Development Control Committee Meeting to be held on 27th January 2010

Part I - Item No. 2

Electoral Division affected: Wyreside, Thornton Cleveleys Central, Amounderness, Fleetwood East and Fleetwood West

Wyre Borough: Application No. 02/09/0159 Development of a natural gas storage facility including up to 6 multiple wellhead locations to create underground salt caverns by solution mining, creation of caverns, compressor station compound comprising two compressor station buildings, ancillary equipment, access roads and car parking areas; seawater pump station compound comprising a pumping station, standby generator and switchgear building, transformers, and ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas; northern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump station building; a switchgear and standby generator building, transformers, a de-brine facility, ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas; southern booster pump station compound comprising booster pump station building; a switchgear and standby generator building, transformers, a de-brine facility, ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas; reception compound comprising the control building, laydown area for materials and equipment; gas manifold and distribution infrastructure; seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood Fish Dock to the Preesall site; Brine discharge pipeline from the Preesall site to a point approximatly 2.4km offshore to a two port diffuser; four power, communication, control pipelines from the Fleetwood Dock to the Preesall site; electricity cables from the United Utilities switchgear at the Stanah switchyard to the new electrical sub-station; temporary drilling compounds at the Fleetwood Fish Dock and at the Stanah Switchyard; extension to sea wall at West Way to accommodate brine outfall and new observation platform; pipeline link to interconnector; comprehensive landscape scheme; new access road frm the A588 and new and upgraded internal access roads within the site, Preesall saltfield, Stalmine / Wyre Estuary Preesall Saltfield Saltmine Wyre Estuary Lancashire Appendix A - Secretary of State's letter dated 16th October 2007 Contact for further information: Stuart Perigo, 01772 531929, Environment Directorate DevCon@Lancashire.gov.uk Executive Summary Development of a natural gas storage facility including up to 6 multiple wellhead locations to create underground salt caverns by solution mining, creation of caverns, compressor station compound comprising two compressor station buildings,

2

ancillary equipment, access roads and car parking areas; seawater pump station compound comprising a pumping station, standby generator and switchgear building, transformers, and ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas; northern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump station building; a switchgear and standby generator building, transformers, a de-brine facility, ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas; southern booster pump station compound comprising booster pump station building; a switchgear and standby generator building, transformers, a de-brine facility, ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas; reception compound comprising the control building, laydown area for materials and equipment; gas manifold and distribution infrastructure; seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood Fish Dock to the Preesall site; Brine discharge pipeline from the Preesall site to a point approximatly 2.4km offshore to a two port diffuser; four power, communication, control pipelines from the Fleetwood Dock to the Preesall site; electricity cables from the United Utilities switchgear at the Stanah switchyard to the new electrical sub-station; temporary drilling compounds at the Fleetwood Fish Dock and at the Stanah Switchyard; extension to sea wall at West Way to accommodate brine outfall and new observation platform; pipeline link to interconnector; comprehensive landscape scheme; new access road from the A588 and new and upgraded internal access roads within the site, Preesall Saltfield, Stalmine / Wyre Estuary Preesall Saltfield, Saltmine, Wyre Estuary, Lancashire. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, an Environmental Statement and Non Technical Summary, a Site Waste Management Plan, a Statement of Community Involvement and a Design and Access Statement. Supplementary Environmental Information relating to geology, geotechnical matters, and ecology was subsequently submitted in support of the application and the application boundary was amended to accommodate a revised access along with changes to the layout of the above ground infrastructure. Recommendation – Summary That, after first taking into consideration the environmental information, as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, submitted in connection with the application planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The application contains insufficient information to:

I. Properly assess and ensure the geology of the area is capable of accommodating the proposed development;

II. Demonstrate its relationship to former solution mining activities or surface development; and

III. Establish there is no opportunity for migrating gas through the geology or via former mining activities;

contrary to Policies 2, and 71 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan. 2. The proposed development to the east of the estuary would result in the

3

introduction of an industrial development which by reason of its scale, design and location would be detrimental to the quality of the open character of the countryside, coastal plain, estuary landscape and Wyre Way contrary to the intentions of Policy EM1, DP7 and RDF3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Policies 2, 7, 25 and 31 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Policies SP14, ENV2 and TREC12 of the adopted Wyre Borough Local Plan and Policies CORE11, ENVT2 and TOUR12 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan 2001-20016 (first Deposit Draft)

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not present

an unacceptable risk of gas migration given the relationship of the proposal to former operations and its proximity to residential areas on the east side of the estuary and the more densely populated Fleetwood peninsula throughout its operation, decommissioning and long term aftercare management contrary to Policies 2 and 3 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

4. The failure to provide an adequate risk assessment for the proposal would result

in considerable and understandable fear and distress within the local communities attributable to the nature of the proposal and the potential consequences of any accident occurring and would be contrary to Policy 2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Applicant’s Proposal The application is for the development of an underground gas storage facility to store 1.2 million tonnes of natural gas with an unspecified operational life. The development would extend over an area of 505.6 hectares. The planning application includes:

• 6 (initially 7 but subsequently amended) multiwell locations to create underground salt caverns by solution mining (located on the east side of the Wyre Estuary).

• Creation of caverns (up to a maximum of 36 to store up to 10 million standard cubic metres of natural gas each) (initially 42 but subsequently amended).

• A compressor station compound comprising of two compressor buildings ancillary equipment access roads and car parking area (located on the east side of the Wyre Estuary to the north of Burrows Farm).

• A seawater pump station compound comprising a pumping station, stand by generator and switchgear building, transformers and ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking area (located at Fleetwood Docks).

• Northern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump station building a switchgear and standby generator building transformers a de-brine facility ancillary infrastructure access roads and car parking areas (located to the east side of the Wyre Estuary near Hackinsall Sewage Works)

• Southern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump station building, a switchgear and standby generator building, transformers, a de-brine facility, ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas (located to the east of the Wyre Estuary and near the Heads Caravan Park).

4

• Reception compound comprising the control building laydown area for materials and equipment (located to the east of the Wyre Estuary and off Aggelbys Lane).

• Gas manifold and distribution infrastructure located on the east side of the Wyre Estuary.

• Seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood fish dock to the site passing beneath the Wyre Estuary created by directional drilling.

• Brine discharge pipeline from the Fleetwood pumping station crossing the Fleetwood peninsula to a point approximately 2.3km offshore to a two port diffuser in the Irish Sea.

• Four power communication control pipelines from the Fleetwood dock to the site passing beneath the Wyre Estuary by directional drilling.

• Electricity cables from the United Utilities switchgear at the Stanah switchyard passing beneath the Wyre Estuary by directional drilling to the new electricity substation on the east side of the Wyre Estuary near to Burrows Farm.

• Temporary drilling compounds to the Fleetwood fish dock and at the Stanah switchyard.

• Extension to sea wall at west way to accommodate brine outfall and new observation platform.

• Pipeline link to interconnector to the national transmission line (note pipeline to the national transmission line does not form part of the current application and is the subject of a separate application before Wyre Borough Council.

• Landscape scheme. • New access road from the A588 and new upgraded internal access road

within the site. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Non Technical Summary (NTS). The EIA addresses the following:

• The Need for Gas Storage and Description of the Scheme • The Socio Economic Effects • Health and Safety • Environmental Impact Assessment • Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies • Legislative and Regulatory Framework

The EIA assesses the proposal in three distinct study areas:

• The Irish Sea Study Area – in which the following are assessed:

o Beach and Marine Activities o Seascape Effects o Marine Ecology o Marine Archaeology o Marine Water Quality and Flood Risk o Seabed Geology o Air Quality o Noise and Vibration

5

• The Fylde Peninsula Study Area - in which the following are assessed:

o Human Environment and Land Use o Landscape, Townscape and Visual Effects o Ecology o Archaeology and Built Heritage o Water Quality and Flood Risk o Geology, Soils and Contaminated Land o Air Quality o Noise and Vibration o Transport

• The Wyre Estuary and Preesall Study Area – in which the following are assessed:

o Human Environment and Land Use o Landscape, Seascape and Visual Effects o Ecology o Archaeology and Built Heritage o Water Quality and Flood Risk o Geology, Soils and Contaminated Land o Air Quality o Noise and Vibration o Transport

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application and EIA:

• A Planning and Sustainability Statement • Design and Access Statement • Site Waste Management Plan • Statement of Community Involvement

The application is supported by a series of drawings providing details of the above group infrastructure and buildings. By letter dated 10th June 2009 Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) was submitted. This information responded to matters raised as part of the initial consultation process and included a number of technical documents relating to geological and geotechnical matters. By letter dated 18th September 2009, the application was amended partly as a result of responses to the consultation process and discussions with the Health and Safety Executive and partly in view of land ownership issues. The changes included:

• An amendment to the planning application boundary and the realignment of the haul road to avoid third party land.

• The relocation of the northern booster pump station to land closer to Hackensall Waste Water Treatment Works.

• The re-siting of some of the well heads and drilling pads and reduction of drilling pads from 7 to 6.

6

• Revised design of the typical well head compound. • Redesign of the access tracks, gas manifold and pipe corridors to reflect the

above changes. • Amendment to the gas drying system at the compressor station.

A number of amended drawings were submitted to support the proposed changes. An addendum to the EIA was provided to address the changes and provide additional ecological information. Further geotechnical information was also submitted. The main elements of the proposal, as revised, are described in more detail as follows. The creation of up to 36 underground caverns involving the extraction of 21 million cubic metres of salt by solution mining to store up to 1.2 million tonnes of natural gas (an unspecified percentage of which would be cushion gas). Each cavern would have a capacity of 10 million cubic metres. The caverns are proposed to be developed from 6 land-based wellhead locations with up to 6 wellheads within each compound, some of which would be created by directional drilling into the salt deposits located below the salt marshes to the Wyre Estuary and some of which would extend inland around Cote Wall Farm up to a depth of 350m in areas previously unaffected by solution mining operations. The compounds are of a typical design, the precise location of which are not identified. Salt water, extracted at a rate of 80 million litres per day from Fleetwood Dock, would be pumped through pipelines below the Wyre Estuary and then used under pressure to dissolve the rock salt using a technique known as solution mining for 24 hours a day during the development phase. The initial development phase to construct the primary infrastructure to create the caverns on both sides of the estuary would be over a period of three years with overall site development over a 10 year period. The saturated brine would be pumped back to the surface and transported via a pipeline to an outfall 2.3km in the Irish Sea at a rate of 80 mega litres per day. The caverns would be new caverns in salt deposits not affected by previous mining operations. The caverns would contain saturated brine until commissioned for the storage of natural gas at a specified temperature and pressure. Wellheads – up to 36 wellheads are shown on the amended plans located within 6 drilling compounds which would be located along the eastern frontage to the estuary and to the north and east at Cote Walls Farm. During the development phase an area of up to approximately 1 hectare would be required to accommodate the plant and equipment associated with the drilling of the wells. On completion of the caverns the area required to service them and provide security would be reduced to 0.75 hectares. Caverns would be created by either vertical or directional drilling enabling up to six caverns to be created from each wellhead compound location depending on the success of drilling and cavern construction. The wellhead areas would be screened by small surrounding mounds and associated security fencing. They would be accessed via new 4m wide tracks from the booster pump stations, which themselves would be accessed from a new roadway from Back Lane. Maintenance tracks would interconnect between the wellheads and the respective stations.

7

Compressor station – this complex would be located to the north of Burrow's Farm off Burrows Lane approximately 900m north west of Staynall on the east side of the estuary. It would comprise of two large oblong buildings parallel to each other which would be 69 metres in length by 16 metres wide and comprise a steel portal frame with a 30 degree pitched roof to be clad in lightweight artificial slates with the external leaf of the perimeter walls to be finished in facing brickwork. The compressor station buildings would be one and a half storey buildings with a mezzanine floor, and would be 8m high to the eaves, 13m to the ridge and be up to 44m apart. The compressor station complex would also accommodate ancillary plant and equipment between the buildings and car parking areas. The site would be accessed from the principal access road from Back Lane running westward north of Corcas Lane. Northern Booster pump station – this complex would be located approximately 400 metres west of Cote Walls farm and be adjacent to Hackenstall Sewage Station. The complex would include a Booster Pump Station building which would be 54 metres in length and 17metres wide. It would comprise of a steel portal frame with a 30 degree pitched roof to be clad in lightweight artificial slates to a height of 7.3 metres. The external leaf of perimeter walls would be finished in facing brickwork and the roof in lightweight artificial slate. Immediately adjacent to the pump station, within the compound, there would be a switch gear housing and stand-by generator building, which would be 10 metres by 10 metres. This would be constructed out of materials that would match the adjacent pumping station. The compound would also include transformers, a debrine facility, ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas. Southern Booster pump station – the station would be identical to the northern station, would be located to the north east of The Heads and would be accessed from Corcas Lane. The Booster Pump Station building would be constructed in brick with a metal roof to a ridge height of 7m. The complex would also accommodate a switchgear and standby generator building; transformers, a De-brine facility, as well as ancillary infrastructure all served from a new access road and car parking areas. There would also be a Nitrogen building 11 metres x 10 metres with a pitched roof to a height of 7.3 metres. Reception Compound – this compound would comprise of a control building and laydown area for materials and equipment, and would be located approximately 1km to the North East of The Heads Caravan Park, just north of Aggelbys Lane. The building would be 54 metres in length and 14m wide with the external walls finished in facing bricks and roofs finished in lightweight artificial slates, to a height of 7.3 metres. The compound would be 110 metres x 75 metres and would be accessed via a new permanent road extending south to meet the proposed new east-west road running to the north and running parallel with Corcas Lane. On completion of the development phase, the compound area would be reduced by half. Pipelines – there would be underground interconnecting pipelines from the wellheads and booster pump stations to transport seawater and saturated brine to create the caverns. There would be communications, seawater and brine pipelines driven under the Wyre Estuary by directional drilling to the seawater pump station. From the seawater pump station a discharge pipeline would be constructed to the

8

sea wall at Rossall, from where there would be a 1.3km outfall to the Irish Sea and from which saturated brine from solution mining would be discharged. There would be temporary construction compounds to facilitate the development of the pipeline infrastructure across the Fleetwood peninsula and the under River Wyre crossings. The completed wellheads would be connected to the compressor station for the transportation of gas. The compressor station would be connected to the National Transmission Pipeline (NTS) from which natural gas can be imported into the storage facility or exported to the NTS. Seawater pump station – this would be located on the southeastern corner of Fleetwood Fish Dock. It would be a single storey steel portal building with the external walls finished in facing brickwork with a metal roof measuring some 46m x 17m with a roof height of 8m. Up to 80 million litres a day would be drawn from the fish dock to be used for the solution mining to develop the underground caverns. The complex would also include a standby generator and switchgear building, transformers and ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car parking areas. An electricity connection is proposed beneath the Wyre Estuary between a substation at Stanah and via a new substation to the compressor station at Burrow’s Farm. The electrical sub station at Burrows Farm would comprise a steel portal frame with a 30 degree pitched roof, would be clad in lightweight artificial slates with galvanised and plastic coated gutters to match. The external leaves of perimeter walls would be finished in facing brickwork with door window frames and ventilation louvers to be constructed of anodised aluminium. The external areas of the compounds would be lit using energy efficient luminaires. Lighting for access tracks or compounds area would use lighting structures that would not spill above the horizontal to minimise the impact on the surrounding area. The development of the facility would be progressive over a ten year period with the first caverns expected to be commissioned within 4 years of commencement of development, with subsequent caverns being developed over the remaining period. That part of the development which would be located on the eastern side of the River Wyre would be accessed by a new temporary surfaced road taken from the A588 and which would run parallel to Cemetery Lane to Back Lane. Access to the site would continue through a permanent surfaced road near Agglebys Road for access to the reception compound. There would be a controlled access point and a temporary wheel wash located adjacent to the permanent surfaced road. For the development to the east of the estuary it is estimated that there would be in the region of 2064 HGV's (4128 movements) in year one, which would access the area using the A588 from the south via the A585 (T). In year two it is estimated there would be 1521HGV's (3042 movements) and 1384 (2768 movements) in year 3. It is stated that the majority of vehicles would be delivering granular material for tracked surfaces, building sub bases and some of the drilling pads. The main routes to the site would be via the A588 through Hambleton from the south. Up to 250 new jobs would be created during the construction phase and up to 35 throughout the operational life of the site.

9

For the development on the western side of the estuary it is estimated there would be 635 HGV's (1270 movements) via the A585 (T) and subsequently via the local highway network to access the development areas in year one, after which there would be no further development works or development traffic. Decommissioning – the lifetime of the facility is not clear although the application indicates the proposed operations would be phased over 40 years. However, at that time the caverns would be emptied of gas, filled with brine and the boreholes plugged with cement. The wellheads would be cut off 2 metres below the surface and the land restored. Ongoing monitoring of the caverns would be carried out for a further as yet unspecified period. Retention of the cavern washing infrastructure would be investigated in view of its potential to be of assistance in enhancing flood protection of the area, however any retention would require planning permission and would be considered on its merits at the time of any application. Although not forming part of this application, the applicant has also indicated that the development would have the ability to connect to liquid natural gas supplies (LNG) and states that a LNG re-gasification facility could be developed near the Preesall project. (The applicant has been granted planning permission for a re-gasification plant at Amlwch in Anglesey associated with a deep water landing and has publicly expressed a view to interconnect such with the NTS in Lancashire and or the Preesall project) Description and Location of Site The development would extend over an area of 505.6 hectares, the main part which covers an extensive irregularly shaped area comprising the River Wyre/estuary, open agricultural land with associated hedged field boundaries and salt marsh to the east of the Wyre Estuary, extending 3.2 km north to south and 1.8 km west to east maximum. To the north is Hackinsall Sewage Works, Cote Walls Farm and golf course beyond which is the settlement of Knott End; to the north east is Preesall; to the east Stalmine; and to the south Staynall with Hambleton beyond. There are a number of scattered farmsteads in the area, which are typical to the rural area comprising old houses and a mixture of traditional and modern agricultural buildings and hard standings. There are two recreational static caravan parks at The Heads adjacent to the estuary, one of which falls within the application boundary and is within the control of the applicant. The other is in private ownership and is located near two of the proposed well head compounds and some 280 metres from the southern pumping station. The area is accessed by a number of single width roads, agricultural access tracks and a number of public footpaths including the Wyre Way, which runs up the eastern side of the Wyre Estuary on the flood embankment. The land is generally flat but undulating in parts rising to a height of 20m AOD at Burrows Farm in the south. There is evidence of former salt workings in the form of brine abstraction well heads throughout the site and extensive evidence of former abstraction activity to the east and north east in the form of water filled depressions some of which are significant, extensive, deep and security fenced some of which are a result of catastrophic cavern collapse and some with subsidence areas which may be associated with a former ‘dry’ mine to the east of Cote Walls Farm. Land to the east of the estuary is designated as Countryside Area and part of the site falls within an area designated as Defined Open Coastline in the Wyre Local Plan.

10

The area of Arm Hill and all the salt marshes (under which caverns are proposed to be constructed along with the under Wyre interconnecting pipe and electricity lines) fall within Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) designated due to its importance in supporting bird populations of European importance. This area also falls within the Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Ramsar site. To the west is the Wyre Estuary and associated salt marshes (under which caverns are proposed to be constructed along with the under Wyre interconnecting pipe and electricity lines) beyond which lies the Fleetwood peninsula. The eastern side of the peninsula is fronted from north to south by Fleetwood Docks, the former power station site currently being reclaimed for ecological and recreational purposes, Jameson Road landfill/raise site and land associated with the former ICI works. The salt marshes to the west of the estuary fall within the Morecambe Bay SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site. A corridor of some 20m beneath the estuary would be required to accommodate the communications, seawater and brine discharge pipeline. The pipelines would be directionally drilled under the estuary emerging at Fleetwood Dock. The discharge pipeline corridor would then continue and run a course parallel to the rear of the Jameson Road waste water treatment works and a holiday caravan park, along Jameson Road over the disused railway before crossing the A 585(T) and running through the grounds south of the Nautical College of Fleetwood. It would then run to the rear of residential properties on South Strand and then parallel to West Way past Rossall Hospital to the coast. The discharge pipeline would then cross the sea wall before extending some 3km into the Irish Sea (previously 2km). The corridor crosses an area of mixed uses including areas of vacant and open land and playing fields some of which is designated Green Belt and is in close proximity to a number of Biological Heritage Sites, one of which is crossed at Rossall. A smaller corridor is proposed similarly beneath the estuary to accommodate an electricity supply between a substation at Hillhouse and the proposed electrical sub-station near Burrows Farm. The application site lies in the open countryside and the locations where surface development is proposed would not comprise previously developed land in policy terms. Background There is an extensive history of brine working in the area to the east of the estuary and more recently associated with the former ICI works at Hillhouse to the west of the estuary. All these operations have now ceased although the legacy of the operations on the eastern side of the estuary in the form of well heads and extensive ground subsidence associated with former underground caverns is very apparent. One of the underground caverns located on the corner of Burrows Lane and Back Lane contains mercury waste (BW 107). The well head and immediate surface area is security fenced.

11

In 1998 an application was made to the Department of Trade and Industry for the construction of a gas pipeline from Burrow’s Farm to St Michaels-on-Wyre in connection with a proposed gas fired power station at Fleetwood. However, no consent was issued and the application has now lapsed. In 2003 a planning application was submitted for an underground gas storage facility (ref 02/03/1455). An appeal against non-determination was lodged in October 2004. The Development Control Committee resolved to object to the proposal on eleven grounds mainly relating to the lack of information on geological and ecological issues, unacceptable impacts of traffic, visual grounds and perceived fear in December 2004. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn and substituted by an appeal against non determination in connection with planning application 02/05/1415 referred to below. In August 2004 an application for Hazardous Substance Consent was submitted for the storage of 2 million tonnes of natural gas (Ref HSC/04/01). The application was refused by the Development Control Committee in December 2004 and against which an appeal was lodged. In November 2004 a planning application was submitted for an underground gas storage facility (ref 02/04/1415). The application contained additional information relating to the geology of the site and sought to address the concerns relating to the previous application. The information was considered insufficient and the application was not determined. An appeal against non-determination was lodged in June 2005. The Development Control Committee resolved to object to the proposal in July 2005. on eleven grounds mainly relating to the lack of information on geological and ecological issues, unacceptable impacts of traffic, visual grounds and perceived fear. In April 2005 an application for Hazardous Substance Consent was submitted for the storage of 2 million tonnes of natural gas (Ref HSC/05/01). This was subsequently amended to 1.2 million tonnes. The application was considered in tandem with the above planning application (ref 02/04/1415). In view of the lack of information relating to geology the application was not determined. An appeal against non determination was lodged by the applicant. Following a public inquiry the Secretary of State dismissed the appeals against the non-determination of the planning application and application for Hazardous Substance Consent in October 2007. The main issues considered by the Secretary of State were the following:

• Need, alternatives and principle of development • Geology, storage technology, mining industry • Risk (gas migration/explosion), risk assessment, fear as a material

consideration • Sustainability of the working/disposal of mineral salt • Impact on internationally, nationally, and locally designated sites and

protected species • Landscape and visual amenity • Impact on the Wyre Estuary/Wyre Way and other footpaths • Highway safety and highway impact on amenity

12

• Noise impact on areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary • Economic/tourism impact • Human rights

A copy of the Secretary of State's letter dated 16th October 2007 is attached at Appendix A. Policy European Policy Energy for a Changing World – An Energy Policy for Europe – sets out the need for Europe to deliver sustainable, secure and competitive energy. The thrust is on sustainability and the need to reduce carbon emissions but forecasts imports of gas to continue to increase and the need for the security of gas supply. It recognises the risk of supply failure is growing and that additional storage facilities would help the security of supply. EU Habitats Directive EU Directive – Control of Major Accidental Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances National Energy Policy The 2003 Energy White Paper The Energy Challenge 2006 (2006 Energy Review Report) The Energy White Paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge – A White Paper on Energy (May 2007): sets out the Governments current international and domestic energy strategy and builds on the 2003 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review – the Energy Challenge of 2006. Four energy goals are identified:

• To put the UK on a path to cutting CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050, with real progress by 2020.

• To maintain the reliability of energy supplies. • To promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond. • To ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

Other relevant publications 'Parliamentary Statement of Need for Additional Gas Supply Infrastructure' laid before Parliament by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in May 2006 Energy Markets Outlook – Dec 2008 Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform - Gas Storage in your area – Your questions answered British Geological Survey – Underground Gas Storage British Geological Survey – Mineral Planning Fact Sheet – Salt – Jan 2006 British Geological Survey – Mineral Planning Fact sheet – Underground Storage – Feb 2008 National Planning Policy

13

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belts PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG14 Development on Unstable Land PPG13 Transport PPG16 Archaeology and Planning PPG20 Coastal Planning PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk MPS1 Planning and Minerals MPS2 Controlling and mitigating the environmental effects of mineral

extraction in England Planning and Minerals – Practice Guide Draft National Policy Statements The Planning Act 2008 made provision for the administration of development consent for nationally significant infrastructure to be administered by a new independent body – the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). There will be 12 National Policy Statements central to the new regime covering infrastructure for energy, transport, waste, water and waste water. A consultation exercise is being carried out on the Statements. Of significance to this proposal are: The Draft Overarching national Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) – Sets out the Government's energy policy, explains the need for new energy infrastructure and instructs the IPC on how to assess the impacts of energy infrastructure development in general. It sets out the urgency for new energy infrastructure and provides that the IPC should not need to consider whether there is a national need for new energy infrastructure each time it considers an individual application, but should balance the need for and other benefits of energy infrastructure against the adverse impacts of energy infrastructure. The benefits include the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and any long-term or wider benefits. The adverse impacts include environmental, social and economic as well as impacts identified in the application or otherwise. The IPC should take account of any longer term adverse impacts and any cumulative adverse impacts. If the IPC is satisfied that the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits of the proposed development taking into account measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those adverse impacts, consent should be refused. Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) – must be read in conjunction with EN-1. The efficient import, storage and transmission of natural gas and oil products is crucial to meeting energy needs during the transmission to a low carbon economy and requires new infrastructure. With regard to underground gas storage, applicants will have undertaken detailed geological modelling to assess the suitability of the geology for underground gas storage; demonstrate the suitability of the geology for underground gas storage when making an application to the IPC; undertake assessments of the

14

impacts of a proposal in terms of noise; water quality and resources; the disposal of brine and provide any necessary mitigation measures. North West Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP1 Spatial Principles Policy DP2 Promote Sustainable Communities Policy DP3 Promote Sustainable Economic Development Policy DP4 Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure Policy DP7 Promote Environmental Quality Policy DP9 Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change Policy RDF1 Spatial Priorities Policy RDF2 Development in Rural areas Policy RDF3 The Coast Policy EM1 Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region's Environmental Assets Policy EM5 Integrated Water Management Policy EM6 Managing the North West's Coastline Policy EM7 Minerals Extraction Policy EM15 A Framework for Sustainable Energy in the North West Policy EM16 Energy Conservation and Efficiency Policy EM17 Renewable Energy Policy RT9 Walking and Cycling Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (LMWLP) Policy 2 Quality of Life Policy 7 Open Countryside and Landscape Policy 16 Nationally Important Nature Conservative Sites – Minerals

Development Policy 18 Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites Policy 24 Flood Risk Policy 25 Coastal Protection/Open Coastline Policy 31 Public Rights Of Way Policy 37 Strategic Road Network Policy 66 Oil and Natural Gas Production Policy 71 Protection of the Surface of the Former Saltfield from Development Lancashire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (LMWCS) Policy CS1 Safeguarding Lancashire's Mineral Resources Policy CS2 Minimising the need for mineral extraction Policy CS3 Meeting the demand for new minerals Policy CS4 Identifying sites and areas for mineral extraction Policy CS5 Achieving Sustainable Minerals Production Wyre Borough Local Plan (WBLP) (saved policies) Policy SP2 Strategic Location for Development Policy SP14 Standards of Design and Amenity

15

Policy ENV2 Open Coastline Policy ENV4 & 5 Nature conservation Policy ENV6 Protected Species Policy ENV13 Development and Flood Risk Policy ENV14 Development and Flood Defences Policy ENV16 Ground Water Protection Policy TREC12 Public Rights of Way Wyre Borough Local Plan Review (1st deposit draft) As this plan has not been progressed, limited weight can be attached to it. The Plan, in so far as it is relevant to the proposed development, essentially repeats the provisions of the adopted Local Plan. The only material difference relates to the Fleetwood Docks area, which is now allocated (under Policy CORE2) as a Mixed Development Opportunity rather than for specific land uses. However, the allocation still includes a housing element and a comprehensive approach to development of the area is advocated. This is now included in the Fleetwood – Thornton Area Action Plan which was adopted on 23rd September 2009. Consultations The following bodies have been consulted on the application and supporting documents as initially submitted, on the subsequent Supplementary Environmental Information and amendments to the planning application boundary and internal layout. Their views in respect of the application as initially submitted, on the SEI and on the subsequent amendments are summarised as follows: Government Office for the North West (GONW): in response to a request whether the application should be called in for determination, GONW advised that the application falls to be determined by the County Council. They further advised that the responsibility for the production and designation of the Gas and Oil National Policy Statement rests with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in association with the (office of) Communities and Local Government. DECC do not anticipate having a designated national policy statement for gas and oil before early 2010. Department of Energy and Climate Change: Increasing import-dependence for gas and the policy background: You are aware of the role of gas in the national economy; of the decline in indigenous production and the fact that Great Britain again became a net importer of gas on an annual basis in 2004; of the consequential requirement for additional gas supply infrastructure (import and storage facilities); and of Great Britain's gas market arrangements by which the provision of additional gas supply infrastructure is a commercial matter, against the background that gas market participants have commercial incentives to respond to price signals of need, and that Great Britain's gas balancing regime exposes Gas Shippers to financial risk if they do not have access to adequate supplies of gas, each day, to balance their customers' demand.

16

The County Council has previously been advised why energy market liberalisation in the EEC did not eliminate the need for additional close-to-market gas storage capacity within Great Britain. The policy background was subsequently covered in a 'Parliamentary Statement of Need for Additional Gas Supply Infrastructure' laid before Parliament by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in May 2006. The national importance of additional gas supply infrastructure is now reflected in provisions in the Planning Act 2008 and the Energy Act 2008, which (when implemented) would provide up-dated consents regimes for projects onshore and offshore respectively. In July 2009 the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change laid before Parliament ' The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan – National Strategy for Climate and Energy. Attention is drawn to the Executive Summary and the section entitled 'Keeping Gas Supplies Secure in Transition' which shows general projections for UK production of oil and gas and an illustration of the medium term outlook for gas import infrastructure and storage (Chart 7 and 8 respectively). The text refers to the fact that, during the transition to a low carbon future, oil and gas will remain key sources of energy, both in the UK and internationally. It goes on to note the role of gas import and storage capacity in avoiding supply interruptions and in reducing the risk of avoidable price rises; and that the Government is taking action in a number of ways, including facilitating the construction of new gas import and storage infrastructure. The Government is preparing a commentary on the UK's ability to cope with severe demand and major gas supply shocks to 2025. The national need for additional gas storage capacity: The Government does not have targets for our future level of gas storage capacity. It believes that the most efficient way to ensure that we have the gas supply capacity that we need is to maintain a clear framework, with market disciplines to provide sufficient gas and therefore to provide sufficient gas supply capacity. Despite the additional gas import and gas storage capacity that has (been) commission(ed) in recent years, there are a number of reasons why market participants may seek to provide more. Those reasons are principally:

• There must be sufficient physical gas supply capacity to meet peak demand. This is much more demanding requirement than meeting annual demand. Gas market participants may aim to have some 'redundancy' in their supply arrangements, above the minimum amount to meet peaks, to manage the risk that other capacity may not be available.

• There must be sufficiently diverse capacity to provide access to the most

competitive gas supplies. Because price relatives will vary through time, this also implies some 'redundancy' in gas supply infrastructure. Market participants may see distinct value in having access to gas imports by pipe-line, to gas imports by LNG, and to gas from storage (especially close-to-market storage that can be accessed rapidly). Here also, market participants

17

may be expected to have regard to the possibility that other gas supply infrastructure may not in the event be available when they are making their own plans.

• The large uncertainties around the evolution of Great Britain's demand for

gas, in annual and peak terms, also present risk that market participants will seek to manage.

Commercial views on the value of additional gas storage capacity are likely to be particularly influenced by the modest increase in our gas storage capacity in recent years; whereas our gas import capacity has increased by a factor of 5 over the last decade, our gas storage capacity has increased by around 1/3rd. Previous letters (to the County Council from the DTI in 2004 and 2005) explained why close-to-market gas storage capacity has a distinct role, so that it is not fully substitutable by excess gas import capacity. It remains the view of this directorate (Energy & Climate Change) that additional close-to-market gas storage capacity would be valuable from an energy policy perspective. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: No response received. Marine and Fisheries Agency: No work has been carried out in respect of the impact of noise and vibration on marine mammals, fish and any other large mobile species. No comment appears to have been made on the effects of the brine discharge on local shell fishery areas. Health & Safety Executive: The proposal does not fall with a consultation zone of a hazardous installation. The Executive will advise on the application for Hazardous Substance Consent. Wyre Borough Council: objects to the proposal as submitted and requests that it be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

• The proposed development, by reason of the design, scale, location, and form of various permanent built elements, including the wellheads, would appear visually intrusive, uncharacteristic and detrimental to the quality of the local agricultural landscape and the open character of the coastal plain / estuary landscape, contrary to Policies 2, 7 and 72 of the Lancashire County Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Policies SP14 and ENV2 of the adopted Wyre Borough Local Plan (saved policies) and Policies CORE11 and ENVT2 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan Review.

• The proposed development, by reason of the design, scale, location, and form

of various permanent built elements, including the wellheads, would introduce urban industrial forms of development into a pleasant and tranquil area of coastline to the detriment of the enjoyment of the users of the Wyre Way and other local footpaths and bridle path, contrary to the provisions of Policies 2 and 31 of the Lancashire County Minerals and Waste Local Plan and Policy

18

TREC12 of the adopted Wyre Borough Local Plan (saved policies) and Policy TOUR12 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan Review.

• The proposed development would result in considerable and understandable

fear and distress within the local communities about the high level of associated risk and the potential consequences of any accident occurring.

Wyre advise that in addition to the above objections, the following matters be further investigated and assessed by its officers/consultants and/ or additional information be sought relating to the following -

• BERR's current stance in relation to national requirements for this type of facility and, more particularly, whether they presently have a view on the need or otherwise for this proposal.

• Detailed and specific geological information (including details of the rock formations in the area, and other previously worked salt cavities) to be obtained, and independent geotechnical consultant's advice sought on the prospects for the stability of, and risk of gas migration from the proposed caverns.

• The intentions for decommissioning and long-term management and maintenance of the development, not only the cavern washing infrastructure referred to.

• The nature and effectiveness of the measures to be put in place to secure long term ground stability.

• The significance of the impacts of the discharge of brine at sea and the laying of the brine outfall pipe on the marine environment.

• The ecological impacts of possible subsidence. • The effects of noise and vibration generated by the development, in particular

during the construction period, including laying of the brine pipeline near to residential property within the Fleetwood peninsula and building construction works, associated activity and drilling / mining operations to the east of the River Wyre and the operation of the various plant within and external to the operational buildings.

• The impact of the north river crossing entry compound on the proposed housing development approved on the Fleetwood Docks site, and the implications of the pipeline route between the sea water pumping station and the outfall at Rossall on the implementation of the aims of the Fleetwood-Thornton AAP to improve transport links by reopening the railway.

• The developers be asked to make appropriate financial contribution to the future flood protection of Stanah substation.

Wyre Borough Environmental Health officer has raised a number of issues relating to noise and air quality and the adequacy of the assessments undertaken. Blackpool Borough Council: Support the objection of Wyre Borough Council through its 12th May 2009 Planning Committee on:

• Increased industrialisation of the Fylde Coast and Wyre Estuary in this location. The Wyre Estuary is an attraction to visitors to the area providing a

19

counterpoint to the more heavily urbanised areas of Blackpool and the Fylde. Further industrialisation of the area would be to the detriment of Blackpool and Fylde residents as well as the visitor market.

• The concerns of local communities. Whilst Blackpool would not be as directly affected as those areas of Over Wyre immediately in the vicinity of the proposed development, the fears of accident risk and the potential consequences of any accident occurring would be of concern to this council.

• The application is deficient in information relating to the assessment of the impact. There is a need for independent scrutiny and a commitment to long term decommissioning.

• The off shore 'Gateway' gas storage scheme should be taken into account when the application is considered.

Stalmine-with-Staynall Parish Council: Object to the proposal for the following summarised reasons:

• Canatxx have had sufficient time to provide more detailed robust and reliable geological modelling and have failed to do so.

• Geology, storage technology, mining history – the implications of subsidence on the proposed pipe work and infrastructure has not been addressed.

• Risk and fear – though some of the modern wells were surveyed in 2002 it was not possible to survey all of them as some access pipes were broken, therefore there was no means of accessing them. Wells 126 and 112 are linked. Evidence of this was presented at the public inquiry. Canatxx have had ample time to access this information. Clearly they have insufficient understanding of the level of risk in regard to the site.

• Impact on internationally and locally designated sites and protected species – There remains uncertainty in regard to the risk of cavern collapse. Many of the elements of the developer's environmental impact survey are now out of date. There is a risk of crown hole collapses in the tidal zone. There needs to be greater appreciation of the consequences of this on flora and fauna in the SSSI sites.

• Landscape and visual amenity – Further incongruous industrial elements have been added in the current application. The Secretary of State's reasons for dismissing the appeal on 16th October 2007 still apply: that the visual harm of the gas compressor station and the booster pump station would be contrary to policy that crown holes resulting from cavern collapse would have a serious detrimental effect on the salt marsh and any collapses would be visually unacceptable. There are serious aboricultural issues in relation to the landscaping plans. Given the proximity of the site to the Wyre estuary and the Irish Sea it is doubtful that the suggested tree species (oak) scheme would flourish in the maritime environment.

• The development would have a serious impact on the Wyre Estuary/Wyre Way and other footpaths.

• The applicant does not and will not be able to control the land over which the proposed access from the A588 is to cross. The visibility line is obscured by the recently erected bus shelter on the A588. Placing a permanent access road adjacent to Corcas Lane bridle path would result in serious safety

20

implications. There is a high level of horse ownership in the area that use the bridleway network.

• Noise – The choice of location for equipment to measure noise levels in regard to "sensitive receptors" is questionable. There is a lack of relevant information to assess the environment impact of noise. Measuring equipment and personnel should not have been in the restricted area round BW 107. The inadequacies of the environmental impact report concerning noise, highlighted in the inspector's original report remain.

• Economic/tourism impact – No consideration has been given to the impact of the proposed development on Sportsman's Holiday Home Park or to the holiday sites at High Gate Barn and Grange Farm. With fewer visitors there will be a downward knock on and ripple effect in the local economy being felt in shops, restaurants and public houses.

• Human rights - There is insufficient information available to properly assess whether this is an acceptable location for this type of development to provide justification for affecting the rights of others.

Supplementary Environmental Information: Maintain their objection to the proposal for the reasons set out above. Amendments to the planning application: Maintain objection for the following summarised reasons:

• The applicant still does not have control of the land within the amended application boundary.

• Multiple wellhead No 4 is sited extremely close to BW 63 which has a marl roof which has not been sonar surveyed. Should it collapse it will be similar to the collapse of BW52. Any collapse will be exacerbated by its interaction with Grange Pool water course and the resulting subsidence will include Multiple wellhead 4.

• The proposed new pipeline corridors fail to take account of previous mine workings where there are questions over the long term stability of previous brine caverns.

• The applicant does not know the location or number of proposed caverns and BGS are not able to comment on the quality or suitability of the salt at Preesall for gas storage.

• The development would be contrary to the Seveso 11 Directive in that it would be impractical to implement the directive without imposing unreasonable restrictions on the public who use the network of rural lanes, footpaths and bridleways.

• The proposal fails to take into account the proximity of the Hackinsall Sewage Treatment Plant, damage to which could present a hazard to public health.

• The subsidence at Aggleby's has been expanding over the years leading to a closure in footpaths. Concern is expressed to the proposal to site the control centre here.

• The bird surveys must be regarded as incomplete as several private landowners have denied access.

21

Preesall Town Council: Object to the proposal as submitted for the following summarised reasons:

• Concern of the environment of the sea bed, fisheries and the control of the levels of salt discharge into the sea. Impact on the wildlife in Morecambe Bay.

• Geology of the rock salt to withstand the development and the effect on people's human rights.

• Most dangerous to store a potentially hazardous substance in proven unstable geographical infrastructure.

• Safety of the dense population both sides of the river. • Evacuation of the residents in case of explosion, emergency plans? • SSSI and wildlife. • HGV movements on rural roads.

Supplementary Environmental Information: add the following comments:

• There was an explosion in the old mine some time ago, therefore the ground is still unsuitable for this type of development, there is also subsidence in the old mine field.

• There is a geological fault in the area. • There is concern over the safety of the area following an earth tremor near

Ulverston in Cumbria. Shockwaves were felt in Preesall and Fleetwood. • Page 22 Para 5.4 causes concern. (document not identified)

Amendments to the planning application: Maintain objection and raise concerns to the proposed new access road from the A588 as the land over which it is to run is subject to subsidence due to the old caverns collapsing, especially near to Ivy Cottages. Pilling Parish Council: Strongly object to the application for the following summarised reasons:

• The environmental impact on Pilling and Preesall Sands could bring pollution to the beach by the prevailing winds. The possible damage which could be caused by the construction work and the subsequent salt waste being discharge into the sea only to return back onto the Sands.

• The perceived danger of this application on the residents of Pilling • Many of the secondary school aged children in Pilling attend St Aidans

Technical College in Preesall and this application will have an impact on their lives.

• HGV's to be used on the proposed site will be using the A588 Head Dyke Lane; this lane will need a major up grade to take these vehicles.

Amendments to the planning application: maintain their strong objection to the application in view of the perceived risks and danger to safety. Hambleton Parish Council: Strongly object to the proposal for the following summarised reasons:

22

• The application does not seem any different from the last application and

does not address any of the reasons for refusal that the secretary of state highlighted in the refusal Decision Notice.

• Safety: Although the need for gas storage is accepted, this proposed site is totally unsuitable due to it being geologically unsafe. History of subsidence and fault lines running under the proposed wells could affect the infrastructure.

• The location of the caverns should be determined. • Risk: The risk factors have not been addressed – cavern collapse, the

possibility of gas escape, security threat, the discharge of salt and waste. • Landscape and Visual Impact: The gas suppresser station, pumping station,

any cavern collapse, the proposed new access roads, redundant farms and possible closure of a holiday home park would all be detrimental to the area. The construction work would cause damage to the salt marsh which is a SSSI site and a Special Protection Area. This area is an important habitat for many species of bird life and could lead to a permanent loss of habitat for some species.

• Amenity Impact: Already the threat of this proposed development has seen an impact on local businesses with a drop in income. The loss of bridleways and footpaths.

• The application would lead to the closure of the Wyre Way for safety reasons. • The extra traffic, noise and fumes during construction would have an adverse

affect on the area. • The proposal does not give enough consideration to the residents of this area;

it is insufficient in addressing fears, safety problems and human rights issues highlighted in the refusal of the previous application.

Amendments to the planning application: Maintain their strong objection and add the following comments:

• The proposed modifications have still not addressed the problem of the wellheads and the major infrastructure being sighted too close to the former brine field and therefore over existing brine caverns as referred at the previous public inquiry.

• A full geological survey of the existing brine field has still not been carried out. • The applicant has had insufficient regard to the proximity of he proposal to the

Wyre Way, the SSSI and the Hackinsall Sewage Works. • The applicant has not addressed the Secretary of State's reasons for refusal

as part of the new proposals. No new evidence has been supplied. In the absence of such the applicant has demonstrated a lack of understanding of those reasons.

Fleetwood Town Council: object on grounds of geology, safety and security and the Fleetwood tunnel. Geology – is affected by former workings. There is a proposed increase in caverns to those previously found unacceptable. The geology has not been proven – particularly the alignment of the Burn Naze Fault increasing the risk of gas migration.

23

There is a risk of earth quakes and subsidence and an interrelationship with existing and proposed nuclear power stations at Heysham. These factors pose a threat to public safety. Safety and Security – risk of fire and explosion with little mention of security monitoring and exclusion of the public to safe limits, particularly users of the Wyre Way. Considerable risk to residents on the peninsula with constrained access in the event of an incident. The applicant has not demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed scheme is safe. Fylde Coast Tunnel – The sewage tunnel is 14km long connecting towns along the Fylde coast. If gas were to migrate into the tunnel there would be considerable risk to high density development, mainly residential. The applicant has previously advised that large quantities of gas could migrate without immediate detection. Details of the size and location of the caverns should be provided along with their relationship to the Burn Naze Fault. There is insufficient information and insufficient attention to safety and security. United Utilities plc: No objection in principle provided there is not detrimental impact on our Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works outfall and the United Utilities Assets, infrastructure or land. United Utilities standard conditions should be imposed for working near pipelines. The site should be drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Environment Agency consent may be required to discharge surface water into soak away/watercourse/surface water sewer. Supplementary Environmental Information: No further comments to add to the above. Environment Agency: Application as submitted: Object for the following summarised reasons:

• There are Great Crested Newts within the area and could be affected. Of the 38 water bodies in the area, only 20 were surveyed. We, therefore, recommend that the ponds that were not surveyed for access or health and safety reasons should be assumed to support Great Crested Newts.

• The directional drilling may affect the qualifying features of the area which include the Wyre Estuary SSSI and Morecambe Bay SPA/ Ramsar (Section 10.3.27 of Volume 1). The problems outlined include loss of Bentonite resulting in smothering, collapse or blow out affecting all interest features of the site. The risk of subsidence is also highlighted affecting the physical integrity of the habitats within the Wyre Estuary. Section 10.3.30 of Volume 1 states, “In areas of unfavourable geology, there may be a requirement for drilling a larger hole than would normally be preferred. This may result in subsidence along the line of the drill, which could affect the physical integrity of the habitats within the Wyre Estuary.”

• We cannot assess whether the directional drilling will have a negative effect on the salt marsh habitat or determine the magnitude of damage to the site integrity. The risks of Bentonite and subsidence need to be fully investigated

24

to include probability, scale of impact, control measures and mitigation, prior to determination of the planning application.

• In consideration of the cavern creation, and the integrity of the structures, we note that although the BGS has submitted several reports dealing with the integrity of the Mercia Mudstone Group, and the intercalated mudstones within the Halite formation, there was no data that showed the permeability of the intercalations, or location maps of the boreholes that had been drilled to further investigate the Halite formation. This information is essential in consideration of the integrity of the caverns, and should be included for further consideration prior to determination of the application.

• We would like to see further information regarding the historical storage of hazardous chemicals including mercury within the brine wells. The information should outline the separation of storage caverns and the storage wells to ensure the chemicals do not become hydrologically connected to the estuary.

The Environmental Statement has recommended further water vole surveys prior to any works commencing. We recommend that these further surveys need to be done and if water voles are found, a detailed method statement will be required with exclusion and mitigation proposals. Parts of the site fall within Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 2 in the latest version of our Flood Map. The FRA has addressed residual flood risk and stated that provided current standards of protection are maintained then the likelihood of breach or overtopping is deemed to be low. The FRA does state however that the level of flood risk will increase over time as the effects of climate change become increasingly prevalent. There is an implicit requirement here that future maintenance occurs and that the current level of protection afforded is maintained into the future. This point is not embellished upon and seems to assume that the Environment Agency maintenance programme will persist. This, of course, cannot be guaranteed and whilst we accept the conclusions of the FRA, this point needs to be considered by the developer in undertaking the proposal. It is accepted in the FRA that parts of the site are liable to flooding; possibly more frequently over time as climate change takes effect. The proposed solution to this is to incorporate mitigation measures in the form of flood resilience and resistance into the construction of the different elements of the proposed development and we accept this. With regard to Flood Risk the Agency has no objection to the proposed development. Supplementary Environmental Information: Concerns have been addressed and the information as submitted is sufficient to allow the objection to be withdrawn subject to the imposition of conditions to any permission addressing the need for updated water vole surveys prior to the commencement of development; a detailed Great Crested Newt method statement relating to all ponds; a method statement relating to the containment of bentonite to ensure there is no risk to benthic fauna. It is accepted that the trajectory design of the drill in relation to the results of the pilot hole and geological data in addition to the specific construction process will ensure that the risk of subsidence will be extremely remote. Monitoring should be carried out as any subsidence would result in loss of salt marsh within the Wyre Estuary SSSI and

25

would result in an unquantifiable loss of salt marsh habitat. The recommendations to resurvey Rock Sea Lavender prior to commencement and the enhancement of areas for the species is supported. There will be a direct negative impact on Purple Rampling Fumitory – methods of working to minimise the impact should be agreed in advance of construction. Proposals for enhancing the habitat for Brown Hare should be agreed in advance of any construction works. A strategy should be developed with relevant groups to minimise the direct impacts on wintering and breeding birds. No subsidence to the flood defences on the eastern shore of the Wyre Estuary have been observed to date. Given the geological information available regarding the presence and separation of dry and wet rock head there is no objection to the proposal. Precautionary measures and monitoring for damage to the flood defences should be employed. Amendments to the planning application: The addendum to the EIA outlines further works to watercourses as required for the construction of the temporary haul road. Full flora and fauna surveys will be required prior to any works to the water courses. There should be no negative impact on the integrity of the site. Water vole surveys should be undertaken at an appropriate time of year. Such surveys would be required in the event Flood Defence Consent is required as part of the application process. Written consent would be required to divert or culvert a watercourse. The Agency seeks to avoid culverting except for crossings. The mitigation measures to be incorporated in the Landscape and Ecology Strategy Management Plan may require EA consent and should be developed with the EA, Natural England and the RSPB. Highways Agency (HA): No objection in principle to the proposal.

• The scheme does not incorporate any haul routes for construction traffic with direct access off the strategic highway network.

• Certifications/structural approvals may be required for the pipeline that passes beneath the A585 trunk road.

• Should planning permission be granted it should be subject to a condition restricting the use of both of the sites during early morning and late afternoon times during the three year construction phase of the project to reduce the impact of additional heavy goods traffic generated on the strategic highway network at peak times.

• There is also the impact on the local highway network to consider. If it is deemed necessary the Agency is prepared to direct a condition to protect the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road (A585) in this instance.

• It is expected the developers would be prepared to accept a condition which would prohibit access to the two sites for HGV's over 7.5 tonne to between 0900 and 1530 hours only.

• The traffic liaison group which is to be set up will need to include a representative from the HA and there will be a need to review or evaluate any issues relating to routing agreements for the traffic generated.

• A key objective would be to achieve the effective implementation of a travel plan which would drive down the additional pressures on the highways resulting from the development.

26

Natural England: Retains a holding objection to this proposal for the following summarised reasons:

• There appears to be an unnecessary area of land take (30m²) within Liverpool Bay pSPA.

• There is currently insufficient information within the Landscape & Ecology Enhancement Strategy to confirm No Significant Effect on Morecambe Bay SPA/ Ramsar site, as a result of loss of terrestrial habitat for Pink-footed Geese.

Although it is unlikely that creation of the offshore brine discharge pipeline will incur permanent damage to the seabed, and it is possible that evidence of the pipeline will not be visible after several tide cycles, photographic monitoring is recommended. Construction of the brine discharge pipeline at the base of the sea wall is likely to disturb littoral sediment, sand and muddy sand. Natural England would recommend that the beach profile and sediment regime is fully restored on completion of works. The extent of habitat loss through creation of pump / Compressor stations, roads, pipelines, drilling platforms, well heads and other work areas, has not been quantified in the Environmental Statement. Since this area is functionally linked to the SPA/Ramsar site, it is necessary to determine the permanent and temporary loss of suitable habitat, and identify how currently favourable habitat will be proportionally reduced. The transect survey completed by Hyder Consulting in 2008/2009 identifies that arable land adjacent to the Wyre Estuary in this study area is used by large numbers of Pink-footed Geese. Natural England would wish to see the farmland under the ownership of Canatxx Gas Storage Ltd, favourably managed in perpetuity for birds associated with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site, namely Pink-footed Geese. We would therefore recommend that a detailed management strategy is submitted and agreed to by Natural England and RSPB prior to determination of this planning application. National Grid Gas: The risk to the operational electricity transmission network and operational gas transmission network is negligible. Supplementary Environmental Information: No further comments to the above. National Grid Company PLC: No observations to make Rambler's Association - Fylde Group: No objection to the proposal. Consider that there would be no long term effects on the footpaths in the area although there may be a need for short term alternative diversion. Peak and Northern Footpath Society: If planning permission is granted it is requested a condition be imposed ensuring there is no obstruction of any public right of way. Should a temporary or permanent obstruction be unavoidable, then no development should take place until a Diversion Order has been confirmed and the diversion route, with a satisfactory surface and adequate width and way marking, is available for public use. Amendments to the planning application: no further comments to the above.

27

RSPB: There is an important high tide bird roost at Arm Hill, which will be sensitive to disturbance. To avoid disturbance we would recommend that noisy works such as piling should not be undertaken during the period two hours either side of high tide, during September to April inclusive. RSPB originally had concerns about the effects of pumping brine into the sea off Rossall Point, but these concerns were allayed following discussions with Environment Agency. However, on page 168 of volume 1a of the ES says that there will be a permanent land take of 30m² from the seabed to support the outflow pipe. This seems excessively large for an outflow pipe, and it also seems unnecessary to have a permanent land take for a temporary structure. This land is under consideration as a possible Marine Conservation Zone and such a large permanent land take could compromise its future selection. The Wildlife Trust: With regard to the supplementary environmental information the Trusts principal concern relates to the Ecological Enhancement and Landscape Strategy (although no reasons for the concerns are set out) 4NW: Policy RDF2 covers development in rural areas. Development is only permitted exceptionally in the open countryside – one of the exceptions is development which has an essential requirement for a rural location, which cannot be accommodated elsewhere (such as mineral extraction). This proposal would come under that exception. Policy EM7 Minerals Extraction makes it clear that mineral extraction forms an exception to the sequential approach to development set out in policy DP4. The following comments are made:

• Safety Policy DP2 promotes sustainable communities. Among other factors it promotes community safety and security. The Council needs to be satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated that the development would not result in an unnecessary level of risk. We note that a detailed geological investigation of the salt field has been undertaken since the previous application.

• Sustainable use of resources Policy DP4 states that natural resources should be managed prudently and efficiently. EM7 flags up the national significance of the Region’s salt reserves – the proposals include no end use for the extracted brine which will be pumped out to sea. However the applicants make the case that they can find no user for this resource. This concern was referred to in the Secretary of State’s decision notice on the previous application, however she did not consider it to be a significant objection, as she considered the applicants had carried out an adequate assessment of the potential for beneficial use of the brine and the absence of a market was not a matter which they could address.

• Coastal Policy Policy EM6 Managing the North West’s Coastline states that proposals should take account of natural coastal change and the likely impacts of climate change. In addition they should minimise the loss of coastal habitats and avoid damage to

28

coastal processes; and avoid adverse impacts on coastal sites of international nature conservation importance.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England: object on the grounds of inappropriate site location; inappropriate land use; detrimental to the character, ecology and habitats of the area. The land around Preesall is unique and of special interest with international importance. The development is counterproductive to the current political and social trends of sustainability, community involvement and conserving the natural environment for the social good. The proposal is contrary to PPS1 in that it would not be sustainable development; there has been considerable opposition; it would not protect or enhance the environment; it would not be a prudent use of natural resources; it would not generate sustainable economic development. There are alternative sites that would be more suitable with fewer issues. The proposed location is inappropriate; it would have a detrimental effect on the character, ecology and habitats of the area and is an inappropriate use of the land affecting the feeling of security for the community. North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust: The applicant should be required to commission a full Health Risk Impact Assessment to assist in decision making. Concerns to the previous application included:

• The need to ensure that the processes being deployed do not create risk of major incidents.

• The potential impact of noise from the process and from associated increase in traffic.

• A potential increase in traffic accidents. • Increased anxiety and stress for residents.

However, it is likely that there may also be a number of health benefits from the development, for example from increased employment and from long term energy security. LCC Director of Highways and Environmental Management (HEM): The developer has produced a Transport Assessment in support of this application. There are no significant areas of concern within the TA and it is not significantly different from the TA provided for the previous application. There are two aspects to the development which have an impact on the highway network, the construction phase and the operational phase. Of the two phases of the development the construction phase will have the most significant affect on the highway network. From the previous application it was generally accepted by the Highway Authority that the level of additional traffic on the highway network could be accommodated without capacity issues arising, this view has not changed. One of the most significant areas of concern from the previous application was the effect of development traffic on the junction of the A588 and Cemetery Lane. This application deals with this by providing an access / haul road to avoid the need for this junction to be used by construction traffic. This proposal is acceptable and resolves the most significant highway issue associated with this proposal.

29

A routeing condition is recommended to minimise the risk of construction traffic using inappropriate routes to the various sites. This is considered particularly important in the Hambleton, Stalmine and Preesall areas where there are a number of narrows lanes which are generally not suitable for use by large vehicles although there are no Traffic Regulation Orders prohibiting their use. The developer has provided various plans showing the various proposed access arrangements to the various sites associated with this application, however, not all accesses to the highway network have been submitted. The access arrangements where plans have not been provided include those to the site compound off Westway and Rossall Lane, Fleetwood, although it is accepted that suitable access arrangements could be provided. In respect of the access arrangement where plans have been provided they are generally acceptable although greater detail needs to be provided with regards to road markings, traffic signs and highway boundary treatment / visibility splays. Given that the plans have been produced in line with Design Bulletin 32 which is more onerous that the now generally accepted guidance provided in the Manual for Streets there are no issues that could not be resolved. A condition should be imposed requiring the developer to provide details of all accesses to the highway network be submitted for approval prior to them being constructed. The proposed haul road and the route of various pipelines will affect a number of Public Rights of Way and will require temporary closures and diversions. These need to be agreed in advance of the actual works taking place. The Travel Plan needs further work before it is acceptable. At this stage it can be regarded as a draft / statement of intent. It is not expected that significant work would be required for the travel plan to be acceptable and this could be required by a planning condition. The developer has proposed a number of mitigation measures to address traffic impacts which include the agreement of Traffic Management Plan and the establishment of a Traffic Liaison group. Both are seen a positive measures to identify and resolve traffic issues prior to development commencing and whilst development is ongoing. The Traffic Management Plan should cover issues relating to the routeing of construction traffic and timing of deliveries. The Traffic Liaison group would be able to deal with any issues that arise during construction and assist in ensuring that routeing and timing of construction traffic and deliveries are adhered to and dealing any unforeseen issues. The group must include representatives from the Highway Authority and Police. A number of conditions are proposed requiring details of site access points, wheel cleaning measures to be employed, details of the travel plan, traffic management plan and traffic liaison group have been submitted and implemented prior to the commencement of development and along with a number of advisory notes. LCC Specialist Advisory Services:

30

• Landscaping Whilst the applicant's assessment of the likely landscape and visual impacts arising from the proposed natural gas storage facility is generally a competent piece of work there are some weaknesses and omissions, the principal of which are outlined below:

o More detail of the methodology used for assessing the impacts of the

scheme's proposed lighting is required.

o Neither of these adequately assesses the acceptability of the proposals in landscape terms against all of the relevant key landscape policy tests.

o Lack of assessment of landscape character impacts at a regional and

county level and an over reliance on assessment of impacts on an unpublished local landscape character assessment.

o Insufficient assessment of the extent to which the study area's key

landscape characteristics identified within published landscape character assessments are evident and intact.

o No consideration of impacts on the setting and character of historic

designed landscapes.

o Lack of transparency in assessing seascape character.

o Overly optimistic assessment of rates of tree/shrub growth.

o In addition to the above the application documents do not contain an adequate assessment of the impacts of the proposals against the key tests of landscape planning policy.

o There would likely be no residual landscape and visual impacts of

moderate – major significance as a consequence of the proposed gas storage facility in the Irish Sea Study Area. Consequently I conclude that the landscape and visual impacts of the proposals in the Irish Sea study area are deemed to be acceptable.

o With the exception of the proposed Sea Water Pump Station, which

has a number of weaknesses relating to the layout and landscaping, there would likely be no residual landscape and visual impacts of moderate – major significance as a consequence of the proposed works.

o Subject to a satisfactory revision of the proposed layout and

landscaping for the Sea Water Pump Station it is likely that the landscape and visual impacts of the proposals in the Fylde Peninsula would be deemed acceptable.

31

In addition to these major issues there are a number of detailed design issues outlined earlier including the proposed size of vehicle compounds, hedgerow work and ditch 'enhancement' which need to be addressed.

The proposals would have a major impact on the Open Coastal Marsh landscape character type, have major landscape fabric impacts, adversely impact on the amenity enjoyed by users of the Wyre Way, reduce the study area's landscape tranquillity and effectively extend the 'suburban' landscape into what is essentially a mixture of wild and rural landscapes. The application is therefore contrary to PPS 1, PPS 7 and RSS Policy EM1. For all these reasons the landscape and visual impacts of the application in the Wyre Estuary and Preesall Study Area are deemed to be unacceptable. A modified application which; relocated the proposed wellheads to more appropriate locations that significantly reduces landscape and visual impacts in the Open Coastal Marsh landscape character type; reduced the extent of permanent access roads/tracks and adequately mitigated their landscape and visual impacts; resolved the detail design weaknesses outlined here, might be acceptable subject to further assessment and reappraisal against the appropriate policy tests. It is recommended that the application should not be determined until full site specific detail drawings of the proposed Multiple Wellheads have been provided.

• Ecology The survey as presented (Figure 35 Vol.1A) is of too coarse a scale to allow for all habitat features to be mapped and the Target Notes presented (Vol 2A, 1.4) are too brief and incomplete. Several areas of interest were observed to have been missed during a brief (3hr) field familiarisation visit on 14th April 2009 within the Fylde Peninsula Study Area:

o SD 31604547 Seasonal pond with Sea Clubrush; o SD 31784541 Area dominated by Common Reed; o SD 32794601 Area of marshy grassland/fen meadow; o SD 32814620 Area of grassland with a diversity of species

including Kidney Vetch, Wild Parsnip, Perforate St. John's-Wort, Hare's-foot Clove and a low scrub of Creeping Willow;

o SD 35274329 Area of tall grassland with a diversity of herb and scrub encroachment; and

o SD 35274333 Area of marshy grassland/fen meadow.

There is potential for other areas of interest to have been similarly missed.

The Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report (2008) (Appendix J Vol 2A) includes a list of vascular plants in Table 1 recorded during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey. This list is

32

used to evaluate the area for vascular plants and habitats (para 1.2.3, Appendix J, Vol 2A).

The Table 1 list is very much incomplete and does not provide a sound basis for evaluation. I am aware that within the study area there are some:

o Three Nationally Scarce species; o Four species considered as Endangered in the PLRDL; o Six species considered as Vulnerable in the PLRDL: and o Seven species considered Sensitive in the PLRDL.

Whilst Phase 1 Habitat Mapping is a valuable tool for a broad brush assessment, at the scale presented it does not provide sufficient detail. The assessment fails to identify Habitats of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006 Section 41/CRoW Act 2000 Section 40) or map Annex 1 Habitats (Habitats directive).

Whilst consideration is given over statutory sites(Vol 1, 10.3 Ecology), there is no consideration given to non-statutory/local site, known as Biological Heritage sites in Lancashire, although their existence is clearly recognised (Vol 2A Appendix I). This is seen as a major deficiency.

More information is required over avoidance of habitats and vascular plants, and where avoidance is not possible how impacts will be mitigated and/or compensated to deliver no net loss. It is also necessary to show how the development will deliver a 'step change' increase in biodiversity resources (PPS 9 and NW RSS).

More information is required over hedgerows in terms of their classification and whether they are considered 'locally distinctive'.

Ponds directly affected or immediately adjacent to the development should have been surveyed to the Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Methodology - para 5.3 of the former Landscape and Heritage SPG - now the LCC Landscape and Heritage Strategy.

More information is required over species of conservation importance, how if present they may be avoided or how impacts will be mitigated and/or compensated to deliver no net loss. It is also necessary to show how the development will deliver a 'step change' increase in biodiversity resources (PPS 9 and NW RSS).

If the County Council is minded to approve the application a planning condition is required to cover the re-survey for Purple Ramping- fumitory within construction areas and for the management of important populations.

If the County Council is minded to approve the application a planning condition is required for the resurvey of habitats for Water Vole prior to construction works, the production of a Method Statement over how they will be dealt with if found.

33

If the County Council is minded to approve the application a planning condition would appropriately cover the need to manage land within the red line for farmland birds.

Overall the Environmental Assessment fails to demonstrate and deliver the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) and Policy EM1 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021. The ecological assessment is incomplete, particularly over habitats and species of Principal Importance (Section 41 NERC 2006) and Biological Heritage Sites.

The applicants need to re-consider elements of their environmental assessment provide a fuller account of the natural environment and show how the proposals avoid natural assets. In locations where avoidance is not possible measure to mitigate any damage or loss is needed not simply to achieve no-net-loss, but ideally to deliver a 'step change' increase.

Concern is expressed to the magnitude of the development footprint (including access roads) and how these might be mitigated and/or adequately compensated.

• Archaeology The Environmental Statement (ES) for this development is much improved from that submitted previously, and two (of four) issues identified at the Scoping stage have been addressed (ES 5.5, Table 5.1). The earlier Desk Based Archaeological Assessment (Liverpool Museum Field Archaeology Unit, November 2004, referred to as 2004 DBA in the following text) supplied as a technical report has, however, not been revised and a number of elements noted in the ES (for example the Roman presence on the Fylde Peninsula, ES 9.4.3) are not mentioned in the Assessment. There are, therefore, some differences between the EIA and the Assessment and the sources for this new information are not given in the text or bibliography.

The unaddressed points raised at the scoping stage include the need for field inspection and other survey work for archaeology as part of the EIA process and the need to undertake a wider range of consultations and discussions. These omissions introduce avoidable flaws into the ES. The ES Glossary has a number of odd entries, several of which appear to be technically incorrect (for example 'Saturation') and there are a number of obvious omissions (for example the terms 'Scheduled Ancient Monument' and 'Sites and Monuments Record' are not included).

It should also be noted that the Landmark Ltd maps supplied as Appendix B to the 2004 DBA include a series of what are claimed to be 1840s 1:10,560 maps. These are in fact revised maps of a later date and are not the correct first edition sheets. In the area of the planning application, however, the changes are relatively subtle and the revisions do not make a great difference to the archaeological conclusions drawn.

34

The précis of the archaeological concerns in the non-technical summary is fairly poor. The mitigation suggested there is not representative of that proposed in the body of the ES, and it could usefully be improved.

The ES has not suggested that nationally or other particularly important sites are threatened by the proposals and that there is scope for mitigation of the impact on those sites that are affected. It would seem reasonable, therefore, to attach an archaeological condition to any planning consent granted, to ensure that a better scheme of mitigation can be developed along the lines set out above.

Supplementary Environmental Information: The acceptance of a scheme of investigation of a potential medieval settlement is welcome. However, it is apparent that the applicant does not intend to deal with other archaeological issues unless required to do so by condition. LCC - REMADE: If planning permission is granted it is recommended that a planning contribution is sought from the developer towards the Wyre Coastal Path project, to mitigate against negative impacts on the environmental, visual and amenity value of the Wyre Estuary, including the site area of the Wyre Coastal Path project during construction of the gas storage facility and associated pipelines and compounds. Certain elements of the development would have to be designed, programmed and implemented to avoid disruption and damage to the Wyre Coastal Path scheme and site areas. Particular reference is made to the south river crossing entry compound and the north river crossing temporary compound, seawater pumping station, brine discharge pipe and temporary compounds. Representations: The application, Environmental Statement, supporting documentation, SEI and amendments to the application have been advertised in the local press (Blackpool Gazette, Fleetwood Weekly News and the Garstang Courier), site notices posted at various points around the site and on the application as initially submitted, neighbouring properties considered to be most affected individually notified by letter. A total of 8835 representations have been received. 8736 (471 letters and 8265 letters written within a standard template) object to the proposed development. 99 letters have been received in support of the proposed development. The reasons for objecting to the proposal are summarised under the following headings: Need

• As permission has been granted for storage of gas under Morecambe bay there is even less need than when the application was thrown out in 2007. There are also other schemes for which planning permission has been granted such as Milford Haven.

• The proposal will only increase storage by 6 days of national consumption. • There is no need to store such a volume of natural gas as the government

has committed more to nuclear and renewable energy generation. • The government has set targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

35

• The gas stored will not bring down prices in times of shortage of gas supplies as the private company will sell to the highest bidder.

• It is not needed to guarantee the supply of gas to the UK market.

Traffic • Traffic would make it impossible to enjoy walks to the estuary. • Added danger from traffic to children. • The roads on both the Knott End Side of the estuary and the Fleetwood side

are not suitable for construction traffic. • The amount of traffic envisaged is unacceptable. • The new access roads are of significant visual and environmental impact.

Geology

• Land not suitable for gas storage. • Uncertainties of geology. • There is insufficient understanding of the level of risk in regard to the site. • There is uncertainty in regard to the risk of cavern collapse. • Land is unstable. • Mudstones in salt make it not a safe location. • The proposed storage for the gas area is one which is prone to earthquake

and ground movement. • The caverns will be adjacent to the disused brine wells and salt mines with

their associated collapses. Wildlife/Nature Conservation/environment

• Disturbance, destruction, disruption to the wildlife. • Traditional grounds will be poisoned. • Impact on human environment and land use, beach and marine ecology,

breeding, nesting, winering of sea and wading birds, widespread contamination of the area and estuary.

• The effect on sea life of any brine outfall at Rossall will be disastrous and effect the bird population.

• Would result in the loss of Barnaby sands and adjoining SSSI. • The future of an endangered species would be put at risk. • There would be severe adverse impacts on several important and sensitive

environments – 3 SSSI's, a number of BHS's and the SPA of Morecambe Bay.

• A foreign company wishes to exploit a beautiful natural resource for their own profit.

• It will have extreme environmental consequences on the area affected and have a direct consequence on quality of life.

• The Wyre Estuary and its country park will be adversely affected by the proposals.

• Pipelines and cables laid under the river in a natural tidal area may upset the tidal flow of the river itself.

• Would like to see the environment protected i.e. the estuary and bird population for future generations.

Subsidence

36

• Implications of subsidence on the proposed pipe work and infrastructure have not been addressed.

Security

• There would be an increased threat of terrorism in the area. • The security of the site is not adequately considered especially with regard to

terrorism. No emergency plan has been submitted. Rights of way

• The proposal would have a serious impact and be contrary to policy relating to the Wyre Estuary, Wyre Way, other footpaths and bridleways and would cause considerable loss of amenity to users of the rights of way.

Devaluation

• Upheaval would lower the value of all the properties in the proximity. • Will cause the house prices to be reduced in the area. • Would make houses unsellable at any price. • May lead to insurance companies imposing a surcharge or refusing cover. • Damages to roads, verges and possibly to foundations of some houses.

Availability of Information –

• Many elements of the developer's environmental impact survey are now out of date.

• There is insufficient information available to properly assess whether this is an acceptable location for this type of development to provide justification for affecting the rights of others.

• The developer has failed to adequately address the impact of the development on flood defences.

• There are 49 Institute of Chemical Engineers records of natural gas escaping from such installations.

Flooding

• The proposed site is one of the coastal areas which the Environment Agency has designated will be given back to the sea.

Economic

• There would be minimal economic benefit to the local community or to Wyre Borough. There is a potential for it to be detrimental to the tourist trade and housing markets which would damage the economics and infrastructure of the area in the longer term.

• The end result of only 35 permanent jobs for a period of 40 years is simply ludicrous.

• Jobs created will only be suitable for specialist employees who will be drafted in from out of the area.

Accident Risk

• The Fleetwood peninsula could be devastated in the event of an accident. • A similar scheme in the USA caused much destruction and lives were lost • It is inherently dangerous. • There are many safety issues.

37

• There is a risk of gas escaping. • The emergency services would not be able to cope on this scale if there was

an explosion. • In the USA no construction of similar gas storage facilities are allowed within

three miles of a residential area. Lack of considerations

• No consideration is given to the impact on Sportsman's Holiday Home Park or to the holiday sites at High Gate Barn and Grange Farm.

• The developer has failed to give any consideration to the people who live and work in the area or use the area for relaxation. The development would destroy existing businesses, make others unviable and has already caused much stress and worry for residents.

• There has been a lack of survey work to establish the present condition of the redundant brine field and its potential effect of the proposed development.

• Do not feel the proper safeguards have been thought through. • The choice of location for equipment to measure noise levels in regard to

"sensitive receptors" is questionable. • There is a lack of relevant information to assess the environmental impact of

noise. • No thought given to the possibility of explosion

Fear

• Would create fear to residents over a wide area who would not feel safe. • Connecting pipes to the caverns will not be vertical as illustrated by Canatxx

but directionally drilled which adds to safety fears. Pollution

• Noise and light pollution to local residents due to continual drilling and excavation.

Construction legacy

• There has been no consideration as to what would happen at the end of the scheme's life. No further use for the caverns would put them at risk; alternative storage options could be just as bad e.g. for nuclear waste.

• In the event of Canatxx going bankrupt, Wyre Borough Council would be responsible for making good and safe the damage already caused. This bill would be picked up by the residents.

The Company

• Canatxx do not have the experience to propose, design, construct and maintain such a project.

• Canatxx have demonstrated total disregard for the views of local communities and for central and local government decisions who do not want the proposal.

• The company have demonstrated through their attitude and behaviour that they are quite simply not to be trusted.

Other

38

• Children would be endangered during the development and operational life of the site.

• Children would be attracted to any building/installation site. • There would be10 years of disruption. • The development would be out of character for the area. • Further incongruous industrial elements have been added in the current

application. • Loss of right of way. • The considerable amount of land going under asphalt and concrete to provide

buildings, car parks and access roads will increase the danger of flooding in the area

• The development would be close proximity to Rossall Hospital. • There will be lots of industrial buildings in agricultural setting which will be out

of place. • The risks outweigh any benefits. • Reasons for rejection in 2007 are the same and nothing has changed. • Disruption to residents would be intolerable. • The Secretary of State's reasons for dismissing the previous appeal still

apply:- Visual harm of the gas compressor station and the booster pump station would be contrary to policy, that crown holes resulting from cavern collapse would be have a serious detrimental effect on the SSSI and Ramsar site.

• Salt marsh and any collapses would be visually unacceptable. • Gas storage is not proven technology

A total of 349 slips and a petition of 523 signatories objecting to the proposed development were received from Lancaster and Fleetwood Conservatives. Ben Wallace MP – Objects to the application and is of the view it should be refused on the grounds of safety, environmental damage and unanswered geological issues. Has had regard to the Inspector’s report and Secretary of State's decision to the previous application for gas storage by Canatxx and the views of Protect Wyre Group to the current application. It was clear from the previous application that Canatxx failed to convince the Inspector or Secretary of State in the areas of the environmental statement, national policy considerations, geology, risk and impact on internationally and nationally protected environmental sites. The new planning application does little to answer any of the questions raised by the Inspector previously. The geological data to prove beyond doubt the safety and suitability of the location still does not address some of the concerns raised. The absence of detailed locations of the caverns makes it impossible for anyone to assess on a case by case basis whether or not the concerns can be countered. The drilling of two additional boreholes seems insufficient in improving the accuracy of the 3D model. Is concerned that the applicant has not made available the geology maps produced for them by their consultants the British Geological Survey. British Geological Survey has publicly stated that they are not prepared to comment on the suitability of Preesall for gas storage. There are faults within the Preesall salt field and given that Canatxx’s expert on gas storage, Professor Rokahr, has recommended that situating caverns near faults

39

should not be advised. Information is required to assess the proposed sites of each individual cavern in relation to the fault. There is no extra evidence to conclude that it is impossible for crown hole subsidence to occur. Agrees with the Secretary of State that this would have an irreversible effect on the internationally designated environmental sites (e.g. SPA) and that this risk should be given substantial weight. The applicant has simply resubmitted the previous failed application after a minimum of tweaking to try and take advantage of the new Planning Act 2008. But it has done so without answering many of the questions raised by experts and the Planning Inspectorate. The Committee should take on board that after making a preliminary objection against the last application the statutory bodies English Nature and the Environment Agency failed to substantiate this further and subsequently they were found wanting by the Secretary of State. The European Commission itself opened a formal investigation into English Nature’s inadequacy in carrying out its statutory duties. Joan Humble MP - expresses strong objection to the proposal. The application differs only superficially to the earlier application (02/04/1415) that was rejected by the Secretary of State on the advice of the Planning Inspectorate after a public inquiry. The issues from the previous application have not been addressed any differently in the new application and there is no evidence of any further geological investigations. Whilst more test drilling has taken place, no reference is made to the results of the drilling and there is no evidence that any further surveys of the site have been undertaken. Whilst some changes have been made to building heights and the re-routing of a road, these are superficial changes. The reduction in the number of wellheads means that these wellheads will not be fed by more than one cavern, as the number of caverns storing gas had not been reduced. The total volume of gas proposed to be stored has not reduced, nor has the depth of the proposed caverns. If there is a problem or an accident with the wellheads it would now be more dangerous than previous due to the increased number of caverns per wellhead. Wyre Borough Councillor Vivien Taylor (Preesall and Knott End) objects to the proposed development for the following summarised reasons:

• The applicant has failed to provide details that would allay public fears and concerns relating to Health and Safety given the proximity to and relationship with former mine workings and associated instability.

• Legislation in the USA prohibits developments of this nature within a 3 mile radius to habitation. An incident here would necessitate the evacuation of 90,000 persons within a 3 mile radius.

• Unacceptable increase in HGV movements on inadequate highways. • The discharge to sea could adversely affect marine life, Morecambe Bay

designated as a Special Preservation Area and the Wyre Estuary SSSI over the 10 year development period.

• Increased salinity would adversely affect the secondary cooling system at Heysham Power Station.

• Disposing of a valuable mineral resource is not ethical.

40

• There is no need for the development, particularly given the associated risks. • The application does not address matters raised at the previous inquiry

relating to instability of the geology. The 'Protect Wyre Group' representing various bodies in the Wyre area including Fleetwood Civic Society, Over Wyre Action Group, Poulton Historical and Civic Society, Poulton Residents Association and Thornton Action Group have submitted an extensive document (90 pages) objecting to the proposal. The reasons for objecting are similar to the objections summarised above but include considerably more details which are summarised as follows: This third application has not addressed the issues raised by the Inspector and agreed by the Secretary of State following the Public Inquiry which refused the second application and therefore it must be refused.

• Need - Canatxx have not provided evidence of any investigation undertaken to address the considerable uncertainty. The amount of gas which it is proposed to store has not been reduced despite the irrefutable evidence presented at the inquiry that it was completely impractical to store gas in the quantity proposed.

o Since the inquiry a considerable number of additional gas storage

facilities including the nearby Gateway scheme under the Irish Sea have either been completed, or are currently under construction or have received planning permission.

o Since the public inquiry new nuclear and coal fired power stations have been approved, at least in principle, together with an increased renewable obligation and the initiation of a major drive towards more efficient use of energy and a fundamental change in gas cost relative to other fuels, all of which will mean previously accepted has demand figures will not be reached.

• Geology - Canatxx has presented no new evidence in this application beyond

that which was presented at the Public Inquiry and found inadequate by the Inspector.

• Subsidence – No assessment or modelling of the likely impact of ongoing

progressive or catastrophic collapse on the proposed pipework or other infrastructure has been undertaken. There is no survey of the site to determine rates of settlement, and without this information, any comment of risks of the old workings is purely speculative.

• Cavern Roof Failure – Robust and reliable geological modelling which

confirms that there would be no possibility of cavern roof failure affecting the STW (Sewerage Treatment Works) has not taken place.

• Risk – Detailed quantified risk assessments do not appear present in the

application.

41

• Overburden – A comprehensive investigation of the form, nature and permeability of the overburden strata does not form part of the present application.

• The Wyre Way – the scheme drawings for the wellhead sites do not show a

sufficient distance between the well heads and the surrounding security fence such that any member of the public outside the fence would be subject to a completely unacceptable risk.

• Sustainable Use of Minerals – to dispose of the brine is not a sustainable

approach to the winning and working of minerals. • Crown Hole Collapse – the potential impact of dramatic crown hole collapse

has still not been addressed in this application. • Landscape Impact – The changes proposed by Canatxx in its third

application are superficial and cosmetic and have not addressed the Inspector's concerns. In fact the grouping together of the well heads will result in an even more adverse affect on the landscape.

• Economy – There is no guarantee that the contractors and sub contractors

used to construct the facilities will use labour from the local area (i.e. Wyre). The equivalent of 10 jobs has already been lost with the closure of the caravan park on the Heads by Canatxx and there will undoubtedly be further jobs lost in the tourism sector as construction begins.

• Human Rights – The approval of this application will constitute a significant

infringement of the Human Rights of both residents in and visitors to this area. The chairman of Poulton Residents Association is concerned about the prospective discharge of saturated brine in the sea on the boundary of Morecambe Bay and the impact the proposal would have on the micro marine life and the whole ecosystem in Morecambe Bay and further a-field irrespective of such concern not having previously been a reason for the Secretary of State to refuse the previous application. The accuracy of the information in this respect and particularly in tidal flows is questioned and considered to be inaccurate which could lead to the wrong decision being made. The discharge of such quantities of salt and mud and the implications of such on the micro marine life and consequently the food chain is considerable. Any damage to the well containing mercuric sulphide could be catastrophic to the marine life. The geological information is paltry or out of date. There is no evidence of contingency plans. The company and proposals are dangerous. Associated risks outweigh national need . A fully independent geological survey, marine biological and bio chemical survey and toxicology survey providing indisputable evidence that the ground is safe and suitable for gas storage and that the human and marine life is not in long or short term danger should be carried out. Cardinal Allen Catholic High School and governing body recognise that they would not be able to deny access to the area where the proposed pipe-line would be laid because the playing fields are a part of Lancashire County Council's estate. However the school and governing body do have continuing concerns about the

42

impact of the saline discharge on the marine environment in the area off Rossall Point. It is expected that the discharge will continue for between 6 and 11 years and so there must be continuing uncertainties about the impact on the marine species and eco-systems in that area. The school and governing body remain opposed to the proposed scheme for this reason. Objections have also been received from a number of recreational groups in view of the potential ecological impacts from the discharge of brine into the Irish Sea and the impacts of traffic on local roads and bridleways. The groups include: Wyre Boat Angling Club North West Association of Sea Angling Clubs North West Fisheries Consultative Council National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultative North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee Fylde Coast Bridleways Association Knott End Golf Club Bowland Game Fishing Association Ribble Fisheries Consultative association Prince Albert Angling Society Alkali with Preesall Angling Club Churches together in Poulton and Carleton It is considered important to highlight those objections from parties considered to be most affected who reside in the area and work the land. The occupiers of Height o'th Hill Farm, Little Height o'the Hill Farm, Sportsmans Caravan Park and Ivy Cottages have voiced strong objection in view of the impact the proposals would have on their businesses, the environment and their residential amenity for reasons set out in the summary of objections above. Of particular note is the consequence of realigning the proposed access road further north to avoid land outside the control of the applicant in much closer proximity to Ivy Cottages whose residents feel that such realignment would be to the detriment of their amenities. The occupiers of Height o'th Hill have extensive knowledge of the area and the former mining carried out by ICI. They are strongly of the view that the applicant has not demonstrated the salt deposit is not capable of supporting the proposal; that BGS have stated that they are not in a position to comment on the quality or suitability of the salt for gas storage; the applicant has not satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the Secretary of State; the noise assessment is inadequate, certain elements of the proposal are located in areas with potential to flood, notably the southern booster pumping station and the control centre; the proposal has little regard to former caverns and their instability; no provision has been made for long term safety of either the existing or proposed caverns; the proximity of the proposal to the Wyre Way and Hackinsall Sewage Works would be contrary to the Seveso II Directive; the proposal would not provide wide and varied employment; the development is not appropriate in a rural location and cannot be construed as rural diversification; it would adversely affect the Human Rights of individuals in the area due to the impacts associated with the proposal. Support

43

99 of the representations (letters/emails) support the proposal. The letters originate primarily from professional bodies, unions, national or international businesses, contractors associated with the Canatxx proposals, employees associated with a particular company supporting Canatxx, a local wildfowlers association, individuals associated with the proposed development and a number of residents in the immediate and wider area. The support for the proposal is summarised under the following headings: Economy

• The project would bring investment to the area. • It would be great for Lancashire. • It is an opportunity to give a much needed kick start to the local economy. • It would provide added value to the area of Over Wyre, Fleetwood, Wyre

Fylde Coast and the County of Lancashire. • Many small and large businesses would benefit from the project and would

keep industries alive. • It would bring a lot of local businesses positive cash flow. • It would stabilise gas prices and supply and demand problems. • It would be an improvement for the general public as it would be able to store

gas purchased at a cheaper rate during the summer months. • The project would be of benefit locally and nationally. • The gas project is the way to go if there has to be development of this land. • The current climate within the civil engineering and construction industry is

becoming hard for a lot of companies. • Such innovative projects can only be of benefit to the future economy and

environment of the country. Need

• The projects are the future of energy management in our country. • It would ease our reliance on importation of gas from Russia which could cut

off supplies. • UK future energy provision to industry and domestic consumers is vital to the

UK economy. • There are currently very few gas storage facilities and main supplies from the

North Sea are in decline. • The Preesall project is one of several vital to the long term security of the UK's

energy management which is currently very vulnerable. • There is a strategic need for such a facility to be built in the Northwest. • Storage of available gas during periods of low demand is important. • The facilities are important essential components of the UK energy network

for this century. • There is a clear need for gas storage.

Skills and recruitment

• It would provide jobs that are vital to the UK economy. • It would provide an excellent opportunity to recruit and train local people in a

variety of roles and skills and will give them a unique opportunity to continue in the industry.

44

Geotechnical • The projects safety has been suitably demonstrated. • The gas storage facility would employ tried and tested technology in use all

over the world to store gas in salt caverns that offer an environmentally positive and secure way to store gas that is also efficient and unobtrusive to the existing landscape.

• The salt deposits provide an ideal geological formation for the safe storage of Natural Gas.

• It has been proven that the salt deposits in Preesall are ideally suited for gas storage.

• It is technically sound and offers advantages from some of the other schemes that have already received planning consent.

• The geo-technical aspects of the storage facilities have been well thought out and well investigated and robustly designed.

Environment

• The project would be visually environmentally friendly as it is below ground. • The environment would benefit in the long term. • Such schemes can happily co-exist in the environmental setting of the Wyre

Estuary. • It would have a negligible environmental impact. • Canatxx have taken every possible step to stay away from the SSSI and keep

disruption to a minimum. • Canatxx are serious about their environmental responsibilities, looking to

maintain or develop the countryside of the land which they control. • Canatxx have been a very good company to work with. • Many European countries are investing in these types of projects.

Advice Director of Strategic Planning and Transport– Observations The application for underground gas storage is supported by a Planning and Sustainability statement, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and associated Non Technical Summary (NTS), a Site Waste management plan and a Design and Access Statement. Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) has been submitted along with formal amendments to the application in terms of the boundary to accommodate a revised temporary haul road into the site and internal layout of buildings, plant and equipment. The information submitted is extensive and seeks to address the concerns raised by the Secretary of State when the previous planning application and application for Hazardous Substance Consent were refused on appeal. In particular the applicant has sought to address the main issues raised in respect of:

• Lack of robust geological modelling • Inadequate understanding of risk • Visual Harm • Proposed means of access

45

• Uncertainty regarding noise impact The applicant has also reviewed the major issues discussed at the time of the previous application but which the Secretary of State did not find to be major issues of concern. The way the applicant has addressed the issues is summarised below. In respect of geological modelling, British Geological Survey has updated the information previously available and two more borehole investigations have been undertaken on the site. With regard to risk, the applicant maintains the safe storage of gas in salt is proven and that this is supported by the Health and Safety Executive in guidance published since the previous application was considered ('An Assessment of Underground Gas Storage Technologies and Incidents for the Development of Risk Assessment Methodology' 2008; 'Failure Rates for Underground Gas Storage' 2008).The reports conclude that storage of gas in salt cavern has extremely low incident and casualty numbers and that geological failure of a storage cavity in salt is extremely low to the extent that it can be considered negligible. In terms of visual harm the major elements of the proposal including the pumping stations and compressor station have been redesigned to reduce their visual impact and a landscape strategy for the application area is proposed to mitigate visual impact and enhance the diversity of the landscape. A temporary access road linking the site to the A588 is proposed avoiding the Cemetery Lane Junction and associated residential properties. Additional noise assessments have been carried out to demonstrate that there would be no significant impact from noise on sensitive receptors during the construction phase and operational life of the site. The applicant has reviewed the need for gas storage facilities since the previous application was considered and concludes there is greater need than previous and that the need is supported by current Government policy and thinking reflected in the decision by the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for a similar, albeit smaller proposal to store gas in underground salt caverns in Cheshire (King Street) (210,000 tonnes, 263 million cubic metres, of which 160 million cubic metres would be available for trading at any one time with the remainder being retained as cushion gas). The applicant maintains that the Preesall proposal would make a significant contribution to gas storage and supplies in the UK close to market need (1.2 million tonnes with over a billion cubic metres of working gas) and be able to rapidly respond to fluctuations in market demand due to the design of the facility. The project (if fully constructed) could provide storage for the equivalent of an additional 6 days of national gas demand. The applicant maintains the salt deposits at Preesall have been proven for gas storage and that safety issues would be addressed as part of the COMAH process regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The proposed caverns would be located away from existing workings and in conjunction with engineering design and

46

monitoring systems would ensure any gas leakage could be contained and mitigated. Whilst the applicant accepts the disposal of saturated brine to sea is an unsustainable use of minerals, it is maintained that there continues to be no alternative beneficial use for the salt. Proportionally the quantity of salt lost would be minimal and its loss would be outweighed by the benefits of contributing to the national need for gas storage. In terms of ecology, it is maintained there would be no long term adverse impacts on areas of designated importance following the construction phase of the project and which would be mitigated in part by the proposal to implement a landscape strategy for the area. With regard to landscape and amenity, the major elements of the scheme have been redesigned which the applicant believes will minimise their impact on the landscape and which would be complemented by extensive proposed landscaping. It is acknowledged there would be some impact during the construction phase of the development but this would be mitigated when the landscaping becomes established and the residual impacts would be localised in nature. The applicant believes there would be no risk to users of the Wyre Way from cavern collapse, but accepts that there would be some disruption to footpaths and bridleways on both sides of the estuary. However, exclusion zones would be employed and the disruption would be for a temporary period through the development phase of the project. The applicant strongly believes that proposal has significant locational advantages due to it's proximity to the existing NTS infrastructure; it would replace the depleting Morecambe Bay Gas Field; it would add significant capacity to the western leg of the western leg of the NTS; the salt is suitable; there is a local water source for solution mining; it would have a reliable electrical connection at Stanah; it would have high injection and withdrawal rates; it would have a fast reaction time; it would be reliable; it could be constructed at low cost and has flexibility. Although not forming part of this application, the applicant has also indicated that the development would have the ability to connect to liquid natural gas supplies (LNG) and states that a LNG re-gasification facility could be developed near the Preesall project. (The applicant has been granted planning permission for a re-gasification plant at Amlwch in Anglesey associated with a deep water landing and has publicly expressed a view to interconnect such with the NTS in Lancashire and or the Preesall project) Issues Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise. It is necessary to assess the proposal against development plan policy, national policy and assess the environmental impacts and proposed means of mitigation against those policies, the

47

advice provided by statuary consultees and with regard to those views expressed by other bodies, groups and individuals and all material planning considerations. Assessment has been broken down under the following specific issues:

• Need, national interest and alternatives • Sustainability of the use of salt • Geological conditions, subsidence and implications for safety • Ecology • Visual and landscape impact • Highway and public rights of way • Noise • Water quality/sea defences/flood risk • Safety and security • Perceived fear • Tourism and economic development • Alternative sites • Marine Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

In tandem with the information submitted with the application, the documentation available in terms of planning policy and guidance produced by BGS and the Health and Safety Executive, a recent appeal decision issued by the Secretary of State in favour of a similar, though much smaller proposal at King Street in Cheshire is a worthy reference for many of the central issues that need to be considered as part of this proposal and provides a clear view of current Government thinking which is material to the consideration of this application. This most particularly applies to need, national interest and alternatives; geological conditions, subsidence and implications for safety; safety and security; and perceived fear. In addition, the County Council has retained consultants to undertake an assessment of the proposal in respect of geotechnical and landscape and visual impacts to assist in the assessment of the proposal. Need, national interest and alternatives It is clear the UK's gas reserves are being progressively depleted, that the UK currently imports gas and will become more reliant on imported gas in the foreseeable future, which gives rise to obvious issues of security of supply. It is Government policy to ensure that there is sufficient gas storage to ensure that peak demand levels can reasonably be met or that there are alternative sources of energy available to meet demand. Gas can be stored in a number of ways. Underground storage in chambers or caverns created by solution mining, depleted oil or gas fields, aquifers, liquefied natural gas (LNG) in above ground tanks and conventional gasometers. It must be stored to meet demand, daily and seasonal variations and provide security of supply. The applicant has advised that depleted gas fields can be used but are slow to fill (to fill Rough [offshore field] takes 9 months) as gas is pumped in at low pressure. There is no aquifer storage in the UK. LNG has a slow injection rate and conventional gasometers are not capable of storing the volumes of gas necessary. Salt caverns offer a higher rate of input and withdrawal.

48

Gas storage in underground caverns created in salt deposits can only be created where the salt deposits occur in sufficient quantity, quality and depth. Salt deposits exist in the Preesall area. The applicant has sought to demonstrate the national storage position identifying existing and proposed provision including underground salt caverns. National energy policy is set out in a number of documents:

• The 2003 Energy White Paper • The Ministerial Statement on Need 16 May 2006 • The Energy Challenge 2006 (2006 Energy Review Report) • The 2007 Energy White Paper • Energy Markets Outlook – Dec 2008 • Gas Storage in your area – Your questions answered

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has advised that it is for the market to make provision for gas storage and the Government provides support for different types of storage capacity. It supports the benefits of having spare capacity to meet fluctuations in the market or market shocks. On the basis of the information contained in the referred documents it is clear that at the time the previous application was considered there was and continues to be a need for additional gas storage in the UK irrespective of the additional facilities that have become operational, have the benefit of planning permission to be developed or are the subject of planning applications awaiting determination. The impacts of a shortfall of supply on commercial and domestic users could be significant. The Inspector to the King Street case accepted that in an extreme event, if there were to be a major disruption to supply or a pipeline could not be shut down in an orderly fashion, then the consequences could be significant. As part of Government decisions on similar proposals (Byley 2004 and King Street 2009 in Cheshire) the Secretary of States concluded that such schemes were realistic and that there were no overriding objections that were sufficient to outweigh the energy benefits, which they saw as of national importance. The Secretaries of State concluded that salt cavity gas storage is a type of storage that would assist with the security of supply and that the proposed developments would be consistent with national energy policy. The current proposal, if developed to the extent proposed would make a significant contribution to the overall supply of storage capacity in the UK. National Mineral Planning Policy MPS1 (Annex 4) is the only part of national planning guidance which specifically deals with the underground storage of natural gas. It advises that storage facilities are important in balancing peaks and troughs in supply and safeguarding against disruptions to the delivery of gas to the market. It recognises that gas can be stored in caverns created in salt, that proposals for such should be considered in the same way as other mineral extractive proposals but that there are other issues that need to

49

be taken into account including the national energy policy benefit a proposal could contribute to. MPS1 recognises that suitable onshore locations for gas storage are limited by the number of suitable geological features for cavern creation to store gas. Preesall has been identified as one of the locations where a sufficient thickness of salt occurs to accommodate gas storage. Consequently this adds weight to case for the proposal meeting the need for the provision of gas storage, particularly given its proximity to major end users in the north west and to the national transmission line. As with the previous application, it is accepted that there is a need for facilities of this nature. Since the previous application was refused, there is more guidance on the need for safeguarding energy supply and accordingly this proposal would meet the need established in national policy and to which significant weight should be attached provided the site could be developed and developed to the scale proposed. There are no policies in the North West Regional Spatial Strategy, the draft North West Plan Partial Review, LMWLP and the LMWLPCS that address the use of salt caverns for gas storage. Whilst Policy 7 of the RSS deals with minerals extraction and refers to the national significance of the region's salt reserves, it does not address the potential for salt caverns to be used for the storage of gas. It is therefore appropriate to consider the need to safeguard minerals as far as possible and to prevent or minimise the production of minerals waste. MPS1 deals with underground gas storage but provides no advice on the balance to be drawn between the need to safeguard the mineral and the need for the provision of gas storage. A balance therefore must be drawn as to the acceptability of working minerals and disposing them in the proposed way against the need for creating caverns for gas storage. In terms of alternatives, it is accepted that the security of energy supply is in the national interest given the declining reliance upon indigenous gas supply and the increasing reliance on imported supplies. The consequence of an interruption in the supply of energy is fully understood. It is also accepted that there is a need for new gas storage and the primary way that this will be provided is through underground gas storage. However, Government policy is clear that it is for the market to determine where that need should be met and that national need does not mean need for a specific project. In terms of alternative ways of storing gas, there are a number of alternatives including depleted on shore and off shore gas fields and which could make a significant contribution to the amount of gas that could be stored. However, Government has implied (Ministerial Statement on Need 2006) that the use of alternatives is not acceptable as a reason for not supporting a proposal for underground gas storage. The Inspector in the King Street case concluded that 'the principle of the extraction of brine to form underground cavities for the storage of gas has been recognised through both national policy and decisions taken by the Secretary of State (and subsequently accepted in the King Street case) (and that) the national need for such

50

storage is expressed in Government Policy documents and Ministerial Statements in terms that reflect the urgency of the requirement and the critical impact a lack of gas storage capacity could have on the UK economy'. Many of the representations received objecting to the proposal cite need, or rather lack of it, as a reason why the proposal should be resisted. Protect Wyre Group has sought to demonstrate that the need for the facility has not been proven because:

• As permission has been granted for storage of gas under Morecambe bay there is even less need than when it was thrown out in 2007. There are also other schemes such as Milford Haven that have been granted permission.

• It would only increase storage by 6 days of national consumption. • There is no need to store such a volume of natural gas as the government

has committed more to nuclear and renewable energy generation. • The government has set targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels. • The gas stored would not bring down prices in times of shortage of gas

supplies as the private company will sell to the highest bidder. • It is not needed to guarantee the supply of gas to the UK market.

However, these reasons for objecting to the proposal are not reflected in government policy and ministerial statements and therefore it is concluded that they cannot be supported. It is therefore concluded that the weight to be attached to this proposal and the contribution it would make towards the national need for gas storage is significant – thus an additional 6 days of supply at a time of national need (e.g. the one in 50 year winter may be nationally important). However, this must be considered against the other issues raised by the proposal. The Government's draft National Policy Statements (NPS) have recently been published and are subject to consultation as part of the new Independent Planning Commission (IPC) regime for determining planning applications of national significance. Whilst they are draft (the consultation period closes on 22nd February 2010) they are material considerations and to which appropriate weight should be attached. The proposal is of such a scale that if submitted now would fall to be determined by the IPC. Nevertheless, given the publication of the draft National Policy Statements it is considered appropriate to have regard to the content of such as part of the determination of this application. It is accepted that the proposal would comply with the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1) in that it would contribute towards maintaining the supply of energy during the transition towards delivering a low carbon economy. Similarly, the proposal would not be in conflict with EN-3 in that gas can only be stored underground in certain locations where geology would support such. However, whilst EN-1 and EN-4 are quite clear in their emphasis on the importance of infrastructure projects of this nature, they are equally clear that a proposal would be considered on its merits, the benefits must be assessed against the impacts and if the benefits do not outweigh the impacts, then consent should be refused. The application has been considered on this basis. It is therefore a question of what weight is attached to the benefits against the impacts.

51

It is also important when ascribing weight to the proposed development whether there is any uncertainty over the level of provision that may be achieved. Thus if there was any uncertainty over the capacity of the geological strata to accommodate the claimed extent of gas storage then the benefits which would arise from the proposal would be commensurately reduced. Sustainability of the use of salt Historically, brine has been extracted from the Preesall brine field, most recently for industrial purposes associated with the production of chlorine at the former ICI works on the west side of the Wyre Estuary in Fleetwood. Some similar developments for underground gas storage, particularly in Cheshire, still use the brine from solution mining for industrial purposes, although the recent proposal at King Street similarly proposes to dispose of the saturated brine off shore via an interconnecting pipeline and in that case to the Mersey Estuary. The current proposals involve the use of seawater abstracted from Fleetwood fish dock for solution mining, the saturated brine from which is then proposed to be discharged via pipeline and outfall directly into the Irish Sea (80 million litres per day). The scheme is unusual in that whilst it is for the extraction of minerals, from the time they are raised to the surface in the form of saturated brine, they would not be used for any industrial purpose. The brine would be disposed of via a pipeline across the Fleetwood peninsula and an outfall to the Irish Sea in a way which would initially be severely detrimental to the marine ecology (addressed below). The demise of the industries using salt in the area suggests that there may be no realistic demand for further workings in the foreseeable future [a fact which was accepted by the Secretary of State in the King Street decision]. Nevertheless, salt has limited geological occurrence in the UK and it is considered that the mining and disposal of saturated brine in this way is, of itself, is not a sustainable use of mineral resources (recognised in the previous decision on this site as well as in the King Street case and accepted by the applicant). The Regional Spatial Strategy refers to salt as of national significance, that it is a mineral that should be protected from other forms of development through the Development Plan Process (Policy EM7) and requires minerals to be worked in a sustainable manner. It is also reflected in PPG1, which requires development to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. MPG1 similarly refers to sustainable development and seeks to conserve minerals as far as possible to ensure that when they are exploited, it is in an environmentally acceptable way, that the production of waste is minimised and areas of designated landscape or nature conservation value should be protected from development other than in exceptional circumstances and where it has been demonstrated that development is in the public interest.

52

The applicant has considered the alternatives to disposing of the salt in the way proposed and concludes that there is no market in the foreseeable future; it is however, accepted that the disposal of such in this way would not be sustainable. The applicant concludes that the use of brine, salt or other product from the project is of no particular commercial interest to any organisation in the industry even if the brine has zero cost at the point of delivery. In terms of overall sustainability, the applicant maintains that the use of the salt field for underground gas storage is sustainable in that it makes use of an underused resource and that the need for gas storage outweighs the disposal of salt in the way proposed. Discarding the mineral as proposed would be in conflict with MPS1, Policy EM7 of the RSS and Policy CS1 the LMWCS which seek to conserve mineral reserves for future generations and arguably would be contrary to the EU Waste Directive by disposing of the mineral as waste in a marine environment. The Secretary of State in the King Street case concluded that whilst the disposal of salt was itself unsustainable, where this could be done in an environmentally acceptable way, it would not necessarily be unacceptable. The Secretary of State also concluded that for the purposes of MPS1 extracted brine may be discharged into a nearby estuary or sea, that the BGS fact sheet states that the disposal in this way takes place where there is no market for salt and that the unsustainability of disposing of salt in this way was outweighed by the need for additional gas storage provision. Whilst the Secretary of State's decision on the previous Canatxx appeal concluded the disposal of salt was unsustainable, it also concluded that this was not a significant objection. Since that decision, discharge consent to dispose of salt into the Irish Sea has been granted by the Environment Agency. In light of the publication of further guidance that accepts the principle of disposing of minerals in this way where there is no unacceptable environmental impact and the disbenefits are overridden by other circumstances, and in light of the King Street decision, it is concluded that whilst the disposal of salt in the way proposed is unsustainable and contrary to policy, there are other material considerations which would outweigh the loss of reserves and that such conflict with policy does not constitute an overriding objection to the proposal or a reason for refusing the application, even though it plainly weighs against the grant of permission. Geology There are a number of on and off shore locations in the UK which have geological occurrences of salt beds. Some have been demonstrated as being of the quality and depth capable of supporting gas storage caverns. Some have, are or are being proposed for development . These are located on the east coast of Yorkshire, in Cheshire, Dorset and Northern Ireland. Salt has previously been worked by dry deep mining and by solution mining at Preesall on the east side of the Wyre Estuary where there is extensive evidence in the form of wellheads, subsidence and water filled depressions of varying scale. The

53

salt field has been used as a source of salt most recently by ICI for chemical feedstock for chlorine production. The applicant does not propose to use any of the existing caverns, which are in shallower deposits for the storage of gas. The applicant advises that the salt deposits within which the caverns would be created are at a greater depth located beneath the Wyre Estuary in a layer of bedded salt. Borehole information provided by the applicant (including that for the 2004 application) indicates that within the red-line area the top of the salt is at a depth varying from about 95 metres to about 370 metres below ground level and the thickness of the salt varies from about 80 metres to 320 metres. The shallowest and thinnest salt is in the south of the area, near Burrows Farm. Notwithstanding this area was proved to be unlikely to be capable of accommodating caverns of the size proposed as part of the previous appeal, the applicant has not discounted this area from possible cavern development as part of this application. The caverns would be created using solution mining techniques involving directional drilling from the eastern shore of the estuary and vertical drilling elsewhere. On completion of each cavern it would be pressure tested to the satisfaction of the Health and Safety Executive before it could be certified fit for service with specified minimum and maximum pressures. Gas would then be pumped in under pressure via the compressor station interconnected to the NTS to displace the brine, which would be discharged via the pipeline to the Irish Sea. The proposal has generated considerable concern about the nature of the geology of the area: its capability of securely storing gas, particularly given the nature and number of worldwide events (particularly at Hutchinson, Kansas and Moss Bluff, Houston); the opportunity for gas to migrate from the site into the surrounding geology and subsequently to generate risk to surface development and people; the relationship of the proposed caverns to the existing previously worked caverns, the possible risk of migration of gas towards these caverns and the risk of contamination with the cavern storing mercuric sulphide. The geology of the area has generated specific concern from some of the statutory consultees (including Wyre Borough Council, Preesall Town Council, Stalmine-with-Staynall Parish Council, Fleetwood Town Council) the Protect Wyre Group and a significant number of people who have made representations. It is accepted that the geological conditions and cavern criteria would be similarly assessed as part of the COMAH Safety Report and regulated by the Health and Safety Executive but it is still necessary to ensure the geological conditions can support the development and this was found to be a material consideration by the Secretary of State when determining the previous planning application and by the Secretary of State in determining the King Street application. As part of the land use planning system it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the development going ahead to be able to deliver the benefits claimed. The existence of a separate control regime does not render immaterial that which would otherwise be a material consideration. A planning decision is a land use decision and there would be no point in authorising something which may be impossible to use. To assess the benefit of a proposal there needs to be some evidence that such a benefit would be capable of being delivered.

54

Further geological information has been submitted as part of and subsequent to the submission of the SEI. The County Council has appointed a consultant to assess this information to establish the adequacy and acceptability of such and to enable the County Council to come to a view as to whether the geology is capable of supporting the proposal and would minimise or prevent any associated risks of gas migration. The findings of the assessment are summarised as follows.

• Much of the information provided compares the Preesall proposal with other underground gas storage schemes and is intended to show that the information required by the County Council for this application exceed that which has been required for other gas storage applications elsewhere in the UK. However, the proposal must be considered on its own merits and rigorous information is required in this instance because of the relatively small size of the saltfield. The comparative information is therefore not relevant to the application.

• Compared with other salt fields elsewhere in the UK the Preesall salt field is complex and heavily faulted.

• Unusually for a minerals application (for the extraction of salt) there is no

single comprehensive illustrated report of the geology for the area and no description of how the proposed caverns will be accommodated within the geological structure.

• The applicant is of the view that neither the details of the geology and

geomechanics of the salt field nor the cavern locations are relevant planning matters. This is contrary to the views of the Inspector following the previous public inquiry (and other cases, including King Street) and agreed by the Secretary of State.

• The Inspector was advised on geological matters by a Technical Assessor. In

her report the Assessor set out a number of matters on which she considered that further geological and related information was required before planning permission could be granted together with the objectives of that information and with which the Inspector and Secretary of State agreed. With the exception of data from two new boreholes, none of the information listed by the Assessor has been provided and only very limited objectives have been achieved.

• The proposal is to store 1.2 million tonnes of gas in up to 36 caverns (an

increase from 24). The Assessor calculated that taking into account of various difficulties, the available storage capacity could be as little as 0.17 million tonnes. No indication is given in the current application as to how the difficulties set out by the Assessor are to be overcome.

• It is considered that in theory there is sufficient rock salt in the northern part of

the site to accommodate the proposed quantities of gas storage provided the salt is of a suitable quality throughout its depth and extent; but such suitability is not considered to have been demonstrated. Mudstone beds within the salt

55

claimed by the applicant to demonstrate the consistent and predictable character of the salt bed, are less predictable than suggested.

• Only limited, short term rock tests have been carried out which do not prove

the suitability of the geology of the area.

• Recent geotechnical investigations of the salt has been primarily on its permeability and has identified unusually low static pore pressure and which can have an adverse impact on the containment of the gas cavern.

• Whilst the applicant has sought to demonstrate that wet rockhead has not

developed in the area of the proposed caverns, it is evident elsewhere and is potentially part of a chain of migratory pathways. This is a major concern in terms of the long term stability of the caverns

• The caverns are mostly to be created by directional drilling from six wellhead

locations containing six wells each. It would appear that the wells would need to be drilled up to 900 metres laterally in a depth of only 320 – 450 metres. Analysis suggest that at these depths caverns could not be created more than about 250 metres from the wellhead positions. This would severely restrict the area within which caverns could be created and calls into question the capacity of the scheme and the overall achievability of the proposals.

• The applicant turns to the Health and Safety Executive reports published in

2008 to support the proposal. The reports recommend rigorous investigation of proposed under ground gas storage sites and do not lend support to any individual scheme.

Concerns have been expressed about the risk of subsidence and from earthquakes. However, it is accepted that new properly designed caverns are unlikely to give rise to subsidence and the risk associated with earth quake is minimal. It is acknowledged that cavern development and the geology of the area to accommodate such would be the subject of further investigations and detailed analysis as part of the safety case required under COMAH legislation by the HSE. Notwithstanding the reliance which can be placed on compliance with other legislation including COMAH, it is important to consider this proposal on its own merits and against the findings of the Secretary of State to the previous application and appeal which are material to the consideration of this application. In this case it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated the capability of the salt deposit to safely accommodate the quantities of gas proposed. The proposal is to all intent and purposes the same as previous in principle in terms of the quantities of gas to be stored, the means by which the caverns are to be created and the area within which they are proposed to be created. However, notwithstanding the evidence that not all of the area within the application site can be developed in the way proposed (to the south of the site nearest Burrows Farm), the applicant maintains an interest in this area, has increased the proposed number of caverns from 24 to 36 but has not identified where the caverns may be located, relying on the COMAH process to deal with this at a later stage. Further, the applicant has undertaken no further monitoring to understand the stability of the existing caverns.

56

This is particularly concerning given the close proximity of former caverns to the proposed infrastructure associated with the proposal, particularly the access roads and control building. This approach was not supported by the Secretary of State in the previous application, and given there are no material change in circumstances since that decision it is considered that those findings remain highly material to the current proposal. The applicant has not satisfactorily addressed the findings of the Secretary of State and consequently brings into question the capability of the project to accommodate the number of caverns proposed and the quantities of gas to be stored. It also brings into question what contribution such quantities would make to national need, particularly given the amount of infrastructure required to create one cavern and the impacts associated with such. Unless the geology and the capability of the geology to accommodate caverns and the number of caverns proposed is proven, it is considered that the viability of the project and the contribution it could make to national need is very questionable. British Geological Survey (BGS) has provided scientific data on the rocks below the surface in which gas may be stored and has publicly stated that their work addresses some of the points raised during the 2005-6 public inquiry relating to the previous proposals. They have been employed to produce a three dimensional geological model of the salt field and provide geological data. However, BGS has similarly publicly stated that they are not commenting on the suitability of the Preesall area for gas storage and that this would be addressed by other experts in the design and construction of caverns for gas storage purposes – presumably at the COMAH stage of the project. However, the capability of the salt to accommodate a project of this nature to the scale proposed and to accommodate it safely is considered to be a material planning consideration. It is considered that the application has not satisfactorily addressed this. The lack of geological information to demonstrate the suitability and capability of the salt to support this proposed development is therefore considered to be a major flaw in this application. Ecology The application site falls within and in close proximity to a number of statutory and non - statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance. Morecambe Bay and the Wyre Estuary are designated a RAMSAR site, a SPA and a SSSI in view of their international importance for mudflat and salt marsh habitats, and the fauna and birds they support. Morecambe Bay is also designated a SAC. There are a number of BHS’s designated on the Fleetwood peninsula for their vegetation, bird, invertebrate and mammal interest on the west side of the estuary. International and national protected species are recorded in close proximity to the BHSs. The development impacts on three areas, the Wyre Estuary and Preesall area, the zone of the proposed discharge pipeline across the Fleetwood peninsula and the marine environment in view of the outfall.

57

The Environmental Assessment and SEI refer to a number of desk and field surveys carried out throughout these areas in consultation with a number of specified ecological bodies/groups. It accepts there would be limited disturbance primarily through the development phase of the project. It also concludes that the protected areas are also at risk from the drilling operations and potential pollution associated with such, although mitigation measures would seek to minimise that risk. It accepts those fields on the landward side of the estuary, which support wintering wildfowl and provides a breeding habitat would be adversely affected and proposes a landscape strategy to minimise the impacts and maximise the opportunities for protecting and creating habitats. With regard to the Fleetwood peninsula, no statutory conservation sites would be affected but the proposed revised alignment of the pipeline would affect the Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS with the loss of flora significant to Lancashire. It would also cross the Fleetwood Promenade BHS. The assessment recognises that during the construction of the pipeline there would be significant disturbance and temporary loss of habitat but maintains this is in the short term and maintains these impacts could be mitigated by reinstatement. The EIA and SEI acknowledge the construction of the brine outfall and its operation would cause short-term disturbance to intertidal and subtidal habitats during construction. More significantly they conclude that the discharge of brine would cause localised mortality of static species during the operational phase of the brine discharge pipeline although recovery is likely once discharge ceases. The assessment has undertaken a plume modelling exercise that concludes brine discharge would not impact on the Morecambe Bay area. Liverpool Bay is proposed as a Special Area for Conservation. The previous proposal generated considerable concern with the statutory and non-statutory ecological bodies and many of the representations received. Some of the concerns of the ecological groups have been allayed by the revised proposals and the SEI. However, many of the concerns could now be dealt with by way of planning condition as referred in the summaries of their representations, including mitigation on affected species and environments and the provision of long term management plans. Natural England have maintained a holding objection in view of a small encroachment into the Liverpool Bay pSPA and a lack of information to confirm there would be no significant effect on Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site as a result of the loss of terrestrial habitat for Pink Footed Geese. They recommend that a detailed management strategy is submitted and agreed prior to the determination of the planning application. With regard to the marine environment, the assessment of the impacts on such is a matter for the Environment Agency which has now issued a discharge consent. In view of the issue of the discharge consent and in light of the views of the specialist advisory bodies it is considered that Ramsar Site, SPA, SAC, SSSI and statutorily protected species would not be so affected or mitigation measures could be provided to ensure their protection through the construction and operational phases of the development. Providing a detailed management strategy to protect farmland within the control of the applicant for perpetuity for birds associated with the Morecambe

58

Bay SPA/Ramsar site, namely Pink Footed Geese, it is considered that the proposed habitat mitigation and management measures would satisfy the Conservation (Natural Habitats and Conservation) Regulations 1994 and the Habitat Directive. Visual and Landscape Impact The main visual impact associated with the development would be during the construction phase and from the above ground plant, access tracks, wellheads and secure compounds, buildings and associated features such as storage compounds, parking areas etc for the operational life of the site to be located on the eastern side of the estuary. In view of the nature and scale of the proposal, which would introduce significant changes to the landscape of a permanent nature over the operational life of the site and possibly beyond if certain elements of the infrastructure are retained beyond the decommissioning stage, consultants have been appointed to undertake an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. There are details of the elevations of the proposed buildings with cross sectional detail and projected visual impact along with (albeit fewer) details of the other components, particularly throughout the development stage and once completed in respect of access tracks, wellhead compounds and boundary treatment. A visual appraisal of the development has been undertaken by the applicant as part of the EIA, which concludes that most of the impacts would be temporary and those impacts that would be permanent would be mitigated by landscaping in time. The appraisal recognises that there would be some disturbance as part of the pipeline construction across the Fleetwood peninsula and there would be a need to ensure a sensitive programme of works, reinstatement and mitigation, although this would be for a short term period. The landscape to the east of the estuary is of high quality and is characterised by two distinct landscape character tracts; the low lying mud flats and salt marshes associated with the estuary and an established agricultural landscape of the coastal plain comprising medium sized fields enclosed by hedges and scattered farmsteads. The area lies within the Coasts and Estuaries and Amounderness landscape tracts defined in the Landscape and Heritage SPG to the former Lancashire Structure Plan and which has been retained for development control purposes. This gives priority to the conservation of sand dunes, salt marshes, coastal cliffs and grasslands, beaches and other intertidal habitats. The site also lies within the Open Coastal Marsh, Coastal Plain and Suburban Landscape Character Types. Consultants appointed by the County Council have undertaken an appraisal of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. The conclusions and summary of the assessment are summarised as follows. Impacts on the coastal environment

• The impacts are considered to be temporary and reversible and would be implemented during the earliest stages of construction. Permanent impacts

59

are limited and would not have a permanent detrimental effect on the open character of the coast. The viewing platform at the sea wall has potential to enhance the coastal environment.

• Impacts on the urban environment, including Green Belt: the scheme would

not result in long term, permanent or irreversible adverse impacts and certain aspects have the scope to make a positive contribution to the urban environment. During operation and after implementation of mitigation measures there would not be a permanent loss of land that otherwise contributes to open space and recreational needs. Mitigation proposals largely relate to reinstatement of land and features disturbed during construction, the long term maintenance of which provide opportunities to increase the amenity value of the area and positively contribute to the setting and context of other areas of urban regeneration.

Impacts on the rural environment

• Conclusions drawn by the Inspector, and subsequently the Secretary of State, in relation to the refusal of the previous application/appeal are also relevant to this application. The Scheme would have generally adverse impacts on the areas of open countryside and this would conflict with the aims of the policies for the rural area, specifically aims related to protecting or enhancing the rural environment.

• The proposals for mitigation and enhancements go some way to improving

the visual appearance of the scheme in the rural environment and reducing the overall adverse impact of the development. The Hyder LVIA has considered these elements and concludes that in this area, and in spite of high quality design and mitigation, the residual impacts on the landscape would be moderate/slight adverse. Notwithstanding the application of high quality design and mitigation measures, the cumulative effects of the scheme would have significant implications on the character and quality of the rural environment and also on the visual receptors.

• The influence of development would extend over a length of 3.5km (north to

south), effectively visually severing the Wyre Estuary from the areas of rural farmland to the east. This introduces sufficient build elements into the area to fundamentally alter the character of the area from that which is currently rural (with the potential to enjoy undisturbed recreational activities that have only distant views of urban features on the west of the estuary) and fundamentally altering the character of this strip to a more urban character.

• The estuary itself will always form a physical separating element to the

merging of urban development. However, the introduction of industrial built features, tracks and roads as well as the temporary and permanent disturbance to the existing landscape components can only serve to increase disturbance to this area to such a level that the urban character of the peninsular will breach the barrier with industrial elements both to the east and west of the estuary seen in the same views and setting. This will ultimately

60

lead to increased pressure on the remaining undeveloped rural land between the estuary and the settlement belt to the east.

• Whilst proximity to the proposed underground gas storage facility and the

interconnecting pipeline to the national transmission line may deliver operational convenience, it would be preferable for the industrial buildings, plant and equipment elements of the development that are not essential for the solution mining of the salt, such as the compressor complex, to be sited remotely on the western side of the estuary as part of the existing industrial development thereby reducing the visual impact of it in the rural environment on the east side of the estuary.

• The issue of cavern collapse is not addressed in the Hyder LVIA. Should this event occur the resultant impacts on landscape and visual amenity would conflict with the policies protecting the rural environment.

Impacts on amenity

• The Scheme is likely to have direct and indirect impacts on trees located in each of the study areas and this would be in conflict with the broad principles of policy relating to protection of trees. However, it is considered that given strict control the impacts could be mitigated and/or offset and that the Scheme would be acceptable in relation to this policy.

• For a full and reserved matters application local policy requires a detailed tree

survey to be completed and should permission be granted this would need to be conditioned to ensure acceptability in relation to this policy.

• The issue of cavern collapse is also relevant to the amenity of the area.

Based on the presumption that collapse remains a risk, albeit a low risk, this matter would also conflict with policies on rights of way due to the potential severance of the Wyre Way (and other routes in the area). Furthermore there would be a number of impacts on the amenity of rights of way due to the construction period, buildings and access roads proposed in the area. Having considered these matters the Scheme would not be acceptable in terms of policy relating to the rights of way network.

Overall conclusion

• In overall terms the focus of the most significant landscape and visual impacts are in the Wyre and Preesall study area. Here the applicant has failed to demonstrate that through siting and design of the scheme, every effort has been made to minimise the impacts of the proposals and, indeed, that alternative approaches were considered.

• Impacts on the coastal and urban environments have been assessed with

reference to the Irish Sea study area and the Fylde Peninsula study area. There would be limited impacts on the coastal environment in relation to the Wyre Estuary and Preesall study area. Although the impacts on these areas would be largely adverse in nature, they would also be temporary and

61

reversible. The nature of these impacts would not be strictly in accordance with planning policy. However, the temporary and reversible nature of the different components mean that the Scheme would not fundamentally conflict with the overall long term aims of the policies.

• There are also components of the Scheme located in the Irish Sea study area

and the Fylde Peninsula study area that would be permanent. These include the pavilion style viewing platform and the Seawater Pump Station. Due to the nature and proposed design of these components in the context of their proposed setting and immediate environment, the Hyder LVIA concludes that these components of the Scheme would result in beneficial impacts. This conclusion is considered reasonable and both of the components, albeit by different functions, would have a positive contribution to the seascape or townscape in the locality. In the relevant policy context these components of the Scheme would comply with planning policy in general, however, the importance of applying strict control of the detailed design and implementation of these components should not be underestimated in order to ensure that benefits are maximised.

• The limited adverse impacts of the Scheme on seascape and urban

environments and also the potential for positive contributions to these areas would not be outweighed by the adverse effects of the Scheme on the rural environment and the significant harm to the amenity of these areas, particularly to the east of the Wyre Estuary.

• In general, the proposed Scheme includes appropriate mitigation proposals.

However, there would remain a long term, adverse residual impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area. This is recognised in the conclusions of the Hyder LVIA. Furthermore, these conclusions do not alleviate or mitigate the key conclusions of the Inspector, and subsequently the Secretary of State, in the refusal of the previous application and in respect to visual harm loss of amenity in this rural area. Recent proposed changes to the Scheme are linked strongly to engineering and health and safety and not to a proposed improvement in terms of setting and lowering of impacts. The newly proposed location of the Northern Booster Pump Station in particular would result in substantial adverse impacts on landscape character and visual impacts, over that identified in the original ES as the height of the buildings are in the region of 7.3m and 5.3m (to ridge line). Along this section of the Wyre Way this would obliterate views to the west and form a totally dominant feature along the final stretch of the route as it passes by the golf course and into Knott End on Sea.

• Where development proposals are in accordance with policy at any level the

critical factor is adhering to aims that target the highest possible standards of design in order to generate the largest benefits from proposed mitigation and enhancements. The Hyder LVIA has made several references to mitigation and enhancements that would reduce the residual effects of the Scheme, however, in overall terms these do not offset the level of adverse impact on landscape character, landscape features and on visual receptors.

62

• On balance the adverse effects of the Scheme on the open countryside and rural environment would outweigh the positive influences on the coastal and urban environments. Mitigation measures would not be sufficient to reduce the overall harm of the urban features in the rural environment and there would be a fundamental change to landscape character from the introduction of urban features (as seen to the west of the estuary) further to the east.

As with the previous application no issues are raised with the proposed development on the Fleetwood Peninsula in principle and that details regarding the development phase and construction of the viewing platform and pumping station could be dealt with by condition in the event planning permission were to be granted. However, to the east of the estuary, the proposed booster pump stations and compressor station associated yards and access roads are significantly larger developments than any that are currently present in the area. They would be substantial in scale and would remain visually incongruous in the area being uncharacteristic in design. It is considered that they would have some adverse visual impact in the otherwise predominately rural landscape characterised by low hills, hedgerows and woodland and designated as a Countryside Area in the Wyre Borough Local Plan. They would be visually prominent in the area until such time as landscaping could reduce that impact, and given the location of the site and the prevailing winds, the landscaping could take longer to become established to a degree that it would seriously contribute to mitigating the visual impacts of the buildings. It is considered that any change in design would not reduce the overall impact of the buildings in the rural environment and they would remain of significant incongruous scale throughout the long term operational life of the site. It is also considered that the proposed landscaping could not be designed without in its own right further altering the nature of the rural open environment through the introduction of more extensive vegetation structure, particularly linear belts of screening and formal setting out of planting around buildings and structures that would not be in-keeping with the existing field patterns and network of trees, woodland and hedgerows. This would also lead to greater some detrimental impact on the use of the area by wintering wildfowl associated with the adjoining protected habitats. The locations of the wellhead compounds are indicative and are of a 'typical' design. Their precise locations are unknown and consequently the generic design does not take into account the specific locational features or impacts. Irrespective, in what ever form they take, they would introduce a significant large scale industrial element to an area which, whilst having some industrial past, is predominantly devoid of such infrastructure and is an open rural agricultural landscape. Even following construction of the caverns when the well head compounds may be reduced in scale, they would still be significant in scale, particularly in relation to the rural nature of the area and when viewed from the Wyre Way. It is considered they would remain dominant, particularly throughout the development period when they would require large supporting secure compounds and would throughout that period and on subsequent completion, be surrounded by industrial security fencing. This type of development would adversely affect the visual amenities of the area enjoyed by

63

recreational users particularly throughout the development period but more significantly during the operational life of the site for a substantial period of time. The development as a whole would bring a permanent significant change to an area that is locally protected for its landscape value in conjunction with the adjoining areas of protected ecological interest. Whilst the buildings could be redesigned to be more in keeping with a rural environment, their scale and purpose and external associated infrastructure would still far exceed that which could normally be associated with agricultural practices. It is considered that any changes that could be made to the proposal to reduce this level of impact would not address the fundamental concern regarding visual impact. The relocation of elements of the development that are not essential to the extraction of salt by solution mining and a significant reduction in the scale of above ground infrastructure associated with the extraction of salt may assist in reducing the visual impact but for which alternatives have not been considered. Consequently these elements are seen to be contrary to policy in that they are not essential to the extraction of salt and for which no special circumstances have been demonstrated. The applicant is of the view that the level of above ground infrastructure with its associated landscape mitigation would minimise its visual impact to an acceptable degree and that the visual impact associated with such would in any event be outweighed by the national need. The applicant is also of the view that this level of development and associated infrastructure is needed irrespective of the number of caverns that would be created. Given the reliance on the HSE and the COMAH process to determine the capability of the salt to accommodate the development and in view of the uncertainty of such and the level of contribution this development could make to national need, the level of infrastructure proposed may prove excessive and the balance of acceptability or otherwise of the landscape and visual impact of the development against national need becomes more difficult to measure. Nevertheless, the development within the area to the east of the estuary of the scale and design proposed is considered unacceptable and contrary to Policies EM1, DP7 and RDF3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Policies 2 and 7 of the LMWLP, Policies SP14 and ENV2 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan and Policies CORE11 and ENVT2 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan Review.. However, this impact must be considered against the capability of the site being developed and the contribution it would make to national need. Highway and Public Rights of Way The proposed development involves works on both sides of the estuary. A Traffic Assessment has been carried out. The applicant has set out an overall phasing plan for these works and prepared an estimate of traffic volumes. All the works to the west of the estuary involving the construction of the sea water pump station, the brine discharge pipeline and the out fall would be constructed in the first year of the project. Access would be primarily taken from the A588 and the A585 (T) to the respective elements of the development. It is estimated there would be 635 HGV's (1270 movements) via the A585 (T) and subsequently via the local highway network to access the development areas in year one, after which there would be no further development works or development traffic. The assessment

64

concludes that in the context of the overall urban complex of the Fleetwood peninsula, the volume of generated traffic would be part of the normal economic activity and would not be significant. The works on the east side of the estuary involving the construction of the booster stations, compressor station, access roads, service tracks, drilling pads and underground pipelines are proposed to be undertaken over a period of three years. All HGV traffic would access the site from the south. A temporary access road to by pass the difficult junction of the A588 with Cemetery Lane is proposed along which all vehicular access to the site is proposed to be taken. It is estimated that there would be in the region of 2064 HGV's (4128 movements) in year one, which would access the area using the A588 from the south via the A585 (T). In year two it is estimated there would be 1521HGV's (3042 movements) and 1384 (2768 movements) in year 3. It is stated that the majority of vehicles would be delivering granular material for tracked surfaces, building sub bases and some of the drilling pads. The main routes to the site would be via the A588 through Hambleton from the south. The assessment concludes that the volumes of traffic would not be significant in terms of the A588. The applicant further concludes that there are very special circumstances associated with the development which would outweigh the impacts on the highway. Notwithstanding the status of the A588, it is a road that wends its way through a rural area and a number of settlements and provides access to a large number of lanes serving scattered dwellings and farmsteads. It passes through Hambleton in the south, Stalmine, Stakepool and Cockerham in the west before turning north to Lancaster. Cemetery Lane, Staynall lane and High Gate Lane are narrow single-track lanes mainly hedged serving two caravan sites and scattered dwellings and farmsteads. The Highways Agency has advised that as most of the vehicles associated with the development would take place outside of the conventional peak hours and would be confined to a limited duration, the impact of this traffic on the strategic highway network should not be material and therefore no principle objections are raised subject to HGV movements being restricted to outside peak travel times and appropriate construction methods employed for passing services under the A588. The Director HEM has raised no objection to the development on the west side of the estuary subject to the submission of details in respect of the development access points. The Highways Agency has raised no objection subject to a restriction on vehicle movements to outside peak periods and controlled directional drilling to accommodate services below the road which could be controlled by condition. There is therefore no objection to the proposal in terms of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development on the western side of the Wyre estuary. With regard to the development east of the estuary, the Director HEM has similarly advised that the primary concerns regarding the use of Cemetery Lane have been satisfactorily addressed by the proposed new access and raises no objection to the

65

use of the A588 subject to conditions requiring various details to be submitted regarding access points, a restriction on the routing of vehicles, improvements to the travel plan and the establishment of a traffic liaison group. Notwithstanding these views the proposed increase in HGV movements on the primary and local highway network has generated considerable cause for concern and which is expressed by many of the representations received. It is accepted that the increase in movements would be for a temporary period, but the movements are significant and would be over a period of 3 years. Vehicles would use highways that it would appear are capable of accommodating them but inevitably their presence would have a negative impact on the safety and amenity of other highway users. The movement of these vehicles would lead to a major loss of highway amenity to users of both the primary and local road network and to the amenities of residential properties fronting such for the duration of the construction phase of the development. The proposed Iink road from the A588 to the site did not form part of the previous application but was considered in principle as part of the public inquiry. The Secretary of Sate considered a link road could be acceptable. Consequently the applicant proposes a new link road between the A588 and the site entrance as part of this application. The alignment of the link road and consequently the boundary of the planning application have been amended to address land ownership issues. The acceptability in principle of a link road has been previously accepted and would have the considerable benefit of providing an access link to the site from the A588 for vehicles and thereby avoiding the very difficult junction with Cemetery Lane. Whilst there would be significant increases in HGV vehicles throughout the three year development period, the A588 is capable of accommodating such and to which no objection has been raised by the Director HEM. There would be conflict between an increase in HGV movements and a consequent loss of amenity to highway users. However, this was not considered to be of such a scale that would constitute a sustainable reason for refusal as part of the previous application and given there are no significant changes to the current application other than an improvement in terms of the proposed link road, then HGVs on the local highway network and conflicts with other highway users is not considered to constitute a sustainable reason for refusing this application and it is accepted that any conflict would be outweighed by the national need for gas storage, nonetheless it is a factor which weighs against the proposed development in the overall planning balance. The significance of the realignment of the proposed link road and consequent change to the planning application boundary is that it would bring the boundary and the proposed link road considerably closer to Ivy Cottages on Back Lane with little opportunity to provide mitigation to reduce the impact of such a concentration of HGV movements during the construction and subsequent operational phase of the operations. Whilst the link road would not necessarily lead to any unacceptable vehicular conflict on Staynall Lane and provide some mitigation along the alignment of such to protect the amenities of Ivy Cottages, there is no doubt that the introduction of this link road into this location would make a significant change to the amenities of the area and particularly those of the residents of Ivy Cottages by virtue of introducing HGV movements into the area and associated noise into the area.

66

However, whilst some mitigation could be provided to reduce that impact and that the loss of amenity to a small number of properties may be considered to be outweighed by the national need for underground gas storage, it is a factor which weighs against the proposed development in the overall planning balance. With regard to public rights of way, the development on the western side of the Wyre Estuary would adversely affect the public footpath along the western bank of the River Wyre at two points where the under river crossings are proposed, particularly at the point of the proposed directional drilling for the electricity connection at a point close to a public car park, picnic spot and recreational area. Similarly there would be some disruption at the point the discharge pipeline would cross the sea wall at the point a new viewing platform is proposed as part of the development. Construction development at these points would be temporary and completed within the first year of development. Whilst such disruption may be inconvenient, it is considered that it could be satisfactorily addressed by condition and would not constitute a sustainable reason for objecting to the proposal. It is accepted that the introduction of a viewing platform on the sea wall would introduce a feature which would enhance the amenity of the public access. The discharge pipeline would also pass under the alignment of the railway track and for which there is a policy in the Thornton Area Action Plan to bring the track back into operational use. This similarly would only be temporarily affected and to which no sustainable objection could be raised. With regard to the eastern side of the estuary, the proposal would affect a number of public rights of way between Knot End and The Heads (Nos. 14, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45 and 61) particularly the Wyre Way (No. 41) which runs north/south parallel to the salt marsh on the elevated sea defence, and a bridleway (No. 2). It would be necessary to divert or stop up some of these footpaths on a temporary or permanent basis during the construction phase and subsequent operational phase. This would inevitably result in limited access throughout the duration of the construction phase of the development and on completion of the development works introduce an industrial element in the form of large buildings, compounds, plant, equipment, lighting, fencing, access tracks and drilling platforms and associated vehicle movements over an extensive area in a rural environment to the detriment of the amenities of the footpath and bridleway network. The Secretary of State in her decision on the previous application agreed with the Inspector's findings that any collapse of cavern could result in the severing of the Wyre Way which was recognised as an important coastal path and would severely restrict public access to and enjoyment of the estuary. It is accepted that properly constructed caverns in a geology that could support such would be unlikely to collapse in the foreseeable future. However, it is considered that the development during the construction phase and throughout its operational life, irrespective of the proposed mitigating measures to attenuate visual impact, would be visually very prominent when viewed from the Wyre Way and the local highway network and which is addressed as part of the appraisal on landscape and visual impact above. The applicant maintains there are very special circumstances to justify the impact associated with traffic movements and impacts on the footpath/bridleway network.

67

However, it is considered that the proposals would be contrary to Policy 31 of the LMWLP unless it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the minerals and subsequent gas storage development which cannot be met elsewhere. It is accepted that there is no need for the mineral and that the extraction and disposal of such could be found acceptable to facilitate the creation of caverns for underground gas storage and for which it is similarly accepted in principle that there is a national need. Whilst the impacts would be temporary during the construction phase of the development, they would be over a period of three years. Nevertheless, the temporary nature of the impacts may be considered acceptable when balanced against the national need for gas storage. It is considered that the overall impacts upon the amenities of the highway network (vehicular and foot) are considered to be adverse and significant but do not of themselves warrant refusal of consent, albeit that they weigh against the proposal in the overall balance. Noise The main sources of noise and vibration would initially be associated with the development of the various elements of the proposals both in terms of construction and delivery of materials which would have an impact on the local residents in close proximity, users of the highway network and on the wildlife. The assessment carried out by the applicant acknowledges there will be disturbance particularly as some parts of the development (the pipeline to the Irish Sea) would be within 20m of residential properties, but advises this would only be for a temporary period and would be restricted to day time hours. It is anticipated that the pipelines would not be audible when operational. The applicant has advised that the seawater pump station, booster pump station and gas compressor station would run on electricity and would not generate noise during operation. The greatest noise potential would be derived from the directional drilling operations and traffic associated with such at two locations (Stannah and Fleetwood Dock) to create under estuary pathways and during the vertical and directional drilling operations to create the caverns. It is understood that drilling operations would take place over a 24 hour period and drilling to create caverns would be undertaken periodically throughout at least ten years of the site development phase at various drilling platform locations throughout the site. The scale of the drilling operations at these locations should not be under estimated and the initial three year development period would introduce significant changes and levels of noise into a very rural environment to the detriment of residents, highway users and wildlife, particularly the Pink Footed Goose which use the agricultural land for grazing purposes. The applicant acknowledges that the background levels are low and that the noise from the drilling operations has the potential to adversely affect local residents and wintering and nesting birds within areas, which enjoy the benefit of local and international designation for their ecological interest (although it is recognised surface development proposals have been removed from the area of the SSSI), the development proposals remain in close proximity and adjacent to the SSSI. MPG11 recognises noise from mineral operations often cause public complaint and sets out advice on how the performance of the industry can be improved, the use of planning

68

controls and the need to keep noise emissions to an environmentally acceptable level. The Secretary of State previously considered that the assessment of noise associated with the previous application at Preesall was inadequate. It is now considered that sufficient assessment has been carried out to establish the noise impacts. Whilst mitigation to ensure the development of the site would not adversely affect internationally designated sites or properly assess the impacts of the construction and operational phases of the development on the amenities of local residents and the environment are proposed, it is inevitable that there would be some disturbance from noise to residents and users of the footpath network in the area associated primarily with construction phase of the development from traffic and mobile plant and from the drilling operations to be carried out on a 24 hour basis. Whilst such disturbance would be temporary, this would be for an initial 3 year development period, for drilling operations it would continue beyond as part of the development of the site as a whole. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the temporary nature of the impacts associated with noise, they are considered to be adverse and significant but do not of themselves warrant refusal of consent, albeit that they weigh against the proposal in the overall balance. Water Quality/Sea Defences/Flood Risk The EIA identifies the impacts of the various elements of the proposal in respect of water quality. In respect of the sea, it concludes that the laying of the outfall would not result in an unacceptable reduction in water quality or impact on local or commercial fishing. However, the discharge of brine would result in a significant impact on water quality and particularly the ecology of the seabed. The quality of the seawater is a matter for DEFRA and the Environment Agency. Since the last application, when objection was raised to the impacts of discharging brine into the sea in the quantities proposed, discharge consent has been issued by the Environment Agency. In this respect it is considered that the proposal would not be contrary to the guidance set out in PPG20, PPG23 and Policy 23 of the LMWLP which require coastal waters to be protected. With regard to ground water the potential effects are identified as the construction phase, where existing drainage patterns may be affected and there is a risk of pollution and the operational phase in the event there is a failure in the system, which would release saturated brine. The applicant proposes to address these risks through mitigation, pollution prevention measures, captive run off from operational areas and removal off site for disposal elsewhere of spent drilling muds. Whilst the means of mitigation are acknowledged, it is noted that they would be designed to avoid impacts as far as practicable, therefore maintaining some risk. Irrespective of that risk the Environment Agency has accepted the proposed amendments to the application to minimise the impacts subject to adequate means of mitigation. With regard to the directional drilling under the Wyre Estuary, the Environment Agency recommend that a method statement be produced outlining how this is to be achieved, which should contain details of the geological horizons to be encountered

69

in order to establish the geophysical stability of the area and the implications of such on water quality. The potential impacts on ground water identified for the peninsula are similarly referred to for the development east of the estuary. It is stated that the proposed pumping stations and compressor station have been sited outside the indicative tidal floodplain and would be unaffected by the potential flooding of the Wyre Estuary. The assessment recognises subsidence could cause long-term drainage problems. It maintains there would be a reduction in sewage due to the removal of the Heads caravan park. Similar means of mitigation to those on the peninsula are proposed. However, there is considerably more development on this side of the estuary, particularly with the development of the wellheads and the subsequent risk associated with leakages and subsidence from the caverns with potentially damaging effects on areas of international importance. The applicant’s conclusions that best practices would reduce the risk are accepted by the Environment Agency and whilst maintaining concern to this risk the Agency is satisfied this issue could be controlled by condition. In this respect it is considered that impacts on sea defences and flood risk could be mitigated and controlled by planning condition. Safety and Security The development involves the underground storage of 1.2 million tonnes of natural gas in underground caverns and associated surface development over a very large area. The caverns would be at a depth of between 300 and 450 metres with minimum and maximum pressures of approximately 25 and 80 bar. Natural gas is highly flammable. There would be 6 wellhead locations with up to six wellheads in each. These would operate on an unmanned basis and be surrounded by security fencing. The nearest distance from a wellhead to an inhabited dwelling would be 160m, although this would still be in close proximity to a caravan park and a number of isolated dwellings. The plan depicting the planning application boundary and the location and extent of the proposed caverns does not show the location of the proposed caverns. The alignment of the interconnecting pipelines from the booster stations and well heads with the compressor station would pass through an area of existing caverns, the long term stability of which has not been established, including the stability of the cavern containing mercuric sulphide waste which is not within the control of the applicant. The applicant identifies the major hazard events as follows:

• Over pressurising the caverns, compressor or above ground pipe work; • Geological failure of caverns; • Failure of risers or cavern completions; • Mechanical failure of other below ground pipe work; • Mechanical failure of above ground pipe work; • Vehicle damage to infrastructure; • Aircraft strike; • Failure of a wellhead. • Ingress of oxygen;

70

• Earthquake; • Fire.

It is accepted some of these risks could be minimised by, for example, the employment of security measures. However, in a worse case scenario of catastrophic failure of a wellhead leading to an unconfirmed loss of gas followed by ignition there would be danger to humans within a given radius and the risk of spontaneous ignition, of wood and similar combustible materials in close proximity. The applicant advises that the opportunity of this happening would be reduced by the design of the caverns and risers, the employment of emergency shutdown valves and best practice. The applicant acknowledges the need to ensure the health and safety of the local community, workers at the site and any other people. To store gas would also require Hazardous Substance Consent, an application for which is reported elsewhere on this agenda. The project would also be covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) under the control of the Health and Safety Executive. This legislation seeks to ensure all workers, members of the public and others are not put into danger. The applicant commits to ensuring that all aspects of the design, construction and operation of the facility meet or exceed the standards imposed by law and accept responsibility for the health and safety of its employees, contractors, customers and members of the public. The applicant has advised that they would also ensure all environmental standards are met or would be exceeded, and would undertake operations in a way to cause least disturbance. Reference is made in the supporting information to the planning application to incidents involving underground gas storage. Reference is also made in representations regarding incidents at Hutchinson, Kansas in the USA, which occurred in January 2001. This involved the escape and migration of gas from underground storage caverns over an underground distance of more than 8 miles through the geology and emerging at surface in Hutchinson where it ignited causing two fatalities and extensive damage and risk to property and the inhabitants. There were a number of causes for this incident, which primarily related to the mis-management of the operation and non-compliance with accepted practices and regulations. Nevertheless, following this incident changes to law were introduced requiring stand-offs for facilities of this nature from residential properties/areas. There are no current requirements for stand-offs in English law. In September 2004 an incident occurred at Moss Bluff near Houston USA. This incident involved the failure of a valve resulting in the escape and ignition of gas causing a 300m high flame and the need to evacuate residents in the immediate area. The applicant has advised that the causes of these two incidents would not occur with their development. However, irrespective of what safety systems are employed, they are inevitably reliant on man-made plant and equipment and maintenance and employment of technological safety measures which have an inherent risk. The applicant has accepted that geological failure and earthquake constitute risks to the project; however, properly designed caverns in salt capable of supporting such

71

would not result in geological failure and the risk from earthquake is minimal. There has been extensive working of the salt deposits in close proximity to the proposal resulting in large underground caverns, one of which contains mercury, which in their own right could pose a risk to the proposed operations and over which interconnecting gas pipelines are proposed. Most particularly the control building is proposed in an area (Aggleby's) where there has been extensive cavern collapse and where there remains potential instability. The applicant accepts the former brine workings have not been the subject of any recent monitoring to establish their stability or otherwise. It is acknowledged that the technology to create man made caverns for the storage of gas is well understood and is the subject of a rigorous safety regime operated by the HSE, which has expressed a view that there would be no reason to refuse the Hazardous Substance Consent application reported in tandem with this application. It is also acknowledged that the planning system has to operate on the assumption that other systems of regulatory control operate properly. Nevertheless, in this instance it is considered that whilst the applicant has provided additional geological information, for the reasons set out above, this is not considered sufficient either to confirm the capability of the geology to accommodate this development or to minimise the risk associated with gas storage and gas migration and that the level of risk associated with the failure of the caverns or migration of gas from such should be understood as part of the land use planning system. It is accepted that best practices may be employed and that the operation of the site would have to comply with COMAH and employ precautionary measures to minimise risk. However, given the relationship of the proposal to former operations and its proximity to residential areas on the east side of the estuary and the more densely populated Fleetwood peninsula, it is considered that the operations would present a risk throughout its operational life. It is considered, therefore, that the applicant has not demonstrated that the site can be developed safely or that the risk of gas migrating from the site can be reduced to an acceptable degree. Perceived Fear Given the nature of the proposal and its proximity to both former workings and residential properties and settlements, it has generated considerable concern from residents and groups in the area resulting in the receipt of in excess of 8700 representations. There are a number of issues which repeatedly recur in all the representations received and which have been summarised earlier in the report. One of the main recurring reasons for objection is the perception of fear from residents who are worried about the risk of gas migration and their personal well being, the risk of safety and the fear of subsidence and the associated dangers it may cause, particularly given the evidence of subsidence associated with previous workings and the major incidents that have occurred most recently in America. This is demonstrated by many of the representations being received from properties in

72

closest proximity to the proposal. The Wyre NHS Primary Care Trust has also expressed concern on this issue. The fears are understandable and constitute genuine anxieties to the potential harmful effects of the proposals. Fears expressed by residents of Sportsman’s Caravan Park are particularly significant given the relationship of the proposals around their property. Consequently these concerns may be given weight in considering a planning application if widely held in the community. Whilst some of these fears may be allayed to some degree by further information, it is considered that irrespective of such, the principle of the development in this location would continue to generate these fears. The weight to be given to fear in a planning context depends upon the realism of the facts upon which it is based. In this case the Secretary of State has already dismissed an appeal in part on the basis of the lack of information but the Applicant has not addressed all of the issues raised – it is therefore considered that there is a realistic basis for continued concern. Concerns have also been expressed to the risk of air strike/accident or acts of terrorism. Whilst similarly these may be genuine areas of concern they must be quantified. The applicant estimates that there is very little risk associated with aircraft strike, and the threat of terrorism, which cannot be discounted, but this is not considered to be any greater threat than at any other major installations in the country. However, it must be noted, that recently a helicopter crash landed in the application area and therefore the risk of such occurrences cannot be dismissed as out of hand. With regard to gas migration, whilst it is accepted that gas caverns can be safely created in salt, it is considered that in this case the geology has not been proven to the degree required to demonstrate that the potential for gas migration cannot be considered a risk. Whilst this risk may be small, it carries material weight. The Secretary of State in her decision on the previous application considered that the residents' fears in themselves did not constitute a significant planning objection, as they were based on the failure to provide an adequate risk assessment but that the failure to provide such added weight to the residents' fears. She accepted that the proposals would be the subject of COMAH and that reliance on another body to regulate such would not constitute a sufficient ground, on its own, to justify refusing the application, but considered the failure to fully assess the risk did constitute a sufficient reason for refusal. With regard to the current application, the proposal is in principle the same as previous and has generated very similar concerns in respect of perceived fear. As previous, it is acknowledged that the site would be the subject of COMAH regulations enforced by the HSE and who have raised no objection to the Hazardous Substance Consent application. However, as with the previous application when the Secretary of State accepted that reasonable fears and concerns about the proposal could only be assessed on the basis of a comprehensive investigation of the form, nature and permeability of the overburden strata and until that information was

73

available and the true level of risk assessed, the fears were a rational response to the proposal and a material consideration. It is considered for the reasons set out in the section on geology above that the applicant has not properly addressed the capability of the salt deposits to safely accommodate the proposed development and prevent the risk of migrating gas. It is therefore concluded that the proposal, if implemented, would result in considerable and understandable fear and distress within the local communities attributable to the level of associated risk and the potential consequences of any accident or incident occurring. In this respect the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 2 of the LMWLP. However this risk must be quantified and balanced against the national need for gas storage. Tourism and Economic Development The applicant estimates there would be up to 250 permanent jobs throughout the development period although acknowledges that, due to the skills required for many of these, that may necessitate bringing people into the area. There would be a loss of employment at Sportsmans Caravan Park and local farms on a permanent basis. Further, the applicant considers that there would be employment opportunities and maintenance/development of service industries throughout the development and subsequent operation of the site (35 jobs) and that the presence of the development would make the Fylde Coast an attractive location for inward investment. In addition the applicant is of the view that road access, electricity supply and telecommunications system to the Preesall area would be improved and the water washing process could be beneficial to flood protection subsequent to the completion of cavern creation, although it is not clearly demonstrated how these would be achieved. Most importantly perhaps is the enhanced security of gas supply. Whilst the employment and other opportunities may be considered to be of benefit, they must be considered against the impacts of the development not only in socio economic terms but also against the impacts of the development in a wider capacity. It is recognised, however, that the development would provide employment opportunities for a skilled workforce both on a temporary and to a much lesser degree, permanent basis. It is more difficult to determine whether tourism would be affected in the area other than the loss of the caravan parks and therefore it is not considered that such an impact could constitute a sustainable reason for objecting to the proposal. Alternative sites In cases involving EIA, it is necessary to consider alternative sites that might be used for the development. Developments of this nature can only be accommodated where suitable geology would support such. Land based salt deposits are only found in a number of specific areas within the UK, Preesall being one of them, and which is recognised in MPS1. Others have or are being developed for underground gas storage. It is therefore understandable why Preesall is of interest and considered capable of supporting a development of this nature by the applicant. Alternative means of gas storage have been considered and which have been referred to

74

above. It is accepted that underground storage of gas is an acceptable means of ensuring a contribution to the storage of an important energy resource. The EIA outlines several methods of alternative gas storage including depleted oil or gas fields; aquifers, though not in the UK; Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage in above ground tanks; Conventional Gasometers and Salt Caverns. With regard to this particular proposal the applicant has indicated a number of features that are required to facilitate a gas storage facility, namely the right geological conditions, water supply and proximity to the gas supply or national transmission line. The submitted EIA outlines three alternative locations in the UK which are of the right quality and depth to make useful large gas storage caverns. All three already have gas storage capability or are under development for gas storage. Given the scale of the proposed development, the extent of the geological occurrence of the salt (albeit not clearly established as part of the EIA or SEI) and the constraints of surrounding established development, it is unlikely that an acceptable alternative application boundary could be drawn in the locale. With regard to the above ground infrastructure, the applicant has chosen the locations of the buildings and associated compounds, plant and infrastructure to facilitate the extraction of salt by solution mining in a way to create the caverns for underground gas storage but, it is maintained, in locations which would minimise their visual impact. The above ground infrastructure associated with the extraction of salt enjoys the benefit of policy support as minerals can only be worked where they occur. However, this is not a proposal to extract salt as a mineral, but to dispose of it and utilise the resultant voids in the form of caverns for gas storage. The proposed level of above ground infrastructure is considerably more than has previously been required for the extraction of salt for commercial purposes. The landscape and visual impact assessment concludes that the above ground development would have a significant adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area. Consequently, it must be considered whether there are any alternative sites that are available that could minimise that impact. The applicant accepts that the proposed layout and design of the project would have a significant impact but is of the view there are no alternatives and that with the proposed landscape mitigation the visual impact of such is outweighed by the national need to deliver additional gas storage. However, the compressor station is a significant element of the development and does not enjoy the same policy support enjoyed by developments associated with mineral extraction. No alternatives for this element of the development have been considered. It is accepted that there are limited locations in the UK that can accommodate developments of this nature and that as such alternatives are limited. It is also accepted that above ground infrastructure associated with mineral extraction may be found acceptable in locations such as this given the mineral can only be worked where it occurs. However, the scale of infrastructure proposed, particularly when considered against the geological issues and the capability of such to deliver the proposed gas storage to the levels proposed, is considerable. Whilst there may not be alternatives for such, there may be an alternative for the gas compressor station which has not been considered and which may lead to considerably less visual impact.

75

Marine Archaeology and Cultural Heritage An assessment of the marine archaeology and cultural heritage of the area has been undertaken as part of the EIA and SEI. It concludes that the proposals would have a negligible effect on the marine ecology or cultural heritage of the Fylde peninsula along the alignment of the pipeline or on the east of the estuary. However, it is not considered that the assessment of marine archaeology is as complete as it could be or that the assessment of cultural heritage is as comprehensive as it should be. Nevertheless, it is not anticipated that the impacts on such would not be so great as to constitute a reason for refusal and any such impacts could be addressed by a condition if planning permission were to be granted. Human Rights The proposal raises issues relating to the protection of amenity and property under Article 1 of the 1st Protocol and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 concerns interference with the right to respect for private and family life and the home. Interference in this Right can only be justified where ‘it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of………the economic well-being of the country or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'.  Article 1 of the 1st Protocol concerns the protection of property and states that ‘every natural and legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and that no one should be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest’. In terms of this planning application, Article 1 Rights with the potential to be affected by this development would be those of residents in Hambleton, Stalmine and Preesall and surrounding areas, particularly the caravan sites and scattered farmsteads and other adjacent landowners who would be adversely affected by the development of the site through increased HGV movements and noise and subsequently from the health and safety risks associated with the possible migration of gas, subsidence and risk of a major incident. Similarly, the health and safety of those residents to the west of the estuary would be at risk from migrating gas or major incident. Considerable concern has been expressed by a significant number of people to these perceived fears. If those rights were to be affected, it would be necessary to consider whether any interference with Article 1 Rights were necessary in the public interest and if that interference would be proportional to the aim being pursued. In this case, the development would make a contribution to the secure and flexible supply of a major energy source, particularly in the event of a shortfall in supply for whatever reason, and this supply would be in the national interest. As gas is important in providing energy to the country demanded by society, the development could be justified in terms of economic considerations and protection of the rights and freedoms of others to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. However, it is not known what contribution to supply this proposal would make to be able to properly assess it against the impacts it would have.

76

The applicant also has rights under this article and refusal of this application would affect those rights. However, the policies of the Development Plan seek to ensure that the development of land is carried out in the public interest and in a way that respects the character of the Countryside, the amenity of local residents and users of the area. The proposal would conflict with the policies designed to address such issues and the interference in the rights of the applicant is therefore considered to be justified in order to protect the public interest. It is considered that the public interest can only be safeguarded by the refusal of planning permission and that the refusal would not place a disproportionate burden on the applicant. Conclusions The development is for a major gas storage project that has generated considerable concern and objection from all the local councils and many residents in the immediate area and on the Fleetwood peninsula. However, it has not been objected to by most of the statutory consultees who either find the proposal acceptable or find it could be made acceptable through the imposition of conditions or the use of legal agreements. It has generated a wide range of planning issues which have been addressed against the policies of the development plan. It is also necessary to consider the significant benefits of the proposal, which, notwithstanding the economic benefits the development may generate, primarily relate to the security of supply of natural gas. There would be some employment opportunities particularly during the construction phase of the development and to a lesser degree for the operational life of the site. Any employment opportunities would be welcome in the current economic environment. However, many of these opportunities would be of a very specialised nature and there is no certainty that they would be derived from the immediate area or from within the region irrespective of the applicant's commitment to employing a local employment policy. It is accepted that there may be benefits to the local economy, in particular for local suppliers and retailers, through the development period, which may be welcomed in the current economic climate. The UK energy position and national policy to address such is clearly understood. The level of contribution that this proposal could make to the national storage of gas is significant providing the site could be safely developed and to the scale proposed. The main issues raised by the proposal have been addressed. Some of these are considered acceptable or could be made acceptable, most particularly those elements of the proposal located on the Fleetwood peninsula; impacts on the marine environment, ecology and water resources. Other issues including highway impacts, impacts on footways and bridleways, noise and effects on tourism could be found acceptable providing an overriding need for gas storage facilities of this nature and scale can be demonstrated. Other issues regarding the capability of the geology to safely accommodate the development to the scale proposed and the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal on the environment are more difficult to assess. All these issues are material to the balance to be drawn between the harm that may be caused by the proposals and the benefits that it would deliver. Government policy is that the ‘need’ for particular facilities is a matter for commercial operators. The applicant has sought to demonstrate there is an overriding need for

77

underground gas storage facilities of this nature, a view supported by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and most recently by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in granting planning permission on appeal for an underground gas storage facility in salt deposits at King Street in Cheshire. The need for facilities of this nature is also emphasised in the draft National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-4. As with the previous application at Preesall, it is accepted there is a need for additional gas storage in the UK to maintain a secure supply of energy into the future and to avoid surges in gas prices. It is also accepted that this proposal, if developed to the scale proposed, would make a significant contribution to meeting the need. However, it is clear from the application that the progressive contribution of this scheme could only be realised over a considerable period of time and would not contribute to meeting the immediate need for gas storage in the way suggested by the applicant. MPS1 recognises there are limited suitable onshore locations for underground gas storage. However, it should also be recognised that there are a number of offshore locations that can be found equally, if not more suitable, and which would generate fewer impacts than onshore developments, such as the recent proposal located in the Irish Sea. Nevertheless whilst it is accepted that reliance on alternatives is not necessarily a sound reason for refusing an application and that over capacity is not necessarily a bad position to be in, this development is EIA development and alternatives are material. In determining the previous application at Preesall, the then Secretary of State acknowledged there was a need for additional underground gas storage, but, in the context of the uncertainties relating to the geology of the Preesall Salt Field to accommodate the appeal proposal at that time, concluded that the national need could not be extrapolated to mean there was a need for the proposal at that time. With regard to the geology of the site the Secretary of State concluded: 'The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on geology, storage technology and mining history, as set out in IR20.3.1-20.3.27, and with his conclusion that the proposal would be contrary to policies 2, 42, 71 and 72 of the LMWLP (IR20.3.13). She agrees that the information provided on the geological, hydrological and mining setting is insufficient at this stage to enable a decision to be made on the feasibility of the principle of the appeal proposal and hence the principle of the proposed land use (IR20.3.12), and that it is a matter of particular concern that the potential impact of subsidence on the proposed pipework or other infrastructure has not been addressed at this stage (IR20.3.15). She also agrees that planning permission should not be granted in advance of design details supported by robust and reliable geological modelling which confirm that there would be no possibility of cavern roof failure affecting Hackensall sewage treatment works, and that this amounts to sufficient justification for a refusal of the appeal proposal at this time (IR20.3.23).' It is considered that whilst some additional information in respect of the geology of the site has been submitted, this fails to satisfactorily address the concern hitherto

78

expressed, including by the Secretary of State, and is insufficient in its own right to properly demonstrate that the geology is capable of safely accommodating the proposed caverns to the extent proposed and that in the absence of such information, it cannot be demonstrated what contribution this proposal could make to national need. With regard to landscape and visual amenity, the Secretary of State: 'Agreed with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact on landscape and visual amenity, as set out in paragraphs IR20.71-20.7.43. She agrees that the visual harm of the gas compressor station and the booster pump station would be contrary to RSS policy SD8, LMWLP policies 2 and 7, and WBLP policies SP13+14b (IR20.7.24 and IR20.7.27). She further agrees that crown holes resulting from cavern roof collapse would have a seriously detrimental impact on the appearance of the salt marsh, which is a significant visual amenity in its own right. She agrees that visual harm to this area as a result of such a collapse would be unacceptable, would be contrary to JLSP policy 20, LMWLP policies 2, 7 and 72, and policy ENV2 of the WBLP (IR20.7.41), and the risk of this harm would justify a refusal of planning permission (IR20.7.36). In the absence of satisfactory evidence enabling her to assess the likelihood of a collapse occurring, she considers the risk should be accorded substantial weight.' It is acknowledged that the design of the site has changed and perhaps improved on that previous. However, the impact of the proposed buildings, associated infrastructure and tracks on the landscape on the eastern side of the Wyre estuary, during the development phase and operational life of the site, would be significant due to their design, scale and alien nature in a rural environment and as they are adjacent to the SSSI and Ramsar sites. The proposed development to the east of the estuary would result in the introduction of an industrial development which by reason of its scale, design and location would be detrimental to the quality of the open character of the countryside, coastal plain, estuary landscape and Wyre Way contrary to the intentions of Policy EM1, DP7 and RDF3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Policies 2, 7, 25 and 31 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Policies SP14, ENV2 and TREC12 of the adopted Wyre Borough Local Plan and Policies CORE11, ENVT2 and TOUR12 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan 2001-2016 (first Deposit Draft) It is accepted there is a national need for additional underground gas storage facilities and that this proposed facility, if developed within the time scales and to the scale proposed, would make a significant contribution to that need. But this need must be assessed against the capability of the salt accommodating such and against the impacts it would generate. This assessment is reflective of the approach to be taken in the emerging National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-4. It is therefore a question of what weight is attached. The starting point must be the capability of the salt to accommodate a development of this nature safely. It is considered the applicant has not done this. It is also considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that the geology could accommodate the project to the scale proposed in terms of the quantities of gas that could be stored. The contribution this project could make to the national need is therefore in question. The contribution it could make must be assessed against the impacts it would generate. Irrespective of the

79

contribution it could make, the level of infrastructure required to create one cavern is virtually the same as creating 36. The visual impact on the landscape and impact on the visual amenities of the area associated with such would be significant in the locale and in conjunction with the above is considered on balance to be unacceptable. In conclusion therefore, on balance, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that the geology is capable of safely accommodating underground gas storage or that it is capable of accommodating the level of underground storage proposed. It is further considered on balance that the visual impact of the above ground infrastructure on the visual amenities of the area would be of such as scale that it would be unacceptable in this location. There is uncertainty about the geology and the capability of it accommodating the development safely and preventing the migration of gas which has and would continue to lead to issues of safety and perceived fear that the applicant has failed to ally and which are material to the consideration of this application. It is considered the proposal would be contrary to the development plan and not withstanding the need for proposals of this nature there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to determine the application other than in accordance with the development plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out below. Recommendation That, after first taking into consideration the environmental information, as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, submitted in connection with the application planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The application contains insufficient information to:

I. Properly assess and ensure the geology of the area is capable of accommodating the proposed development;

II. Demonstrate its relationship to former solution mining activities or surface development; and

III. Establish there is no opportunity for migrating gas through the geology or via former mining activities;

contrary to Policies 2, and 71 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

2. The proposed development to the east of the estuary would result in the

introduction of an industrial development which by reason of its scale, design and location would be detrimental to the quality of the open character of the countryside, coastal plain, estuary landscape and Wyre Way contrary to the intentions of Policy EM1, DP7 and RDF3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Policies 2, 7, 25 and 31 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Policies SP14, ENV2 and TREC12 of the adopted Wyre Borough Local Plan and Policies CORE11, ENVT2 and TOUR12 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan 2001-20016 (first Deposit Draft)

80

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not present an unacceptable risk of gas migration given the relationship of the proposal to former operations and its proximity to residential areas on the east side of the estuary and the more densely populated Fleetwood peninsula throughout its operation, decommissioning and long term aftercare management contrary to Policies 2 and 3 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

4. The failure to provide an adequate risk assessment for the proposal would result

in considerable and understandable fear and distress within the local communities attributable to the nature of the proposal and the potential consequences of any accident occurring and would be contrary to Policy 2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers Paper Date Contact/Directorate/Ext 02/09/0159 Stuart Perigo 02/04/1415 Environment 02/03/1455 01772 531948 HSC/09/01 HSC/05/01 HSC/04/01 Reason for Inclusion in Part II, if appropriate N/A