The Hirwaun Power (Gas Fired Power Station) Order

Responses to Examining Authority’s Second Round of Written Questions

Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning

(Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

PINS Reference Number: EN010059

Document Reference: ExA 2

Regulation Number: N/A

Examination Timetable Number: D6 (ii)

Author: HPL

Revision Date Description

0 November 2014 Examination version

1

Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Glossary of Terms.................................................................................................................................... 2

Compulsory Acquisition .......................................................................................................................... 5

CA2 -01 ................................................................................................................................................ 5

CA2 - 02 ............................................................................................................................................... 5

DCO 7

DCO2 - 01 ............................................................................................................................................ 7

DCO2 - 02 ............................................................................................................................................ 7

DCO2 – 03 ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Operational Matters ............................................................................................................................... 9

OM2 - 01 ............................................................................................................................................. 9

OM2 – 02 ........................................................................................................................................... 14

Habitats, Ecology and Nature Conservation ......................................................................................... 15

HA2 - 01 ............................................................................................................................................. 15

HA2 - 02 ............................................................................................................................................. 15

HA2 - 03 ............................................................................................................................................. 15

HA2 - 04 ............................................................................................................................................. 17

HA2 - 05 ............................................................................................................................................. 17

HA2 - 06 ............................................................................................................................................. 17

HA2 - 07 ............................................................................................................................................. 20

HA2 - 08 ............................................................................................................................................. 25

HA2 - 09 ............................................................................................................................................. 30

HA2 - 10 ............................................................................................................................................. 30

HA2 - 11 ............................................................................................................................................. 31

HA2 - 12 ............................................................................................................................................. 36

HA2 - 13 ............................................................................................................................................. 39

2

Glossary of Terms

Acronym Term Description

APIS Air Pollution Information Systems

Provides a comprehensive source of information on air pollution and the effects on habitats and species. APIS has been developed in partnership b the UK conservation agencies and regulatory agencies and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology.

BBNP Brecon Beacons National Park

The administrative authority covering the Brecon Beacons National Park, which was designated in 1957. The authority has a statutory duty to foster the economic and social well-being of communities living within the National Park, and to further the two statutory purposes of the Brecon Beacons National Park pursuant to the Environment Act 1995. The authority is also a local planning authority.

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

Strategic document setting out best practice methods to minimise environmental impacts (including dust) during construction.

DCO Development Consent Order

Consent by a UK Government Minister for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. A DCO can incorporate or override the need for a variety of consents which would otherwise be required for a development, including planning permission. A DCO can also include rights of compulsory acquisition. A DCO is made in the form of a Statutory Instrument.

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

UK Government department responsible for policy and regulations on the environment, food and rural affairs. Their priorities are to grow the rural economy, improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.

ES Environmental Statement

The final document which provides a comprehensive discussion on the Environmental Impact Assessment.

HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment

A recognised step by step process which helps determine likely significant effect and (where appropriate) assess adverse

3

impacts on the integrity of a European site, examines alternative solutions, and provides justification for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest (Document References 5.5.0 and SAA).

ISH Issue Specific Hearing

Hearings on specific issues including; environmental matters, the draft DCO and compulsory acquisition.

n/a Power Generation Plant

A Simple Cycle Gas Turbine gas fired ‘peaking’ power generating station comprising up to 5 Gas Turbine Generators with a rated output of up to 299 MWe and up to 5 exhaust gas emission flue stacks with gas receiving installation, banking compound and associated plant. Situated within the Power Generation Plant Site.

n/a Power Generation Plant Site

One of the three principal Project Site areas. The area within which the Power Generation Plant development will occur, at Main Avenue, Hirwaun Industrial Estate, near Aberdare, South Wales.

n/a Project Site This includes the Power Generation Plant Site, Electrical Connection Site, Gas Connection Site and construction access/laydown and future maintenance access/laydown areas. The Project Site corresponds to the limits of the draft Development Consent Order (the Order Limits).

n/a The Project The Hirwaun Power Project, comprising the following principal elements: 1) A new Power Generation Plant 2) A new integral Electrical Connection; 3) A new integral Gas Connection. The Power Generation Plant, Gas Connection and Electrical Connection together with their construction access/laydown and future maintenance access/laydown requirements are referred to as the Project.

NRW Natural Resources Wales

A regulatory authority and principal adviser to the Welsh Government on the environment, enabling the sustainable development of Wales’ natural resources for the benefit of people, the economy and wildlife. Made up of the former

4

Environment Agency Wales, Countryside Commission Wales and Forestry Commission Wales.

RCT Rhondda Cynon Taf

The administrative body and local planning authority and highways authority for the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf.

SAC Special Areas of Conservation

Areas of protected habitats and species as defined in the European Union's Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

SoCG Statement of Common Ground

Document recording areas of agreement/disagreement between the Applicant and an interceded party.

5

Compulsory Acquisition

CA2 -01 Applicant Please provide an update on Appendix 1 to your written

summary of oral case put at the Compulsory Acquisition

hearing - submitted for the deadline of 7 October 2014 [Doc.

Ref. WSCPO] - of the current status of negotiations with all

Affected Persons.

1.1. Please refer to Appendix 1 to these written answers.

CA2 - 02 Applicant and TRL Please provide an update to your written summary of oral

case put at the Compulsory Acquisition hearing [Doc. Ref.

WSCPO] of the current status of negotiations with Tower

Regeneration Limited.

2.1. As set out in the Applicant's response to the Examining Authority's first written

questions CA09 and CA16 and the issue specific hearing on Compulsory Acquisition,

TRL had submitted an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 (ref 13/0859/15) (the "S73 Application") to amend the area where the

excavation of minerals is permitted under permission ref APP/L6940/A/14/2212351

(the permission under which the mining operations are currently being carried out) to

allow extraction to be carried out in respect of plots numbered 10_GR, 10a_GR, 11_GR

and 11a_GR. The S73 Application was refused by RCTCBC on 28 October 2014. The

reason for refusal relates to the presence of the high pressure gas main (into which the

AGI would connect) and, more specifically, the lack of proposals to divert and protect

the main or any assessment of such proposals. Therefore, the Applicant can confirm

that it will not be interfering with any rights of Tower to excavate minerals.

2.2. To provide protection for Tower in relation to potential inference with storage bunds

and drainage channels in relation to Tower’s current mining operations (albeit the

Applicant considers these could be worked around) and as agreed between Tower and

6

the Applicant at the issue specific hearing on Compulsory Acquisition, Part 6 of revision

3.0 of the draft Order includes protective provisions that restrict the Applicant from:

2.2.1. vesting the land identified in the book of reference and the land plans by plot

reference numbers 10_GR and 11_GR in itself;

2.2.2. exercising the powers conferred on it by Article 27 in respect of the land

identified in the book of reference and the land plans by plot reference

numbers 10_GR, 10a_GR, 11_GR and 11a_GR; or

2.2.3. commencing the authorised development on the land identified in the book

of reference and the land plans by plot reference numbers 10_GR, 10a_GR,

11_GR and 11a_GR;

until on or after 1 January 2018 by which time, according to the approved

plans, the mining operations will have moved away from the AGI Site.

2.3. The Applicant and Tower are continuing to actively and positively engage and further

meetings to discuss the commercial terms of any voluntary agreement are currently

being arranged for November 2014. The Applicant has also confirmed that it will be

responsible for the fees incurred to date by Tower Regeneration Limited and Tower’s

anticipated fees.

7

DCO

DCO2 - 01 Applicant Article 36 of Rev. 3.0 of the draft DCO does not specifically

include the construction environment management plan

(CEMP) in the list of certified plans. Will the CEMP be

included in the list of certified plans in the next draft of the

DCO?

1.1. The outline construction environment management plan ("CEMP") is contained at

Appendix 4.1 to the Environmental Statement ("ES") (document reference 6.1.0). The

ES is defined in Article 2 of revision 3.0 of the draft DCO as the submitted version of the

ES with certain specified updates, one of which is an updated Appendix 4.1 (revision

1.0). Therefore the current draft of the DCO does require that the latest revision of the

CEMP is certified by the Secretary of State.

DCO2 - 02 RCT Is Article 40 on Guarantees in respect of payment of

compensation acceptable (Doc Ref 3.1 Draft Development

Consent Order Rev. 3.0 October 2014)?

2.1. This question is directed to RCT.

DCO2 – 03 Applicant, RCT,

NRW and BBNPA

What is the current status of the S106 Agreement relating

to:

• Power Station Habitat Management;

• Bat Mitigation; and

• Emissions monitoring?

3.1. A draft of the S106 agreement has been circulated to IGUK, HSBC, NRW, RCTCBC and

BBNPA during October and early November. BBNPA and NRW have confirmed that they

are unlikely to want to be party to the S106 agreement but are content with the

8

proposed mechanism in respect of the air quality monitoring. IGUK have provided

comments which the applicant responded to on 7 December and awaits a response.

IGUK’s mortgagee (HSBC) has confirmed they are happy with the draft subject to an

update in relation to administrative details (which changes are acceptable and have

been made).

4. RCTCBC have been sent a draft in September and a slightly revised draft on 7 November

which addressed queries received on the September draft. Agreement is presently

sought as to the level of contributions in relation to footway reconstruction and the sum

equivalent to the estimated cost of a valuation by a qualified surveyor that would enable

the discharge of the proposed duty under Art. 40 of the draft DCO (revision 3.0). We

expect to receive any remaining comments on the S106 in the next two weeks.

4.1. The Applicant notes that power station habitat management and bat mitigation are

secured by Requirement 10 of the draft Order (Ecological management plan) rather

than through the s106 agreement although, in relation to habitat management, the

draft s106 agreement does contain a contribution in relation to bog reinstatement

activities.

9

Operational Matters

OM2 - 01 Applicant and

NRW

The ExA remains to be persuaded that the “declared net

capacity1

” or “rated electrical output” in Schedule 1 Revision

3.0 of the draft DCO is sufficient to ensure that the actual

plant output of 299MWe will not be exceeded. Why does

the applicant believe that using the “declared net capacity”

or “rated electrical output” is preferable to “total installed

capacity2

” when dealing with the capacity of the proposed

generating station, in order to achieve compliance with the

CCR (Carbon Capture Readiness) (Electricity Generating

Stations) Regulations 2013, noting that neither ‘capacity’ or

‘rated’ are defined in the CCR Regulations?

1.1. The Applicant believes that using the term "rated electrical output" is preferable to

"total installed capacity", or any other term, when describing the capacity of the

proposed generating station because this term is word for word the language of the

Carbon Capture Readiness (Electricity Generating Stations) Regulations 2013 (the "CCR

Regulations"). The CCR Regulations provide that the Secretary of State must not make a

DCO for the construction of a combustion plant with a “rated electrical output” of 300

megawatts or more (unless he has determined that the "CCR conditions" are met in

relation to that combustion plant).3 Therefore, describing the Project as having a "rated

electrical output" of 299MW or less guarantees that the Secretary of State has not

made a DCO in breach of the CCR Regulations. The Applicant considers that any

1

The “declared net capacity”, in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the

station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power

used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption) less the amount of electricity that is

consumed by the plant; The Renewable Order 2009 (SO 2009/785)

2

The “total installed capacity” in relation to a generating station, is defined as the maximum capacity at which the

station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power

used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption). The Renewable Order 2009 (SO

2009/785)

3

Determining whether the CCR conditions are met requires an assessment prescribed in regulation 2(2) of the CCR Regulations.

10

departure from this wording would inevitably give rise to a risk that different words are

interpreted to mean something slightly different resulting in a DCO granted otherwise

than in accordance with the CCR Regulations. The Applicant's position is clear (as set

out in response to ExA question OM01, at the DCO ISH and the Position Paper attached

to its summary of oral case (see document ref WSDCO)): to ensure compliance with the

CCR Regulations, the Order should echo word for word the CCR Regulations and

describe the capacity of the plant as its "rated electrical output".

1.2. The Applicant agrees that neither "rated" nor "capacity" are defined in the CCR

Regulations (and neither is "rated electrical output"). The Applicant notes that the

Renewables Obligation Order 2009 (the "RO Order") predates the CCR Regulations and

yet Parliament has decided not to use any of the defined terms from the RO Order in

the CCR Regulations. The definitions in the RO Order refer to "capacity" and go on to

define this by reference to what a plant is actually capable of producing. The definition

in the CCR Regulations refers to "rated […] output" and, although not defined, the

ordinary meaning would be what a plant is rated to produce. As explained in the

Applicant's Position Paper the actual output of the power generation plant may exceed

the rated output in circumstances where conditions are better than those at which gas

fired plants are rated under the industry standard approach in BS ISO 2314. However,

so as long as the Applicant procures gas turbine generators with a rated net electrical output

(rated using ISO 2314), of less than 299 MWe, the CCR Regulations will be complied with. The

Applicant considers that the definitions in the RO Order do not clearly account for the

distinction between actual and rated output which exists for gas-fired generating

stations. This may of course be because such a distinction is not so important for

renewables technologies as compared to gas fired generating stations where the output

11

varies with atmospheric conditions. This further reinforces why it would not be

appropriate to use the RO Order definitions in the DCO.

1.3. Another consequence of "rated" not being defined in the CCR Regulations is a question

arises as to whether the rated output means the rated net or rated gross output of a

power station. In the RO Order, the definitions suggest that "declared net capacity"

refers to the net capacity of the generating station as a whole and the "total installed

capacity" refers to the combined gross capacity of each piece of generating equipment

(i.e. turbine themselves). In relation to gas fired power stations, ISO 2314 provides a

methodology for rating both the net output of a generating station as a whole and the

gross output of the turbines themselves.

1.4. The Applicant explained in its Position Paper why "rated electrical output" in the CCR

Regulations must mean the net rated output of the generating station as a whole.

Expanding on its Position Paper, the Applicant also notes that this view is consistent

with EN-1 and the requirements set out for coal-fired generating stations. Paragraph

4.7.5 of EN-1 provides that:

1.4.1. “In addition to satisfying the CCR criteria, to reduce CO2 emissions new coal-

fired generating stations, or significant extensions to existing stations, in

England or Wales must have CCS on at least 300 MW net of the proposed

generating capacity and secure arrangements for the transport and permanent

storage of carbon dioxide. Coal-fired generating stations of less than 300 MW

net capacity should show that the proposed generating station will be able to

capture CO2 from their full capacity” (emphasis added).

1.5. Although relating to CCS for coal-fired power stations, this policy has its origins in the

same EU Directive as the CCR Regulations and the two are clearly designed to dovetail.

12

Therefore, it is clear that EN-1 envisages the 300MW output threshold in CCS policy and

the CCR Regulations means the net output, not the gross output of the generating

station as whole. This position is further supported in DECC Guidance4 on CCR

(endorsed in 4.7.10 of EN-1) which states that the "capacity threshold for CCR is based

on the new power station as a whole".

1.6. However, regardless of the foregoing, the Applicant considers that whatever the precise

definition of "rated electrical output", by using this exact language in the DCO, the

Secretary of State will guarantee that the DCO will not be granted in breach of the CCR

Regulations. Even if the ExA were not persuaded by the Applicant's position on the

definition of "rated electrical output" the use of term itself is still the appropriate form

of words in the DCO to ensure any breach of the CCR Regulations is avoided.

1.7. Further explanation of BS ISO 2314 is as follows:

British Standard ISO 2314:2009: BS ISO 2314:2009 is a British and ISO standard titled

‘Gas turbines — Acceptance tests’. This International Standard specifies guidelines and

procedures for preparing, conducting and reporting thermal-acceptance tests in order

to determine and/or verify electrical power output, mechanical power, thermal

efficiency (heat rate), turbine exhaust gas energy and/or other performance

characteristics of gas turbine power plants and gas turbine engines, in this International

Standard referred to as “gas turbines”. The standard is used worldwide as a basis for

definition of rating and guarantees for gas turbine plant. This standard BS ISO

2314:2009 is also referred to in BS ISO 3977-2:1997 (incorporating corrigendum April

2008) which is titled ‘Gas turbines — Procurement Part 2: Standard reference

conditions and ratings’

4

Carbon Capture Readiness A guidance note for Section 36 Applications URN09D/810

13

Gas Turbine Performance with Ambient Changes: Because gas turbines use air as a

working fluid, their output and efficiency are influenced by the ambient air temperature

and barometric pressure and to a lesser extent by humidity. ISO 2314 sets out an

industry standard methodology for rating gas fired generating stations. As the "actual"

output of a gas generating station will vary depending on the specific site and the

ambient conditions, ISO 2314 sets out reference ambient conditions at which to rate

the output. These standard reference conditions are equal to the following (for the

ambient air or intake air at the compressor flange (alternatively, the compressor intake

flare)):

absolute pressure of 101,325 kPa (1.01325 bar; 760 mm Hg)

temperature of 15 °C

relative humidity of 60 %

The "rated" output of a plant is fixed by reference to these standard reference

conditions. This ensures all plant can be clearly procured and fairly compared.

Therefore a plant procured with a net rated electrical output of 299MW will always

comply with Schedule 1 of the draft DCO (and the CCR Regulations) because the net

rated electrical output will always remain exactly 299MW.

Location of Power Measurement: The power output of a gas turbine driven generator

can be measured at different points as set out in BS ISO 2314; Clause 6.4.5.1:

Gross output is defined as gross electrical power at generator terminals. This can

be useful if the step-up transformer is procured separately.

Net electrical power high voltage is defined as net electrical power low voltage

minus step-up transformer losses. This measurement is generally used for

procurement performance guarantees (and tests) with corrections to ISO 2314

14

standard conditions. The measurement point of net electrical power coincides

with the Metering Point for supply of electricity to the National Grid under The

Balancing and Settlement Code.

OM2 – 02 NRW If a 1500 hour limit/annum3 requirement is secured in the

DCO, would this present any difficulties for the

Environmental Permitting process?

2.1. Although this question is directed at NRW, the Applicant proposes to include the

following wording in the next revision of the draft DCO:

2.2. New Requirement:

"(1) In any calendar year the operation of the gas turbine generators comprised in

numbered work 2A shall not exceed 1500 hours in total.

(2) Within three months of the end of a calendar year, the undertaker must submit a

written report to the relevant planning authority detailing the actual total number of

hours of operation of the gas turbine generators comprised in numbered work 2A.

(3) For the purposes of this requirement, operation of the gas turbine generators

means the duration in which any energy is exported at the metering point, as the same

may be defined by the Balancing and Settlement Code."

2.3. New definition to add to Requirement 1:

"Balancing and Settlement Code" means the code for the governance of electricity

balancing and settlement in Great Britain which is maintained in accordance with the

conditions of transmission licences granted under section 6(1)(b) of the Electricity Act

1989.

15

Habitats, Ecology and Nature Conservation

HA2 - 01 Applicant In the applicant’s Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

submitted with its written summary of oral case put at the

issue specific hearing on environmental matters - submitted

for the deadline of 7 October 2014 [Doc.Ref. SAA] - were all

populations of Marsh Fritillary butterfly associated with

Blaen Cynon Special Area of Conservation (SAC) given a

Valued Ecological Receptor (VER) status of ‘International’?

1.1. Yes, in accordance with the entire assessment process to date. This is set out in Section

5.1.1(b) of our summary of oral case of the environmental matters ISH (see document

ref. WSEIA).

HA2 - 02 RCT, BBNPA and

NRW

What is the current status of the Enviroparks Hirwaun Ltd

2009 planning application project (Planning Application Ref.

08/02488/FUL). Is it likely to proceed in part, fully or not at

all?

2.1. This question is directed at RCT, BBNPA and NRW.

HA2 - 03 NRW The Appropriate Assessment for Enviroparks Hirwaun Ltd

(2009) (as submitted to the examination by Brecon Beacons

National Park Authority at Appendix 1 to their response to

the ExA's first written questions for the deadline of 21

August 2014) refers at paragraph 3.1.1, to “available

technical solutions” that will ensure emissions are kept

below 1% of critical load. Can you list these solutions and

provide evidence of their efficacy?

3.1. Although this question is directed at NRW, The Applicant would like to make the points

set out below.

16

3.2. There are a number of “available technical solutions” that can be applied to the

different process steps that form part of the Enviroparks development to reduce

emissions (i.e. applied to waste processing, Biomax separator, Anaerobic Digestion,

etc). These solutions can significantly reduce emissions of NOx and SO2 directly

through “end of pipe” techniques applied post combustion, or indirectly through the

production of “cleaner” liquid and gas fuel used in the reciprocating engines of the

power plant. Moreover, given the levels of emissions reductions outlined below, it is

concluded that the impacts of the Enviroparks development could be reduced to 1% of

the relevant critical load using technical solutions (ie reductions of 90% efficiency).

3.3. The following paragraphs outline some techniques that can reduce concentrations of

NOx and SO2 in the exhaust gases.

3.3.1. Acid gas emissions, like SO2, can be abated by applying dry, semi-dry and wet

scrubbing methods. The efficacy of these methods is dependent on the engine

design, size of plant and fuel type. Dry scrubbing can achieve 70-95% SO2

removal and wet methods around 90% ( Reference: EA, How to comply with

your environmental permit: Additional guidance for: Combustion activities EPR

1.01, 2009).

3.3.2. NOx abatement can include primary measures like dry-low NOx burners,

which are highly effective for gas firing, and flue gas recirculation (FGR),

particularly useful for gas and oil firing. Other methods include selective

catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non catalytic reduction (SNCR). The use

of SCR with reciprocating engines can reduce the efficiency of the engine and

increase emissions of CO and VOCs. However, SCR can reduce emissions

significantly (70 – 90% efficiency, US EPA-452/F-03-032). SNCR efficiencies are

17

typically between 30 to 50%, but 80% is claimed to be possible (EA, How to

comply with your environmental permit: Additional guidance for: Combustion

activities EPR 1.01, 2009; US EPA-452/F-03-031).

HA2 - 04 Applicant Please can the Boyer Planning, 2014 Environmental

Statement for Hirwaun Energy Centre be made available to

the examination by 13 November 2014?

4.1. The Boyer Planning Application is available at RCT’s website under planning application

reference 13/0416/10, direct URL:

http://documents.rctcbc.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00188159.pdf

4.2. Alternatively the document can be found by visiting

https://planning.rctcbc.gov.uk/online-applications/ then enter into the search field the

reference “13/0416/10” and then under ‘Documents’ find the item marked “Supporting

Information Environmental Statement Addendum Received 04.06.20”.

HA2 - 05 NRW Please can the Blaen Cynon SAC Core Management Plan be

made available to the examination, even in draft form, by 13

November 2014?

5.1. This question is directed at NRW.

HA2 - 06 NRW and

Applicant

What are the lowest limits of detection for Nitrogen Oxides

and Sulphur Dioxide diffusion tubes?

6.1. The question requests information on the lowest limits of detection of nitrogen dioxide

and sulphur dioxide diffusion tubes. It is assumed that the question refers to the

18

Palmes-type passive diffusion tubes that are widely used to monitor nitrogen dioxide

(and to a lesser extent sulphur dioxide) in the UK. These are the only diffusion tubes

referenced by Defra guidance for local air quality monitoring (LAQM TG(09)). These

tubes are open at one end and contain a pollutant-specific absorber in the closed end.

They are typically exposed for periods of 2 – 4 weeks.

6.2. It is important to note that there are no formal standard methods for the preparation,

use or analysis of diffusion tubes and, whilst Defra have issued guidance intended to

harmonise procedures5

, considerable variation in tube performance still exists.

6.3. As such, it is not possible to make a definitive statement relating to the Limit of

Detection for passive diffusion tubes. Rather, the table below gives the stated limit of

detection (LoD) for nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide tubes from a number of UK

laboratories, extracted from their diffusion tube technical specifications.

Laboratory LoD for Nitrogen Dioxide LoD for Nitrogen Oxides LoD for Sulphur Dioxide

Gradko Ltd <1.5µg/m3 for 4 week exposure

<3.0µg/m3 for 4 week exposure

<3.0µg/m3 for 4 week exposure

ESG 0.6µg/m3 for 4 week exposure

Not provided <1.5µg/m3 for 4 week exposure

Staffordshire Scientific Services

1.6ug/m3 for 4 week exposure

Not provided Not provided

6.4. The limit of detection is not, however, the only significant measure of the performance

of a monitoring methodology; measurement uncertainty should also be taken into

account. Defra’s technical guidance note, LAQM TG(09) states

“In general terms, the uncertainty of a measurement using a chemiluminescent analyser

is expected to be of the order of ±10%, and for diffusion tubes that have been bias

adjusted ±20%.”

5

Diffusion Tubes for Ambient NO2 Monitoring: Practical Guidance, AEA/ENV/R/2504

19

6.5. Chemiluminescence is the reference method for monitoring nitrogen dioxide, embodied

in UK and EU regulations and directives as the method to be used for the assessment of

compliance with ambient air regulations. Diffusion tubes are used for indicative

monitoring and have a higher uncertainty. In relation to diffusion tubes, there are two

points to note from the LAQM TG(09) statement. The first is that the uncertainty in the

measurement is typically ±20%. The second point to note is that diffusion tubes require

‘bias adjustment’. This is an adjustment which takes into account the performance of

diffusion tubes in relation to chemiluminescence. The bias is dependent on many

factors including tube preparation and exposure, and ambient meteorological

conditions. In an ideal study, the bias adjustment will be taken into account by

collocating diffusion tubes and a chemiluminescent analyser in the study area.

However, where a study relies on national bias adjustment factors (provided by Defra),

further uncertainty is introduced into the measurements. For example, in 2013, the

collocation studies reported to Defra showed biases varying from -23% to +57%.

6.6. In relation to the application site at Hirwaun, existing pollutant concentrations are of

the order of range 10µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide and 15µg/m3 for nitrogen oxides. Any

diffusion tube monitoring installed in the area would have an associated uncertainty in

the measurement of ±2µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide, and ±3µg/m3 for nitrogen oxides.

6.7. The limit of detection and uncertainty of diffusion tube measurements are therefore

significantly higher than the maximum modelled annual mean impacts of the Project at

Blaen Cynon SAC i.e. 0.4µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.56µg/m3 for nitrogen oxides.

6.8. Notwithstanding the apparent high uncertainty relating to diffusion tube

measurements, a well-designed study can be undertaken, with appropriate temporal

and spatial coverage, which allows useful information to be obtained on data trends

20

and background concentrations. The contribution of the emissions from the Project to

pollutant concentrations would not, however, be perceptible in any such monitoring.

HA2 - 07 NRW In your written summary of oral submissions made on

Wednesday 24 September 2014 you agree that

Sweetman (Case C-258/11) was not considering in-

combination effects.

Some projects may be unlikely to have significant effects on

their own but effects in combination with other projects

may be significant.

Do you agree that a project with a potential effect, which is

insignificant on its own, is not free from the provisions

of the Habitats Regulations until it has been checked in

combination with the effects of other projects?

Do you agree that the protective measures of the Directive

could be seriously undermined if these combinations of

projects escaped assessment?

7.1. Although this question is directed at NRW, the Applicant would like to make the

following points which clarify and reinforce its previous submissions on these issues

(including the No Significant Effects Report (see document reference 5.5.0), the

response to ExA question HA19 (see document reference ExA 1), environmental matters

ISH (see document reference WSEIA) and the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

(see document reference SAA)).

Imperceptible effects which are immaterial in the context of an in-combination

assessment

7.2. The Applicant agrees that under the Habitats Regulations a project which does not have

a significant effect on its own can still contribute to an in-combination significant effect.

However, there are also circumstances one step removed from this where a project’s

21

impacts are imperceptibly small (i.e. de minimis) and are immaterial in the context of an

in-combination assessment, therefore, it cannot be said to contribute to, or give rise to,

a significant in-combination effect.

7.3. The Applicant agrees with NRW’s explanation (which echoes European Commission

Guidance)6 of this at the environmental matters ISH in the context of the Project:

“whilst there are circumstances in which insignificant effects combine to give rise to an

effect which is significant, the Hirwaun Power Station was at one remove from that

situation in that its air quality effects are not just insignificant, but imperceptible (or

immeasurable).”7

7.4. The Environment Agency's H18 guidance identifies that impacts below 1% of the

relevant critical load are "insignificant" and can be screened out for further assessment

(although the Applicant notes that the H1 guidance does not suggest that an impact of

over 1% necessarily gives rises to a likely significant effect, it requires further

assessment in such cases). However, it is not just because the Project's emissions are

below 1% of the relevant H1 critical load that the Applicant considers the Project's

impacts are de minimis and do not contribute to an in-combination significant effect.

The Applicant has undertaken further assessments than are required by the H1

guidance and reached this conclusion based on the specific circumstances of the Project

and objective evidence available including:

the nature of the SAC;

6 Section 4.4.3 of European Commission’s Guidance entitled “Managing Natura 2000 Sites – the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC” states that: "[a] series of individually modest impacts may in combination produce a significant impact" - the impact of the Project is not individually modest but is a step removed in that it is individually imperceptible.

7

Page 5 of NRW's written summary of the oral representation put at the iSH on environmental matters held on 24 September 2014

8

Environment Agency H1 Guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horizontal-guidance-environmental-permitting

22

the fact any impact on the designated feature could only arise indirectly as a result of

impacts on the designated feature's habitat;

the imperceptible impacts of the Project individually on that habitat (described by

NRW as a "statistical zero"9); and

the immaterial contribution made by the Project itself to the in-combination position

(following a full in-combination assessment).

7.5. It is an intrinsic part of habitats regulations assessments ("HRA") that projects with no

(or next to no) impacts are not considered to give rise to, or contribute to, significant

effects alone or in-combination. This judgement is made for each HRA as a matter of

precautionary but proportionate professional judgement and decision making. This

approach is also enshrined in UK guidance: Environment Agency H1 guidance, states

that the impacts of industrial processes on conservation sites should only be considered

to a distance of 10km from the site (or 15km in the case of certain large combustion

plant); and Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (HA/207) states that

impacts need only be considered up to 200m from the centreline of roads affected by a

scheme and sets (non-zero) criteria in terms of traffic flows for the definition of

affected roads. In both cases, numerical modelling could be used to calculate a

numerical value for the impacts of schemes beyond the stated distances. To take a

hypothetical example, dispersion modelling (which can have an effectively unlimited

numerical resolution) could show a very wide range of SACs across the country where

tiny NOx depositions could land but further assessment would not be carried out for

many of those SACs because the impact of the project itself would be too small to

9

Page 5 of NRW's written summary of the oral representation put at the ISH on environmental matters held on 24 September 2014

23

contribute in any meaningful or measurable way to a significant effect alone or in-

combination.

Sweetman

7.6. The Applicant also agrees with NRW’s interpretation of Sweetman at the environmental

matters ISH that, although not specifically considering in-combination effects, AG

Sharpstone concluded that projects which have no appreciable effect on a European

site are not caught by Article 6(3). Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive is the provision

that gives rise to the requirement to assess likely significant effects (and if identified,

adverse effects) on European sites alone or in-combination.10

Appropriate Assessment

7.7. At the environmental matters ISH the ExA confirmed it would be helpful if the Applicant

could carry out a report to inform an appropriate assessment ("Habitats Regulations

Assessment Report") in relation to air quality impacts. This was submitted by the

Applicant at Deadline 4 (7 October 2014). This report concluded (on the basis of worst

case, conservative information) that the Project would not have an adverse effect on

the integrity of the Blaen Cynon SAC either alone or in-combination. This conclusion

was based in the first instance on the de minimis nature of the impact of the Project

and the lack of any material contribution to an in-combination significant effect.

7.8. However, if the modelled worst case nitrogen and acid depositions from the Project are

considered with the in-combination depositions from other reasonably foreseeable

10

Page 3 of NRW's written summary of the oral representation put at the ISH on environmental matters held on 24 September 2014

24

developments, and the de minimis nature of the Project's emissions is disregarded,

then the HRA Report concluded (as summarised in 5.3.4 - 5.3.10) that there will be no

in-combination adverse effect on any European site.

7.9. NRW agreed with the report's conclusions in the updated Statement of Common

Ground submitted at Deadline 4 (7 October 2014). Paragraph 3.2.6 of the SoCG states:

“[b]oth Parties AGREE as stated in the report to support an Appropriate Assessment that

the Project will not lead to an adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites,

either alone or in-combination with other developments.“

Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation

7.10. Following Deadline 4 (7 October 2014) and in light of the ExA’s second round of

questions, the Applicant has considered in more detail the potential benefits of the

ecological measures committed to by the Applicant. The Applicant is of the opinion that

land management mitigation secured by Requirement 10 of revision 3.0 of the draft

DCO will result in sufficient positive benefits to the marsh fritillary population

associated with the Blaen Cynon SAC to confirm that the Project will result in a minor

net benefit to the Blaen Cynon marsh fritillary population. Given that the land

management measures focus on the habitat for the designated feature (not the

designated feature itself), these measures are considered to be effective mitigation of

any impacts on the marsh fritillary butterfly itself because the net suitable habitat

available to the designated feature would increase. This position was supported by RCT

Ecologist Richard Wistow at the environmental matters ISH.

7.11. The Applicant considers that, taking account of the Project’s potential worse case

contribution to nitrogen/acid deposition, the proposed land management measures

associated with the Project will have a net positive impact on the SAC which further

25

reinforces the conclusions of the No Significant Effects Report and the Habitats

Regulations Assessment Report – projects with no (or next to no) impacts do not give

rise to significant effects alone or in-combination.

7.12. In addition, the Applicant's mitigation could provide a minor contribution towards

meeting the 2008 conservation objectives for the Blaen Cynon SAC, which include an

objective that “The site will contribute towards supporting a sustainable

metapopulation of the marsh fritillary in the Penderyn/Hirwaun area. This will require a

minimum of 50ha of suitable habitat, of which at least 10ha must be in good condition,

although not all is expected to be found within the SAC. Some will be on nearby land

within a radius of about 2km”.

7.13. In relation to other emitting developments it is noted, as set out in paragraph 5.3.9,

that Enviroparks section 106 agreement includes a substantial package of habitat

enhancements, and Hirwaun Energy Centre has significantly limited their proposed

emissions via revised design.

HA2 - 08 Applicant Table 4.2 of the applicant’s HRA Report dated October 2014

[Doc. Ref. SAA] predicts “a maximum deposition of 7.1% of

minimum critical load” for the in-combination acid

deposition and “a maximum in-combination of up to 1.6% of

minimum critical load” for the in-combination nitrogen

deposition.

Table 6.7 of the Environmental Statement [Doc. Ref. 6.1.0]

would classify these as a moderate/slight adverse in-

combination effects on the integrity of the Blaen Cynon SAC.

Why is this not stated in Section 5.3 Conclusions, of the

applicants HRA Report dated October 2014 [Doc.Ref. SAA]?

8.1. The overall conclusion of the HRA Report of the impacts of emissions to air from the

Project on Blaen Cynon SAC is that the impacts are imperceptible in relation to acid and

26

nitrogen deposition and therefore there will not be an adverse effect (alone or in-

combination) on the SAC. This takes into consideration the existing elevated deposition

levels. The conclusions of the HRA Report are supported by NRW (see Paragraph 3.2.6 of

the SoCG submitted at Deadline 4 (7 October 2014)).

8.2. The Applicant agrees that inputting the figures from Table 4.2 of the HRA Report into Table

6.7 of the Environmental Statement would appear to identify a moderate/slight air quality

likely significant effect for the purposes of the ES but the Applicant does not agree that: (i)

this is an appropriate application of the Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) guidance

applied in Table 6.7 for the assessment of the Project; or (ii) as set out in the HRA Report,

that this means there is an adverse in-combination effect on the integrity of the Blaen

Cynon SAC.

8.3. The points are explained in turn below

(i) Applicability of Table 6.7 to In-Combination Assessments

8.4. Table 6.7 of the Environmental Statement is taken from the planning guidance document

by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and, for the reasons set out below, is designed to

be used for the assessment of significance of air quality impacts of individual

developments, based on the magnitude of impacts of that development alone whilst

taking into account likely future total pollutant concentrations.

8.5. The descriptors of the magnitude of an impact (imperceptible, small, medium and large)

are taken from Table 4 of the EPUK guidance and paragraph 5.28 of the guidance states in

relation to Table 4 that:

“These criteria are based on the change in concentration brought about by the scheme as a

percentage of the assessment level”.

27

8.6. Therefore, the description of the magnitude of the impact under the EPUK guidance

should be applied to the impacts of ‘the scheme’ (in this case the Project alone) and not

combined impacts. The appropriate method for taking into account ‘in-combination’

impacts using the EPUK approach is through consideration of the total pollutant

concentration taking into account existing pollution levels and the impacts of all

reasonably foreseeable future developments.

8.7. Using the EPUK approach, it can be seen from Table 6.7 that the significance of an impact

may increase as additional future developments are taken into account in an ‘in-

combination’ assessment. For example, an impact from a scheme with medium

magnitude is considered to be of negligible significance if the total concentration or

deposition is well below the standard. If additional developments were to come forward

that increased the total concentration or deposition to below or just below/above the

standard, the significance of the impact would increase to slight adverse and then

moderate adverse respectively. However, in the Applicant’s case, the EPUK guidance

describes an impact as being of negligible significance when the magnitude of the

scheme’s impact is imperceptible, irrespective of the absolute pollutant concentration or

deposition level. That is to say, the consideration of additional future processes in no way

increases the perceptibility of the scheme’s impact – it remains imperceptible.

8.8. Therefore, the EPUK approach followed in Table 6.7 includes an in-combination

assessment so it would be a misapplication of the EPUK approach to include combined

figures for a number of projects into the table in the way suggested in the question.

Instead, a methodology for an in-combination assessment is provided by the EPUK

guidance which recognises that a project with imperceptible impacts will be immaterial in

28

the context of an in-combination assessment and, therefore, will not contribute to, or give

rise to, a significant in-combination effect.

(ii) HRA Report

8.9. The EPUK approach to in-combination assessment accords with the position stated in

paragraph 5.3.3 of the HRA Report and explained in detail in response to HA2-07. This

position is that the air quality impacts of the Project are imperceptibly small and are

immaterial in the context of the in-combination assessment, therefore, the Project does

not contribute to, or give rise to, an in-combination significant effect. This position was

also stated in the No Significant Effects Report (document reference 5.5.0), the response

to ExA question HA19, and at the ISH on environmental matters). See further the

Applicant's response to HA2-07 above.

8.10. However, if the modelled worst case nitrogen and acid depositions from the Project are

considered with the in-combination depositions from other reasonably foreseeable

developments, and the de minimis nature of the Project's emissions is disregarded, then

the HRA Report concluded (as summarised in 5.3.4 - 5.3.10) that there will be no in-

combination adverse effect on any European site.

8.11. Whilst the HRA Report includes assessment of revised emissions parameters for

Enviroparks and Hirwaun Energy Centre (see Table AQ3 in Appendix 3 of the HRA Report),

it still includes inherent conservatism, as set out between paragraphs 16.7 to 16.9 of this

response. The HRA Report has included the emissions from the Green Frog STOR Plant,

despite this facility having a very infrequent operating regime, with limited capacity to

contribute to average annual deposition metrics, and (as it is operational not reasonably

foreseeable) technically also being part of the existing baseline.

29

8.12. It is also worth reiterating at this point several conservative air quality assessment

assumptions in the HRA Report including:

70% conversion of NOX to NO2;

full load operation of the Project for 1500 hours per year;

for short term impacts, that the hours of operation coincide with the poorest

dispersion conditions; and

assessment based on maximum modelled impacts over 5 years of meteorological

data.

8.13. In addition, the assessment of in-combination effects includes the following conservative

assumptions:

full load, continuous operation of Enviroparks and Hirwaun Energy Centre

throughout the year; and

inclusion of Green Frog despite it being a very intermittent operation, and an

existing process that is already constructed and able to operate.

8.14. It should also be noted that if the recent historical trend for declines in background

deposition of nitrogen and acid (interpolated from APIS data 2005 – 2012) continues, the

effects of Enviroparks, Hirwaun Energy Centre and The Green Frog STOR Plant (and the

imperceptible contribution from the Project) would all be negated within eight months

(taking account of the revised emissions data for Enviroparks and Hirwaun Enegy Centre,

as presented in Appendix 3 to The HRA Report) and nitrogen deposition would be negated

within one month.

8.15. As set out in paragraph 5.3.6 to 5.3.7 of The Applicant’s HRA Report, various enhancement

measures are identified. As set out in paragraphs [15.14 – 15.17] of answer HA2-07, it is

The Applicant’s view that the enhancement measures committed to by the Applicant and

30

secured by the draft DCO mean the Project provides a net benefit when considered against

the imperceptible air quality effects of the Project. Projects with no (or next to no)

impacts do not give rise to significant effects alone or in-combination so considering this

mitigation further reinforces the conclusion in the HRA Report that there will be no

adverse effects alone or in-combination.

HA2 - 09 NRW Table 4.2 of the applicant’s HRA Report dated October 2014

[Doc.Ref. SAA] predicts “a maximum deposition of 7.1% of

minimum critical load” for the in-combination acid

deposition and “a maximum in-combination of up to 1.6% of

minimum critical load” for the in-combination nitrogen

deposition.

Would you agree that Table 6.7 of the Environmental

Statement [Doc. Ref. 6.1.0] would classify these as a

moderate/slight adverse in-combination effects on the

integrity of the Blaen Cynon SAC?

Will the in-combination acid and nitrogen deposition

described above hinder the return of Blaen Cynon SAC to

Favourable Conservation Status (FCS)?

9.1. This question is largely addressed in the answer to HA2 - 08. The Applicant does not agree

that Table 6.7 of the Environmental Statement should be used to classify the in

combination effects on the Blaen Cynon SAC for the Applicant’s scheme as

moderate/slight adverse.

HA2 - 10 Applicant Table 4.2 of the applicant’s HRA Report dated October 2014

[Doc.Ref. SAA] says the project makes a 0.25% contribution

to in-combination effects for acid deposition on Blaen Cynon

SAC, but in Appendix 1 Integrity Matrices [Doc. Ref. SAA]

final page, second paragraph it states it is 0.3%?

31

10.1. This is a rounding matter. The modelled contribution to in-combination effects, at the

point of maximum Project impact, to three decimal places is 0.256%

HA2 - 11 Applicant Can the applicant present information in Table AQ2 Appendix 3 [Doc. Ref. SAA] in the same format as provided in Table 6.24 of the Environmental Statement [Doc. Ref. 6.1.0]? Can the applicant present information in Table AQ3 Appendix 3 [Doc. Ref. SAA] in the same format as provided in Table 6.25 of the Environmental Statement [Doc. Ref. 6.1.0]?

1.1. The results presented as requested are provided below. Please note that a number of

revised future scenarios were considered in Appendix 3 to Doc Ref SAA, namely:

Scenario A: Impacts with revised emissions from Enviroparks but Hirwaun Energy

Centre (HEC) and Green Frog kept at ES emissions

Scenario B: Impacts with revised emissions from both Enviroparks and HEC, but

Green Frog kept at ES emissions

Scenario C: Impacts with revised emissions from Enviroparks and HEC, and Green

Frog discounted for long term impacts due to limited operating hours.

1.2. In response to this question, only scenarios A and C are presented. These provide an

envelope within which to assess the likely impacts of all processes. All these scenarios

are considered in the Applicant's HRA Report.

1.3. It should be noted that the data relate to modelling undertaken for 2008 only.

Furthermore, it is reiterated that the Green Frog facility is currently operational and is

included in the assessment of ‘in-combination’ effects in Scenario A (and B) on a

precautionary basis.

32

Rework of Table AQ2 Appendix 3

Impacts with Scenario A: Cumulative Impacts on Ambient Concentrations of Annual and Daily Mean NOX over Blaen Cynon SAC, µg/m3. Results are shown for model runs using meteorological data from 2008.

Year

Maximum Power

Generation Plant

Contribution

Maximum Contribution from Other

Sources

Maximum Cumulative

Contribution

Total Ambient Concentration

% Critical Level

Annual Mean NOX (µg/m3 ) [Critical Level = 30 µg/m3]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.39 1.15 1.55 15.6 52%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

0.56 0.71 1.27 15.3 51%

Daily Mean NOX (µg/m3 ) [Critical Level = 75 µg/m3]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.43 11.21 11.64 39.6 53%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

10.00 0.53 10.53 38.5 51%

33

Impacts with Scenario C: Cumulative Impacts on Ambient Concentrations of Annual and Daily Mean NOX over Blaen Cynon SAC, µg/m3. Results are shown for model runs using meteorological data from 2008.

Year

Maximum Power

Generation Plant

Contribution

Maximum Contribution from Other

Sources

Maximum Cumulative

Contribution

Total Ambient Concentration

% Critical Level

Annual Mean NOX (µg/m3 ) [Critical Level = 30 µg/m3]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.39 0.94 1.34 15.3 51%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

0.56 0.26 0.81 14.8 49%

Daily Mean NOX (µg/m3 ) [Critical Level = 75 µg/m3]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.43 11.12 11.55 39.6 53%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

10.00 0.00 10.00 38.0 51%

34

Rework of Table AQ3 Appendix 3

Impacts with Scenario A: Cumulative Impacts on Nitrogen and Acid Deposition over Blaen Cynon SAC, µg/m3. Results are shown for model runs using meteorological data from 2008.

Year

Maximum Power

Generation Plant

Contribution

Maximum Contribution from Other

Sources

Maximum Cumulative

Contribution

Total Ambient Concentration

% Critical Level

Nitrogen Deposition (kgN/ha/yr) [Critical Load = 10 kgN/ha/yr]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.040 0.116 0.156 24.38 244%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

0.056 0.072 0.128 24.34 244%

Acid Deposition (keq/ha/yr) [Critical Load = 1.161 kgN/ha/yr]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.0002 0.141 0.1412 1.871 161% Point of Maximum Impact of Hirwaun Energy Centre

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

0.0040 0.0470 0.0510 1.781 153%

35

Impacts with Scenario C: Cumulative Impacts on Nitrogen and Acid Deposition over Blaen Cynon SAC, µg/m3 . Results are shown for model runs using meteorological data from 2008.

Year

Maximum Power

Generation Plant

Contribution

Maximum Contribution from Other

Sources

Maximum Cumulative

Contribution

Total Ambient Concentration

% Critical Level

Nitrogen Deposition (kgN/ha/yr) [Critical Load = 5 kgN/ha/yr]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.040 0.095 0.135 24.36 244%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

0.056 0.026 0.082 24.30 243%

Acid Deposition (keq/ha/yr) [Critical Load = 1.078 kgN/ha/yr]

Point of Maximum

Cumulative Impact

0.0027 0.0162 0.0189 1.749 151%

Point of Maximum Impact of Hirwaun Energy Centre

0.0002 0.0054 0.0056 1.736 150%

Point of Maximum

Project Impact

0.0040 0.0045 0.0085 1.738 150%

36

HA2 - 12 Applicant In the event that it can be demonstrated that there are no

alternative solutions (this is not prejudging the outcome of

the competent authority’s (i.e. Secretary of State (SoS))

Appropriate Assessment) to the proposal that would have a

lesser effect or avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of

the Blaen Cynon SAC site, the project may still be carried out

if the competent authority (SoS) is satisfied that the scheme

must be carried out for IROPI (imperative reasons of

overriding public interest). In cases where there are priority

natural habitats or species affected by the development, the

IROPI justification must relate to either:

• human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of

primary importance to the environment; or

4 PINS Advice Note 10 HRA August 2013

In the event that adverse effects on the integrity of Blaen

Cynon SAC cannot be ruled out (this is not prejudging the

outcome of the competent authorities i.e. SoS Appropriate

Assessment), what is the applicant's case for concluding:

1. there are no alternative solutions,

2. IROPI applies, and

3. that satisfactory compensatory measures are available?

12.1. The Applicant has prepared a No Significant Effects Report (document reference 5.5.0)

which concludes that the Project will not result in a likely significant effect on any

European sites alone or in-combination and this conclusion is supported by NRW (see

paragraph 3.3.1 of the NRW SoCG (rev 1.0 dated October 2014)). Following the

environmental matters ISH, the Applicant has also prepared a Habitats Regulations

Assessment Report (document reference SAA) in the event the Secretary of State

considers there was potential for a likely significant effect. The HRA Report concludes

there will not be an adverse effect on the Blaen Cynon SAC alone or in-combination and

37

this conclusion is, again, supported by NRW (see paragraph 3.2.6 of the NRW SoCG (rev

1.0 dated October 2014)).

12.2. Therefore, it is the Applicant's clear position, supported by objective evidence and the

appropriate nature conservation body, that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the "Habitats Regulations") is not engaged. As

such, it is not necessary or appropriate to conclude on the three tests identified in this

question. Given that the Project has an imperceptible effect on the Blaen Cynon SAC –

and taking account of the secured ecological enhancement measures which will have a

net positive impact on the designated feature, the marsh fritillary butterfly – these tests

are simply not applicable in the context of the Project. However, to assist the Examining

Authority and to answer the question asked as far as possible, the Applicant

summarises below some of the key points which could be made in relation to each of

the three tests if the Project were to have an adverse effect on a European site.

IROPI Applies

12.3. It is self-evident that a secure, economical, efficient and low-carbon energy source is an

imperative of overriding public importance for reasons including maintaining human

health, public safety and environmental protection as well as because such an energy

source is fundamental to the sustainable development of our economy.

12.4. The vital role of gas-fired generating stations in the UK energy mix is widely

acknowledged in Government policy. Particular emphasis is placed in Government

policy on the increasing need for gas-fired peaking plants, like the Project. Gas-fired

peaking plants meet peak demand and balance out intermittent low-carbon sources of

generation (much of which is found in Wales and in RCT) thus playing a vital role in our

transition to a low-carbon economy. For example, EN-1 states at paragraph 3.6.1 that:

38

12.5. "Fossil fuel power stations play a vital role in providing reliable electricity supplies: they

can be operated flexibly in response to changes in supply and demand, and provide

diversity in our energy mix. They will continue to play an important role in our energy

mix as the UK makes the transition to a low carbon economy...".

12.6. A more detailed description of the need for, and policy support for, the Project is set

out in section 4 of the Planning Statement (document reference 10.1.0).

Alternative Solutions

12.7. The need for significant increases in gas-fired peaking capacity in the UK is widely

recognised in Government energy policy. For example, a key part of the Government's

flagship Energy Market Reform11

is the development of a "capacity mechanism" to

stimulate the development of this type of plant.

12.8. Parsons Brinckerhoff 2009 report “Powering the Future”3, which seeks to map a route

to a low carbon economy, has predicted that up to 9,000 MW of flexible power would

be needed by 2050 to help stabilise the National Grid. This equates to roughly 30 plants

similar to the Project.

12.9. The Applicant's parent company Watt Power Limited carried out a wide search

throughout England and Wales to identify sites which are suitable for the development

of gas-fired peaking plants such as the Project and the Project site was one of a small

number identified as the most suitable. Proximity to sensitive ecological habitats was a

key consideration in the site selection process. Alternative generation technologies

11

Electricity Market Reform White Paper – Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and

low-carbon electricity’ (DECC, 2011)

39

were also fully and robustly considered and all appropriate mitigation measures are

secured in the draft DCO (revision 3.0 dated October 2014).

12.10. A more detailed description of the alternatives considered for the Project is set out in

section 5 of the Environmental Statement (document reference 6.1.0) and the

mitigation secured for the Project is identified in the Mitigation Commitments Register

(document reference MCR)

Compensatory Measures

12.11. As identified in response to HA2-07, the Applicant's proposals already secure ecological

enhancement measures which the Applicant considers will result in a minor net

beneficial effect, on the designated feature associated with the Blaen Cynon SAC.

Therefore no compensatory measures would be necessary, appropriate or

proportionate.

12.12. The Applicant notes that Enviroparks have committed in a s106 agreement to a scheme

to be administered by a butterfly conservation charity (Butterfly Conservation) to

provide land management measures on third party land to further avoid impacts on the

marsh fritillary butterflies associated with the Blaen Cynon SAC.

HA2 - 13 RCT Please provide a written summary of your oral

representations at the Environmental Matters hearing on

the 24 September 2014.

13.1. This question is directed at RCT.

40

Appendix 1

An update on Appendix 1 WSCPO The current status of negotiations with all Affected Persons

The Planning Act 2008

The Hirwaun Power (Gas Fired Power Station) Order

Update of 13 November 2014 to Appendix 1 to the Written Summary of the Applicant's oral case put at the Compulsory Acquisition hearing held on 24

September 2014 (submitted on 7 October 2014)

PINS Reference Number: EN010059

Document Reference: WSCPO – Appendix 1, Rev 1

Author: Hirwaun Power Limited

1

Schedule of land owner negotiations as at 13 November 2014 (relating to the pink, blue and yellow land shown on the Land Plans)

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

International Greetings UK Limited

Freehold (excluding mines and minerals)

1_MS, 2_MS, 4_MS and 7_MS

An Option Agreement has been signed and completed for the acquisition of the freehold title. No relevant representation has been submitted by International Greetings UK Limited. Freehold 3_MS, 5_MS and

6_MS

Freehold (subsoil)

1_GR, 1a_GR, 1b_GR, 3_GR 3a_GR, 3b_GR, 1_ER

The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection, the Electrical Connection and temporary use of land) in February 2014. The Applicant chased International Greetings UK Limited in August, September and November 2014 and matters are now progressing. A draft easement is in circulation and there is on-going discussion about the ownership of the subsoil. International Greetings UK Limited states the subsoil is not within its ownership but advisers to the Applicant believe it is within International Greetings UK Limited's power to grant an easement over the subsoil by operation of law. No relevant representation has been submitted by International Greetings UK Limited.

International Greetings UK Limited / unknown

Freehold 2_GR, 2a_GR The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land) in February 2014. International Greetings UK Limited does not accept ownership of these plots. Accordingly, the Applicant erected notices at the site in March 2014, but to date no one has come forward. No relevant representation has been submitted by International Greetings UK Limited or anyone else in respect of these plots.

HSBC Bank plc Rights 1_MS, 2_MS, 3_MS, 4_MS, 5_MS, 6_MS and 7_MS

HSBC is the mortgagee to International Greetings UK Limited. An Option Agreement has been signed and completed with International Greetings UK Limited for the acquisition of the freehold title. No relevant representation has been submitted by HSBC.

Unknown Freehold (mines and minerals)

1_MS, 2_MS, 4_MS and 7_MS

The mines and minerals are excluded from the title to International Greetings UK Limited. Despite diligent inquiry, the Applicant has been unable to identify the owner of the mines and minerals.

2

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

No relevant representation has been submitted in respect of the mines and minerals in these plots.

Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc

Lessee/ Occupier 2_MS and 6_MS Protective provisions have been agreed with Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc and are included at Schedule 9, Part 2 of the draft DCO. Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc has confirmed to the Examining Authority in its Written Representation dated 21 August 2014 that the agreed protective provisions are considered to be appropriate for the proposed impact of the development on Western Power's assets. Western Power also confirms in its letter that it no longer wishes to be considered an interested party.

Rights 1_MS, 3_MS, 5_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 1b_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 4b_GR, 5_GR, 5a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 6b_GR, 6c_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR, 7b_GR, 8_GR, 9_GR, 11_GR, 11a_GR, 1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

British Telecommunications plc Rights 1_MS, 3_MS, 4_MS, 5_MS, 6_MS, 7_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 1b_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 1_ER

The Applicant first wrote to British Telecommunications plc in December 2013, and wrote again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by British Telecommunications plc, inviting British Telecommunications plc to enter into an agreement with the Applicant. The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No response was received. To protect the rights of British Telecommunications plc, the Applicant has included at Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO protective provisions for the operators of electronic communications code networks. Further to these, the Applicant again wrote in October 2014 inviting comments on the protective provisions. The Applicant's letter dated 2 October was returned with a statement that it had been received by the wrong department. Following several calls to British Telecommunications plc's national notice handling centre to clarify the correct procedure for obtaining comments on the protective provisions, the Applicant's letter was re-submitted to British Telecommunications plc's South Wales Network Alterations email address on 12 November with a request that British Telecommunications plc confirm

3

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

in writing that it accepts the principle of the compulsory purchase to the extent it is necessary and that it accepts the protective provisions set out in the draft DCO. No relevant representation has been submitted by British Telecommunications plc.

The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart, Marquis of Bute and Earl of Dumfries

Rights 1_MS, 2_MS, 3_MS, 4_MS, 5_MS, 6_MS, 7_MS, 7_GR, 7a_GR, 7b_GR, 11_GR, 11a_GR, 5_ER, 6_ER

The Applicant first wrote to The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights and restrictive covenants enjoyed by The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart, inviting The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart to enter into an agreement with the Applicant. The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August 2014. A verbal indication that The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart would be willing to enter into an agreement was received. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions at Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. The Applicant wrote to The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart in October 2014 with a proposed, simplified form of agreement and explaining the operation of the draft DCO and protective provisions. Discussions with the Honourable John Crichton-Stuart's land agent and the Applicant's solicitors are on-going as at 13 November 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart.

Freehold (mines and minerals)

11_GR, 11a_GR Whilst the Book of Reference identifies The Honourable John Crichton-Stuart as the owner of mines and minerals in this plot, the applicable conveyances are old and illegible. Accordingly, the Applicant has requested that Tower Regeneration Limited confirm the ownership of the mines and minerals given that Tower Regeneration Limited owns the surface freehold and had submitted a planning application to extract coal from this plot. The Applicant understands from Tower Regeneration Limited that it does have

4

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

the benefit of the minerals.

The Welsh Government Rights 1_MS, 2_MS, 3_MS, 4_MS, 5_MS, 6_MS, 7_MS, 4_ER

The Applicant first wrote to the Welsh Government in July 2013, and again in October and December 2013 and in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by the Welsh Government, inviting the Welsh Government to enter into an agreement with the Applicant (such agreement would allow the Applicant to interfere with the Welsh Government's rights to run services through any conduits subject to the Applicant not interfering with any existing rights to run services unless and until replacement apparatus has been brought into operation). The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No response was received. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to the Welsh Government inviting comments on these protective provisions but no response has been received to date. However, pursuant to Section 135 of the Planning Act 2008, the Applicant proposes that the following amendment (or equivalent amendment) is made to Article 22 to the next revision of the draft DCO: After the word "applies" in Article 22(6), include the following new words: "and this article only applies in relation to any interest in Crown land with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority." Add the following new Article 22(9) "(9) In this article, “Crown land” and “the appropriate Crown authority” have the same meaning as that given in section 227 (“Crown land” and “the appropriate Crown authority”) of the 2008 Act." The relevant representation submitted by the Welsh Government does not relate to its rights in the Order land, rather to transport matters. In any event, the Welsh Government has not raised an objection.

5

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

Wales & West Utilities Limited Rights 1_MS, 2_MS, 4_MS, 5_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 1b_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 4b_GR, 6b_GR, 1_ER, 2_ER, 5_ER

The Applicant first wrote to Wales & West Utilities Limited in December 2013, and wrote again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant interests enjoyed by Wales & West Utilities Limited, inviting Wales & West Utilities Limited to enter into an agreement with the Applicant. The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No response was received. To protect the rights of Wales & West Utilities Limited, the Applicant has included at Schedule 9, Part 3 in the draft DCO protective provisions for the protection of electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Wales & West Utilities Limited inviting comments on these protective provisions but no substantive response has been received to date although Wales & West Utilities Limited has contacted the Applicant's solicitors to acknowledge receipt of correspondence and request further information. No relevant representation has been submitted by Wales & West Utilities Limited.

Green Frog Power 214 Limited Freehold (subsoil)

3b_GR The Applicant issued a draft Option to Green Frog in February 2014. Green Frog confirmed in May 2014 that they could now agree the proposed heads of terms. Since then, the Applicant has chased to progress matters in June, July, August, September and October 2014. No response has been received to date (apart from a comment on two occasions that the relevant person at Green Frog has been on leave and that Green Frog's lawyers would revert to the Applicant once they had managed to speak with this relevant person).

Rights 5_MS

Regarding Green Frog's right of access situated off Main Avenue, the Applicant wrote to Green Frog in June 2014 to advise that Green Frog would continue to enjoy this access from Main Avenue and that the Applicant proposes to enter into a side agreement with Green Frog that would have the effect of granting back the right of access to ensure that Green Frog's access remains uninterrupted. As above, the Applicant chased for comments in July, August, September and October 2014.

6

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

To protect rights of access (as well as rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services), the Applicant has included protective provisions in Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. This will ensure that Green Frog's rights of access remain uninterrupted. In October 2014 the Applicant wrote to Green Frog explaining these protective provisions and proposing a form of agreement in relation to the proposed interference with Green Frog's rights. No response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by Green Frog.

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council

Freehold (as adopted highway)

1_GR, 1a_GR, 1b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 3b_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 4b_GR, 5_GR, 5a_GR, 8_GR, 8a_GR, 8b_GR, 9_GR, 9a_GR, 9b_GR, 1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

As adopted highway, the Applicant will be relying on the streets powers in Part 3 of the draft DCO and not compulsory acquisition. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. In the Statement of Common Ground between the Applicant and the Council (document reference SRCT), the Council agrees that Part 3 of the draft DCO provides sufficient control to the Council in respect of transport and highways matters and that the draft DCO is acceptable and capable of being made.

Rights 11_GR, 11a_GR The Applicant has been in discussions with the Council and to date no agreement is being progressed between the Applicant and the Council. This land is in the freehold ownership of Tower Regeneration Limited, and the Applicant is in discussions with Tower Regeneration Limited regarding the acquisition of the freehold (plot 11_GR) and the temporary use of land (plot 11a_GR). The Council has not objected to the application and has not issued a Relevant Representation or a Written Representation in respect of these plots.

Ashtenne (AIF) Limited Freehold (subsoil)

3a_GR, 1_ER The Applicant and Ashtenne are in advanced discussions regarding the grant of an easement for the proposed Electrical Connection through Ashtenne's subsoil below the adopted highway in plot 1_ER. This agreement would also cover the Applicant's temporary use of plot 3a_GR, although it is noted that again Ashtenne's interest is only in respect of the subsoil and the Applicant

Rights 5_ER, 6_ER

7

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

does not intend to carry out below surface works on this plot. A key concern of Ashtenne is ensuring that the easement does not permanently reduce the ability to access its existing estates or land in any way, or would hinder its on-going operation or redevelopment potential. The Applicant is able to confirm that the easements would not permanently reduce Ashtenne's ability to access its estates or land or hinder its on-going operation or redevelopment potential. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. On 27 October, solicitors for Ashtenne wrote to confirm that it continued to negotiate with the Applicant in relation to its interests in land that might be affected by the DCO. The Applicant's solicitor received detailed comments on the proposed option agreements and easements from the solicitor acting for Ashtenne in October and responded to these at the beginning of November. Amended versions of the proposed options and easements are expected from the solicitor acting for Ashtenne once she has had an opportunity to take further instructions. The Applicant and Ashtenne are liaising in relation to its rights in Plots 5_ER and 6_ER as part of these discussions. The Applicant and Ashtenne are aiming to reach agreement as quickly as possible. Ashtenne confirmed in its Written Representation submitted at Deadline 2 that it would have no objection.

Ashtenne Industrial Fund Nominee No.1 Limited

Freehold (subsoil)

3a_GR, 1_ER The position is the same as for Ashtenne (AIF) Limited above.

Carol Ann Jenkins Freehold (subsoil)

4_GR, 4a_GR, 4b_GR, 5_GR, 5a_GR, 8_GR, 8a_GR, 8b_GR

The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land) in February 2014. Verbal communication was exchanged and a meeting was held in April 2014. Following this meeting, the Applicant issued a revised offer in May 2014, with counter-offers being made in July 2014 and correspondence being exchanged in August and September 2014. Discussions were held in parallel with Ifan Geraint Jenkins and Eunice Davies

Freehold 6_GR, 6a_GR, 6b_GR, 6c_GR

Freehold (excluding mines

7_GR, 7a_GR, 7b_GR

8

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

and minerals) for the grant of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land for the construction of the Gas Connection. A meeting was held in Wales on 4 November 2014 resulting in a commercial agreement in principle. The landowners have appointed solicitors and the Applicant's solicitor is preparing an updated version of the option agreement and easement to reflect the new commercial terms. Parties have agreed to aim for signature of the agreements by 6 December 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by Carol Ann Jenkins.

Ifan Geraint Jenkins Freehold 6c_GR The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land) in February 2014. Verbal communication was exchanged and a meeting was held in April 2014. Following this meeting, the Applicant issued a revised offer in May 2014, with counter-offers being made in July 2014 and correspondence being exchanged in August and September 2014. Discussions were held in parallel with Carol Ann Jenkins and Eunice Davies for the grant of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land for the construction of the Gas Connection. A meeting was held in Wales on 4 November 2014 resulting in a commercial agreement in principle. The landowners have appointed solicitors and the Applicant's solicitor is preparing an updated version of the option agreement and easement to reflect the new commercial terms. Parties have agreed to aim for signature of the agreements by 6 December 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by Ifan Geraint Jenkins.

Occupier 6_GR, 6a_GR,6b_GR, 7a_GR, 7b_GR

Eunice Davies Freehold (excluding mines and minerals)

7_GR, 7a_GR, 7b_GR The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land) in February 2014. Verbal communication was exchanged and a meeting was held in April 2014. Following this meeting, the Applicant issued a revised offer in May 2014, with counter-offers being made in July 2014 and correspondence being exchanged in August and September 2014. Discussions in parallel with Carol Ann Jenkins and Ifan Geraint Jenkins were held for the grant of an easement for the Gas Connection and temporary use of land for the construction of the Gas Connection.

Freehold (subsoil)

8_GR, 8a_GR, 8b_GR

9

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

A meeting was held in Wales on 4 November 2014 resulting in a commercial agreement in principle. The landowners have appointed solicitors and the Applicant's solicitor is preparing an updated version of the option agreement and easement to reflect the new commercial terms. Parties have agreed to aim for signature of the agreements by 6 December 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by Eunice Davies.

Unknown Freehold (mines and minerals)

7_GR, 7a_GR, 7b_GR The mines and minerals are excluded from the title to Eunice Davies and Carol Ann Jenkins. The Applicant has been unable to identify the owner of the mines and minerals. No relevant representation has been submitted in respect of the mines and minerals in these plots.

Ceridwyn Short Freehold (subsoil)

9_GR, 9b_GR The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection, temporary use of land and acquisition of freehold) in February 2014. Communication was received stating that Ceridwyn Short did not wish to engage in discussions. The Applicant requested a meeting to discuss why the easement is required and the terms of the offer, but this was not taken up by the Affected Person. A revised offer was issued in May 2014 and the Applicant made a further request to meet to discuss the terms of the offer in June 2014. The Applicant chased again in September 2014 and as at 13 November 2014, no progress has been made, despite requesting a meeting or response from the appointed agent. No relevant representation has been submitted by Ceridwyn Short.

Freehold (excluding mines and minerals)

10_GR, 10a_GR

Unknown Freehold (mines and minerals)

10_GR, 10a_GR The mines and minerals are excluded from the title to Ceridwyn Short. The Applicant has been unable to identify the owner of the mines and minerals. No relevant representation has been submitted in respect of the mines and minerals in this plot.

Tower Regeneration Limited Freehold (subsoil)

9_GR, 9a_GR The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Gas Connection, temporary use of land and acquisition of freehold) in February 2014. The Applicant and TRL held meetings in July 2013, following which revised heads of terms were provided to TRL in August 2013. TRL issued a counter-offer in September 2013 and the Applicant sought some clarifications from TRL on its proposed offer. These clarifications were

Freehold (excluding mines and minerals)

11_GR, 11a_GR

Lessee/ Occupier 10_GR, 10a_GR

10

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

provided on 17 September 2014, and discussed with TRL on 18 September 2014. A meeting to progress the heads of terms was held on 1 October 2014 and an updated offer was subsequently made by the Applicant in writing. Both TRL and the Applicant are working together to reach agreement on the terms of the easement for the Gas Connection, temporary use of land and acquisition of freehold as quickly as possible. On 11 November 2014 the Applicant's solicitors agreed to give a further undertaking to Tower Regeneration Limited in relation to incurred and anticipated fees. The Applicant is using all reasonable endeavours to agree commercial terms on a voluntary basis. The Applicant notes that TRL submitted an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (ref 13/0859/15) ") to amend the area where the excavation of minerals is permitted to allow extraction to be carried out in respect of plots numbered 10_GR, 10a_GR, 11_GR and 11a_GR. This application was refused on 28 October and, as far as the Applicant is aware, no appeal has been lodged. As such, the Applicant can confirm that it will not be interfering with any rights of Tower to excavate minerals.

Forward Sound Limited Rights 11_GR, 11a_GR Forward Sound Limited is the mortgagee to Tower Regeneration Limited. As stated above, both TRL and the Applicant are working together to reach agreement on the terms of the easement for the Gas Connection, temporary use of land and acquisition of freehold as quickly as possible. No relevant representation has been submitted by Forward Sound Limited.

Tower Colliery Limited Rights 11_GR, 11a_GR Please see the position in respect of Tower Regeneration Limited.

Celtic Energy Limited Rights 5_GR, 5a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 6b_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR

The Applicant first wrote to Celtic Energy Limited in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by Celtic Energy Limited, inviting Celtic Energy Limited to enter into an agreement with the Applicant (such agreement would allow the Applicant to interfere with Celtic Energy's rights to connect etc. to and use conduits and access such conduits subject to the Applicant not interfering with any

11

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

existing rights to connect etc. to and use conduits unless and until replacement apparatus has been brought into operation and the Applicant providing alternative access to such conduits). The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No written response was received. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Part 5 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Celtic Energy Limited inviting comments on these protective provisions and Celtic Energy replied requesting a copy of the Applicant's letter from June 2014. Later in October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Celtic Energy Limited proposing a form of agreement in relation to the proposed interference with Celtic Energy Limited's rights. No response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by Celtic Energy Limited.

The Coal Authority Unknown matters

7_GR, 7a_GR The Coal Authority has been in discussions with the Applicant and has not objected to the application. As the matters are unknown, no agreement is currently being progressed. The Coal Authority has not submitted a Written Representation (and its Relevant Representation was concerned with the imposition of a Requirement on the draft DCO which has since been agreed between the Applicant and the Coal Authority). The Coal Authority has also confirmed that it has no concerns with the approach in the draft DCO regarding the loss of potential mineral working area (please see the Applicant's comments on Written Representations, document reference WR1).

Rights 10_GR, 10a_GR The Coal Authority has been in discussions with the Applicant and has not objected to the application. The Coal Authority has confirmed that it has no concerns with the approach in the draft DCO regarding the loss of potential mineral working area in respect of these plots (please see the Applicant's comments on Written Representations, document reference WR1).

12

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

The Coal Authority has not submitted a Written Representation (and its Relevant Representation was concerned with the imposition of a Requirement on the draft DCO which has since been agreed between the Applicant and the Coal Authority).

British Gas Trading Limited Rights 10_GR, 10a_GR National Grid Gas Plc has confirmed to the Applicant that it now has the benefit of the rights and easements noted in the Book of Reference as being for the benefit of British Gas Trading Limited (please see the Applicant's comments on Written Representations, document reference WR1). Protective provisions have been agreed with National Grid Gas Plc and are included at Schedule 9, Part 1 of the draft DCO. The parties also agreed the terms of a side agreement which, as at 13 November, is being engrossed and circulated for execution. National Grid Gas has confirmed by email to the Examining Authority on 13 November that, on completion of the side agreement, it will withdraw its representations and have no further comments in relation to the application. No relevant representation has been submitted by British Gas Trading Limited.

Eftec Limited Rights 10_GR, 10a_GR The Applicant first wrote to Eftec Limited in October 2013, and wrote again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by Eftec Limited, inviting Eftec Limited to enter into an agreement with the Applicant (such agreement would allow the Applicant to interfere with Eftec's rights to lay pipes and to enter upon the land to inspect etc. the pipes subject to the Applicant not interfering with any existing rights to lay, use and inspect etc. such pipes unless and until replacement apparatus has been brought into operation and the Applicant providing alternative access to inspect the pipes/alternative apparatus). The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No written response was been received. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights

13

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Eftec Limited inviting comments on these protective provisions. Later in October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Eftec Limited proposing a form of agreement in relation to the proposed interference with Eftec Limited's rights. No response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by Eftec Limited.

South Wales Electricity Limited Rights 10_GR, 10a_GR The Applicant first wrote to South Wales Electricity Limited in October 2013, and wrote again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by South Wales Electricity Limited, inviting South Wales Electricity Limited to enter into an agreement with the Applicant. The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No response was been received. To protect the rights of South Wales Electricity Limited, the Applicant has included at Schedule 9, Part 3 of the draft DCO protective provisions for the protection of electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to South Wales Electricity Limited inviting comments on these protective provisions but no response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by South Wales Electricity Limited.

Cefn Strain Gauges Limited Freehold (subsoil)

1_ER The Applicant first wrote to Cefn Strain Gauges Limited in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Electrical Connection) in February 2014. In April and May 2014, the Applicant requested meetings with Cefn Strain Gauges Limited to discuss the documentation. A request was made by Cefn Strain Gauges Limited for copy documents to be sent by email, but no further response was received. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by

Rights 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER, 5_ER, 6_ER

14

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

Cefn Strain Gauges Limited, inviting Cefn Strain Gauges Limited to enter into an agreement with the Applicant (such agreement would allow the Applicant to interfere with Cefn Strain Gauges Limited's rights to run services through any conduits and to enter upon the land to inspect etc. subject to the Applicant not interfering with any existing rights to run services and inspect etc. unless and until replacement apparatus has been brought into operation and the Applicant providing alternative access). It is intended that Cefn Strain Gauges Limited's right of access over footpaths adjoining Main Avenue and Fourteenth Avenue would not be compulsorily acquired as the Applicant would use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. Chasing letters were issued in August and September 2014. No written response was received. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Schedule 9, Part 5 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Cefn Strain Gauges Limited inviting comments on these protective provisions. In November 2014, the Applicant wrote to Cefn Strain Gauges Limited proposing a form of agreement in relation to the proposed interference with Cefn Strain Gauges Limited 's rights (and reiterating the Applicant wishes to reach agreement in relation to an Easement). No response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by Cefn Strain Gauges Limited.

Deepan Rasiklal Khiroya Freehold (subsoil)

1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

The Applicant first wrote to Deepan Rasiklal Khiroya in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Electrical

15

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

Connection) in February 2014. No response was received, despite the Applicant chasing, the latest chasing letters being issued in November 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by Deepan Rasiklal Khiroya.

Sandeep Rasiklal Khiroya Freehold (subsoil)

1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

The Applicant first wrote to Sandeep Rasiklal Khiroya in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Electrical Connection) in February 2014. No response was received, despite the Applicant chasing, the latest chasing letter being issued in November 2014 No relevant representation has been submitted by Sandeep Rasiklal Khiroya.

Nabeel Yunis Soroya Freehold (subsoil)

1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

The Applicant first wrote to Nabeel Yunis Soroya in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Electrical Connection) in February 2014. No response was received, despite the Applicant chasing, the latest chasing letter being issued in November 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by Nabeel Yunis Soroya.

Naveed Amir Soroya Freehold (subsoil)

1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

The Applicant first wrote to Naveed Amir Soroya in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Electrical Connection) in February 2014. No response was received, despite the Applicant chasing, the latest chasing letter being issued in November 2014. No relevant representation has been submitted by Naveed Amir Soroya.

Walters Plant Hire Limited Freehold (subsoil)

1_ER The Applicant first wrote to Walters Plant Hire Limited in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. The Applicant made an offer (in respect of an easement for the Electrical Connection) in February 2014. The Applicant and Walters Plant Hire Limited have been progressing discussions, which are now well advanced. The parties are aiming to reach agreement as quickly as possible. The solicitor acting for Walters Plant Hire Limited has provided comments

16

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

on the proposed option agreement and easement. The Applicant's solicitor will be responding to the solicitor acting for Walters Plant Hire Limited during the week commencing 10 November 2014 in relation to the most recent comments with a view to finalising the documents. No relevant representation has been submitted by Walters Plant Hire Limited.

Paul Jonathan Lloyd Lessee 2_ER, 3_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire land or rights over which Paul Jonathan Lloyd has an interest. Plot 2_ER and Plot 3_ER is adopted highway. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Main Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Paul Jonathan Lloyd.

Hirwaun Estates Limited Lessee 4_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire land or rights over which Hirwaun Estates Limited has an interest. Plot 4_ER is adopted highway. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Main Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Hirwaun Estates Limited.

Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire Hirwaun Estates Limited's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained.

Skipton Building Society Rights 4_ER Skipton Building Society is the mortgagee to Hirwaun Estates Limited. The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire land or rights over which Hirwaun Estates Limited has an interest. This will be reflected in the next

17

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

revision of the draft DCO. Plot 4_ER is adopted highway.

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc

Freehold (excluding mines and minerals)

5_ER, 6_ER The Applicant is in advanced discussions with National Grid regarding an easement for the Electrical Connection. These discussions have been progressing since March 2014. The principles for an agreement have been agreed, and it is intention of the Applicant that the necessary documentation (an Interface Agreement and the option for the easement) will be completed as quickly as possible. Protective provisions have been agreed with National Grid Electricity plc and are included at Schedule 9, Part 1 of the draft DCO. The parties have agreed the terms of a side agreement which, as at 12 November, is being engrossed and circulated for execution. National Grid Electricity plc has confirmed that, on completion of the side agreement, it will withdraw its representations and have no further comments in relation to the application.

Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig Rights 3_ER, 4_ER, 5_ER, 6_ER

The Applicant is in discussions with Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig to ensure that protective provisions are agreed as soon as possible. In any event, it is noted that the Applicant has included at Schedule 9, Part 3 of the draft DCO protective provisions for the protection of electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers. Prior to a meeting held between Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig and the Applicant on 6 August, Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig provided an initial draft of protective provisions. The Applicant returned comments on these on 20 August, which reflected the parties' discussions to that date. The Applicant has contacted Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig about the draft several times but has not received any response.

CCF Limited Rights 4_ER The Applicant has been informed by CCF Limited that it has no interest in the plot. No relevant representation has been submitted by CCF Limited.

Mark Newman Rights 4_ER The Applicant has been informed by Mark Newman that in respect of the plot, he is acting in his capacity as a joint administrator (with James Snowdon) of AL 2013 Limited. Mr Newman has confirmed that the company has no interest in the proposed development.

18

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

No relevant representation has been submitted by Mark Newman or James Snowdon.

James Snowdon Rights 4_ER The Applicant has been informed by Mark Newman that in respect of the plot, he is acting in his capacity as a joint administrator (with James Snowdon) of AL 2013 Limited. Mr Newman has confirmed that the company has no interest in the proposed development. No relevant representation has been submitted by Mark Newman or James Snowdon.

J.D. Burford Limited Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire J.D. Burford Limited's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by J.D. Burford Limited.

Wendy Joseph Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire Wendy Joseph's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Wendy Joseph.

Philip Sedgemore Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire Philip Sedgemore's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Philip Sedgemore.

19

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

Tip Top Toilets Limited Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire Tip Top Toilets Limited's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Tip Top Toilets Limited.

Walter Energy Limited Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire Walter Energy Limited's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO. The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Walter Energy Limited.

Welsh Tyre Recycling Rights 5_ER The Applicant does not intend to compulsorily acquire Welsh Tyre Recycling's right of access over part of Fourteenth Avenue. This will be reflected in the next revision of the draft DCO The Applicant intends to use Article 12 of the draft DCO, being the power to temporarily prohibit or restrict the use of streets. The draft DCO also only provides that the Applicant can temporarily prohibit or restrict part of Fourteenth Avenue, enabling access to be maintained. No relevant representation has been submitted by Welsh Tyre Recycling.

Swan Mill (Holdings) Limited Rights 5_ER, 6_ER The Applicant first wrote to Swan Mill in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by Swan Mill, inviting Swan Mill to enter into an agreement with the Applicant (such agreement would allow the Applicant to interfere with Swan Mill's rights of access and rights to use and retain services through conduits subject to the Applicant providing Swan Mill with alternative access and not

20

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

interfering with any existing rights to use and retain services through conduits unless and until replacement apparatus has been brought into operation). In September 2014, a draft agreement was issued to Swan Mill which Robert Chapman, land agent for Swan Mill, confirmed on 24 September Swan Mill agreed in principle, subject to formal engagement with Swan Mill's solicitors. The Applicant's solicitors have chased but not received any further response from any of Swan Mill's representatives. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Part 5 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Swan Mill explaining the protective provisions and proposing a form of agreement in relation to the proposed interference with Swan Mill's rights. No response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by Swan Mill.

Tallyspace Limited Rights 5_ER, 6_ER The Applicant first wrote to Tallyspace Limited in October 2013, and wrote again with an update to the application in December 2013 and again in April 2014 to confirm that the application had been accepted. In June 2014 the Applicant wrote setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by Tallyspace Limited, inviting Tallyspace Limited to enter into an agreement with the Applicant (such agreement would allow the Applicant to interfere with Tallyspace Limited's rights of access and rights to use and retain services through conduits subject to the Applicant providing Tallyspace Limited with alternative access and not interfering with any existing rights to use and retain services through conduits unless and until replacement apparatus has been brought into operation). The Applicant chased for a response to this request in August and September 2014. No written response was received. To protect rights of access and rights to connect to, use, maintain, repair or renew services, the Applicant has included protective provisions in Part 5 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO which require the provision of substitute rights

21

Affected Person Tenure Plot(s) Update on negotiations and any alternatives considered

before any interference, suspension or extinguishment can occur. In October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Tallyspace Limited inviting comments on these protective provisions. Later in October 2014, the Applicant wrote to Tallyspace Limited proposing a form of agreement in relation to the proposed interference with Tallyspace Limited's rights. No response has been received to date. No relevant representation has been submitted by Tallyspace Limited.

Unknown Freehold (subsoil)

1_GR, 1a_GR, 1b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 3b_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 4b_GR, 8_GR, 8a_GR, 8b_GR, 9_GR, 9a_GR, 9b_GR, 1_ER, 2_ER, 3_ER, 4_ER

Through diligent inquiry, the Applicant considers that there are additional owners who own the subsoil of these plots. The Applicant has been unable to identify these additional owners.

Freehold (mines and minerals)

5_ER, 6_ER The mines and minerals are excluded from the title to National Grid Electricity Transmission plc. The Applicant has been unable to identify the owner of the mines and minerals. No relevant representation has been submitted in respect of the mines and minerals in this plot.

Rights 10_GR, 10a_GR, 4_ER Through diligent inquiry, the Applicant considers that the plots may be subject to various restrictive covenants and rights to run services. The Applicant has been unable to identify the beneficiaries to these restrictive covenants.