South Hook CHP Plant Herbrandston, Pembrokeshire · · 2016-05-04South Hook CHP Plant...

South Hook CHP Applicant’s Response to ExA 2nd Questions Document 2.12 1 17 February 2014

Document 2.12

South Hook CHP Plant

Herbrandston, Pembrokeshire

Applicant’s Response to Examining Authority’s second Round of Written Questions and Request for Information

The Planning Act 2008 Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN 010054

17th

February 2014

Applicant: QPI Global Ventures Limited

South Hook CHP Applicant’s Response to ExA 2nd Questions Document 2.12 17 February 2014

South Hook CHP Plant

Applicant’s Response to Examining Authority’s Second Round of Questions

and Requests for Information

Document History

TITLE: Applicant’s Response to Examining Authority’s Second Round of Questions and Requests for Information

DOCUMENT REF: Document 2.12

Version Status/Purpose/ Description

Originator Checked Authorised Date

Final Final for Submission

SHCHP Team

LP/PE/CZ/JT/DI

PE 17-02-14


Contents 1 Introduction and Purpose of Document ............................................................................. 4

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 4 2 Applicant’s Comments on Written Summaries of Oral Cases put at the Issue Specific

Hearing ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 NRW Oral Case ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 PCNPA & PCC Oral Case – Affordable Housing ................................................... 5

3 Applicant’s Response to Examining Authority’s Second Round of Written Questions and Requests for Information ............................................................................................ 9 3.1 Development Consent Order (DCO) (Q1.1 to 1.6) ................................................. 9 3.2 Questions arising from the applicants response to first round questions on

DCO drafting........................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) (Q2.1) .................................................. 16 3.4 Habitats Regulation Assessment (Q3.1 to Q3.4) .................................................. 16 3.5 Other Information (Q4.1 to Q4.4) ......................................................................... 19

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Transportation Technical Note Appendix 2 Revised DCO Appendix 3 Revised Document 1.22 Design Principles Statement Appendix 4 Document 2.13 Draft Landscape Proposals Plan Appendix 5 Document 1.10A Works Plan A,

Document 1.10B Works Plan B and Document 1.9 Section Drawing Plan

Appendix 6 Document 2.14 Limits of Deviation Requirement for Stack Appendix 7 Document 2.8 – SoCG in respect of Seascape, Landscape and Visual

Impact Appendix 8 Figure 1 - Existing Services Drawing for RWE Land


1 Introduction and Purpose of Document

1.1 Background

1.1.1 This document summarises the Applicant’s response to the Examining Authority’s second round of written questions and request for information as set out in the Examining Authority’s letter of 27th January 2014.

1.1.2 The format of the Applicant’s response is as follows:

Applicant’s comments on written summaries of oral cases put at the issue Specific hearing held on 15th January 2014.

Applicant’s response to Examining Authority’s second round of written questions and requests for information relating to :

o Development Consent Order (DCO) (Q1.1 to Q1.6)

o Questions arising from the applicant’s response to first round questions on DCO drafting

o Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) (Q2.1)

o Habitats Regulation Assessment (Q3.1 to Q3.4)

o Other Information (Q4.1 to Q4.4)


2 Applicant’s Comments on Written Summaries of Oral Cases put at the Issue Specific Hearing

2.1 NRW Oral Case

2.1.1 The Applicant has no comments on NRWs oral representation other than where matters are raised directly by the Examining Authority’s questions.

2.2 PCNPA & PCC Oral Case – Affordable Housing

2.2.1 The Applicant considers that the question of affordable housing remains not relevant and not important for the purposes of the proposed development subject to this DCO application and section 104(2)(d), Planning Act 2008, notwithstanding that the matter is raised in the LIRs.

2.2.2 PCNPA and PCC’s oral submissions indicated that discussions are on-going between the Applicant, PCNPA and PCC and Appendix A of their further written submissions comprises a note of a telephone conference that took place on 10 January 2014 with regard to the matter. However, there is not the potential ‘convergence’ orally suggested by these authorities at the ISH.

2.2.3 Against that context the Applicant sought improved understanding of the question of permanent affordable housing raised by PCNPA and PCC by ascertaining the quantum of the requests.

2.2.4 An email from PCNPA (Martina Dunne) dated 24 January 2014 confirmed that both PCNPA/PCC consider that ‘to prevent homelessness the Authorities ask that 30% of that travelling demand – 57 workers (189/100*30) be provided with accommodation by the project.’ That is, 57 temporary construction period workers.

2.2.5 A subsequent email from PCNPA (Martina Dunne) dated 7 February 2014 confirmed that PCNPA/PCC are seeking 49 units (41 1-bed, 7 2-bed and 1 3-bed) which would cost a total of £4,166,000. That is, 49 permanent units.

2.2.6 No particular site has been identified by PCNPA/PCC on which such permanent housing could be delivered and there is no certainty at present that any site exists that benefits from the necessary planning permission or is genuinely available to provide such housing within the timescale set by the two Authorities (i.e. in readiness for the start of construction due to commence in early 2015 (subject to the granting of the DCO and the efficient discharge thereafter of the relevant pre-commencement requirements)).

2.2.7 Further meetings have taken place between the Applicant, PCNPA and PCC on 10 and 11 February 2014 during which the question of affordable housing was discussed. No agreement has been reached on that question.

2.2.8 The Applicant concludes that no evidence has been provided by the two Authorities to satisfy the guidance tests of EN-1, paragraph 4.1.8 for a development consent planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990


(as amended): (“relevant to planning”; “necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”: “directly related to the proposed development”; and “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and reasonable in all other respects”) in summary as follows:

EN-1 paragraph 5.12.4 states that Applicant’s should ‘… refer to how the development’s socio-economic impacts correlate with local planning policies’. Paragraph 5.12.6 states that the IPC should have regard to potential socio-economic impacts that it ‘…considers to be both relevant and important to its decision’, paragraph 5.12.7 states that ‘The IPC may conclude that limited weight is to be given to assertions of socio-economic impacts that are not supported by evidence (particularly in view of the need for energy infrastructure as set out in this NPS)’ with paragraph 5.12.9 stating that ‘The IPC should consider whether mitigation measures are necessary…’. Here, there is no correlation nor relevance between the proposed development and the question of affordable housing. In terms of local planning policies PCNPA and PCC did not set out in their LIRs any correlation between the proposed SHCHP Plant, local planning policy and their request for permanent affordable housing.

Subsequently, upon request of the Applicant for some further explanation, the Authorities raised orally the PCC Local Development Plan Policy GN 3 - Infrastructure and New Development which states that ‘Where development generates a directly related need for new or improved infrastructure, services or community facilities and this is not already programmed by a service or infrastructure company, then this must be funded by the development, and: related in scale and kind to the development;…’ and the PCNPA Local Development Plan Policy 48 that relates to Community Facilities and Infrastructure and states that ‘c) planning permission will be granted for proposals that have made suitable arrangements for the improvement or provision of infrastructure, services and community facilities made necessary by the development.’ Neither of these policies were referred to by the Authorities in their LIRs nor can they be interpreted so as to cover the circumstances of this application and the Applicant concludes that there is no correlation or relevance between the policies and the Authorities’ requests for permanent affordable housing due to the temporary presence of construction workers.

Subsequently, the Authorities have not in their further written representations referred to these two policies again. The Applicant concludes that these two policies are not relevant. The Applicant respectfully submits that the question of permanent affordable housing is neither relevant nor important to this application, despite the reference to that question in the Authorities’ LIRs.

The requested development consent planning obligation is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning / DCO terms. There is no evidence that the accommodation of temporary construction workers will generate a permanent need that is necessary to be mitigated against by the provision of permanent housing such that the SHCHP development is acceptable in Planning Act 2008 terms.


The requested contribution is not “directly related to the proposed development”. There is no evidence to show a direct link between the temporary accommodation for construction period workers and permanent housing loss.

The requested contribution is not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. There is no evidential basis to show that 49 permanent housing accommodation units relates to a temporary construction period or to a permanent (non-residential) power station development in which people will work but not live.

The requests are not reasonable in all other respects.

2.2.9 The Applicant therefore concludes that the construction of the proposed CHP Plant will not have any impact upon local housing such that there is any justification for a development consent planning obligation to secure any contribution towards permanent provision of 49 units of affordable housing. As such the Applicant’s position with regard to housing remains as set out in Appendix 2 of its Second Response (Document 2.7), subject to the substitution by EN-1 paragraph 4.1.8 (the guidance tests for development consent planning obligations) for the references to Regulation 122 in Appendix 2, paragraphs 1 and 23. The Applicant considers that the question of affordable housing is not relevant and not important to the ExA’s determination of this application.

Pembrokeshire County Council - Transportation

2.2.10 The Applicant considers that the question of transportation remains not important for the purposes of the proposed development subject to this DCO application for the purposes of section 104(2)(d), Planning Act 2008, and notwithstanding that this matter was raised in an LIR.

2.2.11 Following on from the comments of PCC, in particular at the ISH, a further assessment has been undertaken by RPS and is attached as Appendix 1 to this document and helps to establish :

The precise detail and locations of the various highway improvements and road works recently proposed by the Council in its LIR (as amplified at the ISH);

The justification or otherwise for the works proposed

with a view to establishing if any such works justify a development consent planning obligation under s106 contribution in line with the guidance terms of EN-1, paragraph 4.1.8 (see above). In particular consideration has been given to whether it is “necessary” for the proposed s106 development consent planning obligation contributions to be made in order to make the DCO application proposal acceptable in planning DCO terms. Further to that assessment, the Applicant’s position otherwise remains that as expressed in its Appendix 3 to its Second Response (Document 2.7), subject to the substitution by EN-1 paragraph 4.1.8 (the guidance tests for development consent planning obligations) for the references to Regulation 122 in Appendix 3, paragraphs 2, 8, and 22. The Applicant considers that the


question of transportation improvements remains not relevant and not important.

2.2.12 The items listed by the PCC are as follows and addressed further below:

Improvements along the carriageway between Tiers Cross and the Robeston West junction.

New bus laybys and a crossing island at Meadow View.

Visibility improvements at Thornton Cross.

A Shared Use Path (SUP) from Tiers Cross to “Neeston Junction”

Signage and marking improvements.

Improvements between Tiers Cross and the Robeston West Junction

2.2.13 A Swept Path Analysis (SPA) has been undertaken along this length of highway. Two vehicle types have been shown:

Extendible Platform Vehicle with Casings (38.47m long and 2.60m wide) (1);

Truck and 20 Axle Trailer (42.141m long and 2.591m wide) (2)


3 Applicant’s Response to Examining Authority’s Second Round of Written Questions and Requests for Information

3.1 Development Consent Order (DCO) (Q1.1 to 1.6)

3.1.1 Detailed below are the Applicant’s responses to Q1.1 to 1.6.

Q1.1 Please would the applicant consider and, as appropriate,

draft a requirement to be included in the DCO that the grid

connection for the power station should be by means of

underground cable.

Applicant’s

Response

Please see new requirement 22 in the attached draft of the DCO

Appendix 2 of this document.

The proposed requirement is:

22. — (1) The electricity cables required to export electricity from the Authorised Development to the Pembroke 400kV sub-station owned by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (the “Grid Connection”) shall, subject to paragraph (2) below, comprise sub-surface cables and associated infrastructure on land and a crossing beneath the Milford Haven Waterway.

(2) Above ground elements of the Grid Connection may be required in limited circumstances including for example: structures required as part of the underground grid connection (such as tunnel head houses (if required) and other access points); electricity sub-stations; cabling and structures required to connect underground cables together and connect with above ground infrastructure (including termination points); cabling and structures required to cross features such as streams or ditches; cable racks or supports within the Order limits; cable pillar boxes; or any necessary temporary above ground works or cables required during the testing, repair and maintenance of the Grid Connection.

(3) Electricity shall not be exported from the Authorised Development to the Pembroke 400kV sub-station otherwise than by the Grid Connection.


draft a requirement in the DCO to ensure that the design

principles that would apply to the development of the CHP

plant would also apply to future development of carbon

capture and storage plant.

Applicant’s

Response

Please see new requirement 23 in the attached draft of the DCO

(Appendix 2).


The proposed requirement is:

23. In the event the undertaker is required to implement the

CCS proposal (as defined in Article 14) then the undertaker shall,

subject to any applicable statutory obligations and consenting

requirements, seek to implement the CCS proposal, where

technically feasible and so far as is reasonably practicable, in

accordance with the principles set out in the design principles

statement.


draft a requirement in the DCO to ensure that the CHP plant

operates primarily in CHP mode.

Applicant’s

Response

Please see the amendment to article 6 in the attached draft of the

DCO (Appendix 2). The proposed amendment is:

“6.— (1) The undertaker is hereby authorised to operate the generating station comprised in the authorised development for the purpose of generating electricity and heat and which shall operate primarily as a combined heat and power plant.

(2) This article does not relieve the undertaker of any obligation to obtain any permit or licence under any other legislation that may be required from time to time to authorise the operation of a generating station.”

In addition the Applicant has included the suggested wording

from NRW in requirement 8 to satisfy its concerns regarding the

impact to the Haven. It was this concern from NRW that was the

reason for requesting assurance regarding operating modes and

we understand from discussions with NRW that the new

requirement 8 now satisfies their concerns. The new sub clause

in requirement 8 is:

“(4) The contribution of the process waste water discharge along

with the aerial emissions from the Authorised Development, in

combination with the process waste water discharges and

emissions from the South Hook LNG Terminal operating as

consented as at the date of this Order, must not increase overall

nitrate loads into the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC and must

ensure no adverse effect on the integrity of the Pembrokeshire

Marine SAC as a result of other contaminants emitted or

discharged by the Authorised Development.”


Q1.4 The applicant has been in discussion with interested parties

on a number of other revisions to the application draft of the

DCO. These include (but are not limited to) provisions

relating to design and landscaping, lighting and noise. The

applicant has also proposed a number of amendments to

this version of the DCO in response to my question 5.6 of 30

October 2013.

Please will the applicant submit a revised DCO with

proposed changes from the application draft of the DCO

shown in track change mode. This should include changes

in response to my first round of questions. Please provide

explanations for proposed changes.

Applicant’s

Response

Please see the attached draft of the DCO (Appendix 2). The

draft DCO reflects comments received from the ExA in his first

and second rounds of written questions and reflects drafting that

has been discussed with NRW and PCNPA in response to the

specific drafting suggestions they raised in the PCNPA LIR and

the NRW response dated 20 November 2013. Reasons for the

proposed changes are given in comments attached to the draft.

The Applicant is confident that there are no outstanding issues of

major concern following its discussions to date, and it will

continue to discuss and refine the detailed terms of the DCO with

PNCPA, PCC and NRW. The Applicant intends to circulate a

further draft of the draft DCO by the end of February 2014 that

will indicate where these authorities are in agreement with the

proposed text and highlight if agreement on any particular text

remains outstanding.

Q1.5 If changes to the draft DCO are linked to changes in

supporting documents that are referred to but not included

in the DCO, the applicant should provide revised versions of

those documents with changes show in track change mode.

Applicant’s

Response

Please also find attached an amended draft of the Design

Principles Statement (Document 1.22) (Appendix 3 to this

document) following discussions with PCNPA and PCC and

reflecting drafting proposals submitted by these authorities.

Please also find attached a new document to reflect the progress

in landscape discussions that have taken place between PCNPA,

PCC and NRW. This is the draft landscaping plan (Document


2.13) (Appendix 4 to this document) that is now referred to in

requirement 6.

Please also find attached in Appendix 5 the amended Works Plan

A (Document 1.10A), Works Plan B (Document 1.10B) and

Section Drawing Plan (Document 1.9) reflecting drafting

amendments and proposed stack deviation requirements.

Q1.6 Please will Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority

(PCNPA), Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC), National

Resources Wales (NRW) and any other interested party

please set out any proposed changes to the DCO that have

not been agreed with the applicant.

Applicant’s

Response

Not applicable – please see however the response to Q1.4.

3.2 Questions arising from the applicants response to first round questions on DCO drafting

3.2.1 Detailed below is the Applicant’s response to Q1.7.1 to Q1.7.6 concerning further questions relating to the DCO drafting.

Q1.7.1 Noted. However, s156(2) provides that s156(1) (order has

effect for benefit of land) is subject to any contrary

provision in the order.

In the interests of clarity, should it be made clear that A7 is

without prejudice to operation of s156?

Applicant’s

Response

Agreed. Please see attached draft of the DCO (Appendix 2).

Q1.7.2 Is the reference to ‘lines’ necessary (and perhaps confusing)

as no lines are shown on Works plan A, only ‘situations’ for

the various numbered works?

Would wording such as the following be clearer: “Each

numbered work comprised in the authorised development

must be constructed within the correspondingly numbered


area shown on the works plan (part A) and…”?

Applicant’s

Response


Q1.7.3 This question was intended to relate specifically to the

Electrical Sub-station referred to in A3(4), whereas the

response does not address this.

Table 4.1 of the Design Principles statement provides the

parameters of the sub-station as Height – 7m, Length 79m

and Width 47m. Rather than refer to another document

outside the DCO, is it not more straightforward to provide

these parameters in A3(4).

Applicant’s

Response


Please note that following feedback from engineering contractors,

the Applicant will (in consultation with PNCPA, PCC and NRW)

seek to adopt a limits of deviation approach for the stack (key

building 9) to allow a limited lateral movement along an east west

axis of up to 15 meters. This is reflected in the draft DCO and is

more particularly detailed in Document 2.14 (Appendix 6 to this

document). This limited flexibility in stack location will allow

greater potential for reducing the mass of the other key buildings

(namely the gas/steam turbine generator building and/or the heat

recovery steam generator building). The Applicant will notify the

public of this intended change and invite comments by way of a

newsletter which it intends to circulate shortly. As noted in

Document 2.14, the Applicant has considered the environmental

impact of the proposed variation in stack location and has

concluded that this will have no material effect on emissions from

the CHP Plant or on its visual impact.

Q1.7.4 Model provision 12 makes provision for a Schedule of

identified accesses to be made or improved, merely adding

the paragraph on which this DCO article is based as a

backstop provision.

Where no specific proposals are yet identified, would it be

clearer and more appropriate to require submission and

approval of details before such accesses are made or

improved?

Applicant’s The Applicant is of the view that the use of a schedule as referred


Response to in model provision 12(a) was a mechanism to list those access

works for which no approval from the local planning authority was

required as they were sufficiently detailed to allow an Examining

Authority to assess them prior to the grant of the DCO. Where

such detail does not exist, model provision 12(b) allowed for a

more general right to conduct access works but subject to local

authority approval. As the applicant has not finalised its designs

to the extent it can provide a schedule to the ExA, it is only

seeking the more general right of approval as set out in

paragraph (b). As set out in article 9:

“The undertaker may, for the purposes of the authorised

development, with the approval of the relevant planning

authorities, form and lay out such means of access or improve

existing means of access, at such locations within the Order

limits as the undertaker reasonably requires for the purposes of

the authorised development.”

[Emphasis Added]

This Article follows model provision paragraph (b) save that it

does not refer to a highways authority as the order limits to do not

extend to any public highways. The Applicant therefore remains

of the view that sufficient control is given to the relevant planning

authority as provided for in the form of the model provision. If the

ExA disagrees with this view, the Applicant is willing to clarify

article 9 as follows:

“The undertaker may, for the purposes of the authorised

development, following submission of appropriate details to and

with the approval of the relevant planning authorities, form and

lay out such means of access or improve existing means of

access, at such locations within the Order limits as the

undertaker reasonably requires for the purposes of the

authorised development.”

Q1.7.5 In the Hinkley Point C DCO, the designated body was the

President of the Institute of Civil Engineers. In the King’s

Lynn B Connector DCO and Brechfa Forest DCO it was the

Secretary of State. Why does the applicant consider that the

International Chamber of Commerce would be in a position

to provide a suitably qualified arbitrator for this type of


project?

Applicant’s

Response

Is the Examining Authority concerned by the use of the ICC

Rules as the mechanism by which any disputes are resolved, or

simply with the appointment of the arbitrator(s) by the ICC? The

Applicant sees no reason why the ICC would be unable to

appoint a suitably qualified arbitrator. The ICC is a well-

established neutral and independent non-governmental

organization with a strong reputation, and its selection reflects the

international nature of the Applicant’s business. Further details

are available by accessing the link below.

http://www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-

ADR/Arbitration/Introduction-to-ICC-Arbitration/Ten-good-reasons-to-

choose-ICC-arbitration/

If it would help to address any concerns the Examining Authority

has, the Applicant would be willing to consider setting out a more

detailed mechanism for the appointment of the arbitrators in the

DCO by which the parties would appoint the tribunal (without

recourse to the ICC), and in the event that the tribunal could not

be agreed, or the parties failed to nominate an arbitrator within

the specified timeframe, the appointment could then be referred

to the ICC or another body such as the Institute of Civil

Engineers as the appointing body.

In response to concerns raised by PCNPA the Applicant is willing

for arbitration proceedings, if so requested, to be conducted with

simultaneous Welsh translation and for the award to be

translated into Welsh. This is reflected in the modification to

article 16, which relates to arbitration, in the attached draft of the

DCO.

Q1.7.6 Are the relevant planning authorities content that they will

be able to enforce any breach of this requirement as

proposed to be redrafted by the applicant?-?

Applicant’s

Response

No response required as directed at PCNPA and PCC

http://www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-ADR/Arbitration/Introduction-to-ICC-Arbitration/Ten-good-reasons-to-choose-ICC-arbitration/




3.3 Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) (Q2.1)

3.3.1 Statements of Common Ground between the Applicant and the PCNPA, PCC and NRW have already been submitted to the examining authority.

3.3.2 At present there are no amendments to those documents although final amendments may be submitted prior to the close of the examination as matters currently under discussion between the parties are further discussed and resolved.

3.3.3 However, as agreed at the ISH on 15th January 2014 an additional SoCG, specific to the Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact of the proposal has been drafted and the latest draft of that Document 2.8 is attached in Appendix 7 of this document. Further drafts may emerge over the next few weeks which will be forwarded to the Examining Authority as necessary.

3.4 Habitats Regulation Assessment (Q3.1 to Q3.4)

3.4.1 Detailed below is the Applicant’s response to questions raised by the ExA on Habitats Regulation Assessment.

Q3.1 In the applicants extended summary of Habitats Regulation

Assessment (HRA) there are several references to

‘restoration and recovery aspirations’.

Please will the applicant provide a further description of

these aspirations and their relevance to the HRA.

Applicant’s

Response

This specific wording was recommended by NRW for the

extended HRA summary.

The relevance of this wording is that there are currently issues

within the Milford Haven catchment with regard to elevated levels

of nitrates and an overall aim to reduce the current levels which

would serve to benefit the surrounding environment, including the

designated sites and associated habitat and species features.

Many of the designated sites include conservation objectives

which make reference to nutrient levels remaining at or reducing

levels in order to maintain or restore environmental quality

conditions (e.g. water quality) in order to support species and

habitat features.

Thus, operation of the CHP Plant, as designed, in integrated

mode, will lead to a reduction of nitrogen inputs into the

catchment from aqueous and aerial emissions, in comparison to

the LNG Terminal alone, which will make a positive contribution

towards: a) the conservation objectives; and, therefore towards:

b) the recovery and restoration aspiration of improving current

nitrate levels in the catchment. This reduction has the potential to


enhance the health of habitat and species features, which may

be adversely affected by the current levels present in the

catchment. It should be noted, however, that the maximum

consented emissions of N into the catchment from the LNG

Terminal alone (i.e. without the reduction provided by the CHP

Plant), are less than 1% of the total estimated input of N into the

catchment, and therefore the control of other sources would lead

to a greater reduction of N in the catchment and thereby also

contribute to recovery and restoration aspirations.

Q3.2 Please will NRW confirm that all relevant sites have been

considered in the HRA and if they agree that the correct

sites and features have been screened in and taken forward

to the integrity stage.

Applicant’s

Response

None required as directed to NRW.

Q3.3 In its response to my first round of questions NRW stated

that the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project

likely to have a significant effect, either individually or in-

combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to

an appropriate assessment. It subsequently stated that NRW

is required to look at the implications of the grid connection

and the CHP Plant together and that there is the potential for

adverse impacts on site integrity depending on the grid

connection option taken forward.

However, the applicant’s Extended HRA Summary

(submitted in response to the my first round of questions)

stated that there is no construction in the waterway for the

proposed CHP Plant, as such there will be no in-combination

effects with the trenched option.

Please can NRW clarify how they consider there to be in-

combination impacts arising from interactions of the grid

connection with the CHP plant (as opposed to the potential

subsequent effects of the grid connection which would be a

separate planning application)?

Applicant’s

Response

None required as directed to NRW.


Q3.4 At the issue specific hearing and in its written summary of

its oral case dated 24 January NRW pointed out that in order

to complete his habitats assessment the Secretary of State

would need some degree of legal certainty about the

absence of adverse effects from water discharges from the

proposed development. This might be achieved through a

legal agreement with South Hook LNG and/or a variation in

the existing South Hook LNG environmental permit, neither

of which are available at present.

Please will the applicant comment on NRW’s view on the

requirements for certainty in carrying out the habitats

assessment and suggest how the Secretary of State’s

requirements could be met; if necessary by inclusion of a

provision in the DCO.

Applicant’s

Response

In the Applicant’s view, this point appears to have arisen

because, at this stage, the Environmental Permit has not been

determined and in NRW’s view, it cannot be certain that the CHP

Plant would operate as a CHP plant pending its determination of

the Permit application. The Applicant has worked hard with NRW

to ensure that NRW was provided with all the information it

required to enable it to provide its opinion on the HRA to inform

the ExA.

In order to address the point raised in oral evidence, the

Applicant has revised DCO requirement 8 in consultation with

NRW, which serves to provide NRW with the reassurance it is

seeking, in advance of its determination of the Environmental

Permit, that there will be no annual increase in nitrate emissions

to the Milford Haven Waterway, as a result of the CHP Plant (in

combination with the LNG Terminal), consistent with the

application.

The Applicant’s understanding is that NRW considers any

increase in nitrate emissions, no matter how small, to be at odds

with the conservation objective to reduce contaminant levels

when compared with the date at which the site was designated.

The Applicant considers that the approach adopted via

requirement 8 avoids the need to consider the degree of conflict

with the relevant objective and therefore the question of the

degree of increase in such emissions does not arise.

On this basis, the certainty that NRW was seeking is now

provided by requirement 8 and the point raised by NRW is now


academic . Should the Examining Authority or the Secretary of

State disagree with the approach of the Applicant, the Applicant

further submits that the evidence submitted to inform the HRA is

contained within the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

(Document 1.8), its extended summary and the updated

matrices. The Applicant understands that NRW agrees with the

HRA, together with the extended summary. Furthermore, by the

time the Secretary of State makes his decision, NRW will have

concluded its determination of the Environmental Permit

application.

NRW has orally indicated at the ISH that it would both seek to

conclude its initial considerations and have issued a draft

decision for consultation during the Examination Period and

before its conclusion and/or otherwise consider providing the ExA

with a ‘letter of no impediment’ during this Period. In the

Applicant’s view, whilst this may remain desirable in accordance

with the general requirement to work closely with the relevant

planning authority, it is now unnecessary, given the agreed

wording of requirement 8.

3.5 Other Information (Q4.1 to Q4.4)

3.5.1 Detailed below is the Applicant’s response to questions raised by the ExA on other information.

Q4.1 In its response to my first questions (question 1.4), the

applicant stated that “There is currently no government

guidance or policy that recommends or requires community

funding for a CHP generating station. Despite this, however,

the Applicant would point out that it intends to implement a

programme of community projects and engagement similar

to the schemes or activities adopted by other energy

companies in and around the Haven.”

Please will the applicant provide details of its proposed

programme of community projects and engagement.

Applicant’s

Response

The undertaker, South Hook CHP Limited, recognises its role as

a responsible corporate citizen and such a role is consistent with

that of other energy companies operating infrastructure along the

Haven.


South Hook CHP Limited is engaged in discussions with the

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority and

Pembrokeshire County Council, as well as with the neighbouring

community of Herbrandston, in providing support to community

projects that are consistent with the corporate values of the

project’s sponsors and the joint venture company itself.

Though no specific projects have been identified or agreed to, the

project’s sponsors have agreed to fund community benefits

projects that meet defined criteria. The level of funding during the

operational phase will be up to £200,000 per annum, but is

expected to vary year to year and will be determined via

benchmarking of other regional industry programmes.

It was intended to begin such a community benefits programme

on start-up of operations, but recognising the concerns of the

local community with regard to construction, South Hook CHP

Limited has extended its corporate social responsibility

programme and brought it forward to include the construction

phase of the project. Thus, as the planned construction period is

forecast to be 30 months, an additional £500,000 (£200,000 per

annum) is earmarked for application to community projects during

the construction phase, a portion of which will be secured by an

agreement with PCNPA and PCC.

It is expected that the construction phase funding will be applied

to support specific projects or programmes that provide

community, safety or environmental benefits or work to improve

community communication. South Hook CHP Limited has

requested suggestions of projects from PCNPA and PCC that it

can support in this regard.

The programme during the CHP Plant’s operational phase and its

parameters will be determined in consultation with the community

liaison group(s).

In aggregate, assuming a minimum operating life of 25 years, the

total potential contribution to community benefits from the project

is reasonably expected to approach £5,500,000, including the

construction phase. Any such commitments are dependent on

the project acquiring necessary consents, permits, and project

funding, and prevailing commercial conditions.


Q4.2 At the issue specific hearing on 15 January 2014 there was

discussion about the availability of land at RWE Npower’s

Pembroke site which would be required for the proposed

grid connection.

Please will the applicant and RWE Npower, either separately

or in a SoCG, provide an update on their discussions on this

issue and give their latest view on the feasibility of the

proposed grid connection at the Pembroke sub-station.

Applicant’s

Response

RWE’s professional advisor’s comments at the ISH were noted.

In particular, the suggestion by them that RWE wished to

effectively place an embargo on making a connection across its

land to National Grid’s substation on the grounds that this

(combined with proposals from other generators in the area)

would unduly interfere with its requirement to reserve land for the

potential future instalment of carbon capture equipment. The

land that RWE has decided to reserve for such carbon capture is

currently expressed to be its entire land holding and effectively

encircles the substation (the only grid access point for this part of

Wales) However, the history of the current relationship set out

below demonstrates the actual feasibility of such a connection.

South Hook CHP Limited initially met with RWE on 18 December

2012 to discuss the project and options available in routing the

project’s grid connection through RWE’s land to National Grid’s

Pembroke Sub-station.

Subsequent to this meeting, South Hook CHP Limited identified a

preferred grid connection corridor within RWE’s land ownership

to facilitate the connection to Pembroke Sub-station. This

preferred connection corridor was presented to RWE at a

meeting on 14 August 2013, where initial discussions were also

held regarding the possible structure of any future land

agreement.

RWE also conveyed at the August 2013 meeting their intention to

co-ordinate the routings of all other grid connections to the

Pembroke Sub-station, to minimise disruption to their on-going

and future operations and to ensure that no connection was

prevented by virtue of the routing adopted for another. At no point

did RWE convey that it would need to embargo routing by the

Applicant or those other third parties. Rather, the opposite. RWE

appeared to be proactively facilitating grid connections and was


keen to properly plan and aggregate a connection route within a

single corridor.

Subsequent to the meeting, South Hook CHP Limited has, in

close coordination with RWE's Estates Department and

management on site, undertaken extensive ecological surveys

along the preferred corridor boundary and surrounding area,

including habitat surveys; bat surveys; dormouse surveys;

breeding bird surveys; wintering bird surveys; otter surveys;

water vole surveys; badger surveys; and invertebrate surveys.

Topographic surveys and ground penetrating radar surveys have

also been undertaken along the preferred corridor boundary and

surrounding area.

Actual access to RWE’s land to facilitate these surveys has been

granted by RWE under an access licence obtained on a monthly

basis from RWE’s estates department. The access licence

ensures that RWE is fully aware when and where third parties are

on their land. The application for an access licence included risk

assessments and method statements for each activity being

undertaken, and a plan identifying the areas to be surveyed (in

this case, identifying the survey which encompasses the

preferred grid connection corridor).

The surveys undertaken to date demonstrate that the preferred

grid connection corridor will be environmentally acceptable and is

technically both viable and feasible.

South Hook CHP Limited and RWE are currently finalising a

confidentiality agreement which will facilitate further discussions

on the grid connection corridor and the structure of a future land

agreement.

As noted within the confidentiality agreement, South Hook CHP

Limited and RWE wish to enter into discussions concerning the

granting of necessary consents (i.e. land agreement) for the

SHCHP Project’s grid connection with the objective of ensuring

that all parties holding a connection agreement to Pembroke

Sub-station can develop a connection, and confirming that

RWE’s ability to develop any future CCR plant is not

compromised by South Hook CHP Limited's corridor.

As required by Pembroke Power Station’s Section 36 consent,


RWE must retain a defined area to allow for the future installation

of CCR plant (and RWE has decided to set aside the land shown

by the blue dashed line in Figure 1, Appendix 8 to this

document).

RWE’s requirement to maintain the ability to develop future CCR

plant has been highlighted by RWE throughout our discussions,

and has been taken into account by South Hook CHP Limited

when developing the preferred grid connection corridor.

Rather than access the Pembroke Sub-station from the northern

coastline and route through open areas marked as reserved for

future CCR plant installation, the preferred South Hook CHP

Limited grid connection (shown in yellow on Figure 1, Appendix

8) is routed to the south of Pembroke Sub-station through RWE’s

land which, in the main, is not reserved for future carbon capture

or could not be used for a future CCR plant. As Figure 1 shows,

most of the cable corridor does not enter the CCR area which is

an important point, but where it does, this area would not be

suitable.

Furthermore, where the preferred South Hook CHP Limited grid

connection enters RWE’s land marked as reserved for future

CCR plant installation, it does so along an already highly

congested services corridor which includes two National Grid

400kV double circuit overhead lines from Pembroke Sub-station

and a number of Western Power Distribution (WPD) 132kV

overhead and underground lines from the WPD 132kV substation

(as shown on Figure 1, as above). South Hook CHP Limited

therefore considers this area to be unsuitable for RWE’s future

CCR plant installation given the extensive number of utility

services within this small area.

The area marked as reserved for future CCR plant does not

actually require the sterilisation of that entire area from

development (indeed the existing Pembroke Sub-station and

existing Pembroke Power Station are located within the reserved

area). Rather the obligation exists on RWE to retain sufficient

capacity within the overall defined area to develop future CCR

plant.

Given that South Hook CHP Limited’s preferred grid connection

corridor enters RWE’s future CCR plant area along an existing


utilities corridor, the defined area reserved for RWE’s CCR plant

would therefore not be compromised in any way by the South

Hook CHP Limited’s preferred grid connection route to Pembroke

Sub-station.

Therefore, the Applicant’s preferred grid connection remains

technically and actually feasible.

As stated in the applicant’s response to the Examining Authority’s

first questions, in addition to the continuing discussions on grid

connection routing described above, RWE has been a key

consultee throughout the pre-application period for the South

Hook CHP Plant and has received all consultation material

provided to all Section 47 consultees.

Q4.3 In relation to the carbon capture readiness (CCR)

assessment:

Please will the applicant provide comments on NRW’s

assessment of the feasibility of the CCR proposals.

Applicant’s

Response

The Applicant accepts the conclusions drawn by NRW that there

are ‘no foreseeable barriers’ to CC/CCR with regards to space, or

technical feasibility of CO2 capture.

We also understand that their advice does not extend to the

economic feasibility of the applicants assessment, or the

feasibility to transport captured CO2 to storage sites, which would

be the responsibility of the Department of Energy and Climate

Change.

Q4.4 Please will the applicant provide (as discussed at the issue

specific hearing) its assessment of the possible timing of a

requirement to implement carbon capture and storage.

Applicant’s

Response

The November 2009 Guidance Note (URN 09D/810) on CCR for

section 36 consents states:

“5. Many of the power stations consented and built from

now on could still be operating for at least the next 30

years, possibly into the 2040's and beyond. Given the

challenge of the UK’s 80% target for reduction of

greenhouse gases by 2050 as compared to 1990 levels, it

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43609/Carbon_capture_readiness_-_guidance.pdf


is reasonable to assume such plants will need to fit carbon

abatement technology at some point in their lifetime. For

this reason, the Government decided that all new power

stations with electrical outputs at or over 300 MWe and of

a type covered by the LCPD should only be consented if

they can be considered CCR ready.”

No timing has been given as to what mandatory CCR and

storage (CCS) may be required however the matter was debated

in the context of the Emissions Performance Standard (EPS)

contained in sections 57 to 61 of the Energy Act 2013 and as

considered in a specific Energy Act Policy Brief . The Energy Act

imposes an EPS of 450g/kWh at baseload that makes CCS

effectively mandatory for new coal powered generation.

The Government has, however, introduced a grandfathering

policy to reassure investors in the energy sector that new build

power stations will not be subject to retrospective changes in the

EPS.

As stated in the Policy Brief:

“The EPS is set at a level that will not impact on the new

gas generation capacity needed to replace older, retiring

capacity as we make the transition to a low carbon

electricity system. ‘Grandfathering’2 the level until 2045,

will provide long-term regulatory certainty to investors in

new gas generation. 2’Grandfathering’ is a term used to describe a new

feature of the EPS that provides a guarantee to

developers that the EPS limit under which a new fossil-

fuel power plant is consented will be maintained for that

plant until end of 2044.”

As noted in Section 57(2) of the Energy Act 2013:

“Until (and including) 2044, the statutory rate of emissions

is 450 g/kWh.”

The fine detail of the EPS is to be resolved in regulations to be

made under the Energy Act 2013. Section 57(8) states:

“Provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (7)(d)

includes provision for treating emissions attributable to the

supply of heat to customers from combined heat and

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266882/EPS_Policy_Brief_RA.pdf


power plant as not being attributable to the use of fossil

fuel.”

As the anticipated rate of emissions for the natural gas fuelled

CHP Plant will be 300 g/kWh when operating in conventional

power mode, and lower still when operating in CHP mode, we

therefore do not anticipate the South Hook CHP Plant to be at

risk of exceeding the EPS limits it will benefit from the

grandfathering policy under the Energy Act 2013.


APPENDIX 1


APPENDIX 2


APPENDIX 3


APPENDIX 4


APPENDIX 5


APPENDIX 6


APPENDIX 7


APPENDIX 8

South Hook CHP Plant Herbrandston, Pembrokeshire · · 2016-05-04South Hook CHP Plant...

Documents

Transcript of South Hook CHP Plant Herbrandston, Pembrokeshire · · 2016-05-04South Hook CHP Plant...