SCOPING OPINION Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2

Power Station (FM2)

July 2013

Scoping Opinion for Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Power Station

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 3

2.0 THE PROPOSED FM2 DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 6

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS ..................................... 17

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION ........................................................ 30

APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF CONSULTEES

APPENDIX 2 – RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES

APPENDIX 3 – PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Scoping Opinion for Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Power Station

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the scoping opinion (the Opinion) provided by the Secretary of State in respect of the content of the Environmental Statement for the proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Power Station.

This report sets out the Secretary of State’s opinion on the basis of the information provided in Multifuel Energy Limited’s (the Applicant) report entitled ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station EIA Scoping Report’ (June 2013) (the Scoping Report). The Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the Applicant.

The Secretary of State has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the topic areas identified in the Scoping Report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended).

The Secretary of State draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topic areas in this Opinion. The main potential issues identified are:

• Transport and accessibility

• Noise and vibration

• Emissions to air and water

• Ground and groundwater contamination, and

• Cumulative environmental effects associated with the proposed FM2 development and the FM1 power station.

Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State in this Opinion.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 On the 7 June 2013, the Secretary of State (SoS) received a Scoping Report submitted by Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL) (the Applicant) under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) in order to request a Scoping Opinion for the proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station project (the proposed FM2 development). This Opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the Scoping Report.

1.2 In a letter dated 6 June 2013 addressed to the SoS and accompanying the Scoping Report, the Applicant formally notified the SoS under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed FM2 development. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the proposed FM2 development is determined to be EIA development. The EIA Regulations enable an applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the SoS to state in writing their formal opinion (a ‘Scoping Opinion’) on the information to be provided in the environmental statement (ES).

1.3 Before adopting a scoping opinion the SoS must take into account:

(a) the specific characteristics of the particular development;

(b) the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; and

(c) environmental features likely to be affected by the development’.

(EIA Regulation 8 (9))

1.4 This Opinion sets out what information the SoS considers should be included in the ES for the proposed development. The Opinion has taken account of:

i the EIA Regulations

ii the nature and scale of the proposed development

iii the nature of the receiving environment, and

iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental statements.

1.5 The SoS has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion). The

3

matters addressed by the Applicant have been carefully considered and use has been made of professional judgement and experience in order to adopt this Opinion. It should be noted that when it comes to consider the ES, the SoS will take account of relevant legislation and guidelines (as appropriate). The SoS will not be precluded from requiring additional information if it is considered necessary in connection with the ES submitted with that application when considering the application for a development consent order (DCO).

1.6 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the SoS agrees with the information or comments provided by the Applicant in their request for an opinion from the SoS. In particular, comments from the SoS in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the SoS (on submission of the application) that any development identified by the Applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), or associated development, or development that does not require development consent.

1.7 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:

(a) ‘a plan sufficient to identify the land;

(b) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; and

(c) such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make’.

(EIA Regulation 8 (3))

1.8 The SoS considers that this has been provided in the Scoping Report.

The Secretary of State’s Consultation

1.9 The SoS has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regulations to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is provided at Appendix 1. The list has been compiled by the SoS under their duty to notify the consultees in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(a). The Applicant should note that whilst the SoS’s list can inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

1.10 The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and whose comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is provided at Appendix 2 along with copies of their comments, to which the Applicant should refer in undertaking the EIA.

4

1.11 The ES submitted by the Applicant should demonstrate

consideration of the points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation bodies and how they are, or are not, addressed in the ES.

1.12 Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments will not be taken into account within this Opinion. Late responses will be forwarded to the Applicant and will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. The Applicant should also give due consideration to those comments in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the Document

1.13 This Opinion is structured as follows:

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 The proposed FM2 development

Section 3 EIA approach and topic areas

Section 4 Other information

The Opinion is accompanied by the following Appendices:

Appendix 1 List of consultees

Appendix 2 Respondents to consultation and copies of replies

Appendix 3 Presentation of the ES

5

2.0 THE PROPOSED FM2 DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the proposed FM2 development and its site and surroundings prepared by the Applicant and included in their Scoping Report. The information has not been verified and it has been assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the proposed FM2 development and the potential receptors/resources.

The Applicant’s Information

Overview of the Proposed FM2 development

2.2 The proposed FM2 development comprises a multifuel power station with a generating capacity of up to 90 megawatt (MW) gross electrical output (net output of 70 MW), and associated infrastructure including an electrical grid connection.

2.3 The proposed FM2 development will produce electricity through the combustion of Waste Derived Fuels (WDF) to generate steam and drive a turbine. Section 3.2.3 of the Scoping Report defines the WDF that the proposed FM2 development would combust to generate electricity. It is noted here that all the fuels will be processed offsite to the Applicant’s specification, and therefore there are no components of the proposed FM2 development associated with the processing of waste for combustion (although there will be facilities for waste storage, weighing and visual inspection). The principal sources of fuel are identified as follows:

• municipal solid waste (MSW);

• commercial and industrial waste; and

• waste wood.

Description of the site and surroundings

The Application Site

2.4 The application site is located entirely within the administrative boundary of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) and lies approximately 2.5km north of Pontefract, with the settlements of Brotherton and Castleford 600m to the east and 1.25km to the west of the site respectively. The whole of the proposed FM2 development site lies within an air quality management area (AQMA) declared by WMDC for exceedances of the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide.

6

2.5 The proposed FM2 development site lies within the boundary of

the wider Ferrybridge Power Station Site, within which are located the existing and operational Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal fired power station and the Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 (FM1) power station which is currently under construction, as shown on Figure 2.1 in the Scoping Report. The FM1 power station, which will have up to 90MW gross output, was granted consent in 2011, and is scheduled to begin commercial operation in 2015.

2.6 Broadly speaking, the wider power station site is bounded to the west by the A1(M), to the north and east by the River Aire and to the south by Stranglands Way (B6136). The proposed FM2 development site lies on the western boundary of the wider power station site, adjacent to the A1(M) and to the north of the FM1 power station and to the northwest of the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station. To the north of the site is the Fryston Park Local Wildlife Site (LWS), a small area of which falls within the indicative DCO application site boundary, as shown on Figure 2.4b in the Scoping Report., To the north west is the coal storage area associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’, which is located between Fryston Park LWS and the River Aire, as shown on Figure 2.4b in the Applicant’s Scoping Report.

2.7 The proposed FM2 development site is located in an area with a long history of power generation dating back to 1920. The existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station dates back the early 1960’s, and has a total generating capacity of 2 gigawatts (GW). Flue gas desulphurisation equipment was fitted to two of the four Ferrybridge ‘C’ units between 2006 and 2009.

2.8 The proposed FM2 development site encompasses a former golf course that was removed as part of the FM1 power station, subject to conditions attached to the planning consent. Part of the former golf course is currently being used for a construction lay down area for the FM1 power station development.

The Surrounding Area

2.9 There are a number of small and medium sized settlements within 5km of the proposed FM2 development site, including the wider residential populations of Castleford, Brotherton, Ferrybridge and Knottingley.

2.10 There are also several individual properties within 1km, the nearest being Holmfield Farm, 430 m west of the site. Other residential properties are located to the south of the power station (to the south of Stranglands Lane) and to the west of the A1(M) (including the Oakland Hill mobile home park along Fryston Lane).

2.11 The Scoping Report identifies two sites within 5km of the closest point of the application site (Ledstone Hall and Park, and Friarwood Valley Gardens) which are listed on the English Heritage

7

Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest). There are also a number of listed buildings within 5km of the proposed FM2 development site (including a small number in Brotherton, 900m to the northeast of the site) as well a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) just over 1km to the south of the site.

2.12 There are no internationally designated nature conservation sites within 20km of the proposed FM2 development. There are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) approximately 1.6km to the north of the site (Fairburn and Newton Ings), and 4km to the northeast of the site (Madbanks and Ledsham Banks).

2.13 The River Aire bounds the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site to the north and northeast of the site, and lies approximately 600m to the east of the main infrastructure associated with the proposed FM2 development.

2.14 With reference to Figures 2.2 and 2.4b of the Scoping Report, most of the area defined as the ‘Main development area’ within the DCO application site boundary (Figure 2.2) lies within flood zone 1 (low risk) (Figure 2.4b). However, it is noted that the area to the east of the proposed application site boundary (adjacent to the river) and the area of the FM1 power station site immediately adjacent to the south of the proposed FM2 development are in flood zone 2, and a small section of the DCO application site boundary (adjacent to the river at the north eastern tip of the boundary) lies within flood zone 3.

Description of the Proposed FM2 development

2.15 The proposed FM2 development comprises a multifuel power station with a capacity of up to 90 MW gross (70 MW net). It would produce electricity and heat through the combustion of WDF from processed MSW, commercial and industrial waste and waste wood.

2.16 The facility has a maximum design capacity, in terms of fuel throughput, of 675,000 tonnes per year, although, given fluctuations in the calorific value of the fuel, the nominal design capacity is 570,000 tonnes per year.

2.17 Section 3.2 of the Scoping Report describes the following principal components of the proposed FM2 development:

• fuel reception and storage area (containing tipping hall and fuel bunker)

• boiler and turbine halls;

• ash collection area;

• circuit breaker, transformer and switchyard;

• workshops;

8

• a dispersion stack of up to 120 m in height with associated emission control and flue gas treatment technology;

• equipment associated with thermal cooling technology for either an air cooled condenser (ACC) or hybrid cooling tower system; and

• separate above ground gas oil storage facilities and bulk storage facilities for air pollution control reagents and fly ash residue.

2.18 The operation of the proposed FM2 development is described in section 3.1.2 of the Scoping Report, and is summarised as follows:

• processed fuel will be delivered to the proposed FM2 development site and unloaded into the tipping hall and stored in the fuel bunker (with a total volume of approximately 216,000m3);

• fuel will be craned out of the storage bunker and fed into the feed chute for delivery to the furnace through up to 3 combustion lines (dependant on design configuration);

• fuel will be combusted into gas and bottom ash (the latter of which will be ejected into a water bath);

• hot combustion gasses will be passed through a boiler to raise steam and then passed through a steam turbine to generate electricity;

• the combustion gases will be cleaned in a flue gas treatment plant to control:

dioxin emissions through injection of activated carbon;

acid gas emissions through the injection of lime (or equivalent);

dust emissions through the use of a fabric filter;

• the treated gases will then be released as exhaust gas through the stack.

2.19 The combustion process used to generate electricity would produce two main by-products, bottom ash and flue gas treatment residue. The Scoping Report describes that the bottom ash would be removed and fed into a water quench pit and then subsequently stored onsite until it is transferred to an offsite ash recycling facility where it would be processed into a substitute aggregate material. Where this is not possible, it would be transferred to an offsite landfill for disposal (paragraph 3.2.15 of the Scoping Report). The flue gas treatment residue would also contain fly ash, reagents and reaction products and is classified as hazardous waste. It is therefore required to be treated before disposal to landfill (paragraph 3.2.16 of the Scoping Report). No effluent water would be discharged under normal operating

9

conditions, as the Scoping Report states that it would be recycled within the plant (paragraph 3.2.16)

2.20 The grid connection that would be required for the proposed FM2 development is intended to be included within the DCO application as associated development (paragraph 3.3.4 of the Scoping Report). At this current stage in the design process of the scheme, the Applicant has identified two potential grid connection options as identified in Figure 2.2 in the Scoping Report. The first potential connection option is located to the north of the proposed FM2 development, to an existing pylon located within Fryston Park LWS (paragraphs 2.1.3 and 2.1.8 of the Scoping Report) and the second potential connection option is located to the south of the proposed FM2 development, adjacent to the FM1 power station.

2.21 It is noted that the proposed FM2 development will be “CHP ready” as defined by the relevant EA guidance, so that should local heating demand become available, a heat off-take could be provided with minimal modifications to the system. Whilst the Scoping Report states that the Applicant will undertake a full CHP investigation to identify potential users, at present no users have currently been identified (paragraph 6.13.3 of the Scoping Report).

2.22 The relationship of the proposed FM2 development to the FM1 power station is outlined in the Scoping Report. The two developments are stand-alone projects for all intents and purposes, but it is noted that the access road and rail spur (discussed further below) are the only currently envisaged shared infrastructure. However, one of the grid connection options being considered for the proposed FM2 development could involve a connection to the FM1 power station’s substation (discussed further below).

Proposed Access

2.23 The proposed FM2 development would be accessed by vehicular traffic through utilising the motorway network as far as possible and entering site via Kirkhaw Lane (using the same access as the FM1 power station). In October 2012, a scheme of upgrades to the A162 at Dish Hill was approved, including a new roundabout to the north of the site, which would enable the diversion of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) going to the power station site, away from Ferrybridge centre, as discussed in section 6.4.6 of the Scoping Report.

2.24 The proposed FM2 development will also support access for deliveries via rail, through the installation of a rail siding and gantry as a part of the FM1 power station. The rail siding would be located between the FM1 power station and the proposed FM2 development, as indicated on Figure 2.3. There is also the potential for deliveries via the adjacent canal, the River Aire, which

10

forms part of the Aire and Calder Navigation, which is located immediately to the east of the wider Ferrybridge Power Station Site.

2.25 The Scoping Report states that the Applicant has not yet identified specific construction suppliers or recipients of the fly ash by-product generated by the combustion process who are able to provide or receive deliveries via the canal network. Therefore, whilst deliveries via canal will remain a potential future option, it will not be included within the DCO application for the proposed FM2 development (see paragraph 3.2.5 of the Scoping Report). As such, the DCO application will focus on deliveries to and from the site via the road and rail networks. The ES will consider a worst case scenario and assume that all deliveries to and from the site (during construction and operation) will be by road (see paragraph 6.4.2 of the Scoping Report).

Construction

2.26 The construction activities relate to those aspects of the proposed FM2 development described in paragraph 2.17 of this Opinion, and sections 3.1 – 3.2 of the Scoping Report. Principally, it is understood that the works will comprise site clearance and preparation (including levelling), construction of the foundations (including, potentially, the below ground fuel storage area), construction and fit out of the proposed structures and construction of ancillary structures, access roads, landscaping and associated development, including the grid connection.

2.27 Section 3.2.8 of the Scoping Report states that there will be “up to 350 personnel contracted to work on site” during the construction phase. The Applicant has not provided any further details of employment generation during the construction phase, an indication of likely working patterns during the construction period or any further detail in terms of construction phases or activities (although it is noted in section 8.5 of the Scoping Report that the ES will describe the likely content of a Construction Method Statement (CMS) which should include such information).

2.28 The Scoping Report states that the emerging assessment will assume all of the construction material deliveries will be via road using the proposed existing and operational access as described in paragraphs 2.23 and 2.24. However, the Scoping Report does not provide an indicative number or type of construction vehicle movements.

2.29 The construction phase is anticipated to commence in quarter 3 of 2015 and be complete in quarter 2 of 2018 (approximately 33 months), with operation anticipated to commence in 2018, although it is noted that this is subject to change.

11

2.30 Section 9.2.14 of the Scoping Report states that mitigation

measures will be proposed where appropriate to reduce the adverse impacts and enhance beneficial impacts. Section 9.2.15 outlines that their effectiveness will be assessed through presentation of residual impact (i.e. the magnitude and significance of impacts after the implementation of mitigation).

Operation and Maintenance

2.31 Once operational, the proposed FM2 development would generate 35 permanent full time jobs, and would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with scheduled down-time for maintenance as required (although no details on duration or frequency of maintenance is provided).

2.32 The Scoping Report does not outline the typical number or type of vehicle deliveries that would be associated with the proposed FM2 development over a given operational period (weekly / daily / monthly).

Decommissioning

2.33 The Scoping Report identifies that the proposed FM2 development will have a “design life of 30 years and an operational life of up to 50 years” (paragraph 3.1.3). However, the decommissioning of the proposed FM2 development has not been considered in the Scoping Report, beyond mention in paragraph 8.1.8, that the decommissioning scenario will be considered as part of the ES.

The Secretary of State’s Comments

Description of the Application Site and Surrounding Area

2.34 In addition to detailed baseline information to be provided within topic specific chapters of the ES, the SoS would expect the ES to include a section that summarises the site and surroundings. This would identify the context of the proposed FM2 development, any relevant designations and sensitive receptors. This section should identify land that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed FM2 development and any associated auxiliary facilities, landscaping areas and potential off site mitigation or compensation schemes.

Description of the Proposed FM2 development

2.35 The Applicant should ensure that the description of the proposed FM2 development that is being applied for is as accurate and firm as possible as this will form the basis of the environmental impact assessment. The description of the development in the ES must be sufficiently certain to meet the requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations and there should

12

therefore be more certainty by the time the ES is submitted with the DCO.

2.36 Within the draft DCO submitted with the development consent application, the Applicant should clearly define what elements of the proposed FM2 development are integral to the NSIP and which is ‘associated development’ under the Planning Act 2008 or is an ancillary matter.

2.37 Any proposed works and/or infrastructure required as associated development, or as an ancillary matter, (whether on or off-site) should be considered as part of an integrated approach to environmental assessment.

2.38 The SoS recommends that the ES should include a clear description of all aspects of the proposed FM2 development, at the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, and include:

• Land use requirements

• Site preparation

• Construction processes and methods

• Transport routes

• Operational requirements including the main characteristics of the production process and the nature and quantity of materials and natural resources used, as well as waste arisings and methods of their disposal

• Maintenance activities including any potential environmental impacts, and

• Emissions – Water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation.

2.39 The environmental effects of all wastes to be processed and removed from the site should be addressed. The ES will need to identify and describe the control processes and mitigation procedures for storing and transporting waste off site, both during construction and the operational phases of the development. All waste types should be quantified and classified.

2.40 Given the proximity and nature of the FM1 power station that is currently under construction, the ES for the proposed FM2 development should be transparent in the description of what is being applied for as part of the DCO and what will be delivered through the construction of the FM1 power station that the proposed FM2 development may also rely on, for example the access road and rail siding. This is particularly the case for any such aspect of the FM1 power station that has not been finalised or delivered by the time the application for development consent of the proposed FM2 development is made. Where such aspects

13

are identified, the ES should explain the approach and extent to which they are considered as part of the assessment.

Flexibility

2.41 The SoS notes the comments in paragraph 3.2.1 of the Scoping Report that the design of the proposed FM2 development is still being determined and that the draft description of development contains a number of variables (i.e. building dimensions and cooling technology). The SoS welcomes that the proposals are to be firmed up during the pre-application stages but encourages the description to be as accurate and firm as possible so that the environmental impact of the proposed FM2 development can be more accurately assessed.

2.42 Paragraph 8.4.2 of the Scoping Report identifies the approach in the EIA to outlining the design parameters and assessing potential effects on a worst case scenario where flexibility in design needs to be retained for commercial reasons, having regard to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’.

2.43 The SoS notes the general intention for the EIA to assess the likely worst case scenario where this is the case, but stresses that every attempt to narrow the range of options should be considered. However, at the time of the DCO application, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes. The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES. It is a matter for the Applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to robustly assess a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The SoS also directs attention to the ‘Flexibility’ section in Appendix 3 of this Opinion which provides additional details on the recommended approach.

2.44 It should be noted that if the proposed FM2 development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to application submission, the Applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion from the SoS.

Cooling System

2.45 The SoS welcomes that the choice between proposed cooling technologies (ACC or Hybrid Cooling Towers) is being brought forward in consultation with the Environment Agency, and that a Best Available Technology (BAT) study will be undertaken on the chosen technology, outlining the balance between environmental effects, thermal efficiency and capital / operating costs. The ES should include consideration of both alternative technologies and provide justification for the chosen solution, taking into account the environmental effects. The SoS draws the Applicant’s attention

14

to paragraph 2.41 of this Opinion, outlining the need for designs to be as ‘firm’ as possible when applying for the DCO.

Grid Connection

2.46 The SoS welcomes consideration being given to a number of grid connection options, and that the grid connection elements and other associated infrastructure will be within the proposed DCO application, so that all potential effects can be assessed within the accompanying ES. The SoS suggests that careful consideration should be given as to how the Applicant meaningfully consults on, and properly assesses, the likely impacts arising from the proposed grid connection options. It is hoped that the adoption of an iterative approach will result in a specific connection option being identified within the ES.

2.47 The SoS notes that at present it is not anticipated that any existing infrastructure within the indicative DCO site boundary will be removed or upgraded as part of the grid connection required for FM2 (paragraph 2.1.5 of the Scoping Report). This should be clarified in the ES.

2.48 Whilst the grid connection for FM2 is proposed to be included within the DCO application, when considering cumulative impacts, the EIA should identify whether potential upgrades or new connection routes would be required to support the new grid connection for FM2. Where applicable, this may be supported by plans within the ES, showing any connection route corridors alongside an assessment of their potential environmental effects.

Proposed Access

2.49 The SoS notes that the proposed FM2 development is anticipated to utilise the same vehicular access routes as the FM1 power station during construction and operation. When establishing the baseline, the Scoping Report also appears to rely on some offsite highway works proposed to minimise vehicular traffic through Ferrybridge, including the provision of a new roundabout at Dish Hill (paragraph 6.4.6 of the Scoping Report). The ES should clearly distinguish between any proposed highway works included within the FM2 DCO application and those which form part of the existing baseline. Any assumptions, regarding the construction and operation of any highway works relied upon to form part of the baseline, should also be clearly stated in the ES.

Construction

2.50 The SoS considers that information on construction including: phasing of programme; construction methods and activities associated with each phase; siting of construction compounds (including on and off site); lighting equipment/requirements; and number, movements and parking of construction vehicles (both

15

HGVs and staff) should be clearly indicated in the ES. The SoS welcomes the approach that the Applicant suggests in Section 8.5 of the Scoping Report, whereby the ES will describe the likely content of the Construction Method Statement (CMS) which will detail specific mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental effects. The draft CMS should be appended to the ES.

2.51 The SoS notes that potentially site levels may need to be adjusted depending on the preferred fuel reception and storage bunker option selected. The SoS welcomes the proposal to assess impacts related to these and other earthworks in the EIA and that the potential options are being discussed with relevant stakeholders, in particular the Environment Agency, in relation to the depth at which the fuel bunker is sunk, having regard to the level of the water table. Indirect impacts associated with such earthworks would also need to be assessed, for example, disposal of spoil which may give rise to additional traffic generation.

Operation and Maintenance

2.52 Information on the operation and maintenance of the proposed FM2 development should be included in the ES and should cover but not be limited to such matters as: the number of full/part-time jobs; the operational hours and if appropriate, shift patterns; the number and types of vehicle movements generated during the operational stage.

Decommissioning

2.53 In terms of decommissioning, the SoS acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption. The process and methods of decommissioning should be considered and options presented in the ES.

2.54 The SoS recommends that the EIA covers the life span of the proposed FM2 development, including construction, operation and decommissioning and the potential environmental effects arising during each stage of the proposed FM2 development.

16

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS

Introduction

3.1 This section contains the SoS’s specific comments on the approach to the ES and topic areas as set out in the Applicant’s Scoping Report. General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided at Appendix 3 of this Opinion and should be read in conjunction with this Section.

3.2 Applicants are advised that the scope of the DCO application should be clearly addressed and assessed consistently within the ES. This is of particular relevance for the proposed development in terms of the relationship to the FM1 power station and the aspects of shared infrastructure, which should be clearly explained within the ES and appropriately considered as part of the EIA. The SoS notes the Applicant’s intended approach to addressing this relationship, as presented in section 8.2 of the Scoping Report.

ES Approach

3.3 The information provided in the Scoping Report sets out the proposed approach to the preparation of the ES. Whilst early engagement on the scope of the ES is to be welcomed, the SoS notes that the level of information provided at this stage is not always sufficient to allow for detailed comments from either the SoS or the consultees.

3.4 The SoS would suggest that the Applicant ensures that appropriate consultation is undertaken with the relevant consultees in order to agree wherever possible the timing and relevance of survey work as well as the methodologies to be used. The SoS notes and welcomes the intention to finalise the scope of investigations in conjunction with ongoing stakeholder liaison and consultation with the relevant regulatory authorities and their advisors.

3.5 The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

3.6 The SoS also recommends that the ES makes reference to the proposed approach in respect of the environmental permit application for the proposed FM2 development. This is discussed in further detail in paragraph 4.12 of this Opinion. The SoS welcomes

17

that the Applicant has already made contact with the Environment Agency in respect of the Environmental Permit requirements.

National Policy Statements

3.7 Section 1.4 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report outlines the need for the proposed development in relation to the National Policy Statements (NPS) for energy infrastructure. The proposed development is discussed in relation to the overarching NPS for energy (EN-1) and the NPS for renewable energy infrastructure (EN-3), which includes ‘energy from biomass and/or waste’ projects.

3.8 When undertaking the EIA, the Applicant must have regard to both the generic and technology-specific impacts that should be considered in the EIA for the proposed FM2 development and identify how these have been assessed in the ES. Part 5 of EN-1 sets out the policy on the assessment of impacts which are common across a range of energy technologies (generic impacts), whilst Part 2 of EN-3 sets out the policy on the assessment of technology specific impacts.

Matters to be Scoped Out

3.9 The Applicant has identified in section 7 of the Scoping Report the matters proposed to be ‘scoped out’ from further assessment, as part of the EIA. These include:

• Aviation,

• Electronic Interference, and

• Accidental Events / Health and Safety.

3.10 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the SoS. Having considered the justification provided by the Applicant and having regard to the formal scoping responses from relevant consultees (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion), the SoS agrees that the above topics can be scoped out of further assessment as part of the EIA. However, the Applicant should note the comments made by the Civil Aviation Authority (see Appendix 2) regarding the need to consider the use of aviation warning lighting in consultation with the relevant aerodrome operator and how this would be taken into account in the design of the development and assessed within the ES. As well as the need to consult the Defence Geographic Centre regarding the charting of structures over 300ft, in relation to the proposed stack.

3.11 In order to demonstrate that topics have not simply been overlooked, where topics are scoped out prior to submission of the DCO application, the ES should still identify these topics and explain the reasoning and justification for the approach taken.

18

ES Structure

3.12 Section 9 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report sets out the proposed structure of the ES under the headings of:

• Air Quality;

• Archaeology and Cultural Heritage;

• Ecology;

• Ground Conditions;

• Water Resources and Flood Risk;

• Transportation and Access;

• Noise and Vibration;

• Socio-Economics;

• Landscape and Visual; and

• Sustainability.

3.13 The SoS also notes and welcomes that the ES would include introductory and concluding chapters to outline matters such as the project description, assessment methodology, planning policy, consideration of alternatives and summary chapters on cumulative and residual impacts.

Topic Areas

Air Quality and Dust (see Scoping Report Section 6.2)

3.14 Paragraph 6.2.2 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report outlines that baseline monitoring works associated with the FM1 power station will be utilised for the assessment of the proposed FM2 development. Whilst this is considered to be of benefit to the EIA for the proposed FM2 development, the SoS would encourage the Applicant to agree the scope and extent of data for the assessment with the relevant consultees to ensure that the baseline is robust and up-to-date.

3.15 The Scoping Report acknowledges that the proposed development is located adjacent to sensitive habitats, including the Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI (c. 1.6 km north of the site) and the Fryston Park LWS (part of which falls within the proposed development site). Therefore, potential effects on these designations due to potential increases in airborne pollutant emissions during construction and operational phases of the proposed FM2 development should be considered in the EIA. The Applicant is referred to paragraphs 4.4 to 4.7 in this Opinion for further information on considering and assessing impacts on SSSI.

19

3.16 The SoS welcomes the proposed approach by the Applicant to

consider potential effects in relation to the objectives of the National Air Quality Standards (NAQS) as well as the Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems (including critical load levels on ecological receptors where applicable) and Environmental Assessment Levels (EAL).

3.17 The assessment should take account of the anticipated air emissions from the operational FM1 and the assumptions made regarding emission levels from FM1 should be clearly stated in the ES.

3.18 The Scoping Report identifies that emissions to air will also arise from vehicles and plant during both the construction and operational phase of the proposed FM2 development. The assumptions used to inform this assessment should be identified in the ES, including the type and number of vehicles and plant used during both the construction and operational phase of the development, and cross-referenced to the Transportation and Access assessment. Such information should also be used to inform the ecological assessments.

3.19 The implications of stack height and dispersion on the discharge of emissions need to be clearly explained in the ES, alongside a justification of the modelled parameters. The SoS recommends that dispersion modelling considers a range of possibilities and seeks to ensure that the ‘worst case’ scenario is assessed, for example the ‘worst case’ may occur as a short term impact.

3.20 The SoS welcomes the assessment of potential plume visibility from stack emissions and the hybrid cooling towers, should they be selected as the preferred option, and expects clear cross-referencing within the ES to the landscape and visual impact assessment.

3.21 Air quality, dust and odour levels should be considered not only on site but also off site, including along access roads, local footpaths and other public rights of way (PROW). The SoS notes the Applicant’s intention to submit a separate Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) as part of the DCO application for the proposed FM2 development, and reference should be made to this document in the ES as appropriate. The Applicant is referred to paragraph 4.11 in this Opinion for further information on undertaking the HHRA.

3.22 Consideration should be given to appropriate mitigation measures and to monitoring of dust and odour complaints during construction and operation, particularly given the proximity of residential receptors.

20

Noise and Vibration (see Scoping Report Section 6.3)

3.23 The SoS welcomes the commitment to agree the methodology and location of noise receptors with the relevant Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at WMDC (paragraph 6.3.7 in the Scoping Report). These discussions should also include the Applicant’s intention to use the noise modelling and monitoring works currently being undertaken in support of the FM1 power station to inform the assessment for the proposed FM2 development (paragraph 6.3.4 of the Scoping Report). The SoS notes that the anticipated noise emissions from FM1 are to be incorporated in the calculation of baseline noise levels expected following the completion of construction of FM1. These emissions should include expected traffic movements related to FM1.

3.24 It is unclear whether assessment of operational vibration impacts has been excluded from the scope of the assessment. Paragraph 6.3.6 of the Scoping Report states that vibration impacts associated with the operation of the proposed FM2 development are considered unlikely due to the distance between the site and the nearest residential receptors. However, paragraph 6.3.7 states that scope of the assessment will include operational noise and vibration. The scope of the noise and vibration assessment should be clarified and agreed in consultation with the relevant consultees, including the EHO at WMDC.

3.25 Noise and vibration levels during site preparation, construction and operational phases of the proposed FM2 development in respect of ecological receptors should also be considered, and the assessments within the ES cross-referenced as appropriate.

3.26 The assumptions used to inform this assessment should be identified in the ES, including the type and number of vehicles and plant used during both the construction and operational phases and cross-referenced to the Transportation and Access assessment. Such information should also be used to inform the ecological assessments.

3.27 Noise impacts on identified receptors should be specifically addressed particularly in relation to any potential noise disturbance at night and other unsocial hours such as weekends and public holidays. This should be described in reference to the details presented in the proposed ‘Construction Programme and Management’ chapter of the ES, and the mitigation described as appropriate (for example, implementation of a CMS).

3.28 The noise and vibration assessments should take account of the traffic and plant movements and operation within the proposed FM2 development site and along site access routes, especially during the construction phase.

21

3.29 Consideration should be given to monitoring noise and vibration

complaints during construction and operation and measures to mitigate potential effects discussed and assessed as part of the ES.

Transportation and Access (see Scoping Report Section 6.4)

3.30 The SoS welcomes the Applicant’s commitment to agreeing the scope of the Transport Assessment (TA) with the Transportation Officers at WMDC and Selby DC. The SoS also expects the Applicant to discuss and agree the scope of the TA with the Highways Agency (HA) due to potential effects on the trunk road network.

3.31 The SoS notes the Applicant’s intention to assess a ‘worst case’ scenario assuming 100% of deliveries during construction and operation will be via road transport. However, as per paragraph 3.2.5 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report, the degree to which rail and canal delivery options will be considered as part of the ES will need to be clearly presented. It is noted that the River Aire (which forms part of the Aire and Calder Navigation), is a designated freight waterway with an existing wharf within the wider Ferrybridge Power Station complex (as stated in the response from the Canal and River Trust in Appendix 2). Whilst it is noted that the Applicant states in paragraph 3.2.5 of its Scoping Report that deliveries via the canal “will not be included in the DCO application”, it is also stated that it could be “pursued in the future”.

3.32 Whilst the Scoping Report has identified the types of fuel that would be sourced for the proposed FM2 development (paragraph 3.2.3), the geographical origin of the proposed fuel has not been identified. The ES should identify any assumptions which have been made regarding the sourcing of the fuel, in particular its origin and how transporting the fuel to site has been assessed. The ES should also identify the anticipated quantity of by-products, bottom ash and flue gas treatment residues that would be generated as a result of the operation of the proposed FM2 development and the anticipated number of vehicle movements, including vehicle types. The ES should also assess the transportation of the by-products to the offsite ash recycling and landfill facilities.

3.33 The SoS notes the concerns of the HA surrounding the potential impact of the selected cooling technology and the possibility that this may create fogging and freezing rain on the A1(M) (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion). However the SoS also notes paragraph 3.2.18 of the Scoping Report which highlights that this will be explored with through the ‘BAT’ process in consultation with key stakeholders including the HA and the EA, and mitigation measures developed as required. The SoS suggests that this process specifically considers the potential in-combination effects

22

with the FM1 power station scheme in respect of fogging and freezing rain effects on the A1(M).

3.34 The SoS notes that the Scoping Report identifies that the baseline would be defined on the pre-FM1 baseline, but that the topic assessments would consider the ‘baseline plus operational FM1’ and ‘baseline plus operational FM1 plus the Proposed Development’ (paragraph 8.2.1). The traffic assumptions, including vehicle types, for the operational FM1 should be identified within the ES.

3.35 As per paragraph 6.4.2 of the Scoping Report, the Applicant’s intention to provide a travel plan is welcomed by the SoS, although the Applicant is encouraged to prepare separate travel plans for both the construction and operational phases of the proposed FM2 development (see scoping response from the HA in Appendix 2 of this Opinion), and both should specifically address measures related to FM1 power station as well, including consideration for the construction staff travel patterns for the proposed FM2 development (see scoping response from North Yorkshire County Council in Appendix 2). The intention to pursue an ‘Integrated Transport Plan’ for the whole Ferrybridge Power Station complex is also noted (paragraph 6.4.2 of the Scoping Report), and the Applicant should clearly present the implications of this in terms of assessing the proposed FM2 development in the context of existing transportation conditions of the wider power station complex.

3.36 The ES should clarify whether any PROW including bridleways and byways would be affected by the proposed FM2 development. Where PROW may be affected, the ES should clearly set out any impacts on them, including within the wider local area and the anticipated duration and whether these are likely to be significant.

Ecology (see Scoping Report Section 6.5)

3.37 The SoS recommends that the requisite ecology surveys be thorough, up-to-date and take account of other development proposed in the vicinity. It is noted in paragraph 6.5.2 of the Scoping Report that existing survey data was due to be updated in Spring 2013, and paragraph 9.2.20 outlines the potential cumulative development schemes that are to be considered as part of the assessment. The potential cumulative impacts on ecology associated with the proposed FM2 development and the FM1 power station are of particular relevance here, including the potential interactions between construction and operational phases of the developments. The SoS notes that the Applicant has defined the consideration of baseline conditions in section 8.2 of the Scoping Report and the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) should explain how the outlined approach considers the ‘worst case’ in terms of potential ecological effects.

23

3.38 The SoS recommends that the proposals should address fully the

needs of protecting and enhancing biodiversity, where appropriate. The assessment should cover habitats, species and processes within the site and surrounding area.

3.39 It is noted that a hybrid cooling system is still considered as a potential option for the proposed FM2 development and the potential impacts on aquatic flora and fauna would therefore need to be considered as part of the ES. As one of the potential grid connection options includes land within the Fryston Park LWS, the potential impacts and any proposed mitigation to address effects on this designated site, would need to be presented as part of the ES.

3.40 The assessment should take account of the inter-relationship between noise, vibration and air quality (including dust) impacts on ecological receptors, and appropriate cross-reference should be made to these topic chapters when considering magnitude and significance of potential effects.

Ground Contamination and Soil Quality (see Scoping Report Section 6.6)

3.41 The SoS welcomes that there will be assessment of ground contamination and geotechnical conditions. The baseline for the ES should explain in detail the extent of the study area, ensuring that the impacts are considered over a sufficiently wide area and provide the reasons to justify this.

3.42 The SoS notes that in addressing ground conditions and contaminated land, a phase 1 desk based assessment will be undertaken and a conceptual site model developed. The approach to these should be agreed in consultation with the EA as well as any proposed remedial strategies that may be required as a result.

3.43 The SoS welcomes the approach of alternative design options for the fuel bunker and the degree to which the design options are intended for discussion with key consultees. Where designs are not finalised prior to the submission of any DCO application, a ‘worst case’ approach to the assessment should be undertaken and the design parameters presented and justified in the ES to reflect this.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology (including Flood Risk) (see Scoping Report Section 6.7)

3.44 The SoS welcomes the use of existing ‘detailed hydrogeological studies and risk assessments undertaken to inform the FM1 works’ as part of the assessment for the proposed FM2 development.

3.45 Groundwater is a potential pathway for discharge of pollutants to surface waters and aquifers. The SoS notes the potential cumulative effects on the water environment (specifically

24

groundwater flow and quality) of the proposed FM2 development and the FM1 power station. The SoS considers that these potential effects should be specifically addressed as part of the ES (including allowances for climate change) and notes that the EA would welcome the opportunity for further discussion as the investigations progress through evolution of the design of the proposed FM2 development (see Appendix 2).

3.46 The SoS recommends consultation with both Yorkshire Water and the EA with regard to potential impacts on the public sewer network including the need to address easements and impacts arising from vibration during the construction works.

3.47 The SoS recommends that full consideration will need to be given to the potential effects of the hybrid cooling option on local hydrological and hydrogeological resources. The SoS recommends that appropriate consultation is undertaken with the EA in respect of the positioning of the intake/outfall of cooling water for the proposed FM2 development. Details of abstraction and outfall rates would need to be defined and assessed within the ES, along with evidence of agreement with the EA as to its acceptability.

3.48 Mitigation measures should be addressed and the SoS advises that reference should be made to other regimes (such as pollution prevention and environmental permitting). On-going monitoring should also be addressed and agreed with the relevant authorities to ensure that any mitigation measures remain effective in addressing potential impacts as identified by the ES and supporting assessments.

3.49 The SoS welcomes the provision of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the on-going consultation with the EA and WMDC. The FRA should form an appendix to the ES and should be cross referred as applicable in support of the relevant ES chapters. The SoS considers that the key issues for the FRA are in relation to the location of the proposed grid connection options within flood zones 2 and 3. These proposed options should be considered in respect of their potential impacts on flood risk (including sequential and exception tests if applicable), and where necessary, mitigation measures identified. Further, the proximity of the proposed FM2 development and the FM1 power station should be considered in detail, given that the FM1 power station lies almost entirely within flood zone 2 and the cumulative effects of the two schemes in terms of flood risk will therefore need to be assessed.

3.50 The SoS also welcomes the Applicant’s acknowledgement of their obligations under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to protect and prevent deterioration of local surface water bodies including the River Aire. The EA recommend that the Applicant consults the Humber River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for further details to see how the proposed FM2 development site can contribute to WFD objectives.

25

3.51 Surface water run-off should be managed through a sustainable

urban drainage approach (SUDS) involving a range of techniques incorporated as part of the proposed FM2 development which could include (but are not limited to) soakaways, infiltration trenches, permeable pavements, grassed swales, green roofs, ponds and wetlands. Some further technical details are provided in the EA’s consultation response in Appendix 2 of this Opinion.

3.52 Given the inter-relationship between some of the EIA topic areas in respect of water resources (for example hydrology, ecology, and ground conditions), appropriate cross-reference should be made between these EIA topic areas.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (See Scoping Report Section 6.8)

3.53 The setting of cultural heritage resources could be affected by the proposed FM2 development. Although the Applicant states that the area within the indicative DCO application site boundary has a ‘low potential for archaeological features due to levels of modern disturbance’, the SoS welcomes the Applicant’s proposed approach, including a desk based assessment, which will inform the need for appropriate mitigation measures. The SoS recommends that the Applicant prepares the desk based assessment in consultation with the West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) and that they are in agreement, where possible, as to the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment, particularly in terms of the scope of any further assessment that may be required before or after the submission of the DCO.

3.54 Whilst the approach suggested in assuming impacts on any listed structures will be consistent with those identified for the FM1 power station, seems reasonable, the SoS recommends that this be justified in the context of the design parameters assessed and evidence of agreement with WYAAS, presented in the ES.

3.55 Cross reference should be made to the Landscape and Visual assessment of the ES where relevant, and also to the ground conditions chapter in respect of the proposed groundworks for the fuel storage bunker.

Land Use and Socio-Economics (see Scoping Report Section 6.9)

3.56 The SoS recommends that the types of jobs generated should be considered in the context of the available workforce in the area, this applies equally to the construction and operational stages. The assessment should place the proposed FM2 development in the context of the Economic Regeneration Strategy for the Wakefield District and its objectives.

26

3.57 The SoS recommends that the assessment criteria should be

locationally specific and consider the potential significance of the impacts of the proposal within the local and regional context.

Landscape and Visual (see Scoping Report Section 6.10)

3.58 The SoS advises that the ES should describe the models used (for example in defining the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)), provide information on the area covered, the timing of any survey work and the methodology used. The SoS recommends that the location of viewpoints should be agreed with the local authorities and, where applicable WYAAS.

3.59 The SoS requests that careful consideration should be given to the form, siting, and use of materials and colours in terms of minimising the adverse visual impact of these structures, and the extent to which they will appear coherent with the existing structures in the wider Ferrybridge Power Station complex. The methodology in terms of combined visual impacts of the proposed FM2 development and the FM1 power station should agreed with the relevant consultees and the approach justified in the ES.

3.60 The visual impact of the stack and plume visibility will need to be considered. The ZTV should seek to ensure that all potential sensitive receptors are considered and viewpoints are agreed with the relevant local authorities.

3.61 In respect of paragraph 6.10.17 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report, the SoS would expect to see consideration of lighting and night-time views as part of the technical assessment within the LVIA to some extent, or justification as to why it has been excluded.

Sustainability (See Scoping Report Section 6.11)

3.62 The SoS welcomes the approach to the sustainability assessment presented in the Applicant’s Scoping Report. Where flexibility in design remains as part of the DCO application, or where assumptions are made as part of any aspect of material or resource use during operation and construction, the SoS recommends that a justified ‘worst case’ assessment is undertaken and the parameters justified in the ES.

3.63 Where applicable, cross reference should be made to the other technical assessments where sustainability principles are considered, including but not limited to air quality, ground conditions, waste and resources and water resources assessment chapters.

Other Topic Areas

3.64 The SoS notes that the Applicant has identified ‘Waste and Resources’ and ‘Combined Heat and Power’ within Section 6 of

27

their Scoping Report (‘Potentially Significant EIA Issues’). However, the proposed structure of the ES outlined in paragraph 9.1.3 of the Scoping Report does not include separate ES chapters for either topic area. The SoS encourages the Applicant to consider where they should sit as part of one of the list of chapters identified, or to consider additional chapters to present these assessments.

Waste and Resources (See Scoping Report Section 6.12)

3.65 The SoS encourages the Applicant to discuss their proposed approach with the EA and WMDC, to establish an appropriate methodology and evaluation criteria and ensure that all types of wastes and their effects are considered, particularly in respect of hazardous wastes.

3.66 The proposed FM2 development will result in the production of a range of different types of waste throughout the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the project. The combined effects of the FM1 power station and the proposed FM2 development will be an important consideration within the assessment, and the potential effects should be explained and quantified. The ES should specifically include consideration of how appropriate quantities of residual waste (with suitable composition and calorific value) can be obtained to supply the proposed FM2 development without compromising the objectives of the waste hierarchy (particularly reuse, recovery, and recycling) (please refer to the response from the EA in Appendix 2).

3.67 The SoS considers it essential to also take account of materials to be removed from the site and to identify where potential traffic movements would be routed. Such details should be reflected and assessed as part of the ES as well as in the supporting documents (for example the CMP).

3.68 The SoS recommends that a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is prepared as part of the DCO application and appended to the ES.

3.69 It is noted that some of the effects linked to waste such as impacts on air or water quality would be covered in other chapters of the ES. The inter-relationship between the chapter on waste and these other chapters should be clearly explained in the ES and cross-referenced, where appropriate.

3.70 The ES should describe any mitigation measures necessary to deal with adverse impacts and identify any residual effects. The ES should also make it clear how mitigation measures would be secured and delivered in the DCO.

28

Combined Heat and Power (See Scoping Report Section 6.13)

3.71 Although identified under the ‘Potentially Significant EIA Issues’ section of the Scoping Report, the SoS does not consider that a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) assessment would normally comprise one of the suite of technical chapters included within an ES.

3.72 The SoS generally welcomes the approach to the consideration of CHP as part of the DCO, including consideration of BAT. However, the SoS recommends that the combined capacity of both the FM1 power station and the proposed FM2 development should be considered as part of the CHP study and identification of potential users.

29

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION

4.1 This section does not form part of the SoS’s Opinion as to the information to be provided in the ES. However, it does respond to other issues that the SoS has identified which may help to inform the preparation of the application for the DCO.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

4.2 It is the Applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to the Competent Authority (CA) to enable them to carry out a HRA if required, or to provide sufficient information to satisfy the SoS (as the CA) that a HRA is not required (i.e. that the proposed FM2 development is not likely to affect a European site and/or a European marine site). It is noted that paragraph 6.5.3 of the Scoping Report states that the Applicant does not anticipate a HRA will be required in support of the proposed FM2 development, as there are no European sites within 20km of the proposed FM2 development. The SoS recommends that early agreement on this approach, with the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) is sought, and that there is evidence of this agreement as part of the DCO application.

4.3 Further information with regard to the HRA process is contained within Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10 available on the National Infrastructure Planning’s website.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

4.4 The SoS notes that two SSSIs are located close to the proposed FM2 development (1.6km from the site at its closest point). Where there may be potential impacts on the SSSIs, the SoS has duties under sections 28(G) and 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the W&C Act). These are set out below for information.

4.5 Under s28(G), the SoS has a general duty ‘to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest’.

4.6 Under s28(I), the SoS must notify the relevant SNCB, Natural England in this case, before authorising the carrying out of operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. Under these circumstances 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent, and the SoS must take account of any advice received from the SNCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. The SNCB will be notified during the examination period.

30

4.7 If applicants consider it likely that notification may be necessary

under s28(I), they are advised to resolve any issues with the SNCB before the DCO application is submitted to the SoS. If, following assessment by applicants, it is considered that operations affecting the SSSI will not lead to damage of the special interest features, applicants should make this clear in the ES. The application documents submitted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(l) could also provide this information. Applicants should seek to agree with SNCB the DCO requirements which will provide protection for the SSSI before the DCO application is submitted.

European Protected Species (EPS)

4.8 The Applicant should also be aware that the decision maker under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has, as the competent authority (CA), a duty to engage with the Habitats Directive.

4.9 The SoS notes that whilst no EPS have been identified so far, further surveys are proposed to confirm that no EPS are present on the site (paragraph 6.5.2 of the Scoping Report). Where a potential risk to an EPS is identified and before making a decision to grant development consent the CA must, amongst other things, address the derogation tests in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations. Therefore, the Applicant may wish to provide information which will assist the decision maker to meet this duty.

4.10 If the Applicant has concluded (in consultation with Natural England) that an EPS licence is required the ExA will need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. It would assist the examination if the Applicant could provide with the DCO application confirmation from Natural England whether they intend to issue the licence in due course. Where required the Applicant should, in consultation with Natural England, agree appropriate requirements to secure necessary mitigation.

Health Impact Assessment

4.11 The SoS considers that it is a matter for the Applicant to decide whether or not to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment (HIA). It is noted that the Applicant intends to prepare a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), as discussed in paragraph 6.2.13 of the Scoping Report. The methodology for the HHRA, should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.

Other regulatory regimes

4.12 The SoS recommends that the Applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES and that the Applicant

31

should ensure that all relevant authorisations, licences, permits and consents that are necessary to enable operations to proceed are described in the ES. Also it should be clear that any likely significant effects of the proposed FM2 development which may be regulated by other statutory regimes have been properly taken into account in the ES.

4.13 It will not necessarily follow that the granting of consent under one regime will ensure consent under another regime. For those consents not capable of being included in an application for consent under the PA 2008, the SoS will require a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the proposal is acceptable and likely to be approved, before they make a recommendation or decision on an application. The Applicant is encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from the Applicant about progress in obtaining other permits, licences or consents, including any confirmation that there is no obvious reason why these will not subsequently be granted, will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the SoS.

Transboundary Impacts

4.14 The SoS notes that the Applicant has not indicated whether or not they consider the proposed FM2 development is likely to have significant impacts on another EEA State.

4.15 Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations, which inter alia require the SoS to publicise a DCO application if the SoS is of the view that the proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another EEA state and where relevant to consult with the EEA state affected. The SoS considers that where Regulation 24 applies, this is likely to have implications for the examination of a DCO application. The SoS recommends that the ES should identify whether the proposed development has the potential for significant transboundary impacts and if so, what these are and which EEA States would be affected.

32

APPENDIX 1

List of Consultees

34

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION

The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant clinical commissioning group

NHS England (NHS Commissioning Board NHS Wakefield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

Natural England Natural England The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

English Heritage

The relevant fire and rescue authority West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service

The relevant police and crime commissioner

Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (Mark Burns-Williamson)

The relevant Parish Council

N/a (located entirely within a non-civil parish council)

The Environment Agency The Environment Agency The Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority The Highways Agency The Highways Agency Integrated Transport Authorities (ITAs) and Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs)

Metro (West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority and the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive)

The relevant Highways Authority Wakefield Council Highways and Engineering

The Coal Authority The Coal Authority The Relevant Internal Drainage Board The Shire Group of Internal

Drainage Boards The Canal and River Trust The Canal and River Trust Public Health England Public Health England

Relevant Statutory Undertakers

Health Bodies (s.16 of the Acquisition of Land Act (ALA) 1981)

The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant clinical commissioning group

NHS England (NHS Commissioning Board

Appendix 1

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION

NHS Wakefield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

NHS Commissioning Board Local Area Team

NHS Commissioning Board - West Yorkshire Local Area Team NHS Commissioning Board - North Yorkshire and Humber Area Team

Ambulance Trusts Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

The Crown Estate Commissioners The Crown Estate The Forestry Commission The Forestry Commission The Secretary of State for Defence The Secretary of State for

Defence

Relevant Statutory Undertakers (s.8 ALA 1981)

Railways BRB Residuary Limited Water Transport The Canal and River Trust

Canal Or Inland Navigation Authorities The Canal and River Trust

Civil Aviation Authority

Civil Aviation Authority

Licence Holder (Chapter 1 Of Part 1 Of Transport Act 2000)

NATS En-Route (NERL) Safeguarding

Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group Licence Holder (Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Transport Act 2000)

NATS en Route plc

Relevant Environment Agency

Environment Agency

Water and Sewage Undertakers Yorkshire Water Public Gas Transports British Gas Pipelines Ltd

Energetics Gas Ltd ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd ESP Pipelines Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited GTC Pipelines Limited Independent Pipelines Limited LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited National Grid Plc National Grid Gas Plc Northern Gas Networks Limited Quadrant Pipelines Limited

Appendix 1

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION

SSE Pipelines Ltd The Gas Transportation Company Limited Utility Grid Installations Limited

Electricity Licence Holders having CPO Powers

Energetics Electricity Limited ESP Electricity Limited Independent Power Networks Limited The Electricity Network Company Limited SSE Generation Limited Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc

Electricity Transmitters with CPO Powers

National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc National Grid Plc

Local Authorities (s.43) Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Selby District Council Doncaster Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Kirklees Council Leeds City Council North Yorkshire County Council

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 2

Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY THE STATUTORY DEADLINE

Canal & River Trust

Civil Aviation Authority

The Coal Authority

English Heritage

Environment Agency

ES Pipelines Limited (also on behalf of ESP Networks Ltd, ESP Pipelines Ltd, ESP Electricity Ltd and ESP Connections Ltd)

Fulcrum Pipelines Limited

The Gas Transportation Company Limited (GTC)

Health and Safety Executive

Highways Agency

Kirklees Council

National Grid

NATS (En Route) plc

Natural England

NHS England

North Yorkshire County Council

Public Health England

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service

West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Metro)

Yorkshire Water

Appendix 2

4 July 2013

Your Ref EN010061

Richard Kent 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Mr Richard Kent INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION, FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION CONPLEX, STRANGLANDS LANE, WEST YORKSHIRE, WF11 8SQ (the project) Thank you for your consultation in respect of the above. The Canal & River Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. It is separate from government but still the recipient of a significant amount of government funding. The Trust has a range of charitable objects including: • To hold in trust or own and to operate and manage inland waterways for public benefit, use

and enjoyment; • To protect and conserve objects and buildings of heritage interest; • To further the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment of

inland waterways; and • To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterways for the benefit

of the public. Scoping Report comments Transportation and access We note that although the Applicant proposes to transport construction materials, fuel and waste by road and rail, the Scoping Report also identifies that using barges on the River Aire “remains a

Canal & River Trust Peel's Wharf Lichfield Street Fazeley Tamworth Staffordshire B78 3QZ T 0303 040 4040 E customer.services@canalrivertrust.org.uk www.canalrivertrust.org.uk Patron: H.R.H. The Prince of Wales. Canal & River Trust is a company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales under

number 7807276; and a charity registered with the Charity Commission under number 1146792.

theoretical alternative” but will not be considered as the primary transport option within the Development Consent Order Application. However, the River Aire, which forms part of the Aire and Calder Navigation, is a designated freight waterway with an existing wharf within the Ferrybridge Power Station complex. In light of this, we recommend that the Environmental Statement (ES) fully considers the option of utilising the River Aire for the transportation of construction materials during the construction stage, and to transport fuel and waste products during the operation stage. Hydrology The Scoping Report has identified a number of drainage options and receptors, including the River Aire. As the Trust is responsible for ensuring that the Aire and Calder Navigation is maintained to allow safe navigation, the ES needs to fully consider the potential impacts of run-off entering the River Aire, as surface and ground water run off could affect water levels of the river and have an impact on navigation. Furthermore, we support that the Scoping Report specifies that the ES will fully assess pollution and contamination issues associated with surface and ground water run-off. Should you have any queries please contact me at this office Yours sincerely Martyn Coy Area Planner Telephone: 0113 281 6803 E-Mail: Martyn.Coy@canalrivertrust.org.uk

2

Civil Aviation Authority CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE www.caa.co.uk Telephone 0207 453 6545 Fax 0207 453 6565 marks.smailes@caa.co.uk

Directorate of Airspace Policy Mr Richard Kent (via e-mail) The Planning Inspectorate 12 June 2013 Reference: ERM/DAP/Planning/FerrybridgePowerStation Dear Mr Kent, Proposed Ferrybridge Power Station – Scoping Opinion Thank you for the recent Planning Inspectorate correspondence which sought Civil Aviation Authority scoping comment relating to the subject development. I trust the following is useful. From the associated Scoping Report (SR) I gather that the height of the tallest structure associate with the Ferrybridge Power Station project is expected to be a single, new chimney stack that will be a maximum of 120m in height. The SR makes the point that this chimney stack would be ‘slightly higher than the adjacent Ferrybridge C cooling towers at 115m but lower than the existing Ferrybridge C emissions stack at 198m above ground level’. On that basis, I trust the following comment is useful:

• Aerodromes. In respect of any potential aerodrome related issue, I should highlight the need to check any safeguarding maps lodged with relevant planning authorities to identify any aerodrome specific safeguarding issues. Noting the presence that aerodrome safeguarding responsibility rests in all cases with the relevant aerodrome operator / licensee, not the CAA, it is important that the related viewpoints of any relevant aerodrome license holders / operators is established and planning deliberations take appropriate consideration of any issues highlighted.

• Aviation Warning Lighting. Given the assumed maximum height of associated structures (120m) I believe there to be a need for aviation warning lighting. For background:

o In the UK, the need for aviation obstruction lighting on 'tall' structures depends in the first instance upon any particular structure's location in relationship to an aerodrome. If the structure constitutes an 'aerodrome obstruction' it is the aerodrome operator that with review the lighting requirement. For civil aerodromes, they will, in general terms, follow the requirements of CAP 168 - Licensing of Aerodromes. This document can be downloaded from the CAA website - Chapter 4 (12.8) refers to obstacle lighting.

o Away from aerodromes Article 219 of the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) applies. This Article requires that for en-route obstructions (ie away from aerodromes) lighting only becomes legally mandated for structures of a height of 150m or more. However, structures of lesser high might need aviation obstruction lighting if, by virtue of their location and nature, they are considered a significant navigational hazard.

o Cranes, whether in situ temporarily or long term are captured by the points heighted above. Note that if a crane is located on top of another structure, it is the overall height (structure + crane) than is relevant.

o In this case, even in the event that there proves to be no aerodrome related lighting requirement and the clear non applicability of Article 219, the new chimney stack is would be higher that the cooling towers, I believe that the ‘by virtue of their location and

nature’ holds true and that the developer considers the employment of aviation warning lighting.

• Gas Venting and/or Flaring. It is assumed that the Ferrybridge facility is not intended to vent or flare gas either routinely or as an emergency procedure such as to cause a danger to overlying aircraft. If that is not the case parties are invited to use myself as an appropriate point of contact for any further related discussion.

• Aviation Promulgation. There is a civil aviation requirement in the UK for all structures over 300 feet high to be charted on aviation maps. It follows that, if the new chimney stack is of a height of 300ft (91.4m) or more it will need to be notified and charted for civil aviation purposes. As such, to initiate related work, details of the precise location and height of the chimney should be provided by the developer to the Defence Geographic Centre, which manages the UK’s master data-base of tall structure.

• Military Aviation. For completeness, the Ministry of Defence position in regards to the proposed development and military aviation activity should be established.

• I should also add that that due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it would also be sensible to establish the related viewpoint of local emergency services air support units.

Whilst the SR suggests that aviation issues are intended to be scoped out of the Environmental Impact Assessment, there remains a requirement to consider the issues highlighted above and appropriate mitigate any associated problems that become evident. In particular further work is required to fully consider any potential aerodrome safeguarding issue, the recommended aviation warning lighting requirement and the aviation notification of the chimney stack. The Scoping Opinion should make related comment. Whilst none of the above negates any aforementioned need to consult in line with Government requirements associated with the safeguarding of aerodromes and other technical sites (Government Circular 1/2003 refers), I hope this information matches your requirements. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if the Planning Inspectorate requires any further comment or needs clarification of any point. Yours sincerely, {original signed} Mark Smailes ORA5

1

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries) Email: planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk Web: www.coal.decc.gov.uk/services/planning

UNCLASSIFIED

For the Attention of Richard Kent EIA & Land Rights Adviser The Planning Inspectorate [By Email: environmentalservices@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk] 05 July 2013 Dear Mr Kent EIA SCOPING OPINION: Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station, Ferrybridge Power Station Complex, Stranglands Lane, West Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ Thank you for your consultation letter of 10 June 2013 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the EIA Scoping Opinion for the above proposal. The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas. The Coal Authority Response Having reviewed the submitted documentation, I can confirm that the proposed EIA development is located within a Coal Mining Development Low Risk Area. As such, there is no specific requirement to consider coal mining related land instability issues as part of the Environmental Statement (ES) for the proposed development. However, the proposed development site is located within an area of surface coal resources. In order to ensure that these coal resources will not be unnecessarily sterilised by the development, it is considered that the ES should include an assessment of whether the prior extraction of these resources would be practicable and viable.

2

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

Coal Mining Information Information on coal issues can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Services Team (Tel: 0845 762 6848 or via the website: www.groundstability.com) or book an appointment to visit The Coal Authority’s Mining Records Centre in Mansfield to view our mining information (Tel: 01623 637 233). In accordance with our consultation requirements, we look forward to receiving the application and Environmental Statement for comment in due course. I trust this is acceptable, please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information or would like to discuss this matter further. Yours sincerely

D Berry

David Berry B.Sc.(Hons), MA, MRTPI

Planning Liaison Manager

Disclaimer The above consultation response is provided by The Coal Authority as a Statutory Consultee and is based upon the latest available data and records held by The Coal Authority on the date of the response. The comments made are also based upon only the information provided to The Coal Authority for consultation purposes in relation to this specific development proposal. The views and conclusions contained in this response may be subject to review and amendment by The Coal Authority if additional or new data/information (such as a revised Coal Mining Risk Assessment) is provided for consultation purposes.

Environment Agency Lateral 8 City Walk, LEEDS, LS11 9AT. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.environment-agency.gov.uk Cont/d..

Richard Kent - EIA and Land Rights Adviser The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing (Temple Quay House) 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Our ref: RA/2013/125473/01-L01 Your ref: EN010061_130610_1840049 Date: 03 July 2013

Dear Mr Kent SCOPING OPINION REQUEST FOR MULTIFUEL POWER STATION (FERRYBRIDGE FM2) FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION COMPLEX, STRANGLANDS LANE, WF11 8SQ Thank you for your Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping consultation letter which was received on the 13th June 2013. We have reviewed the scoping request report dated June 2013 (URS for Multifuel Energy Ltd). Generally we agree that the scoping report identifies the matters to be addressed in the Environmental Statement. We have some additional comments to make which we hope will assist in ensuring that the Environmental Statement (ES) will appropriately address the environmental issues we consider are of most importance for this proposal.

Our comments relating to the information contained within the Environmental Scoping report are provided below. GROUNDWATER The site is underlain by the principal aquifer of the Cadeby Formation/Lower Magnesian Limestone, and water within it is flowing towards the surface water in the adjacent Fryston Beck, a tributary of the nearby River Aire. It is noted at Section 3.2.1 that the report states that the proposed fuel bunker building will be ‘largely above ground….extending below ground for no more than 3m to remain above the water table’. The report sets out also (sections 3 and 6) that options will also be investigated for an above ground bunker and a bunker as proposed for FM1 (circ 10m below ground). Paragraph 3.2.2 states that environmental impact of all three fuel storage options will be considered in the EIA.

Cont/d..

2

In this location, our preferred option would be for above ground storage. Whilst storage below sub-table has been agreed for FM1, the option of below sub-water table storage is one of that is of concern to us due to the potential detrimental impacts on the water environment. We are particularly concerned about the potential in-combination effects on the water environment of two very large structures both acting as a barrier to flow, and potentially putting the quality at risk, within the groundwater beneath the site. We note however that the all options will be investigated from a technical and environmental perspective including for potential impact on groundwater resources during both the construction and operation phases. We would welcome opportunities for further discussion with the applicant on this particular issue as the investigations progress. FLOOD RISK As acknowledged in the scoping report a flood risk assessment (FRA) will be required under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The FRA should consider flooding from all sources and show that flood risk to others would not be increased. Finished Floor Levels We would require finished floor levels of any proposed buildings to be set to a minimum of 600mm above the 1:100yr climate change flood level. Compensatory Flood Storage Any development in the section of the site that lies within floodzone 3, at the north eastern side of the site where the water abstraction point is proposed, would require compensatory flood storage if this development was to reduce the amount of flood storage currently available. Surface water Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management (SUDS). SUDS are an approach to managing surface water run-off which seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on or near the site as opposed to traditional drainage approaches which involve piping water off site as quickly as possible. SUDS involve a range of techniques including soakaways, infiltration trenches, permeable pavements, grassed swales, green roofs, ponds and wetlands. SUDS offer significant advantages over conventional piped drainage systems in reducing flood risk by attenuating the rate and quantity of surface water run-off from a site, promoting groundwater recharge absorbing diffuse pollutants and improving water quality. Ponds, reedbeds and seasonally flooded grasslands can be particularly attractive features within public open. There should be no increase in surface water runoff from the new development. Greenfield development sites should balance surface water discharge to the 1 in 1 year Greenfield run-off rate, this is considered to be 2.5 litres/second/hectare. If the proposed development site is Brownfield and a positive discharge can be proved then surface water runoff should be attenuated to provide a 30% reduction in the final surface water discharge from the site when compared with the existing site outflow prior to redevelopment. If positive surface water drainage cannot be proved then existing surface water run-off should be considered as Greenfield rates and attenuated to a maximum of 2.5 litres/second/hectare. An “on site” storm water storage facility should be provided to accommodate the flood volume for a 1 in 100 year return period plus a 30% allowance for climate change. If the

Cont/d..

3

drainage system is to be adopted it should be noted that sewage undertakers usually require storage designed to accommodate the 1 in 30 year event, preferably by means of oversized pipes or underground tanks. Additional volumes up to the 1 in 100 year return period (plus climate change) should be stored on site without causing any flooding to buildings or adjacent land. Fryston Beck runs through the site and is an ordinary watercourse. Our historical records of flooding show that a small area along Fryston Beck to the east of the site flooded in 2007. Wakefield MDC Drainage Department should be consulted regarding the management of surface water at the site. Further information For main rivers such as the River Aire (adjacent to the site), we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Our historical records of flooding show that a small area along Fryston Beck to the east of the site flooded in 2007. WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE We welcome that the report indicates in section 6.7 that regard will be had to obligations under the Water Framework Directive to protect and prevent deterioration of local surface waterbodies including the River Aire. We note that the Humber River Basin Management Plan will be utilised. For information, the waterbody in which the site is located is classified as heavily modified, and is currently at Moderate Ecological Potential (2009 Humber RBMP waterbody status), with a number of failing elements. There are many mitigation measures outlined in the Humber RBMP (see Annex B of the Plan) which could support the improvement of this waterbody. We recommend that the developers should consult the Humber RBMP for further details on this, and that they should look to work with the Environment Agency to see if they can do anything during development of the site to contribute to WFD objectives. In particular, they should consider whether there are any actions that could be taken during development to improve the section of river morphology which is within their site boundaries, and more generally any actions which could reduce the risk of deterioration and contribute to improving the River Aire under the WFD. WASTE The Environment Agency supports the development of Energy from Waste facilities within the Waste Hierarchy, and we would anticipate further detail on how the applicant will ensure that the hierarchy is applied by its fuel suppliers. We believe that we need to create less waste, recycle more and maximise the use of residual waste in a safe and environmentally friendly way. We believe that recovering energy from waste can contribute to a balanced energy policy, provided that it does not undermine waste prevention or minimising waste, re-use, recycling or composting. We are seeking a balance between the need to divert residual waste from landfill and recover resources from it and the need to ensure that waste is dealt with as far up the waste hierarchy as possible in line with the waste framework directive. Merchant or

End

4

commercial waste incineration facilities present particular challenges in ensuring the right balance is maintained, due to the range of waste types dealt with and the varying quality of segregation and recycling facilities employed. Any submission should include a consideration of how appropriate quantities of residual waste with the right composition and calorific value can be obtained for the proposed plant to run economically and efficiently, but without compromising the drive to increase reuse, recovery, and recycling. PERMITTING/CONSENTS/LICENSING Environmental Permitting Regulations We confirm that the proposal would require an Environmental Permit, and we agree with the approach to the modelling of the impact of the proposal on air quality – i.e. with emissions at the limits set by the Industrial Emissions Directive. The applicant has made contact with the Environment Agency to discuss Environmental Permit requirements. Water Resources Act 1991/Yorkshire Land Drainage Byelaws Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Yorkshire Land Drainage Byelaws, prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the River Aire designated a ‘main river’. Wakefield MDC Drainage department should be consulted regarding consenting requirements for the ordinary watercourse – Fryston Beck. Abstraction Licenses All available water has been licensed to the proposed Knottingly Power Station in this area of the River Aire. Currently Ferrybridge C has abstraction licences from groundwater (1,500,000 m3/a) and the River Aire (50,000,000 m3/a). We would hope that when the decision is taken as to how the boiler will be fed and what type of cooling system will be used, the water required will be reallocated from the existing licences. We advise the applicant to commence early discussion with our Water Resources team (Karen Wooster 0113 819 6379 karen.wooster@environment-agency.gov.uk) in relation to securing water supply. The comments we set out above are without prejudice to future decisions we make regarding any applications subsequently made to us for our permits or consents for operations at the site. Yours sincerely Ms Rachel Jones Sustainable Places – Planning Specialist Direct dial 01138196385 Direct fax 01138196299 Direct e-mail rachele.jones@environment-agency.gov.uk

From: Alan Slee [mailto:alans@espipelines.com] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 4:49 PM To: Environmental Services Subject: RE: EN010061 - PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION - SCOPING CONSULTATION

Hi Richard, INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION, FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION COMPLEX, STRANGLANDS LANE, WEST YORKSHIRE, WF11 8SQ (the project) PROPOSAL BY MULTIFUEL ENERGY LTD (MEL) (the applicant) EN010061_130610_1840049 ESP Ref: PE110309 Further to your email communication to E S Pipelines Ltd, ESP Networks Ltd, ESP Pipelines Ltd, ESP Electricity Ltd and ESP Connections Ltd dated 10 June 2013 I can confirm that our businesses have no comments at this stage. Regards, Alan Slee Operations Manager DD 01372 227567 Mobile 07766 802070 Fax 01372 386203 www.espipelines.com From: Environmental Services [mailto:EnvironmentalServices@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 10 June 2013 10:58 Subject: EN010061 - PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION - SCOPING CONSULTATION

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station Scoping Consultation.

<<130610 Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 - Letter _by email_ to stat consultees-Scoping plus Reg 9 notification.pdf>>

Regards

Richard

From: Penlington, Graham [mailto:Graham.Penlington@fulcrum.co.uk] On Behalf Of &box_FPLplantprotection_conx, Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:41 PM To: Environmental Services Subject: RE: EN010061 - PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION - SCOPING CONSULTATION

Thank you for asking Fulcrum Pipelines Limited to examine your consultation document for the above project.  We can confirm that Fulcrum Pipelines Limited have no comments to make on this scoping report. Please note that we are constantly adding to our underground assets and would strongly advise that you consult us again prior to undertaking any excavations.   Please note that other gas transporters may have plant in this locality which could be affected.  We will always make every effort to help you where we can, but Fulcrum Pipelines Limited will not be held responsible for any incident or accident arising from the use of the information associated with this search. The details provided are given in good faith, but no liability whatsoever can be accepted in respect thereof.  If you need any help or information simply contact Graham Penlington directly on 01142 804175.  To save you time, any future requests for information about our plant, can be emailed to FPLplantprotection@fulcrum.co.uk  

GRAHAM PENLINGTON Process Assistant

Tel: 0845 641 3010  ext: 4175 Direct Dial:  Email: Graham.Penlington@fulcrum.co.uk Web: www.fulcrum.co.uk 

FULCRUM NEWS  YOU'VE TALKED AND WE'VE LISTENED Following extensive utilities market research we've learnt a lot about your needs. The result? We've 

From: Margaret.Ketteridge@gtc-uk.co.uk [mailto:Margaret.Ketteridge@gtc-uk.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:26 AM To: Environmental Services Subject: Ferrybridge FAO Richard Kent

Hi Richard  I wish to confirm that GTC has no comments to make regarding the proposed Ferrybridge mutifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station.  Kind Regards

Maggie Maggie Ketteridge Engineering Support Officer GTC Energy House Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St Edmunds Suffolk, IP30 9UP Tel: 01359 245406 Fax: 01359 243377 E-mail: margaret.ketteridge@gtc-uk.co.uk Web: www.gtc-uk.co.uk  NOTE: This E-Mail originates from GTC, Energy House, Unit 23, Woolpit Business Park, Woolpit, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP30 9UP (GTC) The Gas Transportation Company Limited is a company registered in Guernsey, Channel Islands, registered number 29431. VAT registered number GB 688 8971 40 DISCLAIMER

The information in this E-Mail and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on your system and notify the sender immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this E-Mail for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its content to any other person. Whilst we run antivirus software on Internet E-Mails, we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own up to date antivirus software. Thank you GTCDisclaim

Highways Agency EIA Scoping Response.doc Page 1 of 2

Dear Richard Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station, Ferrybridge Power Station Complex, Stranglands Lane, West Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ Thank you for providing us with details of the scoping report for the above mentioned project. The Highways Agency’s interest is with the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network, in this case the A1(M) and M62, both during the construction and operational phases of this development. The scoping report largely reflects the Highways Agency’s requirements and the discussions we have already had with the project team. Our main concerns are the potential impact of the selected cooling technology and the possibility that this may create fogging and freezing rain on the A1(M), however the scoping report highlights that this will be explored through the EA ‘BAT’ process. If necessary a similar condition to that imposed on the FM1 project could be used to cover this risk. We would also require a Transport Assessment and this should cover both the construction and operational phases of the development. Where the impact of the proposal is shown to create more than 30 two way trips at a junction or directional on a sliproad, the applicant should discuss with the Highways Agency the requirement to provide an operational assessment of the junction. Travel Plans should also be provided for both construction and operational phases, although depending on the number of employees a Travel Plan Statement may be adequate for the operational phase.

Our Ref: SE473252 Your Ref: EN010061 Mr Richard Kent The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Toni Rios 3 South Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Direct Line: 0113 283 4710 2 July 2013

Highways Agency EIA Scoping Response.doc Page 2 of 2

Yours sincerely

Toni Rios Asset Manager Email: toni.rios@highways.gsi.gov.uk

National Grid house

Warwick Technology Park

Gallows Hill, Warwick

CV34 6DA

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for:

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc

Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH

Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

The Planning Inspectorate

Environmental Services

3/18 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Bristol

BS1 6PN

Land and Development Group

Marcella Styles

Policy Planner

Land & Development

marcella.styles@nationalgrid.com

Direct tel: +44 (0)1926 655478

SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO:

environmentalservices@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk

www.nationalgrid.com

3 July 2013 Our Ref:

Your Ref: EN0100601_130610_1840049

Dear Sir/Madam Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) I refer to your letter dated 10 June 2013 regarding the above proposed application. Having reviewed the scoping report, I would like to make the following comments: National Grid Infrastructure within or in close proximity to the Proposed Order Limits National Grid Electricity Transmission

Within or in close proximity to the proposed order limits, National Grid Transmission has high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines and underground cables. These assets form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales, specific details are as follows: High voltage (400kV) overhead electricity lines: • 4YR – 4YR from Eggborough to Rochdale • 4ZU – 4ZU from Elland to Ferrybridge High voltage (275kV) overhead electricity lines: • 4ZT – 4ZT from Ferrybridge B, C to Monk Fryston • 4ZS – 4ZS from Ferrybridge B, C to Skelton Grange • XFG – Ferrybridge A, C to Secton Underground cables: • Ferrybridge A, B, C to Monk Fryston (275kV) A plan detailing the location of these assets within the area shown in the consultation documents is enclosed.

National Grid house

Warwick Technology Park

Gallows Hill, Warwick

CV34 6DA

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for:

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc

Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH

Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

The following points should be taken into consideration:

� Statutory electrical safety clearances must be maintained at all times. Any proposed buildings must not be closer than 5.3m to the lowest conductor. National Grid recommends that no permanent structures are built directly beneath overhead lines. These distances are set out in EN 43 – 8 Technical Specification for “overhead line clearances Issue 3 (2004) available at: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/devnearohl_final/appendixIII/appIII-part2

� If any changes in ground levels are proposed either beneath or in close proximity to our

existing overhead lines then this would serve to reduce the safety clearances for such overhead lines. Safe clearances for existing overhead lines must be maintained in all circumstances.

� Further guidance on development near electricity transmission overhead lines is available

here: http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/1E990EE5-D068-4DD6-8C9A-4D0B06A1BA79/31436/Developmentnearoverheadlines1.pdf

� The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing overhead lines is

contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s (www.hse.gov.uk) Guidance Note GS 6 “Avoidance of Danger from Overhead Electric Lines” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.

� Plant, machinery, equipment, buildings or scaffolding should not encroach within 5.3

metres of any of our high voltage conductors when those conductors are under their worse conditions of maximum “sag” and “swing” and overhead line profile (maximum “sag” and “swing”) drawings should be obtained via the National Grid’s Asset Protection Team at Warwick.

� Drilling or excavation works should not be undertaken if they have the potential to disturb

or adversely affect the foundations or “pillars of support” of any existing tower. These foundations always extend beyond the base area of the existing tower and foundation (“pillar of support”) drawings can be obtained via the Asset Protection Team at Warwick.

To view the Development Near Lines Documents. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/SC/devnearohl_final/ To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/ To view the SSW22 Document, please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNW/safeworking.htm To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/ To download a copy of the HSE Guidance HS(G) 47, please use the following link: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg47.htm

National Grid house

Warwick Technology Park

Gallows Hill, Warwick

CV34 6DA

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for:

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc

Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH

Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

Further Advice

We would request that the potential impact of the proposed scheme on National Grid’s

existing assets as set out above is considered in any subsequent reports, including in the

Environmental Statement, and as part of any subsequent application.

Where the promoter intends to acquire land, extinguish rights, or interfere with any of

National Grid apparatus protective provisions will be required in a form acceptable to it to

be included within the DCO.

Where any diversion of apparatus may be required to facilitate a scheme, National Grid is

unable to give any certainty with the regard to diversions until such time as adequate

feasibility and conceptual design studies have been undertaken by National Grid. Further

information relating to this can be obtained by contacting the email address below.

National Grid requests to be consulted at the earliest stages to ensure that the most

appropriate protective provisions are included within the DCO application to safeguard the

integrity of our apparatus and to remove the requirement for objection. All consultations

should be sent to the following: DCOConsultations@nationalgrid.com as well as by post to

the following address:

The Company Secretary

1-3 The Strand

London

WC2N 5EH

In order to respond at the earliest opportunity National Grid will require the following:

� Draft DCO including the Book of Reference and relevant Land Plans � Shape Files or CAD Files for the order limits

I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. The information in this letter is provided not withstanding any discussions taking place in relation to connections with electricity or gas customer services.

Yours faithfully Marcella Styles (Submitted Electronically)

Pag

e1

of

1

800

Scal

e1

:85

00

http

://n

gesx

wrk

027v

o1/

tla

ndnd

ev/s

yste

m/m

ap.a

sp17

/06/

2013

1km

s; ;

i,h

I1%

.

we

Ip (1

L

Fq%

a0P

at

]-,

s..

t-

_‘

—‘

E5n

a’s”

4!

3

--

-S

M...

—

Pag

e1

of1

f—

A90.7/

M,t

acM

ante

l

‘1i

‘-it’

‘.1-

I’j

4Z

L

F--

Scal

e1

:10

000

http

://n

gesx

wrk

027v

01/

tlan

dnde

v/sy

stem

lmap

.asp

17/0

6/20

13

From: ROSSI, Sacha [mailto:Sacha.Rossi@nats.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:18 PM To: Environmental Services Cc: NATS Safeguarding Subject: Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station

Dear Sir/Madam, NATS does not anticipate an impact from this development and has no comments to make on the EIA request. Regards Sacha NATS Safeguarding Office

Mr Sacha Rossi ATC Systems Safeguarding Engineer ℡: 01489 444 205

: sacha.rossi@nats.co.uk NATS Safeguarding 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, PO15 7FL http://www.nats.co.uk/windfarms

Page 1 of 7

Date: 19 June 2013 Our ref: 88723 Your ref: EN010061_130610_1840049

Richard Kent The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Bristol, BS1 6PN BY EMAIL ONLY

Customer Services Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ T 0300 060 3900

Dear Richard Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping consultation (Regulation 15 (3) (i) of the EIA Regulations 2011): Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station Location: Ferrybridge Power Station Complex, Stranglands Lane, Castleford Thank you for seeking our advice on the scope of the Environmental Statement (ES) in your consultation dated 10 June 2013. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Case law1 and guidance2 has stressed the need for a full set of environmental information to be available for consideration prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to grant planning permission. Appendix A to this letter provides Natural England‟s advice on the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this development. Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact James Walsh on 0300 060 1832. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk. We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service. Yours sincerely James Walsh Land Use Operations

1 Harrison, J in R. v. Cornwall County Council ex parte Hardy (2001) 2 Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (April 2004) available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/sustainabilityenvironmental/environmentalimpactassessment/noteenvironmental/

Page 2 of 7

Annex A – Advice related to EIA Scoping Requirements

1. General Principles Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, sets out the necessary information to assess impacts on the natural environment to be included in an ES, specifically:

A description of the development – including physical characteristics and the full land use requirements of the site during construction and operational phases.

Expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

An assessment of alternatives and clear reasoning as to why the preferred option has been chosen.

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment – this should cover direct effects but also any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. Effects should relate to the existence of the development, the use of natural resources and the emissions from pollutants. This should also include a description of the forecasting methods to predict the likely effects on the environment

A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

A non-technical summary of the information. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by

the applicant in compiling the required information. It will be important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the „in combination‟ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and current applications. A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment. 2. Biodiversity and Geology 2.1 Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and are available on their website. EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of environmental assessment or appraisal.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out guidance in S.118 on how to take account of biodiversity interests in planning decisions and the framework that local authorities should provide to assist developers. 2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites. European sites (eg designated Special Areas or Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall

Page 3 of 7

within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In addition paragraph 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, listed or proposed Ramsar sites, and any site identified as being necessary to compensate for adverse impacts on classified, potential or possible SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites be treated in the same way as classified sites. Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and (b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites) The development site is located close to Fairburn & Newton Ings SSSI. Further information on the SSSI and its special interest features can be found at www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk . The Environmental Statement should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the SSSI and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects. 2.3 Regionally and Locally Important Sites The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. Local Sites in Wakefield are identified by West Yorkshire Ecology, and are established for the purposes of identifying and selecting local sites. They are of county importance for wildlife or geodiversity. The Environmental Statement should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of such sites. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. Contact West Yorkshire Ecology for further information (please see contact information in section 2.6 below). 2.4 Protected Species - Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats). Natural England does not hold comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures and legislation relevant to such species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment. The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES. In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of year. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants. Natural England has adopted

Page 4 of 7

standing advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation. 2.5 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed as as „Habitats and Species of Principal Importance‟ within the England Biodiversity List, published under the requirements of S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a general duty on all public authorities, including local planning authorities, to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Further information on this duty is available in the Defra publication „Guidance for Local Authorities on Implementing the Biodiversity Duty‟. Government Circular 06/2005 states that Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats, „are capable of being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions‟. Natural England therefore advises that survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant Local BAP. Natural England advises that a habitat survey (equivalent to Phase 2) is carried out on the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are present. The Environmental Statement should include details of:

Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys); Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal; The habitats and species present; The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether BAP priority habitat); The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species; Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.

The development should seek if possible to avoid adverse impact on sensitive areas for wildlife within the site, and if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain. The record centre for the relevant Local Authorities should be able to provide the relevant information on the location and type of BAP habitat for the area under consideration. 2.6 Contacts for Local Records Natural England does not hold local information on local sites, local landscape character and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. We recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, the local wildlife trust or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation document). Local Record Centre (LRC) in Wakefield please contact: West Yorkshire Ecology Registry of Deeds Newstead Road Wakefield WF1 2DE Telephone: 01924 306 793 Email: Ecology@wyjs.org.uk Geological sites in Wakefield please contact: West Yorkshire Geology Trust (WYGT) c/o The Geological Records Centre

Page 5 of 7

Thewlis Lane Crossland Hill Huddersfield HD4 7FL Telephone: 01484 485000 Email: team@wyorksgeologytrust.org 3. Designated Landscapes and Landscape Character Landscape and visual impacts Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, such as changes in topography. The European Landscape Convention places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to consider the impacts of landscape when exercising their functions. The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. We encourage the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2002. LCA provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed. Natural England supports the publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management in 2002 (2nd edition). The methodology set out is almost universally used for landscape and visual impact assessment. In order to foster high quality development that respects, maintains, or enhances, local landscape character and distinctiveness, Natural England encourages all new development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the area, with the siting and design of the proposed development reflecting local design characteristics and, wherever possible, using local materials. The Environmental Impact Assessment process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit. The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England advises that the cumulative impact assessment should include other proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the planning application. The assessment should refer to the relevant National Character Areas which can be found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page. Heritage Landscapes You should consider whether there is land in the area affected by the development which qualifies for conditional exemption from capital taxes on the grounds of outstanding scenic, scientific or historic interest. These are considered to be designated landscapes of national importance and the impact of your plan on these should be assessed where appropriate. An up-to-date list may be obtained at www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/lbsearch.htm and further information can be found on

Page 6 of 7

Natural England‟s landscape pages here. 4. Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help encourage people to access the countryside for quiet enjoyment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways are to be encouraged. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be incorporated where appropriate. Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails The EIA should consider potential impacts on access land, public open land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. We also recommend reference to the relevant Right of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP) to identify public rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be maintained or enhanced. 5. Soil and Agricultural Land Quality Impacts from the development should be considered in light of the Government's policy for the protection of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraph 112 of the NPPF. We also recommend that soils should be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land and the ecosystem services they provide as a natural resource in line with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. 6. Air Quality Air quality in the UK has improved over recent decades but air pollution remains a significant issue; for example over 97% of sensitive habitat area in England is predicted to exceed the critical loads for ecosystem protection from atmospheric nitrogen deposition (England Biodiversity Strategy, Defra 2011). A priority action in the England Biodiversity Strategy is to reduce air pollution impacts on biodiversity. The planning system plays a key role in determining the location of developments which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generation, and hence planning decisions can have a significant impact on the quality of air, water and land. The assessment should take account of the risks of air pollution and how these can be managed or reduced. Further information on air pollution impacts and the sensitivity of different habitats/designated sites can be found on the Air Pollution Information System (www.apis.ac.uk). Further information on air pollution modelling and assessment can be found on the Environment Agency website. 7. Climate Change Adaptation The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles for the consideration of biodiversity and the effects of climate change. The ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development‟s effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment “by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures” (NPPF Para 109), which should be demonstrated through the ES. 8. Cumulative and in-combination effects A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment. The ES should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out. The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment. (Subject to available information):

a. Existing completed projects

Page 7 of 7

b. Approved but uncompleted projects c. Ongoing activities d. Plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration

by the consenting authorities e. Plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, ie projects for which an application

has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

From: Contactus England (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE INFORMATION CENTRE) [mailto:england.contactus@nhs.net] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:18 PM To: Environmental Services Subject: RE:EN010061 - PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION - SCOPING CONSULTATION Enquiry ref 95497AR

Thank you for contacting NHS England. Your enquiry has been allocated a reference number of SDR 95497. Please quote this reference number in any further communication regarding this enquiry. I can confirm that your query has now been passed to the Case Management Team. We are aware of the need for a follow up contact quickly. We are experiencing high volumes of contacts at the moment and so it may take some time for us to contact you depending on the complexity and type of issue raised. Please do bear with us and be assured that your enquiry is important to us and we will contact you as soon as we can. If you require any further information or wish to speak to someone about your enquiry, please contact NHS England at the email address and telephone number shown below. Kind Regards     NHS England PO Box 16738 | Redditch | B97 9PT 0300 3 11 22 33 england.contactus@nhs.net www.england.nhs.uk  From: Environmental Services [mailto:EnvironmentalServices@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 10 June 2013 11:10 To: Contactus England (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE INFORMATION CENTRE) Cc: Williamson Gus (NHS ENGLAND) Subject: AR FW: EN010061 - PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION - SCOPING CONSULTATION

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station Scoping Consultation.

<<130610 Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 - Letter _by email_ to stat consultees-Scoping plus Reg 9 notification.pdf>> Please note, you will have received this message twice as the first message was sent in error without a request for receipt of successful delivery (which is needed for our records). Please note these emails are otherwise duplicated.

From: Ray Bryant [mailto:Ray.Bryant@northyorks.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:23 PM To: Environmental Services Cc: Tim Coyne; Carl Bunnage Subject: Fao Mr R Kent: Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (EIA scoping)

Dear Mr Kent,  North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) is grateful for having had the opportunity to comment on the EIA scoping document in respect of the proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Power Station, West Yorkshire.  As a technical consultation NYCC has, at this stage, some comments related to highways matters:  

‐ It appears that the Applicant is hoping to import fuel by rail. However in order to provide a robust assessment of the impact on the highway network, they make the assumption that everything will be delivered by road.  A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan are proposed which is appropriate.  

 ‐ Section 6.4.9 refers to consultations with Transportation Officers at Selby – please 

note that this should be with North Yorkshire County Council.  

‐ The Report refers to traffic movements during construction, but does not make it clear whether or not this solely relates solely to HGV traffic or whether it includes Construction Staff travel patterns. Both should be included. 

 There are no further comments at this stage. Thank you once again for consulting NYCC.   Best regards, Ray    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  

Ray Bryant Senior Policy Officer Regional & Strategic Policy North Yorkshire County Council County Hall, Northallerton North Yorkshire DL7 8AD  Tel: 01 609 798 422   Access your county council services online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at www.northyorks.gov.uk.

WARNING

Any opinions or statements expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily those of North Yorkshire County Council.

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this in error, please do not disclose any information to anyone, notify the sender at the above address and then destroy all copies.

North Yorkshire County Council’s computer systems and communications may be monitored to ensure effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

Although we have endeavoured to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are free from any virus we would advise you to take any necessary steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.

If you receive an automatic response stating that the recipient is away from the office and you wish to request information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations please forward your request by e-mail to the Data Management Team (datamanagement.officer@northyorks.gov.uk) who will process your request. North Yorkshire County Council.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Appendix: PHE recommendations regarding the scoping document

General approach

The EIA should give consideration to best practice guidance such as the Government’s Good Practice Guide for EIA1. It is important that the EIA identifies and assesses the potential public health impacts of the activities at, and emissions from, the installation. Assessment should consider the development, operational, and decommissioning phases.

The EIA Directive2 requires that ESs include a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including “population”. The EIA should provide sufficient information for PHE to fully assess the potential impact of the development on public health. PHE will only consider information contained or referenced in a separate section of the ES summarising the impact of the proposed development on public health: summarising risk assessments, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. This section should summarise key information and conclusions relating to human health impacts contained in other sections of the application (e.g. in the separate sections dealing with: air quality, emissions to water, waste, contaminated land etc.) without undue duplication. Compliance with the requirements of National Policy Statements and relevant guidance and standards should be highlighted.

It is not PHE’s role to undertake these assessments on behalf of promoters as this would conflict with PHE’s role as an impartial and independent body.

Consideration of alternatives (including alternative sites, choice of process, and the phasing of construction) is widely regarded as good practice. Ideally, EIA should start at the stage of site and process selection, so that the environmental merits of practicable alternatives can be properly considered. Where this is undertaken, the main alternatives considered should be outlined in the ES3.

The following text covers a range of issues that PHE would expect to be addressed by the promoter. However this list is not exhaustive and the onus is on the promoter to ensure that the relevant public health issues are identified and addressed. PHE’s advice and recommendations carry no statutory weight and constitute non-binding guidance.

1 Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures - A consultation paper; 2006; Department for Communities and Local Government. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/environmentalimpactassessment 2 Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0337:20090625:EN:PDF 3 DCLG guidance, 1999 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155958.pdf

Receptors

The ES should clearly identify the development’s location and the location and distance from the development of off-site human receptors that may be affected by emissions from, or activities at, the development. Off-site human receptors may include people living in residential premises; people working in commercial, and industrial premises and people using transport infrastructure (such as roads and railways), recreational areas, and publicly-accessible land. Consideration should also be given to environmental receptors such as the surrounding land, watercourses, surface and groundwater, and drinking water supplies such as wells, boreholes and water abstraction points.

Impacts arising from construction and decommissioning

Any assessment of impacts arising from emissions due to construction and decommissioning should consider potential impacts on all receptors and describe monitoring and mitigation during these phases. Construction and decommissioning will be associated with vehicle movements and cumulative impacts should be accounted for.

We would expect the promoter to follow best practice guidance during all phases from construction to decommissioning to ensure appropriate measures are in place to mitigate any potential impact on health from emissions (point source, fugitive and traffic-related). An effective Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP)) will help provide reassurance that activities are well managed. The promoter should ensure that there are robust mechanisms in place to respond to any complaints of traffic-related pollution, during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility.

Emissions to air and water

Significant impacts are unlikely to arise from installations which employ Best Available Techniques (BAT) and which meet regulatory requirements concerning emission limits and design parameters. However, PHE has a number of comments regarding emissions in order that the EIA provides a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts.

When considering a baseline (of existing environmental quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

should include appropriate screening assessments and detailed dispersion modelling where this is screened as necessary

should encompass all pollutants which may be emitted by the installation in combination with all pollutants arising from associated development and transport, ideally these should be considered in a single holistic assessment

should consider the construction, operational, and decommissioning phases

should consider the typical operational emissions and emissions from start-up, shut-down, abnormal operation and accidents when assessing potential impacts and include an assessment of worst-case impacts

should fully account for fugitive emissions

should include appropriate estimates of background levels

should identify cumulative and incremental impacts (i.e. assess cumulative impacts from multiple sources), including those arising from associated development, other existing and proposed development in the local area, and new vehicle movements associated with the proposed development; associated transport emissions should include consideration of non-road impacts (i.e. rail, sea, and air)

should include consideration of local authority, Environment Agency, Defra national network, and any other local site-specific sources of monitoring data

should compare predicted environmental concentrations to the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium (such as UK Air Quality Standards and Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels)

If no standard or guideline value exists, the predicted exposure to humans should be estimated and compared to an appropriate health-based value (a Tolerable Daily Intake or equivalent). Further guidance is provided in Annex 1

This should consider all applicable routes of exposure e.g. include consideration of aspects such as the deposition of chemicals emitted to air and their uptake via ingestion

should identify and consider impacts on residential areas and sensitive receptors (such as schools, nursing homes and healthcare facilities) in the area(s) which may be affected by emissions, this should include consideration of any new receptors arising from future development

Whilst screening of impacts using qualitative methodologies is common practice (e.g. for impacts arising from fugitive emissions such as dust), where it is possible to undertake a quantitative assessment of impacts then this should be undertaken.

PHE’s view is that the EIA should appraise and describe the measures that will be used to control both point source and fugitive emissions and demonstrate that standards, guideline values or health-based values will not be exceeded due to emissions from the installation, as described above. This should include consideration of any emitted pollutants for which there are no set emission limits. When assessing the potential impact of a proposed installation on environmental quality, predicted environmental concentrations should be compared to the permitted concentrations in the affected media; this should include both standards for short and long-term exposure.

Additional points specific to emissions to air

When considering a baseline (of existing air quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

should include consideration of impacts on existing areas of poor air quality e.g. existing or proposed local authority Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)

should include modelling using appropriate meteorological data (i.e. come from the nearest suitable meteorological station and include a range of years and worst case conditions)

should include modelling taking into account local topography

Additional points specific to emissions to water

When considering a baseline (of existing water quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

should include assessment of potential impacts on human health and not focus solely on ecological impacts

should identify and consider all routes by which emissions may lead to population exposure (e.g. surface watercourses; recreational waters; sewers; geological routes etc.)

should assess the potential off-site effects of emissions to groundwater (e.g. on aquifers used for drinking water) and surface water (used for drinking water abstraction) in terms of the potential for population exposure

should include consideration of potential impacts on recreational users (e.g. from fishing, canoeing etc) alongside assessment of potential exposure via drinking water

Land quality

We would expect the promoter to provide details of any hazardous contamination present on site (including ground gas) as part of the site condition report.

Emissions to and from the ground should be considered in terms of the previous history of the site and the potential of the site, once operational, to give rise to issues. Public health impacts associated with ground contamination and/or the migration of material off-site should be assessed4 and the potential impact on nearby receptors and control and mitigation measures should be outlined.

Relevant areas outlined in the Government’s Good Practice Guide for EIA include:

4 Following the approach outlined in the section above dealing with emissions to air and water i.e. comparing predicted environmental concentrations to the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium (such as Soil Guideline Values)

effects associated with ground contamination that may already exist

effects associated with the potential for polluting substances that are used (during construction / operation) to cause new ground contamination issues on a site, for example introducing / changing the source of contamination

impacts associated with re-use of soils and waste soils, for example, re-use of site-sourced materials on-site or offsite, disposal of site-sourced materials offsite, importation of materials to the site, etc.

Waste

The EIA should demonstrate compliance with the waste hierarchy (e.g. with respect to re-use, recycling or recovery and disposal).

For wastes delivered to the installation:

the EIA should consider issues associated with waste delivery and acceptance procedures (including delivery of prohibited wastes) and should assess potential off-site impacts and describe their mitigation

For wastes arising from the installation the EIA should consider:

the implications and wider environmental and public health impacts of different waste disposal options

disposal route(s) and transport method(s) and how potential impacts on public health will be mitigated

Other aspects

Within the EIA PHE would expect to see information about how the promoter would respond to accidents with potential off-site emissions e.g. flooding or fires, spills, leaks or releases off-site. Assessment of accidents should: identify all potential hazards in relation to construction, operation and decommissioning; include an assessment of the risks posed; and identify risk management measures and contingency actions that will be employed in the event of an accident in order to mitigate off-site effects.

The EIA should include consideration of the COMAH Regulations (Control of Major Accident Hazards) and the Major Accident Off-Site Emergency Plan (Management of Waste from Extractive Industries) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009: both in terms of their applicability to the installation itself, and the installation’s potential to impact on, or be impacted by, any nearby installations themselves subject to the these Regulations.

There is evidence that, in some cases, perception of risk may have a greater impact on health than the hazard itself. A 2009 report5, jointly published by Liverpool John 5 Available from: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=538

Moores University and PHE, examined health risk perception and environmental problems using a number of case studies. As a point to consider, the report suggested: “Estimation of community anxiety and stress should be included as part of every risk or impact assessment of proposed plans that involve a potential environmental hazard. This is true even when the physical health risks may be negligible.” PHE supports the inclusion of this information within EIAs as good practice.

Biomass

Biomass is a relatively new cargo for many shipping and freight companies and the transportation and storage of biomass is an emerging area. As organic material releases heat when it degrades it can self-combust, leading to fires and associated public health issues. Storage and transport of biomass material also has the potential to give rise to fugitive emissions of particulate matter. It is recommended that the ES includes a review of potential impacts associated with the transport and storage of biomass and the measures that will be used to control these impacts.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) [include for installations with associated substations and/or power lines]

There is a potential health impact associated with the electric and magnetic fields around substations and the connecting cables or lines. The following information provides a framework for considering the potential health impact.

In March 2004, the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB (now part of PHE), published advice on limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields. The advice was based on an extensive review of the science and a public consultation on its website, and recommended the adoption in the UK of the EMF exposure guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP):-

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/NPRBArchive/DocumentsOfTheNRPB/Absd1

502/

The ICNIRP guidelines are based on the avoidance of known adverse effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) at frequencies up to 300 GHz (gigahertz), which includes static magnetic fields and 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields associated with electricity transmission.

PHE notes the current Government policy is that the ICNIRP guidelines are implemented in line with the terms of the EU Council Recommendation on limiting exposure of the general public (1999/519/EC):

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthprotection/DH_4089500

For static magnetic fields, the latest ICNIRP guidelines (2009) recommend that acute exposure of the general public should not exceed 400 mT (millitesla), for any part of the body, although the previously recommended value of 40 mT is the value used in

the Council Recommendation. However, because of potential indirect adverse effects, ICNIRP recognises that practical policies need to be implemented to prevent inadvertent harmful exposure of people with implanted electronic medical devices and implants containing ferromagnetic materials, and injuries due to flying ferromagnetic objects, and these considerations can lead to much lower restrictions, such as 0.5 mT as advised by the International Electrotechnical Commission.

At 50 Hz, the known direct effects include those of induced currents in the body on the central nervous system (CNS) and indirect effects include the risk of painful spark discharge on contact with metal objects exposed to the field. The ICNIRP guidelines give reference levels for public exposure to 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields, and these are respectively 5 kV m−1 (kilovolts per metre) and 100 μT (microtesla). If people are not exposed to field strengths above these levels, direct effects on the CNS should be avoided and indirect effects such as the risk of painful spark discharge will be small. The reference levels are not in themselves limits but provide guidance for assessing compliance with the basic restrictions and reducing the risk of indirect effects. Further clarification on advice on exposure guidelines for 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields is provided in the following note on PHE website:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733805036

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has also published voluntary code of practices which set out key principles for complying with the ICNIRP guidelines for the industry.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/consents_planning/codes/co

des.aspx

There is concern about the possible effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields, including possible carcinogenic effects at levels much lower than those given in the ICNIRP guidelines. In the NRPB advice issued in 2004, it was concluded that the studies that suggest health effects, including those concerning childhood leukaemia, could not be used to derive quantitative guidance on restricting exposure. However, the results of these studies represented uncertainty in the underlying evidence base, and taken together with people’s concerns, provided a basis for providing an additional recommendation for Government to consider the need for further precautionary measures, particularly with respect to the exposure of children to power frequency magnetic fields.

The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) was then set up to take this recommendation forward, explore the implications for a precautionary approach to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMFs), and to make practical recommendations to Government. In the First Interim Assessment of the Group, consideration was given to mitigation options such as the 'corridor option' near power lines, and optimal phasing to reduce electric and magnetic fields. A Second Interim Assessment addresses electricity distribution systems up to 66 kV. The SAGE reports can be found at the following link:

http://sagedialogue.org.uk/ (go to “Document Index” and Scroll to SAGE/Formal reports

with recommendations)

PHE has given advice to Health Ministers on the First Interim Assessment of SAGE regarding precautionary approaches to ELF EMFs and specifically regarding power lines and property, wiring and electrical equipment in homes:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1204276682532?p=1

207897920036

The evidence to date suggests that in general there are no adverse effects on the health of the population of the UK caused by exposure to ELF EMFs below the guideline levels. The scientific evidence, as reviewed by PHE, supports the view that precautionary measures should address solely the possible association with childhood leukaemia and not other more speculative health effects. The measures should be proportionate in that overall benefits outweigh the fiscal and social costs, have a convincing evidence base to show that they will be successful in reducing exposure, and be effective in providing reassurance to the public.

The Government response to the SAGE report is given in the written Ministerial Statement by Gillian Merron, then Minister of State, Department of Health, published on 16th October 2009:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091016/wmstext/91016m0

001.htm

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuida

nce/DH_107124

PHE and Government responses to the Second Interim Assessment of SAGE are available at the following links:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPAResponseStatementsOnRadiationTopics/r

pdadvice_sage2

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuida

nce/DH_130703

The above information provides a framework for considering the health impact associated with the proposed development, including the direct and indirect effects of the electric and magnetic fields as indicated above.

Liaison with other stakeholders, comments should be sought from:

the local authority for matters relating to noise, odour, vermin and dust nuisance

the local authority regarding any site investigation and subsequent construction (and remediation) proposals to ensure that the site could not be determined as ‘contaminated land’ under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act

the local authority regarding any impacts on existing or proposed Air Quality Management Areas

the Food Standards Agency for matters relating to the impact on human health of pollutants deposited on land used for growing food/ crops

the Environment Agency for matters relating to flood risk and releases with the potential to impact on surface and groundwaters

the Environment Agency for matters relating to waste characterisation and acceptance

the Local Authority Director of Public Health, Clinical Commissioning Groups and NHS commissioning Board for matters relating to wider public health

Environmental Permitting

Amongst other permits and consents, the development will require an environmental permit from the Environment Agency to operate (under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010). Therefore the installation will need to comply with the requirements of best available techniques (BAT). PHE is a consultee for bespoke environmental permit applications and will respond separately to any such consultation.

Annex 1

Human health risk assessment (chemical pollutants)

The points below are cross-cutting and should be considered when undertaking a human health risk assessment:

The promoter should consider including Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers alongside chemical names, where referenced in the ES

Where available, the most recent United Kingdom standards for the appropriate media (e.g. air, water, and/or soil) and health-based guideline values should be used when quantifying the risk to human health from chemical pollutants. Where UK standards or guideline values are not available, those recommended by the European Union or World Health Organisation can be used

When assessing the human health risk of a chemical emitted from a facility or operation, the background exposure to the chemical from other sources should be taken into account

When quantitatively assessing the health risk of genotoxic and carcinogenic chemical pollutants PHE does not favour the use of mathematical models to extrapolate from high dose levels used in animal carcinogenicity studies to well below the observed region of a dose-response relationship. When only animal data are available, we recommend that the ‘Margin of Exposure’ (MOE) approach6 is used

6 Benford D et al. 2010. Application of the margin of exposure approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Food Chem Toxicol 48 Suppl 1: S2-24

Direct Line:

Your Ref:

Our Ref:

West Yorkshire

Passenger Transport

Executive

Wellington House 40-50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE Tel: 0113 251 7272 Fax: 0113 251 7331 www.wymetro.com Director General K T Preston OBE Directors J A Henkel D A Hoggarth A Taylor Non Executive Directors A Darbyshire A Gay Secretary & Solicitor N Winney

0113 348 1718

EN010061

ATTN Richard Kent

3/18 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Bristol

BS1 6PN

10 June 2013

Dear Sir,

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING EIA REGULATIONS 2009 SI2263

PROPOSED FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION, FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION COMPLEX, STRANGLANDS LANE, WEST YORKSHIRE, WF11 8SQ

Thank you for your letter of 7 June 2012 giving Metro the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

We do not however have any comments to make.

Yours sincerely

Michael Long

Land Use Planning Leader

Planning InspectoratePlanning InspectoratePlanning InspectoratePlanning Inspectorate3333////18181818 Eagle WingEagle WingEagle WingEagle WingTemple Quay HouseTemple Quay HouseTemple Quay HouseTemple Quay House2222 The SquareThe SquareThe SquareThe SquareBristolBristolBristolBristolBSBSBSBS1111 6666PNPNPNPN

Your RefYour RefYour RefYour Ref :::: ENENENEN010061010061010061010061Our RefOur RefOur RefOur Ref :::: PPPP009361009361009361009361

Land and PlanningLand and PlanningLand and PlanningLand and PlanningYorkshire Water Services LtdYorkshire Water Services LtdYorkshire Water Services LtdYorkshire Water Services Ltd

PPPP....O BoxO BoxO BoxO Box 500500500500Western HouseWestern HouseWestern HouseWestern HouseWestern wayWestern wayWestern wayWestern way

BradfordBradfordBradfordBradfordBDBDBDBD6666 2222LZLZLZLZ

TelTelTelTel:::: ((((01274012740127401274)))) 691111691111691111691111FaxFaxFaxFax:::: ((((01274012740127401274)))) 692643692643692643692643

EEEE----mailmailmailmail stephaniestephaniestephaniestephanie ....waldenwaldenwaldenwalden@@@@yorkshirewateryorkshirewateryorkshirewateryorkshirewater ....cocococo....ukukukuk

For telephone enquiries ringFor telephone enquiries ringFor telephone enquiries ringFor telephone enquiries ring :::: Stephanie WaldenStephanie WaldenStephanie WaldenStephanie Walden onononon ((((01274012740127401274)))) 692349692349692349692349

5555th Julyth Julyth Julyth July 2013201320132013

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ferrybridge Power Station ComplexFerrybridge Power Station ComplexFerrybridge Power Station ComplexFerrybridge Power Station Complex ,,,, Stranglands LaneStranglands LaneStranglands LaneStranglands Lane ,,,, FerrybridgeFerrybridgeFerrybridgeFerrybridge ---- Proposed FerrybridgeProposed FerrybridgeProposed FerrybridgeProposed Ferrybridge MultifuelMultifuelMultifuelMultifuel 2222 ((((FMFMFMFM2222)))) Power StationPower StationPower StationPower Station

Thank you for consulting Yorkshire Water regarding the above proposed development. It is unlikely that any of our infrastructure will be affected by the development although there is small diameter water main in Kirkhaw Lane. A future flood risk assessment should include information regarding the disposal of surface water from the development and also consider the means of disposal of other waste water, particularly any trade effluent.

I trust the above is helpful.

Yours faithfully

Stephanie WaldenStephanie WaldenStephanie WaldenStephanie WaldenLand Use Planning ManagerLand Use Planning ManagerLand Use Planning ManagerLand Use Planning Manager

APPENDIX 3

Presentation of the ES

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF THE ES

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2264) (as amended) sets out the information which must be provided for an application for a development consent order (DCO) for nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. Where required, this includes an environmental statement. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information need not be replicated or included in the ES.

An environmental statement (ES) is described under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) as a statement:

a) ‘that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but

b) that includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4’.

(EIA Regulations Regulation 2)

The purpose of an ES is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are fully considered, together with the economic or social benefits of the development, before the development consent application under the Planning Act 2008 is determined. The ES should be an aid to decision making.

The SoS advises that the ES should be laid out clearly with a minimum amount of technical terms and should provide a clear objective and realistic description of the likely significant impacts of the proposed FM2 development. The information should be presented so as to be comprehensible to the specialist and non-specialist alike. The SoS recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.

ES Indicative Contents

The SoS emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law. The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in environmental statements.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations states this information includes:

‘17. Description of the development, including in particular—

Appendix 3

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

(b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used;

(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

18. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant

and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

19. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be

significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

20. A description of the likely significant effects of the

development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from: (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances

and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

21. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce

and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

22. A non-technical summary of the information provided under

paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part. 23. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack

of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information’.

EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1

The content of the ES must include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regulations. This includes the consideration of ‘the main alternatives studied by the applicant’ which the SoS recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES. Part 2 is included below for reference:

Appendix 3

Schedule 4 Part 2

• A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development

• A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects

• The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment

• An outline of the main alternatives studies by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects, and

• A non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the SoS considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration.

Balance

The SoS recommends that the ES should be balanced, with matters which give rise to a greater number or more significant impacts being given greater prominence. Where few or no impacts are identified, the technical section may be much shorter, with greater use of information in appendices as appropriate.

The SoS considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering inter-relationships between factors and cumulative impacts.

Scheme Proposals

The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES which should support the application as described. The SoS is not able to entertain material changes to a project once an application is submitted. The SoS draws the attention of the applicant to the DCLG and the Planning Inspectorate’s published advice on the preparation of a draft DCO and accompanying application documents.

Flexibility

The SoS acknowledges that the EIA process is iterative, and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. For example, there may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. However, at the time of the application for a DCO, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes.

Appendix 3

It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed FM2 development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.

The Rochdale Envelope principle (see R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew (1999) and R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (2000)) is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing development applications. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Rochdale Envelope’ which is available on the Advice Note’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known, the applicant should assess the maximum potential adverse impacts the project could have to ensure that the project as it may be constructed has been properly assessed.

The ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within any proposed parameters would not result in significant impacts not previously identified and assessed. The maximum and other dimensions of the proposed FM2 development should be clearly described in the ES, with appropriate justification. It will also be important to consider choice of materials, colour and the form of the structures and of any buildings. Lighting proposals should also be described.

Scope

The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and local authorities and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

Physical Scope

In general the SoS recommends that the physical scope for the EIA should be determined in the light of:

• the nature of the proposal being considered

• the relevance in terms of the specialist topic

Appendix 3

• the breadth of the topic

• the physical extent of any surveys or the study area, and

• the potential significant impacts.

The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified for each of the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. This should include at least the whole of the application site, and include all offsite works. For certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance and best practice, whenever this is available, and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given.

Breadth of the Topic Area

The ES should explain the range of matters to be considered under each topic and this may respond partly to the type of project being considered. If the range considered is drawn narrowly then a justification for the approach should be provided.

Temporal Scope

The assessment should consider:

• environmental impacts during construction works • environmental impacts on completion/operation of the development • where appropriate, environmental impacts a suitable number of

years after completion of the development (for example, in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals), and

• environmental impacts during decommissioning.

In terms of decommissioning, the SoS acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment, as well as to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account, is to encourage early consideration as to how structures can be taken down. The purpose of this is to seek to minimise disruption, to re-use materials and to restore the site or put it to a suitable new use. The SoS encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

The SoS recommends that these matters should be set out clearly in the ES and that the suitable time period for the assessment should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees.

The SoS recommends that throughout the ES a standard terminology for time periods should be defined, such that for example, ‘short term’ always refers to the same period of time.

Appendix 3

Baseline

The SoS recommends that the baseline should describe the position from which the impacts of the proposed FM2 development are measured. The baseline should be chosen carefully and, whenever possible, be consistent between topics. The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although it is recognised that this may not always be possible.

The SoS recommends that the baseline environment should be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys, and care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date.

For each of the environmental topics, the data source(s) for the baseline should be set out together with any survey work undertaken with the dates. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies and appropriate consultees, wherever possible.

The baseline situation and the proposed FM2 development should be described within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.

Identification of Impacts and Method Statement

Legislation and Guidelines

In terms of the EIA methodology, the SoS recommends that reference should be made to best practice and any standards, guidelines and legislation that have been used to inform the assessment. This should include guidelines prepared by relevant professional bodies.

In terms of other regulatory regimes, the SoS recommends that relevant legislation and all permit and licences required should be listed in the ES where relevant to each topic. This information should also be submitted with the application in accordance with the APFP Regulations.

In terms of assessing the impacts, the ES should approach all relevant planning and environmental policy – local, regional and national (and where appropriate international) – in a consistent manner.

Assessment of Effects and Impact Significance

The EIA Regulations require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20).

As a matter of principle, the SoS applies the precautionary approach to follow the Court’s1 reasoning in judging ‘significant effects’. In other words

1 See Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretris van Landbouw (Waddenzee Case No C 127/02/2004)

Appendix 3

‘likely to affect’ will be taken as meaning that there is a probability or risk that the development will have an effect, and not that a development will definitely have an effect.

The SoS considers it is imperative for the ES to define the meaning of ‘significant’ in the context of each of the specialist topics and for significant impacts to be clearly identified. The SoS recommends that the criteria should be set out fully and that the ES should set out clearly the interpretation of ‘significant’ in terms of each of the EIA topics. Quantitative criteria should be used where available. The SoS considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact inter-relationships.

The SoS recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the proposed FM2 development can be approached in a number of ways. However it considers that it would be helpful, in terms of ease of understanding and in terms of clarity of presentation, to consider the impact assessment in a similar manner for each of the specialist topic areas. The SoS recommends that a common format should be applied where possible.

Inter-relationships between environmental factors

The inter-relationship between aspects of the environments likely to be significantly affected is a requirement of the EIA Regulations (see Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations). These occur where a number of separate impacts, e.g. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.

The SoS considers that the inter-relationships between factors must be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole. This will help to ensure that the ES is not a series of separate reports collated into one document, but rather a comprehensive assessment drawing together the environmental impacts of the proposed FM2 development. This is particularly important when considering impacts in terms of any permutations or parameters to the proposed FM2 development.

Cumulative Impacts

The potential cumulative impacts with other major developments will need to be identified, as required by the Directive. The significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). In assessing cumulative impacts, other major development should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant authorities on the basis of those that are:

• under construction • permitted application(s), but not yet implemented • submitted application(s) not yet determined

Appendix 3

• projects on the National Infrastructure’s programme of projects • identified in the relevant development plan (and emerging

development plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited, and

• identified in other plans and programmes (as appropriate) which set the framework for future development consents/approvals, where such development is reasonably likely to come forward.

Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and how these have been taken into account as part of the assessment.

The SoS recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects, through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.

For the purposes of identifying any cumulative effects with other developments in the area, applicants should also consult consenting bodies in other EU states to assist in identifying those developments (see commentary on Transboundary Effects below).

Related Development

The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is related with the proposed FM2 development to ensure that all the impacts of the proposal are assessed.

The SoS recommends that the applicant should distinguish between development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.

Alternatives

The ES must set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and provide an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking account of the environmental effect (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 18).

Matters should be included, such as inter alia alternative design options and alternative mitigation measures. The justification for the final choice and evolution of the scheme development should be made clear. Where other sites have been considered, the reasons for the final choice should be addressed.

The SoS advises that the ES should give sufficient attention to the alternative forms and locations for the off-site proposals, where appropriate, and justify the needs and choices made in terms of the form of the development proposed and the sites chosen.

Appendix 3

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures may fall into certain categories namely: avoid; reduce; compensate or enhance (see Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 21); and should be identified as such in the specialist topics. Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may relate to more than one topic area. For each topic, the ES should set out any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects, and to identify any residual effects with mitigation in place. Any proposed mitigation should be discussed and agreed with the relevant consultees.

The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment and can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the assessment.

It would be helpful if the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions and/or requirements proposed within the draft development consent order. This could be achieved by means of describing the mitigation measures proposed either in each of the specialist reports or collating these within a summary section on mitigation.

The SoS advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation and may be adopted during decommissioning.

Cross References and Interactions

The SoS recommends that all the specialist topics in the ES should cross reference their text to other relevant disciplines. Interactions between the specialist topics is essential to the production of a robust assessment, as the ES should not be a collection of separate specialist topics, but a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal and how these impacts can be mitigated.

As set out in EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 23, the ES should include an indication of any technical difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

Consultation

The SoS recommends that any changes to the scheme design in response to consultation should be addressed in the ES.

It is recommended that the applicant provides preliminary environmental information (PEI) (this term is defined in the EIA Regulations under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’) to the local authorities.

Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the applicant intends to consult on the

Appendix 3

preliminary environmental information (PEI). This PEI could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act, this could usefully assist the applicant in the EIA process – for example the local community may be able to identify possible mitigation measures to address the impacts identified in the PEI. Attention is drawn to the duty upon applicants under Section 50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.

Transboundary Effects

The SoS recommends that consideration should be given in the ES to any likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State of the European Economic Area. In particular, the SoS recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and water and to potential impacts on migratory species and to impacts on shipping and fishing areas.

The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 12 ‘Development with significant transboundary impacts consultation’ which is available on the Advice Notes Page of the National Infrastructure Planning website

Summary Tables

The SoS recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the applicant may wish to consider the use of tables:

Table X to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation on the basis of specialist topics, inter-relationships and cumulative impacts.

Table XX to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion and other responses to consultation.

Table XXX to set out the mitigation measures proposed, as well as assisting the reader, the SoS considers that this would also enable the applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Development Consent Order.

Table XXXX to cross reference where details in the HRA (where one is provided) such as descriptions of sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or compensation measures, are to be found in the ES.

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms

The SoS recommends that a common terminology should be adopted. This will help to ensure consistency and ease of understanding for the decision making process. For example, ‘the site’ should be defined and used only in

Appendix 3

terms of this definition so as to avoid confusion with, for example, the wider site area or the surrounding site.

A glossary of technical terms should be included in the ES.

Presentation

The ES should have all of its paragraphs numbered, as this makes referencing easier as well as accurate.

Appendices must be clearly referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered.

All figures and drawings, photographs and photomontages should be clearly referenced. Figures should clearly show the proposed site application boundary.

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references. All publications referred to within the technical reports should be included.

Non Technical Summary

The EIA Regulations require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 22). This should be a summary of the assessment in simple language. It should be supported by appropriate figures, photographs and photomontages.

Appendix 3