HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline

Representations received regarding HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Boparan Private Office
"• We would like to know exactly where the pipe is to be laid and whether any services or buildings are potentially impacted prior to entering the option. • Can surveys (both intrusive and non intrusive) be carried out on a ‘licence’ basis before grant of the option? • Is it possible to reduce the size of the option area to run as close to the boundary as possible? • We are concerned about the parking. This is not an accessible area with shift pattern workers and thus we are reliant on the parking. Hynet should arrange alternate parking arrangements for our staff which are satisfactory to 2SFG. If car parking space is lost then Hynet will need to find a suitable alternative location for the pipeline. • We cannot agree to include the following yellow area as that is used as part of access – The current google satellite photo is out of date, the yellow highlighted area below is approximately where we have cut off the corner - this was done to accommodate fridge units. This is now concrete not grass. If this area is blocked the site will stop as we would not be able to move vehicles to and from Despatch"
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Air Traffic Services LTD
"We refer to the correspondence received from the Applicant dated 26-Nov-2022 advising of the Consultation. NATS operates no infrastructure within 5km of the proposed route and anticipates no impact from the development. Accordingly, it has no comments to make on the Application. Please note the NATS contact details for future correspondence, and our preference to receive all material electronically. NATS LTD Safeguarding Office 4000 Parkway Whiteley Fareham Hampshire PO15 7FL T: 01489 444 687 E: [email protected] Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Cook
"The land in question is 1.5 acres adjacent to our property and is basically used for training our dogs on and growing fruit and other small plants (all for our own consumption). On the other side of our boundary there is a farmer's field and it is something that the original owner willed to his granddaughters and it is used purely for hay making once or twice a year. It would appear that the owners of this land are happy to let you run straight through this land. Since purchasing this land we have put in a stock proof fence, a hawthorn hedge, fruit trees and some other trees for the Queen's plant a tree project. It would appear Hynet wish to proceed with running the line through our land. We have appointed Rostons to act as our land agents and we were surprised when they stated we had to lodge this with you. From a commercial view point we feel that carrying straight on with the pipeline for another couple of metres would be far more economical than trashing our land when we feel the farmer on the fields next to us would be very agreeable to any income to be gained from this venture. Having spent time and money getting the land how we want it will be seeking our solicitors assistance for any damages caused especially as it has taken ages draining the land to stop the flooding which may cause the bore holes affecting us. Also Hynet stated they would not cross any land where greater crested newts are. Our local Policeman has categorically stated that there is a conservation order on this land. As for the Hynet project, the hydrogen they wish to produce is far from being green since it relies on Gas to create it??? Surely this is a contradiction to the whole project!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Urban Imprint Limited on behalf of CF Fertilisers UK Limited
"Outline of representation by CF Fertilisers UK Limited: CF Fertiliser UK Limited are broadly in support of the proposals that are presented, as they consider that the opportunity provided to their Ince manufacturing site has significant benefits to themselves or a future operator of the site, through presenting the opportunity for CO2 to be disposed of in environmental responsible manner. It should be noted that the new pipeline and the AGI terminal at Ince is within very close proximity to their Ince site, which whilst currently closed, is the subject of a COMAH impact zone and care should be taken during the construction and operational phases to safeguard public health of those involved in construction and operation of the facility. It is acknowledged that the pipeline does pass within proximity to a number of COMAH sites and that this operation is one of many that will require careful consideration. CF Fertilisers UK Limited will wish to be satisfied that the access requirements during construction and operation and impacts on their land holding - specifically in relation to drainage as a nearby drainage ditch is affected - is minimised and mitigated through the planning process. This is the only direct impact on the Ince site whereby the drainage ditch along the southern border of the CF land ownership (outside the factory fence). It appears from what has already been presented that there would be minimal impacts. Representatives from CF Fertilisers UK Limited have discussed this with those responsible for the application and indicated a willingness to allow this to be used, subject to the applicant doing any works necessary to clear and maintain this section of the ditch (to the satisfaction of the inspection panel) and CF not bearing any responsibility for any spillages from the AGI entering the Marsh ditches. This would need to be covered in the relevant legal agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Smith
"I want to know how this will affect the land I own that hynet have an interest in"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Harley
"I am an interested party as pert of the pipeline will affect me as a landowner. My concerns are the impact the pipeline will have on my livelihood. Will I get fair compensation? Will there be any negotiations where an when the pipeline will go? What is the intended timescale?"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water
"We request to be included as a registered interested party, as the statutory sewerage and water undertaker we have numerous assets of concern, and have been previously notified of the proposals as part of pre-application discussions with the applicant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
2 Sisters Food Group
"We have a factory (as Tenant) at Glendale Avenue, Sandycroft Industrial Estate, Deeside, Clwyd, CH5 2QP and have received letters to our registered off in Wakefield of this development. We have had a call recently with WSP on this matter. In order to register, below are our (and our Landlords) concerns: Installation • Type of construction planned – trench cut or Horizontal Directional Drill or other? • What is the expected duration of construction? • Will the area of the site be considered to be Hynet or 2SFG controlled during the construction process? • Please confirm what SH&E resource Hynet will appoint to support the installation phase? • Please provide more information on the proposed installation (e.g. contents and associated risks, risk mitigation, inspection and maintenance arrangements post installation) • Will Hynet be communicating with neighbouring property beforehand and will it have a complaints management system? • Is there any existing service media beneath the land Hynet propose to take an option over? If so, how will this be affected? Liability • We cannot agree to the exclusion of consequential losses. If Hynet damaged our electric or water supply or if access was denied or some other incident caused us to stop production which was attributable to Hynet we would need to be fully compensated. • The limits of £5m each individual claim must exclude damage to buildings. • Please confirm over what period is the aggregate limit of £15m. Is it the 6 year period mentioned in the summary? If so we would require a higher aggregate limit. • We will require evidence of, and an undertaking, that Hynet have/will have Public Liability insurance policy in place throughout the period in question with a limit of indemnity of a minimum of £10M each and every claim (on the basis no buildings are to be impacted). Environmental • If Hynet cause significant pollution which impacts 2SFG’s permitted operations, 2SFG would require assurances from Hynet that this would be compensated for. • 2SFG operate the site under a NRW permit. We are investigating any impact on our permit with NRW and will revert in due course. We will need to seek confirmation from NRW in writing that 2SFG wouldn’t be held responsible for HyNet’s pollution whether within or outside of our permit/boundary and if this is not available we will need undertakings from Hynet we would be compensated for any points lost, fines or costs we incur as a result of their project. • If Hynet cause environmental damage, Hynet will be required to rectify the damage and also compensate 2SFG for any impact the damage and/or rectification works cause on 2SFG operations. • Please confirm the situation should Hynet identify contaminated land which makes the soil unsuitable for their pipeline. Who would be responsible for the remediation? Site • We would like to know exactly where the pipe is to be laid and whether any services or buildings are potentially impacted prior to entering the option. • Can surveys (both intrusive and non intrusive) be carried out on a ‘licence’ basis before grant of the option? • Is it possible to reduce the size of the option area to run as close to the boundary as possible? • We are concerned about the parking. This is not an accessible area with shift pattern workers and thus we are reliant on the parking. Hynet should arrange alternate parking arrangements for our staff which are satisfactory to 2SFG. If car parking space is lost then Hynet will need to find a suitable alternative location for the pipeline. • We cannot agree to include the yellow area as that is used as part of access – The current google satellite photo is out of date, the yellow highlighted area below is approximately where we have cut off the corner - this was done to accommodate fridge units. This is now concrete not grass. If this area is blocked the site will stop as we would not be able to move vehicles to and from Despatch. Storage Facility • Do Hynet need a storage facility? If so, this can only be on a temporary basis. Costs • The £3000 Option Fee is too low and we need to discuss increasing this. • The land value of £11,500 per square metre is incorrect and needs to be increased. Thanks Legal, 2 Sisters Food Group"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Louise Eadon-Sinkinson
"I am a property owner on (Redacted), Pentre and the proposed route of the pipeline will run under the road directly in front of the property. I have particular concerns about why the pipeline needs to run through this section of road when the majority of the rest of the route is running through agricultural land. I would also like to know about the safety aspects of the close proximity of the pipeline to property and what the plan would be if an issue arose with the section of pipeline that runs under the road. This road is a main road and is used for access to both residential property and industrial estates. This also raises concerns about what negative impact the pipeline would have on property along (Redacted)"
Other Statutory Consultees
Welsh Government
"I am the Welsh Government Development Control Officer responsible for reviewing this application. My role is to assess the impact the proposal may have on the Strategic Road Network for which the Welsh Government are the Highway Authority."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"We are instructed by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“Network Rail”) in relation to the development consent application made by Liverpool Bay CC Ltd (“the Promoter”) for the Hynet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline to construct a new pipeline to transport captured Co2 emissions from local industry in North West England (“the DCO Scheme”). This section 56 Representation is made on behalf of Network Rail. Network Rail is a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the country’s railway infrastructure and associated estate. Network Rail owns and operates Great Britain’s railway network and has statutory and regulatory obligations in respect of it. Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure and therefore any proposed development which is adjacent to and interfaces with the railway network or potentially affects Network Rail’s land interest will be carefully considered. The proposal for the pipeline works are on, adjacent to and interfaces with the railway network will require certain standard protections for the benefit of the railway. Network Rail’s requirements for the protection of the railway infrastructure are set out in further detail in this representation. Protection from Compulsory Acquisition Network Rail is an affected landowner. There are references in the Book of Reference to land owned by and rights for the benefit of Network Rail. Whilst Network Rail does not object in principle to the DCO , Network Rail does object to powers contained in articles 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 39 of the draft Order authorising the Promoter to compulsorily acquire land, rights in or over land, or temporarily use land which Network Rail relies upon for the carrying out of its statutory undertaking. Network Rail recognises that the DCO Scheme requires the use of subsoil under and other rights over Network Rail’s operational railway. However, Network Rail would expect the necessary subsoil rights or other rights to be acquired through an agreed easement rather than through the exercise of compulsory acquisition powers. This approach must be adapted to ensure that Network Rail can comply with its statutory duties to maintain the safe, efficient and economic operation of the railway and to ensure such rights do not affect the continued use of the railway by train and freight operators. Network Rail has received correspondence from WSP on 12th May 2022 regarding Head of Terms for an Option Agreement. At the time of drafting this representation Heads of Terms have not been produced. Network Rail therefore requests the Promoter provides the Head of Terms and enters into discussions with Network Rail as soon as possible to seek to agree the necessary rights required for the DCO Scheme. Furthermore any temporary use of or entry upon Network Rail’s operational railway can only be granted with Network Rail’s consent as any such use of the railway must be in accordance with the statutory requirements imposed on Network Rail as operator of the railway network and all requirements necessary to ensure the safe operation of the railway. Network Rail’s Protective Provisions Network Rail is pleased to note that the Promoter has included Protective Provisions for the protection of Network Rail in Part 5 of Schedule 10 to the draft DCO which appear to have been based upon Network Rail’s standard Protective Provisions. The inclusion of Network Rail’s standard form Protective Provisions in both TWAOs and DCOs is well precedented and includes, for example, protections for compulsory purchase of Network Rail’s land and interests and processes for approving works on or affecting the railway. However, a number of amendments to Network Rail’s standard Protective Provisions have been made to those contained in the draft DCO to which Network Rail cannot agree. On this basis, Network Rail objects to the DCO as currently drafted. In addition to protective provisions for the benefit of Network Rail being included in the Order, Network Rail also requires the Promoter to enter into an asset protection agreement to ensure the appropriate and necessary technical, engineering and safety requirements for working on or near Network Rail’s operational railway are applied to the DCO Scheme. It is noted that works detailed in Work Nos. 4, 24, 24A, 25, 31B, 32, 38 and 43 relate to works on or adjacent to Network Rail’s existing operational railway and railway infrastructure. This work would be covered by the asset protection agreement to be entered into. In addition to protective provisions for the benefit of Network Rail being included in the Order, Network Rail also requires the Promoter to enter into an asset protection agreement to ensure the appropriate and necessary technical, engineering and safety requirements for working on or near Network Rail’s operational railway are applied to the DCO Scheme. Removal of objections It is acknowledged that discussions with the Promoter to date are on-going. If the following criteria are met, then it is anticipated that Network Rail would be in a position to withdraw the objections made above:- 1. Network Rail’s required amendments to the protective provisions are to be included in the Order for the DCO Scheme; 2. the Promoter enters into a Deed of Undertaking/Framework Agreement to provide formal protection for Network Rail’s statutory undertaking; 3. any required easement and asset protection agreements or any other required agreements are entered into in respect of the acquisition of addressing both the acquisition of rights over Network Rail’s operational land and carrying out of works on or adjacent to NR’s operational land; and 4. Network Rail is provided clearance to enter into any of the agreements referred to above following internal consultation with affected stakeholders across the business. Network Rail reserves its position, both in representation and in submissions at hearings, to seek the amendments to the draft Order to ensure protective provisions are inserted for the benefit of Network Rail’s operational infrastructure, which is affected by the DCO Scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Woods
"As the owner of a small 1 acre field at Picton CH207896. Your plan is to gain access for pipeline work,By splitting the field into three sections by putting a track through the centre of the field,therefore ruining IT as it is only 1 acre.There is a perfectly good access only 30 yards away up an existing farm track straight into the field behind.Therefore not requiring our field for access."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Warrington
"1. Damage to the soil which won’t be returned to its original condition 2. The impact of the site on the ability to market & sell our property, farmhouse, outbuildings & farmyard, including future development of this"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vera Elaine Warrington
"1. Damage to soil which won’t be returned to its current condition 2. The impact of the site on the ability to sell & market our property, outbuildings & farmyard for future development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Andrew Farrow
"My remit covers the impacts of this programme of works on the carbon impacts of both Flintshire Council and the wider county. This includes the impact on Flintshire owned land where there may be destruction of existing carbon positive land, and where there are planned works on Flintshire land that could have been used to the benefit of the Council's own carbon ambitions - be it for renewable energy generation or carbon offsetting in tree planting, etc. Concerns also exist for the condition of the infrastructure and assurance that the CO2 will not leak/seep into the surrounding land/air. In terms of the wider county, we as a Council would like to see that Flintshire industry utilising the carbon capture from Hynet have wider decarbonisation plans in place rather than using this carbon capture as a means to become 'carbon neutral' with no other plan in place to reduce those carbon emissions. Due to the impact that works will have on local communities and Flintshire land, I would be pleased to see the commitment of a commuted sum to invest in green energy/decarbonisation schemes within Flintshire county."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Christine Jones
"As local ward member for Sealand and Queensferry, which is one of the areas that the pipeline will be coming through, (in fact it is to be installed under the River Dee) I wish to be kept informed of any changes to the route or any possible detrimental effects to the green barrier or wildlife if the area. I want to ensure that the valves are safe and there will be no possibility of an explosion. I need to know that my residents will be kept informed of any works being carried out near their properties and if there are to be any road closures Kindest regards Cllr Christine Jones"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James doran
"To whom it may concern I writing as I have been advised by Sean from HI NET to make my concerns known in relation to the HI NET pipeline. My name Is James Doran I have an planning application with flintshire county council (planning reference 061368) that is going for appeal. I have a sister who has a son that has (Redacted) who is a member of the travelling community indeed of somewhere to call her home and to be able to provide the correct support for her and her Childs health. As I am lead to believe with the corispodence from Sean yous have unlimited resources and will be very understanding to our needs as a minority. We are also lead to believe by Sean that your suggested pipelines may not even come into contact with our land so with that being said I would ask that yous take our needs and feeling into consideration and please if possible keep the pipelines from impacting our land. My land co ordinates are : easting: 329906 northing: 367036 Thank you for taking the time to read this and we look forward to your reply. The kindest regards."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carolyn Thomas MS
"Currently, since 2021, I am a Member of the Senedd representing the North Wales Region, previous to that I was Cabinet member for Streetscene including Highways at Flintshire County Council and member of North Wales Economic Ambition Board transport sub committee. I would like to raise concerns regarding impact on the highway infrastructure in Flintshire which is already congested with pipes, ducts and has a deteriorating infrastructure following over a decade of austerity. The proposed pipe is 30" in diameter There needs to be consultation with the NMWTRA & Scottish Power as there are plans regarding the deteriorating A494 Dee Bridge which will impact including moving of a pylon and undergrounding of cables at Queensferry. It has already been raised that there is underground congestion to do that work. Impact on flood risk areas at Sealand, Broughton, Sandycroft and Mancot, and the crossing of 18 water courses. Properties have already seen significant flooding which is difficult to mitigate with increasing monsoon type rainfall. Suitability of storage of carbon dioxide offshore, I attended a meeting where a geologist raised concerns that not enough is known, there could be leakage causing acidification of the sea. Impact on highways traffic during construction and access to local businesses, hospitals and schools, the proposed route impacts on many densely populated areas. Impact on the environment. The whole proposal is for a few large businesses to offset CO2 but these construction works will be creating a lot of CO2. Has the installation of fibre optics been considered at the same time or other infrastructure with utility companies and mitigation?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Rose
"- Increased risk to environment. i.e Badger setts during building and also from CO2 leaking afterwards. Obviously other animals are also at risk - Acidification risks of CO2 Leaks to all watercourses connected along the county, built mostly on limestone full of caverns. - Damage to limestone stability if small co2 leaks - Overall disagreement that hydrogen should receive shy of a billion investment when we already know renewable is cheaper. - Clear greenwashing of companies to pour their cO2 and pretend to be green, using millions of public funds. - Hydrogen for homes not proven. Nor will homes, longer term, require as much energy input due to better home standards like passif house. Making changing infrastructure a waste, while electricity grids go with little investment given capacity need and increase in use. - do not wish Wales to be used as the exhaust for companies in England"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Linda Thomas
"I represent Ewloe Ward in Flintshire.The proposed pipeline will affect my ward. I should like to know how this project will benefit my residents. I am concerned that there is a lack of detail in the proposed plans. Local people must be involved in the project. What consideration has been given to the environmental impact of this project? Is this the right approach given the capital cost of the project? How many jobs will be provided and where will they be?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rostons on behalf of Mr David John Brown, Mr James Edward Brown and Mrs Ruth Brown
"We are extremely concerned about the lack of meaningful and willing engagement both from representatives of the CO2 Pipeline, and also from Senior Stakeholders from all involved in the HyNet scheme, including the Hydrogen Pipeline and Natural Fuel pipeline. All 3 pipelines severely impact the Brown family's land, however no meetings in person have taken place, or been offered by senior stakeholders. These projects, including both the pipeline and associated construction compounds will have a detrimental impact on a significant proportion of the farm for several years, and sterilise a strategic parcel of land from future development from which the family would benefit from. Furthermore there is a concern that such large construction activities will irreparably damage the soil structure causing compaction and flooding and reduce the ability to farm and produce crops when land is finally returned."
Other Statutory Consultees
The Woodland Trust
"The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to register a representation to the following project. We hold serious concerns with regards to the potential impact to several areas of woodland designated as ancient on Natural Resource Wales’ Ancient Woodland Inventory, plus numerous veteran trees as outlined in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment [ref: APP-115]. We are concerned that the woodlands adjacent to the pipeline boundary will be subject to noise and dust pollution during construction, plus potential direct impact to one woodland which is subject to a trenchless crossing. As such, the Woodland Trust recommends that a buffer zone of 30 metres is implemented to all areas of ancient woodland to mitigate for the above impacts during construction. Furthermore, six veteran trees are likely subject to felling to facilitate the scheme. The Trust asks that these trees are retained, and afforded buffer zones of 15 times the stem diameter, or five metres beyond the crown (whichever is greater). In summary, the Woodland Trust objects to the proposed development on the grounds of impact to ancient woodland and veteran trees. We hope our comments are of use to you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas on behalf of Travelodge Hotels Limited
"Our representation is to cover the potential construction impacts for example due to noise, dust, visual impact and vibration (particularly during the proposed drilling of sections near our client’s property (which is a hotel). Furthermore as the temporary access road proposals are over the access which the hotel uses for its business operations we will be making representations on likely interruptions to our client’s access. We also wish to make representations around operational impacts including visual impact, reinstatement of the pipeline, and impacts and maintenance of any environmental mitigation works on land surrounding the hotel."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rostons on behalf of Emma Clare Craven-Smith-Milnes
"We are concerned about the lack of willing and meaningful engagement from senior stakeholders involved in the HyNet CO2 Pipeline scheme. Furthermore, the proposed route of the pipeline directly impacts a proposed solar farm development on the land, sterilizing land from development. Furthermore, in excess of 7 acres of land will be affected by the works and there is a concern that the soil structure will be irreparably damaged, resulting in a reduction in the ability to grow crops and the potential for increased flooding of the land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rostons on behalf of Frances Isobel Jones, Kevin Glyn Jones and Sarah Ann Jones
"We are concerned about the lack of willing and meaningful engagement from senior stakeholders in the project to date. The business operates a dairy farm enterprise and is affected both by the presence of an Above Ground Installation permanently affecting an area of 6.6 acres, while the pipeline, which runs straight through the middle of the farm, affects an area in excess of 10 acres during construction. This will have a major impact to the operation of the farm, and necessitate a permanent reduction in livestock due to loss of land. Furthermore, there is a concern that the construction works will irreparably damage the soil structure, reducing its ability to grow crops and becoming more prone to flooding. Without confirmation that the land severed during construction will continue to be able to be accessed, the farm may be subject to an even greater temporary loss of land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Reeves
"I have no objection to the proposed Hynet Carbon Dioxide pipeline. My concern is to do with the route that an access road is proposed to be taking to reach a pipeline site along an existing road and across a field which adjoins my property. The new "road" may be a temporary one but it will run literally within a stone's throw from my property boundary. My concern is what vehicles will be using the road and the effect these vehicles may have on the noise levels and air pollution in the immediate vicinity. My second point is the suitability of the existing road (Redacted) for increased levels of possibly heavy goods vehicles during the laying of the pipe and possibly after if the new"road" is to be used after for e.g. maintenance. Station Road is a moderately busy road linking the A41 at Backford to the village of Mollington and then eventually leading to the A540 Parkgate Road. Much of the length of this road is barely 16 feet in width which means two HGVs would struggle to pass each other without decreasing speed considerably. The local Council Waste collection lorries stop the traffic when they are in operation in the villages. The entire length of Station Road has no speed limit. Much of it has no footpath. There is one section of this road within 100 yards of the proposed site entrance which involves a blind bend on a hill which has no footpath, not even anywhere for a pedestrian to step off the road onto a level surface to be safe from potentially large vehicles approaching from both directions. I have witnessed many occasions where cars almost collided in circumstances where they would not see each other until they were within a few yards of each other. The same situations with HGVs could be very dangerous particularly where a pedestrian is there and there is nowhere for drivers or pedestrians to go to avoid injury/damage. The road is also used twice a day for a school run for (Redacted) in Mollington. I would just like any decision with regard to the route to be examined closely as other options are available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Simon Eardley
"As the Cheshire West and Chester Borough councillor for several parishes affected by the proposed implementation of the CO2 pipeline scheme, I would like to address the Examination on points relating to: - The impact on residential amenity, including the proximity to housing, regarding the works and the infrastructure to be introduced to the area as a result of this project - The impact on the wider amenity of local businesses and organisations such as education facilities, community facilities etc - Highways considerations and mitigations that are needed - particularly in the context of a rural area / rural communities - Logistical considerations, including traffic congestion - Safety concerns Thank you. Cllr Simon Eardley"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Jones
"I am a resident on station road which HYNET proposes to use as an access road using the field adjoining mine snd s neighbours cottage. I expect there to be massive disruption by large vehicles The access is around 30 metres from the houses and will run alongside onto a pad of concrete The lorries would need to come over a tiny bridge over the brook firectly outside my gate The road is extremely narrow - no verges - not suitable for lorries"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Andrew Harkness
"I have concerns regarding the access for earth moving equipment along our narrow country lanes. This refers particularly to the Backford area where I live. Mud on the road from vehicle passing going onto the verges, and access to fields from narrow lanes will inevitably need widening of access into fields. Some of the lanes are single file and unsuitable for large vehicles. This will apply to Chorlton Lane and Station Road where our Village Hall is situated. Could access be made from the A41 which already has a turn into the industrial area?"
Local Authorities
Hawarden Community Council
"Concerns about: More information and clarity is required and definitive maps What are the immediate benefits to Hawarden (Aston, Mancot and Ewloe wards) and to the wider Flintshire county area Proof required about the success rate and deliverability of such a project This is a heavily mined area (historically) with numerous mine shafts (Coal/Iron/Lead) and, the country rock below the drift geology is extensively faulted. The impact on existing bore holes on farms and domestic properties (which are numerous) could be detrimental given this work. Disruption of local farmland. There are 21 councillors within Hawarden Community Council via the following link: http://www.hawardencommunitycouncil.gov.uk/Councillors_40697.aspx"
Other Statutory Consultees
Historic England
"Historic England is the Government's statutory advisor on the historic environment ('cultural heritage') in England. We will be commenting on the assessment of the cultural heritage and of the impact of the proposed development upon it (with particular reference to Chapters 8 and 12 of the ES, and their appendices). We will also be commenting on measures for the identification and protection of cultural heritage, and for the mitigation of impacts upon it, as included in the draft DCO itself, and related documents such as the Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments and the Outline Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Horace George Bletcher
"We are extremely concerned about the lack of willing and meaningful engagement from Senior Stakeholders on the CO2 Pipeline scheme, in particular given that a large Above Ground Infrastructure apparatus is to be installed and will permanently impact land crucial to the running of the family dairy farm enterprise. We have requested that HyNet seek to relocate the AGI to a more suitable position. This is to be further exacerbated by plans to connect a second pipeline carrying CO2 from the Hanson Cement Works at Padeswood will lead to this parcel of land being affected for several years. We are also concerned about the long term impact to the remaining land and soil structure following its use as a construction compound and from flooding arising from the new infrastructure which could reduce the productive capacity of the land and impact upon the viability of the farming business and its ability to be farmed by future generations."
Other Statutory Consultees
The Coal Authority
"The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas. Further to the notification received 09 December 2022 from Liverpool Bay CCS Ltd seeking the views of the Coal Authority on the above, I have reviewed Drawing No. HYNET-WSP-VES-XX-DR-GI-0757 Revision 1 (Pipeline Location Plan: Ince to Talacre. I can confirm that parts of the project site fall within the Development High Risk Area as defined by the Coal Authority. Within the specific parts of the site (detailed below), there are recorded coal mining features present at surface and shallow depth which should be considered as part of future development on the site. These features pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety. The application is accompanied by Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA) (D.6.3.11.2, revision A (Environmental Statement – Volume III) prepared for the project by WSP UK Limited. The Report has been informed by an extensive range of source of historical, geological and coal mining information. Having carried out a review of the available information, the Report informs that only some sections of the pipeline corridor are affected by former coal mining activity. The report notes that in some cases there are recorded shafts or adits present near the pipeline corridor. We hold treatment details for some of these features but for others there are no records available of what treatment, if any, has taken place. The Coal Authority is of the opinion that development over, or in close proximity to, mine entries should be avoided wherever possible, even after they have been capped, in line with our adopted policy: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the-influencing-distance-of-mine-entries We are pleased to note that the report author informs that the pipeline corridor has, where possible, been adjusted to avoid known shafts/adits. The following sections of the current route of the pipeline lie within the Development High Risk Area and the recorded coal mining features present are as follows: SHEET 16 and 17 of 37 - WORKS PLAN REGULATION 5(2)(i) APPLICATION DOCUMENT REFERENCE D.2.4. Specific area: Works No. 35 and 36 [Identified as Area 1 – Mancot Lane to Lower Ashton Hall Lane section 4.1.1 of the CMRA] Our records indicate there are two mine entries (CA shaft ref: 331367-058 and 331367-059); probable shallow coal mining; thick coal seams that may have been worked at shallow depth. The site is also within the boundary of a site from which coal has been removed by surface mining (opencast) methods. In addition, the Coal Authority has in the past been called upon to deal with a surface hazard within the site boundary. The CMRA submitted concurs with our records. SHEET 18 of 37 - WORKS PLAN REGULATION 5(2)(i) APPLICATION DOCUMENT REFERENCE D.2.4 Specific area: Works No. 41, 41D and 42 [Identified as Area 2 – Old Aston Hill road to Northop Hall Section 4.1.2 of the CMRA] Our records indicate the presence of four recorded mine entries (three on-site mine entries: CA ref: 329367-062, 328366-179; and 328366-223 and one off-site mine entry: CA shaft ref: 329367-268. In addition, probable shallow coal mining intersects part of Work No. 41 area (land to the south of Holywell Road / junction of access road to ‘Bellsfield)’; and a coal seam of workable thickness is noted to outcrop at or close to the south western corner (area of Work No. 42) which may have been worked at shallow depths. The CMRA submitted concurs with our records, however we note that the report author states that it is unlikely that unrecorded shallow coal mining has taken place beneath the site. SHEET 19 of 37 - WORKS PLAN REGULATION 5(2)(i) APPLICATION DOCUMENT REFERENCE D.2.4 Specific area: Works No. 57K, 43B, 43A and 57J [Identified as Alltami Brook: Section 5.0 of the CMRA] Our records indicate that there are six mine entries (three on-site mine adits CA ref: 327367-053, 327367-048 and 327367-049) and three off-site adits CA ref: 327366-235, 327366-235 and 327367-234); recorded shallow coal mining; and a coal seam of workable thickness outcrops at or close to the site that may also have been worked at shallow depths. These mining features are present within the area to the west and east of Pinfold Lane and north of Magazine Lane, Ewloe. The CMRA identifies the two mine adits and comments that a geophysics survey was carried out to confirm the presence of these features. The report author states that no indication of the mine adits were found, although a potential void was located in the north eastern corner of the field. However it is noted that due to sight constraints, a full survey was not completed. SHEET 36 and 37 of 37 - WORKS PLAN REGULATION 5(2)(i) APPLICATION DOCUMENT REFERENCE D.2.4 Specific area: Existing Pipeline[Identified as Point of Ayr Section 4.2 of the CMRA] Our records indicate that the zone of influence of a recorded mine entry (CA shaft ref: 311382-011) extends into the red line boundary and the site lies within an area of probable shallow coal mine workings. The CMRA states that the site does not lie within an area of probable historic unrecorded shallow coal mining however there are two recorded mine entries within the site. The Report makes reference to Coal Mining Report ref: 51002948750001, however I have not been able to find this specific Report in Appendix B. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that this part of the project is the existing pipeline, which is to be decommissioned and then commissioned with a new plant (temporary storage compound). It therefore appears that no changes or new development is being proposed in this area. After reviewing the specific areas of pipeline affected by former coal mining activity, we are pleased to note that recommendations have been made by the report authors for the pipeline routing to avoid these areas where possible. In the event that the pipeline cannot avoid the areas, recommendations have been made within the report that intrusive ground investigations will be required in order to confirm the ground conditions present and inform any remedial measures required to mitigate the risk posed to the pipeline and associated infrastructure. Where recorded mine entries are present, recommendations have been made for these will need to be cordoned off and careful excavation around these areas performed, if necessary, for the pipeline installations. It is noted that the report author states that the zone of the potential shafts should be determined from the Coal Authority’s reports. We consider it would be prudent however for the report authors, or other technically competent persons, to carry out a positional review of all recorded mine entries in order that the best plot positions of these features can inform the cordoned off areas, amended route or the extent of any intrusive ground investigations. We welcome the comments made that unrecorded mining features could be present and therefore vigilance should be maintained during site preparation and groundworks within the identified areas. The intrusive site investigations should be designed and undertaken by competent persons to ensure that these are appropriate to assess the ground conditions on the site to establish the coal-mining legacy present and the risks it may pose to the development and inform any mitigation measures that may be necessary. Permission is required from the Coal Authority Permit and Licensing Team before undertaking any activity, such as ground investigation and ground works, which may disturb coal property. Based on the information submitted, the Coal Authority considers that the applicant has identified the coal mining risks associated with the project site and set out appropriate measures to mitigate the risk that these may have to the development. It is recommended that the measures proposed (Section 6.5) within the submitted Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA) (D.6.3.11.2, revision A (Environmental Statement – Volume III) prepared by WSP UK Limited to address the risks posed to the development by past coal mining activity are included as requirements of any Order granted for the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Andrew & Karen Hirst
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. Specifically relating to Oakfield the documentation has continuously included a recently constructed ménage, and part of the residential curtilage to the property despite strong objections made to this and the implications arising therefrom. It is respectively requested that these areas are removed from the DCO and that the area subject to the easement rights relates solely to the pasture paddock and does not include any part of the equestrian facilities or residential curtilage. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Andrew Mullock
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Mackie
"To ensure the information available is precise, accurate and up to date for all members of the local community. To ensure concerns of the local community are recognised and addressed by the applicants. So far these include, where excavations will take place in relation to local properties, likely local disruption and mitigation of this, location of access points and depots. Is there any use for the proposed product and is this concept generally accepted. Why is there no proposal to make the Blue Hydrogen available in Wales along the route of the pipeline, that should surely be the minimum local people should expect."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of David Leigh Connah
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. It is understood that in part a redundant pipeline is to be utilised. There is no evidence as to what enquiries has been made to use other redundant pipelines running through the region in order to limit and mitigate construction costs and disruption. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German on behalf of Exolum
"Please see an extract from the Objection letter sent in relation to this project. Our Ref:NSN/CH/CH/0080/L.1/221514/AP/SW Your Ref: Hynet-s42-07022022-2911804 23rd February 2022 For the attention of Martin Currie Liverpool Bay CCS Ltd Eni House 10 Ebury Bridge Road London SW1W 8PZ NSN/CH/CH/0080/L.1/221514/AP/SW Hynet-s42-07022022-2911804 Confirmed location: 342229 371481 Dear Sirs/Madam Exolum Pipeline System Ltd – Objection – Planning Application Location: Between Ince near Stanlow and Flint and between Flint and Point of Ayr Terminal. Thank you for your consultation dated 7th February 2022. We confirm that our client Exolum’s apparatus will be affected by your proposals as indicated on the attached plan(s). The plan(s) supplied are intended for general guidance only and should not be relied upon for excavation or construction purposes. No guarantee is given regarding the accuracy of the information provided and in order to verify the true location of the pipeline you should contact Exolum to arrange a site visit. It appears from the plans submitted by the applicant that their proposed development is to be constructed within close proximity to Exolum apparatus. Such works would require consent from Exolum and, in this instance, consent would not be granted as the proposed development would restrict access to the pipeline, both for routine maintenance and in an emergency situation. We must therefore object to the planning application. My client must be consulted to ensure the proposal has no impact on their apparatus. Their contact details are: Central Services Email: [email protected] Ashdon Road Tel: 01799 564101 Saffron Walden Essex, CB10 2NF When contacting Exolum, please quote our unique reference 221514, which is specific to this enquiry. Please note that you should contact Exolum within 28 days of the date of this letter in order to validate this enquiry, otherwise it will become void. You should note that the interests of the Exolum are conserved by means of the Energy Act 2013, in particular Part IV of the Act, and other legislation such as the Pipeline Safety Regulations 1996. It is, however, the Energy Act 2013 that prohibits any development and most intrusive activities within the Easement Strip without specific consent from Exolum. Exolum’s Easement Strips are 6 metres wide and can incorporate other associated Exolum facilities. Exolum will be able to provide guidance on the required procedures for entering into a Works Consent and provide confirmation on permitted development and intrusive activities. The whole process of obtaining a Works Consent can take between four and six weeks depending on circumstances at the time of application. To reiterate, you should not undertake any work or activity without first contacting Exolum for advice and, if required, a Works Consent. For a copy of Exolum’s Standard Requirements for Crossing or Working in Close Proximity to Exolum Pipelines, please visit https://lsbud.co.uk/wpcontent/ uploads/2021/10/lsbud-standard-requirement-uk-um.pdf. This will provide you with practical information regarding the legislation that governs the Exolum. You should also be aware that landowners and third parties have a duty of care not to carry out any works that have the potential to damage Exolum apparatus. This duty of care applies even if the works themselves are situated more than 3 metres from the pipeline. Examples of such works are mineral extraction, mining, explosives, piling and windfarms. Please note that implementation of any unapproved work that affects the Exolum Easement Strip may result in serious consequences in terms of health and safety, expense and other attendant liabilities. In such cases it is the perpetrator of the act, together with any other promoting organisation, that shall be held fully accountable for any resulting damage. Should you require any further assistance regarding this letter please contact the undersigned or alternatively, you can contact Exolum using the details provided above. Yours faithfully FISHER GERMAN LLP For and on behalf of FISHER GERMAN LLP (Exolum’s Authorised Agent)"
Local Authorities
Flintshire County Council
"The County Council is seeking general clarification around various issues including project programme timetable (including method of acquisition) and potential effect on management of nominated County Council land affected by the proposed scheme, extent of working width / easement width, proposed construction works on the relevant County Council land and the potential effect on the Council's retained land (whether including retained working width/depth below ground of any pipeline / equipment etc) including potential development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Stevenson
"My initial concern is that I have had limited engagement from senior stakeholders. The proposed project could sterilise the land for future development. The structure of the soil could be affected which would impact future productivity of crop growth. There could also be flooding implications once any proposed work is completed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Ian Bentley
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of J.G. & M.A. BROWN & SON
"Re: LAND AT MANCOT D. CONNAH 1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of John Calvin Peers
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. Specifically relating to the subject land at Northop Hall. The current proposals with the excessive permanent easement restrictions and the short term option area totally sterilizes the land in relation to future residential development, for which interest has been received from potential developers. It is respectively requested that the width of the easement should be reduced dramatically as well as the overall option area. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Parish Councils
Lea by Backford Parish Council
"As a parish Council are main concernes are as follow: Acess to the Lea by Backford Environmental loss Village disterbance General pollution Route"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Thew
"1. The route the pipeline will follow. 2. The impact on the villages of Northop Hall, Northop and Sychdyn 3. Any environmental impact the pipeline may have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Mr E. & Mrs J. Williams
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Myles David Platt
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc
"Relevant Representation of NGET Electricity Transmission Plc in respect of the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline DCO (the “Project”) This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of NGET Electricity Transmission Plc (“NGET”) in respect of the Project, and in particular NGET’s infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. NGET will require appropriate protection for retained apparatus including compliance with relevant standards for works proposed within close proximity of its apparatus. NGET’s rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus must also be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. Further, where the Applicant intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGET’s interests in land or NGET’s apparatus, NGET will require appropriate protection and further discussion is required on the impact to its apparatus and rights. Further detail is set out below. NGET owns or operates the following infrastructure within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits for the Project. NGET has a number high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. These overhead lines form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. The details of the electricity assets are as follows: Overhead Lines • 4ZB 400kV • ZO 400kV • ZK 400kV • 4ZE 400kV • YYS 132kV Other Apparatus • Pilot cables Protection of NGET Assets As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. As such, NGET has a duty to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the draft Order Limits. As noted, NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order Limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. NGET will require its standard protective provisions to be included within the draft Development Consent Order (the “Order”) for the Project to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET has not been consulted on the form of Protective Provisions included within the Order and confirms that as currently drafted these are not in a form acceptable to NGET. NGET is liaising with the Applicant in relation to such protective provisions, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. NGET requests that the Applicant continues to engage with it to provide explanation and reassurances as to how the Applicant’s works pursuant to the Order (if made) will ensure protection for those NGET assets which will remain in situ, along with facilitating all future access and other rights as are necessary to allow NGET to properly discharge its statutory obligations. NGET will continue to liaise with the Applicant in this regard with a view to concluding matters as soon as possible during the DCO Examination and will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. Compulsory Acquisition Powers in respect of the Project As noted, where the Applicant intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGET’s interests in land, NGET will require further discussion with the Applicant. NGET reserves the right to make further representations as part of the Examination process in relation to specific interactions with its assets but in the meantime will continue to liaise with the Applicant with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid Gas Plc
"Relevant Representation of National Grid Gas Plc in respect of the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline DCO (the “Project”) This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of National Grid Gas Plc (“NGGT”) in respect of the Project, and in particular NGGT’s infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. NGGT will require appropriate protection for retained apparatus including compliance with relevant standards for works proposed within close proximity of its apparatus. NGGT’s rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus must also be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. Further, where the Applicant intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGGT’s interests in land or NGGT’s apparatus, NGGT will require appropriate protection and further discussion is required on the impact to its apparatus and rights. Further detail is set out below. NGGT infrastructure within/in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits NGGT has a high pressure gas transmission pipeline located within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. This transmission pipeline forms an essential part of the gas transmission network in England, Wales and Scotland: Transmission Pipelines: Feeder 21 Mickle Trafford to Tee To Shotwick Protection of NGGT Gas Assets As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGGT’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. As such, NGGT has a duty to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the draft Order Limits. As noted, NGGT’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order Limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. NGGT will require protective provisions to be included within the draft Development Consent Order (the “Order”) for the Project to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGGT is liaising with the Applicant in relation to such protective provisions, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. NGGT requests that the Applicant continues to engage with it to provide explanation and reassurances as to how the Applicant’s works pursuant to the Order (if made) will ensure protection for those NGGT assets which will remain in situ, along with facilitating all future access and other rights as are necessary to allow NGGT to properly discharge its statutory obligations. NGGT will continue to liaise with the Applicant in this regard with a view to concluding matters as soon as possible during the DCO Examination and will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. Compulsory Acquisition Powers in respect of the Project As noted, where the Applicant intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGGT’s interests in land, NGGT will require further discussion with the Applicant. NGGT reserves the right to make further representations as part of the Examination process in relation to specific interactions with its assets but in the meantime will continue to liaise with the Applicant with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Highways Limited
"NATIONAL HIGHWAYS LIMITED (“National Highways”) has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 as the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”). As such, National Highways are responsible for managing the SRN in accordance with the requirements of our statutory licence and in general conformity with the requirements of the Highways Act 1980, and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety. This is the section 56 representation of National Highways provided in respect of Liverpool Bay CCS Ltd’s (“Applicant”) application for a Development Consent Order (“Order”) which seeks powers to enable the installation of a new build carbon dioxide (“CO2”) pipeline from the Ince AGI in Cheshire to Talacre Beach in North Wales to transport CO2 produced and captured by future hydrogen producing facilities and existing industrial premises in North West England and North Wales for offshore storage (“Scheme”). The Book of Reference (“BoR”) identifies 32 plots (“Plots”) of land owned or occupied by National Highways in respect of which compulsory acquisition powers to acquire new rights are sought. The compulsory acquisition powers sought are described in the BoR as being the permanent acquisition of land (in some cases the subsurface only), the permanent acquisition of rights and the temporary possession of land (“Compulsory Powers”). National Highways notes that the Compulsory Powers are sought in relation to land forming part of the SRN being the M53 and M56, including acquisition of the subsurface of the carriageway itself at two locations where the pipeline crosses the SRN. To safeguard National Highways’ interests and the safety and integrity of the SRN, National Highways objects to the inclusion of the Plots in the Order and to Compulsory Powers being granted in respect of them. The Plots constitute land acquired by National Highways for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 and sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. National Highways considers that there is no compelling case in the public interest for the Compulsory Powers and that the Secretary of State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that the permanent acquisition of land forming the SRN and the creation of new rights and restrictions over all of the Plots can be created without serious detriment to National Highways’ undertaking. No other land is available to National Highways to remedy the detriment. National Highways also objects to all other compulsory powers in the Order that affect, and may be exercised in relation to, National Highways’ property and interests. In order for National Highways to be in a position to withdraw its objection, National Highways requires: (a) the inclusion of protective provisions in the Order for its benefit; and (b) agreements with the Applicant that regulate (i) the manner in which rights over the Plots are acquired and the relevant works are carried out including terms which protect National Highways’ statutory undertaking and agreement that compulsory acquisition powers will not be exercised in relation to such land; and (ii) the carrying out of works in the vicinity of the SRN to safeguard National Highways’ statutory undertaking. To safeguard National Highways’ interests and the safety and integrity of the SRN, National Highways objects to the inclusion of the Compulsory Powers and any other powers affecting National Highways in the Order. National Highways requests that the Examining Authority treat National Highways as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination. If you require any clarification on the points raised, we can be contacted at [email protected]"
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural Resources Wales
"PROPOSED HYNET CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: EN070007 RELEVANT REPRESENTATION FROM NATURAL RESOURCES WALES (NRW) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. NRW have identified key concerns relating to the following matters, as set out in the Environmental Statement (ES): • Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (“the WFD Regulations 2017”) • Flood Risk The above matters are those that require amendments to the scheme, substantial additional information, or a revised Development Consent Order (‘DCO’). The topic headings for these matters are marked “Key Concern” in the relevant sections below. We also provide comments below on matters that may need minor amendments and / or clarification. These are matters that we can provide further details on in our Written Representations and / or can be addressed in our ongoing dialogue with the Applicant in the preparation of our Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). 1.2. NRW shall continue to provide advice to the Applicant on all the required matters, through correspondence and meetings, with the aim of reaching as many positions of agreement and common ground as possible prior to the examination of the proposals. Our Relevant Representation is based solely on the information provided within the application documents. Any changes in our position will be reflected in our full Written Representation and SoCG. 1.3. NRW has reviewed the DCO submission and, notwithstanding our key concerns and other issues raised in this representation, consider the submission, on balance, to be comprehensive and of a good quality. NRW is pleased to note that many of our previous concerns, as raised during the pre-application process, have been appropriately addressed. 1.4. Our comments are made without prejudice to any further comments NRW may wish to make in relation to this application and examination whether in relation to the ES, provisions of the draft DCO and its Requirements, SoCG or other evidence and documents provided by Liverpool Bay CCS Ltd. and their consultants (‘the Applicant’), the Examining Authority or other interested parties. The following paragraphs comprise our Relevant Representation as a Statutory Party under the Planning Act 2008 and Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2015 and as an ‘interested party’ under s102(1) of the Planning Act 2008. 1.5. In addition to being an interested party under the Planning Act 2008, NRW exercises functions under distinct legislation including (but not limited to) the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (EPR) 2016 (as amended) and the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MACAA) 2009. For the purpose of clarity, comments from NRW Regulation and Permitting Service are titled as such, and include comments in Annex A. We provide a comment on NRW’s general purpose in section 2. 1.6. Water Framework Directive (WFD) – Key Concern The following comments are based on our review of ES Appendix 18.3: Water Framework Directive Assessment (APP-165). We would advise that in our view the WFD compliance assessment does not contain sufficient detail or confidence that compliance with the WFD Regulations 2017 can be reasonably assured, in particular: • There is insufficient evidence to agree that "potential construction and operation impacts are unlikely to cause a deterioration in the status of quality elements or overall status at the Wepre Brook water body scale with the mitigation within the CEMP, REAC and monitoring measures implemented" (para. 5.5.7), and; • There is insufficient evidence to agree that "The DCO Proposed Development therefore would not compromise the ability of the water bodies potentially impacted to achieve Good Ecological Potential/Status." (para. 5.5.20). If sufficient evidence is not forthcoming it is our view that deterioration of Wepre Brook water body cannot currently be ruled out and the requirements of Regulation 19 of the WFD Regulations 2017 may therefore need to be met for the development to proceed. We will discuss this further with the applicant with the aim of reaching common ground where possible. Under a worst-case scenario, flow could be lost to the ground and cause watercourses to dry up downstream of the open-cut crossings. In particular, the submission fails to fully consider impacts to the Wepre Brook water body. There is a risk that the engineering works on the Alltami Brook open-cut crossing create a pathway for water to be lost to the ground/contaminated mine workings via disturbance, cracks, faults and joints between proposed bedrock removal and concrete backfill. Such flow losses, and any resultant contaminated mine water upwelling elsewhere, are difficult to address in the long term and could feasibly cause deterioration of hydromorphology, water quality and ecological elements downstream. Chapter 18 of the ES (APP-070) also states that the effects on the hydrology and hydromorphological processes of Alltami Brook and the effects of the installation of permanent artificial structures in watercourses are anticipated to be “Slight Adverse (not significant)”. However, currently the submission does not provide sufficient assurance that this would be the case as insufficient geological, hydrogeological, hydrological, geomorphological and ecological information has been provided to justify the proposed open-cut crossing option for Alltami Brook. The submission does not appear to acknowledge NRW’s email to the applicant during pre-application engagement, dated 8 August 2022, regarding the proposed options for the crossing at Alltami Brook. This email highlighted the issues associated with the open-cut proposal now submitted in comparison to the lesser environmental impacts of the other options considered, but we note that the applicant maintains that their proposed method is the only viable option. We advise that a detailed Options Appraisal for the various crossing options should be provided, to enable the advantages and disadvantages of each option to be fully assessed. The proposals seek to address the geomorphological concerns through assessment, monitoring, and adaptive mitigation at the detailed design phase, but this assumes that the mitigation measures would be technically and financially feasible. For some elements of the proposals, we concur that this is reasonable. However, we do not consider this is reasonable for site-specific elements, decommissioning, and cumulative impacts, based on the lack of sufficient evidence included with the submission. Further information is needed to inform a risk assessment of the proposed Alltami Brook crossing open-cut option so that its viability can be assessed, as follows: a) Whether or not the affected reach of the Alltami Brook is ‘losing’ or ‘gaining’ water to/from the bedrock. If the stream is losing water, this loss could be enhanced with stream bed disturbance/excavation. A site investigation would enable more certainty on this point. b) The depth to the local groundwater and the thickness of any vadose zone beneath the streambed if the stream is ‘losing’ water to bedrock. c) Local stratigraphic control, the permeability of the local bedrock and the thickness of the streambed on that bedrock. Cutting through a streambed for excavation purposes may for example directly facilitate the ingress of stream water into the unsaturated bedrock. If the bedrock is fractured, and because fractures can possess high permeabilities, the streambed water may become lost to the sub-surface. d) The degree to which the bedrock can be excavated. This would depend upon the hardness of the bedrock at the crossing point. We advise that blasting the bedrock would not be suitable but the method of bedrock excavation has not been provided to date, and should therefore be provided for review. e) Whether stream diversion would be required and how this would be achieved from a practical perspective. f) The nature of legacy mine workings in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point and the influence that they may have on activities related to the crossing point, both for the excavation, construction, and operational phases. g) The potential that streambed excavation works could significantly damage the current stream flows (worst case: all the flow is lost to the unsaturated bedrock below) and remove flow that is relied upon downstream. This would lead to deterioration of the hydromorphology element and potentially other WFD elements including water quality and biological. We note that the channel and banks of open-cut crossings “will be reinstated to mimic baseline conditions as far as practicable” (Table 5.3, ES Appendix 18.3: Water Framework Directive Assessment, APP-165). However, we consider that “as far as practicable” potentially permits deterioration. Given the expansive extent of the proposals and substantial number of sites requiring reinstatement mitigation (e.g., temporary culverts, open-cut crossings), this could cause a cumulative impact that causes non-compliance with the WFD Regulations 2017. As there is no reference to cumulative effects in the WFD compliance assessment we advise that this should be included and any relevant information from the ES should be signposted. As the Competent Authority for the WFD in Wales, we need to ensure developments are compliant with Regulation 19. We must therefore be satisfied that if deterioration cannot be avoided in Wepre Brook water body the conditions of Regulation 19 are met and that no deterioration will occur in other water bodies as a result of the development in order for it to be compliant with the WFD Regulations. If it is considered that deterioration would be caused by the proposed Alltami Brook crossing option, we would advise that in order for the development to proceed the requirements of Regulation 19 of the WFD Regulations 2017 would need to be met. We also have the following comments on the WFD Compliance Assessment: • Calculations of the works footprint (in km² and % of water body area) have not been presented in Annex B, Table B.2 and therefore NRW cannot agree with its conclusions. We advise that these calculations should be presented. • While construction impacts have been included in the assessment, the document notes (para. 2.3.5) “that the assessment of potential construction impacts is not required as part of a WFD assessment”. However, contrary to this we advise that a WFD compliance assessment should include all stages of project activity (construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning), as per NRW internal guidance (OGN 72: Complying with the Water Framework Directive Regulations 2017: how to assess and appraise projects and activities) previously shared with the applicant. • Section 1.2 - Study area: we advise that the England / Wales split of WFD Regs 2017 waterbodies is slightly misleading. Some waterbodies are transboundary and were formally assigned to either NRW or Environment Agency for reporting purposes. We note that there is a pipeline crossing in Finchett’s Gutter water body, reported as being in England, but the crossing is in the Welsh part of the water body. • WFD protected areas. A WFD compliance assessment should consider how the project might prevent the achievement of protected area objectives. However, not all protected areas have been identified in this case. There is no mention of groundwater drinking water protected areas (DWPA) - we advise that all groundwaters in Wales are DWPAs. The Dee Estuary Ramsar site is also a protected area (NRW published a Protected Area Register with the River Basin Management Plans last year). The Dee estuary shellfish water protected area is also not assessed. However, given that it falls within the Dee Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA), and these are assessed separately, it does not require further consideration. • Para. 5.6.2 - Nitrates Directive: in Wales the Nitrate Pollution Prevention (Wales) Regulations (2013) have been revoked and replaced by the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. • Table 5.12 and Table 5.13: we note that different sets of information have been extracted for the Dee compared to North West and Western Wales River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) but it is unclear why. We also note that different versions of the RBMPs were used – 2015 plan for Western Wales and draft 2021 RBMP for the Dee, even though the Dee and Western Wales RBMPs were always published (drafts for consultation opened Dec 2020 and final plans published July 2022) at the same time. Clarification should therefore be provided on this. 1.7. Water Resources and Flood Risk - Flood Consequences Assessment – Key Concern The site boundary lies partially within Flood Zones C1 and C2 according to the Development Advice Map (DAM) contained within Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development and Flood Risk. The Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA, APP-168-170) also refers to the Flood Risk Assessment Wales (FRAW) maps. However, as the FRAW maps should not be used for planning purposes we advise that reference to these is removed. The FCA should be updated to refer to the Flood Map for Planning (FMfP) which represents the best and most up-to-date information on areas at flood risk than the DAM. We note there is no reference in the submission regarding the impact of the construction compounds and equipment yards on NRW’s access arrangements. These concerns were highlighted in our Section 42 Preliminary Environmental Information Report consultation response (paragraphs 67 to 69, dated 22/03/22, our ref: CAS-181472-B2Q1), and relate to NRW’s access to the Hawarden and Northern Embankments, and to several main rivers in Sandycroft and Pentre. Retaining our ongoing access to maintain assets which protect people and properties from flooding is vital. The FCA and ES (Chapter 18, APP-070) should therefore be updated to address this. The ES (Chapter 18, APP-070) refers briefly to the construction compounds, and paragraph 18.8.4 states that “all centralised compounds are located outside the fluvial and coastal floodplain”. However, this does not appear to be correct based on Sheet 14 of Drawing EN070007- D.2.4 – WP, as the centralised compounds “30D Wood Farm Compound” and “31A River Dee” are both located within the floodplain of the Tidal River Dee. This section of the ES should therefore be updated to reflect this and a plan showing the location of the Cathodic Protection cabinet north of the River Dee should be submitted for review. We note that paragraph 3.7.7 of the ES (Chapter 3, APP-055) refers to a 24.4m permanent rights corridor which would place restrictions on this land. This could have implications for NRW, particularly where the pipeline runs under/close to flood defence assets, such as the Northern and Hawarden Embankments. Further information should therefore be submitted to enable NRW to assess how this could affect NRW maintenance works, which are completed regularly at these locations, and any major civil engineering improvements likely to be required to the defences within the design life of the pipeline (c. 40 years). If pipe locations deviate from agreed locations this could significantly affect NRW’s Flood Risk Management activities and hence any change in location during the construction phase will have to be carefully managed. The measures proposed for managing flood risk during the construction phase are referred to in the ES (Chapter 18) and the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (APP-225). However, there is no reference to what would happen to any arisings resulting from the installation of the pipeline. The CEMP should therefore be updated to address this, confirming that any arisings resulting from the works would be stored outside the floodplain. We note that the Outline CEMP (APP-225) refers to the trenchless crossing of the River Dee (Table 6.6 D-BD-019) stating that all entry and exit pits will be 16m away from any tidal watercourses. However, in order to ensure that associated flood defence structures are also considered and safeguarded this should be updated to specify a distance of 16m away from any tidal watercourse and any flood defence structures on that watercourse. For the operational phase of the works, we have no significant flood risk concerns based on the submitted FCA (APP-168). However, paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.4 of the FCA (APP-168) should be updated to refer to potential risk from a breach in the River Dee defences along the River Dee corridor. Table 1 of the FCA provides a list of the proposed crossing types at several watercourses and Appendix 3.1 provides a table of Trenchless Crossings. This should be accompanied by location plans for each proposed crossing point. The FCA should be updated to advise on the typical design principles that would be followed for the crossings, such as minimum cover requirements below hard / firm bed levels, and how far this level would extend either side of the bank. - Flood Risk Activity Permit For open cut crossings located on main rivers, a bespoke Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP) would be required under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (EPR) 2016, for both the permanent and temporary works. The permanent works application would need to include details such as depth of cover beneath the bed of the main river and level of pipe/cable within an 8m/16m distance from the banks of the main river/toe of any associated flood defence structures, and the final route alignment. A temporary works application would need to be supported by a detailed method statement, including the cable’s installation method and how flood risk would be managed during installation. NRW would need to consider impacts on access for inspection, maintenance and incident response, and impacts on the structural integrity of any flood risk assets in the vicinity. Service crossings below the bed of a main river using trenchless techniques (such as Horizontal Directional Drilling) can be registered as an exempt flood risk activity under the EPR 2016, subject to certain key conditions being met as per part 4 of Schedule 3 of the EPR 2016. We advise that these points are addressed in the ES (Chapter 18, APP-070). We note that some of the proposed crossings affect watercourses in Sandycroft. There is a complex network of multiple infrastructure in this urban area i.e., many mixed age culverts very close to residential property, within roads, with multiple utility pipes present. The crossings at these locations will require careful consideration, with input from NRW. A FRAP may also be required for any works in, over, under or within 8m of a fluvial main river (including any defences on that main river), or 16m of a tidal main river (including any defences on that main river), or within a flood plain. Please see our website for further information: Natural Resources Wales / Flood risk activity permits. 1.8. Air Quality The proposed dust deposition mitigation appears reasonable, in particular the creation of a Dust Management Plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority (REAC, D-AQ-004, APP-222). However, as this would be a key aspect of mitigation to address potential dust impacts on the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, NRW would also wish to be consulted on this document. 1.9. Climate Resilience Chapter 7 of the ES (APP-059) is chiefly focussed on national (UK) and English legislation and policy, e.g., there is no mention of the Welsh Climate Change Adaptation Plan – Climate Conscious Wales, but reference is made to the English National Adaptation Programme. Since the proposals would be located within England and Wales, we advise that the relevant Welsh climate change policies should also be acknowledged. 1.10. Biodiversity Great crested newt, bat species, otter, and water vole. NRW consider the survey and assessment to be satisfactory in respect of great crested newts (GCNs), bats, otters and water vole and agree with the conclusions of the ES. We note the outline recommendations and proposed principles for mitigation in the ES, OCEMP and the OLEMP. We note that the OLEMP (APP-229) and OCEMP (APP-225) form the basis for a detailed LEMP and CEMP to be produced at detailed design stage, to be approved by the LPA. NRW agrees with this approach. However, NRW considers that the final LEMP should include revised details regarding long-term monitoring and management. Given the confirmed presence of GCN in ponds within or adjacent to the working DCO corridor, an EPS Licence will be required to enable the construction of the DCO Proposed Development. The ES sets out some outline provisions for habitat clearance. We advise that these are developed further and set out in a GCN conservation plan to be submitted as an Annex to the detailed CEMP. We would be comfortable with this information being submitted to and approved by the LPA, in consultation with NRW. Schedule 1 bird species (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended) With regards to Appendix 9.7: Barn Owl Survey Report – Part 1 (APP-108), while we note the comments regarding changes in the proposed pipeline route, clarification is needed as to whether the barn owl survey area included a buffer to consider potential disturbance to breeding barn owls outside of the Newbuild Infrastructure Boundary; it would be pertinent to map these different boundaries. Identifying Welsh and English sites in the results (e.g., Table 1) would be useful for interpretation. In terms of mitigation, alternative barn owl nest locations away from the Zone of Influence should be provided, especially where exclusion techniques are concerned. The scheme could also deliver other enhancements for barn owls in the local area (e.g., nest boxes). Paragraphs 4.10.4-5 of Appendix 9.8: Breeding Bird Survey report (APP-112) should highlight the potential impacts on breeding Schedule 1 bird species (e.g., Cetti’s warbler). Fish Regarding Appendix 9.9: Aquatic Ecology Report (Watercourses) (APP-113), whilst NRW accept the usage of e-DNA techniques there are some anomalous results (e.g., 0.17% European Bass in Wepre Brook). For a more realistic reference to species composition at the crossing sites a more thorough electrofishing survey would have been beneficial. Further explanation is therefore needed as to why some sites were ruled out from electrofishing surveys. Regarding paragraph 3.4.205 of Appendix 9.9, we note that no data could be produced from the Northop Brook e-DNA survey. NRW note the presence of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) and brown/sea trout (Salmo trutta) in this brook. NRW also note that there are plans to improve fish passage on the reservoir at Broughton Brook (SJ26302 71084), which will improve eel passage up- and downstream. Mitigation should therefore be considered for crossings on this brook. With regards to the ES, Chapter 9 (Biodiversity): Table 9.6 (APP-061) please note that river and sea lamprey are Annex II qualifying features of the Dee Estuary SAC, and European smelt, river and sea lamprey are features of the Dee Estuary SSSI, but these do not appear to have been referenced. Regarding Table 9.11 (LSE – Fish) further information should be provided about how long the temporary culverts are expected to present in the watercourses as a ‘temporary’ feature and their locations (with National Grid References). In watercourses where salmonids are known to be present there is a need to avoid open-trench crossings through spawning periods; this is to avoid damaging redds, ova and alevins. With regards to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), paragraphs 6.2.30 & 6.2.31 (APP-226) we note that ‘frac-out’ has been deemed unlikely, but that should ‘frac-out’ occur there would be mortalities of fish in the area. Therefore, the final HRA should include mitigation for avoiding the main run-time for key fish species to ensure such effects are minimal. Clarification should be provided on the expected maximum timescale for completing the HDD underneath the River Dee. National Grid References should be provided for the open-cut crossings (paragraph 6.2.33). Designated Sites for Nature Conservation We note that the existing natural gas pipeline to be repurposed for conveying carbon dioxide is already located below the Halkyn Mountain Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Flint Mountain SSSI, and a new pipeline is not proposed at these locations. However, any maintenance of this pipeline that would involve potentially damaging operations within the designated sites would need prior section 28 approval from NRW unless permitted directly through planning condition. Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) NRW’s scoping advice identified the potential for impacts arising from the introduction and spread of INNS, including Chinese mitten crab via water transfer during hydrostatic testing of the completed pipeline. We advise that this species is present in the River Dee, and possibly the Mersey, but note that the source of water for this activity is yet to be confirmed. The possibility of Chinese mitten crab transfer during hydrostatic testing should therefore be addressed in the Final Biosecurity Management Plan, which should be agreed with NRW prior to the work commencing. 1.11. Land and Soils Pipeline excavation and groundwater dewatering could result in interaction with existing groundwater contamination from local landfills and petrol stations. A site investigation has been performed, but it is unclear if the boreholes drilled to date are located between the proposed pipeline alignment and potential sources of contamination. Such boreholes would be used to assess groundwater levels and local permeabilities before any excavation and dewatering works, as these would inform the nature and extent of dewatering/permitting that may be required in a particular location. In addition, the quality of the groundwater in these locations is important as this will indicate the degree to which local groundwater within a section of pipeline excavation requiring dewatering is polluted and hence requires treatment. This would require an acceptable methodology to be developed to determine the disposal of any pumped groundwater generated from pipeline dewatering activities. Additional boreholes should also be installed to assess the ground conditions around the proposed Alltami Brook crossing point. Hydrostatic Testing – a validation process/report for the disposal of any pipeline purge water should be developed due to the purge water volumes generated and to ensure that the final discharge of any purge water, treated or otherwise, is acceptable from a permitting perspective. 1.12. Major Accidents and Disasters Chapter 13 of the ES (APP-065) identifies the risk of the loss of containment of carbon dioxide and asserts that, based on the assumptions and mitigation measures, these will be managed to be as low as reasonably practical (ALARP). However, the risk assessment should include the impact of a major loss of containment of carbon dioxide and how significant adverse environmental effects would be prevented or mitigated, including details of emergency preparedness. 1.13. Water Quality NRW agree with the conclusions of the ES, WFD compliance assessment and HRA in terms of Marine Water Quality based on the provision that the mitigation for pollution and biosecurity listed in the Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC, APP-222) can be secured within the CEMP. We have the following advice regarding water pollution and the Outline CEMP: • Paragraph 4.2.2 and Table 6.1 (D-GN-003): Any pollution incident in Wales should be self-reported to NRW, without delay. • Paragraph 5.2.2: We note that the detailed CEMP will include a Biosecurity Management Plan. Site monitoring should include identifying the presence of INNS to minimise their spread. • Table 6.1 (D-BD-054) should also include ordinary watercourses as it refers to a water discharge activity, not a Flood Risk Activity. Reference should also be made to NRW as it currently only refers to the EA. • Table 6.15 - Water resources and flood risk: It is important that all identified measures are transferred and elaborated on in the detailed CEMP and surface water management and monitoring plan, particularly regarding soil management and prevention of silt pollution. • Table 6.15 (D-WR-025): If sewage from welfare facilities is to be disposed via a septic tank to ground in Wales, this discharge activity will require either a registration of an exemption with NRW or a discharge permit, depending on location and flows. • Table 6.15 (D-WR-035): Dewatering activities in Wales may require a water resources permit from NRW. Reference should therefore be made to NRW as this currently only refers to the EA. • Given the size and length of time to complete this project we advise that the appointed construction contractor(s) and/or appointed environment manager make proactive contact with the local NRW environment team at the start of the construction phase. 1.14. Dee Conservancy Trust NRW’s comments with regards to the Dee Conservancy Trust estate centre around the need for a lease agreement to be in place, which covers the installation and operation of the HyNet infrastructure beneath NRW’s estate. NRW’s ability to undertake its statutory duties as Harbour Authority and Local Lighthouse Authority for the River Dee must not be impeded as a result of the proposal. The wording of any agreement must allow NRW, as the statutory harbour authority, to carry out navigation works within the lease area with notification to the applicant, rather than with their permission. We would also advise that an annual payment is attached to the lease and that this is discussed further with the Dee Conservancy Trust. 2. NRW’S GENERAL PURPOSE 2.1 NRW is satisfied that this advice is consistent with its general purpose of pursuing the sustainable management of natural resources in relation to Wales, and applying the principles of sustainable management of natural resources. In particular, NRW acknowledges that the principles of sustainable management include taking account of all relevant evidence and gathering evidence in respect of uncertainties, and taking account of the short, medium and long term consequences of actions. NRW further acknowledges that it is an objective of sustainable management to maintain and enhance the resilience of ecosystems and the benefits they provide and, in so doing meet the needs of present generations of people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs, and contribute to the achievement of the well-being goals in section 4 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. --- CONTINUED --- ? ANNEX A – NRW Regulation and Permitting Services 1. Marine Licensing: Regulatory Response Works proposed under the DCO that are within Welsh Waters may require a marine licence under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, for which NRW is the licensing authority. The applicant has noted that the project includes works that will require a marine licence under the MACAA, including crossing the Dee Estuary. To date no formal marine licence application or request for formal pre-application advice has been received. We would strongly encourage the applicant to engage with the Marine Licensing Team."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Peter Hardern
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Other Statutory Consultees
SP Energy Networks
"Further to the submission of the above proposals which have recently been accepted, I have reviewed the submission and on the basis of my review to date, I have the following comments. Please note that the general point to these comments is to avoid SP Manweb assets being adversely impacted on and to engage as much as possible with the applicant to avoid such impacts. Comments have previously been sent to the applicant in March and July 2022 and these are attached. I also attach 5no. plans sent over in separate emails which show the affected SPM network and the pipeline proposals. General These comments are made by SP Energy Networks which acts on behalf of SP Manweb, the licenced Distribution Network Operator (DNO) for the area covered by the proposed scheme. SP Energy Networks operate and manage the electricity network up to 132kV. In general, SP Energy Networks has no objection in principle to the proposed pipeline scheme, however, it must ensure the avoidance of any adverse impact on its network as we all drive to maintain a network that is capable of meeting the increase in demand from an all-electric economy. SP Energy Networks has started a process of developing investment targets from 2023 to 2028 to meet the UK and devolved Governments ambitious decarbonisation targets for Net Zero. The next decade will be crucial in preparing the grid for these changes and this is why we are very interested in being able to comment on the proposals which may undermine maintaining and developing a suitable future grid network. In relation to this scheme, to date, SP Energy Networks has initiated engagement on various matters relating to the impact of the proposals on its network assets including the s42 stage and so considers to be at the early stages of working with the applicant to avoid impacts on its network. SPM Network assets Based on the plans prepared by SP Manweb, it is unclear where there will not be an impact on those SPM assets which are within the DCO limits. The current position is that SP Energy Networks has recently asked the applicant to provide an overlay plan showing SPM assets and the proposed DCO limits which seems the clearest way of showing the crossover points in detail with a schedule explaining what the crossover is. The key crossover points of interest to SP Manweb where there are existing high voltage 132kV and 33kV assets, which in some cases include the sites of the later proposed changes, are as follows: 1. North west Chester services 2. West of Backford 3. Saughall 4. Sealand Road 5. South of River Dee 6. South Queensferry 7. Connah’s Quay 8. Halkyn SP Energy Networks would like to resolve matters as much as possible and would like to see clarification on the crossover points/SPM assets as soon as further details can be provided. Impacts and consenting SP Energy Networks needs assurances that any affected network requiring to be diverted is, once identified, included in the EIA and properly assessed and reported. Where necessary, any related consents for diverting network is included in the DCO. The applicant should clarify these matters as soon as possible. Measures for agreed working (DCO) Having carried out an initial review of the draft protective provisions in the draft DCO, these are not consistent with the provisions SP Energy Networks has secured in similar DCOs. As such, the applicant is asked to continue to work with SP Energy Networks and agree as many areas of possible through the application stages. Land Rights SP Energy Networks will require all SPM land rights affected by the scheme that need to be amended to be agreed in full agreement with SPM. Reference is made to the Book of Reference where SP Manweb interests are included. Reviewing the BoR and confirming existing and proposed rights is likely to be an expansive task and the applicant is asked to engage with SPM regarding a timetable and cost undertakings to support working with SP Energy Networks in this regard. There are a number of key areas to resolve in relation to SPM network, which is critical to protect as it is this network that will be relied upon to distribute the generation into local homes and businesses. Any adverse impacts on the SPM network that need to be resolved by SPM would impact on the benefits of delivering this proposed scheme. The applicant should discuss the above with SP Energy Networks as soon as possible as they have been requested to do for over the past year but without making much progress. Given the extent of the information prepared and submitted, it is a reasonable expectation for there to be a plan produced showing the SPM asset as likely to be most affected and how, and an SPM network diversions worksheet that outlines how this network will be managed within the proposed development. SP Energy Networks will continue to review the DCO application and may wish to raise further matters in due course. In order to progress the above, SPEN has identified a need for the applicant to address the following: - to show on suitable plans where direct and indirect impacts from the new development on SPM network will arise - to ensure that where there are impacts these can be managed in an appropriate way through agreed protective provisions - to ensure the agreed measures are made clear to contractors working on site through required method statements and impacts on SPEN network are avoided - to ensure that where existing land rights are interfered with then these are replaced with new rights which retain SPEN’s existing rights or new rights are created as required for SPEN Please let me know if you would like any other information."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Stephanie Roberts
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of The Executors of Mrs Gwyneth Evans Deceased
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. Specifically relating to the clients land at Old Aston Hill which possesses short to medium term development and is currently subject to an Option Agreement to a national developer, the uncertainty as to the extent of the easement and option area causes concern. Without prejudice to the comments contained herein the proposed route through the subject land is supported in relation to any other route through the said land. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of The Hewitt Family
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Other Statutory Consultees
UK Health Security Agency
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. Please note that we request views from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and the response provided is sent on behalf of both UKHSA and OHID. We can confirm that: With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that the majority of comments raised by us on 22 March 2022 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health. UKHSA/OHID previously raised concerns with the use of the DMRB LA112 methodology within the Population and Human Health chapter, as it does not include an assessment of significance for those elements scoped in and as required under the EIA Regulations. Upon review of the results of the applicant’s assessment, we recognise that in this instance any additional assessment of significance is unlikely to significantly alter the findings. Following our review of the submitted documentation we are satisfied that the proposed development should not result in any significant adverse impact on public health. On that basis, we have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German LLP on behalf of A White Events Limited
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity. 11. Greenacres Animal Park is a local attraction hosting a selection of farm and zoo animals, set within 80 acres. The Park includes an indoor soft play area, licensed bar/cafe, education room, gift shop and hosts various events throughout the year. A fundamental element of the attraction is the fully narrated tractor ride across a hard standing roadway throughout all the designated fields. The proposed pipeline route will effectively remove this element of the attraction throughout the construction phase and in view of the inability to relocate the ride it will significantly reduce the turnover of the business. In view of this, it is anticipated that the business will have to make job cuts. 12. The proximity of the proposed pipeline to the buildings at Greenacres Animal Park will ultimately sterilize an area which has been set aside for building expansion"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Development Consent Order (DCO) Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has several low, medium and high pressure gas pipelines and associated apparatus located within the order limits which may be affected by works proposed and for which further details on interactions will be required. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. Cadent has not been consulted upon the form of Protective Provisions included within the Order and therefore these are not agreed. Adequate protective provisions for the protection of Cadent’s statutory undertaking will be required and Cadent welcomes further discussion with the Applicant in relation to asset protection matters. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to engage with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Other Statutory Consultees
Cadw on behalf of Cadw, Welsh Government
"The application is accompanied by an environmental statement with Chapter 8 Cultural Heritage which is based on information provided in a desk-based heritage assessment produced by WSP. These works have considered the potential impact on historic assets which are located inside 3km of the proposed development. It has concluded that apart from the Registered Hollywell Common and Halkyn Mountain Landscape of Outstanding Historic Importance the proposed development will not have a direct impact on these designated historic assets or their settings. In regard to the impact of the proposed development on the Registered Historic Landscape it has concluded that whilst there will be a direct physical impact but the impact to the asset’s value will be minor and not significant. We concur with this conclusion."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Canal & River Trust
"The Canal & River Trust (“The Trust”) has previously provided comments to the Applicant on the route options for the pipeline and now wishes to register and comment as an Interested party for the Examination relating to the above Application. The Trust is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of s.127 Planning Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”) and a statutory party for the purposes of s.88(3)(c) of the 2008 Act. The Trust has operational land, infrastructure and other interests affected by the works and powers proposed. The Trust has a duty under the Trust Agreement with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (28 June 2012) to operate and manage the waterways and towpaths for public use and enjoyment. Additionally, the Trust has a duty under s.105 Transport Act 1968 to maintain commercial and cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by the public. Background The Trust is the charity which looks after and brings to life 2000 miles of canals & rivers. Our waterways contribute to the health and wellbeing of local communities and economies, creating attractive and connected places to live, work, volunteer and spend leisure time. These historic, natural and cultural assets form part of the strategic and local green-blue infrastructure network, linking urban and rural communities as well as habitats. By caring for our waterways and promoting their use we believe we can improve the wellbeing of our nation. The Trust is a prescribed consultee in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) process pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Application: Prescribed Forms & Procedure Regulations 2009). The Trust owns and manages the Shropshire Union Canal, which is within the designated Chester Canal Conservation Area and is a County Wildlife site. The proposed route of the pipeline would have one interface/crossing (underground) with the Trust owned waterway, just north of the Trust owned Bridge 134 (Caughall). A section of the proposed pipeline would also run parallel to the canal corridor here. This is a rural stretch of canal with a mixture of open fields, mature hedgerows and pockets of woodland. The canal corridor is well used for leisure and recreation and the towpath here also carries National Cycle Route 5 (NCR5). The representations made here are without prejudice to any further/amended representations which the Trust may make following a comprehensive review of the Application as part of the Examination Process. Currently the Trust intends to make submissions in relation to the following: • Compulsory Acquisition of Trust Land • The draft Development Consent Order (DCO) • Protective Provisions for the Trust • The Trust’s Third Party Works Code of Practice • Surface water drainage to the canal • Environmental Mitigation and the Outline Landscape Environmental Management Plan • The Construction Environment Management Plan • The Construction Traffic Management Plan • Landscape and Visual Impact Compulsory Acquisition of Trust Land We refer to the Applicant’s Book of Reference and note that the Trust is listed as owner of 2 plots of land which would either be subject to permanent or temporary acquisition. The Order seeks to permanently acquire the subsurface of the canal, bank, verge, towpath and NCR5 lying to the east of Caughall Road (plot 8-03) in relation to Work No.18. This is held under our title CH569303. The Order also seeks temporary possession of land, woodland and track lying to the east of Liverpool Road (plot 9-06) in relation to Work No.23A (this should be Work No.23B as the Order as drafted contains two Work No.23A’s). This is held under our title CH503654. Land Plan Sheet 8 of 37 (Document Reference D2.2) also shows the red line between plots 8-02 and 8-06 including the Shropshire Union canal. These parcels of land are required temporarily in relation to Work No 18A and include a section of canal. It is understood that in terms of the red line including the canal corridor that this is a drafting error. It is understood that the Applicant will be correcting this during the course of the Examination process. The Trust hereby formally objects to the Compulsory Acquisition of Trust Land. This is on the basis that there is not a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory purchase powers to be acquired in the manner sought by the Applicant. Such powers are intended to be used as a matter of last resort and the Applicant has failed to use reasonable efforts to voluntarily acquire the land and rights they require from the Trust. Based on the submitted Land Plans we also question the justification for the extent of our land they seek to acquire for a single pipeline crossing of the canal. We consider acquiring a right over a narrow section of subsoil at least 3.5m below the bed level of the canal would be sufficient for the pipeline. The Trust is a statutory undertaker which has specific duties to protect the waterways. Accordingly, we have a duty to resist the use of compulsory purchase powers which may negatively affect our land or undertakings. Alternatively, should any compulsory acquisition powers over the Trust’s land be retained in the Order, such acquisition should only be with the consent of the Trust. As set out below, the Trust are further prejudiced in relation to this matter as the draft Order does not contain any protective provisions for the Trust to safeguard and protect our undertakings. The Trust is willing to engage with the Applicant to enter into an agreement in respect of the rights which the Applicant requires to deliver the works. As the Trust owned land related to the waterway is registered as Infrastructure Trust Property (plot 8-03) then the separate consent of DEFRA would also be required. We would advise that the timeframe for obtaining such DEFRA consent can take between 3-6 months. The draft Development Consent Order (DCO) There are a number of provisions within the draft DCO which will impact on the Trust and interests it seeks to protect and promote as owner and operator of the Shropshire Union Canal and associated infrastructure. The draft DCO was not shared with the Trust as part of a pre-application consultation. The Trust are in the process of reviewing this document with the aim of providing initial comments to the Applicant. On first review we would have concerns with Article 6 (limits of deviation); Article 19 (discharge of water); Article 21 (survey and investigate land); Part 5 powers of acquisition and Article 24 (compulsory acquisition of land); Article 31 (acquisition of subsoil); Article 34 (temporary use of land); Article 36 (statutory undertakers) and Article 39 (removal of hedgerows) – this list is not exhaustive. The Trust do require further opportunity to consider the detail of these provisions in light of the documents now submitted by the Applicant, before any further representations are made on these matters. Protective Provisions for the Trust The draft DCO as submitted does not contain any specific protective provisions for the Trust as a statutory undertaker. The Trust notes that other statutory undertakers have been afforded protective provisions within the Order under Schedule 10. Following the acceptance of this application for Examination, the Applicant has indicated in writing separately to the Trust that they have no objection in principle to including protective provision for the Trust within the Order and that the omission was only because they had not had the opportunity to discuss these with the Trust. To aid the Examination we have provided the Applicant with a set of protective provisions which would resolve and satisfy our principal concerns. The protective provisions have been adapted from the Keadby 3 (Carbon Capture Equipped Gas Fired Generating Station) Order 2022 (made 7 December 2022), being the most recent NSIP to be examined and which contains provisions relevant to the Trust land and assets. A copy of these are appended to this letter. The Trust reserves the ability to add to and amend the draft protective provisions as part of the examination process as may be required following a full review of the Application. The Trust’s Third Party Works Code of Practice The Applicant has agreed with the Trust that any works that interface with our waterways would be carried out in accordance with the Canal & River Trust Third Party Works Code of Practice (CoP) and indeed application forms have already been provided to the Trust in relation to Work No.18. As with previous DCOs authorising works affecting the Trust’s land or assets, the Trust requires an express obligation obliging the Applicant to have regard to the CoP in the detailed design, construction and approval of the relevant works. The protective provisions enclosed with this representation contain appropriate wording. The Trust’s CoP is designed to safeguard our assets and to deal with the nuances of developing adjacent to a 200-year-old waterway heritage asset which is not built to modern engineering standards. These features have an inherent fragility and the extent to which development adjacent to or under them may affect their stability can reach far beyond any narrow waterway corridor. Ensuring that development is appropriately located and controlled on land adjacent to our network is crucial to limit the potential for failure of our infrastructure and the associated economic, environmental and social consequences of this. Through the CoP, developers engage with the Trusts engineers. The Trust’s engineers are specialists in canal engineering and the protection and safeguarding of our specialist waterway assets. It is essential that the proposals incorporate appropriate measures to protect the structural integrity of our waterways and their users both during and after construction for all temporary and permanent works affecting our waterways. Engaging with the Trust’s engineers ensures the appropriate measures are taken. In terms of Work 18, relating to the pipeline crossing of the canal, we welcome that this would be undertaken via trenchless techniques. Submission document 6.2.3 (ES Chapter 3, Description of DCO proposed development), paragraph 3.6.61: sets out that trenchless techniques include “Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), Auger Boring Guided (GAB) and Unguided (UAB)) and Micro-Tunnelling are three types of trenchless installation techniques that are most likely to be utilised by the Construction Contractor(s) once the Detailed Design has been completed”. From prior discussion with the Applicant it is understood that the underground canal crossing would be installed using horizontal directional drilling with the launch pit and reception pit set well away from the canal corridor. We look forward to reviewing the technical drawings in accordance with the mechanisms to be contained in the protective provisions in relation to these works in due course and in terms of the launch and reception areas for the canal crossing, ensuring appropriate measures are put in place to protect and safeguard our assets. Surface water drainage to the canal The Trust would not accept any silt laden or potentially contaminated surface water from dewatering of excavations from the construction works or discharge from wheel washing etc. The Trust would however consider the acceptance of clean surface water from above ground installations to the Trust owned canal. The Trust is not a land drainage authority and such discharges are not granted as of right but would be the subject of the separate agreement with the Trust. Any flows would need to be attenuated and result in no net increase in flows. We would also need to be satisfied that there would be no net increase in flows as a result of the works to any watercourses which are culverted underneath the canal. The submission documents show that the drainage for the Rock Bank Block Valve Station (BVS) (Work No.20) would appear to connect to a ‘canal ditch’ which would appear to have an outfall to the canal next to bridge 134. Clarification has been sought from the Applicant in relation to this drainage. The route and direction of the ditch flow are unknown, but it appears that the ditch discharges to the canal. If this is the case then the surface water discharge would need to be reviewed and a discharge licence will be needed. Environmental Mitigation and the Outline Landscape Environmental Management Plan Work No.57G relates to the creation of environmental mitigation north of the Shropshire Union canal and would include woodland planting. It is essential that any tree planting here is offset from the canal by a minimum of 5m to ensure that the roots of the trees do not interfere with the clay lining of the canal and cause leakage or undermine the stability of the canal. Tree root barriers or similar may be required to be installed. We would also wish to be consulted on the native species mix to be provided here. In terms of the Outline Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) the Trust would wish to be consulted further on the specific and detailed landscaping to be provided in the vicinity of the canal corridor to ensure that such planting is appropriate to the setting of the canal conservation area and would not impact the structural integrity of the canal. In terms of Biodiversity Net Gain it is not entirely clear whether there will be any waterway credits to be spent. In principle if there are we would welcome further discussions with the Applicant in terms of any enhancement to the canal corridor here. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment shows that a number of trees within the vicinity of the canal corridor may be removed to facilitate the works. Any tree removal within 5m of the canal corridor would need to be carried out under supervision of the Trust to ensure that the waterway infrastructure would be safeguarded. The tree roots should be retained in situ and treated to prevent regrowth as opposed to being grubbed out/removed. The Construction Environment Management Plan A high level generic Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted with the application documentation. We welcome that the document states that the contractor will engage with the Trust to minimise impacts to the canal. However, it will be important that the Trust is fully engaged on these measures and given sufficient time for review of the CEMP and subsequent detailed CEMP’s. All CEMPs relating to works with the potential to affect the canal will need to be robust and comprehensive and include specific canal protection measures. They will need to include aspects of how materials, fuels, chemicals and wastes will be stored and where; measures for the prevention of dust generation and windblown litter and debris; measures to prevent run off into the canal and culverts (e.g. of silty water, contaminated water, fuels and chemicals); pollution response emergency procedures (including training of individuals, reporting as well as the physical mitigation and incident clean up); measures to be taken to ensure noise and vibration from drilling would not affect canal/towpath users; details of any planned water abstractions and /or discharges from or which may impact upon the canal and details of any oil interceptors and the steps to be taken if any unknown contamination is encountered during the works. We note that the Outline Soil Management CEMP sets out that stockpiles will be set away from ditches and watercourses by a minimum of 10m. We welcome that stockpiles will be a minimum of 10m away from watercourses but it will also be important that dust suppression is deployed and stockpiles are sheeted to prevent generation of dust and silty water affecting watercourses and the canal corridor. The route of the pipeline crosses a number of watercourses which appear to be culverted under the canal, this includes Backford Brook, which is managed by the Environment Agency, by development associated with Work No.23. During the works such watercourses could be at risk of siltation during any land clearance and construction works associated with the pipeline. The culverts flow north to south to discharge on the towpath side and as such any silt from the works on the offside could block the culverts, which would be of concern to the Trust and measures will need to be taken to prevent this and protect these watercourses. The Construction Traffic Management Plan The details set out that access to the Chorlton Lane Compound via the canal crossing Pretty Bridge (Bridge 134 Caughall) over the canal has been discounted due to the bridge having a 3.5T weight limit. We welcome that Figure 17-4 Construction Traffic Route Sheet 2 of 8 shows that both construction routes CC CTR2 and CC CTR3 would be directed to avoid crossing the canal in this location to access the construction compounds. Landscape and Visual Impact The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment appears to provide an appropriate consideration of the canal corridor and waterway users. There would be some temporary localised impacts associated with the construction works but given that the crossing of the canal would be underground and carried out via a horizontal directional drilling technique then the impact on the immediate environs of the waterway and towpath hedgeline should be limited. The mitigation planting and landscaping to be undertaken should also reduce the long-term visual impacts associated with the works. In terms of the permanent works the Rock Bank BVS would be the closest permanent above ground installation to the canal corridor, but this would be far enough away from the canal corridor to not have an adverse visual impact and would be screened by existing vegetation and land topography. The above comments are given without prejudice to other matters/comments that may be raised by the Trust at a later stage following a full review of the application documents. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you may have."
Local Authorities
Cheshire West And Chester Borough Council
"This Relevant Representation of Cheshire West and Chester Council provides an initial comment and issues relating to the content and scope of the application including the Local Plan Policy context, Environmental Assessment and the proposed requirements and provisions of the Draft Development Consent Order. Further to this representation, as a Host Authority, the Council will be providing a Local Impact Report (LIR) and, if necessary, a Written Representation (WR) at the forthcoming examination. 1 – THE PLANNING STATEMENT AND POLICY CONTEXT The submitted application and associated Planning Statement identifies the Local Development Plan within the Borough of Cheshire West and Chester (CWAC). A number of inconsistencies are noted in the identification of policies including an omission of Neighbourhood Plans as well as the full consideration of a number of Local Plan Policies including economic policies for the projects impact on existing businesses/operations including future expansions (standoffs / restrictions to the pipeline) and ecological network implications of Policy DM 44. Please note a more detailed consideration of the Local Development Plan will be provided as part of the examination within the Councils LIR. 2 – THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The Council has previously provided comment and recommendations on the scope and content of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). There are ongoing discussions between the Councils internal services and the applicant in respect the content of the submission stage Environmental Statement. The Councils position, as it stands on, specific matters including raised issues are provided below. Please note, as above, a detailed response in respect the Local Impacts of the project will be provided as part of the examination. Chapter 8 – Cultural Heritage Whilst the Councils Conservation officer is in general agreement with the overview of heritage impacts and assessments in Chapter 8 it is asked that individual Heritage Impact Assessments are provided to provide a true impact of AGIs and BVs. In addition, it is also requested that further detail is provided of how any harm resulting from AGIs and BVs can be mitigated against including planting and materials. In respect archaeology, whilst in general agreement with the assessments undertaken, the Archaeological Planning Advice Service for the Council identify that the outline Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeology does not include a maintenance and watching brief to deal with areas that cannot be trenched or where there are suspicions that the trenching might not have fully defined the archaeological potential. Without this inclusion in in the outline WSI concern I raised by the Council as to the potential for impacts on currently unidentified archaeology. Chapter 9 – Biodiversity It is understood that the project is considered as a whole, across both England and Wales, however, in considering local impacts within CWAC, in most instances, it has not been possible to assess impacts, as all analysis has been done at the project-wide level. To allow the assessment of local biodiversity impacts in CWAC it is asked that any impact assessments be split out (Hynet identified Sections 1-7). Significant concern is raised by the Council in respect the supporting biodiversity surveys including their strategy / extent (absence of surveys beyond the order boundary for barn owls and badgers), incomplete / missing survey data, as well as discrepancies in the provided survey data. It is noted that the applicant has advised that further survey data is to be provided within the next couple of months. Considering the nature of the incomplete surveys both in terms of their scope and missing data it is advised that any assessment of the projects likely impacts and effects in respect biodiversity cannot be made at this stage. For this reason, it is asked that suitable provision of time is given to enable the Council to consider any updated survey data and assessments prior to the commencement of the examination. In addition to the above issues relating to surveys concerns are also raised in respect a number of the undertaken species-specific assessments and which require clarification including detail of the full assessments of tree and hedgerow losses on bats and barn owls, habitat severance in respect badgers and riparian mammals as well the logic for transect and survey locations for breeding / wintering birds and fish. It is noted that, due to technical reasons, replacement trees cannot be planted within 12m either side of the pipeline. Clarification on this matter is required in respect what this means in terms of tree and hedgerow replacements and to the mitigation, compensation and enhancement for Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and overall habitat connectivity, including the provision of any required long-term management, which appears to be absent from any proposed mitigation. A Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) assessment has been undertaken, but only for priority habitats, rather than all habitats as a standard BNG calculation would. It is noted that BNG is not currently a mandatory requirement for NSIPs but can be used as a general tool to demonstrate if a project is achieving adequate habitat mitigation and compensation. The BNG undertaken shows the project is unable to provide net gain within the order limits and that off-site is only potential. It is asked that if BNG is to be applied to this project, the above be clarified including how off-site mitigation is to be secured. Chapter 16 – Population and Human Health A number of footpaths in the borough including those affected by the proposed works to the south of the M53 (Wervin and Wimbolds Trafford Works nos. 13 -15) are prone to drainage and waterlogging issues. Concerns are raised where works have the potential to affect or exacerbate local drainage. It is asked that due consideration of both direct and indirect impacts and on public rights of way from drainage is provided and be clearly addressed in the drainage management schemes and mitigated during construction works (CEMP) as well as the restoration of land. Chapter 17 – Traffic and Transport Whilst some concerns are raised in relation of the suitability and safety of the use of smaller lanes to access construction compounds no overall objection is made from the Council’s Highways. Chapter 19 – Cumulative Impacts Combined effects should be fully considered with HS2, especially in terms of impacts on MSAs, waste generation and impacts to local and regional transport. Combined effects with other NSIPs should include the Cadent Hydrogen Pipe project including its Pipe location and HAGIs which would have potential for physical overlap especially near to the HPP plant and offshoot to the Protos Site. 3 - THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER On review of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) the Council raises several concerns in respect the proposed wording and appropriateness of its provisions including the principal powers, the content and wording of the suggested requirements and the unrealistic proposed process timescales relating to applications made under the requirements. Discussions with the applicant in respect the draft DCO are ongoing and whilst it is expected that much the raised issues can be appropriately addressed there are several which without resolve are potentially matters for significant concern. These include but are not limited to the following: • Clarification in respect the defence to proceedings and arbitration in respect of statutory nuisance for noise and its interplay with existing statute (DCO Part 2 (Principal Powers) Para. 9). • The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) provisions under requirements 5 and 11 are considered too vague. More clarification of the inclusions for each are needed, and in particular direct references for mineral safeguarding, the protection and replacement planting of all significant trees and hedgerows (not just ancient woodland), heritage mitigation as well as clear biodiversity considerations including survey reporting and monitoring strategies. • Further to the above a definition of “existing features” in requirement 11 (d) is needed. • The proposed exceptions and definitions in relation to the proposed construction working hours under Requirement 13 (1-5) are not considered acceptable. • There is the need for detailed restoration plans including aftercare under Requirements 15 and 16. • Clarification of timescales for notifications and decisions under the proposed requirements and discharge of requirements - 42 days? • The proposed 5/21-day notification periods for the request for further information under Schedule 2 Part 2 paras 21 (2-4)) is not considered acceptable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding Department
"Proposal: A new build carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline that will transport CO2 produced and captured by future hydrogen producing facilities and existing industrial premises in North West England and North Wales for offshore storage. The CO2 pipeline will comprise both newbuild and existing pipelines that will be covered under the DCO. When complete it will run from the Ince AGI in Cheshire to Talacre Beach in North Wales. Location: Pipeline between Ince, near Stanlow, and Flint. It will link into an existing gas pipeline running from Flint to Point of Ayr Grid Ref’s: Route between E 346901 N 376125 E 336448 N 368870 E 314092 N 374635 E 310856 N 384119 Thank you for consulting the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on the above proposed development which was received by this office on the 26/11/2022. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Safeguarding Team represents the Ministry of Defence (MOD) as a consultee in UK planning and energy consenting systems to ensure that development does not compromise or degrade the operation of defence sites such as aerodromes, explosives storage sites, air weapon ranges, and technical sites or training resources such as the Military Low Flying System. The applicant has submitted a Development Consent Order application for a new pipeline to transport carbon dioxide between Ince, near Stanlow, and Flint for offshore storage. This application relates to a site outside of Ministry of Defence safeguarding areas. I can therefore confirm that the Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding concerns to this proposal. The MOD must emphasise that the advice provided within this letter is in response to the data and information detailed above and, in the documentation, titled HYNET NORTH WEST CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE dated 26/11/2022 Any variation of the parameters (which include the location, dimensions, form, and finishing materials) detailed may significantly alter how the development relates to MOD safeguarding requirements and cause adverse impacts to safeguarded defence assets or capabilities. In the event that any amendment, whether considered material or not by the determining authority, is submitted for approval, the MOD should be consulted and provided with adequate time to carry out assessments and provide a formal response. I trust this is clear however should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Douglas Bartlett
"I am a Flintshire resident who is concerned that there are only commercial benefits from this project. I would like to resprent the views of local residents and examine the benefits of the project for local residents, local communities, benefits to Wales and it's environmental strategy. Benefits to the Worldwide responce to the climate emergency."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"We are having ongoing discussions with the Applicant’s agents and are working with them to resolve the issues we have raised on the current EIA submission. We have reviewed the submitted documents and have provided below a summary of matters where we consider that further clarification is required to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the environment. These matters include land ownership, flood risk, contaminated land, biodiversity, and environmental permitting. Land Ownership As per Schedule of Negotiations with Land Interests, Document Reference Number APP-028, the Applicant is consulting with our North Estates Ops team to set up a site meeting to address queries relating to affected land ownership. At this stage, we are unable to confirm that there are no objections to the acquisition of any of our land interests. Flood Risk Parts of the Pipeline lie within Flood Zone 2 & 3 on the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map for planning. As such, we advise that the location of the Above Ground Installation (AGI) is examined and considered in detail within the development’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), including full compliance and justification under the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) and include all necessary protection and mitigation measures – including compensatory flood storage where necessary. Any temporary or permanent works within 8m of any main river will be subject to the need for a Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP) under the Environmental Permitting Regulations from the Environment Agency. Our standard position is that we recommend that the applicant twin track with the DCO and a permit application. At this stage we cannot give any assurances that the current proposals will be granted a FRAP. Contaminated Land Soil and/or groundwater contamination may exist along the length of the proposed pipeline. Associated risks to controlled waters should be addressed as part of the development proposals, and we would wish to be a consultee on the approval of these plans. We support the production of a Dewatering Management Plan and a Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan, and we would wish to be a consultee on the approval of these plans. If it is proposed to abstract 20m3/day or more to facilitate dewatering of excavations, then this will require an abstraction licence to be issued before any dewatering commences (unless an exemption applies). These applications will need to be supported by a suitable Water Features Survey and Hydrogeological Risk Assessment detailing the risks that the abstraction poses to dependent water features and how these will be mitigated. If any pumping tests are to be carried out at rates of 20m3/day or more to determine aquifer properties to inform the HRA, then the applicant will need to apply for a Groundwater Investigation Consent under the Water Resources Act 1991 prior to carrying out the pumping tests. Discharges of water from pumping tests and dewatering activities will require an environmental permit under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016, from the Environment Agency, unless an exemption applies. Discharges of surface water from the development should be managed in accordance with the guidance provided in the CIRIA SUDS Manual and the Environment Agency’s Groundwater protection position statements - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Discharges from areas subject to contamination should not be discharged to ground (infiltration) without appropriate levels of treatment. Infiltration of surface water should not take place on contaminated land. Our standard position is that we recommend that the Applicant twin track with the DCO and permit applications, at present this has not been undertaken, therefore at this stage we cannot give any assurances that the current proposals will be granted for these permits. Ecology Protection/Enhancement We have reviewed the document reference APP-061 - Environmental Statement (Volume II) Chapter 9 – Biodiversity, and have the following comments to make: 9.4.3. ELEMENTS SCOPED OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT We agree that the elements shown in Table 9.2 are not considered to give rise to likely significant effects as a result of the DCO Proposed Development. 9.8. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT AVOIDANCE, AND EMBEDDED MITIGATION Table 9.10 Embedded Mitigation Designed for the DCO Proposed Development Although the mitigation proposed in ‘Waterbodies D-BD-011’ is generally acceptable, we are concerned that a waterbody ‘near Stanlow Refinery’ will be permanently lost. We expect to see full details of adequate compensatory habitat as a result of this loss. 9.9. ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY IMPACTS AND EFFECTS We agree with the assessment of likely impacts/effects and expect these to be mitigated and adequately compensated, as proposed in Table 9.12. 9.10.11. ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT In addition to the creation of wood habitat piles and the installation of bat and bird boxes, the completion of nearby Water Framework Directive mitigation measures, that enhance riverine habitats for biodiversity, must also be included. This would contribute to biodiversity net gain and the legal objective of ‘good ecological potential’ for these waterbodies."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bell Ingram LLP on behalf of Essar Oil (UK) Limited (Essar Oil (UK) Limited)
"Essar Oil (UK) Limited support the HyNet proposals and support this DCO. However, to the extent that the DCO includes land within our ownership and within our operational site boundary, we are not willing to sell the freehold interest or any perpetual rights, as this could have a significant impact on our operation of the Stanlow Refinery. We intend to negotiate occupational agreements of any essential land voluntarily on appropriate terms with all or any parties that need to be accommodated as part of this scheme. The proposed terms that have been issued by HyNet to date are not acceptable to Essar Oil (UK) Limited and we will commence negotiations shortly."
Local Authorities
Flintshire County Council
"This Relevant Representation of Flintshire County Council provides an initial comment and issues relating to the content and scope of the application including the Local Development Plan Policy context, and the proposed requirements and provisions of the Draft Development Consent Order (DCO). Further to this representation, as a Host Authority, the Council will be providing a Local Impact Report (LIR) and, if necessary, a Written Representation (WR) at the forthcoming examination. As a Host Authority, it is assumed therefore that this representation does not need to include all areas that will be discussed during the Examination. Further representations in the form of the LIR, and/or WR, if necessary, may include the following matters: the proposed effects of the underground carbon dioxide pipeline and proposed above ground installations in relation to; air quality, dust, climate change and climate resilience, cultural heritage, ecology and biodiversity, greenhouse gases and decarbonisation, land and soils, restoration and decommissioning, land contamination, landscape and visual impact, materials, mineral safeguarding and waste, noise and vibration, population and human health, traffic and transport, water resources and flood risk and any cumulative effects with other projects. 1 – THE PLANNING STATEMENT AND POLICY CONTEXT The submitted application and associated Planning Statement identifies the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as the adopted development plan for Flintshire County Council. Reference is also made to the emerging Flintshire Local Development Plan (LDP). Following the examination of the Flintshire LDP, the binding Inspectors Report was received from Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 15th December 2022. A report will be taken to Cabinet on 17th January 2023 and Council on 24th January 2023 seeking adoption of the LDP. Therefore, it is anticipated that at the examination of this DCO proposal, the Flintshire UDP will not be relevant and the LDP will the Development Plan for Flintshire. A detailed consideration of the LDP will be provided as part of the examination within the Councils LIR. 2 – THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The Council has previously provided comment and recommendations on the scope and content of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). There are ongoing discussions between the Councils internal services and the applicant in respect the content of the submission stage Environmental Statement. A detailed response in respect the Local Impacts of the project will be provided as part of the examination within the Council’s LIR. Chapter 8 – Cultural Heritage A large number of geophysical anomalies described as of "uncertain origin" would need to be evaluated at the pre-determination stage to accord with PPW11 and TAN24. If pre-determination evaluation is not carried forward, then a robust WSI (written scheme of investigation) document should be submitted with the ES. It is considered that the WSI is largely robust and appropriate. However, clarification should be made from the applicant/consultants whether a rolling watching brief utilising a strip/map/excavate methodology will be included during the initial easement and pipe trench excavation to formation level, as this typically finds more features that were not revealed by the geophysics and trial trenching alone, particularly features of prehistoric date. Chapter 9 – Biodiversity The submission does not address the additional requirements outside of the new build infrastructure boundary to meet the Biodiversity Net Benefit (BNG) target. BNG Assessment D.6.5.12 states that this is being pursued through engagement using the off-site compensation scenarios. However no detail has provide how this will be delivered to ensure compliance and their long term management. Chapter 11 – Land and Soils The document makes reference to a requirement to access land for the purpose of excavating trial pits specifically. However, it’s likely that alternative methods of exploring the ground conditions at the different points along the route of the pipeline; including the block valve stations, will need to be relied upon to enable the samples required to be collected and so there appears to be a conflict between the approach to be taken in terms of assessing and addressing land contamination and the scope of the DCO. For this reason, it is suggested that the DCO is amended to allow for a broader scope of exploratory methods to be used to enable the works proposed. As it is, the DCO is too restrictive. As a point to draw to the attention of those involved in the land contamination assessments and reporting, it’s important to ensure that any references, guidance and legislation referred to is applicable to Wales and not only to England. Community Benefit Fund The construction of the pipeline would cause significant disruption to a number of communities in Flintshire for the duration of construction. Furthermore, should consent be granted, this would result in extending the life of the Point of Ayr Terminal which is currently expected to be restored by 2023. However, it is noted that the communities and industry of Flintshire would not benefit from receiving hydrogen until much later in the project as there are no immediate plans to construct a hydrogen pipeline in Flintshire. As such, it is considered reasonable for the developers to commit to providing a community benefit fund for those effected communities. 3 - THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER On review of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) the Council raises several concerns in respect the proposed wording and appropriateness of its provisions including the principal powers, the content and wording of the suggested requirements and the unrealistic proposed process timescales relating to applications made under the requirements, and the associated fees. Discussions with the applicant in respect the draft DCO are ongoing and whilst it is expected that much the raised issues can be appropriately addressed there are several which without resolve are potentially matters for significant concern. These include but are not limited to the following: • The proposed exceptions and definitions in relation to the proposed construction working hours under Requirement 13 (1-5) are not considered acceptable. • There is the need for detailed restoration plans including aftercare under Requirements 15 and 16. • Lack of reference to a Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP). DEMP is essential to ensure the decommissioning and removal of the above ground installations once they are no longer required. • clarification of timescales for notifications and decisions under the proposed requirements and discharge of requirements • The proposed 5/21-day notification periods for the request for further information under Schedule 2 Part 2 paras 21 (2-4)) is not considered acceptable. • Schedule 2 Part 1, Para 22 Fees: clarification on fees for approving the requirements is required. £97 does not correlate with any fees regulations and concern is expressed in relation to the scale of work required for determination of the requirements"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gavin Goodwin
"We are concerned about the lack of willing and meaningful engagement with the representatives of the Hynet C02Pipeline scheme, which will impact the land we own and occupy during the construction stage. Furthermore we are concerned that the excavations to install the pipeline will be irreparable damage to the soil structure of the land, reducing its ability to be farmed and becoming more prone to flooding, reducing its usefulness ot agriculture and leisure. In addition the presence of the pipeline would sterilise the land from any future development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Littler
"I am concerned that they has been a lack of willing and meaningful engagement from the scheme in relation to the positioning of a large construction compound on the land. Furthermore, following poor performance from contractors acting for the HyNet CO2 Pipeline in relation to the Ground Investigation works, the reinstatement of the land was unsatisfactory with the high quality top soil being buried and subsoil left on the surface. This land is of high agricultural value and is used for the growing of high value root crops such as carrots and potatoes and fresh produce including brassicas and salads. I am seriously concerned that the works will irreparable damage the soil structure, reducing its ability to be used for growing high value crops and increase the risk of the land becoming waterlogged."
Other Statutory Consultees
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"The MCA has an interest in the works associated with the marine environment, and the potential impact on the safety of navigation, access to ports, harbours and marinas and any impact on our search and rescue obligations. The MCA would expect any works in the marine environment to be subject to the appropriate licensing and planning consents before carrying out any marine licensable works. A range of potential project impacts on shipping and navigation have been identified for this project which could occur during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the proposed development, and the MCA wishing to remain consulted throughout the examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German LLP on behalf of Messrs AM & JM Walton
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German LLP on behalf of Messrs EE & JE Williams
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity. 11. The unavailability of the land at Magazine Lane, Ewloe during the construction phase will have a serious impact to the farm’s ability to spread slurry. Changes announced for farmers in Wales will mean that with effect from 1st April 2023 there will be a maximum limit of 170kg/ha of nitrogen permitted for spreading. For Messrs Williams to remain compliant with the regulations, the loss of this land will have a serious financial impact to the farming business with a potential reduction in cow numbers and hence reduced turnover, leading to possible job cuts"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German LLP on behalf of Messrs H W Oultram & Co, Miss C Oultram & Messrs S & A Oultram
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural (to include farm animals) and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity. 11. The proximity of the proposed pipeline on land surrounding the farmstead at Newbridge Farm will have serious consequences for the viability of the farm namely: a. The area required for the construction work will not only remove key areas of the farm for grazing and calving paddocks, but it will create serious logistical problems of moving a dairy herd of over 200 cows around the farm on a daily basis. b. Messrs Oultram are particularly concerned of the health and safety issues as raised in Point 7 in view of the proximity of the proposed pipe to the farmhouse and farm buildings. c. It should be highlighted that the route of the proposed pipeline would cause serious environmental damage in respect of the established badger setts. In addition, there are bat roosts and Great Crested Newt habitats along the proposed route. 12. The removal of up to 16 acres of land opposite the farm for a compound site during the construction phase will have a serious detrimental impact to the farm’s viability. This block of land is fundamental to the dairy herd’s grazing system and for the application of slurry. It is estimated that the loss of such land will result in up to a third of the dairy herd having to disposed of through the lack of available grazing and reduced area for spreading slurry. The reduced turnover will result in immediate staff redundancies and will bring into question the long term future of the farm as a dairy holding. If the business is to remain viable a change to a zero grazing system will be required. This will ultimately involve significant investment in new buildings, machinery and equipment and additional land to enable the forage to be brought into the dairy herd. Messrs Oultram would be looking to HYNET to provide this investment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rainford Hall Estate Limited on behalf of Messrs J & E Williams
"Re - Land at Aston Hill Farm, Aston Hill Lane, Deeside 1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity. 11. The unavailability of the land at Aston Hill Farm, Aston Hill Lane, Deeside during the construction phase will have a serious impact to the farm’s ability to spread slurry. Changes announced for farmers in Wales will mean that with effect from 1st April 2023 there will be a maximum limit of 170kg/ha of nitrogen permitted for spreading. For Messrs Williams to remain compliant with the regulations, the loss of this land will have a serious financial impact to the farming business with a potential reduction in cow numbers and hence reduced turnover, leading to possible job cuts."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German LLP on behalf of Messrs J Wrench & Son
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity. 11. The proximity of the proposed pipeline to the farm buildings at Beeches Farm will ultimately sterilize an area which has been set aside for building expansion. 12. The removal of land for a compound site during the construction phase will have a serious impact to the farm’s grazing and forage areas for the dairy herd. The reduced grazing area will require the herd to be buffer fed inside the farm buildings which has financial implications to the business. Messrs Wrench have a specific number of days stipulated within their milk contract where the herd are permitted to be inside. Any breach of this clause will result in financial penalties to the business. In addition to the cost of sourcing additional buffer feed, there will be an increase to the carbon footprint of the farm business, which again will be subject to penalties from milk purchaser."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fisher German LLP on behalf of Messrs MJ & A Cheers
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains serious concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential, agricultural and commercial properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers, soils, drainage networks and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for. 9. Drainage and soil fertility – There is a concern that the construction phase will have a detrimental impact to the land drainage, particularly where the land has relied on natural drainage and therefore assurances are required that an appropriate land drainage scheme is prepared and agreed with the Landowner/occupier before commencement. 10. Insurance – In some instances Landowners/Occupiers have raised the proposed pipeline project with their insurers, particularly where the route is close to residential properties and buildings. In the event that annual insurance premiums are increased in view of the potential risks posed by the new pipeline, confirmation is required that HYNET will reimburse the Landowner/Occupier for the increased premiums in perpetuity. 11. The proximity of the proposed pipeline to the farm buildings at Collinge Farm will ultimately sterilize an area which has been set aside for building expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Michael A. Jones & Sarah M. Jones & T. Benjamin Jones
"1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mostyn History Preservation Society
"to press for community benefit fund covering communities such as Mostyn, Talacre, Ffynnongroyw, Gwespyr."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural England
"Summary of Natural England’s Advice: On the basis of information reviewed so far it is Natural England’s advice that, in relation to identified nature conservation issues within its remit, there is no fundamental reason of principle why the project should not be permitted. However, Natural England considers that the applicant has provided insufficient evidence and is not yet satisfied that the following issues have been addressed: o International and national designated sites as further information is required relating to impacts on functionally linked land and noise disturbance. o Protected species as further information is required regarding survey and assessment details. o Soils and best and most versatile agricultural land as further information is required within the Soil Management Plan and Outline Peat Management Plan. Natural England’s full representation will be submitted via email."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Turley, on behalf of Peel NRE on behalf of Peel NRE
"Introduction 1. This Relevant Representation has been prepared by Turley on behalf of Peel NRE to the application by Liverpool Bay CCS Limited ('Applicant') for a development consent order ('Order') seeking powers for the delivery of the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline and related infrastructure (Planning Inspectorate Reference EN070007) ('Pipeline'). By completing this form, Peel NRE is registering to become an Interested Party to take part in the Examination of the above application. 2. The Pipeline will facilitate delivery of HyNet North West, a hydrogen supply and carbon capture and storage project for which a separate development consent order will be sought. 3. Peel NRE is the owner of land required by the Pipeline for the Ince Above Ground Installation (AGI), and the associated proposed access, pipeline corridor, and construction compound (as shown on Works Plan ref. EN070007-D.2.4-WP-Sheet 1) ('Affected Land'). The Affected Land includes land at Ince Park, known as Protos – a 130ha development site comprising a major energy and resource recovery hub and ecological management areas which is a major employer near to Ince, Cheshire. Protos has extant planning permissions in place and the delivery of development is already well advanced. Protos benefits from outline planning permission (ref. 14/02277/S73) for a resource recovery park, and additionally, separate planning consents have been secured across individual plots for developments that are aligned to the ethos of Protos, including an Energy from Waste Facility (ref. 18/01543/S73), a biomass facility (ref. 14/02278/S73), a timber recycling plant (ref. 14/02271/S73), a plastics to hydrogen facility (ref. 19/03489/FUL), and a plastics park (ref. 21/04076/FUL). 4. Protos is allocated in the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Local Plan Part One Policies STRAT 4 and ENV 8; and Local Plan Part Two Policy EP6) and is safeguarded for a multi-modal resource recovery park and energy from waste facility for use in connection with the recycling, recovery and reprocessing of waste materials. 5. Peel NRE is part of Peel L&P Group and has a long track record of delivering large scale, transformational developments and infrastructure across the UK. Peel NRE has been working closely with Cheshire West and Chester Council (“CWACC”) to bring forward the various components of Protos over the last 14 years. 6. Peel NRE is planning for the future expansion of Protos (as expressed through representations submitted by Peel NRE to the CWACC Local Plan Conversation in September 2021), to become a destination for sustainable energy, innovation and industry, helping to create a net zero industrial cluster and achieve climate change ambitions. The Pipeline is proposed within the area planned for the future expansion of Protos. 7. Peel NRE submitted representations to the Section 42 Statutory Consultation in March 2022, and the response is summarised in the Consultation Report (document ref. D.5.1, Revision A, September 2022, references X-38, X-45, S1-08, S1-09, S1-10, S1-19, S1-20, S1-21, S1-22). The Applicant has amended the Pipeline scheme following the statutory consultation, which has resolved some of the concerns raised by Peel NRE about the impact of the Pipeline. 8. Peel NRE remains wholly supportive of the principle of the Pipeline. Indeed, Peel NRE recognises that there are potential beneficial synergies between the Pipeline and Protos. However, should the Order be granted as proposed, the Pipeline will conflict with planned development at Protos which would prejudice the delivery of a key development within CWACC and limit its potential. The key issues presented in this Relevant Representation, and to which objections are raised, include: • Layout of the AGI • Easement of the CO2 Pipeline • Means of access • Negotiating land agreements Key Issues Above Ground Installation 9. Concern was raised by Peel NRE through the Section 42 Consultation regarding the conflict of the AGI which could prejudice the delivery of the expansion of Protos. Through conversations between the Applicant and Peel NRE, this proposal is now incorporated into the future expansion plans at Protos, with many synergies and opportunities capable of being delivered via both schemes. There are no concerns with the principle of the AGI element or its general location. However, in order to ensure that both the Protos expansion and the Pipeline are capable of co-existence there will need to be further assurances given by the Applicant to Peel NRE to confirm the layout of the AGI and agreement to the landtake. 10. Peel NRE objects to the proposed layout of the AGI. The layout needs to be carefully considered to not conflict with existing site constraints (such as distances from existing watercourses / ditches), or constrain other planned developments. The layout submitted by the Applicant is “indicative” (plan ref. EN070007-D.2.12-LAY-Sheet 2), which indicates the layout is not yet fixed and there is scope to agree the layout between the Applicant and Peel NRE. Pipeline Location 11. The Pipeline is proposed to travel north/south along the eastern boundary of the order limit. The location of the Pipeline in the current proposal is an improvement on the location of the Pipeline previously proposed in the Section 42 Consultation. However, despite this improvement, the current proposals are still not acceptable to Peel NRE on the basis that the proposed 24.4m corridor around the pipeline for the permanent acquisition of sub-soil (at plots 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 1-18 and 1-19) would cause an unacceptable quantum of land to be restricted from development by way of the proposed restrictive covenants. 12. The proposed restrictive covenants prevent any activity from being undertaken on this land (within the 24.4m corridor) which would interfere with the Pipeline (unless the prior written consent of the Applicant is obtained) including drilling foundations and hard surfacing. Such restrictions over the proposed quantum of land would impose unacceptable restraints on the ability to develop and extend the Protos site at these plots. Peel NRE accordingly objects in principle to the current proposal on the basis of the permanent acquisition and quantum of land included within this 24.4m corridor and is in the process of discussing matters with the Applicant to agree a position acceptable to both parties. Access 13. The proposed access road from Grinsome Road roundabout to the Pipeline/AGI conflicts with the delivery of the approved Protos Plastics Park (CWACC Planning application ref. 21/04076/FUL) which could constrain the delivery of the development. Therefore, at this stage, Peel NRE objects to the proposed access to the Ince AGI and the Pipeline. An alternative means of access should be identified to avoid conflicting with planned development at Protos, and utilise simpler crossings over existing and proposed railway tracks and ditches. 14. The Consultation Report (document ref. D.5.1, Revision A, September 2022, reference S1-09), states the Applicant is open to changing the access route provided continued access is made available to the AGI. This is welcomed and further conversations should be held with Peel NRE, but at this stage Peel NRE objects in principle to this aspect of the proposal. Negotiating Land Agreements 15. At this stage, Peel NRE objects to the proposed acquisition of land, interests and rights identified within the Land Plans (drawing ref. EN070007-D.2.2-LP-Sheet 1). The Applicant proposes to acquire land (including interests and rights) permanently for the AGI, the subsurface (including rights) permanently for the Pipeline, the permanent rights to access, and the temporary use of land for construction. These acquisitions will severely restrict the future development of this parcel of land by Peel NRE, not just during construction of the Pipeline but throughout the lifetime of its operation. Withdrawal of objection 16. In order for Peel NRE to be in a position to withdraw its objection to the proposed Order, Peel NRE requires confirmation from the Applicant that: 1.16.1 the acquisition of land and rights over the Affected Land (including the extinguishment of any rights) is on terms agreed with Peel NRE; 1.16.2 sufficient protection for the Protos expansion is afforded by the Pipeline scheme to enable the Protos expansion to come forward unhindered; 1.16.3 no works pertinent to the Affected Land shall be carried out without Peel NRE's prior approval of the plans, specification, method statement and programme of works; and 1.16.4 full access rights, during both the construction and operation phases, are retained to the Affected Land for the benefit of Peel NRE. Conclusion 17. Peel NRE does not object in principle to the general concept of the Pipeline scheme. However, it strongly objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land and rights over its land on the terms proposed. Peel NRE is keen to progress discussions with the Applicant with a view to reaching agreement that will enable it to withdraw its objection to the Pipeline. Until such time as Peel NRE is given the protection and assurances requested as detailed in this Representation it will continue to make representations in respect of the proposed Order."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Angell
"Has such a project been carried out in this country and how successful is it. The information and definitive maps are lacking in detail. What will be the benefit to this area and who will benefit. The area roughly identified is agricultural land supporting several businesses and it is also the ground for the feeding of animals in the adjacent SSSI. and woods."
Non-Statutory Organisations
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Royal Mail Group Limited supports this proposed Hynet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline, but is seeking to secure mitigations to protect its road based operations during the construction phase. 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. Royal Mail has 4 operational properties within 8 miles of the DCO application site: BE 2472 Flint DO, BE 2475 Chester MC, BE 2454 Chester DO, and BE BE2528 Ellesmere Port DO (8 miles). The draft Outline Construction Traffic Management Report which was published in October 2022 states construction traffic will use the M53, A55, A494, B roads, and other adjacent local roads. In exercising its statutory duties, Royal Mail vehicles use all of these roads on a daily basis for access to the Delivery Offices and for deliveries. Any disruption and congestion on these roads has potential to adversely affect Royal Mail operations. Royal Mail previously submitted a response to the application’s Section 42 consultation in July 2022. Building on that response, Royal Mail is registering to be an Interested Party to the Examination in order to protect its position and ensure that the future CTMP secures mitigations for Royal Mail."
Members of the Public/Businesses
United Utilities Water Limited
"United Utilities Water Limited (UUW) wishes to register an interest as an interested party in the examination. UUW submitted a detailed response dated 8 April 2022 to the EIA Preliminary Environmental Information Report. We identified a range of issues which need further consideration as part of the determination of the Development Consent Order. The matters included (inter alia): • Our assets and property interests; • Flood risk; • Drainage – foul and surface water; • Geo-technical / geo-environmental including any impact on the groundwater environment and water resources; and • Water supply requirements. Whilst dialogue has occurred with the applicant, we do not have the required information in response to the matters raised in our submission of 8 April 2022 to definitively address these matters. Assets and Property UUW have a number of significant assets and property interests including large diameter trunk mains, water supply mains, raw water mains, sewers and gravity sewers within the Order Limits. These assets include the Dee aqueduct which are critical to water supplies within our area. Whilst issues around Assets and Property have been discussed, UUW is concerned that there has been no detailed review of our assets by the applicant and we are therefore unable to confirm that our assets will be adequately protected from the proposed development. We have reached a stage where UUW require a formal instruction and associated funding to progress any design and estimating works. In the absence of this instruction, the applicant carries a risk of not knowing the nature / cost of the works and the associated delivery timescales that will be required to ensure our assets are protected. Work relating to our assets could necessitate work outside the Order Limits which could have implications for delivery both in terms of costs and time. UUW will require appropriate protective provisions to be agreed as part of the DCO process to ensure that our assets are adequately protected and to ensure that a range of impacts are considered and addressed by the applicant as outlined in our submission of 8 April 2022. Drainage UUW is concerned that no detailed foul and surface water drainage plans have been reviewed as part of the DCO application although we note recently submitted information which we are in the process of reviewing. Therefore it has not been possible to assess the impact on our sewer network to date. Flood Risk Whilst initial discussions regarding flood risk have been held, we request that the applicant instructs us to formally review flood risk in more detail. This would relate to a range of flood risk matters including sewer and reservoir flood risk and whether any works to watercourses could affect our existing outfalls. Geo Environmental In our previous submission, we requested that the approach to the assessment of the impact on the groundwater environment is considered as part of the DCO application and agreed with UUW. This has not been discussed in any detail with the applicant and therefore remains an outstanding matter. Water Supply The applicant has not confirmed whether any water will be required from UUW either during the construction process or during the operational life of the development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Coal Authority
"CR1 The Coal Authority previously commented on this submission in a response in 2022. We noted that the application was accompanied by Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA) (D.6.3.11.2, revision A (Environmental Statement – Volume III) prepared for the project by WSP UK Limited. Having carried out a review of the available information, the Report authors stated that only some sections of the pipeline corridor are affected by former coal mining activity. The report authors made recommendations for the pipeline routing to avoid these areas where possible and in the event that the pipeline cannot avoid the areas, that intrusive ground investigations are required in order to confirm the ground conditions present and inform any remedial measures required to mitigate the risk posed to the pipeline and associated infrastructure. We recommended that the measures proposed within the submitted Coal Mining Risk Assessment prepared by WSP UK Limited to address the risks posed to the development by past coal mining activity are included as requirements of any Order granted for the project. We note the changes now proposed on the scheme. In respect of the areas were changes are proposed and past coal mining features are recorded to be present this only appears to relate to area 41. We would expect that in this area further consideration will be given to the potential risks posed by past coal mining activity in respect of the changes made as part of the recommendations within the Coal Mining Risk Assessment, which should be included as requirements of any DCO granted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicky Crosby
"CR1 As an interested person involved in a group of people with concerns about the HyNet project I wish to make representations about the HyNet CO2 pipeline DCO Climate impacts (ExA written questions 1.5.2) In their Cover Letter, referencing the wider HyNet project, the applicant estimates a projected reduction of 10 million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year by the early 2030s. Can this estimate be justified in the face of: a) the unproven nature of large-scale CCS projects and failure to meet projected sequestration targets? Australian government data shows the Gorgon CCS project (capturing CO2 from extraction of reservoir gas) in Australia emitted over 7.7 million tons of CO2 in 2016-17. The project was initially planned to capture and inject underground up to 4 million tonnes (MT) of reservoir CO2 each year but actually sequestered on average less than 1MT per year. Quest, a blue Hydrogen Shell project in Canada, captured 48% of emitted GHG, well below their projected 90%, and a Global Witness study found that over a 5 year period, overall project emissions (7.7 MT) significantly exceeded CO2 captured (4.8MT). b) the likelihood of long-term escape of sequestered gas. Research into long-term effectiveness and consequences of CO2 sequestration, projecting over 100,000 year timescales shows large, delayed warming in the atmosphere as well as oxygen depletion, acidification and elevated CO2 concentrations in the ocean. Eni’s written response to questions asked at its 2023 AGM indicates that they only guarantee to monitor emissions from storage in Liverpool Bay for 20 years after the closure of the storage site. c) Increasing evidence that upstream emissions of blue hydrogen production are not acknowledged and / or are underestimated. January 2023 Princeton research concluded that as much as five times more methane is being leaked from oil and gas production than reported and that the UK government systematically and severely underestimates emissions in its mandatory reports to international bodies. What methodology does the applicant use in relation to upstream emissions and their claim of CO2 reduction? Environmental Impact Assessment Notwithstanding the applicant using the totality of the wider HyNet project in relation to climate mitigation claims, the project has been separated out from the wider projects and infrastructure which will use and which depend on this pipeline. (See ExA written questions 1.1.6) As such, the applicant may have breached the requirements for cumulative assessment of all environmental factors. The land-based pipeline. Further to the submission by Councillor Andrew Sparrow 6th January. There is a risk of leak from, and rupture of, the land-based pipeline. The 2020 leak in Satartia led to approx. 200 residents being evacuated and 46 people treated in local hospitals. There is risk of brittle fracture and corrosion due to reaction with water, with additional risks from impurities due to transport of CO2 from multiple sources. There are risks associated with repurposing pipelines previously used to transport hydrocarbons. The HSE acknowledges limited experience and safety data in relation to CO2 pipeline development; internationally, regulation and guidance has not kept up with recent interest in CCS systems. How does the applicant’s experience and expertise demonstrate satisfactory mitigation of these risks?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liverpool Friends of The Earth
"CR1 As a community organisation based within HyNet's geographical footprint, Liverpool Friends of The Earth (LFoE) wishes to make a representation. This will: (A), directly support and reference representations made earlier by four other Interested Parties, and (B), respond to the Applicant's D.7.16 May 2023 responses. This representation is further informed via Eni's answers at its May 10th 2023 AGM, to questions about the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline and Liverpool Bay CCS. The AGM questions were submitted by Italian advocacy group, ReCommon, partnering North West UK environmental groups, including LFoE A1) In support of Carolyn Thomas, MS: Responding to an AGM question, Eni acknowledges it will monitor the integrity of Liverpool Bay geology against CO2 leakage for only 20 years following final CO2 injection. We feel the period's shortness negates the rationale of the HyNet CO2 Pipeline A2) In support of Natural Resources Wales: We feel that Eni did not adequately respond to AGM questions relating to neither the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act, WBFGA, nor strategic ramifications of Wales' Core Membership of The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA). Rather than merely noting 'a continuous dialogue with various departments of the Senedd (Welsh Government)', as Eni did, there should be clear responses detailing specific joint agreements in these spheres. There is no evidence that Eni has properly understood or strategically contextualised these policies' interfacings with the Pipeline proposals 3 & 4) In support of Councillor Andrew Farrow and Councillor Linda Thomas: In 2016, the UK Health and Safety Executive, in regard to a trunnion pipe supports failure in the Irish Sea, found that Eni had 'fail(ed) to ensure that dangerous situations are monitored at suitable intervals'. Despite Eni's 2023 AGM response that 'transport and storage of CO2 will take place in full compliance with what is required under the relevant legislation'; with this legacy of patchy infrastructure monitoring, can North Wales communities be confident that they will be fully and knowingly protected from failures of untested at-scale pipeline infrastructure? B) We acknowledge the Applicant's noting (Table 2.9 ExQ1, 1.9.3),'... have regard to the explicit guidance that WBFGA should be applied so as to avoid siloed approaches'. We do, however, suggest that globally overarching perspectives, fundamental to the spirit of both WBFGA and Wales' Core Membership of BOGA, make it untenable to focus on the HyNet Pipeline 'silo' alone: Eni's globally harmful portfolio of fossil fuel extractivism and ambition in Mozambique, The Gulf of Mexico, and Guinea-Bissau, cannot be ignored. Furthermore, following the global 'lobbying and greenwashing' lawsuit issued against Eni on May 9th 2023, by civil complainants in Rome, we feel that the financial footing of any major project where the Applicant is central, must be reappraised In relation to jobs, another of Eni's 2023 AGM responses suggests it does not fully understand that graduates, increasingly, do not wish to work for corporates whose global portfolios, as Eni's does, remain underpinned in the fossil fuel sector. Wrexham Glyndwr University has already banned fossil fuel companies from graduate recruitment fairs"
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"CR1 Thank you for notifying the Environment Agency (EA) of the request for comments on the applicant’s accepted Change Request 1. We note the EA has been identified as an ‘occupier or reputed occupier’ in the Book of Reference [REP3-014] for plots 1-01a; 9-14a; 9-16a; and 9-16b of the Land Plans [REP2-004] due to the proximity of designated ‘main rivers’ at these locations. As part of the Development Consent Order examination submission, the applicant has identified the necessity to obtain a Flood Risk Activity Permit from the EA, where required, for works on / near designated ‘main rivers’ (Other Consents and Licences [REP3-017] document). Therefore, we have no additional comments to make on Change Request 1."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sacha Rossi
"CR1 NATS acknowledges receipt of the documentation pertaining to the 2 further changes. NATS's position remains unchanged and it anticipates no impact from the Development. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Canal and River Trust
"CR1 In relation to the applicants Change Request, the Canal & River Trust (the Trust) fully support change 14 in relation to the reduction of the Order limits to remove a section of the Shropshire Union Canal at Work No.18. The Trust have no further comments to make on the other requested changes as these do not include our land/undertakings."
Parish Councils
lea by Backford Parish Council
"CR1 Parish Councils of Backford and Lea by Backford have met numerous times and have highlighted the following issues:- Local engagement has not been completed as discussed by ENI Timeline to be confirmed along with maps of the area with changes to be provided - request made not yet received. Access points proposed are considered to be in appropriate as on country lanes and very close to cottages on station road. The latest map does not show any change to take account of concerns. Small bridge in the first part of station road is not thought to be strong enough to take the weight of heavy traffic into and out of the service area planned - ENI were asked to consider this with highways Cheshire West. Noise and constant movement of heavy traffic next to two 120 year old cottages on Station Road had not been considered carefully enough by planners. ? has consideration been given to the school opening and closing times. ? has consideration been given to the Village Hall which is on Station Road and the usage being affected by road closures which will be frequent. Area around the transition from Mollington in to lea by Backford is a particularly affected area where the pipeline crosses the Station Road and Grove Road which are in very close proximity to both private houses/council housing, some of these houses have elderly persons who have not accessed information on the internet. Access to computers for some people is difficult especially where there are disabilities. Both these roads either have school access or are directly next door to the local primary school and pre school buildings. The length of time the whole project takes will disadvantage the community significantly and the changes made are not helping this. Aesthetically comments can only be assumed as not pictoral future projections have been provided."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) on behalf of Encirc Limited
"CR1 Introduction 1.1 This relevant representation to the HyNet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Project (“the Project”) is made on behalf of Encirc Limited (“Encirc”) following the change request made by the Applicant and accepted by the Examining Authority dated 27 March 2023. 1.2 Encirc have already made representations in relation to the Project at Deadline 3 (REP3-050). 1.3 The change request proposes the acquisition of rights over land for access associated with Ince AGI. This includes additional plots 1-06a, 1-06b, 1-06c, 1a-01, 1a-02 and 1a-03. 1.4 Encirc is the freehold owner of plots 1-06a and 1-06c and has rights of access over plots 1-06b, 1a-01, 1a-02 and 1a-03. 1.5 Encirc’s representation to Deadline 3 made clear its future development plans (automated warehouse, new rail sidings and intermodal area, and hydrogen powered furnace) all of which are either with the local planning authority or well publicised. This future development at the Encirc Site is essential to the future of the Encirc business. These development intentions and their relationship to the submitted DCO were explained at the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing on 7th June 2023. 1.6 It was agreed that the Applicant would insert Protective Provisions in favour of Encirc during the Issue Specific Hearings on 8th June 2023. Encirc is hopeful that through these protective provisions the parties will be able to find a way in which the Project can be implemented whilst protecting the operation of the Encirc Glass Manufacturing and Filling Plant, maintaining the required access to the Encirc Site and ensuring that Encirc’s future development plans can be brought forward. Access to and through the Encirc Site 1.7 Uninterrupted access to the Encirc Site is essential to the operation of Encirc’s business and therefore it is essential that Encirc retains all rights of access which it currently enjoys. 1.8 The change request in respect of plots 1-06a-1-06c seeks to extend the land over which the Applicant is seeking the permanent acquisition of rights to ensure that rights are secured for access to link land plots 1.22 and 1-21 to the adopted highway at Ash Road, previously omitted from the submitted DCO. 1.9 Encirc considers that the addition of the change request land will result in the removal of the need to have a connection through the Encirc site between land plot 1-06 and 1-o3 and would ask that if the change request is brought forward as part of the Development Consent Order that this connection is removed from the draft DCO. 1.10 The proposed connection through the Encirc site between land plot 1-06 and 1-o3 was included where no connection exists today and any such amendment of internal security fencing would result in breaches of Encirc’s commitments as an HMRC bonded warehouse under the provisions on the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and subordinate legislation. 1.11 Further, Encirc considers that discussions with the applicant in respect of Protective Provisions and an associated private Agreement will result in agreement to Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) below the rail lines at land plots 1-19, 1-20, 1-22 and 1-23. The permanent rights over 1-21 will be downgraded to temporary and only in the event that HDD under Plot 1-22 is not feasible. Rights for access to plots 1-06a, 1-06c, 1-06 and 1-22 should remain for monitoring and maintenance purposes only (subjective to protective provisions ensuring the continued operation of rail and the further development of rail). This route could also be subject to change as a result of agreements reached between Encirc and the applicant. Encirc will keep the Examining Authority updated in this regard. Future Development 1.12 As part of Encirc’s automated warehouse development, the security gatehouse will be placed on land marked as plot 1-06a. Encirc is a customs bonded facility and access beyond the gatehouse is restricted in accordance with conditions imposed by HMRC. Encirc’s obligations in this respect will need to be complied with at all times. 1.13 HGV movements to Encirc’s site are limited by planning permission ref. 18/04948/S73. The acquisition of rights for access along plots 1-06c, 1-06b and 1-06a would require the use of Ash Road for access. Encirc also has a S.278 agreement with the Council for the maintenance of Ash Road. Conclusion 1.14 This representation relates to additional plots proposed for access as part of the change request. Encirc will outline further incompatibilities between the DCO and its proposed development plans in its written summaries of oral submissions made at Hearings on 7th and 8th June 2023 to Deadline 4. 1.15 This includes the availability of access to plots 1-03 and 1-06 from the north as shown along plots 1-01 and 1-02, which are incompatible with the planning application proposals, as well Encirc’s future plans for a hydrogen powered furnace and intermodal-rail facility."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Flintshire County Council
"CR1 General comments/observations: No objections to the proposed changes set out in Change request 1. FCC agree with the conclusions of the ES Addendum that the proposed changes as set out in Change Request 1 would not significantly change the original Environmental Assessment dated 2022. Therefore the conclusions and considerations as set out in the Flintshire County Council Local Impact Report submitted at Deadline 1A would remain the same. A table providing commentary on each proposed Change Request has been submitted by email to the Examining Authority for their information."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephens Scown LLP on behalf of Mr and Mrs Oultram (HW Oultram & Co) (Mr and Mrs Oultram (HW Oultram & Co))
"CR1 and CR2 Change Request 1 requires additional compulsory purchase land to the NW of the existing slurry tank at Newbridge Farm (18-20a). Two possibilities are considered in the change request. One involves a requirement to remove the slurry tank the other involves aligning the pipeline much closer to the adjacent woodland to the NW. That proximity is objected to by NRW, increasing the likelihood that the slurry tank will need to be removed. The developer has assessed the demolition impacts but nowhere does it seem to have assessed the economic impacts on the farm. A dairy farm cannot operate without a slurry tank; it is a statutory requirement. The developer concedes that there is no suitable alternative location for the tank and so the business will need to close. Change Request 2 increases the permanent land take by the Alltami Brook (19-04d). this will sever the holding, it represents additional lost acres of land making the business unsustainable as there is a level below which a dairy unit cannot operate and will cause stock reductions and redundancies. There will also be a loss of free fresh water supply from the woodland stream that has been enjoyed by the farm since it was bought in 1978."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council
"CR 1 This is the representation of Cheshire West and Chester Council (”the Council”) to the Liverpool Bay CCS Limited (”the Applicant’s“) Change Request 1 in respect of the Applicant’s application for development consent for the Hynet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline DCO (“the Project”). The Council’s comments are raised in respect each change considered relevant to the Borough off Cheshire West and Chester. Proposed Change 4 - Extension of the Order Limits of Work No. 23 and addition of Plot no 9-14a, 9-16a, 9-16b, 9-18a, 9-18b and 9-19a, to the north to reduce the impact on veteran trees near Backford Brook (Applicant Reference: PS04). Below are the Councils biodiversity / ecology comments: It is noted that the technical appendices have been updated with general survey information, as well as information directly in relation to Change Request 1. The comments below are based on information relating to Change Request 1, Change number 4, only. Note that where there is more than one part to a document, only the first part has been referred to, unless there is a specific query with subsequent parts. [CR1-025] - Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.1 Environmental Statement – Non-Technical Summary (Tracked Changes) - There looks to be no new information relating to the change request. No concerns are raised by the Council. [CR1-055] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.1 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.1 Habitats and Designated Sites (Tracked Changes) - It is noted that the document includes change request area 4, with similar habitats to the land adjacent, including semi-improved grassland, trees, ditch and hedgerow. No concerns are raised by the Council. [CR1-061] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.2 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.2 Great Crested Newt Survey Report (Tracked Changes) - There have been no changes in this document. There are no further ponds included due to the increase in area, than were previously considered. No concerns are raised by the Council. [CR1-063] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.3 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.3 Bat Activity Survey (Tracked Changes) - The increase in the Order Limit for Change number 4 (near to T169 on Fig 9.3.2 Sheet 2 of 9), which includes further trees and hedgerows, does not seem to have been mapped within this report and there is no indication that the trees in this extended area have been surveyed for Bat roosts. The Council requires further tree and hedgerow survey data / mapping to be provided in the Bat Activity Survey. [CR1-067] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.4 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.4 Bats and Hedgerows Assessment (Tracked Changes) (Part 1) - Change number 4 has been included for transect surveys, but not for trees, as above (Fig 9.3.3 Sheet 2 of 6). The Council requires that further tree survey data to be provided within the Bats and Hedgerows Assessment. [CR1-071] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.5 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.5 Badger Survey Report (Confidential) (Tracked Changes) - The figures for Change number 4 are not included in the report. The Council requires the missing Badger figures are provided / incorporated to be into the Badger Survey Report. [CR1-074] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.6 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.6 Riparian Mammal Survey Report (Tracked Changes) (Part 1) - The area of ditch included within Change number 4 has been surveyed and no evidence was found. No concerns are raised by the Council. [CR1-077] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission - D.6.3.9.7 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.7 Barn Owl Survey Report (Confidential) (Tracked Changes) - The figures for Change number 4 are not included in the report. The Council requires the missing Barn Owl figures to be provided in the Barn Owl Survey Report. [CR1-079] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission D.6.3.9.8 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.8 Bird Report (Tracked Changes) - There is no relevance to Change number 4, due to the limited area of extent. No concerns are raised by the Council. [CR1-081] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission D.6.3.9.9 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.9 Aquatic Ecology (Watercourses) Survey Report (Tracked Changes) - The area of ditch included within Change number 4 has been surveyed and no further action is required. No concerns are raised by the Council [CR1-057] Liverpool Bay CCS Limited Additional Submission D.6.3.9.10 Environmental Statement - Appendix 9.10 Aquatic Ecology (Ponds) Survey Report (Tracked Changes) - The area included within Change number 4 has been surveyed and no further pond surveys were required. No concerns are raised by the Council. Proposed Change 5 - Extension in construction working hours to include Saturday morning working (Applicant Reference PS05) The Councils response: In line with revised para 2.2.1 of the OCEMP [CR1-119] the Council has no objection to the extension of construction working hours to 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. The Council notes that this change has not been reflected in Schedule 2, Requirement 13(1) of the dDCO at Change Request 1 [CR1-017] but has been subsequently updated in the most recent draft DCO [REP3-005]. Proposed Change 6 - Extension of the Order Limits at Work No. 3 to enable access to Ince AGI from the adopted highway (Applicant Reference PS06) The Councils response: Notwithstanding the Council’s previous comments raised in respect the impact of the access to Ince AGI upon the Protos Plastics Park (para 6.8 of the Council’s LIR [REP1A-002]) and upon Expansion of Encirc (Para 2.2.12 of the Council’s response to the Applicants’ comments on the Council’s LIR [REP3-044]), the Council has no further comment to make on this proposed change. Proposed Change 12 - Clarification of construction methodology to allow non-road mobile machinery to cross features at the surface of trenchless crossings (Applicant Reference PS15) The Councils response: The Council is not clear as to the need for this change and the Council would welcome clarification form the Applicant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
United Utilities Water Limited
"CR1 Notice of Proposal for Changes to the Accepted DCO Application (Change Request 1) Comments of United Utilities Water Limited (Registration ID 20034023) United Utilities Water Limited (UUW) has reviewed the detail of Change Request 1 which relates to 18 proposed changes to the DCO. In accordance with our previous submissions, any works within proximity to the assets of UUW must take place in accordance with our Standard Conditions for Works Adjacent to Pipelines (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Standard Conditions’). With respect to Change Request 1, we wish to note the following points. Change Request 1 Change 6 We note that a permanent access has been added to the North. This is an existing roadway. We would require information from the developer to show how the proposed works will comply with the ‘Standard Conditions’ of UUW, e.g., the loading of the existing road should not be exceeded. The assets of UUW which are affected are: • 12” CI Emptying Pipe from Ince Service Reservoir; • 350mm ST Raw Water Main; • 450mm ST Raw Water Main; and • 100mm CI Foul Water Sewer. Change 12 We note that this is a proposal for movement of non-road mobile machinery and there is no specific information given. As such, we would require more information of each proposed crossing location of our assets in order to be able to assess the impact on our infrastructure and advise on any mitigation that would be necessary. Change 16 We note that this is a diversion of a public right of way. We have a 700mm HPPE Raw Water Main nearby. Any works in the location of our asset would need to comply with the ‘Standard Conditions’ of UUW. In addition, access to our assets and the requisite offset distance from our assets would be required for maintenance, repair and replacement. Additional Observations and Comments for Consideration In addition to the above comments, we wish to make the following additional observations with respect to the recently submitted updated information. Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan • There is no explicit mention of the disposal strategy for surface water in this document. In accordance with our various discussions with the applicant, we wish to highlight that the hierarchy of drainage for the management of surface water should be applied to avoid a need to connect to the public sewer especially the public combined sewer. It is also critical that careful consideration is given to the connection point for any temporary foul connection that may be made during the construction process. We would not wish to see proposals for drainage to connect to wastewater catchments which are disproportionately sized compared with the proposed foul flows as this could have consequences on both the receiving wastewater treatment works and the receiving wastewater network. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to the point of connection in liaison with UUW. This will be a particularly important consideration for those areas of the route that are rural / in open countryside which may be served by only small wastewater treatment works or where there is no existing wastewater infrastructure. For temporary related activities, such as construction compounds and workers accommodation, it may be necessary to consider on-site treatment. Environmental Statement (Volume II), Chapter 15 Noise and Vibration • There is no explicit mention of buried services. There are potential environmental impacts associated with discoloured water, a loss of water supply or flooding associated with vibration of water mains and there is the potential for pollution and / or flooding associated with the vibration of sewers or rising mains. This should be considered in accordance with BS 5228 parts 1 and 2 2009 (referenced in the chapter) and the ‘Standard Conditions’ of UUW. Environmental Statement (Volume III), Appendix 15.3 Noise and Vibration Assessment Results • The predicted vibration levels shown in tables 12 and 13 could present a risk if undertaken in proximity to the assets of UUW and will need to be assessed as noted above. Protective Provisions UUW is in the process of preparing a set of Protective Provisions which we hope to agree with the applicant and submit to the Examination for inclusion with the proposed Development Consent Order as soon as possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Coal Authority
"CR2 We previously made comments on the Coal Mining Risk Assessment, included within the Environmental Statement and prepared for the project by WSP UK. This Risk Assessment concluded that there are specific areas of the pipeline impacted by former coal mining activity. The report authors recommended that the pipeline routing avoids these areas where possible. WSP note that in the event that the pipeline cannot avoid the areas, intrusive ground investigations will be required in order to confirm the ground conditions present and inform any remedial measures required to mitigate the risk posed to the pipeline and associated infrastructure from coal mining features. The 2023 ES Addendum Change Request 2 document states that that is are changes to the ground/land conditions assessment. On this basis we assume that the changes proposed to the project have been considered in cognisance of the recommendations by WSP and that any works required to investigate and mitigate risks posed by coal mining features will be carried out. It is recommended that the measures proposed within the submitted Coal Mining Risk Assessment prepared by WSP UK Limited to address risks posed to the development by past coal mining activity are included as requirements of any Order granted for the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natural Resources Wales
"CR2 Dear Sir/Madam, PIBLINELL CARBON DEUOCSID HYNET ARFAETHEDIG / PROPOSED HYNET CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE NATURAL RESOURCES WALES’ RELEVANT REPRESENTATION FOR CHANGE REQUEST 2 This letter comprises Natural Resources Wales’ (NRW) relevant response for the Applicant’s Change Request 2 for the above proposal. Our comments are made without prejudice to any further comments NRW may wish to make in relation to this application and examination whether in relation to the ES, provisions of the draft DCO and its Requirements, SoCG or other evidence and documents provided by Liverpool Bay CCS Ltd. and their consultants (‘the Applicant’), the Examining Authority or other interested parties. NRW is a Statutory Party under the Planning Act 2008 and Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2015 and as an ‘interested party’ under s102(1) of the Planning Act 2008. It is consulted in respect of this change request under the Infrastructure Planning (changes to, and revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations 2011. In addition, NRW exercises distinct and separate functions under legislation as detailed in the cover letter of NRW’s Deadline 1 Written Representations [REP1-071]. Our Relevant Representation for Change Request 2 is contained within Annex A of this letter. In summary, NRW has no objection to the two proposed changes. In particular, we would welcome Change 1, namely the alternative embedded pipe bridge option for crossing Alltami Brook. Of relevance to Change 1, being the alternative crossing option presented within Change Request 2, NRW acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s Hydrological Impact Appraisal [REP5-014] and Article 4(7) Water Framework Directive Derogation report [REP5-016] and will be providing advice on these documents separately into the examination. NRW is satisfied that this advice is consistent with its general purpose of pursuing the sustainable management of natural resources in relation to Wales and applying the principles of sustainable management of natural resources. In particular, NRW acknowledges that the principles of sustainable management include taking account of all relevant evidence and gathering evidence in respect of uncertainties, and taking account of the short-, medium- and long-term consequences of actions. NRW further acknowledges that it is an objective of sustainable management to maintain and enhance the resilience of ecosystems and the benefits they provide and, in so doing meet the needs of present generations of people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and contribute to the achievement of the well-being goals in section 4 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Please do not hesitate to contact Chris Jones should you require further advice or information regarding these representations. Yours sincerely, Chris Jones Uwch Gynghorydd – Cynllunio Datblygu / Senior Advisor – Development Planning Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales [CONTINUED] ? ANNEX A: NRW’s Relevant Representation for the proposed HyNet Carbon Dioxide pipeline Change Request 2 1) Water Framework Directive 1.1 NRW raised concerns in its Written Representation [REP1-071] that the Applicant’s submitted WFD compliance assessment [APP-165] does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that "potential construction and operation impacts are unlikely to cause a deterioration in the status of quality elements or overall status at the Wepre Brook water body scale with the mitigation within the CEMP, REAC and monitoring measures implemented". Further, in respect of para 5.5.20 there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that "The DCO Proposed Development therefore would not compromise the ability of the water bodies potentially impacted to achieve Good Ecological Potential/Status." 1.2 NRW considers that there may be deterioration of Wepre Brook water body, as a result of the proposed open-cut crossing of Alltami Brook. This is because there is a risk that excavating bedrock for the proposed Alltami Brook open-cut crossing could create a pathway for surface water to be lost to the ground/contaminated mine workings; this could cause water courses to dry up downstream. This continues to be NRW’s position with the Applicant’s preferred open-cut crossing option. 1.3 However, based on the information submitted in support of Change Request 2 NRW concur with the following statement within Appendix 18.3 Water Framework Directive Assessment Addendum [CR2-019] for the alternative embedded pipe bridge option: “Detailed assessment of the proposed design option PS25 concludes that the Alltami Brook embedded pipe bridge option is WFD compliant” (para. 1.4.13)”. 1.4 NRW therefore considers that the alternative embedded pipe bridge crossing option, would address the concerns regarding the risk of surface water flow loss from the Alltami Brook currently presented by the Applicant’s preferred open-cut crossing option, as raised in our Written Representation. Consequently, NRW does not consider that the derogation provisions under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2017 would need to be engaged in the event that the Applicant elects to proceed with this option. Our detailed comments regarding this are provided below.1.1: Hydrogeology 1.1.1 Section 2.1.9 of the 2023 Environmental Statement Addendum Change Request 2 [CR2-017] states the following with regards to the alternative embedded pipe bridge crossing option design: “It is expected that piled foundations will not be required due to the shallow bedrock within the gorge; however, piled foundations for the abutments, as an alternative to standard shallow and direct foundations, could be required depending on the actual soil conditions and the associated mechanical properties. This will need to be further investigated during detailed design”. 1.1.2 The main difference between the open-cut option versus the embedded pipeline option is largely the nature and extent of construction excavation and whether the operational performance, in terms of the potential for integrity loss of a grouted open excavation over time under the open-cut option, could result in some flow loss from the Alltami Brook to the underlying bedrock. This is in direct contrast when considering if the same risk applies to the foundations for the embedded pipeline option, which are not within the Alltami Brook channel bedrock and therefore do not possess a potential for brook flow loss. 1.1.3 A review of the proposed foundations [CR2-021] shows that the nature of the proposed excavation appears to be significantly reduced and would not occur within the channel bedrock of Alltami Brook but rather within the adjacent banking; it therefore does not pose a potential risk for surface water flow loss from the brook, as a result of encountering a transmissive fracture(s) for example. 1.1.4 NRW acknowledges that the embedded pipe bridge option includes the potential for piles to be required depending on the load-bearing properties of the local bedrock for supporting the bridge, and this would be further investigated during detailed design. However, such piling is considered to be far less intrusive in comparison to the bedrock excavations within the brook channel proposed for the open-cut option (which we note would affect a 4m length of channel). 1.1.5 In summary, based on the evidence available, NRW advises that the embedded pipe bridge option does not present a risk in terms of surface water flow loss from Alltami Brook to the underlying bedrock. In contrast, the open-cut option presents a risk for surface water flow loss because bedrock excavation would occur directly within a 4m extent of the brook channel itself as opposed to within the adjacent banking. 1.2: Geomorphology 1.2.1 From a geomorphological perspective, NRW has no objection to the proposed embedded pipe bridge crossing given the current risk of surface water flow loss associated with the Applicant’s preferred open-cut option within the channel bedrock. 1.2.2 During temporary works associated with any diversion of the Alltami Brook, NRW advises that sandbags should be replaced with bags of washed gravels (Visqueen wrapped if needed) such that should a bag split only habitat-beneficial gravels would enter the watercourse and not potentially habitat-smothering sands. 1.3: Hydrology 1.3.1 Based on the information submitted, NRW considers that the embedded pipe bridge option would remove the risk of surface water from Alltami Brook being lost to the ground as a result of the pipeline crossing, which could otherwise be caused by the required excavation into the bedrock under the Alltami Brook for the Applicant’s preferred open-cut crossing option. In the absence of any ground investigation data from the site to verify the Applicant’s assessment conclusions regarding this risk, we consider that the embedded pipe bridge option would enable surface water quantities in the Alltami Brook watercourse to remain protected. 2) Flood risk 2.1 NRW has reviewed the information submitted in support of Change Request 2 including the ES Addendum Change Request 2 - Appendix B – Technical Appendices Addenda [CR2-019], specifically Appendix 18.5 Flood Consequences Assessment. 2.2 NRW has previously provided advice on the flood risk design parameters for an alternative embedded pipe bridge crossing over Alltami Brook in our Written Representations (REP1-071, paragraph 3.8), advising that the soffit level of the bridge should be set 300mm above the flood level for the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 100) event with an allowance for climate change. Whilst this is acknowledged by the Applicant this approach has not yet been adopted due to the absence of any detailed flood modelling data for the Alltami Brook watercourse. 2.3 Instead, a qualitative approach has been undertaken and the proposal is for the soffit level of the bridge to be set 1500mm above the dry weather flow water level of the watercourse. Based on the justification provided in the FCA (local topography and the culvert upstream controlling flows) NRW considers this to be a reasonable approach. 2.4 The Applicant also states that it is not expected that the structure (including its abutments) would result in increased flood risk elsewhere due to the topography of the deep channel and the modelled extents shown on the Flood Map for Planning (FMfP). Again, NRW considers this is a reasonable conclusion based on readily available information. 2.5 NRW is also satisfied with the suggested maintenance requirements for the structure, from a flood risk perspective, as outlined in Section 2.1.16 of the ES Addendum [CR2-017]. 2.6 The FCA recommends undertaking a hydraulic model for the section of Alltami Brook to confirm the design criteria for the embedded pipe bridge option as part of the detailed design stage (paragraph 1.5.36). Whilst NRW considers the approach taken to be reasonable given the lack of any detailed flood modelling data, we concur that detailed hydraulic modelling should be undertaken at the detailed design stage in order to quantify flood levels. This would ensure that the soffit of the bridge is raised above the design flood level and enable the potential impacts on flood risk elsewhere to be fully understood. However, we advise that this could result in further design changes post any DCO consent and some of the parameters shown on the ‘Indicative Arrangement’ plan [CR2-021] may need to be amended to reflect the modelling outputs, including the minimum clearance above water levels and the location of the abutments. 2.7 NRW notes that sub-paragraph (8) of Requirement 4 [REP4-008] aims to provide a suitable mechanism within the DCO to secure the submission of the above detailed design information for approval prior to construction. However, we advise that the following minor amendments are made to the wording of this requirement, as underlined below: “8) Where the crossing of Alltami Brook uses an embedded pipe bridge (Work No. 43E), the details submitted under sub-paragraph (5) must be accompanied by a flood consequences assessment showing the maximum water level reached in a 1 in 100 year event plus 20% climate change scenario. The soffit level of the embedded pipe bridge over the Alltami brook must be set no less than 300 millimetres above that maximum water level. The flood consequences assessment must also demonstrate that the impacts of the proposal on flood risk elsewhere can be managed to an acceptable level”. 2.8 NRW also notes that the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan [REP4-237] and Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments [REP4-235] include reference to the need for hydraulic modelling (D-WR-076) and for the bridge design to provide a minimum freeboard of 300mm above the 1% AEP event with an allowance for climate change (D-WR-075). 2.9 However, contrary to paragraph 1.5.18 of the ES Addendum Change Request 2 - Appendix B - Technical Appendices Addenda [CR2-019] and the subsequent wording of D-WR-076, please note that the construction of the embedded pipe bridge would not require a Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP), as the Alltami Brook watercourse is not a designated main river. The works (including any temporary works required to facilitate construction) may require an Ordinary Watercourse Consent (OWC), which would be administered by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). Furthermore, the final design of the structure should be approved by the LLFA since it would cross an Ordinary Watercourse. We therefore advise consultation with the LLFA in this regard. 2.10 In relation to the proposed changes to land plots (Change 2, CR2-016], NRW advises that a FRAP would be required for any additional crossings on Pentre Drain North, as this is a designated main river. 3) Protected Species 3.1 NRW has no objection to either of the two proposed scheme amendments from a protected species conservation perspective. 4) Fisheries 4.1 NRW has no objection to either of the two proposed scheme amendments from a fisheries perspective."