ferrybridge multifuel 2 (fm2)... · of 50mwe (pa 2008 section 15(2)(c)). where a nsip is proposed,...

#

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: 7.3

PINS Ref: EN010061

The Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Order

Ferrybridge Power Station Site, Knottingley, West Y orkshire

Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) – Highways Agency

The Planning Act 2008

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescrib ed Forms and Procedure)

Regulations 2009

Regulation 5(2)(q)

Applicant: Multifuel Energy Limited

Date: June 2014

Document History

Dalton Warner Davis LLP June 2014 (i)

Document Number 7.3

Revision Submission Version

Author Dalton Warner Davis LLP

Signed Geoff Bullock Date 06.06.14

Approved By GB

Signed GB Date 06.06.14

Document Owner Dalton Warner Davis LLP

Revision History

Revision No. Date Reason for Revision Authorised By

Submission Version 06.06.14 n/a GB


SoCG – Highways Agency

Dalton Warner Davis LLP June 2014 (ii)

Glossary

ACCS Air Cooled Condenser System BAT Best Available Technology DCO Development Consent Order EA Environment Agency EfW Energy from Waste EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement FM1 Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 FM2 Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 HAg Highways Agency MWe Megawatts electrical PEI Preliminary Environmental Information PINS The Planning Inspectorate SoCG Statement of Common Ground SSE SSE Generation Limited TA Transport Assessment WMDC Wakefield Metropolitan District Council WTI Wheelabrator Technologies Incorporated



Dalton Warner Davis LLP June 2014 (iii)

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1

The Background to FM2................................................................................................................ 1 The Applicant................................................................................................................................. 1 The Application Site....................................................................................................................... 1 The Proposed Development.......................................................................................................... 2 The Purpose of this Document ...................................................................................................... 2

2. CONSULTATION WITH THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY.............. ....................................... 3

3. MATTERS AGREED ..................................... .................................................................. 5

Cooling technology and visible plumes ......................................................................................... 5 Transport Assessment................................................................................................................... 5 Travel Plans................................................................................................................................... 5 Fencing and construction adjacent to the A1(M)........................................................................... 6 Access from the A1(M) .................................................................................................................. 6 Noise Attenuation Barriers............................................................................................................. 7 Draft DCO Requirements .............................................................................................................. 7

4. MATTERS NOT AGREED................................. .............................................................. 8

Tables

TABLE 2.1 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION ....................... ....................................... 3

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE AND MEETING NOT ES

APPENDIX 2: DRAFT DCO REQUIREMENTS



Dalton Warner Davis LLP June 2014 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared in respect of Multifuel Energy Limited’s (the Applicant’s) proposed application (the Application) for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that is to be made to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008).

1.2 The Application seeks a DCO for the construction, operation and maintenance of a new build ‘multifuel’ power station of up to 90 megawatts electrical (MWe) gross output and associated development (the Proposed Development). The Proposed Development is known as Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station and will be located within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire.

1.3 The Proposed Development is a ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ (a NSIP), being for an onshore generating station with an average gross electrical output in excess of 50MWe (PA 2008 Section 15(2)(c)). Where a NSIP is proposed, an application for Development Consent must be made to PINS and approved by the relevant Secretary of State (SoS) before the development can proceed.

1.4 The DCO, if granted, would be known as the ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station Order’ (the ‘Order’).

The Background to the Proposed Development

1.5 The Proposed Development will be capable of producing low carbon electricity through the use of waste derived fuels from various sources of processed municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and waste wood. It will therefore make a positive contribution toward the UK Government’s climate change commitments, in addition to increasing the diversity and security of national electricity supply, while also reducing the amount of waste that needs to be sent to landfill.

1.6 A similar multifuel power station is already being constructed on land within the Ferrybridge Power Station site. This project is known as ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 Power Station’ (FM1) and was consented under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 in October 2011. It is anticipated that FM1 will be fully operational from Q3 2015.

1.7 The level of interest received from potential fuel suppliers in relation to FM1 has demonstrated that there is sufficient demand and fuel availability for a second multifuel power station at Ferrybridge. This is one of the reasons that have led to the Applicant’s decision to progress FM2.

The Applicant

1.8 The Applicant, Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL), comprises a 50:50 joint venture between SSE Generation Ltd (SSE) and WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of Wheelabrator Technologies Incorporated (WTI) to develop low carbon electricity generating plant.

1.9 SSE is one of the UK’s leading energy companies and the largest non-nuclear electricity generator, operating a diverse portfolio across the UK and Ireland. A subsidiary of SSE owns and operates the Ferrybridge Power Station site, which includes the operational Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal-fired Power Station.

1.10 WTI is a leading developer, owner and operator of energy from waste (EfW) facilities and has been established for over 37 years. WTI currently owns and/or operates 21 energy facilities in the USA, 17 of which are EfW facilities. It has also recently acquired part of a business in China that has three operational plants and a further six under development.




The Application Site

1.11 The Application Site comprises for the most part land inside the boundary of the Ferrybridge Power Station site, within the administrative area of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. The Ferrybridge Power Station site is situated between the River Aire to the north and east and the A1(M) immediately to the west, with Stranglands Lane and the residential areas of Ferrybridge and Knottingley to the south and south-east.

1.12 The Application Site itself extends to approximately 32 hectares and consists primarily of land that originally formed part of the Power Station’s former golf course, including land that is currently being used in connection with the construction of FM1 and other land (some of which is outside the Power Station site) that may be required for electricity grid and utilities connections.

The Proposed Development

1.13 The Proposed Development comprises of the multifuel power station (the onshore generating station) and all of the components that are integral to it, including the fuel reception and storage facilities, combustion system, steam turbine and emissions stack, amongst others, as well as associated and supporting buildings, structures, plant and areas.

1.14 In addition, it includes ‘Associated Development’ within the meaning of Section 115(2) of the PA 2008 that will support the operation of the multifuel power station. This comprises of a new connection to the electricity grid network, improvements to an existing access road and a new foul water connection.

1.15 The Proposed Development will also involve temporary works connected with the construction phase such as contractors’ compounds and laydown areas.

1.16 A detailed description of all the elements of the Proposed Development is provided in the ‘Proposed Development Description Document’ (Application Document Ref. No. 5.3).

1.17 It is currently anticipated that (subject to a DCO being granted and a final investment decision being made) work will commence on the Proposed Development in Q4 of 2015, with construction expected to be completed by Q2/Q3 of 2018. Subject to construction being completed within this timescale, the multifuel power station would enter commercial operation in Q4 2018.

The Purpose of this Document

1.18 The purpose of this SoCG is to set out the agreement that has been reached between the Applicant and the Highways Agency with regard to highway related matters.




2. CONSULTATION WITH THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY

2.1 The pre-application consultation that has taken place with the Highways Agency (HAg) is summarised out below.

Table 2.1 Pre-application Consultation

Organisation Date Details

Highways Agency

11 April 2013 Meeting with the HAg to introduce the Proposed Development. The HAg stated a comparable condition would be imposed on the consent for FM2 as was attached to the FM1 consent regarding the prevention of fogging on the A1(M).

A Transport Assessment and Travel Plans will be required by the HAg for FM2 for construction and operation.

In principle the HAg would be amenable to noise attenuation barriers on the west side of the A1(M) if such attenuation is considered necessary, as it would also mitigate traffic noise.

Highways Agency

2 July 2013 The HAg was consulted by PINS in respect of application for an EIA Scoping Opinion made by the Applicant.

The response provided by the HAg on 2 July 2013 raised the potential impact of the hybrid cooling technology on the A1(M) and the possibility that this may create fogging and freezing rain on the Motorway, but recognised that this would be explored through the EA ‘BAT’ process. If necessary, a similar condition to that attached to FM1 project could be used to cover this risk.

The response again confirmed that a Transport Assessment would be required and this should cover both the construction and operational phases. Where the impact is shown to create more than 30 two way trips at a junction or directional on a slip road, the applicant should discuss with the HAg the requirement to provide an operational assessment of the junction. Travel Plans should also be provided for both the construction and the operational phases, although depending on the number of employees a Travel Plan Statement may be adequate for the operational phase.

Highways Agency

3 December 2013

The HAg were consulted in accordance with S.42 of PA 2008 (Duty to consult) and provided with the FM2 consultation documents including a PEI Report.

The HAg’s response re-iterated the contents of its EIA Scoping Opinion response and reiterated the need for a Transport Assessment and Travel Plans.




Table 2.1 Pre-application Consultation

Organisation Date Details

Highways Agency

10 March 2014

Meeting with the HAg to provide an update on the FM2.

Cooling technology/visible plumes: Agreed that no wet cooling would be used for FM2 and therefore that the risk of visible plumes impacting on the A1(M) has been removed.

Construction adjacent to A1(M): the HAg will need to maintain its boundary fence and will therefore require access to it. Any landscaping must not affect the HAg carriageway drains. The methods for any construction works adjacent to the Motorway should also be agreed.

Access from A1(M): any slip road into the Application Site would need to be strategic and considered in light of the criteria set out in Circular 02/2013. DMRB specifies a minimum distance between slip roads that should be adopted. Abnormal loads could be delivered via the existing slip road by agreement.

Travel plans: the HAg have no further comments on the Framework Travel Plans that have been reviewed. Agreed that due to the different commercial entities involved, a combined Travel Plan for the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site would be impractical.

Highways Agency

8 May 2014 Email from the HAg confirms agreement with the draft SoCG.

2.2 Copies of relevant correspondence and meeting notes are contained at Appendix 1 .




3. MATTERS AGREED

Cooling technology and visible plumes

3.1 The HAg’s response to the EIA scoping consultation raised concerns about the potential impact of the selected cooling technology for FM2 and the possibility that this may create fogging and freezing rain on the A1(M).

3.2 At the time of the submission of the EIA Scoping Report to PINS in June 2013, two potential cooling system options were being considered by MEL; a hybrid cooling system that would take cooling water from the River Aire and an air cooled condenser system (ACCS). The concerns raised by the HAg related to the hybrid cooling option. The HAg did, however, note that MEL would need to explore both cooling options with the Environment Agency (EA) through the ‘Best Available Technology’ (BAT) process, balancing potential environmental effects against thermal efficiency and operating costs.

3.3 Following further assessment of the cooling options, MEL concluded that the potential for fogging and freezing effects on the A1(M) could not be discounted if the hybrid cooling system were employed. The decision was therefore taken to progress with the ACCS, subject to being able to demonstrate to the EA that this option would be BAT. A BAT assessment was subsequently undertaken, which concluded that the use of the ACCS would represent BAT. This was issued to the EA for consideration on 19 September 2013, with the EA subsequently confirming on 26 September 2013 that the ACCS was considered to be the BAT option of providing cooling for FM2 in order to avoid the potential for fogging and freezing effects on the A1(M).

3.4 It is agreed that no hybrid cooling system or other wet cooling technology would be installed as part of the Proposed Development and that as such there is no risk to users of the A1(M) associated with potential visible plumes.

Transport Assessment

3.5 The HAg has confirmed that a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for the Proposed Development and that this should cover both the construction and operational phases. A TA has been undertaken for both phases. This will be appended to the Environmental Statement (ES) and its findings will be referred to in the Transport Chapter of the ES. The scope of the TA has been discussed with the HAg, North Yorkshire County Council Highways and also WMDC Highways Department.

3.6 The assessment work undertaken confirms that the traffic associated with both the construction and operational phases of FM2 can be satisfactorily accommodated upon the highway network, including the A1(M), without resulting in capacity or highway safety issues. The operational assessment has been based upon the worst case scenario of all fuel being transported to the Proposed Development by road and all ash being removed by the same means.

3.7 It is agreed that the scope of the TA has provided for a robust assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development on the highway network, including the A1(M), that no further assessments are required and that the effects on the highway network would be acceptable.

Travel Plans

3.8 The DCO application will include ‘framework’ Travel Plans for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. It is agreed that the framework Travel Plans that have been prepared are acceptable and that the details of these can be




secured by appropriate ‘Requirements’ contained within the DCO that require the submission and approval of the details by the relevant local planning authority (WMDC) prior to the commencement of development.

3.9 It is also agreed that due to the different commercial entities at the Ferrybridge Power Station site, it is appropriate that the Travel Plans relate solely the Proposed Development.

3.10 In addition, it is agreed that fuel deliveries to the Proposed Development would be managed by an operational traffic routing and management plan that would also be secured by an appropriate requirement within the DCO.

Fencing and construction adjacent to the A1(M)

3.11 It is agreed that the Proposed Development will not prevent the HAg continuing to have access from its land to its boundary fence on the eastern side of the A1(M), where this adjoins the Application Site, for ongoing maintenance. It is also agreed that the DCO will include a requirement to ensure that details of any new fencing that may be required for the Proposed Development, which is immediately adjacent to the boundary of the HAg’s land is approved before being erected.

3.12 It is also agreed that any landscaping adjacent to the A1(M) must not impact upon the HAg carriageway drains. Again, approval of the details of landscaping will be subject to a requirement within the DCO.

3.13 It is agreed that a requirement should be included in the DCO that necessitates the approval of the construction methods to be employed in respect of works adjacent to the A1(M) covering, amongst other matters, the location of any cranes and external lighting.

Access from the A1(M)

3.14 During the community consultation carried out in accordance with S.47 of the PA 2008, comments have been received about the possibility of creating a separate slip road from the A1(M) to the Proposed Development.

3.15 Guidance on access to the strategic road network, including motorways such as the A1(M), is provided by Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’, specifically at paragraphs 37 - 44.

3.16 Paragraph 37 confirms that the creation of new accesses to the strategic road network can impact on its ability to fulfil the function of facilitating the safe and effective movement of goods and people in support of economic growth by compromising traffic movement and flow. Paragraph 38 goes on to highlight how new accesses to busy high speed strategic roads leads to more weaving and turning manoeuvres, which in turn create additional risk to safety and reduce the reliability of journeys, resulting in a negative impact on overall national economic activity and performance.

3.17 Paragraph 39 confirms that where new junctions or direct access to the strategic network is appropriate, these should be identified and developed at the plan-making stage in the circumstances where it can be established that such new infrastructure is essential for the delivery of strategic planned growth. Where (paragraph 40) the strategic growth test cannot be met there will be no additional junctions with, or direct means of access to motorways, other than for the provision of singed roadside facilities for road users, maintenance compounds and, exceptionally major transport interchanges.

3.18 Paragraph 42 goes on to confirm that access to motorways for other types of (non-strategic) development will be limited to the use of existing junctions. Paragraph 43




states that the HAg’s preference will always be that new development should make use of existing junctions.

3.19 The Ferrybridge Power Station site, although identified for power generation development in the local development plan, is not identified for strategic planned growth, such as major housing and commercial development. As such the strategic growth test in Circular 02/2013 cannot be met in respect of the provision of a new junction or slip road in this location. Neither has any such need been identified through the plan-making process. Furthermore, the TA has not identified the need for capacity improvements to the existing junction of the A1(M) in this location as a result of the Proposed Development.

3.20 In view of the above it is agreed that it is not appropriate to develop a direct slip road from the A1(M) to the Proposed Development, especially as this would be solely for the use of the Proposed Development. Neither is this considered feasible given the proximity of existing slip roads and the carriageway elevation.

3.21 It is also agreed that any abnormal loads associated with the Proposed Development may be delivered to the Application Site via the existing A1(M) slip road subject to agreement with the HAg in consultation with WMDC and West Yorkshire Police in advance. This option will be included and formalised in the framework construction Travel Plan that will be submitted with the DCO application.

Noise Attenuation Barriers

3.22 The noise assessment work carried out as part of the EIA has confirmed that it is not necessary to erect noise attenuation barriers on the western side of the A1(M) to mitigate noise from the Proposed Development. It is therefore agreed that noise attenuation barriers are not required.

Draft DCO Requirements

3.23 The Requirements of relevance to the HAg that have been included within the DCO are listed at Appendix 2 . These have been discussed and agreed between the Applicant and the HAg.




4. MATTERS NOT AGREED

4.1 No matters have been identified at this stage that are the subject of disagreement between the Applicant and the HAg.

Signed

Print name and position: Geoff Bullock, Partner, Dalton Warner Davis LLP

On behalf of Multifuel Energy Limited

Date 06.06.14

Signed…

Print name and position……………………………….

On behalf of the Highways Agency



Dalton Warner Davis LLP June 2014 Page 1 of Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1: RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE AND MEETING NOT ES

MOM

(Action items)

Date/Time: Venue: Ferrybridge Multifuel Offices

Reference: LB200010-STAT-MOM-HA

Teleconference Number: 0800 358 8751 and PIN *978 025*

Thursday the

11th

of April 2013

11:00 – 12:30

Distribution List:

Richard Lowe (URS) Jonathan Sime (SSE) Mark McCarthy (MEL) David Spencer (WTI)

Kerry Whalley (URS) Dafydd Wynn (SSE) Tom Maillet (MEL) Chris Ratcliffe (WTI)

Nigel Garrod (Fichtner) Mike Brown (SSE)

Mark Shatwell (Fichtner) Sandy Honeyman (SSE)

Keith Dalton (DWD) Michael McGee (SSE)

Barry Murphy (DWD) Christopher Bartynek (SSE)

Louise Robinson (URS) Jayne Williams (SSE)

Adrian Coe (Corelia) Samantha Coyne (SSE)

Nick Vanter (Corelia) John Mitchell (SSE)

Lewis Macaskill (SSE)

Gerald Scott (SSE)

Laura Friel (SSE)

Mariann Hay (SSE)

John Ross (SSE)

Mark Birley (SSE)

Nigel Tully (SSE)

Chris Harris (SSE)

Apologies:

Attendees:

Ashley Comerford, Jonathan Sime, Dafydd Wynn, Toni Rios (HA), Richard Lowe

1.1 Safety Moment

a) Use of ladders

1.2 Current Project Status

a) Air Cooled Condensers being installed on FM1 to avoid visible pluming issues

1.3 New FM2 Opportunity and Highways implications

1.3.1 Visible plumes/ Fogging

a) Cooling options for FM2 are under consideration taking into account fogging risk, noise and BAT

b) There is no definitive maximum distance that a visible plume from cooling towers could reach

c) The onus is on the development team to demonstrate that there is no risk to the highway or

that any risk can be effectively managed

d) Consider use of met office warning alerts to change the operation of the cooling towers if

installed.

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

e) Consider the use of message signing on the A1(M) to the north and south of the plant to warn

drivers of any potential risk

f) Expect a comparable condition to be imposed on the consent for FM2 as was used on FM1 re:

prevention of fogging on the motorway.

1.3.2 Junction Capacities

g) Wakefield Council have plans for employment sites using Junction 33 and their Transport

Assessment shows no issues with potential junction capacity

h) A Transport Assessment and Travel Plans will be required for the FM2 development for

construction and operation.

i) Consider the use of a site-wide Travel Plan for the Ferrybridge site, including Ferrybridge ‘C’,

FM1 and FM2

1.3.3 Noise

j) In principle the HA would be amenable to noise attenuation barriers on the west side of the

A1(M) if such attenuation is being considered, as it would also mitigate traffic noise

1.4 AOB

a) Proposed new Golf course: Clarification sought on the ownership of land adjacent to the bridge

crossing the A1(M). TR to investigate

b) Consideration could be given to working on this area of land under the HA’s agreement and

ownership. TR to confirm.

c) Draft Planning Condition response 63 being issued to HA for review and sign off (All)

Highways Agency EIA Scoping Response.doc Page 1 of 2

Dear Richard

Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station, Ferrybridge Power Station Complex, Stranglands Lane, West Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ

Thank you for providing us with details of the scoping report for the above mentioned project.

The Highways Agency’s interest is with the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network, in this case the A1(M) and M62, both during the construction and operational phases of this development. The scoping report largely reflects the Highways Agency’s requirements and the discussions we have already had with the project team.

Our main concerns are the potential impact of the selected cooling technology and the possibility that this may create fogging and freezing rain on the A1(M), however the scoping report highlights that this will be explored through the EA ‘BAT’ process. If necessary a similar condition to that imposed on the FM1 project could be used to cover this risk.

We would also require a Transport Assessment and this should cover both the construction and operational phases of the development. Where the impact of the proposal is shown to create more than 30 two way trips at a junction or directional on a sliproad, the applicant should discuss with the Highways Agency the requirement to provide an operational assessment of the junction. Travel Plans should also be provided for both construction and operational phases, although depending on the number of employees a Travel Plan Statement may be adequate for the operational phase.

Our Ref: SE473252 Your Ref: EN010061

Mr Richard Kent The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing 2 The Square BristolBS1 6PN

Toni Rios

3 South Lateral8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT

Direct Line: 0113 283 4710

2 July 2013

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

Highways Agency EIA Scoping Response.doc Page 2 of 2

Yours sincerely

Toni Rios Asset ManagerEmail: [email protected]

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

From: "Hardie Chris" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:43:02 +0000 Subject: MULTIFUEL ENERGY LTD (MEL) - FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION,

Dear Sir

MULTIFUEL ENERGY LTD (MEL) – FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION,

FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION SITE, STRANGLANDS LANE, K NOTTINGLEY, WEST YORKSHIRE,

WF11 8SQ (GRID REF 447261, 425319)

Thank you for your letters of 31st October 2013 (Both Ref: 32601).

I confirm that the Highways Agency has no comment to make at this stage.

We would re-iterate the contents of our letter dated 2nd July 2013 from Toni Rios that stated our requirement for a Transport Assessment covering both the construction and operational phases of the project and attendant Travel Plans.

We look forward to commenting on these documents when they have been prepared.

Best regards

Chris Hardie, Asset Manager Highways Agency | Lateral | 8 City Walk | Leeds | LS11 9AT Tel: +44 (0) 113 2836248 | Mobile : + 44 (0) 7976 344007 Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk GTN: 5173 6248 Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. ______________________________________________________________________

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

This email has been scanned on behalf of Dalton Warner Davis by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

Dalton Warner Davis LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England No. 304838. Registered Office: 21 Garlick Hill, London, EC4V 2AU

Chartered Surveyors | Property Advisors | Planning and Development Consultants

21 Garlick Hill London EC4V 2AU Tel: 020 7489 0213 Fax: 020 7248 4743 Email: [email protected] www.dwdllp.com twitter.com/dwdllp

Date: 28 February 2014 Our Ref: 3260I

By email: [email protected] & Post (special delivery) Dear Mr Hardie

MULTIFUEL ENERGY LTD (MEL) – FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION, FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION SITE, STRANGLANDS LANE, K NOTTINGLEY, WEST YORKSHIRE, WF11 8SQ (GRID REF 447261, 425319) – FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY COMMENTS

Multifuel Energy Ltd (MEL) would like to thank the Highways Agency for its responses to the EIA scoping consultation and more recently the formal consultation for the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) project, the latter of which closed on 20 December 2013. This letter represents MEL’s formal response to the Highways Agency (HAg). The HAg’s responses (dated 2 July and 3 December 2013) raised the following issues: • The cooling technology to be used for FM2.

• The need for a Transport Assessment.

• The need for Travel Plans for the construction and operational phases of FM2.

These are addressed in turn below.

Cooling Technology to be used for FM2

The HAg’s response to the EIA scoping consultation raised concerns about the potential impact of the selected cooling technology for FM2 and the possibility that this may create fogging and freezing rain on the A1(M).

At the time of the submission of the EIA Scoping Report to the Planning Inspectorate in June 2013, two potential cooling system options were being considered by MEL; a hybrid cooling system that would take cooling water from the River Aire and an air cooled condenser system (ACCS). The concerns raised by the HAg related to the hybrid cooling option. The HAg did, however, note that MEL would need to explore both cooling options with the Environment Agency (EA) through the ‘Best Available Technology’ (BAT) process, balancing potential environmental effects against thermal efficiency and operating costs.

Following further assessment of the cooling options, MEL concluded that the potential for fogging and freezing effects on the A1(M) could not be discounted if the hybrid cooling system were employed. The decision was therefore taken to progress with the ACCS, subject to being able to demonstrate to the EA that this option would be BAT. A BAT assessment was subsequently undertaken, which concluded that the use of the ACCS would represent BAT. This was issued to the EA for consideration on 19 September 2013, with the EA subsequently confirming on 26 September 2013 that the ACCS was considered to be the BAT option of providing cooling for FM2 in order to avoid the potential for fogging and freezing effects on the A1(M).

The Highways Agency (AREA 12) Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT FAO: Chris Hardie

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

Chartered Surveyors I Property Advisors I Planning and Development Consultants

Dalton Warner Davis LLP

2

In view of the above, MEL has now discounted the hybrid cooling option and the decision has been taken to proceed with the ACCS, which was reflected in the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report that was included in the formal consultation pack.

Need for a Transport Assessment

The HAg has confirmed that a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for FM2 and that this should cover both the construction and operational phases. Furthermore, if FM2 is shown to create more than 30 two-way trips at a junction or directional slip-road, MEL should discuss this with the Agency and provide an operational assessment of the junction or directional in question.

A TA has been undertaken for both the construction and operational phases of FM2. This will be appended to the Environmental Statement (ES) and its findings will be referred to in the Transport Chapter of the ES. The scope of the TA has been discussed with the HAg, North Yorkshire County Council Highways and also Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Highways Department.

The assessment work undertaken confirms that the traffic associated with both the construction and operational phases of FM2 can be satisfactorily accommodated upon the highway network without resulting in capacity issues. It should also be noted that the operational assessment has been based upon the worst case scenario of all fuel being transported to the site by road and all ash being removed from the site by the same means. Of particular note for the Agency, is that the assessment confirms that FM2 would not create more than 30 two-way trips at a junction or directional on the slip road.

Travel Plans

The Development Consent Order (DCO) application will include Travel Plans for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. It is anticipated that a requirement will be included within the draft DCO that requires details of construction and operational Travel Plans to be submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authority in consultation with other relevant stakeholders such as the Agency, prior to the commencement of development.

Next Steps

We look forward to meeting with the HAg on 10 March 2014 to provide an update on FM2 and to discuss any other matters relating to the development. Following on from this meeting MEL would welcome the opportunity to agree a Statement of Common Ground with the HAg covering the areas of agreement.

It is currently anticipated that the DCO application for FM2 will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate around the middle of this year.

We trust that this letter has provided sufficient clarification and information on the issues raised by the Highways Agency in advance of the meeting on 10 March. However, in the meantime, should you require any further information or wish to discuss the contents of this letter please do not hesitate to contact me via the contact details below.

Updates on FM2 will be provided on the project website: www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2.

Yours sincerely

Geoff Bullock PARTNER Dalton Warner Davis LLP

hayley

Rectangle

Highways Agency FM2 Meeting

Minutes of Meeting

(Action items)

Date/Time: Venue: HA Lateral House, Leeds

Reference: LB200010-STAT-MOM-HA

Teleconference Number: n/a

10th

March 2014

12:00

Attendees:

Chris Hardie (HA)

Toni Rios (HA)

Ashley Comerford (SSE)

Geoff Bullock (DWD)

Richard Lowe (URS)

1.0 COOLING TOWERS/ VISIBLE PLUMES

a) Agreed that no wet cooling would be used in the Proposed Development and therefore that the

risk of visible plumes from FM2 impacting on the carriageway has been removed

1.2 CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO A1(M) FENCELINE

a) HA will need to maintain their boundary fence and will therefore need to retain access to it.

b) Any FM2 landscaping mustn’t affect the HA carriageway drains

c) Agreed that the HA will be a consultee and have to sign off the wording of Landscaping and

biodiversity proposals, as well as Construction Method Statements to be prepared by the Main

Contractor prior to construction works, covering cranes, lighting, noise etc.

d) CH to provide wording from previous examples eg RMS

e) A Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) is to be drafted, circulated and agreed based on the

above, which can be used to formalise a Requirement to be included in the DCO (URS).

1.3 ACCESS FROM A1(M)

a) Any slip road into the Site would need to be strategic and considered in light of the criteria set

out in Circular 02/2013.

b) DMRB specifies a minimum distance between slip roads that should be adopted

c) Wording on the reasons why a new slip road is impractical to be agreed in SoCG

d) Abnormal loads could be delivered via the slip road by agreement.

1.4 TRAVEL PLANS

a) HA have no further comments on the Travel Plans that have been reviewed.

b) Agreed that due to the different commercial entities involved, a combined Travel Plan for the

wider Ferrybridge site would be impractical and outside the scope of this application. Agree this

point in the SoCG (URS)

1.5 ES

a) (URS) to make clear what has changed since the PEI Report, to assist HA review

hayley

Rectangle

From: Hardie, Chris [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 08 May 2014 17:43 To: Geoff Bullock

Subject: RE: Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Draft Statement of Common Ground Geoff My apologies for taking so long to reply to you on this. In the end, I can say that we are happy with this version. Best regards Chris Chris Hardie, Asset Manager Highways Agency | Lateral | 8 City Walk | Leeds | LS11 9AT Tel: +44 (0) 113 2836248 | Mobile: + 44 (0) 7769 282441 Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk GTN: 5173 6248 Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport. From: Geoff Bullock [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 02 April 2014 12:07

To: Hardie, Chris; Rios, Toni Cc: Ashley Comerford; [email protected]; Ben Hampson

Subject: Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Draft Statement of Common Ground Importance: High

Dear Chris and Toni, Following on from our meeting last month, please find attached a first draft Statement of Common Ground that seeks to cover the principal matters of interest to the Highway Agency. I would be grateful if you could review the draft and provided any comments (preferably track changes). Subject to these and agreement on the matters set out I can then send a hard copy to you for signing. One point to note, our original text for the draft requirements included the words ‘in consultation with the Highways Agency’. However, one of the comments made by the inspector on Knottingley recently was for the draft requirements to remove reference to consultation with other bodies unless they would be responsible for the enforcement of the requirement. I look forward to your response on the draft Statement of Common Ground but in the meantime if there is anything you wish to discuss please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards Geoff Bullock

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

Geoff Bullock BA Hons BPl. MRTPI Partner

Dalton Warner Davis LLP21 Garlick Hill London EC4V 2AU

DDI: 020 7489 4892 S'board: 020 7489 0213Fax: 020 7248 4743 Mobile: 07798 740 238

email: [email protected] | www.dwdllp.com | twitter: dwdllp Chartered Surveyors | Property Advisors | Planning and Development Consultants This e-mail (and enclosures) may be privileged and confidential and exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender. Any unauthorised disclosure, copying or dissemination is strictly prohibited. Thank you.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned on behalf of Dalton Warner Davis by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle

hayley

Rectangle




APPENDIX 2: DRAFT DCO REQUIREMENTS

No. Requirement Draft Wording

11. Fencing - A1(M) (1) The authorised development shall not commence until details of the design and construction of any fencing on the boundary between the authorised development and the A1(M) have been submitted to and, following consultation with the Highways Agency, approved in writing by the planning authority.

(2) The authorised development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(3) The authorised project shall not be brought into commercial use until the fencing referred to in paragraph (1) has been completed.

19. Construction

traffic routing and management plan

(1) The authorised development may not commence until a construction traffic routing and management plan has been submitted to and, after consultation with the relevant highway authorities, approved by the planning authority.

(2) The plan submitted and approved must be in accordance with the principles set out in chapter 7 of the environmental statement and the construction travel plan framework contained in Appendix 7C to the environmental statement.

(3) The plan submitted and approved must include—

(a) details of the routes to be used for the delivery of construction materials and any temporary signage to identify routes and promote their safe use, including details of the access points to the construction site to be used by light goods vehicles and heavy goods vehicles;

(b) details of the routing strategy and procedures for the notification and conveyance of abnormal indivisible loads, including agreed routes, the numbers of abnormal loads to be delivered by road and measures to mitigate traffic impact;

(c) the construction programme;

(d) any necessary measures for the temporary protection of carriageway surfaces, the protection of statutory undertakers’ plant and equipment and any temporary removal of street furniture;

(e) measures to promote the use of sustainable transport modes by construction personnel in order to minimise the overall traffic impact and promote sustainable transport modes; and

(f) details of parking for construction personnel within the construction site.

(4) Notices must be erected and maintained throughout the period of construction at every entrance to and exit from the construction site, indicating to drivers the approved routes for traffic entering and




leaving the construction site.

(5) The plan must be implemented as approved.

22. Construction – A1(M)

(1) The authorised development may not commence until a scheme detailing the construction methods to be employed in the vicinity of the A1(M) has been submitted to and, after consultation with the Highways Agency, approved by the planning authority.

(2) The scheme submitted and approved must include details of—

(a) the location and dimensions of any cranes within the vicinity of the boundary fence of the A1(M), including a crane risk assessment;

(b) the location of any other major items of construction plant;

(c) the location and extent of any construction areas or compounds or construction buildings within the vicinity of the boundary fence of the A1(M); and

(d) external lighting, including measures to minimise light spillage to the A1(M).

(3) The scheme must be implemented as approved.

31. Operational

traffic routing and management plan

(1) The authorised development may not be commissioned until an operational traffic routing and management plan has been submitted to and, after consultation with the relevant highway authorities, approved by the planning authority.

(2) The plan submitted and approved must be in accordance with the principles set out in chapter 7 of the environmental statement and the operational travel plan framework contained in Appendix 7C to the environmental statement.

(3) The plan submitted and approved must include details of the routes to be used for the transport of fuel, consumables and combustion by-products to and from the authorised development.

(4) The plan must be implemented as approved.

32. Travel plan -

operational staff (1) The authorised development may not be brought into commercial

use until a travel plan for operational staff has been submitted to and, after consultation with the relevant highway authorities, approved by the planning authority.

(2) The plan submitted and approved must be in accordance with the principles set out in chapter 7 of the environmental statement and the operational travel plan framework contained in Appendix 7C to the environmental statement.

(3) The plan submitted and approved must include— (a) measures to promote the use of sustainable transport modes

to and from the authorised development by operational staff; (b) provision as to the responsibility for, and timescales of, the

implementation of those measures;




(c) a monitoring and review regime. (4) The approved plan must be implemented within six months after

the authorised development is brought into commercial use and must be maintained throughout the operation of the authorised development.

ferrybridge multifuel 2 (fm2)... · of 50mwe (pa 2008 section 15(2)(c)). where a nsip is proposed,...

Documents