Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Planning Inspectorate...Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref...

#]

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref No: 5.1

PINS Ref: EN010061

The Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Order

Ferrybridge Power Station Site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire

Consultation Report

The Planning Act 2008 - Section 37(3) (c)

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)

Regulations 2009

Applicant: Multifuel Energy Limited

Date: July 2014

Document History

July 2014 (i)

Document Number 5.1

Revision Submission Version

Author Dalton Warner Davis LLP (DWD)

Signed Geoff Bullock (GB) Date 30.07.2014

Approved By GB

Signed GB Date 30.07.2014

Document Owner DWD

Revision History

Revision No. Date Reason for Revision Authorised By

Submission Version 30.07.2014 - GB

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)Document Ref No: 5.1

Consultation Report

July 2014 (ii)

Glossary Abbreviations and Definitions

ALA Acquisition of Land Act 1981. APFP Regulations The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)

Regulations 2009. Sets out detailed procedures that must be followed for submitting and publicising applications for Nationally Significant Projects.

Applicant Multifuel Energy Limited. Application The Application for a Development Consent Order made to the Secretary of

State under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 in respect of the Proposed Development, required pursuant to Section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 because the Proposed Development is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under Section 14(1)(a) and Section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 by virtue of being an onshore generating station in England or Wales of 50 Megawatts electrical capacity of more.

Application Site The land corresponding to the Order Limits that is required for the construction and operation of the Proposed Development.

Associated Development

Defined under S.115(2) of The Planning Act 2008 as development which is associated with the principal development and that has a direct relationship with it. Associated development should either support the construction or operation of the principal development, or help address its impacts. It should not be an aim in itself but should be subordinate to the principal development.

BAT Best Available Technology. Book of Reference

A reference document providing details of all landownership interests within the Order Limits and linked to the Land Plan.

CCG Clinical Commissioning Group. CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan. CHP Combined Heat and Power. A technology that puts to use the by-product heat

of the combustion process that is normally wasted to the environment. CLG Community Liaison Group. A group formed to keep the local community

updated on developments at the Ferrybridge Power Station Site. CO2 Carbon Dioxide. Consents and Licences required under Other Legislation

A document setting out the other consents and licences that are required for the construction and operation of the Proposed Development that are not being included within the Development Consent Order.

Consultation Report

A report documenting the approach taken to consultation on an application for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the consultation undertaken and how it complies with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008, the responses received to the consultation, how the applicant has taken account of those responses and any changes that have resulted to the proposed development as a result of the consultation.

C&RT Canal and River Trust. Cumulative effects Effects that may arise from a combination of the project’s effects with those of

other existing or planned developments in the area. DCO A Development Consent Order made by the relevant Secretary of State

pursuant to The Planning Act 2008 to authorise a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. A DCO can incorporate or remove the need for a range of consents which would otherwise be required for a development. A DCO can also include rights of compulsory acquisition.

DECC Department for Energy and Climate Change. Decommissioning A process to remove something from active status. EA Environment Agency. EfW Energy from waste. A power plant that generates energy in the form of

electricity or heat from the incineration or pyrolysis of waste products. EH English Heritage. EIA Environmental Impact Assessment. The assessment of the likely significant

environmental effects of a development undertaken in accordance with The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009.

EIA Regulations The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 setting out how the EIA of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects


Consultation Report

July 2014 (iii)

must be carried out and the procedures that must be followed. EN-1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy. EN-3 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure. ES The Environmental Statement documenting the findings of the EIA. European Site A term used in this report to refer collectively to Special Areas of Conservation,

Special Protection Areas or Ramsar sites. Explanatory Memorandum

A document that explains the intended purpose and affect of a DCO and the authorisations and powers that it seeks.

FAQs Frequently asked questions. Ferrybridge Power Station site

The overall site of Ferrybridge Power Station, incorporating the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, FM1 and the Application Site.

FFW The Friends of Fryston Wood. A local interest group set up in relation to Fryston Wood to the north of the Application Site.

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

The formal assessment of flood risk issues relating to the Proposed Development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies an application for a DCO and is used to inform an Environmental Impact Assessment.

FM1 Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 Power Station, which is currently under construction to the south of the Application Site.

FM2 Ferrybridge Multifuel 2. Formal Consultation

Statutory consultation in accordance with S.42, 46, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008.

Former Power Station Golf Course

Part of the area of land upon which the Proposed Development will be built. The former Power Station Golf Course was taken out of use by the FM1 project, and replacement facilities are to be provided to satisfy a planning condition of that project (i.e. it is already no longer a golf course).

Ha Hectares. A metric measurement of area. Habitat Regulations Assessment

A term used in this report to refer to the entire process required to determine compliance of a plan or project with the Conservation of habitats and Species regulations 2010 and Habitats Directive.

Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)

Vehicles with a gross weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes.

Host local authority

The local authority whose area the Application Site lies within. In this case, Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council.

HSE The Health and Safety Executive. Informal Consultation

Non-statutory consultation.

ITAs Integrated Transport Authorities. Km Kilometres. Kv Kilovolts. Land Plan A plan showing all of the land that is required for the Proposed Development

over which rights are to be sought as part of the DCO. LAT Local Area Team. Limits of deviation The lateral limits shown on the Works Plan(s) and the vertical limits (upwards

and downwards) determined by reference to the section plan(s) submitted as part of the Application and within which the Proposed Development may occur.

MEL Multifuel Energy Limited, a joint venture that has been formed between SSE Generation Limited and Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (the Applicant).

Mitigation measures

A term used in EIA to describe measures proposed to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse environmental effects.

Multifuel power station

The thermal power station that will generate electricity through the combustion of waste derived fuel.

MWe Megawatts electrical. A measurement of power. NOx Nitrogen Oxide. NPPF National Planning Policy Framework. NPSs National Policy Statements. NSIP A Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project that must be authorised by the

grant of a DCO under The Planning Act 2008. NYCC North Yorkshire County Council. Order The Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Order, being the DCO that would be made by


Consultation Report

July 2014 (iv)

the Secretary of State authorising the Proposed Development, a draft of which has been submitted as part of the Application.

Order Limits The limits of the land to which the Application for the DCO relates and shown on the Land Plan and Works Plans within which the Proposed Development must be carried out and which is required for its construction and operation.

PA 2008 The Planning Act 2008 setting out legislation in relation to applications for NSIPs, including pre-application consultation and publicity, the examination of applications and decision making by the Secretary of State.

PEI Preliminary Environmental Information PINS The Planning Inspectorate. A Government agency responsible for receiving

and administering the acceptance and examination of applications for NSIPs on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Power Station site All of the land comprised within the Ferrybridge Power Station site, including the Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal fired Power Station, the FM1 site and the majority of the Application Site.

Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEI) Report

A report which is a requirement of Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 which is prepared during the pre-application process to support consultation on the project proposal. It presents initial environmental information on the Proposed Development.

Proposed Development

The development to which the Application relates and which requires a DCO and as listed at Schedule 1 of the draft Order.

PSCCS Proposed Stakeholder and Community Consultation Strategy. PTEs Passenger Transport Executives. Q1-4 Quarters 1-4. 3 month periods of each calendar year, with Q1 equating to the

months of January to March inclusive and so on. Ramsar Site Wetlands of international importance, designated under the Ramsar

Convention. Relevant Local Authorities

Local authorities falling within Section 43 of the PA 2008 and who the Applicant must consult. These include Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. Selby District Council, North Yorkshire County Council, Leeds City Council, Kirklees Council, Barnsley Council and Doncaster Metropolitan District Council.

Requirements The ‘requirements’ at Schedule 2 of the draft Order that, amongst other matters, are intended to control the final details of the Proposed Development as to be constructed and also to control its operation, amongst other matters (e.g. control of noise levels and delivery hours) to ensure that it accords with the EIA and does not result in unacceptable impacts.

Rochdale Envelope

The approach applied to the EIA of a development whereby flexibility needs to be retained in the design of the development at the consenting stage, which involves defining the maximum parameters of the development and assessing these to ensure that the environmental effects of the development in its final built form have been adequately assessed.

SCI Statement of Community Involvement. Selby DC Selby District Council. Sequential Test

A planning principle that seeks to identify, allocate or develop areas of land in Flood Zone 1 before other areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

An area designated for protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), due to its value as a wildlife and/or geological site.

Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP)

A SWMP sets out how building materials, and resulting waste, is to be managed during the project.

SoCC Statement of Community Consultation. SoCG Statement of Common Ground. SoS The Secretary of State. The decision maker for DCO applications and head of

Government department. In this case the SoS for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

SSE SSE Generation Limited, 50% of the Applicant, part of SSE plc group. Statement of Reasons

A statement setting out the reasons and justification for the compulsory acquisition of land or rights in land within the Order Limits.

Sustainable Surface water drainage methods that take account of quantity, quality and


Consultation Report

July 2014 (v)

Drainage Systems (SuDS)

amenity issues.

WDF Waste derived fuel processed from sources of municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and waste wood.

WMDC Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council, the host local planning authority. Works Plan Plan(s) showing the numbered works referred to at Schedule 1 of the Order and

submitted with the Application. WTI Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. 50% of the Applicant. WYAAS West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service. WYGT West Yorkshire Geology Trust. YW Yorkshire Water.


Consultation Report

July 2014 (vi)

Contents

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1 The Applicant’s Approach to Consultation .................................................................................... 1 The Stage 1 ‘Informal’ Consultation .............................................................................................. 2 The Stage 2 ‘Formal’ Consultation ................................................................................................ 2 Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’ ................................................................................ 3 Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’ ........................................................................................................... 3 Section 46 ‘Duty to notify Secretary of State of proposed application’ ......................................... 4 Section 48 ‘Duty to publicise’ ........................................................................................................ 4 Section 49 ‘Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity’............................... 5 EIA Related Consultation .............................................................................................................. 6 Other Consultation & Engagement................................................................................................ 6 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 8

The Background to the Proposed Development ........................................................................... 8 The Applicant................................................................................................................................. 8 The Application Site....................................................................................................................... 9 The Proposed Development.......................................................................................................... 9 The Purpose of this Document...................................................................................................... 9 The Structure of this Document................................................................................................... 12

2. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT AND COMPLIANCE ........................................................... 21

Legislative Context ...................................................................................................................... 21 Legislative Compliance................................................................................................................ 24

3. THE APPLICANT’S APPROACH TO CONSULTATION ............................................. 36

SSE/WTI Consultation Experience.............................................................................................. 36 Consultation Best Practice, Advice and Guidance...................................................................... 37 Consultation Objectives............................................................................................................... 38 Consultation Process and Timetable........................................................................................... 38 Definition of Consultation Areas .................................................................................................. 39 Information to be provided during Consultation .......................................................................... 40 Consultation Methods.................................................................................................................. 40 Recording, Analysing and Responding to Consultation .............................................................. 41 Informal Consultation on the Strategy ......................................................................................... 41

4. STAGE 1 - ‘INFORMAL’ CONSULTATION.................................................................. 45

Who was consulted? ................................................................................................................... 45 How were they consulted? .......................................................................................................... 45 What were they consulted upon/what information was provided? .............................................. 49 When did the consultation take place?........................................................................................ 49 How could feedback be provided? .............................................................................................. 50 Summary of the response to the consultation............................................................................. 50

5. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: IDENTIFYING CONSULTEES................... 56

Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’ ......................................................................................................... 56 Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’ .............................................................................. 74 Section 48 ‘Duty to publicise’ ...................................................................................................... 75

6. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SOCC) ........................................ 77


Consultation Report

July 2014 (vii)

Background to the preparation of the SoCC ............................................................................... 77 Defining the Consultation Area for the Section 47 Consultation ................................................. 78 Consultation Methods set out in the SoCC ................................................................................. 79 Informal consultation on the Initial Draft SoCC ........................................................................... 80 Feedback on the Initial Draft SoCC............................................................................................. 80 Formal consultation on the Draft SoCC....................................................................................... 85 Feedback on the Draft SoCC ...................................................................................................... 85 Minor changes to the Draft SoCC ............................................................................................... 88 Availability/Publication of Final SoCC and SoCC Notice ............................................................ 90

7. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 47 ‘DUTY TO CONSULT LOCAL COMMUNITY’................................................................................................... 93

Who was consulted? ................................................................................................................... 93 How were they consulted? .......................................................................................................... 93 What were they consulted upon/what information was provided? .............................................. 98 When did the consultation take place?........................................................................................ 99 How could feedback be provided? ............................................................................................ 100 Compliance with the SoCC........................................................................................................ 100 Summary of the response to the consultation........................................................................... 102

8. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 42 ‘DUTY TO CONSULT’....... 108

Who was consulted? ................................................................................................................. 108 How were they consulted? ........................................................................................................ 108 What were they consulted upon/what information was provided? ............................................ 109 When did the consultation take place?...................................................................................... 110 How could feedback be provided? ............................................................................................ 111 Summary of the response to the consultation........................................................................... 112

9. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 46 ‘DUTY TO NOTIFY SECRETARY OF STATE OF PROPOSED APPLICATION’ ...................................... 117

10. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 48 ‘DUTY TO PUBLICISE’ ................................................................................................................. 119

11. EIA RELATED CONSULTATION................................................................................ 122

EIA Notification and Scoping - Regulations 6(1) and 8(1)......................................................... 122 EIA Transboundary Effects - Regulation 24.............................................................................. 123 Approach to Preparation and Publication of Preliminary Environmental Information ............... 123 EIA Regulation 11 Notification................................................................................................... 123 Preparation and Finalisation of the ES...................................................................................... 124

12. SECTION 49 ‘DUTY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY’........................................................................... 127

Stage 1 ‘Informal’ Consultation ................................................................................................. 128 Changes resulting from the Stage 1 ‘Informal’ Consultation ..................................................... 151 Stage 2 ‘Formal’ Consultation ................................................................................................... 152 Changes resulting from the Stage 2 Formal Consultation ........................................................ 196

13. OTHER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ....................................................... 199

PINS Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 199 Local Community/Political Representative Consultation........................................................... 200 Update Meetings with Local Authorities .................................................................................... 201 Statutory Undertakers and Landowners.................................................................................... 202 Statements of Common Ground................................................................................................ 202 Draft Application Documents..................................................................................................... 203 Development Consent Obligation.............................................................................................. 204


Consultation Report

July 2014 (viii)

14. NEXT STEPS............................................................................................................... 207

Tables

TABLE 1.1 - SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S CONSULTATION PROCESS............................... 10 TABLE 1.2 - CONSULTATION REPORT STRUCTURE ............................................................ 12 TABLE 1.3 - COMPLIANCE WITH PINS ADVICE NOTE 14...................................................... 14 TABLE 2.1 - LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 2.2 - COMPLIANCE WITH ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS) ...................................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 3.1 - WMDC/PINS COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION STRATEGY ............................ 42 TABLE 4.1 - INFORMAL CONSULTATION PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENT LOCATIONS................................................................................................................................ 46 TABLE 4.2 - LOCAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE MEETINGS ........................................... 48 TABLE 4.3 - LOCAL AUTHORITY MEETINGS .......................................................................... 48 TABLE 4.4 - TECHNICAL CONSULTEE MEETINGS ................................................................ 49 TABLE 4.5 - SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED BY LOCAL COMMUNITY/POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES.................................................................................................................. 51 TABLE 4.6 - SUMMARY OF COMMENT/ISSUES RAISED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES/TECHNICAL CONSULTEES ............................................................................. 52 TABLE 5.1 - PRESCRIBED PERSONS - SECTION 42(1)(A) PA 2008 ..................................... 58 TABLE 5.2 - RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS - SECTION 42(1)(A) PA 2008 ......... 63 TABLE 5.3 - EACH LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT IS WITHIN SECTION 43 (RELEVANT LOCAL AUTHORITIES) .............................................................................................................. 69 TABLE 5.4 - PERSONS WITHIN CATEGORIES 1, 2 AND 3 OF SECTION 44......................... 70 TABLE 5.5 - PERSONS REMOVED FROM BOOK OF REFERENCE ...................................... 71 TABLE 5.6 - NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTEES...................................................................... 72 TABLE 5.7 - LOCAL COMMUNITY CONSULTEES ................................................................... 74 TABLE 6.1 - FEEDBACK ON INITIAL DRAFT SOCC ................................................................ 80 TABLE 6.2 - FEEDBACK ON DRAFT SOCC.............................................................................. 85 TABLE 6.3 - MINOR CHANGES TO DRAFT SOCC .................................................................. 88 TABLE 6.4 - WMDC RESPONSE TO MINOR CHANGES TO DRAFT SOCC........................... 89 TABLE 6.5 - NEWSPAPERS USED FOR SOCC NOTICE PUBLICATION ............................... 90 TABLE 7.1 - NEWSPAPERS USED FOR SOCC NOTICE PUBLICATION ............................... 95 TABLE 7.2 - PUBLIC INSPECTION LOCATIONS...................................................................... 96 TABLE 7.3 - PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENTS ......................................................................... 97 TABLE 7.4 - COMPLIANCE WITH SOCC ................................................................................ 100 TABLE 7.5 - SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE SECTION 47 CONSULTATION ....... 103 TABLE 8.1 - SECTION 42 AND NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTATION DATES.................... 111 TABLE 8.2 - SUMMARY OF SECTION 42/NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTATION RESPONSES ............................................................................................................................ 112 TABLE 9.1 - SECTION 46 NOTIFICATION DATES ................................................................. 117 TABLE 10.1 - NEWSPAPERS USED FOR SECTION 48 NOTICE PUBLICATION................. 119 BOX 10.2 - SECTION 48 NOTICE ............................................................................................ 120 TABLE 11.1 - CONSULTATION WITH TECHNICAL CONSULTEES ON EIA SCOPING ....... 122 TABLE 11.2 - CONSULTATION WITH TECHNICAL CONSULTEES ...................................... 124 TABLE 11.3 - CONSULTATION WITH TECHNICAL CONSULTEES ON DRAFT ES CHAPTERS ............................................................................................................................... 124 TABLE 12.1 - STAGE 1 INFORMAL CONSULTATION - LOCAL COMMUNITY AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS......................................................................... 130 TABLE 12.2 - STAGE 1 INFORMAL CONSULTATION - LOCAL AUTHORITY AND TECHNICAL CONSULTEE COMMENTS................................................................................. 144 TABLE 12.3 - STAGE 2 FORMAL CONSULTATION - SECTION 47 CONSULTEE (LOCAL COMMUNITY) COMMENTS....................................................................................... 153 TABLE 12.4 - STAGE 2 FORMAL CONSULTATION - SECTION 42 CONSULTEE AND NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTEE COMMENTS..................................................................... 178 TABLE 13.1 - PINS CONSULTATION ...................................................................................... 199 TABLE 13.2 - ON-GOING COMMUNITY CONSULTATION..................................................... 200 TABLE 13.3 - LOCAL AUTHORITY UPDATE MEETINGS....................................................... 201 TABLE 13.4 - STATEMENTS OF COMMON GROUND (SOCG)............................................. 202 TABLE 13.5 - REVIEW OF DRAFT APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ......................................... 203


Consultation Report

July 2014 (ix)

Figures

FIGURE 3.1 - CONSULTATION AREA INFORMAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION .............. 39 FIGURE 5.1 - LOCAL AUTHORITY BOUNDARIES ................................................................... 68 FIGURE 6.1 - FORMAL CONSULTATION AREA....................................................................... 79 Appendices

APPENDIX 3.1 - FM1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX 3.2 - CORRESPONDENCE WITH WMDC AND PINS ON FM2 CONSULTATION STRATEGY APPENDIX 3.3 - FINAL FM2 CONSULTATION STRATEGY (JUNE 2013) APPENDIX 4.1 - MEDIA RELEASES AND ARTICLE (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.2 - LETTER TO LOCAL RESIDENTS/BUSINESS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.3 - POSTER AND POSTER LOCATIONS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.4 - NEWSPAPER NOTICE (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.5 - PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENT BOARDS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.6 - CLG MEETING NOTE 26.06.13 (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.7 - SCREEN SHOT OF PROJECT WEBSITE APPENDIX 4.8 - NOTES OF MEETING WITH LOCAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.9 - LOCAL AUTHORITIES MEETING NOTES (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.10 - TECHNICAL CONSULTEES MEETING NOTES (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.11 - EXAMPLE FEEDBACK FORM (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.12 - FEEDBACK FORMS/COMMENTS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 4.13 - EXAMPLE COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER (INFORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 5.1 - DRAFT LIST OF PRESCRIBED CONSULTEES AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH PINS AND WMDC (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 5.2 - ARDENT SITE NOTICE ‘REQUEST FOR INFORMATION’ AND ‘CHASER’ LETTERS AND RESPONSES RECEIVED (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.1 - INITIAL DRAFT SOCC AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.2 - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON INITIAL DRAFT SOCC (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.3 - NOTE OF MEETING WITH WMDC 17.09.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.4 - DRAFT SOCC, SOCC NOTICE AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE AND PROOF OF POSTING (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.5 - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SOCC (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.6 - AMENDED DRAFT SOCC AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.7 - RESPONSE FROM WMDC ON AMENDED DRAFT SOCC (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.8 - SOCC NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 6.9 - FINAL SOCC AND SOCC NOTICE APPENDIX 7.1 - COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER NO. 1 AND PROOF OF DELIVERY (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.2 - MEDIA RELEASE DATED 22.10.13 AND RELATED PRESS ARTICLE (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.3 - POSTER AND POSTER LOCATIONS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014 (x)

APPENDIX 7.4 - PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENT BOARDS (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.5 - CLG MEETING NOTE 09.10.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.6 - EMAIL AND RELATED CONTACT DETAILS SENT TO LOCAL COMMUNITY AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES ON 22.10.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.7 - CEF MEETING NOTE 03.12.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.8 - CONSULTATION INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR S.47 CONSULTATION AND SENT TO S.42 CONSULTEES APPENDIX 7.9 - EXAMPLE FEEDBACK FORM (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.10 - FEEDBACK FORMS/COMMENTS (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.11 - EXAMPLE COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 7.12 - S.47 CONSULTEE COMMENTS AND APPLICANT’S RESPONSES (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 8.1 - EXAMPLE COPIES OF ORIGINAL S.42 CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 8.2 - EXAMPLE COPIES OF ADDITIONAL S.42 CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 8.3 - S.42 DELIVERY RECORD AND PROOF OF POSTING (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 8.4 - EXAMPLE COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTERS (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 8.5 - S.42 AND NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTEE COMMENTS AND APPLICANT’S RESPONSES (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 9.1 - S.46 NOTIFICATIONS AND PINS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 10.1 - NOTE OF PINS TELE CON 07.02.2014 APPENDIX 10.2 - S.48 NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS (FORMAL CONSULTATION) APPENDIX 11.1 - EXAMPLE LETTER SENT TO EIA SCOPING CONSULTEES APPENDIX 11.2 – TABLE OF EIA REGULATION 11 CONSULTEES AND EXAMPLE EIA REGULATION 11 LETTERS APPENDIX 11.3 - ES APPENDICES 1C AND 1D APPENDIX 13.1 - COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER NO. 2 APPENDIX 13.2 - LOCAL AUTHORITY UPDATE MEETINGS


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 1

SUMMARY

Introduction 1. This Consultation Report has been prepared in support of Multifuel Energy Limit’s (the

Applicant’s) application (the Application) for a Development Consent Order (a DCO) that has been made to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) under Section 37 of The Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008).

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 gross output and associated development (the Proposed Development) on land at and adjacent to the Ferrybridge Power Station site, West Yorkshire. The Proposed Development is known as the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station. The multifuel power station will generate electricity through the combustion of waste derived fuel from various sources of processed waste, including municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and waste wood.

3. 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 (FM1) Power Station 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.

4. A DCO is required as the Proposed Development falls within the PA 2008 definition of a ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ (a NSIP). Before a NSIP can proceed an application must be submitted to PINS for examination, and ultimately, approval by the relevant Secretary of State (the SoS).

5. Prior to the submission of an application for a DCO, the applicant must carry out the consultation and publicity activities set out at Sections 42, 46, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008. This includes consulting with the local community in the form of those living within the vicinity of the land to which the application relates; certain prescribed persons and bodies (prescribed by regulations - such as technical consultees and statutory undertakers), relevant local authorities and affected and potentially affect land ownership interests.

6. Section 37 of the PA 2008 requires an application for a NSIP to be accompanied by a ‘consultation report’ setting out what was done by the applicant to comply with the above sections of the Act. The report must also set out (in accordance with Section 49) how the applicant has had regard to the responses received to the consultation and where this has resulted in changes to the Proposed Development and the Application. This Consultation Report provides that information.

The Applicant’s Approach to Consultation 7. Early in the pre-application process the Applicant developed a ‘Consultation Strategy’ to provide

a framework for the pre-application consultation that it proposed to carry out taking account of the requirements of the PA 2008. In developing the Consultation Strategy the Applicant drew upon its experience of carrying out consultation on energy infrastructure projects in addition to best practice and Department of Communities and Local Government and PINS guidance on pre-application consultation.

8. The Consultation Strategy confirmed that the Applicant intended to adopt a ‘two stage’ pre-application consultation process, as follows:

• Stage 1 - Informal (non-statutory) consultation - consultation with the local community within the vicinity of the Application Site (the Site); engagement with local political representatives; and dialogue and meetings with local authorities and key technical consultees.

• Stage 2 - Formal (statutory) consultation - consultation in accordance with the requirements of the PA 2008 (Sections 47, 42, 46 and 48) with the local community within a wider geographical area surrounding the Site, prescribed persons, and bodies, local authorities and affected and potentially affected landownership interests.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 2

9. The Consultation Strategy defined a ‘consultation area’ (the Informal Consultation Area) for the Stage 1 informal consultation and also outlined the type of information that would be provided during consultation, the consultation methods to be employed and how the Applicant intended to record, analyse and respond to consultation.

10. As part of its approach to pre-application consultation, the Applicant decided to afford the same weight to responses received to the Stage 1 informal (non-statutory) consultation as to the responses to the Stage 2 formal (statutory) consultation.

11. The Applicant ‘informally’ consulted Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) as ‘host authority’ (the authority within which all the land to which the Application relates lies) on the Consultation Strategy. WMDC confirmed that it was satisfied with the Applicant’s proposed approach to consultation and that extent of the Informal Consultation Area was acceptable.

The Stage 1 ‘Informal’ Consultation 12. The Stage 1 informal consultation took place between March and early September 2013. There

were essentially two strands to the informal consultation; local community consultation, including consultation and meetings with local political representatives; and consultation with WMDC and the immediately neighbouring local authorities and key technical consultees.

13. The local community consultation was communicated through media releases, letters to local residents and businesses (providing information on the Proposed Development), posters and newspaper notices. There were also community briefings through the existing Community Liaison Group (CLG) for the Ferrybridge Power Station site and a project website and helpline were established. A number of public information events (public exhibitions) were held within the Informal Consultation Area at which members of the public could access information on the Proposed Development and provide comments. Options were presented in respect of certain aspects of the development and Feedback Forms were made available for people to record and provide their comments.

14. The local community consultation ran from early July 2013 (starting with the public information events) with people being provided with until 6 September 2013 to make comments.

15. Local political representatives were briefed in advance of the start of the community consultation through a series of meetings. They were also invited to attend a briefing at the first public information event in advance of the venue being open to the public. The briefings took place primarily in June 2013.

16. In total 89 people attended the public information events, with close to 40 Feedback Forms/sets of comments being received by the Applicant.

17. The consultation with WMDC and the immediately neighbouring local authorities (Selby District Council, Leeds City Council and North Yorkshire County Council) and key technical consultees occurred between March and June 2013. This took the form of a series of meetings to introduce the Proposed Development and to identify any issues of concern or interest at an early stage in the pre-application process. At the meetings with the technical consultees there was also some discussion in relation to the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be carried out for the Proposed Development.

The Stage 2 ‘Formal’ Consultation 18. The Stage 2 formal consultation took place between early November 2013 and May 2014. As

with the informal consultation there were essentially two main strands to the formal consultation; local community consultation in accordance with Section 47 ‘Duty to consult the local community’; and consultation of prescribed persons, statutory undertakers, relevant local authorities and affected and potentially affected land ownership interests in accordance with Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 3

Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’ 19. In accordance with Section 47 the Applicant prepared a ‘Statement of Community Consultation’

(a SoCC) setting out how it proposed to consult people living within the vicinity of the land to which the Application relates. In preparing the SoCC Section 47 places a requirement on the applicant to consult the authority whose area encompasses either all, or part of the land to which the application relates. In this case, the Site lies entirely within the administrative area of WMDC, which is a unitary authority, and as such there was no requirement to consult any other local authorities on the SoCC.

20. The preparation of the SoCC was informed by the Applicant’s Consultation Strategy and the approach to pre-application consultation set out within that document. In preparing the SoCC the Applicant went beyond the requirements of Section 47 by not only consulting WMDC, but a number of neighbouring local authorities. In addition, The Applicant carried out informal consultation on an ‘initial draft SoCC’ with the authorities so as to provide them with an early opportunity to comment on the proposals for the Section 47 community consultation. Following this the Applicant formally consulted the authorities on a draft of the SoCC. The feedback received from the authorities was broadly supportive of the proposals set out in the SoCC and the proposed extent of the consultation area (the Formal Consultation Area) for the Section 47 consultation. The Applicant had regard to the responses received to the SoCC consultation and made appropriate amendments to the SoCC before it was finalised.

21. A SoCC Notice was published in the Yorkshire Post and two local papers circulating within the vicinity of the land to which the Application relates (the Pontefract & Castleford Express and Selby Times) for two consecutive weeks in late October/early November 2013, as well as in a number of local free papers. This went well beyond the requirement of Section 47 to publish a notice in a local paper circulating within the vicinity of the land to which the application relates. The SoCC Notice not only advised of the locations where the finalised SoCC could be viewed but also publicised the start of the Stage 2 formal consultation.

22. As confirmed above, the Section 47 consultation was publicised by the SoCC Notice being published in the Yorkshire Post and various local newspapers. It was also communicated through similar methods to those used for the informal community consultation, including a newsletter sent to over 23,000 local residents and businesses within the Formal Consultation Area. This provided information on the Proposed Development, including changes made since the informal consultation, the specific matters upon which the Applicant was seeking views, the public information events and the date by which comments must be received by the Applicant. A number of public information events were held within the Formal Consultation Area at which members of the public could access information on the Proposed Development and provide comments through the use of a Feedback Form.

23. The Section 47 consultation ran from 4 November to 20 December 2013 (5pm on 20 December 2013 being the deadline for the receipt of comments by the Applicant). The duration of the consultation (46 days) significantly exceeded the minimum period (28 days) that is generally considered to be acceptable for public consultation.

24. As with the informal consultation, local political representatives were briefed in advance of the start of the consultation and were also invited to attend a briefing at the first public information event on 6 November 2013 in advance of the venue being open to the public.

25. In total 116 people attended the public information events, with just over 30 Feedback Forms/sets of comments being received.

Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’ 26. The Section 42 consultation was originally intended to run for the same period as the Section 47

consultation. However, a number of additional consultees were identified after the close of the original consultation (on 20 December 2013), who it was necessary to consult so as to accord with Section 42. This was primarily a result of the land referencing work, which was an iterative process that identified further parties whom it was necessary to consult. The outcome of this was that three further limited rounds of consultation were carried out, with the deadline for comments relating to the last round being early May 2014.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 4

27. The Section 42 consultees were sent a letter accompanied by the same information that was made available for the Section 47 consultation, which included a Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR), setting out the findings of the environmental assessment of the Proposed Development that had been carried out prior to the consultation. This included a Non-technical summary. As with the Section 47 consultation, that for Section 42, in addition to providing background information on the Proposed Development, advised of the changes made since the informal consultation and sought comments from the consultees on specific matters relating to the Proposed Development. The letters clearly stated the deadline for the receipt of comments, this being 5pm on 20 December 2013 for the original round of consultation.

28. The original round of Section 42 consultation provided consultees with significantly in excess of the 28 day period beginning with the day after the day the consultation documents are received as stipulated by Section 45 ‘Timetable for consultation under section 42’. The period stipulated by Section 45 was allowed for the additional limited rounds of Section 42 consultation.

29. Section 42 consultees were identified taking account of the requirements of Section 42 of the PA 2008 (and Sections 43 ‘Local authorities for the purposes of section 42(1)(b)’ and 44 ‘Categories for the purposes of section 42(1)(d)’), reviewing the ‘prescribed consultees’ list at Schedule 1 of ‘The Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure Regulations’ 2009 (the APFP Regulations) and applying the relevance and circumstances tests, reviewing local authority boundaries and identifying land ownership interests within and adjacent to the Application Site. The Applicant appointed land agents to assist in identifying landownership and other interests and to compile a Book of Reference. Where there was any uncertainty or doubt as to whether or not to include a person or body in the consultation the Applicant erred on the side of caution and consulted them.

30. In addition to the Section 42 consultees, the Applicant also consulted (in the same manner) a number of other consultees (non-prescribed consultees) who, while there was no statutory duty to consult them, it was considered appropriate to do so. This included consultees identified during the Stage 1 informal consultation, during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping process, and through discussions with local authorities and key stakeholders and bodies with responsibilities for land within the vicinity of the Site, for instance, parish councils lying wholly or partly within the Formal Consultation Area.

31. In total 45 written responses were received to the Section 42 consultation. The majority were received from Section 42 consultees although a number were also received from non-prescribed consultees. A significant proportion of the responses received merely acknowledged the receipt of the consultation documents or confirmed that the consultee had no comments.

Section 46 ‘Duty to notify Secretary of State of proposed application’ 32. Section 46 requires the applicant to notify the SoS (through PINS) of the Section 42

consultation. This must be done either before or at the same time as commencing the Section 42 consultation and the SoS must be provided with the same information that is to be provided to the Section 42 consultees.

33. The Applicant notified PINS in accordance with Section 46 of the original round of Section 42 consultation prior to this commencing. PINS were subsequently advised of the additional limited rounds of Section 42 consultation either before or at the same time as these took place.

Section 48 ‘Duty to publicise’ 34. Alongside the Section 47 consultation and the original round of Section 42 consultation, the

Applicant also published a notice in accordance with Section 48. This involved publishing a notice providing details of the Proposed Development and advising how the consultation documents could be accessed with a deadline for the receipt of comments in a national newspaper, the London Gazette and at least one local paper circulating within the vicinity of the land.

35. The Section 48 Notice for the Proposed Development was published in The Independent and London Gazette on 1 November 2013, the Yorkshire Post on 1 and 8 November 2013 and the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 5

Pontefract & Castleford Express and Selby Times on 31 October and 7 November 2013. Again, the Applicant went significantly beyond the requirements of the PA 2008.

36. The deadline for the receipt of comments stated on the Section 48 Notice was 5pm on 20 December 2013, the same as the deadline for the receipt of comments from the Section 47 consultation and the original round of Section 42 consultation. The period allowed for comments went well beyond the period of 28 days following the date the notice was last published as required by the APFP Regulations.

37. No responses were received to the Section 48 publicity.

Section 49 ‘Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity’

38. Section 49 ‘Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity’ requires applicants to have regard to any relevant responses received to the consultation and publicity carried out in accordance with Sections 47, 42 and 48. A relevant response is a response received by an applicant before the deadlines set in relation to the Section 47, 42 and 48 consultation and publicity. With regard to this, it should be noted that the Applicant undertook to take account of late responses received, provided these were received before the end of May 2014. This was considered to be reasonable given that in relation to the main consultations the Applicant had already provided a significant period to submit comments and also taking account of the need to finalise the Application for submission in July 2014.

39. As confirmed above, as part of its approach to pre-application consultation, the Applicant decided to afford the same weight to responses received to the Stage 1 informal consultation as to the responses to the Stage 2 formal consultation carried out under Sections 47, 42 and 48.

40. A range of issues were raised during the Stage 1 informal consultation by members of the public and local political representatives, which have been grouped under a number of topic headings. These include air quality, noise, road traffic, the need for the development, fuel supply/sources, design/visual impact and landscaping and employment/local economy, amongst others. It is relevant to note that a number of issues raised by the public related to the on-going FM1 development. The issues raised by the local authorities and key technical consultees tended to relate to design and technical aspects of the development (notably the options proposed for the fuel storage bunker and cooling technology) and the scope of the EIA work to be carried out for the Application.

41. As a result of the Stage 1 informal consultation a number of changes were made to the Proposed Development, notably relating to the height of the emissions stack and the options being considered for the fuel storage bunker and cooling technology. In addition, the Applicant also took the decision to produce a number of additional documents to support the Application, including Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies. Tables 12.1 and 12.2 at Section 12 of this Report provide a summary of the issues/comments raised during the informal consultation, how the Applicant has had regard to these and the changes that have been made as a result of this consultation.

42. The issues raised during the Section 47 community consultation were, for the most part, broadly similar to those raised in response to the Stage 1 informal consultation (e.g. air quality, noise, road traffic, employment/local economy) although some additional issues were raised, notably relating to the potential effects of the Proposed Development upon health. Issues raised by the Section 42 (and non-prescribed) consultees again tended to relate to design and technical aspects of the development and the scope of the environmental and other assessments being carried out to support the application. Many of these issues were not new, having already been raised during the informal consultation and through the EIA scoping process.

43. Changes resulting from the Section 47 and 42 consultation included more detailed consideration of health issues as part of the EIA work and commitments made by the Applicant in response to minimising impacts on air quality within the area, notably to keep nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions at a lower level than required by legislation and committing to the use of a cleaner vehicle fleet for the delivery of fuel to the multifuel power station. Tables 12.3 and 12.4 at Section 12 provide a summary of the issues/comments raised during the Section 47 and 42


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 6

consultation, how the Applicant has had regard to these and the changes that have been made as a result.

EIA Related Consultation 44. Alongside the Stage 1 informal and the Stage 2 formal (Section 47, 42, 46 and 48) consultation

and publicity, the Applicant has carried out a number of EIA related consultation activities. This has included notifying PINS of the Applicant’s intention to carry out an EIA; applying to PINS for a scoping opinion as to the topics to be covered by the EIA; consultation with technical consultees regarding the preparation of the PEIR; notification of consultation bodies in accordance with the EIA Regulations and informal consultation with technical consultees on the draft chapters of the Environmental Statement.

Other Consultation & Engagement 45. The Applicant had also undertaken a range of ‘other’ informal consultation and engagement

activities, distinct from the Stage 1 informal, Stage 2 formal and EIA related consultation. This has included dialogue with PINS, providing updates on the status of the pre-application consultation and preparation of the Application; updating the local community, most recently through the issue of a newsletter in June 2014; update meetings with WMDC and other local authorities; discussions with statutory consultees and landowners; and discussions with technical consultees with regard to the agreement of Statements of Common Ground.

Next Steps 46. The Applicant is committed to continued engagement with the local community, local

authorities, and other key stakeholders following the submission of the Application and throughout the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development, should a DCO be granted.

47. The Applicant will use the CLG as the primary means to update the local community on the development and will also issue media releases and newsletters reporting on progress and provide updates on the project website. Regular contact will also be maintained with WMDC other relevant local authorities and key stakeholders.

48. In addition, there are certain statutory notification and publicity requirements that the Applicant will need to fulfil following the acceptance of the Application that will provide people with a further opportunity to comment.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 7

This page is intentionally blank


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 8

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This ‘Consultation Report’ has been prepared in support of Multifuel Energy Limited’s (the

Applicant’s) application (the Application) for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that has been 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 FM2 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 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 (FM1) Power Station 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) is a 50:50 joint venture that has been

formed by SSE Generation Ltd (SSE), part of SSE plc group, and WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (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.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 9

1.11 The Applicant has an option agreement to enter into a lease for the land within the Application Site that is within the control of SSE, while the draft Order will provide the necessary rights in respect of the land required for the Proposed Development that lies outside SSE’s control.

1.12 Further information on the Applicant can be found by going to the FM2 project website: www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2 .

The Application Site 1.13 The Application Site (the ‘Order limits’) comprises almost entirely land inside the

boundary of the Ferrybridge Power Station site and is wholly within the administrative area of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC). The Ferrybridge Power Station site is situated between the River Aire to the north and east and the A1(M) immediately to the west.

1.14 The Application Site itself extends to approximately 32 hectares (ha) 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, in addition to other land (some of which is outside the Power Station site) that may be required for electricity grid and utilities connections.

1.15 A detailed description of the Application Site and its location and surroundings is provided in the ‘Application Site Description Document’ (Application Document Ref. No. 5.2) that forms part of the Application.

The Proposed Development 1.16 The Proposed Development comprises the multifuel power station (the ‘onshore

generating station’) and all 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.

1.17 In addition, it includes ‘Associated Development’ connected with the generating station, as defined by Section 115(2) of the PA 2008. This comprises of a connection to the electricity grid network, improvements to an existing access road and a new foul water connection.

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

1.19 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).

1.20 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 could enter commercial operation in Q4 2018.

The Purpose of this Document 1.21 Section 37(3)(c) of the PA 2008 requires that an application for a DCO is accompanied by

a ‘consultation report’. Subsection (7) confirms that a consultation report means a report giving details of:


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 10

• what has been done by the applicant to comply with Sections 42 (Duty to consult), 47 (Duty to consult local community) and 48 (Duty to publicise) of the PA 2008;

• any ‘relevant responses’ to the consultation under Sections 42, 47 and 48; and

• the account taken by the applicant of any relevant responses as required by Section 49(2) in developing the application from proposed to final form.

1.22 A ‘relevant response’ is defined by Section 49(3) as:

• a response from a person consulted under Section 42 (Duty to consult) that is received by the applicant before the deadline imposed by Section 45 (Timetable for consultation under Section 42) in that person’s case;

• a response to consultation under Section 47 (Duty to consult local community) that is received by the applicant before any applicable deadline imposed in accordance with the statement prepared under Section 47 (the ‘Statement of Community Consultation’); and

• a response to publicity under Section 48 (Duty to publicise) that is received by the applicant before the deadline imposed in accordance with Section 48 in relation to that publicity.

1.23 This Consultation Report provides an account of the consultation undertaken by the Applicant in respect of the Proposed Development in accordance with the requirements of Section 37. This includes the approach that has been taken to consultation, the methods and activities employed and the timescales and deadlines set for the consultation and publicity. The Consultation Report also details the responses that have been received to the consultation and how these have been taken into account by the Applicant.

1.24 The Applicant has adopted a two stage approach to the pre-application consultation for the Proposed Development, with both ‘informal’ and ‘formal’ consultation having taken place. By way of clarification the ‘informal’ consultation was ‘non-statutory’ consultation that the Applicant carried out early in the pre-application process, with the later ‘formal’ consultation stage representing ‘statutory’ consultation in accordance with the requirements of Sections 47, 42, 46 and 48 of the PA 2008.

1.25 References in this Consultation Report (and the other Application Documents) to ‘informal’ consultation should therefore be taken to mean ‘non-statutory’ consultation and to ‘formal’ to mean ‘statutory’ consultation.

1.26 The consultation process that the Applicant has followed and the broad timescales for this are summarised in Table 1.1 below:

Table 1.1 - Summary of Applicant’s Consultation Process

Consultation Overview Timescales

Stage 1 - Informal (non-statutory) consultation

Consultation with the local community within the immediate vicinity of the Application Site; engagement with local political representatives; dialogue and meetings with WMDC other relevant local authorities and key technical consultees.

March 2013 to early September 2013 (consultation with local community and political representatives June - early September 2013; consultation with local authorities and technical consultees March and June 2013).

Review of informal Acknowledgment and review of Mid September 2013 - end


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 11

Table 1.1 - Summary of Applicant’s Consultation Process

Consultation Overview Timescales

consultation responses

responses received to the informal consultation.

October 2013.

Stage 2 - Formal (statutory) consultation

This consultation comprised the following: • S.47 - consultation on the

preparation of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), publication of the SoCC and engagement with the local community in accordance with the SoCC;

• S.42 - consultation with prescribed persons, relevant local authorities and affected or potentially affected landownership interests;

• S.46 - notification of PINS of S.42 consultation; and

• S.48 - publicity for the proposed Application in the required newspapers.

Early November 2013 to early May 2014 (main S.42 consultation and S.46 notification and all S.47 consultation and S.48 publicity took place between early November -late December 2013; additional limited S.42 consultation [and related S.46 notifications] took place in February and March 2014, primarily as a result of the identification of additional land ownership interests, with the final date for the receipt of comments being early May 2014).

Review of formal consultation responses

Acknowledgment and review of responses received to the formal consultation, including issue of responses and dialogue with specific consultees.

Early January 2014 to June 2014.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) related consultation

EIA scoping, development of Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and preparation of the Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the EIA Regulations.

March 2013 to the end of May 2014.

Other Consultation and Engagement

Other ‘informal’ consultation distinct from the Stage 1 ‘informal (non-statutory) consultation’ and the Stage 2 formal consultation which has taken place throughout the pre-application process including updates to the local community, briefings of local political representatives, meetings that have taken place with WMDC and other relevant local authorities and dialogue with landowners, statutory consultees and key consultees relating to matters such as the preparation of statements of common ground.

On-going throughout the pre-application process.

1.27 It is important to note that in the case of both the Stage 1 informal and the main Stage 2 formal consultation the Applicant allowed for consultation periods significantly in excess of the statutory minimum period set out at Section 45 of the PA 2008 for Section 42 consultation and also what is generally regarded as being the minimum acceptable period for public consultation (i.e. 28 days). In relation to the additional formal consultation and notification that was required under Sections 42 and 46 in February and March 2014 (primarily as a result of the land referencing work that identified additional land ownership


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 12

interests), the Applicant allowed for a further period of 28 days for these consultees to respond, starting with the day after the day they received the consultation documents.

1.28 As part of its approach to pre-application consultation the Applicant attached the same weight to the responses received to the Stage 1 informal consultation as to the responses received to the Stage 2 formal consultation (i.e. the Applicant took account of the responses to the informal consultation as if they had been made to the formal consultation).

1.29 In addition to the above, the Applicant also sought to have regard to any ‘late’ consultation responses received after the specified deadlines for both the informal and formal consultation, where practical. However, in the case of the formal consultation, the Applicant applied a ‘cut-off’ date of the end May 2014 for the consideration of late responses. This was considered to be reasonable given the need to finalise the Application for submission in early July 2014. Where there was on-going dialogue the Applicant continued this, although after the end of May 2014 this dialogue could not be taken into account in the finalisation of the Application.

The Structure of this Document 1.30 The Consultation Report has, where possible, been structured chronologically and has

also taken account of the guidance set out in PINS Advice Note 14 ‘Compiling the consultation report’. The structure of the Consultation Report is set out in Table 1.2 below.

Table 1.2 - Consultation Report Structure

Section Title Overview

Section 2 Legislative Context & Compliance

Provides a summary of the legislative requirements of the PA 2008 relating to pre-application consultation and includes a ‘checklist’ based upon Appendix 2 ‘Acceptance of Applications’ of PINS Advice Note 6 ‘Preparation and submission of application documents’ setting out how the Applicant’s pre-application consultation has complied with these requirements. The checklist is intended to provide PINS with a ‘quick guide’ as to how the Applicant has complied with the legislative requirements for pre-application consultation and where this is referenced within the Consultation Report.

Section 3 The Applicant’s Approach to Consultation

Describes the Applicant’s approach to consultation and how the Applicant’s Consultation Strategy (to guide pre-application consultation) was developed.

Section 4 Stage 1 - ‘Informal’ Consultation

Sets out what was done by the Applicant for the informal (non-statutory) consultation stage and the principal issues to emerge from that consultation.

Section 5 Stage 2 - ‘Formal’ Consultation - Identifying

Explains the approach taken by the Applicant to identifying those


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 13



of Consultees persons/bodies to be consulted at the formal ‘statutory’ consultation stage and also listing who was consulted and when.

Section 6 Stage 2 - ‘Formal’ Consultation - Preparation of the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)

Describes the approach taken by the Applicant to the preparation of the SoCC pursuant to S.47 of the PA 2008 and the consultation (including informal consultation) that took place with WMDC and the other relevant local authorities in relation to the preparation of the document.

Section 7 Stage 2 - ‘Formal’ Consultation - Section 47 ‘Duty to Consult Local Community’

Sets out how the Applicant consulted the local community within the vicinity of the Application Site pursuant to S.47 of the PA 2008 and in accordance with the finalised SoCC and the principal issues to emerge from the consultation.

Section 8 Stage 2 - ‘Formal’ Consultation - Section 42 ‘Duty to Consult’

Sets out how the Applicant consulted with the bodies listed at S.42 of the PA 2008, including how it consulted with other bodies there was no statutory duty to consult, in addition to the principal issues to emerge from this consultation.

Section 9 Stage 2 - ‘Formal’ Consultation - Section 46 ‘Duty to Notify Secretary of State of Proposed Application

Confirms how the Applicant notified the SoS of the S.42 consultation in accordance with S.46 of the PA 2008.

Section 10 Stage 2 - ‘Formal’ Consultation - Section 48 ‘Duty to Publicise’

Explains how the Applicant publicised the Application in accordance with S.48 of the PA 2008, including the newspapers the S.48 Notice was published in.

Section 11 EIA Related Consultation

Describes the EIA related consultation carried out by the Applicant in accordance with the EIA Regulations in order facilitate the EIA process and the preparation of the Environmental Statement for the Proposed Development.

Section 12 Section 49 ‘Duty to Take Account of Responses to Consultation and Publicity’

Sets out how the Applicant has had regard to the responses received to both the Stage 1 informal and Stage 2 formal consultation and where these have resulted in changes to the Proposed Development and/or Application.

Section 13 Other Consultation and Engagement

Details the other informal consultation and engagement that has taken place during the pre-application stage, including update meetings that have taken place with WMDC and other relevant local authorities and dialogue with landowners, statutory


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 14



consultees and key consultees relating to matters such as the preparation of statements of common ground.

Section 14 Next Steps

Sets out how the Applicant intends to continue to engage with consultees following the submission of the Application.

1.31 As confirmed above, PINS Advice Note 14 ‘Compiling the consultation report’ provides guidance on the structure and content of consultation reports. Table 1.3 below identifies how the structure and content of this Consultation Report complies with key elements of this guidance and where the information is provided within the Report.

Table 1.3 - Compliance with PINS Advice Note 14

Section of Advice Note 14

Recommendations from Advice Note 14

Where Addressed in Report

Explanatory Text A quick reference guide to the pre-application stage should be provided near the start of the report in bullet point form, summarising all consultation activity in chronological order. This section should define the whole pre-application consultation and explain the relationship between any informal consultation that may have taken place and statutory consultation carried out under the PA 2008. A brief description of any historic consultation activity including any information available about the scale and nature of the response at that time would be of interest.

Executive Summary and Section 1 (paras 1.24 - 1.28 and Table 1.1) provide a summary of the pre-application consultation that has taken place and explain the relationship between the informal and formal ‘statutory’ consultation. A brief description of the consultation that took place in relation to FM1 is provided at Section 3 (paras 3.4 - 3.8).

Consultation with prescribed consultees (S.42)

The applicant should include a full list of the prescribed consultees as part of the report. If the list varies in any way from Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations this should be robustly justified. A short description of how S.43 of the PA 2008 has been applied to identify relevant local authorities should be included. This could be supported by a map showing the site and identifying the boundaries of the relevant authorities. Those with an interest in the land consulted under S.44 should be identified as a distinct element of

The approach to identifying prescribed consultees is set out at Section 5 (Tables 5.1 - 5.4). This includes a short description of how relevant local authorities were identified, including a map of the boundaries of the authorities (Section 5 - Figure 5.1). A full list of prescribed consultees is contained at Section 5 (Tables 5.1-5.4). This includes justification as to why certain prescribed


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 15





the wider S.42 consultation. Consultees who are included in the book of reference for compulsory acquisition purposes should be highlighted in the consolidated list of prescribed consultees.

consultees were not consulted. The list of prescribed consultees distinguishes between the S.42(1), S.43 and S.44 consultees and also identifies those included in the book of reference for compulsory acquisition purposes.

Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)

It would be helpful to provide a summary of the rational behind the SoCC methodology to assist the SoS’s understanding of the community consultation and provide a context for considering how the consultation was undertaken. Evidence should be submitted as part of the report that shows which local authorities were consulted about the content of the draft SoCC; what the authorities’ comments were; confirmation that they were given 28 days to provide their comments and a description of how the applicant had regard to the authorities’ comments. Copies of the published SoCC as it appeared in the local press should be provided along with confirmation of which local newspapers it was published in and when. Where there were any inconsistencies with the SoCC, for example where additional activities took place that were not included in the SoCC, then this should be clearly explained and justified. The SoCC process is usually best dealt with as a discrete section within the report.

A separate section (Section 6) has been provided on the preparation of and consultation relating to the SoCC. Evidence of the consultation with the local authorities on the draft SoCC is contained at Appendices 6.1 - 6.7. Copies of the final published SoCC Notice as it appeared in the press are provided at Appendix 6.8 and the final SoCC at Appendix 6.9. The community consultation was carried out in accordance with the published SoCC and this is described at Section 7, with Table 7.4 setting out how the S.47 consultation complied with the SoCC.

Statutory publicity (S.48)

A copy of the S.48 notice as it appeared in the local and national newspapers, together with a description of where the notice was published and confirmation of the time period given for responses should be included within the report. Applicants should provide

A separate section has been provided on S.48 publicity (Section 10). This provides information on the S.48 Notice, including its content, where and when it was published, the time period given for responses, a description of the consultation materials


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 16





confirmation that the S.48 notice was sent to the prescribed consultees at the same time the notice was published. A description of the consultation materials used and how the prescribed consultees were able to access it would be useful. S.48 publicity is best dealt within as a separate section within the report.

used and how the prescribed consultees were able to access these materials. Appendix 10.2 contains copies of the S.48 Notice as it was published in the press.

Non-statutory ‘informal’ consultation

Any consultation not carried out under the provisions of the PA 2008 should be clearly indicated and identified separately in the report from the statutory consultation.

A separate section on the Stage 1 ‘informal’ (non-statutory) consultation that was undertaken in advance of the formal (statutory) S.47, S.42, S.46 and S.48 consultation and publicity has been provided (Section 4). Section 13 covers other consultation and engagement that has taken place throughout the pre-application process. This was also informal consultation but as confirmed in Table 1.1 was distinct from the Stage 1 informal consultation. This ‘other’ consultation included update meetings that took place with WMDC and other relevant local authorities and dialogue with landowners, statutory consultees and key consultees relating to matters such as the preparation of statements of common ground.

EIA Regulations consultation

Consultation undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime is separate to that required under the PA 2008. Applicants may wish to draw attention to consultation responses received under the EIA process, but any reference to this consultation should be kept separate from the statutory consultation carried out under the provisions of the PA 2008.

A separate section (Section 11) has been provided on EIA related consultation, including EIA scoping and the development of the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and Environmental Statement (ES). This includes the notification of consultation


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 17





bodies that took place in accordance with EIA Regulation 11 (Appendix 11.2). The environmental issues raised during EIA Scoping and the other EIA related consultation are reproduced at Appendix 11.3.

Issues led approach

If the level of response was significant it may be appropriate to group responses under ‘headline issues’ (themes). Care must be taken to ensure that in doing this the responses are not presented in a misleading way or out of context from the original views of the consultee. Where this approach has been adopted it should be clearly identified and explained in the main body of the report, including any safeguards and cross checking that took place to ensure that the responses where grouped appropriately.

The Applicant has reviewed the responses received to the informal and formal (S.47) community consultation and has grouped the issues raised by community consultees under ‘topic headings’. A summary of the issues raised is set out beneath each topic heading. These have been checked to ensure that they accurately capture the issues raised during the community consultation. The topic headings and summary of issues relating to the informal and formal community consultation are set out in Section 12 at Tables 12.1 (informal) and 12.3 (formal). The Applicant has adopted a slightly different approach to the responses received to the informal and formal (S.42) consultation from the local authorities, technical consultees and other consultation bodies. In the case of these consultees, the Applicant has summarised the issues raised by consultees rather than grouping these under ‘topic headings’. The issues raised by these consultees are set out in Tables 12.2 (informal) and 12.4 (formal) of Section 12..


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 18





Section 12 (Tables 12.1-12.4) sets out how the Applicant has had regard to both the informal and formal consultation carried out. It sets out how the Applicant has taken account of the responses received to the two stages of consultation and also where consultation has resulted in changes to the Proposed Development and/or Application..

Summary of responses

A list of the individual responses received should be provided and categorised in an appropriate way. We advise that applicants group responses under the three strands of consultation as follows: • S.42 prescribed consultees

(including S.43 and S.44) • S.47 community consultees • S.48 responses to statutory

publicity. The list should also make further distinction within those categories by sorting response according to whether they contain comments which have led to changes to matters such as siting, route, design, form or scale of the scheme itself, or to mitigation or compensatory measures proposed, or have led to no change. A summary of responses by appropriate category together with a clear explanation of the reason responses have led to no change should also be included, including where responses have been received after the deadline set by the applicant. It is important that where areas of disagreement have not be resolved, the reasons why are set out clearly in the summary.

Individual consultation comments and responses have been categorised under S.42 and S.47 at Appendix 8.5. No responses were received to the S.48 publicity. Informal consultation responses have been listed separately and are divided between local authority/technical consultee responses and local community/political representative responses (Appendix 7.12). Appendices 7.12 and 8.5 confirm the date that the consultation responses were received and include responses that have been received after the deadlines set. The same regard has been had to late responses received up to the end of May 2014 as was had to those received within the deadlines set (see paragraph 1.28). As confirmed above, a summary of the responses received to the consultation, how the Applicant has had regard to these and any changes made to the Proposed Development/Application as a result is provided at


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 19





Tables 12.1 - 12.4 (Section 12.

Phased approach Where a phased approach to consultation was undertaken then this can be reflected in the structure of the report and in the summary of responses.

A phased approach was taken with informal (non-statutory) and formal (statutory) consultation being undertaken. The Consultation Report includes separate sections on the informal (Section 4) and the formal (Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) consultation, while the responses received to both stages of consultation are considered at Section 12. Where possible the Report has been structured chronologically.

Request for responses

It is important that the consultation report is clear and that the SoS can quickly identify whether applicants have met all statutory requirements. The applicant may be asked to provide a copy of all consultation responses that have been received.

Section 2 includes a ‘checklist’ (Table 2.1) based upon Appendix 2 ‘Acceptance of Applications’ of PINS Advice Note 6 ‘Preparation and submission of application documents’ setting out how the Applicant’s pre-application consultation has complied with these requirements. The checklist is intended to provide PINS with a ‘quick guide’ as to how the Applicant has complied with the legislative requirements for pre-application consultation and where this is referenced within the Consultation Report. The consultation responses received to the Stage 1 informal and Stage 2 formal consultation are provided at Appendices 7.12 and 8.5 of the Consultation Report.

Data Protection Applicants should ensure the consultation report complies with the Data Protection At 1998 and addresses and other contact information are treated appropriately.

Contact information of private individuals and other personal information has not been included within the Report.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 20



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 21

2. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT AND COMPLIANCE 2.1 This section of the Consultation Report provides a summary of the legislative context for

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), including the legislative requirements relating to pre-application publicity. It includes a ‘checklist’ based upon Appendix 2 ‘Acceptance of Applications’ of PINS Advice Note 6 ‘Preparation and submission of application documents’ in order to provide a quick reference guide as to how the Applicant’s consultation has complied with the legislative requirements for pre-application consultation and where this is referenced within the Consultation Report.

Legislative Context

Overview of the Development Consent Order Process

2.2 The Proposed Development, including an onshore generating station with an average gross electrical output in excess of 50MWe, falls within the definition of a NSIP under Section 15)2)(c) of the PA 2008. It is, therefore, necessary for the Applicant to apply to the Secretary of State (SoS) (via PINS) for a DCO to construct, operate and maintain the Proposed Development under Section 31 of the PA 2008.

2.3 PINS is responsible for examining the application and making a recommendation to the relevant SoS, in this case for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), who then takes the decision as to whether a DCO should be made authorising the construction and operation of the development. The DCO removes the need to apply for a number of consents (e.g. planning permission) and can also include a range of other consents and licences subject to the prior agreement of the relevant consenting body.

2.4 Under this system the policy framework for examining and determining applications for a DCO is provided by National Policy Statements (NPSs). Section 5 of the PA 2008 allows the SoS to designate NPSs setting out national policy in relation to the types of NSIPs listed at Section 14 of the Act.

2.5 Section 1 of the PA 2008 confirms that where NPSs are in place, these shall be the primary basis for decisions by the SoS on applications for NSIPs. Section 104 requires the SoS to determine applications for NSIPs in accordance with the relevant NPSs unless this would:

• lead to the UK being in breach of its international obligations;

• be in breach of any statutory duty that applies to the SoS;

• be unlawful;

• result in the adverse impacts of the development outweighing the benefits; or

• be contrary to regulations about how decisions are to be taken.

2.6 In making decisions on NSIPs, the PA 2008 (Section 105) also states that the SoS must have regard to any ‘local impact report’ submitted by a relevant local authority, any relevant matters prescribed in regulations and any other matters that the SoS thinks are both ‘important and relevant’.

2.7 In July 2011 the SoS for DECC designated a number of NPSs relating to nationally significant energy infrastructure. These include an ‘overarching’ NPS which sets out the Government’s policy for the delivery of major energy infrastructure and five ‘technology-specific’ NPSs. The technology specific NPSs should be read in conjunction with the overarching NPS where they are relevant to an application.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 22

2.8 The NPSs that are considered to be of most direct relevance to the Proposed Development are as follows:

• Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1); and the

• NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

2.9 It is also considered that the ‘NPS for Electricity Networks Infrastructure’ (EN-5) may be of relevance to the Proposed Development as it includes a new connection to the electricity grid network.

2.10 Part 3 of EN-1 ‘The Need for New Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects’ defines and sets out the ‘need’ that exists for nationally significant energy infrastructure. Notably, paragraph 3.1.3 stresses that the SoS should assess applications for DCOs for the types of infrastructure covered by the energy NPSs on the basis that the Government has demonstrated that there is a need for those types of infrastructure and that the scale and urgency of that need is as described for each of them. Paragraph 3.1.4 continues that the SoS should give substantial weight to the contribution that all projects would make toward satisfying this need when considering applications under the PA 2008.

2.11 The above NPSs are considered in greater detail within the Planning Statement (Application Document Ref. No. 5.7).

Legislative Requirements for Pre-application Consultation

2.12 The legislative requirements relating to pre-application consultation for NSIPs are set out within the following documents:

• The Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008).

• The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations).

• The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations).

2.13 The PA 2008 (and the APFP and EIA Regulations) provide the legislative framework for advice and guidance on pre-application consultation to be carried out for NSIPs.

2.14 Under the PA 2008 applicants for NSIPs are required to consult widely before submitting an application for a DCO. These includes consulting the local community in the form of those living in the vicinity of the land to which the proposed development relates; certain prescribed persons and bodies (including technical consultees and statutory undertakers), relevant local authorities and affected and potentially affected landowners; as well as the public generally.

2.15 The key requirements for applicants to follow in relation to pre-application consultation are summarised in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1 - Legislative Requirements for Pre-application Consultation

Section of the PA 2008 Legislative Requirement Section 37: Applications for orders granting development consent

S.37(3) requires that any application for Development Consent must be accompanied by a consultation report, which provides details of what has been done to comply with S.42, 47 and 48, any relevant responses received to consultation and the account taken of those responses.

Section 47: Duty to consult local community

Applicants must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) explaining how they intend to consult the people living within the vicinity of the land to


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 23

Table 2.1 - Legislative Requirements for Pre-application Consultation

Section of the PA 2008 Legislative Requirement which the proposed development relates about the proposed application. Before preparing the SoCC the applicant must consult the relevant local authority(ies) about what is to be in it and provide a period of at least 28 days starting with the day after the day the SoCC is received for comments and have regard to any comments received before the deadline. The applicant must make the final SoCC available for inspection by the public in a location that is reasonably convenient for people living within the vicinity of the land, publish the SoCC in a locally circulating newspaper and carry out the consultation in accordance with the proposals set out in the SoCC.

Section 42: Duty to consult

Applicants must consult the following about the proposed application for at least 28 days starting with the day after the day the consultation documents are received (S.45):

- S.42(a) ‘persons as may be prescribed’, including technical consultees and statutory undertakers;

- S.42(b) ‘each local authority that is within S.43’ (e.g. ‘relevant’ local authorities); and

- S.42(d) ‘each person who is within one or more of the categories set out in S.44’ (e.g. affected and potentially affected landowners, including occupiers, tenants, lessees).

Section 46: Duty to notify Secretary of State of proposed application

The applicant must notify the SoS of the S.42 consultation and provide the SoS with the same information as the applicant intends to send to the S.42 consultees either at the same time as or before commencing the S.42 consultation.

Section 48: Duty to publicise

The applicant must publicise the proposed application in the prescribed manner, namely in accordance with APFP Regulation 4(2), once in a national newspaper, once in the London Gazette and for two consecutive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the vicinity of the land to which the proposed application relates. The deadline for the receipt of responses stated in the notice must not be less than 28 days following the date when the notice is last published.

EIA Regulation 11: Pre-application publicity under Section 48 (duty to publicise)

Where the proposed application is for EIA development, the applicant must send a copy of the S.48 Notice to all the ‘consultation bodies’ (‘consultation bodies’ means for the purposes of the EIA Regulations a body prescribed under S.42(a)) ‘such persons as may be prescribed’, each local authority within S.43 ‘Local authorities for the purposes of Section 42(1)(b)’ and any person notified to the applicant by PINS in accordance with EIA Regulation 9(1)(c)).

Section 49: Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity

The applicant must have regard to any ‘relevant responses’ received to the S.42, S.47 and S.48 consultation and publicity. A ‘relevant response’ means a response received to S.42, S.47 and S.48 consultation and publicity before any deadline imposed in accordance with the relevant section of the PA 2008 (S.45).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 24

Legislative Compliance 2.16 The ‘checklist’ set out in Table 2.2 below sets out how the Applicant’s pre-application

consultation has complied with the legislative requirements of the PA 2008 relating to pre-application consultation. This ‘compliance’ exercise has been carried out against the PINS ‘Application Acceptance Checklist’ and the acceptance criteria that are relevant to pre-application consultation.

Table 2.2 - Compliance with Acceptance Criteria (Consultation Requirements)

Acceptance Checklist Criteria Evidence of Compliance Where Addressed in

Consultation Report

Section 42: Duty to consult Did the Applicant consult the following about the Proposed Application? S.42(1)(a) persons prescribed (as set out in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations)

Yes. The ‘prescribed persons’ as set out at Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations, where relevant, were consulted by post (a letter accompanied by the consultation documents sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery) on 31 October 2013. The prescribed persons were also consulted by email on 31 October and 1 November 2013 where email addresses were available. Following this consultation a number of additional prescribed persons where identified by the Applicant’s land agents and these persons where consulted by post (again a letter accompanied by the same consultation documents sent Royal Mail Special Delivery) on the 5 February, 17 March and 28 March 2014. A list of all those prescribed persons as set out at Schedule 1, who were consulted is provided in Section 5. The list also provides justification as to why certain prescribed persons were not consulted.

Section 5, Tables 5.1 - 5.2 and Appendices 8.1 - 8.3 (example S.42 letters and proof of postage).

S.42(1)(b) each local authority within S.43. NB: Definition of ‘local authority’ in S.43(3):

Yes, as follows:

Section 5, Table 5.3 ‘List of relevant local authorities’ and Appendices 8.1 - 8.3 (example S.42 letters and proof of postage).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 25



Consultation Report

‘B’ authority - where the application site is in that authority’s area. ‘A’ authority - where any part of the boundary of A’s area is also part of the boundary of B’s area. ‘C’ authority (upper tier) - where the application site is in the authority’s area. ‘D’ authority - where such authority shares a boundary with a ‘C’ authority.

‘B’ authorities: - WMDC ‘A’ authorities: - Selby District Council (Selby DC) - Leeds City Council (Leeds CC) - Kirklees Council - Doncaster Metropolitan District Council (Doncaster MDC) - Barnsley Council - North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) ‘C’ authorities None ‘D’ authorities: None The local authorities were consulted in the same manner as the ‘prescribed persons’ on 31 October 2013.

The relevant local authority boundaries are shown at Figure 5.1 in Section 5.

S.42(1)(c) the Greater London Authority (if in Greater London) and the Marine Management Organisation (if involving the offshore)

n/a The Application does not relate to land in Greater London or within the area that falls within the jurisdiction of the Marine Management Organisation.

n/a

S.42(1)(d) each person in one or more of the S.44 categories: Category 1 - owner, lessee, tenant or occupier of land Category 2 - person interested in the land or has the power to sell and convey the land or release the land Category 3 - person entitled to make a relevant claim

Yes. Persons falling within S.44 Categories 1, 2 and 3 and identified in the Book of Reference through diligent enquiries made by the Applicant’s land agents were consulted in the same manner as the ‘prescribed persons’ on 31 October and 1 November 2013. A site notice was also erected in two locations on Kirkhaw Lane to notify unknown ownership interests along this road. Additional Category 1-3 persons were subsequently

Section 5, Table 5.4, ‘List of S.44 bodies’ and Appendices 8.1 - 8.3 (example S.42 letters and ‘proof of postage). Appendix 5.2 (site notice).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 26



Consultation Report

identified by the Applicant’s land agents and these persons where consulted by post (again a letter accompanied by the same consultation documents sent Royal Mail Special Delivery) on the 5 February, 17 March and 28 March 2014.

Section 45: Timetable for Section 42 Consultation Did the Applicant notify S.42 consultees of the deadline for receipt of consultation responses?

Yes. The consultation letters and documents were posted on 31 October 2013 by Royal Mail Special Delivery and clearly stated that the consultation would commence on 4 November and finish on 20 December 2013 (a total of 46 days). The letters also stated that comments should be sent to the Applicant no later than 5pm on 20 December 2013. The period given for receipt of comments exceeded the minimum period stipulated by S.45. The additional consultation letters sent out on 5 February, 17 March and 28 March 2014 provided a 28 day period (in accordance with S.45) starting with the day after receipt of the consultation documents to provide comments. The deadline for comments was clearly stated in the letters. Additional time was allowed for letters that were sent abroad to be received.

Appendices 8.1 - 8.3 (example S.42 letters and proof of postage).

Was the deadline notified by the Applicant 28 days or more starting with the day after the receipt of the consultation documents?

Yes. See above. As above.

Section 46: Duty to notify Secretary of State of proposed Application Did the Applicant supply information to notify the Secretary of State of the proposed application?

Yes. A letter notifying the SoS in accordance with S.46 and accompanied by the same information sent

Table 9.1, Section 9 and Appendix 9.1 (S.46 letters sent to PINS and proof of postage and PINS


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 27



Consultation Report

to the S.42 consultees was posted by Royal Mail Special Delivery and also emailed to PINS on 30 October 2013. Confirmation of receipt was received from PINS by email on 30 October 2013 and subsequently by letter dated 14 November 2013. Letters notifying the SoS in accordance with S.46 on the additional S.42 consultation were posted Royal Mail Special Delivery and also emailed to PINS on 4 February, 14 March and 28 March 2014 in advance of the additional S.42 consultation letters being sent out on 5 February, 17 March and 28 March 2014. Acknowledgement of receipt of the additional S.46 letters was provided by PINS dated 28 March and 1 April 2014.

acknowledgements).

Was the information supplied to the SoS the same as that sent to the S.42 consultees?

Yes. The same information was supplied to PINS as provided to the S.42 consultees. The information was not re-issued with the additional S.46 letters sent to PINS on 4 February, 14 March and 28 March 2014 on the basis that the same information was being provided to the additional S.42 consultees identified as was sent to the original S.42 consultees.

Appendices 8.1-8.3 (S.42 letters) and Table 9.1, Section 9 and Appendix 9.1 (S.46 letters sent to PINS and proof of postage).

Was this done on or before commencing consultation under S.42?

Yes. The information was sent to PINS on 30 October 2013 and the consultees on 31 October and 1 November 2013. The consultation commenced on 4 November 2013. Each of the S.46 letters

Appendices 8.1 - 8.3 (S.42 letters) and Table 9.1, Section 9 and Appendix 9.1 (S.46 letters sent to PINS and proof of postage).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 28



Consultation Report

was sent to PINS either on or before the additional S.42 consultees were consulted.

Section 47: Duty to consult local community Did the Applicant prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) on how it intended to consult people living in the vicinity of the land?

Yes. A SoCC and SoCC Notice was produced.

Section 6 and Appendices 6.1 - 6.9 (SoCC and SoCC Notice).

Were ‘B’ and (where relevant) ‘C’ authorities consulted about the content of the SoCC?

Yes. WMDC as the ‘B’ authority was consulted. There were no ‘C’ authorities to consult, however, the ‘A’ authorities (Selby DC Leeds CC Kirklees Council, Doncaster MBC, Barnsley Council and NYCC) were consulted. All of the authorities were consulted by letter (posted Royal Mail Special Delivery) and email on 23 September 2013.

Section 6 and Appendix 6.4 (SoCC letters and emails to local authorities and proof of postage).

Was the deadline for receipt of responses 28 days beginning with the day after the day that the ‘B’ and (where applicable) ‘C’ authorities received the draft SoCC and SoCC Notice?

The deadline stated in the letters and emails for the receipt of responses was 23 October 2013. The letters were signed for on 24 September 2013. The deadline therefore provided for 29 days starting with the day after the day (25 September 2013) the local authorities received the draft SoCC and SoCC Notice.

Section 6 and Appendix 6.4 (SoCC letters and emails to local authorities and proof of postage).

Has the Applicant had regard to any responses received when preparing the SoCC?

Yes. Following comments received from WMDC amendments were made to the SoCC in terms of the number of public information events (exhibitions) to be held and the duration of these.

Section 6 (paras 6.34 - 6.37).

Has the SoCC been made available for inspection in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land which

Yes. A SoCC Notice was published in the Yorkshire Post on 25 October and 1 November 2013, the Selby Times and Castleford & Pontefract Express on 24

Section 6 and Appendices 6.8 and 6.9 (SoCC and SoCC Notice and newspaper adverts detailing inspection venues).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 29



Consultation Report

states where and when the SoCC can be inspected.

and 31 October 2013, the Goole Times on 24 October 2013, the Goole and Howden Courier on 25 October 2013 and the Selby Courier on 25 October 2013. The SoCC Notice provided details of seven public inspection locations where the full SoCC and consultation materials and dates and times when the documents would be available for inspection. In addition it provided details of the seven public information events (exhibitions) to be held as well as providing details of the project website where the SoCC, SoCC Notice and consultation materials could be downloaded. The SoCC and SoCC Notice were also made available at the exhibitions.

Has the Applicant carried out the consultation in accordance with the SoCC?

Yes. Applicant has consulted fully in accordance with the SoCC. This has included: - advising local residents, businesses, community groups and organisations within the defined consultation area for the formal consultation by a number of methods, including newsletter and newspaper notices and posters at selected publically accessible locations; - providing information on the Proposed Development, including details of how it had changed since the informal consultation stage, the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) compiled and proposals for avoiding, minimising and/or mitigating any adverse

Table 7.4 (Section 7) confirms how the S.47 consultation undertaken complies with the SoCC


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 30



Consultation Report

environmental or community effect; - inviting comments on specific aspects of the Proposed Development; - providing information through a variety of means, including at public inspection locations and the project website and arranging a series of public exhibitions across the defined consultation area; - providing opportunities for people to meet and speak to/ask questions of members of the project team and enabling them to make comments by a number of means, including the use of ‘Feedback Forms’, via a project email address and project helpline; - providing responses to comments received during the formal consultation; and - keeping people updated on the project through press releases, newsletters and the project website.

Does the SoCC set out whether the development is EIA development (EIA Regulation 10)?

Yes. The SoCC confirms (page 3) that the Proposed Development is EIA development.

Appendix 6.9 (SoCC and SoCC Notice).

Does the SoCC set out how the Applicant intends to publicise and consult on the preliminary environmental information?

Yes. The SoCC (pages 1 and 3) confirms that the PEI will be publicised through a newsletter, the public inspection locations, information events (exhibitions) and the project website and that people will be provided with the opportunity to comment upon this.

Appendix 6.9 (SoCC and SoCC Notice).

Section 48: Duty to publicise the proposed application Did the Applicant publish a notice (APFP Regulation 4(2)) for:

Appendix 10.2 (S.48 newspaper notices)


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 31



Consultation Report

a) At least two

successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating within the vicinity of the land?

b) Once in a national

newspaper? c) Once in the London

Gazette and is the land is in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette?

d) Where the proposed

development relates to offshore development-

i) once in the

Lloyds List; and ii) once in the

appropriate fishing trade journal.

Yes. The S.48 Notice was published in the Yorkshire Post on 1 and 8 November 2013 and the Castleford and Pontefract Express and Selby Times on 31 October and 7 November 2013. The S.48 Notice was published in The Independent on 1 November 2013. The S.48 Notice was published in the London Gazette on 1 November 2013. The Proposed Development does not involve land in Scotland so there was no requirement to publish the S.48 Notice in the Edinburgh Gazette. The Proposed Development does not involve offshore development and as such there was no requirement to publish the S.48 Notice in the Lloyds List or within an appropriate fishing journal.

Did the notice include (APFP Regulation 4(3)): a) The name and

address of the applicant.

b) A statement that the

applicant intends to make an application for development consent to the SoS.

c) A statement as to

whether the application is EIA development.

d) A summary of the

Yes. Section 1 of the S.48 Notice. Yes. Section 1 of the Notice. Yes. Section 4 of the Notice. Yes. Sections 2 and 3

Box 10.1, Section 10 (S.48 Notice) and Appendix 10.2 (S.48 newspaper notices)


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 32



Consultation Report

main proposals, specifying the location or route of the proposed development.

e) A statement that the

documents, plans and maps showing the nature and location of the proposed development area available for inspection free of charge at the places (including at least one address in the vicinity of the proposed development) and times set out in the notice?

f) The latest date on

which those documents, plans and maps will be available for inspection (being a date not earlier than 28 days following the date when the notice is last published).

g) Whether a charge

will be made for copies of any of the documents, plan or maps and the amount of any charge.

h) Details of how to

respond to the publicity.

i) A deadline for

receipt of those responses by the applicant, being not less than 28 days following the date when the notice is last published.

(3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) of the Notice. Yes. Section 5 of the Notice lists seven public inspection locations where the documents can be viewed and the times that they can be views at these venues. Yes. Section 5 of the Notice advises that the documents can be viewed up to 20 December 2013. The notice was last published on 7 November 2013. The latest date was therefore 43 days after the notice was last published (15 days longer than the statutory minimum). Yes. Section 6 of the Notice advises that there will be a charge of £15 for an electronic version of the documents (on a CD) and £100 for a hard copy set. Yes. Section 7 of the Notice advises on how to respond to the publicity. Yes. Section 7 of the Notice advises of the deadline for the receipt of responses by the applicant. This date (20 December 2013) was 15 days in excess of the statutory minimum of 28 days


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 33



Consultation Report

following the date (7 November 2013) when the notice was last published.

Has a copy of the S.48 Notice been sent to the EIA consultation bodies and to any person notified to the applicant in accordance with EIA Regulation 9(1)(c) (EIA Regulation 11)

Yes. Letters (accompanied by the S.48 Notice) were posted by Royal Mail Special Delivery and emailed to these bodies on 31 October and 1 November 2013. The additional S.42 consultation letters issued on 5 February, 17 March and 28 March 2014 made reference to EIA Regulation 11 and included a copy of the original S.48 Notice).

Appendix 11.2 (example EIA Regulation 11 letter and proof of posting).

Section 49: Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity Has the applicant had regard to any relevant responses to the S.42 and S.47 consultation and the S.48 publicity?

Yes. Each relevant response received to the consultation carried out in accordance with S.42 and S.47 has been considered by the Applicant. This included late response received up to the end of May 2014. No responses were received to the S.48 publicity. The Applicant has taken the same approach to responses received to the informal (non-statutory) consultation. The Tables 12.1 - 12.4 (Section 12) detail how the Applicant has had regard to consultation responses and where these have resulted in changes to the Proposed Development/Application.

Tables 12.1 - 12.4 (Section 12)

Guidance about pre-application procedure To what extent has the applicant had regard to DCLG guidance, The Planning Act 2008; Guidance on pre-application consultation?

The Applicant has complied with the specific requirements of the PA 2008 as confirmed above. The Applicant also took into account published

Section 1 (Table 1.1), Section 2 and Section 3.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 34



Consultation Report

DCLG and PINS guidance on pre-application in formulating its consultation strategy and specifically in relation to matters such as clearly explaining the approach taken to informal and formal consultation, defining consultation zones and consultation methods/techniques.

2.17 Table 2.2 demonstrates that the Applicant has fully complied with the pre-application

consultation requirements of the PA 2008.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 35



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 36

3. THE APPLICANT’S APPROACH TO CONSULTATION 3.1 Early in the pre-application process the Applicant took the decision to develop a

Consultation Strategy (know as the ‘Proposed Stakeholder and Community Consultation Strategy’ June 2013) for the Proposed Development. The principal aim of developing the Strategy was to define the proposed approach to and timetable for consultation in order to provide a framework for pre-application consultation on the Proposed Development, taking account of the requirements of the PA 2008.

3.2 Central to the preparation of the Consultation Strategy was the Applicant’s recognition of the need for consultation to be meaningful and to provide the local community relevant local authorities and other stakeholders with the opportunity to consider the emerging Proposed Development and provide feedback. This in turn would assist in promoting a greater understanding of the proposals and, ultimately, lead to a better prepared application.

3.3 In developing the Strategy the Applicant was able to draw upon the considerable experience within SSE and WTI of carrying out consultation on energy infrastructure developments across the UK. Regard was had to best practice principles in consultation and the advice and guidance on pre-application consultation for NSIPs published by the DCLG and PINS. The Strategy was also the subject of informal consultation with PINS and WMDC.

SSE/WTI Consultation Experience 3.4 As stated above, in developing the Consultation Strategy the Applicant was able to draw

upon extensive consultation experience within both SSE and WTI. This included the consultation experience on FM1, a similar multifuel power station to the Proposed Development, which was approved under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 in 2011, which is currently under construction. The consultation on FM1 encompassed direct engagement with WMDC and statutory consultees throughout the pre-application stage alongside two stages of community consultation.

3.5 The principal consultation activities carried out for FM1 were as follows:

• Direct engagement with WMDC, statutory consultees and other stakeholders with regard to the FM1 proposals generally and also on specific technical issues.

• Initial public exhibitions (March 2009) - three events at a local venue to obtain initial views on the proposals.

• Follow-up exhibitions (September 2009) - a further three events at a local venue prior to submission of the Section 36 application showing the revised proposals following the feedback received at the initial exhibitions. Comment cards were provided at the exhibitions to assist people in providing feedback.

• Publicising the exhibitions by placing adverts in local papers, posters at publically accessible locations (e.g. community centres and shops) and issuing press releases to the local press and radio.

• A telephone survey prior to the follow-up exhibitions to obtain views and also promote the exhibitions.

• Establishment of a project website.

• Regular dialogue with statutory consultees and community groups during the application process.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 37

• Meeting with the local community chaired by the local MP to answer questions regarding FM1.

• Interaction with the local community and consultees through the existing Ferrybridge Community Liaison Group (CLG).

3.6 Responses received from the local community to the FM1 consultation were generally positive with the majority being supportive. The principal issues raised by the local community (and statutory consultees) related to transport and, in particular, the need to promote more sustainable modes for the transport of fuel to the site; noise, especially during construction; potential odour from fuel during operation; and the replacement of sports facilities that would be lost at the Ferrybridge Power Station site as a result of the development.

3.7 The FM1 proposals were refined to include an upgrade to the rail infrastructure at the site to provide a facility to deliver fuel by rail, while planning conditions were drafted in consultation with WMDC and relevant statutory consultees relating to the preparation of a ‘Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan’ (to ensure that options for transporting fuel to the site by sustainable means are kept under review), to control noise and also in relation to ambient air quality monitoring, amongst other matters. Replacement of the sports facilities displaced at the Power Station site as a result of FM1 was also secured. This provides an illustration of how consultation can assist in shaping development proposals.

3.8 A copy of the ‘Community Consultation Report’ for FM1 is contained at Appendix 3.1.

Consultation Best Practice, Advice and Guidance 3.9 In developing the Consultation Strategy the Applicant applied the following best practice

principles:

• Seeking to make consultation a meaningful process.

• Engaging with the local community, relevant local authorities and other stakeholders early in the pre-application process.

• Making participation and involvement as easy and inclusive as possible.

• Considering the most appropriate and productive methods of consultation

• Making sure that the consultation informs and influences decisions to be made on the development.

3.10 In addition, regard was had to the following advice and guidance on pre-application consultation:

• DCLG guidance ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process’ (January 2013).

• PINS Advice Note 2 ‘Working together on nationally significant infrastructure projects’ (April 2012).

• PINS Advice Note 3 ‘EIA consultation and notification’ (July 2013).

• PINS Advice Note 6 ‘How to submit your application (June 2012).

• PINS Advice Note 7 ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: screening, scoping and preliminary environmental information (July 2013).

• PINS Advice Note 8 ‘How to get involved in the planning process’ (April 2012).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 38

• PINS Advice Note 11 ‘Working with public bodies in the infrastructure planning process’ (April 2012).

• PINS Advice Note 14 ‘Compiling the consultation report’ (April 2012).

• PINS Advice Note 16 ‘The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties’ (April 2012).

• WMDC ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ (February 2006).

Consultation Objectives 3.11 Taking account of the experience of FM1 in particular, and relevant best practice, advice

and guidance, a number of key consultation objectives were defined by the Applicant to guide the pre-application consultation for the Proposed Development. The objectives that were defined and included in the Consultation Strategy are set out below:

• To be clear, open and honest in engagement and consultation with the local community and other stakeholders.

• To raise awareness of what is proposed and to provide the opportunity for people to comment.

• To provide clear and concise information to all sections of the local community.

• To provide a range of different opportunities for members of the local community, and other stakeholders to engage with the project and comment on the proposals.

• To invite feedback and ensure that MEL understands the views of consultees so that these can be considered during the design development process.

• To show how the proposals have taken account of consultation.

Consultation Process and Timetable 3.12 In order to deliver the consultation objectives, and taking account of the experience of

FM1, the Consultation Strategy encompassed a ‘two stage’ pre-application consultation process, as follows:

• Stage 1 - Informal (non-statutory) consultation - consultation with the local community within the vicinity of the Application Site; engagement with local political representatives; dialogue and meetings with WMDC other relevant local authorities and key technical consultees.

• Stage 2 - Formal (statutory) consultation - consultation in accordance with the requirements of the PA 2008 (specifically Sections 47, 42, 46 and 48) with the local community within a wider geographical area, prescribed persons, relevant local authorities, and affected or potentially affected landownership interests, through a variety of means.

3.13 Alongside these two stages of consultation, it was recognised that there would be a need for separate consultation related to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and also other consultation and engagement throughout the pre-application process, such as update meetings with WMDC and other relevant local authorities and dialogue with key technical consultees in relation to specific matters, including draft DCO ‘requirements’ and statements of common ground.

3.14 The informal consultation with WMDC, other relevant local authorities and key technical consultees started in March 2013, with the decision being taken to commence


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 39

engagement with local political representatives and the local community in late June/early July 2013 for a period of approximately four weeks.

3.15 The decision was taken to schedule the formal consultation for Q4 2013 with this lasting for a period of approximately six weeks.

3.16 The periods for the informal and formal consultation were set so as to exceed the statutory minimum period set out at Section 45 of the PA 2008 for Section 42 consultation and what is generally regarded as being the minimum acceptable period for public consultation (i.e. 28 days).

Definition of Consultation Areas 3.17 The Consultation Strategy outlined the approach to be taken to defining consultation

areas for the two stages of consultation.

3.18 After consideration it was decided that it would be appropriate for the extent of the proposed consultation area for the informal ‘community’ consultation to be broadly based on the geographical extent of the consultation area for FM1, as this encompassed the areas and communities that potentially would be most directly affected by the Proposed Development. The extent of the ‘Informal Consultation Area’ was also discussed and agreed with WMDC. The extent of the area is shown in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 - Consultation Area Informal Community Consultation

3.19 It was recognised that the consultation area for the formal Section 47 ‘community’ consultation would need to be informed by the level of response received to the informal consultation and the issues raised. Furthermore, this area would need to be defined by reference to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Proposed Development


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 40

so as to include those areas and communities that would potentially be affected by its environmental effects relating to matters such as noise, air quality, landscape and visual and transport. The extent of the consultation area for the formal consultation was not therefore defined within the Consultation Strategy as this would have been premature.

Information to be provided during Consultation 3.20 The Consultation Strategy confirmed the type of information that would be provided to

consultees at the informal and formal consultation stages. In doing so regard was had to the need to provide consultees with sufficiently clear and concise information to enable them to understand and comment on the Proposed Development.

3.21 The Strategy aimed to strike a balance between providing consultees with the opportunity to comment on and influence the proposals, while recognising that some aspects were fixed (e.g. the proposed generation capacity and fuel choice). It made clear, however, that there would be the opportunity to influence other aspects, subject to technical feasibility, heath and safety and economic considerations as well as operational requirements, amongst other matters. It also included a commitment to detail the areas where feedback would be able to influence the proposals.

3.22 The strategy confirmed that the following information would be provided at the informal and formal consultation stages:

• Informal consultation - the background to the Proposed Development, detailing why it is needed and how it accords with national energy policy; the proposals for the Application Site, including how the multifuel power station would look and operate; and the initial environmental assessment work carried out.

• Formal consultation - details of the revised proposals (taking account of the informal consultation), including how the final site will look and operate; the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) compiled; and any proposals for avoiding, minimising and/or mitigating any adverse effects likely to arise.

Consultation Methods 3.23 It was proposed to employ a variety of consultation methods during the informal and

formal consultation stages taking account of best practice and the experience of FM1. These included:

• Media releases - providing updates on the Proposed Development and the arrangements for consultation events

• Community newsletters - providing information on the Proposed Development and advertising consultation events and details of how to comment.

• Elected member briefings - elected member briefings in accordance with ‘Councillors’ Code of Conduct’ prior to agreement with officers at the relevant Local Authorities and also local MP briefings.

• Public inspection locations - publically accessible venues within the consultation areas where consultation materials would be deposited and made available for public viewing during the relevant consultation period.

• Public information events (exhibitions) - a number of events to be held within the consultation areas with consultation materials being made available.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 41

• Community Liaison Group (CLG) - providing updates at the meetings of the Ferrybridge Power Station CLG, comprising local political and community representatives.

• Project website - a project website to be set up prior to the informal consultation stage to provide background information on the Proposed Development, the dates, times and locations of the public inspection locations and information events and access to downloadable versions of project documents.

• Project email address and telephone helpline - to be set up prior to the informal consultation stage to provide an additional means by which people could contact the project team and access information on the Proposed Development.

• Preparation and publication of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) - setting out proposals for the formal Section 47 community consultation.

• Letters to prescribed persons, relevant local authorities and affected or potentially affected landownership interests - letters providing information on the Proposed Development accompanied by consultation materials in accordance with Section 42 of the PA 2008.

• Newspaper adverts and notices - advertising consultation events and in order satisfy the statutory consultation/publicity requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the PA 2008.

• Site notices and posters - placed in publically accessible locations publicising the Proposed Development and consultation events.

• Feedback forms - made available at the public information events and on the project website to enable people to make comments on the Proposed Development.

• Update meetings with relevant local authorities and key consultees - to provide a means of updating officers and technical consultees on the Proposed Development and an opportunity to discuss specific issues including face to face meetings.

Recording, Analysing and Responding to Consultation 3.24 The Consultation Strategy provided a commitment to record, analyse and properly

consider and provide feedback on comments received during the two stages of consultation (informal and formal). In doing so, the Applicant effectively undertook to afford the same weight to the comments received to both stages of consultation.

3.25 The Strategy undertook to acknowledge and respond to written responses to consultation. In analysing consultation responses, the Strategy confirmed that the Applicant would seek to identify common themes/headline issues against which responses could be provided. It was envisaged that more detailed responses would be required for the Section 42 consultees as specific environmental and technical issues may be raised by these consultees.

3.26 The Strategy also confirmed that consultation would be documented within a Consultation Report, in accordance with the PA 2008, and that all consultation responses would be made available for inspection.

Informal Consultation on the Strategy 3.27 The Consultation Strategy was submitted to the host local authority, WMDC, and what

were considered to be the other potentially most directly affected other local authorities (Selby District Council, Leeds City Council and North Yorkshire County Council on 13


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 42

June 2013. The Strategy was also provided to PINS on 24 June 2013 for informal comment.

3.28 Comments were received in response to this informal consultation from WMDC and PINS. These are set out in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 - WMDC/PINS Comments on Consultation Strategy

No. Body/Organisation Date of Response Comments Provided

1. WMDC 19.06.2013 I refer to your email below which contained an attached draft document entitled ‘Proposed Stakeholder and Community Consultation Strategy’ (dated June 2013). I have reviewed the draft document and considered it with regard to the requirements of Sections 42 and 47 of the Planning Act 2008. I can confirm that I am satisfied with the proposed approach to the requisite consultation and the production of the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). I also acknowledge and consider acceptable the proposed dates, times and venues for the public exhibitions as part of the informal consultation. I have no additional comments to make at this stage. Notwithstanding the above and as a minor point I noticed a couple of typographical errors in paragraphs 1.3.2 (coal) and 2.7.8 (apostrophe).

2. PINS 12.07.2013 I have read through the Proposed Stakeholder and Community Consultation Strategy. This sets out your approach to informal and formal consultation and I note that paragraph 3.1.1 effectively commits to treating responses made to each of those stages in the same way. In preparing your Consultation Report it may be helpful to be very clear about the host and 'other relevant authorities'. On some occasions you have referred to 'other relevant authorities', on some occasions you list them by name (e.g. para 2.7.2). In the Consultation Report it might be helpful to be clear which category of local authority they fit into under s43 and therefore be very clear that in undertaking consultation under s47(2) you have satisfied the statutory requirements as well as possibly chosen to consult wider.

3.29 The comments received, as can been seen above, did not necessitate any material changes to the Consultation Strategy. The comments provided by PINS have been taken into account in the preparation of this Consultation Report. Copies of the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 43

correspondence sent to the local authorities and PINS and the comments received from WMDC and PINS are provided at Appendix 3.2.

3.30 The finalised Consultation Strategy was used to guide the informal and formal pre-application consultation carried out by the Applicant. A copy is provided at Appendix 3.3.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 44



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 45

4. STAGE 1 - ‘INFORMAL’ CONSULTATION 4.1 This section sets out the Stage 1 informal ‘non-statutory’ consultation that took place prior

to the Stage 2 formal ‘statutory’ consultation stage. The informal consultation represented the first stage of consultation on the Proposed Development in line with the Applicant’s Consultation Strategy.

Who was consulted? 4.2 The following people were consulted during the informal consultation stage:

• The local community - local residents living within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Development (within the defined ‘Informal Consultation Area’) and the established Community Liaison Group (CLG) (the use of newspaper advertisements, posters and media releases meant that people living beyond the Informal Consultation Area were also made aware of the Proposed Development); and local political representatives - local MPs, district, county and parish councillors.

• Local authorities and technical consultees - this included the nearest local authorities, notably the host authority WMDC, the immediately neighbouring authorities, Selby District Council, Leeds City Council and North Yorkshire County Council, in addition to key technical consultees.

How were they consulted? 4.3 The local community and other stakeholders were consulted by a number of means.

These included:

Media Releases/Coverage

4.4 An initial media release was issued on 24 May 2013, introducing the Proposed Development and announcing the Applicant’s intention to commence informal ‘community’ consultation on the Proposed Development and confirming that details of public information events (exhibitions) would be publicised in due course. This (as with other media releases) was issued to the Yorkshire Post, The Press (York), the Pontefract & Castleford Express and the Selby Times.

4.5 A further media release was issued by the Applicant on 18 June 2013 advising of the start of the informal consultation in early July 2013. The media release advised of the dates, times and locations of the planned public information events, the duration of the consultation, how people could comment and the deadline for making comments.

4.6 Following the public information events in early July 2013 a media release was issued on 9 July 2013 providing details of the events and the level of turnout. An article was published on the same day by the Selby Times on the public information events.

4.7 Copies of the media releases and the related press article are provided at Appendix 4.1.

Letter to Local Residents and Businesses

4.8 A letter providing information on the Proposed Development and the details of the informal consultation was sent to approximately 2,500 households and businesses within the Informal Consultation Area on 18 June 2013, coinciding with the second press release. The letter provided information on the Applicant, the background to the Proposed Development and the venues, dates and times for the public information events (exhibitions) during the informal consultation stage, how the Applicant could be contacted the means by which comments could be made and the deadline for these.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 46

4.9 A copy of the letter is contained at Appendix 4.2.

Posters

4.10 A poster advertising of the informal consultation was placed at a number of publically accessible locations on 20 June 2013 in and around the Informal Consultation Area, including at the Ferrybridge Power Station site and the Siniat offices (as major employers within the area). The poster was placed on notice boards at approximately 20 different locations, including post offices, community facilities/venues (such as libraries) and in shops and public houses in Ferrybridge, Brotherton, Byram, Knottingley and Airedale as well as the public information event venues. The poster advised of the dates, times and locations of the planned public information events, the duration of the consultation, how people could make comments and the deadline for making comments.

4.11 A copy of the poster and a list of the locations where this was displayed are provided at Appendix 4.3.

Newspaper Notices

4.12 The informal consultation was also publicised by placing notices in the following local newspapers on 20 June 2013:

• Yorkshire Post.

• Pontefract & Castleford Express.

• Selby Times.

4.13 The newspaper notices provided details about the Applicant, the Application Site and the Proposed Development, the venues, dates and times for the public information events (exhibitions) and how the Applicant could be contacted, the means by which comments could be made and the deadline for comments.

4.14 The circulation of these local papers beyond the immediate vicinity of the Site and across the region in the case of the Yorkshire Post meant that the informal consultation was publicised well beyond the boundary of the Informal Consultation Area.

4.15 A copy of notice that was placed in the newspapers is provided at Appendix 4.4.

Public Information Events

4.16 Four public information events (exhibitions) were arranged by the Applicant to take place early in the informal consultation stage. Venues were selected taking account of the experience of the FM1 consultation to ensure that they were accessible to the local population with public transport nearby. The events were either arranged on weekday evenings or weekends to maximise the opportunity for people to attend and also avoided main school holiday periods.

4.17 Details of the events are provided in Table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1 - Informal Consultation Public Information Event Locations

Venue Date Time

Ferrybridge Cricket Pavilion Ferrybridge Power Station, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley WF11 8RA

Wednesday 3 July 2013 14:00 - 19:00

Ferrybridge Community Centre The Square, Ferrybridge, Knottingley WF11 8PQ

Thursday 4 July 2013 14:00 - 19:00


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 47

Table 4.1 - Informal Consultation Public Information Event Locations

Venue Date Time

Brotherton Parish Hall Tadcaster Road, Brotherton, Knottingley WF11 9HJ

Friday 5 July 2013 14:00 - 19:00

Airedale Library The Square, Airedale, Castleford WF11 3JJ

Saturday 6 July 2013 10:00 - 14:00

4.18 As can be seen from Table 4.1, the public information events were held between 3 and 6 July 2013. In order to maximise attendance at the events (as confirmed above) they were advertised through media releases, the letter (sent to approximately 2,500 households and businesses), posters and newspaper notices. In total, the four events were attended by approximately 90 people.

4.19 Those attending the events were asked to enter their details on an ‘Attendance Sheet’ to provide a record of their attendance as well as a means by which they could be subsequently contacted by the Applicant in order to respond to any comments provided or issues raised. In addition, attendees were also requested to fill in a ‘Feedback Form’.

4.20 Copies of the event boards are provided at Appendix 4.5.

Community Briefings/Workshops

4.21 The scheduled meeting of the Community Liaison Group (CLG) on 26 June 2013 was used to advise local community and political representatives of the informal consultation and the events planned. A copy of the notes of the CLG meeting is provided at Appendix 4.6.

Project Website/Helpline

4.22 A project website and helpline were established on 24 May 2013 in advance of the informal community consultation to provide a means of obtaining information on the Applicant and the Proposed Development, the details of consultation events, accessing downloadable versions of consultation materials, in addition to a means by which to contact the Applicant and make comments (via a project email address and online ‘Feedback Form’).

4.23 The project website was publicised via the media releases, letters, posters and newspaper notices.

4.24 A screen shot of the website is provided at Appendix 4.7 and it can be accessed at www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2.

Meetings with Local Political Representatives

4.25 A number of local political representatives, including the local MP, local ward and parish councillors were contacted to advise them of the Proposed Development and the informal consultation and invited to attend introductory meetings. Following this initial contact the following meetings took place with local political representatives:


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 48

Table 4.2 - Local Political Representative Meetings

Councillor Meeting Date

Member of Parliament for Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford & Knottingley

4 April 2014

Cllr (x1) for Fairburn with Brotherton Ward Thursday 13 June 2013 Cllrs (x2 ) for Monk Fryston and South Milford Ward

Thursday 13 June 2013

Cllrs (x 3) for Knottingley Ward Thursday 20 June 2013

4.26 An email was also sent to all local political representatives inviting them to attend a briefing at the Ferrybridge Cricket Pavilion on 3 July 2013 at 12:30 pm, in advance of the start of the first public information event at the same venue. No local political representatives were available for the briefing.

4.27 Copies of the correspondence and notes of the meetings with the local political representatives, where available, are provided at Appendix 4.8.

Meetings with Local Authorities

4.28 Introductory meetings were held with WMDC, as host local authority, in addition to neighbouring and nearby local authorities. The meetings that took place and the dates of these are set out in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 - Local Authority Meetings

Local Authority Nature of Meeting Date

WMDC Introductory meeting 13 March 2013 Selby District Council (Selby DC) Introductory meeting 11 April 2013 North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) Introductory meeting 16 April 2013 WMDC Update on proposals 14 May 2013 WMDC Leeds City Council (Leeds CC)

Site Visit 04 June 2013

Selby DC Site Visit 05 June 2013

4.29 The meetings were used to introduce the Proposed Development to WMDC and the other local authorities, discuss the emerging proposals for the informal community consultation and also to identify any issues of particular interest or concern early in the pre-application process. In addition, a site visit was arranged for PINS on 4 June 2013 that was also attended by representatives of WMDC and Leeds CC. Selby DC were unable to attend on 4 June but attended a separate site visit on 5 June 2013.

4.30 Copies of the notes of the meetings held with the local authorities, where available, are provided at Appendix 4.9.

Meetings with Technical Consultees

4.31 Introductory meetings were also held with a number of key technical consultees. The decision to meet with these technical consultees was informed by the experience of FM1 (i.e. these consultees had been most actively involved in relation to the FM1 application). The meetings that took place and the dates of these are set out in Table 4.4 below.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 49

Table 4.4 - Technical Consultee Meetings

Body Purpose of Meeting Date

English Heritage Introductory meeting 9 April 2013 Highways Agency Introductory meeting 11 April 2013 Environment Agency Introductory meeting 12 April 2013 Natural England Introductory meeting 22 April 2013

4.32 As with the local authorities, these meetings were used to introduce the Proposed Development to WMDC and the other local authorities, discuss the emerging proposals for the informal community consultation and also to identify any issues of particular interest or concern early in the pre-application process. They were also used as an early opportunity to start discussions with regard to the scope of the EIA for the Proposed Development. The EIA scoping process that was followed is covered at Section 11.

4.33 Copies of the notes of the meetings held with the technical consultees, where available, are contained at Appendix 4.10.

4.34 A briefing was also provided to DECC, partly to provide an update on the FM1 project, that had been determined by the SoS for DECC under the Electricity Act 1989, but also to introduce the Proposed Development.

What were they consulted upon/what information was provided? 4.35 The objective of the informal consultation was to introduce the local community, local

political representatives, local authorities and key technical consultees to the emerging Proposed Development in order to obtain their initial views. The following information was set out in the various consultation materials and the meetings that took place:

• Details about the Applicant.

• Why a second multifuel power station is needed and the national and local benefits.

• The different options being considered in relation to certain aspects of the Proposed Development, including the number of combustion lines, the fuel storage bunker and cooling system.

• The proposed extent of the Application Site.

• How fuel would be transported to the Site.

• How the potential environmental effects would be assessed.

• How the DCO application process works.

• The proposed timetable for the preparation (including pre-application consultation) and submission of the Application.

4.36 This information was made available at the four public information events (exhibitions) that took place between 3 and 6 July 2013 and on the project website.

When did the consultation take place? 4.37 Informal consultation with the local authorities and technical consultees commenced in

March 2013 (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4) prior to the start of the informal ‘community’ consultation.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 50

4.38 Informal consultation with local political representatives took place in June 2013 prior to the start of the informal community consultation.

4.39 Following advance notice and publicity in June 2013 (through the media releases, letter, posters and newspaper notices) the informal community consultation started in early July 2013 with the public information events and ran through to early September 2013. The consultation publicity and materials advised the local community that comments must be received by 6 September 2013.

How could feedback be provided? 4.40 During the course of the informal consultation it was possible to provided feedback/make

comments by the following means:

• By email to the dedicated project email address [email protected].

• By post to Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Consultation, Multifuel Energy Ltd, Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, WF11 8SQ.

• By calling the project helpline 01977 884 314 and speaking to a member of the project team.

• By filling out a ‘Feedback Form’ at one of the public information events held between 3 and 6 July 2013.

• By speaking to a member of the project team at one of the public information events.

4.41 The different means by which feedback could be provided were advertised through the media releases, letter, posters and newspaper notices.

4.42 A copy of the Feedback Form, which asked a number of questions relating to matters such as the importance of finding alternative ways of generating electricity, landscaping and traffic, is provided at Appendix 4.11.

Summary of the response to the consultation 4.43 The public information events (exhibitions) held between the 3 and 6 July 2013 were

attended by 89 people in total, primarily members of the public. The Attendance Sheets have been provided separately to PINS but have not been appended to this Report as they include personal information.

4.44 A total of 19 Feedback Forms were received either at or following the events. One letter/email was also received. In addition, members of the project team recorded comments from a further 18 members of the public (who did not complete Feedback Forms) during the events. Not all members of the public who completed Feedback Form or provided comments at the events (that were recorded by the project team) provided contact details.

4.45 Copies of the completed Feedback Forms, letters/emails and recorded comments are provided at Appendix 4.12.

4.46 The majority of those who completed the Feedback Form questions recognised the importance of finding alternative ways of generating electricity (Question 1). Of the 23 people who answered this question, eight strongly agreed (35%) and 10 agreed (43%) with only one disagreeing/strongly disagreeing. The majority also responded very positively as to how useful (Question 11) they found the information provided by the Applicant.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 51

4.47 The issues raised by the local community and local political representatives have been grouped under the following topic headings and are summarised in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 - Summary of Issues raised by Local Community/Political Representatives

Topic Heading Summary of Comments/Issues Air quality and emissions

• Air quality impacts need to be kept to a minimum. • Emissions from both FM1 and the Proposed Development need

to be taken into account. • Concern that height of the Proposed Development stack will not

be sufficient to ensure adequate dispersion of emissions. • Checks on emissions should be carried out by independent

bodies. Ash and dust deposition

• Ash, dust and sand being experienced at Oakhill Park to west of the A1(M).

Odour • Concern over potential for odour from the Proposed Development plant.

Noise • Duration of working hours for construction and operation. • Noise should be kept to a minimum after 1800 hours. • Noise already experienced from the railway.

Road traffic/ vehicles movements

• Concern over the number of vehicle movements that would be generated.

• Deliveries during construction and operation should avoid school arrival/departure times/peak periods.

• HGVs should be routed away from local villages. • HGV drivers currently ignore weight limits/restrictions and use

inappropriate routes. • Level of traffic generation would impact on the local highway

network resulting in problems at local junctions and improvements works/traffic lights should be implemented.

• Need for a new roundabout in Brotherton to cope with traffic generation.

• Speed limit on Stranglands Lane should be lowered from 60mph to 40mph.

• A new slip road from the A1(M) to the site is needed. • Original traffic plan insufficient.

Rail/canal transport

• Use of rail/canal should be considered to minimise reliance on road transport.

Need • Need for another multifuel power station. Fuel supply/ Source

• Locations from where fuel would be sourced. • Concern over the environmental impact of fuel.

Waste management

• Should not be used to address Yorkshire’s landfill issues.

Generating capacity

• With the Proposed Development will only generate 150MWe whereas Ferrybridge ‘C’ generates 2000MWe.

• Output of the Proposed Development should be higher with the capacity to burn coal.

Design/visual impact and landscaping

• Concerns over external appearance. • Buildings should be below ground to reduce prominence/visual

impact and be as unobtrusive as possible. • The Proposed Development will be larger than FM1. • Concern that buildings and structures will be higher than those

existing at the site. • Importance of protecting views from the surrounding area,

including Ferrybridge, Brotherton, Townville and Ferry Fryston and residential areas.

• Landscaped bunds should be used to screen the development. • Landscaping should be natural.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 52

Table 4.5 - Summary of Issues raised by Local Community/Political Representatives

Topic Heading Summary of Comments/Issues • Use of tall trees would provide screening and also combat noise.

Flooding

• Flooding beneath the railway bridge on Stranglands Lane is an issue.

Archaeology

• There are archaeological remains within the area. • Pontefract Archaeology Group should be contacted regarding

historical artefacts/buildings within the area. Ecology/ biodiversity and green infrastructure

• Potential to impact on local wildlife. • Proximity to RSPB reserve at Fairburn Ings and Fryston Wood

Local Wildlife Site and potential impact of grid connections. • Lack of management of/need to improve Fryston Wood - should

be a survey of Ash dieback in this area. • Concern over impact on local green space. • Area to the west of the A1(M) should be kept clear of

development as this provides a buffer between the Ferrybridge Power Station site and Castleford.

Employment/ local economy

• Additional employment will be minimal. • Use of local labour should be maximised. • Should be early engagement with employment/skills partners to

maximise benefits for local economy. • Opportunities should be provided for local school leavers.

EIA process • Account should be taken of the Knottingley CCGT and Southmoor Energy Centre projects.

Consultation • Local residents and groups should be kept informed. Local woodland group (Friends of Fryston Wood) not consulted.

• Views of residents from neighbouring authorities should be taken into account.

• There has been no attendance by SSE at CLG meetings. • Should advertise in Selby Times.

Community benefits/funding

• There would be limited benefits for the local community. • Financial benefits should be put into the local

community/economy. FM1 • The EIA should take account of the objections to FM1.

• Increase in dust and noise but not traffic. • Position with regard to the replacement of the golf course.

Other • When will Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers be removed. • Potential to organise visits to FM1 and the Proposed

Development. • Would there be CCTV at the site - supplier query. • Anti-social behaviour in Fryston Wood. • Impact on house prices.

4.48 The comments and issued raised by the local authorities and key technical consultees during the informal consultation stage are set out below.

Table 4.6 - Summary of Comment/Issues raised by Local Authorities/Technical Consultees

Body Summary of Comments/Issues WMDC • Recommend using same venues for public consultation as

for FM1 in addition to new cricket pavilion at the Ferrybridge Power Station site.

• Proposed extent of informal consultation area acceptable. • Speak to local councillors to help identify community

groups for consultation.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 53


Body Summary of Comments/Issues • Content to be provided with a copy of the EIA scoping

report at the same time this is submitted to PINS. • Appropriate for design to reflect that of FM1. • Prepared to review draft application documents. • Premature to discuss S.106 in advance of the Applicant

having been through the pre-application and EIA processes.

• Not appropriate to agree a Statement of Common Ground ahead of the application being submitted as the authority would not have prepared its Local Impact Report. Relevant headings and policies could be agreed.

Selby DC • Need to demonstrate that fuel supply for the Proposed Development is compatible with the waste hierarchy.

• Proposed Development is supported by WMDC’s development plan policies.

• Wish to be kept informed of progress and notified in advance of any contact with local residents and councillors.

NYCC • No specific issues raised but expressed wish to be kept informed and notified in advance of any contact with local residents or local councillors.

Leeds CC • No specific issues raised. English Heritage • Need to consider potential for effects of designated

heritage assets. • Desk based archaeological assessment should be carried

out to establish archaeological potential of the site. Highways Agency • Cooling technology and need to avoid fogging and freezing

rain effects on the A1(M). • Expect comparable condition to that imposed on FM1 to

prevent fogging/freezing on A1(M). • Consider use of Met Office warning alerts to change the

operation of the cooling system if weather conditions could result in fogging/freezing.

• Consider use of message signing on A1(M) north and south to warn drivers of any risk from fogging/freezing.

• WMDC have plans for employment sites that would use Junction 33 of the A1(M) and its transport assessment work shows no issues with junction capacity.

• A Transport Assessment and Travel Plans will be required covering both construction and operation. Consideration should be given to a site wide travel plan.

• In principle would support noise attenuation barriers on west side of A1(M) if required for the Proposed Development.

Environment Agency • Baseline ground conditions survey required. • Noise assessment for the Proposed Development will need

to be based on ‘worst case’ baseline and include FM1 and any other developments.

• Air quality assessment needs to be similar to that for FM1 and take account of the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) designation.

• River Aire close to abstraction limit should cooling water be required.

• If groundwater abstraction proposed consideration should be given to a new borehole closer to point of use for FM1 and the Proposed Development.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 54


Body Summary of Comments/Issues • Will confirm position on below ground fuel storage bunker

taking account of lessons learned on FM1, including expectations regarding necessary containment, monitoring and control measures.

Natural England • Demonstrate no protected species on site. • Demonstrate absence of internationally designated sites in

area of potential impact. • Assess impact on nationally designated nature sites.

4.49 Following the close of the informal consultation on 6 September 2013, the Applicant wrote to all those persons who had completed a Feedback Form or submitted comments by other means (where contact details had been provided) acknowledging receipt of their comments, and confirming that these would be reviewed and taken into account in developing the Proposed Development proposals further. An example copy of the letter that was sent is provided at Appendix 4.13.

4.50 It should be noted that all those persons who had submitted written feedback/comments at the informal consultation stage were included (where contact details were available) in the written responses that the Applicant sent following the close of the stage 2 formal community consultation (see Section 12).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 55


Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)Document Ref: 5.1

Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 56

5. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: IDENTIFYING CONSULTEES 5.1 This section sets out the approach taken and methods employed in identifying the

persons and bodies to be consulted during the formal (statutory) consultation stage in accordance with the requirements of the PA 2008, specifically Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’ and Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’. It lists those consulted in accordance with the PA 2008 in addition to identifying other persons and bodies who, while there was no statutory duty to consult them, it was considered appropriate to consult in the same manner.

5.2 The Applicant was assisted in identifying consultees for the purposes of Section 42 by Ardent Management Limited (Ardent), a firm of chartered surveyors specialising in land referencing and compulsory acquisition work. Ardent were instructed to carry out land referencing and to prepare a Book of Reference (Application Document Ref. 3.1). This included carrying out Land Registry searches, as well as making a number of other enquiries in order to identify statutory undertakers and their assets and other land ownership interests within and adjoining the Order Limits.

Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’ 5.3 Section 42 of the PA 2008 confirms that the applicant must consult the following about a

proposed application for a DCO:

• S.42(a) - such persons as may be prescribed.

• S.42(aa) - the Marine Management Organisation, in any case where the proposed development would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2).

• S.42(b) - each local authority that is within S.43.

• S.42(c) - the Greater London Authority if the land is in Greater London.

• S.42(d) - each person who is within one or more of the categories set out in S.44.

5.4 The areas specified in Section 42(2) include waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea; an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone (except in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions); and an area designated under Section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (except where it is part of an exclusive economic zone of Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions).

5.5 The Proposed Development does not involve or affect any of the areas specified in Section 42(2). Neither does it involve land in Greater London. As such, there is was no requirement to consult either the Marine Management Organisation or the Greater London Authority.

Section 42(a) - Such persons as may be prescribed

5.6 ‘Such persons as may be prescribed’ (hereafter referred to as ‘prescribed consultees’) were initially identified by reference to Schedule 1 of the APPF Regulations, which lists all prescribed consultees and the circumstances where they must be consulted about a proposed application for a DCO. This took into account the changes made to Schedule 1 as a result of ‘The Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc) (Amendment) Regulations 2013’.

5.7 The changes made to Schedule 1 apply to projects where either an EIA Regulation 6 Notification or a request under EIA Regulation 8 for a Scoping Opinion has been made to


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 57

the SoS on or after 6 April 2013. The EIA Regulation 6 Notification for the Proposed Development and the request under Regulation 8 for a Scoping Opinion were both made to the SoS in June 2013. Therefore, the changes to Schedule 1 do apply to the Proposed Development.

5.8 In addition to the above, regard was had to PINS Advice Note 3 ‘EIA consultation and notification’ (July 2013), which provides advice and guidance on the identification of prescribed consultees. In identifying those to consult, the Applicant applied the ‘Circumstances Test’ set out in Annex 1 of Advice Note 3. Where there was any uncertainty or doubt as whether or not to include a consultee, the Applicant erred on the side of caution and included that consultee on the list of those to be consulted. The Applicant also had regard to the EIA Regulation 9(1)(a) list that was issued by PINS as part of the Scoping Opinion issued in July 2013.

5.9 Entry No. 48 on Schedule 1 refers to the need to consult ‘Relevant statutory undertakers’ where applications are likely to affect their functions as statutory undertakers. Statutory undertakers were identified with reference to Annex 1 of PINS Advice Note 3. In addition, Ardent were instructed to identify statutory undertakers who may have apparatus and/or land interests either within or adjoining the Order limits. Ardent carried out Land Registry searches and also a number of other enquiries to identify statutory undertaker interests, including contacting statutory undertakers to request copies of their asset plans to establish the location of any apparatus.

5.10 A draft list of prescribed consultees (including statutory undertakers and relevant local authorities) was sent to PINS on 20 September 2013 and discussed at a meeting with PINS on 25 September 2013. The draft list was also submitted to WMDC as host authority on 8 October 2013. A response was received from WMDC on 22 October 2013, which identified a number of additional consultees that, although there was no duty to consult under Section 42 of the PA 2008, the authority considered it would be appropriate to include in the consultation. Copies of the correspondence with PINS and WMDC on the draft list are contained at Appendix 5.1.

5.11 Table 5.1 lists the prescribed consultees from Schedule 1 and identifies those that were consulted pursuant to Section 42 and the date that they were consulted on. It also confirms why certain prescribed consultees were not consulted.

5.12 Table 5.2 separately lists the statutory consultees who were identified and consulted and the dates that this took place.

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: 5.1

Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 58

Table 5.1 - Prescribed Persons - Section 42(1)(a) PA 2008

Entry No. Consultee Circumstance Relevant?

Organisation

Consulted Date Consulted

1 The Welsh Ministers

All proposed applications likely to affect land in Wales

NO - application not in Wales or close enough to affect Wales

n/a n/a

2 The Scottish Executive

All proposed applications likely to affect land in Scotland

NO - application not in Scotland or close enough to affect Scotland

n/a n/a

3 The relevant Northern Ireland Department

All proposed applications likely to affect land in Northern Ireland

NO - application not in Northern Ireland or close enough to affect Northern Ireland

n/a n/a

4 The relevant Regional Planning Body

All proposed applications likely to affect land in England and Wales

NO - consultee removed n/a n/a

5 The Health and Safety Executive

All cases YES The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

31.10.2013

6 The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant Clinical Commissioning Group

All proposed applications likely to affect land in England and Wales

YES NHS England NHS Wakefield CCG

31.10.2013 31.10.2013

7 The relevant Health Board


NO - application not in Scotland n/a n/a

8 Natural England All proposed applications likely to affect land in England

YES Natural England 31.10.2013

9 The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

All proposed applications likely to affect land in England

YES YES

English Heritage English Heritage (Regional Office) – Yorkshire and Humber

31.10.2013 31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 59



Organisation


10 The Relevant Fire and Rescue Authority

All cases YES West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service

31.10.2013

11 The Relevant Police and Crime Commissioner

All cases YES Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire

31.10.2013

12 The Relevant Parish Council

All cases NO - application does not relate to land in a parish council area Parish councils within Consultation Area for formal consultation were consulted - see non-prescribed consultees Table 5.5

n/a n/a

13 The Environment Agency

All proposed applications likely to affect land in England and/or Wales

YES The Environment Agency The Environment Agency (Regional Officer) – Yorkshire

31.10.2013 31.10.2013

14 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency

All proposal applications likely to affect land in Scotland


15 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

All proposed applications likely to affect land in England

NO - consultee removed. See non-prescribed consultees Table 5.5

n/a n/a

16 The relevant Regional Development Agency

All cases NO - consultee removed n/a n/a

17 The Equality and All proposed applications likely to affect land NO - consultee removed n/a n/a


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 60



Organisation


Human Rights Commission

in England and Wales

18 The Scottish Human Rights Commission



19 The Commission for Sustainable Development


20 AONB Conservation Boards

All proposed applications likely to affect an AONB that is managed by a conservation Board

NO - application does not relate to land within or near to an AONB

n/a n/a

21 Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

All proposed applications likely to affect the historic environment in Wales

NO - application not in Wales n/a n/a

22 The Countryside Council for Wales



23 The Homes and Communities Agency

All proposed applications likely to have an effect on its areas of responsibility


24 The Joint Nature Conservation Committee

All proposed applications likely to affect the marine environment

NO - application does not affect the marine environment

n/a n/a

25 The Commission for Rural Communities

All proposed applications likely to affect rural communities in England

NO - application relates to land within an existing power station site that is allocated for power generation

n/a n/a

26 Scottish Natural Heritage



27 The Maritime and Coastguard

All proposed applications likely to affect the maritime or coastal environment, or the

NO - the application does not affect the marine or coastal environment

n/a n/a


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 61



Organisation


Agency shipping industry 28 The Marine and

Fisheries Agency All proposed applications likely to affect the marine area in England and Wales

NO - the application does not affect the marine area

n/a n/a

29 The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

All proposed applications likely to affect the fisheries industry in Scotland


30 The Civil Aviation Authority

All proposed applications relating to airports or which are likely to affect an airport or its current or future operation

YES The Civil Aviation Authority

31.10.2013

31 The Highways Agency

All proposed applications likely to affect road or transport operation and/or planning on roads for which the Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority.

YES The Highways Agency (Area 12) Department for Transport

31.10.2013

32 Integrated Transport Authorities (ITAs) and Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs)

All proposed applications likely to affect transport within, to or from the relevant integrated transport area of the ITA or PTE

YES Metro (West Yorkshire ITA) & West Yorkshire PTE

31.10.2013

33 The Relevant Highways Authority

All proposed applications likely to have an impact on the road network or the volume of traffic in the vicinity of the proposal

YES WMDC Highways & Engineering

31.10.2013

34 Transport for London

All proposed applications likely to affect transport within, to or from Greater London

NO - application not in Greater London n/a n/a

35 The Rail Passengers Council

All proposed applications likely to affect rail passenger transport


36 The Disabled Persons Transport

All proposed applications likely to affect access to transport for disabled people



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 62



Organisation


Advisory Committee

37 The Coal Authority

All proposed applications that lie within areas of past, present or future coal mining.

YES The Coal Authority

31.10.2013

38 The Office of Rail Regulation and approved operators

All proposed applications likely to affect the rail transport industry


39 The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority

All proposed applications likely to affect gas and electricity markets


40 The Water Services Regulation Authority

All proposed applications likely to affect the water industry in England and Wales


41 The Water Industry Commission of Scotland

All proposed applications likely to affect the water industry in Scotland


42 The relevant waste regulation authority

All proposed applications likely to affect waste infrastructure


43 The relevant Internal Drainage Board

All proposed applications likely to increase the risk of flooding in that area or where the proposals relate to an area known to be an area of flood risk

YES The Shire Group of Internal Drainage Boards

31.10.2013

44 The British Waterways Board

All proposed applications likely to have an impact on inland waterways or land adjacent to inland waterways

YES The Canal & River Trust

31.10.2013

45 Trinity House All proposed applications likely to affect navigation in tidal waters

NO - application does not affect navigation in tidal waters

n/a n/a

46 The Health All proposed applications likely to involve YES Public Health 31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 63



Organisation


Protection Agency

chemicals, poisons or radiation which could potentially cause harm to people

England

47 The relevant local resilience forum


48 Relevant statutory undertakers

All proposed applications likely to affect their functions as statutory undertakers

YES - see Table 5.2 Various 31.10.2013/ 05.02.2014/ 17.03.2014

49 The Crown Estate Commissioners

All proposed applications likely to impact on the Crown Estate

YES - consulted prior to confirmation that no Crown Land affected by the application

The Crown Estate 31.10.2013

50 The Forestry Commission

All proposed applications likely to affect the protection or expansion of forests and woodlands

YES - consulted due to inclusion of small area of woodland within the application site

The Forestry Commission

31.10.2013

51 The Natural Resources Body for Wales (NRW)

All proposed applications likely to affect the protection or expansion of forests and woodlands in Wales


52 The relevant local health board



53 The National Health Service Trusts



Table 5.2 - Relevant Statutory Undertakers - Section 42(1)(a) PA 2008

Consultee Relevant? Organisation Date Consulted

Health Bodies (S.16 of the Acquisition of Land Act (ALA) 1981) The National Health Service Commissioning Board

YES NHS England

31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 64



The relevant clinical commissioning group (CCG) and local area team (LAT)

YES YES

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

31.10.2013 31.10.2013

The relevant NHS Foundation Trusts

YES South-West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

31.10.2013

Health and Social Care Information Centre Health Education England

28.03.2014 28.03.2014

Health Research Authority 28.03.2014 National Institute For Health and Clinical Excellence 28.03.2014 NHS Blood and Transplant 28.03.2014 NHS Business Services Authority 28.03.2014 NHS Litigation Authority 28.03.2014

The relevant Special Health Authorities

YES

NHS Trust Development Authority 28.03.2014 The relevant Ambulance Trust

YES Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust 31.10.2013

The relevant Care Trust YES The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust 31.10.2013 The relevant Acute Trust YES The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust 31.10.2013 The relevant Mental Health Trust

YES South-West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 31.10.2013

Relevant Statutory Undertakers in specified sectors (s.8 ALA 1981) Railway (Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd and BRB Residuary Ltd)

Consultee Removed YES - decision taken to consult as the application encompasses land that has rail infrastructure and is located close to rail infrastructure

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Highway Agency Historical Railway Estates1 London and Continental Railways1 Rail Safety and Standards Board1 Notes: 1. Functions were transferred from BRB Residuary to these bodies.

31.10.2013 31.10.2013 31.10.2013 31.10.2013

Light Railway NO - does not involve a light railway n/a n/a


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 65



Road Transport NO - does not directly affect a motorway or other parts of the road network. WMDC Highways & Engineering and the Highways Agency were consulted as ‘prescribed persons’ - see Table 5.1

n/a n/a

Water Transport (Statutory ferry toll undertakers)

NO - does not involve water transport n/a n/a

Canal or Inland Navigation Authorities (The Canal and River Trust and/or the Environment Agency or Natural Resources Wales)

YES The Canal and River Trust The Environment Agency

31.10.2013 31.10.2013

Dock NO - does not involve a dock n/a n/a Harbour NO - does not involve a harbour n/a n/a Pier NO - does not involve a pier n/a n/a Lighthouse (Trinity House)

NO - does not involve a lighthouse n/a n/a

Hydraulic Power NO - does not involve hydraulic power n/a n/a Licence Holder (Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Transport Act 2000)

YES NATS En-Route (NERL) Safeguarding 31.10.2013

Universal Service Provider

YES Royal Mail Group

31.10.2013

The Civil Aviation Authority

YES Civil Aviation Authority 31.10.2013

YES The Environment Agency 31.10.2013 The Relevant Environment Agency

YES The Environment Agency (Regional Office) 31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 66



Water and Sewerage Undertakers The relevant water and sewerage undertaker

YES YES

Yorkshire Water Anglian Water Services Limited

31.10.2013 05.02.2014

Public Gas Transporters British Gas Pipelines Limited 31.10.2013 Energetics Gas Limited 31.10.2013 ESP Pipelines Ltd 31.10.2013 ESP Connections Ltd 31.10.2013 ESP Networks Ltd 31.10.2013 Fulcrum Pipelines Limited 31.10.2013 GTC Pipelines Limited 31.10.2013 Independent Pipelines Limited 31.10.2013 LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited 31.10.2013 National Grid Gas Plc 31.10.2013 National Grid Plc 31.10.2013 Quadrant Pipelines Limited 31.10.2013 SSE Pipelines Ltd 31.10.2013 The Gas Transportation Company Limited 31.10.2013 Utility Grid Installations Limited 31.10.2013 Northern Gas Networks Limited 31.10.2013 Caythorpe Gas Storage Limited 05.02.2014 Centrica KPS Limited 05.02.2014 ES Pipelines Ltd 05.02.2014 Severn Gas Transportation Limited 05.02.2014 SP Gas Limited 05.02.2014

The relevant public gas transporter

YES

Wyre Gas Transportation Limited 05.02.2014 Electricity Licence Holders Having CPO Powers Electricity Generators YES SSE Generation Limited 31.10.2013

Energetics Electricity Limited 31.10.2013 ESP Electricity Limited 31.10.2013

Electricity Distributors YES

Independent Power Networks Limited 31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 67



The Electricity Network Company Limited 31.10.2013 Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 31.10.2013 Northern Power Grid Limited Holdings Company 31.10.2013 CE Electric UK Limited 05.02.2014 Greenpark Energy Transportation Limited 05.02.2014 Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution PLC 05.02.2014 Scottish Power Limited 05.02.2014 SP Distribution Limited 05.02.2014 SP Manweb plc 05.02.2014 Yorkshire Electricity Group Plc 05.02.2014 National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc 31.10.2013 Electricity Transmitters YES National Grid Plc 31.10.2013

Electricity Interconnectors NO - no electricity interconnectors identified n/a n/a In respect of telecommunication wires, conduits, cables and other apparatus YES Airwave Solutions Limited 05.02.2014 YES British Telecommunications plc 31.10.2013 YES BSKYB Telecommunications Services Ltd 05.02.2014 YES Cable and Wireless Communications plc 05.02.2014 YES Colt Technology Services Group Limited 05.02.2014 YES Easynet Limited 05.02.2014 YES Everything Everywhere Limited (Ericsson MBNL) 05.02.2014

YES Gamma Telecom Limited 17.03.2014 YES Telefonica UK Limited 05.02.2014 YES Utility Assets Limited 05.02.2014 YES Virgin Media Limited 05.02.2014 YES Vodafone Ltd 05.02.2014 In respect of pipes, cables and other associated apparatus YES Kcom Group plc 05.02.2014


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 68

Section 42(b) - Each local authority that is within Section 43

5.13 The relevant local authorities to consult were identified by applying the guidance set out at Section 43, subsections (1), (2) and (2A).

5.14 Section 43(1) confirms that a local authority is within Section 43 if the land (to which the application for Development Consent relates) is in that authority’s area. The land to which the Application relates lies entirely within the boundary of WMDC. WMDC is therefore within Section 43 and must be consulted.

5.15 Section 43(2) goes on to state that a local authority (the ‘A’ authority) is within this section if:

• (a) the land is in the area of another authority (the ‘B’ authority - this being WMDC);

• (aa) ‘B’ is a unitary council or a lower tier district council; and

• (b) any part of the boundary of ‘A’s’ area is also part of the boundary of B’s area.

5.16 WMDC is a unitary authority. A map of the administrative boundary of WMDC and the authorities that have an adjoining boundary with WMDC is shown in Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1 - Local Authority Boundaries

5.17 Figure 5.1 confirms that there are a number of ‘A’ authorities that have a boundary adjoining that of WMDC.

5.18 Subsection (2A) states that if the land is within the area of an upper-tier county council (a ‘C’ authority), a local authority (a ‘D’ authority) is within this section if:


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 69

• (a) ‘D’ is not a lower-tier district council; and

• (b) any part of the boundary of ‘D’s’ area is also part of the boundary of ‘C’s’ area.

5.19 The Application Site does not lie within the area of an upper-tier county council and therefore there are no ‘C’ or ‘D’ authorities.

5.20 The relevant local authorities for the purposes of Section 43 are set out in Table 5.3 below along with the dates they were consulted.

Table 5.3 - Each Local Authority that is within Section 43 (Relevant Local Authorities)

Authority Category of Authority

Date Consulted

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) The ‘B’ authority (the host authority)

31.10.2013

Leeds City Council (Leeds CC) An ‘A’ authority 31.10.2013Selby District Council (Selby DC) An ‘A’ authority 31.10.2013Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (Doncaster MDC)

An ‘A’ authority 31.10.2013

Barnsley Council An ‘A’ authority 31.10.2013Kirklees Council An ‘A’ authority 31.10.2013North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) An ‘A’ authority. 31.10.2013

5.21 The relevant local authorities for the purposes of consultation pursuant to Section 42 were also confirmed by the EIA Regulation 9(1((a) list included by PINS with the Scoping Opinion issued in July 2013.

Section 42(d) - Each person in one or more of the categories set out in Section 44

5.22 Section 44 defines the categories of persons to be consulted for the purposes of Section 42(d). These are as follows:

• Category 1 - an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the land.

• Category 2 - a person interested in the land, or who has the power to sell and convey the land, or to release the land.

• Category 3 - if the applicant thinks that, if the DCO were to be made and fully implemented, the person would or might be entitled (a) as a result of the implementing of the order, (b) as a result of the order having been implemented, or (c) as a result of use of the land once the order has been implemented, to make a relevant claim.

5.23 A ‘relevant claim’ is defined by Section 44 subsection (6) as meaning:

• a claim under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c.56) (compensation where satisfaction not made for the taking, or injurious affection, of land subject to compulsory purchase);

• (b) a claim under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (c.26) (compensation for depreciation of land value by physical factors cause by use of public works); and


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 70

• (c) a claim under Section 152(3) of the PA 2008 (compensation in case where no right to claim in nuisance).

5.24 Section 44 places a duty on the applicant to make ‘diligent inquiry’ as to the identification of any Category 1, 2, or 3 persons.

5.25 The term ‘diligent inquiry’ is not defined for the purposes of the PA 2008. It sets a threshold of inquiry to allow the termination of that inquiry when all recognised avenues of research has been exhausted. Where an unknown interest exists, searches at the Land Registry, searches for registered correspondence to the address (where appropriate), site visits and electoral searches are required. If an interest is identified as ‘unknown’ and reasonable inquiry has been carried out a notice must be posted on or adjacent the land in question requesting information.

5.26 Ardent were instructed to identify any Category 1, 2 or 3 persons. The first step of this exercise involved making SIM searches with the Land Registry. The results of the SIM searches were received on 21 August 2013. Using these, Ardent downloaded all registered titles in the land and recorded all registered proprietors and relevant interests. Ardent also conducted desk top research into unregistered land and land that may be affected by construction.

5.27 Following the above Ardent sent ‘Request for Information’ (RFI) letters to all parties that were considered to potentially have an interest in the land on 13 September 2013. ‘Reminder’ letters were sent to those parties that had not responded on 4 October 2013. Following a site visit on 8 October 2013, Ardent sent letters to newly identified parties on 14 October 2013. A site notice was also erected in two locations on the unregistered part of Kirkhaw Lane on 1 November 2013 requesting information. As confirmed above, Ardent also contacted statutory undertakers to request copies of their asset plans.

5.28 Copies of the site notice (including photographs of it in place), RFI letters, ‘Reminder’ letters and responses are contained at Appendix 5.2.

5.29 It is considered that the above steps represented ‘diligent inquiry’ with regard to identifying potential Category 1, 2, and 3 persons.

5.30 Table 5.4 below identifies those persons who are considered to fall within the categories set out at Section 44. These are set out in the Book of Reference (Application Document Ref No. 3.1).

Table 5.4 - Persons within Categories 1, 2 and 3 of Section 44

Person Category Date Consulted

Freightliner Heavy Haul Limited 2+3 31.10.2013 Fryston Skip Hire 2 31.10.2013 Industrial Pallet & Transport Services Limited 2 31.10.2013 Industrial Pallet Trust 2 05.02.2014 Multi-Tech Engineering (UK) Ltd 2 31.10.2013 National Grid Electricity Transmission plc 1+2 31.10.2013 Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 2 31.10.2013 Stephen Croft, 2 Kirkhaw Lane 2 31.10.2013 Rachael Croft, 2 Kirkhaw Lane 2 31.10.2013 The Coal Authority 1 31.10.2013 Siniat Limited 2 31.10.2013 SSE Generation Limited 1 31.10.2013 Yorkshire Water Limited 2 31.10.2013 British Telecommunications Plc 2 31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 71

Table 5.4 - Persons within Categories 1, 2 and 3 of Section 44

Person Category Date Consulted

The Council of the City of Wakefield Legal & Democratic Services

1 05.02.2014

Vodafone Ltd 2 05.02.2014 Northern Powergrid Limited 1+2 28.03.2014 Brian Aaron, Fryston Hall Farm 2+3

Notes: Consulted again on 28.03.14 as found to be resident in Canada.

17.03.2014 and 28.03.2014

David Aaron, Fryston Hall Farm 2+3 Notes: Consulted again on 28.03.14 as found to be resident in Canada.

17.03.2014 and 28.03.2014

George Aaron, Fryston Hall Farm 2+3 17.03.2014 Peter Aaron, Fryston Hall Farm 2+3 17.03.2014

Ferrybridge Multifuel Energy Limited 1 17.03.2014

Secretary of State for Transport 2+3 28.03.2014 Nicholas Bennett, trustee Industrial Pallet Trust 2 28.03.2014 Mike Talbot, trustee Industrial Pallet Trust 2 28.03.2014

5.31 The land referencing work carried out by Ardent was an iterative process and a number of changes were made to the Book of Reference prior to it being finalised at the end of May 2014. This included identification of a number of additional persons falling within Categories 1, 2 or 3, as well as the removal of a number of persons from the Book of Reference who had been consulted pursuant to Section 42 consultation, but who, following further investigation were determined not to fall within Categories 1, 2 or 3. One of the principal reasons for the removal of certain persons from the Book of Reference related to a reduction in the area of the Application Site, in response to changes made to the Proposed Development following consultation.

5.32 Table 5.5 lists the persons who were consulted under Section 42 but subsequently removed from the final Book of Reference.

Table 5.5 - Persons removed from Book of Reference

Person Date Consulted

Canal and Rivers Trust 31.10.2013 DB Schenker Rail (UK) Limited 31.10.2013 Direct Rail Services Limited 31.10.2013 E.ON UK plc 31.10.2013 Ferrybridge Golf Club 31.10.2013 Juniper (No.3) Limited * Formerly UK Coal Mining Ltd. 31.10.2013 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 31.10.2013 National Grid Gas plc 31.10.2013 Network Rail Infrastructure Limited 31.10.2013 Northern Gas Networks Limited 31.10.2013 Northern Powergrid Holdings Company 31.10.2013 Powergen PLC 31.10.2013 The Environment Agency 31.10.2013 Yorkshire Water Services Limited 31.10.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 72

Table 5.5 - Persons removed from Book of Reference

Person Date Consulted

Company Coaches 31.10.2013 Clydesdale Bank plc 31.10.2013 Kenneth Lumb, Manor Farm 31.10.2013 The Occupier, 1 Kirkhaw Lane 31.10.2013 Santander UK plc 31.10.2013 Yorkshire Electricity Group plc 05.02.2014 SSE PLC 05.02.2014 IGC Travel Limited 17.03.2014 Jonathan Slater T/A Company Coaches 17.03.2014 Timothy Slater T/A Company Coaches 17.03.2014 Nigel Walton T/A Company Coaches 17.03.2014 RWENPower 17.03.2014

Non-prescribed’ consultees

5.33 In addition to those consultees that the Applicant had a statutory duty to consult under Section 42, a number of other bodies (referred to as ‘non-prescribed’ consultees) were identified, who it was considered appropriate to consult in the same manner as the Section 42 consultees. These included:

• Former prescribed consultees removed from Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations.

• Persons and organisations identified during the informal consultation and EIA scoping process.

• Persons and organisations identified through discussions with the relevant local authorities and key stakeholders, including those notified to the Applicant by WMDC.

• Persons and organisations who it was considered may be interested in the Proposed Development.

• Persons and organisations with responsibilities for land in the vicinity of the Application Site and within the ‘Formal Consultation Area’ defined for the formal Section 47 ‘community’ consultation, for instance, parish councils lying wholly or partly within the Formal Consultation Area.

• Telecoms companies who it was considered may have apparatus within the vicinity of the Application Site - a number of these were subsequently identified by Ardent as being statutory undertakers and were formally re-consulted under Section 42 (Table 5.2).

5.34 The ‘non-prescribed’ consultees are set out in Table 5.6 below along with the dates they were consulted.

Table 5.6 - Non-prescribed consultees

Person/ Organisation

Reason for consulting Date Consulted

CABE Former prescribed consultee considered appropriate to consult in relation to the design of the Proposed Development

01.11.2013

DECC Considered appropriate to advise DECC of the Proposed Development given its nature

01.11.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 73




OFGEM

Considered appropriate to advise OFGEM of the Proposed Development given its nature

01.11.2013

North Yorkshire County Council Highways Department

Considered appropriate to consult as Proposed Development would result in traffic on roads for which NYCC has responsibility as highway authority

01.11.2013

Local Record Centre: West Yorkshire Ecology

Natural England (during EIA scoping) recommended consultation

01.11.2013

Geological sites: West Yorkshire Geology Trust (WYGT)

As above 01.11.2013

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust As above 01.11.2013 West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS).

English Heritage (during EIA scoping) recommended consultation

01.11.2013

West Yorkshire Joint Services

WMDC recommended consultation

01.11.2013

Pontefract & District Archaeological Society

As above 01.11.2013

Castleford Heritage Trust As above 01.11.2013 The Knottingley & Ferrybridge Neighbourhood Network

As above 01.11.2013

The Knottingley & Ferrybridge Regeneration Steering Group

As above

01.11.2013

The Old Quarry Adventure Playground

As above

01.11.2013

Warwick Ahead As above 01.11.2013 The Land Trust As above 01.11.2013 Fairburn Parish Council Considered appropriate to consult as

Parish Council has responsibility for land within the Formal Consultation Area

01.11.2013

Burton Salmon Parish Council

As above

01.11.2013

Brotherton Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Byram cum Sutton Parish Council

As above 01.11.2013

Birkin Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Beal Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Hillam Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Monk Fryston Parish Council

As above

01.11.2013

South Milford Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Ledsham Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Cridling Stubbs Parish Council

As above

01.11.2013

Stapleton Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Darrington Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Ledston Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Allerton Bywater Parish Council

As above

01.11.2013

Featherstone Parish Council As above 01.11.2013 Telefonica UK Ltd As above 01.11.2013 Vodafone Ltd As above 01.11.2013


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 74




Everything Everywhere Ltd As above 01.11.2013 Hutchinson 3G As above 01.11.2013 Virgin Media As above 01.11.2013 Yorkshire Air Ambulance Consulted on the advice of the CAA 11.02.14

5.35 The above ‘non-prescribed’ consultees were consulted in the same manner as those that the Applicant had a ‘Duty to consult’ under Section 42 and were provided with the same information.

Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’ 5.36 Section 47 of the PA 2008 places a duty on the applicant to consult the local community,

that is, the people living within the vicinity of the land to which the application for Development Consent relates. What is meant by ‘within the vicinity of the land’ is not defined by the PA 2008.

5.37 Before consulting with the local community, the applicant must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (a SoCC) setting out how they intend to consult the local community. The host local authority must be consulted on the SoCC and once it has been finalised it must be made available for public inspection and publicised in a local newspaper. The community consultation must then take place in accordance with the SoCC. The approach to developing the SoCC for the Proposed Development and the local community consultation that was undertaken in accordance with the SoCC is described at Sections 6 and 7.

5.38 In terms of who to consult within the local community, a consultation area for the formal Section 47 ‘community’ consultation was defined within the SoCC. The rationale for the extent of this ‘Formal Consultation Area’ is set out in Section 6, but in short, the extent of this area was informed by previous consultation activities relating to the Ferrybridge Power Station site, notably FM1, the level of response received to the informal consultation and also the need to ensure that those areas that may be potentially affected by the Proposed Development (informed by the EIA work) were captured. The defined Formal Consultation Area was considered to adequately cover ‘people living within the vicinity of the land’.

5.39 The extensive local knowledge of the SSE communications team, which had been responsible for consultation on FM1 and on-going dialogue with the community on FM1 and also the WTI communications team was employed to identify community consultees. The SSE communications team were able to advise upon and identify existing local contacts, community groups and residents associations.

5.40 The key groups of community consultees that were included within the Section 47 community consultation and the dates they were notified of the consultation are set out in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 - Local Community Consultees




Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 75

Table 5.7 - Local Community Consultees



Residents and local businesses.

People living and working and local community groups within the defined ‘Formal Consultation Area’ - over 23,000 residents and businesses were consulted by newsletter in advance of the formal S.47 community consultation.

22.10.2013

Elected members, including local MPs, district, county and parish councillors.

Local political representatives with responsibility for constituencies, wards and parishes within the Formal Consultation Area.

09.10.2013 and 22.10.2013

Community Liaison Group (CLG).

An existing community group set up for the Ferrybridge Power Station site to provide a link to the local community and a means by which the community can raise issues with SSE regarding the operation of the site and future developments and SSE can update the community. The CLG historically has included a number of local political representatives as well as representatives of the Oakhill Park Residents Association. Following the informal consultation, the membership was extended to include representatives of The Friends of Fryston Wood, who came forward during that consultation.

09.10.2013 and 22.10.2013

Section 48 ‘Duty to publicise’ 5.41 Section 48 of the PA 2008 places a duty on the applicant to publicise a proposed

application for a DCO in the ‘prescribed manner’. The prescribed manner for publicising an application is set out at APFP Regulation 4. In short, this involves the applicant publicising a notice providing details of the application in national and local newspapers and other specified publications.

5.42 The Applicant publicised the Application in accordance with Section 48 during the formal consultation. This is described in more detail at Section 10. No additional consultees were identified as a result of this publicity.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 76



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 77

6. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SOCC)

6.1 Section 47 of the PA 2008 places a duty upon applicants for a DCO to consult the ‘local community’. Subsection (1) requires the applicant to prepare a statement (a Statement of Community Consultation) setting out how it proposes to consult people living within the vicinity of the land to which the application relates.

6.2 Subsection (2) goes on to state that in preparing the Statement of Community Consultation (the SoCC) the applicant must consult each local authority that is within Section 43(1) about what is to be in the statement. The Section 43(1) authority, is the authority whose area encompasses either all, or part of the land to which the application relates (the ‘host authority’). In the case of the Proposed Development there is a single Section 43(1) authority, WMDC. As such, the Applicant was only required by Section 47(2) to consult WMDC on the preparation of its SoCC.

6.3 Under subsection (3) the applicant must provide the Section 43(1) authority with a period of 28 days (beginning with the day after it receives the draft statement) to respond to the consultation, while subsection (5) requires the applicant to have regard to any response received before this deadline. The applicant must then make the statement available for inspection by the public and publish a notice in a newspaper circulating within the vicinity of the land to which the application relates stating where and when the statement can be inspected (subsection (6)). Subsection (7) requires the consultation to be carried out in accordance with the proposals set out in the statement.

6.4 This section sets out the approach that has been taken by the Applicant to the preparation of its SoCC, the consultation that has taken place with WMDC and the other Section 43 local authorities (the relevant authorities), the feedback received and changes made and how the SoCC has been publicised and made available to the local community.

Background to the preparation of the SoCC 6.5 The preparation of the draft SoCC was informed by the Applicant’s Consultation Strategy

(Appendix 3.2) that was developed early in the pre-application process to guide pre-application consultation on the Proposed Development. As confirmed in Section 3, this document was the subject of informal dialogue and consultation with both WMDC and PINS. The comments that were provided by WMDC and PINS (Table 3.1) did not raise any substantive issues with regard to the proposed approach to consultation. It was therefore considered that the Strategy provided a sound basis upon which to develop the SoCC.

6.6 Following the informal consultation on the Consultation Strategy the Applicant commenced preparation of a draft SoCC. The draft SoCC was prepared in accordance with the objectives set out in the Strategy, namely to:

• To be clear, open and honest in engagement and consultation with the local community and other stakeholders.

• To raise awareness of what is proposed and to provide the opportunity for people to comment upon the proposals.

• To provide clear and concise information to all sections of the local community.

• To provide a range of different opportunities for members of the local community and other stakeholders to engage with the project and comment on the proposals.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 78

• To invite feedback and ensure that MEL understands the views of consultees so that these can be considered during the design development process.

• To show how the proposals have taken account of consultation.

Defining the Consultation Area for the Section 47 Consultation 6.7 While the Applicant’s Consultation Strategy defined a consultation area for the informal

consultation stage, it did not do so for the formal consultation stage. This was because it was recognised that the consultation area for the Section 47 consultation would need to be informed by the level of response received to the informal consultation and also the EIA work and technical studies being undertaken for the Proposed Development.

6.8 The boundary of the proposed consultation area (the ‘Formal Consultation Area’) for the Section 47 consultation was initially set at a distance of 5km from the Application Site in all directions (a 5km radius). This boundary was defined by the Applicant within reference to the assessment of effects that was undertaken for the FM1 development and the various technical assessments being undertaken for the EIA for the Proposed Development, for example, air quality and landscape and visual effects, and was considered to encompass the areas surrounding the Site that had the potential to be most affected by the Proposed Development. It also took account of the level of response and interest that had been received from the public during the informal community consultation, which had generally not come from beyond the immediate vicinity of the Site.

6.9 Initially an ‘inner’ consultation area was also proposed (extending to 3km from the Site) within the Formal Consultation Area. This was considered to be the area that potentially would be most directly affected by the Proposed Development and it was proposed to publicise the community consultation within this area by sending newsletters to all residents and businesses located in that area. Beyond the inner consultation area, the community consultation was to be publicised by media releases, newspaper notices and posters.

6.10 Through a combination of the project team reviewing the proposed Formal Consultation Area and consultation with WMDC on the preparation of the SoCC (explained in further detail later in this section), it was subsequently decided that to only send newsletters to residents and businesses within the 3km inner consultation area would not be appropriate, as this excluded part of the political ward (the Knottingley ward) within which the Application Site is located, in addition to significant parts of the other closest political wards (Fairburn with Brotherton, Pontefract North and Airedale and Ferry Fryston wards) that lie to the north, east, south-west and west of the Site. The decision was therefore taken to remove the 3km inner consultation area from the SoCC and to retain the outer boundary of the Formal Consultation Area at 5km, as this had been informed by the EIA work and encompassed the bulk of these four wards. In addition, it was decided that newsletters would be delivered across the four political wards, even where these extended beyond the 5km boundary, with the consultation publicised in the remaining parts of the Formal Consultation Area a variety of other methods.

6.11 The final extent of the proposed Formal Consultation Area settled upon by the Applicant was considered to be of sufficient extent to ensure that the communities that would potentially be most affected by the Proposed Development would be included within the formal Section 47 community consultation and that the requirement of the PA 2008 to ‘consult people living in the vicinity of the land’ would be satisfied. In fact, as will be explained in Section 7, the consultation methods employed for the Section 47


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 79

consultation actually resulted in the Proposed Development being publicised well beyond the boundary of the Formal Consultation Area.

6.12 The Formal Consultation Area adopted for the purposes of the SoCC and the Section 47 consultation is shown in Figure 6.1 below.

Figure 6.1 - Formal Consultation Area

Consultation Methods set out in the SoCC 6.13 The consultation methods set out in the draft SoCC were consistent with those identified

in the Consultation Strategy and included:

• Community newsletters providing information on the Proposed Development and the consultation.

• Newspaper notices and media releases publicising the consultation.

• A number of public information events (exhibitions) at venues located as conveniently as possible across the Formal Consultation Area.

• Consultation documents being made available at several publically accessible inspection locations.

• Stakeholder briefings and workshops for local politicians and community/interest groups and presentations to the CLG.

• Access to a project website and a project helpline.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 80

6.14 The draft SoCC also provided for a consultation period (4 November - 20 December 2013) of 46 days, well in excess of the statutory 28 day period required by Section 47, so as to provide the local community with sufficient opportunity to comment on the Proposed Development.

Informal consultation on the Initial Draft SoCC 6.15 Following early consultation with WMDC on the Consultation Strategy the decision was

taken by the Applicant that it would be beneficial in developing the draft SoCC to provide WMDC (the host authority) with an early opportunity to comment on an ‘initial draft SoCC’ in advance of any formal consultation on the SoCC under Section 47.

6.16 The Applicant also took the decision to informally consult Selby DC due to its proximity to the Application Site in addition to the other Section 43 local authorities identified (although there was no statutory requirement to do so) in order to provide them with an opportunity to comment on the proposed community consultation.

6.17 The initial draft SoCC was issued to the following local authorities by email on 4 September 2013:

• WMDC

• Selby DC

• Leeds CC

• Kirklees Council

• Doncaster MDC

• Barnsley Council (due to a delivery failure the email had to be resent on 13 September 2013)

• NYCC.

6.18 The email to each authority provided further information on the Proposed Development and outlined the proposed timetable for the formal consultation on the SoCC under Section 47 and the proposed community consultation. The email requested that any comments on the SoCC be provided by 17 September 2013. Copies of the emails sent to the authorities and a copy of the initial draft SoCC are contained at Appendix 6.1.

Feedback on the Initial Draft SoCC 6.19 Feedback on the initial draft SoCC was received from WMDC and a number of the other

local authorities. This is set out in Table 6.1 below:

Table 6.1 - Feedback on Initial Draft SoCC

No. Local Authority

Date of Response

Comments

1. WMDC 12.09.2013 I refer to your email below and the attached, draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) which I have now had the opportunity to review. I am generally satisfied with the extent and type of consultation that is proposed; however, I have the following comments for your consideration: Consultation areas -


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 81


No. Local Authority

Date of Response

Comments

I am satisfied with the extent of the consultation areas. My only comment would be to suggest that more of the Pontefract South Ward is included – particularly the areas which are significantly closer to the site than other areas within the ‘green’ consultation zone. If there are practical reasons why these areas have been excluded it would be useful to know as it is likely to be a question that could be asked by residents and/or local members. I recommend you take advice from North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council regarding the extent of the consultation zones within land under their jurisdiction. Consultation methods - My only comments would be regarding the number and times of the public information events. Would it be possible to hold more than one event at each venue? My concern is that as only one event is proposed at each venue there may be people who would wish to attend but are unable to make one specific date. Also, from experience such events tend to be more popular in the late afternoon and evening periods; therefore, would any of the venues cater for a later finish than the times shown? Venues - I am satisfied with the range of venues. You may or may not be aware that Hill Top Library, Knottingley has now been re-located into the adjoining Sports Centre. The address remains the same but you may wish to check opening times with our library services team (details available online). You also asked about the following matters – other NSIPs/major projects in the area that MEL should be aware of; There is only one other NSIP within our district that is ‘live’ and that is the Knottingley Power application for a new gas-fired power station. I note you have referred to two others within the draft SoCC. any known closures, planned refurbishments or changes in opening times at the proposed venues for public inspection locations/public information events; and


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 82


No. Local Authority

Date of Response

Comments

I am not aware of any but I would recommend that you contact the venues directly to ascertain confirmation. Any other consultation events that are planned over the same period. I am not aware of any. The Knottingley Power application will be ‘live’ and there could be some consultation events being undertaken relating to smaller, local schemes that the LPA have not been informed about. There is always a number of on-going pre-application discussions that the LPA are involved with which may lead to consultation events being undertaken within the next year. All pre-application enquiries are confidential and therefore I cannot provide you with any details until they are in the public domain. Other comments - There is a minor typographical error on page 5 (the word healthy should be health). It would be useful to have a list of all statutory and non-statutory consultees that you intend to undertake a consultation exercise with. I assume this will either accompany the SoCC when submitted or be issued under separate cover.

2. Leeds CC 10.09.2013 Thank you for letting me see this. I have no particular remarks to make on this SoCC as relevant to Leeds. I am most interested to know what this new facility is going to be fed with - namely who is saying they have waste they can burn there?

3. Kirklees Council

10.09.2013 Thank you for your e-mail dated 4 September 2013 relating to the preparation of the above Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). Although, as you have indicated, there is no requirement to consult Kirklees Council regarding this matter, the Council is grateful for the opportunity to review your draft SoCC. I would confirm that Kirklees Council has no comment to make at this stage in the process but notes that you intend to formally consult the Council further on the 19 September 2013 with regard to the preparation of the SoCC and given the opportunity to comment.

4. Doncaster MDC

05.09.2013 Thank you for sending on your Draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). I have considered the content of the draft SoCC and can advise that Doncaster MBC considers that


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 83


No. Local Authority

Date of Response

Comments

the draft is clear and understandable. As an adjoining Local Authority we are unable to provide a definitive response on areas located outside of the borough proposed for consultation events. However, it would appear that the proposed SoCC provides adequate coverage across the areas concerned, identifies the correct communities and the correct media to place adverts within (in our case The Yorkshire Post), and will in our opinion effectively reach and engage with hard to reach groups. Accordingly, I can confirm that the draft SoCC matches up with the Doncaster Council’s expectation as laid out in our Statement of Community Involvement (2006) and the Planning Act 2008 guidance on pre-application consultation. In relation to the specific questions you raise in your email: 1. The only NSIP we have in the borough in

the North Doncaster Rail Chord, which acquired a DCO on 16th October 2012. In addition, Thorpe Marsh Power Limited are in the process of preparing its own draft SoCC for a new gas pipeline. The proposed gas pipeline will be approximately 18 km in length from a potential off-take approximately 1.5km west of Camblesforth to a new CCGT gas-fired powered station at the former coal-fired Thorpe Marsh Power Station site. You have already noted the National Grid’s Carbon Capture Pipeline project proposal.

2. N/A – no venues proposed for Doncaster

MBC. 3. N/A – see 2. above.

5. NYCC 12.09.2013 North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) is grateful for having been contacted regarding the initial draft of the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for the Ferrybridge Multifuel II nationally significant infrastructure project. We are satisfied with the SoCCs initial draft and have no further comments to make. We look forward to the receiving the completed draft SoCC in due course. Once again thank you for consulting NYCC on this matter.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 84

6.20 The comments received from the authorities on the initial draft SoCC are contained at Appendix 6.2. No comments were received from Selby DC or Barnsley Council.

6.21 The comments received from WMDC were the only ones that raised specific issues concerning the content of the initial draft SoCC and the proposed community consultation. The comments received from the other local authorities were for the most part of a general nature confirming that the content of the initial draft SoCC was acceptable and in some cases advising of other projects within the area.

6.22 Following the receipt of the above comments, a meeting took place with WMDC on 17 September 2013. This meeting was with the officer who has provided the point of contact at the authority for the Applicant in respect of both FM1 and the Proposed Development and who had also provided the comments on the initial draft SoCC. The meeting had been pre-arranged to provide WMDC with an update on the Proposed Development, including the informal consultation, but was also taken as an opportunity to discuss the comments received on the initial draft SoCC.

6.23 The comments provided by WMDC had raised two principal issues with regard to the initial draft SoCC, namely:

• why parts of the Pontefract South Ward were excluded from the proposed consultation despite being nearer to the Site than parts of other wards; and

• whether there would be scope to increase the number of consultation events and to extend the times for the events into the evening (to 20:00 hours).

6.24 It was explained at the meeting that the extent of the proposed Formal Consultation Area (5km from the Application Site) had been informed by previous experience of consultation in the area, in particular, that relating to FM1, the level of response received to the informal community consultation that had taken place between early July and early September 2013 and the various assessments being undertaken for the EIA, in order to ensure that all those communities that may potentially be affected were included. Furthermore, there had been a low turn out from Pontefract South in relation to the FM1 consultation while it was considered that the potential air quality and landscape and visual impacts of the Proposed Development on this area would be less significant than would potentially be the case for other areas.

6.25 It was confirmed that newsletters would be delivered to all residents and businesses within the four political wards closest to the Site, while the consultation would be publicised in the remainder of the Formal Consultation Area via media releases, notices in regional and local newspapers and posters at selected publically accessible locations. In addition, the publicity within the newspapers, in particular the Yorkshire Post would ensure that the consultation would be publicised well beyond the boundary of the Consultation Area.

6.26 It was agreed with WMDC that the extent of the Formal Consultation Area and the area within which the newsletters would be delivered was appropriate, but that the section of the SoCC explaining the Formal Consultation Area would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the area had been defined and which areas were to receive newsletters.

6.27 With regard to the planned consultation events, it was explained that the number of consultation events had been informed by the consultation undertaken on FM1 and the level of interest received during the informal consultation on the Proposed Development four events were attended by approximately 90 people). It was considered that the number and geographical spread of events would provide sufficient coverage and opportunity for people to attend. However, it was agreed that the times of the planned


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 85

events would be extended to 20:00 hours in the evening, subject to venue availability, to provide further time for the public to attend after work, while an additional event would be arranged at the Cricket Pavilion at Ferrybridge ‘C’ (it was subsequently established that it was not possible to extend the times of the events held at Brotherton Parish Hall and Airedale Library beyond 18.30 and 19.00 hours respectively).

6.28 The officer confirmed that he was satisfied with the above explanation and on the basis of what had been agreed WMDC would be unlikely to have any further comments on the SoCC when it was formally issued to the authority in accordance with Section 47(2). A copy of the note of the meeting that took place is provided at Appendix 6.3.

6.29 The initial draft SoCC was amended in accordance with the discussions that had taken place with WMDC and also took account of the comments received from the other local authorities.

Formal consultation on the Draft SoCC 6.30 The Applicant formally consulted WMDC on the draft SoCC in accordance with Section

47(2) on 23 September 2013. The draft SoCC was accompanied by a ‘SoCC Notice’ and sent by email and also post (Royal Mail Special Delivery). The purpose of the SoCC Notice (as explained in the DCLG ‘Guidance on the pre-application process’ January 2013) is to publicise in a newspaper circulating within the vicinity of the land to which a DCO application relates when and where the SoCC may be inspected. The SoCC Notice removes the need to publish the whole SoCC in a newspaper as was the case for the first applications advanced under the DCO regime.

6.31 The letter advised that the deadline for the receipt of comments by the Applicant was 23 October 2013 (28 days starting with the day after receipt in accordance with Section 47(3)) in addition to the anticipated dates for the publication of the SoCC Notice in the newspapers and the timetable for the community consultation.

6.32 Although the Applicant was only required to consult WMDC on the draft SoCC the decision was once again taken to provide the other Section 43 local authorities with the opportunity to comment on the document. The draft SoCC was sent to these authorities on the same day as WMDC (23 September 2013), again by email and post (Royal Mail Special Delivery), with the authorities being requested to provide any comments by 23 October 2013.

6.33 Copies of the emails and letters sent to WMDC and the other authorities, including the draft SoCC and SoCC Notice and proof of posting are contained at Appendix 6.4.

Feedback on the Draft SoCC 6.34 The following feedback was received from WMDC and other local authorities on the draft

SoCC and SoCC Notice.

Table 6.2 - Feedback on Draft SoCC

No. Local Authority Date of Response

Comments

1. WMDC 08.10.2013 I refer to the above matter and your letter dated 23 September 2013, draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and draft Statement of Community Consultation Notice (SoCC Notice) (all received by email on the 23 September 2013 and by post on the 24 September 2013).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 86



Comments

The draft SoCC and draft SoCC Notice have been reviewed and found to be acceptable with regards to the extent of the proposed consultation, the methodology to be used, the range of venues to be used for the public information events and the availability of information for public consultation. Should there be any change to the SoCC, the scope of the consultation of the dates/times for the consultation to be undertaken, it is requested that the LPA be re-consulted and given the opportunity to provide further informal comments.

2. Selby DC 14.10.2013 I refer to the above Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Project and the submitted Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The Planning Act 2008 provides for a faster and fairer development consents procedure for nationally significant transport, energy, water, waste water and waste infrastructure projects. Under section 50(3) of the Act regard must be had to the Planning Act 2008 Guidance on pre-application consultation document when complying with the provisions of the Act. Part 5 of the Act sets out statutory requirements for pre-application consultation with local communities and the adequacy of such consultation. A previously advised the Council have a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) adopted in December 2007 and although the SCI does not specifically make reference to nationally important infrastructure projects that are to be examined by PINS along with the Planning Act 2008 Guidance on pre-application consultation documents forms the basis of the District Council’s response. The main sections of the SCI that are relevant are: At paragraph 4.19 the SCI details the type of methods to be used for pre-application consultation as; • Press adverts • Community Meetings • Exhibitions (opening hours to include

out of office hours) • Information on village notice boards • Delivery of explanatory leaflets


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 87



Comments

At paragraph 6.8 the SCI refers to the Council’s consultation mission statement that states ‘we will consult as widely and as deeply as possible using the broadest range of traditional, creative and innovative research methods and we will take decisions which are informed by the views of our citizens, customers and communities.’ At Appendix 4 of the SCI the code of practice in relation to carrying out publicity for planning applications is set out. Taking into account the above I would advise that the SoCC is clear and understandable, provides adequate coverage across the areas concerned, identifies the correct communities, correct media to place adverts with, will effectively reach and engage with hard reach groups and matches up with the Council’s expectation in the SCI and the Planning Act 2008 guidance on pre-application consultation.

3. Leeds CC 17.10.2013 Thanks you for your email attaching your draft SoCC. I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the document.

4. Kirklees Council 11.10.2013 Thank you for your letter dated 23 September 2013 concerning the proposed community consultation with regard to the proposed Ferrybridge multifuel 2 power station at Stranglands Lane Knottingley. I would confirm that the Council has no comments to make in connection with the scope of the draft Statement of Community Consultation. However, I understand that the Council will be given a further opportunity to comment once the formal community consultation process commences in November.

5. NYCC 15.10.2013 Pursuant to S47 of the 2008 Planning Act North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) is grateful for having been contacted regarding the draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) for Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Power Station. From a strategic planning standpoint we are satisfied with the draft SoCC and have no further comments to make in conjunction with it. Whilst it is clear that your consultation


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 88



Comments

preparations have been very thorough please find attached the updated Statement of Community Involvement (2013) for the NYCC Minerals & Waste Plan, which we trust may be of some assistance – Appendix D consists of a non-exhaustive List of Consultees.

6.35 The responses received from the local authorities raised no substantive issues in relation to the draft SoCC and SoCC Notice and confirmed that the authorities were in agreement with the content of the documents and the proposed community consultation set out in them.

6.36 The list of consultees contained within the NYCC Minerals & Waste Plan was also taken into account in drawing up the final list of consultees for the formal consultation stage and, where relevant, these were included.

6.37 Copies of the feedback received in relation to the draft SoCC and SoCC Notice are provided at Appendix 6.5.

Minor changes to the Draft SoCC 6.38 Following the receipt of the responses from WMDC and the other Section 43 local

authorities a further review of the draft SoCC and SoCC Notice was undertaken by the project team. Following this review it was felt that the draft SoCC would benefit from a number of minor changes in order to improve the clarity of the SoCC and the explanation of the approach to the proposed community consultation and the consultation activities and events set out within it. The changes that were made are set out in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 - Minor changes to Draft SoCC

No. Section of SoCC Change made 1. Site location - page

2 The site description was amended to reflect the changes that had been made to the proposed application site boundary since the informal consultation and EIA scoping process. Notably these changes included the removal of the corridor of land running to the River Aire from the Application Site and the inclusion of part of Kirkhaw Lane.

2. Project details - fifth bullet point, page 3

The decision was taken to delete the reference to the EA guidance document on CHP. Given that the SoCC is intended to aid the local community’s understanding of the proposed development and the proposed consultation it was considered appropriate to remove the reference to this document, which is of more relevance to technical consultees such as the Environment Agency.

3. The DCO application process - page 4

A number of references to ‘the PINS’ were replaced by ‘PINS’.

4. What we will consult on - bullet points, page 5

The list of bullet points on specific matters that the applicant was seeking comments upon was expanded to include two additional matters relating to 24 hour construction working and also the proposed hours for the delivery of fuel during operation.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 89

Table 6.3 - Minor changes to Draft SoCC

No. Section of SoCC Change made 5. Who we will consult -

third paragraph and map, page 5

Reference to the a 3 km area from the Site (within the overall 5 km Consultation Area) within which it was proposed newsletters would be delivered to homes and business was removed. It was considered that this confused the text, especially as newsletters would be delivered on a ward boundary basis and that some of these wards extended outside the 3 km area and also the 5 km area.

6. Consultation methods - fifth bullet point, page 6

Reference to ‘Public Inspection Venues’ was amended to ‘Public Inspection Locations’ so as to be consistent with the table on page 7.

7. Accessibility to consultation - third paragraph, page 7

The reference to consultation documents being available '"For a small charge..." was amended to "For an appropriate charge…". This was informed by the decision to charge £15 for a CD of the consultation documents and £100 for a hard copy set after CD/document reproduction costs were established.

6.39 While the changes were of a minor nature the Applicant considered that these should be consulted upon. The decision was therefore taken to first discuss the changes with WMDC and then consult the authority upon the changes providing the opportunity to comment. During the discussions with WMDC it was requested that the authority, if possible, provide a response by the 23 October 2013, the end of the original consultation period for the draft SoCC. WMDC confirmed that it would provide a response by this date.

6.40 The decision was taken not to consult the other Section 43 local authorities on the changes on the basis that there was only a statutory requirement to consult WMDC and also taking account of their minor nature.

6.41 An email advising of the changes, accompanied by an amended version of the draft SoCC was sent to WMDC on 21 October 2013. A copy of the email and the amended draft SoCC are provided at Appendix 6.6.

6.42 A response was received from WMDC on 22 October 2013. The response is set out below.

Table 6.4 - WMDC response to minor changes to Draft SoCC


Comments provided

1. WMDC 22.10.2013 Thank you for your email below. A letter dated 8 October 2013 was previously issued to you confirming that the draft SoCC and draft SoCC Notice had been reviewed and found to be acceptable with regards to the extent of the proposed consultation, the methodology to be used, the range of venues to be used for the public information events and the availability of information for public consultation. Subsequently you have advised that a number of minor changes have been


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 90

Table 6.4 - WMDC response to minor changes to Draft SoCC


Comments provided

made to the SoCC – as detailed in your email below – and a revised version of the document has been submitted (attached). I have reviewed the changes made and the wording of the attached document and confirm that they are acceptable and do not alter the position and conclusions set out in my letter of the 8 October 2013. As previously stated, should there be any further changes proposed it is requested that the LPA be re-consulted and given the opportunity to provide further formal comments.

6.43 The response received from WMDC confirmed that the authority had no issues with regard to the minor changes and that these did not alter its position or conclusions set out in its letter of 8 October 2013 responding to the formal consultation on the draft SoCC. A copy of the response is provided at Appendix 6.7.

Availability/Publication of Final SoCC and SoCC Notice 6.44 The final SoCC Notice was published in a number of newspapers as follows:

Table 6.5 - Newspapers used for SoCC Notice Publication

Newspaper Dates Yorkshire Post 25 October & 1 November 2013 Pontefract & Castleford Express 24 & 31 October 2013 Selby Times 24 & 31 October 2013 Goole Times 24 October 2013 Goole & Howden Courier 25 October 2013 Selby Courier 25 October 2013

6.45 The Yorkshire Post is distributed widely across the Yorkshire region, while the Pontefract & Castleford Express and Selby Times are also circulated widely within the area surrounding the Application Site. The publication of the SoCC Notice in these papers for two consecutive weeks was aimed at ensuring as wider publicity for the SoCC and community consultation as possible went significantly beyond the requirement of Section 47(6)(a) to “publish in a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the land, a notice stating where and when the statement can be inspected…”. The SoCC Notice was also published in a number of local free newspapers (e.g. Goole Times).

6.46 The SoCC Notice advised of the public inspection locations where the full SoCC (and other consultation documents for the formal consultation could be viewed between 4 November and 20 December 2013). It also confirmed that the SoCC (and other consultation documents) could be downloaded from the project website, the venues and dates for the public information events (exhibitions), the dates for the formal consultation, the deadline for making comments and how to make these.

6.47 The full SoCC confirmed that the Proposed Development is EIA development and that Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) would be made available as part of the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 91

formal consultation and how this would be consulted upon in accordance with EIA Regulation 10.

6.48 Copies of the SoCC Notice as it appeared in the newspapers are provided at Appendix 6.8 with copies of the final SoCC and SoCC Notice as published and made available to the local community provided at Appendix 6.9.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 92



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 93

7. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 47 ‘DUTY TO CONSULT LOCAL COMMUNITY’

7.1 This section sets out the community consultation that has taken place as part of the formal consultation stage in accordance with Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’ of the PA 2008. This consultation was undertaken in accordance with the consultation objectives and methods set out in the final SoCC.

Who was consulted? 7.2 The Applicant consulted widely on the Proposed Development. A newsletter (Community

Newsletter No. 1) was sent to all local residents and businesses within the political ward that the Application Site is located within (Knottingley ward) and which encompasses the land immediately adjacent to and around the site and the area to the south-east, in addition to the three political wards that lie to the north, east, south-west and west (Fairburn with Brotherton, Pontefract North and Airedale and Ferry Fryston wards). As explained in the SoCC, these wards cover a large proportion of the Formal Consultation Area, with parts of three wards (Knottingley, Fairburn with Brotherton and Pontefract North Wards) extending beyond its 5 km boundary. Rather than excluding these parts of the wards from the newsletter drop, the decision was taken to include them. In total over 23,000 homes and businesses received a copy of the newsletter.

7.3 Local residents and businesses within the remaining parts of the Formal Consultation Area were also included within the consultation and advised of it by a variety of means (explained in greater detail below), including newspaper notices and posters placed at selected publically accessible locations throughout the Formal Consultation Area and just beyond. The newspaper notices (notices were placed in both local papers and the Yorkshire Post) ensured that the consultation was advertised well beyond the 5 km boundary.

7.4 In addition, a number of local political representatives, including the local MPs, local ward and parish councillors as well as members of the existing Community Liaison Group (CLG), were advised of the consultation. The CLG was established to provide a link to the local community and a means by which the community can raise issues with SSE regarding the operation of the Ferrybridge Power Station site and current/future developments. The CLG includes local political representatives and representatives of the Oakhill Park Residents Association. During the informal consultation stage a further local body, The Friends of Fryston Wood (FFW), were identified. The FFW were invited to join the CLG and a representative now attends meetings.

How were they consulted? 7.5 The local community and other local stakeholders were consulted on the Proposed

Development by a number means as set out in the final SoCC. These include:

Community Newsletter

7.6 As confirmed above, a newsletter (Community Newsletter No.1) was sent to all local residents and businesses with the political wards of Knottingley (containing the Site) and those to the north, east, south-west and west of the Site (Fairburn with Brotherton, Pontefract North and Airedale and Ferry Fryston) advising of the formal consultation. The newsletter was sent out to over 23,083 households and businesses on 22 October 2013.

7.7 The newsletter provided the following information:

• Details about the Applicant, the Application Site and the Proposed Development.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 94

• The need for the Proposed Development, including how it will contribute to the security of energy supplies, generation of low carbon electricity and reducing the amount of waste that is sent to landfill.

• Changes made to the Proposed Development following the informal consultation stage.

• Specific matters and issues that feedback is sought on from the local community.

• The information that would be available to review as part of the consultation and how this could be viewed and obtained.

• How the DCO application process works and the timetable for the Application.

• Venues, dates and times for the public inspection locations (where the consultation materials could be viewed) and for the public information events (exhibitions).

• The duration of the consultation and the deadline for making comments.

• How the Applicant could be contacted and the means by which comments could be made.

7.8 A copy of the Newsletter and proof of delivery from the Royal Mail is provided at Appendix 7.1.

Media Releases/Coverage

7.9 A media release was issued by the Applicant on 22 October 2013 advising of the formal consultation. This was issued to local newspapers operating within the Formal Consultation Area, including the Pontefract & Castleford Express and the Selby Times.

7.10 The media release advised of the public information events taking place, the duration of the consultation and the deadline for making comments. It also confirmed that the consultation materials would be available at a number of public inspection locations and on the project website.

7.11 Following the media release a short article was run by the Pontefract & Castleford Express on 31 October 2013 on the plans for the consultation.

7.12 A further media release was issued on 19 November 2013 following the conclusion of the public information events providing information on the number of people who had attended the events and confirming that the Applicant would continue to engage with the local community and stakeholders in the lead up to the submission of the Application.

7.13 Copies of the media release and related press article are provided at Appendix 7.2.

Posters

7.14 A poster advising of the consultation was placed at a number of publically accessible locations on 24 October 2013 within and just beyond the boundary of the Formal Consultation Area, in addition to Ferrybridge Power Station site and the nearby Siniat offices (as major employers within the area). The poster was placed on notice boards, at post offices, community facilities/venues (such as libraries) and in shops and public houses.

7.15 The poster, which was placed at in excess of 50 different locations advised of the public information events, the duration of the consultation, the deadline for making comments and the means by which comments could be made.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 95

7.16 A copy of the poster, a list of the locations where the poster was placed, a plan of the towns and villages where it was placed and also photographs of some of the posters in place are provided at Appendix 7.3.

Newspaper Notices

7.17 As confirmed in Section 6, a SoCC Notice was published in the following newspapers (Appendix 6.8):

Table 7.1 - Newspapers used for SoCC Notice Publication

Newspaper Dates Yorkshire Post 25 October & 1 November 2013 Pontefract & Castleford Express 24 & 31 October 2013 Selby Times 24 & 31 October 2013 Goole Times 24 October 2013 Goole & Howden Courier 25 October 2013 Selby Courier 25 October 2013

7.18 The newspaper notices advised of the following:

• Details about the Applicant, the Application Site and the Proposed Development.

• The fact that a SoCC had been prepared.

• The consultation process including the duration of consultation and the deadline for comments.

• The information that would be available to review as part of the consultation and how this could be viewed and obtained.

• Venues, dates and times for the public inspection location (where the consultation materials could be viewed) and for the public information events (exhibitions).

• How the Applicant can be contacted and the means by which comments could be made.

Public Inspection Locations

7.19 A number of ‘public inspection locations’ were identified by the Applicant within and close to the Formal Consultation Area. The inspection locations were selected on the basis that they were all located within or around the Formal Consultation Area and were publically accessible buildings, including within large urban locations such as Wakefield and Leeds, that are frequently visited by the public (e.g. Wakefield nearest main urban area etc). The selection of venues was also informed by the consultation that had been undertaken in relation to FM1.

7.20 The inspection locations were visited by members of the project team and arrangements made with the relevant organisations for hard copies of the consultation materials to be deposited at the venues for public viewing in advance of the formal consultation stage commencing on 4 November 2013. The consultation materials were hand delivered by a member of the project team to each of the venues on 30 October 2013. Details of the inspection locations are set out in Table 7.2.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 96

Table 7.2 - Public Inspection Locations

Locations Opening Times Pontefract Library Shoemarket, Pontefract WF8 1BD

Monday to Friday (except Thursday): 09:30 - 19:00 Saturday: 09:00 - 16:00

Knottingley Library Knottingley Sports Centre, Hill Top, Pontefract Road, Knottingley, Pontefract WF11 8EE

Monday: 14:00 - 19:00 Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 09:00 - 19:00 Thursday: 09:00 - 13:00 Saturday: 09:00 - 13:30

Airedale Library and Learning Centre The Square, Airedale, Castleford WF10 3JJ

Monday & Wednesday: 09:00 - 19:30 Tuesday & Friday: 09:00 - 17:00 Thursday: 09:00 - 18:00 Saturday: 09:30 - 16:00 Sunday: 10:30 – 13:00

Castleford Library 2 Sagar Street, Castleford WF10 1AF

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 09:00 - 17:30 Thursday: 09:00 - 19:00 Saturday: 09:00 - 15:00

Wakefield Council Offices Wakefield One, Burton Street, Wakefield WF1 2EB (for sat-navs WF1 2DD)

Monday to Friday: 08:30 - 17:00

Leeds Central Library Municipal Buildings, Calverley Street, Leeds LS1 3AB

Monday to Wednesday: 09:00 - 20:00 Thursday & Friday: 09:00 - 17:00 Saturday: 10:00 - 17:00 Sunday: 13:00 – 17:00

Selby Library 52 Micklegate, Selby YO8 4EQ

Monday: 09:30 - 19:30 Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 09:30 - 17:30 Thursday & Saturday: 09:30 - 12:30

7.21 The availability of the consultation materials at these venues was advertised through the newsletters, press releases, posters and newspaper notices.

7.22 A member of the project team visited Pontefract Library, Knottingley Library, Airedale Library, Castleford Library, the WMDC offices and Selby Library on 27 November 2013 to ensure that copies of all the consultation materials were still available for the public to view. Leeds Central Library was visited on 6 December 2013. All of the venues were revisited on 11 December 2013. In a few cases consultation materials had been removed and were missing. These were replaced at the time of the visit.

Public Information Events

7.23 A number of ‘public information events’ (exhibitions) were arranged by the Applicant to take place during the early part of the formal consultation. The venues, dates and times of the events were agreed with WMDC (and the other relevant authorities) as part of the consultation on the preparation of the SoCC. As a result of this consultation with WMDC an additional event was added (at the Ferrybridge Cricket Pavilion) and, subject to venue availability, the times of the events were extended to 20.00 hours to the opportunity for people to attend during the early evening, particularly people who had been at work during the day. Details of the events are provided in Table 7.3.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 97

Table 7.3 - Public Information Events

Venue Date Time Ferrybridge Cricket Pavilion Ferrybridge Power Station, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley WF11 8RA

Wednesday 6 November 2013

14:00 – 20:00

Monk Fryston Hall Hotel Monk Fryston, North Yorkshire LS25 5DU

Thursday 7 November 2013

14:00 – 20:00

Ferrybridge Community Centre The Square, Ferrybridge, Knottingley WF11 8PQ

Friday 8 November 2013 14:00 – 20:00

Pontefract Town Hall Bridge Street, Pontefract WF8 1PG

Saturday 9 November 2013

10:00 – 14:00

Airedale Library The Square, Airedale, Castleford WF11 3JJ

Monday 11 November 2013

14:00 – 19:00

Brotherton Parish Hall Tadcaster Road, Brotherton, Knottingley WF11 9HJ

Tuesday 12 November 2013

13:30 – 18:30

Ferrybridge Cricket Pavilion Ferrybridge Power Station, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley WF11 8RA

Wednesday 13 November 2013

14:00 – 20:00

7.24 A total of seven public information events were held between 6 and 13 November 2013. In order to maximise attendance at the events they were advertised widely through the newsletter, media releases, posters and newspaper notices.

7.25 The public information events were seen as an integral part of the formal consultation as these provided the local community and local groups and businesses with the opportunity to view information on the Proposed Development, talk to members of the project team and also communicate their thoughts, comments and concerns. Those attending the events were asked to enter their contact details on an ‘Attendance Sheet’ to provide a record of their attendance as well as a means by which they could be subsequently contacted by the Applicant if considered necessary. In addition, they were also requested to fill in a ‘Feedback Form’.

7.26 Copies of the event boards are provided at Appendix 7.4.

Community/Local Political Briefings

7.27 The existing CLG was used as a means of advising the local community and political representatives of the formal consultation. The scheduled quarterly meeting on 9 October 2013 was used to inform members of the consultation and what information was to be provided on the Proposed Development. A copy of the note of the meeting is provided at Appendix 7.5.

7.28 In addition to the above, a number of local political representatives, including the local MPs, local ward and parish councillors (as well as members of the CLG), were contacted on 22 October 2013 to advise them of the formal consultation. The information sent advised of the consultation programme and the public information events. These representatives were invited to a briefing to be held between 12.30 and 14.00 prior to the first public information event on 6 November 2013. A number of local councillors attended the briefing. A copy of the email sent and details of those it was sent to are provided at Appendix 7.6.

7.29 Members of the project team also attended a meeting of the Western Community Engagement Forum (CEF), which covers the part of Selby DC adjoining the Ferrybridge


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 98

Power Station site, at Monk Fryston Primary School on 3 December 2013 to provide an update to local residents on the Proposed Development. A note of the meeting is provided at Appendix 7.7.

Project Website/Helpline

7.30 A project website (Appendix 4.7) and helpline had been established in May 2013 in advance of the informal consultation stage to provide background information on the Applicant and the Proposed Development, the details of consultation events, downloadable versions of consultation materials, in addition to a means by which to contact the Applicant and make comments (via a project email address, helpline and online Feedback Form).

7.31 All of the consultation materials made available at the public inspection locations and events (including those sent to the Section 42 consultees) were available to download on the project website from the 4 November 2013 (the start of the formal consultation process).

7.32 Access to the project website was advertised to the local community through the newsletter, press release, posters and newspaper notices.

What were they consulted upon/what information was provided? 7.33 The objective of the formal consultation stage was to consult the local community on the

Proposed Development generally, but at the same time to highlight the changes made since the informal consultation stage and to invite comments upon these. These changes included:

• A reduction in the overall area of the Application Site but with the inclusion of some new areas of land (notably part of Kirkhaw Lane) for potential utilities connections.

• A reduction in the number of combustion lines from three to two, reducing the width of the boiler hall building.

• A reduction in the number of fuel storage bunker options with the removal of the below water table option following consultation with the Environment Agency.

• Selection of air cooling as the cooling technology instead of hybrid water based cooling, removing the potential for ‘fogging’ on the A1(M) that was a concern for the Highways Agency and also the need to include a corridor of land to the River Aire for cooling water pipelines, consequently reducing the overall area of the Application Site.

• Fixing the height (136 mAOD) and location of the emissions stack following air dispersion modelling and consultation with the Environment Agency.

• Fixing the location of the air cooled condenser (ACC), to use other buildings of the Proposed Development to shield local residents from any noise emissions arising from the condenser.

• The inclusion of an alternative vehicular access route to the Site for staff (cars and LGVs) for use during construction and operation.

7.34 As part of the formal consultation, the Applicant made clear that certain aspects of the Proposed Development were largely fixed due to technical, economic, environmental and health and safety considerations. These aspects included the maximum dimensions/design parameters (e.g. height, width and length) of certain buildings and items of plant adopted for the purposes of the EIA, for example the height of the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 99

emissions stack that is influenced by the need to ensure adequate dispersion of emissions to air from the multifuel power station. Comments were though specifically sought on the following aspects of the Proposed Development:

• The initial findings of the environmental assessment of the Proposed Development reported within the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) report, including information relating to matters such as air quality, noise and vibration, traffic and transportation and landscape and visual effects.

• The proposed design and appearance of the fuel storage bunker.

• The proposed construction working hours.

• The proposed fuel delivery hours during operation.

7.35 The following information was provided:

• The letter sent to the Section 42 and ‘non-prescribed’ consultees providing a description of the Proposed Development and information on the formal consultation.

• A Site Location Plan.

• A plan showing the extent of the proposed Application Site.

• Indicative layout, elevation and grid connection option drawings.

• 3D visualisations/photomontages showing how the Proposed Development may look.

• A video showing a typical energy from waste combustion process.

• A Vissim transport model showing traffic movements within the vicinity of the Site.

• A Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report, including a non-technical summary, setting out the findings of the environmental assessments of the Proposed Development that had been carried prior to the consultation.

• The final SoCC.

• The published SoCC Notice.

• Community Newsletter No. 1.

• The Section 48 Notice to be published in relevant newspapers.

7.36 The above information was made available at all public inspection locations during the course of the consultation and all the public information events (exhibitions) held between 6 and 13 November 2013. It was also made available to download from the project website and in electronic (CD) and hard copy form on request for a charge. The availability of the information was advertised by the newsletter, press release, posters and newspapers notices in advance of the start of the formal consultation on 4 November 2013.

7.37 The consultation material is provided at Appendix 7.8.

When did the consultation take place? 7.38 Following advance notice and publicity (through the newsletter, press release, posters

and newspaper notices) the formal community consultation commenced upon 4 November and ran to 20 December 2013. The timing of the consultation avoided the main school holiday period and any public holidays, concluding in advance of the Christmas holidays. The overall duration of the consultation (46 days) significantly


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 100

exceeded the minimum period (28 days) that is generally considered to be acceptable for public consultation.

7.39 The consultation publicity and materials clearly stated that the formal consultation period was to finish on 20 December 2013 and that comments must be received by the Applicant no later than 5pm on that day.

How could feedback be provided? 7.40 During the course of the formal consultation between 4 November and 20 December

2013 it was possible to provided feedback/make comments by the following means:



• By calling the project comments/helpline 01977 884 314 and speaking with a member of the project team.

• By filling out a ‘Feedback Form’ on the project website www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2.

• By filling out a Feedback Form’ at one of the public information events held between 6 and 13 November 2013.


7.41 The different means by which to provide feedback were advertised through the newsletter, media release, posters and newspaper notices.

7.42 The Feedback Form that was made available on the project website and which people attending the public information events were asked to complete, asked a number of questions with regard to the Proposed Development, including in relation to the options that were being considered in relation to the fuel storage bunker, construction working hours and operational delivery hours. The Feedback Form also sought comments in relation to the PEI and specific topics such as traffic and access and noise. A copy of the Feedback Form is contained at Appendix 7.9.

7.43 The SoCC also confirmed that where people were unable to read or access the consultation materials or were unable to provide written comments, the Applicant would make every effort to ensure that their views were recorded by arranging for a member of the project team (or independent facilitator) to record their comments. No such requests were received.

Compliance with the SoCC 7.44 The final SoCC contained a number of commitments in terms of the community

consultation that the Applicant proposed to undertake. How these commitments have been met during the consultation is set out in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 - Compliance with SoCC

SoCC Commitment

What was done

What we will consult on - (SoCC, page 5) The SoCC made clear that the consultation would seek comments on the Proposed Development in its

In addition to the SoCC itself, the Community Newsletter (No.1) (sent to over 23,000 residents and businesses) and also the public information event boards clearly communicated the specific issues that comments were being sought upon from the community. A range of consultation


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 101


SoCC Commitment

What was done

entirety but also confirmed that certain aspects were largely fixed due to various considerations. Comments were specifically sought on the changes resulting from the informal consultation; the initial findings of the environmental assessment work; the design and appearance of the fuel storage bunker and construction working and operational fuel delivery hours. In addition, it stated that comments received would be taken into account during the finalisation of the proposal where practical and feasible.

materials were also provided at the public information events and inspection locations and on line, including the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report setting out the initial findings of the environmental assessment work. How the Applicant has had regard to comments received from the public to the S.47 consultation is set out in Section 12 (Table 12.3) of the Consultation Report.

Who we will consult - who is was proposed to consult (SoCC, page 5) The SoCC committed to consult local residents, businesses and community groups and organisations within 5 km of the Application Site (the Formal Consultation Area). This included sending newsletters to all residents and businesses within the Knottingley, Fairburn with Brotherton, Pontefract North and Airedale and Ferry Fryston Wards, including the parts of these wards extending beyond the 5 km area. The consultation was to be publicised in the remainder of the Formal Consultation Area through local and regional newspapers, posters and the project website.

A Community Newsletter (Appendix 7.1) was sent to all local businesses and residents living within the political wards identified in the SoCC (over 23,000 newsletters were sent). The consultation was publicised within the remainder of the Formal Consultation Area by media releases (Appendix 7.2), various newspaper notices (Table 7.1 and Appendix 6.8), posters (Appendix 7.3) and on the project website. The newspaper notices (in particular those placed in the Yorkshire Post) ensured that the consultation was publicised well beyond the Consultation Area. The CLG was notified at its meeting on 9 October 2013 (Appendix 7.5) and members of the CLG, along with local political representatives were subsequently written to prior to the start of the consultation (Appendix 7.6) to advise them of the start of the consultation. A briefing was also provided to the Western CEF on 3 December 2013 (Appendix 7.7).

How we will consult/consultation methods (SoCC, page 6) The SoCC committed to sending direct invitations to the consultation events to local residents and businesses, community groups and other organisations within the Formal Consultation Area, parish councils wholly or partly within the Consultation Area and councillors, MPs and MEPs representing the local community within the Consultation Area. It also committed to using a range of methods to consult people.

Direct invitations were sent to local residents and businesses through the Community Newsletter, while community groups and local political representatives were contacted directly and either offered briefings or invited to events (see above). All parish councils either wholly or partly within the Consultation Area were sent the same information as the Section 42 consultees (Section 5, Table 5.6). All of the consultation methods set out in the SoCC were employed, including: A Community Newsletter (Appendix 7.1); Newspapers (Table 7.1 and Appendix 6.8); responses to frequently asked questions ‘FAQs’ (made available on the website); public inspection locations and information events (Tables 7.2 and 7.3); stakeholder briefing/workshops (Appendices


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 102


SoCC Commitment

What was done

7.5, 7.6 and 7.7); and questionnaire/comments forms (the Feedback Form Appendix 7.9). In addition, media releases and posters were used to publicise the consultation along with the website.

Consultation responses (SoCC, page 6) The SoCC committed to ensuring that all responses received to the consultation were carefully considered and where appropriate taken into account in the development of the proposals. Also, that details of any responses and the account taken of these would be included in the Consultation Report.

All responses received to the community consultation were logged upon receipt with the comments being entered into a S.47 consultation schedule. Acknowledgement letters were sent to all those who submitted comments (where contact details had been provided) (Appendix 7.11). Following consideration of the comments received individual responses were issued (again, where contact details had been supplied) (Appendix 7.12 ). How the Applicant has had regard to the responses received in finalising the Proposed Development is detailed at Section 12, Tables 12.1 and 12.3. Details of the responses are provided at Appendix 7.12.

Accessibility to consultation (page 7) The SoCC committed to ensuring that the consultation information used non-technical language and that the PEI would include a non-technical summary. Also, that there would be a project helpline and email address; that consultation documents would be made available for those without internet access; where people could not read the documents or are unable to provide written comments an independent facilitator or member of the project would record their comments; and that all meetings and consultation events would be held at accessible venues.

The Community Newsletter and public information event boards were drafted in non-technical language and where it was necessary to use technical terms these were explained. A non-technical summary for the PEI was provided to aid understanding of the environmental assessment work and the project helpline and email address were set up before the consultation. In addition, venues were arranged across the Formal Consultation Area for the inspection locations for consultation documents and the public information events. This was aimed at making the consultation as accessible to the local community as possible. All of the venues used were public venues or venues that are used on a regular basis for public events. The Applicant did not receive any requests from individual members of the public to meet with them to take them through the consultation documents and record their comments.

7.45 Table 7.4 demonstrates that the Applicant has fulfilled the commitments set out in the SoCC with regard to community consultation. Furthermore, in fulfilling these commitments the Applicant has met the key objectives for the consultation (set out in the SoCC) to raise awareness of the Proposed Development and provide a range of opportunities for people to comment; to provide clear and concise information; to invite feedback and to show how this has been taken into account.

Summary of the response to the consultation 7.46 The public information events (exhibitions) held between 6 and 13 November 2013 were

attended by 116 people in total, primarily members of the public. The Attendance Sheets have been provided separately to PINS but have not been appended to this Report as they include personal information.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 103

7.47 A total of 27 Feedback Forms were received either at or following the events. Six letters/emails providing comments were also received. As within the informal consultation, not all members of the public who completed a Feedback Form or provided comments supplied contact details.

7.48 Copies of the completed Feedback Forms, letters/emails and recorded comments are provided at Appendix 7.10.

7.49 As with the informal consultation, the majority of those who completed the Feedback Form questions recognised the importance of finding alternative ways of generating electricity (Question 1). Of the 21 people who answered this question, over 75% either strongly agreed or agreed. In respect of Question 3, which set out a number of options for delivery hours, Option 1 deliveries between 0700-1830 hours Monday to Saturday received most support, although views were also expressed about deliveries being changed with the seasons and avoiding peak periods. With regard to the fuel storage bunker design (Question 4) the majority expressed a preference for the below ground option. Again, the majority of people responded very positively as to how useful (Question 12) the consultation had been.

7.50 The issues raised by the local community during the Section 47 community consultation have been grouped under the following topic headings and are summarised in Table 7.5 below.

Table 7.5 - Summary of Issues raised by the Section 47 Consultation

Topic Heading

Issues

Air quality and emissions

• Importance of good air quality. • Air quality will be poor from combustion of refuse. • Already enough pollution with Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1. • Upgrade Ferrybridge. ‘C’ to meet emissions standards. • Concerns regarding the plume over Brotherton. • Concern over smoke and steam emissions • Additional CO2 will not improve air quality as will contain

dioxins. • Need for air quality monitoring in villages in our villages

(e.g. Monk Fryston). • No monitoring has taken place to the east which is likely

to be the area most affected • Pollution from traffic. • Cumulative effects on air quality with FM1 and A1(M)

need to be taken into account. Health • Need for full Health Impact Assessment

• General effects on health - more children in the area have chest problems requiring inhalers and nebulizers.

• Recent measurements taking by A.I.R.E group indicate that PM2.5 levels are considerably greater than the desktop estimates which downplay the impact on health/health impacts.

• Smoke generated by the Proposed Development will not be good for health.

Ash and dust deposition

• Ash and dust is already deposited within the area and is a problem.

• Concern that ash and dust deposition will become worse. • Monk Fryston and Hillham down wind and suffer from

grit. Odour • Concern over odour from HGVs delivering refuse to the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 104


Topic Heading

Issues

Site. Noise • Already noise from Ferrybridge ‘C’, which will be made

worse. • Noise should be limited in the early morning/night-time. • Concern over 24 hour construction working. • Increase in HGVs will lead to increase in noise. • A162 River Aire road bridge should be sound-proofed to

limit noise travelling down the river to residents. • Vibration from the A162 road bridge can be felt in the

local properties. • Need for compensation/sound-proofing to residential

properties due to increase in noise. • Reversing bleepers on vehicles should not be used

during night-time hours as this is already an issue. • Need for noise monitoring.

Road traffic/vehicle movements

• Concern over HGVs passing through Ferrybridge and surrounding villages.

• Control over HGV routing. • Concern over delivery routes in A1(M) or M62 are shut. • Do not schedule deliveries between 08.00-09.30 and

15.30-18.00 to avoid peak periods. • Delivery times should alter by season. • Number of deliveries. • Increase in HGV traffic and impact on residential

properties on the A162 south of Ferrybridge and the A645 and slip road north.

• Impact of suspension of coal deliveries to Ferrybridge ‘C’ on road network with both FM1 and the Proposed Development operational.

• No proposals for environmental/road improvements that will reduce environmental impact or compensate for the reduction in the quality of life and diminution of property values.

• Access for deliveries should be via Kirkhaw Lane to reduce traffic levels on Stranglands Lane.

• Consider new slip road from A1(M). • Number and frequency of HGVs crossing the A162 River

Aire road bridge emitting CO2, litter and noise. • Concerns about the junction on Stranglands Lane and

Kirkhaw Lane - needs traffic lights if it is not to be re-modelled

Rail/canal transport • Rail should be used for the transport of fuel and ash. • The use of barge should be investigated as an option for

fuel deliveries. • The use of these modes of transport has not been

considered. • The use of rail and river transport will improve air quality.

Need • No local need for waste processing capacity Fuel supply/ source

• Approach Shanks re fuel supply as have local waste contracts.

• Why are we burning other countries waste? • Suggest coal should be used first.

Generating capacity • Generating capacity of 70MWe (net) is a poor return for the amount of disruption.

• Generating capacity not sufficient to replace Ferrybridge


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 105


Topic Heading

Issues

‘C’ coal fired Power Station. Combustion process • A temperature of 850 degrees Celsius is not sufficient to

safely burn waste without resulting in the release of toxic gases and wastes. 1250 degrees Celsius is considered to be the minimum level at which waste can be safely burned.

• Will produce toxic ash which will be transported by road through the local community.

Design/ appearance/ landscaping

• Fuel storage bunker is close to River Aire and there are known to be flooding problems.

• Buildings should be wholly above ground due to River Aire.

• Building heights should be kept as low as possible/elevations should be kept as low as possible.

• Power station is already an eyesore without making it bigger.

• Building design should be more sympathetic. • Large structures, not easy to screen. • Extensive landscaping required.

Lighting • External lighting should be designed to not spread beyond the Site boundary and light spill should be limited.

• Will the Proposed Development have appropriate floodlighting?

• Aviation warning lighting on the stack should be avoided Proximity to residential areas

• Build away from residential areas.

Flooding • Junction at Ferrybridge (under the railway bridge on Stranglands Lane) floods on a regular basis and will affect traffic flows.

• Works should be undertaken to improve drainage. Archaeology • Has an archaeology survey been carried out? Ecology/ biodiversity and green infrastructure

• Potential impact of emissions on local ecology. • Need to protect designated sites such as the Brotherton

Ings from any accidents or impacts that may have off-site effects.


• Want to see the local economy benefitting from jobs. • Should employ local and national skilled workers. • Apprenticeships should be offered.

Combined heat and power

• There has previously been a district heating scheme in the area. Could this be resurrected?

Carbon emissions • Carbon emissions will be increased. • Any emissions savings will be reduced by number of

vehicle movements. Consultation • People were not aware of consultation/there was late

notification of events. • Lack of consultation in Monk Fryston and Hillam for FM1.


• Community benefit fund should be set up. • Contribution should be made to Brotherton Lunch Club. • Funding for tennis courts. • Support youth provision and community centre

development project in Selby. • Fund new village hall in Brotherton/Byram.

FM1 • Impact of FM1 unknown - application is premature • Actual noise from FM1 would be useful.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 106


Topic Heading

Issues

• Noise from FM1 been excessive and source of some noise yet to be identified.

• Actual experience of noise from FM1 would be useful. • Application should be postponed until FM1 becomes

operational so the cumulative impact can be properly assessed

• Will FM1 car parks be used? Other • Environmental Permit.

• Changes to Application Site. • Suggest bigger plant should be constructed to replace

coal fire power station. • Will there be an FM3

7.51 Following the close of the Section 47 community consultation on 20 December 2013, the Applicant wrote to all those persons who had completed a Feedback Form or submitted comments by other means (where contact details had been provided) acknowledging receipt of their comments, and confirming that these would be reviewed and taken into account. An example copy of the letter that was sent is provided at Appendix 7.11.

7.52 Following a period of reviewing the comments received, responses were issued to those persons who had provided contact details. The responses made also included people who had made comments during the Stage 1 informal community consultation. The comments received to the Section 47 consultation and the responses made by the Applicant are provided at Appendix 7.12.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 107



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 108

8. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 42 ‘DUTY TO CONSULT’

8.1 This section sets out the consultation that has taken place in accordance with Section 42 ‘Duty to consult’ of the PA 2008. This also covers the ‘non-prescribed’ consultees who were included within this consultation.

Who was consulted? 8.2 The Applicant consulted the ‘prescribed persons’ (Table 5.1, Section 5), relevant statutory

undertakers (Table 5.2), the relevant (Section 43) local authorities (Table 5.3) and persons within Categories 1, 2 and 3 of Section 44 (Tables 5.4 and 5.5). As confirmed in Section 5, the land referencing work was an iterative process and a number of changes were made to the Book of Reference prior to it being finalised at the end of May 2014. This necessitated three additional limited rounds of Section 42 consultation following the close of the original Section 42 consultation on 20 December 2013. One additional non-prescribed consultee was also identified and consulted after the close of the original consultation.

8.3 Consistent with the Applicant’s objective to consult widely on the Proposed Development, a number of ‘non-prescribed’ consultees (Table 5.6, Section 5) were also consulted in the same manner as the Section 42 consultees and provided with the same information. These non-prescribed consultees included a number of bodies identified prior to the formal consultation that it was considered appropriate to consult. The reasons for consulting these bodies are set out at Section 5 (Table 5.6).

How were they consulted? 8.4 All the Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees that were identified by the Applicant

were consulted by letter sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery, accompanied by a CD containing the consultation documents. In addition, in the cases where email contact details where known, the letter was sent by email with a link to the consultation documents on the project website.

8.5 Where additional Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees were identified after the close of the original Section 42 consultation (20 December 2013), they were also consulted in the same manner (letter sent by Special Delivery and, where possible, email).

8.6 In addition to the above, the relevant Section 42 consultees (prescribed persons Section 42(a) and relevant local authorities Section 42(b)) were also notified in accordance with EIA Regulation 11 and provided with a copy of the notice that was to be placed in national, local and other newspapers publicising the proposed DCO application in accordance with Section 48 of the PA 2008 (the Section 48 Notice).

8.7 Example copies of the letters, emails and Section 48 Notice sent to consultees (Section 42 and non-prescribed) for the original consultation, are provided at Appendix 8.1. Example copies of the letters sent to the additional consultees identified after the close of the original consultation are provided at Appendix 8.2.

8.8 In a small number of cases consultation letters had to be resent. This was either where they could not be delivered to an address (there was no one to sign for the letter) or the address details that had originally been provided were incorrect.

8.9 Appendix 8.3 contains a schedule that provides a record of when the letters were sent, when they were signed for/received, in addition to Royal Mail ‘proof of posting’ records.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 109

In all cases, the letters were received on a date that provided the consultees with at least the statutory minimum period to comment (28 days starting with the day after the receipt). Where letter were sent abroad additional time was allowed.

8.10 There were only two cases of where there was some uncertainty as to whether letters were delivered. This related to letters that were sent to two related potentially affected landownership interests (identified through the Book of Reference) who were found to be resident in Nova Scotia, Canada. Letters had originally been sent to their UK addresses at which family members were known to reside. The Royal Mail was unable to provide a record that the letters sent to Canada had been received. It is however considered that the Applicant has made reasonable efforts to contact these individuals.

8.11 At the time of the original consultation the ownership of part of the Application Site (part of Kirkhaw Lane) was unknown. This land was unregistered and therefore Ardent erected a site notice in two locations on Kirkhaw Lane in the vicinity of the unregistered land notifying people of the formal consultation and requesting information. A copy of the site notice and photographs of it in place are provided at Appendix 5.2).

What were they consulted upon/what information was provided? 8.12 The letter and consultation materials sent to the Section 42 and non-prescribed

consultees were aimed at providing them with sufficient information to comment upon the Proposed Development in its entirety. In addition, the consultation, through the various consultation materials, sought to explain and highlight the evolution of the Proposed Development and, in particular, the changes that had been made since the informal consultation stage, inviting comments upon these. The changes included:

• A reduction in the overall area of the Application Site but with the inclusion of some new areas of land (notably part of Kirkhaw Lane) for potential utilities connections.

• A reduction in the number of combustion lines from three to two, reducing the width of the boiler hall building.

• A reduction in the number of fuel storage bunker options with the removal of the below water table option following consultation with the Environment Agency.

• Selection of air cooling as the cooling technology instead of hybrid water based cooling, removing the potential for ‘fogging’ on the A1(M) that was a concern for the Highways Agency and also the need to include a corridor of land to the River Aire for cooling water pipelines, consequently reducing the overall area of the Application Site).

• Fixing the height (136 mAoD) and location of the emissions stack following air dispersion modelling and consultation with the Environment Agency.

• Fixing the location of the air cooled condenser (ACC), to use other buildings of the Proposed Development to shield local residents from any noise emissions arising from the condensers.

• The inclusion of an alternative vehicular access route to the Site for staff (cars and LGVs) for use during construction and operation.

8.13 As part of the formal consultation, the Applicant did, however, make clear that certain aspects of the Proposed Development were largely fixed due to technical, economic, environmental and health and safety considerations. These aspects included the maximum dimensions/design parameters (e.g. height, width and length) of certain buildings and items of plant adopted for the purposes of the EIA, for example the height


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 110

of the emissions stack that is influenced by the need to ensure adequate dispersion of emissions to air from the power station. Comments were though specifically sought on the following aspects of the Proposed Development:

• The initial findings of the environmental assessment of the Proposed Development reported within the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) report, including information relating to matters such as air quality, noise and vibration, traffic and transportation and landscape and visual effects.

• The proposed design and appearance of the fuel storage bunker.

• The proposed construction working hours.

• The proposed fuel delivery hours during operation.

8.14 The following information (Appendix 7.8) was provided to the consultees to enable them to consider the Proposed Development and make comments where considered appropriate:

• A letter providing a description of the Proposed Development and information on the formal consultation.

• A Site Location Plan.

• A plan showing the extent of the proposed Application Site.

• Indicative layout, elevation and grid connection option drawings.

• 3D visualisations/photomontages showing how the Proposed Development may look.

• A Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report, including a non-technical summary, setting out the findings of the environmental assessments of the Proposed Development that had been carried prior to the consultation.

• The final SoCC.

• The published SoCC Notice.

• Community Newsletter No. 1.

• The Section 48 Notice to be published in relevant newspapers.

8.15 The letter advised consultees that a hard copy of the documents could be provided on request for a charge.

8.16 Exactly the same information was sent to the additional Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees identified and consulted after the close of the original round of consultation in December 2013.

When did the consultation take place? 8.17 The original round of Section 42 and non-prescribed consultation took place on 31

October and 1 November 2013. The letters sent to consultees clearly advised that the consultation would formally commence on 4 November and run to 20 December 2013, with comments needing to be received by the Applicant by 5pm on the latter date (see example letters at Appendix 8.1). The timing of the consultation therefore avoided main school holiday periods and concluded in advance of the Christmas holiday.

8.18 The additional rounds of Section 42 and non-prescribed consultation took place in February and March 2014. The additional non-prescribed consultation involved consulting the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Service. This body was contacted on the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 111

recommendation of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The letters sent to the additional consultees set a date by which comments should be received (Appendix 8.2).

8.19 Details of the various rounds of consultation are provided in Table 8.1 below.

Table 8.1 - Section 42 and Non-Prescribed Consultation Dates

Round of Consultation

Date of Consultation Deadline for comments

Original S.42 consultation 31 October 2013 20 December 2013 Original ‘non-prescribed’ consultation

1 November 2013 20 December 2013

1st round additional S.42 consultation

5 February 2014 7 March 2014

1st round additional ‘non-prescribed’ consultation


2nd round additional S.42 consultation

17 March 2014 15 April 2014

3rd round additional S.42 consultation

28 March 2014 28 April 2014 (1 May 2014 – overseas addressees)

8.20 Table 8.1 confirms that the period allowed for comments in relation to the original round of Section 42 and non-prescribed consultation was significantly in excess of the statutory minimum required by Section 45 of the PA 2008 (28 days beginning with the day after the day the consultation documents are received). The deadline of 20 December provided consultees with 46 days to comment from the start of the Stage 2 formal consultation on 4 November 2013.

8.21 It was considered appropriate to apply a more limited period in relation to the additional rounds of consultation. However, in all cases, consultees were provided with the minimum period stipulated by Section 45 to comment. Furthermore, the fact that the Applicant was prepared to take into account late responses up to the end of May 2014 meant that in reality the additional consultees were afforded in excess of the minimum period.

How could feedback be provided? 8.22 The consultation letters and materials advised that it was possible to provided

feedback/make comments by the following means:



• By calling the project comments/helpline 01977 884 314 and speaking with a member of the project team.

• By filling out a ‘Feedback Form’ on the project website www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2.

• By filling out a Feedback Form’ at one of the public information events held between 6 and 13 November 2013.


8.23 All of the comments received from Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees were received in email and/or letter form.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 112

Summary of the response to the consultation 8.24 In total, 45 [GB - check] written responses were received to the consultation from the

Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees. Of these, 39 [GB – check] responses were received before the close of the original round of consultation on 20 December 2013 (30 [check] from Section 42 consultees and nine from non-prescribed consultees) with five (all Section 42 consultees) received after this date.

8.25 The responses received after 20 December 2013 included late responses to the original consultation from Yorkshire Water, the Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust and BT. Responses were received from Ericsson MBNL and the NHS Trust Development Authority to the additional rounds of consultation. The late responses received were taken into account with the other responses.

8.26 NYCC formally responded to the Section 42 consultation on 18 December 2013 but also submitted comments and questions on 12 and 20 November 2013 and 21 and 28 January 2014. This additional correspondence was not identified by NYCC as representing part of its formal response to the Section 42 consultation but has nonetheless been taken into account as if it had been part of the authority’s formal response to the consultation.

8.27 A response was received from Selby DC Environmental Health on 17 December 2013 but this referred to the EIA Scoping Report and has been treated by PINS as a late EIA scoping response.

8.28 Of the 30 written responses received from the Section 42 consultees, nine were solely acknowledgements with a further four confirming that the relevant body had no comments or objections/concerns regarding the Proposed Development. The corresponding figures for the non-prescribed consultees were five and one respectively.

8.29 The responses received (other than those just acknowledging the receipt of the consultation documents) are summarised in Table 8.2 below.

Table 8.2 - Summary of Section 42/Non-Prescribed Consultation Responses

Body Summary of Response S.42 consultees NATS En-Route Safeguarding

No infrastructure in locality and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria but should be consulted on any changes.

West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service

Advice on sprinkler protection to process areas and water supplies (hydrants); need to provide access and facilities for fire service vehicles and appliances and ensure compliance with Building Regulations; recommend entering into dialogue regarding matters associated with construction.

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

Due to nature, location and height of emissions stack aviation warning lighting should be installed as a reasonable duty of care; information should be provided to Defence Geographic Agency on structures for charting on aviation maps; MoD position should be established; views of local emergency services air support units should be sought.

Energetics Gas Limited

No plant identified within the Site.

London & Continental Railways (LCR)

Not relevant to LCR.

Fulcrum Pipelines Ltd

No comments to make but should be consulted again prior to excavations.

Ministry of Defence (MoD)

No safeguarding objection.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 113


Body Summary of Response Highways Agency Historical Railways Estate

No assets affected by the proposals.

English Heritage

Agree that proposals unlikely to have a harmful affect upon designated heritage assets or their settings; will defer to West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) in relation to non-designated assets and any archaeological deposits.

Highways Agency (HAg)

No comments to make but reiterate need for a Transport Assessment covering construction and operation and attendant Travel Plans.

Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB)

Unsure why consulted. Should consider consulting Network Rail and Northern Rail.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Site not within any HSE Consultation Distance; need to consider hazardous substances stored at the Site and the possible need for Hazardous Substances Consent; need to consider electrical safety, particularly in relation to existing generation, transfer and distribution assets; proposals do not impinge on separation distances of any explosive sites.

Environment Agency (EA)

Applicant should carry out hydrological risk assessment to ascertain ground conditions and identify potential receptors for pollution. ES should define all likely impacts and effects with mitigation secured through design or requirements in the DCO. Welcome decision to discount the option of a fuel bunker below water table; preference is for above ground bunker and would welcome further discussions on this. Application should demonstrate how mitigation for preventing pollution risks to ground water will be secured. The DCO should include a ‘requirement’ to secure the preparation of a CEMP. Clarity on whether the Material Management and Operation Environmental Management Plans will be submitted a part of the application. If the mitigation of impacts is dependant on these they should be submitted at application stage. Should consider post-construction risks to ground water. FRA should refer to finished floor levels set out in EA scoping response; any development in FZ3 will require compensatory flood storage. SUDS should be employed, there should be non increase in surface water run-off and Greenfield rates should be achieved; on-site storm water attenuation should be provided. Potential consents identified; WMDC Drainage Dept should be consulted on consenting requirements in relation to Fryston Beck. Wash down liquids or discharges must not be drained to any surface water system without approval; no discharges from wheel washes to surface water; welcome opportunity to be consulted on construction drainage details; EA must be contacted prior to disposal of watering


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 114


Body Summary of Response effluent to land or surface water systems as permit may be required. Impacts associated with construction waste best controlled through SWMP. This should be prepared early and be a ‘live’ document. Should be submitted with DCO application and secured by a requirement. Encourage ecological enhancement/net gain in biodiversity at the site. Encourage opportunities to discuss securing water supplies for boiler feed and steam generation. Environmental Permit is required and a contact name is provided. Advice provided on EP requirements and parallel tracking of DCO and EP applications recommended. An assessment of the opportunities for CHP should be carried out and regard had to EA’s CHP Ready guidance.

Canal and River Trust

ES should fully consider the option of utilising the waterway for the transportation of construction materials during the construction stage, and to transport fuel and waste products during the operation stage.

North Yorkshire County Council

Should be clear about sourcing of waste derived fuel, including assumptions about area served and capacity of facilities; information needed by authorities involved in waste planning to understand implications of additional capacity. Issues raised by NYCC in related responses: 12.11.2013 - Clarification sought on timings of consultation and last date for comments. 20.11.2013 - NYCC wish to explore prospects for landscape-scale mitigation within Aire corridor in respect of cumulative visual/landscape/ecological impacts with other power generation proposals within the area. 21.01.2014 - Clarification as to whether NYCC councillors have been involved. 28.01.2014 - Request if fuel needs assessment could be shared within NYCC and clarification on consultation period for DCO application documentation and submission timetable.

The Coal Authority

While the Application Site does fall within the defined coal field, it falls just outside the defined Development High Risk Area and the Kellingley Colliery licence area. Accordingly, The Coal Authority has no specific comments or observations to make at this stage.

Public Health England

Health chapter of ES should contain findings to demonstrate that impact on local air quality is low. Will comment on CEMP when becomes available. An assessment of the possible health effects of EMF should be included.

Selby District Council

Have previously comments and attended pre-application meetings. No further comments to make at this time.

Kirklees Council

Proposal accords with PPS10 and will provide useful resource in dealing with waste generated in the wider region.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 115


Body Summary of Response Development should not result in air quality in Kirklees being degraded from the release of contaminates or pollutants from the incineration/generation process. Impacts associated with the release of pollutants should be fully considered.

National Grid

Advice on protection of NG overhead lines, statutory electrical clearances that must be maintained, safe working near overhead lines and landscaping and other works close to NG assets. NG has no gas apparatus in the vicinity of the site. Where NG rights are to be affected/extinguished, protective provisions need to be included in the DCO. Early consultation should take place with NG on this.

Yorkshire Water

No infrastructure within the site. Will comment further if appropriate with regard to disposal of foul and surface water when consulted on EIA.

BT (KCOM Group Plc)

KCOM has no existing plant or proposals for new plant in the vicinity of your works and will not be affected by them.

SP Energy Networks

Does not have any apparatus in the area so no comments to make.

Ericsson

No microwave link within 100 m and no mast within 500 m of Site and therefore have no objection.

NHS Trust Development Authority

Does not have any concerns regarding the proposed development.

Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust

No comments or objections to the proposed development.

Non-prescribed consultees Geological sites: West Yorkshire Geology Trust (WYGT)

No local geological sites nearby which would be affected by the development. No objections.

Department of Energy and Climate Change

Not appropriate for DECC to comment on the merits or otherwise of the development.

West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS).

Ferrybridge Power Station lies within extensive pre-historic landscape; despite disturbance possible that archaeology will survive; further information is needed to support an application; a desk based assessment is required for the application, dependent on the findings of this further evaluation may be required pre- decision with a watching brief during construction.

Ledsham Parish Council

Council considered information at its meeting on 27 November 2013 and decided to make no comment.

8.26 Acknowledgement letters were sent out to all of Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees who submitted comments (apart from those just acknowledging the consultation) confirming receipt of their comments and that these, where relevant, were being considered. An example copy of the letter is provided at Appendix 8.4.

8.27 Following acknowledgement of the comments, detailed responses were prepared and issued to a number of the consultees. The comments received from the consultees and the responses made by the Applicant are provided at Appendix 8.5. In some cases it was not considered appropriate to issue a detailed written response in view of on-going dialogue with the consultees and in a number of instances meetings were arranged and matters addressed through the agreement of statements of common ground, where possible.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 116



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 117

9. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 46 ‘DUTY TO NOTIFY SECRETARY OF STATE OF PROPOSED APPLICATION’

9.1 Section 46 places a duty upon the applicant for a DCO to notify the Secretary of State (SoS) of the Section 42 consultation. The applicant must comply with this requirement either before or at the same time as commencing the Section 42 consultation. In doing so, the applicant must send to the SoS the same information that is to be provided to the Section 42 consultees.

9.2 In accordance with Section 46 the Applicant notified PINS of the original round of Section 42 consultation on 30 October 2013, prior to the formal start of the consultation on 4 November 2013. PINS were notified by email and letter (posted by Royal Mail Special Delivery). The letter was accompanied by a CD containing the consultation documents that were to be sent to the Section 42 consultees and non-prescribed. PINS confirmed receipt of the Section 46 notification by email on 30 October 2013 and formally by letter dated 14 November 2013.

9.3 Section 46 notification letters were also sent to PINS in relation to the additional rounds of Section 42 and non-prescribed consultation referred to in Section 8. PINS were notified either before or on the same day that letters were sent to the additional Section 42 consultees. The Applicant agreed with PINS in advance of the first additional Section 46 notification that it would not be necessary to provide PINS with the consultation documents as the same information (as provided during the original round of Section 42 consultation) was to be provided to the additional consultees that had been identified.

9.4 Details of the Section 46 notifications are set out in Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1 - Section 46 Notification Dates

Round of S.42 Consultation & Date S.42 Letters Sent

S.46 PINS Notification Date

PINS Acknowledgment Date

Original round of S.42 consultation - 31 October 2013

30 October 2013 14 November 2013

1st additional round of S.42 consultation - 5 February 2014


2nd additional round of S.42 consultation - 17 March 2014

14 March 2014 28 March 2014

3rd additional round of S.42 consultation - 28 March 2014

28 March 2014 1 April 2014

9.5 The Section 46 notification correspondence, including proof of posting and the PINS acknowledgment letters are provided at Appendix 9.1.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 118



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 119

10. STAGE 2 - ‘FORMAL’ CONSULTATION: SECTION 48 ‘DUTY TO PUBLICISE’

10.1 Section 48 ‘Duty to publicise’ of the PA 2008 requires applicants to publicise a proposed application for a DCO in the ‘prescribed manner’. The prescribed manner is set out at in the APFP Regulations (Regulation 4 ‘publicising a proposed application’).

10.2 APFP Regulation 4, amongst other matters, specifies that the Section 48 notice must be published in one or more local newspapers circulating in the vicinity in which the Proposed Development would be situated for at least two successive weeks, once in a national newspaper and once in the London Gazette (and also in the Lloyds Register if it involves offshore development). The Section 48 notice must also provide details of how to respond to the publicity and a deadline for the receipt of responses by the applicant, being not less that 28 days following the day the notice is last published.

10.3 The specific requirements of APFP Regulation 4 in relation to the preparation of Section 48 notices and how the Applicant has complied with these are set out in Table 2.1 at Section 2 of this Report.

10.4 The decision was taken to publish the Section 48 Notice in the same regional and local newspapers as the SoCC Notice. This included the Yorkshire Post, the Pontefract & Castleford Express and the Selby Times. The Yorkshire Post is distributed widely across the Yorkshire region, while the other papers are circulated widely within the area surrounding the Application Site (within and beyond the Formal Consultation Area). As with the SoCC Notice, the level of publicity went beyond the statutory requirement to publish a notice for at least two consecutive weeks in at least one local newspaper circulating within the vicinity of the land.

10.5 In addition, the Section 48 Notice was published in The Independent in order to satisfy the requirement to publish in a national newspaper and also the London Gazette.

10.6 Details of the newspapers used for the Section 48 publicity and the dates that the Section 48 Notice was published are provided in Table 10.1 below.

Table 10.1 - Newspapers used for Section 48 Notice Publication

Newspaper Dates Yorkshire Post 1 and 8 November 2013 Pontefract & Castleford Express 31 October and 7 November 2013 Selby Times 31 October and 7 November 2013 The Independent 1 November 2013 The London Gazette 1 November 2013

10.7 The first publication of the Section 48 Notice in the Yorkshire Post, Pontefract & Castleford Express, Selby Times and the publication in The Independent and The London Gazette was planned to take place in advance of the start of the formal consultation on 4 November 2013 and also the first public information event on 6 November 2013. This was aimed at ensuring that there was advance publicity in the press regarding the consultation and the consultation events. The Section 48 Notice then appeared for a second (consecutive) week in the Yorkshire Post and local papers on the 7 and 8 November 2013.

10.8 The deadline stated in the Section 48 Notice for the receipt of responses to the publicity by the Applicant (20 December 2013) exceeded the minimum 28 day period following the date when the Notice was last published (8 November 2013). This meant that the period allowed for comments was 42 days.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 120

10.9 In relation to the additional rounds of Section 42 consultation (referred to in Section 8), PINS confirmed during a telephone conference call on 7 February 2014 that there was no requirement to publish a further Section 48 Notice on the basis that the additional consultees were being provided with the same information as had been provided to the consultees during the original round of Section 42 consultation. A further Section 48 Notice was not therefore published. The note of the telephone conference confirming this is provided at Appendix 10.1.

10.10 The form of the Section 48 Notice as published in the relevant newspapers is reproduced in Box 10.2 below.

Box 10.2 - Section 48 Notice

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station

The Planning Act 2008 - Section 48

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 - Regulation 4

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 - Regulation 11

NOTICE OF PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER (DCO) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE FERRYBRIDGE MULTIFUEL 2 (FM2) POWER STATION

1. Notice is hereby given that Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL) (the Applicant) of Inveralmond House, 200 Dunkeld Road, Perth, Perthshire, PH1 3AQ intends to apply to the Secretary of State under Section 37 of ‘The Planning Act 2008’ for the above mentioned DCO (the Proposed Application).

2. The Proposed Application relates to the construction, operation and maintenance of a ‘Multifuel Power Station’ known as Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station (the Proposed Development) at the Ferrybridge Power Station site, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, West Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ.

3. The proposed DCO will, amongst other matters, authorise:

3.1 the construction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development, which will have an installed capacity of up to 90MW gross (circa 70MW net). The Proposed Development will comprise a fuel reception and tipping hall and fuel storage bunker hall; a boiler hall housing two combustion lines and associated boilers; a turbine hall housing a steam turbine; an ash handling system and collection bay; a flue gas treatment (FGT) system, including a flue gas stack and residue and reagent silos; air cooled condensers; a control room and administration block and workshop building; gatehouses and weighbridges; a container storage area; vehicle parking and circulation areas; internal site access roads; a water treatment plant; storm water attenuation and drainage systems; firewater and fire protection facilities; boundary fencing, lighting and site security measures; landscaping; other ancillary and related buildings and works; and associated development, including, but not limited to a number of potential connection options to the electricity grid;

3.2 the permanent and/or temporary acquisition of land and extinguishment/overriding of existing rights in land required for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development;

3.3 the application and/or disapplication of legislation relevant to the Proposed Development, including, inter alia, legislation relating to the acquisition of land and landlord and tenant law; and

3.4 such ancillary, incidental and consequential provisions, permits or consents as are necessary and/or convenient.

4. The Proposed Application is ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development’. Therefore, the Applicant has made Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) available. The findings of the EIA of the Proposed Development will be reported in an Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the Proposed Application.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 121

5. Copies of the documents relating to the Proposed Application, including a PEI Report with a non-technical summary, are available to download at www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2 from 4 November 2013 and for inspection at the following locations during the hours set out from 4 November to 20 December 2013:

6. Copies of the documents will also be available for inspection at a number of public information events, details of which can be obtained by contacting the Applicant by the methods outlined below. An electronic version of the documents can be obtained from the Applicant on a CD at a cost of £15 per CD. Hard copies of the documents can be obtained at a cost of £100 per set.

7. Comments on the Proposed Application must be received by the Applicant no later than 5pm on 20 December 2013 and may be submitted as follows:

On the website by filling out a ‘Feedback Form’: www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2

By email: [email protected]

By telephone: 01977 884 314

By post: Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Consultation, Multifuel Energy Ltd, Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, WF11 8SQ

8. The Applicant requests that any comments submitted clearly state the grounds of representation, confirm who is making the comments and includes an address to which any correspondence relating to the comments may be sent. Please note that comments may be made public.

Multifuel Energy Limited – October/November 2013

10.11 Copies of the Section 48 Notice as published in the newspapers are provided at Appendix 10.2.

10.12 As confirmed in Section 5, no responses were received to the Section 48 Notice and as such no additional consultees were identified through this publicity.

Locations Opening Times Pontefract Library Shoemarket, Pontefract WF8 1BD

Monday to Friday (closed Thursday): 09:30 - 19:00 Saturday: 09:00 - 16:00

Knottingley Library Knottingley Sports Centre, Hill Top, Pontefract Road, Knottingley, Pontefract WF11 8EE

Monday: 14:00 - 19:00 Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 09:00 - 19:00 Thursday: 09:00 - 13:00 Saturday: 09:00 - 13:30

Airedale Library and Learning Centre The Square, Airedale, Castleford, WF10 3JJ

Monday & Wednesday: 09:00 - 19:30 Tuesday & Friday: 09:00 - 17:00 Thursday: 09:00 - 18:00 Saturday: 09:30 - 13:00 Sunday: 10:30 - 13:00

Castleford Library 2 Sagar, Street Castleford WF10 1AF

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 09:00 - 17:30 Thursday: 09:00 - 19:00 Saturday: 09:00 - 15:00

Wakefield Council Offices Wakefield One, Burton Street, Wakefield WF1 2EB

Monday to Friday: 08:30 - 17:00

Leeds Central Library Municipal Buildings, Calverley Street, Leeds LS1 3AB

Monday to Wednesday: 09:00 - 20:00 Thursday & Friday: 09:00 - 17:00 Saturday: 10:00 - 17:00 Sunday 13:00 - 17:00

Selby Library 52 Micklegate, Selby YO8 4EQ

Monday: 09:30 - 19:30 Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 09:30 - 17:30 Thursday & Saturday: 09:30 - 12:30


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 122

11. EIA RELATED CONSULTATION 11.1 The Proposed Development is considered to fall within Schedule 1 of ‘The Infrastructure

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009’ (the EIA Regulations) and is therefore ‘EIA development’. An EIA has been undertaken and an Environmental Statement (ES) has been produced and submitted as part of the Application (Application Document Ref. Nos. 6.1 - 6.4).

11.2 This section provides a summary of the EIA consultation that has taken place during the pre-application process alongside the informal and formal consultation stages. This is covered in more detail within the ES itself.

EIA Notification and Scoping - Regulations 6(1) and 8(1) 11.3 At an early stage in the pre-application process the Applicant identified that the Proposed

Development was EIA development and that it would therefore be necessary to notify PINS of its intention to produce an ES and also to obtain a ‘Scoping Opinion' with regard to the scope and coverage of that ES.

11.4 In view of the above, the Applicant commenced early engagement with a number of key technical consultees both to introduce the Proposed Development and also to start to discuss the proposed scope of the ES. The following meetings took place:

Table 11.1 - Consultation with Technical Consultees on EIA Scoping

Body Purpose of Meeting Date

English Heritage Introductory meeting 9 April 2013 Highways Agency Introductory meeting 11 April 2013 Environment Agency Introductory meeting 12 April 2013 Natural England Introductory meeting 22 April 2013

11.5 The above meetings and subsequent dialogue with these technical consultees and others, including within WMDC, combined with the experience from FM1, was used to inform the preparation of an ‘EIA Scoping Report’ detailing the environmental topics that the Applicant proposed to include within the scope of the EIA and those that it was proposed would be scoped out. Topics proposed to be scoped out included aviation, electronic interference and health and safety.

11.6 On 6 June 2013 the Applicant wrote to PINS providing formal notification under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations of its intention to undertake an EIA in respect of the Proposed Development and also produce an ES to report the findings of the EIA. At the same time the Applicant also submitted an application for a Scoping Opinion pursuant to EIA Regulation 8. The application was accompanied by the finalised Scoping Report entitled ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Proposed Multifuel Power Station Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (June 2013).

11.7 Following receipt of the application for the Scoping Opinion, PINS consulted the relevant consultation bodies in accordance with EIA Regulation 8(6) to obtain their views.

11.8 A Scoping Opinion was issued by PINS on 16 July 2013. This was accompanied by the responses received from the relevant consultation bodies. The Scoping Opinion confirmed that the SoS was satisfied with the suggested topics to be covered by the EIA but drew the Applicant’s attention to a number of general points as well as points made in respect of specialist topic areas. The Scoping Opinion is appended to the ES (ES Appendix 1A) (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4.1).


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 123

11.9 On 25 September 2013 the Applicant wrote to all bodies that responded to the PINS scoping consultation, thanking them for comments and confirming that these would be taken into account in developing the Proposed Development proposals further and also used to inform the preparation of Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and, ultimately, the ES. An example copy of the letter sent is provided at Appendix 11.1.

11.10 Late scoping responses were forwarded to the Applicant by PINS from the Ministry of Defence Defence Information Organisation (dated 17 July 2013) and from Selby DC Environmental Health (dated 17 December 2013).

EIA Transboundary Effects - Regulation 24 11.11 Following the Applicant’s request for a Scoping Opinion, PINS carried out ‘Transboundary

Screening’ of the Proposed Development in accordance with EIA Regulation 24 on 23 September 2013.

11.12 The ‘Transboundary Screening Matrix’ completed by PINS confirms that the Proposed Development is ‘not likely to have a significant effect on the environment in another EEA State’. The Matrix confirms that in reaching this view the SoS has applied the precautionary approach (explained in PINS Advice Note 12: Transboundary Impacts Consultation); and taken into account the information supplied by the Applicant. It concluded that ‘no further action is required at this stage’.

Approach to Preparation and Publication of Preliminary Environmental Information

11.13 The Scoping Opinion provided by PINS was used to inform the preparation of a Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report that was made available to both Section 47 and Section 42 consultees and non-prescribed consultees during the formal consultation stage. PEI is defined in the EIA Regulations as “information … which (a) has been compiled by the applicant; and (b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)”’.

11.14 The preparation of the PEI Report was also informed by further dialogue between the Applicant and a number of technical consultees. The PEI Report presented the preliminary findings of the environmental assessments of the Proposed Development that had been completed by the formal consultation stage. The intention of the PEI Report was to provide the Section 47, 42 and non-prescribed consultees with sufficient information on the Proposed Development and the EIA process to enable them to make informed comments during the formal consultation period.

11.15 The PEI Report was made available to the Section 47 consultees at the public inspection and information venues during the formal consultation stage and was also uploaded to the project website. The PEI Report included a Non-Technical Summary to aid understanding of the EIA process and the environmental assessments undertaken. Electronic copies of the PEI Report (on a CD) were also sent to all of the Section 42 and non-prescribed consultees.

EIA Regulation 11 Notification 11.16 In accordance with EIA Regulation 11 ‘Pre-application publicity under Section 48 (duty to

publicise)’ the relevant consultation bodies were, at the same time as the Section 48 Notice was to be published, sent a copy of that Notice as it was to appear in the relevant newspapers.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 124

11.17 Where additional Section 42 consultation was undertaken, those consultees were sent a copy of the Section 48 Notice in accordance with EIA Regulation 11.

11.18 Example copies of the letters sent in accordance with EIA Regulation 11 are provided at Appendix 11.2. Proof of posting is provided at Appendix 8.3.

Preparation and Finalisation of the ES 11.19 Following the formal consultation stage, the Applicant took into account the issues of

relevance to the ES raised during the consultation (ES Appendices 1C and 1D) and entered into further dialogue with a number of the key technical consultees to discuss these issues so as the inform the preparation of the ES. Meetings and discussions undertaken include those presented in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2 - Consultation with Technical Consultees

Body Topic Date of Meeting/Discussion

Environment Agency Groundwater issues flood risk, water resources, air quality, biodiversity, waste hierarchy, permitting, CHP and Statement of Common Ground (SoCG).

10 January, 26 February & 2 May 2014

Highways Agency Construction working adjacent to A1(M) boundary, fencing with A1(M), transport assessment and travel plans, cooling technology, slip road access from A1(M) to Site and SoCG.

10 March 2014

Natural England Statutory sites, ecological effects. 11 & 22 April 2014 NYCC Landscape, waste hierarchy 11 March 2014 Selby DC Air quality, traffic, landscape 18 December 2013,

11 March & 2 April 2014

WMDC Air quality, noise, landscape 20 November 2013 & 31 March 2014

West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service

Cultural Heritage 24 April 2014

Yorkshire Water Waste water discharge, town mains connection

9 April 2014

Public Health England Health, air quality, electro-magnetic fields

19 December 2013

Canal and River Trust Transport (fuel deliveries by barge) 31 October 2013

11.20 Once the ES was sufficiently developed, in April and early May 2014, the Applicant also provided relevant draft ES chapters to a number of technical consultees in order to provide them with the opportunity to comment prior to the finalisation of the ES.

11.21 Table 11.3 provides information on the draft ES chapters that were issued to key technical consultees.

Table 11.3 - Consultation with Technical Consultees on Draft ES Chapters

Body Draft ES Chapters Provided Date

Coal Authority Chapter 13 Ground Conditions 23 April 2014 English Heritage Chapter 15 Heritage 24 April 2014


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 125

Table 11.3 - Consultation with Technical Consultees on Draft ES Chapters

Body Draft ES Chapters Provided Date

Environment Agency Chapter 3 Proposed Development Chapter 8 Air Chapter 9 Noise Chapter 12 Water Chapter 13 Ground Conditions Chapter 14 Ecology Chapter 17 Sustainability

15 April 2014 15 April 2014 15 April 2014 15 April 2014 15 April 2014 15 April 2014 15 April 2014

Highways Agency Chapter 7 Transport 11 April 2014 Natural England Chapter 11 Landscape and Visual

Chapter 14 Ecology 11 April 2014 11 April 2014

NYCC Chapter 7 Transport Chapter 11 Landscape and Visual

11 April 2014 12 March 2014

Public Health England Chapter 8 Air Chapter 13 Ground Conditions Chapter 18 Health

16 May 2014 14 May 2014 14 May 2014

Selby DC Chapter 8 Air Chapter 9 Noise Chapter 11 Landscape and Visual

2 April 2014 15 April 2014 11 April 2014

WMDC Chapter 7 Transport Chapter 8 Air Chapter 11 Landscape and Visual Chapter 14 Ecology

11 April 2014 27 March 2014 11 April 2014 11 April 2014


Chapter 15 Heritage 24 April 2014

11.22 The responses received from the technical consultees have shaped the various

assessments undertaken for the final ES, the details of which are presented in each ES Chapter and also Appendix 1C to the ES. Examples include redrafting of the air quality chapter to clarify the benefits that have resulted from the use of embedded mitigation within the design evolution of the Proposed Development and further consideration of the effects of the Proposed Development on the green infrastructure network. This has also assisted in the agreement of statements of common ground with a number of consultees.

11.23 Appendices 1C and 1D of the ES set out the environmental issues raised during EIA scoping, other EIA related consultation and the informal and formal consultation and how these have been taken into account. These appendices are reproduced at Appendix 11.3.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 126



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 127

12. SECTION 49 ‘DUTY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY’

12.1 Section 49 ‘Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity’ requires applicants to have regard to and take account of any relevant responses received to the consultation and publicity carried out in accordance with Sections 47, 42 and 48 of the PA 2008. A relevant response is defined as a response that is received by the applicant before the deadlines set by the applicant in relation to the Section 47, 42 and 48 consultation and publicity. As such, there is no statutory duty for the applicant to take account of responses received after the relevant deadlines.

12.2 Despite the fact that the PA 2008 does not require applicants to take account of responses received after the deadlines set for consultation, the Applicant has sought, where possible, to take account of late consultation responses. However, the decision was made to only take account of any responses that were received by the end of May 2014. This was considered to be reasonable given that the Applicant had already provided a significant period in which to make comment in addition to the need to finalise the Application for submission in July 2014.

12.3 Further to the above, there is no statutory duty for applicants to have regard to any informal consultation carried out. However, as confirmed in Section 1, the Applicant has taken the decision to afford the same weight to the responses received to the Stage 1 informal consultation as to the Stage 2 formal consultation carried out under Sections 47, 42 and 48.

12.4 The Stage 1 informal consultation ran between March and early September 2013. At the end of this consultation, the Applicant wrote to those members of the local community who had responded to the consultation, acknowledging and thanking them for their comments. They were also informed that the Stage 2 formal consultation would commence in early November 2013. These members of the local community, in addition to the wider community, were subsequently advised through a community newsletter (Community Newsletter No. 1 - Appendix 7.1) of the principal changes that had been made to the Proposed Development since the close of the informal consultation, of which a number were a result of that consultation. The community newsletter was distributed in the area surrounding the Site (sent to over 23,000 households and businesses) in late October 2013, just in advance of the start of the Stage 2 formal consultation.

12.5 The main period for the Stage 2 formal consultation (the Section 47, 42 and 48 consultation and publicity) ran between early November and late December 2013. As confirmed in Section 8, primarily due to the iterative nature of the land referencing work it was necessary to carry out three additional limited rounds of Section 42 consultation between February and early May 2014.

12.6 Following the close of the main Stage 2 formal consultation period on 20 December 2013, the Applicant wrote to all the S.47 local community consultees who had completed a Feedback Form or submitted comments by other means (where contact details had been provided) acknowledging receipt of their comments, and confirming that these would be reviewed and taken into account. Following a period of review, written responses were issued to the consultees who had provided contact details in February 2014. At the same time, the Applicant sent written responses to members of the local community who had responded to the Stage 1 informal consultation, but who had not submitted comments at the formal consultation stage. The written responses provided sought to address the issues that had been raised by members of the local community in their consultation responses.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 128

12.7 In addition, written responses were also issued by the Applicant in February 2014 to the majority of the Section 42 consultees (and non-prescribed consultees) who had submitted comments. In the case of several of these consultees, detailed written responses were not provided in view of on-going dialogue and pending meetings and in a number of cases issues were subsequently addressed either through an exchange of correspondence or the agreement of statements of common ground.

12.8 The responses that were issued to community consultees are provided at Appendix 7.12 and those to local authorities and technical consultees at Appendix 8.5.

12.9 In accordance with Section 49 this section of the Consultation Report sets out how the Applicant has had regard to and taken account of the responses received to both the Stage 1 informal and the Stage 2 formal consultation. It contains the following tables relating to the two stages of consultation:

• Table 12.1 – Stage 1 Informal Consultation – Local Community and Political Representative Comments.

• Table 12.2 – Stage 1 Informal Consultation – Local Authority and Technical Consultee Comments.

• Table 12.3 – Stage 2 Formal Consultation – Section 47 Consultee (local community) Comments.

• Table 12.4 – Stage 2 Formal Consultation – Section 42 Consultee (prescribed persons and local authorities) and Non-prescribed Consultee Comments.

12.10 Each of these tables provides the following information:

• A summary of the issues raised in the consultation responses received.

• An account of how the Applicant has ‘had regard to’ and taken account of the issues raised.

• Any changes that have been made to the Proposed Development and/or Application as a result of consultation and where these changes are referenced within the Application Documents.

12.11 The column of each table entitled ‘Regard had to Consultation’, where relevant, takes account of the written responses that the Applicant sent to those who responded to the Stage 1 informal and Stage 2 formal consultation. However, as the majority of these responses were made in February 2014, following Stage 2 formal consultation, it is important to note that the text within these columns also takes account of any further dialogue that has taken place with consultees since February 2014, in addition to the completion of the EIA and other assessment work for the Application and the preparation of the draft DCO ‘requirements’, amongst other matters. The information in these columns therefore reflects how the Applicant has had regard to comments and feedback received when finalising the details of the Proposed Development.

12.12 As confirmed in Section 10, no responses were received to the Section 48 publicity and as such, there is no requirement to ‘have regard to’ Section 48 consultation responses.

Stage 1 ‘Informal’ Consultation 12.13 The approach taken by the Applicant to the responses received to the Stage 1 informal

consultation from local community and political representatives has been to review all of the responses in order to identify the issues that these raise. The issues have then been grouped under ‘topic headings’. A summary of the issues raised is set out beneath each


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 129

‘topic heading’ in Table 12.1. These have been checked to ensure that they accurately capture the issues raised.

12.14 A range of issues were raised during the Stage 1 informal consultation by the local community and political representatives. These include air quality, noise, road traffic, the need for the development, fuel supply/sources, design/visual impact and landscaping and employment/local economy, amongst others. It is relevant to note that a number of issues raised by the public related to the on-going construction of FM1.

12.15 The Applicant has taken a slightly different approach to the Stage 1 informal responses from local authorities and technical consultees. In the case of these consultees, the Applicant has summarised the issues raised by consultee, rather than grouping them under ‘topic headings’. A summary of the issues raised by these consultees during the informal consultation are set out in Table 12.2. Again, these have been checked to ensure that they accurately capture the issues raised.

12.16 The issues raised by the local authorities and technical consultees tended to relate to the design and technical aspects of the Proposed Development (notably the options proposed for the fuel storage bunker and cooling technology) and the scope of the EIA work to be carried out for the Application.

12.17 As confirmed above, each table provides an account of how the Applicant has had regard to the issues raised taking account of the responses made by consultees and identifies any changes that have been made to the Proposed Development and/or Application as a result of consultation and where these changes are referenced within the Application Documents.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 130

Table 12.1 - Stage 1 Informal Consultation - Local Community and Political Representative Comments

Topic Heading Summary of Issues Regard had to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing


• Air quality impacts need to be kept to a minimum.

• Emissions from both FM1 and the Proposed Development need to be taken into account.

• Concern that height of the Proposed Development stack will not be sufficient to ensure adequate dispersion of emissions.

• Checks on emissions should be carried out by independent bodies.

The scope of the Environmental Statement (ES) includes an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development on air quality. The scope and methodology of the emissions dispersion modelling to inform this assessment was to be discussed and agreed with the EA and WMDC and took account of relevant guidelines and best practice. The modelling was also based on the ‘worst case’ assumption that emissions from the Proposed Development would be at the maximum levels permitted under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). Emissions from FM1 were also included in the modelling through the use of a modified baseline, with the FM1 emissions also at the maximum levels permitted under IED. Following the informal consultation the Applicant took the decision to raise and fix the emissions stack height to circa 120 m (136 mAOD), higher than the minimum height assessed that would ensure adequate emissions dispersion. This change was made in response to consultation feedback, from which it was clear that air quality was an important consideration for the local community. The Applicant also commenced discussions with both the EA and WMDC regarding air quality monitoring for the Proposed Development once it becomes operational, following the approach already in place for FM1. Operational emissions will have to be continuously monitored by the Applicant under the Environmental Permit required.

Decision taken to increase emissions stack height to circa 120 m (136 mAOD). App Doc Ref. No. 6.2 - Environmental Statement (ES) Chapter 3 ‘Proposed Development’ and Chapter 4 ‘Need, Alternatives and Design Evolution’. App Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Article No. 5 ‘Limits of deviation’ App Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 – Requirement 37.


• Ash, dust and sand being experienced at Oakhill Park to west of the A1(M).

There are a number of potential sources of ash, dust and sand within the locality, although it is difficult to trace deposition back to a particular source. The Applicant has committed to prepare and implement a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) during the construction phase of the Proposed Development. This will include a number of measures to control the construction effects of the Proposed Development, including measures to suppress dust. The Applicant will

No change considered necessary as Applicant had determined to prepare and implement a CEMP and the EP would control operational emissions. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.5 - ES Appendix 3A Framework CEMP.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 131



also review whether any lessons could be learnt from the FM1 construction. In terms of operation, fuel will be delivered to the Proposed Development within enclosed HGVs, having been processed off site. No fuel will be stored externally and the Proposed Development will be fitted with bag filters to remove ash and dust from the combustion emissions prior to discharge from the emissions stack. Emissions during the operational process will also be controlled and monitored under the requirements of the Environmental Permit (EP).

App Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’, No. 25. ‘Control of dust emissions’ and No. 29. ‘Accumulation and deposits’.

Odour • Concern over potential for odour from the FM2 plant.

Fuel for the Proposed Development will be transported to the Site in enclosed HGVs and/ or rail containers. The fuel will be processed off Site. Following the formal consultation the Applicant took the decision to prepare a ‘Framework Odour Management Plan’ setting out the measures that could be employed to control odour generation from the plant operation.

Decision taken to prepare ‘Framework Odour Management Plan’ to support DCO application. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.11 - ES Appendix 8B Odour Management Plan. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 24. ’Control of odour emissions’.

Noise • Duration of working hours for construction and operation.

• Noise should be kept to a minimum after 1800 hours.

• Noise already experienced from the railway.

An assessment of noise and vibration from the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development is included within the scope of the ES. The scope and methodology of the noise and vibration assessment was discussed and agreed with WMDC. This takes account of existing sources of noise, in particular from the surrounding road network, including the A1(M), in addition to noise from the operation of FM1 and anticipated levels of operational noise from this plant. The assessment has been used to inform the need for embedded mitigation measures to be put in place to manage and minimise noise and vibration during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development, including acceptable noise limits and the need for noise monitoring at the Site boundary (as has been the case for FM1).

Decision taken to fix location of ACC to provide noise mitigation through design. No other changes considered necessary as scope of ES included an assessment of noise and vibration to inform the need for controls, including noise limits and monitoring. App Doc Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 3 ‘Proposed


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 132



The preliminary assessment of noise was used to inform the location of buildings an structures of the Proposed Development to screen the noise generated by the air cooled condenser (ACC) of FM1 and the Proposed Development from sensitive receptors. Construction of the Proposed Development will predominantly take place between the hours of 07:00 - 19:00, although 24 hour working will be required during certain periods. The Applicant has committed to meeting set noise limits at the Site boundary during any evening or nighttime works, to undertaken continuous noise monitoring and to restrict certain noisier activities to daytime working only. Deliveries will be scheduled to be during the daytime wherever possible. For rail noise impacts, the Applicant has assessed the predicted change in noise levels on top of the existing and consented use of the rail line for the Ferrybridge site and unacceptable noise impacts are not predicted to occur through the use of embedded mitigation and control measures as outlined in the ES.

Development’, Chapter 4 ‘Need, Alternatives and Design Evolution’ and Chapter 9 ‘Noise and Vibration’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’, No. 20. ‘Construction hours’, No. 21. ‘Piling’, No. 23. ‘Control of noise during construction and maintenance’ and No. 33. ‘Operational deliveries’.

Road traffic/ vehicles movements

• Concern over the number of vehicle movements that would be generated.

• Deliveries during construction and operation should avoid school arrival/departure times/peak periods.

• HGVs should be routed away from local villages.

• HGV drivers currently ignore weight

The scoping process for the ES identified the need for traffic and transportation effects for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development to be assessed. The scope and methodology of the transport assessments was discussed and agreed with the Highways Agency and WMDC as local highway authority. The scope included an assessment of the effects of predicted additional traffic upon the highway network, including upon a number of local junctions and their capacities. The assessment concluded that no significant effects are expected on the local highway network and was used to inform decisions with regard to any measures required to mitigate traffic effects. The Applicant is committed to preparing and implementing a ‘Construction Traffic Routing and Management Plan’ to manage HGV traffic and its routing, amongst other matters, during the construction

Decision taken to include the potential use of the ‘unnamed road’ running from Stranglands Lane as an option to provide alternative means for cars and LGVs to access the site during construction and operation, subject to feasibility studies. Delivery hours extended from 0700 - 1830 Monday to Friday to 0700 – 2200 to provide for greater spread of traffic throughout the day.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 133



limits/restrictions and use inappropriate routes.

• Level of traffic generation would impact on the local highway network resulting in problems at local junctions and improvements works/traffic lights should be implemented.

• Need for a new roundabout in Brotherton to cope with traffic generation.

• Speed limit on Stranglands Lane should be lowered from 60mph to 40mph.

• A new slip road from the A1(M) to the site is needed.

• Original traffic plan insufficient.

phase of the Proposed Development, similar to that being used during the construction of FM1. An ‘Operational Traffic Routing and Management Plan’ will also be prepared, together with construction and operational travel plans in accordance with the ‘Framework Travel Plans’ submitted with the DCO. The plans will stipulate the routes to be used by HGVs which will be enforced by WMDC. Following the consultation, the Applicant determined to include the potential use of the ‘unnamed road’ running from Stranglands Lane as an option to provide alternative means for cars and light goods vehicles (LGVs) to access the site during construction and operation, subject to feasibility studies. Although the assessments undertaken did not conclude there being a need for a new slip road from the A1(M) the Applicant investigated this matter with the Highways Agency and concluded that this option was not feasible for technical reasons. The Applicant took the decision to review the proposed delivery times for fuel in light of comments received during the consultation regarding avoiding school arrival and departure times and peak periods on the local highway network. By extending the delivery times, this is expected to reduce the number of vehicles accessing the Site at any one time. The actual number of deliveries to the Proposed Development during operation will depend on a number of factors including whether any fuel is to be delivered by rail. A new roundabout has now been installed at Dish Hill to facilitate the turning of HGVs to access the motorway network without travelling through local villages. The setting of speed limits on local roads is a local authority decision.

No other changes considered necessary as scope of ES included an assessment of traffic and transport effects and the Applicant had determined to prepare appropriate transport and travel plans. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 7 ‘Transport and Access’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.9 - ES Appendix 7C ‘Operational Travel Plan Framework. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 10. ‘Highway Accesses’, No. 19. ‘Construction Traffic routing and management plan’, No. 31. ‘Operational traffic routing and management plan, No. 32. ‘Travel Plan – operational staff and No. 33. ‘Operational deliveries’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 134




• Use of rail/canal should be considered to minimise reliance on road transport.

Substantial investment has already been made in rail infrastructure at the Ferrybridge Power Station site, with the upgrade and extension of the existing rail spur (including the addition of a fuel container unloading gantry) to serve FM1. The Proposed Development will also be able to make use of this facility subject to appropriate fuel contracts being secured. This issue was also raised by the Canal & River Trust during the EIA scoping process and dialogue has been held with the Trust to agree the wording of a requirement to implement a ‘Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan’ for the Proposed Development, whereby the use of sustainable modes for the transport of fuel and combustion by-products (e.g. ash) will be assessed and kept under review, as is undertaken for FM1.

Substantial investment made in rail infrastructure as part of FM1 that could be utilised by the Proposed Development. The Applicant intends to implement a Sustainable Fuel Transport Plan to promote the use of sustainable modes for the transport of fuel and ash. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 34. ‘Sustainable fuel transport management plan’.

Need

• Need for another multifuel power station.

The need for new electricity generating plant is confirmed in the ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1’, which confirms that the UK needs all the types of energy infrastructure that it covers in order to achieve energy security at the same time as dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This includes the type of generating plant being proposed by the Applicant. EN-1 goes on to state that in assessing DCO application the Secretary of State should do so on the basis that the need for those types of energy infrastructure and the scale and urgency of the need for them has been demonstrated. The interest from fuel suppliers that has been received in respect of FM1 has also demonstrated to the Applicant that there is sufficient demand and fuel availability for a second multifuel power station at the site.

No change considered necessary in view of policy set out in EN-1. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.7 - Planning Statement - Section 4 ‘The Need for the Proposed Development’.

Fuel supply/ source

• Locations from where fuel would be sourced.

• Concern over the environmental impact of fuel.

The location from where fuel would be sourced is subject to fuel suppliers and contracts. It is not possible to enter into contracts until a DCO has been granted and the detailed design of the Proposed Development has been progressed. It is envisaged that fuel will be derived from the north of England, with the rail infrastructure providing

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 135



a means to source fuel by a sustainable transport mode from further afield. Wherever fuel is sourced from, it will need to be compliant with the Waste Hierarchy and relevant local, regional and national waste plans and policies. Early in the pre-application process the decision was taken by the Applicant to commission the preparation of a ‘Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment’ to demonstrate compliance with the Waste Hierarchy and waste policy. This is a requirement of the ‘National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3’. The Proposed Development will contribute toward maximising energy recovery from waste that remains after recycling initiatives have been carried out, reducing the amount of material that may otherwise be sent to landfill. An analysis of the carbon emissions associated with the transport and combustion of fuel in the Proposed Development has been undertaken using the Environment Agency (EA) published tool and methodology. This demonstrates that operation of the Proposed Development will result in substantial carbon savings over the disposal of the waste to landfill, and the electricity generated results in lower carbon emissions than the current UK average. Furthermore, emissions from the combustion of waste derived fuel in the Proposed Development will have to meet the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive and would also be regulated by the EA through the Environmental Permit.

Assessment. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 40. ‘Waste hierarchy’ ES Appendices 17A and 17 B ‘Carbon Impact Assessment’ and ‘WRATE Assessment.

Waste management

• This location should not be used to address Yorkshire’s landfill issues.

The location from where fuel will be sourced is subject to fuel suppliers and contracts. It is not possible to enter into contracts until a DCO has been granted and the detailed design of the Proposed Development has been progressed. The Proposed Development must comply with the Waste Hierarchy and local, regional and national waste policies and plans.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 136


Topic Heading Summary of Issues Regard had to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 40. ‘Waste hierarchy’.

Generating capacity

• The Proposed Development will only generate 150MWe whereas Ferrybridge ‘C’ generates 2000MWe.

• Output of the Proposed Development should be higher with the capacity to burn coal.

The need for new electricity generating plant is confirmed in the ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1’, which confirms that the UK needs all the types of energy infrastructure that it covers in order to achieve energy security at the same time as dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the generating capacity of the Proposed Development at 90MWe gross is significantly less than Units 1 and 2 of Ferrybridge ‘C’ (1000MWe), which have recently closed, it will still make a valuable contribution toward enhancing the security and diversity of the UK’s energy supplies, while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Proposed Development is not intended to replace the loss of generating capacity at Ferrybridge ‘C’, and the design of the plant does not allow for the effective combustion of coal due to the technology needed to optimise the combustion of waste derived fuels.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.7 - Planning Statement - Section 4 ‘The Need for the Proposed Development’.

Design/visual impact and landscaping

• Concerns over external appearance.

• Buildings should be below ground to reduce prominence/visual impact and be as unobtrusive as possible.

• The Proposed Development will be larger than FM1.

• Concern that buildings and structures will be higher than those existing at the site.

• Importance of

The Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station site has a long history of power generation and comprises a number of large buildings and structures, including tall emission stacks and natural draught cooling towers. In addition, the immediate setting of the Power Station site as well as the surrounding area is heavily influenced by extensive built development, including industrial structures and major transport corridors. The Power Station site is also allocated for power generation development in the local development plan.

The approach used for the design and appearance of the Proposed Development has been to take design references from its surroundings, notably the built form of Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1. The proposed design and appearance of the Proposed Development is therefore functional, reflecting its purpose and surroundings. The materials and external finishes used will be largely dictated by construction and technical considerations and it is envisaged that concrete, steel and metal cladding will be prevalent, again reflecting

Commitment to prepare Landscape Strategy for the Site. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.8 - Design and Access Statement. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.13 - Landscape Strategy App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 11 ‘Landscape and Visual Amenity’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Article 5 ‘Limits of deviation’, Schedule 3 ‘Maximum building heights’, Requirement No. 4.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 137



protecting views from the surrounding area, including Ferrybridge, Brotherton, Townville and Ferry Fryston and residential areas.

• Landscaped bunds should be used to screen the development.

• Landscaping should be natural.

• Use of tall trees would provide screening and also combat noise.

the surrounding context. Furthermore, the design of the Proposed Development takes account of comments made by WMDC during the consultation that it would be appropriate for it to reflect that of FM1. It is also important to recognise that the design of FM1 was considered to be acceptable by both WMDC and the SoS.

The scale, form and massing of the Proposed Development has been influenced by technical and engineering considerations, combined with the need to meet environmental and other regulatory requirements. Electricity generating stations by their nature involve large buildings and structures. The scale of the Proposed Development will be broadly comparable to FM1, although some elements, notably the emissions stack (136 mAOD in height) will be taller so as to ensure the adequate dispersion of emissions. However, it is important to view this within the context of the wider Power Station site with a number of the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ structures, notably the emissions stacks and cooling towers being of far greater scale, bulk and massing than those that would be associated with the Proposed Development. Furthermore, the ‘concept’ design for the Proposed Development is based on a maximum ‘worst case’ building envelope that has had to be defined so that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the development is robust and fully assesses its potential environmental effects. This is necessary as certain elements of the development cannot be fixed until the detailed design and engineering stage. Therefore, the Proposed Development that will be constructed will not exceed the scale parameters of the concept design, and indeed, a number of the built elements are likely to be of a reduced scale.

Notwithstanding the above, the Applicant has sought to explore how the scale and massing of the Proposed Development could be reduced. For instance, three different options were presented during the consultation for the fuel storage bunker building (one of the largest components of the development), with two of these involving below ground solutions; although through the EIA scoping process and discussions with the EA it was established that the below ground

‘Detailed Design Approval’, No. 5. ‘Design of fuel storage bunker’, No. 6. ‘Pre-development water-tables level survey’, No. 7. ‘Provision of landscaping’ and No. 9. ‘External lighting’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 138



option that would involve development below the groundwater table, was unlikely to be acceptable due to potential impacts on the flow of ground water. The Applicant has also sited the Proposed Development close to the built form of FM1 and Ferrybridge ‘C’, while taking account of physical and other constraints, including the location of existing infrastructure and the need to safeguard electricity grid connection cables. As a result, the built form of the Proposed Development will be consolidated with that already existing at the Power Station site, consequently reducing its visual impact, as it will for the most part be viewed against the backdrop of the existing large structures.

The Applicant acknowledges the desire of members of the local community to protect views from the villages and other locations surrounding the Power Station site. The EIA includes a detailed landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) in order to assess the potential effects of the Proposed Development on landscape character and visual amenity. This includes views from representative viewpoints in the surrounding area toward the Site as agreed with WMDC. However, as highlighted above, such views are already heavily influenced by the buildings and structures associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1.

The Applicant has developed a ‘Landscaping Strategy’ for the Proposed Development, in particular to address near field and low level views of the buildings, recognising that given the scale of the proposed buildings there will be limited opportunity to screen the taller structures. Landscaping will be aimed at enhancing the biodiversity of the site and will therefore involve the planting of native species.

Flooding

• Flooding beneath the railway bridge on Stranglands Lane is an issue.

The scope of the ES includes an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development upon flood risk, including surface water run-off and drainage. The Applicant has investigated the cause(s) of existing flooding under the railway bridge and has discussed the issue with WMDC and

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 12 ‘Water Resources and Flood Risk’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 139



Yorkshire Water. It is understood that there are several potential factors causing the problem, however, the assessments have concluded that the Proposed Development will not exacerbate the existing issue. Surface water run-off from the Site will be controlled to greenfield rates and discharged to the Fryston Beck that subsequently discharges to the River Aire.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 13. ‘Surface water and foul water drainage and No. 14. ‘Flooding’.

Archaeology

• There are archaeological remains within the area.

• Pontefract Archaeology Group should be contacted regarding historical artefacts/buildings within the area.

The scope of the ES includes an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development upon designated heritage assets and archaeology. Through the EIA process, English Heritage and the West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) have been consulted with regard to the scope and findings of the desk based archaeological assessment (DBA) for the ES and the potential need for archaeological evaluation at the Site (e.g. watching brief or trial trenching). A requirement has been agreed through a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with WYAAS to undertake limited trial trenching in certain areas of the Site during construction.

Need to consult with WYAAS identified. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 15 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 16. ‘Archaeology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.8 - SoCG with WYAAS.

Ecology/ biodiversity and green infrastructure

• Potential to impact on local wildlife.

• Proximity to RSPB reserve at Fairburn Ings and Fryston Wood Local Wildlife Site and potential impact of grid connections.

• Lack of management of/need to improve Fryston Wood - should be a survey of Ash dieback in this area.

The ES includes an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development upon designated and non-designated wildlife sites, protected species and habitats. This has been used to inform decisions with regard to any measures that may be required to minimise effects of ecology or for ecological mitigation. The Applicant has committed to preparing and implementing a CEMP, which will include a number of measures to limit construction effects upon ecology. The ecological surveys undertaken confirm the absence of protected species on Site and that the existing habitat is of limited value, being species poor amenity grassland (former golf course land). No internationally designated Habitats sites have been identified within 15

Decision taken to discount grid connection option involving overhead connection to pylon in Fryston Wood. Decision taken to prepare Biodiversity Strategy to support the DCO application. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 14 ‘Ecology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.14 - Biodiversity Strategy.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 140



• Concern over impact on local green space.

• Area to the west of the A1(M) should be kept clear of development as this provides a buffer between the Ferrybridge Power Station site and Castleford.

km of the Proposed Development Site and this has been confirmed in discussions with Natural England. The Site is not subject to any statutory nature conservation designations, although it forms part of a wider ‘Wildlife Habitat Network’ on the Policies Map of the WMDC Local Plan. In view of this, the Applicant has prepared a ‘Biodiversity Strategy’ to enhance the remaining areas of habitat around the Site and explore the scope to link these with adjoining areas of woodland and other habitat. The grid connection option that would have involved an overhead connection to the pylon in Fryston Wood has been discounted in view of concerns regarding the impact of this option on the woodland. Emissions from the Proposed Development will be strictly controlled under the Environmental Permit, in order to fully comply with the IED) and the air quality assessment has concluded that the emissions will lead to insignificant effects on the nationally and locally designated ecological sites in the area. The land to the west of the A1(M) has been identified as the potential location of the replacement golf course that is required to maintain the sports provision lost as a result of the FM1 development. The Proposed Development will be developed on the former golf course that is currently in use for the construction of the FM1 development and therefore will not utilise any additional green space.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 7. ‘Provision of landscaping’, No. 17 ‘Biodiversity management plan and No. 18 ‘Construction environmental management plan’.


• Additional employment will be minimal.

• Use of local labour should be maximised.

• Should be early engagement with employment/skills partners to maximise

The FM1 development will create up to 50 permanent full time jobs once operational, with the Proposed Development expected to generate up to 46 permanent operational posts. This represents a significant number of new jobs, many of which would be skilled posts. Based on the information gathered from FM1, the three year construction phase of the Proposed Development is expected to generate around £10 million of additional business for the local

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 10 ‘Land Use and Socio-Economics’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 141



benefits for local economy.

• Opportunities should be provided for local school leavers.

economy. The socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development have been assessed within the Environmental Statement. Local employment opportunities during the construction phase will be dependent on the contractor appointed and the skills that are available locally. The Applicant will work with the appointed contractor to promote the use of local labour. A ‘Meet the Buyer’ event will be held locally prior to the start of construction to provide local businesses the opportunity to present their capabilities to the main contractor. An Open4Business portal has been set up to publicise contracting opportunities to local businesses. The Applicant has advertised the FM1 operational posts locally and received a very positive response. The same strategy will be adopted for the Proposed Development.

EIA process • Account should be taken of the Knottingley CCGT and Southmoor Energy Centre projects.

Other potential developments that could have a cumulative impacts with the Proposed Development have been identified and agreed with WMDC for consideration in the EIA. These include the Knottingley CCGT and the Southmoor Energy Centre.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 6 ‘Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria’.

Consultation • Local residents and groups should be kept informed. Local woodland group (Friends of Fryston Wood) not initially consulted.

• Views of residents from neighbouring authorities should be

As outlined and agreed in the published Statement of Community Consultation (a SoCC) the Applicant consulted widely within the local area through newspaper notices, media releases, newsletters, posters and public information events (exhibitions). The Selby Times was used to advertise the consultation along with other local publications. The Applicant has committed to having regard to the responses received to this consultation, which includes comments received from residents of neighbouring local authorities to WMDC. The Applicant is also committed to keeping the local community informed of progress

Friends of Fryston Wood included within membership of Ferrybridge CLG and added to list of local consultees for future consultation. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.1 - Consultation Report ‘Appendix 6.9’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 142



taken into account. • There has been no

attendance by SSE at Friends of Fryston Wood meetings.

• Should advertise in Selby Times.

and developments on the Proposed Development. During the informal consultation ‘The Friends of Fryston Wood’ (FoFW) were identified as a body that the Applicant had not previously consulted . The FoFW were subsequently invited to attend Ferrybridge CLG meetings and were included in subsequent consultations.


• There would be limited benefits for the local community.

• Financial benefits should be put into the local community/economy.

The Proposed Development will have significant benefits for the local economy during the construction phase, which is expected to generate substantial additional business for the local economy. In addition, there will be operational benefits through the creation of up to 46 permanent jobs, many of which will be skilled. The Proposed Development will therefore have financial benefits for the local community and economy. The Applicant acknowledges the interest that exists in the local area for establishing a community fund and the benefits that such funds can deliver to the local community. However, such contribution are separate from the planning process. The Applicant is not obligated to provide financial contributions or other funding as the EIA work completed to date has not identified the need for any mitigation. However, it is acknowledged and appreciated that the community desires such funds and the Applicant will review this in line with its overall commitment to the local community.

No change considered necessary.

FM1 • The EIA should take account of the objections to FM1.

• Increase in dust and noise but not traffic.

• Position with regard to the replacement of the golf course.

FM1 is a separate project to the Proposed Development. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from FM1 have been taken into account in developing the Proposed Development. The EIA of the Proposed Development has taken into account the combined environmental effects of FM1 through the use of a modified baseline. Construction noise and dust management is taken very seriously by the FM1 team and are managed through a CEMP. In addition, a complaints procedure and 24 hour manned telephone are used to receive and respond to any complaints from the public. Any issues are

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 143



investigated and the findings are reported to the community through the CLG. Similarly, a CEMP will be implemented for the Proposed Development to minimise the construction effects of the development. This will include a complaints procedure for noise, dust and other construction effects. As one of the conditions of the FM1 development, alternative provision had to be made for members of the Power Station former golf course. Funding has been provided for membership of a local golf course and planning permission has recently been granted for replacement golf course at Fryston Park immediately to the north-west of the A1(M).

Other • When will Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers be removed.

• Potential to organise visits to FM1 and the Proposed Development.

• Would there be CCTV at the site - supplier query.

• Anti-social behaviour in Fryston Wood.

• Impact on house prices.

Ferrybridge ‘C’ is a separate operational entity to the Proposed Development. It is owned and operated by SSE. There are currently no plans for the removal of the cooling towers given that Units 3 and 4 remain in operation and will do so for a number of years to come. There are currently no firm proposals for organised visits to either FM1 or the Proposed Development. However, this is something that the Applicant may be able to consider on a case by case basis subject to operational and health and safety considerations. It is proposed that there would be CCTV on site. Fryston Wood is owned by SSE, which is a separate entity to the Applicant. However, SSE will work with the FoFW, who are now members of the CLG, to better understand any issues relating to the management of Fryston Wood. There is a long history of power generation at the Ferrybridge site. The current coal fired power station, known as Ferrybridge ‘C’ is the

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 45. ‘Site security’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 144



third coal fired power station to be built on the site since 1924.

The land that the Proposed Development will be built on has been allocated by WMDC in its local development plan for power generation development including renewable energy. The preparation of the plan was subject to public consultation and an independent examination before the final decision to allocate this land was made. The allocation is consistent with the long-established use of the site for power generation.

Table 12.2 - Stage 1 Informal Consultation - Local Authority and Technical Consultee Comments

Body Summary of Issues Regard had to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing

WMDC • Recommend using same venues for public consultation as for FM1 in addition to new cricket pavilion at the Ferrybridge Power Station site.

• Proposed extent of informal consultation area acceptable.

• Speak to local councillors to help identify community groups for consultation.

• Council to be provided

The Applicant has selected venues within the vicinity of the Site that are easily accessible to the public, with regard to the venues used for the FM1 consultation events. The Applicant’s communications team has maintained regular dialogue with local councillors in order to keep them informed of progress on the Proposed Development and planned consultation events. The views of local councillors were also sought on the local community groups to consult, although the communications team already had extensive knowledge of this from the FM1 consultation. A copy of the EIA Scoping Report was provided to WMDC on 6 June 2013, the date that this was submitted to PINS. As confirmed above in Table 12.1, the approach used for the design and appearance of the Proposed Development has been to take

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.1 - Consultation Report ‘Appendix 6.9’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.8 - Design and Access Statement.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 145



with a copy of the EIA scoping report at the same time this is submitted to PINS.

• Appropriate for design to reflect that of FM1.

• Prepared to review draft application documents.

• Premature to discuss S.106 in advance of the Applicant having been through the pre-application and EIA processes.

• Not appropriate to agree a Statement of Common Ground ahead of the application being submitted as the authority would not have prepared its Local Impact Report. Relevant headings and policies could be agreed.

design references from its surroundings, notably the built form of Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1. The proposed design and appearance of the Proposed Development is therefore functional, reflecting its purpose and surroundings. The materials and external finishes used will be largely dictated by construction and technical considerations and it is envisaged that concrete, steel and metal cladding will be prevalent, again reflecting the surrounding context. Furthermore, the design of the Proposed Development takes account of comments made by WMDC during the consultation that it would be appropriate for it to reflect that of FM1. It is also important to recognise that the design of FM1 was considered to be acceptable by both WMDC and the SoS

The Applicant has shared a number of draft application documents and ES chapters with WMDC as host authority. The Applicant is committed to entering into dialogue with WMDC with regard to the potential need for a S.106 development consent obligation. This will be informed by the EIA process secured which to date has not identified the need for mitigation measures to be implemented through a S.106. The Applicant will also enter into dialogue with WMDC regarding the agreement of a Statement of Common Ground at the appropriate time.

Selby DC • Need to demonstrate that fuel supply for the Proposed Development is compatible with the waste hierarchy.

The Applicant acknowledges that the fuel supply for the Proposed Development will need to be complaint with the Waste Hierarchy. The Applicant has prepared a ‘Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment’ to demonstrate compliance with the Waste Hierarchy and waste policy. This is a requirement of the ‘National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3’. A DCO requirement has

Additional DCO requirement to address Waste Hierarchy App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 146



• Proposed Development is supported by WMDC’s development plan policies.

• Wish to be kept informed of progress and notified in advance of any contact with local residents and councillors.

been included to address compliance with the Waste Hierarchy The Applicant notes that the Site is allocated for power generation development within the local development plan and conforms with other local polices and plans pertaining to waste and development. The Applicant has sought to keep Selby DC informed of progress. This has involved consulting the authority on the preparation of the SoCC and the proposals and timings for the formal (statutory) consultation, a site visit and update meetings and also providing some draft application documents for comment.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 40. ‘Waste hierarchy’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - Environmental Statement Chapter 5: Planning Policy. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.7 - Planning Statement.

NYCC • No specific issues raised but expressed wish to be kept informed and notified in advance of any contact with local residents or local councillors.

The Applicant has sought to keep NYCC informed of progress. This has involved consulting the authority on the preparation of the SoCC and the proposals and timings for the formal (statutory) consultation, an update meeting and also providing some draft copies of application documents for comment.


Leeds CC • No specific issues raised.

The Applicant has kept Leeds CC updated in a similar manner to the other local authorities.


English Heritage

• Need to consider potential for effects of designated heritage assets.

• Desk based archaeological assessment should be carried out to establish archaeological potential of the site.

The scope of the ES includes an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development upon designated heritage assets and archaeology. Through the EIA process, English Heritage and the West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) have been consulted with regard to the scope and findings of the desk based archaeological assessment (DBA) for the ES and the potential need for archaeological evaluation at the Site (e.g. watching brief or trial trenching). A requirement has been agreed through a Statement of Common

Need to consult with WYAAS identified. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 15 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 16. ‘Archaeology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.4 - SoCG


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 147



Ground with WYAAS to undertake limited trial trenching in certain areas of the Site during construction.

with English Heritage App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.8 - SoCG with WYAAS.

Highways Agency

• Cooling technology and need to avoid fogging and freezing rain effects on the A1(M).

• Expect comparable condition to that imposed on FM1 to prevent fogging/freezing on A1(M).

• Consider use of Met Office warning alerts to change the operation of the cooling system if weather conditions could result in fogging/freezing.

• Consider use of message signing on A1(M) north and south to warn drivers of any risk from fogging/freezing.

• WMDC have plans for employment sites that would use Junction 33 of the A1(M) and its transport assessment

Following the consultation with the HAg (and informed by the EIA scoping) the decision was taken that while the risk of fogging and freezing effects would be small, it could not be ruled out on safety considerations. The use of ACC has been agreed with the EA to represent the Best Available Technique (BAT) for cooling on this basis. The selection of the ACC for cooling removes the need to consider message signing on the Motorway. The scope and methodology of the transport assessments for the EIA were subsequently discussed and agreed with the HAg and WMDC as local highway authority. These included an assessment of the effects of predicted additional traffic upon the highway network, including Junction 33 of the A1(M). The assessment took account of other consented and planned developments within the surrounding area. The Applicant has committed to prepare and implement a ‘Construction Traffic Routing and Management Plan’ to manage HGV traffic and its routing, amongst other matters, during the construction phase of the Proposed Development, as has been the case for FM1. An ‘Operational Traffic Routing and Management Plan’ was also to be prepared in addition to ‘Framework Travel Plans’. It was considered by the Applicant that a site wide travel plan would not be feasible given the different operational entities at the Ferrybridge Power Station site. Potential use of noise barriers on the west side of the A1(M) was considered but rejected as the location of any such barriers at significant distance from the Proposed Development noise sources would have rendered their effectiveness to be minimal. In addition,

Hybrid cooling technology discounted and ACC system selected subject to BAT and Application Site boundary amended to exclude land required for cooling water pipes to the River Aire. This has been embedded within the design of the Proposed Development. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 3’ Proposed Development’ and Chapter 7 ‘Transport and Access’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 10. ‘Highway Accesses’, No. 19. ‘Construction Traffic routing and management plan’, No. 31 ‘Operational traffic routing and management plan, No. 32 ‘Travel Plan – operational staff and No. 33 ‘Operational deliveries’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.3 - SoCG with Highways Agency.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 148



work shows no issues with junction capacity.

• A Transport Assessment and Travel Plans will be required covering both construction and operation. Consideration should be given to a site wide travel plan.

• In principle would support noise attenuation barriers on west side of A1(M) if required for the Proposed Development.

embedded mitigation through the positioning and orientation of buildings within the Proposed Development mitigated any assessed significant noise effects at sensitive receptors.

Environment Agency

• Baseline ground conditions survey required.

• Noise assessment for the Proposed Development will need to be based on ‘worst case’ baseline and include FM1 and any other developments.

• Air quality assessment needs to be similar to that for FM1 and take account of the Air Quality Management

The scope of the EIA included a ground conditions survey in addition to noise and air quality assessments taking account of baseline conditions, including FM1 and other consented and planned developments and the local environment including the presence of the AQMA.

The decision to discount the hybrid cooling technology removes the issue of considering water abstraction from the River Aire. A groundwater borehole is being progressed for FM1 to allow for groundwater abstraction and this option is being explored for the Proposed Development in consultation with the EA.

Informal consultation with the EA revealed concerns with regard to the below ground fuel storage bunker options being considered by the Applicant, in particular, the below water table option and the potential for this to impact on the flow of ground water. This was reiterated in

Below water table fuel storage bunker option discounted and requirements agreed to demonstrate acceptability of final design of bunker. Decision taken to investigate use of FM1 borehole. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 3’ Proposed Development’, Chapter 8 ‘Air Quality’, Chapter 12 ‘Water resources and Flood Risk’ and Chapter 13 ’Ground Conditions’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 149



Area (AQMA) designation.

• River Aire close to abstraction limit should cooling water be required.

• If groundwater abstraction proposed consideration should be given to a new borehole closer to point of use for FM1 and the Proposed Development.

• Will confirm position on below ground fuel storage bunker taking account of lessons learned on FM1, including expectations regarding necessary containment, monitoring and control measures.

the EA’s consultation response to the EIA scoping.

The result of this consultation was that the Applicant took the decision to discount the below water table option, but to retain the above water table option.

Requirements have been agreed with the EA in relation to the fuel storage bunker relating to its detailed design and also to ensure that the water table level is established prior to construction of the bunker so that the base of the construction of the bunker remains at least 1 metre above the water table level

App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Article 5 ’Limits of deviation’, Requirement No. 5. ‘Design of fuel storage bunker’, No. 6. ‘Pre-development water-tables level survey’, No. 23. ‘Control of noise during construction and maintenance’, No. 36. ‘Air quality - emissions reduction’ and No. 37. ‘Air quality monitoring’.

Natural England

• Demonstrate no protected species on site.

• Demonstrate absence of internationally designated sites in area of potential impact.

• Assess impact on

The ES includes an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development upon designated and non-designated wildlife sites, protected species and habitats. This has been used to inform decisions with regard to any measures that may be required to minimise effects of ecology or for ecological mitigation. The Applicant has committed to preparing and implementing a CEMP, which will include a number of measures to limit construction effects upon ecology.

Decision taken to carry out HRA ‘Screening Report’ to demonstrate that a HRA would not be required to support the DCO application. Decision taken to prepare Biodiversity Strategy to support the DCO application.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 150



nationally designated nature sites.

The ecological surveys undertaken confirm the absence of protected species on Site and that the existing habitat is of limited value, being species poor amenity grassland (former golf course land). No internationally designated Habitats sites have been identified within 15 km of the Site and this has been confirmed in an agreed Statement of Common Ground with Natural England. The Site is not subject to any statutory nature conservation designations. Emissions from the Proposed Development will be strictly controlled under the Environmental Permit, in order to fully comply with the IED and the air quality assessment has concluded that the emissions will lead to insignificant effects on the nationally and locally designated ecological sites in the area.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 14 ‘Ecology’ App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.18 - ES Appendix 14A ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.14 - Biodiversity Strategy. App. Doc. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 17. ‘Biodiversity management plan’ and No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.1 - SoCG with Natural England.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 151

Changes resulting from the Stage 1 ‘Informal’ Consultation 12.18 Following the Stage 1 informal consultation, and having taken account of the responses

received, the Applicant took the decision to make a number of changes to the Proposed Development. The majority of the changes made were a direct result of the Applicant having taken account of the consultation responses, although some stemmed from engineering design development.

12.19 The principal changes are summarised below and those that were not as a result of consultation are identified as such.

• A reduction in the number of combustion lines of the multifuel power station from three to two reducing the width of the boiler hall building (engineering design change).

• Fixing the height of the emissions stack to circa 120 m (136 mAOD), which is above the height that was assessed to be required to ensure adequate emissions dispersion.

• Below groundwater table fuel storage bunker option discounted and further work commenced in relation to demonstrating the acceptability of the depth of construction for the bunker in relation to the ground water table.

• Hybrid cooling technology discounted and an air cooled condenser (ACC) system selected, which was agreed with the Environment Agency to represent the Best Available Technique (BAT) for the Site.

• Location of the ACC fixed to provide noise mitigation through design through location relative to other buildings and structures that would limit the transmission of noise to sensitive receptors (this was an engineering design change to provide embedded mitigation of noise effects but also responded to the feedback received regarding the potential impact of operational noise on the local area).

• Reduction in the extent of the Site as a result of hybrid cooling option being discounted as this would have required a corridor of land to the River Aire for cooling water pipelines.

• Decision taken to assess the viability of upgrading the ‘unnamed road’ running from Stranglands Lane to provide alternative means for cars and light goods vehicles (LGVs) to access the Site during construction and operation.

• Decision taken to discount the grid connection option involving a potential overhead connection to the pylon located within Fryston Wood.

• Investigation of use of the proposed FM1 borehole for groundwater abstraction to supply the Proposed Development.

• Decision taken to carry out Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) ‘Screening Report’ to demonstrate that there would be no impact upon European or Ramsar Sites and that accordingly a HRA would not be required.

• Decision taken to prepare Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies for the Site.

• Inclusion of a requirement in the draft DCO to require that all fuel delivered to the Site complies with the Waste Hierarchy.

• The Friends of Fryston Wood included within membership of CLG and added to list of local consultees for future consultation.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 152

• West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) added to list of technical consultees for future consultation.

Stage 2 ‘Formal’ Consultation 12.20 The approach adopted by the Applicant to the responses received to the Stage 1 informal

consultation from local community and political representatives was also applied to the Stage 2 formal Section 47 consultation. Again, responses were reviewed and issues grouped under ‘topic headings’. A summary of the issues raised is set out beneath each ‘topic heading’ in Table 12.3.

12.21 The issues raised during the Section 47 community consultation were, for the most part, broadly similar to those raised in response to the Stage 1 informal consultation (e.g. air quality, noise, road traffic, employment/local economy) although some additional issues were raised, notably relating to the potential effects of the Proposed Development upon health.

12.22 The Applicant also adopted the approach taken to the Stage 1 informal responses from local authorities and technical consultees to the Stage 2 formal Section 42 (and non-prescribed) consultee responses, with the issues raised summarised by consultee. These are set out in Table 12.4.

12.23 Issues raised by the S.42 (and non-prescribed) were generally of a technical nature relating to the design of the Proposed Development and the scope of the EIA work, some having already been raised during the informal consultation and during the EIA scoping process.

12.24 Each table provides an account of how the Applicant has had regard to the issues raised taking account of the responses made by consultees and identifies any changes that have been made to the Proposed Development and/or Application as a result of consultation and where these changes are referenced within the Application Documents.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 153

Table 12.3 - Stage 2 Formal Consultation - Section 47 Consultee (local community) Comments

Topic Heading Summary of Issues

Regard had to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing


• Importance of good air quality.

• Air quality will be poor from combustion of refuse.

• Already enough pollution with Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1.

• Upgrade Ferrybridge. ‘C’ to meet emissions standards.

• Concerns regarding the plume over Brotherton.

• Concern over smoke and steam emissions

• Additional CO2 will not improve air quality as will contain dioxins.

• Need for air quality monitoring in our villages (e.g. Monk Fryston).

• No monitoring has taken place to the east which is likely to be the area most affected

• Pollution from traffic. • Cumulative effects on

Air quality issues have been considered in detail within Chapter 8 ‘Air Quality’ of the ES with related human health issues (including dioxins) considered in Chapter 18 ‘Health Impact Summary’ and no significant adverse effects have been identified. The Proposed Development will need to comply with stringent air emissions and operational controls set at a European level (under the Industrial Emissions Directive) to limit impacts on air quality and safeguard the health of the local population. Compliance with these controls will be continuously monitored and regulated by the Environment Agency (EA); and should the plant fail to comply, it will have to address the issue or cease operation. The EIA carried out by the Applicant (and reported in the ES) has assessed the potential effects on air quality from the Proposed Development through detailed air dispersion modelling. The modelling has been undertaken based on the conservative assumption (worst case) that emissions from the Proposed Development will be at the maximum levels permitted to be discharged under European legislation for the protection of health. The Proposed Development will in fact operate below these levels for much of the year. FM1 was included as part of the ‘modified’ baseline for the assessment of air quality effects for the Proposed Development, as it is close to being operational and details of the anticipated ‘worst case’ stack and traffic emissions are known. Therefore, FM1 has been fully taken into account within the assessment. In addition, the assessment considers the effects of emissions from the Proposed Development (from the stack and traffic) not only with emissions from FM1 but also in addition to those already occurring from Ferrybridge ‘C’ and the A1(M). The decision by the operator to discontinue 1000MWe of generation output capacity at Ferrybridge “C” was based on the Industrial Emissions Directive

Commitment to achieve a daily average ELV of 180 mg/Nm3 (Annex VI of the IED 2010/75/EU). Commitment to use of a cleaner vehicle fleet (Euro VI engine performance requirements) for contracted fuel deliveries and ash residue collection. Also agreement to carrying out air quality monitoring for the Proposed Development and to include a requirement in the DCO to secure this. No other changes considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapters 7 ‘Transport and Access’ and 8 ‘Air Quality’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 19. ‘Construction traffic routing and management plan’, No. 26. ‘Control of smoke


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 154




air quality with FM1 and A1(M) need to be taken into account.

(IED) from the European Union around a low-carbon future generation fleet to combat global climate change. The UK Government has made a commitment to reduce its carbon emissions by 2020, and the Ferrybridge “C” station units 1 and 2 do not meet these new more stringent emission targets in line with this Directive. Ferrybridge ‘C’ Units 3 and 4 have already been fitted with Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) technology to reduce sulphur emissions. The assessment work has been used to inform the design of the Proposed Development to minimise impacts such that no significant air quality effects are predicted to occur. It is, however, recognised that the Site is located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), which has been designated primarily for traffic emissions from the A1(M) and wider motorway network. Therefore, mitigation has been embedded into the design of the Proposed Development. This has included fixing the height of the emissions stack at circa 120 m (136 mAOD) (higher than would be required to render the effects of any stack emissions as not significant) and committing the Proposed Development to not exceeding a daily average emissions limit value (ELV) for nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide (expressed as nitrogen dioxide) of 180 mg/Nm3 standardised to the requirements specified in Annex VI of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. Furthermore, in order to mitigate emissions from traffic accessing the Site, primarily fuel deliveries, the Applicant is prepared to commit to the use of a cleaner vehicle fleet that meets Euro VI engine performance requirements for contracted fuel deliveries and ash residue collection. This mitigation is to be secured by requirements within the DCO. WMDC has been provided with the opportunity to review the Air Quality chapter of the ES and has confirmed that it finds the methodology and the results of the air quality assessment to be acceptable and has welcomed the inclusion of the embedded process mitigation referred to above. WMDC’s principal interest from an air quality perspective is emissions from road traffic associated with the Proposed Development. WMDC has stated that it will seek to minimise such emissions through the use of a robust travel plan that meets the criteria set out in WMDC’s air quality planning guidance. The

emissions’, No. 27. ‘Control of steam emissions’, No. 31. ‘Operational traffic routing and management plan’, No. 32. ‘Travel plan – operational staff’, No. 36 ‘Air quality - emissions reduction’ and No. 37. ‘Air quality monitoring’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 155




Applicant has prepared framework travel plans (which have been reviewed and accepted by WMDC) and the DCO includes requirements relating to the agreement of construction and operational travel plans. The commitment to a Euro VI fleet for contracted fuel deliveries and ash residue collection will also support WMDC’s objective to minimise road traffic emissions. With regard to air quality monitoring, it was agreed in relation to FM1 that ambient air quality monitoring equipment would be installed and maintained at off-site locations both prior to and post commissioning of the plant. The installation of air monitoring was agreed with WMDC, Selby DC, the EA and the Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England) at the locations that are likely to receive the greatest impacts from emissions. This was agreed to be in the Brotherton area (to the east/ north-east of the Site). For this reason it is therefore considered that Brotherton is a more appropriate location for air quality monitoring than Monk Fryston (to the north-east of the Site), where air quality impacts from the Proposed Development are expected to be insignificant. To date, approximately six months of continuous air quality monitoring data has been obtained at the Ferrybridge Power Station site and at Brotherton. This data confirms that particulate levels are generally well within national Air Quality Strategy objectives in this period. Discussions have been held with WMDC regarding the inclusion of a requirement within the DCO to undertake similar air quality monitoring for the Proposed Development. The Applicant has included such a requirement within the DCO. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Development will vent steam or smoke. However, the Applicant has included requirements within the DCO relating to the control of steam and smoke emissions.

Health • Need for full Health Impact Assessment

• General effects on health - more children in the area have chest

A separate chapter of the ES has been prepared to specifically address health issues. To support this chapter, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) has been undertaken and is presented as an appendix to the ES (Appendix 18A).

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 18 ‘Health


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 156




problems requiring inhalers and nebulizers.

• Reduction in local air quality affecting the health of local people

• Has MEL done a medical check and monitoring of the health of the local community to see how the Proposed Development will affect people's health?

• Recent measurements taken by A.I.R.E group indicate that PM2.5 levels are considerably greater than the desktop estimates which downplay the impact on health/health impacts.

• Smoke generated by the Proposed Development will not be good for health.

The HHRA has assessed the range of potential trace pollutants that could be emitted from the operational Proposed Development and potential exposure pathways to those pollutants. The assessment was based on published guidance and the conservative assumption that emissions are at the maximum levels that the plant would be permitted to discharge to meet European legislative limits set for the protection of health. That is not to say that the Proposed Development will operate at these levels all year round, but that the Applicant has assessed the worst case. The HHRA has also assessed any trace species that could be discharged to air from the plant and considers potential exposure pathways. The HHRA concludes that the Proposed Development is not expected to result in significant impacts on health in the surrounding area as a result of emissions (including PM2.5) or other factors. On this basis there is no justification for medical screening to be undertaken. The latest research issued by the Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England) confirms that well run and regulated modern energy from waste plant are not a significant risk to public health. This has been based upon detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that modern plants make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Development will vent steam or smoke. However, the Applicant has included requirements within the DCO relating to the control of steam and smoke emissions.

Impact Summary’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.25 - ES Appendix 18A ‘Human Health Risk Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 26. ‘Control of smoke emissions’, No. 27. ‘Control of steam emissions’, No. 36. ‘Air quality - emissions reduction’ and No. 37. ‘Air quality monitoring’.


• Ash and dust is already deposited within the area and is

There are a number of potential sources of ash, dust and grit within the locality, although it is difficult to trace deposition back to a particular source.

No change considered necessary as Applicant had determined to prepare


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 157




a problem. • Concern that ash and

dust deposition will become worse.

• Monk Fryston and Hillham down wind and suffer from grit.

The Applicant has committed to prepare and implement a CEMP. This would include a number of measures aimed at controlling the construction effects of the Proposed Development, including the suppression of dust and dirt. The Applicant will have regard to any lessons learned from FM1. The CEMP will be secured by a DCO requirement. With regard to the operational phase, fuel will be delivered in enclosed HGVs, having been processed off site. No fuel would be stored externally unless in enclosed rail containers (unlike coal at Ferrybridge ‘C’) and the Proposed Development will be fitted with bag filters to remove ash and dust from the operational process. Ash will be stored in enclosed silos and taken off site in sealed tankers. In addition to the above, the emissions limits for dust from the Proposed Development that will be set within the Environmental Permit will be more stringent than those for the existing coal fired power station. The DCO includes requirements relating to the control of dust emissions and accumulations. Prior to any work commencing at the Site the Applicant will have to agree the CEMP and the plans required for the above requirements with WMDC.

and implement a CEMP and the EP would control operational emissions.. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.5 - ES Appendix 3A Framework CEMP. App Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’, No. 25. ‘Control of dust emissions’ and No. 29. ‘Accumulation and Deposits’.

Odour • Concern over odour from HGVs delivering refuse to the Site.

• Smell/ odour from fuel.

Fuel will be processed off site and delivered to the Site in enclosed HGVs and/or rail containers. It will then be unloaded within an enclosed building (the tipping hall and fuel bunker), the design and operation of which will ensure (operated under negative pressure) that any odour that may occur will be drawn into the boiler with the combustion air and therefore removed. A Framework Odour Management Plan has been submitted as part of the DCO application and will also support the EP application in due course. This outlines potential contingency measures that the Applicant will implement in the event of any odour issues arising. The DCO also includes a requirement for the submission and approval of a written scheme for the control of any odour emissions before any development can take place.

Decision taken to prepare ‘Framework Odour Management Plan’ to support DCO application. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.11 - ES Appendix 8B Odour Management Plan. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 24. ‘Control of odour


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 158



Regard had to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing emissions’.

Noise and vibration

• Already noise from Ferrybridge ‘C’, which will be made worse.

• Noise should be limited in the early morning/night-time.

• Concern over 24 hour construction working.

• Increase in HGVs will lead to increase in noise.

• Noise from deliveries during construction and operation, especially at night.

• A162 River Aire road bridge should be sound-proofed to limit noise travelling down the river to residents.

• Vibration from the A162 road bridge can be felt in the local properties.

• Need for compensation/sound-proofing to residential properties due to increase in noise.

• Reversing bleepers on vehicles should not be used during

Chapter 9 ‘Noise and Vibration’ of the ES provides an assessment of noise and vibration effects and sets out the controls that will be put in place to manage and minimise noise disturbance through the construction and operational phases. This will include noise monitoring during construction and operation. The assessment was prepared in accordance with published guidance and the methodology was agreed with WMDC Environmental Health. The assessment of noise and vibration includes potential road traffic and rail noise from the Proposed Development in addition to the existing baseline levels, including the noise effects of FM1, the A1(M) and Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station. The predicted construction and operational impacts of road traffic and rail are shown to be insignificant. The assessment demonstrates that the predicted effect of construction traffic (up to 19.00 Monday to Friday) and operational traffic (up to 22:00 Monday to Friday) will not give rise to any significant noise effects at sensitive receptors. For rail noise impacts, the predicted change on top of the existing and consented use of rail for the Ferrybridge site (Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1) has been assessed and confirmed that unacceptable impacts will not occur. Construction of the Proposed Development will predominantly take place between the hours of 07:00 – 19:00, although 24 hour working will be required during certain periods. The assessment has been used to inform the need for embedded mitigation measures to be put in place to manage and minimise noise and vibration during the construction phase. The Applicant has committed to meeting set noise limits at the Site boundary during any evening or nighttime works, to undertaken continuous noise monitoring and to restrict certain noisier activities to daytime working only. Deliveries will be scheduled to be during the daytime wherever possible. The Applicant will work with WMDC to agree periods within the construction programme when 24 hour working may be required and also which activities will not be undertaken at night as they would be too noisy.

Decision taken to fix location of ACC to provide noise mitigation through design. No other changes considered necessary as scope of ES included an assessment of noise and vibration to inform the need for controls, including noise limits and monitoring. App Doc Ref. 6.2 - Environmental Statement (ES) Chapter 3 ‘Proposed Development’ of the ES. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 9 ‘Noise and Vibration’ App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’, No. 20. ‘Construction hours’, No. 21. ‘Piling’, No. 23. ‘Control of noise during construction and maintenance’, No. 33. ‘Operational deliveries’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 159




night-time hours as this is already an issue.

• Need for noise monitoring.

The Applicant will work to make sure that agreed night-time noise and vibration limits are not exceeded and will monitor noise levels around the Site to ensure that these remain within agreed limits so as to not cause any nuisance. The operational plant is designed to run all the time (with the exception of maintenance periods) as it is important that the operating conditions are maintained as consistently as possible to optimise the efficiency of the process. However, fuel will only be delivered by road on Monday to Friday from 07.00 to 22.00 and to 18.30 on Saturdays. There will be no deliveries on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. WMDC placed a planning condition on the S.36 consent for FM1 that specified that all reversing beepers must be disabled at night. The Applicant is prepared to make the same commitment in relation to the Proposed Development. With regard to the A162 road bridge, this was constructed to accommodate, and has historically had, much higher levels of HGV traffic than those currently experienced, as it was formerly part of the A1. The Proposed Development will not cause a significant increase in noise or vibration. The DCO includes a number of requirements that will control noise and vibration effects during construction and operation.

Road traffic/vehicle movements

• Concern over HGVs passing through Ferrybridge and surrounding villages.

• Control over HGV routing.

• Concern over delivery routes if A1(M) or M62 are shut.

The Transport Assessment (ES Appendix 7A) and Chapter 7 Transport and Access of the ES have been prepared to assess the effects of the predicted additional traffic on the highway network (including junctions) during construction and operation. The assessment assumes some deliveries will be during peak hours and makes several ‘worst case’ assumptions including the maximum tonnage of fuel for FM1 and the Proposed Development, method of fuel delivery (all road), and no reduction in traffic due to the recent closure of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Units 1 and 2. No significant issues have been identified and both the strategic and local highway networks would continue to operate

Decision taken to include the potential use of the ‘unnamed road’ running from Stranglands Lane as an option to provide alternative means for cars and LGVs to access the site during construction and operation, subject to


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 160




• Do not schedule deliveries between 08.00-09.30 and 15.30-18.00 to avoid peak periods.

• Delivery times should alter by season.

• Number of deliveries. • Increase in HGV

traffic and impact on residential properties on the A162 south of Ferrybridge and the A645 and slip road north.

• Impact of suspension of coal deliveries to Ferrybridge ‘C’ on road network with both FM1 and the Proposed Development operational.

• No proposals for environmental/road improvements that will reduce environmental impact or compensate for the reduction in the quality of life and diminution of property values.

satisfactorily. The actual number of deliveries to the Proposed Development during operation will depend on a number of factors, including whether any fuel is delivered by rail. As this is uncertain at this stage it has been assumed all fuel is delivered by road to assess potential traffic impacts. All fuel will enter and leave the site via Kirkhaw Lane, Stranglands Lane and the A162, connecting with the motorway network. Cars and light goods vehicles (LGVs) will either use Kirkhaw Lane or the unnamed road (both have been assessed). Fuel deliveries will typically be spread out over the day from 0700 until 2200 Monday to Friday and to 1830 on Saturday, with some hours being busier than others. Our assumptions are that there will be a total of up to 138 HGVs per day accessing the Site (and a corresponding 138 HGVs leaving the Site), with a peak of 14 HGVs per hour (and a corresponding 14 HGVs per hour leaving the Site). There is scope to reduce the number of HGVs accessing the Site in a typical hour by extending the proposed delivery times from 18:30 to 22:00. This should reduce the number of vehicles accessing the Site at any one time. This was presented as part of the formal consultation as the Applicant wished to engage with the local community and obtain feedback. Not only will the change have the potential for reducing the number of HGVs accessing the Site at any one time, but there is also a precedent for later delivery hours in the locality that has been set by a neighbouring facility Siniat, where HGV deliveries can occur up to 23:00. As no significant objections were raised to the proposed extended delivery hours during the formal consultation the Applicant took the decision to factor these into the transport assessment (as well as assessing the shorter hours as a worst case). In summary, the transport assessment undertaken for the Proposed Development, assuming all fuel deliveries taking place by road, has determined that the existing highway network infrastructure is adequate, with sufficient spare capacity to deal with the additional traffic and, consequently, no off-site highway improvement works are required. A traffic model (Vissim

feasibility studies. Delivery hours extended from 0700 - 1830 Monday to Friday to 0700 – 2200 to provide for greater spread of traffic throughout the day. No other changes considered necessary as scope of ES included an assessment of traffic and transport effects and the Applicant had determined to prepare appropriate transport and travel plans. App. Doc Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 7 ‘Transport and Access’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.9 - ES Appendix 7C ‘Operational Travel Plan Framework. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 10 ‘Highway Accesses’, No. 19. ‘Construction Traffic


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 161




• Access for deliveries should be via Kirkhaw Lane to reduce traffic levels on Stranglands Lane.

• Consider new slip road from A1(M)/ M62.

• Number and frequency of HGVs crossing the A162 River Aire road bridge emitting CO2, litter and noise.

• Concerns about the junction on Stranglands Lane and Kirkhaw Lane - needs traffic lights if it is not to be re-modelled

model) showing the effects of operational traffic on key junctions (including Stranglands Lane/Kirkhaw Lane and Stranglands Lane/A162 slip road) was presented at the formal consultation events. In addition to assessing road and junction capacity the assessment also considers sensitivity (including safety of pedestrians and cyclists) and concludes there will be no significant adverse effects. There is no intention to take the seasons into account for the Proposed Development as the transport assessments indicate that the impact associated with this is not significant. The assessments indicate that there is sufficient spare capacity on the highway network and junctions for a base case of all vehicles accessing the site via Stranglands Lane/Kirkhaw Lane. A Framework Operational Travel Plan has been prepared to accompany the DCO application. This includes a routing plan which all HGVs will be expected to follow to avoid Ferrybridge and surrounding villages. The route via the new Dish Hill roundabout is specified in the fuel contracts for FM1, and this will be the same for the Proposed Development. The new vehicle weight restrictions in Ferrybridge Square will also prevent HGVs from using Ferrybridge High Street. This will be enforced by WMDC Highways. The same route will be used by HGVs during construction. This Plan also deals with control of deliveries during any incidents that affect the local road network (e.g. flooding, accidents on motorway). It has been suggested that a new slip road should be constructed from the A1(M) to serve the development. Although the assessments undertaken did not conclude there being a need for a new slip road from the A1(M) the Applicant investigated this matter with the Highways Agency and concluded that this option was not feasible for several technical reasons, not least the proximity of any such slip road to existing junctions on the motorway. Deliveries of coal to Ferrybridge ‘C’ have and always will be via a combination of rail and road. The use of the coal stockpile buffers any disruption to the rail network. This stockpile can supply the power station for over four weeks

routing and management plan’, No. 31 ‘Operational traffic routing and management plan, No. 32 ‘Travel Plan – operational staff and No. 33 ‘Operational deliveries’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.3 - SoCG with Highways Agency.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 162




without any further deliveries. Due to this extensive coal supply buffering capacity on site, the road delivery scenario for coal has not been cumulatively assessed with the Proposed Development. With regards to concerns about quality of life and property prices, there is a long history of power generation at the Ferrybridge site. Ferrybridge ‘C’ is the third coal fired power station to be built on the site since 1924. The land that the Proposed Development will be built on has been allocated by Wakefield Council in its local development plan for power generation development including renewable energy. The preparation of the plan was subject to public consultation and an independent examination before the final decision to allocate this land was made. The allocation is consistent with the long-established use of the site for power generation. As fuel will be delivered from a number of sources at varying distances from the Site, it is not possible to prevent the arrival of HGVs at certain specified times during the day. However, avoiding peak hours for deliveries is in the interest of the hauliers as deliveries during these times may lead to longer delivery times. The transport assessment and modelling undertaken has demonstrated there would be no substantial increase in congestion at these times, including during peak hours. The HAg has confirmed that it is in agreement with the assessments, and it accepts that the impacts of both the construction and operational phases on the strategic highway network will be minimal and that J33 of the M62 has sufficient capacity to handle the traffic. The additional trips will be spread throughout the day and the trip generation forecast is conservative as it takes no account of the mitigating effects of the travel plans. The additional traffic would not trigger the need for any mitigation on the network.


• Rail should be used for the transport of fuel and ash.

• The use of barge

The assessment of fuel deliveries and the removal of ash residue and by-products from the Site (set out in Chapter 7 Transport and Access of the ES) have been based upon the ‘worst case’ scenario of all fuel and ash residue being transported by road. The transport assessment demonstrates that the

The Applicant will implement a Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan to


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 163




should be investigated as an option for fuel deliveries.

• The use of these modes of transport has not been considered.

• The use of rail and river transport will improve air quality.

local highway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate all transport associated with the Proposed Development being by road, and the air quality and noise assessments do not identify any significant adverse effects associated with road traffic. The Applicant agrees that the most sustainable mode of transport should where possible be used for deliveries. However, which transport mode this is depends on a number of factors, such as the distance that fuel is transported to site from the processing facility, how much fuel is being transported from that facility, how close the fuel processing facility is to an existing railhead and the availability of delivery times in the existing rail network schedule as well as cost factors. The Applicant cannot commit to the use of rail or barge at this stage as contracts are not yet in place with fuel suppliers and there is no certainty that suppliers could make use of these modes of transport. The Applicant is, however, actively assessing rail delivery options with potential fuel suppliers and substantial investment has already been made in the existing rail spur (this has been upgraded and extended and a fuel container unloading gantry added) as part of the FM1 development. The Proposed Development would be able to utilise this facility. The potential for the use of barge has been discussed with the Canal & River Trust. The Applicant has confirmed that the use of barge is not viable at present, although this does not rule out the possibility in the future of barge infrastructure being developed at the Site should appropriate fuel contracts be secured. Therefore, the Applicant has included a requirement in the draft DCO that requires it to prepare and agree a Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan prior to any development taking place at the Site. This will commit the Applicant to undertaking a regular review of fuel delivery and ash residue collection transport options to ensure that the most sustainable means of transport are adopted where possible.

promote the use of sustainable modes for the transport of fuel and ash. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 7 Transport and Access. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 34. ‘‘Sustainable fuel transport management plan’.

Need • No local need for waste processing

The need for new electricity generating plant is confirmed in the ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1’, which confirms that the UK needs



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 164




capacity all the types of energy infrastructure that it covers in order to achieve energy security at the same time as dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This includes the type of generating plant being proposed by the Applicant. EN-1 goes on to state that in assessing DCO application the Secretary of State should do so on the basis that the need for those types of energy infrastructure and the scale and urgency of the need for them has been demonstrated. The level of interest in FM1 was one of the reasons why the Proposed Development is being developed as FM1 is now over-subscribed for fuel. The Site was selected as the most appropriate for the Proposed Development because of the excellent transport links and the access to the existing shared services, trained workforce and expertise as FM1.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.7 - Planning Statement - Section 4 ‘The Need for the Proposed Development’.

Fuel supply/ source

• Approach Shanks re fuel supply as have local waste contracts.

• Why are we burning other countries waste?

• Suggest coal should be used first.

The location from where fuel would be sourced is subject to fuel suppliers and contracts. It is not possible to enter into contracts until a DCO has been granted and the detailed design of the Proposed Development has been progressed. FM1 which is currently under construction will take waste derived fuel from the local area, including Wakefield, Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham (supplied by Shanks). It is envisaged that fuel for the Proposed Development will be derived from the north of England, with the rail infrastructure providing a means to source fuel by a sustainable transport mode from further afield. There are no plans for the Proposed Development to take fuel from overseas. Wherever fuel is sourced from, it will need to be compliant with the Waste Hierarchy and relevant waste plans and policies. The Applicant has prepared a Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment to demonstrate compliance with the Waste Hierarchy and waste policy. This is a requirement of the ‘National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3’. The assessment concludes that there is sufficient fuel availability in the UK without the need to import. Coal will continue to be used in Unit 3 and 4 of Ferrybridge ‘C’. The Proposed Development is not designed or equipped to burn coal as one of its sources of

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No.3. ‘Fuel Type’ and 40. ‘Waste hierarchy’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 165




fuel. The type of fuel that can be combusted within the Proposed Development will be limited to waste derived fuel by a DCO requirement.

Generating capacity

• Generating capacity of 70MWe (net) is a poor return for the amount of disruption.

• Generating capacity not sufficient to replace Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal fired Power Station.

Government energy policy (set out in the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1) confirms that there is an urgent need for all forms of electricity generating capacity, including low carbon and renewable forms of generating capacity, such as that proposed. It recognises the importance of decarbonising the UK energy sector and having a diverse range of generating capacity as a means of enhancing the security of the Country’s energy supplies. It does not set maximum or minimum targets and recognises the contribution that all projects can make to security of supply. While the generating capacity of the Proposed Development at 90MWe gross is significantly less than Units 1 and 2 of Ferrybridge ‘C’ (1000MWe), which have recently closed, 70MWe net of low carbon renewable electricity would make a significant contribution to the Government’s objectives of decarbonising energy generation and enhancing security of supply. The Proposed Development will also help divert waste away from landfill in accordance with the waste hierarchy thus contributing to overall UK carbon targets. The Proposed Development is not intended or designed to replace the loss of generating capacity at Ferrybridge ‘C’, and the design of the plant does not allow for the effective combustion of coal due to the technology needed to optimise the combustion of waste derived fuels. Rather it is intended to complement SSE’s diverse portfolio of generation assets, such as gas and wind. The closure of Units 1 and 2 is as a result of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) aimed at delivering a low-carbon electricity generation fleet across the EU. The UK Government has made a commitment to reduce its carbon emissions by 2020 and Units 1 and 2 do not meet the new more stringent emission targets set by the Directive.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.7 - Planning Statement - Section 4 ‘The Need for the Proposed Development’.

Combustion process

• A temperature of 850 degrees Celsius is not sufficient to safely burn waste without resulting in the release of toxic gases

A temperature of 850 degrees Celsius, maintained for a two second residence time is the minimum temperature and residence time that have to be maintained in order for the multifuel power station to be allowed to operate and to comply with the IED. This Directive was developed for the protection of human health across Europe and to ensure that all European plants meet the same approved high standards of environmental protection. Their basis has



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 166




and wastes. 1250 degrees Celsius is considered to be the minimum level at which waste can be safely burned.

• Will produce toxic ash which will be transported by road through the local community.

been developed on scientific evidence. In addition, the time and temperature that the fuel will be burned at in the Proposed Development are likely to be a higher and longer than these minimum requirements. A separate Environmental Permit will also be required (which will have conditions relating to emissions) and this is being progressed in parallel with the DCO Application. Measures will be put in place to ensure safe transportation of combustion by-product residue (ash) from the Site as part of the contracts associated with waste removal. The majority of the ash that will be produced is bottom ash that is not hazardous and it will be sent off-site to be recycled for use in aggregate such as materials in road construction, which in turn avoids the need to quarry as much aggregate material. In addition to the bottom ash, around 22,000 tonnes of fly ash FGT residue ash will be produced each year based on worse case estimates. This ash is defined as hazardous due to its high pH value, which is caused by the addition of lime (or equivalent) during the process to neutralise the presence of any acid gases. It will be transported off-site in sealed containers and poses no risk to local communities.

Design/ appearance/ landscaping

• Building heights should be kept as low as possible/elevations should be kept as low as possible.

• Power station is already an eyesore without making it bigger.

• Building design should be more sympathetic.

• Large structures, not easy to screen.

• Extensive

The Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station site has a long history of power generation and comprises a number of large buildings and structures, including tall emission stacks and cooling towers. In addition, the immediate setting of the Power Station site as well as the surrounding area is heavily influenced by extensive built development, including industrial structures and major transport corridors. The Power Station site is also allocated for power generation development in the local development plan.

The approach used for the design and appearance of the Proposed Development has been to take design references from its surroundings, notably the built form of Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1. The proposed design and appearance of the Proposed Development is therefore functional, reflecting its purpose and surroundings. The materials and external finishes used will be largely dictated by construction and technical considerations and it is envisaged that concrete, steel and metal cladding will be prevalent, again reflecting the surrounding context. Furthermore, the design of the Proposed

Commitment to Landscape Strategy for the Site. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.8 - Design and Access Statement. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.13 - Landscape Strategy App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 11 ‘Landscape and Visual Amenity’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Article 5 ‘Limits of


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 167




landscaping required. • Fuel storage bunker

is close to River Aire and there are known to be flooding problems.

• Buildings should be wholly above ground due to River Aire.

Development takes account of comments made by WMDC during the consultation that it would be appropriate for it to reflect that of FM1. It is also important to recognise that the design of FM1 was considered to be acceptable by both WMDC and the SoS.

The scale, form and massing of the Proposed Development has been influenced by technical and engineering considerations, combined with the need to meet environmental and other regulatory requirements. Electricity generating stations by their nature involve large buildings and structures. The scale of the Proposed Development will be broadly comparable to FM1, although some elements, notably the emissions stack (circa 136 mAOD in height) would be taller so as to ensure the adequate dispersion of emissions. However, it is important to view this within the context of the wider Power Station site with a number of the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ structures, notably the emissions stacks and cooling towers being of far greater scale, bulk and massing than those that would be associated with the Proposed Development. Furthermore, the ‘concept’ design for the Proposed Development is based on a maximum ‘worst case’ built envelope that has had to be defined so that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the development is robust and fully assesses its potential environmental effects. This is necessary as certain components of the Proposed Development cannot be fixed until the detailed design and engineering stage. Therefore, the Proposed Development as constructed will not exceed the scale parameters of the concept layout, and indeed, a number of the built elements are likely to be of a reduced scale.

The Applicant has sought to explore how the scale and massing of the Proposed Development could be reduced. For instance, three different options were originally presented during the consultation for the fuel storage bunker building (one of the largest elements of the development), with two of these involving below ground solutions. However, through discussions with the Environment Agency (EA) it has been established that the below ground option that will involve development below the watertable (which would deliver the lowest profile building) will not be acceptable due to potential impacts of the flow of ground water. It has been agreed with the EA that the fuel storage

deviation’, Schedule 3 ‘Maximum building heights’, Requirement No. 4 ‘Detailed Design Approval’, No. 5 ‘Design of fuel storage bunker’, No. 6 ‘Pre-development water-tables level survey’, No. 7 ‘Provision of landscaping’ and No. 9 ‘External lighting’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 168




bunker will need to be installed above the maximum height of the watertable. This is an illustration of how technical and engineering considerations have shaped the design of the Proposed Development. Furthermore, the Applicant has also sited the Proposed Development as close to the built form of FM1 and Ferrybridge ‘C’ as possible, while taking account of physical and other constraints, including the location of existing infrastructure and the need to safeguard electricity grid connection cables and flood risk. As a result, the built form of the Proposed Development will be consolidated with that already existing at the Power Station site, consequently reducing its visual impact, as it will for the most part be viewed against the backdrop of the existing large structures. The Applicant acknowledges the desire of members of the local community to protect views from the villages and other locations surrounding the Power Station site. Chapter 11 of the ES ‘Landscape and Visual Amenity’ considers the effects of the Proposed Development upon landscape character and visual amenity within the surrounding area. The assessment has taken account of views of representative viewpoints from the surrounding area toward the Site (agreed with WMDC and other relevant stakeholders) and a number of photomontages are presented illustrating how the Proposed Development will appear within the landscape. The assessment demonstrates that views are already heavily influenced by the buildings and structures associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1 and that the impacts that will result upon landscape character and visual amenity will not be significant.

The Applicant has developed a Landscape Strategy for the Site. The scale of the proposed and existing buildings means that there is limited opportunity to screen the taller structures. . The landscape strategy sets out the broad areas that will be subject to landscaping, the types of landscaping that will be implemented and the objectives to be achieved through the landscaping scheme. It is proposed that landscaping will be aimed primarily at enhancing the biodiversity of the Site and will therefore involve the planting of native species.

Lighting • External lighting A Lighting Strategy has been developed and submitted with the DCO Preparation of Lighting


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 169




should be designed to not spread beyond the Site boundary and light spill should be limited.

• Will the Proposed Development have floodlighting?

• Aviation warning lighting on the stack should be avoided

application. This includes measures to prevent lighting glare and intrusion to residents and habitats adjacent to the Site. The Proposed Development is being developed within the context of Ferrybridge ‘C’ and the A1(M), which are already well lit. It is not the Applicant’s intention to increase light levels at residential properties on top of what is already experienced. Nevertheless, the Site will require lighting to ensure a safe working environment is maintained throughout the day and night, as parts of the plant will operate 24 hours a day. This lighting will be designed in such a way to minimise glare and light spillage off the Site affecting either adjacent residential receptors or ecological receptors, through the use of measures such as low level lighting or directional lighting for working areas. There is prescriptive guidance on building design and the lighting of construction and operational sites so as to minimise light pollution and this guidance will be followed in the detailed design for the Proposed Development. The UK Air Navigation Order requires that for en-route obstructions, aviation warning lighting is legally required for structures of 150 m or more in height. The proposed emissions stack falls below the 150 m threshold and there is already aviation lighting installed on both of the 198 m high flue stacks associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’. There is therefore no intention to operate additional aviation lighting on the Proposed Development structures or emissions stack. However, in light of comments received during consultation from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the Applicant will install aviation lighting on the emissions stack when it is built, but this lighting will only be commissioned and operated in the event of the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ stacks being demolished. A SoCG has been agreed with the CAA regarding aviation lighting.

Strategy to define principles of lighting design. Additional evaluation and mitigation of potential lighting effects on A1(M) during construction. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.12 - Lighting Strategy. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 9. ‘External lighting’, No. 22. ‘Construction - A1(M)’ and No. 43. ‘Aviation warning lighting’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.2 – SoCG with CAA.

Proximity to residential areas

• Build away from residential areas.

It is important to recognise the Site is located within the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site that has a long history of power generation use since the first coal fired power station was developed in the 1920s. The Power Station site is allocated for power generation development within the local development plan and the potential impacts of future development on local

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 9.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 170




communities will have been taken into account in the plan-making process. It is recognised that there are established communities and residents in the locality, which is why the Applicant has robustly assessed the potential effects of emissions to air, noise, traffic and other considerations in order to develop the design of the Proposed Development so as to minimise those impacts. A number of requirements are also included within the DCO that are aimed at limiting and controlling the effects of the development.

‘External Lighting’, 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’, No. 20 ’Construction hours’, No. 21 ‘Piling’, No. 23. ‘Control of noise during construction and maintenance’, No. 24. ‘Control of odour emissions’, No. 25. ‘Control of dust emissions’, No. 26. ‘Control of smoke emissions’, No. 27. ‘Control of steam emissions’, No. 28. ‘Control of insects and vermin’, No. 29. ‘Accumulations and deposits’, No. 33 ‘Operational deliveries’ and No. 35. ‘Air quality -emissions reductions.

Flooding • Junction at Ferrybridge (under the railway bridge on Stranglands Lane) floods on a regular basis and will affect traffic flows.

• Works should be undertaken to improve drainage.

The Proposed Development will maintain surface water runoff rates from the Site (former golf course land) to current rates (or better) and will not therefore exacerbate any flooding issues in the local area. Surface water from the Proposed Development will be directed to the Fryston Beck which discharges to the River Aire. This will therefore not impact on any flooding that may currently occur under the railway bridge on Stranglands Lane. The Operational Travel Plan (ES Appendix 7C) will include controls relating to deliveries during any flooding events. The surface water from the Ferrybridge ‘C’ site does not discharge to the drain

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 12 ‘Water Resources and Flood Risk’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.8 - ES Appendix 7C ‘Operational Travel Plan’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 171




running under the railway bridge, rather it is discharged into the cooling tower ponds and from there, after appropriate testing and monitoring, is discharged into the River Aire. The Applicant has investigated the cause(s) of existing flooding under the railway bridge and has discussed the issue with WMDC and Yorkshire Water. It is understood that there are several potential factors causing the problem, however, the assessments have concluded that the Proposed Development would not exacerbate the existing issue. Surface water run-off from the Site will be controlled to greenfield rates and discharged to the Fryston Beck that subsequently discharges to the River Aire.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 13. ‘Surface and foul water drainage and No. 14. ‘Flooding’.

Archaeology • Has an archaeology survey been carried out?

Chapter 15 of the ES (Archaeology and Cultural Heritage) sets out the work undertaken with respect to archaeology. A Desk Based Archaeological Assessment (DBA) is included at Appendix 15A of the ES. The scope of the archaeological works has been discussed and agreed with WYAAS on the advice of English Heritage. The draft DCO includes a requirement that requires the submission and approval of a written scheme of archaeological investigation prior to the commencement of development.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 15 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.21 - ES Appendix 15A ‘Archaeology Desk Based Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.8 – SoCG with WYAAS App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 16. ‘Archaeology’

Ecology/ biodiversity and green infrastructure

• Potential impact of emissions on local ecology.

• Need to protect

Chapter 14 of the ES (Ecology) considers the impact of the Proposed Development on local ecology and designated sites. The Site is not subject to any statutory nature conservation designations, although it does form part of a wider ‘Wildlife Habitat Network’ on the Policies Map of the WMDC Local Plan.

Decision taken to prepare Biodiversity Strategy to support the DCO application.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 172




designated sites such as the Brotherton Ings from any accidents or impacts that may have off-site effects.

Natural England (NE) has confirmed that there is no potential for the Proposed Development to impact upon international sites and as such a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is not required. This is documented in the SoCG that has been agreed between the Applicant and NE. Further, NE has confirmed that will not result in significant impacts upon nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), including the Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI. Chapter 14 confirms that surveys have not identified any protected species at the Site, while the habitat is of limited value, being species poor amenity grassland. The Applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Strategy as part of the Application that sets out measures for enhancing the biodiversity of the Site. In addition, the DCO includes a requirement to secure the preparation and approval of a Biodiversity Management Plan prior to any development at the site. The DCO includes a number of other requirements that will secure measures to minimise the potential for any accidents or impacts that may have off-site effects, including a CEMP and a written scheme to deal with contamination of land, ground water and water courses, amongst others. The Proposed Development will also be controlled through an Environmental Permit.

App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 14 ‘Ecology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.18 - ES Appendix 14A ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.14 - Biodiversity Strategy. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 15. ‘Contaminated land and ground water’, No. 17. ‘Biodiversity management plan and No. 18 ‘Construction environmental management plan’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.1 - SoCG with Natural England.


• Want to see the local economy benefitting from jobs.

• Should employ local and national skilled workers.

• Apprenticeships should be offered.

Chapter 10 ‘Land Use and Socio-Economics’ of the ES considers potential benefits from employment for local area. FM1 will create up to 50 full time, permanent jobs once operational. The Proposed Development will provide up to 46 permanent operational posts. This represents a significant number of new jobs, many of which will be skilled posts.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 10 ‘Land Use and Socio-Economics’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 173




Based on the information gathered from FM1, the three year construction phase of the Proposed Development is expected to generate around £10 million of additional business for the local economy. Local employment opportunities during the construction phase will be dependent on the contractor appointed and the skills that are available locally. The Applicant will work with the appointed contractor to promote the use of local labour. A ‘Meet the Buyer’ event will be held locally prior to the start of construction to provide local businesses the opportunity to present their capabilities to the main contractor. An Open4Business portal has been set up to publicise contracting opportunities to local businesses. SSE also currently operates a national apprenticeship scheme with up to 100 apprentices being recruited in 2014 to service its current business across the UK. The Applicant has advertised the FM1 operational posts locally and received a very positive response. The same strategy would be adopted for the Proposed Development.

Combined heat and power

• There has previously been a district heating scheme at WF10 3DJ. Could this be resurrected?

The Applicant is not aware of any district heating system at this location. A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Assessment has been submitted as part of the DCO Application. This has been prepared in accordance with the (EA ‘CHP Ready’ guidance and has been informed by discussions with WMDC and other parties. The CHP Assessment concludes that there is no viable demand for the supply of heat from the Proposed Development at this time. However, the draft DCO includes a requirement that (in accordance with the EA guidance) the Applicant designs and maintains the plant to be CHP Ready and keeps the potential for CHP under review for the lifetime of the Proposed Development.

The design and layout of the Proposed Development takes account of the need for it to be CHP Ready. No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 4.10 - Indicative District Heating Pipeline Routes. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.10 - Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Assessment.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 174



Regard had to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 39. ‘Combined heat and power’.

Carbon emissions

• Carbon emissions will be increased.

• Any emissions savings will be reduced by number of vehicle movements.

Government energy policy (The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1) confirms that energy from waste plants represent a form of low carbon renewable electricity generation. Furthermore, that they contribute toward the objectives of decarbonising the UK energy sector and diversifying generation capacity. The DCO application includes a Carbon Impact Assessment to determine the carbon savings attributable to the Proposed Development compared to the alternative of sending the waste that will be used as fuel to landfill. This assessment is based on robust assumptions and allows for sensitivities where the Applicant deems these to be appropriate (e.g. transport distances). It is anticipated that based on a conservative assessment, carbon savings of between 130 and 135 million kilograms of CO2 will be realised in comparison to the alternative of sending the waste to landfill. Further to the above, the Applicant will keep under review the potential to reduce reliance on road transport for the delivery of fuel and removal of ash through the Sustainable Fuel Management Transport Plan, while the Applicant has also committed to the use of a HGV fleet for contracted fuel delivery and ash residue collection that meets Euro VI engine performance requirements.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.23 - ES Appendix 17A ‘Carbon Impact Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.25 - ES Appendix 17B ‘WRATE Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 34. ‘Sustainable fuel transport management plan’ and No. 36. ‘Air quality - emissions reduction’.

Consultation • People were not aware of consultation/there was late notification of events.

• The community feel they have no say in the matter – it will happen no

The Applicant has consulted extensively on the Proposed Development as demonstrated in this Consultation Report. Prior to submitting a DCO application, developers are expected to carry out at least one stage of consultation. However, the Applicant was keen to engage with the local community early in the project development, and so has held two rounds of consultation, one (informal consultation) during July/September 2013 and one (formal consultation) during November/ December 2013. The formal consultation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the PA 2008. The extent of the geographical areas and methods for both stages

The Applicant has consulted extensively and in accordance with the agreed Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). No changes are therefore considered necessary in terms of additional consultation.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 175




matter what their opinions are

of consultation were agreed with WMDC and also discussed with other relevant local authorities such as Selby DC and NYCC. In advance of both stages of consultation, the Applicant sent letters and newsletters (over 23,000 newsletters for the formal consultation) to local residents and businesses within a wide area surrounding the Site advising of the start of the consultation, deadlines for making comments, where consultation materials could be viewed and also the dates and venues for consultation events. The consultation was also advertised in the regional and local press and by posters erected in the area around the Site. The locations where the consultation materials could be viewed and the venues for the consultation events were chosen so as to be accessible for people living in the area around the site. Venues were included in Monk Fryston for example. The Applicant also advised community groups and forums and local political representatives of the consultation. The periods allowed for the community consultation were significantly in excess of the 28 day period that is generally accepted as the acceptable minimum for consultation. After the formal consultation stage, newsletters were sent to all those that responded to either/ both stages of consultation and to around 2,500 homes in closest proximity to the site (the informal consultation area). The newsletter provided an update on changes that had occurred since the formal consultation, which had taken consultation feedback into account. The Applicant therefore considers that the community consultation it has carried out has provided people with sufficient opportunity to comment on the Proposed Development and has gone significantly beyond what is required by the PA 2008. The local community will also have the opportunity to make written or verbal representation at the examination stage of the DCO process. An independent body, the Planning Inspectorate, will consider the DCO application and the

App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.1 - Consultation Report - Sections 4 ‘Stage 1 Informal Consultation’, 6 ‘Stage 2 Formal Consultation - Preparation of the SoCC and 7 ‘Stage 2 Formal Consultation - Section 47 ‘Duty to consult local community’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 176




Secretary of State will make the final decision. Community benefits/funding

• Community benefit fund should be set up.

• Contribution should be made to Brotherton Lunch Club.

• Funding for tennis courts.

• Support youth provision and community centre development project in Selby.

• Fund new village hall in Brotherton/Byram

An applicant for a DCO can make financial contributions in respect of their development proposals through a S.106 ‘development consent obligation’. However, development consent obligations should only be entered into where they meet the relevant tests established through case law and the contributions or other measures to be secured are necessary to mitigate the impacts of a development that would otherwise be considered to be unacceptable in planning terms. The assessment of the Application, notably through the EIA, has not identified any impacts that will in themselves, or cumulatively, result in the Proposed Development being unacceptable in planning terms and therefore require mitigation through a S.106 development consent obligation. In terms of the issue of community funding, which is distinct and separate from any requirement for a development consent obligation, the Applicant acknowledges the interest that has been expressed for such funding to support a range of local initiatives. It is acknowledged and appreciated that the community desires such funds and the Applicant will review this in line with its overall commitment to the local community.


FM1 • Impact of FM1 unknown - application is premature

• Actual noise from FM1 would be useful.

• Noise from FM1 been excessive and source of some noise yet to be identified.

• Application should

FM1 is a separate project to the Proposed Development. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from FM1 have been taken into account in developing the Proposed Development. The ES includes FM1 as part of a modified baseline in order to assess the worst case cumulative impact of FM1 and the Proposed Development. This has utilised the most up to date design and recorded information regarding FM1 and the assessment is considered to be robust and ‘worst case’. This approach allows the understood future impacts of FM1 to be incorporated into the assessment of potential effects of the Proposed Development in the most robust way possible, therefore there is considered to be no need to defer the DCO application for the Proposed Development. There are procedures in place relating to the construction phase of FM1. Construction noise and dust management is taken very seriously by the FM1



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 177




be postponed until FM1 becomes operational so the cumulative impact can be properly assessed

• Will FM1 car parks be used?

• Lack of consultation in Monk Fryston and Hillam for FM1.

team and are managed through a CEMP. In addition, a complaints procedure and 24 hour manned telephone are used to receive and respond to any complaints from the public. Any such issues are investigated and the findings are reported to the community through the Ferrybridge CLG. The use of the FM1 construction staff car parks will be reviewed for FM1, however, due to the operational requirements of FM1 it is possible that alternative parking facilities will need to be provided within the Proposed Development. For FM1, the approach to consultation was agreed with statutory consultees and two rounds of public exhibitions were held; initial exhibitions in March 2009 when the proposed development was announced, and follow-up exhibitions in September 2009, prior to a Section 36 application being submitted. Advertisements were placed in the local papers for two weeks, as well as posters being displayed across the area. Additionally, 3,000 bookmarks publicising the event were issued to local libraries and schools to inform people of the project and advertise the exhibitions. The Proposed Development is being developed under a different consenting process and in accordance with the Statement of Community Consultation agreed with WMDC.

Other • Environmental Permit.

• Changes to Application Site.

• Suggest bigger plant should be constructed to replace coal fire power station.

• Will there be an FM3 • The project is in

Wakefield, but its Selby residents that

The Environmental Permit (EP) for the Proposed Development will be applied for shortly after the submission of the DCO application and is expected to be granted by the EA prior to any DCO being granted. The EP has already been issued for FM1. Between the informal consultation and the formal consultation stages the Application Site boundary was changed. The overall extent of the Site was reduced, while some new strips of land were included to incorporate connection points for site services. Changes to the Site boundary were on display at the public consultation events. Following the formal consultation, the land that will be needed for the development has been further refined to more closely reflect the Proposed Development land needs compared to the start of the informal consultation process. This change has been

Requirement of land required for the Proposed Development. No other change considered necessary.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 178




suffer

communicated by Community Newsletter No. 2 (May 2014). The Proposed Development plant size has been optimised to balance any economies of scale with the commercial availability of proven boilers of the necessary size and the practicalities of delivering larger volumes of fuel to the plant. The Proposed Development is not being designed to replace Ferrybridge ‘C’ and the technology and choice of fuel is not able to reach the same levels of electrical output. There are no current plans for a further multifuel power station at the Ferrybridge Power Station site and any such plans would be subject to fuel availability, available land and a range of commercial considerations. The residents of Selby District have been consulted on the Proposed Development in accordance with the Statement of Community Consultation agreed with Selby District Council and the various assessments have identified no significant impacts. The Applicant is committed to working with all of the communities adjacent to their developments and will continue to do so. An existing Community Liaison Group – of which Selby District Council is a part - is set up and the minutes of the meetings are available on the project website: www.multifuelenergy.com/community.

Table 12.4 - Stage 2 Formal Consultation - Section 42 Consultee and Non-Prescribed Consultee Comments

Body Summary of Comments

Regard to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing

S.42 consultees NATS En-Route Safeguarding

• No infrastructure in locality and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria but

No changes have been made since S.42 consultation (i.e. change in location of the development) that would necessitate re-consulting NATS.



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 179




should be consulted on any changes.

West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service

• Advice on sprinkler protection to process areas and water supplies (hydrants); need to provide access and facilities for fire service vehicles and appliances and ensure compliance with Building Regulations; recommend entering into dialogue regarding matters associated with construction.

Response issued confirming that advice and recommendations provided will be taken into account at the detailed design stage and that tender documentation issued to potential contractors will require compliance with fire safety and protection measures and also Building Regulations. Also proposed inclusion of a requirement in the draft DCO to secure submission of a Fire Prevention Method Statement (to be discussed with WYF&RS) prior to commencement of the development.

Documentation issued to contractors will include requirement to comply with relevant fire safety and buildings regulations and DCO Required relating to fire prevention drafted. No other change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 38. ‘Fire Prevention’.

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

• Due to nature, location and height of emissions stack aviation warning lighting should be installed as a reasonable duty of care; information should be provided to Defence Geographic Agency on structures for charting on aviation maps; MoD position should be established; views of local emergency services air support units should be sought.

Response issued confirming that: the Proposed Development does not raise any aerodrome safeguarding issues; there is existing aviation lighting on the Ferrybridge ‘C’ stacks (which are higher than the stack for the Proposed Development) but the proposed emissions stack will include the necessary infrastructure to facilitate aviation lighting. This will only be commissioned and operated in the event that the Ferrybridge ‘C’ stacks are demolished and will be secured by a suitable requirement in the draft DCO also covering the need for any cranes used during constructed to be fitted with lighting; the development will involve no gas venting or flaring; details would be provided to the Defence Geographic Agency of structures (including the stack) so these can be charted on aviation maps (to be secured by a requirement); MoD has confirmed that it has no safeguarding objections; and that the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Service would be consulted. Draft ‘requirements’ were included relating to aviation warning lighting and aviation mapping. CAA responded confirming (12.02.14) that it had no issues with the position and way forward outlined in the response. A Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) was subsequently agreed including wording for the ‘requirements’.

Decision taken by Applicant to commit to aviation warning lighting on emissions stack that can be operated in the event of the existing warning lighting at the Ferrybridge Power Station site being decommissioned. No other change considered necessary. Yorkshire Air Ambulance consulted on 11.02.14 (no response received). App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 43.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 180



Regard to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing ‘Aviation warning lighting’ and No. 44. ‘Air safety’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.2 SoCG with CAA.

Energetics Gas Limited

• No plant identified within the Site.

Comments noted. No change considered necessary.

London & Continental Railways (LCR)

• Not relevant to LCR. Comments noted. No change considered necessary.

Fulcrum Pipelines Ltd

• No comments to make but should be consulted again prior to excavations.

Response issued on 28.02.14 confirming that tender documentation issued to potential contractors will require the appointed contractor to notify the relevant statutory undertaker/organisation of any works within the vicinity of its assets prior to these works taking place.

Documentation issued to contractors will include requirement to notify relevant statutory undertakers/organisations of any works within the vicinity of their assets prior to works taking place. No other change considered necessary.

Ministry of Defence (MoD)

• No safeguarding objection.

Response issued to MoD advising of response made to CAA on same date, in particular, the approach suggested with regard to aviation warning lighting and aviation mapping.

No change considered necessary

Highways Agency Historical Railways Estate

• No assets affected by the proposals.

Comments noted. No change considered necessary

English Heritage

• Agree that proposals unlikely to have a harmful affect upon designated heritage

Response issued noting English Heritage’s (EH) comments and confirming that WYAAS was consulted by the Applicant as part of the formal consultation (although not a S.42 consultee) and that following a response from WYAAS dated 20 November 2013, consultation was underway with the body and that

App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 15 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. No change


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 181




assets or their settings; will defer to West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) in relation to non-designated assets and any archaeological deposits.

it would be invited to comment on the Desk Based Archaeological Assessment (DBAA) and the draft Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Chapter of the ES. Also that WYAAS would be consulted on the wording of an appropriate archaeological ‘requirement’ for inclusion within the draft DCO. A SoCG has been agreed with EH setting out the agreed position with regard to designate heritage assets and including suggested wording for an appropriate archaeological ‘requirement’ for inclusion in the draft DCO. WYAAS has been consulted on the DBA and the wording of the archaeological requirement has been agreed in the Statement of Common Ground.

considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 16. ‘Archaeology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.4 - SoCG with English Heritage App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.8 - SoCG with WYAAS.

Highways Agency (HAg)

• No comments to make but reiterate need for a Transport Assessment covering construction and operation and attendant Travel Plans.

Response issued confirming that the air cooled condenser (ACC) had been selected (and agreed with the Environment Agency) as the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the cooling technology for the Proposed Development, removing the HAg’s concerns about fogging and freezing effects on the A1(M); that a Transport Assessment (TA) had been undertaken and that this confirms that the traffic associated with the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the road network; and that the DCO application will include framework travel plans for both the construction and operational phases. A SoCG has been agreed with HAg setting out the agreed position with regard to the cooling system; the TA and travels plans; fencing and construction works adjacent to the A1(M); access from the A1(M) to the Proposed Development (in response to an issue raised during the S.47 about the possibility of creating a separate slip road from the A1(M) to the Proposed Development) and noise attenuation barriers; in addition to suggested wording for ‘requirements’ for inclusion in the draft DCO.

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 3’ Proposed Development’ and Chapter 7 ‘Transport and Access’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 10. ‘Highway Accesses’, No. 11. ‘Fencing A1(M)’, No. 19. ‘Construction Traffic routing and management plan’, No. 22. ‘ Construction - A1(M)’, No. 31. ‘Operational traffic routing and management plan, No. 32. ‘Travel Plan – operational staff and No. 33 ‘Operational deliveries’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 182



Regard to Consultation Change(s) Made & Document Referencing App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.3 - SoCG with Highways Agency.

Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB)

• Unsure why consulted. Should consider consulting Network Rail and Northern Rail.

Response issued confirming that RSSB consulted as functions had been transferred to it from BRB Residuary Ltd (formerly a ‘prescribed person’ under S.42) and that it had been considered appropriate to consult the successor bodies as they may have interests in the rail network within the vicinity of the Site. Response also confirmed that Network Rail had been consulted as part of the formal S.42 consultation and that there was on-going dialogue with NR regarding the interface between its assets and the rail infrastructure at the Site. The response stated that it was not considered necessary to consult Northern Rail given that responsibility for the rail network lies with NR and the Proposed Development has no implications for passenger services.

No change considered necessary

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

• Site not within any HSE Consultation Distance; need to consider hazardous substances stored at the Site and the possible need for Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC); need to consider electrical safety, particularly in relation to existing generation, transfer and distribution assets; proposals do not impinge on separation distances of any explosive sites.

Response issued noting comments and confirming that the Applicant has compiled a list of substances that will be stored at the Site and established that all fall below the controlled quantities within the Hazardous Substances Regulations and that therefore none, either alone or aggregated are considered to require HSC regulation. Also that the Applicant notes the requirement to comply with general health and safety and electrical safety legislation and that it is in dialogue with statutory undertakers and other organisations that may have electrical assets either within or in close proximity to the Site (assets have been identified through the land referencing work undertaken by Ardent). In addition, that the tender information issued to potential contractors will require the appointed contractor to ensure full compliance with relevant legislation.

Documentation issued to contractors will include requirement to comply with relevant healthy and safety legislation and regulations. No other change considered necessary

Environment Agency (EA)

• ES should define all likely impacts and effects with mitigation secured through design

Response issued noting the comments and recommendations set out in the response and stating that (as discussed at the meeting between the EA and Applicant on 26.02.2014) the contents on the letter (largely mirrored by the EIA scoping response) have been taken into account in carrying out the EIA

Requirement included in DCO to establish watertable levels at the Site prior to the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 183




or requirements in the DCO.

• Applicant should carry

out hydrological risk assessment to ascertain ground conditions and identify potential receptors for pollution.

• Welcome decision to

discount the option of a fuel bunker below water table; preference is for above ground bunker and would welcome further discussions on this.

• Application should

demonstrate how mitigation for preventing pollution risks to ground water will be secured.

• The DCO should include

a ‘requirement’ to secure the preparation of a CEMP.

• Clarity on whether the

Material Management and Operation

and will be reported within the ES. Also confirmed that the Applicant will contact the EA in advance of the submission of the DCO application to discuss and agree the wording of a SoCG, in addition to the wording of ‘requirements’’ for inclusion within the draft DCO to cover matters falling within the remit of the EA. Chapter 13 Ground Conditions and Appendix 13A Ground Investigation of the ES include a hydrological risk assessment and conceptual site model along with mitigation measures that will be required to prevent pollution to ground water. A requirement will be included in the draft DCO requiring a written scheme to deal with existing contaminated land, ground water or water courses prior to development, so that it is appropriately addressed before any structures are built on top of it for example. The ES will identify all likely impacts and effects and how these are mitigated either through design or ‘requirements’ within the draft DCO. With regard to the fuel storage bunker, the draft DCO will include a requirement to establish water table levels at the Site prior to the commencement of development and the detailed design of the fuel storage bunker itself. The bunker will not be constructed into the water table and will be designed and constructed as a water retaining structure to minimise the risk of any leakage into the groundwater. Post construction pollution risks from other material storage and handling operations at the Site will be managed and minimised through preventative measures such as appropriate bunding, use of above ground storage tanks and regular preventative maintenance. The draft DCO includes a requirement to secure the approval of a CEMP prior to the commencement of development. These are not considered to be required to support the DCO application. However a Material Management plan will be prepared and maintained during

commencement of development and the detailed design of the fuel storage bunker. Decision to submit EP shortly after DCO application acceptance. No other change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.14 - Biodiversity Strategy. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.10 - Combined Heat and Power Assessment. App. Doc Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 12 ‘Water Resources and Flood Risk’ and 13 ‘Ground Conditions’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.5 - ES Appendix 3A ‘Framework CEMP’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.22 - ES Appendix 16A ‘Framework Site Waste Management Plan’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 184




Environmental Management Plans will be submitted as part of the application. If the mitigation of impacts is dependant on these they should be submitted at application stage.

• Should consider post-

construction risks to ground water.

• FRA should refer to

finished floor levels set out in EA scoping response; any development in Flood Zone 3 will require compensatory flood storage.

• SUDS should be

employed, there should be no increase in surface water run-off and Greenfield rates should be achieved; on-site storm water attenuation should be provided.

• Potential consents

the construction programme, and operational environmental management will be achieved through a combination of the requirements of the Environmental Permit and through implementation of an overarching Environmental Management System (EMS) to be developed by the operator. Chapter 12 Water Resources and Flood Risk and Chapter 13 Ground Conditions consider potential effects on groundwater during the operation of the Proposed Development. With the embedded mitigation identified, no significant adverse effects are identified. Chapter 12 Water Resources and Flood Risk and Appendix 12A Flood Risk Assessment refer to finished floor levels that will be specified in the design. The draft DCO will also include a requirement relating to the detailed design of the Proposed Development that will require the Applicant to submit details of finished ground and floor levels prior to the commencement of development. No part of the Site falls within Flood Zone 3. The Proposed Development will include SUDS, including in the form of a surface water attenuation pond discharging to Fryston Beck (Chapter 12 and Appendix 12A). Water will be discharged at a rate restricted to the existing greenfield runoff rate (a maximum of 2 litres per second). A requirement in the draft DCO will require the submission of surface water drainage details prior to development. Any surface water discharge to Fryston Beck would require a discharge consent from WMDC although for uncontaminated discharge at greenfield rates this is not envisaged to be a concern. . In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Permit, no wash down liquids will be discharged to surface water – they will be retained and re-used in the process where possible or stored in the process effluent tank for subsequent removal from site for appropriate treatment and disposal. A ‘Framework’ SWMP is to be submitted as part of the Application. The draft

App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.15 - ES Appendix 12A ‘Flood Risk’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.15 - ES Appendix 13A ‘Ground Investigation’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.5 - ES Appendix 3A ‘Framework CEMP’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 5. ‘Design and fuel storage bunker’, No. 6. ‘Pre-development water-tables level survey, No. 14. ‘Flooding’, No. 15. ‘Contaminated land and ground water’, No. 17. ‘Biodiversity management plan’, No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’, No. 39. ‘Combined heat and power’, No. 40. ‘Waste hierarchy’ and No. 41. ‘Waste management on site - construction and operational wastes’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 185




identified; WMDC Drainage Dept should be consulted on consenting requirements in relation to Fryston Beck.

• Wash down liquids or

discharges must not be drained to any surface water system without approval; no discharges from wheel washes to surface water; welcome opportunity to be consulted on construction drainage details; EA must be contacted prior to disposal of watering effluent to land or surface water systems as permit may be required.

• Impacts associated with

construction waste best controlled through SWMP. This should be prepared early and be a ‘live’ document. Should be submitted with DCO application and secured by a requirement.

DCO will also include a requirement relating to the preparation and approval of waste management plans. The Application includes a Biodiversity Strategy (Application Document Ref. 5.14) that sets out proposals for enhancing biodiversity at the Site. The draft DCO will also include a requirement relating to the approval of a Biodiversity Management Plan. It has been agreed with the EA that boiler feed water for the Proposed Development can in principle be taken from the groundwater abstraction borehole that is being developed for FM1. Subject to the results of the pump test required for the abstraction licence (that has been sized to also allow for the Proposed Development) the abstraction licence granted will be sized to accommodate the future requirements of the Proposed Development. Should the testing not be able to demonstrate the availability of boiler feed water from the aquifer, the Proposed Development will utilise towns mains water. It has been agreed with the EA that the EP application will be submitted in parallel with the DCO application. This agreement is recorded in the Consents and Licences required under Other Legislation document (Application Document Ref. 5.6). A CHP Assessment is included as part of the Application, which takes account of the EA’s CHP Ready Guidance and provides an assessment of opportunities for CHP. This concludes that CHP is not currently viable, however, the draft DCO includes a requirement to ensure that the Proposed Development is designed and built as ‘CHP Ready’ and that the potential for CHP is kept under periodic review during the lifetime of the multifuel power station. The Applicant is currently in discussion with the EA with regard to the agreement of a SoCG.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 186




• Encourage ecological

enhancement/net gain in biodiversity at the site.

• Encourage opportunities

to discuss securing water supplies for boiler feed and steam generation.

• Environmental Permit is

required and a contact name is provided. Advice provided on EP requirements and parallel tracking of DCO and EP applications recommended.

• An assessment of the

opportunities for CHP should be carried out and regard had to EA’s CHP Ready guidance.


• ES should fully consider the option of utilising the waterway for the transportation of construction materials during the construction stage, and to transport

A response was issued to the Trust on 28.02.14 clarifying that the Applicant cannot commit to the use of barge as contracts are not yet in place with fuel suppliers and there is no certainty that suppliers could make use of water transport, combined with the absence of any existing or consented facilities to receive combustion by products (ash) by water. It was confirmed that the use of barge would be kept under review and an appropriately worded ‘requirement’ had been agreed for inclusion within the draft DCO to commit to

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 34. ‘Sustainable fuel transport management plan’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 187




fuel and waste products during the operation stage.

a regular review of the potential use of barge as part of a Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan for the Proposed Development. A draft SoCG was sent to the Canal & River Trust on 14.04.2014 setting out the agreed position with regard to the use of barge and the suggested wording for a requirement to secure the Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan.

North Yorkshire County Council

• Should be clear about sourcing of waste derived fuel, including assumptions about area served and capacity of facilities; information needed by authorities involved in waste planning to understand implications of additional capacity.

• Issues raised by NYCC

in related responses: • 12.11.2013 -

Clarification sought on timings of consultation and last date for comments.

• 20.11.2013 - NYCC

wish to explore prospects for landscape-scale mitigation within Aire corridor in respect of

A response was issued to NYCC on 28.02.2014 acknowledging the comments they had raised in the various responses and confirming a meeting on 11.03.2014 to provide an update on the Proposed Development and to discuss these matters. At the meeting NYCC were advised that the level of interest in FM1 has indicated that there is sufficient demand and availability of fuel for the Proposed Development. However, it is not possible to confirm the sourcing of fuel at this stage as fuel contracts are not in place. The Application includes a Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. NYCC requested a copy of the draft report as it would be useful to have sight of it in relation to the preparation of the new waste local plan. A copy was sent to NYCC following the meeting on 12.03.2014 and they confirmed they had no further comments to make on it. NYCC advised that the County landscape officer was seeking more information on the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) for the EIA and in particular the cumulative assessment of landscape and visual effects with other schemes being consented in the region. It was recommended that contact be made with the landscape officer to discuss this and that a draft of the LVIA Chapter be provided. NYCC requested that drafts of the application documents be provided for review. The relevant draft ES chapters were provided along with draft DCO requirements for comment. Clarification was provided on the anticipated submission date for the Application and it was agreed that a member briefing would not be necessary

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 11 ‘Landscape and Visual Amenity’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.14 - ES Appendix 11A ‘Landscape and Visual Assessment Methodology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 7. ‘Provision of landscaping’, No. 17. ‘Biodiversity management plan’ and No. 40. ‘Waste Hierarchy’.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 188




cumulative visual/landscape/ecological impacts with other power generation proposals within the area.

• 21.01.2014 -

Clarification as to whether NYCC councillors have been involved.

• 28.01.2014 - Request if

fuel needs assessment could be shared within NYCC and clarification on consultation period for DCO application documentation and submission timetable.

• 02.04.2014 –

Comments from landscape officer on landscape and visual impact assessment

on the basis that relevant NYCC councillors had previously been contacted at the informal and formal consultation stages. A draft of the ES LVIA Chapter (Chapter 11) was issued to the NYCC landscape officer on 12.03.2014. A response was received on 02.04.2014. The principal issues raised related to the extent of the study area adopted; the need to address the effects on green infrastructure and the need to consider off-site mitigation through a S.106. A further response was provided on 22.05.2014 clarifying how the study area had been defined and that through EIA scoping, this study area and the appropriate viewpoints had been agreed with WMDC. The response included references to green infrastructure and the Landscape Strategy, which identifies green infrastructure benefits to be delivered at the Site as part of the Proposed Development (and associated amenity and biodiversity enhancement). The Proposed Development is not assessed to result in significant adverse effects on landscape and visual amenity other than a moderate impact from one representative viewpoint due to the scale of the proposed structures. FM1 was assessed to have a similar effect with no mitigation proposed, and as no comments were received during the informal and formal consultation stages, no off-site planting is proposed for this viewpoint.

The Coal Authority

• While the Application Site does fall within the defined coal field, it falls just outside the defined Development High Risk Area and the Kellingley

Response issued on 28.02.2014 providing further information on geology underlying the Site and coal reserves. Chapter 13 Ground Conditions of the ES, providing further information on underlying geology, was sent to the Coal Authority (CA) on 19.05.2014. This was accompanied by a draft SoCG.

No change is necessary as it is considered that the Applicant has adequately considered the feasibility of coal extraction from beneath the Site within Chapter 13 Ground


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 189




Colliery licence area. Accordingly, The Coal Authority has no specific comments or observations to make at this stage.

Evidence points to extensive coal extraction from the deeper coal seams within the vicinity of the Site. Any remaining coal reserves that may exist at these depths could potentially be reached from other locations, if that was economically viable. Any shallow seams of coal that may exist below the Site are overlain by up to 50m of limestone. This limestone is classified by the EA as a ‘Principal Aquifer’ and is therefore protected under the Water Resource Act. Working of these coal seams from the surface is therefore unlikely to be permitted by the EA given the resource potential of the aquifer. It is also unlikely to be practical given the water bearing nature of the rock. In view of the presence of the aquifer, the Applicant considers that it will not practical to carry out the prior extraction of any shallow coal reserves that may exist beneath the Site in advance of the Proposed Development being constructed. Furthermore, there are also significant deep coal reserves within the local area that could be worked in the future and the Proposed Development will not prevent this occurring. The CA has agreed through a SoCG that it is not feasible to extract that shallow coal from beneath the Site and that the Proposed Development will not sterilise deeper reserves.

Conditions of the ES. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.5 - SoCG with Coal Authority.

Public Health England

• Health chapter of ES should contain findings to demonstrate that impact on local air quality is low.

• Will comment on

Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and land contamination when

Response issued confirming that a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) has been completed and that this sets out the findings and conclusions in relation to air quality (and other potential) impact on health. This information is summarised in a dedicated Health Chapter within the ES. A framework CEMP is appended to the ES and submitted as part of the DCO Application with a requirement being included in the draft DCO to secure a detailed CEMP prior to commencement of development. The response confirmed that an assessment of the effects of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) will be included within the Health Chapter of the ES. The response also addressed a number of issues raised at the EIA scoping stage by PHE, notably in relation to the provision of information on the

Inclusion of dedicated Health Chapter in ES summarising Health Impact Assessment. Also includes assessment of effects of EMFs. Further detail provided on approach to decommissioning and requirement included in DCO.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 190




final documents become available.

• An assessment of the

possible health effects of Electric Magnetic Fields (EMFs) should be included.

approach to be taken to decommissioning; how the Applicant will respond to accidents with potential off-site emissions; the COMAH and Major Off-Site Emergency Plan Regulations; cumulative impacts and compliance with the waste hierarchy. It confirmed that the ES (Chapter 3) will provide further information on the approach that would be taken to decommissioning and that a Decommissioning Plan will be agreed with the Environment Agency as part of the Environmental Permitting process, while a requirement will be included in the draft DCO relating to decommissioning. An Emergency Plan will be prepared and implemented prior to plant operation in consultation with the relevant regulatory bodies and regulations setting out measures to be put in place to minimise the risk of accidents at the site, including those with the potential for off-site emissions; the HSE has confirmed that the Site is not a COMAH site; Chapter 19 of the ES considers cumulative impacts; and compliance with the waste hierarchy will be demonstrated through a Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. Draft versions of Chapter 8 Air Quality, Chapter 13 Ground Conditions and Chapter 18 Health Impact Summary were sent to PHE for review on 14.05.2014.

Emergency Plan to be prepared prior to operation. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapters 3 ‘Proposed Development’, 18 ‘Health Impact Summary’ and 19 ‘Cumulative Impact Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.25 - ES Appendix 18A ‘Human Health Risk Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.5 - ES Appendix 3A ‘Framework CEMP’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 19. ‘Construction environmental management plan’ and No. 42. ‘Decommissioning’.

Selby District Council

• Have previously commented and attended pre-application meetings. No further

Comments noted. No specific comments received from SDC other than in relation to proposed consultation. Responses have been received from specific technical consultees within the



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 191




comments to make at this time.

Council, notably the Environmental Health Officer regarding air quality cumulative impacts. These comments have been addressed within the final ES Air Quality (Chapter 8).

Kirklees Council

• Proposal accords with PPS10 and will provide useful resource in dealing with waste generated in the wider region.

• Development should not result in air quality in Kirklees being degraded from the release of contaminates or pollutants from the incineration/generation process. Impacts associated with the release of pollutants should be fully considered.

Response issued confirming that the DCO Application will include a Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment to demonstrate compliance with the waste hierarchy; also that the Proposed Development will generate energy from waste derived fuel that has been processed (not untreated waste) and that air quality impacts, including impacts on human health will be assessed within the Air Quality (Chapter 8) and Heath Impact Summary (Chapter 18) Chapters of the ES but that no effects are anticipated to arise in Kirklees district as a result of the Proposed Development design and due to its distance from the Proposed Development and the prevailing wind direction.

Waste Hierarchy Requirement added to DCO. No other change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.9 - Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 40. ‘Waste hierarchy’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapters 8 ‘Air Quality’ and 18 ‘Health Impact Summary’.

National Grid

• Advice on protection of NG overhead lines, statutory electrical clearances that must be maintained, safe working near overhead lines and landscaping and other works close to NG assets.

• NG has no gas

apparatus in the vicinity

Response issued confirming that the Applicant’s land agents are in the process of identifying the assets of statutory undertakers and other organisations that may be within or in close proximity to the Site. This information will be compiled within a Book of Reference and will be used to inform decisions on relation to the need to acquire land, extinguish rights or relocate apparatus. Also confirmed that the Applicant will maintain dialogue with NG to ensure that, where relevant appropriate protective provisions are included within the draft DCO. Meeting subsequently held with NG on 15.04.2014 to discuss potential impact on NG assets and one of the grid connection options to connect to the NG substation on the site of the former Ferrybridge ‘B’ Substation. NG agreed to

No change considered necessary as the Applicant was already aware of the potential for NG assets to be affected. Discussions are on-going with NG.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 192




of the site. • Where NG rights are to

be affected/extinguished, protective provisions need to be included in the DCO. Early consultation should take place with NG on this.

provide standard protective provisions document and an example side agreement (for the commercial aspects of the grid connection) following the meeting. It was also agreed that a SoCG may be required. The Applicant provided draft Land and Works Plans to NG following the meeting on the same day. NG provided the protective provisions document on 17.4.2014. The Applicant is seeking to secure the provisions through a private treaty.

Yorkshire Water

• No infrastructure within the site. Will comment further if appropriate with regard to disposal of foul and surface water when consulted on EIA.

Response issued noting that the Proposed Development will require connections to YW infrastructure and that the land referencing work indicates that YW has infrastructure within close proximity to the Site, notably along Kirkhaw Lane. Also that the Applicant is committed to on-going dialogue with YW to agree any appropriate provisions to safeguard its infrastructure and also the connection requirements for the Proposed Development. A meeting was held with Yorkshire Water on 02.04.2014 to discuss connections and infrastructure. YW confirmed that they had no assets within the Order Limits, including along Stranglands Lane and Kirkhaw Lane. The sewer within Kirkhaw Lane is a private one. YW confirmed that a trade effluent discharge is unlikely to be required for occasional discharges to the foul sewer during commissioning and maintenance activities. This could be done by a temporary agreement subject to pollutant loadings and volumes. Construction temporary discharges to foul can also be agreed on a case by case basis. YW confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in both the foul and towns mains water systems to accommodate the Proposed Development.

No change considered necessary. Applicant is in on-going dialogue with YW regarding connections. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 12 ‘Water Resources and Flood Risk’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.15 - ES Appendix 12A ‘Flood Risk’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 13. ‘Surface and foul water drainage and 14. ‘Flooding’.

KCOM Group Plc

• KCOM has no existing plant or proposals for new plant in the vicinity of your works and will not be affected by them.



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 193




SP Energy Networks

• Does not have any apparatus in the area so no comments to make.


Ericsson

• No microwave link within 100m and no mast within 500m of Site and therefore have no objection.


NHS Trust Development Authority

• Does not have any concerns regarding the proposed development.


Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust

• No comments or objections to the proposed development.


Natural England

• No response made to Section 42 formal consultation.

Although Natural England (NE) did not respond to the Section 42 consultation, the Applicant wrote to NE on 28 February 2014 covering a number of issues that had been raised at the informal consultation stage and also during EIA scoping. The letter confirmed the agreement that had been reached with NE (through a Statement of Common Ground) that there is no potential for impacts from the Proposed Development upon internationally designated sites and therefore a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) would not be required; that the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust was consulted as part of the formal consultation and that the body had not identified any locally important wildlife sites; that habitat and protected species surveys had been carried out and that, while no protected species had been identified on the Site, appropriate habitat compensation measures would be implemented to minimise and indeed enhance effects on biodiversity, including measures secured by ‘requirements’ contained within the draft DCO; that West Yorkshire Geological Society had been consulted as part of the formal consultation and that the body had not identified any locally important geological sites that needed to be taken into account; that the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development with other

No change considered necessary. App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 11 ‘Landscape and Visual Amenity’ App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 14 ‘Ecology’ App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.18 - ES Appendix 14A ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 5.14 - Biodiversity Strategy.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 194




proposed and planned projects would be taken into account in the landscape and visual impact assessment; and that the effects of the Proposed Development upon soils and land quality will be considered as part of the EIA. NE provided comments on the ecology and landscape and visual impact assessments carried out on 12 May 2014. This confirmed that the Proposed Development is not likely to damage the interest of features of the Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI and that the landscape and visual impact of the Proposed Development will not be significant.

App. Doc. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 17. ‘Biodiversity management plan’ and No. 18. ‘Construction environmental management plan’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.1 - SoCG with English Heritage.

Non-prescribed consultees Geological sites: West Yorkshire Geology Trust (WYGT)

• No local geological sites nearby which would be affected by the development. No objections.

Comments noted. Confirmed EIA scoping (no geological sites identified that could be potentially affected by the Proposed Development and therefore scoped out of the EIA).


Department of Energy and Climate Change

• Not appropriate to DECC to comment on the merits or otherwise of the development.


West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS).

• Ferrybridge Power Station lies within extensive pre-historic landscape; despite disturbance possible that archaeology will survive; further information is needed to support an application; a desk based assessment (DBA) is required for the

Response issued confirming that a DBA will be prepared for the Site and provided (along with the Cultural Heritage Chapter of the ES) to WYAAS for comment prior to the submission of the DCO Application. Also that the need for any archaeological evaluation at the Site (e.g. trial trenching or watching brief) can be secured by an appropriate requirement within the draft DCO. Chapter 15 of the ES ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage and Appendix 15A ‘ Archaeological DBA’ were issued to WYAAS for comment on 24.04.2014. A response was received from WYAAS on 15.05.2014 confirming that it was content with the majority of the contents of the ES Chapter and Appendix and that it is also in agreement with the recommendations for trial trenching in the area to the north-east of the main plant area of the Proposed Development

App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.2 - ES Chapter 15 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’ App. Doc. Ref. No. 6.4.21 - ES Appendix 15A ‘Archaeology Desk Based Assessment’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 2.1 - DCO Requirement No. 16.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 195




application, dependent on the findings of this further evaluation may be required pre- decision with a watching brief during construction.

• Following review of the

DBA, WYAAS has suggested the need for additional randomly selected trial trenching in other parts of the Site.

(area of the proposed surface water attenuation pond and grid connection) but also recommending that there is some additional trenching within other parts of the Site but that this could exclude the area of the watching brief for the FM1 works. The wording of an archaeological requirement for the DCO has been agreed in the SoCG. Details of the archaeological evaluation will be agreed in accordance with the DCO requirement prior to construction.

‘Archaeology’. App. Doc. Ref. No. 7.8 - WYAAS SoCG

Ledsham Parish Council

• Council considered information at its meeting on 27 November 2013 and decided to make no comment.



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 196

Changes resulting from the Stage 2 Formal Consultation 12.25 The principal changes that were made following the Stage 2 formal consultation are

summarised below. Again, any that were not a direct result of consultation are identified as such:

• Commitment to achieving a nitrogen oxide (NOx) daily average Emission Limit Value (ELV) of 180 mg/Nm3 that is tighter than the level specified in Annex VI of the IED of 200 mg/Nm3, thereby reducing NOx levels emitted from the emissions stack below what is legally required. The draft DCO includes a requirement to secure this.

• Commitment to employ a cleaner vehicle fleet (meeting Euro VI engine performance requirements from the start of commercial operation) for contracted fuel deliveries and combustion by-product collection, so as to further mitigate effects on compliance with air quality objectives in the area. Again, the draft DCO includes a requirement to secure this.

• Commitment to carrying out ambient air quality monitoring for the Proposed Development secured through a DCO requirement.

• Decision taken to prepare ‘Framework Odour Management Plan’ to support the DCO application, with the detail to be secured by a DCO requirement.

• Extended delivery hours from 07:00-18:30 Monday to Friday to 07:00-22:00 hours so as to help to spread out the volume of deliveries across the day, in line with delivery times already in place for other facilities in the vicinity of the Ferrybridge Power Station site. Delivery hours will be controlled by a DCO requirement

• Further evolution of the design of the Proposed Development to demonstrate it is ‘CHP Ready’ through layout changes so as to provide space and demonstrate the feasibility of routes for potential CHP facilities. The draft DCO includes a requirement to secure this.

• Inclusion of aviation warning lighting on the emissions stack to be operated in the event that the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ emissions stacks (that have aviation lighting installed and operating) are demolished. This is secured by a DCO requirement.

• Further DCO requirements have been added in relation to the fuel storage bunker relating to its detailed design and also to ensure that the groundwater table level is established prior to construction of the bunker so that the base of the construction of the bunker remains at least 1 metre above the groundwater table level.

• Decision taken to include a requirement within the draft DCO requiring the Applicant to prepare and implement a Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan to promote the use of sustainable modes for the transport of fuel and combustion by-products.

• A requirement has been added to the DCO to secure a fire prevention strategy.

• Decision taken to prepare a Lighting Strategy to submit with the Application.

• Decision taken to submit the Environmental Permit application shortly after the DCO application is accepted by PINS.

• Additional evaluation and mitigation of potential lighting effects on A1(M) during construction.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 197

• Inclusion of a dedicated ‘Health Chapter’ in ES summarising the ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and also assessing the potential effects of electro-magnetic fields from proposed grid connection options.

• Further information provided on decommissioning with the ES and a requirement added to the draft DCO relating to decommissioning details.

• Decision taken to progress and agree statements of common ground with Natural England, English Heritage, the Coal Authority, the CAA, the Highways Agency and WYASS.

12.26 This section clearly demonstrates that the Applicant’s consultation has been meaningful. In this respect, it can be seen that the Applicant has reviewed the responses received to its consultation after each stage of that consultation and has sought to engage with consultees and respond to and address the issues that have been raised by them. Furthermore, Tables 12.1 - 12.4 clearly demonstrate that the Applicant has taken account of consultation responses in accordance with Section 49 ‘Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity’ of the PA 2008 and that in doing so has made a number of changes to the Proposed Development and the DCO Application. It is therefore considered that the Applicant has fully complied with Section 49.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 198



Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 199

13. OTHER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT 13.1 This section summarises the other consultation and engagement that the Applicant has

undertaken during the pre-application process. This consultation was also ‘informal’ consultation, albeit distinct from the Applicant’s Stage 1 informal consultation. It has encompassed dialogue with PINS, updates to the local community and on-going discussions with technical consultees, statutory undertakers and landowners relating to matters such as the application documents and the agreement of Statements of Common Ground.

PINS Consultation 13.2 Throughout the pre-application process the Applicant has maintained a dialogue with

PINS in order to obtain advice in relation to DCO, provide updates on the status of the Proposed Development and Application and pre-application consultation activities and latterly to discuss drafts of key application documents. The consultation that has taken place with PINS is summarised in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 - PINS Consultation

Activity Purpose Date Meeting

Initial meeting in Bristol to introduce the Proposed Development.

23 March 2013

Meeting/Site Visit Meeting at the Ferrybridge Power Station site to provide an update on the Proposed Development, including the proposals for the Stage 1 informal consultation and EIA scoping. Also included a tour of the proposed Application Site. Also attended by representatives from WMDC and Leeds CC.

4 June 2013

Document submission

Submission of draft Consultation Strategy to PINS.

24 June 2013 (comments received 12.07.13)

Meeting Update meeting in Bristol to provide an overview of the outcome of the Stage 1 informal consultation, the proposals for the Stage 2 formal consultation and the status of the work relating to the preparation of the application.

20 September 2013

Document submission

Submission of draft Consent Plan to PINS CSU for comment.

3 March 2014 (comments received 12.03.2014

Tele Con Update on the outcome of the Stage 2 formal consultation; timetable for submission of draft application documents to PINS for review; and issues around the need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

7 February 2014

Document submission

Submission of draft DCO, Explanatory Memorandum, Book of Reference, Land Plan, Statement of Reasons, Works Plans and Consultation Report.

23 March 2014

Document submission

Submission of revised draft Consents Plan to PINS CSU.

1 May 2014 (confirmation from CSU no further comments 15 May 2014)


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 200

Table 13.1 - PINS Consultation

Activity Purpose Date Meeting Meeting to discuss draft application

documents submitted on 23 March 2014 and for PINS to provide feedback. Update provided on the application, including timetable for submission to PINS.

1 May 2014

Document submission

Habitats Regulations Assessment ‘No Significant Effects Report’ submitted.

8 May 2014 (comments received from PINS 19 May 2014)

Document submission

Second draft of Consultation Report submitted to PINS for review.

22 May 2014

Advice/comments Draft note of meeting held on 1 May 2014 issued by PINS in respect of draft application documents.

5 June 2014

Notification of Application submission/advice

PINS provided with notice of intended submission date for the Application on 3 July 2014 and advice sought on application index and document formatting.

6 June 2014 (advice received from PINS 13 June 2014)

Document submission

Final draft of Consultation Report submitted to PINS for review.

16 June 2014

Advice/comments Comments received on draft Consultation Report and EIA consultation and application index.

19 June 2014

Document submission

Application index and updated shapefile submitted to PINS.

23 June 2014

Advice/comments Advice provided by PINS on application index and confirmation of submission date sought.

23 June 2014

Notification of Application submission/other

PINS notified of revised date for Application submission (anticipated date of 17 July 2014).

24 June 2014

Advice/comments Letter received from PINS advising on application activities and application fees.

25 June 2014

Local Community/Political Representative Consultation 13.3 Following the close of the formal community consultation stage on 20 December 2013,

and in addition to the responses made to and on-going dialogue with members of the public who comments at the formal consultation stage, the Applicant has continued to engage with local community. This has included the following:

Table 13.2 - On-going Community Consultation

Activity Summary Date Project website Updates on the status of the Proposed

Development and the preparation of the Application.

At regular intervals

CLG meetings Updates provided at schedule meetings of the CLG

19 February and 23 March 2014

Community Newsletter

Community Newsletter No. 2 issued advising in key issues raised during the formal consultation; changes made to the Proposed Development as a result of the consultation; and next steps and the timetable for

1 June 2014


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 201

Table 13.2 - On-going Community Consultation

Activity Summary Date submission of the Application.

13.4 A copy of Community Newsletter No. 2 is provided at Appendix 13.1.

13.5 Local elections took place in early May 2014. The Applicant monitored any changes that resulted from the elections. The elections only resulted in one change at ward councillor level within the Formal Consultation Area within the Airedale and Ferry Fryston Ward. The new ward councillor was contacted on 5 June 2014 by email to ensure that they were aware of the Proposed Development. They were subsequently, at their request, sent a copy of the newsletter by post.

Update Meetings with Local Authorities 13.6 The Applicant has maintained regular dialogue with the host authority, WMDC, and also

with the closest other Section 43 local authorities (Selby DC and NYCC) during the pre-application process. As part of this, a number of update meetings have been offered and held. Details of the meetings and the main issues covered at them are set out in Table 13.3 below.

Table 13.3 - Local Authority Update Meetings

Local Authority Summary of Issues Date

WMDC EIA Scoping; outcome of informal consultation; preparation of SoCC and proposals and timetable for formal consultation.

17 September 2013

WMDC Formal consultation; SoCG; possible Planning Performance Agreement (PPA); timetable for application submission.

05 December 2013

Selby DC Outcome of informal consultation; formal consultation; timetable for submission.

18 December 2013

WMDC Outcome of formal consultation; discussions with PINS; draft DCO ‘requirements; PPA and contacts at WMDC to contact regarding draft application documents/ES chapters.

11 March 2014

NYCC Fuel availability and waste hierarchy; outcome of informal and formal consultation; provision of draft application documents and ES chapters; timetable for submission.

11 March 2014

13.7 These meetings were used primarily as an opportunity to provide the authorities with updates on the pre-application consultation that had/was taking place and the progress being made with regard to preparing the Application, including carrying out the EIA. They also provided a useful means of discussing other matters, for instance preparation of the SoCC and also SoCG and in the case of WMDC, whether a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) would be required.

13.8 Copies of the notes of the above meetings, where available, are provided at Appendix 13.2.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 202

13.9 All of the Section 43 local authorities were provided with notice of the anticipated submission date for the Application and advised of the changes to this.

Statutory Undertakers and Landowners 13.10 The Applicant has carried out various discussions with statutory undertakers and

landowners regarding the Proposed Development. These have related primarily to establishing the need for obtain rights in or over land and the electricity grid and foul water connection required for the Proposed Development. A brief summary of the discussions and meeting that have taken place are set out below.

Statutory Undertaker Summary of Issues

SSE Generation Ltd

Discussions with regard to the option agreement.

Network Rail Establish if assets in DCO limits. Confirmed no assets and content with scheme.

WMDC Highways and Drainage

Discussion regarding tie-in of unnamed road to Stranglands Lane and if necessary to install and maintain a foul water connection along Kirkhaw Lane. Content for tie-in to be under permitted development rights (that WMDC highway benefit from) and therefore no requirement for the Applicant to enter into a Section S.278 Agreement. WMDC suggested applying for S.50 licence under New Roads and Street Works Act in relation to the installation of the foul water connection in Kirkhaw Lane.

Northern Powergrid

Discussions regarding grid connection options.

National Grid Discussions regarding scheme detail and grid connection options, protective provisions and possible statement of common ground.

Yorkshire Water Discussions regarding surface and foul water connections and consents required.

Statements of Common Ground 13.11 As part of the pre-application process, the Applicant has sought to agree statements of

common ground (SoCG) with WMDC, other relevant authorities such as Selby DC and North Yorkshire CC and key technical consultees. The preparation of SoCG has been aimed at agreeing key issues in advance of the examination process in order to assist the examining authority in identifying the key examination issues.

13.12 The current status with regard to SoCG is set out in Table 13.4 below.

Table 13.4 - Statements of Common Ground (SoCG)

Body Content Status

CAA Need for aviation warning lighting; provision of information to Defence Geographic Centre for aviation charts; draft DCO ‘requirements’ to cover the above.

SoCG agreed 25 February 2014.


Sustainable fuel delivery management plans and related draft DCO requirement.

SoCG issued to Canal and River Trust on 14 April 2014. Canal and River Trust has subsequently stated that it will not be in a position to agree a SoCG prior to the


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 203

Table 13.4 - Statements of Common Ground (SoCG)

Body Content Status

submission of the Application.

Coal Authority Feasibility of extracting coal reserves. SoCG agreed 12 June 2014.

English Heritage

Potential for impact on designated heritage assets; draft DCO requirement relating to archaeological assessment prior to construction.

SoCG agreed on 9 June 2014.

Environment Agency

Fuel storage bunker/water table level; air quality/emissions modelling/stack height; water - including need for discharge/abstraction licences; flood risk; CHP; Environmental Permit; related draft DCO requirements.

SoCG issued 16 May 2014.

Highways Agency

Cooling technology; transport assessments, including agreement of assessment findings in relation to traffic impact; travel plans; fencing, landscaping and lighting requirements; related DCO requirements.


Natural England

Potential for impact on European Sites and SSSIs and need for Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

SoCG agreed on 3 April 2014. NE confirmed that no impact either directly or potential for impact by pathways on European Sites and that a HRA is not required. Also that there is no requirement to submit any further information.


Scope and content of the desk based archaeological assessment; scope and methodology regarding ES assessment and findings; draft DCO requirement relating to archaeological assessment prior to construction.


Draft Application Documents 13.13 In addition to PINS, the Applicant has also sought to consult with WMDC, other relevant

local authorities and key stakeholder on draft application documents. The following has taken place:

Table 13.5 - Review of Draft Application Documents

Activity Summary Date Draft DCO ‘Requirements’

Schedule of draft DCO Requirements issued to WMDC, Selby DC and NYCC for comment. Sent to Environment Agency for comment.

12 May 2014 16 May 2014

Draft DCO Updated schedule of draft DCO 16 June 2014


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 204

Table 13.5 - Review of Draft Application Documents

Activity Summary Date ‘Requirements’ Requirements issued to WMDC, Selby DC,

NYCC, Leeds CC, Kirklees Council, Barnsley Council and Doncaster MDC for comment.

Draft CHP Assessment

Issued to WMDC in April and again on 11 June 2014.

11 April and 11 June 2014

Draft CHP Assessment

Issued to Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership, Selby DC and Homes and Communities Agency.

11 June 2014

Introduction to Application Document & Draft Consultation Report

Issued to WMDC for comment. 16 June 2014

13.14 A response was received from NYCC on 26 June 2014 requesting that a number of the requirements in the draft DCO relating to highways and access refer to consultation with the relevant highway authorities. These changes were made.

13.15 WMDC provided a response on 27 June 2014. This stated that the authority considered the draft Consultation Report to be a fully comprehensive document, that the publicity/consultation that has been undertaken is acceptable and meets legislative requirements and that this would be reflected in the authority’s ‘adequacy of consultation’ response to PINS. The response also requested that additional requirements be included within the draft DCO relating to site security, a complaints procedure for residents and the establishment of a local liaison committee (albeit that there is already such a committee for the Site). These requirements were added to the draft DCO. The response also highlighted the need to assess the Proposed Development against the authority’s waste planning policies, which has been taken into account in the Planning Statement (Application Document Ref. No. 5.7).

13.16 A response was received from Selby Dc on 4 July 2014. This confirmed that the authority was satisfied that the draft DCO requirements covered all matters but suggested that a number should explicitly state that the authority should be consulted in advance of these being discharged. Comments were also made by the Selby DC Environmental Health Officer regarding the inclusion of an additional requirement relating to background noise levels. This is being considered by the Applicant.

13.17 There has also been dialogue with a number of consultees (as part of the agreement of statements of common ground) on the proposed wording of a number of the ‘requirements’ to be included within the draft DCO.

Development Consent Obligation 13.18 Development consent obligations should only be entered into where they meet the

relevant tests established through case law and the contributions or other measures to be secured are necessary to mitigate the impacts of a development that would otherwise be considered to be unacceptable in planning terms.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 205

13.19 The assessment of the Application, notably through the EIA, has not identified any impacts that would in themselves, or cumulatively, result in the Proposed Development being unacceptable in planning terms and therefore requiring mitigation through a development consent obligation. This has been discussed with WMDC and the authority has indicated at officer level that at this stage no impacts have been identified that would require such mitigation. This is however without prejudice to any matters that may arise through the authority preparing its Local Impact Report.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 206

This page is intentionally blank.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 207

14. NEXT STEPS 14.1 The Applicant is committed to continued engagement with the local community, relevant

local authorities, and key stakeholders following the submission of the application, as well as throughout the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, should a DCO be granted by the SoS.

14.2 It is intended that the Applicant will use the well-established Community Liaison Group (CLG) as the primary means by which to maintain dialogue with, and provide updates to, the local community in respect of the Proposed Development. The CLG has already proved to be an effective means by which to maintain dialogue and update the local community on FM1 and the intention is to build upon this success in relation to replicate this for the Proposed Development.

14.3 The Applicant will also continue to issue newsletters and media releases reporting on the progress of the Proposed Development and will provide updates on the project website.

14.4 Regular contact will be maintained with WMDC as host authority and dialogue will be maintained with the other relevant authorities and key stakeholders.

14.5 In addition to the above, there is a number of statutory notification and publicity requirements that the Applicant will need to fulfil following acceptance of the Application for examination by PINS that will provide a further opportunity to make comments.


Consultation Report

July 2014 Page 208

This page is intentionally blank.


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 3.1 - FM1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION REPORT


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 3.2 - CORRESPONDENCE WITH WMDC AND PINS ON FM2 CONSULTATION STRATEGY


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 3.3 - FINAL FM2 CONSULTATION STRATEGY (JUNE 2013)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.1 - MEDIA RELEASES AND ARTICLE (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.2 - LETTER TO LOCAL RESIDENTS/BUSINESS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.3 - POSTER AND POSTER LOCATIONS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.4 - NEWSPAPER NOTICE (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.5 - PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENT BOARDS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.6 - CLG MEETING NOTE 26.06.13 (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.7 - SCREEN SHOT OF PROJECT WEBSITE


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.8 - NOTES OF MEETING WITH LOCAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.9 - LOCAL AUTHORITIES MEETING NOTES (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.10 - TECHNICAL CONSULTEES MEETING NOTES (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.11 - EXAMPLE FEEDBACK FORM (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.12 - FEEDBACK FORMS/COMMENTS (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 4.13 - EXAMPLE COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER (INFORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 5.1 - DRAFT LIST OF PRESCRIBED CONSULTEES AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH PINS AND WMDC (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 5.2 - ARDENT SITE NOTICE ‘REQUEST FOR INFORMATION’ AND ‘CHASER’ LETTERS AND RESPONSES RECEIVED (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.1 - INITIAL DRAFT SOCC AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.2 - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON INITIAL DRAFT SOCC (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.3 - NOTE OF MEETING WITH WMDC 17.09.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.4 - DRAFT SOCC, SOCC NOTICE AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE AND PROOF OF POSTING (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.5 - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SOCC (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.6 - AMENDED DRAFT SOCC AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.7 - RESPONSE FROM WMDC ON AMENDED DRAFT SOCC (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.8 - SOCC NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 6.9 - FINAL SOCC AND SOCC NOTICE


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.1 - COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER NO. 1 AND PROOF OF DELIVERY (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.2 - MEDIA RELEASE DATED 22.10.13 AND RELATED PRESS ARTICLE (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.3 - POSTER AND POSTER LOCATIONS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.4 - PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENT BOARDS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.5 - CLG MEETING NOTE 09.10.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.6 - EMAIL AND RELATED CONTACT DETAILS SENT TO LOCAL COMMUNITY AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES ON 22.10.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.7 - CEF MEETING NOTE 03.12.13 (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.8 - CONSULTATION INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR S.47 CONSULTATION AND SENT TO S.42 CONSULTEES


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.9 - EXAMPLE FEEDBACK FORM (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.10 - FEEDBACK FORMS/COMMENTS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.11 - EXAMPLE COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 7.12 - S.47 CONSULTEE COMMENTS AND APPLICANT’S RESPONSES (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 8.1 - EXAMPLE COPIES OF ORIGINAL S.42 CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 8.2 - EXAMPLE COPIES OF ADDITIONAL S.42 CORRESPONDENCE (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 8.3 - S.42 DELIVERY RECORD AND PROOF OF POSTING (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 8.4 - EXAMPLE COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTERS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 8.5 - S.42 AND NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTEE COMMENTS AND APPLICANT’S RESPONSES (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 9.1 - S.46 NOTIFICATIONS AND PINS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 10.1 - NOTE OF PINS TELE CON 07.02.2014


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 10.2 - S.48 NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS (FORMAL CONSULTATION)


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 11.1 - EXAMPLE LETTER SENT TO EIA SCOPING CONSULTEES


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 11.2 – TABLE OF EIA REGULATION 11 CONSULTEES AND EXAMPLE EIA REGULATION 11 LETTERS


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 11.3 - ES APPENDICES 1C AND 1D


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 13.1 - COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER NO. 2


Consultation Report

July 2014

APPENDIX 13.2 - LOCAL AUTHORITY UPDATE MEETINGS

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Planning Inspectorate...Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref...

Documents

Transcript of Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Planning Inspectorate...Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref...