South Humber Bank Energy Centre

Representations received regarding South Humber Bank Energy Centre

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on South Humber Bank Energy Centre and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philippa Roddis
"The principal submissions I intend to make in relation to the application are around carbon emissions, sustainability and community benefits."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Humberside International Airport
"Our reference: B-HUY-009-2020-A Your reference: EN010107 04 June 2020 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Electricity generating station Location: South Humber Bank Power Station Site, South Marsh Road, near Stallingborough, DN41 8BZ I refer to your email dated 27 May 2020. Thank you for consulting the Airport with the above proposed application. The proposed development variation has been further examined from an aerodrome safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, this department does not object to the proposal. Should you require further information relating to aerodrome safeguarding issues at Humberside Airport, please do not hesitate to contact me directly on 01652 682028 or via email using [email protected]"
Other Statutory Consultees
Ardent Management Limited on behalf of Cadent Gas Limited (WITHDRAWN) (Cadent Gas Limited (WITHDRAWN))
"Representation on behalf of Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the South Humber Bank Energy Centre Development Consent Order (DCO) Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the South Humber Bank Energy Centre DCO to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that there is a high pressure (major accident hazard) gas pipeline that runs approximately 1 meter or closer from the western boundary of the projects Order Limits. There are also medium pressure gas pipelines in close proximity to the Order Limits. Cadent is concerned that the high pressure gas pipeline could be affected during the construction of the proposed project and requests that further information is provided to their Plant Protection Team ([email protected]) so the impacts can be fully considered and assessed by September 2020. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue to engage with the promoter to better understand the works and the potential impacts on the high pressure gas pipeline. Subject to obtaining the relevant information requested from the Promoter, and following further assessment of that information, if it is considered the proposed works pose sufficient risks to the high pressure gas pipeline then Cadent will request a protective agreement."
Other Statutory Consultees
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) on behalf of National Grid Gas & National Grid Electricity Transmission
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas Plc in relation to the South Humber Bank Energy Centre Project (“the Project”) National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas Plc (together “National Grid”) wish to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. National Grid’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits must be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area. The following assets, which form an essential part of the electricity transmission and gas networks in England and Wales are within, or in close proximity to, the Order limits: Electricity Transmission Overhead Lines • 2AH 400kV Overhead Line and Tower • Above and below ground associated apparatus. Substation • South Humber Bank 400kV Gas Transmission • Feeder Main 9 – Brocklesby to Stallingborough • Above and below ground associated apparatus National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. National Grid notes that draft protective provisions for its benefit have been included in the draft Order submitted with the application for the Project and is liaising with the Promoter in relation to amendments required to these protective provisions. National Grid will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will negotiate with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Non-Statutory Organisations
United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) (United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN))
"The proposal is not needed and if it were to go ahead it would result in unacceptable adverse climate impacts and would hamper efforts to decarbonise the electricity supply. UKWIN disputes the flawed methodologies and assumptions adopted by the applicant for their needs and climate change assessments. The disbenefits of the scheme outweigh any benefits of the scheme, and should therefore be refused permission."
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. PHE notes that we have replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence. Request for Scoping Opinion 18th September 2019 Response to Section 42 10th December 2019 We are satisfied that our comments in previous correspondence have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health. We are satisfied that the wider determinants of health have been adequately assessed, using a suitable methodology. On the basis of the documentation as reviewed we have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Hamilton
"I am concerned over the size of the project, this will be one of the largest in the UK in a small town. Therefore our we burning our own local refuse or shipping it in from around the country, from areas that do not want refuse burning in their own area. I am concerned that this will promote waste production rather than reducing and recycling. I am concerned about the environmental monitoring of the extremely small particulate matter, pm 2.5 and smaller. As far as I’m aware there are no systems capable of continuous monitoring of such particles. I am also concerned about the health impacts of small particles on the respiratory system, these small particles are likely to cause long term health problems perhaps of the nature of asbestos, will we be looking back in 20 or 30 years thinking why did we think it was a good solution to the problem."
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Environment Act 1995. It is an adviser to Government with principal aims to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. It plays a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through its functions and roles. It is also an adviser to local decision makers in its role as a statutory consultee in respect of particular types of development, as listed in Schedule 4 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order (DCO) application, we are a statutory interested party. 1.2 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 consents. We have a duty to implement the Water Framework Directive. 1.3 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. 1.4 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 DCO application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above mentioned application, which we received on 27 May 2020. Our comments are presented under topic headings. 3.0 Environmental Permit 3.1 This site is currently permitted to operate an existing power station and an energy from waste plant, which was granted planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – referred to as the ‘Consented Development’. The project under this application seeks to improve the efficiency of the Consented Development to a gross electrical capacity of up to 95MW. It is our view that changes to the design to achieve this have not significantly affected the air dispersion modelling. 3.2 The existing power station and Consented Development have the benefit of a joint operating permit issued by the Environment Agency. Discussions between the operator and our National Permitting Service are taking place. An approach to vary the existing permit to increase the electrical output for this development, alongside transferring it into a new separate permit, are being considered. 4.0 Flood risk 4.1 We have reviewed Chapter 14 in relation to flood risk together with Appendix 14A (Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)). Schedule 2, Requirement 22 of the DCO secures the mitigation proposed in respect of critical equipment assets and a place of safe refuge, both to be elevated to a level no lower than 4.60mAOD (above Ordnance Datum). 4.2 The Examining Authority will be aware that the Environment Agency released new guidance in respect of Tidal Climate Change Allowances in December 2019, which took account of UKCP18 projections. The submitted FRA makes use of Environment Agency breach modelling that was undertaken using UKCP09 projections. However, we can confirm that the hydraulic modelling outputs (hazard maps) used in the FRA are still considered fit for purpose. 4.3 We are currently finalising new baseline data in respect of water levels for the Humber Estuary, but this is not yet available for release. We note that Requirement 22 secures the submission of a scheme for the mitigation of flood risk during operation. We recommend that the applicant makes an enquiry to us before drafting this scheme to check if this new data is available for their use at that time. 4.4 The Environment Agency does not comment on or approve the adequacy of proposed flood emergency response procedures accompanying development proposals. However, we would advised that warning and emergency response is fundamental to managing flood risk for this development. As such, we welcome the inclusion of Requirement 23 for a flood emergency response and contingency plan to be submitted to, and approved by, the relevant planning authority. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupant/user covered by our flood warning network. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Flood Risk and Coastal Change section, paragraphs 056-058) provides information on producing an evacuation plan for development and the role of the local authority in ensuring these are appropriate. 4.5 Please note that our advice relates to flood risk from fluvial and tidal sources only; we have not considered the risk of flooding from ground water, drainage systems, reservoirs, canals or ordinary watercourses. We recommend that further advice on these issues is sought from the relevant flood risk management authorities. 4.6 We can confirm that the submitted assessment of flood risk in relation to fluvial and tidal sources is in our view appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the proposed development. 5.0 Protection of groundwater and land contamination 5.1 We have reviewed Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement Vol 1 (Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Contamination) in conjunction with the following reports found in Appendices 12A – 12C; • Phase 1 Geo-Environmental and Geotechnical Desk Study Report by AECOM, dated April 2020; • Ground Investigation Report Volume 1: Factual Report (ref: A9020-19/1) by Socotec, dated December 2019; and • Ground Investigation Report Volume 2: Interpretative Report (ref: A9020-19/2) by Socotec, dated December 2019. 5.2 A full controlled waters risk assessment has not been undertaken as part of the Socotec investigations, with no groundwater sampling having been undertaken. However, it is noted that the intrusive investigations undertaken by Socotec pre-date the AECOM Phase 1 Desk Study report. The AECOM report states that further ground investigation is being undertaken to obtain data on ground conditions and allow refinement of the risk assessment (as outlined in Section 8.2). 5.3 We are satisfied that Requirements 17-21 within Schedule 2 are appropriate to manage the risks posed to controlled waters from potential contamination at the site. Based on the available information at this time, we consider the risk posed to controlled waters from the site appears to be low. We welcome the additional site investigation work secured under these Requirements, to provide assurances that the risks are acceptable, and we look forward to reviewing these in due course. In order to secure consultation by the relevant planning authority on these matters (in accordance with Requirement 34(2)), we request that the Environment Agency is named as a consultee within Requirements 17, 19, 20 and 21. 6.0 Water Quality 6.1 We have reviewed the assessment of impacts on the water environment, which is included in Chapter 14. This has used the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2011) approach and concludes that the development will only cause negligible or minor adverse impacts once all the mitigation measures including maintenance and use of an Environmental Management System are applied. 7.0 Foul water drainage 7.1 We note the information in respect of foul drainage options in Section 5 of Appendix 14B (Outline Drainage Strategy). Schedule 2, Requirement 14 secures the need to submit details of the permanent foul water drainage system, prior to development commencing. We are satisfied that an appropriate scheme can be approved post consent and we request that we are added as a named consultee for the discharge of Requirement 14(1), in order to secure further consultation with us on this issue. 8.0 Waste management & pollution prevention 8.1 We have reviewed Chapter 16 of the ES in respect of waste management and this highlights relevant legislation, which will be adhered to. The outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) also includes proposals for the final CEMP, which are satisfactory. This is adequately secured with the inclusion of Requirement 15 in Schedule 2 of the DCO. We are satisfied that all aspects of waste management and pollution prevention have been adequately addressed in these documents. 9.0 Further Representations 9.1 In summary, we can confirm that we have no objection to the proposed development, as submitted. However, we reserve the right to add to or amend these representations, including requests for DCO Requirements and protective provisions should further information be forthcoming during the course of the examination on issues within our remit. If you have any questions regarding these representations, please contact me."
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"APPLICATION BY EP WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE SOUTH HUMBER BANK ENERGY CENTRE PROEJCT PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: EN010107 SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008: RELEVANT REPRESENTATION OF NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED This is the section 56 representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) provided in respect of EP Waste Management Limited's (Applicant's) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) which seeks powers to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of a new energy from waste power station with a capacity of up to 95 megawatts gross output and other associated works (Scheme). Network Rail is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. Compulsory acquisition powers to acquire new rights over Network Rail land are not sought under the Scheme. However, the designated route providing HGV access to the site of the Scheme (HGV Designated Route) includes Kiln Lane level crossing, located on Kiln Lane, Stallingborough (the Crossing). Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Crossing in the HGV Designated Route. The requirements of the Order relating to traffic regulation are insufficient and have been suggested without any meaningful engagement with Network Rail or a proper understanding of the level of impact the HGV vehicles will have on the Crossing and the safety of the railway and its users. The Crossing would not currently be able to withstand the significant increase in HGV traffic proposed. Upgrade works to the Crossing at a cost of approximately £50,000 would be required ahead of the commencement of construction of the Scheme, as there are no appropriate alternative routes into the site. The Crossing constitutes land owned by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail also objects to all other compulsory powers in the Order to the extent that they affect, and may be exercised in relation to, Network Rail's property and interests. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection, Network Rail requires: (a) an agreement with the Applicant that regulates the use of the Crossing by HGVs, and the liability of the Applicant for any necessary repairs and upgrades to the Crossing as a result of the HGV Designated Route, including terms which protect Network Rail's statutory undertaking; (b) an agreement with the Applicant that compulsory acquisition powers included in the Order will not be exercised in relation to Network Rail's property and interests; and (c) an amendment of Requirement 16 of Schedule 2 (Construction traffic management and travel planning), Requirement 24 (Delivery and Servicing Plan) an Requirement 25 (Operational Travel Plan) of the Order so as to require Network Rail approval of the construction traffic management plan prior to commencement of authorised development, and the delivery and servicing and operational travel plans prior to authorised development coming into operation, as both directly impact the Crossing. Network Rail is hopeful that an agreement can be reached with the Applicant but until such time, to safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects to the Order. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination, and reserves the right to produce additional and further grounds of concern when further details of the Scheme and its effects on Network Rail's land are available."
Other Statutory Consultees
Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the South Humber Bank Energy Centre project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as water and sewerage undertaker for the above site: Anglian Water is in principle supportive of the above project. Impact on existing assets: There are existing water mains located within the boundary of the above project as shown on statutory asset plans. Currently we are not aware of a need for any requirement for diversion(s) or mitigation to protect existing infrastructure to enable the proposed development. Draft DCO wording: Anglian Water is of the view that article 15 as drafted does not appear to be consistent. Paragraph (3) makes it clear that consent of the owner of the sewerage network is required to discharge water into it (subject to reasonableness); but paragraph (2) states that disputes must be determined in accordance with Section 106 of the Water Industry Act. However consent is not required as part of the Section 106 process nor can the capacity of the received network which is considered to be a planning issue be taken into account. We would therefore suggest at that article 20(2) (Discharge of Water) of the Draft DCO be replaced with the following wording: “(2) Any dispute arising from the making of connections to or the use of a public sewer or drain by the undertaker under paragraph (1) is to be determined in accordance with the arbitration provisions in article 29 (arbitration)” More generally we would query why it is considered necessary to include wording referring to deemed consent to discharge of water to the public sewerage network within a 8 week timescale as proposed. The submitted Outline Drainage Strategy does not refer to a need to make any connections to the public sewerage network as a package treatment plant and a surface water attenuation are to be utilised. Therefore we also ask that reference to deemed consent from Anglian Water is removed from the Draft DCO. Protective provisions for Anglian Water: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water. It is noted that specific protective provisions have been included in the current version of the DCO (Schedule 8, Part 1 of the Draft DCO). However these differ somewhat from those proposed by Anglian Water. The majority of the changes which have been made are of a minor nature. However we consider the final provision as proposed it is not valid. It is unlikely to have any effect for two reasons. First, protective provisions cannot impose a substantive obligation – they are intended to be limitations and conditions on the exercise of Order powers by the undertaker. Secondly, failure to mitigate is a grounds for reducing statutory compensation in any event. As such we don't consider it necessary to include the above provision as proposed. Therefore we would ask that the above wording is removed from the wording of Draft DCO or the wording is amended to address the issue set out above, An example of which would that the costs that are recoverable by the protected undertaker could be expressed to be recoverable from the undertaker only to the extent that they do not exceed the amount to which they can reasonably have been mitigated. We are currently in dialogue with the applicant relating to the wording of the Draft DCO including the protective provisions for Anglian Water but have have yet to reach agreement. Therefore we would wish to make a holding objection to Draft DCO wording for the reasons set out above. We anticipate having further discussions with the applicant relating to the Draft DCO wording. As such this response will be updated to take account of the outcome of the on-going discussions with the applicant. Connections to public sewerage networks: We note that an on-site package treatment plant to be located within the main development site is currently the preferred option for the discharge of foul flows from the proposed development (Appendix 14B Outline Drainage Strategy) with details to be developed and agreed post consent. Similarly it is proposed to develop an attenuation pond to manage surface water which is expected to be discharged into an existing North East Lindsey Internal Drainage Board (IDB) land drainage ditch. As such the foul and surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development does not appear to interact with Anglian Water's operated assets. Therefore we would expect the Environment Agency, North Lincolnshire Council and the North East Lindsey IDB to comment on the suitability of proposed method of foul and surface water drainage. In the event that the method of foul and surface water were to require a connection to the public sewerage network following approval we would wish to be consulted to ensure that any revised strategy is sustainable and that there is no detriment to our customers. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural England
"Please see attachment"
Other Statutory Consultees
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. There are three operational facilities within 9 miles, Grimsby VSC, Immingham DO, and Grimsby DO. Both the construction and operational traffic may present risk of impact / delays to Royal Mail’s road based operations on the surrounding road network. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of the proposed Portishead Branch Line. Any periods of road disruption / closure, night or day, have the potential to impact operations. Royal Mail does not wish to stop or delay South Humber Bank Energy Centre from coming forward for development. However, Royal Mail does wish to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivering service. In order to do this, Royal Mail requests that: 1. the DCO includes specific requirements that during the construction phase Royal Mail is consulted by EP Waste Management Limited or its contractors at least one month in advance on any proposed road closures / diversions / alternative access arrangements, hours of working, and the content of the final CTMP, and 2. the final CTMP includes a mechanism to inform major road users (including Royal Mail) about works affecting the local highways network (with particular regard to Royal Mail’s distribution facilities in the vicinity of the DCO application boundary as listed above). Royal Mail reserves its position to object to the DCO application if the above requests are not adequately addressed. Contacts for Royal Mail: Denise Stephenson ([email protected]) of Royal Mail’s Legal Services Team Alice Stephens ([email protected] of BNP Paribas Real Estate."