VPI Immingham OCGT

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

VPI Immingham OCGT

Received 20 June 2019
From Charles Russell Speechlys LLP on behalf of Air Products (BR) Limited (Air Products (BR) Limited)

Representation

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.