The Progress Power (Gas Fired Power Station) Order The Applicant’s Responses to Second Written Questions 17th November 2014 Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 PINS Reference Number: EN010060 Author: Progress Power Limited
0
Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 0
1. Comments on new material............................................................................................................ 2
1.1. ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2. ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Follow up on points raised at the issue specific hearing ................................................................ 3
2.1. ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4. ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5. ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.6. ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.7. ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.8. ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.9. .................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.10. .................................................................................................................................................. 10
3. Development Consent Order (DCO) ............................................................................................. 12
3.1. .................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2. .................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3. .................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.4. .................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5. .................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.6. .................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.7. .................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.8. .................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.9. .................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.10. .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.11. .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.12. .................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.13. .................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.14. .................................................................................................................................................. 21
4. Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) and s106 Agreement .................................................... 21
4.1. .................................................................................................................................................... 21
1
2
1. Comments on new material
1.1. All parties
Any interested party wishing to comment on recent
submissions to the Examination, in particular submissions
received by 2 October 2014 for Deadline 3, should submit
those comments in writing by the deadline set in the covering
letter.
1.1.1. The Applicant has submitted comments on 17 November 2014 (Deadline V) relating to
submissions to the Examination by other parties, received by the Examining Authority
on 2 October 2014 for Deadline III and on 24 October 2014.
1.2.
English
Heritage, Suffolk
County Council,
Mid Suffolk
District Council
Please would English Heritage, Suffolk County Council, Mid
Suffolk District Council and, if they wish, other interested parties
comment specifically on the assessment of the impact of the
proposed development on the setting of heritage assets as set
out in the Environmental Statement and the additional review
provided as Appendix B to the applicant’s response to SCC and
MSDC local impact report.
(http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/document/2746616).
Please include comment on the appropriateness of the
methodology and the adequacy of the information used. If
further information is considered necessary please specify what is
required.
1.1.1. The Applicant can confirm that the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between the
Applicant, SCC and MSDC submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014 sets out the
position in relation to the parties with regards to the setting of heritage assets.
1.2.3. At paragraphs 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2, the SoCG confirms that the parties are now agreed:
“That no built heritage assets either within the Inner or Outer Study Area of the Project
Site would be subject to substantial harm within the meaning provided by National
Policy Statement EN-1 as a result of the Project.
That the degree of harm to built heritage assets within the Inner or Outer Study Area
would be less than substantial, however there is still a degree of harm acknowledged,
as set out in Annex 1. This Annex sets out those heritage assets where the parties
consider the degree of impact upon the appreciation and understanding of the
heritage asset is different, either due to the interpretation of the setting of the heritage
asset, or due to the assessment of the magnitude of the impact of the development on
the setting of the heritage asset.”
3
1.2.4. The Applicant can confirm that the document has been shared with English Heritage and
that the Applicant has held discussions with English Heritage about the work undertaken
by the Applicant in relation to the setting of heritage assets, in consultation with the
local authorities. However, at this stage, English Heritage maintain that they do not wish
to enter into an SoCG with the Applicant.
1.3.
English Heritage,
Suffolk County
Council, Mid
Suffolk District
Council , EAPWG
Please would English Heritage, Suffolk County Council, Mid
Suffolk District Council, the Eye Airfield Parishes Working
Group and, if they wish, other interested parties comment on
the Eye to Yaxley field systems report provided as Appendix D
to the applicant’s response to SCC and MSDC local impact
report. (Link as in Q1.2 above).
1.3.1. The Applicant can confirm that comments by the Applicant have been provided in
response to commentary from SCC and MSDC (submitted to the Examination on 2
October 2014), and the EAPWG (submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014)
regarding the Eye to Yaxley field systems report. These are published in the Applicant’s
Response to written submissions by interested parties (2nd October 2014 and 24th October
2014) submitted to the Examination on 17 November 2014.
2. Follow up on points raised at the issue specific hearing
2.1. The Applicant
Please will the applicant (in conjunction with NGET as
appropriate) provide further detail on the cost of typical AIS
and GIS sub-stations identifying land, capital and construction
costs and on-going maintenance costs.
2.1.1. As all costs are site specific, it is very difficult to achieve a breakdown of typical costs for
an AIS and GIS substation. The following costs are based upon similar 400 kV substation
designs which the Applicant understands National Grid has tendered for in the past:
AIS substation: £12.2m
GIS substation: £22.2m
2.1.2. The above are typical upfront capital costs, including the cost of equipment and the cost
of construction. They do not include the cost of Operation and Maintenance, or land
costs.
4
2.1.3. The Applicant has previously stated that the difference between the indicative costs for
an AIS and GIS substation, to be provided by National Grid is approximately £4 million.
This cost is indicative only and has been provided to the Applicant by NGET. The
Applicant understands that the figures referred to at 2.1.1 are high level figures whilst
the approximate figure of £4m relates more closely to the Project. The indicative figure
of the £4m for up front capital costs is subject to change during detailed design.
Land Costs
2.1.4. Land costs vary greatly depending on location e.g. agricultural land vs land in an urban
area. Proximity to London also has a significant impact on land values, resulting in higher
land costs.
2.1.5. Regardless, the Applicant can confirm that the offer made to landowners in relation to
the Progress Power Project is based on the land take of an AIS variant substation.
Negotiations to date have resulted in a current understanding between the parties that
an agreed transaction is required to incorporate compensation for a GIS land take at
equivalent level to that required for the AIS land take. As such, for the purposes of Q2.1
the ExA should assume that the costs of the land are the same for AIS and GIS, even
though the land take is reduced for the GIS variant.
Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Costs
2.1.6. There are many variables associated with O&M such as manufacturer, design
specification and operation regime, none of which can be practically determined at this
early stage of the design process. Therefore, there would be little value in providing
additional analysis on an individual proposed project basis, due to the range of
variability.
2.1.7. GIS O&M lifetime costs are typically more than the AIS equivalent, but given the
variability of the O&M costs, the Applicant suggests that the ExA assumes that the O&M
costs for the GIS and AIS are equivalent across the lifetime of this asset.
2.2. NGET
Please will NGET provide a non-technical explanation of the
power flows associated with the connection of the sub-station
to the national grid including an explanation of why additional
cabling would be required if the sub-station were to be located
on the airfield site.
2.2.1. The Applicant notes that NGET has provided an explanation of the power flows
associated with the connection of the substation to the national grid including an
explanation of why additional cabling would be required if the substation were to be
located on the Eye Airfield site as an annex to their Written Summary of Oral
Representations, submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014.
5
2.2.2. The Written summary of The Applicant’s oral case put at the Issue Specific Hearings (16th
and 17th October 2014), also submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014,
recorded the evidence given on this topic at the Issue Specific Hearings of 16 and 17
October 2014 (see paragraphs 3.50.1 – 3.52.2).
2.2.3. Further to the Written Summaries referred to above, the Applicant also provides the
following brief and non-technical response to the query regarding power flows and the
need for additional cabling if the substation were located on the Eye Airfield site:
The National Electricity Transmission System Security and Quality of Supply Standard
(NETS SQSS) requires that power stations are connected to more than one transmission
line, in case there is a fault or need for maintenance on one circuit. Each transmission
line circuit can typically carry in the order of 2000MW or more. If the substation were
to be located on the Eye Airfield site, the substation would need two connections to the
transmission system, each rated for +2000MW, hence 2 x 9 cables crossing to the
airfield. By locating the substation beside the overhead line (as is currently proposed),
a single 3 core trefoil cable circuit, rated for 299MW, can run from the Power Generation
Plant on Eye Airfield to the substation, meaning that the high power connections to the
overhead line circuits are very short.
2.3. The Applicant
Please will the applicant comment on the comparison of AIS
and GIS costs set out in the appraisal by ESB referred to in the
relevant representation from Councillor Jessica Fleming.
2.3.1. The Applicant has agreed to defer to NGET on this topic. The NGET response is provided
below:
“NGET notes that this question has been directed to the applicant however to assist the
Examining Authority it wishes to make a general observation that the ESB report was
prepared on behalf of Eirgrid in support of a specific project – the Laois–Kilkenny
Reinforcement Project. It does not constitute policy and was written in the context of
promoting a much larger scheme of 6 x 400kV bays plus 9 x 110kV with a footprint of
235 x 210m, as opposed to 4 x 400kV bays and a footprint of 150 x 150m in this case.
As such the Eirgrid application was subject to different environmental drivers, licence
obligations & regulatory regime, and is not precedent for the particular circumstances
of this application.”
6
2.4. The Applicant
Please will the applicant provide a list, with associated ground
plan, of the important hedgerows that would be affected by
the building of a GIS sub-station
2.4.1. As noted in Second Written Question 3.9 below, the Examining Authority has requested
that a drawing be provided indicating the required land take for the construction,
operation, maintenance and mitigation of a GIS substation (and its related cabling and
sealing end compound). The Applicant has worked with National Grid Electricity
Transmission (NGET) to produce a revised drawing (provided at Annex 2 to the
Applicant’s response to question 3.9 below), showing a reduced redline boundary for
the GIS variant Electrical Connection Compound.
2.4.2. As noted in response to Second Written Question 3.9, the Applicant is mindful that if
the Secretary of State required that GIS technology was used for the substation, a series
of plans and other documents would need to be produced that reflect this reduced
redline boundary. The Applicant has provided a list of these plans and other documents
that it considers would need to be produced and the important hedgerows plan is one
of these documents. As such, the Applicant intends to provide the Examination with the
full suite of these plans and documents on or before 2 December 2014.
2.4.3. On this basis, the GIS variant Important Hedgerow Plan will be produced with the full
suite of GIS variant documents, on or before the 2 December 2014.
2.5. The Applicant
Please will the applicant provide a revised wind rose for the
power station site, as discussed at the ISH, showing the extent
of interaction between the proposed plant and the existing
wind turbines.
2.5.1. The Applicant provided a revised wind rose for the Power Generation Plant site, as
discussed at the Issue Specific Hearing of 16 and 17 October 2014, at Annex 4 of its
Written Summary of The Applicant’s oral case put at the Issue Specific Hearings (16th
and 17th October 2014), submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014. The wind
rose shows the extent of interaction between the proposed Power Generation Plant and
the existing wind turbines. Both the analysis at Annex 4 and the Applicant's September
2014 Comments on Relevant Representation No. 57 (Triodos Renewables (Eye) Ltd)
demonstrate that the Power Generation Plant will have a negligible effect on the existing
wind turbines.
7
2.6. The Applicant
Please will the applicant provide further information on how
gross and net output from power plants is defined in BS
ISO2314 together with charts from the BS showing variations
in output in relation to different ambient conditions. Please
indicate the relevance of these factors to the proposed output
of 299 MW from the power plant.
2.6.1. A response in relation to this point was submitted to the Examination on 24 October
2014 as Annex 1 (with relevant diagrams provided at Annex 3) to the Written summary
of The Applicant’s oral case put at the Issue Specific Hearings (16th and 17th October
2014).
2.6.2. Further to the information submitted on 24 October, the Applicant notes that gross
and net output from power plants are defined in Figure 2 and Table 5 of BS
ISO2314:2009 as:
Gross Output: Gross electrical power at generator terminals
Net Output: Net electrical power high voltage = net electrical
power low voltage minus step-up transformer losses.
2.6.3. The chart presented below, provided by the Applicant, shows the typical net output
variation with ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure of 5 x Aero-derivative gas
turbines. The net output of the station is approximately 5MW less than the gross output.
8
2.7. The Environment
Agency
Please will the Environment Agency provide any additional
guidance that is available on the relevance of gross and net
measure of power station output.
2.7.1. The Applicant believes that using the term "rated electrical output" is preferable to "total
installed capacity", or any other term, when describing the capacity of the proposed
generating station because this term is word for word the language of the Carbon
Capture Readiness (Electricity Generating Stations) Regulations 2013 (the "CCR
Regulations"). The CCR Regulations provide that the Secretary of State must not make a
DCO for the construction of a combustion plant with a “rated electrical output” of 300
megawatts or more (unless he has determined that the "CCR conditions" are met in
relation to that combustion plant).1 Therefore, describing the Project as having a "rated
electrical output" of 299MW guarantees that the Secretary of State has not made a DCO
in breach of the CCR Regulations. Given that the Secretary of State will of course wish to
comply with the CCR Regulations, the Applicant considers that any departure from this
wording would inevitably give rise to a risk that different words are interpreted to mean
something slightly different, resulting in a DCO granted otherwise than in accordance
with the CCR Regulations. The Applicant's position is clear (as set out previously at the
Issue Specific Hearings and in Annex 2 to the Applicant’s Written summary of the oral
case put to the Issue Specific Hearings (16 – 17 October 2014), submitted to the
Examination on 24 October 2014): to ensure compliance with the CCR Regulations, the
Order should echo word for word the CCR Regulations and describe the capacity of the
plant as its "rated electrical output."
2.8. Relevant IPs,
including NGET
Please will relevant IPs including NGET provide any additional
information that is available on the effect of both electro-
magnetic fields and residual earth potential from buried cables
on metal shod horses and any mitigation measures that might
be considered.
2.8.1. The Applicant refers to the response regarding rise of earth potential (ROEP) and
electro-magnetic fields and their effect on metal shod horses as prepared by NGET,
which is provided below. The Applicant also refers to the comments on EMF effects in
relation to the Project at paragraphs 12.2.9 – 12.2.12 of the Applicant’s Relevant
Representations Response (submitted to the Examination on 4 September 2014).
1 Determining whether the CCR conditions are met requires an assessment prescribed in regulation 2(2) of the
CCR Regulations.
9
2.8.2. NGET response on RoEP and EMF:
“Rise of Earth Potential
2.8.3. Relevant legislation including the Electricity, Safety, Quality and Continuity 2002
Regulations requires that utility companies should ensure not to cause damage or
dangers to the public. It should be appreciated the amount of knowledge, experience
and availability of standards related to the protection of livestock is not at a level
comparable to that related to the protection of people.
2.8.4. Regarding the appropriate standards, IEC 60479 part 3 is regarded as the equivalent for
livestock to part 1 for human beings. However, the information on livestock in part 3 is
far less detailed than that in part 1.
2.8.5. The current worldwide industry practice, reflected in the works of BSI and ENA, is that
no specific means of mitigation is required. Based on the low likelihood of electrocution
of livestock, both BS EN 50522 (recently updated) and ENA TS 41-24 (being reviewed)
exclude this subject.
2.8.6. It has been evident that threat of RoEP to livestock is of very low probability, as it
requires the presence of livestock during the clearance period (typically a tenth of a
second) of an (assymetrical) electrical fault that is of a high enough level and the
dangerous voltage occurring at the same time within the critical cardiac cycle.
2.8.7. Beyond this, NGET does endeavour to abide by the spirit of legislation. If there is any
concern on the loss or affects of livestock, NGET will make use of its expertise to help
protect the safety and properties of all involved. NGET has built sophisticated power
network models and earthing simulation tools and can predicate fault current and
voltage distribution accurately to assess the risks & the effectiveness of any proposed
mitigation measures. National Grid works closely with the Standards Authorities
including the BSI and ENA.
2.8.8. For underground cables correctly shielded and earthed, there is near zero current into
ground along the route even under fault conditions.
Electro-magnetic fields
2.8.9. Whilst the focus of research has generally been on possible health effects in humans, a
significant amount of the research has in fact been conducted in other mammalian
species. This evidence has been reviewed by various authoritative scientific bodies, for
example the EU’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
(SCENIHR), who have not identified any effects. Also relevant is the following statement
on National Policy Statement EN-5:
“2.10.8 There is little evidence that exposure of crops, farm animals or natural
ecosystems to transmission line EMFs has any agriculturally significant
consequences.”
10
2.8.10. The physiological basis on which the exposure guidelines are set relates to the
electrical properties of neural networks, and there is no reason why neural networks in
the brain of e.g. horses should be any more sensitive than in humans. Overall, it is
considered that the exposure guidelines in place for humans also provide appropriate
protection to other mammalian species including horses.”
2.9. The EAPWG
Please will the Eye Airfield Parishes Working Group comment
on the revised landscape mitigation strategy and revised
planting strategy submitted as part of the SoCG with SCC and
MSDC on 4 September 2014.
2.9.1. The Applicant can confirm that the revised Interim Landscape Mitigation Strategy,
submitted to the Examination as Annex 1 to the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and
MSDC on 17 November 2014 has been prepared in consultation with the EAPWG.
2.10. The Applicant
Please will the applicant provide updated information on how
the access road to the proposed ECC will be managed both
during the construction and operational phases. This should
include identification of gating proposals on the access route
and how the safety of users on the Old Norwich Road and Leys
Lane will be assured at each stage of the project.
2.10.1. During construction, the Electrical Connection Compound (ECC) will be accessed
directly from the A140 by the creation of a new junction (the A140 Junction) and a new
road (the Access Road). The A140 Junction will join the Access Road across the northern
end of Old Norwich Road, at a location south of the allotments and Yaxley Fishing Lake.
Management of the Access Road during construction
2.10.2. During construction, the Access Road will be managed with the use of gates,
controlled by banks men, who will open and close the gates to allow access from the
A140 to authorised vehicles while ensuring access is maintained for members of the
public wishing to travel up and down Old Norwich Road and Leys Lane (see paragraph
3.3.1 of the Updated Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), submitted
to the Examination as Annex 4 of the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC on 17
November 2014).
2.10.3. At Old Norwich Road, the gate will be located on the east side of the carriageway,
where the A140 Junction meets the existing Old Norwich Road carriageway (see
Appendix A to the Updated Outline CTMP submitted to the Examination as Annex 4 of
the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC on 17 November 2014). By locating the
11
gate in this location, the banks men will be able to ensure that the right of way is
prioritised for public users of Old Norwich Road, while ensuring that unauthorised traffic
cannot access Old Norwich Road via the A140 Junction, and waiting traffic can do so
safely without causing an overhanging hazard onto the A140 (see paragraphs 3.3.1 –
3.3.2 of the Updated Outline CTMP, submitted to the Examination on 17 November
2014).
2.10.4. In the case of Leys Lane, as presented in the Updated Outline CTMP (submitted to the
Examination on 17 November 2014), construction traffic will be prohibited from
travelling up and down (north and south) along Leys Lane, however it will be necessary
for construction traffic to cross Leys Lane where the Access Road and Leys Lane intersect.
To ensure the safety of pedestrians, equestrians and other road users on Leys Lane,
banks men will be used to control the flow of traffic along the Access Road to ensure
that all construction vehicles stop and give priority to the users of Leys Lane throughout
the construction period. Gates (as shown in Appendix A to the Outline CTMP, submitted
to the Examination on 17 November 2014) will be installed on both sides of Leys Lane
during construction to prevent access along the Access Road at night and when work is
not taking place.
2.10.5. The Applicant has updated the A140 Access Drawing, as shown in Drawing HW001
(Rev K), to show the access arrangements to Old Norwich Road and Leys Lane during
construction. The update comprises the addition of gates across the Access Road on each
side of Leys Lane. The updated drawing is provided at Appendix A to the Outline CTMP,
submitted as Annex 4 of the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC on 17
November 2014.
Management of the Access Road during operation
2.10.6. The Applicant has agreed to remove the A140 Junction during operations, as recorded
in the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC (submitted to the Examination on 17
November 2014) at paragraph 5.1.1, which states that the parties are now agreed on
Traffic and Transport matters:
“subject to the revised drafting of the DCO Requirement 6(3) (submitted to the
Examination on 17 November 2014) to secure the removal of the A140 access post-
construction and reinstatement of the A140 to its current parameters and condition.”
2.10.7. The Applicant has agreed with National Grid Electricity Transmission (see paragraph
5.15 of the SOCG with NGET, submitted to the Examination on 17 November 2014) that
Old Norwich Road is a suitable means of access to the Access Road during operations.
The use of Old Norwich Road for operational purposes will not result in significant
numbers of traffic movements through Yaxley and along Old Norwich Road.
2.10.8. During operations, the Access Road will be controlled via a locked gate located to the
west of the entrance to Yaxley Lake. This location has been chosen as it will not interfere
12
with access to either the allotments or Yaxley Lake, whilst prohibiting unauthorised
access along the Access Road. As explained in the Applicant’s response to First Written
Question 6.3, this land is not open to public access (whether by vehicle or otherwise)
and the Applicant intends to maintain the status quo in this regard. Only those
authorised to access the Electrical Connection Compound, and the relevant
landowner(s), will be permitted access to the west of the gate.
2.10.9. Where the Access Road transects Leys Lane, gates will be positioned across the Access
Road on either side of Leys Lane, prohibiting unauthorised use. The land to either side
of Leys Lane is not currently open to public access and the Applicant intends to maintain
the status quo in this regard. Only those parties who are permitted to access the
Electrical Connection Compound, and the relevant landowner(s), will be permitted to
use the Access Road.
3. Development Consent Order (DCO)
3.1. The Applicant
Please would the applicant consider and, as appropriate, draft
a definition to be included in the DCO of the MWe output from
the proposed development. Please provide an explanatory note
for the definition provided.
3.1.1. The Applicant refers to Annex 2 to the Written summary of the Applicant’s oral case put
at the Issue Specific Hearings (16th and 17th October 2014), submitted to the Examination
on 24 October 2014. Annex 2 of this document considers and provides explanation for
the drafting of Schedule 1 of the draft DCO which limits the Project to “a rated electrical
output of between 50.1 – 299MWe”.
3.2. The Applicant
Please would the applicant consider and, as appropriate, draft
a provision in the DCO to limit the operation of the proposed
plant to 1500 hours in any year.
3.2.1. The Applicant refers to paragraph 10.10 of the Written summary of the Applicant’s oral
case put at the Issue Specific Hearings (16th and 17th October 2014), submitted to the
Examination on 24 October 2014, which notes that the Applicant has included drafting
in the draft DCO at requirement 20 which specifies that a 1500 hour per year operational
limit applies to the Power Generation Plant as a whole, and not to the individual gas
turbine generators.
3.2.2. Requirement 20, as per the drafting of the draft DCO, Revision 5 (submitted to the
Examination on 17 November 2014) now states the following (sub-paragraph (3) of the
13
24 October 2014 version of the DCO has been substituted by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)
below, for the reasons given in the Applicant's cover letter of 17 November 2014):
“Operation of the authorised development
20. (1) In any calendar year the operation of the gas turbine generators comprised in
numbered work 1A shall not exceed 1500 hours in total.
(2) Within three months of the end of a calendar year, the undertaker must submit a
written report to the relevant planning authority detailing the actual total number of
hours of operation of the gas turbine generators comprised in numbered work 1A.
(3) For the purposes of this requirement, “operation of the gas turbine generators”
means the duration in which any energy is exported at the metering point, as the same
may be defined by the balancing and settlement code.
(4) For the purposes of this requirement, “balancing and settlement code” means the
code for the governance of electricity balancing and settlement in Great Britain which is
maintained in accordance with the conditions of transmission licences granted under
section 6(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 1989.”
3.3. The Applicant
As agreed at the ISH, please would the applicant provide a
revised definition of ‘maintain’ for inclusion in the
Interpretation section of the DCO. This should make it clear that
‘maintain’ only covers work that is unlikely to give rise to any
materially new or materially different environmental effects
from those assessed in the environmental statement.
3.3.1. The Applicant refers to paragraph 10.5 of the Written summary of the Applicant’s oral
case put to the Issue Specific Hearings (16th and 17th October 2014), which notes that the
Applicant has added additional wording to the definition of “maintain” in the updated
version of the draft DCO of 24 October 2014.
3.3.2. The definition of “maintain” in the revised draft DCO submitted to the Examination on
24 October 2014 now reads:
“ “maintain” includes inspect, repair, adjust, alter, remove, refurbish, reconstruct,
replace and improve to the extent that the same are unlikely to give rise to any materially
new or materially different environmental effects as identified in the environmental
statement and “maintenance” and “maintaining” are to construed accordingly.”
[emphasis added].
14
3.4. The Applicant
Please would the applicant consider and, as appropriate, draft
a provision in the DCO to ensure that, as is now proposed, the
dry NOx process is used to control NOx emissions from the
proposed plant.
3.4.1. The Applicant notes that the dry low NOx process is viewed by the Environment Agency,
in this case, as being capable of being BAT. As such, the Environmental Permit for the
Project is likely to require that this technology is used in the context of the Project.
3.4.2. In any event, restricting the size of the water tanks (as has been done via the
amendments to the parameters contained in requirement 3(2) in the revised draft DCO
of 24 October 2014) means that, in practice, the dry low NOx process would be the
technology that would need to be used for the Project.
3.4.3. The Applicant therefore considers that it is not necessary to include an additional
requirement stipulating that the dry low NOx process needs to be used as part of the
Project.
3.5. The Applicant
The dry NOx process will require considerably less purified
water to be stored on site than originally planned. Please
would the applicant consider what revisions it wishes to make
to its works plans and related documents and provide revised
documents accordingly. If it is proposed that less water should
be stored on site, consideration should also be given to a
provision in the DCO that ensures that the tankering in of
water is not used as a substitute for on-site storage.
3.5.1. Due to the commitment to dry NOx technologies for the Project, a number of
documents require amendments to reflect the reduced water tank sizes. These
documents include:
Draft DCO, Schedule 2 Requirement 3, Table 2: Raw/fire water tank
and Demineralised water tank dimensions.
Document 2.4 Indicative Site Layout Plans,
Figure 1 “Site Plan Power Generation Plant”
Document 2.5 Document 2.5 Indicative Elevation Drawings
Figure 1 “Power Generation Plant Elevations”
Figure 7 “Demineralised Water Tank Plan and Elevations”
Figure 8 “Raw/Fire Water Tank Plan and Elevations”
Document 2.10 Outline Lighting Layout
15
Figure 1 “Indicative Lighting Arrangement for Power Plant
Generation”
3.5.2. Revisions to Document 2.4 Figure 1 and Document 2.5 Figures 1, 7 & 8 were submitted
to the Examination on 24 October 2014, updated to show reduced water tank sizes.
3.5.3. The updated draft DCO submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014 included
reduced dimensions for the water tanks.
3.5.4. Document 2.10 Outline Lighting Layout has also been updated so that Figure 1 reflects
the amendment to the water tank sizes on the Power Generation Plant site and has
been submitted as [Annex 5] to the updated Statement of Common Ground with SCC
and MSDC on 17 November 2014.
3.5.5. No other plans or figures require amendments as a result of the commitment to dry
NOx.
3.5.6. The Applicant can confirm that the revised raw/fire water tank size corresponds with
the design of the Power Generation Plant. The raw water in such tanks, by its nature, is
not de-mineralised and cannot, therefore, be used for any process other than fire
protection.
3.5.7. The reduced size demineralised water tank provides sufficient water for the periodic
cleaning of turbine equipment, and does not provide enough volume for it to be used
for any other purpose, such as NOx control.
3.5.8. Although it is understood that Essex and Suffolk Water would not be able to provide
mains water for the purposes of NOx control, due to the high pressure and large
quantities required for the process, the Applicant understands that potable water for
use by on site employees, will be provided by mains supply from Essex and Suffolk Water.
The details of potable water supplies will be secured during the detailed design.
3.5.9. The Applicant can confirm that, given the quantity of water that would be required for
NOx control if water injection were used rather than dry low NOx technology, the
tankering of water to site for the purposes of NOx control would be prohibitively
expensive and potentially unreliable. If water were to be used for NOx control, a high
pressure water main would be the only way to secure a reliable supply. It is for this
reason that dry low NOx technology is now being progressed.
3.5.10. For the reasons explained above, it is not considered necessary to include a
requirement in the DCO that prohibits the tankering of water to site for the purposes of
NOx control.
16
3.6. The Applicant
At the ISH the applicant agreed to hold further discussions with
the local planning authorities on the design principles
statement and the landscaping strategy to establish whether
further specific detail could be incorporated into these
documents. Please will the applicant supply revised drafts of
these documents in the light of these discussions.
3.6.1. The Applicant can confirm that, in consultation with the local authorities, the Landscape
Mitigation Strategy and Outline Landscaping Plans have been revised and submitted to
the Examination as Annex 1 and Annex 2, respectively, to the SoCG with SCC and MSDC
on 17 November 2014.
3.6.2. The Applicant notes that detailed discussions in relation to the design principles
statement are underway. Revision of the design principles to include more specificity
and further refinement will involve consultation with SCC, MSDC, the parish councils,
and other relevant stakeholders such as NGET. It is anticipated that the revised design
principles will be submitted to the Examination on or before the 2 December 2014.
3.7. The Applicant
Please would the applicant provide an updated list of plans and
other documents to be certified by the Secretary of State under
article 37. This should include all documents which are referred
back to elsewhere in the draft DCO. Please include the date and
reference number of the latest/final draft of each document.
3.7.1. The Applicant notes that this point is addressed at paragraph 10.11 and 10.12 of the
Written summary of the Applicant’s oral case put to the Issue Specific Hearings (16th and
17th October 2014). The Applicant can confirm that its revised DCO of 24 October 2014
updated the references to plans and other documents in Article 2 and Article 37 and
amended Schedule 2 accordingly. The Applicant has also used the revised DCO submitted
to the Examination on 17 November 2014 to update the definitions again to align with
the documents appended to the Statement of Common Ground with SCC and MSDC of
17 November 2014.
3.7.2. However, the Applicant notes that given that various of the documents referred to in the
draft DCO are, at the request of the Examining Authority, being discussed with third
parties, various of these definitions may change up to the production of the final draft
DCO towards the end of the Examination for the Project. The Applicant therefore regards
this as an on-going task.
17
3.8. The Applicant
A number of the documents to be certified under article 37 are
still under discussion between the applicant, local authorities
and other interested parties. These include the design principles
statement, the outline landscaping plans, the landscape
mitigation strategy, the scheme of archaeological investigation
and the construction traffic management plan. Please will the
applicant provide revised drafts of any documents which have
been subject to change. This includes revisions to documents to
correct typographical or transcription errors.
3.8.1. The Applicant can confirm that the following documents have been updated and
revised versions have been submitted to the Examination on 17 November 2014 as
noted below:
Outline Lighting Layout, Revision 2 – Annex 5 to the Statement of
Common Ground (SoCG) with SCC and MSDC
Interim Landscape Mitigation Strategy, Revision 2 - Annex 1 to the
SoCG with SCC and MSDC
Construction Traffic Management Plan - Annex 4 to the Statement of
SoCG with SCC and MSDC
Construction Environment Management Plan – Annex 3 to the SoCG
with SCC and MSDC
3.8.2. The Applicant does not anticipate any additional updates to the Written Scheme of
Archaeological Investigation to be required. The SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and
MSDC submitted to the Examination on 4 September 2014 included at Annex 7 and 8 the
agreed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Written Schemes of Investigation in respect of buried
archaeology. Furthermore, the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC submitted
to the Examination on 24 October 2014 stated at paragraph 4.1.1.2 “That the revised
drafting of Requirement 9 provides adequate assurances over the mitigation for any
archaeological resources encountered during construction”. As such, the revised
drafting at Requirement 9 that was included in the revised DCO of 24 October 2014 is
wording that both the Applicant and SCC and MSDC are content with.
3.8.3. As noted by the Applicant in response to 3.6 above, detailed discussions in relation to
the design principles statement are underway. Revision of the design principles to
include more specificity and further refinement will involve consultation with SCC,
MSDC, the parish councils, and other relevant stakeholders such as NGET. It is
anticipated that the revised design principles will be submitted to the Examination on or
before the 2 December 2014.
18
3.9. The Applicant
As discussed at the ISH please will the applicant provide a
statement setting out why all of the land identified for the ECC
and subject to compulsory acquisition is required for that
purpose. This should set out the amount of land required for
the sub-station and sealing end compound and the specific use
to which other land within the red line boundary will be put.
Separate statements should be provided for the AIS and GIS
options for the sub-station.
3.9.1. The Applicant’s response to 3.9 is provided at Appendix A “Section 122 of the Planning
Act 2008 and the Proposed Substation with AIS technology or a GIS variant.”
3.10. The Applicant
Please will the applicant provide further information on how
the funding for the project and any compulsory acquisition will
be secured, for example through a bond, parent company
guarantee or other means.
3.10.1. The Applicant notes that it has added (in the version of 24 October 2014) wording at
Article 8 of the DCO that requires that prior to commencement of the authorised
development, the Applicant must provide a guarantee or alternative form of security for
the approval of the relevant planning authority. Until this has been done, the Applicant
cannot use various key powers granted pursuant to any made DCO (please see the
Applicant's response to Question 3.11 below for further detail).
3.10.2. The Applicant considers that it is likely to provide either a parent company guarantee
or a Letter of Credit, both of which would, in its view, be covered by the drafting included
at Article 8 of the latest draft of the DCO.
3.11. The Applicant
Please will the applicant consider and, as appropriate, draft a
provision in the DCO that ensures that the development cannot
go ahead until a satisfactory guarantee on availability of funding
is in place. Article 7 of the DCO for the North Killingholme
project may provide an example.
3.11.1. As noted by the Applicant at paragraph 10.15 of the Written summary of the
Applicant’s oral case put to the Issue Specific Hearings (16th and 17th October 2014)
submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014, the Applicant has reviewed the
funding requirements, and the funding provisions in the North Killinghome DCO, and has
amended the wording of the draft DCO on this point.
19
3.11.2. The updated draft DCO submitted to the Examination on 24 October 2014 now
includes the following wording at Part 2, Article 8:
“Guarantees in respect of payment of compensation
8. The authorised development must not be commenced and the undertaker must not
begin to exercise the power provided in articles 11 to 30 and 33 of this Order unless
either a guarantee in respect of the liabilities of the undertaker to pay compensation
under this Order or an alternative form of security for that purpose is in place which has
been approved by the relevant planning authority.”
3.12. The Applicant
Please will the applicant consider whether the maximum width
of 10 metres for each exhaust stack specified in Table 2 of
Schedule 2 to the draft DCO is required. As discussed at the ISH,
please consider whether this maximum width is necessary for
the full height of each stack and whether the maximum width
may vary depending on the number of turbines.
3.12.1. The maximum width of each exhaust stack is very much dependent upon the
technology choice of the GTG (which will influence the number of stacks) and the
maximum width will not necessarily be required for the full height of each stack.
3.12.2. It is difficult to define these parameters without the benefit of having a detailed
design, however the applicant has included within the Requirement 3(2) maximum
dimensions for the exhaust gas emission flue stack (excluding any ancillary support
structures, sound proof cladding, and emissions monitoring platforms). These
measurements differ for a one or two unit scenario, and a three, four, or five unit
scenario (as is the case for other key dimensions as set out in the same table).
3.12.3. The applicant can confirm that the maximum width of the exhaust gas emission flue
stack will not exceed 6m in the event that three, four or five gas turbine generators are
constructed and 8.4m in the event that one or two gas turbine generators are
constructed. These dimensions have been assessed in the Applicant’s Environmental
Statement and the realistic worst case scenario of up to five 6m wide stacks is reflected
in the photomontages that have been used to illustrate the judgement of the LVIA
assessor.
20
3.13. The Applicant
Please will the applicant set out how it is proposed that
mounding would be used in the landscaping proposals for the
ECC and any other parts of the proposed development and
explain how this would be secured in the DCO. Proposals for
mounding should be shown on the outline landscaping plans for
both the AIS and GIS options for the sub-station.
3.13.1. Landscape mounding, as noted in paragraph 7.3 of the updated Interim Landscape
Mitigation Strategy (submitted to the Examination as Annex 1 of the Statement of
Common Ground (SoCG) between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC on 17 November 2014)
would be used to raise ground levels within mitigation planting areas for the Project
where early screening is required in relation to the Electrical Connection Compound and
the Power Generation Plant. Generally, landscape mounding would be located on the
southern boundary of both these elements of the Project, in order to reduce views from
nearby residential properties and public rights of way, as shown on the updated Outline
Landscaping Plans (submitted as Annex 2 to the SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and
MSDC submitted to the Examination on 17 November 2014). The Outline Landscaping
Plans provide an indicative layout of the mounding, which is the minimum that would be
provided at each location. Detailed proposals will be developed in conjunction with the
detailed engineering proposals and in discussion with National Grid (where relevant) in
order to fulfil draft Requirements 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to the DCO.
3.13.2. The mounding would be up to 1.5m high above existing ground levels and would have
shallow gradients on the outer edges to blend naturally into the landscape. The
mounding would be constructed from soils excavated from the site, using soil handling
methods that would minimise excessive compaction that could impede plant growth.
3.13.3. The design of landscape mounding within the Electrical Connection Compound would
be developed in consultation with National Grid to ensure safe clearances are
maintained between the electrical infrastructure and the planted mounds at maturity.
3.13.4. The extent of mounding that would be included within mitigation planting areas in
relation to a GIS variant substation would be significantly less than would be
accommodated in relation to an AIS variant. In the case of a GIS variant, the substation
would be concealed within a building which would reduce the need for screen
planting/mounding to mitigate adverse visual impact. The layout of the GIS variant has
been designed to fit within existing field boundaries to the east and west, and the new
southern boundary has been aligned to complement the existing rectangular hedgerow
pattern. Screen planting and mounding would be undertaken within the existing field
pattern to ensure it did not of itself cause adverse visual impact. The width of land
available for mounding on the southern boundary of a GIS variant substation would vary
between approximately 12 and 30 metres. The mounding would be offset from the
21
existing hedgerows on the eastern and western boundaries in order to maintain existing
ground levels within the root zone of both hedgerows.
3.13.5. In fulfilment of Requirement 4 of the Draft DCO, details of the mounding would be
included within the landscape scheme for each element of the works which would be
submitted to MSDC for approval prior to construction of the Project. The design of the
mounding will be substantially in accordance with the Landscape Mitigation Strategy and
Outline Landscape Plans, submitted to the Examination as noted above.
3.14. The Applicant
Please will the applicant submit a revised version of the DCO
incorporating changes made in response to the above requests
or for other reasons. Clean and track change versions should be
submitted.
3.14.1. The Applicant can confirm that a revised version of the DCO, in both clean and track
change formats, has been submitted to the Examination on 17 November 2014.
3.14.2. Changes have been made to the draft DCO following discussions on Statements of
Common Ground, the continued negotiation of the s106 Agreement, continued
negotiations with Affected Persons, a thorough consideration of the issues raised at the
October hearings and written summaries of the oral cases put at the hearings, and the
Applicant's responses to the second round of questions issued by the Examining
Authority.
3.14.3. A full commentary on the changes made to the draft DCO submitted to the
Examination on 17 November 2014 for Deadline V is provided at Schedule 1 of the
Applicant’s cover letter for the Deadline V submission.
4. Statements of common ground (SoCG) and s106 agreement
4.1. The Applicant
If the applicant or interested parties wish to submit further
revised SoCGs these should be submitted by the above
deadline. A revised s106 agreement should also be
submitted by this deadline.
4.1.1. For Examination Deadline V on 17 November 2014, the Applicant can confirm that
revised versions of the following SoCG have been submitted:
SoCG between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC
SoCG between the Applicant and NGET
22
SoCG between the Applicant and NGG
4.1.2. The Applicant also confirms that a revised s106 Agreement has been submitted to the
Examination and is in agreed, final form as between the Applicant, SCC and MSDC. As
such, it will be signed and completed in due course.
APPENDIX A
Section 122 of the Planning Act 2008 and the Proposed Substation with AIS
technology or a GIS variant
PROGRESS POWER LIMITED
SECTION 122 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 AND THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION WITH AIS TECHNOLOGY OR A GIS VARIANT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Following a question raised by the Examining Authority during the Issue Specific Hearing of 16 and 17 October 2014, the Applicant has been requested to provide a drawing(s) showing the realistic worst case land take for the construction, operation, maintenance and mitigation of the substation referred to in the draft Development Consent Order ("DCO"), for both AIS technology and the GIS variant (and its related cabling and sealing end compound).
1.2 These drawings are provided at Annex 1 (AIS substation) and Annex 2 (GIS substation) to this document. It should be noted that the drawings represent an indicative position only, as final design and layout of the substation has not been undertaken for either the AIS technology or the GIS variant. The final design and layout will be subject to detailed engineering assessments. This micro siting process will select the precise siting and design of the substation. It is standard practice for major infrastructure projects that the full range of investigations and surveys is not carried out until the detailed design stage.
1.3 The Applicant has also been asked by the Examining Authority, in light of the drawings at Annex 1 and Annex 2, to confirm its position as to the compelling case for the compulsory purchase of the land required for the Electrical Connection Compound, for both the AIS technology (see the Land Plans (Document Reference 2.6) and the Book of Reference (Document Reference 4.3) as to the relevant land parcels) and the GIS variant (see Annex 1 for confirmation of the land required).
2. THE PLANNING ACT 2008 REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Section 122 of the Planning Act 2008 (the "Act") permits an order granting development consent to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land, provided that certain conditions are met.
2.1.1 Section 122(2) requires that any land proposed to be subject to compulsory purchase powers is either:
(a) required for the development to which the development consent relates; or
(b) required to facilitate or is incidental to that development.
2.1.2 Guidance1 states that regard should be had to whether the land identified as being part of the compulsory purchase is no more than is reasonably required for the purposes of the development;
2.1.3 Section 122(3) also states that an Applicant must ensure that there is a "compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily".
3. THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE
3.1 Taken from the drawings contained at Annex 1 and Annex 2 to this document, the Applicant has determined that the following amount of land is likely to be required (it is
1 Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning Act 2008 – Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (September 2013), (paragraph 11)
important to note that the below figures are indicative and may change when final design is undertaken):-
3.1.1 AIS technology:-
(a) Sealing End Compound: 990m²
(b) Landscaping near the SEC: 1598m²
(c) AIS Substation: 22,500m²
(d) Landscaping: 26930m²
(e) Laydown: 2030m²
(f) Access: 4294m²
3.1.2 GIS variant:-
(a) Sealing End Compound: 990m²
(b) Landscaping (SEC): 1598m²
(c) GIS Substation: 8000m²
(d) Laydown: 2030m²
(e) Landscaping: 11018m²
(f) Access: 4648m²
3.2 The AIS substation (Plot numbers 14_ER, 15_ER, 16_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER and 19_ER)
3.3 The Examining Authority has requested that a drawing be provided indicating the required land take for the construction, operation, maintenance and mitigation of a substation using AIS technology (and its related cabling and sealing end compound) (the "AIS substation").
3.4 In its response to Examining Authority's First Written Questions (Question 2.3), the Applicant explained why the footprint of the AIS substation was somewhat smaller than the area identified as the proposed Electrical Connection Compound ("ECC") boundary.
3.5 The Applicant explained that the area of the ECC was required in order to build in the flexibility necessary to accommodate the siting of the substation, subject to detailed design, and to allow for mitigation, including woodland screening planting, in order to help mitigate certain environmental effects.
3.6 The Applicant referred in its answer to the Statement of Common Ground with National Grid Electricity Transmission plc ("NGET"), in which it was agreed that as NGET would be responsible for designing and constructing the ECC, it must have regard to its statutory duties, and (National Grid) "would seek to ensure an AIS substation is sensitively designed to minimise the footprint and sensitively sited taking into account agricultural use, heritage assets, landscape and visual matters and ecology." (Paragraph 5.6.5)
3.7 The Applicant considers that the proposed land take put forward is a realistic worst case scenario. However, the detailed design of the substation, and its associated mitigation, will not take place until a much later stage in the process when the detailed engineering assessments have been carried out. This micro siting process will select the precise
siting and design of the AIS substation. It is at this point that the final size of the land to be acquired will be ascertained. In determining the size of the area required for an AIS substation, the Applicant has therefore provided a degree of flexibility for unknown factors revealed by intrusive site investigations. It is standard practice for major infrastructure projects that the full range of investigations and surveys is not carried out until the detailed design stage.
3.8 The Applicant has previously set out in its Statement of Reasons (Document Reference 4.1), the rationale behind its need to seek compulsory purchase powers in relation to the ECC site and in particular why that land is required and why there is a compelling case in favour of granting such powers.
3.9 In short, the Applicant considers that the requirements of s122(2) and s122(3) are satisfied for the reasons given in the Statement of Reasons and in particular as:-
3.9.1 The land take shown is required for the development: The detailed design of the substation would be finalised by NGET following any grant of consent for the Project. Taking in to account this evolutionary design process and the fact that the mitigation proposals would need to be finalised alongside this design, the Applicant considers that it would be inappropriate for it to seek development consent for a parcel of land which is later established to be inadequate to site the substation and its necessary mitigation and access.
Whilst the indicative land take shown on the drawing at Annex 1 for the AIS substation is somewhat smaller than the overall redline boundary for the AIS (by 37,500 m2), this flexibility is required in order to allow for the final siting of the substation, the development of detailed landscaping measures and construction and maintenance access to that substation and landscaping within the Order limits. Until detailed design has been completed, it is not certain exactly where within the limit of deviation shown on the Works Plans (Document Reference 2.7) in relation to numbered work 5 the substation, landscaping, construction laydown and access routes will be located. As such, the power of compulsory purchase over the area of the limit of deviation is reasonably required;
3.9.2 The compelling case test is met, including on the following grounds:-
(a) the Planning Statement (Document Reference 10.1) explains how the Project, including the ECC:-
(i) meets an urgent need for new energy infrastructure;
(ii) is a form of economic development that is suitable in its local context;
(iii) minimises or mitigates adverse landscape and amenity impacts to an acceptable degree;
(iv) minimises or mitigates adverse environmental impacts to an acceptable degree;
(v) is compliant with NPS EN-1, NPS EN-2, NPS EN-4 and NPS EN-5 and in accordance with the other decision-making factors specified in Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008.
(b) The urgent need for electricity generation, including gas fired generating stations and unabated flexible gas and peaking plants, is provided in NPS EN-1, the Gas Generation Strategy (DECC, 2012) and the National Infrastructure Plan (HM Treasury, 2013). The
Project, including the ECC, would contribute materially to meeting this need;
(c) Due regard has been paid to all relevant and important considerations including the findings of community and statutory consultation processes and local economic development and environmental policy designations have been considered in the design, siting and mitigation proposals within the Project, including the ECC;
(d) The Project is in line with the relevant National Policy Statements, being NPS EN-1, NPS EN-2, NPS EN-4, and NPS EN-5. The Environmental Statement has also assessed all relevant likely significant environmental effects and has proposed appropriate mitigation wherever feasible;
(e) It is considered that there are no relevant adverse impacts or dis-benefits sufficient to outweigh the likely benefits of the Project, including the ECC;
3.9.3 On this basis, the Applicant is confident that the land-take has been both appropriately sized and satisfies the tests set out in s122 of the Act for the AIS technology.
3.10 A GIS substation (Plot numbers 14_ER, 16_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER and 19_ER)
3.11 The Applicant is clear that, in its view, an AIS substation is suitable and acceptable development and the likely significant effects of the AIS technology do not outweigh the dis-benefits (including the cost) of requiring the delivery of a GIS substation.
3.12 However, the Examining Authority has requested that a drawing be provided indicating the required land take for the construction, operation, maintenance and mitigation of a GIS substation (and its related cabling and sealing end compound) (the "GIS substation").
3.13 Bearing in mind the Examining Authority's concerns regarding the required land take for a GIS substation in the context of the redline for the ECC as currently proposed (see the Land Plans (Document Reference 2.6)), the Applicant has worked with NGET to produce a revised drawing at Annex 2. The Applicant has worked with its technical team and NGET to seek to reduce the redline boundary of March 2014 (which corresponds to the definition of "Order land" used in the draft DCO).
3.14 Following this further work, the Applicant is able to confirm to the Examining Authority that, in the event that a GIS substation is required to be delivered, a slightly reduced redline boundary could be used on the Works Plans, Land Plans and other documents referred to in the draft DCO. As such, a revised series of plans and documents may need to be referred to in any final DCO in order to reflect such reduced redline boundary. A list of these documents is set out below:
3.14.1 Land Plans (Document Reference: 2.6);
3.14.2 Works Plans (Document Reference: 2.7);
3.14.3 Rights of Way, Streets & Access Plan (Document Reference: 2.8);
3.14.4 The Book of Reference (Document Reference: 4.3 – currently Revision 2.0);
3.14.5 The Flood Risk Assessment (Document Reference: 5.4);
3.14.6 Appendix A of the outline construction traffic management plan;
3.14.7 The Important Hedgerow Plan (as defined in the DCO);
3.14.8 The Stage 2 written scheme of archaeological investigation (as defined in the DCO);
3.14.9 The outline lighting strategy (as defined in the DCO).
3.15 The Applicant intends to provide the Examination with copies of these documents by no later than 2 December 2014 – for use in the event that a DCO for the Project is made that requires that GIS technology is used for the substation.
3.16 In light of this revised redline boundary, the Applicant considers that:
3.16.1 The land take shown is required for the development: The detailed design of the substation would be finalised by NGET following any grant of consent for the Project. Taking in to account the work that the Applicant has undertaken in order to refine the redline boundary at this early design stage and noting that the design process is not complete, as well as the fact that the mitigation proposals would need to be finalised alongside final design, the Applicant considers that it would be inappropriate for it to seek development consent for a parcel of land which is later established to be inadequate to site the substation and its necessary mitigation and access.
Whilst the indicative land take shown on the drawing at Annex 2 for a GIS substation is somewhat smaller than the overall redline boundary, this flexibility is required in order to allow for the final siting of the substation, the development of detailed landscaping measures and construction and maintenance access to that substation and landscaping within the Order limits. Until detailed design has been completed, it is not certain exactly where within the redline boundary indicated in the drawing at Annex 2 the substation, landscaping, construction laydown and access routes will be located. As such, the power of compulsory purchase over the area of the redline boundary shown in the drawing in Annex 2 is reasonably required;
3.16.2 The compelling case test can be met on the basis set out at paragraph 3.9.2 above.
3.16.3 On this basis, the Applicant is confident that the land-take has been both appropriately sized and satisfies the tests set out in s122 of the Act for the GIS variant, should a requirement be imposed insisting on the use of such technology.
ANNEX 1
AIS PLAN
Annex 2
GIS PLAN
]
Yaxley
A
1
4
0
Goswald
Hall
M
ellis
R
oad
L
e
y
s
L
a
n
e
Judas Lane
Green Lane
N
Access R
oad
4
0
0
k
V
l
i
n
e
Sealing End Compound
GIS
Substation
Indicative Sealing End Compound
990m
2
(0.1ha)
Indicative Landscaping
1598m
2
(0.16ha)
Indicative Access Road
4648m
2
(0.465ha)
Indicative GIS Substation
Approximately 8000m
2
(0.8ha)
Indicative Landscaping
11018m
2
(1.102ha)
Indicative Laydown Area
2030m
2
(0.203ha)
0
Metres
500100 200 300 400
Date: Scale: Sheet:
Designed:
Drawn:
Approved:
Checked:
Title:
Site/Project:
Client:
© Copyright Parsons Brinckerhoff
Tel: 44-(0)117-933-9300
Fax: 44-(0)117-933-9253
A3
Queen Victoria House
Redland Hill, Redland
Bristol BS6 6US
10/11/2014
Plo
t D
ate
:
14
/1
1/2
01
4 1
5:0
6:1
8
N:\3
51
24
\3
51
24
38
B P
PP
E
ye
A
irfie
ld
\L
an
dsca
pe
\Z
D
wg
s\1
-cu
rre
nt\E
xA
D
ea
dlin
e 5
F
ig
ure
2
.d
wg
File
N
am
e:
De
S
ou
za
, Ju
dith
Lo
gin
:
Project Number: Revision:Drawing Number:
App
Chk
ByDescription
DateRev
Progress Power Project
Indicative GIS Land Take
Requirements
BRG
KL
KL
KR
1:5,000
3512438B 01
Existing
Key
Structure/Screen Woodland
Proposed
Hedgerow / shrubs
Hedgerow
© Crown Copyright and database right 2013.
Ordnance Survey 0100031673
Woodland/plantation
Cable
Project red line boundary
Access road
400kV OHL
Grass
ExA Deadline 5Figure 2
Landtake Areas
Indicative Sealing End
Compound
990m
2
(0.1ha)
Indicative Landscaping
(Sealing End Compound)
1598m
2
(0.16ha)
Indicative GIS Substation 7843m
2
(0.784ha)
Indicative Landscaping
(GIS Substation)
11018m
2
(1.102ha)
Indicative Laydown Area 2030m
2
(0.203ha)
Indicative Access Road 4648m
2
(0.465ha)
01 13.11.14 Drawing title revised. BRG KL KL
