Colin Crossman
"Our representation will consist of the following points: Severance of access rights over 2 level crossings that we have historical rights over Improper use of the dco to provide a third party with an easement over our land to provide access rights."

Gareth Jones
"As a resident of Portishead I am generally very supportive of the plans. I have no issues as presented"

Osborne Clarke LLP on behalf of Western Power Distribution (South West) plc (Western Power Distribution (South West) plc)
"We act for Western Power Distribution (South West) plc ('WPD') whose registered office is at Avonbank, Feeder road, Bristol, BS2 0TB. Please accept this as WPD's representation consisting of a holding objection to the application by North Somerset Council for an order granting development consent for the Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1 (the 'Scheme'). Assets and interests in land are comprised in the proposed Scheme which are held by WPD for the purposes of its undertaking. The objection is made on the grounds that discussions with North Somerset Council as to the protection of WPD assets affected by the proposed Scheme are ongoing. No formal agreement has yet been concluded and accordingly we are lodging this objection to protect our position pending conclusion of an appropriate agreement. When an agreement is signed and completed, we will notify the Planning Inspectorate promptly and withdraw the objection."

Aston & Co UK Ltd
"Support for the project on the following grounds by relieving the traffic at peak flows from Portishead to the local employment centre of Bristol; Providing the reals opportunity for more sustainable mode of commuting; The timing of delivery of this aligns with the proposed completion of the Weston-Clevedon-Portishead Greenway enabling cycle access and a realistic sustainable access point to the railway and Bristol employment market by cyclist and pedestrians."

John Burke
"I want to be able to illustrate all the positive benefits that this will bring to the wider Bristol community. In particular how it will reduce commuting time and reduce the amount of traffic coming in and out of Bristol. Thanks You."

Luke Bonham
"The introduction of old diesel trains is now at odds with NSC declaration of a climate emergency and could be open to a legal challenge. Plans are being put in place to migrate away from fossil fuels to achieve net carbon and therefore all new projects must now take this into account. The only course of action would be for the new line to be electrified."

Tony Coughlan
"I live close to the railway line and cycle/walk on the routes affected by it's redevelopment. As a neighbour, I am also interested in the environmental impact of the line."

Mrs Jane Fear on behalf of Mr Michael James LEE
"Dear Sir I am representing my father Mr Michael James Lee. He is elderly and I hold a Power of Attorney for him, allowing me to act on his behalf. Please note that all correspondence should be sent to my address and not to my father’s former address at (Redacted) as he no longer resides there. Thank you So I would draw your attention to the small track, owned by my father, to the old railway line that us currently accessed via the Portbury 100 road. Land Registry Title (Redacted). This is to be compulsory purchased by Metrowest. The track is the only means of access to the field adjacent to it, which is also owned by my father. Land Registry Title (Redacted). I now ask that some sort of legal ‘right of way’ into that field can be retained when the purchase of the track proceeds. Or, alternatively a suitable new access from the Portbury 100 is provided otherwise the field will be rendered completely inaccessible. If, however, this order goes ahead with no such ‘right if way’ or access in place it will significantly reduce the value of the field and consequently I would want to ensure that significant compensation were granted in order to reflect the resultant devaluation of this land. Yours faithfully Jane Fear (Mrs)"

Andrew Watt
"I fully proposed the proposed scheme. It will substantially improve rail services in the area, and therefore provide significant economic and social benefits. It will reduce road usage and associated carbon emissions."

Peter Kirsen (WITHDRAWN)
"reference 06/566 This indicates a potential compulsory purchase. I would like to have an informal discussion with a surveyor regarding a more amicable and less costly alternative"

North Somerset Levels Internal Drainage Board
"The North Somerset Levels Internal Drainage Board is a flood risk management authority, and under the Land Drainage Act 1991 has a duty to “exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to the drainage of land within their district”. To assist with carrying out this duty, a set of byelaws have been made. These byelaws are to secure the efficient working of the drainage system, regulating the effects on the environment of a drainage system and securing the effectiveness of flood risk management work. The applicant is seeking to dis-apply seven of the Board’s byelaws. The byelaws that are proposed to be dis-applied are: Byelaw 3 (control of introduction of water and increases in flow or volume of water); Byelaw 7 (detrimental substances not to be put in watercourses); Byelaw 10 (no obstructions within 9 metres of the Edge of the Watercourse); Byelaw 14 (vehicles not to be driven on banks); Byelaw 15 (banks not to be used for storage); Byelaw 17 (fences, excavations, pipes, etc.); Byelaw 24 (damage to property of the Board). Three of these byelaws are ‘’without prior consent” byelaws and four are to prevent damage to watercourses and the aquatic environment. The byelaws are not intended to restrict the authorised development in any way but to ensure that reasonable oversight and regulation is in place to ensure that the land drainage network is not adversely affected by the proposals. The Board would have no objection to these byelaws being dis-applied if there was sufficient information within the application to provide comfort that the Board’s interests have been fully taken into account in the formulation of the proposals. Unfortunately, the drawings that accompany the application do not have sufficient detail for this to be determined. Therefore, the Board does not agree with the dis-application of the byelaws for this Development Consent Order. The Board will make further written representation regarding the proposals during the examination."

Andrew Youngs
"I am concerned about arrangements for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Royal Portbury Dock Road once the off-road cycle route is diverted from under the road bridge to climb up the embankments to cross the road. Royal Portbury Dock Road is extremely busy and carries a high proportion of heavy lorries. Such high traffic levels present a significant danger to foot and bike users wishing to cross the road. Particularly a danger to children on bikes. Liaison with the highway authority to provide a suitable controlled crossing is essential."

W J Hall
"I am a user of NCN26, the cycle way from Pill to Portishead. My representation will relate to the effects of the railway on NCN26 1. Introducing an extra dog leg into NCN26, so making it more dangerous. 2. Failure to take advantage of the works being done on NCN26 to remove the exising doglegs under the bridge by smooting the alignment to improve visibility. 3. The inconsistent level of detail in the application, with a major system level item like an NCN26 gradient up to a road left undetermined, and hence the proposed route also undetermined. For comparison, the cattle creep has been drawn to a level of detail even including catch pits. 4. Routing of the diversion route through minor lane through the bridge under the railway to Lodway Close in Pill, without at least temporarily removing the restriction on cycling."

Tom Stanley
"1. What else is being done to prevent users of the train station parking in the village quarter for free? The roads are already busy and impacts bus routes and waste collections? (Look at Nailsea & Backwell and Yatton stations, good car parks but people still park for free in the back roads) 2. The location of the 2 hour parking bays opposite the proposed entrance to the station will result in people doing U-turns on the road to get back out to the Quays Avenue or force them further into the village quarter and completing U-turns in these junctions causing further obstructions and delays to traffic flows."

Dr Bob Langton
"Whilst I am strongly in favour of the reopening of a passenger service on the Bristol-Portishead railway line I have severe reservations about the detailed plans for the necessary work in the Pill & Easton-in-Gordano area. My comments at this stage are bound to be provisional - the very nature of the detailed proposals provided by MetroWest make understanding them a lengthy and time-consuming process. However, my predominant concern relates to the work needed to modify the bridge the carries the line over the footpath between the end of Avon Road and Lodway Close in Pill. It appears that the plan for this work involves the creation of a large area of hard-standing to create a compound for the storage of materials and a hard-standing access road on the open area north-west of Lodway Close and The and an inevitable consequent loss of habitat for wildlife. It appears that the environmental impact assessment of this area judges it to be of limited habitat value when in fact it is well-known locally to provide key habitat for a variety of mammals (foxes, badgers and the endangered hedgehog) as well as key ponds that support a large number of amphibians. Seriosu damage to this habitat will lead to an inevitable and longterm loss of wildlife which is already in severe declime locally as well as nationally. A further concern is the extent of the movement of heavy goods vehicles through the villages of Pill and Easton-in-Gordano on roads that are totally unsuited to such traffic movement."

Martin Berry
"Portishead Branch line DCO scheme environmental statement, volume 2. Chapter 4. Description of the proposed works. Pages 4-18 to 4-21. Construction of the railway Works Numbers 1 and 1A 3 Options are proposed: Option 1,Option 2. Sub options a, b, c, d. Option 3 I request consideration the options proposed and rejection of Option 2 and sub options a, b, c and d; where the use of Lodway construction compound is proposed; due the close proximity to the residential area, potentially 24 hours a day 7 days a week operations, the impact of noise, light, dirt pollution, HGV traffic on residential streets, restricted parking, the destruction of green belt land (although this is noted as temporary) at Lodway Farm (9.128 hectares); and what appears to little attention or recognition of the environment impacts of such activity. Options 1 and 3 should be considered as the preferred solutions; or, Option 2 without the development of the Lodway construction compound; or, a combination of all 3 options again without the development of the Lodway construction compound."

Pill & Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council
"Concerns about the impact of the MetroWest DCO Scheme on the residents of Pill & Easton-in-Gordano Parish, the local environment and its wildlife, during both the construction and operational phases of the Project. Primarily, but not exclusively, these will centre around mitigations for nuisances, such as noise, pollution, traffic congestion etc. and the potential loss of habitat and species to the development. At present my biggest concern is the unfeasibly short time that has been made available for review of the 20,000 plus pages contained in the DCO Scheme Plan."

Somerset County Council
"This representation is made by Somerset County Council as an ‘adjacent’ planning authority. Planning and Transport Policy Context The MetroWest Phase 1 project will contribute to delivery on our adopted and emerging transport policy, business growth and other plans for Somerset County Council. As a nearby authority for the MetroWest project, Somerset County Council (SCC) is not directly affected by the proposed construction of the MetroWest DCO works associated with the Portishead line. But it is agreed that SCC and its communities, particularly in the north of the county, will benefit from MetroWest Phase 1 project and the new and improved commuter services on the Severn Beach line where they will reduce car usage on the M5 and neighbouring roads through that part of our county. We also appreciate the indirect beneficial impacts resulting from enhancement of transport infrastructure in the wider West of England and Peninsula areas. The MetroWest Phase 1 project can also be expected to support economic growth along the M5 economic corridor, including the |Hinkley Housing and Gravity Enterprise Zone around the Bridgwater area. The scheme will support modal shift to sustainable commuting and travel - diverting journeys from road to rail, contributing to combatting o climate change and o congestion – a significant challenge for the north of the county Conclusions: 1. No negative or cumulative impacts have been identified to arise in Somerset from the MetroWest Phase 1 project. 2. It is agreed that positive socio-economic and environmental effects are expected to arise from the delivery of this first phase of the wider MetroWest project both for Somerset and the wider Peninsula area. These should make a positive contribution to the delivery of a range of transport, planning and climate change policies in Somerset and the wider Peninsula area (of which SCC is part). We consider that it will be beneficial for Somerset County Council to be registered as an ‘Interested Party’ for the MetroWest Phase 1 Examination to enable this Council to respond to any issues arising during proceedings that are relevant to this Council as planning and highway authority. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the officer named above."

Mike Richards on behalf of Nine of Bristol
"1) We support the application to reuse an existing route and provide energy efficient, public transport. But the time line to completion considering the climate crisis should dictate electrification of rolling stock. 2) The frequency of service is too low and more passing places should be accommodated 3) A station at Ashton Gate should be provided to accommodate the needs of local residents, Bower Ashton Campus of University of the West of England i) Ashton Park School ii) The Create Centre iii) Ashton Court conference, visitors centre, events and theatre iv) Ashton Park (leisure and festivals) v) Bristol City, and Bristol Rugby Club football ground Transport routes also converge on Ashton Gate with the potential for interchange:- vi) Guided bus fast route vii) Bristol ferry viii) Airport bus service ix) South Bristol outer circular route and Portway to Avonmouth x) Festival Way and other cycle routes 4) The Ashton Gate station, road, pedestrian and cycle access should be integrated with the proposed removal of the Plimsoll Bridge and new road, pedestrian and cycle routes 5) Objection to provision of additional rolling stock and upgrading of the whole line to accommodate peaks in demand at Ashton Gate run contrary to the stated aim of application 6) The the additional costs should be in part or all offset by the improved functionally, access and service resulting in extra revenue and capital cost offsets by joint improvements associated with the Plimsoll Bridge works. 7) It is a false economy to not fully plan new transport infrastructure without anticipation of a low carbon future."

Rob Harvey
"I have grave concerns about the creation of work depots in Pill and Ham Green re the Metrowest reinstatement of the Portishead to Bristol rail line. Though the presence of toads, newts and reptiles at both the Lodway Farm and Ham Green depot sites has been confirmed in the literature; no reference has been made to this in the proposals re access and laying down hard standing over the bulk of Lodway Farm and also re access at the Ham Green depot site. Both sites are right in the middle of amphibian migration routes, both populations of significant size, particularly the population that migrates across the Lodway Farm site and over the old railway to access the breeding pond (estimates between 1500 and circa 5000 individual toads - the bulk of which cross Lodway farm). Surely some mitigation efforts should be put in place to protect this population, maybe even look at alternative compound sites and access points, both during the construction process and in the future, once the rail line has been completed."

William Ovel
"Concerns relating to disruption caused to Pill & Easton-in-Gordano residents by DCO Scheme. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Location of Construction Compound at Lodway Farm with attendant noise, lighting and traffic nuisances. Work should be relocated to spare land under M5 Avonmouth Bridge 2. HGV traffic through Pill, Easton-in-Gordano and Ham Green - narrow streets leading to road safety concerns for pedestrians & cyclists, conflict with bus services, congestion, damage from vibration, noise etc. 3. Cycle Route Diversions. 4. Impact on local wildlife at Lodway Farm Pond and ponds at N. Somerset Wildlife Site beside M5 Avonmouth Bridge. 5. Access road through Victoria Park - potential dangers posed by vehicles to park users 6. Marsh Lane Traffic. 7. Primary method for trans-shipping waste and construction materials should be by train."

Charles Money
"My wife, Sarah-Jane Money, and I are the owners of (Redacted). We have been notified that this is subject to a DCO as part of the works preparing the railway line. We rent this property out to tenants. Whilst we are fully supportive of the railway, we are concerned about the impact of the DCO, which is requesting access to the property for potentially significant amounts of time over a three year period. We have not been provided with any details of what the access would be potentially used for. We are concerned that there may be a detrimental impact on our tenants, to the point that they may decide to move out, or ask for a potentially significant reduction in rent, and indeed if they did decide to move out we would not be able to rent the house out in the meantime. This outlines why we are interested parties at this stage and must be kept engaged in the programme going forwards."

Eleanor Blaney
"My concerns are that there has been a lack of specific information about works to be carried out. Access has been requested to a portion of our land but we do not know for how long, at what times, what sort of equipment will be used etc etc. We seek clarification on these questions and so are registering ourselves as an interested party to reflect that."

Deborah Burton
"conerned about the use of Lodway farm as a construction compound as this will make it a brown site afterwards with the potential for houses to be built there"

Kathryn Wring
"The plan to access a compound via The Breaches and therefore also Trinder Road, The Poplars & the village of Easton in Gordano is totally inappropriate for the relevant traffic and size of the roads. The area is full of families and elderly people and there are cars parked on the narrow roads at all times. It will be a serious hazard to all concerned to allow access through these small residential roads. I do not believe that the current infrastructure can support the additional traffic in a safe and appropriate way."

John Mccann
"I am concerned the Lodway Farm construction compound is the not the best option for the planned works. My home and garden backs onto this land. I feel the possible 24hr, 7 day a week works will impact on myself and family life and health. The noise and light pollution, dirt and dust will I feel affect the health and wellbeing of local residents. Also the planned routes for lorries and workers arriving at all hours will be too much for our local residential streets. Many of which are used by school children walking to and from school. But these streets have no pavements and poor street lighting. I feel the other options would be more suitable. Especially the proposed use of the Bristol Port coal yard. This yard is no longer used for coal but does have access for cargo trains and HGV's to the local industrialised road network and motorway. Also a weigh bridge for keeping track of lorry weights. Plus the Bristol Port company have experience of loading and unloading bulk and heavy cargoes to and from trains and lorries. With all the method statements, policies, procedures, experienced personnel and machinery already in place. Hopefully the needs and profits of the local industry, Bristol Port company and Plasterboard company are not being put ahead of the local residents in the area. As I believe a joint venture between these two companies for major works to build new buildings on the coal yard is in hand. Plus the Port is I believe struggling for space on its land due to major demands from its customers. Hopefully these factors will not put pressure on council planners into deciding the Lodway compand is the easy option."

Mrs Mollie Young
"Of paramount importance to me is as a resident of TRINDER ROAD and I feel that the issues with allowing such traffic with resulting dust, noise and pollution to come down this road and into Lodway Farm Yard make it totally unacceptable and should most definitely not be permitted. Also the access into the village either via Ham Green Hill and from the village centre along Lodway, or worse, access from St. George’s Hill, along a very narrow road and then into oLodway from the other direction."

Susan Adamson
"Portishead Branch line DCO scheme environmental statement, volume 2. Chapter 4. Description of the proposed works. Pages 4-18 to 4-21. Construction of the railway Works Numbers 1 and 1A 3 Options are proposed: Option 1,Option 2. Sub options a, b, c, d. Option 3 I request consideration the options proposed and rejection of Option 2 and sub options a, b, c and d; where the use of Lodway construction compound is proposed; due the close proximity to the residential area, potentially 24 hours a day 7 days a week operations, the impact of noise, light, dirt pollution, HGV traffic on residential streets, restricted parking, the destruction of green belt land (although this is noted as temporary) at Lodway Farm (9.128 hectares); and what appears to little attention or recognition of the environment impacts of such activity. Options 1 and 3 should be considered as the preferred solutions; or, Option 2 without the development of the Lodway construction compound; or, a combination of all 3 options again without the development of the Lodway construction compound. ?"

Colin Howells
"Portishead is town with nearly 30,000 residents with only one main road, the A369, leading in and out of the town. This road leads to a motorway junction, Jct 19 of the M5. Any serious incident on the motorway or the A369 can cause tailbacks back into the town High Street. An alternative travel route out of Portishead is essential. The railway line is in place and rebuilding the track to take passenger traffic is vital both for the improvement of the environment and to connect Portishead to the national rail network."

Health And Safety Executive
"Please find HSE's Relevant Representation below: • HSE’s overall land use planning advice (Reference: ‘HSE’s Land Use Planning Methodology’), in relation to the aforementioned Major Hazard Installation and Major Accident Hazard Pipelines, is to not advise against the proposed development. • With reference to drawings contained within document ‘Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1), TR040011, Applicant: North Somerset District Council 2.4 – General Arrangement Plans, The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, regulation 5(2)(o), Planning Act 2008 Author: CH2M Date: November 2019’, the proposed development area falls within HSE public safety zones associated with a Major Hazard Installation & Major Accident Hazard Pipeline(s). • The Major Hazard Installation is the former Coleman UK site at Gordano Gate, Portishead. Although the route of the proposed Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1) lies outside the HSE consultation distance of the former Coleman UK site at Gordano Gate, Portishead, the proposed changes to the road and footpath in Quays Avenue lie within the middle and outer zones of the consultation distance. • As these proposals involves a single carriageway road, the sensitivity level (SL) of the proposed development is SL1. As HSE does not advise against SL1 developments within any zone, we therefore would not advise against the granting of planning permission for this element of the proposed development. • HSE has identified two Major Accident Hazard Pipelines (Natural Gas), Operator Wales and West Utilities, which traverse the proposed railway development in the vicinity of Lodwey: - Hallen / Nailsea (Duplicate, Ref:HD) [Transco ref: 1479, HSE ref 7210] - Hallen / Nailsea (Ref:HN) [Transco ref: 1494, HSE ref 7224] The route of the proposed Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1) lie within the Inner, middle and outer zones of the consultation distances at this location. • As the proposed development involves a railway, the sensitivity level (SL) of the proposed development is SL1. As HSE does not advise against SL1 developments within any zone, we therefore would not advise against the granting of planning permission for this element of the proposed development, providing appropriate separation distances/protection measures are put in place for pipelines, which either run parallel with any proposed track routing and/or which the railway transverses. • Please note that, should a new Major Accident Hazard Pipeline be introduced or existing Pipeline modified prior to the determination of the present application, then HSE reserves the right to revise its advice. • Likewise, if prior to the determination of the present application, a Hazardous Substances Consent be granted for a new Major Hazard Installation or a Hazardous Substances Consent is varied for an existing Major Hazard Installation in the vicinity of the proposed project, then HSE reserves the right to revise its advice."

Duncan Day
"As a regular user of the Sheepway to Pill cycle path, part of National Cycle Network Route 26, I am concerned about the temporary diversion planned for the section of the path between Marsh Lane and Pill, and also the temporary closing of the path using the underbridge on Network Rail land for the Royal Portbury Road crossing. The diversion along Marsh Lane and through the local roads of Easton in Gordano to Pill is somewhat tortuous and will require many signs over a lengthy period so that cyclists not familiar with the area will be able to navigate the route with confidence. These signs will need to be almost of a permanent nature fixed to existing street furniture so that they survive effectively throughout the period of the diversion. The section along Marsh road itself is narrow and there should be warning signs for motorists to highlight the fact that that section of Marsh Lane wil be carrying an increased amount of cycle traffic in both directions. Measures should be put in place to ensure that the access from the cycle path on to Marsh Lane is both signed and maintained to an adequate standard both in terms of hard surfaceing and regular cutting back of vegetation to maintain the full width of the path. Regarding the diversion from the path on to Royal Portbury Dock Road, the same signage and maintainance requirements referred to above for Marsh Lane should apply. In addition, cyclists pedestrians and horse riders will need to cross Portbury Dock Road which is very heavily trafficked with limited vision and I would expect there to be provision made for a temporary crossing, preferably with a half way refuge, markings on the road surface and possibly a traffic light controled crossings operated by button or sensors for users of the cycle path. Signs warning traffic of the crossing and possible a speed limit reduction would assist path users in negotiating this dangerous road crossing."

Huw James
"This project will bring in the green inclusive growth North Somerset needs, and make a commute via public transport to Bristol and beyond feasible for Portishead residents. With a 20 minute journey to Bristol connecting to a 70 minute journey to London, this scheme makes intercity travel much easier from Portishead. The railway is vital for cutting congestion, given that our town is cut off completely whenever the roads out of it face problems. I hope and believe that this project will be very successful and will support a future business case to provide an increased frequency service. An area under examined by the business case is the potential for increased tourism within Portishead upon the construction of the railway. The port marine development already draws in day trip tourists to our Rivera scene, to examine the port of Bristol from the comfort of coffee shops. This railway will unlock the potential for more frequent visitors and will be a catalyst for future placemaking in Portishead. As a Portishead district councillor I heavily endorse this project."

Ian Pearce
"Whilst I am in favour of the development and reopening of the Portishead to Bristol line, I have real concerns about the proposed development of Lodway Farm for use as a construction compound. My key concerns are: - increased traffic (both freight and no freight) on residential streets (Redacted) I am concerned about the impact on the road surfaces which are already in poor repair, on safety as all roads have a relatively high pedestrian footfall (particularly children at the start and end of the school day) and on parking as there are no on street parking restrictions and I suspect that parking on site will be limited for workers, contractors and visitors and that spill over on to residential streets is inevitable. I would like clarity on what will be put in place to mitigate any impact in all areas outlined above and what % of all traffic will be accessing the site from The Breaches - noise, light and air pollution impact for local residents/ How ill the impact of this be factored in to all activity on the site and the proposed timeline for development - impact of the work on the local environment - what action will be taken to offset the impact of the development of green belt land I would also want clarity on when a decision will be made as to whether this compound is a temporary development as currently proposed or a permanent fixture. If temporary, what will be done to restore the land used? If permanent, what is the day to day, 'business as usual' activity likely to look like in the context of all the concerns raised above."

Lands Improvement Holdings Ltd
"Our representation will be in support of the proposed Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1. There is a known shortage of housing throughout the country and a perceived concern relating to local traffic congestion and associated pollution contributing to public health and environmental issues. The Portishead Branch Line will provide a significant improvement to the local sustainable transport provision and should help to reduce dependency on private cars. This should lead to a reduction in congestion / pollution and ultimately facilitate the provision of new homes in the area whilst mitigating the effects on public health and the environment."

National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC and National Grid Ga
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc Application by North Somerset District Council for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Portishead Branch Line - MetroWest Phase 1 Order (“the Project”) National Grid wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to rights and interests it enjoys in land within and in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. National Grid is the owner of the electricity transmission network and a statutory undertaker. National Grid enjoys rights and powers to extend its undertaking by virtue of the National Grid (Hinkley Point C Connection Project) Order 2016 and Correction Order (2017) (the “Order”). Pursuant to those rights and powers, National Grid is embarking upon the construction of a new transmission line in excess of 55 kilometres in length. The new transmission line runs through Somerset. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s rights and interests located within this area. National Grid is concerned that the proposals contained with the application will result in serious detriment to its undertaking within the meaning of section 127 of the Planning Act 2008. National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to negotiate with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreed position."

Philip Virden
"1. The scheme is outdated. In 2019 the Council declared a climate emergency and pledged to do all it could to cut North Somerset’s carbon footprint. Running 36 diesel trains a day, most carrying very few passengers, can only raise emissions. 2. Predicted passenger numbers show that over 80% of the trains will be more than 80% empty (under 20% seat occupancy); on average, trains will run at 12% of seat-capacity (88% empty). By 2036, this will only improve to 16% (84% empty). Only two trains each weekday will run at anywhere near capacity, i.e., just 10 of the scheduled 236 trains per week, while only six other weekday trains will carry 50 or more passengers (20% of capacity). 3. Inconvenience: very few potential passengers will start their journey or reach their destination within only a few minutes’ walk of a station, and 4. One train an hour is a grotesque schedule: no extra trains for rush hours, most other trains nearly empty. 5. High environmental costs: burning carbon, pollution and unnecessary land use, especially since most trains will be almost empty and most passengers will have to get some distance to or from a station - probably by car, requiring a big new carpark at Portishead. 6. The official report estimates total running costs for the first three years up to £5m higher than revenues, but claims the trains ‘could break even after 5 years’. However, passenger numbers are not expected to rise dramatically, and nothing is offered to support this optimism. Therefore, 7. Fares will always be expensive and/or massively subsidised. 8. There was no investigation of other possible solutions to Portishead’s peak traffic problems: no alternatives to trains were ever considered (e.g., a busway, or even new bus-lanes). 9. Taking account of capital and running costs, research finds diesel buses at least twice as efficient as trains, so 10. A busway would have much lower environmental costs, substantially mitigating rather than worsening the climate crisis. 11. There could be even higher efficiency/lower economic and carbon costs by running eco-buses (e.g., renewables-electric, biogas). 12. A busway would deliver a far superior service: after coming off the line, buses circulating routes at each end and using normal roadway stops would pass close to the starting points or destinations of most travellers. 13. A busway with a reversible one-way flow to serve each ‘rush-hour’ (actually three hours) could be scheduled for a bus every few minutes at peak times. Off-peak, Portbury Docks trains would be able to run as normal over a Strail busway. 14. Estimated capital outlay for a Strail busway: £40m; for trains: £116m. 15. With far lower capital and running costs, busway fares would be much lower than train fares. 16. The public has never been informed of points 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. That information has to be dug out from the very long and technical Funding Bid document."

Barry Cash
"Response to Bristol MetroWest Phase 1 DCO. Feb 2020 by Barry Cash This DCO has been applied for without considering alternative proposals e.g. the Portishead Busway campaign plan to to provide a peak time only bus service on the railway using “Strail” panels. The National Policy Statement for National Networks has 12 paragraphs setting out Government goals that this proposal does not help in meeting. The busway proposal does help in achieving them. The passenger forecast shows that only rush hour trains will be full. Initially only12% of seats will be occupied. Even after 15 years only 16.3% will be filled. Both Bristol and North Somerset Council's have declared a climate emergency. Running 120 tonne trains up and down the line with no one on them will not reduce our fossil fuel use. The cost is £116m for one train per hour. A further £55m will be required to provide two trains per hour. ( Even more empty seats). The cost of the busway is £40m. A massive saving for the taxpayer. A busway will offer a better service to passengers. It could start from the far end of Portishead in the Redcliffe bay area and instead of stopping at Temple Meads could continue on to the central areas of Bristol. Alternatively the buses could join the 31 miles of dedicated Metrobus tracks at Ashton gate and serve many other areas of Bristol. A new station and car park will be required for the trains. The busway will not need this. The official report estimates total running costs for the first three years up to £5m higher than revenues, but claims the trains ‘could break even after 5 years’. However, passenger numbers are not expected to rise dramatically, and nothing is offered to support this optimism. Therefore, fares will always be expensive or massively subsidised. When the total fossil fuels used in both construction and use is taken account of research finds diesel buses much more efficient than trains. A busway would have much lower environmental costs, substantially mitigating rather than worsening the climate crisis. There could be even higher efficiency/lower economic and carbon costs by running buses on electricity, bio gas. LPG etc. Trains will be diesel unless a huge amount of extra money is spent to electrify the line and this is not even propose at present. A busway with a reversible one-way flow to serve each ‘rush-hour’ (actually three hours) could provide a bus every few minutes at peak times. Off-peak, Portbury Docks trains would be able to run as normal over a Strail busway. With far lower capital and running costs, busway fares would be much lower than train fares."

Paul Kent
"My concerns as a resident of Easton in Gordano relate to the construction period of the railway. The village is full of narrow roads and awkward areas many of which have been identified as routes for over 3000 HGV movements. The storage compounds are situated in places which are difficult to access and could well result in the irretrievable loss of environmentally significant assets. The car parking implications for residents, visitors and workers have not been fully appreciated and the difficulties for the disabled and the very young at key movement times of the day - eg school times- could well cause unintended hazards and risks. These reasons as well as the environmental impact of up to 24 hour working would make the atmosphere of the village very different and certainly more pressurised ."

Greenslade Taylor Hunt on behalf of Stephen Bullock
"My Client wished to register as an interested party as he is concerned about the impact of the scheme on the area of Easton in Gordona. He has land that is potential affected by the scheme and feels he has not be adequate consulted as he not sure how the scheme will affect his land now or in the future. Once we have the full facts on how my clients land is going to be affected we reserve the right to add further comments."

Greenslade Taylor Hunt on behalf of Susan Freestone
"The Client Mrs Freestone feels as though there has been a lack of communication on how the scheme will impact on her property and what her property is going to use for. She only found out late in the process that her land was going to needed/ affected by the scheme. She feels she is back into a corner with knowing the full facts. She there wish to raise an objection on not being properly consulted on how the scheme will affect her property now or in the future. We reserve to right to submit further information at a later date."

Adam Simon Jacklin
"I am interested in the local impacts and benefits this proposal and service will bring to the village of Pill. I am interested in working with our community leaders to develop the best solution that serves delivery partners, NR, franchise owner, users and the local community."

Bristol City Council
"Bristol City Council has received notification from North Somerset Council (the Applicant) of the acceptance of this application for a Development Consent Order. Bristol City Council is a Host Authority and as such is registering as an ‘Interested Party’ for the MetroWest Phase 1 Examination. In summary, Bristol City Council as Local Planning Authority supports the principle of the proposals put forward for the re-opening of the Portishead Branch Line and the associated improvements as set out within our Policy BCS10 ‘Transport and Access Improvements’. We would however like the opportunity to comment on the following main issues given the potential impacts upon the built and natural environment of the City of Bristol and its people. Discussions are ongoing between the Applicant and Bristol City Council as Host Authority regarding the proposals and proposed mitigation. The points below largely accord with our representations made during the Section 42 Consultation, which are included within the Applicant’s Consultation Report: • Transport, including the proposed highway improvements on Winterstoke Road and management of Construction Traffic. • Ecology and biodiversity, in particular the loss of trees within Bristol and the potential impact on designated sites including: the Avon Gorge Woodlands SAC; the Severn Estuary SPA; and Severn Estuary Ramsar site. • Flood risk, in particular the requirement for flood plain compensation and for a positive drainage system at the Clanage Road compound given its location within Flood Zone 3, and the risk of damage to watercourses, including culverts. • Land contamination, in relation to the baseline data/information, risk to controlled waters and groundwater, the potential remediation of ballast and the operational impacts upon the environment. • Landscape and visual impact; in relation to the impact upon the setting of designated heritage and natural environment assets. • Construction impacts including the measures proposed within the Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Construction Traffic Management Plan. • Schedule 2 Part 3 of the Draft DCO concerning arrangements for the discharge of Requirements. A full assessment of proposals will be included within the Council’s Local Impact Report and the Council is proactively working with the Applicant to agree a Statement of Common Ground which will confirm the position regarding these matters. Bristol City Council will continue to work with the Applicant and other stakeholders to ensure the proposals meets its objectives to support economic growth and improve the accessibility to the rail network whilst mitigating potential negative effects."

Christine Weidner
"I live very close to Lodway Farm and have only in the past week or so heard that there are plans to use the farm land to complete sections of the Metrowest line to Portishead 24 hours a day, and that heavy goods vehicles will be travelling along The Poplars to access the farm. I am concerned about the traffic, noise and light pollution the proposed plans will create. I am also concerned that these more detailed plans have not been made widely known to the community of Pill and Easton-in-Gordano."

Craig Thomson
"In favour"

Daphne Havercroft
"As a volunteer who has helped toads to cross the cycle path at Lodway I am concerned that their needs have not been properly considered in planning by Metrowest so that they can continue to safely access their breeding sites."

David Mason
"I live in close proximity to the railway line and have already received planning notifications. I wish to continue to receive any information which becomes available and have the opportunity to comment on it."

Dominic Fatchen
"I support the reopening of the line between Portishead to Bristol, and I am registering an interest as a private citizen. There are several issues that have yet to be resolved with the link with regards to Pill and its proposed station, predominantly with regards access routes within its catchment area and car parking arrangements. I am also interested in seeing the eventual level of service the route will provide in both directions as a replacement for my car journeys."

Elizabeth Milner
"Over the last 10 years I have helped with migrating toads as part of Pill Toad Patrol, in an area adjacent to the M5 Avonmouth Bridge. They travel to the ponds near the bridge in early spring every year, crossing the land on Lodway Farm nearby (that is I believe now under threat from development into a storage compound for the railway works) and their final obstacle before they can reach the ponds is the high-kerbed, concrete surfaced cycle path that provides access to the foot/cycleway across the bridge. It’s at this location that we assist the toads towards their destination as they are often thwarted by the height of the kerb, or fall through the drain covers set into the roadway. The ponds they are aiming for are only a few meters from here so lifting them off the road or out of the drains and placing them on the edge of the field where the ponds are sited, gives them a better chance of reaching their destination. In 45 minutes on just one night recently over 200 toads were escorted across this hazardous pathway, similar numbers are being recorded each night in damp weather over several weeks. It’s a very important breeding site. I understand it’s this same cycleway that is the proposed route for HGVs to access the storage compound. This will have devastating impact on the toad (and other amphibian, there are also frogs and newts) population. I sincerely hope that some form of mitigation will be put in place for this important wildlife location."

Francesca Milton
"I am extremely concerned about plans to concrete an area which is a prime habitat for endangered toads. I would like to understand how this damage could be mitigated or what considerations have been made with regard to this."

Graham Hopkins
"I want to see the railway built but am concerned about the possible impact on wildlife of some aspects of the construction phase - for example, the use of land at Lodway Farm for a compound, given the use of the land by many creatures, including amphibians. I am also worried about the traffic generated by the construction phase and want to see plans that minimise its impact on both the village (of Pill) and other roads locally."

Helen Sherborne
"I am concerned that toads, frogs and newts, were not fully considered in the environmental survey. I would like to be assured that they will be able to continue their migration over the Breeches, across the entirety of Lodway Farm fields, over the rail track, across the cyclepath and into the breeding pond."

Hollye Kirkcaldy
"- reinstatement of the train line from Portishead through Pill and on to Bristol is vital to alleviate some of the major traffic congestion on the A369 currently. - consideration must be made to parking arrangements in the vicinity of the new Pill station in order to avoid residents being left without any on-street parking spaces due to commuters driving to the area and leaving their car to get on the train. A resident permit scheme must be considered"

Ian Davey
"I'm concerned about the impacts on wildlife at lodway farm"

Ian MCdade
"I wish to offer my support for the Railway project with ideas that may help."

Janet Epplestone
"This is an important development for the village and community as a whole and will affect all of us in many ways. I am very much in favour."

Jill Coleman
"I am concerned for local wildlife along the tracks in Easton-in-Gordano and Pill especially the toads. Metrowest have put in mitigation measures for wildlife in a number of locations but not the proposed depot at Lodway Farm. Have Metrowest missed out the toads due to an oversight in their environmental surveying and will they allow mitigation measures that will allow the toads to continue their migration over the Breeches, across the entirety of Lodway Farm fields, over the rail track, across the cyclepath and into the breeding pond? This is a very important site for the toads."

John Norval
"Commuter parking in Ham Green and Pill Adding Ham Green Halt as a stop Reserved seating for Pill residents who commute Effect on cycle path along river Are the trains going to be big enough to cope with the large number of people who will want to use them especially as First Bus are reducing Pill services against the will of residents Pill Road and Ham Green hill will struggle to cope with increased commuter traffic wanting to park - parking restrictions will be need as with Leigh Woods area"

Josh Arnold
"Benefits to Pill itself as trains will be full by the time they make it to the village."

Judy Copeland
"Please consider the welfare of the hundreds of Toads which annually in Feb and March cross the Cycle Path leading from Pill to the Avon Bridge to get to their breeding ponds. Any development over this path will prevent them from reaching their breeding area near the River Avon. This would be disastrous for their future conservation."

Julia Davis
"Train is vital for Pill which has an ageing population and has recently had its bus service slashed by up to 50% off peak. The A369 is congested as is junction 19 of the M5 so it is uncomfortable for elderly drivers to negotiate their way into Bristol and onwards. Roads into Portishead, the nearest place for supermarket shopping is also very busy so any easing of the busy roads is gratefully received."

Julian Eley
"Infrastructure, services, Supporting bus services, car parking, access, Pill stop, time table."

Julie Grindal
"I am very concerned about what will happen to the toads if the proposal for concreting over 22 acres of Lodway Farm fields takes place. I also understand that the HGV's will access Pill but the cycle path road .I have patrolled this cycle path for several years at this time when the toads are making their way to the nearby ponds to mate, and then return. It is dangerous enough now for them with bicycles and motorbikes whizzing through. It would mean almost total annihilation if measures are not put in place to protect them. It is also used by frogs and newts many of which I have also rescued and carried to safety. It seems Metrowesr have put in wildlife protection measures in a number of other locations but not here. As there has been a dramatic fall in the number of toads countrywide they are classified as seriously "threatened " . This must be rectified"

Julie Harris
"I am concerned about the building on land at Lodway Farm and the adjoining cycle path which follows the bank of the river - and the impact this will have on the toad population in that area. Currently this wildlife is healthy and thriving - this population has been monitored and recorded for several years. This year newts also have been identified. There will be significant impact on the toads with the development of the railway - especially on this part of land. There must be provision for the protection of this population so that wildlife is not destroyed. This is a valuable environment and with current interest in climate and the impact development has on our creatures it would be revelant to put plans in place before the railway building begins"

Keith Smallwood
"As a resident of a road very near to the propsed station, my prime interest is around parking measures both during and after completion as this is already a very narrow and vastly over populated street."

Kirsty Andres
"We live opposite the proposed car park in Pill. We have (redacted) and have an allocated disabled bay outside our house for (redacted) wheelchair accessible vehicle. We have recently had a platform lift installed to ensure safe access for (redacted) from the kerb to our front door. Our major concern will be commuters parking on surrounding roads, including ours, and using our disabled bay (which I’m aware we do not “own”). Our interest will be in how this will be avoided/resolved and if we will have a residents parking scheme. We need 3 meters behind the vehicle to safely get (redacted) in and out which is currently possible as the ramp opens into the area over our drive and if we can’t park outside the house this will cause great stress and concern."

Lesley Davey
"I wish to talk or write about traffic problems, noise and light pollution. (Redacted)"

Linda O'Hara
"Our property is only meters from the railway line and will directly affect us with regards to noise, parking, privacy amongst others. I have attempted to discuss issues with the agent but to date have received no details or appropriate communications"

Liz Beacon
"As a local resident I support the development of the railway"

Liz Hill
"As a local resident I am generally supportive of the opening of the Portishead branch line, with a station at Pill, as it will improve transport links. My concerns are around the impact of the works on the popular River Avon towpath, part of national cycle route 41 and a popular commuter/ walking / running / cycling route."

Mandy Trotham
"I am a person of interest due to living in close proximity of the railway line. (Redacted) near the proposed station."

Mark Roper
"I would like to register my support for this application. While I realise there will be some disruption throughout the village, I believe the benefits of reopening this railway line are huge and outweigh any disruption."

Martin Smart
"Our property is only meters from the railway line and will directly affect us with regards to noise, parking, privacy amongst others. I have attempted to discuss issues with the agent but to date have received no details or appropriate communications"

Matt Brierley
"Your work will disrupt the annual inward and outward migration of hundreds of amphibians. You must therefore undertake mitigation measures allowing the toads and newts to continue their migration over the Breeches, across the entirety of Lodway Farm fields, over the rail track, across the cyclepath and into the breeding pond."

Miss Sian Jones
"I request that all plans be made public and that ALL those affected by noise, light, mess and traffic issues be contacted for their views. Notification of the planned compound at Lodway Farm was not given to those whose properties (ie What in development was Lodway Farm Estate) will be most affected. More transparency is needed in future. Consideration and cooperation is vital for this development."

Monica Ovel
"My concerns are about the movement of HGVs through the village of Easton-in-Gordano and Pill, where there are several areas with no pavements. I take children to school, and dog walk and traffic is already a concern."

Mr Trevor Cook
"Recently with two friends and join a group along the cycle path rescuing toads and putting them on the safe side. It became obvious from the 50 toads that the group collected that this is a major site for these amphibians. Although I did not find any frogs or newts I was told that they too inhabit the area. In a time when amphibians are under threat around around the world, and particularly in our country, the development would cause significant damage to the amphibian's migration route as they make their way to the nearby breeding ponds, I believe that there is a case to ameliorate the situation and that any development should take into account the potential impact on wildlife in general and amphibians in particular"

North Somerset Council
"The Council fully supports the proposal to re-open the rail line between Portishead and Bristol and believes it will reduce traffic movements with attendant carbon reduction and air quality benefits and reduction of congestion on the network including the M5 and A369 and increase the resilience of the sub-regional transport network. It considers there are potentially significant economic benefits to the region, improving accessibility to the Temple Quarter growth hub in Bristol and providing access to job opportunities in this location. The Council, which has declared a Climate Emergency, will also wish to make representations concerning matters including: The Planning statement gives a thorough overview of the issues that arise from the proposal. We are the Unitary authority for the area through which most of the line passes through. North Somerset Council has responsibility for Local Planning policies and making decisions on planning applications. We are currently preparing a new Local Plan for the period up to 2036. We therefore have considerable knowledge of committed development within the locality and its relationship with the proposed rail line. We also have a responsibility for Highways and Transport including roads, travel and parking. Our role extends to being Lead Flood and Public Health Authority, provider of social care, children, young people and families’ services and education authority. We also have an important role in community safety, crime prevention and emergency management. The Council is a Waste Management Authority. We have partnerships with other bodies in the area including the Avon Fire and Rescue Service, the NHS and Ambulance service, the Police, WECA and work closely with neighbouring authorities, Town and Parish Councils and other organisations such as the Environment Agency, and North Somerset Levels Internal Drainage Board to deliver services to our communities. Consequently, we will have interests in matters including traffic generation, highways, parking, accessibility for all groups, equal opportunities, living conditions of our residents, quality of design and landscape, the historic environment, air quality, biodiversity and ecology(there are several national and international designations), flood risk and drainage, contamination, materials and waste, noise and vibration. These include construction and operational phases. Importantly much of the area through which the line passes is Green Belt. Key locations include proposed stations, road re-alignment, and the Avon Gorge. Our Local Impact Report will detail these matters. We will continue to work with the applicant over these matters and a Statement of Common Ground. In addition, we have a vision for our four main towns and are committed to delivering economic regeneration in Portishead. Together with our close neighbour Bristol City Council we are aware of interests immediately outside our administrative boundaries such as the Conservation Areas and designations of national significance such as the Avon Gorge that straddle the boundary. As a Local Authority we have a responsibility to use our resources wisely and in a financially prudent way and the arrangements for discharge of Requirements and other procedural matters that form part of the Development Consent Order will be of significance to the Council."

Phil Loomes
"My view is that the train line would be a great additional to the village of Pill and the wider area as will allow people to travel into Bristol via public transport and get cars off the road."

Poppy Coley
"I fully support the Portishead branchline project and appreciate that any infrastructure project of its type will have impacts on the communities which will ultimately receive the benefit. I believe that the long term gain will outweigh the short term pain. I do however have concerns about management of traffic throughout the village and particularly access to Lodway Farm as a compound. As a mother who walks (redacted) to school most days, we have struggled to find a safe place to cross the main road through the village. Cars often do not stop at the crossing by the NewAvon Arms, so we end up crossing by Lodway Service Station, but we often have extended waits to get across the road safely. My concern is that this may prove impossible once construction traffic is added in. The Lodway Farm compound is of particular concern because of the access, I appreciate that the main access will be via Marsh Lane, but the planning allows for cars, minibuses and HGVs to access via Trinder Road. I would like reassurance that the volume of these will be minimised and that there will be safety measures in place. The turning into The Poplars is already the site of numerous near misses due to it being a blind bend with parked cars on one side of the road and all these roads are residential streets with lots of parked cars that are difficult enough to cross with small children with the current levels of traffic. Residents mostly drive with caution around here, but an increase in traffic, especially of commercial traffic, will increase the risk. I also have concerns about a lack of condition to return the whole compound to agricultural land. I would ask for; 1- confirmation that the land will be returned to its original use 2- enforceable conditions are imposed to limit the use of the Trinder road access, not merely guidance 3- enforceable safety conditions are detailed for the use of the roads leading to the Trinder road access"

Portishead Town Council
"1. Areas of agreement 1.1. We support the plan to re-open the railway to improve the connectivity of Portishead and the associated economic, environmental and accessibility benefits that it will provide. 1.2. We agree with the diversion and widening of Quays Avenue to link with Harbour Road to the West of the existing roundabout intersection with Harbour Road and Phoenix Way. 1.3. Portishead has gone through massive change in the past ten years, it is one of the fastest growing towns in the UK and is lacking the infrastructure to support its population increase. Space for infrastructure and commercial development to support the population is now constrained and so it is important that the potential amenity land around the station is used efficiently and supports wider regeneration. 1.4. Against this background we agree with the location of the railway station (Work No.5) as this will foster economic development of the area to the East of Quays Avenue and South of Harbour Road, including the existing Portishead and Gordano Gate Business parks. It may be envisaged that the station will encourage further business, retail and residential regeneration of this strategically important area of Portishead with higher density mixed use development. 1.5. However, it is important that public access and transport links are comprehensive and integrated with the station to assist and align with the future development of this strategically important area. The station should also be linked with the largely residential areas to its North, East and South. 2. Areas of comment for further consideration Portishead has a vision to be a sustainable town for the future and we believe that amendments are needed to the plans to help meet that vision: 2.1. Portishead does not currently have a bus terminus and travel to the station by public transport must be part of an integrated transport solution. If car parking density can be increased it is suggested that consideration is given to a bus terminus in the area of the proposed Car Park to the North of the station (Work No.6) that would serve the residential area around the station and act as an interchange for feeder services from around the town. 2.2. Space in that area should also be made available for adequate taxi and passenger pick up and drop off. 2.3. Adequate car parking is also vitally important, but it is arguably an inefficient use of prime land in this strategically important area. To increase parking density, it is suggested that thought be given to the use of a multi-story car park to improve land utilisation. 2.4. Traffic to the station is likely to increase particularly along Harbour Road and Phoenix Way which already have congestion problems. Accordingly, access to car parking from both Harbour Road and Quays Avenue is recommended, with perhaps the consideration of a multi-storey car park on land to the West of the diverted Quays Avenue (Work No.2) and Harbour Crescent. 2.5. With better utilisation of the areas around Work No.6 and Work No.2 it may be possible for land to the South of Harbour Road (Work No.4) particularly at the West end of that strip abutting the Portbury Ditch to be retained for mixed-use. 2.6. Phoenix Way to the East of the station suffers from congestion and parking problems, it is suggested that consideration is given to providing more off-street parking and/or introducing parking restrictions along the length of Phoenix Way to Fennel Road. 2.7. We support the provision for cycle access, but the following suggestions are made: • To better utilise land a shared pedestrian and cycle path to the South side of Harbour Road may offer a better solution to that proposed on the Southern side of area Work No.4. This would better connect to the Marina area and provide more space in the Work No.4 area for mixed-use development. • Consideration should be given to extending the cycle path to the West of Portbury Ditch to provide an off-road connection with the Portishead Library and High Street area. A path that utilises the route of the old railway line and connects to Harbour Road at the intersection with Portbury Ditch is suggested. • Dedicated off-road cycle or mixed-use pavement provision is required along the whole of Quays Avenue to the interchange with Wyndham Way, given increases in traffic volumes along Quays Avenue. • An off road/shared space cycle path should be provided along the whole of the length of Phoenix way to the station. • To facilitate cycle and pedestrian access from the Portbury Common and Sheepway areas it is suggested the cycle way provision to the South of the railway line (Work 7 and 7B) is extended to run Eastwards (to the South of the railway line) to better connect with the housing area to the South East of the station. A cycle pathway running East and then South around the perimeter of that area of housing to connect with Moor Gate would improve off-road access from the Sheepway and Portbury Common area. • Provision should be made for electric bicycles (and cars) with secure charging points provided."

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 4th December 2017 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly adversely affect public health. We are satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. On the basis of the documentation as reviewed 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. Reducing public exposures to non-threshold pollutants (such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide) below air quality standards has potential public health benefits. We support approaches which minimise or mitigate public exposure to non-threshold air pollutants, address inequalities (in exposure), and maximise co-benefits (such as physical exercise) and encourage their consideration during development design, environmental and health impact assessment, and development consent. New rail developments, such as the Portishead branch line, if served by electric rather than diesel trains would contribute to such reductions in air pollution. We are aware that electrification is not part of the current proposal but would encourage the applicant to ensure that the development was undertaken in manner that would allow electrification at the earliest possible opportunity. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."

Ross Adamson
"I have serious concerns for the effects that Lodway construction compound will have on the wild animals in and around this green corridor. There are many large mammals which use this area and also many toads living in and around the field which use the area to travel to the nearby pond to spawn. Whilst in favour of the railway, is there not an alternative which will reduce the potential devastating effects to local wildlife?"

BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. Portishead Delivery Office is 0.8 miles from the proposal site. There are three other operational facilities within 9 miles: • Nailsea Delivery Office BS21 7RW • Nailsea Vehicle Park BS48 1RD • Clifton Delivery Office BS8 1BJ The construction phase of the Portishead Branch Line comprising a temporary compound and railway station may present risk of impact / delays to Royal Mail’s road based operations on the surrounding road network. In particular Portbury One Hundred and Wyndham Way. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of the proposed Portishead Branch Line. Any periods of road disruption / closure, night or day, have the potential to impact operations. Royal Mail supports the Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest as these works, once completed, will improve traffic flows in and around Portishead. However, Royal Mail wishes to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivering service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations that may be adversely affected by the construction of this proposed scheme. Royal Mail requests that the final DCO includes a specific requirements that that: 1. Royal Mail is pre-consulted by North Somerset Council or its contractors on any proposed road closures / diversions / alternative access arrangements, hours of working, and the content of the final Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)., and 2. the final CTMP includes a mechanism to inform major road users about works affecting the local network. Royal Mail reserves its position to object to the DCO application if the above requests are not adequately addressed."

Severnside Community Rail Partnership cic
"Representation from the Severnside Community Rail Partnership cic- a Department for Transport Accredited Community Rail Partnership. Established in 2006 as Community Interest (not for profit) Company, we work with local communities to encourage the use of local trains, to ensure that access to local stations is easy, and to enhance these stations so they provide a safe and welcoming environment. Our station improvement projects are delivered with the assistance of volunteers, schools, youth groups and the Community Payback scheme. Our principal partners and funders are Bath and North East Somerset Council, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council, Great Western Railway and Cross Country Trains. Details of our work can be found https://www.severnside-rail.org.uk/ We fully support the Metro West project and recognise the immediate, and indeed, wider benefits which will arise from the extension of rail services to Portishead The transport benefits are set out in the business case and are well understood. However, we would like to highlight our experience and work in supporting the wider, unquantified benefits which we believe will arise from this project. The integration of this town into the rail network will give a boost to its economy, as well as allowing residents to access jobs and services in Bristol, with important connections elsewhere. Our experience shows that railway stations can become an important focus for the community. We have demonstrated in our work the wide range of ways communities will actively support local stations and work to improve and maintain them. Our annual reports, available from the link above, detail the range of initiatives from art work, reducing graffiti, to the creation of community gardens and litter patrols to keep stations clean. While there will obviously be costs and some adverse impact of this project, we believe that the benefits will be significant and out-way the dis-benefits. As a result we fully support the project and hope it is given approval without delay Yours sincerely Keith Walton Chairman, Severnside Community Rail Partnership cic c/o GWR,Temple Meads Station, Bristol BS1 6QF (Redacted)"

South Gloucestershire Council
"These representations are made by South Gloucestershire Council as an ‘adjacent’ planning authority, and are entirely separate to this Council’s West of England role as project promoter. This is a delegated officer response following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and the Strategic Environment. Planning and Transport Policy Context The MetroWest Phase 1 project can be expected to contribute to delivery on the following adopted transport policy and spatial plans for both the West of England and South Gloucestershire: The West of England Joint Local Transport Plan 3: including for example the following goals: Goals Sub-goals Reduce carbon emissions Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Provide a resilient and adaptable transport network Promote walking, cycling, and public transport Support economic growth Implement the programme of major transport schemes Tackle congestion Promote use of alternatives to the car – walking, cycling, public transport and smarter choices Support delivery of and access to houses and jobs Increase capacity and reliability of transport networks Contribute to better safety, security and health Encourage more physically active travel – walking, cycling and public transport Promote accessibility Improve access to … employment Figure 6.2: the Vision for the West of England Rail Network. This illustrates how the Portishead Phase 1 scheme fits with the wider vision for the West of England including South Gloucestershire, as does paragraph 9.5.2 relating to rail passenger Journey Experience. South Gloucestershire Adopted Core Strategy 2013: Chapter 7: Tackling Congestion and Improving Accessibility: • Objective: Completing delivery of the …. Greater Bristol Metro Project (the previous name for the MetroWest Project) • Policy CS7: Strategic Transport Infrastructure: includes point 3. ‘Improvements to rail services, including…. the Greater Bristol Metro Project’, and • Policy CS8 Improving Accessibility: provision of non-car sustainable travel options South Gloucestershire Adopted Policies Sites and Places Plan 2017: Chapter 5 Tackling Congestion and Improving Accessibility: • PSP11 Transport Impact Management: supporting para. 5.18 regarding the promotion of sustainable transport access. Also of relevance is the Council’s climate change agenda, including the: • South Gloucestershire Council Climate Change Strategy 2018 – 2023 (updated 2019) This confirms that transport represents 33% of South Gloucestershire’s CO2 emissions, and highlights the need to address this. • South Gloucestershire Climate Change Emergency Declaration (17 July 2019), resolves to enable carbon neutrality for South Gloucestershire by 2030, and to work with the West of England Combined Authority and West of England partners to help deliver this. Effects of the MetroWest Phase 1 project As an ‘adjacent’ authority for the MetroWest project, South Gloucestershire (SG) is not directly affected by the proposed construction of the MetroWest DCO works associated with the Portishead line. However, as an integral part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project, it is agreed that SGC and its communities will benefit from improvement to 30 minute services on the Severn Beach line as well as indirect in combination and cumulative beneficial impacts resulting from enhancement of transport infrastructure in the wider West of England area. The MetroWest Phase 1 project forms part of a package of wider improvements across the WoE transport network can be expected to support: • economic growth and regeneration across the WoE, including at the Enterprise Areas (including Avonmouth Severnside that straddles the Bristol / South Gloucestershire boundary), and • reduced journey times and modal shift to sustainable commuting and travel - diverting journeys from road to rail, contributing to combatting: o climate change and o congestion – a very significant challenge for the West of England area. Conclusions: 1. No negative impacts have been identified to arise in South Gloucestershire from the MetroWest Phase 1 project. a. The MetroWest Phase 1 proposals should make a positive contribution to the delivery of a range of transport, planning and climate change policies in the wider WoE area (of which SGC is part), and 2. It is agreed that positive socio-economic and environmental effects are expected to arise from the delivery of this first phase of the wider MetroWest project, for the wider West of England area including South Gloucestershire. We also consider that it will be beneficial for South Gloucestershire Council to be registered as an ‘Interested Party’ for the MetroWest Phase 1 Examination to enable this Council to respond to any issues arising during proceedings that are relevant to this Council as planning authority. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the officer named above."

Thomas Weidner
"I'm concerned about the affected wildlife (lodway farm), in particular the toad population."

Tracy Walker
"I fully support this plan. I live right next to the train line, have done all my life. Would like to make it known I am in support of this."

Vicki Merrin
"I am in full support of the railway returning to our village of Pill and believe it will only create positive change to the residents of the area. Less traffic on the roads can only be a good thing, I will certainly use the service to commute to Bristol. My only concern is how much room there will be on the trains once they reach Pill after leaving Portishead and what the planners will do about this to ensure Pill is served as well as Portishead."

William Wright
"I frequently have to travel to Bristol city center or Portishead by road, fortunately I can take my travel outside of busy ("rush") hours however, no matter what time I select the A369 always has some congestion and a travel connection by rail will obviously ease this personal problem and no doubt, for similar 'forced' road users"

Woodland Trust
"The Trust holds significant concerns with regards to the impact that this scheme is proposing to have on areas of ancient woodland that are part of the Avon Gorge SAC/SSSI. The ancient woods within the Avon Gorge are a key element of the site’s Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation, with the woods containing many nationally rare and scarce plant species, including a number of whitebeam species unique to Avon Gorge. Furthermore, the ancient woodlands of the Avon Gorge are recognised as an intrinsic part of the reason that this site is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The priority qualifying features of the SAC designation given to Avon Gorge relate to the species composition within the woodland (H9180) due to its populations of nationally rare whitebeam species and small-leaved limes. It is recognised that there will be direct losses of ancient woodland from this scheme, however it is also vitally important that indirect impacts are fully considered during the assessment of the scheme’s impact on ancient woodland. Construction impacts such as noise, light, vibration and dust pollution will all impact on the ancient woodland and its wildlife, with similar indirect impacts also likely to occur during the operational phase of the project. The combination of direct and indirect impacts will likely be highly detrimental to the SAC/SSSI designated ancient woodland, leading to losses in local biodiversity. In summary, the Woodland Trust objects to the proposed development on the grounds of impact to irreplaceable ancient woodland that holds a number of nationally and internationally significant designations. We consider it critical that this development does not result in the direct loss of the ancient woodland, as this will affect the overall integrity of the site and is contrary to the conservation objectives of the Avon Gorge site. We therefore request that a Habitat Regulations Assessment is undertaken to its full extent to determine if the proposed development will have a Likely Significant Effect on this internationally designated site. The Trust intends to provide fuller comments as part of a written representation later in the process and hope that these comments are sufficient at present."

Zac Coley
"I fully support the Portishead branchline project and appreciate that any infrastructure project of its type will have impacts on the communities which will ultimately receive the benefit. the long term gain outways the short term pain. I do however have concerns about the approach in using lodway farm as a compound. to be clear it is not the use of the compound per se, more that I am yet to be convinced that there are adequate controls in place to safe guard the residents and property of those on the Trinder road side of the compound. whilst appreciating this is not intended as the primary access route, no firm conditions have been imposed. I also have grave concerns about a lack of condition to return the whole compound to agricultural land I would ask for; 1- confirmation that the land will be returned to its original use 2- enforceable conditions are imposed to limit the use of the Trinder road access, not merely guidance 3- enforceable safety conditions are detailed for the use of the roads leading to the Trinder road access"

Alex Milton
"Metrowest have put in mitigation measures for wildlife in a number of locations but not as far as I can see in the proposed depot (they propose concreting over the 22 acres of Lodway Farm fields and accessing Pill for HGV's by the cyclpath road that we patrol) around Lodway Farm and the cyclepath. I wonder if they have just missed out the toads due to an oversight in their environmental surveying and am hopeful that they will allow mitigation measures that will allow the toads to continue their migration over the Breeches, across the entirety of Lodway Farm fields, over the rail track, across the cyclepath and into the breeding pond."

Anna McClumpha
"As a local resident and someone that lives next to the railway line I have a vested interest in ensuring the planning is suitable for the local area. This includes the provision of a permit parking solution (rather than just a removal of all on street parking) for the residents of and near Station Road and Monmouth road who will be most directly impacted by the building and creation of a Pill train station."

Avon & Somerset Constabulary
"Thank you for the details for the propose Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1) Order. Below is the response from the Traffic Management Unit of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary. Unfortunately, having been out of the office for a number of months, I only received the documents at the tail end of last week, so my response is slightly ‘off the top of my head’ in order to meet tonight’s deadline for responding. Reference is made in 6.19ES Chapter 16 Transport, Access and non-Motorised Users (Issues, p19) of earlier consultation with the emergency services about access to emergency vehicles during the development and that ‘they had not raised any concerns’. I am not able to recall any previous consultation and was wondering whether you could advise when this was made and, if possible, with whom? In all developments/TROs (whether temporary or permanent), we would always look for access for emergency vehicles where possible or, at a minimum, a suitable diversion with the ability to reach all areas. I note that an area adjacent to Clanage Rd is to be used as one of the storage compounds for equipment, vehicles etc. Although it is unclear exactly size/weight this will entail, I just wanted to confirm your awareness of a 4 tonne weight restriction on Clanage Rd/Rownham Hill? This is for both structural and environmental reasons. Should you require a copy of the TRO, I have one available. Throughout many of the documents, the issue over parking runs as a common thread. I raise the following observations, based on this topic: • I note that there are 2 proposed car park; one of 67 spaces and one of 209 spaces. As a number are being restricted to parking for the disabled, employees of the railway, staff at the Health Centre (potentially) and an undisclosed number for car share users, this effectively brings down the numbers of spaces for general use. Although there may be enough for the 171 projected users in 2021, it will not meet the projected requirement of 235 by 2031 (6.19ES Chapter 16 Transport, Access and non- Motorised Users pt 16.6.5). This will result is an increase in parking on the carriageways around the station, so is not ‘futureproof’. • I acknowledge the local resident consultation which has taken place in relation to the possibility of parking restrictions to tackle to predicted use of the free carriageway parking as opposed to the cost of parking in the designated car parks. I would suggest that this number could be significant but, as highlighted by a number of the residents themselves, the introduction of Double Yellow Lines or similar restricted parking would impact on the spaces available for them too. In practice, our preference would be for a Residents Parking Zone scheme, which would minimise the impact on the local residents. I accept that there is a potential cost to the residents, but is there any possibility of this being subsidised – at least in the earlier stages, to ease the process in? I have grave concerns about the over spill/avoidance of the car parks and the impact on the already restricted roads around the Portishead station area. Any further vehicles would simply displace local residents – or lead to parking in inappropriate locations. With enforcement of parking infringements now decriminalised, the Police are no longer able to deal with such offences, which now fall to the Local Authority. As with any offence, if it is not enforced, it becomes the norm and is routinely ignored, so it may be the Council will need to dedicate resources to this area. • Many of the documents mention the off street parking available to the residents but, for the vast majority of houses in the Portishead area, this is restricted to one space; the fact that all available on road space is taken indicates that the majority of premises have more than one vehicle associated with them. • While the vehicles parked on the road do, indeed, act as a traffic calming measure, the congestion has an impact on larger vehicles accessing the area. I am aware that the Recycling vans and Refuse lorries are occasionally unable to complete their rounds, as they are unable to navigate around some of the corners. The holds true for the local busses too, with the bus operator First West of England recently announcing the reduction in service to Portishead Marina because of the ongoing issues with routes being blocked by parked cars (Bristol Live 24th February 2020). • The potential for an increase in parked vehicles in the surrounding area could also have an impact on abnormal loads. This is identified in point 6.25 of 6.19ES Chapter 16 Transport, Access and non-Motorised users, which mentions the increased problem of HGV manoeuvrability. However, this seems to relate to construction traffic involved in the project. However, increased congestion could have an impact on the regular Abloads attending the area, notably those requiring access to the Marina along Newfoundland Way when moving larger boats, and Harbour Rd, giving access to the Blue Fuchs yard. I note that, despite some potential short term closures, there will be little/no impact of the cycle and pedestrian routes in the construction areas, and that the proposed footbridge in Portishead linking to Trinity School will be suitable for disabled access. I may have missed it amongst the documentation (my apologies) but is there a proposed diversion during the construction of the new roundabout at Phoenix Way/Quays Ave/Harbour Rd? I suppose the ‘obvious’ way is into the Town Centre along Wyndham Way, then Harbour Rd and Newfoundland Way? Could I please have a copy of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, once prepared? And I assume that all Traffic Regulation Orders relevant to the project will be forwarded from the Council to the Police for consultation in the usual manner?"

Osborne Clarke LLP on behalf of Babcock Integrated Technology Limited
"Application by North Somerset District Council for an Order Granting Development Consent for Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1 ("the DCO") MetroWest Phase 1 ("the Project") North Somerset District Council ("the Applicant") 1. This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of Babcock Integrated Technology Limited ("Babcock"). Babcock is a leading provider of critical, complex engineering services which support national defence, delivering vital services and managing assets in the UK and Internationally. Babcock carries out a number of these activities at their site on Ashton Vale Road, Bristol ("the Site"). The Site is bordered by the existing Portishead Branch Line to the east and Ashton Road to the north. 2. The current Works Plans (Sheet 15 and Sheet 16) indicate that Work No. 27 (Public Foot & Cycle Ramp) is to the immediate east of the Site and the Order Limits extend along the Site's northern and eastern boundaries. The current Land Plans (Sheet 15 of 17 and Sheet 16 of 17) indicate that the Site is bordered by Plots 15/84, 15/83, 15/82, 15/86, 15/87 & 15/85 to the north and 15/125 & 16/05 to the east. The main vehicle and pedestrian entrance and exit to the Site is bordered by Plot 16/20. The rear access road to the Site is adjacent to the south eastern corner of Plot 15/87. All the Plots listed as adjacent to the Site are subject to the compulsory acquisition of all estates and interests. 3. Babcock does not object to the principle of the underlying Project sought by the DCO in terms of the benefits it is seeking to deliver from Bristol to Portishead and region beyond. However, it is concerned with the impact of the Project detrimentally affecting Babcock's on-going operations specifically at the Site. This includes the impact caused by the Project on Babcock's access and egress from the Site during the course of the Project's construction and operation. 4. Babcock objects to the DCO on the basis that it has not been proven by the Applicant that the construction and operation of the Project will not cause a detrimental impact to Babcock operations, including by assessment of transport impacts and how access and egress to the Site will be affected by the compulsory acquisition of Plots 15/81, 15/85, 15/87 & 16/20. 5. Babcock is seeking expert advice to consider the material within the DCO documentation and is seeking a meeting with the Applicant to confirm whether any adverse impact to Babcock operations can be satisfactorily addressed and mitigated as part of the DCO. 6. Babcock therefore requests to be registered as an Interested Party to the examination of the DCO and to make submissions on the topics of transport impact and compulsory acquisition affecting the Site."

Charles Exley
"My objection concerns Access AW5.2 to Lodway Farm Depot. The AW5.1 Access is totally unsuitable for anything other than cars , The access through the village and down Trinder Road is completely unsuitable for goods vehicles and would only add to the chaos that we as residents endure everyday in the deliveries to the shopping outlets of the village. Such is the concern of NSC that they have signposted the unsuitability of the road through the village to heavy transport. Access through to Lodway Depot for all should be via AW 5.1 which is through a designated industrial zone and not a residential zone."

Crockerne C of E School
"Concerns that increased traffic movements and people will have potential for adverse safety effect on pupils commuting to and from school"

Debbie O'Grady
"Portishead Branch line DCO scheme environmental statement, volume 2. Chapter 4. Description of the proposed works. Pages 4-18 to 4-21. Construction of the railway Works Numbers 1 and 1A 3 Options are proposed: Option 1,Option 2. Sub options a, b, c, d. Option 3 I request consideration the options proposed and rejection of Option 2 and sub options a, b, c and d; where the use of Lodway construction compound is proposed; due the close proximity to the residential area, potentially 24 hours a day 7 days a week operations, the impact of noise, light, dirt pollution, HGV traffic on residential streets, restricted parking, the destruction of green belt land (although this is noted as temporary) at Lodway Farm (9.128 hectares); and what appears to little attention or recognition of the environment impacts of such activity. Options 1 and 3 should be considered as the preferred solutions; or, Option 2 without the development of the Lodway construction compound; or, a combination of all 3 options again without the development of the Lodway construction compound."

Dr John du Heaume
"Concern that due consideration is given to the migration and breeding of amphibians in the vicinity of Lodway farm and the ponds adjoining the railway nearby, these are an important breeding site for newts frogs and toads. John du Heaume."

Elizabeth Moore
"I am very concerned about the harm that will be done to the toad population by the proposed work at Lodway Farm, Pill"

Environment Agency
"The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Planning Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: WX/2019/133441/01-L02 Your ref: TR040011 Date: 26 February 2020 Dear Sir/Madam METROWEST DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – RELEVANT REPRESENTATION The Environment Agency remains fully supportive of the aims of the proposal, which is viewed as having considerable merit, as an integral element of a more extensive sustainable transport network. Notwithstanding the above, please find hereunder an outline of issues pertinent to the Environment Agency’s interests, which will require clarification and resolution, in the interests of the protection and enhancement of the water environment: FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT The Agency has, on numerous occasions, advised the Applicant in respect of its concerns regarding various aspects of flood risk management. The Agency’s concerns have been compounded by the proposal’s supporting Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which is viewed as being deficient in a number of respects. The Agency has specifically advised in respect of the FRA’s poor structure and lack of clarity, in addition to a number of noted repetitions and discrepancies/contradictions. Flood risk management Issues of particular concern to the Environment Agency include: • The potential high frequency of flooding of the proposed railway line. • The potential increase in flood risk to third parties, particularly in the vicinity of Portishead, Pill, Easton-in-Gordano and Clanage Road. • The climate change allowances adopted. • The provision of flood plain compensation i.e. is it adequate and is it provided on a hydraulically linked, level for level basis? • The use and understanding of the designated flood zones. • Details of works proposed in the vicinity of, and/or over main river culverts i.e. a ‘no additional loading approach’ has not been clarified, as previously requested. • The lack of confirmation that Environment Agency access requirements can be provided (there are noted contradictions within the FRA). • Details regarding associated development in Portishead. • The lack of confirmation the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Activity Permitting requirements are fully understood. It is noted The Planning Inspectorate’s letter dated 24 January 2020 (Ref: TR040011) raised a number of the above concerns for the Applicant’s attention. The Environment Agency would advise that an additional flood risk modelling submission has been received for review, which is ongoing. GROUNDWATER AND CONTAMINATED LAND With regard to the documents submitted in respect of the potential for historic contamination along the proposed route and at associated development sites that will support the rail infrastructure, the Environment Agency would advise as follows: The Environment Agency has, throughout the pre-application consultation process, advised the Applicant of its concerns regarding the approach adopted in respect of the investigation of potentially contaminated land. The information submitted does not give the Environment Agency confidence that the applicant has adequately understood the potential risks associated with the development from potential historic contamination. Additionally, because the applicant does not appear to have undertaken a detailed and open-minded interpretation of the desk-based information available, the proposals to further investigate potential areas of concern may not, in our view, be comprehensive enough to determine the risk to the water environment. The wording of the documents submitted is such that potential risks appear to have been dismissed, prior to being properly assessed. All areas of potential concern should be subject to an appropriately detailed site investigation to allow for an assessment of risk, based on data and the context in which it is acquired. ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY Issues of particular relevance to the Environment Agency include the treatment of watercourses and wetlands, together with the species that are dependent on such habitats, in particular otter, water vole, eel and other fish species. It is acknowledged that extensive survey work has been undertaken to identify potential risks to these habitats and dependent species however, the Environment Agency must be satisfied in respect of the proposed mitigation measures, to ensure any impacts are minimal and short-term. Additionally, measures must be included for habitat re-creation and enhancement, which must result in a net gain in biodiversity from the proposal. Additionally, the Environment Agency will require full details of how it is proposed to treat and control invasive species. A commitment to long-term control of species, including Japanese knotweed, would therefore be required. LAND INTERESTS With reference to the Environment Agency’s leasehold land and other land interests in the vicinity of the proposed route, the following comments must be noted: Full details are required in respect of how each of the parcels of land, where the Environment Agency is in occupation, or has an interest, will potentially be affected by the proposal and whether any impact will be on a temporary or permanent basis. Whether it is permanent or temporary, the Environment Agency will need to ensure suitable arrangements are in place, to enable it to continue to work operationally from the land in question. It is deemed essential to ensure that, if the proposal will affect any of the Agency’s leaseholds or land interests, it does not put the Agency in breach of any of its obligations, under agreements associated with any land affected. WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT The Environment Agency has previously advised the Applicant regarding the measures required to prevent pollution of the water environment and the specific regulatory requirements pertinent to the proposal and associated works. Accordingly, the Agency must be satisfied in respect of all relevant proposals, particularly those concerning pollution prevention and incident control and waste management, including potentially hazard waste. PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS The Environment Agency’s legal representative is still awaiting contact from the Applicant’s legal representatives regarding outstanding concerns in respect of the submitted Protective Provisions pertinent to the Environment Agency’s interests. STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND A note from Womble Bond Dickinson dated 6 December 2019 (accessed through The Planning Inspectorate’s meeting noted dated 14 January 2020) states the Applicant will continue to work with the Environment Agency on water related issues. The Agency would advise that it is currently awaiting a draft copy of the Statement of Common Ground, as previously requested. It is important to note that, following recent storm events, the Environment Agency is currently in ‘Incident Mode’, which necessitates the prioritisation and re-direction of resources to ensure the protection of people, property and infrastructure in the affected areas. Therefore, while staff are engaged in their respective incident management roles, normal workloads are likely to be subject to delays. Should you wish to discuss this matter further please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Dave Pring Planning Specialist Direct e-mail [email protected]"

Town Legal LLP on behalf of Freightliner Limited
"1 Introduction 1.1 This is a relevant representation for and on behalf of Freightliner Limited (‘Freightliner’) in respect of the application (‘the Application’) for a Development Consent Order (‘the Proposed Order’) for the delivery of the Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1) (‘the Proposed Scheme’). The Application was submitted and is being promoted by North Somerset District Council (‘the District Council’) in consultation with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (‘Network Rail’) and has been allocated Planning Inspectorate reference TR040011. The delivery of the Proposed Scheme includes works proposed to be carried out by Network Rail as particularised in Part 9 of the District Council’s Explanatory Memorandum. 1.2 Freightliner is a private limited company (registration number 03118392) whose registered office is at 3rd Floor, 90 Whitfield Street, Fitzrovia, London W1T 4EZ. It is a major rail freight transport and logistics company operating in various locations across the UK including Bedminster, Bristol. 1.3 In the Proposed Order, the District Council are seeking temporary possession powers over part of Freightliner’s Bristol terminal situated at South Liberty Lane, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 2ST (‘Bristol Terminal’) 1.4 Freightliner has a long leasehold interest in the Bristol Terminal for a term of 125 years expiring on 31 May 2135. The freehold interest in the Bristol Terminal is owned by Network Rail. The Bristol Terminal is used by Freightliner as an intermodal rail freight terminal primarily for the import, export, and storage of shipping containers travelling to and from the ports of Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. 1.5 For reasons including the uncertainty arising from the Proposed Scheme, Freightliner has recently agreed, in principle, heads of terms to sublet parts of the southern section of the Bristol Terminal site to two commercial tenants, on an interim use basis, including for use as a rail served depot for storing handling and distributing aggregates and as a containerised self-storage facility. 2 Summary of Freightliner’s Position 2.1 While Freightliner does not object in principle to the Proposed Scheme, for the reasons set out below, it objects to the inclusion in the Proposed Order of powers to temporarily possess land forming part of the Bristol Terminal. 3 Relevant plots within the Proposed Order 3.1 The Proposed Order identifies the following plots of land relevant to the Bristol Terminal site as being subject to proposed powers of temporary possession, namely: 3.1.1 Plots 17/05, 17/15 and 17/20, in which Freightliner has a long leasehold interest; and 3.1.2 Plot 17/10 which forms part of South Liberty Lane adjacent to the Bristol Terminal and comprises the only access to it from the highway. 3.2 These plots of land are identified within the Proposed Order as being required by Network Rail for the following purposes: 3.2.1 Plots 17/05 and 17/20 for the purposes of temporary construction compounds for materials storage; and 3.2.2 Plots 17/10 and 17/15 for the purposes of access to and from works compounds at Plots 17/05 and 17/20. 4 Freightliner’s outline grounds of objection 4.1 In summary, Freightliner objects to the inclusion of plots 17/05, 17/10, 17/15 and 17/20 in the Proposed Order for the following reasons. 4.2 First, the proposed dimensions and location of the access route over plot 17/15, would have a serious and unacceptable adverse effect on Freightliner’s commercial operations. The extent of Plot 17/15 is such that its exclusive occupation by the District Council and/or Network Rail would prevent access to the Bristol Terminal from South Liberty Lane or the wider highway network. 4.3 Freightliner have no objection in principle to the District Council and/or Network Rail having a temporary access route by agreement over plot 17/15 for the purposes of the Proposed Scheme providing: 4.3.1 That the dimensions of any such access route are reconfigured to enable access to South Liberty Lane; and 4.3.2 That any such access route is flexibly located to minimise the disruption to Freightliner/ its proposed tenants commercial operations. 4.4 Second, it is unnecessary and unjustified for temporary possession powers to be granted over plots 17/05, 17/15, and 17/20 in circumstances when Freightliner are agreeable in principle (subject to agreeing the details of these arrangements): 4.4.1 To the District Council and/or Network Rail temporarily occupying plots 17/05 and 17/20 for the purposes of temporary construction compounds for materials storage (the dimensions and locations of these work compounds having been agreed); and 4.4.2 To the District Council and/or Network Rail having a temporary access route over plot 17/15 for the purposes of access for works to alter the existing track layout close to that facility providing the dimensions and location of the access route protects Freightliner’s commercial operations. 4.5 Freightliner are currently in negotiations with Network Rail regarding agreeing heads of terms of a conditional agreement with Network Rail providing- in terms- for a short term subletting of the compound areas to Network Rail with associated access within Freightliner’s long-lease area/ operational terminal. 4.6 At the time of preparing these relevant representations, heads of terms for an agreement have been received from Network Rail in respect of Plot 17/20 but no heads of terms have been received from Network Rail in respect of Plot 17/05. In addition, no agreement, to date, has been reached with Network Rail on the dimensions and location of the proposed access route over Plot 17/15. 4.7 Freightliner remain willing and able to continue negotiating with Network Rail and it is sincerely hoped on Freightliner’s part that mutually agreeable commercial terms can shortly be reached in respect of suitable temporary occupation and access over the Bristol Terminal site. 4.8 Thirdly, there are no details provided in the Proposed Order or supporting documents as to the length of time for which temporary possession powers are sought over part of the Bristol Terminal site. Reference is made in the Proposed Order that temporary possession powers are sought for up to 12 months following completion of the Proposed Scheme. Freightliner considers such an extended and uncertain period of temporary possession to be unnecessary and unjustified in circumstances when Network Rail have indicated that temporary occupation and access of the parts of the Bristol Terminal site is only required for short defined periods of time (e.g. 8 weeks has been proposed in negotiations for plot 17/20). Freightliner consider that such an uncertain and potentially open-ended period of temporary possession in the Proposed Order, as opposed to a short defined period in any agreement with Network Rail, causes an unacceptable level of uncertainty to Freightliner’s commercial operations making it difficult if not impossible for Freightliner to forward plan its business when it is wholly unclear from the Proposed Order documents when the temporarily possessed land would be handed back. 5 Conclusion 5.1 Among other things, for the reasons set out above, Freightliner considers that: 5.1.1 It is not necessary and/or justifiable for the Council to be granted temporary possession powers in relation to plots 17/05, 17/10, 17/15 and 17/20 because there is an alternative means of bringing about the purposes for which temporary possession powers are sought by means of agreement with Network Rail for temporary occupation and temporary access over part of the Bristol Terminal site; 5.1.2 The adverse operational impacts of the temporary possession powers, on Freightliner’s business, in particular with respect to the current proposed dimensions and location of the access route over plots 17/10 and 17/15, are unacceptable; 5.1.3 Therefore, that there is no compelling case in the public interest for temporary possession powers to be granted over part of the Bristol Terminal; and 5.1.4 Accordingly, that the Proposed Order should not be made, and development consent should not be granted, unless and until the matters referred to above have been resolved. 5.2 In the event that agreement with Network Rail and the District Council cannot be reached, Freightliner hereby fully reserves its position and the right to submit further detailed written representations for the purposes of the examination of the Proposed Order and to attend in person any compulsory acquisition hearing listed by the Examining Authority. 5.3 A copy of these relevant representations has been provided to the District Council."

Hannah Price
"There seems compelling evidence that a bus scheme run on the train line might prove more efficient, cost effective and produce less Carbon. I would like to hear the counter argument to this point. The plans for Lodway Farm are incredibly damaging to the wildlife that survives there, especially amphibians."

Highways England
"Highways England is unable to support the Portishead Rail DCO application at this time, on the grounds that further information and clarification is required in respect of the Transport Assessment and Construction Traffic Management Plan. We have undertaken a detailed review of the DCO submission and the supporting information which includes the review of Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement (ES) Traffic and Transport and relevant appendices. Also, we have reviewed the documentation relating to the construction phase of the scheme and the location and use of compounds. We have undertaken a review of the relevant documents supporting the submission to ensure compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development” and the MHCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019, in so far as it relates directly to the interests of Highways England. For the purposes of clarity, Highways England’s interests relate solely to the construction phase of the Portishead Branch Line reopening. Having reviewed the DCO documentation, we are satisfied that there are no significant adverse transport implications for the SRN once construction is complete and the scheme is operational. The following information/clarification is requested: • Further clarification and refinement of construction traffic generation, particularly ballast import/removal HGV movements (trip generation); • A clear distinction between HGV movements associated with ballast/spoil removal and delivery and the movements of ‘other construction materials’; • Clarity on which compounds will be used for the delivery and removal of ballast; • Clear presentation of the arrival and departures profile for all vehicle movements across the construction phase, disaggregated by vehicle type and construction activity, with the peak construction period (in terms of vehicle movements) clearly identified (including the duration of this peak); • Clarification and refinement of the methodology for deriving network peak hour construction traffic generation and a cumulative impact assessment for network peak hours, interpeak and 12-hour.; • Clarity on staff and personnel arrivals/departures with likely shift times/patterns clearly identified. Subject to the findings of the cumulative construction traffic impact assessment, undertake a capacity assessment of M5 J19; and/or: *The above should be provided within a Transport Assessment Addendum • Identify appropriate and proportionate construction traffic management measures (potentially including measures to restrict peak hour and interpeak construction traffic movements at M5 J19 (which should be set out in the Outline CTMP) with the Final CTMP and TMWG to be secured by requirement imposed by the DCO); and • A statement confirming the nature of the use of the compound located under the M5. On receipt of the further information/clarification requested, Highways England is likely to seek a number of Requirements to be imposed by the DCO to manage the impact of the construction phase, particularly at M5 J19. These requirements will be detailed in our Written Representations at the Examination stage. Highways England will seek to pursue a Statement of Common Ground with the applicant as expeditiously as possible to agree our requirements. This will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate prior to Examination. Please see attached."

Hilary Berry
"Portishead Branch line DCO scheme environmental statement, volume 2. Chapter 4. Description of the proposed works. Pages 4-18 to 4-21. Construction of the railway Works Numbers 1 and 1A 3 Options are proposed: Option 1,Option 2. Sub options a, b, c, d. Option 3 I request consideration the options proposed and rejection of Option 2 and sub options a, b, c and d; where the use of Lodway construction compound is proposed; due the close proximity to the residential area, potentially 24 hours a day 7 days a week operations, the impact of noise, light, dirt pollution, HGV traffic on residential streets, restricted parking, the destruction of green belt land (although this is noted as temporary) at Lodway Farm (9.128 hectares); and what appears to little attention or recognition of the environment impacts of such activity. Options 1 and 3 should be considered as the preferred solutions; or, Option 2 without the development of the Lodway construction compound; or, a combination of all 3 options again without the development of the Lodway construction compound."

Jane Bonnick
"1 Concern for the level of damage to farmland proposed to facilitate the development and the resulting impact on wildlife and the natural environment 2 Concern about the potential congestion in the village with the proposed use of narrow & residential roads for transporting heavy or bulky supplies, equipment & machinery. 3 Very keen to have a train route through from Portishead but question whether these damaging measures necessary when there is a functioning rail route from Avonmouth to the sites in Pill, which has well established much easier acces for heavy and oversized vehicles?"

Jo Smith
"I am a resident of Pill and have a vested interest in developments of the railway, which I am anticipating eagerly. I am particularly interested in proposals for roads and parking around the station, which are currently at capacity with local cars. I understand by registering an interest I will have access to view and consider proposals as they are developed, and make representation with ideas and concerns."

Karen Beaumont-Wraith
"There has been a huge amount of information released recently which interested parties will not have time to review and comment upon at such short notice."

Loni Hone
"To whom it may concern. Regarding:   Portishead Branch line DCO scheme environmental statement, volume 2. Chapter 4. Description of the proposed works. Pages 4-18 to 4-21. Construction of the railway Works Numbers 1 and 1A 3 Options are proposed: Option 1,Option 2.  Sub options a, b, c, d.   Option 3 I request consideration the options proposed and rejection of Option 2 and sub options a, b, c and d; where the use of Lodway construction compound is proposed; due the close proximity to the residential area, potentially 24 hours a day 7 days a week operations, the impact of noise, light, dirt pollution, HGV traffic on residential streets, restricted parking, the destruction of green belt land (although this is noted as temporary) at Lodway Farm (9.128 hectares); and what appears to little attention or recognition of the environment impacts of such activity. Options 1 and 3 should be considered as the preferred solutions; or, Option 2 without the development of the Lodway construction compound; or, a combination of all 3 options again without the development of the Lodway construction compound. Personally I feel option 1 the bristol port coal yard should be used as it is away from residential areas In anticipation of your early response "

Louise Hopkins
"I am concerned that, in the planning for the above railway, due care has not been taken to mitigate the effects on wildlife around the Lodway Farm/ Cycle path area. This is a “toad corridor”, vitally important for the life cycle of toads. Metrowest seem to have have put in mitigation measures for wildlife in a number of locations but not as far as I can see in the proposed depot around Lodway Farm and the cyclepath. I wonder if they have just missed out the toads due to an oversight in their environmental surveying and am hopeful that they will allow mitigation measures that will allow the toads to continue their migration over the Breeches, across the entirety of Lodway Farm fields, over the rail track, across the cyclepath and into the breeding pond. If this area is concreted over as the proposal suggests, the toads will suffer greatly. Toads, as a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species, should be protected from adverse affects of development. In 2007, the UK Biodiversity Action Partnership (UKBAP) listed the common toad as a species of conservation concern. In England this means that (under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006) all public bodies must have regard for Common Toads (specifically under ‘biodiversity conservation’) when carrying our their functions. Many thanks for your consideration"

Lucie Broad
"Firstly I am concerned that the area at Lodway Farm is to be concreted over and used to provide access to the railway for construction traffic. Living very close to the entrance to the farm I am concerned about the increase in HGV and other traffic and the impact that this will have on a quiet residential road. Secondly, I am also concerned about losing a very much wanted and used green space. We walk our dogs daily around these fields and would be very concerned to lose that amenity. We saw all sorts of wildlife that habit this space and are concerned about that loss to them and us. I welcome the upgrade to the railway system here and do think it is much needed, however, there are other alternative sites that have been earmarked for this construction traffic that do not have as much impact on either the environment or the families that live nearby. These should be considered a priority to use rather than concreting over more of our much needed green spaces."

Sutherland PLS Limited on behalf of Manheim Auctions Limited, ETM Contractors Ltd, Flynn Ltd
"Dear Sirs Metrowest DCO We are instructed by ETM Ltd, Manheim Auctions Limited and Flynn Ltd of Ashton Vale Business Park, a site adversely affected by the proposed DCO. The Site comprises an industrial estate with a variety of business users but ETM and Manheim Auctions in particular require appropriate road access to continue operating their respective businesses. ETM is a waste recycling company with up to 250 vehicle movements a day and Manheim Auctions in a car auction operation with similar high levels of vehicular movements. The DOC process proposes inserting regular train journeys across the only vehicular access to the estate creating an untenable situation for these existing occupiers. We have made submissions within the process for over three years and it was acknowledged at an earlier stage that these impacts would arise – at that stage the proposers entered into discussions to compulsory purchase land in order to create a new vehicular access to the rear of the estate. However, without discussion or explanation, the proposers determined not to continue this approach and have instead reverting to stating the highway data demonstrates the impact will not be significantly adverse. Our transport consultant engaged earlier in the process with significant comment on the paucity of and basis for the highway assessments created by the proposers and the errors therein. We now make the following formal comments on the continued errors in the proposal that have not been addressed. We object strongly to the proposal on a highways impact basis and will wish to address the inquiry. Submission Further to the comments submitted by cTc on behalf of the businesses resident within the Ashton Vale Business Park, the concerns over the validity of the traffic data used to compile the Linsig and VISSIM models are acknowledged by ch2m on behalf of the scheme promoters. In an attempt to address the concerns raised, the expected response would comprise a repeat of the traffic surveys on which the traffic models were compiled and which had been a primary source of criticism, followed by a “re-run” of the models themselves using the newly acquired survey data. This does not appear to have happened and the latest submissions appear to provide little more than a “sticking plaster” approach to the problems evident with the models, which continue to rely on unreliable survey data. The Do Nothing models do not reflect traffic conditions experienced by occupiers of Ashton Vale Industrial Estate and the reports submitted acknowledge significant variation in traffic conditions on the estate from day to day. The 2017 surveys on which the models continue to be based were undertaken on a day on which Manheim Auctions were inactive, hence wholly underestimate the traffic conditions. The modelling team have attempted to justify this by means of ATC surveys which do not present sufficiently detailed information to enable any acceptable validation of the model, which does not allow for the commercial activities of one of the estates largest and busiest occupiers. The impact of increased closures of the level crossing is illustrated in technical tables in the ch2m note, with raw numbers presented and little explanation or analyses of those numbers given, save to suggest that the impact of the increased frequency of closure is easily mitigated by the proposed minor improvement works. However, on investigating the values within the summarised model output it becomes clear that the proposals could potentially result in very substantial lost time available for traffic exiting Ashton Vale Industrial Estate. From cTc’s preliminary review, even allowing for the proposed mitigation, the capacity for traffic exiting the Ashton Vale Industrial Estate is reduced by at least 30% and potentially more than 50%. It is acknowledged that the congestion may take more than one signal cycle to clear and cycle times of the order of 160 seconds are mentioned in the report. Assuming “more than one” means at least two, this comprises 320 seconds or more. Adding to that the signal closure of 105 seconds results in significantly increased congestion for at least 425 seconds, or a little over 7 minutes. The report identifies potentially up to 5 closures per hour, or one every 12 minutes in the unlikely best-case scenario that they are equally spaced, meaning, on average 7 minutes of substantially increased congestion will be following by 6 minutes of relatively free flowing conditions (as current). Such an impact will result in Ashton Vale Industrial Estate becoming unusable by its current occupiers for the business activities presently carried out there. The proposers are aware of but have ignored the occupiers concerns."

Margaret Stowers
"Plot ST353248 07/30 It is proposed to use the pathway alongside my house for access to the railway embankment. This pathway is very narrow and fragile and not suitable for heavy use by either personnel or equipment, therefore I would like its proposed use by Metrowest to be reconsidered. My property is next to the (redacted) which could provide more suitable and robust access to the railway embankment."

Mary Donaldson
"I support the re-opening of the railway line from Portishead to Bristol. I am concerned that the planning has not taken into consideration the negative impact on wildlife, particularly toads, which the plans for concreting over 22 acres of Lodway Farm Fields would entail. This is a very important site for toad migration."

Michael Carrington
"As someone living near the railway I would like to be made aware of any updates. Thanks."

Mr Roger Geoffrey Fox
"My objections in this representation is to improve the environment for the residents of Sheepway by reducing the impact for the residents of Sheepway by reducing the impact of work associated with the new railway. 1. Ref drg No. 467470BQ04-20-600. The new access of the north side of the A369, due west of the footbridge, is opposite a level crossing in the disused railway line. These two should be used during construction to access the field required north of the railway line to minimise use of access AW3.2 in Sheepway. This would be apricated by the residents of the hamlet, and the occupants of the mobile home site, that use Sheepway Road every day. Please find attached."

Natural England
"Dear Sir/Madam Natural England is a statutory consultee for NSIPs, and will be submitting its Relevant Representations later today (26.02.2020). Our representations will focus on assessment of effects on protected wildlife sites and species, and the measures proposed to address them. Natural England has been engaged in pre-application discussions with the applicant and advised on key aspects of the submitted project, in particular the Habitats Regulations Assessment. Kind regards Simon Stonehouse Please see attached."

Noel Ayling
"I object to the plan that will create a storage facility during the construction of the railway in the area behind Lodway Farm. Access is planned to be via the residential streets ( Redacted ) neither of which are suitable for the heavy traffic involved. The alternative access is to be gained from Marsh Lane which is far more suitable. There are also wildlife and environmental concerns about the area behind Lodway Farm and these must be thoroughly examined and suitable mitigation put in place to minimise the damage to wildlife."

Patricia Grindon
"As a life long member of this community I wish to follow all plans and discussions for the reinstatement of our train service. What disruption to village life is proposed during the reinstatement period until the completion of this long awaited service."

Patricia Langton
"I am concerned about the proposal for the Lodway Farm site and the implications this would have for local flora and fauna, especially a nationally important toad population."

Peter Milner
"I would like to be reassurred that sufficient measures have been taken to preserve the breeding ponds and migratory routes for a significant toad population at Lodway Farm where I understand new works are proposed."

Peter Stanley
"1. Mitigation measures required around Lodway Farm and the cyclepath that will allow the toads to continue their migration over the Breeches, across the entirety of Lodway Farm fields, over the rail track, across the cyclepath and into the breeding pond.This is a very important wildlife site and I have a concern about Lodway farm and disruption to wildlife. 2. Insufficient parking is planned at Pill Station and local roads already full of parked cars. The nearby Memorial Club has a very large carpark and arrangements should be made with the club to provide additional car parking"

Rosaleen Thayer
"Please would you put in mitigation measures to protect toads and their access to the breeding ponds. Thank you"

Wedlake Bell LLP on behalf of The Bristol Port Company
"FIRST CORPORATE SHIPPING LIMITED PORTISHEAD BRANCH LINE - METROWEST PHASE 1 RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The following representations are submitted by First Corporate Shipping Limited, which trades as The Bristol Port Company ("BPC"), in relation to the application by North Somerset Council ("NSC"). 1.2 BPC's overriding needs are: 1.2.1 to ensure the proposed temporary and permanent works have no negative impact upon its statutory undertaking, operations and the activities of its tenants and customers; and 1.2.2 to achieve an outcome which minimises the impact on its operations of land being lost to or sterilised by NSC's proposed development during the pre-construction, construction and operational phases. 1.3 Pursuant to the Bristol Dock Acts and Orders 1848–2010, BPC is the statutory undertaker (harbour and competent harbour authority) for Bristol and the owner and operator of the commercial port of Bristol ("Bristol Port"). As explored below, BPC questions the need for and extent of some of the works proposed and also the requirement for its land to be taken in connection with them. It disputes that a compelling case has, or can, be made that it is in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition powers proposed affecting its land to be granted. It further does not accept that the compulsory acquisition proposed can be achieved without serious detriment to its undertaking. It has various other concerns as amplified below. 1.4 The text below summarises the primary submissions BPC proposes making; BPC necessarily reserves its position to add to or amend these submissions as necessary or appropriate and insofar as further information becomes available and to make further written and oral representations. 1.5 BPC has identified a number of matters which require consideration by the Examining Authority at issue specific hearings, including the key issues of the need to preserve reliable and timely access for rail freight traffic to and from Bristol Port throughout the construction of the new railway and its future use, and how BPC's continued access between parts of its operational land across the railway close to Court House Farm is to be secured. In addition, BPC registers its objection to the proposed rights of compulsory acquisition over land in BPC's ownership and anticipates pursuing this objection at a compulsory acquisition hearing. It further reserves its position to appear at any open-floor hearing insofar as appropriate or necessary. 1.6 BPC has responded to NSC’s earlier consultations in relation to this project: 1.6.1 stage 1 consultation (BPC letter of 31 July 2015); 1.6.2 first Section 42 consultation (BPC letter of 4 December 2017); and 1.6.3 further Section 42 consultation (BPC letter of 16 August 2019). 2. BPC'S POSITION 2.1 While BPC recognises the ambition to provide an alternative transport mode for commuters from Portishead travelling to the Greater Bristol Region, it is concerned about the impacts that the detail of the scheme now being considered will have on its undertaking. It is notable that the current scheme looks to provide only an hourly service for passengers but will have a significant and disproportionate impact upon BPC’s undertaking during its construction and future operation and will involve the permanent loss of land in BPC’s ownership held for the purpose of its statutory undertaking. 2.2 BPC therefore disagrees with elements of NSC's proposals in their current form because they will adversely affect the efficient and economic operation of Bristol Port now and in the future. 2.3 In formulating its proposals in their current form, NSC has failed to have sufficient regard to and/or fully to assess various matters, including: 2.3.1 the damaging effects of those proposals on the highly dynamic nature of BPC's business and statutory undertaking that must be able to deliver operational certainty to its customers and provide at all times a rapid, efficient link to inland transport, via the strategic road network (M5) and the national rail network; 2.3.2 the effect of those proposals on the continued availability of rail paths for freight trains to and from Royal Portbury Dock (during and after construction of the works) and the interaction between those trains and passenger services; 2.3.3 the adverse impact of those proposals on the use by BPC of the private crossing between its transit cargo storage areas on either side of the proposed railway; 2.3.4 alternatives to those proposals, including in relation to the proposed land take for the temporary and permanent works, in order to minimise the strategic and operational impacts on Bristol Port; 2.3.5 the effect of the construction activity on the day to day operation of Bristol Port and the other port-dependent businesses on the Royal Portbury Dock estate (“RPD Estate”); 2.3.6 the operational consequences of NCS's proposed restrictions during construction and NSC/Network Rail’s future access rights; and 2.3.7 the effect on the future of Bristol Port of land which has been safeguarded for port development no longer being available for that purpose by virtue of its being taken compulsorily for purposes ancillary to the DCO scheme. 3. DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER 3.1 The draft development consent order ("DCO") currently appears to contain inadequate controls over the nature and proposed method of execution of the works. 3.2 The DCO amongst other things does not: 3.2.1 provide adequate and acceptable protective provisions for BPC as operator of, and statutory undertaker for, Bristol Port; 3.2.2 justify the requirement for powers of compulsory acquisition which would affect BPC; and 3.2.3 state with sufficient clarity how NSC and third parties, including Network Rail, intend to exercise compulsory acquisition powers. 3.3 Further concerns in relation to the draft DCO, insofar as necessary or appropriate, will be provided at a later date following detailed consideration of its provisions and the related documentation, including the Book of Reference. These will include concerns about what appear from an initial review to be provisions which could affect private rights granted by BPC to National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC and Western Power Distribution (South West) PLC which are necessary for the delivery of the Hinkley Point C Connection Project. 3.4 BPC notes the inclusion of draft protective provisions in favour of BPC and its statutory undertaking in the draft DCO. However, these are currently inadequate in their scope and content. Without detracting from the other issues of principle raised in these representations, BPC will expect provisions to be added to cover a range of concerns, including appropriate controls over works or other activities on or affecting roads on and giving access to Bristol Port, over any proposed temporary, drainage or other ancillary works on any of BPC's land, over the temporary use of land and works programming, and restrictions on access during construction. Controls of this sort, and to delimit the location of all works and activities to the extent they affect BPC's land and/or operations, are necessary to provide the certainty required to ensure that the safe and efficient operation of Bristol Port can continue without interruption during construction of the DCO scheme. Further detail will be provided following detailed consideration of the DCO's provisions. 4. RAIL ACCESS 4.1 BPC has previously expressed concerns about the extent of the rights sought over its freight rail line and the works proposed there, and has sought assurances that both during the construction of the scheme and once the new passenger service is in operation, access for freight traffic between Bristol Port and the national rail network will not be restricted. 4.2 Documentation relating to the proposals states that access for freight traffic to and from Bristol Port will be adversely affected during construction of the various works, but BPC is unsure where details of the interruptions and the necessary assessment of their impact on port operations may be found. BPC will need to be provided with sufficient information about these matters and with adequate protections so as to ensure its service delivery to customers and its other port operations will not be impeded. 4.3 In relation to future operation of the railway, statements are made in the application documentation that the scheme has been designed to accommodate the existing freight rail paths, but, again, BPC has not been able to find the detailed evidence or analysis to support the statements. 4.4 BPC is also concerned that merely accommodating whatever is meant by 'existing' freight paths would be inadequate to avoid serious detriment to BPC's statutory undertaking: reliable and timely access for rail freight traffic to and from Bristol Port is critical, not only for efficient port operations within the RPD Estate but also for securing the necessary modal shift from HGV traffic to rail. 4.5 BPC will therefore expect suitable assurances to protect current and future freight traffic to be encapsulated in enforceable provisions of the DCO. 4.6 NSC's proposals include the creation of a permanent road-rail access point at the location where the perimeter track referred to in paragraph 7.2 below meets BPC's privately-owned railway within the RPD Estate. From the documentation provided, it appears that the proposals envisage NSC/Network Rail acquiring permanent rights over the perimeter track to bring road and rail vehicles to the access point, and further permanent rights for Network Rail's engineering and other works trains to pass over BPC's private railway for the benefit of the national rail network generally. Unspecified works are proposed to BPC's level crossing to create the access point and further (unspecified) works are suggested for the perimeter track. NSC also requires an area of BPC's land under the M5 bridge on a permanent basis in support of the use of the access point. These proposals cause BPC concern because of the interference they will cause to BPC's use of the track and its private rail link, and the damage to its infrastructure which will result, and their acceptability will need to be considered further. 5. LOSS OF RAIL CROSSING AND SAFEGUARDED LAND 5.1 BPC notes the intention to close its private crossing that connects operational land to the north and south of the disused railway in the vicinity of Court House Farm. The NSC proposals currently make no provision for any alternative access between the sites. In the absence of alternative provision, closure of the crossing will clearly constitute an unacceptable interference with BPC’s operations and statutory undertaking. 5.2 BPC also notes the proposed compulsory acquisition of an area of land adjacent to its boundary (to the south of the railway and to the east of Marsh Lane) for Flood Mitigation and Pond with associated ecological works (Work Nos. 16B and 16D). NSC also proposes to take a permanent right of access from Marsh Lane over BPC’s adjacent land. The land that NSC seeks is specifically safeguarded for port development within NSC’s adopted planning policy in recognition of the need of Bristol Port for additional land for development at Royal Portbury Dock. Despite that designation, it appears no assessment has been made of the effect on Bristol Port of this land no longer being available for development, including by virtue of the access rights being sought over large parts of BPC's adjacent land. In the absence of any provision for alternative land being made available to meet the needs identified by the planning policy, BPC objects to this safeguarded land being taken and used for purposes ancillary to the DCO scheme. 6. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION 6.1 BPC objects to the nature and extent of the proposed compulsory acquisition powers to be conferred by the DCO and requests a compulsory purchase hearing, pursuant to section 92 of the Planning Act 2008. 6.2 So far as they affect BPC's land, the compulsory acquisition powers sought include those of outright purchase (of land, subsoil and/or airspace at NSC's option), of the imposition of rights and of restrictive covenants, of the extinguishment and overriding of rights and other interests and of possession during construction. All land affected by these compulsory acquisition powers forms part of BPC's operational land held by it for the purpose of its statutory undertaking. Therefore the Examining Authority will need to be satisfied that all the powers sought may be exercised without any serious detriment to BPC's statutory undertaking. On the basis of the DCO as currently drafted, BPC considers this condition cannot be met. 6.3 In particular, the extent of compulsory land acquisition powers sought over land which is part of or adjacent to public vehicular highways appears excessive, particularly at Marsh Lane and Royal Portbury Dock Road. Even if permanent works are needed as part of the scheme to these areas of highway and adjacent land, it has not been demonstrated satisfactorily why that necessitates BPC or anyone else being compulsorily deprived of its interests in the land or NSC acquiring any interest in any land beyond that normally vested in a local highway authority by dedication and adoption. 7. OTHER CONSTRUCTION ISSUES 7.1 No full and final details have been made available concerning NSC’s proposed arrangements for HGV and other construction traffic movements in the vicinity of the RPD Estate. BPC will need to be satisfied that these and any associated works or measures will not have any detrimental effect on traffic and cargo resorting to and from, and moving around, the RPD Estate and will require appropriate protective provisions in relation to these issues and in relation to the regulation of all construction activities within the RPD Estate. 7.2 BPC notes the proposed use during construction of the track around the perimeter of part of the RPD Estate between Marsh Lane and the M5 overbridge for HGV traffic (ref Compounds, Haul Roads and Access to Works Plan Sheet 5 – Access Point AW 5.1). BPC is very concerned that this proposed use conflicts with other regular vehicular use of the track by BPC and others including CLH, Highways England and contractors working on the National Grid Hinkley C Connection project all of which access and use must be preserved. The effect of the use of the track on the security of the RPD Estate is also a significant concern. BPC is also unclear whether NSC’s proposal includes carrying out any work to this track and, if so, what work is proposed. If BPC permits access over the track during construction, then it must be maintained and eventually left in the same or a better condition than when NSC’s works commence and BPC would need the absolute right to approve any proposed works to the track. 7.3 The proposed location of a construction compound on BPC land beneath the M5 overbridge will interfere with the need for access (by BPC and others) and impair the security integrity of the RPD Estate (ref Compounds, Haul Roads and Access to Works Plan Sheet 5). 7.4 BPC has found no further detail of the proposals to deal with culverts that discharge surface water from south of the rail to the north. BPC’s particular interest lies in the Easton-in-Gordano culvert (some 200 metres West of the M5 on the railway line route) and the unnamed culvert linking the Court House Farm site, beneath the north abutment to the Royal Portbury Dock Road, and eventually to the Drove Rhine. BPC will need to understand the current proposals and the protections proposed before it can express a view about their acceptability. 8. PUBLIC PATHS 8.1 BPC has previously expressed concern about the various works proposed affecting the network of public bridleways/cycleways which it has created in and around the RPD Estate, including proposals to add to that network by creating and imposing further public rights of way over BPC’s land. The proposals include alterations to the existing infrastructure at Royal Portbury Dock Road and the creation of new public paths near Marsh Lane and close to the M5 bridge embankment, involving the compulsory acquisition of BPC land. BPC does not accept that a need for these works has been demonstrated, either at all or such that the works proposed can properly constitute associated development. The existing dedicated public paths, the routes and specification of which were agreed with NSC, provide a complete public bridleway/cycleway route towards Pill. Even if the works to re-open the railway line proceed, once those works were complete, these paths will continue to be available as they are now, so no works to or to supplement them are necessary. 8.2 It is in any case inappropriate that BPC should be permanently and compulsorily deprived of land in order to provide additional public rights of way in substitution for routes which are currently only permissive and for which the existing (dedicated) public path network already provides an adequate alternative. 8.3 NSC proposals in relation to the various paths also go further than could ever be necessary or proportionate, in that NSC seeks to acquire the whole of the land over which the new works and/or paths may lie. All that would be necessary to secure public access would be the dedication as public highway of the route of any new work, as is the case with the existing dedicated network into which NSC seeks to connect the new paths. 9. ECOLOGY The Examining Authority will need further information on a number of issues, including: 9.1 BPC's environmental management plan for the Court House Farm development; and 9.2 the wider adverse environmental impacts on flora and fauna within BPC's established wildlife corridors and green areas on the southern boundary of the RPD Estate. First Corporate Shipping Limited trading as The Bristol Port Company 26 February 2020"

The Coal Authority
"The Coal Authority is pleased to note that the applicant is aware that parts of the proposed Portishead Branch Line fall within our defined Development High Risk Area. However, we note that Section 5.3.8 of the Environmental Statement (ES) Volume 2 identifies that the following matters have been scoped out of the ES, as agreed with the Planning Inspectorate: Ground Conditions: The impact of new and additional services on the railway lines on geology, as there will be no further significant impacts on the underlying ground conditions following construction. In light of the above, taking into consideration the areas which fall within the Development High Risk Area and the nature of development required in those areas to improve the existing railway line (pedestrian crossings / footway and cycleway / retaining walls) the Coal Authority has no objections to the above planning application. However, the Coal Authority does recommend that, should planning permission be granted for this proposal, the following wording is included as an Informative Note on any planning permission granted: The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place. Any form of development over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry can be dangerous and raises significant safety and engineering risks and exposes all parties to potential financial liabilities. As a general precautionary principle, the Coal Authority considers that the building over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry should wherever possible be avoided. In exceptional circumstance where this is unavoidable, expert advice must be sought to ensure that a suitable engineering design is developed and agreed with regulatory bodies which takes into account of all the relevant safety and environmental risk factors, including gas and mine-water. Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority Policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the-influencing-distance-of-mine-entries Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires a Coal Authority Permit. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Failure to obtain a Coal Authority Permit for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action. Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com or a similar service provider. If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848. Further information is available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/coalauthority"

BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of The London Pensions Fund Authority c/o Knight Frank IM
"Dear Sirs, APPLICATION BY NORTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR PORTISHEAD BRANCH LINE – METROWEST PHASE 1 (the ‘DCO’) METROWEST PHASE 1 (‘the Project’) NORTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL (‘the Applicant’) (Redacted) (the ‘Property’) This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of The London Pensions Fund Authority ("TLPFA"). TLPFA is an Investment Fund which owns the Freehold interest in the above Property as an investment. The Property is multi-tenanted and occupied. The majority of the units on the estate are of Trade Counter nature and therefore visited by members of the public to purchase goods. Regular stock deliveries and pick-ups are made to and from the units, and staff also access the Property, The Property borders the existing public space provided by the recent MetroBus project which in turn borders the existing Portishead Branch Line to the east and the Ashton Vale Road to the north. The current Land Plans (Sheet 16 of 17) indicate that the Property is bordered by Plots 16/135, 16/136, 16/155 to the north and 16/156, 16/157, 16/100, 16/127 to the east. All the Plots listed as adjacent to the Property are subject to the compulsory acquisition of all estates and interests. It should be noted that Plot 16/155 appears to encroach onto the Freehold interest that TLPFA has in the land adjacent to the walkway along Ashton Vale Road as seen in the current Land Plans (Sheet 16 of 17) and therefore may be subject to land take. TLPFA does not object to the principle of the underlying Project sought by the DCO in terms of the benefits it is seeking to deliver from Bristol to Portishead and region beyond. However, it is concerned with the impact of the Project detrimentally affecting Tenants’ on-going operations specifically at the Property. This includes the impact caused by the Project on Tenants, their staff, delivery drivers and members of the public access and egress from the Property during the course of the Project's construction and operation. TLPFA objects to the DCO on the basis that it has not been proven by the Applicant that the construction and operation of the Project will not cause a detrimental impact to TLPFA and their Tenants’ operations, including by assessment of transport impacts and how access and egress to the Property by the increased closure of the level crossing once the Project is operational. TLPFA is seeking expert advice to consider the material within the DCO documentation and is seeking a meeting with the Applicant to confirm whether any adverse impact to TLPFA’s interests and their Tenants’ operations can be satisfactorily addressed and mitigated as part of the DCO. TLPFA therefore requests to be registered as an Interested Party to the examination of the DCO and to make submissions on the topics of transport impact and compulsory acquisition relating to the Site. We look forward to hearing from you further in due course."

The National Trust
"The Proposed Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1) Order Planning Inspectorate Ref: TR040011 The National Trust is Europe’s largest conservation charity with nearly six million members. Established 125 years ago, its primary purpose is to promote the preservation of special places for the benefit of the nation. The Trust is the custodian of several historic properties in North Somerset and Bristol, including Leigh Woods, which is adjacent to the proposed rail scheme (see applicant’s Land Plan). Close to the station at Pill, the Trust own a small estate at Failand, as well as the Victorian Tyntesfield Estate. Viewing the rail scheme from Bristol we own land at Shirehampton which overlooks the Avon Gorge. The Trust is aware of the longstanding challenges of managing traffic within Bristol and encouraging more sustainable travel opportunities. We broadly support the upgrading of the railway line to facilitate the passenger rail line subject to the following comments. As described in Section 4 Compulsory Acquisition Information, we hold land inalienably and have been having discussions over the necessary rock works for safety purposes and the risk matrix adaptations caused by the upgrade to a passenger line. The ongoing liability for managing rock fences is significant and we have agreed that where possible these should be placed on Network Rail land. The Trust acknowledges that MetroWest has agreed to leave us in no worse position as to access to our land through the works to Quarry Underbridge 2 The proposed works will have an environmental effect on the flora and fauna that is endemic to the Avon Gorge. We are pleased to see mitigation works included within Section 6 and that whilst there are large losses of habitat on National Trust land, proportional to the scheme, the total area in the SAC is small. It is to be noted that no works can commence until agreed with Natural England. It is to note that within the compound area and haul road for the works to Quarry Underbridge 2 are Leigh Woods Whitebeams, unimproved calcareous grassland, Gloucester hawkweed, and fingered sedge, Bristol rockcress can be found close to the location of where materials will be stored. We expect the compound area within this location to be as small and possible and that loss of species caused by the ramp and these works are mitigated for. We would expect a survey of this specific area prior to works commencing and after works have finished to monitor ruderal species development and for non-native species. The National Trust do not expect these works to have a major impact on our visitor business. The Trust broadly supports the proposed upgrading of the railway line requests that the issues raised in this representation are given appropriate weight and attention through the DCO process, including through the use of Requirements where appropriate."

The Residents of 29 Hardwick Road
"I am concerned that there is insufficient detail on the plans provided to show what proportion of my land is to be subject to compulsory purchase of a permanent interest and temporary right to use the land, nor what rent is to be paid in return for this land."

Trevor Wraith
"I am concerned that while there has been discussions to date the documents recently issued are very large, almost 21000 pages, and contain a huge amount of detail that interested local residents and other parties will have difficulty to review and understand in time to be able to comment on the proposals."