Supporting Statement

Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline

NOVEMBER 2014

Regulation 5(2)(q)

Document Reference 10.1

Contents

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

2. The Project 3

3. The Draft Development Consent Order 40

4. Relevant National Policy 46

5. Other Relevant Policy 63

6. Other Important and Relevant Matters 96

7. Analysis 106

8. Conclusions 108

Matthew Sheppard Matthew.sheppard@turley.co.uk

Thorpe Marsh Power Limited

November 2014

i

Executive Summary

1. This document is a statement prepared in support of a proposed gas pipeline which is intended to provide a fuel source to an approved gas fired power station on the site of the former Thorpe Marsh Power Station. The application is proposed by Thorpe Marsh Power Limited.

2. The power station was approved by the Secretary of State under the Electricity Act in October 2011 and now needs to be connected to the national gas supply infrastructure in order to function. The power station is an important element of on-going energy security for the country which cannot play its role without the benefit of the current application.

3. This document considers a range of factors that may be of interest to the General Public, Consultation Bodies, Local Authority officers and the Examining Authority. It considers the range of factors that both must and may be taken into account in reaching a decision on the Development Consent Order.

4. It is intended to offer a less technical overview of the application package as a whole, and to aid the general reader as well as to help the Examining Authority understand the position and views of the Applicant. It should be read in conjunction with the suite of application documents,

5. It sets out what factors the law allows to be taken into account, and offers the applicant’s view on each of these factors. It also sets out context by way of a description of the scheme, the route and vehicular access to that route and a high level outline of what the DCO is seeking to achieve with its various articles and schedules.

6. The policy context is also set out, alongside the applicant’s view of how the proposed development performs against the policies currently in place. This is first undertaken for the National Policy Statements, which set a presumption in favour of the sort of infrastructure sought through this application, subject to a range of other considerations. The analysis concludes that the proposed pipeline will have a range of minor adverse effects, as expected in the Appraisal of Sustainability for such projects.

7. However, it will also have a range of benefits, particularly in respect of the role it will play in enabling the delivery of a gas fired power station, which is seen by National Policy to be an important element of clean and responsive fossil fuel generation which can assist the UK transition to a low carbon economy. This is a very significant consideration which carries great weight in the NPS and in determining this application.

8. The report then considers National and Local Planning Policy. This policy is important for local decision making, and represents the views of the Local Planning Authorities after consultation with a very wide range of stakeholders including local residents. The policy themes and objectives

ii

that could be applied to this form of development are generally consistent with both current National Planning Policy and the NPS’s relevant to this infrastructure. The relevant plans did not envisage providing policies for developments of the nature proposed by this application, but generic environmental protection policies are relevant and despite local nuances, tend to follow a similar approach. The analysis concludes that, provided the mitigation measures outlined in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Environmental Statement (ES) are employed, the development would comply with the objectives of those policies.

9. The decision making framework allows the Examining Authority to take account of any other factors it considers to be important and relevant. In this case, the applicant considers that the results of the consultation exercise, the findings of the ES and general engineering factors are relevant.

10. The applicant has responded to all of the concerns raised during consultation. Most concerns have been taken on board. In particular the desire to see better construction vehicle routing during the Stage 2 consultation was recognised and taken on board through the identification of the main pipe dump and defining more precise routings to the working width. The routings have undergone further refinement during and after the Stage 2 consultation and now represent a “best fit” with local desires, whilst recognising the sensitivity of this issue with people living along the proposed transport corridors.

11. The applicant has also engaged with statutory consultees, in particular the relevant Local Authorities and those bodies with assets to protect (eg other pipelines, electricity cables, etc). Where possible the applicant has sought to agree a separate Asset Protection Agreement with those bodies which represents a mutually agreed working arrangement which should protect their interests.

12. However, other concerns have not been adopted. Many people wished to see a connection to domestic gas supply and / or broadband connectivity provided. This is not possible for a variety of technical reasons, including both gas pressure, responsibility for interconnecting and pressure reduction systems from a private pipeline to a public supply pipeline, with its associated above ground installations, and the lack of experience or responsibility for providing telecommunications infrastructure. Equally, it has not been possible to adopt all of the consultation suggestions for a variety of technical and practical reasons. For example some alternative access routes were suggested which the applicant has not adopted as traffic management techniques are considered to be effective to manage the concerns raised, whilst avoiding the environmental and financial costs of creating long alternative access routes where one does not currently exist. The Consultation Report logs the consultation feedback and responses.

iii

13. The findings of the ES are also relevant. The ES relies on a range of mitigation strategies to reduce construction stage disruption. These should be effective in reducing most effects to acceptable levels. Where greater effects are anticipated, for example with a limited number of noise effects, mitigation will reduce the severity of the impact, but there is likely to remain a moderate effect. This effect will be felt in the short term, and the applicant will provide 24 hour contact numbers for instances where the neighbouring properties need to contact the contractors to raise a concern.

14. Finally, the pipeline will be designed to meet all relevant pipeline safety protocol. The installation of gas pipelines is fairly common across the UK and the industry has established working methods which are tried and tested and known to be successful. The safety standards are also well engineered and tested. As such the applicant considers the pipeline to be safe and governed by well established best practice measures which will be adopted by the experienced teams that will install the pipeline.

15. The applicant considers that the application accords with the relevant national and local policies, that effective mitigation will mean that there are acceptable effects on local sensitive receptors, and that there are no other legal or practical factors which weigh against the presumption that the DCO should be granted.

1

1. Introduction

1.1 This report has been prepared to set out the applicant’s views on the key matters which are relevant to the determination of the application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline.

1.2 The proposed pipeline is required to provide fuel to a consented Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station, which is situated on the site of the former Thorpe Marsh Power Station, which closed in 1994. It will connect the power station to a National Grid Gas (NGG) supply pipeline, which runs to the south of Camblesforth, near Selby. The pipeline will be buried at a minimum depth of 1.2m and will be constructed from welded steel.

1.3 This report has been prepared under Regulation 5 (2)(q) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 which allows applicants to submit further information to the Planning Inspectorate (PIns) to help explain the application. It should be read in conjunction with the other submitted documents, most notably including the DCO, Land Plans, Works Plans and Environmental Statement (ES), which provide a more detailed account of the land required, the works for which consent is sought, and the effects of those works on the environment.

1.4 This report considers the factors which may influence the decision of the Examining Authority (ExA), including the relevant decision making framework, national policies and any other factors which the ExA may take into account in reaching their recommendation to Ministers.

The Decision Making Framework

1.5 Decisions on onshore Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) should be made in accordance with any:

• Relevant National Policy Statement (NPS),

• The Local Impact Report (LIR) prepared by the relevant Local Authority1,

• Relevant matters prescribed in Regulations, and

• Other matters which the ExA considers to be important and relevant to its decision.

1 We have adopted the term Host Authority as the pipeline runs through a two

tier area, and thus North Yorkshire County Council, are a relevant Local Authority as defined under S43 of the Act.

2

1.6 This report has been structured around this decision making framework to clearly set out the applicant’s views on these considerations, and to assist the ExA in reaching its recommendation.

3

2. The Project

2.1 The DCO seeks consent to install a gas pipeline which will connect the Thorpe Marsh CCGT Power Station to the National Grid High Pressure gas network. This section of the report provides a non-technical summary of the route, the envisaged mitigation measures, and the locations of associated controls in the draft DCO. It is intended to be read alongside the specific documents provided with the application.

The Nature of the Application

2.2 The DCO provides for some permanent above ground development (eg the AGI, Cathodic Protection cabinets, pipe markers, etc) and some

permanent sub-surface works (ie the pipeline itself). It also provides for a range of permanent rights (eg to access and maintain the pipeline when its operational) and temporary rights (eg to use land for construction or access purposes).

2.3 The amount of detail provided for in the application is dependent on a number of factors. The pipeline is not advanced enough to have been through a “Front End Engineering Design” (FEED) process. This is generally undertaken post approval and focusses on very precise detailing of installation methods (eg the particular type of “trenchless” crossing of an obstacle) or construction methods (eg the layout of the pipe dump area, where excavated materials will be stored on site, or the precise nature and design of access points off the public highway).

2.4 Because the pipeline has not been through this detailed design process, it has not been possible to provide a detailed fix on every element of the project. A range of techniques and solutions have therefore been adopted to offer clarity to those interested in the project, on the nature of what is being applied for. These include:

• Maximum development parameters for permanent works, including heights and areas of the AGI and other above ground elements.

• Illustrative layouts and designs associated with the development parameters. Wherever possible, the parameters are illustrated to give a “feel” for the type of development that can be expected. These illustrations are based on real life projects, modified to fit the parameters set in the submission.

• “Limits of Deviation” in the DCO, including a 30m wide working corridor and an allowance to drill as deep as 20m below ground level. This allows for a very small amount of horizontal deviation from the indicative proposed route, and provides for enough vertical deviation to allow deeper obstacles to be crossed.

4

• The DCO has built in approval procedures, in both its Articles (eg controls over discharges of water) and its Requirements (ie the equivalent of “conditions” on a planning permission). These provide for a further level of consenting, generally undertaken through a known process with the competent body, whether that is a Local Authority, the Environment Agency, or an Internal drainage Board. The need for a further level of consent means that the development cannot proceed unless the fine detailing is submitted and agreed. This offers a significant level of control to those consenting bodies.

• Many of the Requirements refer to “Outline Plans” (eg Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan, Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan). These are framework documents which provide an outline of the kinds of information and the nature of controls which will need to be adhered to when any future consenting decision on that issue is made. They offer comfort to those interested in the project that particular measures can be secured in the future, rather than needing to fix detailing at this stage.

2.5 The Environmental Impact Assessment of the project is based on the worst case outcome where it is assumed that the maximum development parameters are realised. Many of the industry standard best practice measures, which are set out in various places, both in the ES and the “Outline Plans”, will be secured through discharge of the Requirements and Articles, which is the means by which the mitigation requirements set out in the ES will be secured.

Permanent Works

2.6 The development has three principal permanent parts.

The Connection to the National Grid network:

2.7 The “Camblesforth Offtake” will be split into two secure compounds owned and operated separately by National Grid and TMPL (See works Nos 4 to 7 of the DCO). From public viewpoints the compounds will appear as one and will be well landscaped around its perimeter. Requirements 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the DCO require the provision of detailed designs, lighting management details, landscaping and access details.

2.8 There will be a new access road off Sandwith Lane; security fencing topped with razor wire (with a maximum height of 3.2m) and double entrance gates (5m wide and 3m high). There will be lighting and CCTV columns (4m high) and telecommunications cables on 6m high wooden poles.

2.9 Within the compound there will be shared car parking spaces, internal access roads as well as a range of pipeline, values, instrumentation and power supply infrastructure.

5

The Buried High Pressure Gas Pipeline:

2.10 The pipe will be buried along its entire approximate 19.1km length and will be constructed in welded carbon steel. It will be a maximum of 24 inches diameter with an external plastic coating. The design pressure will not be established until detailed design stage once the power station requirements have been set. However, it will be in the order of 45-85 Bar2.

2.11 The DCO generally provides for a 30m wide working corridor within which the pipeline will sit, although this widens at crossing points. It will normally be buried at 1.2m below ground level, but the draft DCO (Article 6) provides for a minimum cover of 0.7m. This will allow for a shallower burial if bedrock, landfill or concrete is encountered at shallow depth. The draft DCO also provides for a maximum depth of installation of 20m, which will allow for deeper drillings required to cross certain features, such as the Aire & Calder Navigation (see for example Works No 57).

2.12 Where there are crossing points, the working width (and associated Order Limits) extends to allow sufficient space for material storage and additional equipment. Larger areas are required for more significant crossings. The precise method of crossing will not be determined until the detailed design stage, however, whether a crossing will be “open cut” or “trenchless” (ie drilled) is known at this stage. These extra areas will only be temporarily occupied, as set out below.

2.13 The works plans are provided with the application documents and a summary of the associated works is also provided below to aid ease of interpretation and cross referencing. These provide more detail of the precise nature of works proposed in each specific location.

Other Above Ground Infrastructure

2.14 Above ground infrastructure will also be required at intervals along the route. These will include a green steel cabinet and a small kiosk (about 1.5m high) to house cathodic protection equipment. They will stand on a concrete base, surrounded by a post and rail fence, with a galvanised gate. The aim is to provide this equipment at either end of the pipeline in the AGI or the power station, but it is possible that it will be required at an intermediate point on the route. The DCO therefore provides for its location on Moss Road, about 90m to the east of the crossing point (see Work No 85). The cabinet will have direct roadside access but will sit in the adjacent field, and the cabling will connect to the pipeline, in the field adjacent to Moss Road (Work No 84), with access being taken off Moss Road.

2.15 The draft DCO (Work No 113) provides for the installation of aerial marker posts (maximum 3m high) at approximately 2km intervals

2 A domestic cooker requires in the order of 20 millibar (1/1000th of a Bar). The pipe will not therefore operate at a suitable pressure to provide domestic gas supplies along the route.

6

generally located at field boundaries, and 1m high marker posts at every point where the pipeline crosses a road, railway, drain, river, etc. There will also be cathodic protection test posts (Work No 114) at approximately 1km intervals, but these will be shifted to be positioned at the nearest available road crossing point, to allow ease of access for future monitoring.

Gas Reception Facility

2.16 The required Gas Reception Facility at the power station is included in the power station consent, so is not being applied for in the Order.

Temporary Works

2.17 The Draft DCO makes provision for various works which are required

along the route corridor to install the pipeline, but which are needed only during the construction stage. In summary these comprise temporary working widths and access routes, where access to the working width can’t be achieved from a public highway. These are set out in more detail below.

(a) The Contractors site office and “pipe dump” will be located on the site of the partially disused Burn Airfield, which lies off the A19 to the south of Selby and some 4.5km away from the AGI site. This site will be temporarily occupied and will provide offices with welfare facilities, material stores and the “pipe dump”. The airfield access road and part of a former taxi-way form part of a public footpath which will be kept clear for walkers. Therefore, the site offices and the pipe dump area will have separate compounds and lie on opposite sides of this taxi-way. The illustrative nature of these works are shown on drawing 13127/PL/01/003 in the Outline Construction and Environmental Management Plan (OCEMP) and are specified in Works No’s 1 to 3, with maximum parameters set. The detailed design of this facility will be governed by Requirement number 4 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the DCO, which requires the provision of a range of detailed matters as part of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan for the project.

(b) At the Camblesforth Offtake, an area on the northern and eastern edges of the permanent works (Work No 8) will be used to accommodate a small set up of welfare facilities and site offices, storage of materials and top-soil for shared use by TMPL and National Grid contractors during the construction of the Offtake facility;

(c) Areas of additional temporary occupation outside the 30m working width will be required at major crossing locations to store materials, excavated material and provide space to erect temporary welfare facilities and car parking off the public highway. See for example Works No 16,18, 21, 22 amongst others;

7

(d) Temporary side accesses are required where direct access from a public highway on to the 30m working width is not possible. These side accesses normally make use of private farm tracks and/or farmland. See for example Works No 17.

2.18 The Outline CEMP is submitted as part of the application, and sets out guidelines for, and the nature of, measures which will be employed during the construction stage. The detailed design will be undertaken by the contractors, in accordance with the outline CEMP and in line with the guidelines set in Requirement 4 and other construction related requirements. This document includes the measures for restoration and reinstatement of land affected by the works. It will be subject to detailed approval by the relevant Local Authority. Schedule 10 of the DCO sets out a procedure for the discharge of requirements

Working Methods

General

2.19 Subject to obtaining consent and to accord with the appropriate timing to supply the proposed power station with gas, the early works of hedgerow clearance and locating buried utility services are provisionally planned to start in November 2016, whilst the main pipeline construction works will follow in January to March 2017, subject to weather conditions, and run through to October of the same year.. The progress is dictated by welding speed which, at its peak, could reach up to 1km per day. Based on employment rates, the main activity will be between March and August, with a lesser workforce during survey and set out and soil preparation and restoration.

2.20 The construction stage has caused the greatest level of interest during consultation, so this section of the report outlines the basic process involved. This will be detailed through discharging the CEMP requirement (Requirement 4), as set out above. The requirement requires details of:

• Relevant health, safety and environmental legislation and compliance

• Local community liaison responsibilities

• Fences or other means of enclosure

• Temporary lighting, including measure to manage and mitigate

lighting impacts

• Noise and vibration management measures, including noise limits and monitoring proposals to ensure that the works comply with the findings of the assessment in the ES

• Dust control measures

8

• Measures to restore the permanent and temporary areas of the site

• Measures for the management, storage, handling and recycling of construction waste.

• Measures for restoration of areas used temporarily and which is not part of the separately approved landscaping scheme.

2.21 The outline CEMP, provided as part of the ES, provides further information. This will be the principal means of controlling construction stage effects. Members of the public have raised concerns about previous schemes in the area where construction management arrangements have not been adhered to. The Requirements of the DCO will apply to both the operator and their contractors, so the legal

obligation to deliver the consent in line with its conditions will apply. The applicant will make this clear to the contractors to ensure that the best level of control is available.

2.22 The applicant will also appoint an engineering team to act on its behalf on site. The team will normally comprise a group of experts headed by a Construction Manager, assisted by one or two field engineers, a Senior Pipeline Inspector who has two or three assisting inspectors, a Safety Advisor and an Agricultural Liaison Officer. This team will oversee the day to day activities of the contractor and inspect the works to ensure the contractor complies with project specifications, meets the schedule and records all the works against check sheets.

Typical Working width

2.23 The construction area will follow a standard working practice along its length. The typical working width is shown on Figures 1 and 2 below.

Fig. 1 – Typical cross-country pipeline construction working width

30m

Direction of

progress

9

Fig 2 – Typical working-width showing the pipe installed by the open cut method, whereby a trench is dug, the pipe lowered into

the trench and then the trench backfilled.

2.24 The working width will be 30m as defined in the Order Limits shown on the Works Plans, with the general working arrangements illustrated above. In summary, the process is as follows:

• The area will be fenced off,

• The top soil will be stripped and stored,

• Pre-construction drainage will be installed,

• The trench will be excavated with sub soils stored,

• The pipe sections will be laid out, joined up (known as pipe stringing) and welded

• The welded pipe will be lowered into the trench

• The pipe sections will be joined and sealed

2.25 Once the pipe sections are completed, they will be tested (including radiographic or ultrasonic inspection of all welds undertaken on site, and hydrostatic testing of the completed route to 125% of the maximum operating pressure) and if they are satisfactory, the site restoration

process can begin. This involves installing post construction drainage, sub soiling, and returning the top soil. Re-planting will be undertaken in the next available planting season, which is expected to be the same year as construction.

Pipeline Settlement 2.26 Ground conditions can vary across the length of the pipeline route. In

general, and in clay conditions where the bed of the trench appears to be

10m 20m

Trench material

Top

soil

heap

Pipe

trench

Working width Running track

10

clean and lacking stones, then the pipe strings will be laid directly in the base of the trench and “intimate backfill” used to surround the pipe and 300mm above the pipe. This layer will normally be trench material that has been crushed and riddled through an “aussie-padder” (see Photograph 1), or through an “Allu bucket” (see Photograph 2). The Allu bucket comprises of a series of rotating “worms” that crush the trench material into fine material. The remaining trench material called “general backfill” is then replaced into the trench and compacted, using a “rammax” (see Photograph 3), as shown, to ensure compaction reaches 95%.

Photograph 1: Aussie Padder

Photograph 2: Allu Bucket

11

Photograph 3: Rammax

2.27 If the base of the trench does show signs of stones / flints etc that may damage the external coating of the pipe, then the contractor would lay a bed of sand (200mm thick) into the bottom of the trench and place the pipe-string on that, then use imported sand as “intimate backfill”. The general backfill would be the same as the rest of the pipeline, which is described at 2.26 above. The base of the trench will be inspected on a field by field basis.

2.28 In poor ground conditions (wet ground) it may be necessary to negate the possibility of the pipeline becoming buoyant over time. In this instance, the contractors will install “anti-buoyancy” measures. This usually comprises of placing “saddle bags” filled with gravel to weigh down the pipe. In “bog” conditions, the contractor may use concrete coated pipes.

12

Photograph 4: Saddle bags

2.29 Occasionally, isolated settlement may occur over several months after construction, and in those cases, the pipeline contractor may be called back during the “defects period” (normally 2 years) to dig out the top-soil, compact the sub-soil trench material again adding more sub-soil before replacing the top-soil.

Access to the Working width

2.30 Access points on and off the working width will normally be created at road crossings, with a typical arrangement as shown in Fig 3 below. To create the access, approximately 300mm depth of grass verge and top-soil will be stripped and stored for later reinstatement. Bog mats (similar to large railway sleepers), will be laid down on a “terram”3 geotextile membrane, all sufficient to take the weight of the heavy plant whilst protecting any utility cables and pipes below. This is followed by the laying down of another “terram” membrane, onto which a hard-core layer will be placed, to create a firm and safe temporary access surface. All hard core will be verified tested and clean to avoid issues of dust and

debris tracking onto the highway, and also to avoid any risk of pollution incidents arising from imported recycled materials.

2.31 These works will be carried out and maintained in compliance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA). Traffic signage will be erected in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Sign Manual 2009. As each crossing point will vary, the precise details will be submitted to and

3 A company brand name.

13

approved in writing by the relevant Highway Authority, under the control of Requirement 5 of the DCO.

2.32 Where necessary, boundary features, including any walls, fences or hedgerows, will be removed and temporary double galvanised gates and posts and mesh or stockproof fencing on wooden posts installed. These features will remain for the duration of the Works. Details of the arrangements, including any required minimum set back from the carriageway, will be submitted for approval under Requirement 5 of the DCO.

Fig 3 – Typical road crossing layout

Heavy plant crossings at watercourses

2.33 To allow heavy plant and construction vehicles to pass over a watercourse, a temporary access way will be created. Where the watercourse is not sensitive, flume pipes will be placed into the bed of the ditch and the sides built up with sand-bags to ground level, as shown in Fig 4. The access way will be laid over the top.

2.34 If watercourse embankments are to be left intact for environmental reasons, i.e. the presence of water voles or other protected species, then a temporary bridge will be laid across the ditch.

2.35 The precise working methods will be subject to the controls in Requirement 4

30m

14

Fig 4 – typical heavy plant access across a watercourse

Heavy plant crossings at roads

2.36 Heavy plant will need to cross public roads to get from one works section to another. Precautionary measures will be taken to protect the road surface. This is normally done by placing rubber tyres, mats or similar protective material on to the road surface during the short period it will take to complete the plant movement. Such protection will be removed to the inside of the working width access gates.

2.37 Mud on the highway will be controlled by a variety of means. Hardstanding will be provided within the site and off the carriageway onto which vehicles can access the working width. Cars and light vehicles will, whenever possible, remain on that hard standing to avoid picking up mud and debris. Heavy vehicles will be jet washed before leaving the working width to control mud and debris at source. The working procedures will be included in “Tool Box Talks”4.

2.38 As a secondary control measure, any mud which is left on the road will be removed immediately. This process will involve placing signs to notify any motorists that the road surface may be slippery, followed by deployment of road sweepers. Road sweepers with washing materials, and site personnel with shovels and brooms, will be in attendance to clean away any mud deposited onto the road surface by the tracks of the heavy plant. Qualified supervision will be on hand to ensure traffic is controlled safely at access points and during all operations within the boundary of the public road.

4 Tool Box Talks are regular site meetings where operatives are briefed on various aspects of

site conduct, including health and safety and working protocols.

15

2.39 Nationally recognised procedures5 will be employed to control heavy plant crossing, with the precise methods to be agreed through discharge of Requirement 5. This could involve high “A Frame” signage, and the use of mobile traffic signals or “Stop/ Go” boards. The timings of crossing periods will be agreed in detail to avoid excessive queues building on the highway. The details of crossings and all other aspects of access to the site during construction will be agreed with the relevant highways authority.

Fig 5 – Heavy plant crossing a road

Traffic Routing and Crossing Descriptions

2.40 The key concern raised by members of the public was the effects of construction vehicle routing. In general terms, construction works will commence at the northern end of the route at the site of the proposed Camblesforth Offtake. The Works will progress south and finish in the northwest corner of the proposed Thorpe Marsh Power Station.

2.41 The Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan sets out the volume and nature of traffic expected and also provides details of proposed traffic routing. The key factors that have influenced the routing decisions are the location of the main site office and pipe dump, on the partially disused airfield at Burn; and the various constraints posed by the nature of available roads between Burn and the working width. As the area is largely rural in nature, the key limitations are the nature of the roads themselves, and the ability to cross certain features with heavy plant.

2.42 The normal working principle will be to access the working width by the highest category road available, working from north to south and for all plant and equipment to work down the route until such time as a barrier is

5 Paragraph D3.23 of Chapter 8 Signs Manual 2009

16

reached which can’t be crossed by heavy plant, including for example the M62, a railway or a larger watercourse.

2.43 The routing has taken account of weight limits, railway bridge clearances, road width and gradient wherever possible, tight bends and where possible residential areas. The Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan sets out a full description of the routes to the working width in section 14 of that document, and provides a routing map which will be confirmed through detailed construction management plans to be approved under Requirement 5.

Works in the vicinity of Camblesforth, Carlton and Hirst Courtney (North Yorkshire & Selby District)

2.44 The initial access to the off take site (the AGI) at Camblesforth will be

taken from the airfield via Common Lane, westwards to the A19 and the north via the A63 and then the A1041. This route was adopted following a suggestion by the Parish Council, and also in line with the wishes of the Travellers Community at Common Lane. Only light vehicles will now use Common Lane in an easterly direction. Alternative routes to the south of the airfield were considered but discounted on the basis of lack of suitability, greater disruption and cost.

2.45 To access the AGI from the A1041, a potential loop system will operate using Hardenshaw Lane and Sandwith Lane, as well as Jowland Winn Lane. The use of Jowland Winn Lane was suggested by the Selby Environmental Health Officer, as it passes fewer houses. It has been partially adopted as it is less direct, but does allow more flexibility to operate a loop as the lanes are relatively narrow and this additional route could facilitate an informal “1 way system” The option of accessing the AGI from the direction of Snaith, to void these more rural roads, was discounted because it would involve travel through residential suburbs.

2.46 Detailed arrangements for the use of the access routes between the A1041 and the AGI will be controlled through discharge of Requirement 5 of the DCO, which requires a detailed construction traffic management plan and for that plan to be implemented.

2.47 Works will then progress down the working width, with minor crossings and temporary land occupations where there are tracks present on the route (see Works 10 and 13), until it reaches the Knottingley to Drax Power Station Rail Line (Works 15). To meet Network Rail’s requirements it will be necessary to drill under this line. Access to the drill site will be taken from a private access off Hirst Road, to the west of the railway line, which is shown as a “side access”, for temporary occupation on the works plans (Work 17).

2.48 The Hirst Road crossing (Work No 22) is some 1.5km to the west of Carlton, will be used to access the southern side of the railway drill, as heavy machinery can’t cross the railway line. It will also be used to access the route southwards. This crossing is also part of the Trans

17

Pennine Trail, so the drilling method will minimise disruption to that function as well. The details of alterative provision to any PROW, including in particular those which are more heavily trafficked, such as the Trans-Pennine Trail, will be governed by Requirement 11. As this is an important and more heavily trafficked PROW, it is likely that a wooden structure will be constructed to allow access over the working width for the duration of the works. Temporary diversions will be secured for this and other similar crossings.

2.49 Access to the working width around the railway and Hirst Road crossing was originally planned to be achieved from the site office, heading south down the A19, which will be the principle spine route for access to the working width, and then along Hirst Road itself. This would mean that vehicles would have passed through the villages / hamlets of Chapel Haddlesley, Temple Hirst, and Hirst Courtney. However, the two railway bridges to the west of Temple Hirst / Hirst Courtney only have clearance of 10ft 9 and 12 ft respectively, which is too low to accommodate the anticipated traffic. This route will therefore be used only for light vehicles (ie cars, 4x4 and vans).

2.50 Therefore, the “eastern access route” will be utilised for the northern section of the route, up to the Pontefract Road crossing (Work 38). Vehicles will proceed from Burn to the A1041, run around the south of Camblesforth, proceed through Carlton, along High Street, before turning on to Hepworth’s Lane / Hirst Road.

2.51 The pipe installation works will continue south from Hirst Road (Work 20) until it reaches the River Aire (Work 24), which it is not possible to cross with machinery. The machinery will then be tracked back to Hirst Road, and re-routed down to Low Road, Gowdall (Work 31), some 180m to the east of Gowdall albeit closer to two more remote homes on Low Road. This crossing lies in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

2.52 The River Aire crossing (Work 24) will be drilled to avoid interfering with the flood banks.

2.53 The eastern access route through Carlton will need to be used for the Low Road crossing (accessed though Snaith) as well, so the works described below will also be relevant for people who may be affected by the routing through Carlton.

2.54 The physical pipe installation works that are likely to cause the main disruption to the greatest population in North Yorkshire / Selby District will cease, once the crossing of the River Aire is achieved. The appropriate testing and restoration works will also need to be completed, but these are much lower intensity works and should have a correspondingly lesser impact in transport terms. This is discussed further below, but it is important to note that the use of the eastern access route for the more intensive activities will continue to run through this administrative area,

18

and will not stop until the A645 Pontefract Road crossing (Work 38), to the west of Snaith has been completed.

Works in the vicinity of Snaith and Gowdall (East Riding of Yorkshire)

2.55 The crossing of Low Road in Gowdall (Work 31), will allow access north up to the River Aire, which will be drilled to meet the requirements of the EA. However, Low Road is also a major crossing in its own right.

2.56 The Low Road crossing is complicated by the railway line to its south. It is clearly important to meet the requirements of Network Rail at this location, as well as to avoid any potential issues which could be raised by breaching the flood bank. Therefore, this crossing will be undertaken as a single drilling exercise underneath both obstacles.

2.57 To get access to the northern side of this wider crossing, discussions are progressing with the landowner of a potential side access, which will be taken off an agricultural access track to the north of Low Road, and to the immediate east of Gowdall (Work 30). Achieving this access will require some works in the vicinity of the access point, and the landowner and Parish Council have both raised some concerns which will need to be addressed. Notably, the telegraph pole in this location will need to be relocated, as will a lamp post and some hedgerow. These works will be co-ordinated with the relevant undertaker to avoid or minimise any disruption to services in the area. This will be achieved through protective provisions with the statutory undertaker. Also of note is the concern raised by the Parish Council about potential impacts of collisions on the village name stone. The applicant recognises this concern. Whilst it has no rights to relocate this stone, it is prepared to fund its temporary relocation to a safe location in the vicinity, or to physically protect the stone for the duration of the works.

2.58 This side access will allow access to the works area for the Low Road and railway crossing (Work 31), as well as the works south of the River Aire (Work 25 to to 29 respectively). It will also allow access to the north to “pick up” the drill under the River Aire (Work 24). The section between the River Aire and Low Road is subject to flooding, so local conditions will dictate when these works can be undertaken. If the area is flooded, this section will need to be delayed until later in the programme.

2.59 In this area, concern has been raised by the Parish Council and Environment Agency in respect of effects on the flow of flood waters, both from the drills under the flood banks opening pathways to defended areas, as well as flow capability being hindered by stockpiled soil mounds. Indeed this comment applies to any works in flood zone 3. It is proposed to retain soil storage mounds, as it is not considered appropriate to shift this material between different areas or landownerships for reasons of transport effects on amenity and also the desire to retain the existing soil qualities, seed banks etc of any one

19

landholding. Therefore, whilst materials will be retained in this area, suitable gaps will be left between the stock piles to allow flood water and debris to pass. This will also provide for landowner access across the working width, which will be achieved using appropriate steel plating through a gap designed to accommodate the necessary vehicles. The precise details will be agreed with the landowner at the detailed design stage and the landowner agreement provides for this. The effects on catchment wide flood storage capacity will be negligible as the material stockpiled will have come from areas of “cut” and hence any change in overall flood storage capacity will be minimal.

2.60 As drilling through flood banks could create a pathway for flood waters to access defended areas, in the period before the pipeline is connected, the drilled sections will be plugged with clay to avoid any connectivity to the other side of the flood defence.

2.61 Once access has been achieved to the north of Low Road, it will be necessary to gain access to the south of Low Road. Heavy Plant can’t cross the railway line, so the access point off the A645, Pontefract Road (Work 38) will need to be opened up to works traffic. This crossing point is around 470m to the west of Snaith.

2.62 The A645, Pontefract Road, is a busy road and, even though the section to be crossed has good sight lines, the speed and amount of traffic on this route means that traffic management will be required, including putting up new signs and safety barriers. The detailed measures will be governed by Requirement 5 of the DCO, which requires detailed construction traffic management measures to be agreed with the relevant Highway Authority. All works will accord with the requirements of the New Roads and Streetworks Act and the relevant sections covering heavy plant crossings. The Order limits have been extended since the Stage 2 consultation to include sight lines, as this is a busy A road.

2.63 Access to the south of the Low Road crossing (Work 31) will require vehicles to track north from the Pontefract Road crossing (Work 38). HGV access to these works will use the “western access route” via the A19 and A645 (Pontefract Road). This is a change from the Stage 2 consultation, as exhibition feedback suggested that heavy vehicles using the central roundabout in Snaith may be problematic. On review this route was considered unsuitable and was removed from the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan.

2.64 The works between the Pontefract Road crossing and the Low Road crossing will involve a further crossing of Dorr Lane (Work 34). This will be open cut, with steel plates available for access should it be required. Works are expected to take a few hours, with a temporary coverage suitable to take vehicle traffic until the pipe trench can be back filled after integrity testing. This Lane is tree lined and the crossing is also the

20

location of an overhead pylon, where tree cover is lightest, to avoid loss of trees as far as possible.

Works in the vicinity of Pollington (East Riding), Accessed via Eggborough (North Yorkshire / Selby)

2.65 Once access has been secured off Pontefract Road (Work 38), the works can progress south to the M62 (Work 43). The “western access route” will be utilised for these and all subsequent works. This will remove the bulk of plant and HGV movement from the towns of Carlton and Snaith, although some more limited movements will occur as the working width is restored.

2.66 Between the Pontefract Road and M62, there is one minor crossing which a Statutory Public Right of Way (PROW) (Work 40). A temporary

diversion, or short term stopping up, for the short period of pipe installation will be agreed with relevant PROW Officer at the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. This is governed by Requirement 11 of the DCO, which requires a written plan for temporary closure or diversion to be approved before any works can be undertaken. It also requires those works to be carried out. This also applies to all PROW crossings along the route.

2.67 The M62 will be drilled in accordance with Highways Agency requirements (Work 43). Heavy plant can’t cross the M62, so to access the route immediately south of the M62, access will be taken from Long Lane, which runs south from the A645 Pontefract Road, and then via a private side access (Work 46) along a track to reach the working width (see Works 42-45).

2.68 After crossing the M62, pipe installation works will proceed generally southwards until reaching the Aire & Calder Navigation / Knottingley & Goole Canal.

2.69 There are two agricultural track crossings on this route (Works 45 and 48) which will be open cut and temporarily surfaced until backfilling occurs. There is also an Oil Pipeline running just north of Balne Croft Lane (Work 50). Subject to the agreement of the pipeline operator it is proposed to open cut and expose the existing pipeline and lay the proposed pipe across the existing pipe, separated by a concrete slab to protect each of the pipelines . This will be undertaken under the supervision of the existing pipeline operator.

2.70 After crossing the pipeline, the works area will need to cross Balne Croft Lane, which provides access to a commercial fishery, Viking Fishery. The owners of this fishery have expressed concern about disruption to competitive fishing during the construction phase, and the applicant has met with them and corresponded with them several times to agree and explain how the works will proceed. The position is now agreed with the Fishery. This road is also a part of the Transpennine Trail, an important local PROW. This road will be drilled to avoid disruption to this business,

21

as well as the PROW, and the crossing point has been shifted as far to the west as possible to avoid effects on the fishery ponds, whilst not compromising project risks resulting from proximity to an overhead powerline.

2.71 This area was also the subject of some changes as a result of the Stage 2 consultation. These changes were locally advertised by targeted mail out to those likely to be affected, direct contact with landowners and by placing notices on site. These changes include changes to the Order limits to reflect the fact that Balne Croft Lane is not a public highway as originally envisaged, and to reflect changes in access to the working width, drilling locations and material storage. These changes result from changed working practices in the area to reduce land take.

2.72 The Canal will be drilled to avoid any disturbance to its structure, in accordance with the requirements of the Canals & Rivers Trust. Running next to the Canal are a tow path and a deep drainage ditch. The drill will pass under these features as well (Work 57).

2.73 Access to the southern side of the drill under the canal, will be taken from Crowcroft Lane, over the canal bridge, and the unnamed road running eastwards to the immediate south of the canal.

2.74 South of the Canal, the route generally follows the line of the disused freight railway. It was suggested by a Parish Council at Stage 1 that this line be used as an alternative corridor given its general direction and linear nature. However, this was discounted on engineering grounds, as the banks would not be stable enough to support the digging and reinstatement required to install the pipeline.

2.75 Remaining within the East Riding jurisdiction, Pollington Fleet Drain will need to be crossed (Work 59). This will be open cut, and laid with a protective concrete slab over the top, with a minimum cover of 1.2m. The drain will be diverted around the works by pipe work, before the flow is re-instated.

Works between Pollington Fleet Drain and the River Went (North Yorkshire and Selby District)

2.76 For approximately 1 to 1.5km the works re-enter the administrative areas of North Yorkshire County and Selby District. These works comprise laying the pipeline, crossing the disused railway embankment (Work 62) and the crossing of the River Went (Work 70). It also provides for the side accesses necessary to prepare for and undertake these works.

2.77 The disused railway embankment crossing point (Work 62) has been selected as it is a section where tree cover is sparse. The embankment will be dug out to ground level and the pipe installed as normal. Once testing is complete, the embankment will be reinstated.

22

2.78 The Canal cannot be passed by heavy machinery. It is currently intended to use Crowcroft Lane, which has a bridge over the Canal and the track to the east which runs to the south of the Canal to cut through the old railway embankment in the Selby area, with spoil being deposited to the south of the works (Work 61). This route has a 7.5t weight limit other than for gaining access, although the relevant highways authority has confirmed that access to the works does constitute access.

2.79 Access to the west of therailway embankment, and north of the River Went is proposed to be taken via the A19, and then east along Balne Moor Road, before heading south down Cross Hill Land and Cat Lane, and the east along Lowgate, until Balne Hall is reached. Stage 2 consultation suggested that this route has a “tight” corner at the Cat Lane / Lowgate junction, which farm machinery finds difficult to navigate. This has been tracked and a small area of additional land has been added to the south of Lowgate (Work 69) to accommodate proposed vehicle movements. This was the subject of the post stage 2 “minor consequential changes” consultation.

2.80 From Balne Hall the public road ends, and a side access along farm tracks is proposed, along with additional land at the farm entrance to allow vehicles to enter in a forward gear as current farm vehicles reverse into the yard (Works 68 and 67). The route of the side access has also changed since Stage 2, again as a result of landowner inputs. The route now runs to the south of that originally proposed, adjacent to the footpath and within the field, rather than adjacent to the more northerly field boundary which is a drainage ditch and less direct,

2.81 This route will provide access to Works 62 to 70, from the Canal to the south side of the River Went.

2.82 Access along Balne Hall Road, to the south of the Bridge Lane junction in Pollington, which appears to be a more direct route, has been discounted as it means that heavy plant would need to drive past Pollington Balne Church of England Primary School. This will be a clear requirement of any detailed routing agreements, and is noted as “forbidden” in the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan.

2.83 Progressing westwards, a farm track also needs to be crossed (Work 64). This track is also a public bridleway and is part of the Trans Pennine Trail. The stopping up or temporary diversion will be agreed in detail under Requirement 11 of the DCO. As this is an important and more heavily trafficked PROW, it is likely that a wooden structure will be constructed to allow access over the working width for the duration of the works. Temporary diversions will be secured for this and other similar crossings.

2.84 It is necessary to drill under the River Went (Work 70), as it is protected by flood banks which need to be left unaffected for the duration of the works. There is a public right of way to the north of the river, and there is

23

an area of superficial landslip to the south. Both of these areas will be avoided by extending the drill length to the north and south of these features. The River is the administrative boundary between North and South Yorkshire.

Works to the south of the River Went (Doncaster Metropolitan Borough)

2.85 The remaining pipeline will all be served along the western access route, further south down the A19 than described above. This is the section of works where construction traffic effects will begin to affect the Town of Askern, which sits some distance from the pipeline route, but through which all of the remaining construction traffic will need to be routed.

2.86 Issues have been raised during consultation about the effects of level

crossings in Askern, delaying traffic and causing congestion which can affect the A19. The applicant has agreed to engage with the existing system which functions in the area under the “Code of Practice for Co-ordination”6. This process provides quarterly updates on activity in the area and co-ordinates this with any other relevant works to reduce conflicts and ensure road availability for any given project. This process will be included in the detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan as required by Requirement 5, and approved via that mechanism. Consultees have queried the potential to restrict the number of HGV’s during peak hours, especially during school pick up / drop off times. It is considered that engaging with the co-ordination process is as effective a control as limiting numbers, given the very low number of movements associated with the project.

2.87 The proportion of HGV’s added by this project will be extremely small amounting to perhaps 3 per hour, so their impact will be negligible. This is why there is no formal Transport Assessment of the construction stage of the project.

2.88 To access the works immediately south of the River Went, access will be taken through Askern, and along Moss Road. Consultation responses have resulted in the applicant removing the potential access route north along Fenwick Common Lane and east along Lawn Lane to Fenwick Hall. Instead, the Parish Council preferred the use of the working width northwards from Moss Road, to access the drill under the River Went. The Ward Councillor also raised concerns about turning circles for HGV’s accessing northwards along Fenwick Common Lane and potentially blocking or causing others to block the adjacent level crossing.

2.89 The Moss Road crossing (Work 85) will therefore be utilised as the main access point for works 70 down to 88 inclusive. Works around the access point will be completed first, with vehicles tracking northwards until the drill to the south side of the River Went can be picked up.

6 Under Appendix E of the 1991 New Roads an Street Works Act

24

2.90 The route has various obstacles on its way to Moss, including crossing Fenwick Footpath No’s 12, 10, 15, 14 (Works 72, 74, 76, 78) and Moss Footpath No 6 (Work 80). These PROWs will be treated as others along the route, with detailed methods to be agreed through discharge of Requirement 11 of the DCO. They will be open cut, but the construction team will provide for temporary/emergency access as required using plate steel and / or a temporary diversion will be agreed.

Works in the Vicinity of Moss 2.91 The route crosses Moss Road (Work 85) to the east of the village and

runs south for around 1km, before crossing Trumfleet Lane (Work 89). Both crossings will be drilled to minimise disruption to traffic flow, and appropriate signage and traffic management measures will be employed. The details will be agreed through Requirement 5 of the DCO and the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan offers some further advice on how vehicle movements and road crossing protocols will be secured.

2.92 Vehicle access for this section will be taken through Askern and Moss, with vehicles staying on Moss Road until the access point is reached. Moss Road will be drilled to avoid major disruption on this road, as it is a busy link between Askern and Thorne, which offers access to the M18.

2.93 For plant access and crossing, visibility for both the public and those crossing is good but signage and barriers will be required. The precise details will be governed by discharging Requirement 5 of the DCO. The “minor consequential changes” consultation added some further land to the Order Limits in this location to ensure that appropriate visibility can be secured.

2.94 As works proceed south from Moss Road, vehicles will begin to route down Trumfleet Lane, reducing and eventually removing traffic from the eastern side of the village, but directing them down to the south side instead.

2.95 The Trumfleet Lane crossing (Work 89) will be drilled, but for plant access, it has fairly poor visibility, so several trees will need to removed and later replaced to improve visibility. Road signage and barriers will also be needed at this crossing point. The details will be governed by discharging Requirement 5 of the DCO. Again appropriate detailing will be agreed using relevant standards as required by the highways authority.

2.96 Works will then proceed generally southwards, following field boundaries as discussed with landowners, and equidistant between the hamlets of Haywood to the west and Hawkhouse Green and Trumfleet to the east.

2.97 A Footpath will also be crossed (Work 91), and will be treated as other PROW crossings, with details agreed through Requirement 11 of the DCO.

25

2.98 The route then crosses Wrancarr Lane and Wrancarr Drain in a single drilling exercise (Work 94) as, whilst the lane is relatively quiet, it is necessary to avoid disrupting flows in this relatively deep drain. Again this crossing will require traffic management measures which will be governed by the construction traffic management plan and Requirement 5.

2.99 There are also two track and bridleway crossings on this stretch of route. Moss Bridleway No 22 runs down a track known as Old House Lane (Work 97) and later the route crosses the same bridleway as it runs through agricultural land (Work 99). Again, these works would be governed by Requirement 11 of the DCO.

2.100 To gain access to this works area, any vehicles using the public road

would continue south down Trumfleet Lane from Moss, until reaching the junction with Wrancarr Lane to the east of the works. Heavy plant crossing will remain on the working width, passing over Wrancarr Drain using a flume system, as described above at paragraph 2.34 (See Figure 5). These works will be controlled under Requirement 4.

Works in the vicinity of Thorpe in Balne 2.101 Works will continue to proceed in a generally south westerly direction to

skirt the western side of Thorpe in Balne. Thorpe in Balne Footpath No 1 (Work 101) and then Thorpe in Balne Footpath No 10 (Work 103), known as Airey Lane, a track to the west of Thorpe in Balne will both be crossed by open cut methods, with steel plating available for any emergency or unexpected access needs. Again, Requirement 11 of the DCO will be adhered to.

2.102 The route will then proceed sharply to the east, crossing in turn Bell Croft Lane (Work 105, which also forms part of the Trans Pennine Trail) and then Applehurst Lane (Work 109). Both crossings will be made by drilled methods, with appropriate traffic management. As the Trans Pennine Trail is an important and more heavily trafficked PROW, it is likely that a wooden structure will be constructed to allow access over the working width for the duration of the works. Temporary diversions will be secured for this and other similar crossings.

2.103 The Applehurst Lane crossing is likely to used as an access point, but because of the additional tight bend to manoeuvre, Bell Croft lane will not be used as an access point. Once the drill of Bell Croft Lane (Work 105) is complete, plant will track back up the working width to Wrancarr Lane (Work 94) and then use Moss Lane / Marsh Road to access Thorpe in Balne. Vehicles accessing the works area from this position will need to travel along Thorpe Lane, Thorpe in Balne. This road is narrow, but tracking has shown that the plant can navigate this route down to the Applehurst Lane crossing. Vehicles will continue to travel to this location from the north, through Askern and Moss. Detailed routing will be agreed through Requirement 5 of the DCO.

26

2.104 Plant will work westwards from Applehurst Lane to pick up the Bell Croft Lane drill, and then will drill under Applehurst Lane.

2.105 The pipeline then needs to cross the disused railway embankment (Work 111). The crossing spot has been selected as it is a weak spot in tree cover and will minimise tree and vegetation loss. The embankment will be dug out, the pipeline will be installed as usual and then embankment will be re-profiled once testing is complete. Material from the embankment will be stored on either side of the embankment (Works 108 and 112).

2.106 Works can then proceed to the Thorpe Marsh Drain crossing (Work 114). This drain is bounded by high flood banks and has a PROW on either side of the ditch. It can’t be crossed by heavy plant. This drain will be drilled. Plant will then be hauled back through Thorpe in Balne, and down

Thorpe Bank, using a private track as a side access (Work 117) to pick up the remaining section of works which involves a short length of pipe installation, crossing Thorpe in Balne Bridleway No 11 (Work 118) and a further drill underneath the twintrack railway (Work 121), which emerges in the Power Station site. The railway drill will comply with Network Rail standards. All further pipeline works will be routed through the power station site.

Traffic Impacts: Timescales

2.107 The Pipeline Construction Contract will last, in total, for some 56 weeks, , from the project “kick off” meeting to final hedge replanting. Construction will be divided into key phases of activities, as set out below. which is representative of the programme likely to be experienced on this project:

Phase No

Activity Weeks Month Year

start end

1 Pre-construction works (mainly off-site)

1 11 Oct/Dec 1

- Christmas break 12 13 Dec 1

2 Site office / pipe dump establishment and receipt of main

materials / plant

14 26 Jan/Mar 2

3 On site pre-construction activities 18 21 Feb 2

4 On site- pipeline construction (main works)

24 43 Mar/July 2

27

Phase No

Activity Weeks Month Year

start end

5 Above Ground Installation (AGI) works

27 50 Apr/Sept 2

6 Pipeline / AGI testing and pre-commissioning

31 49 May/Aug 2

7 Land reinstatement / hedgerow replanting

36 56 Jun/Oct 2

8 Dismantle site office / pipe dump

and demobilisation from site

51 56 Sep/Oct 2

Table 1 – Summary of construction activities

2.108 The graph below shows the build-up of the on-site workforce and the

subsequent and gradual decline in numbers over the course of the pipeline construction season. This shows that the busiest time during pipeline construction is from mid-March to the end of July. It is anticipated that traffic movements on public roads and activities on the working width will largely reflect this trend too, apart from the period in January to early March when the construction of the temporary site office and pipe dump on the disused Burn airfield, and the receipt of the pipes and other materials, is occurring.

Fig 6 –Typical month by month workforce numbers for this

project

18

57

102

191

183

149

96

48

36 30

120

50

100

150

200

250

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Juul Aug Sep Oct NovJul

Period of main

activities on the

working width

28

Phase 1 – Pre-construction works (mainly off-site) – Week 1 to 11

2.109 Phase 1 will take place during weeks 1-11 of the programme, normally starting in October of the year preceding construction. The Contractor will spend this period off-site, preparing Method Statements and Risk Assessments, procuring materials, meeting Local Authorities, familiarising themselves with the surroundings and finalising the detailed design. Traffic in the vicinity of the pipeline route will be minimal, less than 8 cars trips per day.

2.110 Also at the end of the same year and preceding construction, advanced

hedgerow removal will be undertaken on site, to ensure they are in their dormant period when removal occurs and prior to the bird-nesting season. This will normally occur in weeks 8 to 11 and involve a workforce of about 5, using cutting tools and foliage streaming equipment. This crew will move from farm to farm, cutting down the hedgerows and replacing them with fencing where necessary, especially where livestock graze. This activity will generate 2 four wheel drive vehicles and a tractor with trailer, making a total of approximately 10 trips per day on the public roads. Traffic associated with this first phase will be extremely limited and indistinguishable from general or agricultural traffic. This period of work by the Contractor will originate from an off-site location. There will also be occasional visits to the site during this period to familiarise themselves with the environment and meeting with local authorities.

2.111 Nothing will happen on site during Weeks 12 and 13 over the Christmas period.

Phase 2 – Site office / pipe dump establishment and receipt of main

materials / plant – Weeks 14 to 26

2.112 Phase 2 will normally take place between Weeks 14 and 26, from early January to the end of March but that will depend entirely upon weather and ground conditions. If it is a harsh winter then there could be anything up to two months delay until conditions improve.

2.113 The period of establishing the pipe dump and receiving materials is likely

to last up to 12 weeks, although as a worst case scenario, the number of vehicle movements could be concentrated into around 4 weeks. The main concentration of vehicular activity would occur from mid-January to mid-February, centred on the proposed site offices and pipe dump at the disused Burn airfield, off Common Lane.

2.114 During this period, the anticipated number of vehicles will reach 25 HGV’s per day (50 traffic movements) as delivery vehicles come and go. Put into

29

context that amounts to 4 vehicles per hour from 7am to 7pm, or one every 15 minutes, during the working week. The impact will be limited to the main motorway network and the A19 which, whilst more rural in character, is a main arterial route designed to accommodate such traffic.

2.115 Car / LGV numbers will gradually increase from 40 to 100 traffic movements per day during this period, ferrying the workforce to and from the Burn site office, morning and evening. This is approximately 3 to 8 vehicles per hour, or an anticipated frequency of between one vehicle every 18 minutes, up to one vehicle every 7 minutes at peak times.

2.116 The initial delivery of plant will include tracked excavators and bull-dozers to be used in the removal of top-soil from two compound areas (site office and pipe dump areas) and laying down a hard-core base over a “terram”

geotextile membrane to support the required infrastructure. The site will comprise portacabin site offices, welfare facilities, drainage / sewage piping and septic tank, potable water tank, bunded fuel tanks, storage containers, imported sand to create “sand rows” onto which the pipes will be stored, and fencing to secure the two compounds. Low-loaders and flat-bed trucks will arrive at the site from various locations in the UK.

Phase 3 – On site pre-construction activities – Weeks 18 - 21

2.117 Overlapping with Phase 2 will be some on-site pre-construction activities lasting from Week 18 to 21, in February. These works will see minimal vehicular activity away from the site office. The only works envisaged are exposing buried utilities (e.g. pipes, cables, water mains, etc.) at different points along the route, particularly on highway grass verges, and erecting fencing to exclude protected amphibians from the working width.

2.118 These works again will generate negligible levels of traffic. The exposing of utility buried services will be carried out by a crew of 5 using hand tools and driving there in 2 four wheel drive vehicles The amphibian fencing will be erected by a further crew of 5 in 2 four wheel drive vehicles and a tractor with trailer that will move between farms. Collectively, this will generate 5 vehicles and 20 traffic movements per day on public highways, spread along the entire route. Therefore, the impact will be negligible.

Phase 4 – On site - pipeline construction (main works) – Weeks 24

to 43

2.119 Once the instruction is received to commence construction during week 24, in mid-March, a series of concurrent and more intensive works will begin. This more intense period will last around 19 to 20 weeks, up to week 43, the end of July. This period will see an average rate of overall progress of 1km per week, moving north to south until all the pipes are in the ground.

30

2.120 Once the pipes are laid, the main work force will demobilise, reducing the workforce and traffic activity substantially. Meanwhile, the excavators and bull dozers will have already returned to the starting point at the northern end of the pipeline route to reinstate the working width to as close to its original condition as possible. This team will again work in a systematic southerly direction. Behind them, another crew will remove the temporary fencing to be in a position to hand land back to landowners, where it is possible and safe to re-commence farming activities.

2.121 It is anticipated that the peak level of HGV traffic movements during this period will be 20 per day (approximately 3 vehicles every two hours), although, as the crews will in part work in succession (i.e. the sequence of activities necessary to install the pipe in an “open field” situation) and part concurrently (i.e. the works required to set up major crossing points, access points, prepare drill sites and clear gaps in disused railway embankments), the effects will be spread around the working width, such that any one location will not experience the full effect of that anticipated peak traffic loading.

2.122 Table 2 below lists the sequence of typical pipeline construction activities that will occur during phase 4. Each activity starts a few days apart in order to achieve a planned rate of progress, subject to weather conditions and ground conditions. The welding operation is the driving force that dictates the speed of all other activities.

Sequence of construction activities

Survey / peg out boundaries of the working width

Erect temporary demarcation fencing along each side of the working width

Remove and store top-soil

String out pipes, laid out on wooden skids

Cold bending of pipes

Install pre-construction land drainage headers to outfalls

Front-end welding

Non-Destructive Testing of welded joints (x-ray and/or ultra-sonics)

Apply field joint coating to welded joints

Dig the pipe trench (trencher and/or excavators)

Lowering-in / Tie-in pipe-strings

Backfill the trench

Compact backfill

Trenchless crossings (HDD, auger bore or open cut)

Install post-construction land drainage

Testing – clean, hydrotest, soak test, seal pipeline & leave in nitrogen

Offtake & GRF works: civils, mechanical, electrical & instrumentation

Rip sub-soil on working width

Replace top-soil over working width

Power harrow top-soil

31

Build hedgerow boxes

Reinstate road crossing grass verges

Remove facilities and demobilise from site office /pipe dump

Reinstate burn airfield land by ripping sub-soil and replacing top-soil

Plant up hedgerows and landscaping strips at the Offtake

Table 2 – Sequence of construction activities

2.123 For a typical 24” (609.3mm) diameter pipeline project such as this, the Pipeline Contractor will build up to a peak rate of progress in April to June when all activities will be operating, of about 80 to 90 welded joints a day which translates into 1,000metres to 1,200metres a day. All other activities in front and behind the welding operation will be resourced to meet that rate of progress, as best as practically possible.

2.124 At the beginning of this period, the first activity will be to set out the working width and fence it off. The excavators and bull dozers will then begin the process of stripping and storing the top soil to one side of the working width. This activity will also include for an appropriate archaeological watching brief, followed by pre-construction land drainage installation, and the first pipe deliveries will be made to the working width of the site.

2.125 These works will proceed as distinct, staggered activities along the entire route, each starting with roughly 1 week gaps from the same starting point for around 6 weeks each. Each will involve moderate levels of traffic, amounting to a range between 8 and 20 traffic movements per day with the anticipated level to be closer to 16, accessing from different points along the route as the works progress in a southerly direction.

2.126 At around 6 weeks, the progress of each distinct activity is expected to

have spread out to cover around 3km per day. In this context it is clear that any one area of the route will be affected for very short periods of time, perhaps for a couple of weeks, as the teams quickly move on to the next length of working width. The process of cold bending pipes, welding, trench excavation, lowering pipe and tying sections together, will continue during the key period of construction activity.

2.127 Works to set up the various trenchless crossings will also occur in both succession (as for example the Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) team

move between drills, and the auger bore team move between drills), but due to the multiple specialist teams for each crossing point, each team can work concurrently (so for example, whilst the precise crossing techniques are not fixed at this stage, it is envisaged that the Aire & Calder Navigation HDD team will work concurrently with the River Aire Auger team. Again, this spreads the peak of traffic movements to different access points along the route.

32

Phase 5 – Above Ground Installation (AGI) works – Weeks 27 to 50

2.128 There are two AGIs to construct, one at the beginning of the pipeline

called the Camblesforth Offtake comprising of the National Grid AGI and the TMPL AGI, and the other one, a much smaller compound within the confines of the Thorpe Marsh CCGT power Station, called the Gas Reception Facility (GRF).

2.129 The GRF is provided for by the consent for the power station, and is not included in the current application, although it will clearly need to be constructed in order for the pipeline to function and hence its construction will be concurrent with the pipeline works.

2.130 It is currently envisaged that the construction of the Above Ground Installations (AGIs) will start at around week 27 (early April) and last until around week 50 (Mid-September), around 23 weeks in total, not including planting. This will see activity around the northern end of the route run concurrently with other works which will utilise the “eastern transportation route” to the south of Camblesforth. There will be a cumulative effect between these two elements of works (i.e. pipe installation and AGI construction) although the level of HGV movements associated with each is low. The AGI construction is envisaged to involve 2 excavators on site, with infrequent material delivery.

2.131 Again the contribution of each of these stages could amount to an anticipated normal level of 16 traffic movements per day although again, because of the spread of works around the entire working width, this is less than the anticipated and theoretical maximum movements per day.

Phase 6 – Pipeline and AGI testing and pre-commissioning – Weeks

31 to 49

2.132 Phase 6 involves testing the pipeline and AGI piping, and also pre-commissioning the electrical and instrumentation system.

2.133 The crews required for both activities will only amount to a workforce of about 6 people. Their transportation requirements will involve 4 four wheel drive vans and a light weight 4 wheel panelled lorry, rigged out with testing equipment. Approximately between weeks 32 and 38, they will first pre-test (hydrotest) each of the HDD pipe-strings at three

watercourse crossings, which will run in series. This testing process involves abstracting river water to fill the pipe string and then place the pipe-string under a pre-determined hydrostatic test pressure. Once the test is complete, the water is discharged back into the same watercourse through filtration and a defuser. The HDD pipe-string can then be pulled through the borehole.

33

2.134 Later at around weeks 47 to 49 when the whole pipeline is welded up in two sections, each tube will be tested in a similar fashion. Once these two hydrostatic tests are complete, the two sections of pipe will be welded together to form a continuous steel tube stretching approximately 19.1kms from the Camblesforth Offtake to the power station GRF. To pass mechanical completion, three final testing processes are required. The first is to propel a caliper pig through the tube to check for any internal defects, then to thoroughly dry down the tube and finally to fill it with a positive charge of nitrogen, then seal it until such time that the power station is ready to receive NGG natural gas and commission the pipeline system.

2.135 Meanwhile at the AGIs, the short lengths of piping will have been hydrotested, and the electrical and instrumentation cabling will have been loop checked as part of the pre-commissioning works.

2.136 The testing phase does not require the use of any HGV vehicles.

Phase 7 – Land reinstatement / hedgerow replanting – Weeks 36 to

56

2.137 Once the pipe is installed and crossings achieved, the work of progressively reinstating the working width can begin in a systematic process starting at the northern end and working south. From as early as around week 36 (early June) subsoil ripping will begin, with top soil placement starting the following week. Therefore, it can be seen that from instruction to start hard construction works at one end of the pipeline (Week 24), the restoration process is already beginning some 12 weeks later. Clearly these timescales are subject to variation due to weather conditions, contractor preference, any difficulties encountered on site and any other variables. However, this illustrates the speed of progress on the more simple areas of working in open fields. It also demonstrates why concurrent working and early preparation stages for trenchless crossings is necessary to ensure the smooth passage of the different specialist teams along the working width in a time, cost and disruption efficient manner.

2.138 The levels of traffic for the land reinstatement stage will last a further 20 weeks (weeks 36-56, or early June to late October). The heavy plant required for this process will comprise 6 tracked excavators and a bull-dozer that will have been hauled from the southern end of the pipeline route back to the northern end.

2.139 This lower level of traffic will be cumulative with other activities elsewhere on the pipeline, again suggesting a higher daily average. It is clear that the low levels of traffic associated with restoration at the northern end of the pipeline, will be undertaken at the same time as the more intense

34

activities at the southern end of the pipeline, so the effects at any one point will be somewhat less than the daily maximum suggests would be the case.

2.140 As the reinstatement crews move south, other small crews will follow behind removing the temporary fencing, erecting permanent fences and building wooden post and rail hedge boxes that will be planted up during October/November of the same year. This task will use typical agricultural tractors and trailers. Also at this time, the access roads at the road crossings will be reinstated and the aggregate removed from site and driven away in tipper trucks. Highway grass verges will be re-grassed and road signage removed. These crews will install marker posts and aerial markers as they go. These traffic movements will be low and amounting only to an anticipated daily figure of 10 movements per day between road crossings.

2.141 A Cathodic Protection engineer will wire up the CP test posts and connect the wiring to the pipeline as well as fit out the CP kiosk, driving from site to site in a 4WD vehicle.

Phase 8 – Dismantle site office/ pipe dump and demobilisation –

Weeks 51 to 54

2.142 The final 4 weeks will have seen a dramatic reduction in plant and labour. The remaining task is to dismantle the site offices and other facilities at the Burn airfield site and reinstate the land. 4 tracked excavators and a bull-dozer will be brought in to carry out this task.

Defects Period

2.143 Should any defects be found in the pipeline, whether this be a defect in the pipe itself, related to unexpected settlement or an issue with reinstatement, the works to rectify that defect are likely to generate traffic. No such defects are anticipated at this stage, although there is the possibility of vehicle movements for a period of time to rectify any defects. The scale of such movements are unknown and therefore it is not possible to quantify these, although it is not anticipated that they will be significant. The defects period is normally 2 years.

Traffic Impacts: Vehicle Movements

2.144 The anticipated traffic movement data has been compared with known traffic flows on the roads to be used for construction vehicle access. The results are set out in full in the OCTMP, and are summarised below. The anticipated time periods for using each of the access points is also set out. The analysis generally shows modest to very low impacts in single percentage figures only. The exceptions are Common Lane and Sandwith Lane that are dealt with separately below.

35

Hirst Road / Gowdall Lane & Low Road 2.145 Hirst Road to the east of Hirst Courtney and Gowdall Lane / Low Road

east of Gowdall, both lie off the A1041. The results show HGV traffic will increase by 5% and 7.5% respectively. Only short lengths of both of these roads will be used to get from the A1041 to the road crossings. Translated into frequency of HGVs, this will involve no more than one HGV every 36 minutes, and only for 3 weeks in April and 2 weeks in August.

A645 – Pontefract Road – Snaith 2.146 Normal traffic count figures for this stretch of the Pontefract Road are

already high, approaching a thousand HGVs per day and more than 4,000 cars / LGVs. Therefore, with construction HGVs creating an increased percentage of 0.9% on this road translates into a frequency of one construction HGV every 36 minutes. As such, the impact on normal traffic flows is negligible.

Balne Moor Lane – Balne 2.147 Balne Moor Lane shows a 5.0% increase in HGV traffic but this is short

lived in two bursts of 3 weeks in May and 4 weeks at the end of July / August. To put this into context, this equates to one HGV every 45 minutes.

Moss Road - Askern and Moss 2.148 Some visitors to the project public exhibitions raised concerns about the

potential impact of HGVs on Moss Road through Askern and the village of Moss. The results of the analysis suggest an “anticipated” percentage increase figure of 1.2% that only rises to 3.1% if the “highest” figure is applied. These highest figures will centre on two waves of activity comprising of four weeks in April/May and two weeks at the end of July.

2.149 The anticipated highest figures will be 16 HGVs for 5 or 6 weeks, rising to 20 HGV traffic movements per day during one week in May. That converts to an interval between HGVs of one vehicle every 36 minutes for 20 HGV traffic movements and 45 minute intervals between HGVs for the other 5 weeks. As such, this is regarded as very modest increase on normal traffic flows.

2.150 However, it will also be necessary to regard Askern as a potential challenge because of a level crossing in the centre of Askern, just a few hundred metres east of the A19 junction where queuing regularly occurs that can hold up traffic and pedestrians for several minutes at a time. There is no advance means of knowing when the level crossing will be closed and therefore difficult to manage. Also, there is a second level crossing to negotiate 2kms further to the east used by the high speed north east rail line.

2.151 The contractor will work with the Council to coordinate the works and as far as practicable will try to avoid peak times in Askern to minimise disruption and queuing.

36

Trumfleet Lane – Trumfleet 2.152 Also at the public exhibitions, visitors expressed concern about the

potential volume and impact of HGVs using the winding country lanes called Trumfleet Lane and Moss Lane, which run south from the village of Moss and through the hamlet of Trumfleet and onto the village of Thorpe in Balne.

2.153 Overall, the “anticipated” increase in HGVs is 5.2% rising to 13.1% if the “highest” figure is used. Once again, the works activity timings are split into two periods, 3 weeks at the end of April and into May, and then again for two weeks at the beginning of August. Frequency, even in the worst case of 20 HGVs per day, would result in one HGV every 36 minutes during these 5 weeks.

2.154 It is recognised that HGVs will require the assistance of escort vans on these narrow winding stretches of country roads for safety reasons. It is also possible that two way radio communication will be used to help control traffic flows and avoid the need to install temporary passing bays for the short period when the roads will be being used.

A1041 Selby Road 2.155 There are two contrasting sets of results for the A1041 Selby Road. This

road forms part of the eastern transportation route. There is a very low change of 1.8% at the junction with the A63 roundabout which is understandable because most traffic here is turning onto the A63 Selby by-pass, an east/west route. But further south on the A1041, this road runs through the villages of Camblesforth and Carlton and onto Snaith. For this section of the A1041, there will be an 8.5% increase in HGV traffic, but less than 1% for “All Vehicles” This is explained by a 7.5T weight restriction imposed on a short stretch of the A1041 from a point south of the River Aire bridge to the centre of Snaith. This weight, or rather, width restriction is to prevent HGVs using a very short section of narrow road from the Snaith railway level crossing to the junction with the A645.

2.156 Although construction traffic will encroach into this restricted zone, it will turn off before the level crossing and into Gowdall Road. This concession has been agreed in principal by the local highways department under the “exception for access” ruling. The impact will be modest and will only occur for approximately three weeks in April and two weeks in June. Even then, it translates into one HGV every 36 minutes for one of those weeks in April, and one HGV every 45 minutes for the other 4 weeks.

A19 at Chapel Haddlesey / Eggborough / Walden Stubbs 2.157 The results for the A19 vary depending on location but even then the

range only increases near Eggborough by 0.5%, rising to 1.2% through Chapel Haddlesey and 2.7% through Walden Stubbs.

37

2.158 Chapel Haddlesey will experience a minor increase of 1.2%, or 50 HGVs for 4 weeks in February when deliveries are made to the Burn site office / pipe dump, which translates to one HGV every 14 minutes, and then the figures drop to very low numbers for the remaining duration of the works by a third of that figure.

2.159 HGV traffic on the A19 through Walden Stubbs will be effective when the works begin on the southern section from Moss Road to Thorpe Marsh. This will only result in a modest figure of 16 traffic movements a day (one HGV every 45 minutes) for 4 weeks in April / May and then for 2 weeks in August.

A63 – Selby By-pass 2.160 The impact on this busy road is negligible as the road carries more than a

thousand HGVs daily, so a range of 8 to 16 construction HGVs over the duration of the works increases the impact by 0.7% or one HGV every 45 minutes at worst.

A614 – north of M18 junction 6 2.161 This road will not form part of the everyday construction transportation

routes but may be used occasionally by some delivery companies from outside the region that choose to turn off the M18 at junction 6. Therefore, the increase of 3.1% in HGV is a worst case estimate and probably unlikely to be reached, even so it translates into 8 traffic movements per day or one HGV every 90 minutes.

Sandwith Lane and Common Lane 2.162 These two roads are the exceptions to the rule with higher impacts in

terms of traffic movement increases.

Sandwith Lane 2.163 Sandwith Lane lies at the start of the pipeline and is the location for the

proposed Camblesforth AGI. The results for this remote country lane stand out significantly compared to other roads, showing an “anticipated” increase in HGVs of 50% and a “highest” figure of 125%.

2.164 This, however, needs to be seen in context as it starts from a very low base of only 16 HGVs per day, compared to several hundred or even more on the other roads affected. Therefore, the frequency between vehicles is a better measure of impact.

2.165 It should also be noted that there will only be two short periods when 16

HGVs per day will occur. The first period of activity will last about three weeks in April (with the middle week rising to 20 HGVs) and there will be a second wave of 16 HGVs per day in the first two weeks of July. This translates into a frequency of one HGV every 36 minutes at worst for one week in April, and one HGV every 45 minutes during the remaining 4 weeks. In mitigation, there is a suggested alternative one-way circular route to the west via Jowland Winn Lane and Cherry Court Road for HGVs leaving the AGI site and heading back to the A1041. This proposal

38

will avoid two-way HGV traffic occurring along Hardenshaw Lane, which has several residential properties close to the A1041.

Common Lane - Burn 2.166 The entrance to the proposed Burn site office / pipe dump lies off

Common Lane on the disused Burn airfield, 160m west of the A19 junction. The anticipated traffic movements will peak at 80 HGVs per day during February on this short stretch of Common Lane that will increase the volume of HGVs by 19.8% over this period when deliveries are made to set up the site office and pipe dump. 50 HGVs per day translates into an interval between HGVs of 14 minutes. This will have an increased impact on Common Lane but it should be noted that this road is also used regularly by dust-carts and other trucks taking waste to the nearby refuse processing depot. However, construction traffic will only use this short stretch of Common Lane between the site office entrance and the A19 junction where the traffic will be absorbed into this busy primary road to the north and south.

2.167 In addition, the peak figure for cars / LGVs is anticipated to reach 120 per

day between mid-April and the end of May at peak times.

Road Condition Surveys 2.168 In order to ensure that no damage is left after construction works are

complete, a full condition survey will be undertaken. This will provide a detailed photographic and written record of all surfaces, kerbs and verges. Any existing defects and deteriorations will be recorded, and following completion of works, any damage to the highway will be rectified by the contractor. This is a requirement in the draft Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan and will thus be governed by Requirement 5 of the DCO. This approach will also be applied to all affected PROWs along the route.

Operational Traffic Impacts 2.169 Once installed, the pipeline itself will generate a negligible level of traffic.

There will be infrequent visits to the Cathodic Protection cabinets, off Moss Road, and low levels of visits to the AGI, which will be monitored remotely from the power station control centre through CCTV for the majority of the time. Periodically a “route walk” will be undertaken to examine the installed pipe and identify any operational risks . In addition, every 3 to 5 years a Close Interval Potential Survey will be carried out on

foot from one end of the pipeline to the other to monitor the status of the Cathodic Protection system. Also, approximately every 10 years, an “intelligent” PIG will be transported to the Camblesforth Offtake by lorry and propelled through the pipeline to the power station to monitor the integrity of the interval face of the pipe.

39

Decommissioning

The pipeline is expected to have a design life of many years. The decommissioning proposals would involve grouting the pipeline so that it is stable, rather than seeking its removal, The above ground structures would be removed and the sites restored as close to their former condition as possible. The disruption of this stage of works is likely to be considerably less than the construction stage effects considered in the ES, but is likely to be more disruptive than operation. However, given the unknown time span and potential changes in best practice recommendations, the decommissioning proposals will be kept under review. Requirement 17 of the DCO requires a plan for decommissioning to be agreed, including timescales and final proposed land uses, which will be agreed with the Health & Safety Executive and the relevant Local

Authorities.

40

3. The Draft Development Consent Order

3.1 The draft Development Consent Order (DCO) will, if the Applicant is successful, be the document which grants consent for the proposed development. The DCO will give the Applicant the powers it needs to carry out the proposed development (in the Articles of the DCO) and regulate how the proposed development must be carried out (in the Requirements in the DCO). The DCO is accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum, which offers a summary of its contents and explains its provisions in detail.

3.2 This section of this report is intended to act as a guide for interested parties wishing to understand in more general terms what the DCO

provides for and the nature of safeguards that it puts in place for various interests.

The proposed development 3.3 The first part of the DCO covers the proposed development itself. Articles

3 to 8 are concerned with describing the development, including a cross reference to a schedule of numbered works references. That schedule7 needs to be read alongside the works plan8, which identifies the different works to be carried out as part of the proposed development. Together these break down the works proposed into segments of the application area in a logical way based on whether the works are permanent or temporary, however, Section 2 of this report summarises those works in a more user friendly way.

3.4 The DCO is expressed to be of benefit to the Applicant (or another person approved by the Secretary of State), who can build and maintain the pipeline9.

3.5 The indicative route of the pipeline is shown on the works plan. However, because of potential constraints which may only become clear during construction (such as physical obstacles, unsuitable ground conditions, etc.), the DCO builds in some very limited allowance for deviation either side of this indicative route10. The DCO allows the pipeline to be laid anywhere within a 30m wide corridor, although standard working practices mean that the level of deviation will be very small, as the working width diagram provided at figures 1 and 2 of this report, are generally adhered to by contractors. In addition, to account for the

varying depth of crossings such as the River Aire, the M62, etc, the depth at which the pipeline is laid may deviate from a minimum of 1.2m below surface level (or, if shallow bedrock, landfill or concrete is encountered,

7 Schedule 1, Part 1

8 Document reference 2.2

9 Articles 3, 4, 7 and 8

10 Article 6

41

0.7m below surface level) and down to 20m deep (where there is a deep obstacle).

3.6 Finally, the DCO includes works which would normally be undertaken by National Grid Gas (NGG), namely the connection to the national gas feeder pipe and the associated above ground installation. This is an integral part of the pipeline project and so is included in the DCO as works to be approved. To allow NGG to undertake these works, the DCO contains a provision11 which would allow the benefit of the order to be transferred to NGG in respect of those works.

Legislative provisions 3.7 The DCO includes a clause which modifies other existing pieces of

legislation. This means that the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which

protect older hedgerows, will not apply in areas where this consent is granted. This is because the assessment of those hedges and means of replanting them once the development is complete, is set out in the ES and the controls put forward in the DCO.

Statutory Nuisance 3.8 The DCO provides that, if proceedings for statutory nuisance in relation to

noise are brought against the Applicant under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Applicant will have a defence to such proceedings where it shows that the nuisance is connected with the proposed development and cannot reasonably be avoided. Whilst the construction stage may present some noisy activities, the effects are considered in the ES and appropriate mitigation set out. The noise from, for example drilling under the M62 or railways, will be short lived and there are no other feasible means of installing the pipeline.

Streets and Access Works 3.9 The DCO has several articles which allow the Applicant to work in the

highway, including works to create temporary access onto working widths and to temporarily stop up streets and public rights of way for a reasonable period of time. These measures will always be done in consultation with either the highway authority or the person who normally maintains the street, and will be carried out in accordance with the Requirements set out in the DCO.

Abstraction and Discharge of Water 3.10 The works are likely to require the discharge of water to various drains

and sewers along the route, while the pipeline is being constructed. Pressure testing the pipeline with water (hydro-testing) will also mean there is a need to obtain a volume of water for a period of time and then to discharge it back to a water course.

3.11 The DCO provides for this, but only with the consent of the person or body which owns the water course or sewer.

11

Article 8

42

Surveys 3.12 In the event that further pre-construction verification surveys are required

to finalise the detailed design stage of the project, the DCO allows for powers to enter the affected land, provided that 14 days’ notice is given, and to take relevant samples. In the event that any loss or damage arises from the exercise of this authority, the DCO makes provision for the payment of compensation.

Human remains 3.13 Whilst it is not a likely scenario, there is potential for historic unmarked

burials to be encountered along the working width. The DCO provides a process by which these remains could be removed, allowing for advertisements to ensure that any identifiable remains are relocated and appropriately identified in a new burial site.

Compulsory Acquisition 3.14 The DCO contains a number of powers relating to permanent and

temporary compulsory acquisition12.

3.15 The Applicant is working hard to come to negotiated agreements with all relevant landowners affected by the proposed pipeline route.

3.16 In order to be able to deliver the proposed development, the Applicant will need to seek to acquire compulsorily permanent rights in land (e.g. rights to install the pipeline and subsequent access) and temporary rights of possession and/or access. The application will also need, in most land over which rights are to be sought, restrictive covenants to protect the pipeline once it has been installed.

3.17 The Applicant anticipates that the process to acquire permanent rights compulsorily will start only after temporary possession has been taken over the relevant land and the location of the “as laid” pipeline is known. This is to make sure that the rights acquired and covenants imposed are no more extensive than they need to be.

3.18 The DCO makes provision for those whose interests may be subject to the exercise of powers of compulsory acquisition to be compensated.

Statutory Undertakers 3.19 The Applicant intends to agree with statutory undertakers provisions to

regulate the interaction of the proposed development and undertakers’ interests. These agreements will offer controls and ways of working

which the relevant undertakers have agreed to, and which should allow the pipeline to be installed whilst moving / traversing or otherwise interacting with existing utility infrastructure.

3.20 Subject to any agreements with undertakers, there may be the need for the Applicant to, amongst other things, remove equipment or acquire

12

Articles 20 – 31.

43

rights or impose restrictive covenants over statutory undertakers’ land. If the removal of any equipment or results in any utility being removed, and a property owner being deprived of that service, the DCO provides that the Applicant will be liable for the costs of that owner’s reconnection.

Trees and Hedgerows 3.21 The DCO allows the Applicant to fell, lop or prune trees in the application

area, including any with TPO’s13, but this activity is controlled by several of the requirements in Schedule 1, Part 2, which requires explicit written agreement from the relevant Local Authority.

Other Provisions 3.22 The DCO also has a range of other provisions, including a requirement to

submit and certify copies of the application plans14 and to override

easements15. The DCO also sets out a mechanism for the discharge of Requirements in the DCO.

Schedules and Requirements 3.23 The DCO has a series of Schedules which list information. Part 1 of

Schedule 1 sets out a detailed description of the works authorised by the DCO. This list of works should be read alongside the works plans, and the illustrative drawings of the Site compound at Burn Airfield and the AGI plans.

3.24 Part 2 of Schedule 1 sets out the Requirements (similar to planning conditions) with which the Applicant must comply when carrying out and/or operating the proposed development. A number of these Requirements require the formal submission of information to and approval by the Local Authorities.

3.25 The Requirements provide for the following:

• Starting the development within 5 years of the date of the DCO

• Formal agreement of the different stages of the project

• Detailed design approval of the AGI and Cathodic Protection cabinets

• A construction environmental management plan, including details of arrange of measures including fencing, lighting, noise control, dust control and restoration measures

• Detailed construction traffic management plan, including temporary access arrangement and vehicle routing. The implementation of the agreed plan is a requirement

13

Articles 36 and 37 14

Article 39 15

Article 42

44

• Limiting construction hours to weekdays and Saturday morning only, other than in emergencies or when pressure testing the pipe sections, which can require a presence on site, but with no disturbance of actual construction activity

• Detailed lighting and noise control schemes for the AGI site

• Details of landscaping at the AGI site

• A hedgerow management plan, which sets out the measures that will be employed when removing and reinstating hedgerows affected by the installation, including reinstatement in the first planting season following completion of the works

• Details of the permanent site access for the AGI

• A plan for the closure and / or diversion of public rights of way

• Surface and foul water control details

• A plan for establishing the presence of any contaminants on the route, and the means of remediating these

• A detailed scheme or evaluation and mitigation for Archaeology

• A detailed ecology management plan

• Verification surveys to establish that no protected species are present just before works start

• A decommissioning scheme

3.26 The Requirements state that agreement to the above applications cannot be unreasonably withheld, and that the requirements must all be implemented as agreed, unless there is subsequent agreement to change them.

3.27 The other Schedules set out:

(a) The streets which are likely to be subject to physical works

(b) Streets which will be temporarily stopped up

(c) Public rights of way which may be temporarily stopped up

(d) Vehicular access points to the working width

(e) Land where rights may be acquired

(f) Modifications to compensation where land is compulsorily acquired

(g) Land where temporary possession may be taken

45

(h) Locations where important hedgerows will be removed

(i) Any protective provisions which may be agreed and inserted into the DCO

(j) A procedure for the discharge of the Requirements in the DCO.

Overview

3.28 The DCO regulates what development may be carried out by the Applicant, the powers of the Applicant and how the Applicant must carry out the proposed development. A detailed summary of the DCO is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.

46

4. Relevant National Policy

4.1 The proposed Pipeline is an energy project and thus the following National Policy Statements (NPS) are relevant to this decision:

• Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)

• National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4).

4.2 These policies are summarised below, alongside the Applicant’s view on how the proposed Pipeline accords with these policies.

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)

4.3 EN-1 set out policies of general application to energy projects. It confirms that EN-1 and EN-4 are the primary basis for decision making for projects of this description.

4.4 As it sets out a clear plan and policy approach for new development it has been subject to an Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS). It sets out the findings of the AoS16, which conclude that the policy direction and requirements it sets will:

• Speed up the transition to a low carbon economy and help the UK meet climate change commitments;

• Improve the vitality and competitiveness of the UK energy market

• Have some negative effects on biodiversity, landscape / visual amenity and cultural heritage

• Have short term construction effects, through resource use and negative effects on land uses.

4.5 The AoS also notes that it should be possible to mitigate negative effects.

4.6 This summary of the AoS shows that the provision of new gas pipeline infrastructure has a role to play in achieving more sustainable development, and that any negative effects are likely to respond well to mitigation proposals. These negative effects are an anticipated part of the

policy approach, and should be weighed against the benefits of assisting transition to a low carbon economy and an improved energy market.

4.7 This balance is considered to be inherent in the proposed pipeline. It is our view that it is inevitable that the pipeline installation will cause some disturbance, but with proper mitigation, including management and

16

Paragraph 1.7.2

47

reinstatement techniques, the overall and longer term effects will be positive.

4.8 EN-1 is also clear17 that energy is vital to UK economic prosperity and social well-being. Affordable and secure energy are important in achieving these aims, and EN-1 acknowledges that a significant amount of infrastructure is necessary to achieve this.

4.9 The proposed pipeline will secure the fuel supply for the already consented Thorpe Marsh CCGT power station, which has been approved to add to the supply diversity in the UK energy market and to assist with transitioning from a coal based to a low carbon energy market. Gas as a fuel is an important part of this transition as it offers demand flexibility and responsiveness, and is cleaner burning than coal, offering reduced

greenhouse gas emissions compared to the existing energy mix. CCGT technology is also a more efficient way to utilise this fuel source.

4.10 EN-1 sets out a road map to 205018, which acknowledges that the UK is reliant on fossil fuels and that this is likely to continue for some time19. To address this, a system of 5 year carbon budgets has been set up, aiming to deliver an emissions cut of at least 80% by 201520. The overall approach set out in EN-1 is intended to help deliver these objectives in a manner which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development21.

4.11 The proposed pipeline therefore has a role to play in achieving our long term objective of reducing climate change effects, and achieving a shift from a coal based, to a low carbon energy supply.

4.12 EN-1 sets out a range of matters across the time period to 2050, which will need to be achieved. These include22:

• A greater proportion of low carbon power generation

• A safety margin of space capacity to allow unforeseen fluctuations in supply or demand

• Achieving reliable supply chains for power station fuel

• Achieving a diverse mix of technologies and fuels to avoid over reliance on a single technology or supply route

• Reducing energy demand

• Replacing existing power plants due for closure 17

Paragraph 2.1.2 18

Section 2.2 19

Paragraph 2.2.5 20

Paragraph 2.2.8 21

Paragraph 2.2.28 22

Bullet point list paraphrased from Paragraphs 2.2.20 to 2.2.21

48

4.13 The Thorpe Marsh CCGT project is a part of this wider picture of diversification, increased security and more efficient use of resources. It cannot be delivered without a fuel source, which will be provided by the proposed pipeline.

4.14 EN-1 notes two main energy security challenges, which includes both reliance on imports of oil and gas, as well as substantial and timely private sector investment in power stations and gas infrastructure23.

4.15 The proposed pipeline offers the final piece of the jigsaw in delivering a substantial investment in new gas fired generation capacity and, in its own right, gas infrastructure, albeit that the DCO proposes private gas supply infrastructure, rather than that proposed by a gas transporter.

4.16 EN-1 sets some important decision making considerations. It confirms that:

• The UK needs the infrastructure covered in the NPS24, including gas pipelines25

• The choice of what technologies to provide within this framework of the NPS sits with industry26

• The ExA should assess all applications of this type on the basis that Government has demonstrated that there is a need for that infrastructure27 and that the urgency of the need for new low carbon fossil fuel generating stations is urgent28.

• That substantial weight should be given to the contribution which projects make towards satisfying the identified need.

4.17 In this case, the project will supply the fuel for a 1500MW Carbon Capture Ready CCGT power station. Without this fuel source, the station will not be able to generate. There is an urgent need29 for new energy Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) to be brought forward as soon as possible.

4.18 The scale of the need for new non-renewable capacity is around 18GW30. Whilst the Thorpe Marsh CCGT project will deliver only a small part of that capacity, it highlights the fundamental need for a large number of these projects to be delivered quickly. The proposed pipeline is fundamental in achieving this.

23

Paragraph 2.2.25 24

Paragraph 3.1.1 25

See Paragraph 1.4.2 26

Paragraph 3.1.2 27

Paragraph 3.1.3 28

Paragraph 3.6.8 29

Paragraph 3.3.15 30

Paragraph 3.3.22, 3rd

Bullet

49

4.19 The EN-1 also considers the need for new gas supply infrastructure to ultimately provide connection potential for projects such as the TMPL power station. It concludes that gas is the cleanest and most reliable fossil fuel and that it will be central to the UK’s energy mix during transition31. It notes the role of gas-fired power generation as fulfilling a niche of reliable and flexible back up generation, which underpins security of supply and price stability in the electricity market32.

4.20 The role of such power generation opportunities is clear and meeting that need at the Thorpe Marsh CCGT site will not be possible without the proposed pipeline.

4.21 The need for new gas supply infrastructure is considered to be a commercial matter33.However, we note that this section of EN-1 applies

more to pipelines supplied by a gas transporter, rather than one which is a private pipeline solely intended to serve a power station.

Assessment Principles 4.22 EN-1 sets out a range of assessment principles applicable to all energy

projects. It sets a presumption in favour of these projects, unless more relevant and specific policies indicate that it should be refused34. It notes that the decision maker should take into account the benefits of the project including35:

• Environmental, social and economic benefits

• It’s contribution to meeting the need for infrastructure

• Job creation

• Any long term or wider benefits

It also notes that decision makers should also take into account potential adverse effects, including:

• Environmental, social and economic impacts

• Long term or cumulative adverse impacts

• Any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts

31

Paragraph 3.8.19 32

Paragraph 3.8.19, 3rd

Bullet 33

Paragraph 3.8.20 34

Paragraph 4.1.2 35

Taken from Paragraphs 4.1.3 and 4.1.4

50

4.23 It also notes that the decision maker may consider local planning policy to be important to their decision, but that where there is a conflict between local policies and national policies, the NPS prevails36.

4.24 The effects of the development and accordance with relevant policy are set out in this report.

EIA 4.25 EN-1 summarises the requirements of the EU EIA Directive to consider

the effects of the development on the environment. It highlights that it would help the decision maker if the likely significant social and economic effects of the development and any mitigation are set out, this could include employment, social cohesion and well-being37.

4.26 The principle benefits of this scheme will be in enabling the power station, although the pipeline part of the wider project is expected to directly employ an average of around 80 people with a peak of around 190 people, during installation. The power station, however, will deliver around 40 permanent jobs and around 600 construction stage jobs. The ES for the power station estimates that the total investment of the project would be around £600m with local economic benefits of around £5m. The associated S106 agreement will provide funding for community wide infrastructure, including apprenticeships, enhancements to car parking in Arksey, new community sports facilities in Barnby Dun / Kirk Sandall, footpath reinstatement on Marsh Lane, funding the management of the Thorpe Marsh Nature Reserve.

Alternatives 4.27 EN-1 also offers advice on how to weigh up and treat alternatives to the

development. It notes that there are legal requirements to consider alternatives set by the EIA and Habitat Directives, but that the assessment of alternatives should otherwise be proportionate and the alternative must be likely to deliver the same infrastructure capacity, and they should only be considered so far as the decision maker thinks they are important and relevant38.

4.28 In this case, the alternatives considered are set out in the ES. They comprise a series of high level options from which the main route corridor was selected using high level screening criteria, including length, crossings, feasibility and environmental data. The route corridor was then refined during a detailed iterative process involving landowner, environmental and technical considerations. Where alternatives were suggested by members of the public, these have also been set out. The scheme was also further refined with minor changes to the Order Limits arising from the results of the Stage 2 consultation, and because of their very minor nature, these were the subject of a limited consultation

36

Paragraph 4.1.5 37

Paragraph 4.2.2 38

Paragraph 4.4.3

51

focussed on people immediately affected by the proposals and any unknown land interests.

Design 4.29 EN-1 advises the good design is an important factor in energy projects,

but that fitness for purpose and sustainability are as important as aesthetics39. It advises that Applicants should take into account both functionality and aesthetics, and that whilst there may be little choice in the physical appearance of some infrastructure, good design can be achieved through sensitive siting and use of materials.

4.30 The proposed pipeline will be buried, and the visible works will be limited to those necessary for safety (eg pipe markers or cathodic protection test posts and a cabinet) and the Above Ground Installation (AGI) which must

be maintained as a secure compound to avoid any risk of deliberate harm resulting in an accident. There is little that can be realistically done in terms of the physical appearance of these elements of infrastructure as they are very functional in nature.

4.31 The landscape in this area is generally flat, although there are isolated wooded areas, such as Kerrick Spring Wood to the south of the AGI and Jub Close Wood and Chester Court Wood to the north west of the AGI. These small blocks of planting are on a similar scale to the AGI, and the landscaping proposed around the perimeter of the AGI will, over time, mature to form a wooded block which is similar in character. It is therefore considered that reflecting this localised landscape character, and retaining the functionality of the AGI meets the design policy objectives of EN-1.

Climate Change Adaptation 4.32 EN-1 sets out how climate change should be taken into account, and

notes that new energy infrastructure needs to be resilient40. Climate change needs to be considered in terms of planning the location, design, build, operation and decommissioning of the new infrastructure41. Adaptation measures should be based on the latest UK climate change projections, and in consultation with the EA42.

4.33 The principle risk in the area of the project is the high water table and associated risk of flooding. The majority of the development is buried and would be unaffected by flooding. The AGI site is not sensitive to flooding from a safety perspective as all essential equipment is sealed. However, it sits within flood zone 2. An assessment of drainage from the AGI site has been undertaken which concludes that there is no need for

39

Paragraph 4.5.1 40

Paragraph 4.8.1 41

Paragraph 4.8.5 42

Paragraph 4.8.11

52

soakaways or other SUDS to manage drainage. All runoff from impermeable areas would be directed towards permeable areas within the site boundary with no resulting increase in the surface water discharge regime of the site.

4.34 In addition, consultees have raised concerns about the effects of piled materials in the working width blocking flood flows and flood debris, causing flooding outside wash land areas. The detailed design of the scheme will be governed by Requirement 4 which provides a means to approve the details of how soil will be handled and placed.

Health 4.35 EN-1 sets out that energy infrastructure may have effects on human

health, and that these should be mitigated as appropriate43. Possible

health effects include direct effects arising from increased traffic, air or water pollution, dust, odour or hazardous wastes44. It considers that the impacts most likely to have significant effects on health are subject to other regulation, for example air quality controls, which ought to be adequate protection such that health is unlikely to be a reason to refuse consent45.

4.36 The effects of the proposed pipeline will be focussed around the construction stage, where traffic, dust and possible water pollution risks exist. The construction stage will be governed by a management plan which is a requirement in the Draft DCO. This sets out tried and tested measures which are known to be effective in controlling the temporary effects of construction. In this case, the construction stage has been the most frequent concern during public consultation, and so the application has sought to provide as much certainty as possible for the communities affected by the works, so that they are well informed about the methods and routings which will be used to protect both their health and amenity. The final management plan cannot be provided as there is no contractor in place. However, the Applicant has noted the concerns of the local community and will undertake every reasonable measure to ensure that the selected contractors adhere to the management measures agreed.

Statutory nuisance 4.37 EN-1 notes that the Planning Act provides a defence for Applicants if

they cause a statutory nuisance, if it is an inevitable consequence of carrying out the development. Local Authorities still have a duty to inspect the area and to seek to rectify this where necessary. The Decision Maker should take into account the potential for a nuisance to arise and how these effects may be mitigated.

4.38 The Applicant has designed the Proposed Development, as far as possible, to minimise its environmental effects. A number of mitigation

43

Paragraph 4.13.2 44

Paragraph 4.13.3 45

Paragraph 4.13.5

53

measures to are set out in the Environmental Statement, and are secured by the Requirements of the DCO. With mitigation in place, it is considered unlikely that the Proposed Development will cause a statutory nuisance

4.39 However, as the project is classed as “nationally significant” it is considered to be appropriate that the Applicant has a statutory defence against any claims that they have caused a nuisance, in order to construct, operate and decommission the Proposed Development.

Security Considerations 4.40 EN-1 states that national security considerations apply across all

infrastructure sectors, and that DECC works closely with Government security agencies including the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) to reduce terrorism and other national security

threats46. Government policy is to ensure that where possible, proportionate protective security measures are designed in to new infrastructure projects at an early stage47.

4.41 EN-1 is primarily concerned with protecting physical procedural and personnel safety, but also to managing security risks, such that if CPNI and / or DECC inform the decision maker that security issues have been adequately addressed, this should not require further consideration48.

4.42 In the context of this application, the main security issues relate to the risk of a security threat at the Above Ground Installation (AGI)49. This area will be provided in a secure compound (see Works 4 to 7, which show the Minimum Offtake Connection (the MOC, which is the part of the AGI to be installed and operated by National Grid Gas to provide the physical connection to the national feeder pipeline) and AGI compounds) which is designed to safety standards set by the Institution of Gas Engineers (IGE) in accordance with the Code of Practice - IGEM/TD/1 Edition 5 - Steel pipelines for high pressure gas transmission. It will provide 3.2m high security mesh fencing topped with razor wire, 4m high lighting columns, which are equipped with passive infrared motion detectors and 4m high CCTV columns. The AGI will be linked to the main power station site so that operatives are aware of any interference at the AGI site and can use the CCTV facility to assess risk and respond accordingly.

Generic Impacts 4.43 EN-1 provides guidance on the general environment effects which may

arise from the development, and notes that in some cases the technology specific NPS’s provide detail on the way the impact arises for that technology. The Applicant’s consideration of environmental effects is set out in the ES(Document Reference 6.1).

46

Paragraph 4.15.1 47

Paragraph 4.15.2 48

Paragraph 4.15.3 49

See Figure 1.2 of the ES for an illustrative drawing of the AGI Layout.

54

4.44 The supporting statement reviews the effects as set out in EN-4, as that NPS sets out a more focussed review of the likely effects. The ES offers a more comprehensive guide to the likely significant environmental effects of the project.

4.45 However, based on consultation outcomes, certain topic areas warrant a more detailed policy review, including the approach to be adopted to heritage assets (Section 5.8) and Ecology.

Historic Environment

4.46 EN-1 sets out an evidence based approach to the protection of heritage assets. Whilst it afford the greatest level of protection to the highest levels of designated asset, it also notes that if there is evidence that undesignated assets are equally important, they should be afforded the

same level of protection. Equally, where an Applicant undertakes a desk based assessment, and is unable to properly assess the significance of the asset, a field evaluation should be undertaken. The Applicant should ensure that the extent of the impact on the significance of the asset can be adequately understood from the supporting evidence.

4.47 In terms of the decision making process, there should be a presumption in favour of conservation, and the more significant the asset, the greater that presumption should be. The decision maker should weigh any harmful impacts against the public benefit of the development. However, where there is a high probability that a development site may have undiscovered heritage assets with archaeological interest, there should be a requirement that appropriate procedures are in place for the identification and treatment of such assets discovered during construction.

4.48 In this case, geophysical assessment has shown some anomalies and one archaeological consultee has suggested the need for pre-determination trenching to assess the unknown significance of any potential assets these might represent. However, it is considered that, based on the wider analysis of finds in the area, the general nature of the finds, including their density, pattern and surrounding context, it is not considered likely that they are significant assets worthy of preservation in situ, as opposed to investigation and recording. The DCO has relevant Requirements and limits of deviation that will provide a last resort break on development and avoidance of the asset should this prove not to be the case. Therefore, it is considered that there are adequate controls in place, and that the evidence suggests that the anomalies identified are not significant, and hence a proportionate response to mitigation should, and has been, be adopted. English Heritage requested a LIDAR assessment and this has been undertaken to inform the assessment work undertaken and the conclusions drawn above.

55

Ecology

4.49 EN-1 recognises the importance of biodiversity and the desire to halt and if possible to reverse declines in priority habitats and species. Developments should aim to avoid significant harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interest through mitigation, consideration of reasonable alternatives and where significant harm cannot be avoided, through appropriate compensation. The policy approach attaches appropriate weight to different levels of designation, from internationally important to local important habitats and species.

4.50 It notes that appropriate mitigation should be integral to the development, including keeping construction activities to the minimum area required, following best practice measures and restoring after construction where

appropriate. It also notes that opportunities should be taken to enhance existing habitats and, where practicable, to create new habitats of value within landscaping proposals. Where Applicants cannot demonstrate appropriate mitigation measures, the decision maker should consider imposing requirements or obligations on any consent.

4.51 The approach adopted to mitigation in this case is that all working widths will be restored to as close to their former condition as possible. This will result in temporary changes and disruption, although these will be restored over time and will occur over a very limited area. The AGI area will be well landscaped and this in itself will represent a biodiversity enhancement. TMPL are also examining opportunities for other enhancements along the route and will adopt these wherever opportunities arise which are reasonable and practical to deliver.

Transport

4.52 EN-1 confirms that where a development is likely to have significant effects on traffic, a Transport Assessment should be undertaken. It also notes that in order to mitigate transport impacts, requirements or obligations could be used to secure mitigation and that if this is secured then appropriately limited weight should be applied to residual effects on the surrounding infrastructure.

4.53 In terms of mitigation, it notes that the decision maker may wish to attach requirements to a consent which control the numbers of HGVs to and from a site, and also their routing; make sufficient parking provision for HGVs to avoid overspill parking on public roads and to ensure

satisfactory arrangements for reasonably foreseeable abnormal disruption, in consultation with network providers.

4.54 The Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan sets out an analysis of the anticipated vehicle movements. This shows that vehicles will work in teams across the working width and will be spread around such that the hourly level of HGV in any one location is very low. The most intense periods of work also have relatively low vehicle levels and as such a

56

transport assessment has not been produced. This is considered further in Section 2 of this Statement.

4.55 The Draft DCO has several requirements designed to secure mitigation measures which will minimise the effects of traffic on the highway. These cover working arrangements for access, temporary stopping up, street works, signage, avoiding and rectifying any mud or debris on the highway, and securing appropriate vehicle routing.

National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas

and Oil Pipelines (EN-4).

4.56 EN – 4 states that the efficient import, storage and transmission of natural gas is crucial to meeting the UK’s energy needs during the transition to a low carbon economy. Similarly, it notes that the UK cannot achieve national objectives relating to security of supply without enabling investment in new infrastructure. This message is consistent with EN-1 and the Applicant agrees that both the gas pipeline and CCGT project it will help to deliver are an important part of the diversity of energy supply moving forward.

4.57 EN-4 was also subject to an Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS), which notes that:

• The effects of linear project are similar to other energy projects but are spread across a wider area, therefore the strategic effects against the AoS objectives are neutral;

• There will be significant positive effects on the AoS objectives of security of supply, the economy and skills in the medium term;

• There will be short/ medium term negative effects on the AoS objectives of landscape, townscape and visual due to the above ground infrastructure;

• Short term negative effects would also occur for ecology, resources and raw materials and water quality, but these were limited to dredging effects associated with LNG terminals, and brine disposal associated with solution mining for underground gas storage. Neither of these is relevant to the proposed development. However, the possible short term negative effects of noise during construction in sensitive rural areas are, however, relevant to this project.

4.58 It also confirms that there is a significant need for new major energy infrastructure generally and that decision makers should act on the basis that the need for the pipeline has been demonstrated50. EN-4 also discusses the principles of site selection and notes that the NPS provides

50

Paragraph 2.1.2

57

background on the criteria that Applicants should consider when choosing a site, but that the weight given to these criteria vary from project to project and that it is for the energy companies to decide which applications to bring forward51.

4.59 EN-4 confirms that Applicants should set out how the proposal will be resilient to increased risk of flooding, effects of rising sea levels, higher temperatures, increased risk of earth movement or subsidence resulting from flooding or drought and any other climate change related risks52. These climate change resilience measures form part of the ES, particularly as set out in the Water Resources and Flood Risk chapter53.

4.60 In essence, the pipeline will be buried, sealed and be protected from corrosion by a cathodic protection system, so will not be vulnerable to

damage from water. It will be buried generally at a depth of 1.2m and so should not experience temperature rises which could result in harm to the infrastructure. The risks associated with earth movement or subsidence is more likely to relate to historic coal mining activity than flood or drought issues. The pipeline runs outside the declared mining zones of nearby collieries, although historic shallow coal mining may be present. The detailed design stage will involve more detailed site investigations which will establish the presence of any such workings on the route and mitigation measures, including the potential for localised grouting, will be undertaken where necessary.

4.61 EN-4 also discusses the effects of EU Directive 2009/73/EC which sets out rules for the EU internal market for natural gas, and clarifies that Applicants should make it clear how the development will be involved in the supply of gas across boundaries between EU member states, and how it will contribute to the development of a competitive market. The decision maker is also advised to take into account the contribution that the project could make to the functioning of the market.

4.62 The pipeline will be a privately owned pipeline that will link an offtake from the UK National Transmission System for natural gas to the power station. As such, the pipeline will not be physically involved in the supply of gas across boundaries between EU member states. However, as the UK gas market is commercially linked to the EU gas market through pipelines and the international LNG market the increase in gas demand by the power station is likely to positively affect the market and encourage competitive supply side decisions to be made which would certainly not prejudice the functioning of the EU gas market.

Pipeline Safety 4.63 EN-4 notes that the Pipeline Safety Regulations 1996 will apply to this

form of development and that risks should be as low as reasonably

51

Paragraph 2.1.3 52

Paragraph 2.2.2 53

Chapter 10

58

practicable (ALARP)54. It also notes that the HSE will expect operators to apply good practice as a minimum55.

4.64 There are well established standards for the design, operation and maintenance of pipelines, which the Applicant will apply at the detailed design stage. This approach is encouraged by EN-456.

4.65 The Applicant will apply the guidance in IGE/TD/1: Steel Pipelines for High Pressure Gas Transmission - (Pipelines over 16 bar). This will ensure that the pipeline is safe and that it meets the requirements of the HSE, as set out in the HSE Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996.

4.66 The Applicant has engaged with the HSE, which has confirmed that it is likely to have greater input at the detailed design stage.

Site selection 4.67 EN-4 notes that route selection should include researching constraints,

such as residential properties, schools and hospitals, railway crossings, major road crossings, sub surface influences and proximity to environmental designations and water crossings57.

4.68 It advises that, as underground cavities could affect pipeline integrity, Applicants undertake desktop studies to inform them of the presence of shallow mine workings, cavities, made ground, waste sites, unexploded ordnance, utilities and any other sub surface influences. EN-4 suggests that where such influences are unavoidable, the ES sets out mitigation measures, including protection of utilities, gas detection near landfill, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) or rerouting the pipeline58.

4.69 The project ES alternatives chapter provides an outline of the routing options considered as part of the site selection process. The ES also provides a range of desktop studies, although it is impossible to rule out the presence of adverse ground conditions or unrecorded cavities along the route. On this basis, the Draft DCO has limits of deviation set which allow some limited horizontal variance in the route, but makes provision for altering the depth of the pipelines, potentially via HDD or other drilling method, which will be the primary means of mitigating such constraints.

Noise 4.70 EN-4 notes that a range of activities can cause noise and vibration

disturbance during pre-construction (from seismic surveys), construction (from soil movement, excavation, tunnelling, welding, etc) and

54

Paragraph 2.19.4 55

Paragraph 2.19.5 56

Paragraph 2.19.6 57

Paragraph 2.19.8 58

Paragraphs 2.19.9 and 2.19.10

59

commissioning (from the air compressors used to dry the pipe after hydrotesting)59.

4.71 Noise mitigation can include simple screening or enclosure techniques, but also for permanent installation could include sound attenuators, acoustic lagging, multi-stage valves, exhaust silencers and low speed cooler fans. The use of auger boring rather than impact piling is also suggested60.

4.72 The ES includes a noise assessment as required by EN-1, and sets out a range of mitigation measures that will be employed. The main effects of the proposed development will be during construction, and in particular those locations where main river and road crossings require the use of trenchless crossing techniques. This is particularly the case in Gowdall,

Moss and Thorpe in Balne, where crossings are required in relatively close proximity to residential dwellings. Also in Burn, close to the pipe dump area, some residential properties will be temporarily affected by noise from the site compound and traffic noise. In these cases mitigation techniques will be employed including limiting working hours, avoiding commencement of boring / drilling at a time when it is unlikely to be completed during the set working hours, and providing temporary screening. The detailed CEMP to be provided under Requirement 4 of the DCO will set out the precise scheme to be employed at the locations where effects are anticipated.

4.73 The AGI site is remote from sensitive properties, although there are two dwellings within several hundred metres of the site. The detailed design of the site is yet to be fixed, but the noise assessment suggests that there will not be any significant impacts on these dwellings, and there are no significant generators of noise on the site.

Biodiversity, Landscape and Visual 4.74 EN-4 notes that pipelines can have effects on specific landscape

elements (such as grasslands, field boundaries, trees and woodlands) within and around their route. It also notes possible temporary visual effects caused by the removal of flora and soil from the working width, and that this could involve deep pits where boring beneath rivers or roads is required. However, it notes that long term impacts are likely to be limited, but could include limitations on the Applicant’s ability to replant some features (eg deep rooted trees) and the effects of features and structures necessary to identify the route and provide service access61.

4.75 The ES undertakes both ecology and landscape and visual assessments. The route of the corridor has been selected in part on the need to avoid the most sensitive features, and the avoidance of not only important hedgerows, and ancient woodland, but also down to individual trees. The

59

Paragraph 2.20.4 60

Paragraph 2.20.7 61

Paragraphs 2.21.1 and 2.21.2

60

precise route has been selected based on a balance of environmental, engineering and landowner influences, however, it will see the loss of very few important features. The Ecology Chapter and Figures provide further information on location where important hedgerows are lost. There are no instances where replacing lost landscape elements is impossible, and reinstatement to as close as reasonably possible to original site conditions is anticipated, and governed by Requirement 15 of the DCO.

4.76 The exceptions to this include the location of the AGI, the presence of 1m high pipe markers at every crossing point, 3m high aerial markers at approximately 2km intervals, and the installation of the cathodic protection equipment, including 1m high test posts with cables connected to the pipeline, and a 3m x 2m post and rail fence around a green steel cabinet, most likely positioned on Moss Road, Moss.

4.77 The AGI will be well landscaped, and over time will appear as a wooded block, akin to the existing wooded blocks present in the near vicinity of the site. The cabinet will appear as any other roadside cabinet, as commonly used for traffic signal electrics, meters or telecommunications purposes. It will not be obtrusive and is a common place installation on roadsides across the UK. The pipe markers are also unobtrusive and whilst designed to be visible to warn people that the pipeline is present, they are not anticipated to cause any visual harm in the wider context.

4.78 The proposed development will provide limited opportunities for ecological enhancement. However, such opportunities will be taken at the AGI and other options are being explored with landowners. These include potential for additional bird and bat boxes, creation of hibernacula, further water vole surveys, containment of American mink, and enhanced understorey planting. The precise details will be governed by Requirement 15, which includes provision for mitigation and enhancement.

Water Quality and Resources 4.79 EN-4 notes that pipeline construction can affect watercourses, aquifers,

water abstraction and discharge points, flooding and ecological receptors. This could be through mobilising or introducing contaminants, flooding, disturbance of water ecology and pollution from construction. It notes that impacts should be avoided through routing decisions and that ground should be reinstated after construction62.

4.80 The area has a very high water table and flooding is a known and persistent issue across the pipeline route, with much of the length falling into flood zones 2 and 3. Once installed, the pipe itself will have little influence on flood risk, although the AGI site is in flood zone 3. The AGI is not a vulnerable use and will not impede water flows. It will be permeable for most of its area, and areas which are impermeable will be

62

Paragraph 2.22.2

61

directed to permeable areas within the compound to ensure no change in run off from the site.

4.81 To avoid a greater risk of flooding or pollution during construction, the working width will provide temporary drainage and both attenuation and settling areas, including silt removal systems which will discharge to existing field drains or other water courses. These will ensure that the rate of run off from the working width does not increase and that the waters discharged will not transfer silt or mud into a receiving water course.

4.82 The contractors will operate to a construction management plan, which provides protocols for handling potential pollutants used on site, including fuels, oils and other chemicals, and protocols will be in place for

managing any spills, including the provision of spill kits.

4.83 In areas of high flood risk, it is proposed to use open fencing to avoid obstructing flood debris, and also to provide gaps in soil mounds to avoid impeding flood flows. The soil arisings are generated from areas of cut and so the overall volume of storage in washland areas will not materially change from existing during the period of works. There is not considered to be any greater risk of flooding as a result of the proposed development.

Soil and Geology 4.84 EN-4 notes that Applicants should assess the stability of the ground

conditions on the route and that desk study data may need to be supplemented with new bore hole data. It recommends that designated sites of geological or geomorphological interest be avoided as far as possible and that impacts on such designations be minimised. It notes that proposals will be acceptable where adverse impacts are eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. It repeats earlier guidance about the importance of land stability on pipeline safety63.

4.85 There are no known sites of geological importance along the route. The working methods will include separate storage of top soils in appropriately sized mounds to allow its reinstatement. The guidance in the DEFRA Code of Practice for the Sustainable Management of Soils on Construction Sites will be followed.

4.86 EN-4 advises that where HDD is proposed an alternative plan for installing the pipeline should be provided in the event that HDD fails for geological reasons. The Draft DCO and Works Plans do not specify the exact nature of the crossing, as this will be undertaken at detailed design stage. However, in the event that HDD is not possible for the more significant crossings, an alternative will be employed, potentially including micro-tunnelling methods.

63

Paragraph 2.22.2.23.1 to 2.23.5

62

Overview

4.87 The NPSs are one of the key factors to be taken into account in any decision on a NSIP. The relevant NPSs in this case, accept that some level of harm is inevitable if the UK is to transition to a lower carbon future and that new gas infrastructure and power generation is an important part of the diversification needed to achieve that aim.

4.88 Gas is the cleanest and most reliable fossil fuel which will fulfil a niche of reliable and flexible back up generation in the UK’s future energy mix. This project will contribute towards that aim, by supporting the delivery of the Thorpe Marsh CCGT consent.

4.89 There is a national presumption in favour of approving projects like this

one, subject to considering potential adverse effects and in line with the decision making framework summarised at Paragraph 1.5 of this statement.

4.90 The NPSs also detail issue specific matters, particularly focussed on safety, route selection and environmental concerns. The NPS is clear that mitigation exists for all of the issues that could be raised by a gas pipeline project. The project team for this application have adopted the recommended mitigation approaches set out in the NPS and it is our view, supported by the ES for this application, that there is no harm which is not capable of appropriate mitigation.

4.91 On this basis, we conclude that the proposal accords with the relevant NPSs and significant weight should therefore given to the presumption in favour of granting applications of this type.

4.92 The remainder of this statement examines the other factors which the ExA should take into account in making their decision.

63

5. Other Relevant Policy

National Policy

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out key considerations and policy direction for planning decisions made under the Town & Country Planning regime. It is not intended to apply directly to NSIP projects, but is clearly an important policy consideration for the Host Authorities, and guides their decision making on other projects. The NPPF notes that its policies may be a matter which the ExA consider to be important and relevant to their decision64.

5.2 Its key themes are considered to be relevant to this decision, and they

accord with the advice and guidance set by the NPS’s considered in the previous section of this report.

5.3 The NPPF has achieving sustainable development as its central theme, and states this as the purpose of the planning system65. It notes that for the purposes of making planning decisions, this means approving developments that accord with the relevant land use plan without delay, and if the land use plan is absent, silent or out of date, granting permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits66.

5.4 It sets out other core planning principles, which includes supporting the transition to a low carbon future, whilst taking account of a range of environmental concerns67. It encourages Local Authorities to recognise the responsibility of all communities to contribute to energy generation from low carbon sources68 and that they should approve applications if its impacts can be made acceptable69.

5.5 The NPPF has a strong theme of encouraging economic development70, but balances this with aiming to conserve and enhance biodiversity71, prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability72, and avoid noise giving rise to effects on quality of life or health73.

Local Policy

5.6 The proposed Pipeline runs through four Host Authority areas, namely:

64

Paragraph 3 65

Paragraph 6 66

Paragraph 14 67

Paragraph 17 68

Paragraph 97 69

Paragraph 98 70

For example Paragraph 19 71

Paragraph 118 72

Paragraph 120 73

Paragraph 123

64

• North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC);

• Selby District Council (SDC);

• East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC);

• Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC).

5.7 These Host Authorities (HA’s) have been consulted on the proposals from the early stages of the project. Local policies are contained within the key documents outlined below.

5.8 Each Authority also has an adopted and emerging plan which, in line with common practice in planning decision making, can be afforded variable weight according the stage the plan has reached. These plans are critical to achieving the vision each Authority has set for itself and we, therefore, consider that weight should be attached to these policies in order that an integrated approach to development is achieved across the Planning Act and Town and County Planning Act (TCPA) regimes.

5.9 The emerging policy position offers the latest thinking from each Authority. However, this thinking has not always been tested fully by examination in public. On this basis, less weight is conventionally afforded to such emerging policy. Nonetheless, policies which are emerging but have not been contested by objectors, or which have passed through the examination stage and have been considered by an Inspector, are likely to come into force in close to their final form. These policies can be afforded greater weight. The relevant emerging policies alongside our view on the weight that should be afforded to them and the compliance of the proposed Pipeline are set out below.

5.10 Generally speaking, the Pipeline generally runs through open countryside, on agricultural land. It passes through or close to other relevant designations. These policies are important to the Host Authorities, as they form a key element of the local decision making framework, and it is our view that it is important to ensure consistency between national decision making and local aspirations and controls.

North Yorkshire County Council 5.11 The northern end of the Pipeline sits within the administrative area of

NYCC. NYCC is the Minerals Planning Authority for North Yorkshire. It encompasses the administrative area for Selby District Council and provides county level technical support to SDC, as well as taking responsibility for all “County Matter” applications.

North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) 5.12 The North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan applies to all mineral working

and mineral related issues. It is part of the Statutory Development Plan, and whilst dated by later national policy, the more generic policies which

65

are of relevance to this proposal are considered to generally accord with national planning policy.

5.13 Chapter seven relates to oil and gas, although the provision for proposals such as a gas pipeline, are limited. The policies relate more to conventional on-shore oil and gas production, due to the existing oil and gas fields present across much of North Yorkshire. However, there are a number of general policies aimed at environmental protection which are relevant to this proposal. As this is a minerals plan, they do relate to mining and other related activity which is not proposed as part of the current application. However, the principles these polices set out are recognised and useful in assessing the local context for this these proposals.

5.14 Under Saved Policy 4/6A, the Mineral Planning Authority will protect the nature conservation or geological interest of Local Nature Reserves and of other sites having a nature conservation interest or importance, and will have regard to other wildlife habitats.

5.15 The pipeline route has deliberately avoided nature conservation interests as far as possible, and Natural England have agreed that Habitat Regulations Assessment is not required, as the project is not likely to affect the most important ecological sites.

5.16 Saved Policy 4/10 stipulates that proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will only be permitted where they would not have an unacceptable impact on surface or groundwater resources.

5.17 The protection of groundwater resources will be an inherent part of the construction methodology. Works may well extend into the water table, but the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) required under Requirement 4 and also Requirement 13, which covers contaminated land and groundwater, will detail working practices which will ensure that no spills or mobile contaminants enter groundwater.

5.18 Saved Policy 4/13 states that where rail, waterway or other environmentally preferable modes of transport are not feasible, mining operations other than for coal, oil and gas will only be permitted where the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway network and would not cause undue disturbance to local communities.

5.19 The principle of not causing undue disturbance to local communities through vehicle movements was the main concern raised during both stages of consultation. The limitation on working hours to week days, and Saturday mornings only, the information presented in the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan, and the further details to be submitted and consulted upon through Requirement 5 should present good controls over traffic routing during installation works. The most

66

sensitive routes have been amended and where there are no alternatives, working practise will be defined which ensure that vehicles speeds are controlled and that warnings are provided where lanes are narrow and there are limited or no opportunities for passing (through the use of escort vehicles and two way radio communications). No significant vehicle movements are expected when the pipe is operational. The routing decisions are limited by available routes and obstacles to heavy plant crossings (eg over rivers and railways) and the routing plan and description in Section 2 of this report, highlights the choices made and the reasons for these. Whilst the Applicant accepts that the construction stage will cause some level of disturbance to local communities, it is considered that best practice measures and the legal enforceability of the routing commitments made through the DCO and its Requirements, are adequate to ensure that disturbance is not undue.

5.20 Saved Policy 4/14 relates to local environment and amenity and requires proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste to be permitted only where there would not be an unacceptable impact on the local environment or residential amenity.

5.21 The main cause of amenity issues will be from construction traffic, as noted above. There are properties close to the pipe dump at Burn Airfield which will be affected by noise from vehicles and other activity at that site. There are also instances where drilling activity will occur close to where people live, one of the more obvious examples being at the Low Road crossing in Gowdall (Works 31, albeit in the East Riding rather than North Yorkshire where this policy is derived) where there are residential properties within 100m of the crossing. In these and other instances, the requirements of the CEMP to set out noise control measures will apply. Mitigation measures could include temporary attenuation features, such as solid fencing, or bales of straw stacked to create an acoustic barrier for the duration of the works. In the case of the pipe dump, earth mounding and potentially acoustic fencing could be employed to mitigate overall noise levels. Such measures should ensure that amenity is protected.

5.22 Saved Policy 4/15, public rights of way, sets out that mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste which would interrupt, obstruct or conflict with use of a public right of way will only be permitted where satisfactory provision has been made in the application for protecting the existing right of way or for providing alternative

arrangements both during and after working.

5.23 The DCO sets out provisions for protecting PROWs (Requirement 11), and the working methodology to be employed is commonly and successfully used in many linear projects. The PROW will be temporarily stopped up and, if lightly used, will be simply worked through unless someone needs access, in which case steel plates will be placed over the trench to allow access. Where routes are more heavily trafficked,

67

temporary structures can be created from timber, which will allow users to cross the working width on an elevated bridge. The precise methods to be employed will be governed by Requirement 11 of the DCO, and the local highways authority and PROW officer will have the ability to influence these decisions. It is recognised that some PROWs, such as the Trans Pennine Trail are more important and more heavily trafficked. Clearly, the response to a temporary disruption will need to be proportionate to the importance of the route, and the Requirement allows for this to be resolved at the detailed design stage. Condition surveys of all affected PROWs will be undertaken to ensure that they are reinstated to the same or better condition than current.

5.24 The plan requires where agriculture is the intended primary afteruse, the proposed restoration scheme should provide for the best practicable standard of restoration under Saved Policy 4/18. Such restoration schemes should, where possible, include landscape, conservation or amenity proposals provided that these do not result in the irreversible loss of best and most versatile land.

5.25 The intention is to restore all areas which are not subject to permanent works to as close to their original state as possible. This will involve appropriate handling and storage of top soils, in order to retain their quality, and also appropriate seeding / planting and aftercare to ensure that the original habitat is not significantly disadvantaged over time. The CEMP will set out detailed methods to achieve this, as part of Requirement 4 of the DCO. Various consultees have raised the question of ecological enhancement. This is provided for in Requirement 15, although there are some practical limitations on what can be achieved with a linear scheme which cuts across features and which has very little permanent land retention. The scheme will provide as much enhancement as possible and the detail of this will be agreed through the Ecological Management Plan.

5.26 Saved Policy 4/20 requires aftercare which seeks to bring the restored land up to an approved standard for the specified after-use. Normally this requirement will run for a period of five years following restoration. Additionally, where forestry and amenity (including nature conservation) afteruses are proposed, the Mineral Planning Authority may seek to secure longer term management agreements.

5.27 Requirement 10 of the DCO provides for a 5 year replacement provision for any hedges that are damaged or die following initial planting. A 5 year period to replace dead or dying specimens should be appropriate in the context of this policy. The ecological management plan, specified in the ES, suggests that 10 years will be the relevant period for management. Requirement 15 governs this plan and an appropriate timescale is to be agreed. The requirement for ecological management is distinct from the requirement for replanting, and management measures beyond ensuring

68

a simple presence of living specimens will be employed in that period to achieve ecological aims.

5.28 The relevant provisions of the North Yorkshire Minerals Plan, whilst not strictly applying to developments of this nature, can be met by application of best practice measures and though the controls drafted into the DCO. The scheme is therefore considered to accord with this Plan.

Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, Issues and Options Consultation (2014)

5.29 North Yorkshire County Council, City of York Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority are producing a minerals and waste joint plan which will cover the period up to 2030. Consultation on the Issues and Options document closed on 11 April 2014. Adoption is expected in

2015. This plan is in its early stages of preparation, so can be afforded very little weight in decision making.

5.30 Chapter five relates to oil and gas, although the issues discussed relate to conventional on shore oil and gas production, rather than gas related infrastructure as proposed by this application.

5.31 The draft Plan sets out the overall options for oil and gas, and alongside the sustainability appraisal of the option, concludes that the plan should direct all gas developments (including production and processing) to locations outside of the National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), where viable alternatives to these locations exist.

5.32 The pipeline route avoids the National Park, AONB’s and indeed any sensitive landscape designation in North Yorkshire. The scheme is therefore considered to accord with the emerging strategy.

Selby District Council 5.33 SDC is the Local Planning Authority for the northern end of the Pipeline.

The Local Plan was adopted in 2005 and provided a comprehensive land-use framework for promoting, co-ordinating and controlling future development.

5.34 A significant number of the saved policies have been replaced by the 2013 Core Strategy. However, a legal challenge to the Core Strategy was made in December 2013 by Samuel Smiths Old Brewery and the ruling is expected shortly.

5.35 The Council’s view is that the challenge does not, in itself, change the status of the Plan in relation to the determination of planning applications. The Core Strategy remains part of the Development Plan unless or until any part of it is remitted or quashed by the Courts and, therefore, the Council will continue to use the adopted Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan as a means of determining planning proposals in the Selby District.

69

5.36 The saved Policies of the Local Plan remain a part of the Statutory Development Plan, and can therefore be afforded weight in decision making. These saved policies are more general in nature and are not affected by their age and the later issuing of contrary policy guidance.

Selby District Local Plan (2005) 5.37 The proposals map shows that there are no allocations at the northern

most part of the pipeline. The pipeline runs close to, but outwith, two sites of Importance for Nature Conservation allocated under Saved Policy ENV9 (not replaced by the Core Strategy). The Policy sets out that proposals for development which would harm such sites will not be permitted unless there are no reasonable alternative means of meeting the development need and it can be demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic local nature conservation value of the site or feature.

5.38 These sites will not be directly affected by the development and provided that suitable working methods are employed, as required by Requirement 15 of the DCO, no negative effects are envisaged in this respect.

5.39 The development crosses the route of the Trans Pennine Trail, which at the time of adoption of the Plan was in the planning stages. Saved Policy RT8 states proposals to extend the route of the trail, to enhance access along the trail and to establish links with other rights of way will be encouraged.

5.40 The Trans Pennine Trail is now designated, and the pipeline route crosses it in several locations. This is an important PROW and the proposed crossing methods vary according to other restrictions and issues. Where it will be drilled, for example at Balne Croft Lane in the East Riding (Work 53), there will be no disruption to its use, other than plan crossings over the road. However, where it will be open cut such as the farm track at Work 64, in Selby District, the provisions of Requirement 11 of the DCO will need to be complied with. As this is an important and more heavily trafficked PROW, it is likely that a wooden structure will be constructed to allow access over the working width for the duration of the works. Temporary diversions will be secured for this and other similar crossings.. It is proposed to undertake conditions surveys of all PROWs so that the routes can be reinstated to the same or a better state than current.

5.41 The section of the pipeline close to Balne Hall is within the Green Belt. Saved Local Plan Policies GB1, GB2, GB3 and GB4 have been replaced by Core Strategy Policies SP2 and SP3 (see below), and our assessment is below.

5.42 Saved Policy ENV1 (not replaced by the Core Strategy) relates to good quality development and specific consideration to the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant buildings, related spaces, trees, wildlife

70

habitats, archaeological or other features important to the character of the area.

5.43 The requirements of the DCO and the mitigation measures set out in the ES, are all designed to avoid major adverse effects on these interests. The construction stage will be temporary and with appropriate management and restoration, such effects should not arise.

5.44 Saved Policy ENV2A (not replaced by the Core Strategy), which covers environmental pollution and contaminated land, sets out that proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by, unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution including groundwater pollution will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are

incorporated.

5.45 The ES sets out a range of measures designed to alleviate the short term construction stage impacts which are anticipated as a result of this project. The operational effects are not considered to be significant. The CEMP to be provided under Requirement 4 will detail the precise measures to be employed.

5.46 Under Saved Policy ENV11 (not replaced by the Core Strategy), development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause loss of, or damage to, an ancient woodland, unless the reasons for the development outweigh the nature conservation value of the woodland.

5.47 The route does not affect any ancient woodland. There are some locations where trees will need to be removed, and replacement planting of larger trees will not be possible, however, it is proposed to restore with vegetation which is fairly significant to offset this loss. Some tree loss, however, is to achieve visibility at crossing points, so these can be replanted as they are not over the pipeline itself.

5.48 Saved Policy ENV12 (not replaced by the Core Strategy), states that proposals for development likely to harm the natural features of or access to river, stream and canal corridors will not be permitted unless the importance of the development outweighs these interests, and adequate compensatory measures are provided.

5.49 The pipeline will need to cross a number of water courses. The larger water courses, including those whose banks incorporate PROW’s, will be

drilled to avoid disturbance. For those which are diverted and open cut, the period of disruption is short term and reinstatement measures will ensure that there are no permanent or enduring effects to the functioning of the water courses. All works will be done with the agreement of the relevant land owner and any other statutory stakeholder, such as the IDB’s and Environment Agency.

71

5.50 Under Saved Policy ENV13 (not replaced by the Core Strategy), proposals for development which would harm the landscape, townscape, historical or wildlife value of a pond will not be permitted unless the need for development outweighs the particular value of the pond, an equivalent habitat can be created on site or elsewhere in the locality, or appropriate management measures are incorporated in the scheme.

5.51 The route does not pass over any existing ponds. There are ponds in the vicinity of the works, which are habitats for protected species such as Great Crested Newts. In those cases, appropriate exclusion fencing will be erected and trapping and movement of any terrestrial newts off the working width will occur under DEFRA License prior to works commencing on site. The DCO does not seek to replace the normal licensing process as it is considered that survey and other information that is current to the time of implementation of the DCO is necessary to ensure that an appropriate form of license is granted. Natural England is currently considering a draft license application.

5.52 Saved Policy ENV15 (not replaced by the Core Strategy) covers development within the locally important landscape areas, as defined on the proposals map. In these areas, priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the character and quality of the landscape. Particular attention should be paid to the design, layout, landscaping of development and the use of materials in order to minimise its impact.

5.53 The site is not within a locally important landscape area. Given the temporary nature of much of the works proposed the landscape effects are not considered to be significant in the medium to long term once restoration is complete and has matured. The permanent works will be appropriately landscaped, with details to be agreed through Requirement 8 of the DCO for the AGI.

5.54 Saved Policy ENV27 (not replaced by the Core Strategy) states that where scheduled monuments or other nationally important archaeological sites or their settings are affected by proposed development, there will be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.

5.55 The route does not pass by any Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) in Selby, although Fenwick Hall in Doncaster does have a SAM which is in close proximity to the route (see Work 71). The scheme has been revised following Stage 2 Consultation responses to remove a side access through Fenwick Hall, which was provided as one of the few access points on this stretch of the route. The route proposed was close to the SAM and whilst we envisaged no physical disruption, consultees were concerned that the detailing may not be able to avoid this. Other consultees also raised concerns about the use of public roads to reach Fenwick Hall, most notably because of sharp bends to get onto Fenwick Common Lane from Moss Road, and also the quality of the road surface

72

on Lawn Road. This side access option has therefore been removed from the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan. More generally in this area, the presence of the SAM does mean that greater attention will be paid to potential archaeological interests during the evaluation and mitigation stages provided for under Requirement 14.

5.56 Saved Policy ENV28 (not replaced by the Core Strategy) relates to other archaeological remains whereby an archaeological assessment/evaluation is to be submitted as part of the planning application.

5.57 The ES sets out the anticipated effects of the development on archaeology along the route. Further detailing will be required and a Written Scheme of Investigation, including provision for more detailed

evaluation and mitigation proposals, will need to be submitted. The details of the mitigation to be employed will be governed by Requirement 14. This Requirement offers a great deal of control to the archaeological consultees, such that the development can’t commence until a scheme of mitigation is approved. It is not considered likely that any remains that will be encountered on the route will be significant enough to warrant preservation in situ. Therefore undertaking a full evaluation stage, including a potential trenching of the entire route, is not considered to be a proportionate response in relation to the findings of the evaluation undertaken to date. However, the control over commencement until an appropriate strategy is agreed, is considered to be an appropriate break on development if any unexpected finds are encountered.

5.58 The Selby Local Plan provides a wide range of environmental protection policies which are relevant to the proposal in general terms. It is considered that, whilst not all of these policies are directly relevant to the development proposed in the Selby area, the principles set are generically applicable. We consider that the principles of these policies have been met by the proposed development.

Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) 5.59 The Selby Core Strategy is subject to a legal challenge, but as an

adopted plan can carry significant weight in decision making.

5.60 Policy SP2 sets the Spatial Development Strategy for the District. Criterion (c) sets out that development in the countryside will be limited unless other special circumstances apply. Criterion (d) states that in Green Belt, development must conform to Policy SP3 and national Green Belt policies.

5.61 The AGI and pipeline runs through open countryside and a short section also runs through the Green Belt. It is considered that there are very few opportunities to connect to the National Gas Network which are not in open countryside, and that with suitable landscaping the AGI will not appear to be out of keeping with the local landscape character. The pipeline itself will be buried and once installed and restored will not have

73

a significant visible effect on the countryside. The short section that runs through the Selby Green Belt will be buried. It follows the existing linear feature of the disused railway line (see Works 57-62 for the relevant section) and as such will mirror an existing manmade feature in the landscape. The NPPF is clear that some forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and we consider that the pipeline is an engineering operation, which is one of the categories of development set out at Paragraph 90 of the NPPF. On this basis, we consider that it is not necessary to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances for this development to go ahead. However, we do note the provisions of the NPS and the presumption that such projects should proceed due to their importance in securing a transition to a low carbon economy.

5.62 Criterion (b) of Policy SP3, Green Belt, sets out that development will not be permitted unless the Applicant has demonstrated that Very Special Circumstances exist to justify why permission should be granted.

5.63 As noted above, we consider that in this case the NPPF accepts that engineering operations are appropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore it is not necessary to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances.

5.64 Paragraph 6.32 of the Core Strategy recognises that the energy sector is important to the economy of the District. It is recognised that there is a need for further investment in energy infrastructure as a prominent contributor to economic prosperity. Supporting the energy sector will assist in reinvigorating, expanding, and modernising the District’s economy. Policy SP13, Scale and Distribution of Economic Growth, confirms that support will be given to developing and revitalising the local economy in all areas. Development should be sustainable and be appropriate in scale and type to its location, not harm the character of the area, and seek a good standard of amenity.

5.65 Whilst the pipeline will support an energy development in Doncaster, the legacy of employment in the power generation industry in this wider area does mean that the available pool of labour with relevant existing skills is likely to lie, in part, in Selby District, which will have local economic benefits for the District.

5.66 Policy SP15A, relates to the promotion of sustainable development. Criterion (c) states that the most efficient use of land will be achieved without compromising the quality of the local environment. Criterion (d) sets out that development in areas of flood risk is avoided wherever possible through the application of the sequential test and exception test. Criterion (f) states that development proposals respond to land characteristics to minimise risks of erosion, subsidence and instability, and to exploit opportunities for reclamation and reinstatement of contaminated land.

5.67 The pipeline will route through areas of flood risk, but temporary attenuation measures will ensure that it doesn’t increase flood risk

74

elsewhere in the catchment during installation. Requirement 12 of the DCO relates to this. Where works are proposed in areas of high flood risk, the general method of working will be modified to allow more open fencing and bunds with gaps to allow flood debris and flood waters to flow elsewhere within the catchment. The bunded materials would be taken from areas of cut and so the overall storage capacity of washlands would not be affected. When operational, no effects on flood flows are anticipated as the increase in hardstanding is minimal and surface water flows from these areas will be directed to permeable areas of the site. Requirement 12 provides control over surface water flows and discharges, and so if it is determined that some level of attenuation is required at the AGI site, this can easily be provided within the Order Limits. If any contamination is encountered during construction, it will be remediated. Requirement 13 of the DCO makes provision for this.

5.68 Policy SP15B, which covers design and layout of development, seeks to ensure that development contributes toward reducing carbon emissions and are resilient to the effects of climate change. Criterion (c) sets out that schemes should, where necessary, incorporate water-efficient design and sustainable drainage systems which promote groundwater recharge. Criterion (d) states that schemes should protect, enhance and create habitats to both improve biodiversity resilience to climate change and utilise biodiversity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

5.69 The scheme will contribute to reduced carbon emissions through its contribution to the wider UK energy mix, and fulfilling a role for more flexible fossil fuel power generation during the transition to a greater proportion of renewable energy sources. The scheme should have a neutral effect on water resources and it is intended to replicate lost habitats during restoration.

5.70 Policy SP17C states that all development proposals for new sources of renewable energy and low-carbon energy generation, and supporting infrastructure, must be designed and located to protect the environment and local amenity or can demonstrate that the wider environmental, economic and social benefits outweigh any harm caused to the environment and local amenity. Schemes may utilise the full range of available technology including improvements at existing fossil fuel energy generating plants to reduce carbon emissions.

5.71 The scheme has a wider role to play in securing our transition to a low carbon economy. However, the local impacts of this are highly relevant and the range of mitigation set out in the ES and summarised in this section of the Supporting Statement are all intended to reduce the short term effects of its installation.

75

5.72 Under Policy SP18, protecting and enhancing the environment, The high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and manmade environment will be sustained by:

1) Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance

2) Conserving those historic assets which contribute most to the distinct character

3) Safeguarding international, national and locally protected sites for nature conservation; ensuring developments retain, protect and enhance features of biological and geological interest and;

ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate

4) Identifying, protecting and enhancing locally distinctive landscapes, areas of tranquillity, public rights of way and access, open spaces and playing fields

5) Ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution.

6) Ensuring developments minimise energy and water consumption, the use of non-renewable resources, and the amount of waste material

5.73 It is considered that the outline mitigation measures set out in the ES, and the various Requirements of the DCO are suitable safeguards to protect landscape character, historic assets, biodiversity, and soils and air resource and to minimise disruption to countryside access.

5.74 It is concluded that the range of generic protective policies set out in the Selby Core Strategy are both relevant and capable of being met with the DCO and measures set out in the ES as drafted. The scheme therefore accords with this plan.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council 5.75 ERYC is a Unitary Authority and is the Local Planning Authority for a

relatively short section in the northern central area of the Pipeline, around the Snaith and Pollington area.

5.76 The Local Plans and the Joint Structure Plan are the main documents used to determine planning applications in the East Riding, although the emerging Local Plan is at submission stage, so can be afforded some weight in decision making.

5.77 The statutory Local Plans in the wider area are:

76

• Beverley Borough Local Plan (adopted June 1996)

• Boothferry Borough Local Plan (adopted April 1999)

• East Yorkshire Borough Local Plan (adopted June 1997)

• Holderness District Wide Local Plan (adopted April 1999)

• Joint Waste Local Plan (adopted November 2004)

• Joint Minerals Local Plan (adopted January 2004)

5.78 The Joint Structure Plan provides strategic oversight of planning policy in Hull and the East Riding, while more specific policies are contained for the same joint area in the Joint Minerals Plan. More locally, only the

adopted Boothferry Plan is relevant to this application.

Joint Structure Plan (2005) 5.79 The Joint Structure Plan (JSP) covers the Hull and East Riding area. The

key diagram shows this part of the pipeline, which crosses the M62, as

being within a multimodal freight corridor (saved policy EC2) and within a

strategic public transport corridor (saved policy T5). However, there is

little of relevance to the proposal in the detail of these policies.

5.80 Paragraph 5.31 acknowledges certain types of infrastructure may be required in the open countryside to support the achievement of the JSP strategy and policies. This includes energy generating developments. Such proposals will need to be considered against other policies in the Plan.

5.81 Policies ENV2 and ENV3 seek to protect strategic nature conservation sites and protected species, in line with the Humber Coastal Management Plan and the Habitats Directive. Policy ENV5 seeks protection for local wildlife sites, and encourages avoidance, mitigation or compensation in cases where the need for the development overrides the nature conservation interest.

5.82 These policies offer a common theme of ecological protection, which is discussed in more length above. The route avoids the most important sites, but some mitigation will be required for Great Crested Newts (trapping and exclusion before works commence), reptiles (phased vegetation clearance) and water voles (surveys and strimming of banks to encourage settlement outside the working width). These mitigation measures are commonly employed and will be managed through discharge of Requirement 15 of the DCO, which requires an ecological management plan.

5.83 ENV 7 seeks protection for nationally important archaeological remains and Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and encourages mitigation by record or in situ where appropriate.

77

5.84 The ES sets out an assessment of archaeological potential and the detail of archaeological mitigation will be resolved through discharge of Requirement 14.

5.85 It is considered that the general controls put in place by the saved JSP policies are met by the proposed development.

Joint Minerals Local Plan (2004) 5.86 The Joint Mineral Local Plan identifies future areas for mineral extraction

and provides policies to assess planning applications for extraction. The Plan covers the Hull and East Riding area.

5.87 Policy DC1 sets out the Development Control Criteria for minerals development. Proposals will be allowed providing they minimise visual

and other amenity impacts to an acceptable level; the proposed order and method of working and overall programme is clearly defined with minimal adverse impacts on the environment; the proposals and programme for restoration are clearly defined; and the transport arrangements are satisfactory.

5.88 Whilst the application isn’t strictly a minerals development, the temporary nature of the construction phase and the need to appropriately restore sites have more in common with minerals schemes that “standard” development proposals, where restoration is often not an issue. These generic criteria are all governed by the CEMP (See Requirement 4) and the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (See Requirement 5). Under these requirements, the Local Authorities will determine appropriate detailed working methods, and those will be the subject of consultation through the process normally used to discharge conditions on a planning permission granted under the Town & Country Planning Regime. The ES and outline plans set out the nature of mitigation and restoration that is envisaged.

5.89 The proposals map indicates that the majority of land to the north of the M62 and some of the land to the south is within a flood plain. Policy DC4b requires the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment.

5.90 The ES provides a consideration of Flood Risk as required. It concludes that with the adoption of best practice measures, the scheme should not have any adverse effects on flooding. In the East Riding, the only flood issues that could occur are the blocking of flood waters or debris by fencing or soil mounds. Where this is a risk, the soil mounds will be designed to have breaks so that water and debris can flow around the working width. This will cause minimal disruption to flood flow or storage volume and the detailed design can be controlled through discharge of Requirement 4.

5.91 Policy DC21 requires a detailed scheme of working and winning of the material and for the restoration of the site. Policy DC23 requires a five

78

year aftercare period for minerals development restored to agriculture, forestry or amenity.

5.92 Whilst this policy is aimed at more traditional minerals sites, the DCO does provide for restoration (Requirement 4) and also the reinstatement, and management of removed hedgerows with a 5 year replacement for dead or dying plants (Requirement 10).

5.93 Section 6 of the Joint Minerals Plan relates to energy minerals, although the policy bias is again towards exploration and production, rather than associated infrastructure.

5.94 Whilst the policies of the joint minerals plan are focussed more at extractive industries, the general policy objectives and particularly the

policy strand relating to restoration, are relevant. The aims of those policies are considered to have been met by the DCO and supporting documents as drafted.

Boothferry Borough Local Plan (1999) 5.95 The Boothferry Local Plan is an aged document dating from a time before

the East Riding existed as a unified planning body. Its policies are now some 15 years old, although many of the generic environmental protection policies remain relevant and can be afforded some weight in decision making.

5.96 Saved Policy EN5 relates to rural diversification, although it sets out a range of general considerations which are relevant to rural schemes. Schemes will be considered favourably, where they do not conflict with other plan policies, result in the irreversible loss of a significant area of best and most versatile agricultural land or cause significant adverse effects in respect of loss of visual amenity; disturbance to local residents; adequate access to the public highway; excessive or inappropriate traffic generation; unavailability of services; lack of parking; or areas of nature conservation importance.

5.97 This generic policy provides for a wide range of protections. The ES and Requirements of the DCO have been discussed above in relation to many of these topic areas. The temporary nature of the works, the on-going and more detailed controls set by the Requirements of the DCO, and mitigation measures set out in the ES, Outline CEMP and Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan will all ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place. The topic area which has not been discussed above is loss of good quality agricultural land. The soil handling techniques, in line with DEFRA guidelines, and appropriate restoration measures should ensure that there is no overall loss of quality after restoration works are complete. The details of this will be provided in the detailed CEMP under Requirement 4.

5.98 The proposals map shows the site as being within a flood risk area. Saved Policy EN66 states development which adversely affects the

79

function of a flood plain or river or has a detrimental effect on a water course or river corridor will not be permitted.

5.99 The development should not increase risks of flooding as it is proposed to introduce surface water management measures which will outflow from the working width at a controlled rate. Details of this system will be governed by Requirement 12 of the DCO, which will ensure that the precise rates and locations of discharge are acceptable. The Applicant is engaging with the various statutory undertakers to agree working methods which will ensure that the drainage functions of the water courses are maintained. As noted above, in areas of higher flood risk, the standard working methodology could cause blockages to flood flows or debris. To avoid this, the detailed design will be modified to allow gaps which will allow water and debris to flow over the working width.

5.100 Saved Policy EN19 states the local planning authority will only grant consent for an otherwise acceptable development which would be prominent in the landscape and visible over long distances if it is satisfied that all reasonable measures have been taken to minimise its visual effect.

5.101 The only material visual effect that will endure from this project is the AGI. The Cathodic Protection equipment and pipe markers are small scale and commonly seen features on highway boundaries. The AGI will be subject to landscaping which will mature over time to make it appear as a woodland block. Requirement 8 will ensure that this planting scheme is appropriate and that the visual effects of the AGI improve as time passes.

5.102 Under Saved Policy EN22 states trees and woodlands will be protected where necessary through Tree Preservation Orders or by imposing conditions on planning approvals. The Plan requires under Saved Policy EN25 the promotion of landscape improvement and the planting of trees through; attaching tree planting conditions to planning permissions and tree preservation order consents where appropriate; encouraging landowners and occupiers to carry out or allow tree planting on their land unless there is good environmental reason for not doing so; and promoting awareness of grants. Saved Policy EN24 relates to the protection, enhancement and creation of Hedgerows.

5.103 The DCO includes articles which provide for tree removal, including those which are subject to TPO, but these are subject to various Requirements relating to hedgerow replacement, ecological management and protected species (Requirements 10, 15 and 16) which look to protect these interests. Requirement 4 which requires a detailed CEMP, will also include details of restoration and reinstatement, including replanting trees in appropriate locations.

5.104 Saved Policy EN26 relates to the protection of the existing rights of way system to ensure that it can be beneficially used by the public at large.

80

5.105 The works will not permanently affect rights of way, but there will be temporary disruption, especially for those PROWs where the route will be open cut. Mitigation measures will be agreed through Requirement 11, which will include providing for crossings over steel plates when required and also, if necessary, a temporary bridging structure.

5.106 Saved Policy EN27 states development likely to have an adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on the conservation value of a national nature reserve or Site of Special Scientific Interest will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that other material considerations outweigh the special interest of the site. Saved Policy EN27A requires sites which are designated as or which are potential Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas or Special Areas of Conservation will be given the protection afforded to SSSI's.

5.107 Saved Policy EN28 states that on other sites of nature conservation importance and on land in close proximity to international and nationally important nature conservation sites, development which may have a significant adverse effect will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances

5.108 Saved Policy EN29 states that in the exceptional circumstances where development detrimental to a site of nature conservation importance is permitted, the local planning authority shall expect the developer to sign a section 106 agreement to carry out mitigating conservation works nearby.

5.109 Under Saved Policy EN30 the impact of new development on valuable wildlife or physical features should be minimised. Saved Policy EN30A requires development and other land use changes which may have an adverse effect on badgers and other species protected by schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the wildlife and countryside act 1981 to only be permitted where harm to the species can be avoided.

5.110 Saved Policy EN32, sets out that the local planning authority will seek management agreements with interested parties to safeguard existing sites of nature conservation importance and to create appropriate wildlife habitats on areas of vacant, derelict or surplus land.

5.111 In respect of policies EN27-EN32, the application is accompanied by a Statement that confirms that no Habitat Regulations Assessment is required, and this is agreed with Natural England. This is a result of positive routing decisions. General ecological mitigation will be needed however, and this will be governed by Requirement 15. It is considered that a S106 for ecological compensation is not necessary in this case, and any enhancement that can be achieved with the working width will be detailed though the ecological management plan.

5.112 The Plan states through Saved Policy EN33, where developments leave areas of surplus land in a disturbed state, the local planning authority

81

shall accept and support their natural regression, after initial landscaping, into a wetland, woodland or other wildlife habitat.

5.113 It is the intention of the Applicant, guided by Requirement 4, to reinstate the land as close as possible to its previous condition, and for it to return to its previous use.

5.114 Saved Policy EN47 relates to the encouragement of proposals which may affect any area of architectural or historic interest, to respect in detail the preservation or enhancement of that area. Saved Policy EN51, states that development that adversely affects the setting of a listed building, except where a proposal will secure the retention of and beneficial use of a listed building will be refused.

5.115 There are 4 listed structures at Fenwick Hall in the Doncaster area, which also has a Scheduled Ancient Monument in its grounds. The works in the vicinity of the listed buildings are sub surface, and whilst this may warrant more detailed archaeological treatment, the effects on the setting of those listed buildings will be very short lived and should not affect how those assets are interpreted. The working width has been moved to be as distant from these structures as possible, and the short term nature of distant visual change reduces concerns about setting impacts.

5.116 Saved Policy EN62 relates to light pollution, Applicants will be expected to demonstrate to the local planning authority that the scheme is the minimum needed for security and working purposes and that it minimises potential pollution from glare and spillage particularly to residential and commercial areas, areas of nature conservation importance, and areas whose open and remote landscape qualities would be affected.

5.117 Under Saved Policy EN63 when granting planning permission for illuminated signs or development with an external lighting component conditions may be imposed requiring lights to be switched off at a reasonable time, light to be cast downwards, where there is no alternative to up lighting the provision of baffles to reduce light spillage to a minimum.

5.118 Requirement 4 governs the construction stage of the process and includes a provision which requires any temporary lighting to be agreed in detail. The lighting at the AGI will be motion controlled, but permanently fixed. Requirement 7 will provide controls over its detailed design. This lighting will accord with the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines “Bats and Lighting in the UK”. This will perform a dual role of minimising effects of lighting on protected species, but also avoid any issues of direct glare or light spillage that could affect amenity.

5.119 Saved Policy EN64 states that development proposals must take account of the need to secure effective land drainage measures and encourage the control of the level of water in the land drainage system which is important to nature conservation. Saved Policy EN65 stipulates new

82

development will only be granted planning permission where adequate means of disposal of foul sewage and surface water are demonstrated. Saved Policy EN66 stipulates development which adversely affects the function of a flood plain or has a detrimental effect on a water course or river corridor will not be permitted.

5.120 The development should not increase risks of flooding as it is proposed to introduce surface water management measures which will outflow from the working width at a controlled rate. The water environment should not be affected to a degree which undermines any nature conservation interest. The issue of flooding and potential impediment to flood water and debris flow once the working width has been established, is considered in several different paragraphs above. Details of these systems will be governed by Requirement 12 of the DCO, which will ensure that the precise rates and locations of discharge are acceptable, and that details of foul water provision are agreed. The Applicant proposes to agree with the various statutory undertakers provisions which will ensure that the drainage functions of the water courses are maintained.

5.121 Saved Policy E21 states that planning permission and hazardous substances consent for development involving the storage and use of hazardous substances will only be given when the local planning authority is satisfied that the installation would not put at risk densely populated areas or locations where considerable numbers of people regularly congregate.

5.122 Saved Policy E22 states that planning permission will only be given for new development in close proximity to an existing hazardous installation where such development is not residential or would not result in the regular congregation of significant numbers of people.

5.123 The scheme has been subject to a standard safety review, undertaken in line with the Institute of Gas Engineers guidelines presented in the Code of Practice - IGEM/TD/1 Edition 5 - Steel pipelines for high pressure gas transmission. This presents a method of estimating the number of people within a specified distance of the route and thereby advising on where the pipeline will need to use a higher grade steel to ensure safety. There are currently three locations on the route where higher grade steel will be utilised, namely by Gowdall, close to industrial premises west of Snaith and by Moss. This preliminary assessment is a result of the balancing act of routing choices. It may be possible to pass through areas with lower population density, but this brings other likely costs, as was the case with the Moss / Sykehouse re-route suggested by a member of the public, the less dense route had more crossings and would have involved more hedgerow loss, and the use of thicker grade steel is known to be successful in handling risk.

83

5.124 Higher grade steel will also be used under drilled crossings where loading may be greater. The installation of gas pipelines is a well-tested and regulated industry, and will be safe.

Emerging Local Plan 5.125 The Submission Draft East Riding Local Plan was subject to consultation

in March 2014 and was submitted for examination at the end of April 2014. Whilst it has not yet been subject to that examination, it can be afforded some weight in decision making. The Examination will be taking place in October 2014.

5.126 Emerging Policy EC5A states that proposals for the development of the energy sector, will be supported where any significant adverse impacts are satisfactorily minimised and the residual harm is outweighed by the

public benefits of the proposal. Development should be acceptable in terms of the cumulative impact of the proposal with other energy sector development and, sensitivity of landscapes to accommodate energy development, with particular consideration to the identified Important Landscape Areas. The effects of development on local amenity; biodiversity, geodiversity and nature; the historic environment; telecommunications and other networks; transport and increasing the risk of flooding should be considered.

5.127 The ES undertakes a cumulative assessment, which concludes that there will not be any significant cumulative effects that aren’t capable of being controlled through the discharge of the CEMP Requirement of the DCO.

5.128 Emerging Policy EC6A, states that Mineral Safeguarding Areas for sand and gravel, crushed rock, limestone, industrial chalk, clay, and silica sand are identified on the Policies Map. Emerging Policy EC6B entails that within or adjacent to Mineral Safeguarding Areas, non-mineral development, will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the:

1. Mineral is of limited economic value;

2. Need for the development outweighs the need to safeguard the mineral deposit;

3. Non-mineral development can take place without preventing the mineral resource from being extracted in the future;

4. Non-mineral development is temporary in nature;

5. Non-mineral development is in accordance with an allocation in the Allocations Document or a Neighbourhood Development Plan; or

84

6. The underlying or adjacent mineral deposit can be extracted prior to the non-mineral development proceeding, or prior extraction of the deposit is not possible.

5.129 The pipeline route passes through one of the safeguarding areas in the vicinity of the Pontefract Road crossing. The DCO incorporates the provision of the Minerals Code, so that should any future owner or operator determine that the pipeline sterilises the opportunity to extract that mineral, they will be appropriately compensated. The affected safeguarding area is relatively large, and the pipeline crosses only one isolated edge of the reserve. The presence of the pipeline, which has a presumption in favour based on the NPS advice, is unlikely to result in the remainder of the resource not being accessed and utilised if this is a viable prospect.

5.130 Under Emerging Policy ENV2, development proposals should be sensitively integrated into the existing landscape, and, where possible, seek to make the most of the opportunities to restore and enhance landscape characteristics and features. To achieve this development should:

1. Maintain the physical separation of settlements and protect the character and function of Key Open Areas, including those settlements and Key Open Areas identified in Policies A1-A6.

2. Protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements which contribute to their character.

3. Ensure important hedgerows and trees are retained unless their removal can be justified in the wider public interest. Where important hedgerows and trees are lost replacements will usually be required.

4. Maintain or enhance the character and management of woodland where appropriate.

5. Retain, and not detract from, existing wetland and water feature characteristics.

6. Protect and enhance views across valued landscape features, including flood meadows, chalk grassland, lowland heath, mudflats and salt marsh, sand dunes and chalk cliffs.

5.131 The scheme will have temporary effects, but other than the AGI site, which will not reduce any settlement separation and will be appropriately landscaped and lit, there should be no impacts on settlement character. Various requirements will ensure that landscaping, ecology and restoration are achieved to satisfactory standards (see Requirements 4, 8, 10, 12 and 15).

85

5.132 The Emerging Plan discusses valuing our heritage under Emerging Policy ENV3. Where possible heritage assets should be used to reinforce local distinctiveness, create a sense of place, and assist in the delivery of the economic well-being of the area. The significance, views, setting, character, appearance and context of heritage assets, both designated and non-designated, should be conserved. The Emerging Policy stipulates that Development that is likely to cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset will only be granted permission where the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the potential harm.

5.133 There are 4 listed structures, at Fenwick Hall in the Doncaster area, which also has a Scheduled Ancient Monument in its grounds. The pipeline route corridor has been moved eastwards away from these structures in order to minimise effects on their heritage significance. The works in the vicinity of the listed buildings are sub surface, and whilst this may warrant more detailed archaeological treatment, the effects on the setting of those listed buildings will be very short lived and should affect how those assets are interpreted. Requirement 14 also sets out more general requirements for archaeological works, including the agreement of detailed evaluation and mitigation measures.

5.134 Emerging Policy ENV4A requires that Proposals that are likely to have a significant effect on an International Site will be considered in the context of the statutory protection which is afforded to the site. Under Emerging Policy ENV4B proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on a National Site will not normally be permitted. Under Emerging Policy ENV4C, development resulting in loss or significant harm to a Local Site, or habitats or species supported by Local Sites, will only be supported if it can be demonstrated there is a need for the development. Policy ENV4D states that proposals should further the aims of the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan (ERYBAP), designated Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) and other landscape scale biodiversity initiatives.

5.135 The application is accompanied by a Statement that confirms that no Habitat Regulations Assessment is required, and this is agreed with Natural England. This is a result of positive routing decisions. General ecological mitigation will be needed, and this will be governed by Requirement 15. The ES sets out a range of measures that will need to be applied, including trapping and removal of Great Crested Newts; phased removal of vegetation for reptiles and voles and bat friendly

lighting. This will ensure that the ecological effects of the development are acceptable.

5.136 Emerging Policy ENV6B states, the risk of flooding to development will be managed by applying a Sequential Test to ensure that development is steered towards areas of lowest risk, as far as possible. Where necessary, development must also satisfy the Exception Test. Flood risk will be proactively managed by supporting proposals for sustainable flood

86

risk management, supporting the removal of existing culverting and returning these sections to open watercourse, and by ensuring the new developments:

1. limit surface water run-off to existing run-off rates on Greenfield sites, and on previously developed land reduce existing run-off rates by a minimum of 30%, or to Greenfield run-off rate;

2. do not increase flood risk within or beyond the site and incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS);

3. do not culvert or otherwise build over watercourses, unless supported by the Risk Management Authority;

4. have a safe access/ egress route from/ to Flood Zone 1 or establish that it will be safe to seek refuge at a place of safety within a development;

5. are adequately set-back from all watercourses including culverted stretches; and adhere to other relevant SFRA recommendations.

5.137 The majority of the local area is at risk of flooding. The proposed development is not sensitive to flooding and is largely buried. However, management during construction is important to ensure that flood risk is not exacerbated elsewhere in the catchment. This will be secured through Requirement 12, and detailed measures in respect of flood water and debris flow are set out in more detail in various other places in this statement.

5.138 Emerging Policy C1, providing infrastructure and facilities, requires that new and/or improved infrastructure and facilities enhance the quality and range of services and facilities. New development will be supported where it is adequately serviced by infrastructure and facilities. Subject to economic viability, developer contributions will be sought from new development.

5.139 This policy is not intended to apply to developments of this nature in the way suggested, however, the Applicant has been asked several times to use the opportunity of installing the pipeline to enhance local gas and broadband services. This was one of the key issues raised at stage 1.

5.140 The Applicant recognises that there is logic to a co-ordinated approach with statutory undertakers. As part of the Stage One consultation process TMPL asked its pipeline engineering team to investigate the potential for the high-pressure gas pipeline to supply gas to domestic properties in the surrounding area. The engineering team advised that it would not be possible due to the differences in pressure at which gas is transmitted in high-pressure pipelines compared to low-pressure mains gas pipelines.

87

5.141 High-pressure gas pipelines, such as that proposed, transport gas at a pressure of around 85bar (1250 PSI) across the country. The gas is pushed through the high-pressure gas network using a system of 23 strategically placed compressor stations across the country. The largest gas users, such as power stations and industrial facilities, connect directly to high pressure gas transmission systems due to the quantities of gas they use. It is not possible to connect high-pressure gas pipelines to the mains gas system. Before gas can be used by households it needs to be reduced in pressure at dedicated pressure reduction stations which are owned and operated by National Grid. The local gas pipeline network, also owned and operated by National Grid, then transfers the low-pressure gas to households.

5.142 The proposed Thorpe Marsh gas pipeline is a privately owned high-pressure gas pipeline. As such TMPL are not responsible for constructing the dedicated gas pressure reduction station that is required to serving the wider area with low-pressure mains gas. The responsibility for doing so, and for supplying the surrounding area with low-pressure mains gas, lies with National Grid.

5.143 TMPL understand and support the desire to see service improvements in the areas through which the pipeline passes and are generally supportive of this principle. Unfortunately, the ownership, technical and statutory responsibilities are such that TMPL are unable to offer this facility.

5.144 Similarly, the provision of broadband would require statutory undertakers to plan, fund and install suitable infrastructure in and around the pipe trench on a programme which accords with TMPL’s programme to deliver the operational power station. TMPL are unlikely to achieve this in practical terms, and there would also be complications with landowner agreements with both TMPL and the powers any statutory undertaker would need to utilise in order to install their infrastructure.

5.145 These requests were also raised during Stage 2, but on explanation of the difficulties involved, as outlined above, most people concerned were accepting that it could not realistically be achieved.

5.146 Emerging Policy A4C addresses the environment in the Goole & Humberhead Levels sub area. The Policy requires integrated approaches to habitat and species management, that safeguarding and enhancing designated sites be supported whilst protecting those elements which contribute to the setting and character of the sub area's heritage assets, and ensuring that the integrity of the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer, and the Pollington and Cowick Groundwater Source Protection Zones, is protected.

5.147 Emerging Policy A4C also requires the management of the risk of flooding posed by the Humber Estuary and the Rivers Aire, Derwent, Don (Dutch River), Ouse, and Trent, as well as the risk of surface water flooding, having regard where appropriate to the relevant Strategic Flood

88

Risk Assessment and flood risk management plans and strategies. The Emerging Policy requires the prevention of coalescence by protecting the special character and function of the Key Open Areas between Goole and Hook, and Snaith and Cowick.

5.148 The approach taken to discharging the various requirements74 which relate to water management, construction effects, landscaping and archaeology will be undertaken in a comprehensive way. This will ensure that the scheme does not affect any interests which are fundamentally important to the character of the Humberhead Levels area.

5.149 It is considered that the emerging policies in the East Riding plan are accorded with.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 5.150 DMBC is a Unitary Authority and is the Local Planning Authority for the

southern section of the Pipeline route. The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is now largely superseded by the Core Strategy, but both plans remain in force.

Doncaster Unitary Development Plan (1998) 5.151 Policy ENV2 sets out the provision of a countryside policy area in the

eastern part of the Borough though which the pipeline runs.

5.152 Saved Policy ENV4 does not permit development in open countryside for purposes other than

1. Agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation and leisure, cemeteries or other uses appropriate to a rural area;

2. Infilling development within settlements washed over by the countryside policy area subject to the limitations included in policy ENV9;

3. Replacement of, or alteration or extension to, an existing dwelling subject to the limitations.

Proposed development within these categories will be acceptable where it would not, prejudice the purposes of the countryside policy area, create or aggravate highway or amenity problems and it is designed so as to minimise impact on the character and landscape of the local environment.

5.153 The proposed use is considered to be appropriate in a countryside area, as this is not only the nature of the land between the various connection points and the power station site, but is also best way to avoid any impacts on the majority of residents in the area. The techniques of restoration are well used and successful and the working width should return to close to its original state in a relatively short period of time. The

74

See Requirements 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14, for example

89

highways effects can be managed and landscape character has been reflected in the “woodland block” design of the AGI site.

5.154 Under Saved Policy ENV21 existing trees and woodlands will be protected through the use of Tree Preservation Orders, by steering development away from trees and woodlands.

5.155 The routing decisions have been made with the protection of trees in mind. Where crossing points involve the loss of trees, siting has been chosen to exploit weak spots in existing planted areas, to minimise loss. The DCO has various requirements and articles relating to trees, which confer rights to remove and work on trees, but there are also Requirements on restoration, with hedgerows particularly drawn out.

5.156 Saved Policy ENV36 requires the provision of an archaeological evaluation of the site where the information about the archaeology of a site is insufficient to determine a planning application. Saved Policy ENV37 states that development which would have a significant adverse effect on an archaeological site of national importance, its character or its setting will not normally be allowed. In determining development proposals affecting sites of local archaeological importance, the desirability of preserving the site and its setting will be an important consideration. Saved Policy ENV38 stipulates where development is to be allowed which would impinge on an archaeological site, planning permission will, be subject to conditions to ensure preservation of the site and archaeology in situ and/or conditions to ensure an adequate record of the site is made by an archaeological body.

5.157 There are 4 listed structures, at Fenwick Hall in the Doncaster area, which is also has a Scheduled Ancient Monument in its grounds. The works in the vicinity of the listed buildings are sub surface, and whilst this may warrant more detailed archaeological treatment, the effects on the setting of those listed buildings will be very short lived and should not affect how those assets are interpreted. Requirement 14 also sets out more general requirements for archaeological works, including the agreement of detailed evaluation and mitigation measures. The side access route, along Fenwick Common Lane, Lawn Lane and past Fenwick Hall, to access the working width has been withdrawn following consultee concerns about heritage impacts and highways impacts,

5.158 Saved Policy ENV41 states development likely to have an adverse effect on the conservation value of a Site of Scientific Interest (SSI), local nature reserve or non-statutory nature reserve will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site. The amenity and educational value of such sites to the local community will be taken into account when considering development proposals affecting them. Saved Policy ENV59 requires importance to be attached to the need to protect existing trees,

90

hedgerows, wetland habitats, watercourses and other natural landscape features and will require that new developments do not cause unnecessary loss of trees, nor imperil trees by building works.

5.159 The application is accompanied by a Statement that confirms that no Habitat Regulations Assessment is required, and this is agreed with Natural England. This is a result of positive routing decisions. General ecological mitigation will be needed, and this will be governed by Requirement 15. The ES sets out a range of measures that will need to be applied, including trapping and removal of Great Crested Newts; phased removal of vegetation for reptiles and voles and bat friendly lighting. This will ensure that the ecological effects of the development are acceptable.

Doncaster Council Core Strategy (2012) 5.160 The Core Strategy is adopted and recent policy and can therefore be

given great weight in decision making.

5.161 Part of the pipeline is within a functional flood plain and part is within flood zone 2/3. Policy CS4, Flooding and Drainage, sets out that a pro-active approach will be adopted which manages flood risk, to support Borough-wide regeneration. Justifying text within paragraph 3.47 explains that policy seeks to protect and increase the capacity of the functional floodplain to store water during times of flood and thus protect other areas from flooding and habitats. In the functional flood plain, only water compatible uses including essential utility infrastructure, can take place provided they pass the exception test.

5.162 The pipeline is essential utility infrastructure that is not sensitive to flooding and will not affect flood storage capacity. The various requirements relating to drainage and construction management, will ensure that short term flooding issues do not occur during installation. Issues surrounding blockage of flood water flows, debris and drills under flood banks providing pathways for flood water to reach defended areas have been set out in numerous places in this statement. The detailed design stage will govern the exact detailing of measure to control these risks, although in principles, gaps will be provided between soil mounds and clay will be used to block any drills before the pipework is finally connected.

5.163 Part of the pipeline is within the Countryside Protection Policy Area – a development restraint policy area covering the countryside in the eastern ‘half’ of Doncaster Borough. Proposals that would generally be acceptable include essential infrastructure and mineral extraction.

5.164 This is similar to the UDP policy, and as the development is essential infrastructure, we consider this to be acceptable in this area.

5.165 The southern end of the pipeline is within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area – an area where the creation of new habitats or wildlife features, and the

91

restoration of existing ones, is expected to deliver the greatest benefit for biodiversity. Paragraph 6.20 sets out that further detail to support this policy will be included within subsequent Development Plan Documents.

5.166 The intentions of the project are to reinstate the works area to as close to its previous condition as possible, and to address ecological mitigation during construction. Requirements 4 and 15 expect measures for restoration to be agreed and for appropriate ecological management to be implemented. The Applicant will consider enhancement measures during restoration, and this will be governed by Requirement 15. A range of enhancement measures are currently being discussed with landowners, including bird and bat boxes, hibernacula, water vole surveys, American Mink controls and understorey planting.

5.167 Policy CS3 states Doncaster’s countryside will be protected and enhanced, having regard to the following principles:

a. The general extent of the Green Belt will be retained and the key considerations for land within this area are national policy including a presumption against inappropriate development other than in very special circumstances and land will only be taken out of the Green Belt for development allocations in exceptional circumstances.

b. The countryside in the east of the borough will continue to be protected through a Countryside Protection Policy Area.

c. Proposals which are outside development allocations will only be supported where they would: protect and enhance the countryside, including the retention and improvement of key green wedges where areas of countryside fulfil a variety of key functions; not be visually detrimental by reason of siting, materials or design; not create or aggravate highway or amenity problems and preserve the openness of the Green Belt and Countryside Protection Policy Area.

5.168 As noted above, the proposed use is considered to be appropriate in a countryside area, as this is not only the nature of the land between the various connection points and the power station site, but is also best way to avoid any impacts on the majority of residents in the area, when compared to running the route across a main urban area. The techniques of restoration are well used and successful and the working width should return to close to its original state in a relatively short period of time. The highways effects can be managed and landscape character has been reflected in the “woodland block” design of the AGI site.

5.169 Policy CS15, valuing our historic environment, states proposals and initiatives will be supported which preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the heritage significance and setting of the Borough’s heritage assets, especially those elements which contribute to the distinct identity

92

of the borough. Proposals will be supported which protect or enhance the heritage significance and setting of locally identified heritage assets.

5.170 The main features of heritage interest lie in Doncaster, at Fenwick Hall. There are 4 listed structures, and it also has a Scheduled Ancient Monument in its grounds. The works in the vicinity of the listed buildings are distant and sub-surface, and whilst this may warrant more detailed archaeological treatment, the effects on the setting of those listed buildings will be very short lived and should not affect how those assets are interpreted. Requirement 11 also sets out more general requirements for archaeological works, including the agreement of detailed evaluation and mitigation measures. The proposed side access route through Fenwick and past the Scheduled Ancient Monument, has now been removed from the proposed scheme due to consultee concerns about heritage and transport effects.

5.171 Policy CS16 states proposals will be supported which enhance the Borough’s Ecological Networks by including measures that have regard to both the nature of the development and its impact on existing or potential networks. Nationally and internationally important habitats, sites and species will be given the highest level of protection in accordance with the relevant legislation and policy. Proposals located within 3km of Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special Protection Area will be supported where they deliver a net gain in nightjar foraging habitat.

5.172 As noted above, the application is accompanied by a Statement that confirms that no Habitat Regulations Assessment is required, and this is agreed with Natural England. This is a result of positive routing decisions. General ecological mitigation will be needed, and this will be governed by Requirement 15. The ES sets out a range of measures that will need to be applied, including trapping and removal of Great Crested Newts; phased removal of vegetation for reptiles and voles; and bat friendly lighting. This will ensure that the ecological effects of the development are acceptable. The route is more than 3km distant from Thorne Moors, but as the land will be restored, there should not be any longer term impact on bird foraging or breeding areas.

5.173 Policy CS18, air, water and agricultural land, requires proposals to be supported which contribute to improvements in air quality, which contribute to the protection and enhancement of Doncaster’s water resources, and facilitate the efficient use of Doncaster’s significant agricultural land and soil resources. The Growth and Regeneration Strategy (Policy CS2) emphasises deliverable urban brown field sites. However, where any risks to ground conditions arising from contamination or previous land uses are identified, proposals will need to incorporate measures to prevent, control and reduce air and water pollution, mitigate any ground instability and enhance the quality of these resources.

93

5.174 The development, when operational, will have no effect on these interests. During construction, control and management measures will be employed under Requirements 4, 5 and 13, which should protect groundwater, water and air resources, and set out principles of construction management which will contain any spills of any substances likely to cause a pollution incident.

5.175 It is considered that the policy objectives of the Core Strategy can be met.

Emerging Doncaster Sites and Policies DPD

5.176 The Draft Sites and Policies DPD is currently subject to examination. The Inspector has concluded that it does not accord with the NPPF as there is

no up to date objectively assessed housing requirement. It can therefore be afforded very little weight in decision making, although as the majority of relevant policies are more generic in nature, we have considered these in the event that they are considered to better accord with the NPPF than the specific housing proposals sections of the document. The Council are currently considering the action to be taken as a result of this interim Inspectors conclusion.

5.177 The far southern end of the proposed route corridor, immediately adjacent to the Power Station site, lies within the draft “Bentley Flood Corridor” Under Policy SP5. This draft policy allows for some development proposals where they will not affect the operation of the flood corridor.

5.178 The proposed pipeline will not affect the flood corridor, as all embankments will be preserved, and the discharge of waters from the site, whether during construction or hydro-testing, will be controlled in a method and at a rate to be agreed with the EA and IDB’s. The detailed design of works in areas of high flood risk will ensure that there are no blockages of flood water or debris and that any drills under flood banks do not open up pathways for flood waters to reach defended areas.

5.179 Draft Policy SP15 sets generic transport requirements, the most relevant of which is criterion (d), which seeks appropriate safeguards to ensure that the transport network runs efficiently and that adverse effects to the environment are minimised.

5.180 There will be additional construction vehicle movements on the highway,

and the various crossing and access points will be subject to traffic management, which will inevitably affect the free flow of traffic to a degree. This however will be a short term disruption and the agreement of the detailed schemes through the discharge of Requirement 5 of the DCO, will control these effects to acceptable levels. Considerable comment and discussion has been held with DMBC highways, and the various working methods and approvals required at later stages in the process can be accommodated.

94

5.181 Draft Policy SP27 relates to the Historic Environment, and requires sufficient information to enable an appropriate understanding to be made of the impact of the proposals and for appropriate recording of any remains affected. For archaeological sites, it requires that at least a desk-based assessment and, where appropriate, the results of a field evaluation, are provided.

5.182 The Archaeology assessment in the ES (Chapter 12) provides an assessment of the anticipated effects. Further field work and watching measures will be required before works can commence and these will be governed by Requirement 14 of the DCO. There are no features currently identified which suggest that the DCO should not be granted in principle, and that the standard evaluation and mitigation will not be successful.

5.183 Draft Policy SP31 also relates to archaeological sites. It confirms that development that would result in harm to the significance of a Scheduled Monument or other nationally important archaeological site will not be permitted other than in exceptional circumstances. It also confirms that the preservation of other archaeological sites will be an important consideration and that preservation of the remains in situ is a preferred solution. When in situ preservation is not justified, the developer will be required to make adequate provision for excavation and recording in accordance with Policy SP27.

5.184 The development avoids the SAM at Fenwick Hall.LIDAR analysis has shown some evidence of “Ridge & Furrow” close to Fenwick Hall, which is a relatively common feature in older agricultural areas. Recording of any remains is the likely route for mitigation in this area of works. The side access, which consultees were concerned had greater potential to harm the SAM, has now been removed from the proposed development due to a variety of concerns around working in this area.

5.185 Policy SP32 considers effects on the setting of heritage assets. It notes that proposals which would result in harm to the setting of a Scheduled Monument or other nationally important archaeological site will not be permitted. In determining proposals affecting the setting of other archaeological remains, the desirability of preserving their setting will be an important consideration.

5.186 The pipeline route and side access passes by listed structures at Fenwick Hall. The effects on setting will be short lived and routing decisions have moved the route away from the structures to reduce concerns about harm to setting during the period when the restored landscape matures.

Summary of Local Policy

5.187 There are a large number of current and emerging plans which set policy along the pipeline route. In summary, many of these offer similar controls and delineate similar issues which are relevant to a project of this nature. A requirement of these plans has always been to accord with national

95

policy in force at the time, and whilst there have been changes in approach since the time of preparation of the earliest plans and the most recent plans, the overarching approach is very similar. None of the plans specifically provide policies for gas supply infrastructure of the nature proposed in this application, probably because such pipelines have been dealt with by regimes other than the Town & Country Planning Act regime. Nonetheless, the approach to countryside protection, biodiversity enhancement, flood risk, amenity issues and construction techniques are remarkably similar both between local plans, national policy and indeed with the NPS’s.

5.188 The project team has adopted a best practice and proportionate approach to mitigation and assessment and it is considered that the proposals generally accord with the policies in these plans. The Requirements of the DCO offer the opportunity for further detailing of the mitigation outlined in the ES, and also the opportunity for local communities and statutory consultees to influence detailed design factors later in the process. The Requirements offer a high degree of control to Local Authorities and relevant consultees, and in some cases these are re-enforced by asset protection agreements and / or protective provisions.

5.189 It is concluded that the local planning policies are relevant to this decision making process, and that their aims and objectives are achieved by the proposed development.

96

6. Other Important and Relevant Matters

6.1 This project has been subject to a wide ranging consultation exercise, as well as technical assessment from both engineering and environmental perspectives.

Consultation

Stage 1 6.2 The Stage 1 consultation exercise raised issues with both technical

stakeholders, as well as members of the public likely to be affected by the development.

6.3 The overriding concern from members of the public related to construction traffic routing, and the effects (including cumulative effects) of the construction phase of the development on their amenity. The Consultation Report (Document 5.1) sets out these concerns in more detail.

6.4 In response, the project engineers and environmental consultants have prepared documents which set out an assessment of these effects, including effects on noise, air quality and transportation effects. Vehicle routing has been set, alongside other controls designed to alleviate any effects to the best ability of the team. These are set out in detail in the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (Document 10.3) and Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (Document 10.5). They are expanded upon in the summary sections below.

6.5 The draft DCO also includes specific requirements on these matters to ensure that construction stage effects are appropriately controlled by the Local Authorities and Applicant.

Stage 2 6.6 The Stage 2 consultation exercise raised very similar concerns with

members of the public as Stage 1. More detailed feedback was received on construction stage concerns, particularly a number of changes to traffic routing in all areas of the works.

6.7 Specific issues were raised by a local business in Pollington which could have been affected by access difficulties and also potential direct impacts on their fishing ponds. The scheme was amended and further assessment undertaken and communicated with the business owners and their Councillor Representative. Appropriate undertakings were made which alleviated their concerns.

6.8 More concerns have been raised by statutory consultees, including most significantly the Environment Agency (which raised a number of concerns about flooding, ecology, waste, pollution and the content of the DCO), Doncaster Council (which raised numerous detailed concerned about

97

highways controls and methods of working) and other statutory bodies primarily concerned with asset protection (eg Highways Agency, Internal Drainage Boards and Yorkshire Water).

6.9 The Applicant was able to accommodate a great many of the points raised, and made efforts in particular to control construction stage effects and to take into account feedback about other interested parties who may have an interest in the project.

6.10 One key example of the Applicant responding to concerns, is the concern raised by the Thorpe Marsh Power Station Liaison Committee that individual properties adversely affected by noise should be directly notified, in case they had not realised that they were directly affected. This was undertaken by hand delivering a notification letter and CD with

relevant technical materials included, to each potential affected noise receptor.

6.11 Another example is that additional efforts were made to identify and seek the views of travellers’ communities in the area. This concern was raised by a Parish Council and the relevant communities were identified by contacting the Host Authorities, consulting websites and making arrangements via the parish council and housing association which runs the sites in the area. Visits were made to each site and the project explained and feedback captured.

Environmental Considerations

6.12 The Non-technical Summary of the ES provides a summary of the baseline conditions and the anticipated environmental effects of the development, including during construction, operation and decommissioning, alongside proposed mitigation. The identified mitigation will be secured through the Articles and Requirements of the DCO. In summary the effects are:

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

Agriculture and Soils (i) Agricultural land along the Proposed Route Corridor would be affected while the Proposed Gas Pipeline is under construction. This includes higher grade soils. With appropriate soil handling, storage and land reinstatement techniques, no permanent effects are likely to arise.

(ii) Geology and Ground Conditions

(iii) No existing sources of significant contamination are anticipated on the route. However, an intrusive geotechnical investigation with drilling and sampling of soils and bedrock will be undertaken to inform the detailed design stage.

98

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

During the construction phase of the works, there are some identified risks to ground conditions from stockpiling of soils (mainly from runoff of sediment to nearby watercourses), from creation of pollutant pathways during excavation and drilling (particularly beneath watercourses) and from accidental spills and releases of fuels and oils.

These risks will all be managed through the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) through the use of tried and tested management techniques. This will prescribe the

management of temporary stockpiles to prevent surface run off entering nearby watercourses, and will manage use of any chemicals and fuels and oils for machinery. Risks to human health during the construction phase will be managed through completion of risk assessments and the health and safety plan.

The ES expects that the mitigation measures identified will ensure there are no negative or lasting effects from the development on ground conditions.

(iv) Water Resources and Flood Risk

(v) The three main rivers and the larger drains in the order limits will be crossed using drilling techniques. This will avoid any physical impacts on those water courses.

Smaller drains have a much lower sensitivity and the majority would be crossed using open cut methods (using an open trench to lay the pipe in). These are temporary works (generally taking one day but potentially up to three days) but would have a minor residual impact resulting from the disturbance and reinstatement of the channel.

Management measures will be secured through the CEMP to minimise the risk of accidents, ensure safe handling and storage of potentially hazardous materials, prevent pollution and manage drainage. This will ensure that residual, temporary effects are significantly reduced.

Groundwater is a highly sensitive environmental receptor but there is unlikely to be any impact given the implementation of controls in the CEMP. The design and management of drainage headers would also be installed by a land drainage expert. This would avoid the potential

99

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

for creating preferential pathways through the underlying soil which could lead to erosion and mobilisation of contaminants (if present).

Areas of the Proposed Route Corridor are located in high risk flood zones. The proposed timing and duration of the construction works would ensure a low likelihood of the construction sites being affected by extreme flooding. No works would be undertaken during flooding events.

Hydrostatic pressure testing of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will be undertaken, using water

abstracted from both the Aire and Calder Navigation (canal) and the Thorpe Marsh Drain. The water would then be returned to these watercourses. The effect of this on the river and canal would be negligible, as the volumes removed would be temporary and relatively minor compared to the overall flow and volume of these watercourses. The means of returning the abstracted water to the canal and drain will be agreed with relevant stakeholders in advance to ensure there is no greater risk of flooding cause in the area.

There are no planned activities that will impact on water resources during operation of the Proposed Gas Pipeline.

(vi) Air Quality

(vii) During construction works, there is a low potential that dust arising from the Proposed Development could result in "loss of amenity" impacts at nearby isolated farms and the houses immediately adjacent to the temporary access roads. Dust would be managed through measures outlined within the CEMP (including use of solid screens around stockpiles and dust raising activities, and water-assisted dust sweepers to clean access/local roads) and should ensure there are no significant effects.

As the number of vehicles generated during the construction works has been estimated as significantly less than 200 heavy duty vehicle movements per day, there would be a negligible effect on local air quality based on the criteria set out in the Environmental Protection UK guidance.

No impacts to air quality are anticipated during

100

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

the operational phase

(viii) Noise (ix) Noise impacts from the construction of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will arise from general construction activities, particularly the heavier construction works. Without mitigation, 4 properties (2 residential) will experience severe effects during construction, and a further 6 will experience moderate adverse effects. The site office and pipe dump area will result in two moderate adverse impacts, but no night time working is proposed, so there will be no impacts then.

Mitigation will take the form of temporary screens, limiting working hours, controls on traffic; choice of quieter or silenced plant where possible (to achieve specified noise limits); and ensuring vehicles and equipment are maintained correctly. A 24 hour contact will be provided for residents to use if there are issues to address.

This mitigation is likely to be effective at reducing impacts, but is not likely to eliminate the effects during construction. Minor to moderate adverse effects are likely to remain, although these will be short term in nature.

(x) Ecology (xi) The routing, and construction techniques have been selected to avoid ecological impacts as much as possible. Detailed routing has avoided trees, hedgerows, bats and badgers, and employing drilling techniques at the most sensitive sites.

Mitigation proposed includes detailing mitigation through the DEFRA licensing process for protected species, appropriate detailing in the CEMP an ecological watching brief during relevant construction works and undertaking pre-construction verification surveys and preparation and implementation of a ten year Habitat Management Plan to ensure that fragmented hedgerows and field boundaries are restored appropriately and that planting around the AGI provides long term benefits to wildlife.

No negative lasting effects are predicted for animal species or on the majority of habitat (agricultural land). The only residual effect identified will be upon hedgerows, trees,

101

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

woodland and drains. These habitats will be restored, but will remain fragmented for the medium-term while the new planting matures. The long term effects of the Proposed Gas Pipeline on ecological receptors are considered to be negligible.

(xii) Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

(xiii) The medieval moated site at Fenwick Hall, a Scheduled Monument, is the most archaeologically significant known remain in the route corridor area. Fenwick Hall also has several listed buildings. The Proposed Route Corridor has been routed away from Fenwick Hall to avoid any impact on this site, and a proposed side access which routed past the SAM has been removed from the Order Limits,.

Mitigation measures will include trial trench evaluation followed by a programme of Strip, Map and Record where significant archaeological features are identified. During construction, a licenced Archaeologist appointed by the Applicant will carry out a watching brief during top-soil stripping of sections of the Proposed Route Corridor.

(xiv) Landscape and Visual

(xv) With the exception of the AGI compounds and very minor elements such as the Cathodic Protection kiosks and pipe markers, the permanent elements of the scheme will be buried. The AGI will be well landscaped and the Cathodic Protection kiosks will sit in a field behind a hedge.

During the construction works, only small areas where works are actively occurring would be significantly impacted. Stockpiles of soil, along with machinery and materials would be the main construction features to be visible across the landscape. The majority of works would be undertaken in spring and summer so that natural vegetation will provide screening, and fencing would be installed for construction areas in selected locations. In the short term the main visual effects would be temporary, minor to moderate impacts on public viewpoints, but these will all reduce in the short term as works cease an particularly once reinstatement has occurred.

Land cover would be reinstated as close as possible to its existing state and then be subject

102

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

to a long-term maintenance and management regime to ensure successful establishment.

Overall the visual impact on the landscape will not be significant and there will be no residual effects following reinstatement.

(xvi) Transport and Infrastructure

(xvii) The Proposed Route Corridor is predominantly rural with low levels of traffic. Effects on the road network will only arise during the main construction period, which is expected to last around 35 weeks overall, but access to any particular construction compound will only be required for shorter periods.

To manage effects an Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan has been prepared, and further detailed plans will be required to provide measures for each crossing to ensure that the impacts are appropriately managed. Measures include:

Restricting routing of construction traffic to identified routes;

Establishing protocols for careful driving of HGVs through settlements, including a badging scheme to identify TMPL vehicles;

Establishing protocols for residents to report bad driving.

Temporary crossings to be provided to maintain connectivity of footpaths during construction period; and

Access points to be provided with adequate visibility (commensurate with speeds on the public road) or for appropriate temporary traffic management provided.

There are a number of points where the Proposed Route Corridor crosses existing roads, public rights of way and private accesses. The main road crossings will be drilled and will not necessitate any road closures. Smaller farm

tracks will be open cut, but this will be for a few hours only while the trench is being cut, with temporary steel sheeting provided to allow access thereafter.

Traffic will have a slight adverse impact which will be limited to active areas of construction and access routes to those areas during the year in which the Proposed Gas Pipeline is constructed.

103

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

(xviii) Socio-economics (xix) The main socio-economic impacts will be the creation of temporary jobs over the construction period. It is anticipated that peak employment generation of approximately 190 people will occur during the busiest construction period. Many of the jobs will be specialist in nature and drawn from a wide catchment, but sub-contracting could generate local employment, of around 30-50 people, potentially including land drainage, plant hire, pipe coating, services such as catering and cleaning, and the provision of materials such as aggregates.

There will be minor benefits to the local economy from local construction spending. The agricultural economy will be largely unaffected.

There may be temporary minor negative economic effects from the disruption caused by increased traffic, noise and vibration. There also may be a slight negative effect with visual impacts to visitors at Thorpe Marsh Nature Reserve, however this is likely to be temporary until the disturbed ground and plants recover and new planting is established.

(xx) Cumulative Effects

(xxi) The main cumulative effects are construction traffic, noise and socio-economic effects. There is potential for temporary moderate adverse noise effects at one receptor if the pipeline construction is concurrent with building a consented industrial building in Pollington. The socio-economic effects would be beneficial as the main power station construction job generation reduces, the pipeline requirement for construction workers will begin, as the works are likely to begin in the last year of construction on the power station.

In terms of construction traffic, the current baseline plus anticipated traffic flows from the consented schemes are not considered to represent a significant change in baseline flow. As the project traffic generation is also low, there are not considered to be any significant cumulative effects. The consultation process has suggested that traffic is the biggest concern and source of frustration to local residents, and this is recognised. The traffic management plans will be enforced and adhered to, which should minimise

104

Topic Area Summary of Effects and Mitigation

these temporary effects.

Engineering and Construction Considerations

6.13 Once the pipeline is installed, and habitat reinstatement is complete, there will be very little visual evidence of its existence along the main route. There will be routine maintenance checks, but the majority of these will be carried out at either the power station site or the AGI. The route will be walked infrequently, and cathodic protection tests along the route will be undertaken approximately every 6 months. The operational effects of the pipeline are expected to be extremely limited, particularly once the AGI landscaping has matured.

6.14 However, the construction stage has the potential for temporary impacts as wide ranging as habitat loss, pollution events, and loss of amenity. The various Chapters of the ES and the appended Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan and Outline Traffic Management Plan sets out a range of control measures that will be employed to ensure that the effects of the construction stage are minimised. These will be further detailed when the “front end engineering design” exercise is undertaken and a contract is secured. These will then be submitted for approval to the Local Authorities, who will consult on the content before approving them or requesting further information. There are a range of controls set out in the DCO Articles and Requirements which will govern this stage of activity and which offer a high level of control to the relevant authorities to protect their interests when determining future applications to discharge those requirements.

6.15 The installation of pipelines is a tried and tested exercise, and environmental mitigation measures have developed over time to become very successful. The outline management plans set out a range of measures, from measures to control debris on the highway, through to noise control and pollution prevention. These are reflected in the requirements of the draft DCO and as such will be implemented by the undertaker.

6.16 Concerns have been raised in consultation in respect of the construction stage, and in particular the effects of vehicle routing and previous schemes lack of adherence to agreed traffic management plans. The

Applicant has included specific requirements for construction vehicle management so that this issue is directly enforceable by the relevant Local Authority. The Applicant will also endeavour to ensure that contractors are appropriately briefed and that any sub-contractors are made aware of the accepted routes and any other measures relevant to their operation. Vehicles will adopt a simple badging system, so that they can be easily identified as TMPL vehicles and any actions which breach the specified working methods can be followed up with individual drivers

105

and appropriate action taken. This should minimise any issues caused by non-compliance with agreed routing and construction management protocols.

Overview

6.17 This section of the report considers any matters which the ExA may consider to be important and relevant.

6.18 It has reviewed the nature of feedback from the consultation process and highlighted key areas where the Applicant has responded to concerns raised by those affected by the proposals.

6.19 It also reviews the outcomes of the EIA of the scheme, and concludes

that whilst construction stage effects will cause some disruption, that they can be appropriately controlled through mitigation. These mitigation measures have been linked back to Articles or Requirements in the draft DCO.

6.20 Finally, the main engineering and construction stage effects, which were the primary source of concern raised by the general public during consultation, have been considered and wherever possible incorporated into the submitted proposals . The Applicant has provided a vehicle routing plan and outline traffic management plan. A more detailed version, which sets out exact measures to be employed to mitigate traffic effects is a requirement of the DCO and directly enforceable by the Local Authorities, which was the key issue raised during consultation.

6.21 This section of the report therefore concludes that there are no important or relevant matters which suggest that the DCO should be refused.

106

7. Analysis

7.1 This section of the report draws together the previous analyses of the key considerations before the ExA.

7.2 The proposed scheme is considered to comply with national policy in the form of the two relevant NPS’s. These policies offer a presumption in favour of approving this scheme, subject to a range of other considerations. The need for new low carbon fossil fuel power generation is urgent, and the scale of that need is very significant. The DCO will deliver the fuel for an approved CCGT project which will deliver only a relatively small proportion of the UK’s stated need for new non-renewable power generation. This highlights the importance of the project as one of

a number which will need to be delivered if the UK is to progress along its “road map to 2050”.

7.3 In line with the AoS for the NPS, the detailed assessment work for this project does conclude that there will be some negative effects, principally during the construction stage. However, the policy direction of the NPS accepts that this will be the case, and balances this against the contribution that such projects will have in speeding up the transition to a low carbon economy, meeting climate change commitments and, improving the vitality and competitiveness of the UK energy market through increasing choice and supply.

7.4 National land use planning policies have also been considered, and this suggests that the transition to a low carbon future for the UK is an important consideration, such that applications which help to achieve this aim should be approved, provided that any impacts which arise from those projects can be appropriately mitigated. The ES for this scheme suggests that environmental effects can be mitigated and therefore this supports the presumption in favour of approving the DCO which is provided by the relevant NPS’s.

7.5 Local policies have also been reviewed, and there are no allocations, designations or generic criteria based policies which suggest that the DCO should be refused.

7.6 We have also set out what we consider to be the other relevant considerations for the ExA. These include the concerns raised during consultation, the findings of the EIA for this project and, the efficacy of

and controls placed on construction activities in particular vehicle routing which is a key local concern. We conclude that there are no material factors which suggest that the presumptions in the NPS should be outweighed.

7.7 The DCO has been drafted taking into account the requirements of statutory undertakers, prescribed consultees, the relevant Local Authorities and the issues raised by the wider public during consultation.

107

108

8. Conclusions

8.1 It is considered that the proposed Pipeline accords with the policies in EN-1 and EN-4 and that there are no other matters which suggest that the DCO should not be approved in line with their policy guidance.

8.2 The proposed Pipeline will not:

• Lead to the UK being in breach of any international obligations

• Lead the Examining Authority to breach any UK statutory duty

• Be unlawful in any other way

• Result in adverse impacts which outweigh its benefits

• Be contrary to any regulations about how decisions on such infrastructure are to be decided

8.3 It is therefore concluded that, in accordance with S.104 of the 2008 Act, the ExA should recommend to Ministers that the DCO be granted.

Turley Office Leeds T 0113 386 3800