Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2

Representations received regarding Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2 and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Other Statutory Consultees
Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond
"Dear Sir / Madam We refer to the above application for development consent. Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within its area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development may have on navigation within Trinity House area of jurisdiction. It is possible that we may have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order during the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [Redacted] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully, Russell Dunham ACII Legal Advisor"
Other Statutory Consultees
North East Lindsey Drainage Board
"Dear Sir/Madam Able Marine Energy Park Development Consent order 2014 – S.I. 2014 No. 2935 Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above amendment. The site is within the North East Lindsey Drainage Board area. There are a number of Board maintained watercourses within the site that are being re-aligned and re-profiled as part of the drainage requirements for the new pumping station which is currently being constructed. The Landscape Plan indicates planting within the maintenance access strips for the watercourses serving the new Pumping Station. This is unacceptable as they need to be clear of all obstructions for a full 7m in order to allow access for the heavy maintenance plant. Plans now show a realignment of watercourse Marsh Drain Branch 1 (10A) between Area J & K (or Plot T1 & Plot B2) that is different to the Drainage Strategy. o It is essential there is no reduction in design standard or loss of volume in the drainage system. o Any realignment needs to be agreed with NELDB and consent is required. Plans now show development of Area K (Plot T2), the Drainage Strategy shows within this area a widened berm to provide storage for the pumped drainage system o It is essential there is no reduction in design standard or loss of volume in the drainage system. o Any change or realignment needs to be agreed with NELDB and consent is required. As there are now proposed changes to the site layout and watercourse alignment that are different to those within the agreed Drainage Strategy (Nov 2017) an amendment or addendum to the Drainage Strategy to address the impact of any revisions to include • An assessment to confirm that design standards and design flood levels are not increased • Any attenuation within the drainage system lost because of revisions is provided within the system at alternative locations. • Evidence that any proposed amendments do not have a negative effect on third parties Now the new pumping station is under construction and development proposals are being worked up in more detail further detailed drainage assessment work needs to be carried to ensure the proposals allow for the existing drainage for all land draining to the pumped drainage station and appropriate access for all parties to be able to maintain all watercourses, either Board maintained or riparian. Regards Guy Hird"
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that points raised by us on 26th February 2021 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health and have nothing further to add to our response to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) of 7th May 2021. 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."
Parish Councils
South Killingholme Parish Council on behalf of South Killingholme Parish Council
"Able UK have still not paid the CPO on land belonging to [Redacted]. How can they change use on it? Able UK have environmentally [Redacted] the area of Station Rd cutting ancient hedrows at nesting time. South Killingholme Parish Council believe the diversion around the railway track would be too far for wheelchair users and recommend a bridge instead. Given one of the reasons Able IK wanted [Redacted] to remove cars from his home was so disabled individuals could access the sea wall we expect the same curtesy. We have photographic and video evidence of points made and happy to share."
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"1.0 The Environment Agency’s Role 1.1 The Environment Agency (“the Agency”) is an executive non departmental public body, established under the Environment Act 1995. 1.2 The Agency was established to bring together responsibilities for protecting and improving the environment and to contribute to sustainable development. We take an integrated approach in which we consider all elements of the environment when we plan and carry out our work. This allows us to advise on the best environmental options and solutions, taking into account the different impacts on water, land, air, resources and energy. 1.3 We help prevent hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage from flooding. Our work helps to support a greener economy through protecting and improving the natural environment for beneficial uses, working with businesses to reduce waste and save money, and helping to ensure that the UK economy is ready to cope with climate change. We will facilitate, as appropriate, the development of low carbon sources of energy ensuring people and the environment are properly protected. 1.4 The Agency has three main roles: • We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on businesses. We issue a range of permits and consents. • We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in an integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. • We are an environmental adviser – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. 1.5 The Agency takes action to conserve and secure proper use of water resources, preserve and improve the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters and groundwaters through pollution control powers and regulating discharge permits. 1.6 The Agency has regulatory powers in respect of waste management and remediation of contaminated land designated as special sites. We also encourage remediation of land contamination through the planning process. 1.7 The Agency is the principal flood risk management operating authority. It has the power (but not the legal obligation) to manage flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The Agency is also responsible for increasing public awareness of flood risk, flood forecasting and warning and has a general supervisory duty for flood risk management. We also have a strategic overview role for all flood and coastal erosion risk management. 2.0 Scope of these representations 2.1 These Relevant Representations contain an overview of the project issues, which fall within our remit. They are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that we may make throughout the examination process. We may also have further representations to make if supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. 2.2 We have reviewed the Development Consent Order (DCO) Material Change (2) application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above mentioned application, which were published on 15 July 2021. Our comments are presented using the ES Chapter headings relevant to our remit below. 3.0 Chapter 7 Geology, Hydrology and Ground Conditions 3.1 This topic has been scoped out of requiring further assessment and we are in agreement with this conclusion. 4.0 Chapter 8 Hydrodynamic and Sedimentary Regime 4.1 Impact of changes to hydrodynamics on Hawkins Point (Section 8.4.36 onwards): One wave condition was chosen to carry out this assessment, but it is not clear why this particular condition, and only one, was chosen. We, therefore, request more clarity on this in order to provide confidence in the conclusions reached. 4.2 In addition, it is noted that the assessment was undertaken using only present day conditions. We recall a previous discussion with Able Humber Ports Limited (“the Applicant”) regarding this in relation to the assumption of short term impacts due to the nature of the material and other processes in the estuary. However, further clarity on the assumptions made will help to confirm if present day data itself is appropriate, or whether changes due to the impact of sea level rise needs further consideration. 4.3 If these points can be clarified, the conclusion that there is limited impact on the currently eroding section seems reasonable. However, this assessment does also indicate some increasing wave activity which could result in foreshore erosion to the west of Hawkins Point (8.4.39). Whilst this section of the foreshore is currently stable, the potential impact here needs some further consideration in regards to risk to habitat/flood defences. 4.4 Alternate or Additional Mitigation: Paragraph 8.4.73 states that ‘The proposed AMEP Amended Quay leads to no significant change in assessed impacts to flood tide flows compared to the consented layout. During the ebb tide, a localised region of flow acceleration is predicted off the downstream end of the quay. This initial change may diminish with time but should be noted’. 4.5 As explained in the Introduction of Chapter 8, the Humber’s hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime is very complex and subject to constant change. In addition to the assertions based on modelling, made in Chapter 8, in terms of impacts on the Hawkins Point area, all the listed measures regarding HU081 and HU082 in 8.5.2 would be crucial in understanding the actual evolving impacts, during and after dredging disposal. 4.6 To safeguard any consequences from the potential flow acceleration during the ebb tide off the downstream end of the quay, we require the additional mitigation set out in 8.5.2 to be undertaken, and included/secured using the appropriate mechanism (e.g. Marine Licence, Marine Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan etc, or monitoring legal agreement with the Agency). Currently there is no time limit specified in 8.5.2 for monitoring aspects - we require this to be for a minimum of 10 years. We also request that the applicant indicates what remedial action they will implement if this risk is realised. 4.7 We note that although a bespoke programme of bathymetric survey is described, it is implied that existing LiDAR Monitoring surveys (i.e. Environment Agency commissioned surveys) will be used to survey the Hawkins Point foreshore. Scheduled surveys will not be on sufficient enough frequency to guarantee an optimal comparative dataset. Therefore, bespoke LiDAR surveys will need to be commissioned by the Applicant to fully understand inter-tidal and terrestrial impacts integrated with the inter-tidal and sub-tidal results from bathymetry surveys. 4.8 Provision should be made for an agile response to the results from monitoring work – i.e. if the results show departure from the predictions set out in Chapter 8, how significant is this, what are the impacts and, if appropriate, what further mitigation is required. This needs to be set out and secured using the appropriate mechanism (e.g. Marine Licence, Marine Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan etc) as well as the additional mitigation set out in 8.5.2. If this has already been done could the applicant please sign-post us to where this can be found. 4.9 Minor comment There is a typo in paragraph 8.4.69 where Figure 8.39 is erroneously referenced as 8.40. 5.0 Chapter 9 Water and Sediment Quality 5.1 Please see comments below on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment. 6.0 Chapter 10 Aquatic Ecology 6.1 Please see comments below on the WFD Assessment. 7.0 Chapter 13 Flood Risk and Drainage 7.1 We have reviewed Chapter 13 and the flood risk assessment is appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the proposed development. However, there are some errors in Chapter 13 in respect of the legal agreement between the Agency and the Applicant. Table 13.1 and paragraph 13.2.11 refer to the legal agreement requiring a compliance with the overtopping limit of 2l/s/m on defences adjacent to the quay and the 'soft' flood defences being limited to 20 years. This does not align accurately with what the legal agreement says and for the avoidance of doubt we make the following comments. 7.2 The legal agreement makes a distinction between the 'Improvement Works' and the ‘Quay Strategic Flood Defences’. The Improvement Works require the installation of 60m of rock armour to the north west of the proposed quay, the Applicant is required to provide the Standard of Protection here (i.e. overtopping limited to 2l/s/m) for a period of 20 years following completion. The Quay Strategic Flood Defences refers to the flood defences which effectively will be built over by the Quay where the Applicant is required to provide the Standard of Protection until the Quay is removed and replaced with alternative defences, which meet the Standard of Protection. 7.3 We would also take this opportunity to remind the Applicant of its obligation under Clause 9 of the agreement, which requires them to enter into a new agreement, in the same form as the obligations set out in this agreement, prior to development commencing. 7.4 In addition to the above, Paragraph 13.9.1 states that "The site is set in a context where flooding is possible; however, this risk is largely controlled through flood defences. The scheme design has been developed to reflect the prevailing risk and will not exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. Residual risk will then be managed through implementation of a robust flood warning and evacuation strategy". 7.5 Flood risk in the Humber Estuary is currently managed in accordance with the “Planning for the Rising Tides” (2008) strategy, published by the Environment Agency. We are currently developing a new strategy (Humber 2100+) in partnership with the local authorities that takes account of new evidence and changes in legislation and funding since the 2008 strategy was agreed. We would like the Applicant to understand that we manage, rather than control, risk via flood defences. It is possible for defences to be overtopped, as happened in 2013, around the estuary if the flood exceeds the design height of a defence. 8.0 Chapter 23 Waste 8.1 We are in agreement with the approach and conclusion outlined in this Chapter with respect to waste. 9.0 Water Framework Directive Assessment The Applicant has provided further clarity and responded positively to several of the points raised by us in response to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), but there are still some points that need addressing. 9.1 The WFD assessment approach used in Environment Agency guidance “Clearing the Waters for All” has been applied. A new, albeit short section has now been added to show that the Applicant has considered other activities that could affect the same receptors. The level of evidence associated with the other dredging activities is still weak but they are briefly mentioned as being part of the existing baseline. Other terrestrial developments are better covered as they are signposted to the cumulative impacts Chapter in the main ES. Both are now brought together in this new section. 9.2 The evidence for the other activities such as any new or planned dredging is provided, but with limited evidence as “No substantive deleterious cumulative impacts have been identified from multiple developments in the ZoI [Zone of Impact] from those addressed in the original ES e.g. dredge disposal is ongoing from ports activity in the Humber, power station cooling water abstraction and discharge” (Chapter 10 Aquatic ecology (paragraph 10.4.88), and Section 7 (page 34) Water framework Directive Assessment). 9.3 Monitoring for the WFD classification takes place outside areas of existing impacts so existing dredge channels and disposal areas should have been avoided during each benthic invertebrate survey and form part of the baseline. So any additional new activities that may impact the benthic receptors may be limited in space and time. We would expect to see more evidence behind this statement for the Material Change. 9.4 The sediment contains elevated levels of a number of chemical of concern. The Applicant has presented that information and highlighted where levels are elevated above Cefas Action Levels (CAL) 1 and where applicable 2. A recently proposed CAL 1 and CAL 2 is recommended by Cefas for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) which the Applicant has also usefully applied. On average, the CAL 1 for PAH is exceeded in most cases, however all results are below the CAL 2 for both the sum of low molecular weight and the sum of high molecular weight PAHs. However, as the Humber lower fails for a number of PAHs, further analysis was also considered using the SeDiChem tool. The SeDiChem assessment tool was developed for the Environment Agency, to consider exceedances of environmental quality standards (EQS) within a sediment plume associated with the dredging of sediments. 9.5 The results of the SeDiChem tool are said to predict EQS exceedances within plume for all of the PAHs that are considered on the SeDiChem tool. This result is then largely dismissed and the reason given that the exceedances of the EQS for these PAHs as a result of the dredging required “is largely due to its very low MAC-EQS concentration (MAC-EQS of 0.00082 ?g/l)” (page28, Water framework Directive Assessment). 9.6 No reference is provided in the WFD assessment for the SeDiChem work. It does not appear to be presented in the ES Chapters 8 or 9, or any of the supporting appendices – could the Applicant please sign post us to this work if it is included with the application submission. 9.7 The overall conclusion in the WFD assessment is that the Sediment quality levels of the material to be dredged are considered to be within acceptable levels and the temporary nature of the dredging and disposal activity limits the potential for any effects from the proposed development, including the proposed Material Change. However, the levels in the sediment are elevated and may release contaminants into the water column that could result in further EQS exceedances in the water column. 9.8 Therefore the conclusions should be expanded to better explain the time period and the scale of those exceedances (using the modelled dispersion) data, and help justify the conclusions. 10.0 Further Representations 10.1 We will submit further detailed Written Representations in due course. We reserve the right to add or amend these representations, including requests for DCO Requirements/amendments should further information be forthcoming during the course of the examination on issues within our remit. If you have any questions regarding these representations, please contact me"
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"APPLICATION BY ABLE HUMBER PORTS LIMITED TO MAKE A MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE ABLE MARINE ENERGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER 2014 (S.I. 2014/2935) PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: TR030006 RELEVANT REPRESENTATION OF NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) owns, operates and maintains the railway infrastructure of Great Britain. Network Rail operates the railway infrastructure pursuant to a network licence granted under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993. The application for a material changes relates to four items. Network Rail is concerned only with item (c); namely the proposed realignment of the footpath no. 50 diversion so that it goes around the end of the railway rather than crossing it (Footpath Diversion Realignment). Network Rail welcomes the proposed Footpath Diversion Realignment which will enhance the safety of those working on and using the railway and supports the material change to the DCO insofar as it relates to the Footpath Diversion Realignment. Network Rail reserves the right to raise further issues in evidence and requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of Examination."
Local Authorities
North Lincolnshire Council
"I would like to register as an interested party on behalf of North Lincolnshire Council as the host Local Authority. Please could all correspondence regarding this Material Change application be sent to myself at the above email address and also [email protected] North Lincolnshire Council has a number of interests in the proposed amendment as detailed in its response to the EIA scoping exercise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation (MMO) (Marine Management Organisation (MMO))
"Dear Sir/Madam, Able Marine Energy Park Material Change 2 Relevant Representation. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is an interested party for the examination of Development Consent Order (DCO) applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in the marine area. The MMO has an interest in this project because all construction (including alteration and improvement of works), dredging and maintenance and decommissioning activities associated with the proposed scheme that are in or above within the jurisdiction of the MMO area are considered to be licensable. The DCO application includes a Deemed Marine Licence (DML) under Section 65 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA 2009) and should consent be granted for the project, the MMO will be responsible for monitoring, compliance and enforcement of DML conditions."
Other Statutory Consultees
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"Part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) wide remit includes responsibilities for the safety of navigation and search and rescue in the UK. We have an interest in the shipping and navigation chapter of the Environmental Statement and would like to be consulted on the establishment of any infrastructure or works in or over the marine environment, and any Harbour Orders providing statutory powers for the ongoing safe operation of the marine park. Should any works be required in or over the marine environment, a Marine Licence may be required under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, at which time the MCA will be invited to comment on the licence application from the safety of navigation safety perspective. In addition, the MCA would point the developers in the direction of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and its Guide to Good Practice; they would need to liaise and consult with any relevant Statutory Harbour Authority to develop a robust Safety Management System (SMS) for the project under this code."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural England
"Please see attached."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
C.GEN Killingholme Limited
"Please see attached."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
C.RO Ports Killingholme Limited
"Please see attached."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Northern Gas Networks
"Please see attached."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
The Coal Authority
"Please see attached."