Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to if and/or when the original Ferrybridge C power station is to be demolished please?
As grateful as I am for the information on offer regarding the multi fuel power project I have found that your information has provided to be 'heavy going'; I am keen to know if any of the new development will be visible from my home on Hillcrest Road Townville (ordinance survey explorer 289 map reference 463253). Currently I can only see the very tops of the old pair of chimneys in the winter months when there are no leaves on the trees. Due to the juxtaposition of the woods the view from the back of my house has been a major feature of my location. At the time of writing I do not see any of the new development from my property and am keen to know if it is to stay that way.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at [email protected] as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

16 January 2018
Rowland Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have read your recent report and this seems in conflict with a recent announcement that you were demolishing and going on to gas. Please confirm where we now stand. It is getting confusing.
Thank you for your email which has been received in the inbox for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The FM2 project has been consented in July 2016. On 11th January 2018 the Applicant has made an application to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a non-material change in relation to the alternative provision of land for landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.

However, it appears that you might be referring to the Ferrybridge D Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Project which is at the pre-application stage, and we would suggest that you direct all your queries to the developer at [email protected] as the project has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet.

Advice note eight provides information on how to get involved in the pre-application process, and later in the examination of the application, should it become accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. It can be found at this link: [attachment 1]

10 January 2018
James Smith
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
DCO amendment meeting
Please see attached

25 September 2017
Multifuel Energy Ltd - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for sending through details of the notice of Preliminary Meeting and the draft timetable for examination of the application in relation to the above, dated 10th November.

I am writing to request a 14 day extension to the deadline dates you have provided. The first deadline date of Tuesday 13th January 2015 is of particular concern as this will provide this Authority with considerable difficulty given that the Local Impact Report (LIR) will need to be referred to Members of our Planning & Highways Committee. The scheduled date of Committee is the 15th January 2014. We are unable to achieve an earlier Committee date in December given the level of work associated with preparing the LIR.

I would be grateful if you could give consideration to this request and look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you for your email. I will put it forward as a submission to the preliminary meeting, as the timetable is still in draft form and the preliminary meeting is the platform for it to be discussed. Please could you advise if you or a colleague will be attending the preliminary meeting and if so, if you wish to speak.

I would like to draw your attention to Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 1 Local Impact Reports ([attachment 1]) which states ? Local authorities should ensure any necessary internal authorisation processes are in place to meet the timetable. It is entirely a matter for local authorities to determine whether or not an LIR requires approval by Members and in what form.?

Please also see paragraphs 51 ? 56 of the DCLG guidance for the examination of applications for development consent: [attachment 2]

The Examining Authority (ExA) endeavours to consider timetabling issues where possible but there are a number of factors we need to take into consideration when preparing a timetable for examination which is why we cannot always accommodate these requests. Given that there is a possibility that the ExA may not be able or willing to accommodate your local authority?s timetabling request in respect of the LIR deadline, I would strongly advise that you continue to make every effort to ensure that whatever authorisations are required can be achieved in order to meet the draft timetable deadline.

17 November 2014
Wakefield Council - Neil Rodgers
Enquiry received via email
1. Is if necessary for each application document to have a summary? Advice Note 6 suggests this is the case. However, we have a number of descriptive documents (e.g. site description and proposed development description) where a summary would not be particularly useful to the reader, while we have others that are very short documents (e.g. Consents and Licences required under Other Legislation).

2. Advice Note 6 refers to documents having a font size of 12. While we have followed this for most documents we have adopted a smaller font for very large documents (10 or 11) such as the Consultation Report and the ES. I previously discussed this with Susannah Guest who confirmed that this would not be an issue provided the documents were still legible. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the use of a 10 or 11 font size is acceptable.
I have set out answers to your two queries below:

Q1: Is it necessary for each application document to have a summary?

A: PINS do not require a summary for every application document submitted. Summaries are expected for larger documents however, you should make your own judgement when preparing the application documents, as a summary for smaller documents may not be useful to the reader.

Q2: Could you confirm that the use of a 10 or 11 font size is acceptable.

A: Ideally, the application documents should be drafted using the same size font throughout the suite; font size 12. However, font size 10 or 11 is acceptable, as previously advised by Susannah Guest, for larger documents. Most importantly all the documents must be legible.

13 June 2014
Dalton Warner Davis LLP - Geoff Bullock
Enquiry received via email
The Applicant - Multifuel Energy Limited - has submitted a draft of their 'No Significant Effects Report' for review. Please find the Planning Inspectorate's comments below.
As previously discussed, the requirement for a ?No Significant Effects Report? within the Planning Inspectorate?s Advice Note 10 (HRA) is on the basis that European sites have been identified by an applicant and considered within stage 1 of the HRA process (screening), but that it has been concluded, in agreement with the relevant SNCBs, that the project is not likely to have a significant effect on any of the considered European sites. In this case, whilst you have provided a ?No Significant Effects? document, the intention of this document appears to be confirmation that no European sites have been identified as needing consideration under the HRA process, as supported by the ?final? Statement of Common Ground between the applicant and NE (the ?SoCG? dated 18 December 2013), and not that you have identified European sites for consideration in stage 1 of the HRA process and have concluded no likely significant effects on these projects either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore, the report you have submitted might be more appropriately referred to as a ?Screening Report? for the purposes of HRA. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes the submission of such a document, as it provides clarity on whether or not any European protected sites would be affected by the proposed development.

The Planning Inspectorate would draw your attention to a couple of minor points which it would be helpful to provide clarification on in the final version of the HRA document:

? Paragraph 14A.1.2, defines ?Natura 2000 sites? as ?European Sites?, which is the term used throughout the document when describing whether there is a need for a HRA. However, in Paragraph 14A.3.3, Ramsar sites are also referred to, including the statement that they are afforded the same protection under Government Policy as Natura 2000 sites. For the sake of clarity it needs to be made clear that when you are discussing effects on ?European Sites? you are also including consideration of Ramsar sites within this definition. It is up to you to consider how best to define this, whilst noting the difference between the Natura 2000 and Ramsar designations, which you have already done so in the aforementioned paragraphs;

? Paragraph 14A.4.1 states that any ?European Sites? within a 15km radius of the Proposed Development were considered as part of the study area (see comment above about the need for clarity of ?European Sites? in this context i.e. presumably Ramsar sites within 15km would also have been considered). It would be helpful to provide reference to relevant guidance as to how this 15km buffer ?accords with the precautionary approach required for undertaking HRA? (paragraph 14A.4.1), for example by referring to any relevant guidance which prescribes this study area;

? The Planning Inspectorate also notes that paragraph 3.3 of the ?final? SoCG with NE, states that ?there are no internationally protected Natura 2000 sites (European and Ramsar sites) within a 20km radius of the Application Site?. It would be helpful to clarify the reasoning for applying a 20km radius in the SoCG and a 15km radius within the ?Statement of No Significant Effects? document. Whilst the ?final? SoCG has been signed by NE, it has not been signed by the applicant. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is querying whether this is the final and completed version of the SoCG which will be submitted with the DCO application to support the applicant?s statements in the Statement of No Significant Effects document. Please can this be clarified?

19 May 2014
Dalton Warner Davis LLP - Geoff Bullock
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting with Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL) to receive project update and to issue feedback on draft documents
Please see attachment

01 May 2014
Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL)
Enquiry received via email
I agreed to set out the issues discussed during the call that it would be useful for PINS to consider and provide a response on. These are set out below:

1. Generation licence ? SSE already holds a generation licence for Ferrybridge. Is it sufficient for the Applicant (MEL) for development consent to have a letter of intent from SSE that it will be able to operate FM2 under the existing generation licence?

2. Ownership interest ? What is the minimum level of interest that the Applicant must have in the Application Site for DCO purposes? Would a letter of intent from SSE (the owner of the majority of the Application Site) be sufficient or would an option to enter into a lease (on condition of consent being granted) be required?

3. Non DCO consents ? is it necessary to be able to produce a letter of ?no impediment? in relation to each non DCO consent required from the relevant consenting body at the examination stage?
I?ll deal with each question in turn, but in a broad sense the less certainty you can provide an Examining Authority, the greater the likelihood that there would be questions on the relevant matter to understand the issue in full. As you are aware, once an application has been submitted, there is limited scope to make changes and the application is handled under statutory timescales. From experience this means turn-around times are very tight. The more issues that can be addressed prior to submission the more focused the examination can be.

1 Generation licence

It is the applicant?s responsibility to ensure it has a necessary generation licence. In the absence of a generation licence at the start of an examination, it may be an issue that an Examining Authority wishes to examine in depth. Where you can provide a letter of intent along with any supporting full explanation of the context and any supporting evidence such as from Ofgem, then the Examining Authority may find this sufficient, However if that?s not considered sufficient the ExA has the remit to ask further questions.

2 Ownership interest

It may be helpful to consider this from an Examining Authority?s point of view. In general, they would be looking to understand the level of certainty that the undertaker who would benefit from the order can give to meeting any obligations, in particular where compulsory powers trigger the need to provide compensation. In that respect, it would be a matter for the examination, however the greater the certainty available upon submission the less the risk of this being a detailed examination issue.

3 Non DCO consents

From an Examining Authority?s point of view, in general it would look to consider whether there are any impediments to a consent outside of the DCO being granted and may wish to ask questions of the relevant statutory / consenting bodies as well as the applicant. In absence of letters of no impediment, and / or if impediments are identified during / remain at the close of examination then it would be for the ExA to consider the balance of evidence during the reporting stage and make their recommendation to the secretary of state in the context of the application as a whole.

In the first instance, I?d advise continuing discussion the Consents Service Unit on the consents it covers, and identifying all non-DCO consents prior to submission. As part of this, do consider the way in which the non-DCO consents interact with the scheme design and DCO provisions / requirements, in discussion with the relevant consenting bodies. This should help identify where mitigation may be needed through deisgn and / or DCO requirements. As mentioned above, if impediments are identifed after the submission of the DCO application, and then require a material change to the application that would be a procedural issue that would be challeging to address.

Just to advise, we strongly encourage working with statutory bodies to identify potential issues as early as possible, and are happy to work jointly with parties at pre-application where this can potentially benefit the effective examination of a future application.

19 March 2014
DWD LLP - Geoff Bullock
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Telephone Conference - Project Update
Please see attachment

07 February 2014
Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting between Multifuel Energy Limited and the Planning Inspectorate?s FM2 case team and Consents Service Unit
Please see attachment

25 September 2013
Multifuel Energy Ltd
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you advise on when it would be appropriate to engage with CABE on design matters?
In respect of CABE, it is suggested that you approach the Design Council/CABE directly. They should be able to provide useful information about their process of Design Review, if this is relevant. The Design Council have produced guidance titled "A Design Lead Approach to Infrastructure", which can be found on the Design Council website at: [attachment 1].

Further information on the Design Review process can also be found at: [attachment 2]

You may also be aware of Section 4.5 of National Policy Statement EN1 which provides guidance on "Criteria for "good design" for energy infrastructure".

29 July 2013
Geoff Bullock
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Up-date on the FM2 project and site visit
Please see attachment

04 June 2013
Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL)
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Introduction to the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 project.
Please see attached.

23 April 2013
Meeting with SSE, Dalton Warner Davis and URS