); 2) The compulsory acquisition of land and rights in the terms proposed is not proportionate, or even necessary, and fails to properly account for the existence of the infrastructure belonging to and/or otherwise used by APBR and fails to ensure that APBR is granted sufficient rights and interest to maintain the use already established. It also fails to ensure that suitable protective provisions are provided to ensure that the consistency of supply, safe use and maintenance of the infrastructure can be safeguarded. 3) The construction process, disturbance and duration is not properly addressed in the DCO Submission. In the longer term, it is wholly unclear as to the impact that the DCO may have on the ability of APBR to continue its operations safely and economically (bearing in mind the stated intention that the underlying project would remain operational for at least 40 years). 4) Technical questions raised in the PCR involving the extent of rights sought, the anticipated construction process and timing, the impact on APBR’s existing infrastructure and the method by which suitable protections will be put in place for such infrastructure have not been considered (whether adequately or at all). APBR is concerned that if terms cannot be agreed, the DCO in its present form would enable the Applicant to acquire property and rights that may impact APBR’s business negatively and the case for this is not properly addressed. APBR also claims an indemnity in respect of its costs. In accordance with Sections 42, 47, 48 and 49 of the Planning Act 2008, the Applicant has a “duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity” (Section 49). For the reasons set out above and in the PCR, APBR considers that inadequate consultation has taken place Referring to the ‘Advice Note 9: Rochdale Envelope’ published by Infrastructure Planning Commission February 2011, APBR considers that Advice Note 9 has not been followed in the DCO process and the application now made. APBR is willing to engage in constructive dialogue with the Applicant for early agreement in respect of the DCO. However, until this process has been completed or negotiations have been exhausted, APBR (and its associated entities) objects to the DCO in its present form for the reasons set out and reserves its rights to provide further submissions (beyond those provided to date) during the course of the DCO examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Environment Agency
"1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Environment Act 1995. It is an adviser to Government with principal aims to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. It plays a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through its functions and roles. It is also an adviser to local decision makers in its role as a statutory consultee in respect of particular types of development, as listed in Schedule 4 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order (DCO) application, we are a statutory interested party. 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 consents. We have a duty to implement the Water Framework Directive. 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 when 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 17 May 2019. The comments are presented under topic headings. 3.0 Foul water drainage 3.1 We have had discussions with the applicant during the pre-application consultation period in respect of foul water drainage/disposal (in relation to sanitary or domestic wastewater from offices/administration/welfare facilities). We have advised the applicant that the discharge of effluent must be to the public sewerage system whenever it is reasonable to do so – the sewerage undertaker in this area is Anglian Water Services (AWS) and the applicant should liaise with them to establish if a public sewerage connection is feasible. For developments where the existing sewerage undertaker for an area is not willing or able to allow a development to connect to the existing public sewerage network it may be possible for any new sewage treatment plant and associated drains and sewers to be adopted as part of the public sewerage network – again, this is something that the applicant should discuss with AWS. 3.2 Chapter 12, paragraph 12.8.20 states that “A septic tank or bioreactor is likely to be used for treatment of sanitary or domestic wastewater from offices/administration/welfare facilities. Solids from the septic tank will be emptied as required and tankered off site to a waste treatment plant. Clean water from the septic tank or bioreactor will combine with other site clean water including surface water to drain off site via a local land drain”. 3.3 This would not be permitted. It is not clear what is meant by a bioreactor, but effluent from a septic tank can only go to an infiltration system (soakaway). If (having investigated the possibility of discharging to the public sewerage system as outlined in paragraph 3.1 above and concluded this is not feasible) they wish to discharge the effluent to a surface drain i.e watercourse or a sealed pond, they will be required to have a package treatment plant. This will treat the effluent to a quality to which they can then discharge to a surface drain/ pond. The plant will need to meet British standards BS EN 12566 and meet the general binding rules. 3.4 We note that Schedule 2, Requirement 10, covers the issue of foul water drainage and states under sub-paragraph (4) that “the details submitted and approved pursuant to sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) of this requirement must be in accordance with the principles set out in chapter 12……. of the environmental statement….”. As mentioned in paragraph 3.3 above, the proposal in Chapter 12 of the ES would not be permitted and therefore this wording is not acceptable to us. 3.5 It is our view that it would be prudent to consider redrafting Requirement 10 to firstly separate out the issues of surface and foul water drainage. This would also assist the local planning authority with more focused consultation during discharge of the Requirement as the Environment Agency is no longer a consultee for surface water systems, and the lead local flood authority and drainage board may not wish to be consulted on the foul water system details. 3.6 Secondly, the redrafting in respect of foul drainage should include the requirement to connect to a public (mains) sewerage system (unless it is demonstrated that this is unfeasible to do so), or provide further details to demonstrate than a non-mains system can be provided that will not cause harm to the water environment. The following wording is suggested: Requirement: Foul water drainage (1) No part of the authorised development may commence, save for the permitted preliminary works, until full details of a scheme, for the connection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of mains foul water drainage on and off site has been submitted to, and after consultation with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water Services, approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) If, and only when, it is demonstrated that it is unfeasible to connect to a mains system, an alternative strategy for the provision and implementation of wastewater treatment shall be submitted to, and after consultation with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water Services, approved by the relevant planning authority. Any non-mains drainage proposal must include a management and maintenance plan to ensure it will not cause pollution to the water environment. (3) The scheme approved must be implemented as approved and maintained throughout the operation of the authorised development unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority. 4.0 Land contamination 4.1 We have reviewed Chapter 11 of the ES and the associated Appendices, 11A-11D, in so far as it relates to issues within our remit, i.e. the protection of controlled waters. 4.2 The recommendations made in the Supplementary Phase 1 Assessment (10 October 2018 – Appendix 11B) for additional investigation of the VPI facility, were made subsequent to the Phase 2 Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Interpretative Report (Rev. 02, 19 September 2018 – Appendix 11D). The findings of all previous ground investigations were referenced in the Supplementary Phase 1 Assessment (Section 6). 4.3 We acknowledge that the data gaps identified in the Supplementary Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment relate to the existing VPI facility rather than the proposed OCGT Power Station Site development land. In so far as it relates to the proposed development land to the north of the current VPI site, we do not consider that further risk assessment for controlled waters is required at this time. 4.4 However, should any redevelopment be undertaken in the area of the existing VPI facility, further work may be required to fully assess the potential risk to controlled waters from the potential mobilisation of contamination during construction. The Supplementary Phase 1 Assessment has identified potential risks from contamination associated with the VPI site. 4.5 We can confirm that Requirement 12 of the DCO is sufficient to ensure that these risks are appropriately managed during development to protect controlled waters. 5.0 Flood risk 5.1 We have reviewed the flood risk assessment (FRA) contained in Appendix 12A (ES Volume III). The proposed lifetime of the development has been identified as 40 years (paragraph 5.2.10). However, for the purpose of the assessment it has been assumed that the lifetime of the development is 100 years, providing a worst case scenario. The appropriate flood levels for this scenario have been considered. We also note that the assessment has used the UKCP18 climate change predictions, as required by paragraphs 4.8.5 to 4.8.12 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). 5.2 We can confirm that the assessment is appropriate for the scale, nature and location of the development and makes appropriate recommendations for mitigation. We concur with the recommendations that: • critical equipment be set no lower than 6.7m above Ordnance Datum (AOD); • flood resilience and resistance measures be incorporated into the proposed development; • any internal floor level providing a safe place of refuge for the occupiers of the proposed development area within the site would need to be elevated above a level of 6.7 mAOD; and • a Flood Emergency Response Plan be developed. 5.3 We are pleased to note a Flood Emergency Response Plan has been proposed but we would highlight that the Environment Agency does not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of proposed flood emergency response procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users covered by our flood warning network. The Planning Practice Guidance (Flood Risk and Coastal Change section, paragraphs 56-58) provides information on producing an evacuation plan for the development as part of the flood risk assessment. In all circumstances where warning and emergency response is fundamental to managing flood risk, we advise local planning authorities to formally consider the emergency planning and rescue implications of new development in making their decisions. 5.4 The DCO contains (in Schedule 2) Requirement 12, which requests the submission and approval of flood risk mitigation schemes, which need to be in accordance with the principles set out in Chapter 12 of the ES. We confirm that we support the inclusion of this Requirement to ensure that appropriate mitigation is included in the development and subsequently maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. However, as outlined in paragraph 5.3 above, the Environment Agency does not comment on Flood Emergency Response Plans and therefore requests being removed as a consultee to Requirement 12(6). 5.5 Please note that our advice relates to flood risk from fluvial and tidal sources only; we have not considered the risk of flooding from ground water, drainage systems, reservoirs, canals or ordinary watercourses. We recommend that further advice on these issues is sought from the relevant flood risk management authorities. 6.0 Environmental permit 6.1 The proposed combustion installation will require an operating permit from us under Schedule 1.1 Part A of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. We will be including the following key areas of potential harm when making an assessment for the Permit: • Management – including general management, accident management, energy efficiency, efficient use of raw materials and disposal/recovery of wastes. • Operating activities and techniques including the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for design and management. • Emissions to air and discharges to water, land and groundwater along with odour, noise and vibration. 6.2 Whilst we note that the applicant has undertaken a detailed air quality impact study, we have not currently reviewed this. A detailed assessment of the air quality impacts is required as part of the environmental permit application, and we will therefore undertake a review of this during our determination process for the permit. Cumulative impact modelling due to the presence of the neighbouring oil refineries and the neighbouring power station may also be required to support the permit application. 6.3 We also note that the applicant has not formalised the arrangements for the offsite discharge of process waters from the proposed activity, and therefore this will be assessed during the permit determination process. 6.4 Based on the information submitted with the planning application, we have not identified any major permitting concerns. An application for the environmental permit has been received at our National Permitting Service. At present we cannot provide any details relating to our determination of this permit, although we may be able to provide an update on progress as your Examination proceeds. 7.0 Further Representations 7.1 We will submit further detailed Written Representations in due course. We reserve the right to add or amend these representations, including requests for DCO Requirements and protective provisions should further information be forthcoming during the course of the examination on issues within our remit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP on behalf of Hornsea 1 Limited
"This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of Hornsea 1 Limited (“Hornsea 1”). Hornsea 1 is the developer of the Hornsea One Offshore Windfarm and its associated onshore transmission infrastructure (“HOW01”). Hornsea 1 holds a generation licence under Section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 and is a statutory undertaker. Following completion of construction Hornsea 1 will have to divest its interest in the transmission infrastructure to an Offshore Transmission Owner (“OFTO”) who will be appointed through the statutory process contained within the Electricity (Competitive Tender for Offshore Transmission Licences) Regulations 2015. The chosen OFTO will hold a transmission licence under Section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 and will also be a statutory undertaker. HOW01 is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, authorised by the Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm Order 2014 (as amended). Hornsea 1 is an undertaker authorised under that Order. A variety of other consents and commercial/property agreements and rights have also been obtained to deliver HOW01. Construction of the HOW01 onshore transmission infrastructure has been completed and there is now HOW01 infrastructure in situ within the order limits of the draft VPI Immingham OCGT Development Consent Order (the “VPI DCO”). In terms of the VPI DCO there will be a number of areas of interface between the VPI Immingham OCGT project and HOW01. Hornsea 1 has had constructive discussions with VPI Immingham B Limited (the “Applicant”) in advance of the VPI DCO application being made. Hornsea 1 is happy to continue discussions with the Applicant to seek to agree the form and content for appropriate restrictions and protections that are necessary to protect HOW01 and would allow this objection to be withdrawn. Hornsea 1 may wish to participate in the Examination of the DCO application. Hornsea 1 also reserves the right to make further representations on the potential adverse effects of the VPI DCO project on HOW01 and the need for restrictions and protections (including but not limited to seeking protective provisions)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Hird on behalf of North East Lindsey Drainage Board
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above application. The site is within the North East Lindsey Drainage Board area. The Board has no objection to the proposed development provided it is constructed in accordance with the submitted details and Drainage Strategy. It is noted the proposed surface water discharge form the site is to be attenuated to 10.8l/s However should anything change in relation to the method of surface water disposal and/or in relation to the flood risk assessment etc then this Board would wish to be reconsulted. The Board would support the use of SuDS. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act. 1991 the prior written consent of the Board is required for any proposed temporary or permanent works or structures within any watercourse including infilling or a diversion. The Applicant is aware of this and consulted the Board directly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP on behalf of Optimus Wind, Breesea, Sonningmay Wind, and Soundmark Wind
"This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of Optimus Wind Limited, Breesea Limited, Sonningmay Wind Limited and Soundmark Wind Limited (together the “Hornsea 2 Companies”). The Hornsea 2 Companies are the developer of the Hornsea Two Offshore Windfarm and its associated onshore transmission infrastructure (“HOW02”). The Hornsea 2 Companies hold generation licences under Section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 and are statutory undertakers. Following completion of construction the Hornsea 2 Companies will have to divest their interest in the transmission infrastructure to an Offshore Transmission Owner (“OFTO”) who will be appointed through the statutory process contained within the Electricity (Competitive Tender for Offshore Transmission Licences) Regulations 2015. The chosen OFTO will hold a transmission licence under Section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 and will also be a statutory undertaker. HOW02 is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, authorised by the Hornsea Two Offshore Wind Farm Order 2016 (as amended). The Hornsea 2 Companies are undertakers authorised for the purposes of that Order. A variety of other consents and commercial/property agreements and rights have also been obtained to deliver HOW02. Construction of the HOW02 onshore transmission infrastructure has commenced and works are in progress. In terms of the draft VPI Immingham OCGT Development Consent Order (the “VPI DCO”) there will be a number of areas of interface between the VPI DCO project and HOW02. The Hornsea 2 Companies have had constructive discussions with VPI Immingham B Limited (the “Applicant”) in advance of the VPI DCO application being made. The Hornsea 2 Companies are happy to continue discussions with the Applicant to seek to agree the form and content for appropriate restrictions and protections that are necessary to protect HOW02 and would allow this objection to be withdrawn. The Hornsea 2 Companies may wish to participate in the Examination of the DCO application. The Hornsea 2 Companies also reserve the right to make further representations on the potential adverse effects of the VPI DCO project on HOW02 and the need for restrictions and protections (including but not limited to seeking protective provisions)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Total Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited
"Our priority is to ensure any risks to the safety of our staff or contractors, the integrity of our assets, or to the continuation of our own operations are suitable mitigated or managed, our concerns relate to both the construction phase and subsequent operations of the OCGT. Our main concerns are predominantly linked to ensuring the applicant makes sufficient provision to ensure that… 1: Any of our occupied buildings which lay within any potential blast zone of the completed OCGT facility are suitably relocated or reinforced by the applicant at their cost. 2: Any of our access roads / car parks / other land that are proposed to be used for access or laydown areas are able to take the maximum loads required during the construction phase and are protected from damage and / or are fully reinstated by the applicant at their costs (this includes checking utility lines beneath roads are suitably protected from damage). 3: The method of construction and operational use of the proposed 700 mm diameter natural gas pipeline from the existing VPI site to the OCGT site does not interfere with the use of our hydrocarbon pipeline between Total Lindsey Oil Refinery and South Killingholme Jetty / Immingham Gas Jetty. 4: There is no damage to the Total Lindsey Oil Refinery to Hemel Hempstead hydrocarbon pipeline known as “The Finaline” or interruption to the safe operation thereof. This pipeline runs in, alongside or close to the No 9 feeder pipeline between plot number 39 and plot number 52. 5: A suitable traffic management plan is developed, agreed and followed so that we have continuous safe access to our land, plant, buildings and car parks so our operations are not unduly impacted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the VPI Immingham OCGT DCO Introduction Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent is making a relevant representation to the VPI Immingham OCGT DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure and land interests which are located within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. Apparatus Cadent has intermediate pressure and high pressure (major accident hazard) gas pipelines and associated below and above ground apparatus including an Above Ground Gas compound (Thornton Curtis PRS) located within the order limits which are affected by proposals to acquire rights compulsorily. The DCO does not currently contain a form of protective provisions for the protection of Cadent’s apparatus and land interests that are to Cadent’s satisfaction. Furthermore VPI Immingham B Limited (the “Promoter”) is seeking to acquire rights over Cadent’s operational land at Thornton Curtis PRS, identified by Plots 107 and 111. As part of its statutory duties, Cadent is required to undertake essential security fence upgrades at this site and therefore due to operational and security concerns, Cadent objects to the compulsory acquisition of rights over these plots. In the absence of appropriate protective provisions Cadent is not satisfied that rights over its land can be acquired, without serious detriment to the carrying on of Cadent’s undertaking. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. As such, Cadent requires adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Engagement with the Promoter Cadent provided the Promoter with its standard form protective provisions on 24 May 2019. To date Cadent has received no comments back regarding these. Cadent encourages engagement by the Promoter at the earliest opportunity and is seeking to reach satisfactory agreement with it. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natural England
"Please note that we have also sent this response in the form of a letter to Clare Rands, DWD LLP on behalf of VPI Immingham B Ltd. Please let me know if you would like this to be sent to the Planning Inspectorate directly. Kind regards, Hannah Relevant Representation 1.1. Natural England’s advice in these relevant representations is based on information submitted by DWD LLP acting on behalf of VPI Immingham B Limited in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) in relation to VPI Immingham Open Cycle Gas Turbine Project – proposal for a new gas-fired powerstation and associated development (‘the project’). 1.2. Natural England has been working closely with DWD LLP to provide advice and guidance since 19 December 2018. We raised a number of issues that we believe have now been mostly resolved. Please see below an outline of these issues and our final conclusions: 1.2.1. Potential air quality impacts of the proposal (both alone and in-combination with other plans/projects) on the Humber Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) habitats. We advised that an assessment of the NOx process contributions for the operational phase of the project should be undertaken, including an in-combination assessment of 24hr NOx levels with other plans/projects. Conclusion: Natural England has now received the latest version of the Environmental Statement (dated April 2019) and is satisfied that adequate assessment has been carried out to support the conclusion that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. On the basis of the information provided, Natural England concurs with this view. 1.2.2. Potential for the proposal to impact on designated bird populations of the Humber Estuary SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI through noise and visual disturbance, during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Natural England noted that noise and visual disturbance of wintering bird species from the Humber Estuary European sites were screened out from any further assessment with the reasoning that “the nearest mudflats are approximately 1.3km away from the proposed development”. However, this did not consider SPA/Ramsar bird species that were using the functionally linked land between the proposed site and the estuary. Therefore, further information was requested. Natural England also noted that in the Ecology section of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) at 9.7.12 (dated October 2018), it stated that the construction noise and visual activity levels would not exceed that of the background levels. However, the noise receptor appeared to be for a residential property rather than any ecological receptors. It was also noted in 9.7.14 of the PEIR that piling may be required, therefore we recommended that a noise assessment was carried out for the worst case scenario. Further correspondence from DWD LLP stated that if piling will be required then appropriate noise assessments will be carried out and if necessary mitigation measures will be put in place, this will be dealt with in the Construction Environmental Management Statement (CEMP). Conclusion: Natural England has now received the latest version of the Environmental Statement (dated April 2019). Natural England is satisfied that adequate assessment of the potential impacts of visual disturbance from the project has been carried out to support the conclusion that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. On the basis of the information provided, Natural England concurs with this view. However, it is the advice of Natural England that further assessment/explanation is still required to rule out any likely significant effect on features of the Humber Estuary SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI from noise disturbance. Details of which will be discussed in further detail below. 1.2.3. Natural England advised that the application should be considered in combination with other plans or projects for impacts on the Humber Estuary European sites. Conclusion: Natural England has now received the latest version of the Environmental Statement (dated April 2019) and is satisfied that adequate assessment has been carried out to support the conclusion that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. Not withstanding our concerns regarding noise impacts and on the basis of the information provided, Natural England concurs with this view. 1.2.4. Natural England noted that the development falls within the South Humber Gateway, a strategic mitigation approach in North Lincolnshire. The Ecology section of the PEIR stated that “no reliance will be placed on the delivery of Halton Marshes Wet Grassland in the assessment”, but no further information has been provided on how the proposed development fits into the strategic mitigation approach. Conclusion: Natural England is content that as the proposed project will be built on brownfield that it is unlikely that contributions will be required towards the South Humber Gateway strategy. However, we recommend that the applicant confirms this approach with the Local Planning Authority. 1.2.5. Natural England noted that no water vole surveys had been carried out. As stated in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), “it appears that this species is relatively widespread and common in the wider local area”, the area has been known as a “stronghold” for the species and therefore although it may be that the habitat is “sub-optimal”, we advised that a survey should still be carried out. In addition to this, if the habitat is not adequate for the species, there may be some scope to make the ditch more suitable for the species to re-colonise; this could be considered as a net gain. DWD LLP responded that the drainage ditch had been assessed for suitability for water vole and found that it would provide very poor habitat for water vole and that only a small alteration will be made to the ditch. However, pre-construction surveys for water vole will be carried out at least 3 months prior to the commencement of the works. Conclusion: Natural England welcomes the inclusion of the pre-construction surveys outlined. These surveys may require protected species licensing and mitigation. We have no further concerns at this time, however, we recommend that as stated a precautionary working method statement is provided as part of the CEMP. 1.2.6. DWD LLP requested confirmation from Natural England on the suitability of their great crested newt (GCN) survey design, as one pond could not be surveyed due to Health and Safety concerns. We commented that “it is difficult to rule out, with any degree of certainty, the likely absence of GCNs from the lagoon on the basis of confirmed absence in nearby ponds - if there is good terrestrial habitat surrounding the lagoon and only a small population is present there may be little incentive for the population to utilise other waterbodies. Secondly, the use of reptile mats (not designed for amphibians), outside of the core terrestrial habitat surrounding the lagoon, is an inefficient means of determining absence and should not be relied upon as the sole survey method. If it is not possible to undertake an eDNA survey due to health and safety concerns, we recommend that a HSI score is recorded for the lagoon (this can be done with limited access to the waterbody) and that a concerted artificial refuge (carpet tile) survey is conducted in the area immediately surrounding the lagoon during Mar/Apr as adults emerge from hibernation and migrate towards breeding habitat. The results can be used to better inform any decision regarding the likely presence of GCNs in the area.” Conclusion: Natural England received the results of additional survey work carried out by DWD LLP on 28 May 2019. Natural England is satisfied that sufficient effort has been undertaken to determine GCN presence/absence at Pond 3 in the absence of the standard survey methodology. Given that: (1) no GCNs were recorded under artificial refugia, over a 5 week period, at a time of year when adult newts present in the area would be moving towards the pond to breed and (2) the confirmed absence (in 2018) of GCN from any of the other ponds in the area, it is reasonable to conclude that GCN presence in the area is highly unlikely. 1.2.7. Natural England noted that it appeared that no habitat surveys had been carried out for the area that the new gas pipeline is proposed. However, DWD LLP provided an update that “the route of the pipeline had been refined and it is now proposed to be routed entirely through the existing VPI Combined Heat and Power Plant site; an operational power station covered principally of hardstanding with no habitats of ecological interest. Therefore no habitat or ecological effects are envisaged as a result of construction of the proposed pipeline”. Conclusion: Natural England have no further substantive comments on this matter. 1.2.8. Natural England also made the recommendation that the applicant could further explore options to enhance biodiversity as part of the project. Natural England believes that Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects can make a significant contribution to delivering the environmental ambition in the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan. This aims to deliver an environmental net gain through development and infrastructure. Natural England notes that the enhancement measures that have been described for this project are the addition of log pile refuges, nest boxes and planting native trees and shrubs. There was also one mention of the addition of species-rich grassland, however, it is unclear where this would be and how big an area this would cover. These measures are welcomed by Natural England, however we did not believe that given the nature and scale of the development and the loss of the open mosaic habitat that these enhancements measures were adequate in terms of creating a net environmental gain from the development and would probably result in a net loss of natural resource. Natural England encouraged the applicant to consider additional enhancement measures to provide further benefits to the local environment. Conclusion: Natural England welcomes the commitment by the developer for proportionate biodiversity enhancement measures and acknowledges that the final design is still to be decided. Natural England welcomes the opportunity to comment on the BEMP at the appropriate stage. 1.3. These relevant representations contain a summary of what Natural England considers the main nature conservation issues to be in relation to the DCO application, and indicate the principal submissions that it wishes to make at this point. Natural England will develop these points further as appropriate during the examination process. It may have further or additional points to make, particularly if further information about the project becomes available. 1.4. Part I of these representations provides an overview of the issues and a summary of Natural England’s advice. Section 2 identifies the natural features relevant to this application. Section 3 summarises Natural England’s overall view of the application and the main issues which it considers need to be addressed by the Secretary of State. 1.5. Part II of these representations sets out all the significant issues which remain outstanding, and which Natural England advises should be addressed by VPI Immingham B Limited and the Examining Authority as part of the examination process in order to ensure that the project can properly be consented. These are primarily issues on which further information would be required in order to allow the Examining Authority properly to undertake its task or where further work is required to determine the effects of the project to provide a sufficient degree of confidence as to their efficacy. 1.6. Natural England will continue discussions with VPI Immingham B Limited to seek to resolve these concerns and agree outstanding matters in a statement of common ground. Failing satisfactory agreement, Natural England advises that the matters set out in sections 4 to 6 will require consideration by the Examining Authority as part of the examination process. 1.7. The Examining Authority may wish to ensure that the matters set out in these relevant representations are addressed as part of the Examining Authority’s first set of questions to ensure the provision of information early in the examination process. 2. The natural features potentially affected by this application 2.1. The designated sites relevant to this application are: 2.1.1. Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) 2.1.2. Humber Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 2.1.3. Humber Estuary Ramsar site 2.1.4. Humber Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 2.2. The following nationally protected species may be affected by the proposed project: 2.2.1. Water vole (in the absence of any surveys) 2.3. The following areas of non-designated but valuable and sensitive habitat could be affected: 2.3.1. Rosper Road Pools Local Wildlife Site (LWS) 2.4. The main issues raised by this application are the potential for the project to impact on the wintering bird assemblage of the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site through noise disturbance. There is potential for impact on the wintering bird assemblage of the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site utilising supporting habitat (‘Functionally Linked Land’) in close proximity to the project, particularly the fields to the east of the project and Rosper Road Pools LWS, through both construction and operational disturbance impacts. Further information is required to support an assessment of potential impacts and enable a conclusion on likely significant effect. Many of the species included in the Humber Estuary SPA/Ramsar site overwintering assemblage are also named on the Humber Estuary SSSI citation, particularly Curlew, and so the proposal also has the potential to impact upon the wintering bird species of the Humber Estuary SSSI through construction and operation disturbance. This is outlined in more detail in Section 3.3. PART II: NATURAL ENGLAND’S RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF VPI IMMINGHAM OCGT PROJECT 3. Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010097 3.1. Natural England’s advice is that in relation to identified nature conservation issues within its remit there is no fundamental reason of principle why the project should not be permitted but that the applicant has provided insufficient evidence to establish that there will be no impact on the wintering bird assemblage of the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. 3.2. Natural England’s headline points are that on the basis of the information submitted: 3.2.1. Natural England is satisfied that there is no potential for impact on the Humber Estuary SAC as a result of the project. 3.2.2. Natural England is satisfied that there are not likely to be significant water quality impacts on the Humber Estuary SSSI, SPA, SAC or Ramsar site as a result of the project. 3.2.3. Natural England is satisfied that there are not likely to be significant air quality impacts on the Humber Estuary SSSI, SPA, SAC or Ramsar site as a result of the project. 3.2.4. Natural England is satisfied that there are not likely to be impacts on European Protected Species as a result of the project. 3.2.5. Natural England is not satisfied that it can be excluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the project would not have a likely significant effect on the Humber Estuary SPA or Ramsar site. 3.2.6. Natural England is not satisfied that the proposal is not likely to damage features of interest of the Humber Estuary SSSI. 3.2.7. Natural England advises that, if approved, the project must be subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements which ensure that unacceptable environmental impacts either do not occur or are sufficiently mitigated. 3.3. Natural England’s advice is that there are a number of matters which have not been resolved satisfactorily as part of the pre-application process that must be addressed by VPI Immingham B Limited and the Examining Authority as part of the examination and consenting process before development consent can be granted. Some of these matters are important enough to mean that if they are not satisfactorily addressed it would not be lawful to permit the project due to its impacts on the SAC, SPA, Ramsar and SSSI interests. However, Natural England’s advice is that all these matters are capable of being overcome. The specific concerns in relation to each are outlined below. 3.3.1. A noise sensitive receptor at a residential property (Hazeldene) has been provided to form the basis of the noise assessment. Natural England requires further information to determine if this noise receptor provides a representative location for SPA/Ramsar /SSSI bird species using the functionally linked land at “Rosper road fields”. Additionally we note that ambient noise levels have been assessed, however, bird species are particularly susceptible to loud, sudden noises and therefore we recommend that peak noise levels (LApeak) are also included in addition to ambient noise levels (LAeq) in the noise assessment. Furthermore, the ES concludes at Chapter 9, 9.9.13 that “none of the construction activities will generate noise that would be discernible above the ambient noise environment of the industrial sites surrounding the Rosper road fields.” However, the assessment of how this has been determined has not been provided. 3.3.2. In addition, Natural England considers that assessment of noise/visual disturbance impacts at Rosper Road Pools LWS should also be carried out as this site may also provide a functional habitat for SPA/Ramsar/SSSI bird species. 3.3.3. The ES describes that piling activities may occur and that currently no noise assessment has taken place to determine any impacts on designated sites from potential piling activities. Therefore Natural England considers that further assessment will be required, if piling becomes a future requirement. Natural England would welcome the opportunity to make comments on a more detailed CEMP at the appropriate stage. PART II: OUTSTANDING MATTERS REQUIRING ATTENTION 4. Further evidence or assessment work required 4.1. Further details to clarify how the noise assessment was carried out, including evidence that the noise receptors locations are representative of areas that are used as supporting habitat by SPA/Ramsar/SSSI assemblage species; details on peak noise levels and data to support the conclusion that the project will not increase noise levels in the area. 4.2. Assessment of noise/visual disturbance impacts at Rosper Road Pools LWS. 5. Matters that must be secured by requirements in the DCO 5.1. The ES describes that piling activities may occur and that currently no noise assessment has taken place to determine any impacts on designated sites from potential piling activities. Therefore Natural England considers that further assessment will be required, if piling becomes a future requirement. Natural England would welcome the opportunity to make comments on a more detailed CEMP at the appropriate stage. 5.2. Water vole surveys have not yet been carried, if works will take place near or on the drainage ditch within the proposal site, these surveys must be carried out to determine the presence of water voles. 6. Comments on the draft DCO 6.1. Natural England notes Requirement 6 in Schedule 2 relating to adoption of a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (BEMP) and supports the inclusion of this requirement. 6.2. Natural England notes Requirement 14 in Schedule 2 relating to adoption of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and supports the inclusion of this requirement. Natural England 24 June 2019"
Members of the Public/Businesses
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that:- With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that earlier comments raised by us on 3rd December 2018 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health. PHE is satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. Emissions from the proposed development will be controlled via the Environmental Permitting regime, under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The permitting regime is administered by the Environment Agency (EA), separately from Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning and PHE will be formally consulted by the EA as part of the permitting process. We will provide detailed comments at that stage. We have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
West Lindsey District Council
"Thank you for the consultation on the above application for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. I note the details contained within the Environmental Statement and supporting documents. West Lindsey District Council have the following comments to make: Heritage The heritage assets at Brocklesby Park, including the wider setting of the Historic Park and Garden, could be affected by this proposal, in particular, the relationship with the Pelham Pillar at Cabourne High Wood which has views to the Humber. The proposal could affect an area of great landscape value (AGLV) designated under Policy LP17 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. The AGLV and historic park and garden boundaries can be seen on the PDF entitled “00-Central Lincs Policies Map A0” and associated key entitled “Legend-CLLP Policies” from the following link https://www.n-kesteven.gov.uk/central-lincolnshire/policies-map-and-interactive-map/ . Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Vibration The proposed development should not have adverse impacts on sensitive receptors at Brocklesby and Keelby during construction and operation of the development. Consideration should also be given to the proposed route of construction traffic to ensure the settlements of Brockleby and Keelby are not subjected to undue impacts through increase construction traffic trying to access the site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Able UK Limited
"Able UK Limited (as UK Asset Manager) is acting on behalf of Able Humber Ports Limited and the DCO (2014 No 2935) for the proposed Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP). ABLE not wish to object to the VPI project in principle and consider that it should have little impact on the AMEP project. However, given the overlap of order limits and the general proximity of the scheme to AMEP, we do seek to ensure that adequate protective provisions are included in the VPI Immingham Order and have decided to submit a relevant rep to seek to ensure that Able can participate in the examination process further if necessary. 1. Overlap of the order limits – The order limits of the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) for the proposed VPI Immingham OCGT project overlap with those of the AMEP DCO in three places. All three areas of overlap appear to be over Rosper Road and land either side of the highway . Our understanding is that VPI want this land included in their order limits so they can undertake three specific works: a. works to the extent of the existing bellmouth entrance to the existing VPI CHP Plant where parts of the proposed project will be located; b. works to the extent of the existing bellmouth entrance to the Total Lindsey Oil Refinery from Rosper Road which VPI propose will be the main entrance to the proposed project; and c. works to connect the proposed development to the existing water main within Rosper Road. Given the overlap, there is therefore the potential for the two orders and the relevant powers to conflict and Able is concerned that this overlap will affect the Able’s ability to deliver the Able Marine Energy Park scheme (the AMEP). 2. Protective Provisions for Able Humber Ports Limited – Schedule 9 of the dDCO for the VPI Immingham OCGT Project contains draft protective provisions for the protection of Able Humber Ports Limited. Our concern is that as currently drafted these do not provide adequate protection for Able and will need to be amended to ensure Able can deliver the AMEP scheme. 3. Modifications to the AMEP Order – Schedule 13 of the dDCO for the VPI Immingham OCGT project contains modifications to the Able Marine Energy Park Development Consent Order 2014. The purpose of these modifications is to include protective provisions for VPI Immingham B Limited in the AMEP Order. To do this, the modifications restrict Able’s ability to exercise its powers contained in the AMEP Order. As above, our concern is that these modifications will affect the ability for Able to deliver the AMEP scheme. 4. Construction impacts – The Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the VPI Immingham OCGT Project states that the site preparation and construction programme is anticipated to take 21 months. Following our discussions with the applicant, we understand that the majority of the anticipated construction impacts will not affect Able. However, there is the potential for increased traffic in the area to have an effect. Chapter 7 (Traffic and Transportation) of the Environmental Statement assumes that all materials will be delivered and removed by road and estimates that at peak periods, there will be 26 HGV and 85 cars/LGVs arrivals and departures on site each day. If this could impact on Able’s ability to access its site and effectively deliver the AMEP scheme, we suggest the relevant rep should include reference to this. Given current discussions with VPI and Pinsent Masons on these issues Able will continue to engage with the Promoter to understand the impact the above will have on Able and the AMEP scheme and agree suitable protective provisions to ensure the deliverability of the AMEP scheme is not affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills on behalf of Centrica PLC
"The Planning Act 2008 - Section 37 ‘Applications for Orders Granting Development Consent VPI Immingham OCGT Project - Application for a New Gas-Fired Power Station and Associated Development - Land to the West of Rosper Road, South Killingholme, Lincolnshire, DN40 3DZ We are instructed by Centrica plc (‘Centrica’) to submit representations in respect of the recent Development Consent Order (DCO) by VPI Immingham B Limited (VPIB) for the “construction, operation and maintenance of a new gas-fired electricity generating station, comprising an ‘open cycle gas turbine’ (‘OCGT’), with a gross output capacity of up to 299 megawatts (‘MW’), including electrical and gas supply connections, and other associated development” on land to the north of the existing VPI Immingham Power Station, Rosper Road, South Killingholme, North Lincolnshire, DN40 3DZ. We responded to the ‘Request of Information’ form on 11 January 2019 confirming that Centrica Storage Limited (CSL) which is a subsidiary of Centrica Plc has a gas pipeline running down Rosper Road within the Highway boundary, drawings were submitted alongside the form to identify the pipe location. Rosper Road fronts onto and is part of the indicative order limits for the VPI Immingham OCGT Project. We have reviewed the information submitted with the application and Centrica wishes to ensure there will be no adverse impacts on Centrica’s pipeline as a result of this DCO application. Background Centrica is one of the world’s leading international integrated energy and services company with operations in the UK, Europe and North America and is a FTSE 100 company. Centrica is the largest supplier of gas to domestic customers in the UK and one of the largest suppliers of electricity, operating under the trading names “Scottish Gas” in Scotland and “British Gas” in the rest of the UK. Centrica secure and supply gas and electricity for millions of homes and businesses and offer a distinctive range of home energy solutions and low carbon products and services. CSL operate at the Easington Gas Terminal located on Dimlington Road, which is one of the six main gas terminals in the UK. In August 2018, CSL has been awarded a contract by the Tolmount joint venture and infrastructure partners (Premier Oil, Dana Petroleum and Humber Gathering System Limited), worth £120m, to process gas from the Tolmount field in the Southern North Sea. The contract will extend the life of CSL’s gas terminal at Easington, Yorkshire, until 2030 (Centrica, 2018). Representations Centrica requests confirmation of the pipeline route and requests clarification on how Centrica’s pipeline will be protected during construction. We request this matter is specifically addressed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan that may form part of the DCO application. Our client would be grateful to receive continued updates on the above points and how this will be addressed in the application. We would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter. We reserve a right to supplement these comments at a later date if necessary. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss any aspect of this representation, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Emma Andrews. Yours faithfully Raveen Matharu Graduate Planner"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP on behalf of CLH Pipeline System (CLH-PS) Limited (CLH Pipeline System (CLH-PS) Limited)
"Dear Sirs CLH Pipeline System (CLH-PS) Limited (CLH) and its agents, Fisher German, have been engaging with VPI Immingham B Limited (VPI) in relation to their proposals for the construction and operation of a new Open Cycle Gas Turbine power station at a site at and adjacent to the existing VPI Immingham Power Station, Rosper Road, Immingham, since 31 October 2018. The Project potentially impacts and interferes with CLH's existing pipeline which runs in close proximity to the site. This pipeline is one of a network of fuel distribution pipelines that form a critical part of the UK’s fuel supply network. Please note that CLH operates this pipeline as a private company and not pursuant to any statutory undertaker powers. Construction works near or over the CLH pipeline can damage the pipeline or affect its future operation for the following reasons: 1. Restriction of future access by surcharging the pipeline easement, thus rendering the pipeline unsafe should a fault or feature be identified by future in line inspections; 2. Third party damage during construction including strikes and pipeline failure due to repeated heavy plant crossing; and 3. Stress to the pipeline by overburdening without correct support. Subject to the comments below, CLH has concerns over any impact to the operation of its pre-existing pipeline. CLH therefore objects to any interference with, extinguishment or suspension of the land rights relating to the pipeline or any Project activity that risks the operation of the pipeline. Barring infrequent maintenance, the pipeline operates on a continual 24/7 basis and interruption to its operation will have a significant impact CLH's business of fuel supply which includes supplying the Ministry of Defence - for which CLH must guarantee continuous supply in some circumstances - and will have serious financial consequences for CLH. There is a risk to the pipeline if VPI carries out works within 15 metres of the pipeline, especially if CLH is not given the opportunity to supervise the works. CLH needs to carry out protective works to minimise this risk. All works to CLH's apparatus, whether diversion or protective works, must be carried out by CLH. VPI and CLH will therefore need to enter a Protective Provisions Agreement to regulate how VPI will work in proximity to the pipeline asset. CLH fully expects these works to be at VPI’s cost and in addition CLH expects, in the usual way, that VPI will cover its advisor's costs in preparing and negotiating the PPA. CLH's lawyers, VWV, first approached Pinsent Masons (PM), VPI's lawyers, for a costs undertaking on 3 January 2019. VWV finally received an undertaking for the PPA on 15 May 2019. VWV is in the final stages of drafting the PPA and will send it to PM as soon as possible. Due to VWV not receiving the undertaking until this point, CLH has been unable to progress at this stage the necessary documentation or state it is close to an agreed position with VPI. CLH is confident that the parties, acting responsibly, will be able to progress matters but at this stage CLH must make a relevant representation regarding the risk to its pipeline asset and CLH objects to any interference or risk by the Project to this asset and its related land rights. CLH looks forward to updating the Planning Inspectorate upon the state of negotiations and, if necessary, detailing continued concerns in subsequent written representations to the Planning Inspectorate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"APPLICATION BY VPI IMMINGHAM B LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE VPI IMMINGHAM OPEN CYCLE GAS TURBINE (OCGT) PROJECT PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: ENO10097 SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008: RELEVANT REPRESENTATION OF NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED This is the section 56 representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) provided in respect of VPI Immingham B Limited's (VPIB) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) which seeks powers to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of a new open cycle gas turbine plant of up to 299 metawatts gross capacity, including electrical and gas supply connections and other associated development (Scheme). Network Rail is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. The Book of Reference (BoR) identifies land plan plots 41, 104, 105 and 106 (Plots) as land owned by Network Rail in respect of which compulsory acquisition powers to acquire new rights are sought. The compulsory acquisition powers sought are described in the BoR as: "new rights to be compulsorily acquired and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights: 1) rights to pass and repass on foot, with or without vehicles, plant and machinery; and 2) rights to retain, use, maintain, inspect, alter, remove, refurbish, reconstruct, replace, protect and improve an underground gas pipeline, control systems and cables and any other ancillary apparatus and any other works as necessary" (Compulsory Powers). Network Rail notes that the Compulsory Powers are sought in relation to operational railway land forming part of the operational railway being the Barton Line. Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Plots 41, 104, 105 and 106 in the Order and to the acquisition of Compulsory Powers in respect of those Plots. Plots 41, 104, 105 and 106 constitute land acquired by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 and sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail considers that there is no compelling case in the public interest for the acquisition of the Compulsory Powers and Network Rail considers that the Secretary of State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that new rights and restrictions over the railway land can be created without serious detriment to Network Rail's undertaking; no other land is available to Network Rail which means that the detriment cannot be made good by them. Network Rail also objects to all other compulsory powers in the Order to the extent that they affect, and may be exercised in relation to, Network Rail's property and interests. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail requires: (a) agreements with the Applicant that regulate: - the manner in which rights over Plots 41, 104, 105 and 106 and any other railway property are carried out including terms which protect Network Rail's statutory undertaking and agreement that compulsory acquisition powers will not be exercised in relation to such land; and - the carrying out of works in the vicinity of the operational railway network to safeguard Network Rail's statutory undertaking. (b) the inclusion of protective provisions in the DCO for its benefit. To safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Compulsory Powers and any other powers affecting Network Rail in the Order. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
North East Lincolnshire Council
"I write on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council as Local Planning Authority. In principle, it is considered that the development is acceptable and we support the economic investment of the area, in particular supporting the development of the Humber as the 'Energy Estuary'. We have engaged with the applicant significantly and have presented comments from our own internal consultations. Issues that are required to be pursued are in relation to highway impacts and air quality. The applicant is fully aware of this. The specific issues in relation to highways including the review of the full final Construction Traffic Management Plan and Transport Assessment. The Council's Highways Officer would also like to see the flow diagrams of how trips will arrive/depart the site at peak times for reference as a ‘committed development’. In terms of air quality, it is considered important that the scope impact and actions be agreed with North East Lincolnshire Council Environmental Health Officers. The highways and air quality issues have been raised with the applicant, and we understand that they are acting on these matters raised. I trust the above is of value, and we will look forward to submitting our Local Impact Report in due course."
Members of the Public/Businesses
North Lincolnshire Council
"North Lincolnshire Council, as a host local authority, was consulted on this project at the pre-application stage in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 and provided a pre-application response dated 16 January 2019. Having reviewed the application documents, the proposed development does not appear to have altered significantly following the pre-application stage and as such the comments raised in the council's previous response are considered to still be relevant. I can confirm that North Lincolnshire Council does not wish to raise any objection to the principle of the proposed scheme. The main issues of potential impact identified during the pre-application stage, and which still apply, in respect of this scheme are as follows: - Air Quality; - Ecology (particularly with regards to potential impact on the Humber Estuary SAC, SPA an/or Ramsar site); - Flood Risk/Drainage; and - Cultural Heritage (archaeological investigation/mitigation) North Lincolnshire Council will produce a Local Impact Report and as such do reserve the right to raise additional issues/concerns following full consideration of the application documents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phillips 66 Limited
"Applicatio: DCO for VPI Immingham OCGT Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010097 Applicant: VPI Immingham B Limited S.52 Letter:Letter from the Applicant under S.52 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications and Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Works: The works identified as Works no’s 1 -6 in the S.52 Letter. Existing Arrangements:A lease of the VPI Immingham Power Station, a lease of car parking and lease of the Existing Gas Pipeline Site all entered into between Phillips 66 Limited and VPI Immingham LLP as amended and varied. Representation Phillips 66 Limited (Phillips) own and operate the Humber Refinery which sits on a 480-acre site at South Killingholme on the Humber Estuary. Preliminary Statement Phillips are currently in discussions with the Applicant to agree a position acceptable to both the Applicant and Phillips to enable the Works to be carried out within the framework of the Existing Arrangements and to enable the Applicant to benefit from the rights currently existing for the benefit of VPI Immingham LLP (VPI). The Applicant, together with VPI, has made a proposal to Phillips in this respect which is currently being considered by Phillips. Phillips object to any Works which have the effect of increasing or adversely affecting the COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards) risk profile of the Humber Refinery. Comments on the Works 1 Work No 2 Access routes are contained within land let to VPI under the Existing Arrangements. Consent will be required under the Existing Arrangements to Work No 2 and appropriate amendment to the Existing Arrangements to enable the Applicant to carry out the Works. Phillips oppose any acquisition of the land for Work No 2 as the Applicant has indicted that, with amendment, these works can be carried out under the Existing Arrangements. 2 Work No 3 Land required for Work no 3 is again let to VPI under the Existing Arrangements. The comments above relative to Work no 2 are repeated and P66 oppose any acquisition of the land. 3 Work Nos 4, 5 and 6 3.1 Phillips operate 3 pipelines (the Pipelines) on land required for these works. The pipelines are a continuous operation for the passage of multi-purpose hydrocarbon fuels. The Pipelines run above ground. 3.2 Phillips oppose the acquisition of the land and consider that the consents for these works could be documented as ancillary to the Existing Arrangements. 3.3 the Applicant must not interfere with or damage the Pipelines or interfere with, impede or obstruct Phillips' access to them. 3.4 agreement of a method statement for working and supervision within the vicinity of the Pipelines is required before any work commences; it is essential that the safety and the integrity of the Pipelines and those working on the Pipelines is taken into account during the construction process. 3.5 access to the Pipelines is required at all times both for routine maintenance and emergencies. 4 Work to the Existing Gas Pipeline, as referred to in the S.52 Letter Phillips oppose the proposed acquisition of the Existing Gas Pipeline Site. The gas pipeline runs through Phillips’ operational land and any further sterilisation of that land would have a serious impact on the business operated by Phillips at the Humber Refinery. No alterations are to be made to the pipeline and it is considered that use of the pipeline can be accommodated within the Existing Arrangements. Phillips 66 Limited 25 June 2019"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Boston Borough Council
"Please see attached"