Able Marine Energy Park

Representations received regarding Able Marine Energy Park

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Able Marine Energy Park and their relevant representations. Subsequent detailed written representations and other submissions can be accessed via the documents page.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Public & Businesses
Dr Ken Jones
"I have a particular interest in wild-life in the area in which I live. I am concerned that the Able UK Humber project will damage wild-life. I understand about 55 hectares of wild-life habitat will be affected without adequate compensation. Compensatory estuarine habitat is essential in this case as it is of world-wide importance to migratory waders in particular, though other species will also suffer. Dr Ken Jones"
Public & Businesses
John Guggiari
"Able UK either have not given sufficient consideration to the environmental impact of their proposal or, if they have thought about it, then they have decided that their commercial return is more important than a sustainable environment on the Humber. In the recent past, Associated British Ports have set the right example when they developed port facilities on Humberside by adequately counter-balancing the environmental impact of their proposal with replacement habitat for birds and other wildlife. It seems ironic that a business promoting "renewable energy" is content to put a European Sprecial Protection Area to the sword by insufficient investment in counteracting the negative environmental impacts of its plans. It appears that Able UK's proposals would remove some 130 acres of estuary habitat and this should not be permitted to proceed without adequate replacement habitat being created."
Public & Businesses
Tony Horrocks
"*The Humber is hugely rich in wildlifeand is one of the UK's most important estuaries for wintering birds.It is also home to a couple of birds of protected species,to whit Marsh and Hen Harriers both of which I have seen hunting in the area in question. *This application if passed will destroy 55 hectares of estuarine habitat which is vital for wintering and migrating wildlife.the current proposal will not adequately compensate for this loss. It is important that damage caused by this proposed developement should be offset fully by a comprehensive compensation package of new habitat. *These developers should fully address the environmental impacts of this proposal. *Able UK have been advertising the fact that they have worked fully with the RSPB over these proposals....apparently not true according to a letter I have received today from the RSPB of which I am a member. * At the entrance to this proposed site Able UK plowed up at least 200 metres of hedging in April,a prime time and habitat for nesting birds.This is NOT the action of a company with environmental issues ! *Last but by no means least please consider the long suffering residents of the area (of which I am one) who really have enough industrial works in the local area with two oil refineries,An electro generating station, a ship loading terminal and various others plus planning permission is in for a Glass wool insulation product manufacturing plant."
Public & Businesses
John Wasling
"I am concerned about the loss of habitat and natural feeding areas for migratory and resident birds. I believe that we cannot afford any loss of such facilities and wish to know that any development will not result in a net loss."
Public & Businesses
Jayne Regan
"I live on the north bank of the Humber and I am fully aware of the importance of this area for the many birds that depend upon the banks of the Humber for their survival. A large amount of vital habitat will be lost as a result of this proposal. The current proposal does not fully compensate for this loss of vital habitat. It is extremely important that any loss of habitat is offset by a comprehensive compensation package of new habitat. I understand the need for renewable energy however, as this proposal stands the effect on the enviroment will be negative."
Public & Businesses
Mark Lenton
"As a Humber resident, I fully support the application for the development, but have concerns regarding what, on the basis of information available, would appear to be a significant reduction in the amount of extremely valuable estuarine habitat, given that the region holds a number of designations under various EU Directives, and has UK SSSI status. I would like there to be guarantees that the developers will be required to fully and adequately compensate for lost habitat and fully engage with the RSPB and others in the consultation process to this end. The recent ABP Green Port Hull development has shown that this process can be succesful and economically viable and it would be a great shame if something so economically and environmentally valuable to both the region and the nation were also to be the cause of unnecessary environmental damage to this region."
Public & Businesses
John C Nicholson
"Under no circumstances whatsoever must any food producing land be converted to a "Wildlife Haven" Nature reserve or whatever similar. The World has an expending population as does the UK within it. The UK has for a long time been unable to produce enough food to feed its population. There is a huge number of malnourished people in the World and doubtless some in the UK - in the latter case perhaps more on a basis of subsisting on a poor diet rather than unfed, due to economic inability to buy properly nourishing food. There is in various documents included with this application references to land being "Undeveloped". This often refers to land used for agricultural purposes - such land, far from being undeveloped is highly developed for food production purposes. Such statement is therefor false. There is a dire need for large scale production of low cost nourishing food within the UK to contribute to overall world food production. There are seemingly no statistics within the documentation to show the magnitude of food production capacity to be lost in terms of tonnage production lost, number of people food for whom is lost by such production capacity loss. There should be. There are huge social problems in the UK caused by unemployment and poverty and if food shortages are added to such there will be significant price rises which will adversely affect an even greater proportion of the population. This will lead to increased societal breakdown and civil disorder requiring a paramilitary police force to contain. We must avoid this altogether. This is a serious issue of national security."
Public & Businesses
Stewart Padget
"Whilst i believe that the economic development of the Humber region to be an extremely important issue i have grave concerns that this proposed development currently fails to address the significant impact this project will make on marine wildlife. I would urge that before the approval of any plans such an impact is made an absolute priority."
Public & Businesses
Raymond Leslie Hazel
"I believe any land used for all wild animals/ birds, should be kept intact or at least any land that is taken for other use, a similar piece of land should be provided nearby twice the area that is taken. Killingholme is in Lincolnshire, and Kingston upon hull in Yorkshire."
Public & Businesses
Martin L Francis
"The Able UK Marine Energy Park would destroy or seriously interfere with habitat that is very important for wintering and migrating wildlife, particularly birds. The proposed compensatory measures may not be adequate."
Public & Businesses
Michael Huntley
"The Humber is hugely rich in wildlife and is one of the UK's most important estuaries for wintering birds. Able UK's marine energy park application would destroy 55 hectares of estuarine habitat, (roughly the size of 80 football pitches), which is vital for wintering and migrating wildlife. The current proposal will not adequately compensate for this loss. It is important that damage caused by any development should be offset fully by a comprehensive compensation package of new habitat. Sustainable economic development on the Humber is possible if developers fully address the environmental impacts of a proposal through appropriate mitigation and where necessary, compensation measures."
Public & Businesses
Dr Peter English
"I am concerned as a local resident on the impact of the humber habitat for migrating birds. The compensatory area seems inadequate to offset the loss of such an important area"
Public & Businesses
Graham Atkins
"The proposed development is in an area designated as a special protection area and as such must not be developed . Any development here will destoy wildlife (mainly birds) and will do untold damage to the habitats of very important and very rare species. There are many more suitable sites for a development of this scale and the developer should be encouraged to look at these .. including those on the north bank of the humber. It would be an outrageous and unlawful act to give planning consent in this location for this scale of development. With all developments of this scale full consultation with English nature and the RSPB must be a given and to date this has only been a token gesture by the Developer.. I therefore strongly object to this development."
Non-Statutory Organisations
East Yorkshire and Derwent Area of the Ramblers
"The East Yorkshire and Derwent Area of the Ramblers object to the application for the "Alteration to the local network at Cherry Cobb Sands" as proposed by Able UK. Able UK wrote to us on the 4th May 2011 with an "indicative" proposal to divert Paull Footpath No.6 from the top of the existing flood bank to the base of a new flood bank. At present walkers have long views over 360 degree from the whole of the footpath, whilst Able's proposals greatly would greatly restrict the long views of for the path users. We responded with a number of questions, which the developer responded to on the 22nd September., and included Drawing No. AME - 02060, and information from Natural England and the RSPB. According to the paper on Advice from Natural England and RSPB on suitable buffers for SPA and Ramsar waterbird mitigation areas within the South Humber Gateway. Which in its conclusion states; We believe that the proposed buffer of 150m is the minimum that should be considered in a situation where the adjacent land use is unsecured. We forwarded to Able a modified plan, which taken with the following shows the compensation site will provide winter feeding far in excess of the present 55ha on the south bank and that the footpath could easily be provided on the flood bank top as it is at Paul Holme Stray.. 1) On your map I have drawn a 150m buffer strip between the top of the bank and the river. This leaves 67 ha. Outside the buffer zone, which is more than you are taking on the south bank. 2) The closure of the existing footpath (Paull 6) will give an additional 30 ha to the site from which the public and dogs will not be disturbing birds. 3) A large section of the 55 ha site south of the river, will be unavailable to birds as a) it is below low tide, b) there is a footpath along the river bank which needs a 150m strip removing from the measurements. 4) Therefore the Ramblers propose that the footpath should be diverted around the top of the flood Defence wall. 5) The above calculations are based on the footpath south of the 250m breach in the flood Defence wall being kept open. 6) As there are no measurements on the plan, I have scaled them to the best of my ability. As Able UK have not responded to our proposal, or East Riding of Yorkshire Council's request for a sight meeting, we hereby object to the above planning application"
Public & Businesses
Emma Overton
"I am sincerely pro renewable energy. However, Able Marine's proposed energy park would destroy 55 hectares of estuary habitat, vital in one of the UK's most important estuaries for birds. Able Marine's proposed package of new habitat is insufficient to compensate for this loss. I do not believe that the environmental impacts of Able Marine's development proposals have been properly considered, and provided for. The Humber area is an SPA, SAC and SSSI - we cannot afford to get this development wrong - the cost to nature could be catastrophic. A rethink is urgent. There are other areas of the counrty where renewable energy projects have taken into acount the environmental impacts of their proposals very sucessfully, by consulting with, and implementing the recommendations of, relevant organisations and environmental groups. I urge Able Marine to do the same."
Public & Businesses
Sean Guggiari
"While I support the need for greater investment in renewable energy, it must not come at a cost to the natural environment. In this application, I believe that insufficient compensation has been planned to replace the important estuary habitat that will be destroyed by the development. This habitat is of vital importance to international bird species during migration, as recognised by, for example, the European Birds Directive and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Currently, the application does not seem to recognise the global importance of the estuary with regards to wildlife, as their proposed compensation does not match with the scale of what they are planning to destroy; this risks the several species that need the Humber estuary to survive over the winter or during migration. I believe that the application needs to be rejected until sufficient compensation is planned for the displaced habitat."
Other Statutory Consultees
Civil Aviation Authority
"Proposed Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP) The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been advised that the IPC have accepted an application for a Development Consent Order related to the proposed AMEP, which includes the provision of onshore facilities for the manufacture, assembly and storage of marine energy infrastructure and related items. We are advised that comment related to the project / application should be forwarded to the IPC. I trust the following, which fundamentally mirrors comment provided at the scoping stage, is useful. Whilst I must concede that the volume of associate documentation made available has made it extremely difficult to find the aviation related material, I believe that the civil aviation related issues are appropriately detailed within Chapter 22 of the Environmental Statement (ES). It remains the CAA’s case that: • Aerodrome Safeguarding. Given the location of the development it is essential that Humberside Airport is given the opportunity to comment upon the aerodrome-related conclusion detailed within the ES, which generally infers that the development would have little impact upon the Airport and related operations. • Aviation Warning Lighting. The UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) demands that any structure (permanent or temporary) of a height of 150 metres (m) or more must be equipped with aviation warning lighting; ANO Article 219 refers. Structures less than 150m high might need aviation warning lighting if, by virtue of their location and nature, they are considered a significant navigational hazard: o In this case ES Chapter 22 implies that, wind turbines aside, buildings (including chimney stacks) associated with this development would not exceed 55m in height. That being the case, in isolation, the CAA would not make any case for such structures to be equipped with warning lighting. • Wind Turbines. The ES indicates that wind turbine erected at the AMEP would be approximately 165m high. As stated, such structures will need to be equipped with aviation warning lighting (ANO Article 219 provides the baseline specification). ES Chapter 22 intimates (at 22.4.5) that any turbines erected at the AMEP will not be operational; this is translated as, the turbine will not be rotating. Note that would most likely be significant radar-related issues associated with rotating blades of 165m high wind turbines in the subject location. • Aviation Notification of Tall Structures. Any structure, permanent or temporary, of a height of 300 feet (91.4m) or more will need to be promulgated and charted for civil aviation purposes. This process is initiated though the developer / planning organisation providing details to the Defence Geographic Centre. • Emergency Services Helicopter Operations. Due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it is important to establish the viewpoint of local emergency services air support units in respect of the power station and associated new structures. • Gas Venting / Flaring. It is anticipated that AMEP would not involve the venting and/or flaring of gas, either routinely or as an emergency procedure such as to cause a danger to overlying aircraft. If that is not the case parties are invited to use myself as an appropriate point of contact for any further related discussion. • Helicopter Landing Site. The ES continues to indicate the intention to incorporate a helicopter landing site within the AMEP development. Notwithstanding that the ES records that the exact location and design of the facility has yet to be determined, the CAA’s related position remains as detailed within our scoping report contribution. In essence, on the basis that this would not be a CAA-licensed facility, notwithstanding the planning process to establish the related viewpoint of Humberside Airport, the Authority has no issues associated with the proposed redevelopment of the land (the construction of the helicopter landing pad) or the use of the site for aviation related activities. Whilst out-with the scope of this application, it is worth recording that there are potentially significant issues associated with the transportation of the wind turbine post construction. It is understood that the turbines will be shipped to the offshore locations in the vertical position. Given that the wind turbine supporting towers alone will measure considerably more than 300ft in height, they will individually constitute an en-route obstacle and will require notification to the UK aviation community. The notification of what is effectively a large number of moving obstacles is, in UK airspace, somewhat unprecedented. Known timeframes associated with wind turbine construction coupled with definite ideas about transportation arrangements will prompt a need for discussion related to such aviation notification of turbines (whether in a fully or partly constructed state). Whilst none of the above negates any aforementioned future need to consult in line with Government requirements associated with the safeguarding of aerodromes and other technical sites, I hope this information matches your requirements. Please do not hesitate to get in touch as and when you require any further comment or needs clarification of any point."
Public & Businesses
Mrs G Thompson
"The humber estuary is one of the uks most important for wintering birds. The able energy park application would destroy 55 hectares of important habitat, vital for migrating wild life.The habitat compensation would not be adequate for this loss, any damage caused by this development should be offset by a large compensation package for extensive habitat relocation. Developers must mitigate this serious environmental impact on wild life."
Public & Businesses
Simon Taylor
"to be submitted later Further detail provided in email of 29/03/12: I have no objection and fully support the ABLE application as described for the Killingholme site. My concerns relate solely to the compensation site on the North bank. I have concerns about the following issues Diversion and relocation of the public footpaths Long term flood protection provide by the new banks. Long term maintenance and responsibility for the scheme Size of compensation land required in relation to the actual habit loss. The need for any compensation site is not proven. Silting up of Stone Creek will effect drainage of Holderness and lead to an increased flood risk. Silting of Stone Creek and the exit channel into the Humber will end navigation for the SCBC. Long term, off site risks and responsibilities for maintenance. Location of the new Southern flood bank."
Public & Businesses
Pauline A Bursell
"Although i live on the north bank of the Humber I feel that the loss of 327 hectares of land would reduce vital feeding areas on both sides of the river. If Able Uk intend using this land they must be prepared to compensate by securing another area of wetland for the future well being of migrating and wintering birds that flock to the Humber each year. As a member of the South Holderness Countryside Society who own land on the north bank and work tirelessly to upkeep the SSSI estuary I feel that you should not allow planning to continue until all these conditions are met."
Public & Businesses
A Simpson
"The scale of the proposed marine energy park and the benefits produced from this massive enterprise will not be of sufficient value to justify the environmental damage it creates. The Humber Estuary is one of the most beautiful and important areas of the UK, and not just purely for the wildlife that it sustains. Historically, geographically and environmentally this part of the United Kingdom is of great importance and any applications that will damage one of our most valuable resources and assests must be rejected unless an immediate National catastrophy is imminent. This project is not worth such destruction."
Public & Businesses
R W Ambler
"My concern is that a comprehensive package of measures is included in this scheme to offset the 55 hectares of habitat that will be lost."
Public & Businesses
Calum Fox
"I am greatly concerned that this project could have a huge effect on the diverse wildlife either already in the area or "visiting" wildlife that finds the Humber estuary essential to it's way of life. ie .to breed etc. We are already very fortunate to have some rarities unique to our area, for example bitterns and marsh harriers.(to name but a few) I am all for renewable energy, but at what cost to our already delicate surroundings ? If 55 hectares of estuarine habitat is taken away from our natural world, it should be compensated with something back in return. Hell, we never seem to put un-used developed areas back to "green" areas once we've finished with them because of cost, eventually there will be nothing left but all the "mess" we've created and abandoned ! Take away wild spaces only when you can give something back, please."
Public & Businesses
Peter John Ainscough
"I am concerned that the development as proposed impacts on the very rich wildlife of the area without adequate arrangements to offer alternative habitat. The Humber Estuary is visited by many migrating birds of both land and shore varieties and their flight paths and feeding grounds must have adequate protection. I am not opposed to industrial development in this area and particularly any that intends to contribute to an increase in the production of renewable energy - although I have some reservations about the number, size and distribution of "wind farms" and turbines across the country's more attractive landscape. However, any industrial development which impacts on the area's wildlife should only be allowed if appropriate and adequate provision is made for the protection of that same wildlife."
Other Statutory Consultees
John Houghton on behalf of The Crown Estate Commissioners
"The letter which we understand Able Humber Ports Limited (Able) has circulated pursuant to Section 56 Planning Act 2008 and Regulation 8 Infrastructure Planning (Application Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 is understood to refer to three parcels of land that will be used for the project in the following terms: "The next map shows the three parcels of land that will be used for the project and that is subject to compulsory purchase powers bounded by a red line. The land to the south side of the Humber is for a marine energy park, the larger area on the north side of the Humber is for the permanent compensation site and the smaller area is for the temporary compensation site." The permanent compensation site on the north side of the Humber to which reference is made (the Site) is at Cherry Cobb Sands and is in the freehold ownership of The Crown Estate. The Statement of Reasons prepared in compliance with the requirements of Regulation 5(2)(h) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, which seeks to justify the compulsory acquisition of land sought in the draft DCO, refers (2.6) to the Site of the proposed permanent compensatory habitat as agricultural land (2.14) and as being owned by three different farmers and about 115 ha in extent (2.11). Reference is made to those with the greatest amount of land being acquired as being Total Oil and ABP, and The Crown Estate on the north bank. Section 135 of the Planning Act 2008 provides as follows in respect of interests in Crown land: (1) An order granting development consent may include provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of an interest in Crown land only if: a) it is an interest which is for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown; and b) the appropriate Crown authority consents to the acquisition It is made clear in the Statement of Reasons (7.1) that it is proposed that Crown Land will be included within the scope of compulsory purchase, but only to the extent that Able has obtained permission to do so under Section 135 of the Planning Act 2008. It is also made clear (5.17) that Able will continue to seek to acquire all the land by agreement, but must rely on compulsory powers as a backstop. We wish to make clear that no consent has been given by The Crown Estate to compulsory acquisition of any interest in Crown land pursuant to Section 135(1) of the Planning Act 2008. However The Crown Estate have carried out a formal procurement process in respect of the Site and invited tenders, following which The Crown Estate are now in discussion with Able as to the possible acquisition of the Site by agreement, pursuant to paragraph 5.17 of the Statement of Reasons."
Other Statutory Consultees
North East Lindsey Drainage Board
"My Board are the public body responsible for flood protection and land drainage and the method of surface water disposal from this site must be agreed with the Board prior to site works commencing and a writtem consent as required by the Land Drainage Act 1991 issued. The Flood Risk Assessment included in the Application relates to a pumping scheme as the solution for the surface water disposal from the development. Providing the scheme goes ahead then the Board's consent will be issued. The scheme is dependant on European Grant and Developer contributions and as these are not yet secured alternative arrangements may have to be put in place should the scheme not proceed.. If this is the case I confirm that Able will be responsible for their own surface water disposal arrangements which must be submitted to the Board for approval prior to site works commencing."
Local Authorities
North Linconshire Council
"Following a telephone discussion with the Case Officer I have been advised to register in addition to our status as Relevant Local Authority."
Local Authorities
Hull City Council
"Hull City Council's comments have already been submitted to the IPC following a cabient deicison in May 2011. Since that date further comments were submitted to Able UK on the 28th June 2011 and a further response was made to the IPC in relation to the level of consultation undertaken in December 2011. The Counil's interest in the project relates predominantly to the Habitats Regulations and consistency of approach in undertaking the Appropriate Assessment. The Council in principle supports the concpet of developing appropriate sites for use as offshore wind turbine manufacturing facilties across the Humber. However it is essential a consistent approach is taken to the selection of sites to ensure they are appropriate. The Council is well placed to provide some clarity on how the Habitats Regualtions should be applied as we have an application lodged by ABP and SIemens for a manaufactruring plant for off-shore wind turbines which triggers the need for an Appropraite Assessment, this has lead to lengthy and detailed dicussion with all statutory consultees across the Estuary. The council intend on detemrinating this application on the 17th April 2012 and then referring it on to the Secretary of State. The Council has also concluded consulation on the 13th March 2012 for a Local Development Order on Alexandra and Queen Elizabeth Docks which provides an outline consent for B2 uses associated with the renewable industry. The Coucnil will be submitting the final LDO to the Government at the end of March 2012 for confirmation. It is essential a consistent application of the Habitats Regulations applies across the LDO, ABP/Siemens application and Able UK proprosal and it is for these reasons specifically the council wish to be involved in the examination."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stone Creek Boat Club
"Stone Creek Boat Club rents land and moorings around Stone Creek adjacent to the area designated for the Intertidal Habitat. The club believes that the building of this park will adversley affect silting in the creek which will: Prevent/reduce boat movements in an area used as a port since the land was first reclamed. Adversley affect drainage in an area already prone to flooding which is currently some of the best agricultural land in the country. As this side of the river is an area of deposition and above the mean high tide level it fails to fully meet the requirements for an Intertidal habitat"
Other Statutory Consultees
Juliet Clark on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"Note: The issues affecting Network Rail are significant and in spite of efforts to do so, it was not possible to limit the word count to 500 words. (A) Network Rail 1. Network Rail owns and operates the heavy rail infrastructure of Great Britain and is responsible for its maintenance, repair and renewal. Train services on the network are operated by train operating companies to which Network Rail grants rights to use its railway in the form of access contracts approved by the Office of Rail Regulation. The track access contracts incorporate national access conditions approved by the Office of Rail Regulation which, amongst other things, provide procedures dealing with changes to the network which seek to ensure all users of the railway infrastructure are properly consulted and protected. 2. The activities of Network Rail as network operator are regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation under the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) by means of network licence described in paragraph 3 below. 3. Network Rail operates the railway network under the authority of a network licence granted under section 8 of the 1993 Act. Condition 1 of that licence (Network Management), which was revised in April 2009 sets out Network Rail’s responsibilities for maintaining, renewing and developing the rail network. 4. The purposes specified in the network licence are to secure:- 4.1. The operation and maintenance of the network; 4.2. The renewal and replacement of the network; and 4.3. The improvement, enhancement and development of the network. 5. In each case Network Rail must carry out its responsibilities in accordance with best practice and in a timely, economic and efficient manner so as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of persons providing services relating to railways and funders in respect of quality and capability of the network. Network Rail is under a duty (enforceable by the Office of Rail Regulation) to operate and manage the rail network efficiently and economically, so far as reasonably practicable and having regards to all relevant circumstances, to satisfy the needs to train operators and rail users. 6. Where part of the network ceases to be in operational use but is retained as part of the network, it is termed ‘mothballed’. It is often the case that railway is mothballed for some time, and then taken up by the network when the requirement for it is resumed. Railways Closures Guidance issued by the Department for Transport under Part 4 of the Railways Act 2005 (18 October 2006) (“the Closures Guidance”) recommends that in formulating closure packages, it may be appropriate to consider options for mothballing parts of the network or stations considered for closure where, for example, there is a reasonable prospect that demand for services over that part of the network might increase in future years to an extent that would reverse the results of the closure assessment. (B) Context 6. Network Rail was in discussions with the Applicant regarding the sale of certain land, which is now subject to compulsory acquisition under the proposed DCO. The land comprises the track and track-bed for the Killingholme branch line which connects Humber Sea Terminal with the wider Network. This branch is part of the operational Network used for freight traffic. Network Rail is unable to commit to sell this land to the Applicant as it contains part of the Network that services third party land (Humber Sea Terminal) pursuant to an existing contract. Consent of those third parties is required in the event of the land being sold and any network change. In addition, closure of the Killingholme branch line is subject to the regulatory procedures in Part 4 of the Railways Act 2005. 7. In October 2011 Network Rail notified the Applicant that the sale would not be possible as third party consent had not been obtained on the grounds that the line is required to retain a connection to the Network. 8. In addition, Network Rail is aware of potential requirement for an increase in demand for line capacity both from the Port of Immingham and other third parties. This increase in demand is likely to be compounded by proposed development in the area (including renewable energy development). There is a mothballed track-bed which links the Killingholme Branch to the Barton on Humber Branch at Goxhill which might potentially service this requirement if brought back into the Network. (C) Impact on Network Rail 9. The proposed DCO seeks in article 29 powers to compulsorily acquire land owned by Network Rail, or in which Network Rail has an interest, comprising operational railway. This land is identified on the Land Plans submitted with the Application as the land numbered 02008, 03013, 03014, 03015, 04004, 04013, 04014, 04024, 04025, 05023 to 05028, 07001. 10. In addition, the proposed DCO seeks in article 47 to remove part of Network Rail’s operational railway where that railway is within the limits of the DCO, and in so doing to deem the closure of that part of the railway as a minor modification for the purposes of Part 4 of the Railways Act 2005. The effect of this deeming provision is to circumvent the regulatory framework set out on the Railways Act 2005 relevant to such decommissioning of operational railway. (D) Network Rail’s concerns Compulsory Acquisition of operational land 11. Network Rail objects strongly to the compulsory acquisition of its operational land as detailed in paragraph 9 of this Relevant Representation. 12. The grounds on which Network Rail objects to the compulsory acquisition of its operational land are as follows:- 12.1. Operational Network: The proposed DCO seeks powers to compulsorily acquire land within Network Rail’s operational network. The effect would be that the Promoter would be able, without any consultation, to acquire and take possession of operational railway infrastructure, and operational land in the vicinity of the railway. As mentioned in paragraph 5 above, Network Rail is under a statutory obligation to procure the availability of safe train paths. The proposed compulsory purchase is of great concern to Network Rail. The compulsory acquisition of operation land will involve obstructing the railway network by effectively closing the parts of the railway network affected by the proposed DCO to the exclusion of Network Rail and existing users with the benefit of valid contracts. This would have major safety implications, for example, Network Rail would have limited access to cables, signalling and other conducting media required for the safe and efficient operation of adjoining railway infrastructure. It would also place Network Rail in breach of the existing access contracts. 12.2. Statutory undertaker’s land: Network Rail is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of section 127 of the Planning Act 2008. The land referred to in paragraph 9, which is subject to the proposed compulsory acquisition, is land used for the purposes of carrying on Network Rail’s undertaking. Section 127 states that an order granting development consent cannot contain provision authorising compulsory acquisition of statutory undertakers’ land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that its that the nature and situation of the land is such:- that it can be purchased and not replaced without serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking; or that if purchased it can be replaced by other land belonging to, or available for acquisition by, the undertakers without serious detriment to the carrying on thereof.”. Network Rail submits that this test cannot possibly be satisfied in respect of the land subject to compulsory acquisition under the proposed DCO. This part of the network is fundamental for access by rail to Humber Sea Terminal. Network Rail is committed under the terms of an existing Connection Agreement with Humber Sea Terminal to provide access to the Network. The compulsory acquisition, were it to proceed, would cause serious detriment to Network Rail in placing it in breach of the terms of the contracts for the provision of rail services in the course of its undertaking. 12.3. Protective Provisions: Notwithstanding Network Rail’s objection to the effect of article 47 of the proposed DCO (as to which see paragraph 13 below), Network Rail would expect to see protective provisions within the proposed DCO. Protective provisions are invariably included in private Bills, Orders promoted under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Development Consent Orders (such as the proposed DCO) for the protection of operational railway networks, and have the effect of protecting Network Rail, it’s operational land and infrastructure. Network Rail is concerned that no such provision is made in the proposed DCO. As such, the proposed DCO is materially deficient. 12.4. Consultation: As is explained in paragraph 7, early discussions with the promoters took place regarding the potential sale of operational land. The promoters ceased to engage with Network Rail following advice from Network Rail that the sale of the land would not be possible, and no consultation on the compulsory acquisition of the operational land set out in paragraph 9 was undertaken. This lapse in consultation is against the spirit of the Planning Act 2008 and related Guidance Notes, which is specific in its requirement that a developer has a duty to allow those affected by a development the opportunity to influence the proposal before it is finalised, at the pre-application stage. Network Rail has not been afforded any such opportunity in respect of the proposed compulsory acquisition of its operational land. 12.3. Licence conditions: In the event that railway is removed from the regulatory framework described in section (A) above, Network Rail would be in breach of its statutory duty to operate the rail network efficiently and economically. Network Closure 13. Network Rail strongly objects to the proposed forced closure of part of its network. The effect of section 47 of the DCO, if made, will be to undermine the detailed regulation of network closure set out in Part 5 of The Railways Act 2005, and the Closure Guidance. This expressly contradicts the intention and purpose of the Railways Act and Closures Guidance and is completely unjustified. 13.1. Railways Closure Guidance (i) Closures Test The Railways Closure Guidance prescribes that the decision to close part of the Network must be made by the rail operator, or the Rail Funding Authority (“RFA”). Five objectives for transport are central to the appraisal of whether a closure should be made, being (1) Environmental, (2) Safety, (3) Economy, (4) Accessibility, (5) Integration. A two-limbed test must be satisfied prior to that decision being made: (a) the closure proposal (or appraisal thereof) is consistent with the closures guidance and any subsequent changes made to it; and (b) the retention of the rail service, station or network proposed for closure does not represent good value for money compared with the opinion of the closure. Network Rail has been approached by third parties regarding a renewable energy developments, including a proposed Biomass Generating Plant, which require rail service from the Killingholme branch line. As noted in paragraph 5, the Closures Guidance recommends against the closure of part of the Network where there is a reasonably prospect of demand for rail services over that part increasing. The closure of the Killingholme branch line would therefore be directly contrary to the Closures Guidance. Not only is there real prospect of the demand for rail services over that part of the Network increasing; given that increase in demand, the closure does not represent good value for money, and therefore fails to satisfy the second limb of the test. (ii) Procedure The Railways Closure Guidance also prescribes the procedure to be complied with prior to a closure. Wide ranging public consultation concerning the proposed closure, setting out a clear summary of the results of the assessment of the proposed closure, a summary of the options considered as part of the initial review and the reasons why these were not followed, a description of the likely effects on passengers using the services to be closed and a description of the existing public transport provision in the area. The consultation should also provide such detail as may reasonably required to enable those responding to do so in a reasonable way. Network Rail are not aware of any such consultation being carried out, and in particular note that the documentation of the consultation undertaken with the ORR does not address the proposed closure. (iii) Role of the ORR The role of the ORR in closure scenarios is to provide an independent review of whether the closure proposals satisfy the guidance. Where the ORR does not consider this to be the case, it may issue a non-ratification closure notice. In deeming the closure of the Killingholme branch line to be a minor modification, the effect of section 47 of the proposed DCO is to undermine the independent review of the closures process, thus striking to the heart of the regulatory intention of the legislation and Guidance. Not only does this deeply prejudice Network Rail’s position and ability to comply with the terms of its Network Licence, but it also sets a worrying precedent as regards the legislative status of a development consent order. 14. Railways Act 2005 The 2005 Act distinguishes between a closure and a ‘minor modification’. Section 34 provides that a proposal is a minor modification if comes within the definition of s 35. The Killingholme Branch is a network asset, open to all to use. It does not come within the definition of s35 of the Railways Act 2005 and requires Network Change authorisation and authorisation pursuant to s33 of the 2005 Act. (D) Conclusions 15. Network Rail does not object in principle to the scheme. However, it strongly objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of operational land, as well as the proposed effect of section 47 of the DCO. 16. Network Rail reserves the right to raise further issues in evidence should the Applicant accept that section 47 be removed from the proposed DCO and protective provisions be inserted in the proposed DCO in the interests of Network Rail. Your faithfully Eversheds LLP"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
"The Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT) is registering an objection to this application: we are not satisfied that the need for this type of development at this location has been proved conclusively (consideration of alternatives) or that the mitigation and compensation measures proposed are sufficient to fully mitigate and compensate for the adverse impacts that would be caused to internationally, nationally and locally important habitats and species. LWT supports development of renewable energy sources and infrastructure but is firmly of the opinion that such development should not be to the detriment of protected or priority habitats and species. The proposed location for the Marine Energy Park is within and adjacent to the Humber Estuary therefore the Trust has serious concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the Humber Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar Site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and North Killingholme Haven Pits SSSI. Of particular concern is the loss of 55 ha of estuarine habitat. This includes 31 ha of the Killingholme Marshes intertidal mudflat habitat, important for wintering and migrating SPA wader species. Killingholme Marshes is of particular importance to wading bird species, such as black-tailed godwit, dunlin and redshank, which have been recorded in numbers greater than 1% of their Humber SPA qualifying populations. 66% of the SPA population of black-tailed godwit has been recorded here. LWT considers that the loss of estuarine habitat is likely to damage the integrity of the Natura 2000 site and is not yet convinced that the proposed compensation would deliver both the habitat types in the ratios to compensate for those lost and also the functionality to provide a feeding resource needed by SPA birds such as black-tailed godwit. To demonstrate its ability to function, the compensation site should be delivered before development begins at Killingholme Marshes. Effective monitoring must be a condition, to determine whether it is effectively delivering in form and function. A contingency plan should be a condition of any approval to ensure adequate compensation is delivered in the event that the compensation proposed is inadequate. The proximity of the proposed development to Killingholme Haven Pits Nature Reserve and SSSI is also of serious concern to LWT: the pits support significant populations of SPA species such as black-tailed godwit, dunlin and redshank (97% of the SPA population of black-tailed godwit recorded roosting at Killingholme Haven Pits) and avocet and marsh harrier breed. The SSSI is already surrounded on three sides by development: the proposed quay will increase isolation from the estuary. LWT is satisfied that the proposal for mitigating loss of habitat of value for feeding, roosting and loafing by estuarine birds appears to fit in with the South Humber Gateway mitigation principles. LWT is satisfied that issues could be resolved relating to other protected species. LWT is concerned over the proposed loss of Station Road Field Local Wildlife Site. The proposal to create additional neutral grassland in Mitigation Area A requires further examination as this area should be managed as wet grassland to provide feeding and roosting habitat for birds such as curlew. LWT considers that an area of species rich neutral grassland at least double that to be lost should be created and managed without compromising the functioning of Mitigation Area A for SPA birds."
Other Statutory Consultees
Homes and Communities Agency
"The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) has been consulted on this application under Regulation 13, Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) is the national housing and regeneration agency. I can confirm that the HCA has no directly relevant comments to make on this application."
Public & Businesses
David K. Hickling on behalf of Mr. Stephen Kirkwood
"TEXT OF ORIGINAL RELEVANT REPRESENTATION RECEIVED 08 MARCH 2012 I represent the tenant farmer of land included in the application as nature compensation land at Cherry Cobb Sands, Keyingham, East Yorkshire. I am of the opinion that the assessment of alternative nature compensation sites in the application is inadequate and does not comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations, 2011. I believe there to be more suitable sites for replacement nature conservation purposes than that chosen at Cherry Cobb Sands. I am of the opinion that the proposed nature conservation land at Cherry Cobb Sands will not, indeed cannot, (due to site and tidal levels), provide a suitable "like for like" ecological habitat for that being lost to development at North Killingholme and that, consequently, the requirements of the Habitats Regulations are not fully met. In particular, I am of the opinion that the scheme will not produce any inter-tidal mud-flats to replace that being lost at North Killingholme - and have evidence with regard to site and tidal levels to support this view. In this respect I have reservations about, and a lack of confidence in, the role and involvement of Natural England in the application process, who appear to be agreeing to something that is contrary to their own guidance as well as the European Directive. Local residents are willing to produce statements and / or give evidence to the IPC to refute the statements made in the application that a similar habitat creation scheme at Paull Holme has been successful. Local residents are also willing to attest that inter-tidal mud-flats are growing in the vicinity of Cherry Cobb Sands at an appreciable rate - suggesting that the mud-flats lost at North Killingholme could be replaced naturally, without the need for the proposed nature compensation land. I am of the opinion that the data and data analysis relating to silting and sedimentation contained in the application is out of date and being used to draw invalid conclusions. I have seen recent data, obtained by a local resident at Stone Creek, to show that the application makes inaccurate assumptions and predictions about sedimentation, in particular at the outfall to Stone Creek into the Humber Estuary. If I am correct, and the application data is found to be inaccurate, it is likely that the proposed works to provide replacement nature conservation land at Cherry Cobb Sands will lead to silting that would significantly reduce the flow of local drainage channels into the Estuary, thereby exacerbating flooding inland, and would also quickly lead to the closure of a local boat club. I am of the opinion that the applicants have carried out inadequate and insufficient investigations into the likelihood of land contamination in the area described as "Field 4" in the application. If, as is strongly suspected, a large part of this area is contaminated, it is possible, indeed likely, that large amounts of contaminated land will have to be removed from the site. Neither the application nor the ES anticipates this possibility, which could give rise to significant environmental effects in the nearby local communities. Neither is there any discussion in the ES as to where such contaminated material might be relocated to. I am of the opinion that a large amount of material will have to be removed from the site in order to create the levels stated. As this material is not suitable, on its own, for creating the proposed new flood banks, it will have to be removed from the site - and new material brought in to create the flood banks. Neither the application nor the ES anticipates this possibility which could give rise to significant environmental effects in the nearby local communities. I have reservations about some of the data presented in the application, for instance where figures presented are "+/- 50%" or "within 1 -2 metres". I am also concerned that some data is over 5 years old, which in a constantly changing esturine environment is simply not acceptable, in my opinion. Finally, I have been unable to locate any reference to planning policy relevant to the proposed nature conservation compensation land at Cherry Cobb Sands, i.e. the East Riding of Yorkshire Council / Hull City Council Joint Structure Plan and the Holderness Local Plan - both of which are part of the statutory development plan. These plans contain policies of relevance to the planning application. Submission to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on behalf of Mr S. Kirkwood, the tenant farmer of land at Cherry Cobb Sands, East Yorkshire, identified in the application by Able (UK) Ltd as nature compensation land under IPC reference TR030001. TEXT OF FURTHER RELEVANT REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED 28 MARCH 2012 Introduction 1. This submission is made by Hickling-Gray Associates, Chartered Town and Country Planning Consultants, of 11, Saturday Market, Beverley, East Yorkshire, HU17 8BB, on behalf of Mr S. Kirkwood of   ,   ,   ,   ,   . 2. Mr S. Kirkwood is the tenant farmer currently occupying around 100ha of land at Cherry Cobb Sands, East Yorkshire, identified within IPC application reference TR030001 submitted by Able (UK) Ltd. 3. The proposed use of the land at Cherry Cobb Sands is as replacement inter-tidal mudflats to compensate for the loss of similar land at North Killingholme, where the applicants wish to construct a new manufacturing and port facility to serve the emerging renewable energy market. 4. Mr Kirkwood (“the objector”) wishes to register his opposition to the use of land at Cherry Cobb Sands as replacement nature conservation land (not to the construction of the proposed new port / manufacturing facility per se) for the following reasons, each of which is expanded upon below: - (i) There may not be a need for any compensation land to be provided in connection with the proposed development; (ii) If such provision is found to be necessary, however, the site at Cherry Cobb Sands (CCS) is not the most suitable alternative and the site identification process was not robust, transparent, or objective; (iii) Data, including some baseline survey information, and assumptions, relied upon in the ES, is either out of date, inaccurate, and / or leads to uncertainty; (iv) The proposed measures will not create the conditions necessary to provide “like for like” compensation and will not, therefore, maintain the overall integrity of the Natura 2000 site; (v) The proposed development at CCS will lead to increased silting at the outfall of Stone Creek to the detriment of land drainage in South Holderness and users of the Stone Creek Boat Club, and; (vi) The applicants have paid inadequate attention to the issue of land contamination and the potential need to use and/or move soil and other materials from, to, and within, the site; (vii) The likely effect on footpath users has been under-valued. (i) The need for nature compensation land 5. The objector is a longstanding local resident at Sands House Farm, having lived there all his life. He, and other local residents, are very familiar with the estuary coast at, and close to, CCS and have observed constant changes in coastal morphology from week to week, month to month, and year to year. 6. The objector, (and others) has observed the natural formation of some 16ha of new inter-tidal mudflat between Little Humber and Stone Creek over the past 7 years as coastal currents have deposited sediment in this general location. This activity is a small part of the longer-term accretion and formation of mudflats in the Humber Estuary stretching back some 2 - 300 years. 7. Whilst the objector has no documentary evidence to support this assertion, he and other local residents maintain the veracity of their claim, and, in accordance with the precautionary principle, feel that their claims warrant further investigation by the applicants to avoid a situation whereby the land at CCS is taken unnecessarily. 8. If the objector’s claim is found to be correct, the applicants would be justified in not providing any nature compensation land in their application, thereby saving them unnecessary expense and the loss of high quality farmland, since the mudflats lost to the proposed development will be replaced through natural processes over a relatively short time period. 9. The loss of high quality farmland is, in itself an important issue that has been largely ignored in the application. At a time when climate change makes future food security an important - and uncertain - issue, the objector is of the opinion that society should not be sanctioning the loss of such land when circumstances may not warrant it. (ii) Alternative sites 10. If, following further investigation, a case for the provision of nature compensation land is found to exist, and having considered the alternatives set out in the application, the objector maintains that the site at CCS is not the most appropriate choice. 11. The applicant’s submissions provide information on a series of possible alternative sites for the nature compensation land required under Stage 4 of the Article 6 assessment. Of these, there are 5 which appear to the objector to represent more suitable alternative nature compensation opportunities than CCS, namely: Site 3, Little Humber; Site 8, Outstray Farm; Site 10, Skeffling; Site 12, New Holland; and Site 15, Halton Marshes. 12. Furthermore, paragraph 4.1. 2 of Annex 30.1 “Alternative Sites Assessment” (Black and Veitch: May 2011) states that “other sites remain potentially feasible”, suggesting that the applicants’ site analysis is incomplete. Certainly, there is no consideration in the alternative sites assessment of such issues as land ownership, agricultural quality, local economic impact, the security of food production, etc. etc. 13. Another important consideration missing from the applicant’s analysis of alternative sites is the increased risk to domestic properties from flooding resulting from the proposed development. 14. In the present case, as Drawing No. 121726-5000-004 Rev. A shows, the proposed re-alignment of flood defences at Cherry Cobb Sands brings the objector’s dwelling within the “Danger to All” category - with a subsequent impact on property values, risk to life and property, and on his position under the European Convention on Human Rights. 15. Somewhat surprisingly, and with no justification whatsoever, the alternative sites assessment makes it quite clear that only sites owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners have been considered, (paragraph 1.2.1), leading to speculation that some sort of an arrangement had been entered into between the applicants, the Crown Estate, and Natural England - hardly a “transparent and objective” approach! 16. Of the 5 sites listed above, two are located on the Humber south bank and are, therefore, in much closer proximity to the site being “lost” than CCS or any of the other north bank sites listed in Annex 30.1, and the objector notes that proximity is an important consideration in the Stage 4 guidance for Article 6 assessments 17. Indeed, the official guidance relating to Stage 4 requires applicants to address, in comparable proportions, the habitats and species negatively affected in as close proximity as possible ..” (to the site being “lost”), thereby clearly suggesting that compensation sites closer to the affected land should be adopted before other, more distant sites, where other considerations are equally balanced. 18. Further doubts regarding the robustness of the alternative sites assessment arise from paragraph 4.1.4 of Annex 30.1 which states that “no data or ground levels has been obtained” for any of the possible alternative sites. 19. The objector is unclear how the applicants could possibly have reached an informed conclusion regarding alternative sites without such basic information, and cites this as an example of the less than robust manner in which the site selection process has been undertaken, (a further example being the absence of any “clearly defined implementation and management objectives” for the CCS site). (iii) Inadequate data 20. As stated in paragraph 14, above, the objector has reservations about some of the data sources used in the application. In the examples cited above, it is the absence of adequate data that causes concern (regarding site levels and natural mudflat creation); in the case of nature conservation issues, it is the age of the data used. 21. Bearing in mind the well-known and well-documented rates of erosion and accretion in the Humber Estuary, it is somewhat surprising - and can hardly be described as being “robust” - that the application relies on 5-year old information regarding the possible rate of mudflat and salt marsh creation at CCS - specifically, the baseline data relating to the much-relied upon managed re-alignment site at Paull Holmes Strays dates from 2008. 22. Surely, where the creation of suitable replacement habitat is such an important consideration, and where the example being used is in such an early stage of its development, more recent data (2007 - 2012) should be supplied - in accordance with the precautionary principle? This would also have the benefit of corroborating (or disproving) the objectors claims regarding natural rates of mudflat formation in the Estuary (see paragraphs 5 - 9 above). 23. For reasons set out in more detail below, the objector is firmly of the opinion that such up-to-date information would cast a very different light on the suitability of the land at CCS as a replacement habitat site. Consequently, the objector considers that the Article 6 Assessment and the ES are neither robust, nor objective, nor transparent. 24. In support of this view the objector notes that the UK methodological guidance states that where there is uncertainty as a result of “an insufficiency of data, or it is inconclusive or imprecise in nature” conservation objectives should prevail (ref. footnote1). 25. Other examples of data inadequacy / inaccuracy can be found at paragraph 5.1.3 of Annex 32.3 (the Black and Veitch Breach Design Report) where it is assumed (with no apparent justification) that “high tide levels at the site are similar to those at Immingham”; in Table 1 of the same report, where a choice of 3 other previous years’ figures would give very different results; on drawing ref. AME 02016, which indicates finished site levels plus or minus 1 metre (leading to a frequency of tidal inundation somewhere between 12% and 60% of the time - a very uncertain situation); and on the proposed site layout drawings, where it is evident that site levels were taken as recently as December 2012, and which is still marked as being “Preliminary” 26. As recently as 22nd March, 2012, the Crown Estate’s agents, Messrs Carter Jonas of York, wrote to the objector stating that “there is a requirement for further site investigation work” on the land at CCS, and that the “final drawings” are still awaited from the applicants. 27. This provides further evidence to support the objector’s opinion that the applicants simply do not know what they intend to do o the land at CCS, and, consequently, that the precise details of the current application are uncertain, and that the application process has been neither robust or transparent. 28. The application is also very poorly informed with regard to future maintenance and monitoring of the nature compensation site at CCS (in the event of the development proceeding) and there are no contingency arrangements in the event of a breach of the proposed defences, unanticipated silting, or habitat failure. Not “like for like” compensation 29. The objector maintains that the proposed compensation provisions at CCS will not produce “like for like” conditions as required under the Stage 4 notes in the methodological guidance, (footnote 1), which requires the compensatory provisions to “address in comparable proportions, the habitats and species negatively affected in as close proximity as possible…..and to provide comparable functions…” to the affected site. 30. On the 15th February 2011 Dr Fiona Neale, Natural England’s Conservation Adviser to the Marine and Coastal Team in Yorkshire and Humberside confirmed in an e-mail to the objector that, “the created habitat needs to be of the same ecological character and function to that which is lost”. 31. On the 16th February, 2011, this opinion was reinforced in a further e-mail from Emma Hawthorne, NE’s Conservation Adviser with regard to this project, who stated that, “When deciding on the location of a managed realignment site, there needs to be sufficient evidence that it will provide suitable habitat for all of the relevant designated features that will be impacted through the development. If the site is not deemed suitable then it would be necessary for the developer to secure an appropriate alternative site. Essentially, the created habitat needs to be of the same ecological character and function to that which is lost. 32. Paragraphs 5.4.13 and 14 of the applicants’ own Habitats Regulations Assessment Report admits that the land at CCS will not produce “like for like” nature compensation measures. = -n direct conflict with the regulations, the U.K guidance, and Natural England’s own advice. 33. In an attempt to recover this situation the applicants are proposing to convert twice as much land for nature compensation purposes at CCS than is being lost at North Killingholme - thereby acknowledging the fact that the compensatory land will not be on a like for like basis! 34. This is quite clearly a case of the applicant seeking to bend the clear rules set out in the Habitats Regulations, and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Natural England agreeing with them! 35. The objector is of the opinion that the proposed compensation arrangements will not maintain or enhance the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 site because recent, (2007-2012), activity at the Paull Holmes managed re-alignment site suggests that the land at CCS will not develop into mud flats as predicted in the ES / Article 6 assessment, and will not, therefore, produce a “like for like” compensation site. 36. Indeed, there are clear signs in the 2008 Harbasins Report that the Paull Holmes site was / is not delivering the expected nature conservation benefits, as can be seen from the following extract: - “…the foraging assemblage remains dissimilar from that on adjacent existing mud flats in the Middle Humber and whilst targets have been met in terms of species using the site, this is for an area of mudflat far greater than that lost to coastal squeeze and direct land claim. Waterfowl foraging densities in the realignment site remain substantially below those from adjacent areas of the Humber and the site’s waterfowl carrying capacity is considered to be well below that for a mid-estuary inter-tidal area” (footnote 2, page 12). 37. The Harbasins report also notes considerable differences in accretion rates between active and less active sections of the Estuary, where rates may range from 5.5cm/yr to 1.3cm/yr. 38. The objector’s point is that the applicants use the Paull Holme site as a direct comparable to the land at CCS in order to predict future development of mud flats and salt marsh, whereas, in fact, no such comparisons can be made because the Estuary is more dynamic at Paull Holme than at CCS, with stronger tidal currents. The acknowledged fact that the Paull Holmes site is silting up (and forming salt marsh rather than mud flats) provides firm evidence to suggest that the same effect will occur at CCS, (which has weaker tidal currents and will, therefore, silt up more quickly). 39. The objector maintains that an up to date (2012) baseline survey of actual conditions at Paull Holme would show that the land has developed almost exclusively as salt marsh, not mud flats, and is not, therefore, performing as expected / predicted by the Environment Agency and Natural England when the scheme was being promoted by them. 40. Given the failure of the Paull Holmes scheme in nature conservation terms, surely it is necessary for the current applicants to consider the possible cumulative adverse effects on the Humber Estuary Natura 2000 site, if the site at CCS were also to experience a similar failure, (as seems likely), but no such analysis has been carried out. (v) Increased silting 41. The objector, together with other local residents, Associated British Ports, the Stone Creek Boat Club, and the local Internal Drainage Board (IDB), is concerned that the proposed development of the land at CCS for nature conservation purposes could lead to increased silting within the Estuary at the mouth of Stone Creek. 42. This possibility is acknowledged in Annex 32.1 of the ES, which states (at paragraph 2.3.5) that “a problem may arise…” in this respect - again reflecting the uncertain nature of data submitted with the ES and Article 6 assessment. 43. The objector (and others) is also concerned that proposals to create a new inlet / outlet channel at Stone Creek will reduce velocities and therefore increase the likelihood of silting both within Stone Creek and at its outfall into the Estuary. 44. If such additional silting were to occur, land drains using Stone Creek as an outfall to the Humber would back up during periods of heavy rainfall, thereby increasing the possibility of flooding in local villages, including Thorngumbald, Keyingham, Burstwick, Ottringham and Roos. 45. Local residents and boat club members have taken readings (depth of water) in the Estuary close to the mouth of Stone Creek and found that in some parts of the navigable channel downstream of Stone Creek Sluice there is as little as 0.6m of water above the sea / river bed. 46. This figure represents less than adequate operating conditions for the Stone Creek Boat Club and suggests that outfall flows from Stone Creek could be severely affected, causing local land drains to back up and the risk of flooding in local communities to increase. 47. As noted above, (in paragraph 26), the application does not contain any monitoring or maintenance arrangements of action in the event of increased silting either within the Estuary itself or in Stone Creek. 48. Overall, the objector is of the opinion that the applicants have carried out insufficient survey work and technical analysis to predict with any reasonable degree of certainty, the likely effects of the proposed development on Stone Creek and its outfall into the Humber Estuary. Consequently, it is considered that the possible effects of the proposals on flood risk in local communities and on local recreational facilities has not been properly assessed. (vi) Soil suitability and land contamination 49. The applicants were advised of the possible existence of contaminated areas within the site at CCS as part of the pre-application process. 50. As a result, a limited amount of survey work was carried out, and areas of contamination were identified, resulting in the proposals being amended (Fields TP11 and 12). 51. It is noted that such considerations were not, and have not been subsequently, factored into the alternative sites assessment in Annex 30.1. Had they been so, a different result may have arisen. 52. However, the objector has spoken to various local residents who recall municipal waste from Kingston-upon-Hull being dumped within the site in other locations, not surveyed by the applicants, (Field 4). Consequently, there remains a very real possibility that parts of the proposed nature conservation compensation site contain deposits of contamination that could potentially harm the Natura 2000 site. 53. The Black and Veitch report estimates that over 30,000 cubic metres of waste material could be located within Field 4, yet there are no firm proposals to deal with this in the submitted application: If it does exist, will it be treated on-site? If so, how, and what are the risks to the site? If it is to be transported off site, where will it be taken to, and what will be the effects on local roads and communities? 54. Similarly, the application pays little attention to the issue of soil (and other material) movements that will be necessary as a result of the proposed development, (see, for instance, paragraph 3.8.3 of Annex 6.1 which states that, “ the level of the site will need to be reduced over the entire area to ensure mud flat development.”) 55. There appears to be an implicit assumption that material from within the site area will be suitable for use in construction of the new flood banks - but this may not necessarily be the case (this possibility having been acknowledged by the applicants’ representatives at the pre-application consultation event held at Keyingham Village Hall last year). 56. The objector is aware of concerns expressed by the Environment Agency with regard to the suitability of on-site soil (described in the application as being “silty / sandy” and “silty / clayey”) for the construction of flood defences, which reinforce his own concerns in this respect. 57. If (as seems likely) new material is required, it will have to be brought onto the site: From where? Using which routes, and with what effects on local communities? If existing materials are not suitable for bank construction, what will happen to it? Will it have to be removed from the site? If so, to where, and by what means, and with what effects on local communities? 58. The objector considers that the absence of any assessment of such significant environmental, social, and economic effects represents a serious failure of the ES, in breach of the current (2011) EIA Regulations. (vii) The footpath diversion 59. Finally, the objector wishers to register an objection is support of that made by The Ramblers to the proposed re-routing of the coastal footpath inland, behind the proposed flood defences. 60. This proposal does not provide a footpath with any views of the estuary or of local wild life, which the present alignment clearly does, and is a very poor replacement facility of insufficient merit to warrant a footpath diversion being allowed - especially one that forms part of the coastal footpath system. 61. Natural England’s position with regard to the disturbance of bird life is not sustainable, in the objector’s opinion, since the existing path (and many other similar paths around the Humber Estuary) does not appear to have disturbed local bird life. Natural England has a policy of seeking to improve access to, and enjoyment of, coastal locations around the UK - and this path forms part of that network - so they should not be encouraging a re-alignment that reduces the enjoyment of such facilities. Hickling-Gray Associates (on behalf of Mr S. Kirkwood) March 2012"
Other Statutory Consultees
Highways Agency
"The Highways Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), and is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. The Highways Agency is an interested party as the draft DCO is conditional upon the implementation of highway mitigation measures on the A160 which is an all-purpose trunk road under its responsibility. The key issues for the Highways Agency in respect of this application are: - The impact on the A160 and A180 of construction trips (including HGV trips) associated with the development; - The impact on the A160 and A180 of trips (employees and deliveries) during the operational phases of the development; - Mitigation measures which are identified on the A160 all-purpose trunk road; and - Construction and operation of the development which has the potential to impact upon the construction of the A160 upgrade scheme, construction of which has been delayed until 2015 at the earliest by the government. The Highways Agency has worked with the developer to agree as much detail as possible in respect of the matters above and this will be reflected in a statement of common ground to be entered into by the Highways Agency and the developer. We are content that the transport information submitted within the Environmental Impact Assessment is correct insofar as it relates to the strategic road network and represents a suitable assessment of the impacts on the network under our responsibility. While without the A160 upgrade scheme the impacts of the development cannot be mitigated such that the road operates at a level no worse than if the development were not to take place, we are satisfied that the proposed mitigation is the best that can be achieved within the existing highway. We are also satisfied that the identified mitigation does not affect the ability of the Highways Agency to deliver the A160 upgrade scheme should it subsequently receive government approval and funding. As an interested party, we would seek to retain the right to make a written representation at a later stage in order to protect the interests of the Secretary of State for Transport, and to ensure that conditions within the DCO which relate to the strategic road network are fully implementable within an appropriate timescale while allowing for flexibility in the delivery of the scheme."
Other Statutory Consultees
Keyingham Level Drainage Board
"My Board is an Internal Drainage Board under the Land Drainage Act 1991. My Boards interest is purely in the environmental flood mitigation land at Cherry Cob Sands and Old Little Humber Farm. My Board have significant reservations in principle to the flooding of good agricultural land for environmental mitigations. However my Board are concerned with 3 main points which will affect Land Drainage:- 1. The probable silting up of Stone Creek oufall due to the effect on the River Humber's current. The applicants believe there could be an increase in the build up of silt. We propose that a planning condition should be imposed on the applicants in order for them to be responsible for the maintenance of a clear drainage channel to this Board's satisfaction. 2. The Board is concerned that the height of the bank may not be sufficient and there should be a planning condition imposing long term maintenance liability and a liability for the future lifiting of these banks if they prove of insufficient height. 3. At Cherry Cob Sands and Old Little Humber the boundary ditches of the site could cause flooding of neighbouring land either directly or indirectly. We ask a planning condition is imposed making the applicants liable to maintain these ditches for the benefit of the adjoining riparian owners. Ralph Ward Clerk"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ottringham Drainage Board
"My Board is an Internal Drainage Board under the Land Drainage Act 1991. My Boards interest is purely in the environmental flood mitigation land at Cherry Cob Sands and Old Little Humber Farm. My Board have significant reservations in principle to the flooding of good agricultural land for environmental mitigations. However my Board are concerned with 3 main points which will affect Land Drainage:- 1. The probable silting up of Stone Creek outfall due to the effect on the River Humber’s current. The applicants believe there could be an increase in the build up of silt. We propose that a planning condition should be imposed on the applicants in order for them to be responsible for the maintenance of a clear drainage channel to this Board’s satisfaction. 2. The Board is concerned that the height of the bank may not be sufficient and there should be a planning condition imposing long term maintenance liability and a liability for the future lifting of this banks if they prove of insufficient height. 3. At Cherry Cob Sands and at Old Little Humber the boundary ditches of the site could cause flooding of neighbouring land either directly or indirectly. We ask a planning condition is imposed making the applicants liable to maintain these ditches for the benefit of the adjoining riparian owners. Mr Ralph Ward"
Other Statutory Consultees
Thorngumbald Internal Drainage Board
"My Board is an Internal Drainage Board under the Land Drainage Act 1991. My Boards interest is purely in the environmental flood mitigation land at Cherry Cob Sands and Old Little Humber Farm. My Board have significant reservations in principle to the flooding of good agricultural land for environmental mitigations. However my Board are concerned with 3 main points which will affect Land Drainage:- 1. The probable silting up of Stone Creek outfall due to the effect on the River Humber’s current. The applicants believe there could be an increase in the build up of silt. We propose that a planning condition should be imposed on the applicants in order for them to be responsible for the maintenance of a clear drainage channel to this Board’s satisfaction. 2. The Board is concerned that the height of the bank may not be sufficient and there should be a planning condition imposing long term maintenance liability and a liability for the future lifting of this banks if they prove of insufficient height. 3. At Cherry Cob Sands and at Old Little Humber the boundary ditches of the site could cause flooding of neighbouring land either directly or indirectly. We ask a planning condition is imposed making the applicants liable to maintain these ditches for the benefit of the adjoining riparian owners. Mr Ralph Ward"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ms Annette Roberts on behalf of The Oil & Pipeline Agency
"The Oil and Pipelines Agency acts as the managing agent for HM Government's Oil Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) under the Oil and Pipelines Act 1985. The GPSS includes the South Killingholme Jetty (SKJ) situated on the River Humber. The SKJ is of significant strategic importance as the only direct marine access controlled by the Secretary of State for Defence into the north east of the GPSS. The supply of aviation fuel to inland UK consumption points will increasingly depend on ports and the size of cargoes and vessels will continue to be driven upwards. It is necessary to ensure that these changes are met and for the GPSS to continue to meet its strategic remit. Our particular concerns and objections arise both in respect of the construction /development stage and thereafter the operation of the marine energy park and its impact on the SKJ and in brief are: ? that dredging by the Applicant may result in the deposit of silt materially interfering with the operation of the SKJ and there is also a risk of landslip to the jetty structure ? that the introduction of a new harbour authority as envisaged by the Applicant, could impact materially on the safe passage of vessels on the river and their safe access to and from the SKJ arising from different policies between ABP and the Applicant ? the two installations would be so proximate that an adverse impact on the efficient operation of the SKJ is highly possible ? that the draft DCO provides for rights to improve, develop and alter the designated harbour ? that it should be amply demonstrated that the Applicant will be capable of meeting its potential liabilities under the DCO Were we to withdraw our objections we would seek assurances that: ? the DCO records that the future actions of the Applicant including when acting as a new harbour authority and/or the owners and successors in title of the new harbour authority should not engage in any action with respect to any land or facilities that are in proximity to the SKJ without accepting and recognising the strategic nature of the SKJ and its need to develop ? the DCO records that the future actions of the Applicant as the new harbour authority would be neutral in all respects with regard to the efficient and economic future access to and use of the SKJ by vessels ? should our client (or a third party) wish to cross the land to be compulsorily acquired with a new pipeline connection to the GPSS that the Applicant would grant rights in such land for such pipelines on reasonable terms which would need to be defined now to deal with any future conflict of (landowner) interests ? our client's pipelines and access to them must be protected ? there will be no material interference with the operation of the SKJ assets during the construction of the development The objections and reasons stated herein are not exhaustive and the right is reserved to state further objections and give further reasons."
Public & Businesses
Tudor Williams
"Regarding the intended creation of Wetland Area on Cherry Cob Sands. I feel I must object to the works on the following grounds: 1. I would like to know why land is being given up on the North Bank so as to allow works to be carried out on the South Bank, where they have similar areas where wet lands could be created. 2. With the well documented rise in world population and the need to produce more food, to feed these growing numbers. We as farmers are being asked to produce more foods, so taking more high quality land out of production will certainly put pressure on future ability to meet these demands. 3. In 2007 there was wide spread flooding in the Holderness area, as well as farmland a number of properties in the village of Ottringham were flooded. The village which is 4 miles from the Stone Creek outlet is drained by Ottringham level drain into the humber. The area between the outlets and main channel in the Humber had a build up of silt which restricted the flow of water so this made everyone aware of the importance of keeping the area clear of silt. So, I do have concerns that you works could affect our drainage system by way of silting up our outlet into the main channel. 4. Lastly it seems there is more concern over the habitat of wading birds, rather than of human inhabitants. This concern is not held by many of the local population so it is on these grounds that I feel I must object."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Iain Butterworth on behalf of Humber Work Boats Limited
"Humber Work Boats Limited is a company providing dredging, construction and related services worldwide and across the Humber Estuary. The nature of this work makes it difficult to predict in advance the requirements of its customers and the vessels used for the service are therefore required to be in a near-constant state of readiness. From the HWB head office (North Killingholme Haven, Grimsby, DN40 3LX) HWB operate a berth for the docking of their vessels and loading of crew and equipment. This berthing facility is fundamental to the operations of the company. Although the presence of the AMEP development could potentially benefit HWB, given the proximity of the HWB berthing facility to the proposed development, HWB have genuine concerns about the AMEP which, as set out below, it has not yet been given the opportunity to express. Due to spatial constraints this representation is limited to outlining the various concerns that HWB have. These concerns will be fully addressed at the appropriate stage in the consultation process. HWB reserve their right to raise further concerns and objections where necessary and to rely on evidence either not yet obtained or identified in relation to the AMEP and the application process relating to the same. Consultation HWB operate the nearest berth to the North of the proposed AMEP. HWB also use the Humber Estuary extensively for their operations, and are therefore inherently interested in matters concerning estuary developments that have a potential significant impact on HWB’s operations. At no stage in the application process have HWB been invited to take part in any consultation process by the proposers, Able UK. This is despite concerns being raised directly with representatives of Able UK as early as January 2011 regarding the lack of any consultation with HWB. This lack of consideration has prevented HWB from contributing valuable information which may be relevant to the AMEP. In particular HWB are in the process of developing their berth and have not been given the opportunity to have this development taken into account in the AMEP plans. The sedimentary and Geomorphologic regime HWB are concerned that the AMEP will increase deposition of sediment around their berth. The necessity to remove the deposits will result in maintenance dredging costs. No maintenance dredging is currently required. Left unchecked an increase in deposits at the berth will have a significant impact upon HWB’s ability to operate vessels from the berth. Able UK’s evidence relating to this aspect of the AMEP is contained in s.8 of the Environmental Statement and the annexes (8.1-8.4). HWB submit that the conclusions drawn in those reports must be questioned for the following reasons:- - Much of the modelling conducted relates to previous project designs; - The reports draw inferences from observations relating to the construction of the HIT development, which is significantly different from the AMEP; - Assumptions that reducing the size of the project will proportionately reduce its impact are unsound; - The long term impacts of the AMEP are modelled for a period of 24 weeks after its completion. The sedimentary regime can take up to 10 years to reach equilibrium. The impact of the project cannot be considered properly without modelling over a longer period. Aside from reducing the size of the AMEP, there are no mitigation measures in place to prevent or reduce sedimentation of the HWB berths. This is despite recognition that increased deposition will likely occur over an area of around 12Ha to the north of the AMEP, which is likely (based upon evidence from previous estuary developments) to encompass the HWB berth. Protective provisions should be included in any planning decision to deal with deposition at the HWB berth. Other issues Other subsidiary concerns HWB have include, but may not be limited to:- - Land-based traffic congestion caused by the project; and - Increased Estuary-based traffic in the vicinity of HWB’s berth during the construction and operation phases of the project. Summary Due to a lack of consultation, HWB have been unable to protect their position to the extent desired. HWB have no objection to the AMEP proposal in principle, but strongly resist any planning decision being made on the basis of the evidence submitted to date and require any decision be deferred pending the provision of accurate and relevant supporting evidence."
Other Statutory Consultees
Associated British Ports
"My submission regarding the Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP) application is made in my capacity as Harbour Master Humber representing Associated British Ports (ABP) as the statutory harbour authority and, in relation to pilotage, the competent harbour authority for the Humber. I am also responsible for ABP's discharge of its functions as a competent authority under the Habitats Regulations. My comments relate to matters concerning safety of navigation, conservancy, and associated environmental matters and are separate and distinct from any response you may receive from Associated British Ports as a port operator within the Humber. During the consultation process I have met Able’s representatives on a number of occasions and have attended a number of their workshop meetings for consultees. While I hope that agreement can be reached on all my concerns, a number of issues relating to the application remain unclear or unresolved, all of which could have an adverse impact on harbour operations or my statutory functions. I am therefore compelled to object to the application. I must also draw to the IPC’s attention that the Hydrodynamic and Sedimentary Regime Report at section 8 of the ES is seriously defective so that the ES is not compliant with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. Concerns regarding sedimentation and flow regimes The effects of the works on sedimentation remain uncertain. This is a concern to me and also to existing harbour users/operators such as Humber Sea Terminal, Humber Work Boats, EOn, Centrica and ABP’s ports of Immingham and Grimsby. All these have expressed reservations to me with regard to the reliability of the Hydrodynamic and Sedimentary Regime Report at section 8 of the ES. In particular, the conclusions of the HR Wallingford 2011 3D mud modelling report conveniently dispel the earlier predictions of significant accretion upstream of the AMEP berth contained within the JBA reports. This improved situation is based on assumptions related to the final berth design iteration being some 80 metres inshore of the original design. However, there is no clear evidence of HR Wallingford having conducted a new and comprehensive modelled analysis based on the final design of the berth. The HR Wallingford conclusions must be supported by a definitive report based on proper analysis of the predicted effects of the finalised design, not purely on assumptions. The analysis should establish baseline information which includes all existing river berths, including Immingham Outer Harbour. The analysis should then consider the AMEP development, including the proposed breach and managed realignment of Cherry Cobb Sands. Additionally, the modelled analysis should consider the effects of the AMEP development (and breach) in combination with the IOT Approach deepening project, Grimsby RoRo, HRBT and Green Port Hull (i.e. schemes already consented or in the public domain). I note, incidentally, that Humber Work Boats, who are potentially adversely affected by siltation resulting from the AMEP berth, are not listed as a consultee at all and have not to my knowledge been consulted. The Major Infrastructure Projects Unit (as successor to the IPC) will need to be satisfied that these stakeholders have been properly consulted. As the current modelling report lacks this essential analysis I consider it to be flawed and inadequate to properly assess the impact of the proposed new marine structure on sedimentation and flow regime both upstream and downstream of the proposed development. I recognise the possibility that the necessary analysis may allay all my concerns. However, until this work has been done I can only know that the works could have seriously adverse sedimentation and flow impacts. This leaves me no option but to object to the application as presently put forward. AMEP berth approach channel The approach channel which Able propose to dredge to and maintain at -9.0metres Chart Datum partially overlaps the pre-existing approach channel to the upstream Humber Sea Terminal (HST). The channels in the river and their maintenance are within my responsibility for navigation and the conservancy of the Humber. Approach channels to individual terminals in the river are maintained by the owners or occupiers of those facilities. In this case, therefore, I need to see a clear division of responsibility between Able and the neighbouring Humber Sea Terminal. At present this has not been resolved. Unless there is legally binding agreement between the parties for a workable solution, the Order must make appropriate provision. Sub lease of riverbed The Order would authorise the compulsory acquisition of ABP’s leasehold interest in the river bed, which it holds in its capacity as conservancy authority for the Humber and which is part of the operational land for which I am responsible. This is unacceptable and unnecessary and I object to it. In discussion with Able I was assured that they would be content to take a sub-lease from ABP, but Able has not approached ABP about this and I have no indication that the net effect would be any more acceptable than outright acquisition.. Able’s limits of jurisdiction as a harbour authority The Order establishes Able as a new harbour authority whose area of jurisdiction will extend 200 metres riverward from the new berth. This is an unjustified intrusion into the river for which I am responsible and I object to it. Recently constructed facilities on the Humber (such as HST) have a 100m limit of jurisdiction from the berth face, which is all that any operator requires for its own purposes. A 100m limit should also apply to Able. Additionally I object to the inclusion in the proposed limits of jurisdiction of an area at the southern inner extremity of the proposed berth (where the return wall meets the river bank) which seems to serve no purpose in terms of harbour authority powers. If (as I suspect) this area is needed for only limited purposes, then Able should have only those limited powers over it. Dredging and disposal of arisings The Order provides that dredging and the disposal of arisings will be carried out in accordance with works schedules agreed with the MMO. The ES suggests the annual dredging requirement for maintenance dredging may be up to 2.5 million wet tonnes. Maintenance dredging is a vital operation. It will therefore be essential that Able has provided for the disposal of the dredged material, but this has not been demonstrated in the application. I question whether there is sufficient capacity in the deposit grounds listed in Part 5 of Schedule 8 to the draft Order. Able should demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists and that no detrimental or lasting effects should result from the original deposition. Non-erodible arisings from the capital dredge are, according to the application, to be deposited in HU081, 082, and 083 deposit sites to the north of the Sunk Dredged Channel. There is no evidence that any formal assessment has been undertaken into the effects of such deposition on the flow regime of the Sunk Dredge Channel. There is the potential for significant adverse impacts. Until I can be satisfied on both these matters I object to the dredging proposals.. Protective Provisions Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the draft DCO contains provision, inter alia, for Able to be required to remedy any detrimental effects of accretion/erosion within my harbour area resulting from the tidal works. This protection would not appear to extend to the breach and managed realignment at Cherry Cobb Sands related to this project. That aspect of the project also poses an accretion/erosion risk and I therefore require protective provision for this, too."
Other Statutory Consultees
Brian Greenwood on behalf of Associated British Ports
"1. Introduction 1.1 The following interim representations are submitted, as objections, by Associated British Ports (ABP) in its capacity as an adjacent port operator, statutory undertaker for the Ports of Immingham, Grimsby and Hull and as an affected landowner. For the avoidance of doubt, any representations that may be submitted by the Harbour Master, Humber, which is a separate statutory consultee, will be submitted entirely separately from these submitted on behalf of ABP. 1.2 ABP has identified a number of issues which require consideration by the IPC at issue specific hearings. 1.3 In addition, ABP registers its objection to Able's proposed compulsory purchase of land in ABP's freehold ownership and land over which it enjoys a leasehold title. 1.4 In summary, the issues identified to date include the following:- 2. The proposed Nationally Significant infrastructure Project (NSIP) 2.1 The application is invalid and could not lead to the lawful grant of the DCO sought, nor indeed any DCO. Indeed, the application as submitted would be susceptible to legal challenge at this stage were it not for the preclusive provisions of the Planning Act 2008 which require any challenge to be made at a later date in the process. 2.2 A wind turbine manufacturing facility, as assessed by the applicant in its environmental statement, does not constitute a NSIP as defined in the Planning Act 2008 in terms of the thresholds set out in section 24 of the Act. 2.3 The manufacture of large wind turbines does not constitute "associated development" for a new harbour facility. 3. Draft Development Consent Order (DCO) 3.1 The draft DCO is deficient in a number of areas by failing to define and incorporate sufficient controls over the proposed use of the new quay and back-land/associated development. Defects identified to date include the following, namely - 3.2 It does not appear to have - (a) Identified with sufficient clarity the intended use for the proposed new quay; (b) Clarified the purpose and extent of the "associated development" in terms of use and assessment; (c) Justified an extended period for the completion of the works, in conflict with the model Order; (d) Explained the need for and use of the general works that can be provided and operated in the proposed harbour, nor assessed such works; (e) Justified the requirement for powers of compulsory purchase; (f) Dealt comprehensively with the requirement to restore the site once the permitted use of the quay as a wind turbine manufacturing facility has ceased; (g) Accurately identified the boundary of the proposed DCO. (h) Given full consideration to the potential need for protective provisions required by ABP as operator of the Ports of Immingham and Grimsby. 3.3 No adequate justification has been advanced for the disapplication of section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, thereby not creating a public facility. 3.4 The Order does not properly define and describe the works as it is required to do. For example, the description of the works does not appear to have been properly tied to the works plans and there does not even appear to be an obligation to construct the works within the limits of deviation for each work. What it does appear to do is grant the developer the ability to construct the development in accordance with the design drawings unless the relevant planning authority decides otherwise – which effectively means that the developer can simply return to the planning authority to obtain approval for an entirely different proposal – with no obligation to seek the approval of the Secretary of State. The DCO appears to be authorising a NSIP without clarity as to even the general parameters of what is actually being authorised. 3.5 Further concerns with regard to the draft Order will be provided at a later date following detailed consideration. 4. “The Project” 4.1 It is not possible to reconcile the project as described in the applicant's environmental statement, namely a - "new quay together with facilities for the manufacture of marine energy components, including off-shore wind turbines" with the project as defined in the draft Development Consent Order. 4.2 Whilst the ES assesses the construction of a new port for use as an off-shore wind turbine manufacturing facility, the "authorised development" as defined in Schedule 1 of the draft Order makes no reference whatsoever to such a use and indeed seems to contemplate the construction of a new port, entirely unrestricted as to use, cargo type and cargo throughput. 4.3 If the project now being proposed by the applicant is a new port unrestricted as to use and capable of handling any cargo, then it follows that a project in such terms should have been assessed in the accompanying ES. This is not the case in this instance, in that a new port facility unrestricted as to use and capable of handling any cargo has clearly not been assessed in terms of either marine or land based environmental impact. 4.4 If on the other hand the applicant is genuinely seeking consent for a port facility for the manufacture of off-shore wind turbines, then – subject to the representations made in para 2 above to the effect that such a project does not in any case qualify as a NSIP - the draft DCO is fundamentally defective in that there is little or no reference to such a use, which would be essential for such a project. Such a proposal must be viewed as extremely sensitive bearing in mind the national and European nature conservation sites upon which it is bound to have a significant adverse effect. 4.5 Furthermore, the impact of the proposal on the day-to-day operations of adjacent port operators and landowners, such as ABP, simply cannot be assessed – clearly the impact of an offshore wind turbine manufacturing facility on road, rail and vessel movements amongst other things, would be very different to the impact of a general cargo port. 5. Planning Policy 5.1 The AMEP proposal, as assessed in the environmental statement, does not demonstrate that the proposed development would comply with extant and proposed national and local planning policy. 5.2 More specifically - (a) The approach taken to policy matters in the ES seems to be bare general assertion – without detailed analysis of how the proposal performs against the polices cited; (b) Policy, particularly at a local level, plays a key role in helping to identify the significant impacts of any given development and needs, therefore, to be comprehensively discussed in the environmental statement if the examiner and/or decision maker is to understand whether the benefits of the development would outweigh its adverse effects. 6. Terrestrial and Marine Ecology 6.1 The assessment of the impacts of the AMEP application on ecological features is inadequate. In this respect, the IPC would need further information on a number of issues. 6.2 These include – (a) Comprehensive baseline data for European protected species (bats) against BCT guidelines and correct interpretation of results; (b) Terrestrial invertebrate data; (c) Up-to-date vascular plant data; (d) Systematic evaluation of the ecological baseline value of the development site; (e) Systematic assessment of ecological impacts. 6.3 The ecological assessment of the terrestrial and the marine ecological impacts does not comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations or the Conservation Regulations, or the underlying European Directives. 7. Marine Impact 7.1 The potential marine impact for the proposed new port is clearly a matter of considerable concern to ABP as the statutory undertaker and operator of two adjacent ports, namely the Ports of Immingham and Grimsby. 7.2 Detailed information about the development actually being proposed was only provided at the time of, and in the documentation accompanying, the application on 13 January 2012. Initial concerns include the following:- (a) There is serious inconsistency in the description of the berth works throughout the EIA which has a bearing on what should be assessed in the EIA. This makes it impossible to assess the actual impacts that will arise should the development be undertaken. (b) It follows, from the above, that the works to be undertaken have not been correctly reflected in the EIA nor properly assessed. (c) In addition, modelling does not appear to have been undertaken on the final proposed scheme for all component processes. Particularly, in this context, it is noted that the analysis of the models does not appear to include Immingham Outer Harbour, (built in 2006 and currently handling some 1,000 vessel movements a year), which clearly raises issues in the context of the integrity of the EIA exercise. (d) The EIA seems to be deficient in the information provided in relation to the analysis of aquatic ecological impacts. (e) The work undertaken in relation to fish lacks necessary detail. 7.3 Overall we believe that there are serious omissions and defects in data and consequent modelling which prevent proper consideration by the Commission - and also by adjacent port operators. 8. Highways and Road Transport 8.1 The AMEP proposals as presently drafted raise a number of concerns in relation to highways, access points, traffic movements and road transport. Further information is required from the applicant in the context of the actual proposal, its size, use and proposed duration which will in turn inform the assessment of consequent highways impact. 8.2 Specific concerns identified at this stage include – (a) Without adequate mitigation, which has not been detailed to date, the scheme raises clear, significant and adverse impacts on key road access to ABP's Port of Immingham. (b) The transport assessment and the transportation chapter in the EIA include numerous inconsistencies and mathematical errors. At the present time, no weight can, therefore, be placed on its findings or proposed mitigation measures. (c) The traffic modelling appears to be deficient in that it does not adequately assess the future growth of the Port of Immingham. 8.3 These points might be capable of solution with a commitment from the applicant to first identify and then provide the necessary off-site works with appropriate conditioning imposed by the IPC. These are issues, however, that have not been properly defined at this stage and warrant significant further discussion before a decision on the scale and form of off-site works can be agreed. In the absence of resolution of these outstanding points, it follows that the implementation of the scheme will act to the serious detriment of ABP as an adjacent landowner and commercial operator and it is essential that these issues constitute a topic that should be tested at a hearing. 9. Railway Transport 9.1 Further information is required from the applicant in connection with its proposals for railway use. The assessment as presently presented is vague and ambiguous, giving little indication as to what is actually proposed and why. This is an issue of particular importance to ABP bearing in mind the Port of Immingham's already established use of the existing railway network, historically contributing some 25% of the UK's rail freight and likely to increase with the onset of new cargo movements. 9.2 Particular concerns include:- (a) The proposed compulsory acquisition of part of the railway track within the ownership of Network Rail would restrict the future passage of commercial rail traffic serving the local industrial community. The CPO would physically frustrate the completion of the "Killingholme Loop". (b) The proposed compulsory purchase would impact upon ABP's current proposals, under negotiation with Network Rail, in the context of use of its existing track serving the Port of Immingham; (c) No consideration appears to have been given to potential future rail use and the detrimental impact that will be placed upon ABP's, and indeed other users, rail operations. 9.3 Generally, there is a serious lack of detail relating to the use of rail in support of the project. This is important and exacerbated by the poor definition and ambiguous scope of the project itself. It is impossible to identify with the necessary clarity either the proposed use of the new port or its consequent likely impact upon the existing rail infrastructure. 10. Consultation 10.1 Deficiencies in the consultation undertaken by Able with ABP exacerbates the difficulties that ABP is now experiencing in assessing the project. 11. Compulsory Acquisition of Land 11.1 ABP owns the freehold of part of the land identified on the published Land Plan as being subject to compulsory acquisition. ABP objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of this land, which was acquired for port use by the port operator and is required for port use as part of ABP's statutory undertaking, with direct access to the Humber. 11.2 ABP further objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of its leasehold interest, the freehold of which is held by the Crown Estate. 11.3 In addition, ABP also objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land and railway track currently in the ownership of Network Rail which affects its property. 11.4 ABP calls for a compulsory purchase hearing, to which it is entitled pursuant to section 92 of the Planning Act 2008. 12. Further Representations 12.1 ABP reserves the right to expand, add to or amend this summary and any further representations that it may make."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Garry Lyon on behalf of Stone Creek Boat Club
"We have no objections and support the development at Killingholme. Our concerns relate to the compensation site on the North bank. In the developers documents it suggests there will be silting up of Stone Creek. It also suggests silting of the exit channel into the Humber. If either of these two were to happen this would end navigation and access to the river for boats and club memebers using Stone Creek. The developers proposals as presented effectivley means the end of the Stone Creek Boat Club which has existed for 50 + years. Silting up of Stone Creek will also considerable increase flood risk. In the developers section on Navigation, SCBC is not considered. The developer has not made any approach to the SCBC"
Other Statutory Consultees
Julia Dixon on behalf of E.ON UK plc
"E.ON UK plc is the owner and operator of Killingholme Power Station. The power station is adjacent to the site of the proposed Able Marine Energy Park (“AMEP”). E.ON is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of this application. Able’s application seeks the compulsory acquisition of part of E.ON’s landholding with a proposal to grant a further easement back to E.ON for its existing intake and outfall cooling water pipes from the Humber to the power station. E.ON wishes to register its objection to the proposed AMEP application. This objection is submitted due to outstanding information being required to address concerns regarding the effect that the proposed development could have on the operation of the power station. The key issues which are of concern to E.ON are: (1) Land Acquisition and the extent of the proposed Easement Corridor Able propose to compulsorily acquire a number of parcels of land from E.ON including an easement strip through which E.ON’s intake and outfall pipelines and associated services pass. The pipelines enable the transfer of water between Killingholme Power Station and the Humber – an integral part of the operation of the plant. The current easement strip (granted by a Deed of Grant of Easement entered into on 9 July 2004 between Able and E.ON) is estimated to be 130m wide (at its widest point) and 50m wide (at its narrowest point). Able are proposing to compulsorily acquire the full extent of E.ON’s existing easement and simultaneously grant E.ON a new easement comprising a strip 6m wide which they contend is the minimum needed to contain, access and maintain the pipeline. The 6m easement is inadequate. E.ON require an easement strip of circa 23m (minimum) to enable the safe and efficient repair of E.ON’s existing buried assets without which there could be a serious detriment to the operation of the plant. In the absence of an agreed solution, it is noted that Able will need to make an application for a certificate in accordance with s.127 Planning Act 2008. Able also propose to acquire land to the east of the Killingholme pump house (Plot 05041 – Land Plan Sheets 4 & 5 of 14). This is operational land and is required for vehicular access to the pumping station. (2) The impact of construction activities on the operation of the power station E.ON notes that Able proposes to raise the ground levels over and along parts of the length of the E.ON intake and outfall pipelines and then to erect a number of buildings along the length of the proposed 6m wide easement. This raises significant concerns as to the loading that may arise on the pipeline due to both short-term construction activities and future long-term operational use. For example, Able propose to extend the existing E.ON pumphouse access road over the top of the glass-fibre reinforced plastic (GRP) pipelines in order to provide site access for construction of the quay structure (i.e. for piling operations and reclamation works). Limited consideration has been given to provision of a relieving slab over E.ON’s pipelines or any other form of protective measure and any proposals to protect E.ON’s pipelines only extend to the 6m easement strip. These issues must be resolved to E.ON’s satisfaction otherwise the operation of the power station could be detrimentally affected. (3) Sedimentation and its effect on the operation of E.ON’s Intake and Outfall pipelines E.ON’s intake and outfall pipes lie immediately adjacent to the northern return wall of the proposed quay. E.ON requires clarification of the distance between the alignment of E.ON’s intake/outfall and the proposed northern return wall and confirmation that the placement of rock revetment adjacent to the northern wall (along with associated dredging work) will not compromise the physical integrity of the E.ON intake and outfall pipelines. There is considerable concern that sediment could become drawn into the pipelines reducing their efficiency or causing an operational failure. Alternatively, long term increases in suspended sediment concentration or a relatively large and sudden temporary increase in suspended sediment could cause severe damage to, and potentially failure of, the pipelines. (4) The proposed dredging strategy It is understood that dredging is proposed during the construction stage of the development but also post-construction during the life-time of the AMEP due to predicted increases in sedimentation (ES Chapter 8 refers). E.ON requires: • an assurance that the proposed piling and dredging works will not adversely affect the integrity of the E.ON pipelines or the associated river bed structures; and • agreement that any Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger carrying out the dredging of alluvium at the site will not be allowed to operate with an overflow hopper; and • information regarding tracking accuracy of plough vessels in order that E.ON can assess the level of risk of damage to the intake/outfall structures resulting from the proposed maintenance dredging works. Chapter 8 of the ES states that maintenance dredging will be carried out once the development is operational. E.ON requires details of how Able will be obligated to carry out this dredging, how often it will be carried out and by whom. There is no Requirement set out in Schedule 11 of the draft DCO which binds Able to a dredging strategy and no development consent order obligation has been submitted with the suite of DCO application documents."
Public & Businesses
Sally Osgerby
"I object: 1. because compensatory habitat only has to be created if there is significant damage done by the development. The River Humber is huge ( about 35K ha) & the percentage of land affected by the proposed development is so small that it is not significanly significant. Therefore the creation of compensatory habitat is not legally necessary. 2. because the application is for more land to be used for compensatory habitat than is necessary according to the law 3. because the North Bank of the Humber has been chosen as land to use as compensatory habitat. This is some of the best wheat growing land in the world. In a time of impending food shortages, we should be cherishing our fertile farmland."
Local Authorities
North East Lincolnshire Council
"Further to the notice of acceptance of the application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission please find below the representations of North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC). NELC confirms that it wishes to be an interested party on the application and register accordingly. The initial principal issues are as follows: In terms of economic development in the area there is strong support for this development in principle given that it would strengthen the areas offer in terms of renewable off shore energy production. The development has the potential to create a significant number of jobs for North East Lincolnshire residents. It would also create opportunities for new and existing businesses involved in the supply chain. Any wind turbine manufacturing facilities developed in North Lincolnshire would positively support the growth of the operations and maintenance sector developing at Grimsby Port. The application would help to regenerate the local and wider area. However, the implications of the development on the infrastructure of the area needs to be fully considered and in particular we would seek further clarification and assessment on various matters relating to highways and transportation and the designated Immingham Air Quality Management Area. These matters are from the submitted Transport Assessment and Travel Plan documents. These initial comments are: 1) With regard to employee trip generation, clarification on the area per worker assumptions. This has potential to significantly alter total employee numbers. 2) Clarification of shift system assumptions as any change in shift patterns would have a significant impact on the robustness of the subsequent junction capacity assessment work. 3) On trip distribution, clarification regarding the process used to determine trip distribution and the large proportion of trips from a westerly direction. 4) With regard to the traffic impact and junction capacity assessment, the need for an opportunity to check traffic models to ensure their results are robust. Moreover the need for Stage 1 RSA's for newly proposed accesses and highway mitigation schemes. 5) In terms of the scheduled A18/A180 link road, an assessment of the impact of the development on this committed scheme. 6) With regard to sustainable transport measures, the need for a robust Travel Plan so that people accessing the site from North and North East Lincolnshire are able to do so using sustainable transport. Defined responsibilities and future monitoring are required. 7) In terms of the A1173/Kings Road and Pelham Road Air Quality Management Area, verification of the air quality results by an environmental specialist."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust
"Thank you for consulting the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust on the above application. The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust works across the Yorkshire and Humber region managing eighty reserves and with a membership of over 32,000. The YWT is the second oldest of the 47 Wildlife Trusts which work in partnership to cover the whole of the UK. The Trust’s principle vision is to work for a Yorkshire rich in wildlife, valued and enjoyed by people. The development itself falls outside of our area and we would refer you to the comments made by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT). We do however have some comments to make regarding the compensation areas. We agree with LWT that the compensation should be delivered before the development begins. This will allow time to demonstrate the habitats ability to function. We are also concerned about the creation of wet grassland on land which was previously arable land as the high nutrient levels are likely to lead to less diversity in the grassland which will mean that it is less valuable for wildlife. We would have the same concerns with adding further fertiliser to ensure the grass grows quickly. The Cherry Cob Sands site is within our Outer Humber Living Landscape (http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/living-landscape/schemes/outer-humber). This is an area that we have identified as an important corridor for wildlife which connects habitats and allows wildlife to move between areas. In our Living Landscape areas we hope to restore, recreate and reconnect wildlife-rich areas by working in partnership with local communities, landowners, schools and businesses. We want wildlife to thrive, to disperse and re-colonise our landscape so future generations can encounter, experience and enjoy our natural heritage. Within this Living Landscape we already have three reserves; Spurn Point, Welwick Saltmarsh and Hodgson’s Fields (http://www.ywt.org.uk/reserves). We will also soon be taking on the management of Paull Holme Strays which is close to the Cherry Cobb Sands site. The Trust would therefore be keen to work with Able to manage both of the proposed compensation sites to help create a larger ecological network as promoted in the NPPF. Management of the Cherry Cobb Sands site could be similar to that of Paull Holme Strays to create a much larger reserve which is more valuable for wildlife and people. Our Head of Conservation for this area, Terry Smithson xxxx,xxxx, would be happy to discuss this further."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Benjamin Dove-Seymour on behalf of C.GEN Killingholme Limited
"1. C.GEN Killingholme Limited ("C.GEN") proposes to construct and operate a 470 MWe gas-fired electricity generating station on its - and additional - land, adjacent to the Project. This NSIP is currently at the pre-application stage and preliminary environmental information will be published shortly. 2. C.GEN formally objects to the Project. 3. Despite the findings of the IPC in its Section 55 Checklist, C.GEN has not received notice of acceptance of the application or copies of any documents, despite assurances from Able. C.GEN is surprised by Able's approach to consultation, which appears to ignore the requirements of the Planning Act 2008, etc. and remains concerned about Able's approach to engaging with bodies within section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, and its neighbours generally. 4. The application documents do not explain why the Project requires the compulsory acquisition and privatisation of Network Rail's railway, or why the Project cannot be constructed or operated unless the railway is acquired. 5. C.GEN proposes to transport solid fuel for the Project along the railway. This will involve the construction of new sidings and the relevant connection and access agreements being concluded with Network Rail. Discussions with Network Rail commenced in mid-2011 and are ongoing. Able is aware of C.GEN's proposed use of the railway. C.GEN would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed privatisation of the railway. It would not be acceptable or appropriate for part of the national railway network to be privatised to benefit one person's narrow (and as yet unexplained) private interests to the disadvantage of wider public interests. The proposed acquisition does not satisfy the conditions in section 122 of the Planning Act 2008. It is not required for the development; and there is no compelling case in the public interest for it to be acquired. 6. C.GEN has additional concerns, which are exacerbated by the lack of consultation: 6.1 Drainage: there are constraints on drainage for all development sites within the Killingholme Marshes system. The Project should not be allowed to prejudice the drainage of other sites within the area; 6.2 Navigation: C.GEN may obtain fuel /transport waste for its project via C.RO Ports Killingholme. C.GEN is concerned that there has not been adequate assessment of the impacts of the Project on the Port, which may prejudice C.GEN's proposals in future; 6.3 Traffic: C.GEN is considering the impacts of the Project on the road network; and 6.4 Cooling Water: C.GEN understands that Able may not have properly assessed changes to the river regime, in particular sedimentation. As well as potentially affecting the Port, C.GEN is concerned to the extent it can rely on the ES to understand the impacts of the Project on its own proposals for cooling water pipes. 7. C.GEN requests that the Commission considers these matters to be principal issues and gives C.GEN an opportunity to make additional detailed representations on them in the examination."
Other Statutory Consultees
Benjamin Dove-Seymour on behalf of C.RO Ports Killingholme Limited
"1. C.RO Ports Killingholme Limited ("C.RO") is owner, operator and statutory harbour authority of C.RO Ports Killingholme ("CPK"), a six berth ro-ro facility handling more than 600,000 ro-ro units annually. 2. C.RO formally objects to the Project. 3. C.RO has significant concerns about the effects of the Project on the hydrodynamic regime, morphology and deposition patterns in its harbour. The environmental information is confusing: modelling has been carried out inconsistently on the basis of different quay wall designs. C.RO finds no evidence that modelling has included the existence of berths at CPK, nor of vessels moored alongside the Project's quay, resulting in an unreliable assessment of tidal flow direction/rate. The construction and operation of the Project will increase sedimentation within CPK's harbour, corroborated by C.RO's own modelling. C.RO requires protection in the Order to address the monitoring of sedimentary deposition, any additional maintenance dredging needed, and the costs of doing so, in CPK's harbour. 4. The application documents do not explain why the Project requires the compulsory acquisition and privatisation of Network Rail's railway, or why the Project cannot be constructed or operated unless the railway is acquired. CPK has an existing connection to the railway. Able's ES states that existing rights of access would be retained but gives no information about how this is ensured. 5. The acquisition would not satisfy the conditions in section 122 Planning Act 2008. It is not required for the development; and there is no compelling case in the public interest. It would not be acceptable or appropriate for part of the national railway network to be privatised to benefit one person's narrow (and as yet unexplained) private interests to the disadvantage of wider interests. 6. The Project will impact CPK's navigation/access, in terms of operational impacts on C.RO's port business, and navigational risk issues for it as harbour authority. Of particular concern is the very large number of vessel movements for construction of the Project. The environmental information states that traffic management procedures will be required, but information on such measures is too limited to be properly considered. 7. C.RO objects to the proposal to mark the extent of the quay and swinging area with lights, which overlap CPK's approach channel. CPK requires protection in the Order to regulate any interference with its approach channel. 8. C.RO objects to Article 10 of the Order. This gives Able unacceptably wide and unconstrained powers to carry out unspecified works that may affect CPK in future, which remain unassessed. The proposed works should be specified and assessed now; or the provision deleted. If included, CPK requires protection in the Order to ensure that such works cannot be constructed if they adversely affect it. 9. The Project should be controlled by a requirement to only operate as a marine energy park ensuring that the environmental effects of the Project are limited to those assessed, and to protect C.RO. 10. C.RO requests that the Commission treats these matters as principal issues and allows C.RO to make detailed representations on them during the examination."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Michael Osgerby (Agriculture) Limited
"We would like the IPC to consider: 1. whether the size of the proposed development is large enough to require any compensatory habitat, according to the EU regulations. The Humber Estuary is very large (about 35,000ha) & the number of hectares taken away by this development is a very small percentage of the whole estuary. This small percentage of the estuary is not statistically significant, and so it is unnecessary to find any compensatory habitat. 2. how much compensatory habitat has been provided by other projects and how much was required. There should be an area of compensatory habitat "in the bank" which has been laid down but not already required by EU legislation. 3. exactly what area of compensatory habitat is required by this development. Is it possible to use a smaller area of land than proposed. 4. the siting of the compensatory habitat onto poorer land. The recommended area is very fertile farmland which produces high yields of crops. The Sustainable Development Commission recommended that Government must "Prioritise reversing the decline in UK food production" (http://www.foodpolicy.co.uk/?p=524)."
Other Statutory Consultees
English Heritage
"The development is likely to result in harm to the setting of the group of three Grade II Listed lighthouses at South Killingholme and, as a result, will have an adverse impact upon an element which contributes to the significance of these assets. Overall, we consider that this harm would amount to less than substantial harm in terms of the advice in the NPPF. On that basis, English Heritage has no objections to the proposed development subject to the following:- (a) Completion of the proposed archaeological investigations (b) Clarification of the mitigation measures to offset the identified harm to the setting of the three Listed lighthouses. We have the following comments to make with respect to this proposal:- • We would concur with the assessment within the ES of the likely significant effects which this proposal might have upon designated and non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the development site • The ES has indicated that the proposal will have a “high adverse impact” upon the setting of Killingholme North Low Lighthouse (Site 15) and upon the setting of the group of three Grade II Listed lighthouses at South Killingholme (Sites 15, 106 and 107) [Chapter 18 Table 18.9 and Annex 18.4]. We would concur with this assessment. • The ES has proposed producing a Management Plan to mitigate the adverse impacts which construction might cause to Killingholme North Low Lighthouse (Site 15). However it is unclear how the Management Plan is to be implemented or tied to the Development Order. • Clarification is needed about whether or not it is the intention to provide mitigation to offset the indentified harm to the setting of the three lighthouses. Paragraph 8.1 of Annex 18.4 states that mitigation is offered in respect of the setting of the lighthouses “by implementing a management plan”: The ES itself [Paragraph 18.7.6 page 18-72] states that it does not propose any mitigation measures to reduce the effects upon the setting of these assets. • Notwithstanding the above, further consideration should be given to the provision of compensatory measures to offset the “high adverse impact” which the development would have upon the setting of the three Listed lighthouses. This could, for example, include the development of a Management Plan together with the provision of necessary funding to ensure a sustainable future for the group of lighthouses as a whole. • Overall, the archaeological investigations to date have been satisfactory. The evaluation survey work has not been completed, however, which is contrary to what was stated in the 'Environmental Scoping Report' [Paragraph 6.12.19]. Section 2.3 of the 'Framework for archaeological investigation and mitigation strategies' stated 'further clarification' post-determination would be carried out with the agreement of the North Lincolnshire Archaeological Officer (NLAO) and English heritage, which was not the case. Able’s historic environment consultant has subsequently met the NLAO (13/3/12) and agreed to produce a timetable for the completion of the outstanding surveys immediately. It is imperative that this is done without further delay."
Other Statutory Consultees
Anglian Water
"Anglian Water supports the application in principle and we continue to work closely with the developer to enable the development within environmental limits. There are some outstanding matters regarding water and wastewater infrastructure that we consider should be resolved prior to development including, but not exclusively; 1) Any necessary reinforcement of the water supply network 2) Protection of existing assets 3) Details of a foul drainage strategy, in consultation with the Environment Agency, to ensure adequate connection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of wastewater arising from the proposal. We consider there is reasonable prospect that there will be an agreed solution to the outstanding matters and are committed to work with the developer and the Environment Agency in finalising the necessary strategies."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stephen Odlin on behalf of Michelle Goodwin, Company Secretary Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited
"Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited ("APT") is the operator of the jetties and terminals in the River used for both the Lindsey and Humber Oil Refineries. In principle APT has no objection to the proposals provided that its legitimate interests and operational requirements are protected and its ability to carry out is business is not impeded. Aspects of the DCO which could potentially impede APT’s business interests and operational requirements are set below. Discussions are ongoing with Able Humber Ports Limited about these matters. APT is hopeful that agreement can be reached on these issues so that it is given satisfactory protection. Whilst the Environmental Statement goes some way to assess the effects of the proposals on fine sediment deposition in the River, APT have concerns about the build-up of siltation both during the construction and post-construction phases in the area inshore of the quay wall at South Killingholme Jetty (SKJ) and Immingham Gas Jetty (IGJ). First, it may render the submerged outfall in this location inoperative, or seriously compromised. Second, increased sedimentation may restrict access to mooring dolphins, to which access is required at all stages of the tidal flow. APT request further information of the impact on SKJ & IGJ and requires mitigation of these issues to APT’s satisfaction prior to the commencement of offshore works. APT wishes to ensure that it is not put to additional expense as a result of the proposals, and that the safe and efficient working of the terminals - and therefore the Refinery - is not prejudiced. In addition, APT is concerned about the risk of flooding, as per the Flood Risk Assessment for the South Bank of the Humber Estuary as included in Annex 13.1 to the Environmental Statement. APT is concerned about the effects of the design of the proposed jetty structure on wave formation and energy from reflected and diffused waves from the quay, which may cause dangerous conditions for small boat operations and the transfer of personnel from boats to the mooring dolphin top. APT requests further information on the impacts on wave formation/speeds and, mitigation for SKJ and IGJ to APT’s satisfaction prior to the commencement of offshore works and to ensure safe and efficient working conditions. APT also requires more information on, and for additional conditions to be included in the DCO: the arrangements to maintain communications between the harbour authority and shipping using the Humber Estuary as outlined in annex 14.2 Navigation Risk Assessment; and secondly, the management procedure for vessels berthing at the Able jetty, which is set at right angles to the tidal flows, during ebb tides due to the close proximity to loading berths at SKJ and IGJ and the safety concerns this raises for both shipping and the jetty structure. Subject to the DCO containing sufficient protection for APT to deal with the matters above, APT has no in-principle objection to the proposals. However, the matters set out above are important to the safe and efficient operation of the terminal and APT requires them to be addressed."
Local Authorities
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
"As a local authority with some of the proposed works occurring within our administrative boundary, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council wishes to register as an interested party. In terms of which aspects of the proposal we wish to agree or disagree to, the authority is obliged to ratify such matters at planning committee with elected members, which it has not yet had the opportunity to do, therefore these matters will be included in the Council’s Local Impact Report which will be taken before the planning committee before being submitted to the IPC in due course, in line with the agreed timetable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Simon Storage Limited
"Simon Storage Limited is concerned that this proposed development may lead to a limitation on the import of oil products at the adjacent site owned and occupied by the Oil and Pipeline Agency and over the oil jetty. Provision has to be made for adequate safety separation. Furthermore the development may limit the development of oil import facilities at the key strategic site held by ABP to the west of the OPA jetty through the compulsory purchase of land owned by ABP that may be available for the development of additional oil storage facilities. The proposed compulsory purchase of land would limit the ability of ABP or others to provide additional jetty capacity for the import of oil products required to access the national Government Pipeline and Storage System and the proposed complusory purchase of rail line property to the east of the OPA site boundary would prevent rail access to the ABP or OPA site. Simon Storage believes that the existing land bank is adequate for the purposes of the application, that jetty facilities should be designed to enable an expansion or replacement of the oil jetty, and that rail access to the OPA and ABP sites should be secured."
Other Statutory Consultees
TRINITY HOUSE
"Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Our statutory role includes reviewing and giving prior consent to local lighthouse and harbour authorities to establish, alter, remove etc any lighthouse, buoy or beacon. Trinity House may direct marking of structures with aids to navigation in such areas through powers of direction contained within relevant local harbour legislation and pursuant to the Harbours Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Trinity House will engage in the process in order to ensure that the order provides for its powers, and to ensure that navigational safety in the Humber is protected. We have reviewed the draft Development Consent Order and have identified a number of issues which cause us concern, which we will set out in more detail at the appropriate time."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Conoco Phillips Limited ("CPL")
"CPL wishes to make it clear that it fully supports the development of renewable energy and the benefits that such a scheme will bring; creating new business and employment and providing positive growth across the wider economic area. As an investor in this area this can only be beneficial also to CPL. It is not however acceptable to CPL that the use of any land owned by CPL and held for the future development, investment and expansion of the business should be fettered by the requirements of the proposed Energy Park. CPL therefore wish to register it’s interest in any proposal being made, to request that CPL are kept fully informed of the planning dialogue and that CPL are consulted on all matters which might affect it’s land holdings and/or pipelines"
Other Statutory Consultees
Health Protection Agency
"The HPA’s comments below are restricted to public health impacts relating to exposure to chemicals and radiation and the response is based on the information contained within the relevant sections of the Environmental Statement (ES). The applicant has considered the storage and use of hazardous materials on-site, emissions to air, contaminated land, hazardous wastes, and contamination of water. As stated in the ES, the applicant has identified a potential source of contaminated land in the northwest corner of the Cherry Cobb Sands compensation site. Through the setting and validation of development consent conditions, the IPC should ensure that the development does not lead to adverse impacts associated with contaminated land, liaising as necessary with the Local Authority (contaminated land officer) and the Environment Agency. The HPA welcomes the inclusion of dispersion modelling to assess the air quality impacts associated with road traffic, shipping, and construction activities during the construction and operation phases of the proposed application. Whilst the scheme is likely to only have a minor negative impact on air quality in the area, the HPA would welcome confirmation that in case of alteration of planned works, air quality impacts would be reassessed by the promoter. It is noted that there are a number of other proposed developments, including a Biomass power station and an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power station, in the area around AMEP. Potential cumulative health impacts should be accounted for when considering these additional projects. Based on the information that is provided in the application, the HPA does not consider that the AMEP proposal is likely to lead to significant public health impacts provided that the management plans and mitigation measures identified in the ES are implemented during each phase of the project."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Total UK Limited - Lindsey Oil Refinery
"Total UK Limited is the operator of the Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) a top tier COMAH site and in principle has no objection to the proposals provided that its legitimate interests and operational requirements are protected and its ability to carry out is business is not impeded. Aspects of the DCO which could potentially impede LOR’s business interests and operational requirements are set below. Discussions are ongoing with Able Humber Ports Limited about these matters. LOR is hopeful that agreement can be reached on these issues so that it is given satisfactory protection. Whilst the Environmental Statement goes some way to assess the effects of the proposals on flood risk, LOR have concerns about the proposed scheme for improving the surface water drainage system being prepared with North East Lindsey Drainage Board (NELDB), which may conflict with the sites COMAH Safety Reports and requirements of the Competent Authority. LOR requests further information on this matter and requires mitigation on this to LOR’s satisfaction prior to the commencement of these works. LOR wishes to ensure that it is not put to additional expense as a result of the proposals, and that the safe and efficient working of the Refinery - is not prejudiced. Subject to the DCO containing sufficient protection for LOR to deal with the matter above, LOR has no in-principle objection to the proposals. However, the matter set out above is important to the safe and efficient operation of the refinery and LOR requires this to be addressed."
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural England
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see Natural England's relevant representation. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ABLE-0017%20-%20Broadbent1.pdf"
Non-Statutory Organisations
RSPB
"Our main concerns relate to the potential impacts to the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC, Ramsar and SSSI sites’ species, as well as the North Killingholme Haven Pits, Saltfleetby – Theddlethorpe Dunes, and The Lagoons SSSIs, both from this application alone and in combination with other projects. It is the RSPB’s view that as currently presented the application would not comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)(the Habitats Regulations) in particular Regulations 61, 62 and 66, including consideration of alternative solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest as well as the points made below, and in addition does not comply with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The RSPB welcomes the Applicant’s proactive and constructive pre application consultation including on its Preliminary Environmental Information Report. However at present it appears that a number of the RSPB’s concerns highlighted throughout that process have not been taken into account, for example:- • Environmental Information - the data provided for the scale of the impact on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site is inadequate and the analysis and assessment of it is additionally inadequate. • Mitigation and Compensation Measures – for example as a result of inadequate environmental information and flawed assessment, the objectives, scale, location and management proposals for the Compensation and Mitigation sites are inadequate. This particular issue is compounded by a lack of detailed proposals in the application documentation, stating instead that the final details will be agreed should permission be granted. It is imperative that full details of both the mitigation and compensation measures are presented now in order for the application to be adequately considered by the IPC and enable it to comply with the Habitats and EIA Regulations. However we will continue discussions with the Applicant with a view to attempting to resolve these concerns, where possible, and to ensure that robust evidence is submitted to the IPC. The above concerns are also supported by national, regional and local planning policies. The RSPB reserves the right to add to and/or amend our position and in light of new information submitted to the IPC."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Paul Forshaw on behalf of Centrica Plc
"Centrica own and operate the 652 MW Killingholme Power Station, which is located off Chase Hill Road, adjacent to the site of the proposed Marine Energy Park. The power station is a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Plant and produces electricity from natural gas. It produces approximately 3 million MW hours of power every year. The Power Station operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and employs approximately 50 skilled employees. The Power Station uses a water-cooled condenser to dispose of waste heat from its steam turbine. Cooling water is extracted from the River Humber via an inlet located to the north of the proposed location of the Marine Energy Park’s (AMEP) quay, with an associated pumping house located adjacent to the northern boundary of the application site. Centrica also has a right of way over the access road to the pumping house, off Rosper Road. This road is included within the red line boundary of the proposed AMEP. Centrica also has an easement which gives right to the free passage of services through conduction media over a large area surrounding the Power Station, including Plots B2 and T1 of the Able proposals. There are also a number of underground pipelines and cables in the area surrounding the Power Station which are required for its operation, including electrical and optical cables for controlling the Pumping House, which run along the length of the cooling pipeline and through the proposed development area. Centrica Storage Ltd (CSL), a subsidiary of Centrica Plc, also leases a site on Station Road for storage purposes which contains modern storage and office premises and a large storage yard. The site is located to the north and east of Station Road, between proposed plots T1 and T2 and the Overspill Low Level Storage 3 area of the proposed Marine Energy Park. The site is excluded from the Proposed Marine Energy Park’s red line boundary however. CSL also operates a condensate pipeline which runs from Ulceby Skitter to Immingham along Chase Hill Road and Skitter Road, and partly falls within the application site. Centrica has previously submitted representations to Able on the proposals in August 2010 and March 2011 and has met with representatives of Able on a number of occasions. Centrica has expressed concern over the following: Access Vehicular access is required to the Power Station, pumping house and storage site at all times. Access is required for staff, emergency response vehicles and also for maintenance. Increased vehicle movements on local roads, including Chase Hill Road and Rosper Road, may delay access to the Power Station, pumping house and storage land. This would create significant problems for the efficient operation of the Power Station in the case when urgent repairs or maintenance is required to either the Power Station or pumping house. Centrica requests that any vehicle movements by road are kept to a minimum. In particular, it is considered that no large turbine parts should be transported by road. Transportation of these parts by road is likely to require large slow moving vehicles, which could potentially create long delays on the surrounding road network. It is also considered that the local road network would not be suitable for these types of vehicles. The Power Station is accessed off a private road extending northwards from Chase Hill Road. This road should not be used for access to the AMEP. Centrica’s vehicles which use this road are restricted to maximum load of 40 tonnes so as to not damage pipelines which pass under this road. Use of this road for access to the AMEP may increase the likelihood of damage being caused to these pipelines, and would therefore not be appropriate. Access to the pumping house is gained via the road which is proposed to be the northern access road into the AMEP, which Centrica has a right of access over. The area immediately adjacent to the pumping house is currently a car park in relation to Able’s current operations at the site, and Centrica’s maintenance and repair vehicles are required to travel through this car park to access the pumping house. Centrica therefore requires that its rights of access to this pump house are not restricted in any way. However, Land Plan 3 submitted with the DCO application indicates that private rights and easements will be extinguished over the access road which leads to the CSL site, and Centrica is extremely concerned by this. Access should also not be restricted to Centrica’s pipelines and cables in the area for maintenance purposes, including the Condensate Pipeline and the numerous cables which pass through the proposed development site. Centrica holds a freehold easement over the route of these cables and pipelines to allow access. Land Plan 5 shows that existing easements and rights of way will not be extinguished in the area within which the cooling pipeline and other cables pass. Centrica would like confirmation that its easements and rights of access to these pipelines and cables will not be restricted. Flooding The AMEP will result in a large area of land on the south bank of the River Humber being developed and land being reclaimed from the Humber. This land is located within Environment Agency Flood Zones 3a and 3b and forms part of the Humber Functional Floodplain and is therefore at high risk from flooding. Centrica is concerned that due to the large amount of hardstanding to be developed in this location, part of the River Humber’s Functional Floodplain will be lost, resulting in a reduction in floodwater storage areas and increased flooding on surrounding sites. Centrica therefore requests that Able is required to provide suitable mitigation measures to ensure that there is no adverse impact on Centrica’s operations in the area by way of flooding. Centrica’s Right to the Free Passage of Services through Conducting Media Centrica requires that the proposed development will not restrict their ability to undertake its easement to pass services through the application site and surrounding land. Cooling Inlet / Outfall The Power Station uses a water-cooled condenser to dispose of waste heat from its steam turbine. Cooling water is extracted from the River Humber via an inlet located to the north of the proposed location of the Marine Energy Park’s quay. This inlet is essential to the efficient operation of the Power Station and Centrica holds a licence from the Environment Agency to extract water from the River Humber at this location. Centrica therefore requires that both the operation and construction of the quay, and any associated dredging activities, do not have any negative impact on the cooling inlet / outfall itself and its operation. Able has acknowledged that there will be an impact on Centrica’s Inlet / Outfall as a result of increased deposition of sediment, and has proposed to mitigate this through dredging the river channel close to the inlet / outfall. Centrica is currently reviewing the dredging strategy proposed by Able to identify whether it will sufficiently mitigate any impacts on the operation of the inlet / outfall, and will provide further comments on this at the Written Representation stage and at the Examination. However, in the meantime, Centrica remains concerned over the impact of increased sediment and temperatures on the inlet / outfall. Centrica will expand on the above points at the Written Representation stage and at the examination. It is requested that the examining authority acknowledges these potential impacts, and in particular Centrica’s concerns regarding the impact on the inlet / outfall pipeline, and access to its assets in the area. It is requested that the examining authority considers holding hearing sessions at the Examination covering these issues."
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"Able Marine Energy Park, Killingholme Marshes, North Lincolnshire Relevant Representations by the Environment Agency Introduction 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 and the Welsh 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 5 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order (DCO) application, we are a statutory interested party. 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 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. 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. As of 2008 the Environment Agency also has a strategic overview role for all flood and coastal erosion risk management. The Environment Agency also has statutory duties under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to 'maintain, improve and develop migratory and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales’. Scope of these representations 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 when supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. We have been working closely with Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation to provide advice and guidance to the applicant since June 2010. We have a schedule of meetings arranged to progress and resolve as many outstanding issues as possible and to develop a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) in this respect. We have reviewed the DCO application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above mentioned application, which were received on 23 February 2012. The comments are presented under topic headings. Flood risk – Marine Energy Park site The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted in respect of the Marine Energy Park (MEP) site has assessed the risks to and from the project based on an earlier quay (chamfer) design. The modelling methodology used is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, the FRA does not reflect the latest amended (square edged) quay design, which only becomes apparent on reading Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement. It will be difficult for us to advise on the definitive requirements for flood risk mitigation until the FRA is updated and we request that this further work is submitted as soon as possible. The construction of the quay will result in a reduction of the current standard of protection provided by the adjacent defences. This occurs at both the north and south ends of the quay, the north section being the worst affected. However, Able is proposing to mitigate for this increase to the north as part of the development. It is our opinion that the project may increase sedimentation over time to the south of the quay. Able has also agreed to monitoring sediment levels and the foreshore to the south, with a view to improving defences if/when required. The flood modelling has identified that the project will impact on overland flood flows and locally increase the flood depth to the surrounding area. This generally results in a 300mm increase in flood depths, which could affect third parties, in particular the warehousing/office buildings at Manby Road, and property on Marsh Lane, such as Hazel Dene (a residential property). The Secretary of State will need to take a view on whether or not this increase in flood depths to third parties is acceptable. The FRA includes sufficient detail to confirm the acceptability of surface water disposal from the site. However, further details will be required to ensure a satisfactory scheme will be implemented. Currently, the proposal requires adaptation to a small but integral part of the North East Lindsey Drainage Board scheme and the relocation of the pumping station. The former will require the agreement of the Drainage Board and the latter will require consent from us under the Environment Agency Anglian Region Land Drainage and Sea Defence Byelaws 1987. The FRA has used climate change requirements set out in Planning Policy Statement 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (PPS25), which was relevant policy in force at that time, (but is now superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)). This was our advice to the applicant during the pre-application consultation stages. In January 2012 the National Policy Statements for Ports was finally designated and this requires the applicants to use the latest set of UK Climate Projections. The PPS25 levels are comparable to the high emission scenario 90% estimate from UKCP09, so by having considered this degree of change, it is our opinion that Able has covered all that is required. However, if there are any safety-critical elements to the project, Able may want to revisit the high emissions scenario to ensure those elements are set at an appropriate level, above the potential flood risk. As the MEP development will take place within the Environment Agency Anglian Region Land Drainage and Sea Defence byelaw distance of 9 metres, our consent for the works will also be required under these Byelaws. Impact on migratory fish The Environment Agency has statutory duties under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to 'maintain, improve and develop migratory and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales’. The same legislation affords specific protection to any salmon, trout or freshwater fish which is either unclean (the fish is about to spawn, or has recently spawned and has not recovered from spawning) or immature; making it a criminal offence to take, kill or injure, or attempt to take kill or injure such a fish. The Environment Agency is concerned that the noise and vibration caused by around 26 weeks of percussive piling during the construction period has the potential to damage migratory fish populations within the Humber system. The Humber estuary acts as the sole gateway for migratory fish into the Humber system, allowing fish to travel upstream from the sea, to spawn in rivers such as the Don, Aire, Ouse, Trent, Wharfe and Derwent; the last of which has SSSI and SAC status. The success of these populations relies wholly on their ability to gain safe passage through the Humber in order for them to complete their life-cycle. As such, any activity taking place in the Humber that hinders the ability of fish to make this journey, has the potential to threaten populations throughout in the river catchment. In addition to the above, many fish populations, particularly Atlantic Salmon, are in a fragile, recovering state, following the almost total annihilation of the species within the Humber as a result of the poor water quality and physical barriers introduced by the industrial revolution. Recent work to address some of these issues has seen Salmon returning to upstream rivers for the first time in decades. Whilst the current number of fish within the system is not well known, a device to count the number of juvenile salmon on the River Ure was operated up until about 5 years ago, with its most recent measurements suggesting around 20,000 juveniles moving downstream. This would usually result in a yield of around 2,000 adults returning upstream to spawn. These numbers are from just one of a number of tributaries, which drain into the Humber, so are likely to represent a fraction of the overall population present within the system. Fish can be disturbed by noise and vibration in a similar way to humans or birds. The main difference is that water is much denser than air, so the noise travels much more efficiently and can therefore cover larger distances. The loudest noises may cause physiological damage to the extent that fish may be fatally injured. As noise levels decrease with distance from the source of noise, a sliding scale of behavioural responses can be expected, with higher proportions of fish close to the source noise likely to be diverted from their usual course, and lower proportions at larger distances. The Subacoustech report presented by Able (Annex 10.3) has modelled various scenarios (tide variations and pile sizes), concluding there is a potential for auditory injury, a strong avoidance reaction, and significant avoidance behaviour in all scenarios at particular distances across the estuary. Able has considered the different species which might be present and likely to be affected by the predicted noise. Different species are more sensitive to sound than others. Atlantic salmon are the most sensitive of the main migratory species and more is known about the characteristics of their auditory system and their behavioural response than other species in the estuary. Underwater noise levels have been estimated using a proprietary underwater sound propagation model (Inspire v3.0.7), which enables the level of noise from piling and its behaviour with range to be estimated for varying tidal conditions, water depths and piling locations. Given that noise levels can be estimated at any point across the estuary, the proportion of fish likely to be diverted can be predicted, taking into account other factors such as daily/weekly working hours, seasonal working restrictions and the migratory patterns of different fish species. Despite the conclusions of the Subacoustec report, the conclusion recorded in the Environmental Statement, Chapter 10, Paragraph 10.8.6 is that “Migratory fish of conservation interest passing through the area are unlikely significantly affected from prolonged exposure to piling works as their exposure is limited to a few hours, but it is not known if the piling operations act as an acoustic barrier to the spawning runs.” The Environment Agency is of the opinion that Able need to explore opportunities to avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for the predicted effects. We will require conditions to mitigate the impacts of piling noise on the deemed marine licence, and if necessary, an agreement to provide compensation for residual impacts (we are currently negotiating mitigation/compensation for a similar site on the north bank of the Humber, known as Green Port Hull). This position is supported by the Marine Management Organisation and Natural England, who are raising similar issues in respect of marine mammals and lamprey respectively. Hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime The assessment of the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime, contained in Chapter 8 and the associated Annexes does not fully address the impact of the MEP, the compensation site and the dredge disposal site. If they are discussed in detail elsewhere, this needs to be made much clearer in terms of referencing the relevant part of the application. There is very little assessment or discussion of the impact of waves in Chapter 8. There is no adequate assessment of the impact of capital and maintenance dredging on the long-term impact on estuary processes. Indirect intertidal losses are not adequately assessed in terms of changes resulting from long-term morphological change caused by the MEP. Able only appear to be proposing to compensate for direct losses. Annex 8.2 refers to it taking several decades for the estuary to respond to the building of MEP and a dynamic equilibrium being reached, but no mitigation or compensation is being proposed for this impact. There is no quantification of this change in relation to natural variability. The Environment Agency has engaged independent consultants to review the modelling work and the early findings of this work are that additional compensation, to compensate for indirect, losses will be required. There is an inadequate assessment of the in-combination and cumulative impacts within Chapter 8. If these are assessed elsewhere in terms of hydrodynamics and sedimentary regime this needs indicating. At present it is unsatisfactory. We have concerns about the disposal of dredged material in association with other development projects. The changes in the quay design have not been adequately assessed, most notably reducing the extent into the estuary by 80m. The quay will now be closer to third party flood defences, and the chamfer design has been amended to a square edged quay. The impact of all of these changes on the interpretation of the modelling results needs explanation. There have been major changes to the erosion and deposition expected within the estuary as a result of additional modelling work undertaken, but the design has been further changed. This reduces our confidence in the modelling results and this combined with the exclusion within the modelling results of data that is within the model error bands; for sensitivity analysis it would be helpful if the impacts of these potential changes (currently excluded from further discussion) were included. Without this discussion there is likely to have to be longer-term monitoring of suggested potential impacts. Choice of Site – Cherry Cobb Sands compensation site In 2004 the Environment Agency produced a Coastal Habitat Management Plan (CHaMP) (Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd, March 2004). CHaMPs provide a framework for managing sites of European importance and Ramsar sites that are located on or adjacent to dynamic coastlines. Currently flood protection in the Humber estuary is provided by approximately 235km of defences largely comprising grassed, earth embankments or heavier rock/stone protected banks with some lengths of quay walls and sheet-piled walls, mainly in the urban areas. The defences are generally in reasonable condition, but the standard of protection is low in places where insufficient height of defence could lead to damage through overtopping, or where the condition of the defence itself results in an unacceptable risk of breaching/destabilisation through wave action. Records show that water levels in the Humber estuary have been rising historically, relative to the land levels, at a rate of c. 2mm per year. This rate is increasing as a result of climate change and, unless action is taken, will increase flood risk in many areas to unacceptable levels. In addition to the increased risk to people, property and land uses, the rising sea levels are causing loss of inter-tidal habitats within the estuary; these habitats are prevented from migrating inland by the existing flood defences (a process known as ‘coastal squeeze’). The 2004 CHaMP assumed a rate of 6mm/year over the period 2000 – 2050. A recent review of the CHaMP revised this rate to 4mm/year (as recommended by Defra for use in flood risk planning). The review also allowed a revision of calculations of coastal squeeze habitat losses based on improved data sets. The primary functions of the Humber Estuary CHaMP are to: • provide a clear and agreed record of predicted habitat losses and gains, and other potential impacts on the habitats and species of European or international importance subject to shoreline change; and • set the direction for habitat conservation measures to address net losses. The Humber Estuary CHaMP commits the Environment Agency to compensate for the loss of inter-tidal habitat on the following basis (unless agreed otherwise on a site by site basis or as a result of future Strategy / CHaMP reviews): • 1:1 replacement for coastal squeeze and temporary disturbance from Flood Risk Management schemes, and • 3:1 replacement for permanent loss due to flood defence works (this is the currently agreed ratio, but may be subject to alteration in the future). As a result of this commitment the Cherry Cobb Sands site is identified in our Humber Strategy (our long term plan for managing flood defences along the Humber estuary into the future) as a planned habitat creation site, to compensate for these losses, identified at Keyingham. Whilst we recognise that the Strategy comes with a delivery risk, by identifying sites where we do not currently own the land, this project has the potential to hinder the Environment Agency’s ability to deliver habitat compensation requirements. Flood risk – Cherry Cobb Sands compensation site The applicant has put forward the site at Cherry Cobb Sands on the north bank of the River Humber to provide habitat compensation for the adverse effect the development will have on the internationally designated subtidal and intertidal habitat within the Humber Estuary. In order to create the new habitat the applicant proposes to construct a new flood defence behind the existing defence line. The existing defence will then be breached to enable tidal inundation to provide compensatory habitat, which will be lost from the south side of the estuary following construction of the MEP quay. We have significant concerns about the proposed design of the compensation site’s new flood defence embankment. Having reviewed the relevant Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Chapter 36 and Annex 36.1, we are not yet assured that the design crest level for the new embankment will be to the required 1 in 200 year standard including climate change. Different types of embankment protection are specified along the embankment length, apparently commensurate to the expected erosion forces of tidal inundation. However, we believe that greater lengths of the embankment require more robust protection than suggested. This is because the preferred breach width in the existing flood bank is likely to increase over time because the ends of the breach will not be protected from erosion. Therefore, more of the new embankment will be subjected to wave action than predicted. We note that the hydraulic model used appears to take account of existing ground levels rather than predicted ground levels following re-profiling of the site to provide embankment material. Regarding the suitability of embankment material, we still have concerns about whether winnings from within the site will be suitable for use in a flood bank. We reserve judgement until the outcome of the proposed further Site Investigation (SI) work, including laboratory testing, which is mentioned on page 52 of the Signpost Report (which Able supplied to us following submission of the application). The proposal also has the potential to increase the levels of siltation at Stone Creek, which lies 400m to the south-east of the site. Dredging of Stone Creek has in recent times been undertaken by the Environment Agency. The local Internal Drainage Board has recently taken over responsibility for a temporary dredging programme, part funded for 5 years by the Environment Agency and East Riding of Yorkshire Council, to alleviate the existing siltation issue. Able has acknowledged (in Chapter 36, paragraph 36.8.5) the potential for the development to exacerbate the issue. We would concur with the need for an agreed monitoring and maintenance plan for Stone Creek in order to identify circumstance in which work will be required. We request that the need for this plan is secured in the DCO. The flood defence works will require consent from us under the Yorkshire Land Drainage Byelaws 1980 as the site is on the north bank of the Humber. We are currently liaising with Able on this issue and hope to make further progress, which will be recorded in the SoCG. Potential land contamination We have considered the reports submitted in respect of potential land contamination at the Cherry Cobb Sands compensation site (Annexes 31.2 and 31.4) together with Chapter 31 of the Environmental Statement. The assessments provided have identified that previous land uses may have given rise to contamination at the site. The limited intrusive investigation work undertaken within the fields in the north west area of the site has identified metal and hydrocarbon contamination of the ground, believed to be associated with a historic landfill site at this location. In addition, the assessments have identified that creeks on the site may also have been in-filled with potentially contaminated material and that there is a potential for contamination in the area of the site associated with use as a decoy site in WWII. The recommendation of the assessments is that further intrusive investigation work is required to determine the areas of potentially contaminated ground, based on the information gathered to date. We concur with this recommendation. The soil sample locations should be appropriately sited in relation to current and historic areas where contamination may have arisen. Following a robust intrusive investigation the risk to controlled waters should then be determined using an updated conceptual site model for the site. We note that requirements are already included in the DCO in respect of contamination but we may provide some revised wording in due course. Hydrogeological risk We are satisfied that the assessment in respect of controlled waters has been adequately undertaken. We agree with the conclusions of the Hydrogeological Risk Assessment that due to the general permeable nature of the overlying superficial deposits in the proposed piling and dredging area, their removal or penetration will not significantly affect the saline interface. The proposed area is not in a Source Protection Zone and is not considered to be within the zone of influence of groundwater abstractions. The project has identified that the tidal variation may lead to some intrusion but that the net effect will be outflow to the channel. A significant mechanism of discharge which already exists. Foul water drainage Annex 9.5 includes a letter from Anglian Water Services confirming that they will work with Able to develop the appropriate sewage infrastructure so that foul sewage can be directed to the mains sewer. It is disappointing that Able has not included our suggestion that details of flows for sewage and trade effluent be included in the ES, together with discussion on potential effects on the receiving water body. As a result of the project Anglian Water Services will need to upgrade its waste water treatment works. Further details on quantities and flows would enable us to know with greater certainty that the required Environmental Permit variation can be accommodated within environmental limits. We are aware that the Customs House will not be connected to the mains system, but will be serviced by a package treatment plant. The discharge from this plant will require an Environmental Permit from us under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010. Waste We are satisfied that the waste chapters cover the relevant Duty of Care aspects of the development proposal from construction to operation. They acknowledge the relevant legislation and the requirement to undertake a Site Waste Management Plan. Water Framework Directive The application includes a Water Framework Directive Assessment in Annex 9.4, which covers the relevant waterbodies in the area. The assessment is satisfactory for the MEP site and the dredging works. We are still awaiting submission of a Water Framework Directive Assessment for the Compensation Site at Cherry Cobb Sands. We reserve the right to advise and comment on the appropriateness of this once we are in receipt of it. In-combination and cumulative impacts The in-combination assessment is inadequate as presented. We recommend that a table with conclusions from all the Chapters needs to be drawn together so that it is clear what impacts arise from the development in-combination and cumulatively as a result of other developments within the estuary and if, and where, these are mitigated. In addition we would recommend that the assessment area is expanded to include a 10km radius around the compensation site and a 10km radius around the capital and maintenance disposal sites. At present, Grimsby and the Sunk Dredge Channel are being excluded from the assessment, but may conflict with dredging works. Environmental Permits We note that the application includes the proposed construction of a new outfall within the quay frontage that would be used to divert existing E.ON and Centrica outfalls. The current outfalls are regulated by Environmental Permits issued to the operators. Diversion of the outfalls will require a variation to these permits and will therefore require the agreement of the operators. Protection of Environment Agency interests During the coming weeks we will be working with Able on these outstanding issues and giving further consideration to the draft DCO, in particular the requirements and protective provisions. We will also raise with Able any issues we think need to be covered in a side agreement etc, in order to safeguard our interests. We note that a plot of Environment Agency land has been included in the order as one which the applicant wishes to compulsorily purchase - we believe this land may be essential for operational purposes in relation to flood risk management and we are urgently looking onto that issue. We will advise further as soon as possible. We will submit further detailed written representations on these issues in due course and we will also be working with Able and other Defra bodies in respect of a SoCG. We reserve the right to add or amend these representations during the course of the examination. If you have any questions regarding these representations, please contact me on the number below. Yours faithfully Annette Hewitson Principal Planning Officer Direct dial xxxx Direct fax xxxx Direct e-mail xxxx"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Friends of the Earth
"As a sustainable development organisation Friends of the Earth UK strongly supports the expansion of the UK renewable energy sector including off-shore wind manufacturing and installation developments. We believe that this sector is essential for reducing our carbon emissions in line with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the resulting carbon budgets set to 2026. Offshore wind forms a significant part of a green UK economy and secure energy supply in the future. Friends of the Earth has consistently supported proposals where these have had minimal unmitigated impacts. As such, we have supported the proposals for the ABP/Siemens development on the north bank of the Humber, potential development on Teesport and the recent investment decision by Gamesa at Leith. The north of England has historically played an important part in the UK’s electricity generation. Therefore, in general, we welcome investment in the renewable energy sector in this region and recognise that the East Coast’s proximity to the key Round 3 offshore wind areas in the Hornsea Range and Dogger Bank. Furthermore, we recognise that local manufacturing facilities are invaluable for creating the necessary capabilities that ensure the north of England continues its role of the UK’s ‘power house’ as well as boosting the local economy and creating green jobs. Nevertheless, we do not think that these arguments and investments made to date by the developer justify the destruction of 55 ha of internationally important wildlife habitat. The National Policy Statement requires that the decision maker considers the impacts on European sites affected by the Habitat and Species Regulations and whether sufficient measures have been taken to mitigate these impacts and seek alternative sites. We understand that the developer has consulted with experts on site specific environmental issues and some mitigating measures were taken as a result such as the reduction of the initially proposed quay length at Killingholme to 1320m. However, given the importance of this particular area, we find the proposed compensation site to be inadequate. We are also concerned about the loss of intertidal mudflats that serve as feeding grounds and limited on-site mitigation measures. Furthermore, we question the lack of alternative sites suitable for such developments along the east coast. Sufficient sites in the UK exist to meet the anticipated demand for east coast offshore wind turbines and associated component supply without creating the impact on the natural environment likely to be result from this application in its current form. As such, we object to this proposal and look to the developers to revise their plans for mitigation and to scope out alternative sites for investment in this important industry."
Public & Businesses
V Jones
"The land offered to compensate for the area proposed to be compulsory purchased is inadequate in size and not of the same quality needed for the migrating birds. These birds have rights to feed here and the whole area would be spoiled if the wildlife stopped coming here to feed in the mud. More area and more rich land needs to be offered."
Public & Businesses
Mrs Margaret Jane Francis
"I live in Goxhill, about 2 miles from the River Humber. I have walked for an hour along a section of the river bank at least 6 days a week for the last 20 years. I enjoy watching the wildlife. The Humber estuary is rich in wildlife and one of Britain’s most important for wintering birds and migrating wildlife. In late summer and autumn, hundreds of thousands of birds come to the Humber; some stay and some continue their migration having eaten and rested. Wildlife depend on it for their survival. As such, the Humber has been designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the European Birds Directive, a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the European Habitats Directive, a Ramsar site, designated under the convention on wetlands of international importance and is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Economic development could be possible if the environmental impact could be adequately compensated. Any damage caused by development should be offset by comprehensive compensation of new habitat. Able U.K.’s marine energy park application would destroy 55 hectares of habitat on the estuary. The current proposal is insufficient to compensate for this loss."
Public & Businesses
Philip Dixon
"I disagree with the application because the area concerned is part of the SPA - SAC - and SSSI. It means that it would destroy 55 hectares of prime habitat for both wintering and migrating wildlife. Areas like this are becoming fewer and fewer and I believe that the time has arrived to say stop - no more."
Other Statutory Consultees
Marine Management Organisation
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the Marine Management Organisation's relevant representation. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ABLE-0016-Gerring.pdf"
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see National Grid's relevant representation. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ABLE-0018-Stirling.pdf"
Public & Businesses
Mrs C Doyle
"I am concerned about the risk of flooding to my property. The relocation of foot paths the disruption to the roads the impact on the boat club and Creek Silting up. I feel it is wasting valuable land I dont feel the sight has been researched approprially, and the bank should remain in tact in this area and an alternative sight should be used."
Public & Businesses
Dr John Balshaw
"I live across the Humber estuary from the proposed development. I have an interest in wildlife and frequently walk along the north bank opposite the proposed development, particularly in winter. I am aware of the importance of the Humber estuary for migratory and wintering birds, and I am very concerned that the proposed compensatory habitat would not offset the damage caused by the proposed development."