Gateley Hamer on behalf of Andrew Gravel t/a ADG Autotech
"Mr Gravel owns and occupies two units on the Flixborough Industrial Estate that will be lost to the scheme. Mr Gravel operates an established independent car repair garage from the units. A significant part of Mr Gravel’s custom is derived from the Flixborough Industrial Estate and the surrounding area. The scheme as proposed does not make any provision to replace units situated on land that the applicant is seeking to acquire to deliver the scheme. There is an adequate amount of land within or immediately adjacent to the red line boundary that could be used to re-provide units without any significant detriment to the applicant's scheme or immediate land holdings."

United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) (United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN))
"UKWIN objects to the proposed development. Claimed benefits are overstated, and potential adverse impacts are understated. The planning balance goes against the proposal, with associated adverse impacts outweighing any benefit of the proposed incineration facility. In summary: 1. The proposed incineration facility could result in local and/or national incineration overcapacity, in contravention of EN-3 (2021) which states: “As the primary function of EfW plants is to treat waste, applicants must demonstrate that proposed EfW plants are in line with Defra’s policy position on the role of energy from waste in treating municipal waste. The proposed plant must not result in over-capacity of EfW waste treatment at a national or local level”. 2. This position was subsequently confirmed as Government policy in July 2022, with the Government stating: “The Government’s view is that Energy from Waste (EfW) should not compete with greater waste prevention, re-use, or recycling. Proposed new plants must not result in an over-capacity of EfW waste treatment provision at a local or national level”. 3. These Government statements add weight to the conclusion highlighted in the Wheelabrator Kemsley North refusal which found that large-scale development can undermine local recycling efforts and divert waste from recycling. 4. UKWIN also intends to cite other concerns about how incineration competes with recycling, including Defra research and comments from the Climate Change Committee. 5. Given the proposed facility would treat RDF, it is notable that it takes more than one tonne of waste to produce a tonne of RDF. 6. We are also concerned about the proposal’s climate change impacts, both in terms of the direct emissions from the stack and indirect emissions compared to waste treatment options further up the Waste Hierarchy. 7. We are concerned about the poor efficiency and questions regarding the deliverability of the proposed carbon capture element of the proposal (including questions about whether or not the Environment Agency would issue an environmental permit for technology that does not meet best available technique requirements), and the potential adverse health impacts of amine degradation associated with the chosen carbon capture technology. 8. The Applicant’s May 2022 Chapter on Waste (6.2.15) and the associated RDF Supply Assessment (5.2) are flimsy and full of errors and outdated information. For example, by focussing the need assessment on the situation in 2019 the Applicant fails to properly account for the capacity that came online during and after 2019 or that is currently under construction. These combine to undermine the Application’s need case for the proposal, raising concerns about the impact this facility would have on recycling and waste reduction. 9. The Applicant’s May 2022 Climate Chapter (6.2.6) contains a number of significant inaccuracies, inadequately-evidenced assumptions, and approaches that are not in line with good practice. These combine to reduce the weight that should be given to claimed environmental benefits of the proposal. 10. UKWIN does not believe that the proposal constitutes ‘essential infrastructure’ that would justify location on a site that is high risk from flooding and functional floodplain."

Brian Close
"We have no need of this facility it is largely seen as the north being used as London’s rubbish dump. The technology has already failed in Holland where toxins were found in the human food chain. The ash from the process is not like other furnaces it is toxic waste but they plan to make blocks from the ash. I wouldn’t want my children playing on blocks containing arsenic. By the time it was built the technology would be obsolete. This will in the long term be funded from tax payers money so should be a “non profit “ venture. Anything else would be seen as milking the tax payers. The rail line is a single track that has had its use and was seen as no longer viable as any derailment would be very difficult to rectify. The rail was mainly used for downhill” exports to the wharf not uphill imports."

Carol Richardson
"I strongly believe this is wrong for the area. We regularly have the worst air quality of the country and this would only make matters worst. Even if the Green Park could keep emissions to a minimum the relentless number of lorries and trains transporting the rubbish would not be negligible. The area has natural wildlife that could not be accommodated. We already have a landfill nearby so need no more smells, emissions or rubbish."

Diane Sigsworth
"I wish to keep abreast of developments as the proposal progresses."

James O
"I am very concerned about the new project, mainly because of the smell that will no doubt impact on myself and the surrounding area. It will also have an impact on the local environment. The traffic will also be much greater than usual which I am not happy about. I also don’t trust these people as they first said it was a power plant, but in fact it is an incinerator, generating a few megawatts. I am also thinking they will be incinerating more than they have said, if not now but in the future. More pollution. We already have probably the worst air pollution in the country due to the local Steelworks. We don’t need anymore. The amount of [redacted] that hits our window cills is already a pain having to clean them every few days. I am also sure it will devalue all our properties in this area."

Kim Golightly
"I'm concerned about,The energy recovery facility, hydrogen production and storage,ash treatment and concrete block manufacturing, the reinstatement of railway and creation of new railhead. Where will the plastic come from,how and where will it be stored,what about more noise and pollution for those living in Flixborough and surrounding villages. Why all the infrastructure what else is going into the industrial estate. Will the height of the proposed chimney stack take into account the height of the nearby ridgeway."

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
"We have already engaged with the developer pre-application and discussed various points. We will be seeking nature's recovery, Biodiversity Net Gain, that all impacts on known local, regional, national and international designated sites for nature are considered and the mitigation hierarchy is applied. Ultimately, that both the biodiversity and climate change crises are addressed, and local initiatives and policies are taken into account in the national planning process."

Ray Barker
"Safety and environmental concerns."

Bob Meldrum
"I am a resident of Burton upon Stather, a small village which sits approximately 2 miles north of the proposed site. The proposed site is at sea level and most of Burton upon Stather is 83m above sea level. My main concern is about the close proximity to the village and the difference in elevation over this elevation. In particular, I am concerned about waste biproducts (e.g., fumes, smoke, steam) that may be emitted from the site and the impact it may have of on not only my village but also that of Flixborough which is even closer. This part of the county encounters a lot of wind, so the negative risk to these villages cannot be underestimated."

Canal & River Trust
"The Canal & River Trust are the charity who look after and bring 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 has been previously consulted on the proposals under S42. At the time, we noted that the application site is located to the east of the River Trent, and includes proposals to expand wharf facilities on the river. However, we also noted that the Trust is not Navigation Authority for the River Trent downstream of Gainsborough. As a result, our interests in the proposal are limited to secondary impacts on our network, which nearby consists of the River Trent upstream of Gainsborough and the Stainforth & Keadby Canal, which connects with the Trent at Keadby Lock. We previously asked for clarity as to whether any changes to waterbourne transport to and from site could have indirect impacts on our network, should the wharf be designed to accommodate inland transport. Within their submission, the applicant has clarified within their Submitted Navigation Risk Assessment (Documents Reference 6.36) that the use of the Inland Waterway Network is not envisaged, and that no direct impact on transport using the Trust’s assets would be expected. We assume that boats utilising Flixborough Wharf from the Humber Estuary are not required to travel further upstream upon the River Trent (for example, for turning), where large boats could have the potential to impact upon the safety of smaller vessels utilising Keadby Lock. We would welcome confirmation upon this from the applicant. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you may have."

David Hinchcliffe
"The development of the Park would severely impact the village of Amcotts which is directly across the river Trent from the site. We anticipate Massively increased noise pollution from the railway and extra shipping Increased light pollution especially in Winter Large risk of strong odors from the plant Large risk of environmental pollution (from plastics etc. entering the river) The resulting plant will provide absolutely no benefits to the village of Amcotts but will lead to a substantial reduction in the marketable values of the properties, and land on the West bank of the river Trent, especially those directly opposite the site (like mine). Whilst I understand the need for such a plant and generally agree with the concept, the location chosen could be more remote from dwellings, and especially not on a site that has remained unused since the chemical explosion in 1974 substantially destroyed properties directly across the river (in Amcotts - like ours which was rebuilt in 1974 after the accident)"

Gail Lockey
"As a resident of [redacted] I am very interested to find out about this park as it will have an impact on me living right next door to it. I am not opposed to it but would like to know in more detail when things are happening what is proposed and when the road going past my house is likely to be shut because currently every Saturday night it is like a race track with the noise of the big racers. It’ll take for the road to be shut to stop it so PLEASE can it be soon. Thanks"

Graham James Fullwood
"My house is on a ridge 60 metres above the Trent valley where the proposed park would be. We are about 4 km downwind of the site - North East. Any fumes and particulates coming from the site will pollute my property and most other properties in the village of Burton upon Stather. There is nothing 'green' about these proposals. I object most strongly to the proposed pollution, for that's what it is. Graham Fullwood"

John Newsham
"Incineration cant be considered Green energy. 20th April 2021 Gov sets 'most ambitious climate change target' this isn't compatible with allowing plastic incineration as this is more carbon intensive than landfill. Incineration causes toxic air pollution both in chemicals and particulates. Incineration interferes with and hampers recycling strategies. Social impact of massive traffic increase in rural area, visual impact of new incinerator and chimneys. Health implications for local population, modern incinerators are better than before but still release some dioxins and furans as well as particulates. Recent studies show that the mortality burden on local populations may be low, but exists. Why should our local population carry that risk, the waste being incinerated isn't local, places that produce the waste, i.e cities are understandably reluctant to have incinerators. The NIMBY approach may be understandable but to basically ignore risk to local population on cost issues is morally unjustifiable. I wonder if the directors and shareholders of the company will move here to share that risk. Ultimately this isn't about 'Green energy', its simply a company out to make money by offering a quick solution to the waste problem despite its impact on the environment and local population."

Lesley Barsley
"We live in the locality and would like to add support to the project, we have read all the objections and feel as long as we can be assured that the transport infrastructure will be adequate, the carbon footprint will be less and the odour levels will be better than the present landfill site at Roxby, then the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. We have a duty to protect our race from landfill problems, plastic waste and carbon emissions."

Michael Sharp
"Respect to infrastructure and increased traffic flows. concerns over fumes blowing over village due to height of chimney. being built close to site of flixbrough disaster."

Dr Jeremy Jolley
"The ‘Green Energy Park’ will essentially be a very large furnace, mainly purposed to burn plastics and other waste. The furnace will be sited in the village of Flixborough. This is a pretty and well-kept village, which will inevitably suffer from the noise, smell, increased traffic, and emissions from the stacks. Flixborough has suffered from the effects of industry before, as the pretty churchyard bears testimony. The furnace is planned to be built close to the site of the Nypro plant which blew up in 1974, killing 28 people. Flixborough and its people deserve to be left alone. I live a field away from the proposed site, and my home will be impacted by the increased traffic, and the emissions. The view across the countryside will also be blighted. While plastics are a serious problem, burning the nation’s plastics in a sleepy North Lincolnshire village, is surely not the answer. Surely. The only solution to plastics. Is to stop using them."

Malcolm Plaskitt
"The transportation of hazardous, medical and corrosive waste pructs on Laerge Goods vehicles on such a scale is flying in the face of common sense. The County within which it is proposed to site this facility is a County based on agrivculture producing food for the Country to digest. That should be the priority, ebaling the land to be used for the sustenance of the population, not dealing with the waste oroduced in other parts of the Country and transported to a County whose current and historical purpose has been the production of edible crops with an road infrastructure designed to service such a purpose. The siting of such a utility inappropriately named as the 'North lincolnshire Green Energy Park' gives rise to the suspicion that such a title is designed to mislead. The movement of these waste products iver vast distances by rail and road is completly at odds with a sensible approach to the subject. The waste should be disposed of by the producers not transported out of sight and mind to a County whose heritage and purpose is the production of edible crops. The impact of such a facility will undoubadly lower the atrraction of the crops grown in the County as the connection between waste and crops produces a negative belief in the safety of the crops produced in the County. This project should be denied and a more sensible approach based on the principlae I set out in the third parageraph, in short it should be dealt with at source."

Steve Duree
"Burning waste is by no means, a green energy project. Funds would be better used ensuring that consumer packaging is reduced and there is no need for incineration. Amcotts which is the other side of the river from this has a small population as a village and the residents take great care over the environment in which they live. Encouraging wildlife is something we’re passionate about and increasing pollution would only have a detrimental effect. I suspect that river traffic would see an increase and I’m sure consideration has been given to shipping in other county’s waste for sortation. I would also add that the Company leading the project is not even based in the UK so any profits would be for the benefit of the EU, not the UK. I’d like to think we’re considering and supporting the British economy in any infrastructure we embark on."

Eamonn Igoe
"I am registering as a local resident who wishes to be kept Informed as to how the changes to the local environment Pre build and on completion of the build will effect me and my family"

Kenneth Brocklesby
"I live close to the proposed development, and would like to be informed of all developments. I support the development if it is in the creation of jobs , development of the wildlife and improved road access to the site and adjcent industrial estate"

Mr John Jarvis
"i live in the village"

Michael Giles
"I moved to the village 6 years ago as it was so quite, my mistake. Not only do I have to endure the noise from Rainham Steel, the speedway, winterton tip and several train you are now planning on more trains bringing more rubbish to Flixborough. We sit in a valley which the Scunthorpe planning department either do not know or choose to ignore, north Lincolnshire is know as ‘the [redacted] of England’ as anyone can bring their rubbish here. Northern waste and Ellgia waste have both been on fire recently which has affected the village, not to mention the toxic smoke. As usual councillor’s andMP’s do not live in the village so do as they wish. The fire from Nothern waste earlier this year completely covered our village in toxic smoke, as a bee keeper I lost four hives due to this. MP’s/counsellors state Dragonby is not a forgotten village, BUT IT IS!"

Norman Turner
"As I understand it the intention is to store mixed waste on this site until it can be burnt. I’m objecting on the grounds the the waste is mostly of an unknown nature and will be decomposing on site. I will smell and possibly have a dangerous discharge. There is the noise pollution. In our village we are already disturbed at night with waste being delivered to the nearby waste tip. This will increase massively with this proposal. I’ve worked many years in industry as an electrician, I know of no system that can be as full proof as this proposal describes. All systems fail that’s a fact. They will not be able to control the effluent and the noise. They mention sealed containers. They only seal when new. Today as a write this there are two waste fires in this town. On two different waste recycling companies. Toxic fume are being released into the atmosphere as I speak. This is plastic waste mostly so the toxins are very dangerous. Also very difficult to extinguish. The last waste fire in this town, only last year took a week to extinguish. So this proposal hopes to store hundreds of tons of very flammable waste within 2 hundred yards of my home. So I’m objecting to that. I’m intending to use The Fucashima disaster as an example of failed control. The Japanese go the extra mile, it was a very modern site, it was run very well by a country known for its high tech. It had time to prepare after the initial event. The reactors were scrammed, and shut down. But they still blew their tops and polluted many square miles of land and sea. It’s an extream example I know, but a perfect example of a catastrophic failure they were unable to control. With all their tech. Our village is to close to this for safety."

Stuart Trethewey
"Pollution issues including light, noise and smell. Lack of respect to the residents of Amcotts. Suitability of the site location. The shear scale of the site, is it in the National Interests to build more incinerators, that produce more carbon per KW of electricity produced that coal power stations that are being replaced for that very reason."

Tina Podmore
"Dragonby sits in a valley so noise can be loud, we currently have several trains running back and forth with what I understand is waste. The new park will create more trains which will increase noise, that running alongside the speedway will make our once peaceful village,a very noisy village"

Simon Nicholson
"This is the wrong site. It is on highly contaminated land which will be exposed due to the applicant wishing to excavate to accommodate a storage bunker to well over 10 metres. A site far more suitable for such a project is available within four miles that isn't classed as a high risk flood zone. The planned logistical transport methods are not tenable for so many reasons. Environmental impact has not been taken into consideration to the extent it should be topographically. The transport infrastructure is unsuitable and unsustainable. The waste proximity rules are not being taken into consideration. There is an overlap of planning proposals that impinge on the local plan. The proposal is neither required or beneficial and goes against the local plan."

Janet Peacock
"I live close by the proposed project and wish to collect information that may affect my lifestyle"

Kevin John Bird
"definition of Green energy alternative sites over capacity Environmental considerations latest technology"

Christine Nutt
"As a local resident I am concerned about the detrimental effect this project will have on the general well-being of those living in the surrounding area - noise, smell, increased traffic, not to mention the impact on the fauna and flora of the area. I do not think that enough consideration on these issues has been given by the developer."

Alan Nigel Craddock
"In short: The applicant has failed to consult fully. The consultation pack, failed to reach even half the affected population The emerging North Lincolnshire Council "Local Plan" does not identify the need/requirement for waste incineration. The proposal calls for significant importation of waste into County, this is at odds with the "Proximity Principle" for waste handling Waste incineration precludes the underlying principle in Waste management of "Reduce, Reuse, recycle, by locking a vast quantity of waste into the incineration contract There are many other issues which will be addressed in my full submission. Alan Craddock"

Anna Flewker
"Myself, my partner and baby live directly opposite the current plant. At present we experience some significant negative effects. These being as follows: 1) noise pollution. The wharf is naturally a noisy place. At present this is acceptable during the day and occasionally a nuisance at night. By nuisance I mean sirens blaring alarms for hours at a time. Loud banging and clanging. I am concerned that any increase to this would greatly influence our ability to be able to live undisturbed. Particularly at night. 2) light pollution. Intense flood lights have been fitted to the current wharf. These cause significant light pollution to the point where we do not need to use outside lights to see in our garden. We have also had to invest in black out curtains. 3) my main concern is the flies. At present the flies that enter our property are unmanageable. Every summer we are infested and bitten. We cannot eat outside or have windows or doors open. We have tried various methods to reduce their effect on our life, however this has been without effect. I am told by neighbours that have lived in the area longer than ourselves that the flies increased in presence when developments were made up the plant. I am highly concerned about any further development to this area. I think it would make our outside space wholly unusable and it difficult to live comfortably inside. If development was completed I feel we would have to move, although I am concerned about the effect it would have on our house price."

Michael Dillon
"- What will the impact on the surrounding environment be. - What will the impact be for surrounding noise and smell. - What will be increase in traffic; both rail, road and sea, in the area."

Amanda Farnham
"I oppose the application for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park. 1) 200m from the village of Amcotts 2) Noise 3) Vibration 4) Flies and odour 5) Light pollution 6) Visual impact 7) Traffic 8) Health and Mental health to residents in surrounding areas 9) Property value 10) Harm of air quality - Emissions from incinerators can include heavy metals, dioxins, particulates and greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide, mercury, lead, cadmium, nitrous oxide. 11) Incineration exacerbates climate change 12) Storage of explosive hydrogen in a residential area 13) Loss of farmland in an increasing population"

Andrew Farnham
"I oppose the application for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park. 1) 200m from the village of Amcotts 2) Noise 3) Vibration 4) Flies and odour 5) Light pollution 6) Visual impact 7) Traffic 8) Health and Mental health to residents in surrounding areas 9) Property value 10) Harm of air quality - Emissions from incinerators can include heavy metals, dioxins, particulates and greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide, mercury, lead, cadmium, nitrous oxide. 11) Incineration exacerbates climate change 12) Storage of explosive hydrogen in a residential area 13) Loss of farmland in an increasing population"

Appleby Parish Council
"To provide a representation on behalf of the Councillors and residents of the parish of Appleby."

Katrina Young
"I would like to start with the obvious which is the previous disaster that has affected the village, Nypro, that disaster is more than any community should have to have dealt with, Nypro was enough and difficult times during and after, the residents are unanimous in asking that Flixborough should be left as it, a peaceful rural community, with a tragic past. Flixborough is the wrong place for this site, it is on agricultural land, green field sites and on a flood plain. Currently a small, quiet, peaceful, rural community and the potential size of the proposed Energy Park would take away so much land that surrounds this village as well as causing visual/air/noise/light pollution. The grey proposed future development area is far too close to homes/Flixborough village.Industry is already encroaching on the village from all directions. If the Energy Park goes ahead the whole village would be surrounded. Alternate Industrial sites are currently available with good infrastructure e.g. Killingholme/Immingham so why Flixborough rather than other sites/development areas? The flood risk is high within the lifetime of the project and I ask how ‘building on a flood plain’ is a good investment when it has been said it will flood within the next 30 years and the low lying land unsalvageable within 50 years.The Environmental Impact - on the surrounding land what about the protection of the woodlands, green fields, wildlife, bridle ways, public footpaths and walkways. Not to mention all the valuable eco systems and habitats that will be destroyed should this go ahead. Also, the River Trent and the River Humber are sites of special interest and conservation areas, what happens when there are any waste spillages including plastics which has been highlighted on the news recently for how damaging this in both in water and on land for wildlife.Another huge concern is about the waste firstly the storage of this, being stored correctly otherwise this would introduce smells, vermin, risks as mentioned above to animals and children, fire risk and also when the spillages occur who is responsible for this and how often will this be cleared away. With regards to the Rail/River transportation are the carriages going to be open? Therefore, it is inevitable for waste to spill and waste to smell and how will this work when transferring the waste from both Rail and Ship again controlling the smell and spillages. Previously on the exact same site there was a Council Composting Plant which processed compost and gave off a nasty odour in the surrounding area and after years of complaints about the odour omitted, it was finally relocated only to now have a proposed site that has the potential of omitting far worse odours than the small composting site. There is already a massive concern in nearby villages (Roxby/Winterton) who are suffering horrendous odours from the landfill site which is actually located further away from those villages than this Energy Park would be to Flixborough and surrounding villages. Concerns over where the waste is coming from and indeed what type of waste, also you confirmed this would be a 24 hr operation this means extra noise day and night especially as the ships follow the tide, noise from the railway which passes extremely close to the village and increased road traffic noise.Traffic is a big concern also for all villagers, the number of vehicles coming through the village (from the north/east of the village) day and night be it workers or trucks for delivery etc would increase the traffic tremendously, we also have a weak bridge has that been taken into consideration? No doubt (new road or no new road) connecting to the A1077 will cause queues in all directions off and onto the Orbital Rd, if the glasshouses go ahead that will also increase additional traffic build up on the smaller road that joins the A1077.Light and Noise Pollution – with a 24 hr Operation in mind the Increase of light and noise pollution is inevitable causing an irreversible impact on the local environment / wildlife and surrounding area.Winds – the village of Flixborough is 50m above sea level and has prevailing Westerly winds. The planned footprint for the Energy Park would mean that any odours from the waste from shipping, rail, road would impact Flixborough directly, with Easterly winds would impact Amcotts, and South Westerly winds would impact Burton Upon Stather and Normanby where the popular local country park is located and encouraging visitors from all around the UK to visit.With a chimney the size yet to be decided but suggested in the final webinar a guess of 85 metres this would have a dramatic impact on the village and also how would this work in conjunction with the village being elevated and also several wind turbines in the field opposite standing at 126 metres? Is this not going to cause issues with regards to emissions and pollutants?Pollutants and Emissions – With the chimney proposed to be 85m high possibly, the village being elevated at 50m above sea level the villagers would need 100% guarantee that no harmful pollutants will enter the atmosphere and ultimately end up passing through our villages, analysis shows that fine particles from incinerators can spread over a distance of 10km. Incinerators can release tonnes of carbon dioxide gas (what will happen to the CO2 produced and captured if the greenhouses never get built?). Other pollutants released from Incinerators include mercury, hydrochloric acid, dioxins, oxides of nitrogen, cadmium and lead, what guarantees do you have for the residents of the village that we will be completely safe and that there is no health risk to us if the Energy Park is approved.If the project does go ahead what will be on offer to the residents of Flixborough? Compensation for the plummeting house prices? Reduced Energy Bills? What about the loss of public walkways/bridle ways? Rural Views/Landscape marred by even more Industry. Lack of public footpaths in the area means the village without the walks available would be a very isolated place, there would be lots of challenges in the village, an investment would be much needed in the local community. Traffic calming measures would be essential, safe foot paths out of the village including onto Normanby Rd, Cycle Lanes and improved roads as traffic would impact massively.In closing – Locally, it has been felt that the consultations have been very poorly thought through as most of the residents are elderly and many don’t have access to the Internet and it is vital and their right to have their say. The village is in direct proximity of the site and has a disproportionate amount of residents that are in an age range or demographic which did not have consistent access to a web based consultation and did not had the opportunity to have their views directly considered as would normally happen in a face to face meeting/consultation. The method of consultation undertaken is not inclusive to the whole community, the consultation was released during a global pandemic which means other priorities are apparent."

The Hickingbottom Family
"As residents of Amcotts we oppose the potential building of the U.K's largest Incinerator on Flixborough Wharf because of the following: Incinerators harm air quality, Incinerating plastic is harmful to all life forms due to microscopic particles of plastic being released into the atmosphere which is then breathed in by those in the locality resulting in poor health and poor quality of life, Possible emissions include: heavy metals, dioxins, particles and greenhouse gases impacting on our lives, our children and our grandchildren, Incineration exacerbates climate change, Incineration is not environmentally friendly, Incinerators are bad neighbours due to: noise, vibration, plume, odours, light pollution, visual impact, traffic, health and property values."

Carl Young
"I am 100% against this plan. There are numerous reasons why this is not a practical location for this type of industry. These are: noise, odours, increased amount of flies, light pollution, visual impact on the area, vast amounts of extra traffic through inadequate roads, damage to house prices in the area and the overall risk to health of the local people."

Patrick Leslie Nothard
"The village of Amcotts, located just across the river from the energy park, is already plagued by a large amount of flies/bugs attracted related to the current setup. I am concerned that the proposed energy park will only exacerbate the problem and I, my partner and my child will have even worse 'persistent bites and relentless itching' through every summer."

Paul Gracey
"What benefits there are? What extreme measures are being taken to eliminate smells completely. Zero tolerance What by products will there be and how will these be disposed of which again ensures zero tolerance to smell What are the operating times of the plant as noise travels at evening / night and causes disturbances Regarding noise will the plant adopt decibel levels massively below the required levels"

Rainham Steel Company Ltd
"We are a tenant on one of the sites (14 acres) within the red line boundary and within 50 meters of the Flixborough port. The use the local ports (Flixborough and PD Ports) to import material into the UK is essential to our business operations and the supply of sectional steel to the UK. The inability to import to local ports and have a facility close to these ports will have a major impact on our business."

British Steel on behalf of British Steel Ltd
"British Steel have concerns that the development may have an impact on some of the pipes, water mains and cables in the area which service our site. For example there is a coke oven effluent line and o2 supply to our Biological Effluent Treatment Plant at Normanby Park from the main site. There is also a tidal outfall pipe from the balancing tank at Normandy Park to Neap House and a water rising main from Gunness to our main site that passes under the motor way near Glanford Park. British Steel would like some reassurance that any service media in the area will not be effected by the development and our access rights remain unchanged.."

Burton upon Stather Parish Council
"Burton upon Stather Parish Council objects to the proposed development and has the following concerns: 1. Few residents of Burton upon Stather (BUS) were provided with the public consultation pack in September 2021. They were unaware of the chance to consult the applicant. 2. The reopening of the railway line from the industrial estate to Dragonby will destroy the natural wildlife that now inhabits this route. 3. The proposed full-time jobs created on completion mentions that some positions will be filled by local residents. This will have little effect on creating jobs locally. 4. Climate Central’s coastal risk screening tool consisting of Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood maps predicts that by 2030, the proposed site will be below the annual flood level and if the water level rises by 1.0m then the proposed site could be flooded. This goes against the National Planning Policy Framework no.159. 5. The North Lincolnshire Council (NLC) Core Strategy 2011 CS19 only allows development on a flood risk site if it demonstrates wider sustainability benefits to the community, whilst National Planning Policy Framework 159 and National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy EN-1 5.5.1 mention inappropriate development on a flood risk area should be avoided. The NPS Renewable Energy (EN-3) states the application must set out the development’s resilience to climate change. 6. NLC Core Strategy 2011 CS2 states that where large freight movements are involved the use of rail and water transport should be maximised. Since the proposed development states the use of rail and water transport the building of a new road should not be required. 7. No noise monitoring took place at the far end of Stather Road, BUS despite noise being heard from Flixborough Wharf here. This area has climate topographical anomalies, which must be considered. 8. Evidence suggests that noise from operations at the wharf and industrial estate, adjacent to the proposed development site, already exceeds the permitted base line figures. 9. The height of the chimney stack will affect the residents of BUS due to much of the village being approximately 65m above sea level. There are concerns about the impact this will have on residents’ health and wellbeing. 10. The proposed site was affected by the NYPRO explosion in 1974. Is the developer certain that there are no toxins in the ground that could affect the atmosphere if released? 11. The applicants 5.2 RDF Supply Assessment states that 760,000 tonnes per year of household and commercial waste will be processed each year, but there is no evidence that this amount of waste will be available. The supply assessment links Yorkshire & the Humber with the East Midlands which is irrelevant when the waste is not coming from local areas. It is unclear as to why this site has been chosen since the proposed development appears to be on an inappropriate site with the risk of flooding due to climate change. There must be more appropriate sites in the area, which do not appear to have been investigated."

KING Family
"My main objection to this planning application, Is reminding you that this site was historically used by a recycling company (SITA) and subsequently successfully shut down after local residents form nearby rural villages complained of unhealthy, toxic and anti social smells been omitted during processing of recycled materials. So why are the planning department/council considering another application from a similar venture which will harm the air quality, whilst adding to greenhouse gasses resulting in being another negative for climate change. Our future generations will not thank us if this were to go ahead."

Residents Against INcinerators (RAIN) (Residents Against INcinerators (RAIN))
"RAIN (Residents Against INcinerators) is a group of residents from Burton upon Stather, Flixborough, Amcotts and Dragonby who object to the proposed development and give their following concerns: 1. None of the residents of Dragonby, were provided with the public consultation pack in September 2021. Only a few residents of BUS were, despite being affected by this proposed development. They were unaware of the chance to consult the applicant. 2. The proposed full-time jobs created on completion mentions that some positions will be filled by local residents, but they may not have the skills required, so this will not be beneficial to the local working population. 3. Climate Central’s coastal risk screening tool consisting of Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood maps predicts that by 2030, the proposed site will be below the annual flood level and if the water level rises by 1.0m then the proposed site could be flooded. This goes against the National Planning Policy Framework no.159. 4. The North Lincolnshire Council (NLC) Core Strategy 2011 CS19 only allows development on a flood risk site if it demonstrates wider sustainability benefits to the community, whilst National Planning Policy Framework 159 and National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy EN-1 5.5.1 mention inappropriate development on a flood risk area should be avoided. The NPS Renewable Energy (EN-3) states the application must set out the development’s resilience to climate change. 5. NLC Core Strategy 2011 CS2 states that where large freight movements are involved the use of rail and water transport should be maximised. Since the proposed development states the use of rail and water transport the building of a new road should not be required. 6. Evidence suggests a long-standing noise issue with operations at the wharf and industrial estate, adjacent to the proposed development site, already exceeds the permitted base line figures. 7. The height of the chimney stack will affect the residents of BUS due to much of the village being approximately 65m above sea level. There are concerns about the impact this will have on the health and wellbeing of the residents. 8. The catchment area for the waste is nationwide so will severely affect the green credentials of the park and is at odds with the European Environment Agency’s Proximity Principle. NLC has contracts with local waste disposal companies so the proposed development will not be taking local waste. 9. The applicants 5.2 RDF Supply Assessment states that 760,000 tonnes per year of household and commercial waste will be processed each year, but there is no evidence that this amount of waste will be available. The supply assessment links Yorkshire & the Humber with the East Midlands which is irrelevant when the waste is not coming from local areas. It is unclear as to why this site has been chosen since the proposed development appears to be on an inappropriate site due to the distance the waste will be transported and the risk of flooding due to climate change."

Tricia Murphy
"I am opposed to the building of this on the following grounds: CONSULTATION The original radius and nominees preventing the nearest village from participating and the misinformation regarding viewing documentation at nearby libraries. ENVIRONMENT 25 scrapes of Lapwings (a category red bird) will probably evacuate due to disturbance, noise and odour. Lighting, noise, additional traffic and odour will all have detrimental effects upon our Award-winning Bat Colonies and Butterfly Garden HERITAGE The Amcotts Ferry site which is of historical significance will probably be completely destroyed. The siting and height of this proposed structure will have vast visual impact on the riverbank which has incorporated into it an RHS Award winning Tiddy Mun Trail and viewing area. EMOTIONAL HEALTH OF AMCOTTS RESIDENTS This village suffered greatly at the Flixborough NYPRO Disaster in 1974 and to reposition a new structure to store hydrogen on that same site is very concerning and traumatising proposition for residents."

Anthony Buccieri
"Sick and tired of this local Council killing the local vista and in turn the environment with their government backed on trend ideas, which are forced upon the local area (Keadby, Amcotts, Flixborough) in a so-called consultation with all parties concerned. This is a government, local council and big business working together and pretending to be even the slightest bit interested in the concerns of the area affected. Look at how you have changed the area for this worse to date - Keadby 1, 2, 3, and so on. Big Business, greedy council! Very happy rich industrial Farmers. I feel even bothering to waste time completing this form just another process that enables you to claim a balanced overview of a development, that most likely you have already signed off' If you claim to be concerned about residents’ views, then roll back the Keadby development, don’t even consider this latest TOXIC rubbish burning garbage. And stop your greedy government backed ideas, which you know will impact on local communities. Realise you also live in the same visual and soon to be air born polluted area and environment. I see the local land owners and farmers, the so-called custodians of the land, cashing in big time on wind farm developments and in time, I should think on this toxic waste dump idea with its so-called proposal scam consultation process. Carry on, keep developing why not industrialise the whole of our local area, I have no faith in your so-called impartial consultation process, the decision is always more money - and more sham consultations in the future. shame on you. [Redacted]"

Peacock and Smith Ltd on behalf of Gleeson Regeneration Ltd
"Dear Sir/Madam WRITTEN REPRESENTATION IN RESPONSE TO NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE GREEN ENERGY PARK CONSULTATION - PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: EN010116 GLEESON REGENERATION LTD We act on behalf of our client, Gleeson Regeneration Ltd (‘Gleeson’), who were recently invited to respond to the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Consultation. We understand that ‘The North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park’ (NLGEP) ("the Project"), located at Flixborough, North Lincolnshire, is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) that is seeking consent for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) capable of converting up to 760,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste into 95 MW of electricity. Gleeson acquired full planning permission on 30 June 2021 under application reference PA/2020/2049, for the construction of 158 two, three and four-bedroomed, 2 storey traditional residential homes with associated garages and access infrastructure on land to the south of Phoenix Parkway, Scunthorpe, DN15 8NH (please see Location Plan and Site Layout Plan at Appendix 1). This development is located adjacent to the Northern District Heat and Private Wire Network (DHPWN) element of the wider DCO application. Construction of the Gleeson development has commenced and the first completed home is expected to be available for occupation in February 2023. The development is forecast to be fully completed during the financial year ending March 2027. Gleeson does not object to the principle of the proposed Development Control Order (DCO) for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park. However, our client would like to raise a number of points to protect the Company’s interests during the construction of the Phoenix Parkway development and to safeguard the amenity and convenience of customers who will ultimately occupy the new homes. In this context Gleeson’s main points of concern about the DHPWN element of the wider DCO application are as follows: ? Vehicular access to the Gleeson site must be maintained at all times to avoid disruption to the site construction programme, and to avoid inconvenience to future occupiers of the new homes; ? There should be no severing of, or interruption to, services and drainage at the Gleeson site. Where works are taking place that could potentially have an impact on services and drainage Gleeson would expect to be consulted before such works commence in order that safeguards can be put in place; ? Our client would expect to be consulted about the details of any proposed ground engineering works and boundary treatment works where the DHPWN adjoins the Gleeson site; ? A Construction Method Statement should be provided by the Applicant detailing arrangements to avoid adverse amenity impacts in respect of noise, dust and air quality. Details of proposed construction hours and a Site Management contact should also be provided. We thank you for the opportunity to submit comments in relation to the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Consultation. We would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this submission and keep us informed about future developments with the DCO application. Should you have any questions in relation to the contents of this submission, please contact Tom Procter or Mark Eagland at Peacock + Smith on [redacted] or tom.procter[redacted] or mark.eagland[redacted]. Yours Sincerely, PEACOCK + SMITH Cc: M Smith, Gleeson Regeneration ENC"

Harold Homer
"The proposed development is on a designated flood plain. Does the government support development on a designated flood plain? What is the actual height of the stack? What will be the effect of the existing (local) Wind Turbines on the distribution of the discharge from the proposed incinerator stack? What proportion of the "new jobs" (created) are contained in the "Ancillary Plant" as opposed to the "Energy Recovery Facility"? Has hydrogen been approved by the government for injection into the present gas grid? The proposal is for an "Incinerator" not a "Green Energy Project" using refuse derived as a fuel The "Ancillary Plant" is a list of "bolt on goodies" which may create new jobs and training opportunities. All funded "Separately" on a flood plain?? See also comments from ward councillors - E.Marper, R.Ogg, H.Rawson - North Lincolnshire Council on this subject submitted by residents."

Rajan Marwaha
"I own bellwin house land and buildings earmarked to be taken ovee to accomodate this proposed projects . I have been approached by THE DEVELOPERS AGENTS DDM Agricultural to entef negotiations for its sale to them as early as 2021. I previously obtained planning permission from the respective local authority to run a viable business offering storage . The developers are yet to consider the business loss and profit aspect of my agreement for its sale and have offered only renumeration based on their assesment of the value of the land not the potential the planning approval granted which the prijections based on national statistics for return on investment my approved scheme would have generated as profit. I need clarity as to when my full and loss analysis will be conducted as if or when the DCO is granted the cumpolsory purchase order giving a degree of considersble power over my development should be considered with respect to value as yo the loss in potentol business losses suffered as a consequense of the scheme now proposed by the developers Solar 21. Kind Regards Rajan Marwaha"

Amy-Louise Ogman
"I am submitting my objection against the proposal on a number of grounds, including: lack of need, due to overcapacity; the threat to recycling, not only in our area but nationally; inadequate statutory consultation and the adverse effects the project will have on climate, health and amenity, local economy and infrastructure, and environment. Firstly, there is currently not enough genuinely residual feedstock to feed the incinerators already in operation therefore there is no argument for the need of another incinerator. In relation to the feedstock, there is no clear indication on where the feedstock will be coming from, potentially adding carbon miles unnecessarily. The waste has potential to be recycled but is going to needlessly generate one tonne of CO2 per one tonne of waste burned. The government has committed to being net zero by 2050! Our council, currently, have recycling rates above regional and national average and this means that the incinerator would jeopardise the area's good performance by introducing significant quantities of capacity which would compete with recycling. Not only will CO2 and other emissions affect the climate, but it will also have an impact on people’s health. Exacerbating this will be the increased traffic in the locality, noise during and after construction, and the visual impact it will have on many of the surrounding villages for many miles. The environment will take a big hit-not only in the short term- but in the long term over the life of the incinerator. Effects on the environment and wildlife impacted during the various phases of the project will be long term and irreversible. In addition, local economy, jobs currently in the proposed planning area and in the locality, and infrastructure, such as local roads which are already under enormous pressure, will not be able to cope with the pressure the planning, construction and operational processes will have on them. Penultimately, North Lincs Core Strategy currently, and the proposed North Lincs Local Plan draft, due to be adopted in 2023, will not be able to achieve their objectives if this proposal was to be accepted. Such as the Lincolnshire Lakes project, as some of this allocated development land is on the project boundary and also the council states, in its draft plan, it does not support large scale plans for renewable energy proposals. Finally, I would like to question the adequacy of the implementation of the statutory consultation held between June and July 2021 and also highlight the recent two large scale fires the area has had to contend with within a 36-hour time frame of each other. Both fires were at waste sites and have proved an ongoing challenge to contain. It concerns me greatly that waste will be stored in a large building which could, like these fires, be easily ignited. The largest of anxieties would be the fact hydrogen will be stored close by-approx.200 metres from my home-and have the same effects Flixborough Nypro had on the residents of Amcotts and Flixborough in 1974."

Dawn Gray
"I disagree with the proposed green energy park. The efficiency of these parks can become diminished over time unless the infrastructure is very well maintained. I am worried that this will have a negative impact on my families health and on the value of my property."

Nigel Rhodes
"How can this be called a green park? It is a waste plant, which will impact on the local environment."

Brian Oliver
"I object to the proposed development for the following reasons. Amcotts is only 200 meters away from the proposed development. A development of this magnitude, along with proposed 24hr working would further devastate the peace and quiet this rural village. Furthermore there would be many thousands of HGV movements a week taking RDF to the site along the eastern side of the river Trent, again only 200 meters from the eastern edge of Amcotts, causing further noise nuisance issues from heavy road traffic. The negative visual impact of such a colossal structure. Emissions from the stack would contain particulate matter that the very latest scientific research has discovered cause cancer. This would be a threat to human health and well-being. We are in a climate emergency. The incinerator would be burning a fossil fuel, exacerbating climate change by adding to CO2 emissions at a critical time, and for its projected lifespan of 25 years. There are questions about poor efficiency and deliverability of proposed carbon capture. The uk is already facing incinerator overcapacity There is no argument for another incinerator. Burning waste does not support the circular economy and discourages recycling. National recycling rates still remain well below the governments own target. The storage of thousands of tonnes of RDF is potentially volatile. There have been two large scale waste storage fires within 36hrs of each other in the area only recently, resulting in toxic smoke reaching Amcotts and the stench of it in the air, and windows having to be closed to prevent it entering homes. Hydrogen is also proposed to be stored on site giving rise to the fear of a chain of events resulting in another tragedy such as NYPRO in 1974. The fear of another tragedy would be an ongoing trauma for residents of Amcotts and Flixborough. Storage of RDF also creates foul odours, which is another potential problem for the residents of Amcotts as we are so close. There is no clear indication of where the feedstock would come from, potentially adding carbon miles. The claimed benefits of this proposed development are overstated and the potential adverse impacts understated."

Environment Agency
"1.0 The Environment Agency’s Role 1.1 The Environment Agency is an executive non departmental public body, established under the Environment Act 1995. 1.2 We were 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 We have 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 Environment 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 We have 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 Environment 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 Environment 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) application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above-mentioned application, which we received on 1 August 2022. Our comments are presented using the document references and ES Chapter headings relevant to our remit below. 3.0 4.10 Indicative Landscape and Biodiversity Plans 3.1 We have reviewed this plan, the contents of which are satisfactory. 4.0 5.4 Combined Heat and Power 4.1 We have undertaken a high-level review of this document, which covers the economics of the proposal and identified end users. This would be a requirement of the permitting process for the proposed activities and therefore covered within conditions as part of an Environmental Permit; for example, requiring formal commissioning plans at the appropriate time. The Requirement contained in Schedule 2, Part 1 of the DCO appears appropriate for planning purposes. 4.2 We would normally expect a DCO application to include an assessment for Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR). We note that this proposal is to have Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS) from the outset and if this issue is covered in the ES we would be grateful if the applicant could signpost us to the relevant parts for this assessment. 5.0 5.7 Outline Landscape and Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan 5.1 We have reviewed this plan, the contents of which are satisfactory. 6.0 5.8 Consents and Licences Document 6.1 The Applicant has correctly identified that the proposed operation of the plant(s) will require a permit(s) from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 for Part A(1) activities. 6.2 The Applicant has also identified the need for a bespoke permit for discharge to surface water for dewatering during excavations. 6.3 Any works within 16m of the Environment Agency maintained flood defences will also require an environmental permit, as acknowledge in this document. The proposal to construct new flood defences will also require an environmental permit (please see comments in paragraph 12.4 below). 7.0 5.10 R1 Assessment 7.1 We have undertaken a high-level review of this document, which follows the Environment Agency’s guidance and shows the proposed design (based on the assumptions made) would meet the R1 status test, making the proposal a recovery, not a disposal, operation under the Waste Framework Directive. 8.0 6.2.5 Chapter 4 – Air Quality 8.1 We have undertaken a high-level review of this Chapter, which appears satisfactory for planning purposes. The assessment acknowledges the local Air Quality Management Area and appears to assess the risk in line with Environment Agency guidance and relevant methodologies. Please note, we have not undertaken a detailed review of the air quality modelling as the proposed combustion installation will require an operating permit under Section 1.1 Part A of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. A detailed review of air quality modelling will be undertaken when we determine the permit application to operate the site. To date we have not received a permit application for this proposal. 9.0 6.2.8 Chapter 8 – Ground Conditions, Contamination and Hydrogeology 9.1 The Environment Agency has reviewed this chapter from the perspective of protection of controlled waters only and it considers the assessment undertaken in this respect to be appropriate. 9.2 The DCO appears to cover the need for a remediation strategy to be submitted through the Construction Environment Management Plan and Code of Construction Practice (Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 4). We welcome being included as a named consultee to the discharge of this Requirement, as we wish to review all additional site investigations, remediation proposals, which may have the potential to create flow paths between potentially contaminated soils and the water environment. 9.3 However, we are concerned that the DCO does not appear to include any requirement that secures investigation/details in respect of piling. Chapter 8, paragraph 7.2.1.2 states that “For any structures that require piling, there will be a requirement to avoid creating flow paths between potentially contaminated soils and/or groundwater in the underlying strata, both during construction and operation. Piling options will be fully defined on conclusion of the scheme specific ground investigation". Paragraph 7.2.1.3 goes onto list the clauses, which are intended to be included in relation to ground conditions, but none of these appear to cover ground investigations in respect of piling. As there is the potential for piling to open up pathways for contaminants to pollute groundwater, we would normally expect to see a separate requirement with regards to this and therefore request the inclusion of the following within Schedule 2 of the DCO: Requirement (1) No piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall be permitted, until a written piling and penetrative foundation design method statement, informed by a risk assessment, for that part, has been submitted to and, after consultation with the Environment Agency, approved by the relevant planning authority. (2) All piling and penetrative foundation works must be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason To ensure the development does not cause pollution to groundwater. 10.0 6.2.9 Chapter 9 - Water Resources and Flood Risk 10.1 Paragraph 8.2.1.1 states that “no water abstractions will be required” during the construction phase. However, should this change then 20m3 of water per day can be abstracted without requiring an abstraction licence. If the Applicant wishes to abstract more than this volume, they must contact the Environment Agency to obtain a licence. 10.2 Paragraph 8.2.1.3 states that “Construction activities could require the disposal of water” and acknowledges this will require the agreement of the Environment Agency. A permit would be required to discharge dirty water to surface waters and this would need to be applied for in advance of the commencement of the project as the permitting process can take a several months to complete. 10.3 Paragraph 8.2.4.9 outlines the Applicant’s intention to connect to a mains sewage system, though it is not specifically stated whether the sewerage undertaker has agreed to this and has capacity available to accommodate the development. On the basis that the sewerage undertaker agrees, this proposal is acceptable. We note that the detailed scheme is to be submitted post consent and this is secured through Requirement 9 in Schedule 2, Part 1, of the DCO. 10.4 Paragraph 9.1.1.3 of the assessment identifies a significant effect on a single receptor, a commercial building to the north of Flixborough Wharf. Further analysis within the Flood Risk Assessment determines that the increased risk to this building because of the development is limited to a breach of the flood defences immediately to the west of the development: in which event the commercial building experiences a depth increase of 117mm. This depth increase does not result in a change to the flood hazard rating (as defined in “Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development: R&D Technical Report FD2320/TR2” [Defra/Environment Agency, 2005] Table 13.1) which is primarily ‘very low hazard’, and peaks at ‘danger to some’ immediately to the south of the building. 10.5 Paragraph 9.1.1.3 proposes to manage this impact via a Flood Management Plan. We do not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of flood emergency response procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users covered by our flood warning network. In all circumstances where warning and emergency response is proposed to manage flood risk, we advise the Planning Inspectorate to take advice from the relevant emergency planning authority (North Lincolnshire Council) to assist with determining whether this proposal is acceptable and safe. 10.6 For comments on the Annex 3 Flood Risk Assessment, please see paragraphs 12.1 to 12.5 below. 11.0 6.2.10 Chapter 10 - Ecology and Nature Conservation 11.1 We welcome the monitoring and control of invasive mink (paragraph 9.1.4.7), as this will provide ongoing benefit (protecting water vole populations in particular) rather than allowing them to recolonize. 11.2 We welcome the inclusion of the biodiversity net gain assessment, which concludes the overall percentage increase will be greater than 10%. We particularly welcome the benefits to be achieved for watercourse units but defer to Natural England to comment on the acceptability of the assessment details for this. 11.3 Although Schedule 2, Part 1, Requirement 7 secures a Landscape and Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan (LBMMP), which must accord with the principles in the Outline LBMMP, we are concerned that this does not adequately secure 10% biodiversity net gain delivery based on any final plans. Neither does it specifically secure the required 30 years of management and monitoring within the DCO. We request that the Applicant discusses this issue further with Natural England and considers how both can be adequately secured. 12.0 6.3.3 Annex 3: Flood Risk Assessment (May 2022) 12.1 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) indicates that the development will have an impact on flood risk during flood events which exceed the current standard of protection of the adjacent flood defences and in the event of a breach of these defences. The FRA identifies measures to manage and mitigate this increase in risk and provided the measures identified in the FRA are followed the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals. 12.2 We can also confirm that the Environment Agency has undertaken a review of the hydraulic model, which underpins the FRA work. This model utilised the latest UK Climate Projections, as required by paragraph 4.8.6 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), and it is our view that it is fit for purpose. Accordingly, it is also our view that the FRA is proportionate to the risk and appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the project as required by paragraph 5.8.7 of EN-1. 12.3 The final design details for the mitigation measures are yet to be agreed and we welcome the opportunity to work further with the Applicant on this. Accordingly, we welcome the inclusion of the Environment Agency as a specific consultee to the flood resilience implementation plan secured by Requirement 12 in Schedule 2, Part 1 of the DCO. 12.4 The scheme includes the proposal to construct several new flood defences. These will require a permit from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016, along with any other construction activities which take place within 16m of the Environment Agency maintained flood defences. Permitting requirements are acknowledged in document 5.8 (Consents and Licences Document) as mentioned in paragraph 6.3 above. 12.5 Please note that our advice relates to flooding from tidal and fluvial sources only and has not considered the risk of flooding from ground water, drainage systems, reservoirs, canals or ordinary watercourses as they do not fall under our direct remit. 13.0 6.3.7 Annex 7: Code of Construction Practice 13.1 The potential impact on watercourses such as the Lysaght Drain is acknowledged in the plans and although no specific plans have been submitted for mitigation, the document discusses the need for water quality monitoring and treatment through methods such as settlement ponds and interceptors. We expect these types of issues to be discussed in detail in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be submitted post consent, as secured through Requirement 4 in Schedule 2, Part 1, of the DCO. Measures to reduce the impact on watercourses must be considered at each stage of construction. Only clean water should be discharged to a watercourse and any dirty water discharge requires a permit. If a pollution incident should occur, this should be reported to the Environment Agency immediately. 13.2 Appendix F: Outline Construction Flood Management Plan (March 2022) An outline Construction Flood Management Plan is provided. We note that the matters that will be covered (but will not necessarily be limited to) are listed in paragraph 3.1.1.2. For the avoidance of doubt, we request that the final version of this plan should detail how access for flood defence inspection and maintenance purposes will be retained for Environment Agency staff and contractors throughout the construction process. 13.3 The final version of the plan should also identify all flood defence infrastructure within or adjacent to the development boundary and put in place measures to ensure that construction activities do not directly damage these assets, nor do works in the vicinity of these assets endanger their stability or operational performance. 14.0 Further Representations 14.1 In summary, we can confirm that we have no objection to the principle of proposed development, as submitted. We are satisfied that the ES has adequately considered issues/topics that fall within our remit. The draft DCO secures appropriate mitigation in relation to these issues/topics, except for piling which can be secured through the inclusion of an additional requirement, as requested in paragraph 9.3 above. The Applicant should discuss an appropriate mechanism for securing BNG with Natural England. 14.2 We reserve the right to add or amend these representations, including requests for DCO requirements and protective provisions, should further information be forthcoming during the examination."

Jeff Barker
"Concerned with the proposed application to construct and operate an industrial incinerator close to the Trent side villages in particular Gunness and I would like to hear what safeguards will be in place to restrict harmful combustion gases into the atmosphere. Will there be any obnoxious odours from this facility."

enfinium Ltd
"enfinium Ltd would like to register as an interested party to the upcoming examination of the Lincolnshire Green Energy DCO application. We reserve our position and would like the opportunity to participate in written representations and potentially hearing proceedings during the examination stage, where a more detailed case will be presented. A summary of our position is set out here. We believe that there is insufficient waste to substantiate a further 760,000 tonnes per year of energy from waste capacity in the regions that this facility would likely serve; Yorkshire and Humber and East Midlands. We would like to review and query the data used to facilitate this application in more depth using our in-house team and expert advisors. The applicants RDF Supply Assessment correctly points out that if the operational, construction and higher likelihood EfW facilities are considered, then there is no remaining capacity gap. This is then confirmed when you consider that a number of facilities identified the report have subsequently moved from the consented category into construction, accounting for 2.1Mt of additional capacity – with a significant proportion of this likely to be filled with wastes from the identified two English regions."

Flixborough Parish Council
"Flixborough Parish Council objects to the proposed development and give the following concerns: 1. The closed railway line is home to many native flora and fauna. It provides a natural environment for numerous invertebrates, butterflies, deer as well as protected species badgers and bats. The expanse of nature reserve must be taken into consideration since its boundaries are close to the proposed site and will cause distress to the habitat. Much violation will be caused to the riverbank and surrounding woodland. 2. Loss of farmland when the nation relies on Lincolnshire agricultural land. 3. The closing of the road from the industrial estate to Neap House will increase residents drive to local towns. This is not green or environmentally friendly. 4. Flixborough will suffer with air and light pollution from the chimney stack. Recent fires at local waste companies have affected the air quality and residents are concerned that this further development will be detrimental to their health and wellbeing. 5. The proposed full-time jobs created on completion mentions that some positions will be filled by local residents, so will not be beneficial to the local working population. 6. Climate Central’s coastal risk screening tool consisting of Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood maps predicts that by 2030, the proposed site will be below the annual flood level and if the water level rises by 1.0m then the proposed site could be flooded. This goes against the National Planning Policy Framework no.159. 7. The North Lincolnshire Council (NLC) Core Strategy 2011 CS19 only allows development on a flood risk site if it demonstrates wider sustainability benefits to the community, whilst National Planning Policy Framework 159 and National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy EN-1 5.5.1 mention inappropriate development on a flood risk area should be avoided. The NPS Renewable Energy (EN-3) states the application must set out the development’s resilience to climate change. 8. NLC Core Strategy 2011 CS2 states that where large freight movements are involved the use of rail and water transport should be maximised. Since the proposed development states the use of rail and water transport the building of a new road should not be required. 9. The catchment area for the waste is nationwide so will be transported around the country rather than being treated/recycled in its local area. NLC has contracts with local waste disposal companies so the proposed development will not be taking local waste. 10. The applicants 5.2 RDF Supply Assessment states that 760,000 tonnes per year of household and commercial waste will be processed each year, but there is no evidence that this amount of waste will be available. The supply assessment links Yorkshire & the Humber with the East Midlands which is irrelevant when the waste is not coming from local areas. It is unclear as to why this site has been chosen since the proposed development appears to be on an inappropriate site due to the distance the waste will be transported and the risk of flooding due to climate change."

John Briggs
"I object to this application because of the risk to health which could be caused by dust, fumes, insects, vermin and noise during operation of the works. The close proximity to village communities on both sides of the River Trent is not compatible with a rural way of life. I also object to the vast quantity of waste to be treated to be sourced from outside this authority area and consider that waste should be treated by and for the areas in which the waste arises."

Amcotts Parish Council
"Amcotts Parish Council objects to the proposed project on the following grounds: NOISE POLLUTION There is already a longstanding issue with noise pollution from Flixborough Wharf and Flixborough Industrial Estate which is severely affecting the health and wellbeing of residents. The building of this proposed development will add a detrimental downward spiral to this. The additional noise pollution will no doubt cause the lapwings in the area (25 scrapes) to evacuate. This and the trouble it will cause to the award-winning bat colonies and butterfly garden would be catastrophic to the environment. OVERCAPACITY AND RECYCLING The UK has more incinerator capacity than it has waste to burn, not including the projects which are being proposed/examined. This is both harmful to recycling, as much of the waste is readily recyclable, and would impact our local councils above national recycling rates. There seems to be a profusion of hydrogen capturing projects plus other incinerators currently which could lead to overcapacity in this area which will not be recycling North Lincolnshire waste anyway. All this would make the target of 65% of waste to be recycled by 2035 unachievable. Overcapacity has already been acknowledged and actioned by the Welsh and Scottish governments and they have called a moratorium on new incinerators. There has also been a move nationally from single use plastics which also increases the capacity of the existing incinerators. ADVERSE EFFECT ON AIR POLLUTION As the waste will be brought to this facility from out of the area the additional traffic needed will have an adverse effect on the air pollution in our and neighbouring villages. If the use of rail and water transportation is to be used, why is there a need to build a new road? ODOUR POLLUTION The odour pollution will have an adverse effect on the health and wellbeing of residents. The odour pollution will also add to the damage caused to the lapwings, bats and butterflies."

Jacobs UK Limited on behalf of Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Further to Anglian Water's submission at the scoping stage requesting consultation regarding certain matters, no progress has been made and the draft DCO as submitted with the application does not sufficiently protect Anglian Water's assets. Anglian Water requires protective provisions that are specific to them rather than generic as set out in draft DCO. There are existing water mains located in the boundary of the site which could be adversely affected by the proposed development. These assets are critical to enable Anglian Water to carry out its statutory duties as a statutory water undertaker. A specific risk assessment for the water mains supply network should be undertaken by the applicant with the assistance of Anglian Water as water undertaker. Anglian Water is responsible for managing the risks of flooding from surface water, foul water or combined water sewer systems. We note that the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application includes all forms of flooding, including surface water and sewer flooding. This document was prepared following consultation with various bodies but Anglian Water was not one of them. However, we are pleased to see that surface water drainage will be managed through a system of SuDSs rather than being discharged to the sewerage system. It is unclear at this stage the impact of this project on Anglian Water's assets or how they can be properly managed should the proposed development proceed. We look forward to working with the applicant to agree alternative wording to the draft DCO."

Eileen Oliver
"I object to the proposed development for the following reasons. Amcotts is only 200 meters away from the proposed development. A development of this magnitude, along with proposed 24hr working would further devastate the peace and quiet this rural village. Furthermore there would be many thousands of HGV movements a week taking RDF to the site along the eastern side of the river Trent, again only 200 meters from the eastern edge of Amcotts, causing further noise nuisance issues from heavy road traffic. The noise assessment carried out by Solar 21 was compromised by existing noise nuisance from the Flixborough Industrial Estate, and is not a true reflection of where noise levels should be at Amcotts. The negative visual impact of such a colossal structure. Emissions from the stack would contain particulate matter that the very latest scientific research has discovered cause cancer. This would be a threat to human health and well-being. We are in a climate emergency. The incinerator would be burning a fossil fuel, exacerbating climate change by adding to CO2 emissions at a critical time, and for its projected lifespan of 25 years. There are questions about poor efficiency and deliverability of proposed carbon capture. The UK is already facing incinerator overcapacity There is no argument for another incinerator. Burning waste does not support the circular economy and discourages recycling. National recycling rates still remain well below the governments own target. The storage of thousands of tonnes of RDF is potentially volatile. There have been two large scale waste storage fires within 36hrs of each other in the area only recently, resulting in toxic smoke reaching Amcotts and the stench of it in the air, and windows having to be closed to prevent it entering homes. Hydrogen is also proposed to be stored on site giving rise to the fear of a chain of events resulting in another tragedy such as NYPRO in 1974. The fear of another tragedy would be an ongoing trauma for residents of Amcotts and Flixborough. Storage of RDF also creates foul odours, which is another potential problem for the residents of Amcotts as we are so close. There is no clear indication of where the feedstock would come from, potentially adding carbon miles. The claimed benefits of this proposed development are overstated and the potential adverse impacts understated."

Elaine Marper
"Due to the maximum permitted 500 word length this response is not an exhaustive list. There is a great deal of local public concern which should be considered regarding this application (The Inspectors Report for Caudrilla Appeal stated this was a material planning consideration}. There are grave concerns regarding air quality, level of pollutants and CO2 emissions. How long would it take to shut down the plant and cut off toxin flow if a problem is detected with regard to emission limits being exceeded? There is no proven track record in benefits outweighing the risks, economic benefits would be insignificant, even at a local level. The proposal fails to demonstrate wider benefits to the community. The applicants have not demonstrated that this is the best viable site/technology. The site sits in a Flood Risk Zone 3 and this inappropriate development should be avoided. We believe this is the wrong technology in the wrong location. The applicant’s reference “limited remaining capacity at waste management facilities in the region” and “the impact of landfill closure”. We actually have a very large unfilled landfill site operating in the locality. This proposal comprises transport of waste from far outside the locality. Incinerators should be sited in appropriate locations near to the origin of waste, with good transport links in accordance with the Waste Proximity Principal. In terms of concerns regarding safety, we would point out that things only need to go catastrophically wrong once, as our residents well-know due to the Flixborough (NYPRO) disaster. In 2025 it will be 50 years since that disaster but horrific memories of the death toll and devastating impact on the wider area live on. This insensitive application seeks to locate an incinerator in an area where 28 people were incinerated. The applicant maintains that the estimated 250 vehicle movements per day will be reduced by reinstatement of the disused mineral railway, and yet in another statement they state minimal increase in use! (Which statement is correct?) Reinstatement is totally unacceptable, given the present situation whereby residents are not impacted by any noise from the disused railway line. Important to add that this also traverses a public footpath (FP178) on the definitive map and despite what the applicant may purport, is still used by residents and ramblers crossing the old railway line. We have not been given an honest representation of the true impact regarding the height of the stack and its visual impact given the topography of the area, the top of the stack and the inevitable discharge of contaminants and dioxins from the plumes will be considerably closer to Burton residents who are situated at the top of escarpment. There are serious concerns regarding noise, vibration, plume discharge and odours, residents are unconvinced there is sufficient monitoring/enforcement/transparency with any of the existing incinerators in the UK. The general opinion on all UK Incinerators is that “they all stink”. Assurances of odour control and emissions do not serve to convince residents that this plant will be any different."

Jotun Paints
"Appreciated a wealth of documents, but as the upper tier COMAH site referenced in 6.2.16 of Vol 6, there appears to be only brief reference to our site with regard to risks both during construction and then future running and little understanding of what our specific hazards are, plus release of hydrogen and natural gas appears still to have residua risk in upper ALARP. Reviewed proposed layout NLGEP-FCE-XX-XX-DR-Y-5001 and there is hydrogen production and a loosely termed AGI, across the road from our solvent based warehouse, location of of our highest fire loading on site. Considering residual risk, concerned that this is adequately controlled and that the an incident on this proposed development would be a potential initiator for a major accident on this site. I have no doubt, we would/will be consulted at design stage as stated in risk assessment but siting what are hazardous installations in such close proximity to the only COMAH site existing on the industrial estate has been done without any consulatation. Further to that, more basic impacts during construction such as access to site, for standard operations but also particularly maintaining access for emergency services, I have not found. There may be no impact but nothing in construction stage that affects us, nut only an incident on our site possibly impacting construction work, nothing detailing if there is anything during construction that would limit our ability or emergency services to respond. Lastly we also have land in compulsory purchase section."

Nathaniel Heath
"The location and the nature of the proposal is not appropriate, this proposal will have a significant environmental and social impact on the surrounding area. The pollution across emissions, light pollution, and environmental impacts are clear. The outline around a green energy park is disingenuous at least, the proposal aims to transport waste to the site and will have direct impact on the local community. The village in the vicinity of the proposal and the industrial estate was the site of one of largest industrial explosions in this country’s history, the collective trauma and impact of this cannot be underestimated and a proposal of this scale is not appropriate and ill considered given the level of brownfield sites across the Humber estuary. This proposal will cut across small semi rural communities, farmland, and a diverse eco system. For communities in this area there is already landfill in surrounding area, industrial estates, a polluting steel works, manufacturing. Consideration of the social, health, and devaluation of the local community by transferring large levels of waste to be processed at this site is not balanced against the impact this will have across communities l. The impact on nature, walking routes, and precious countryside is also a clear impact which hinders this been a sensible proposal and impacts will be distinct. The consultation held during covid 19 pandemic was flawed due to digital access issues across local elderly communities who could not offer their views appropriately, the proposal is not supported across the local community and in person events did not offer factual views, there was a significant lack of real details on the proposal. The local community will also see significant increases in traffic without significant infrastructure investment and proposals around traffic management are flawed as traffic will centre on the local village as part routing from local areas."

Philip Sleight
"The close proximity to Keadby and absolutely no notification being received. The potential gases produced and released with the distance of travel The carbon footprint caused by the imported of waste to be incinerated The proposed increase of employment being that of current employee's of local port taken over being transferred."

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 earlier comments raised by us on 21 July 2021 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health. UKHSA and OHID are generally satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. However, we note that there are few details the submission around the carbon capture plant and the proposed technology and solvents. We note that the results of air quality modelling indicate that emissions associated with this process are predicted to be below Environmental Assessment Levels but there is little detail given around any uncertainty in the emissions and/or other input parameters or within the chemistry module of the model used. It is proposed that once operational, monitoring for N-amines will take place within the flue gases and the wider environment. We would support the proposal for environmental monitoring during operation and the evaluation of the air quality assessment. UKHSA also notes the proposed energy recovery facility and other associated processes/facilities will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency to operate. Further details on those processes, risk assessments and sensitivity analysis are expected to be presented as part of that permitting process. 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."

Rapleys LLP on behalf of AB Agri Limited
"AB Agri Limited owns and operates ABN in Flixborough Industrial Estate. ABN is a leading British manufacturer of animal compound feed for the commercial pig and poultry industry in Great Britain. The manufacturing of specialist breeder feed at the plant in Flixborough is carried out in a biosecure plant to meet UK and other regulatory standards. The animal feed production at Flixborough produces 0.4million tonns of animal feed per annum and is of national importance to the UK food security and its failure will have a serious impact on the supply chain, leading to a shortage of meat available to the general population. AB Agri engaged in the public consultation undertaken by the Applicant in June – July 2021, through a submission of a letter and a subsequent workshop held by the Applicant in December 2021. This was followed by written correspondence between the Applicant and AB Agri, including letters from the Applicant and AB Agri in February and April 2022, respectively. Part of the AB Agri site is included within the DCO limits, proposed for temporary possession (plot no 5-54). Notwithstanding that AB Agri’s agent sought to engage with the Applicant’s agent on this matter, there has been no meaningful engagement from the Applicant. We also raised serious concerns about a prejudicial impact on the existing operation arising from increased risks to biosecurity and flood risk during the pre-application stage. However, the Applicant’s response and the DCO application have not satisfactorily addressed our concerns. Therefore, we object to the proposed development on specific grounds as outlined below: Biosecurity: The raw materials intake of ABN plant is located in close proximity to the proposed ERF and the RDF delivery route. Risks to the biosecurity of the ABN’s plant, particularly potential salmonella contamination from waste handling, are of significant concern. The Applicant’s response to AB Agri’s concern is stated in ‘Regard had to consultation responses’ document (ref: 7.2.18) but the details set out in the Application do not provide adequate mitigations, as it confirms that not all RDF materials will be delivered in sealed containers, and materials to be delivered by HGV will be in bales on curtain sided trucks/tippers (which goes against assurances made in their pre-application correspondence). We note that the delivery routes to the ERF are on the southern face of the building, away from AB Agri, but it does not preclude HGVs passing AB Agri on First Avenue with RDF materials in bales and/or uncleaned vehicles. The Applicant states that they are continuing to engage with AB Agri to resolve all outstanding technical issues, but there has been no engagement from the Applicant since February 2022. We consider that the following mitigation measures are necessary: - A condition requiring RDF to exclude no material of animal origin; - A condition requiring all RDF to be delivered in sealed containers and wrapped/sealed bales; - A condition requiring an Operational Environmental Management Plan to include wheel washing and disinfectant regime for RDF delivery vehicles, and - A routing agreement that HGVs do not drive past ABN. If these measures are not applied, then AB Agri’s operations will be substantially prejudiced and a knock on effect on the supply chain as described above will arise, unless wide ranging and costly measures are applied on site to mitigate the biosecurity risk that would rise otherwise. Flood Risk: We note that the flood model used to inform the Flood Risk Assessment is coarse and is only able to predict flooding to an accuracy of ±25mm. In addition, the model does not appear to be representing a potential key flood route (overtopping of the wharf). Therefore, as we raised at the pre-application stage, we do not consider that the model is appropriate for a detailed assessment of flood risk, which gives rise to a concern whether the proposed flood defence options are adequate to ensure development does not result in an increased flood risk to the AB Agri site. Temporary Acquisition: ABN’s operation at Flixborough is a nationally critical animal feed mill site. As such, AB Agri cannot agree to any of the site being released on a temporary basis, as operationally ABN requires full access around all buildings and temporary land take would be a disturbance to the business. There are also inconsistencies in the DCO application, in that it is identified as needed for temporary construction purposes (including potential works, signage and utilities) in Schedule 12 of the draft DCO and for the construction of a flood defence in the document ref: 7.2.18 and the Environmental Statement. We request the applicant’s clarification on the matter. Fundamentally, the Applicant has not engaged with AB Agri’s agent (JLL) on this issue to date and therefore AB Agri does not have the necessary information to ascertain the impact on the business from the proposed temporary acquisition. In this context, AB Agri has no choice but to reserve its position until further information is made available. Access: It is requested that the phasing of the construction works ensures that access to ABN for all vehicles is maintained for the duration of the works. We therefore wish to reserve our right to submit a full representation on the basis of the above during the Examination process."

Amy Alexander
"the massive scale of project, huge buildings as high as the village (50m), 150m chimney. 24 hours a day trains, 365 days a year, transporting approx one million tons of rubbish to burn, aggregates for block making, along with manufactured blocks. Concerns for pollution during construction and operational phases (noise, light, dust, smoke). Environmental concerns. Damage to environment, wildlife and landscape. Building it on a flood plain at a time when sea levels are rising. Devaluing homes in a historic village. Destruction of countryside."

Andrew Percy MP
"I have been contacted by a great number of constituents making me aware of their concerns about the proposals for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park and the impacts it would have locally. Residents from a number of locations in close proximity to the site, including but not limited to: Amcotts, Burton-upon-Stather, Flixborough, Gunness, Keadby, Neap House, and Skippingdale, have voiced their concerns to me about the proposed development. Firstly, residents have raised concerns with regards to the environmental impact the burning of waste at this site would have on the local area. Residents are worried about the potential air pollution as a result of the emission of fine particulates and toxic metals, and the impact these could have on the health and wellbeing of local people. Some of my constituents are furthermore concerned by the fact that most of the waste will be brought in from other parts of the country. Indeed, I understand the local authority has in place contracts with local waste companies for the disposal of both domestic and commercial waste. The applicant’s Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Supply Assessment suggests that 760,000 tonnes of household and commercial waste will be processed each year, however residents have highlighted that there is already an abundance of incinerator sites across the UK and that a new site would be surplus to requirements. My constituents have also raised specific concerns about the scale and appearance of the development, in particular the chimney stack, which would tower over the area. The site is in open countryside and is not allocated for development in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan. Indeed, part of the proposed development falls outside of defined development boundaries. Residents feel that the entire development would be out of context with the North Lincolnshire landscape. Furthermore, residents have raised concerns with me about light pollution, in respect to the bright lights that are required at the top of the chimney stack; in addition to concerns about the visual impact the polluting plumes would have on the area. The plans include the reinstatement of a disused railway, linking Flixborough Wharf and the steelworks, and a number of residents are concerned about the impact this would have on local flora and fauna, with habitats being destroyed. Moreover, residents are concerned about the impact the site would have on local infrastructure, in particular during the construction phase, with regards to traffic and transport, as well as the impact it would have on residential amenity. Government policy does not support incineration and the development would therefore be classified as an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF), however that does not take away from the fact that this is an incinerator for household waste. It is not the green energy project we were initially led to believe it was. With that in mind, and given the weight of residents’ concerns, I do not support the proposals. Andrew Percy"

BayWa r.e. Operation Services Limited on behalf of Bagmoor Wind Limited
"Bagmoor Wind Farm is located approximately 2 miles from the proposed development site. The disused railway, which we understand from an initial review of the documents available, is proposed to be reinstated and will cross through this operational wind farm, passing close to a number of turbine locations. Bagmoor Wind Farm has concerns over the proposal to reinstate this section of disused railway, where it crosses through the site boundary of the wind farm, due to the proximity of the route to the turbine locations. In addition to the turbines, at Bagmoor Wind Farm, there are buried high voltage cables and other services, plus overhead 33kV lines to consider. We need to make sure that the correct separation distances are maintained between the existing infrastructure and the proposed new development. Bagmoor Wind Farm would welcome the opportunity to engage on this topic to ensure the proposed plans are agreeable, and safe, for all involved parties."

Caroline Adlard
"My concern on the impact on the residents and throughway of Flixborough village ."

Chris Sanderson
"Flixborough is primarily a small village laying to the North West of Scunthorpe, set within countryside set mainly to agriculture and turf production. There is an industrial site to the west of our village that already carries heavy traffic accessing the units, the roads leading into our village are small narrow lanes and would not cope with further heavy usage that would be associated with the plant, the existence of the plant and the polution it would inevidently add to the environment would be detrimental to the wild flora and fauna of the area.further investigation need to be carried out as to the detrimental impact on the village, its roads, livlihoods of its residents and any possible impact it may have on the geology and water table."

Colin Shucksmith
"I believe the site chosen is not suitable due to building it on a flood plain I believe that the waste should be incinerated closer to where it is being produced The company have not made any attempt to listen to the local population or answer many of the questions raised. They have only paid lip service to local fears. Many of the local people have not been kept informed about progress of submission. The visual impact of such a massive structure in what is generally a flat area is going to be detrimental for most of the local population Building this new incinerator is going to add even more over capacity in a country which is already well served Where incinerators are built recycling rates usually go down as long term contracts for waste usually deter local authorities from recycling I believe the proposal goes against the ethos of government to Recycle, re-use and re-purpose They produce a huge amount of CO2 when we are as a country trying to reduce our current levels The Bottom Ash they produce is extremely difficult to dispose of and produces long term problems in order to track where it is The proposed building site of the incinerator is the site of the Nypro Disaster from a few years ago and I believe it is distasteful and insensitive to build it on this former site where so many people died in the flames The site is only a few hundred metres from a quiet rural village"

D, M & A Green
"Having submitted a comprehensive response to the previous NLGEP planning proposal consultation on behalf of myself, Andrew Green (owner of the Fenestra Conference Centre), along with Derek Green, as Partners of D, M & A Green, owners of Church Farm, Flixborough, we wish to register our interest in this next part of the planning process. In our previous response we raised a broad and comprehensive range of points in two specific areas. Firstly, with regard to questions as to the project as a whole and secondly, points specifically that were relevant to how the proposed development would directly affect Church Farm, its viability and ability to function. Specific issues included our rights of way over the former rail line. The original planning proposal documents included “Future Potential Mitigation measures on land adjoining the former railway line. I pointed out, at that time, that NO contact or discussions had been made / taken place between the Landowners and the potential developer. The proposal to re-instate the former rail line, which bisects Church Farm, is perhaps the most significant element as to the viability of the proposed project on this chosen site. Now that the planning application as been formally submitted, with all its 118 large and detailed documents, I find it extremely disappointing that my response to the consultation has not been acknowledged or acted upon. I do not understand, when concerning an element so fundamental and crucial as the rail line, rights of way and mitigation measures, that the developers have not once been in contact to discuss the situation before the submission of the planning documents. The huge amount of documentation submitted as part of the planning application means, as an individual, it is extremely hard/impossible to read every document and comprehensively assess which parts refer to land that forms part of Church Farm, Flixborough. However, from what I can glean, the farm is partially covered by the following designations: 1. “Freehold to be compulsorily acquired and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights”. 2. “Temporary use of land and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights” 3. “New rights to be compulsorily acquired and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights” I understand that changes / additions to public rights of way are envisaged that would involve Church Farm, also the planting of substantial areas of “Woodland strips”. In the planning consultation documentation, it referred to” removal of all vegetation within 5m of either side of the railway line”, this is excessive and unnecessary. It would remove excessive valuable wildlife habitat and remove a visual barrier to the proposed development site that would take another 40 years for any replacement to have any meaningful impact. I am also concerned to see reference to “100m of clear felling at the site of the crossing across the railway at Church Farm”. This is the point at which the proposed development will be most visible from the village and the absolute minimal removal of vegetation should need to happen, if permission were to be granted. I have located the following specific mentions of the planning proposal that would involve Church Farm: Sec 7 para 7.1.1.5. Planting of woodland strips to replace cleared vegetation and provide screening. Sec 7.2 para 7.2.1.3 Arrangements for the maintenance of farm and field accesses, land drainage and water supply where these are affected by construction. Sec 7.2 para 7.2.1.3 Ensure provision and maintenance of appropriate stock fence Sec 7.2 para 7.2.1.4 15m wide x 1km long belt of “compensatory woodland” (nb Flixborough is not a “town” as referred to here). Sec 7.3 para 7.3.1.1 Reinstatement of 6km rail line with continued amenity access across the line, including an upgrade for where the footpath 175 crosses the line south west of Flixborough. Sec 7.4 para 7.4.4.2 Woodland management to new woodland within Railway Reinstatement Land (as stated, this list of issues may well not be comprehensive). These are specific issues with relation to Church Farm, Flixborough. I have previously stated my concerns as to the project as a whole. I believe that the premise of the scheme is flawed. The emphasis today is on the reduction of waste streams. The increase in re-cycling, composting and anaerobic digestion will reduce the amount of RDF, not only that but there is already sufficient incineration capacity for what is being produced. The proposal would cause an immense and irreversible impact on the people and village of Flixborough, both during construction and operation phases, a community that has suffered more than enough as a result of poor planning and operational failures. The list of the dead on the Nypro Memorial being testament to that. I strongly believe that a planning proposal such as this, with such huge impacts as it will have, should not have the benefit of poor previous planning (or lack of planning constraint with specific reference to the former Enterprise Zone status) being used as justification or as a case of precedence for future planning decisions. Planning decisions should be appropriate, make things better, not compound inappropriate development and decisions."

David Oxby
"With been a local resident close to where the proposed energy park is to be sited, i strongly object to the go ahead with this so called green energy park. Green energy? How can this be when they propose to incerate plastic waste to power this energy park - How can this be green? Anything thats burnt surely is bad for the environment, obviously then i have concerns about any unwanted smells / noise / light polution / de-valuing of the surrounding properties that will arise if this park is to go ahead. So i strongly object to the go ahead of this park"

Eileen Rounce
"I object to the proposal of a ‘green park’ so near to residential country dwellings. This is a rural community that has always benefitted from the nature that surrounds it. Deer, foxes, hares, rabbits, Marsh harrier to name but a few live in this area. One would think that a green park would benefit these animals, to the contrary it will drive them away, their peace will be shattered by the constant noise of traffic to and from the site. Pollution will increase to such level that clean air will disappear."

Helen Barker
"We moved to Flixborough because we wanted rural. Where we live we have an excellent view of open space & the river humber where we can watch the boats come & go to Flixborough wharf. We have the most beautiful sunsets through our huge French doors. They are the main reasons why our retirement bungalow. was very carefully chosen. This "green" energy park is going to be far from green!. There is massive chance it will be noisy, smelly. and dusty and mainly having a huge impact on our environment and our health to name but a few!. I do not want my [redacted] subjecting to this when they visit us & play in our back garden. It is a huge project that has to have negatives how on earth can it have. Waste will be transported from all over the UK & from abroad to be incinerated on my doorstep so obviously I am objecting to this massively."

Holly Mumby-Croft MP
"Many of my constituents have approached me about the proposals for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park and the adverse impact this will have locally. Although the proposed site is not within my constituency, there are neighbouring residential areas I represent who have raised grave concerns with me about the proposed development's impact on the wider environment, amongst other things. Constituents have expressed concerns that the proposal is an over-intensive form of development, both in scale and appearance, not suited to the local area. Despite not being included in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, the proposed site is essentially open countryside therefore the development would adversely impact the surrounding landscape. Naturally, many of my constituents are also concerned about the environmental impact, particularly on the potential operation of a site of this scale emitting unacceptable levels of air pollution adversely affecting local air quality and human health by incinerating household waste that may contain toxic metals and fine particulates. My constituents are also concerned about the impact the site will have on local infrastructure, including traffic and transport as well as residential amenity. Because of the inaccuracies in the application and a lack of information, I am requesting a holding objection. Holly Mumby-Croft MP"

Marine Management Organisation
"The MMO submitted a PDF representation to the Planning Inspectorate."

Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has an interested in any works undertaken below the Mean High Water Level and their impact on the safety of navigation and emergency response in the UK. We note all of the works that are required to be undertaken in the marine environment as part of the proposed development, fall entirely within the statutory harbour area managed by ABP. They are therefore responsible for maintaining the safety of navigation within their area of jurisdiction. The MCA would point the developers in the direction of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and its Guide to Good Practice; they should liaise and consult with the Statutory Harbour Authority to develop a robust Safety Management System (SMS) for the project under this code."

Maurice Whitfield
"Unnecessary plant already too many incinerators in this country. Transport of waist to the site Environmental contamination"

Mrs Susan Taylor
"The proposed position of the incinerator and the associated equipment is far too close to residential housing and small light industrial units, I am surprised it has progressed this far. My main concerns are around the impact of air pollution, noise, light and odour to the surrounding areas. With the prevailing winds from the south west/west it is likely the Flixborough and the west of Scunthorpe will will be significantly impacted. I assume that a number of different weather scenarios have been modelled and are available to assess the impact and plume touchdown areas. HGV traffic will be increased (what goes in must come out!) on roads that were designed and built for local rural communities and are not suitable the current volume of HGV traffic, let alone, potential future volumes. Both the construction and operations traffic plans must be published for the local communities to understand the proposed routes and increased volumes. I am not sure how significant the single track railway line that has not been used for at least 40years is in the overall transportation scheme. It seems far from ideal to be operating the line between dusk and dawn due to the noise issues. I am looking forward to engage in the debate and to review and comment on the technical submissions."

BDB Pitmans LLP on behalf of National Grid Carbon Limited
"This is a Relevant Representation submitted by National Grid Carbon Limited (NGCL) requesting that NGCL is treated as an Interested Party throughout the Examination process of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for The North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Development Consent Order (PINS ref: EN010116). NGCL, as part of National Grid Ventures, is a division of National Grid plc, responsible for both developing and operating businesses in our UK and US territories, and is proposing to develop Humber Low Carbon Pipelines (HLCP); the deployment of a terrestrial pipeline network in the Humber region. HUMBER LOW CARBON PIPELINES (HLCP) PROJECT The HLCP Project intends to establish a pipeline network in the region to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) to facilitate Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS). HLCP is in the pre-application stage, with stakeholder engagement underway. This includes dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate over the potential form and content of its associated future Development Consent Order application, which will be inclusive of the terrestrial environment only to Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) (PINS ref: EN070006). A non–statutory consultation was held in Autumn 2021 on a number of potential network configurations in respect of the proposed CO2 and H2 pipelines. A preferred route corridor was announced by NGCL in Spring 2022. NGCL is currently developing and carrying out further assessments to refine pipeline routeing and above ground installation siting within this route corridor, ahead of a statutory consultation planned for later this year. The CO2 export pipeline below MLWS and the CO2 storage site under the North Sea (known as the Endurance saline aquifer) will be the subject of separate consent applications, under the Petroleum Act 1998 and the Energy Act 2008, being promoted by the licensed operator of the store, bp, on behalf of the Northern Endurance Partnership. NGCL is part of the East Coast Cluster (ECC) bid, combining Humber and Teesside regions, as submitted to the department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) as part of the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCUS) cluster sequencing consultation. On 19 October 2021, BEIS announced that ECC, along with the HyNet northwest cluster, had been confirmed as Track-1 clusters for deployment in the mid-2020s and would therefore be taken forward to Track-1 negotiations. On 12 August 2022, BEIS announced that a short list of power CCUS, industrial carbon capture, waste and CCUS-enabled hydrogen projects to connect to the Track-1 clusters had been selected to proceed to the due diligence stage of the Cluster Sequencing programme. NGCL’s INTEREST IN THE NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE GREEN ENERGY PARK DCO Whilst the project which is the subject of this application was not amongst those selected to proceed to the next stage of the Cluster Sequencing programme, NGCL notes that the Applicant has stated that it intends for the project to connect to the proposed pipeline network (APP-051). The Applicant’s draft DCO (APP-007) does not include powers to form such a connection at this time. We trust that this relevant representation is of assistance and look forward, where appropriate, to participating in the forthcoming examination process."

Natural England
"Summary of Natural England’s Advice Natural England’s advice is 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: • Internationally designated sites 1. Impacts from ammonia emissions, and nutrient nitrogen deposition (Construction and Operation phase) on Humber Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar (‘amber’). 2. Impacts from ammonia emissions and nutrient nitrogen deposition (Operation phase) on Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA and Thorne Moor SAC (‘amber’). 3. Impacts from dust emissions (Construction Phase) on Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar designated features (‘amber’). 4. Impact of potential disturbance to the migration route of river lamprey and sea lamprey (Constriction phase) associated with Humber Estuary SAC/Ramsar (‘amber’). 5. Impacts from noise, vibration and visual disturbance on Humber Estuary Ramsar (construction and operation phase) (‘amber’). 6. Impacts from potential loss of functionally linked land associated with Humber Estuary SPA/Ramsar (construction phase) (‘amber’). 7. Impacts from noise, vibration and visual disturbance on functionally linked land associated with Humber Estuary SPA/Ramsar (construction and operation phase) (‘amber’). • Nationally designated sites 1. Impacts from ammonia emissions, and nutrient nitrogen deposition (Construction and Operation phase) on Humber Estuary SSSI (‘amber’). 2. Impacts from ammonia emissions, nutrient nitrogen deposition, and acid deposition (Operation phase) on Thorne Crowle and Goole Moors SSSI (‘amber’). 3. Impacts from ammonia emissions, nutrient nitrogen deposition, and acid deposition (Operation phase) on Risby Warren SSSI (‘amber’). 4. Impacts from acid deposition (Operation phase) on Messingham Heath SSSI (‘amber’). 5. Impacts from dust emissions (Construction Phase) on Humber Estuary SSSI designated features (‘amber’). 6. Impact of potential disturbance to the migration route of river lamprey and sea lamprey (Constriction phase) associated with Humber Estuary SSSI (‘amber’). 7. Impacts from noise, vibration and visual disturbance on Humber Estuary SSSI (construction and operation phase) (‘amber’). 8. Impacts from potential loss of functionally linked land associated with Humber Estuary SSSI (construction phase) (‘amber’). 9. Impacts from noise, vibration and visual disturbance on functionally linked land associated with Humber Estuary SSSI (construction and operation phase) (‘amber’). • Protected species 1. Further information is required to determine that the project will not adversely affect water voles, great crested newts, bats and badgers (‘amber’). • Soils and best and most versatile agricultural land 1. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade should be calculated for all agricultural land subject to development or disturbance. 2. Insufficient justification has been included in the assessment in order to conclude that BMV agricultural land is a low sensitivity receptor due to the relative abundance on the development site. Natural England's full representation will be submitted via email."

Gateley Hamer on behalf of Norris Family
"1) The North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010116 affects land within the ownership of our clients Lee and Elizabeth Norris. Our clients are 'affected persons' within the meaning of the Planning Act 2008 and related legislation. 2) Our clients object to the DCO Application by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited and wish to take a full part in the examination, including any issue specific hearing and compulsory acquisition hearings relevant to its interests and the matters set out herein. 3) The DCO Applicant has failed to effectively engage with our clients and other stakeholders at the crucial ‘frontload’ stage in respect of key details of the scheme prior to the DCO application and has in turn produced a draft DCO that overreaches and fails to justify the powers it seeks in principle and detail. 4) With the notable exception of Wharfeside Court the DCO Project Limit excludes the majority of the operational employment areas within the Flixborough industrial Estate. Wharfeside Court comprises 14 fully occupied small industrial/workshop units accommodating approximately 10 businesses, most of which are well established and have been operating from the units for a number of years. Availability of replacement units of this size in the area is low and it is highly likely that displaced businesses will not be able to relocate with the resultant loss of employment and services provided. 5)The footprint of the Wharfside Court complex is small and situated on the periphery of the extensive DCO Project Limit. We question the need to include this compact area within the DCO boundary, and propose that it could be excluded with little if any material detriment to the project. 6)The impact on affected established small to medium sized enterprises occupying Wharfside Court is in stark contrast to the applicants’ aims which is to serve its own profitable business venture. 6)The human rights of our client and affected businesses will be interfered with if the DCO is confirmed. 7)The DCO Applicant has failed to adequately consult and engage with our clients in relation to the acquisition of their property interests in advance of the powers now being sought to compulsory purchase."

North Lincolnshire Council
"North Lincolnshire Council – Relevant Representation Submission for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy park NSIP 15/09/2022 North Lincolnshire Council is aware that as the host Authority we will be automatically registered as an Interested Party in the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park examination, under Section 102(1)(c) of the Planning Act 2008, and therefore the Council’s views will be considered for the duration of the examination. To assist the Examining Authority in forming its initial assessment of principal issues in advance of the preparation of the draft examination timetable, and ahead of the submission of our Local Impact Report, North Lincolnshire Council wishes to make the following initial representation to identify its main areas of interest at this stage in relation to the Development Consent Order Application. North Lincolnshire Council acknowledge that there is a recognised need and support for renewable and low carbon energy technology through national planning policy and that the proposed development would contribute towards the targets set for the UK’s greenhouse gas emission reduction and increasing the country’s energy supply from more renewable sources. There is also support through national policy in respect of reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. Notwithstanding this ‘in principle’ national policy support, the impacts of the proposal must be fully assessed in order to complete a full, fair and detailed planning balance assessment. North Lincolnshire Council considers that the main issues arising at this stage from the proposal that need to be weighed in the planning balance are as follows: • Landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development • Cultural heritage • Ecological impacts and considerations, including mitigation and enhancement • Amenity impacts • Traffic and transport • Air quality • Noise • Light • Contamination • Flood risk and drainage • Socio-economic impacts With regards to local planning policy, the Application Site is not allocated for development as part of the Development Plan for North Lincolnshire and is located partially within and partially outside of defined development boundaries. North Lincolnshire Council will, at the required time, be producing a Local Impact Report which will set out its position in full on the above and its view on the broader planning issues relating to this DCO application. We will continue to engage with the applicant with the aim of providing a completed and signed Statement of Common Ground during the examination."

Weightmans LLP on behalf of Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) PLC (Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) PLC)
"The following representations are submitted on behalf of Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) PLC as an electricity undertaker for the area within which the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park project is located. Northern Powergrid is in principle supportive of the above project but has concerns regarding the impacts the proposed project will have on existing assets and their pending improvement works. Areas shown within the proposed development boundary have a direct impact on Northern Powergrid’s existing critical national infrastructure which serve significant numbers of customers in the local and wider area, and the rights for these assets are essential in maintaining an uninterrupted power supply to the customers which Northern Powergrid serves. The proposed development seeks to interfere with Northern Powergrid’s existing 132kV primary substation, pylons, overhead cables, underground cables and access and servicing rights. Each of these are vital for Northern Powergrid’s existing operations. The accompanying compulsory purchase order for the development seeks to acquire land and interests which, if acquired, would adversely affect Northern Powergrid’s ability to use, access and maintain it’s substation. It is not necessary to acquire these interests where an agreement between the parties would be more appropriate. In addition to the technical impacts of the proposed development, Northern Powergrid has concerns over the proposed protective provisions contained within the draft Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) as they do not take into account site specific issues and do not accord with Northern Powergrid’s standard protective provision requirements. Northern Powergrid is keen to engage with the applicant’s legal representative to agree appropriate amendments to the protective provisions currently contained in the draft DCO."

Roxby Parish Council
"Roxby cum Risby Parish Council, which represents the residents of Dragonby village, wishes to register to become an interested party."

Steven Fuller
"I wish to make representation on this application to cover the following points. 1. Inappropriate advertising and presentation of the function and purpose of the proposal as a Green Energy Park, which although apparent in some small aspects, is overwhelmed by the principle waste treatment processes described and the potential that should the development be consented, any positive aspects remain unrealised. 2. Whether the proposal meets the proximity principle with respect the sources and distance waste arisings have to travel for treatment. 3. Sufficiency of the process equipment and air quality and dispersion modelling to mitigate potential health impacts from the flue gas emissions. 4. How the combination of factors referenced has lead to a proposal of such magnitude as to have a significant detrimental impact on the local area, affecting visual impact, local amenity, air quality, and climate change."

Susan Scoffin
"I object to this project because:- it is just an incinerator to burn plastic it will produce toxic emissions the chimney will be too low to stop emissions blowing into Flixborough village it will not provide jobs for local people it is will produce carbon emissions this exacerbate climate change it will increase local road traffic Flixborough wharf is not suitable for bringing the waste in by sea the railway line is now a haven for wildlife including bats there are other.more suitable sites it presents an explosion risk that would endanger the village"

Tina Ashenden
"What guarantee will there be that the surrounding area and environment will not be adversely effected by process effluent and emissions such as NOx SOx CO and particulates. What measures will be in place to measure these and frequency."