Gas Fired Power Station) Order

The Wrexham (Gas Fired Power Station) Order

10.2 Applicant’s response to the Examining Authority's first written questions

Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

PINS Reference Number: EN010055 Document Reference Number: 10.2 Regulation Number: Lead Author: Wrexham Power Limited

Revision: Date: Description: 0 August 2016 Submission version

SEC5-REPORTS AND STATEMENTS_A4 coversheets.indd 6 15/03/2016 10:54

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 Purpose of this Statement ...... 1 Overview of the Scheme and the Application ...... 1

1.1 Air Quality and Emissions ...... 3 Question 1.1.1 ...... 3 Question 1.1.2 ...... 4 Question 1.1.3 ...... 7 Question 1.1.4 ...... 8 Question 1.1.5 ...... 10 Question 1.1.6 ...... 11 Question 1.1.7 ...... 13 Question 1.1.8 ...... 16 Question 1.1.9 ...... 19 Question 1.1.10 ...... 20 Question 1.1.11 ...... 23 Question 1.1.12 ...... 25 Question 1.1.13 ...... 27 Question 1.1.14 ...... 32

1.2 Biodiversity, Ecology and Natural Environment ...... 33 Question 1.2.1 ...... 33 Question 1.2.2 ...... 35 Question 1.2.3 ...... 38 Question 1.2.4 ...... 39 Question 1.2.5 ...... 41 Question 1.2.6 ...... 42 Question 1.2.7 ...... 43 Question 1.2.8 ...... 44 Question 1.2.9 ...... 45 Question 1.2.10 ...... 46 Question 1.2.12 ...... 47 Question 1.2.13 ...... 49

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Question 1.2.14 ...... 51 Question 1.2.15 ...... 57 Question 1.2.16 ...... 58

1.3 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Readiness ...... 61 Question 1.3.1 ...... 61 Question 1.3.2 ...... 62 Question 1.3.3 ...... 62 Question 1.3.4 ...... 64

1.4 Compulsory Acquisition and /or Temporary Possession ...... 67 Question 1.4.1 ...... 67 Question 1.4.2 ...... 67 Question 1.4.3 ...... 68 Question 1.4.4 & 1.4.6 ...... 69 Question 1.4.5 ...... 84 Question 1.4.7 ...... 86 Question 1.4.8 ...... 89

1.5A Decommissioning ...... 91 Question 1.5.A1 ...... 91

1.7 Gas and Electricity Connections ...... 95 Question 1.7.1 ...... 95 Question 1.7.2 ...... 96 Question 1.7.3 ...... 97 Question 1.7.4 ...... 97

1.8 Historic Environment ...... 99 Question 1.8.1 ...... 99 Question 1.8.2 ...... 99 Question 1.8.3 ...... 102 Question 1.8.4 ...... 102 Question 1.8.5 ...... 111 Question 1.8.6 ...... 112 Question 1.8.7 ...... 113

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.9 Landscape and Visual ...... 115 Question 1.9.1 ...... 115 Question 1.9.2 ...... 115 Question 1.9.3 ...... 116 Question 1.9.4 ...... 118 Question 1.9.5 ...... 120 Question 1.9.6 ...... 137 Question 1.9.7 ...... 139 Question 1.9.8 ...... 141 Question 1.9.9 ...... 142 Question 1.9.10 ...... 143 Question 1.9.11 ...... 144

1.10 Noise and Vibration ...... 147 Question 1.10.1 ...... 147 Question 1.10.2 ...... 148 Question 1.10.3 ...... 151 Question 1.10.4 ...... 156 Question 1.10.5 ...... 158 Question 1.10.6 ...... 159 Question 1.10.7 ...... 160 Question 1.10.8 ...... 161 Question 1.10.9 ...... 162 Question 1.10.10 ...... 163 Question 1.10.11 ...... 165

1.12 Other Strategic Projects and Proposals ...... 167 Question 1.12.1 ...... 167 Question 1.12.2 ...... 170

1.13 Risk and Hazard Management ...... 173 Question 1.13.1 ...... 173 Question 1.13.2 ...... 174 Question 1.13.3 ...... 175 Question 1.13.4 ...... 176 Question 1.13.5 ...... 180

iii

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Question 1.13.6 ...... 182

1.14 Socio-economic Effects ...... 187 Question 1.14.1 ...... 187 Question 1.14.2 ...... 191 Question 1.14.4 ...... 192 Question 1.14.8 ...... 194

1.15 Statutory Undertakers ...... 199 Question 1.15.1 & 1.15.2 ...... 199

1.16 Transportation and Traffic ...... 233 Question 1.16.1 ...... 233 Question 1.16.2 ...... 234 Question 1.16.3 ...... 235 Question 1.16.4 ...... 235

1.17 Water Environment ...... 237 Question 1.17.1 ...... 237 Question 1.17.2 ...... 239 Question 1.17.3 ...... 241 Question 1.17.4 ...... 242 Question 1.17.5 ...... 243 Question 1.17.6 ...... 244 Question 1.17.7 ...... 246 Question 1.17.8 ...... 248 Question 1.17.9 ...... 250 Question 1.17.10 ...... 252 Question 1.17.11 ...... 252 Question 1.17.12 ...... 253

Appendix 1: Residential Properties west of Order Limits Appendix 2: Curriculum Vitae of Contributor to Professionally Derived Estimate Appendix 3: WPL letter to Welsh Government (11 July 2016) Appendix 4: Welsh Government letter to WPL (26 July 2016) Appendix 5: Wrexham Energy Centre Topographical Survey Appendix 6: Utility Plans – Oak Road

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Introduction

PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT

S.1. This statement provides a summary of the WPL response to the Examining Authority’s First Round Questions. Questions are answered in the sequence set out by the Examining Authority, grouped by topic under corresponding subheadings.

OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME AND THE APPLICATION

S.2. Wrexham Power Limited (WPL) is applying to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for a Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). The application for the proposed Wrexham (Gas Fired Power Station) Order (‘the Order’) is for powers to construct, operate and maintain the Power Station Complex Site on land at Bryn Lane on Wrexham Industrial Estate (WIE) in the County and Borough of Wrexham. S.3. The Power Station Complex Site occupies a site known as Kingmoor Park South, on the north-eastern side of the Wrexham Industrial Estate (WIE), adjacent to Bryn Lane and to the north of a large logistics warehouse and distribution centre operated by XPO Logistics. The Gas Connection Route (which contains the Gas Connection for the Power Station Complex) is approximately 3.5km in length and would largely cross agricultural land, connecting to the AGI Site adjacent to the existing Maelor Gas Works to the south-east of the Power Station Complex Site. S.4. The Power Station Complex Site and the Gas Connection together form the Scheme, which can be broken down as follows:  a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station (the ‘Power Station Complex’) (work numbered 1 in Schedule 1 to the Order) which would be fuelled by natural gas and would have a generation capacity of up to 299 megawatts (MWe);  the temporary and permanent Laydown Areas (works numbered 2A and 2B respectively in Schedule 1 to the Order);  surface water drainage works (work numbered 3 in Schedule 1 to the Order);  landscape and ecological mitigation works (work numbered 4 in Schedule 1 to the Order);  the alteration and use of the Kingmoor Park Access Road from Bryn Lane (work numbered 5 in Schedule 1 to the Order) (together the ‘Power Station Complex Site’); and  the Gas Pipeline and an Above Ground Installation (AGI) (the ‘Gas Connection’).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.5. The Power Station Complex Site is classified as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) under the PA 2008. Accordingly, a DCO is required to authorise the development of the Power Station Complex Site. The Gas Connection element of the Scheme is being consented separately under the Town and County Planning Act 1990 by means of a planning application to the local planning authority, Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) (submitted on 20th April 2016 and given reference number P/2016/0358). However, powers of compulsory acquisition over the Power Station Complex Site and the Gas Connection Route are being sought as part of the Application.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.1 Air Quality and Emissions

QUESTION 1.1.1

Air emissions: location of residential properties for design and impact assessment process

A relevant representation from Mr Michael Morris [RR-025] suggests that there may be “[r]esidential properties to the West […] within 100m of the site” and that not all such properties are located to the east (in Isycoed).

 Mr Michael Morris is requested to identify the location of these properties, ideally on the master sheet from the Land Plans accompanying the application [APP-007 Sheet 2.2] by Deadline 1.  The Applicant is requested to comment at Deadline 2 on any property within 100m of the site which is not already identified and assessed in the environmental statement (ES), indicating whether it agrees it to be a residential property for the purposes of the project design and environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes and whether it has been taken into account as a sensitive receptor for air quality assessment during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases? In doing so, a distinction should be drawn by the Applicant between the boundary of what is proposed to be the operational electricity generating station site and the boundary of land required for the gas connection.

Response to Question 1.1.1

S.6. The Power Station Complex Site boundary is the quadrilateral shape surrounding the Power Station Complex in the WEC Land Plans (Examination Library Reference APP-007 Sheet 1). The Gas Connection Route boundary nearest the Power Station Complex Site can be taken to end at the location of air quality Receptor 21 which is shown in Figure 8.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-080) of the ES, where it is coincident with the Power Station Complex Site boundary. S.7. The receptors addressed in the air quality assessment, including inter alia residential properties, are described in Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056) in paragraphs 8.168 and 8.169, where it is noted this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all relevant properties that could be affected by Stack emissions from the Power Station Complex; the dispersion model also includes two Cartesian receptor grids which cover intermediate areas in the near field as well as receptors further afield up to several kilometres away. The receptors that were assessed, therefore, were identified as being representative of the receptors within the vicinity of the Power Station Complex Site. S.8. These receptors are described in Table 8.14 of Chapter 8 and the distances to the Stacks and to the boundaries of the Power Station Complex Site and the Gas

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Connection Route are provided in separate columns. The receptor points are shown graphically in Figure 8.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-080) as purple stars. S.9. Only Receptors 7 and 21, the Kellogg’s factory and a public footpath respectively, are within 100 metres of the Power Station Complex Site. Apart from the public footpath, only Parkey Lodge (Receptor 12, a residential property) is within 100 metres of the Gas Connection Route boundary. S.10. Receptor 4 on Bryn Lane to the north west, represents several properties that are 245 metres at their closest point to the boundary of the Power Station Complex Site. Receptor 6, which represents properties on Bryn Lane to the south, is 740m from the boundary of the Power Station Complex Site. S.11. There are no other residential properties within 100 metres of the relevant boundaries. The Applicant will, however, provide further comment, at Deadline 2, in response to any submission made by Councillor Morris at Deadline 1. S.12. A further plan is appended to this report in Appendix 1 showing the “Residential Properties West of the Order Limits”.

QUESTION 1.1.2

Air emissions: design and impact assessment process: stack height

Paragraph 8.85 of ES Chapter 8 [APP-056] states that the modelling of a 50m stack height “gives rise to slightly higher maximum short-term concentrations at a human health receptor”, but does not specify which receptor, or confirm that other receptors show a similar pattern of higher short-term concentrations at higher stack heights. There is no reference to long-term concentrations.

Insert A8.1 of ES Appendix 8.2 [APP-081] shows that under all the sensitivity testing scenarios that an increase in stack height results in a decrease in “maximum field wide concentrations”.

 Can the applicant please identify and locate on a map the receptor said to experience slightly higher maximum short-term concentrations in a 50m stack scenario?  Can the applicant please explain the relationship between the two positions summarised above, as the implication from Insert A8.1 [APP-081] is that a higher (50m) stack scenario should not give rise to higher emissions concentrations at any receptor when compared with a lower stack scenario.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.1.2

S.13. The initial consideration in a stack height sensitivity study, which is typically undertaken to determine an appropriate stack height for an industrial facility, is the reduction in ground level concentrations achieved by incremental changes to the stack height, irrespective of the location of the maximum concentration at each stack height. This was achieved for the Power Station Complex by the use of receptor points in nested Cartesian grids at 250 and 50 metre resolution as outlined in paragraph 8.104 of Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056). As stack heights increase, the location of the maximum ground level concentrations tends to be at greater distances from the emission point, thus it is important to undertake the study for a regularly spaced receptor grid. S.14. The results of the sensitivity study for the maximum gridded field-wide ground level concentrations are shown in Table A8.1 (Appendix 8.1: Construction Dust Assessment Methodology; Examination Library Reference APP-116) and graphically in Insert A8.1 (Appendix 8.2: Stack Height Sensitivity Study; Examination Library Reference APP-117). For each of the three potential arrangements of gas turbines and stacks as set out in paragraph 8.80 in Chapter 8 of the ES, there is a progressive reduction in both the maximum hourly average and annual average concentrations with every two metre increment to the height of the stack. S.15. As part of the environmental permitting arrangements for the Power Station Complex, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that it is utilising Best Available Techniques (BAT) in respect of plant and equipment which produces emissions to air. Although the concentrations at residential properties are to some extent a secondary consideration in the Applicant's demonstration of BAT, figures relating to the modelled emissions for different stack heights were presented in Appendix 8.2 to the ES to the regulator, NRW, in order to assist in its analysis and determination of whether emissions for a particular stack height will not lead to exceedances of the statutory air quality criteria at sensitive receptors. Paragraph 8.358 in Chapter 8 of the ES sets out that Stack emissions will not lead to exceedances of statutory air quality controls at sensitive receptors. S.16. The particular matter raised in Question 1.1.2 relates to the results for exemplar gas turbines in a “2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks”. The hourly nitrogen dioxide concentration of 16 µg/m3 shown in Appendix 8.2 [Examination Library Reference APP-117] Table A8.2 as having been modelled for a stack height of 46 metres occurs at Receptor 5 (Little Acorns, Bryn Lane). The results of 13.7 µg/m3 and 15.2 µg/m3 for 48 and 50 metre stack heights were instead found at Receptor 4 (4 - 6 Bryn Lane). The maximum hourly nitrogen dioxide ground level concentrations for the 50 metre Stacks are shown graphically on the base map in Figure 8.5 (Examination Library Reference APP-083) and the receptor locations are shown in Figure 8.1 “Air Quality Receptor Locations” (Examination Library Reference APP-080).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.17. The contours shown in Figure 8.5 demonstrate the complex nature of dispersion of the stack discharge, as at each potential receptor location it is influenced by hour to hour wind speed, wind direction and other meteorological factors, as well as those due to the complex aerodynamic effects on the plume of the large structures on the Power Station Complex and surrounding buildings. The highest maximum hourly results are evident in areas enclosed by contours labelled 14 µg/m3 to the north west of the Stack and also to the north east of the Stack. With reference to Figure 8.1 it is evident that Receptor 4, (4 - 6 Bryn Lane) is within such an area; the concentration at these properties is 15.2 µg/m3, as shown in Table A8.2. S.18. As the pattern of dispersion differs for each stack height, it is merely a matter of coincidence in each case as to whether the locations most affected by the Stack discharge happen to coincide with that of a residential receptor. It is evident that a contour denoting an area of relatively high results may well not be coincident with a residential property. It is for this reason that there are apparent “discontinuities” in the trend of results shown for various stack heights in Table A8.2, which are not apparent in the Table A8.1, as the latter is based on the evenly spaced Cartesian receptor grids. S.19. The “2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks” gave the highest field-wide ground level concentrations and hence was selected as the most conservative case in the context of the potential minimum stack height required under the Rochdale Envelope. Whereas the reduction in ground level concentration between a 44 and 46 metre stack height at a discrete receptor point is 7 µg/m3 or 3.5% of the air quality standard of 200 µg/m3, the difference between a 46 and a 50 metre stack height is inconsequential as it is equivalent to 0.8 µg/m3 or less than 1% of the air quality standard. The results for stack heights of 46 to 50 metres are all less than 10% of the standard. S.20. It was therefore concluded that for this particular exemplar gas turbine and stack configuration, which gave the highest results of the three considered, a stack height of between 46 and 50 metres is satisfactory as it both demonstrates current best available techniques (BAT) and provides adequate protection of sensitive receptors. A maximum stack height of 50 metres is therefore a robust basis of assessment for the material planning considerations, e.g. visual amenity, as addressed in the ES. S.21. The figure below presents graphically the hourly mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations at sensitive receptors for all three configurations. The values for the “2+1 arrangement with separate stacks” are shown, as previously tabulated as the “NO2 PC” in Table A8.2 (document reference 6.4.3).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.22. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with NRW, which will address air quality issues. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCG with NRW.

QUESTION 1.1.3

Air emissions: design and impact assessment process: stack height

Can the applicant please explain why the ES air quality assessment does not reflect the minimum stack height that the Development Consent Order (DCO) would permit and why there is no specified minimum stack height in Table 2 of Schedule 2 of the DCO?

Response to Question 1.1.3

S.23. The appropriate stack height for a specific power plant design configuration is a matter to be defined as part of the Environmental Permitting process, as part of the Applicant demonstrating to the regulator, NRW, that it is utilising Best Available Techniques (BAT). The ultimate stack height will be specified by NRW in the operating permit. However, as part of the consent process, it is necessary to identify what the maximum height of the stack could be and which would be acceptable both from an air quality perspective and a landscape and visual

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

perspective. The height that NRW ultimately permits, can be a maximum of 50m as specified in the Order. It is therefore not necessary for the Development Consent Order to be specific as to a minimum stack height for the plant in question. S.24. Table A8.1 in the ES (Appendix 8.2; Examination Library Reference APP-117) shows that for the three exemplar gas turbine and stack configurations evaluated, the maximum modelled hourly nitrogen dioxide concentrations differ, leading to a range of potentially suitable stack heights. S.25. Paragraph 8.81 of Chapter 8 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056) states that “The height of the Stack for the Scheme is up to 50 m, as this is the upper limit considered acceptable from an engineering and technical perspective as well as from a landscape and visual impact perspective…” As referenced in paragraph 8.86 of Chapter 8 of the ES, at the environmental permitting stage there will be a need to demonstrate to NRW, the regulator that the proposed stack height is consistent with the Applicant's utilisation of BAT and also provides adequate environmental protection. The results summary (paragraph 8.358) of Chapter 8 of the ES confirm that this is achievable with a stack no higher than 50 metres, for all exemplar configurations evaluated, including the likely worst case, the “2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks”. S.26. It is appropriate to set a maximum height of 50 metres in the Development Consent Order as landscape and visual aspects of the Stack are material planning considerations. The Stack height permitted by the regulator, NRW, will reflect the specific characteristics of the eventual design, taking due account of environmental protection and best available techniques, hence a minimum stack height is not necessary. S.27. Paragraph 8.216 of Chapter 8 of the ES provides the basis of the qualitative assessment in terms of Stack emissions to atmosphere that has been carried out.

QUESTION 1.1.4

Air emissions: design and impact assessment process: stack height

In other DCOs, stack design parameters have been secured (see for example the made Hirwaun Power Station DCO) to ensure that a proposal is delivered within its assessed Rochdale Envelope.

 Is it necessary to secure emission limit values (as summarised in ES Table 8.4) [APP- 056] in the DCO or is this an Environmental Permit (EP) matter?  Is it necessary to secure the minimum and maximum stack height?  If these values should be specified and secured, should this be in Table 2 of Schedule 2 to the DCO or in another location?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.1.4

S.28. Table 8.4 in Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP- 056) provides the Stack discharge characteristics for the “2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks”, being the likely ‘worst-case’. The emission limit concentrations used are those specified in the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), as given in Table 8.1 in Chapter 8 of the ES. Compliance with these emission limit concentrations is a regulatory matter which will be assessed and determined by the regulator, NRW, as part of the environmental permitting process, and in assessing the Applicant's utilisation of Best Available Techniques in respect of plant and equipment which results in emissions to air. Any proposed plant at the Power Station Complex Site will not be allowed to operate unless it complies with the relevant emission limits set by NRW in the Environmental Permit. S.29. As stated in paragraph 8.33 in Chapter 8 of the ES, “In addition to ensuring that the proposed development meets the requirements of BAT, NRW in their regulatory role have regard to numerous other national and international standards and obligations which must either be safeguarded through or, at least, taken into account in setting EP conditions. As the Scheme falls within the scope of the IED, the EP is anticipated to reflect the stringent IED emission limit values as a minimum standard for atmospheric discharges.” NRW, in their consideration of BAT, may choose to specify more stringent emission limit concentrations in the EP than those specified in the IED. Therefore, it is not necessary to secure emission limit values in the Order for the Power Station Complex Site. S.30. The Applicant has stated in its response to FWQ 1.1.3, the appropriate stack height for a specific power plant design configuration is a matter to be defined as part of the Environmental Permitting process and will be agreed with the regulator NRW during the period of determination of the Environmental Permit. It is therefore not necessary for the Order to be specific as to a minimum stack height in the Order, as any height specified may not be representative of what NRW, the regulator, considers to be BAT for the eventual design of the Power Station Complex Site. It is, however, appropriate to set a maximum height in the Order as landscape and visual aspects of the Stacks are material planning considerations, and the inclusion of a maximum height helps to ensure that landscape and visual impacts associated with the Stack/s are subject to the appropriate controls. S.31. The Applicant considers that only the maximum stack height of 50 metres should be specified in the Order, as currently set out in Table 2 of Schedule 2 to the draft Order.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.1.5

Air emissions: design and impact assessment process: stack height

Paragraph 8.85 of ES Chapter 8 [APP-056] considers a 50m stack height. However, it also states that a 46-50m stack was considered appropriate under Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) D1 calculations.

 Are there circumstances in which a 46m stack could be constructed?  With reference to your answer to question 1.1.2 above, what is the worst case stack height for EIA purposes?

Response to Question 1.1.5

S.32. There are circumstances in which a 46-metre-high stack, could be constructed. This will depend upon the final design of the Power Station Complex and the final related stack configuration. A range of current exemplar gas turbines and configurations was considered in the Appendix 8.2: Stack height sensitivity study to the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-117) in order to illustrate the likely range of stack heights. S.33. The Environmental Impact Assessment has assessed the likely “worst-case” stack height as a maximum 50m, and as such a height of 50m (above 30m AOD) will be specified as the maximum height of gas emission flue stack in Schedule 2 to the Order The erection of an emissions flue stack greater than 50m would thus constitute a breach of the requirements of the Order and therefore will not occur. S.34. The appropriate stack height for a specific power plant design configuration is ultimately a matter that is determined through the Environmental Permitting process, and as part of the regulator's overall assessment of what plant constitutes Best Available Techniques (BAT) in the circumstances. The minimum stack height permitted will be specified by the regulator, NRW, in the operating permit, and the final design of the plant will be required to adhere to the minimum stack height specified in the Environmental Permit. It is therefore not necessary for the Order to be specific as to a minimum stack height. S.35. With regard to the selection of a likely “worst case” for EIA purposes, Table A8.1 in Appendix 8.2 (Examination Library Reference APP-117) shows that for the three conceptual gas turbine and stack configurations evaluated, the maximum modelled hourly nitrogen dioxide concentrations differ, leading to a range of potentially suitable stack heights. A suitable stack height is often defined as the point at which there is no material improvement beyond that height, thus demonstrating the application of best available techniques (BAT) for dispersion. S.36. The “2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks” was found to give higher annual average ground level oxides of nitrogen concentrations, than the “2+1 arrangement single stack” or “1+1 arrangement with single stack” which have more favourable

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

dispersion due to the single stack. This is evident from the graph in Figure A.8.2. in Appendix 8.2. Thus the 2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks was taken forward for consideration in the main assessment of operational emissions as being the most conservative basis for assessment (i.e. the likely worst case). S.37. As referenced in paragraph 8.86 of Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056), at the Environmental Permitting stage, there will be a need to demonstrate to the regulator, NRW, that the proposed stack height provides adequate environmental protection. The results summary (paragraph 8.358) of Chapter 8 of the ES confirm that this is achievable with a stack no higher than 50 metres, for all exemplar configurations evaluated, including the “2+1 arrangement with two separate stacks”. S.38. In its determination of the Applicant's application for an Environmental Permit, NRW may take a view that BAT for the Power Station Complex Site entails a more stringent emission concentration than the emissions limits that are prescribed by the Industrial Emissions Directive. It is therefore important that flexibility in stack height is allowed in the Order, given that this aspect will be subject to NRW approval in the permit. NRW's determination will likely be made in the light of further site and plant specific atmospheric dispersion modelling studies submitted by an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to support their permit application, which may specify a lower emission specification plant than that assessed as an appropriately conservative basis in the ES under the Rochdale Envelope.

QUESTION 1.1.6

Air emissions: design and impact assessment process

Paragraph 8.213 of ES Chapter 8 [APP-056] states that increases in PM10 (particulate matter with a dimension equal to or less than 10 microns) and NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) are unlikely to be material beyond the limits of the order land (with the closest residential properties over 200m from the order land boundary).

 Can the applicant provide reference to any published guidance citing this, as according to paragraph 8.59, a distance of 350m from the boundary of the site has been selected as requiring more detailed assessment in terms of construction dust?

Response to Question 1.1.6

S.39. The assessment of construction plant described in Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056) follows the same approach as used for the Meaford Energy Centre, the Development Consent Order which has recently been granted by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016). Professional judgement was applied in carrying out this qualitative assessment as there are no statutory criteria

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

or European criteria relating to dust, nor is there a standard methodology for the assessment of potential dust effects. S.40. The 350 metre distance referred to in paragraph 8.59 of Chapter 8 of the ES relates only to the construction dust assessment and is taken as the recommended distance for such an assessment from Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) 2014 guidance for the assessment of dust from demolition and construction1. The distance of 350m is recognised by the authors of the guidance to be an appropriate precautionary distance for screening purposes (see section 6, page 13). Activities such as construction and demolition, without suitable mitigation measures in place, may generate considerable quantities of dust and suspended particulate matter of a wide range of particle sizes, hence the IAQM adopt a precautionary approach in terms of a screening distance in their guidance. S.41. In contrast to the diffuse sources of particulate matter, the potential emissions from Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM), including for example bulldozers, crushers, mobile cranes, and other construction machinery installed with a combustion engine (either an internal spark ignition petrol engine, or a compression ignition diesel engine), would be released from point sources and are controlled by the Non- Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations 1999, as amended. S.42. In undertaking the qualitative assessment for the ES, it was considered that, because construction plant emissions are typically released at close to ground level, and the items of combustion equipment are likely to reflect that of goods vehicle engines, an appropriate distance screening criterion would be that described in the Highways England DMRB guidance (HA207/07)2. S.43. The DMRB guidance3 for the assessment of road traffic emissions refers to a 200 metre distance from the road centre. This industry best practice screening criteria is derived from calculations using atmospheric dispersion modelling of near-ground level sources. These dispersion profiles have also been validated through a series of field measurements. The DMRB Figure C1 is reproduced below to demonstrate the rapid fall off in pollutant concentrations with increasing distance from the source.

1 http://iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/construction-dust-2014.pdf

2 Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 1 Air Quality, HA 207/07 - http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/ha20707.pdf

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.1.7

Air emissions: design and impact assessment process

A table should be provided by the applicant (the air quality summary table), recording the distances of sensitive air quality receptors from the application site, with a breakdown of guidance relevant to conclusions as to whether there could be a material air quality effect at that receptor. Consideration should be given to construction, operational and decommissioning effects and should address gaseous, particulate and suspended (dust) emissions. Potential sensitive receptors should be recorded in the table up to 250m beyond the distance from the application site deemed necessary to comply with all guidance relevant to air quality. This should be accompanied by:

 an appraisal of the potential for combined effects in terms of construction dust, construction plant and construction traffic emissions at the identified sensitive receptor points;  an appraisal of the potential for combined effects in terms of operational emissions at the same points; and  an appraisal of the potential for combined effects in terms of emissions associated with decommissioning at the same points.

Response to Question 1.1.7

S.44. In order to address the concern raised in FWQ 1.1.7, the Applicant has considered the closest receptor to the source of emissions – Receptor 4 (4-6 Bryn Lane) as shown in Figure 8.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-080) – as this is the receptor that could theoretically be most significantly affected by construction dust, as assessed in paragraph 8.198 in Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056), and construction traffic emissions, as assessed in paragraph 8.208 in Chapter 8 of the ES. S.45. Paragraph 8.204 of the ES concludes that, post-mitigation, residual effects of construction dust emissions will not be significant (in line with Section 9.1 of published IAQM guidance4). Paragraph 8.208 in Chapter 8 of the ES determines that the construction traffic emissions would have a neutral, i.e. insignificant, effect on air quality as the change in traffic flows would not exceed Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency (now Highways England), 2007, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 1 HA 207/07 Air Quality, paragraph 3.12) criteria.

4 Holman et al (2014) IAQM Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction. Institute of Air Quality Management, London.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.46. Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version1) (submitted 26 July 2016) stipulates standards and requirements that the Applicant must adhere to in order to ensure that effective dust mitigation measures are in place during the construction phase. S.47. As described in the responses to Questions 1.1.6 and 1.1.8, the impact of construction plant emissions is considered to be insignificant beyond 200 metres from the Power Station Complex Site. Paragraph 8.213 of Chapter 8 of the ES states “The low level nature of the sources means that whilst there may be a temporary increase in ground level concentrations of NO2 and PM10 close to the release point, such an increase is unlikely to be material beyond the limits of the Order Land, and further still from the Power Station Complex Site". The baseline concentrations of both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (as PM10) are furthermore well below their respective standards therefore the potential for an exceedance is negligible. S.48. A quantitative assessment of construction traffic emissions for a likely “worst case” cumulative scenario with other planned or proposed developments was presented at paragraph 8.337 in Chapter 8 of the ES. This concludes that total pollutant concentrations at Receptor 4 would remain “well below” (<75% of, in accordance 5 with IAQM 2015 guidance) the AQS objective for NO2 and thus are determined to have a negligible impact (see Table 8.8 of ES Chapter 8). S.49. With reference to Receptor 4, residual construction dust effects (following the application of appropriate dust control/mitigation measures proposed as part of the Construction and Environment Management Plan (Appendix 19.1, Examination Library Reference 152), are considered not to be significant as stated in paragraph 8.204 of Chapter 8 of the ES. Construction traffic emissions would have a neutral / insignificant effect, as would construction plant emissions based on our professional judgement. Therefore, in light of the baseline air quality conditions where existing pollutant concentrations are well below AQS objectives (paragraph 8.156 in Chapter 8 of the ES) the combined effect of fine particulates from construction dust, construction traffic and construction plant and of NO2 from construction traffic and construction plant would not be significant. S.50. The increases in traffic flows once the Scheme is in the operational phase are well below the DMRB change criterion, and as such it is not necessary to assess the combined effects of emissions associated with traffic during the operational phase with the Power Station Complex Stack emissions. Operational phase emissions would not of course coincide with either the construction or decommissioning phases, and so neither is it necessary to assess these emissions in combination. S.51. The air quality effects during decommissioning can be assumed to be similar to those during construction i.e. not significant. Paragraphs 8.251 – 8.255 in Chapter 8 of the ES sets out the air quality effects during decommissioning.

5 Environmental Protection UK and IAQM (2015) Land Use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.52. A summary table of the assessment for Receptor 4 (245 metres from the Power Station Complex Site) is provided below. As this receptor is the closest to the Power Station Complex Site boundary, the outcome for all other receptors within 250 metres of the Order Limits would be an in-combination impact equivalent to or less than the impact described below, which is noted in all cases not to be significant.

Summary of residual impacts for Receptor 4 and relevant guidance

Phase Dust Vehicle Combustion Background In- emissions emissions emissions combination impact

Construction

NO2 n/a Neutral - Insignificant - Low - <50% of Not significant traffic change >200m away AQS objective criteria not (adapted from met (DMRB DMRB HA207/07) HA207/07)

PM10 Not Neutral - Insignificant - Low - <50% of Not significant significant traffic change >200m from AQS objective with criteria not Site (adapted mitigation met (DMRB from DMRB for low risk HA207/07) HA207/07) site (IAQM 2014)

Dust Not n/a n/a n/a Not significant significant with mitigation for low risk site (IAQM 2014)

Operation

NO2 n/a Neutral - Not significant Low - <50% of Not significant traffic change - PEC 34% of AQS objective criteria not EAL (EA risk met (DMRB assessment HA207/07) guidance)

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Phase Dust Vehicle Combustion Background In- emissions emissions emissions combination impact

PM10 Neutral - Insignificant - Low - <50% of Not significant traffic change gas fired plant AQS objective criteria not (as agreed met (DMRB with NRW) HA207/07)

Decommissioning

NO2 As per construction Not significant

PM10 As per construction Not significant

Dust As per construction Not significant

QUESTION 1.1.8

Air emissions: construction effects

Paragraph 8.212 of ES Chapter 8 [APP-056] states that a detailed inventory of the equipment that will be used during the construction of the power station complex is not available. In its absence, the Applicant concludes that “the effect of construction plant emissions on local air quality will not be significant” due to the temporary and intermittent nature of the works and the existing background concentrations being well below Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objectives.

 Can the Applicant explain how a ‘worst case’ has been assessed, taking into account the estimated/ assumed construction methods with the most significantly adverse air quality impacting construction plant (as referred to in paragraph 9.50 of ES Chapter 9 [APP-057])?  Can the Applicant clarify that any worst case assumption of construction plant mix is based on construction being carried out at the nearest point of the Order Land boundary to the nearest sensitive receptors for air quality purposes (as referred to in the context of construction dust at paragraph 8.53 and Table 8.3 of ES Chapter 8 [APP-056])?  Do NRW or WCBC have any further observations on the matters raised in this question?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.1.8

S.53. A qualitative statement has been provided in Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056). This is the same approach as was taken for the Meaford Energy Centre DCO Application, a scheme that has recently been consented by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – The Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016. S.54. Given the qualitative nature of the air quality assessment, a number of factors were taken into account in arriving at the professional conclusion that there would be no significant effects from construction plant emissions. The equipment included in the air quality assessment were those items outlined in Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) and the construction plant that are considered to have the greatest power output e.g. excavators, bulldozers and dumpers have been set out in paragraph 8.212 of the Chapter 8 of the ES. S.55. Paragraph 9.50 in Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) (Examination Library Reference APP-057) refers to the consideration of noise emissions from the construction equipment outlined in Chapter 4 of the ES, in line with BS 5228-1. An equivalent database and methodology does not exist for the assessment of construction plant emissions to atmosphere, although it is noted the combustion engines on construction plant are expected to have similar sized engines to large road vehicles (see paragraph 8.265 in Chapter 8 of the ES) and they will be regulated by the Non- Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particular Pollutants) Regulations 1999 (NRMM). S.56. To determine the range of potential effects, the air quality specialists applied their knowledge of the likely range of influence of emissions based on previous modelling study results for small scale CHP, emergency diesel engines and vehicle emissions. The maximum concentrations for stationary equipment and machinery and also mobile construction plant are highly localised around the low level exhaust discharge. Pollutant concentrations will fall off rapidly with increasing distance from the construction plant as the engine exhaust is dispersed in the atmosphere. Any potential local influence is thus substantially reduced within around 100 metres of the release point. S.57. The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11 Section 3, Part 1 (HA 207/07) (DMRB) adopts a screening distance of up to 200 metres for vehicular emissions. This industry best practice screening criteria is derived from calculations using atmospheric dispersion modelling. These dispersion profiles have also been validated through a series of field measurements. This is considered to represent a comparable situation to construction plant operating at a fixed location as the types of combustion engines will be similar size low level sources. S.58. The DMRB Figure C1 is reproduced below to demonstrate the rapid attenuation in pollutant concentrations with increasing distance from the source.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

HA207/07 Figure C1: Traffic Contribution to Pollutant Concentration at Different Distances from the Road Centre

S.59. As well as proximity of receptors to construction activities, the direction of receptors in relation to the Power Station Complex Site was considered. The prevailing wind direction (as shown in the windrose in Insert 8.1 in Chapter 8 of the ES) is from the south east. The closest residential property downwind of the Power Station Complex Site boundary is Receptor 4 (4-6 Bryn Lane, as shown in Figure 8.1 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-080), 245 metres to the northwest. This is the shortest distance to the Order Limits, i.e. a worst case. The draft Construction Environment Management Plan (Examination Library Reference APP- 152) states that the construction site for the Scheme will be planned such that potential sources of pollution will be sited as far away as is practicable from sensitive receptors. S.60. The closest property (Receptor 4, 4-6 Bryn Lane) lies 45 metres beyond the 200 metre DMRB screening distance adopted for the study (paragraph 8.123 of Chapter 8 of the ES), and justified in S.10 above. No other sensitive properties are situated within 200 metres downwind of the prevailing south easterly wind. S.61. The Power Station Complex is expected to be of a modular construction, meaning that the core elements are likely to be manufactured and assembled off site. This will reduce the power demand on site during the construction period. The construction equipment power demand for the Gas Connection in any one location

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

is expected to be lower due to the diffuse and temporary range of sources (although it is noted that the Gas Connection does not form part of this Application). S.62. Background concentrations in the study area are well below the respective air quality criteria for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter as PM10, thus the potential for an exceedance of the air quality criteria for either pollutant was considered to be negligible.

QUESTION 1.1.9

Air emissions: regulation of construction effects

Paragraph 5.15 of the draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) [APP- 152] states that “[m]obile plant will be operated and permitted in accordance with the most recent version of DEFRA’s Process Guidance Note 3/16 for Mobile Crushing and Screening. It will be regulated under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 via an environmental permit issued by WCBC.”

 Is this approach agreed between the Applicant, NRW and WCBC?  Are there any aspects of mobile plant operation that will not be regulated under an EP and require to be addressed in the DCO or by some other means?

Response to Question 1.1.9

S.63. This statement in Paragraph 5.15 of the draft Construction and Environment Management Plan [Examination Library Reference APP-152] is not considered to infer a specific methodological approach requiring agreement between the Applicant and NRW and/or WCBC. It is intended more simply as a statement providing the information that all mobile plant to be used on-site, e.g. crushing and screening plant, will be required to be permitted under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. S.64. Where mobile plant is considered Part B mobile plant under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR), the Environmental Permit will be granted by the relevant local authority. Environmental Permits for Part A processes, such as that which will be granted in respect of emissions from the Scheme during the operational phase, will be issued by NRW, the regulator. As such, the Environmental Permit for the operational phase will not cover the temporary mobile construction plant. S.65. Similarly, should construction activities employ any on-site concrete batching, this will be permitted by the relevant local authority as concrete batching is a Part B process in the EPR, as detailed in paragraph 5.17 of the draft CEMP.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.66. Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) exhaust emissions will be required to meet certain emission standards. See paragraph 5.16 of the draft CEMP and paragraph 8.265 of Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056), which both state “NRMM used on site should be fitted with a type approved engine which meets the emission standards set in the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/1053)” (as amended). S.67. In summary, mobile plant operation during the construction phase will be regulated under either the Environmental Permitting Regulations (and thus the relevant local authority) or under Requirement 4 Construction and Environment Management Plan of the Order where required, and there is no further need for such equipment to be addressed specifically in the Order.

QUESTION 1.1.10

Air emissions: regulation of operational effects and the IED

The Directive on Industrial Emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) – 2010/75/EU, the “Industrial Emissions Directive” (IED), came into force on 6 January 2011. The purpose of the IED is “to achieve a high level of protection for the environment taken as a whole” from the potentially harmful effects of industrial activities. It does so by requiring relevant emitting installations to have an EP under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2013 (as amended) (EPR) from the competent authority. An EP will normally require the Applicant to demonstrate the application of best available techniques (BAT) to protect the environment.

 NRW is requested to confirm that they would be the competent authority for IED licensing for the application proposal and this would be by way of an EP?  If the application proposal were to be constructed and operated as proposed in the ES, is NRW content that all relevant emission limit values and benchmarks for NOx (Nitrogen Dioxide), CO (Carbon Monoxide), SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide) and PM10 (particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter) emissions derived from the IED / EPR can be met?  Are there any reasons of which NRW are aware why an EP should not be forthcoming for the application proposal as described in the ES?  Are there any reasons of which NRW are aware why an EP for the application proposal would be granted subject to conditions or operational limitations that are not anticipated in the ES?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.1.10

S.68. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily to NRW as the regulatory body with responsibility for granting the Environmental Permit(s) for the Power Station Complex. S.69. The IED is implemented in England and Wales through the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. The Power Station Complex will have a maximum generating capacity of 299 MWe, and as such it falls within the scope of the IED. Plant of this capacity falls within the definition of a Part A (1) installation under Schedule 1 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR), such that an Environmental Permit (EP) will be required before the Power Station Complex can operate. NRW is the relevant competent authority for the Power Station Complex, and an Environmental Permit (EP) application will need to be submitted to, and an EP granted by, NRW prior to plant commissioning. The EP will specify on-going requirements, e.g. stack emissions monitoring and reporting, for the operational facility, and any conditions which it is required to operate in accordance with. S.70. The Power Station Complex will be designed to meet the emission limits for oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide for new gas turbines as set out in Annex V Part 2 of the IED as a minimum requirement (see Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES, Table 8.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-056)). Gas turbine manufacturers can guarantee meeting these limits when operating on natural gas at normal load. The gas turbines are required to operate below these limits under normal operational conditions. As referenced in the Applicant’s response to FWQ 1.1.5, paragraph 4.7.4 in Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) notes that CCGT designs are constantly developing; lower emission specification units are already commercially available. S.71. For instance, the manufacturer’s specification for the exemplar 6FA gas turbine considered in the air quality chapter comprises a dry Low NOx combustion system capable of achieving 15 ppmv oxides of nitrogen at reference conditions (273.15 K, 101.3 kPa and 15% oxygen dry basis), or less than 30 mg/Nm3, when operating on natural gas6. However, in order to not constrain the future plant design and to work within a Rochdale Envelope, a conservative assessment for the ES was carried out, in that it was assumed continuous operation throughout the year at the IED emission concentration limit of 50 mg/Nm3 at the same reference conditions.

S.72. As the CCGTs will be run on natural gas the emissions of sulphur dioxide and PM10 will be negligible. See the reference in the footnote 2 below7, which replaces the superseded link at footnote 34 in Chapter 8 of the ES. Emissions are therefore expected to comfortably meet the additional benchmarks for these pollutants that

6http://site.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/GEA13378E_6FA_LR.pdf 7 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/combined-heat-and-power-chp-environmental-aspect

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

are proposed in the Environment Agency guidance8 (“How to comply with your environmental permit: additional guidance for combustion activities”). S.73. Periodic departures from the IED limits are allowed under Annex V Part 4 of the IED which account for occasional start-up and shut-down periods such as and when the plant undergoes maintenance. These departures will be discussed and agreed with the relevant regulator. The exemplar 6FA gas turbine considered in the assessment in the ES has a reported start-up time of less than 30 minutes, thus any departures from normal operational emissions will be limited in nature. The potential effect of such excursions was addressed through a conservative and hypothetical assessment as described in paragraph 8.94 in Chapter 8 of the ES and further explained in the Applicant’s response to FWQ 1.1.11. S.74. The operator of the Power Station Complex will be required to install continuous emissions monitoring equipment (CEMS) in the Stacks in accordance with EP requirements, to demonstrate adherence to the emission limits set in the EP and to report the recorded values to NRW, the regulator, as part of its permit obligations. S.75. The Power Station Complex is identical in nature to the Meaford Energy Centre, development consent for which was granted by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – The Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order - in July 2016. There is no apparent reason why the Power Station Complex, a conventional gas fired CCGT plant, would not be granted an Environmental Permit to operate by NRW on air quality grounds. Furthermore, the EP application will most likely be supported by an updated air quality assessment for the specific plant design proposed. S.76. Any EP issued by NRW under the Environmental Permitting Regulations is likely to have a number of conditions attached to it, for example those relating to plant operation in respect of operational management procedures, emissions monitoring and reporting, and the treatment of the minor quantities of waste materials arising during normal plant operation. Any such conditions would not in the Applicant’s view be likely to affect the robust conclusions in the ES. S.77. It is confirmed that the Applicant is in discussions with NRW over a Statement of Common Ground, which will also include confirmation as to granting of an EP by NRW in respect of the Power Station Complex. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCG with NRW.

8 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297003/geho0209bpin-e- e.pdf

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.1.11

Air emissions: regulation of operational effects and the IED

Are there circumstances in which start-up and shut-down conditions or extensive low load operation (say below 70% load) can lead to air quality being subject to a material decline from the values included in the assessed Rochdale Envelope maximum and hence operation that exceeds the assessed worst case? More particularly:

 Are there any operating techniques and conditions currently understood to meet Best Available Technology (BAT) under which start-up or shut-down conditions can lead to raised volume and/ or raised hazard emissions per unit of time when compared with continuous operation;  Can low load conditions (below 70% load) lead to raised volume and/or raised hazard emissions per unit of time when compared with continuous operation; and  Could there be circumstances (for example if operating as a ‘peaking plant’) in which the temporal pattern of start-ups and shut-downs and/ or low or fluctuating load conditions lead to raised volume and/ or raised hazard emissions beyond the extent of those assessed in the ES?  Will likely operational conditions of the application proposal in foreseeable market conditions be able to meet (operate at or beneath) the emissions anticipated from the Rochdale Envelope and meet relevant IED/EPR emissions limit values and benchmarks and or BAT as expressed in EP conditions?  Are any additional controls needed in the DCO to ensure that the air emissions Rochdale Envelope as assessed in the ES is not exceeded and relevant IED / EPR emissions limit values and benchmarks are met, or are these matters that will be satisfactorily addressed by the EP process?

Response to Question 1.1.11

S.78. It is not the Applicant’s intention to operate the Power Station Complex as a peaking plant nor is it intended to operate the plant for extensive periods at low load conditions. There would be a single scheduled maintenance shut down for a few days’ duration each year. This is described in paragraph 4.54 in Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) “The plant will be designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, other than during scheduled annual shutdowns, and will be capable of generating power at 100% Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) for a minimum of 8,322 hours per annum”. Paragraph 4.62 describes the annual shut down as follows: “Temporary shutdown of the WEC will be required on an annual basis for various maintenance activities. These include but are not limited to annual inspection of gas turbine combustion components (3-7 days’ shutdown period), and inspection of the HRSG and steam

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

system pressure containment components.” More extensive annual maintenance shut downs after four and six years are also described. S.79. It is acknowledged that during start up and shut down conditions, there may be temporary increases in pollutant emissions above the limits set in the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). It has therefore been agreed with NRW, following consultation with their air quality modelling and risk assessment team (AQMRAT) (see paragraph 8.94 in Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056); and Appendix 8.3 (Examination Library Reference APP-118), that a hypothetical assessment would be undertaken of the impact of higher NOx emissions when load is lower. The upper limit of NOx that was used as the means of the hypothetical assessment was based on the compliance limits set out in IED Annex V Part 4, which states that “95% of all the validated hourly average values over the year do not exceed 200 % of the relevant emission limit values”. It is currently anticipated that this compliance limit will be reflected in the conditions attached to the Environmental Permit. S.80. The hypothetical assessment (described at paragraph 8.231 in Chapter 8 of the ES) demonstrates that the maximum hourly average total nitrogen dioxide concentration (PEC) is just over one quarter of the standard of 200 µg/m3 and therefore there would be no risk of exceeding the AQS objective. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that there are no hazardous or unacceptable consequences due to the higher oxides of nitrogen concentrations that may be emitted when short term emissions are higher. S.81. Although it is not intended to operate the Power Station Complex as a peaking plant, this conclusion would still be valid irrespective of the number of times that the plant may be required to start up during the year. This is because although Annex V Part 4 of the IED allows for a number of excursions of the hourly average above the emission limits set out in Annex V Part 2 of the IED, the requirement that no daily average should exceed 110% of the relevant emission limit value limits any impact over the longer term. S.82. It is considered that the question of start-up emissions has been adequately addressed by this conservative assessment, as those results presented relate to the least favourable meteorological conditions in five years of meteorological data. In practice, the maximum short term emission concentrations found at sensitive receptors would be much lower, due to the more typical meteorological conditions that would happen to coincide with any period of start up or shut down and furthermore the lower volumetric flow rate. S.83. There are no increases in the volumetric flow rate of gas through the CCGT during start-up; on the contrary, the mass flow rates are anticipated to be broadly in proportion to the thermal input and power output which will be lower. Exhaust gas volumetric flow rates would also reflect the same variation. S.84. Market conditions will have no adverse effect on the ability of the plant to comply with all relevant IED/EPR emissions limit values and benchmarks and or BAT as

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

expressed in EP conditions. The emissions performance of CCGT plants is very stable and is guaranteed by both the engineered physical design and also by the instrumentation inherent in the plant operational controls. The compliance with relevant IED and other emission limits is standard technology for modern gas turbines. S.85. There are no additional controls needed in the Order as the regulation of the emissions to the atmosphere will be properly and adequately addressed by the Environmental Permitting process, and regulated by NRW.

QUESTION 1.1.12

Air emissions: regulation of operational effects

ES Chapter 8 [APP-056] makes reference to plant being maintained “in accordance with the manufacturer's specification” (para 8.218) and to the manufacturer’s performance guarantee (para 8.230).

 Are these matters relevant to the constructed generating station meeting relevant emissions quality performance standards?  If so, how will maintenance to specification be secured. Is this a matter for the DCO, the EP, or another mechanism?

Response to Question 1.1.12

S.86. The CCGT(s) proposed as part of Power Station Complex are a significant capital investment; the operator would need to adhere to the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule to avoid any risk of degraded plant efficiency, or costly unscheduled shut downs. Whilst regulated emission concentration limits, such as those which will be set by NRW as part of the Environmental Permit (EP), may not be compromised by an extended interval between scheduled maintenance tasks, there are other considerations that make it advantageous for the operator to adhere to the recommended maintenance schedule. Furthermore, planned maintenance, as formalised within an Environmental Management System (EMS), will be a requirement of an EP, and as such will be integrated as part of the permitting process and overseen by NRW, as the regulator, in any event. S.87. In order to comply with the EP, the operator will need to demonstrate to NRW that they have in place a structured EMS. This will need to include a programme for the Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) of plant and infrastructure to avoid poor performance which could cause pollution (NRW (2014) “How to comply with your

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

environmental permit”9). The maintenance regime is therefore not considered to be a matter to be addressed in the Order. S.88. The maintenance regime is described in paragraph 4.54 in Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) where it is stated “The plant will be designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, other than during scheduled annual shutdowns, and will be capable of generating power at 100% Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) for a minimum of 8,322 hours per annum.” The annual maintenance activities are further described in paragraph 4.62 in Chapter 4 of the ES. As stated in paragraph 8.218 of Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056), such maintenance will not materially affect the findings presented in the ES, which were based on 8760 hours per annum continuous operation. S.89. Maintenance is nevertheless not considered to be a primary relevant factor in meeting regulated pollutant emission limit concentrations. The compliance with the pollutant emission limit values specified in the EP by NRW is a matter for the regulator to specify (within the context of the Applicant being able to demonstrate that its plant and equipment satisfy the requirement to utilise Best Available Techniques). As stated in paragraph 4.81 in Chapter 4 of the ES, continuous emissions monitoring equipment (CEMS) will be installed to sample discharged gases in the Stack(s). The CEMS will provide the requisite hourly, daily, and long term statistics to demonstrate compliance. As the plant would not be permitted to operate where pollutant emissions show an excursion above regulatory limits, any operational factors (including inter alia ensuring an appropriate maintenance regime), that might risk a breach of permit conditions and trigger a costly shut- down, would necessarily be closely monitored and avoided by the operator. S.90. The ensuing reference in paragraph 8.218 in Chapter 8 of the ES “Occasional, short term periods of shut down for the purposes of routine and annual maintenance activities” is intended to stress the robust basis of the main assessment presented in the ES, which assumed continuous operation of the CCGT(s) throughout the year. The brief periods of planned maintenance would slightly reduce the annual average pollutant concentrations presented, in proportion to the fraction of the time over the year that the plant would be shut down for maintenance. This is addressed in the Applicant’s response to FWQ 1.1.11.

9 Available at: https://naturalresources.wales/media/2110/how-to-comply-with-your-environmental- permit.pdf

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.1.13

Air emissions: regulation of operational effects

The relevant representation from Mr Christopher Briggs [RR-005] suggests that:

 CO2 emissions may be higher than assessed in the ES during start-up conditions; and  emissions may include formaldehyde, although a particular emission level is not suggested.

Mr Briggs is requested to support his concerns about CO2 and formaldehyde emissions in his written representation, or in direct response to this question at Deadline 1.

The Applicant and NRW are requested to respond to Mr Briggs concerns at Deadline 2 and to provide views on whether the concerns raised by Mr Briggs require any further controls, taking into account responses to question 1.1.10 and 1.1.11 above. If further controls are warranted, should these be in the DCO, in the EP or be delivered by some other mechanism?

Response to Question 1.1.13

S.91. The Applicant acknowledges that this question, as regards the information that is required at Deadline 1, is directed primarily at Mr Christopher Briggs [RR-005], and that the Applicant is requested to provide further comment in response to Mr Briggs' comments at Deadline 2. The Applicant has, for the purposes of clarification, set out below an initial analysis of its position, but will nonetheless provide the Examining Authority with further comment at Deadline 2 in response to the representations received from Mr Briggs. S.92. The relevant representation from Mr Briggs refers to concerns that emissions during start-up of the gas turbines of carbon monoxide (CO) (note, not carbon dioxide, CO2) would be at higher concentrations during start-up and shut-down (i.e. when the plant is operating at below 70% of load) than at normal load. Mr Briggs is also concerned that emissions of formaldehyde could be formed during low load conditions and when combustion is not complete. He further asks whether dispersion modelling of the emissions to atmosphere has been carried out.

Detailed modelling

S.93. A full detailed dispersion modelling assessment has been undertaken by the Applicant and is reported in Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056). The Applicant considers that the assessment is robust, both in terms of the methodology adopted and the resulting conclusions, assuming continuous operation of the Scheme (based on a least favourable configuration of CCGTs as a 2 + 1 arrangement with separate stacks) at full load for 24 hours a day throughout the year at the relevant upper emission limits. This ensured that the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

maximum short-term (hourly) and long term (annual) concentrations in a five-year meteorological dataset were reported. S.94. Paragraphs 8.4 to 8.9 in Chapter 8 of the ES identify the principal air pollutants that are associated with the Scheme and are regulated by the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) (Annex V Part 2), and for which ambient air quality criteria are provided in the Air Quality Standards (Wales) Regulations 2010 No. 1433 (Wales 126). S.95. The assessment considers both the short and long-term ground level concentrations of these pollutants, i.e. oxides of nitrogen/nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide (see Table 8.2 in Chapter 8 of the ES). This approach was discussed in detail and agreed with the regulator, NRW, (Appendix 8.3 of the Application; Examination Library Reference APP 118) before the assessment was carried out. The pollutant of highest concern with regard to local air quality and potential impact on public health for the Scheme is nitrogen dioxide, as the annual mean objective is the most difficult to achieve close to busy roads and in urban areas in parts of the UK10. Nonetheless, the conservative assessment carried out by the Applicant shows that both the long and short-term air quality standards of both the regulated pollutants, being nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, will be met. S.96. The Applicant will provide further comment at Deadline 2, following receipt of any further representations from Mr Briggs.

Start-up and shut down

S.97. The potential for higher, short term emissions to occur during start-up and shut- down periods of operation is acknowledged in footnote 49 in paragraph 8.93 of Chapter 8 of the ES. It is noted that the intended mode of operation of the Power Station Complex is not as a peaking plant (typically resourced by open/simple cycle gas turbines), but in a combined cycle mode. The operational regime is described in Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) paragraph 4.54, which states that: “The plant will be designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, other than during scheduled annual shutdowns, and will be capable of generating power at 100% Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) for a minimum of 8,322 hours per annum.” As a result, it is anticipated that there will be limited periods of start-up and shut-down in any one year. Annual shut down periods are discussed in paragraphs 4.62 and 4.63 of Chapter 4 of the ES; there would be single annual shut down of six to seven days’ duration, with a longer single maintenance period every fourth year and after six years. S.98. In order to put the issue of transient start-up emissions into context, an exemplar gas turbine manufacturer11 states that the start-up time is less than 25 minutes. During this period the plant will run at less than 100% MCR (Maximum Continuous

10 The objectives for carbon monoxide have instead been met for several years and are well below limit values. See http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/LAQM-PG16-April-16-v1.pdf 11 http://site.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/GEA13378E_6FA_LR.pdf

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Rating). The IED states in Annex V Part 2 that for new gas turbines (including CCGT), the emission limit values for oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide apply only above 70% load. The 70% figure reflects the lowest load that plants can typically operate at and still remain within permitted IED limits. It is not the intention to operate the plant below 70% load as this would not be fuel efficient. During the limited start-up periods, the concentration of pollutants in the exhaust gas are permitted to be higher than the IED emission limits set for 70% load and above for a period of up to an hour. The concentration of pollutants in the exhaust gas decreases rapidly as start-up proceeds and decreases to levels equivalent to full load operations within this relatively short period, which is likely to be less than half an hour in practice. S.99. These potential departures from the IED emission limits, which will be permitted for a period of up to an hour within the Environmental Permit to be granted by the regulator, NRW, were accommodated for in a hypothetical scenario, see paragraph 8.218 in Chapter 8 of the ES, which states, “The potential excursions from IED emission limits that are allowed during temporary shut-down and start-up are accommodated for in a hypothetical scenario, which examines the hourly results using an emission rate of 200% of the IED emission limit for oxides of nitrogen.” This approach was discussed with, and indeed requested by, NRW as this is the basis upon which compliance with the IED limits may be measured (i.e. Annex V Part 4 of the IED states that 95% of all the validated hourly average values over the year must not exceed 200% of the relevant emission limit values set out in Part 2). S.100. The conclusions are reported in paragraphs 8.230 to 8.232 in Chapter 8 of the ES. The Applicant considers that the study was carried out in a robust manner, as it examined the full load hourly results using an emission rate of 200% of the IED emission limit for oxides of nitrogen assuming no reduction in the volumetric flow rate (which would occur at a lower load and hence would mean a lower mass emission rate). It was therefore concluded in paragraph 8.232 in Chapter 8 of the ES that “The short-term effect on human health from the Scheme stack emissions is assessed as negligible, as it will not lead to any exceedances of the hourly AQS objective at any relevant receptor location. This assessment is extremely robust as it assumes that oxides of nitrogen are emitted at twice the limit value set in the IED, and that the occasional maintenance periods are combined with the worst hours of meteorological data in a five-year data set; furthermore, a conservative background value has been used to calculate total concentrations in a rural area.” S.101. The Applicant will provide further comment at Deadline 2, following receipt of any further representations from Mr Briggs.

Carbon monoxide

S.102. Mr Briggs' representation makes reference to gas fired power plant carbon monoxide emissions of thousands of parts per million (ppm). The Applicant interprets this comment as relating to undiluted stack emission concentrations, which in exceptional circumstances and for certain items of equipment reach a

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

similar order of magnitude. It is noted that the IED emission limit for carbon monoxide is 100 mg/Nm3 (approximately 86 ppm) whereas, for instance, an older landfill gas engine12 may have emissions of 1500 mg/Nm3. S.103. Undiluted stack emissions from the Scheme are not a risk in terms of occupational exposure as flue gases will be fully contained and subsequently discharged at height. The stack emissions then disperse in the atmosphere such that the maximum hourly ambient concentrations at ground level are present at a concentration that is lower by several orders of magnitude. By way of example, the modelled stack emission concentration of carbon monoxide was 100 mg/Nm3 (approximately 86 ppm) based on the IED limit, whereas the maximum hourly ground level concentration at a human health receptor (double the maximum hourly concentration of oxides of nitrogen reported in Table 8.24 in the ES) is 87 µg/m3 (approximately 75 ppb) at receptor 4. This demonstrates that the concentration of the flue gas at the receptor has been diluted by a factor of over 2000 as compared with the flue gas at the point of discharge. The ambient concentrations modelled are well below the environment assessment level (EAL)13 for carbon monoxide of 30,000 µg/m3 as an hourly average exposure14. Table 8.25 of the ES furthermore demonstrates that the eight hourly concentrations at human health receptors are less than 1% of the AQS objective of 10,000 µg/m3. S.104. The Applicant will provide further comment at Deadline 2, following receipt of any further representations from Mr Briggs.

Formaldehyde

S.105. The combustion of natural gas within a gas turbine is one of the most efficient means of generating power. Whilst trace amounts of formaldehyde (and other hydrocarbons) may form through the incomplete combustion of natural gas, it is noted that such trace emissions are lower for gas turbines than for other combustion sources due to the high combustion temperatures reached during operation15. Although no emission rates are available for this trace pollutant, emissions of organic compounds from power plant are typically several orders of magnitude lower than that of oxides of nitrogen. The resultant ground level concentrations are thus proportionately lower. The Environment Agency risk assessment guidance environmental assessment level (EAL)16 for formaldehyde is 100 µg/m3 as an hourly average, which is a similar order of magnitude to that for nitrogen dioxide, 200 µg/m3. The effects of such transient trace emissions of formaldehyde on human health are therefore considered to be insignificant.

12 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321617/LFTGN08.pdf 13 The EAL for CO as an hourly mean was not present in the February 2016 edition of the online air emissions risk assessment guidance (available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your- environmental-permit) but has since been included and thus was not presented in the ES but is referred to in our response to Mr Briggs. 14 A concentration of 10,000 µg/m3 is equivalent to 7,000 ppb or 7 ppm. 15 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch03/final/c03s01.pdf 16 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your-environmental-permit

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.106. The Applicant will provide further comment at Deadline 2, following receipt of any further representations from Mr Briggs.

Stack height

S.107. The recommended maximum Stack height of 50 metres (above a site level of 30 metres AOD) (for the exemplar gas turbine and stack configuration as reported on in Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056)) is considered to be robust. Highly infrequent transient emissions for a period of less than one hour, such as those described above, should not inform a stack height determination. The “pollution index” is a key factor in the HMIP D1 stack height determination methodology17 and this is dominated by the emissions of oxides of nitrogen. The hypothetical modelled scenario, see paragraph 8.218 in Chapter 8 of the ES, which considered the potential for higher emissions during start-up, nevertheless confirmed the proposed stack height range would be appropriate to ensure adequate dispersion of principle combustion products, such as oxides of nitrogen. Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Rev 1, July 2016) ensures that a maximum Stack height of 50 metres will be adhered to. S.108. The mass emission rate of trace pollutants such as formaldehyde are several orders of magnitude lower than that of oxides of nitrogen and thus would not change the outcome of the stack height study (reported in Appendix 8.2, (Examination Library Reference APP-117). S.109. Appendix 8.3 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-118) provides correspondence between Atkins, NRW and WCBC in relation to agreeing the methodology and modelling for the air quality assessment for the Scheme. S.110. The Scheme will operate under an Environmental Permit granted by the regulator, NRW, which will set and monitor the emissions from the Scheme. S.111. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCG with NRW. S.112. The Applicant will provide further comment at Deadline 2, following receipt of any further representations from Mr Briggs.

17 HMIP (1993) Guidelines on Discharge Stack Heights for Polluting Emissions, Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1, ISBN 0 11 752794 7. This document is out-of-print, but is available from the British Library

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.1.14

Air emissions: operational effects: stack design

Stack design is a key means to ensure that air emissions meet relevant standards.

 Are there any matters arising from responses to questions 1.1.10, 1.1.11 or 1.1.13 above that suggest a need to reconsider the stack design parameters assessed in the ES?

(The respondents to this question (The Applicant and NRW) are requested to monitor responses from others at Deadline 1 and to reconsider this question in respect of matters raised in responses at Deadline 2).

Response to Question 1.1.14

S.113. The Applicant’s responses to FWQs 1.1.10, 1.1.11 and 1.1.13 have confirmed the Applicant's view that there is no need for the stack design parameters, as assessed in Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056), to be reconsidered. The Applicant considers that the assessment carried out is robust, particularly as it assumed continuous operation at full load for 24 hours a day throughout the year at the relevant emission limits. It also used the conceptual design configuration giving rise to the highest maximum concentrations at sensitive receptors, and thus was carried out on a conservative basis. S.114. Furthermore, the provisions of Requirement 2: Detailed design approval in Schedule 2 to the draft Order (Rev 1, July 2016) are considered to provide sufficient security so as to ensure that the maximum Stack height of 50 metres (above 30 metres AOD) will be adhered to, and thus that the Scheme will not produce greater emissions to air than those considered in the ES. The Scheme will also operate in accordance with an Environmental Permit granted by the regulator, NRW, and the various conditions attached to it. S.115. As requested, the Applicant will consider all responses from NRW and others that are submitted at Deadline 1, and will reconsider this question and provide further comment at Deadline 2 where necessary. S.116. In addition, the Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with both WCBC and NRW. Updates on the progress of these Statements of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority as necessary, including with regard to all matters of air quality.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.2 Biodiversity, Ecology and Natural Environment

QUESTION 1.2.1

Natural environment: survey methodology and baseline data for the primary development

NRW, NE, WCBC and other relevant IPs are asked to review the natural environment survey methods and outcomes relevant to the primary development (the generating station proposal) reported on in ES Chapter 11 [APP-059], from which the following methodological issues that the ExA has observed emerge:

 Baseline surveys are understood to have been undertaken between 2008 and 2014, making some of the data older than would normally be acceptable.  The timing in the year (February to May) of Phase 1 surveys was early for some grassland species.  There was no reptile survey, although the ES has sought to address this through precautionary assumptions that a small population of common reptile species are present.  Not all water bodies outside the application site but within 500m of its boundary appear to have been surveyed for Great Crested Newt (GCN).  Bat surveys have not fully complied with Bat Conservation Trust survey guidance.

With regard to these matters:

 Does the age of baseline data affect the reliability of the conclusions drawn in any significant degree?  Do the selected study areas respond to the zone of influence of the application proposal in respect to relevant receptors?  What additional action by the Applicant (if any) is recommended to ensure a reliable basis for a decision on this application?  Would you recommend the need for any additional survey work to be carried out over and above that which the Applicant has already done or proposes to do, and in respect of which habitats and/or species?  Is there a need for any additional pre-construction survey work to be secured in the DCO?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.2.1

S.117. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, the Applicant wishes to clarify that, through detailed discussions with WCBC and NRW, it was agreed that updating the ecological baseline data was unlikely to provide any new information that would significantly alter the outcome of the assessment described in Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-059). Furthermore, it was also considered that, due to the nature of the Scheme and the species and habitats associated with the area local to the Scheme, pre-construction surveys would be required and thus any changes in baseline would be dealt with at that stage. This was agreed with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant contacted NRW and WCBC by email on 6 January 2016 and was replied to by NRW on the same day confirming that they agree with the Applicant’s summary that “You (NRW) do not believe that there would be any value in undertaking more or repeating any survey work at this stage as it will not tell us anything more”. This was also confirmed by WCBC by email dated 7 January 2016. This email correspondence can be found on pages 28 to 30 in Appendix 11.4 of the ES: Consultation of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-133) S.118. With regard to the study areas, in determining the zone of influence for the assessment, the relevant receptors were considered and the zone of influence was set based on likely impacts as set out in Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2013). The methodology for determining the zone of influence for the Scheme was discussed and agreed with NRW and WCBC for each potential receptor (i.e. bats/GCN), as detailed in the meeting minutes (meeting date 18th January 2013) provided in pages 2 and 3 of Appendix 11.4 (Examination Library Reference APP- 133). S.119. The Applicant considers that a robust survey and assessment process has been carried out, and which was undertaken following consultation with, and with full agreement from, both NRW and WCBC at all stages. The Applicant does not consider that additional action is required to ensure a reliable basis for a decision on this Application. S.120. Additional survey work, over and above that which the Applicant has already carried out or proposes to carry out, is not considered to be required. Any additional data gathered at this stage would not have a significant effect on the outcome of the assessment. S.121. Regarding the need for any additional pre-construction survey work to be secured in the Development Consent Order, the Applicant considers it likely that, as a number of mobile species are present, pre-construction surveys will be required, but that these will only be required for those species assessed as part of ES and will be set out in the relevant protected species licences. Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order Rev.1 (July 2016) provides the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

necessary security for the delivery of ecological mitigation, which must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) and approved by the relevant planning authority (WCBC) prior to works commencing. Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order Rev.1 (July 2016) provides the security for environmental monitoring, including ecological monitoring that is to be carried out during the construction phase. Reference in particular is made to 4. -(1) (d), (f), (i), (j), (p) which are relevant in relation to this FWQ. In addition, the Applicant has also prepared a draft CEMP for the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-152) which covers the matters raised by this FWQ. S.122. Further, draft licences have been prepared as required by NRW. A draft bat licence is provided in the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-134) and a draft Great Crested Newt licence is provided in the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-135). S.123. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statement of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.2.2

Natural environment: survey methodology and baseline data for consequential development (the gas connection route)

NRW, NE and other relevant IPs are asked to review the natural environment survey methods and outcomes relevant to the consequential development (the gas connection route) in ES Chapter 11 [APP-059], from which the following methodological issues that the ExA has observed emerge:

The absence of detailed bat surveys (embedded mitigation through the avoidance of roost sites is assumed).

 Lack of access to the south bank of the River Clwyedog for water vole and otter surveys (the river is said to be narrow and the ES views a survey from the north bank to be adequate).  The absence of a physical survey for GCN.

With regard to these matters:

 What additional action by the Applicant (if any) is recommended to ensure a reliable basis for a decision on this application?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Would you recommend the need for any additional survey work to be carried out over and above that which the Applicant has already done or proposes to do and for which habitats and/or species?  Is there a need for any additional pre-construction survey work to be secured in the DCO?

Response to Question 1.2.2

S.124. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, for clarity, the Applicant wishes to confirm its view that no additional action is required to ensure a reliable basis for a decision. The methodologies used in gathering baseline data were formulated through discussion and consultation with NRW and WCBC, and were agreed in advance with NRW and WCBC (see paragraph 11.106 in Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-059) and Appendix 11.4 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-133). The Applicant contacted NRW and WCBC by email on 6 January 2016 and was replied to by NRW on the same day confirming that they agree with the Applicant’s summary that “You (NRW) do not believe that there would be any value in undertaking more or repeating any survey work at this stage as it will not tell us anything more”. This was also confirmed by WCBC by email dated 7 January 2016. This email correspondence can be found on pages 28 to 30 in Appendix 11.4 of the ES. S.125. With respect to bats, it was agreed that for the Gas Connection there was no need to undertake bat roost surveys if trees were situated outside the potential zone of influence. The severance of hedgerows was identified as a potential short term impact on foraging and commuting routes for bats; however, it was agreed through consultation with NRW and WCBC, as set out in meeting minutes (meeting date 14th July 2014) on pages 7 to 9 of Appendix 11.4 of the ES, that this could be mitigated by temporary structures being erected in any gaps in the hedgerows to facilitate crossing/commuting. S.126. The River Clwyedog is to be crossed by the Gas Connection only. No part of the Power Station Complex Site is in close proximity to the River Clwyedog. Access to the south bank of the River Clwyedog was not possible, however, the river was narrow and the surveyors were thus able to properly observe the south bank from the north bank, and thereby concluded that there was no evidence of otter or water vole activity. It was not possible to obtain access to all waterbodies, and it was therefore agreed with NRW that, since great crested newts (GCN) are known to be present in the majority of ponds in the area and the construction works along the Gas Connection Route would comprise a temporary impact only, the GCN data model produced by ARG (Countryside Council for Wales (2010) “Determination and application of the concept of favourable conservation status to address conservation of great crested newts in Wales”) was an appropriate approach to determine the likely presence and impact of the Gas Connection which replaced the need to

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

undertake physical surveys for those parts of the Gas Connection which falls outside of the Order Limits. This is documented in the meeting minutes (meeting date 18th January 2013) on pages 2 and 3 of Appendix 11.4 of the ES. The Power Station Complex Site was physically surveyed for GCN and the results of those surveys are detailed in Appendix 11.2 Survey Data – Bat and GCN of the ES in paragraphs A11.35 to A11.39 (Examination Library Reference APP-131) S.127. The Applicant considers that further survey work is not required. The surveys and methodologies that have been used to gather baseline data for the purposes of the ES were determined through consultation and discussion with NRW and WCBC, and ultimately were agreed between the Applicant and NRW and WCBC. The Applicant therefore considers that the surveys and methodologies that have been carried out to date are appropriate and proportionate, as set out in Appendix 11.4 of the ES. S.128. As a number of mobile species are present within the study area for the Scheme, it is considered likely that pre-construction surveys will be required. These are described in Chapter 11 of the ES in paragraphs 11.397 (bats) and 11.400 (otters). Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order Rev.1 (July 2016) (Examination Library Reference APP-033) provides the necessary security for the delivery of ecological mitigation which must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) as approved by the relevant planning authority (WCBC) prior to works commencing. Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order Rev.1 (July 2016) (Examination Library Reference APP-033) provides the necessary security for environmental monitoring including ecological monitoring, during the construction phase. Reference in particular is made to 4. -(1) (d), (f), (i), (j), (p). In addition, a draft CEMP has been prepared for the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-152) and the relevant chapter of this document is chapter 4. S.129. Further, draft licences have been prepared as required by NRW. A draft bat licence is provided in the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-134) and a draft Great Crested Newt licence is provided in the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-135). S.130. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statement of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.2.3

Natural environment: roosting bats and noise

ES Paragraph 11.221 [APP-059] states that construction noise is likely to result in disturbance to roosting bats and that the noise assessment is showing that construction noise levels at Target Note 26 (TN26) (see Figure 11.5) are likely to be above ambient noise levels.

 The noise assessment in EA Chapter 9 [APP-057] makes no reference to TN26 and does not appear to consider ecological receptors. Can the Applicant explain what evidence supports the statement in ES paragraph 11.221 at Deadline 1?  Can the other respondents to this question review and comment on the Applicant’s response at Deadline 2?

Response to Question 1.2.3

S.131. The possible impact of construction noise on potential bat roosts was identified by the ecology specialists when they carried out their ecological assessments. The conclusions of this assessment are set out in Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-059) rather than in Chapter 9 (Noise & Vibration) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057). Whilst there is no specific guidance available on the possible effects of noise on potential bat roosts, the possibility of bat roosts being disturbed by noise during the construction phase was nevertheless considered within Chapter 11 of the ES. S.132. In order to gain an understanding of the potential impacts that construction noise could have on a potential bat roost, construction noise calculations undertaken by the noise specialists were referred to. Construction noise on ecological receptors was assessed in Chapter 11 in accordance with BS 5228 as described from paragraph 9.47 in Chapter 9 of the ES. BS 5228 compares the predicted noise levels during the construction phase with the existing ambient noise for the location to identify potential impacts. The noise assessment set out in Chapter 9 of the ES was only required to consider the effects of noise on humans; separate assessment and calculations were therefore undertaken in order to gain a full understanding of noise levels at the ecological receptors and the potential impact on them. It was determined from the results provided that the zone of influence for which the noise levels would be above existing ambient noise levels included the location of the tree at Target Note (TN) 26. The conclusion reached by the ecologists was therefore that the noise levels predicted during the construction phase did have the potential to disturb the bat roost potential at TN26. S.133. Paragraph 11.295 of Chapter 11 of the ES states that appropriate sound barriers and other noise management measures will be used and implemented in order to reduce potential noise disturbance to roosting bats. These measures will be managed, implemented and maintained through the Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) that is to be approved by Wrexham County Borough

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Council, in accordance with Requirement 4 Construction and Environment Management Plan in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order (Rev 1, submitted 26 July 2016). A draft CEMP is provided as part of the Application in Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-152) and paragraphs 5.38 to 5.42 sets out mitigation measures including noise in relation to Bats. Paragraph 5.38 refers to “a licence issued by NRW, under Regeneration 53 of the Consideration of Habitants and Species Regeneration 2010, will be required to implement the mitigation strategy”. A draft Bat licence has been provided in the Application at Appendix 11.5 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-134). The CEMP also secures environmental monitoring, including ecological monitoring, during the construction phase. Reference in particular is made to 4. -(1) (d), (f), (i), (j), (p). S.134. Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order Rev.1 (July 2016)) provides the necessary security for the delivery of ecological mitigation which must be substantially in accordance with the Illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) which is to be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority (WCBC) prior to works commencing. S.135. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statement of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.2.4

Natural environment: provision of and security for mitigation

The ES identifies a range of mitigation measures for adverse natural environment effects which it characterises as ‘inherent’ (i.e. embedded or provided for directly within the design of the application proposal) or ‘additional’ (requiring to be specifically provided for and delivered on a separate basis). On the basis of applying both inherent and additional mitigation, the ES concludes that there would be no significant residual effects on the natural environment during any phase of the development.

 Is this conclusion on mitigation sound?  If it is not, in what respect and with respect to what evidence is it not sound?  What (if any) further mitigation is required and for what purpose?  Should any further mitigation be by way of change to the design of the application proposal (inherent mitigation) or by new additional mitigation measures?  Has the currently proposed mitigation been sufficiently secured in the DCO?  If not, what additional steps are needed to secure it?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 If any additional mitigation is proposed, how should that be secured?

Response to Question 1.2.4

S.136. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, for clarity, the Applicant confirms its view that the conclusions regarding mitigation that are set out in Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-059) are sound. The ecological impact assessment is an iterative process and therefore, where possible, adverse impacts have been ‘designed out’ completely or are inherent/embedded/provided for directly within the design of the Scheme. Where neither of these is possible, specific additional mitigation measures have been identified. By implementing both the inherent and “additional” mitigation measures, the Applicant considers that the conclusion of no significant residual effects is a sound conclusion to the ecology assessment for the Scheme. S.137. The mitigation measures identified in paragraphs 11.383 to 11.416 in Chapter 11 of the ES provide the mitigation measures which will be implemented during the construction and operation phases of the Scheme. The mitigation measures have been agreed in outline with WCBC and NRW as documented in Appendix 11.4 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-133) (email dated 6th January page 29, meeting minutes from 14th July 2014 pages 7 to 9, meeting minutes from 14th June 2013 pages 4 to 6). The Applicant does not consider that any changes to the design of the Scheme or new additional mitigation measures are required. S.138. The identified mitigation is secured via the following Requirements (Schedule 2 to the draft Order (Revision 1, submitted 26 July 2016):  Requirement 2: Detailed Design Approval. The authorised development is to be carried out in accordance with the parameters set out in Table 2, designed substantially in accordance with the design objectives, and the details approved by WCBC under sub-requirement (4).  Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation provides the necessary security for the delivery of ecological mitigation which must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026), and approved by the relevant planning authority (WCBC) prior to works commencing.  Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan provides the necessary security for environmental monitoring, including ecological monitoring, during the construction phase. Reference is made to 4. -(1) (d), (f), (i), (j), (p) which are considered particularly relevant in this context. In addition, a draft Construction and Environment Management Plan has been prepared for the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-152) with chapter 4 being the relevant chapter of the ES.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Requirement 13: Artificial Lighting requires the details of artificial lighting to be approved by WCBC prior to the date of final commissioning. S.139. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statement of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.2.5

Natural environment: Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA)

The ES states that the worst case impact scenario would be the parallel construction of the application proposal with other developments (Chapter 11, paragraph 11.424). The CIA is qualitative. Potential pollution impacts on designated sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)) via surface water connectivity are identified, but then the ES states that only the electrical connection would be likely to have any direct effects. It assumes that as consent would be required under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act for work affecting SSSIs, HRA screening and appropriate mitigation would be required to avoid adverse impacts should any be identified. The cumulative effects arising from the electrical connection in parallel with other development in the Applicant’s view would therefore not be significant.

 Does NRW agree with this assessment?  How would the mitigation of any cumulative impacts to SSSIs arising from the electrical connection be controlled and would this control be satisfactory?

Response to Question 1.2.5

S.140. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW). However, for clarity, the Applicant confirms that Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-059) states that only the Electrical Connection would be likely to have any direct effects under the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). The potential pollution impacts on designated sites via surface water connectivity are identified, and these would be where pollution enters a watercourse which may flow into a SSSI. If this occurs, the impacts would be indirect rather than direct. S.141. The assessment presented in paragraph 11.426 in Chapter 11 of the ES concludes that the construction of the originally anticipated Electrical Connection could have potential adverse impacts on designated sites (SSSIs), notable habitats and species assemblages and Great Crested Newt (GCN) local meta-populations. However, a revised Grid Connection Statement has been submitted (Grid Connection Statement Rev. 1 (July 2016) (Examination Library Reference OD-006)) which provides details of the grid connection offer for the Power Station Complex Site that has been received from Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN), the Distribution Network

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Operator, and which is based on an entirely underground solution connecting at the existing Legacy Substation. This connection offer was not received at the time of submitting the Application in March 2016 and as such was not considered for the purposes of the conclusions set out at paragraph 11.426 of the ES. SPEN has confirmed that no new pylon-mounted overhead lines are proposed in order to connect the Power Station Complex Site to the local distribution network, and as a result the potential impacts identified in paragraph 11.426 in Chapter 11 of the ES are no longer considered likely to arise. S.142. The Applicant is currently re-assessing the (CIA) for the Electrical Connection based on an entirely underground solution and an update on this additional CIA will be provided at Deadline 2. However, the initial assessments show that there is a potential reduction on ecological impact and it is unlikely that any new or worse cumulative effects would occur.

QUESTION 1.2.6

Natural environment: CIA - GCN

The ES also states that cumulative impacts on GCN would be avoided because both the project and Kingmoor Park North include Ecological Mitigation Areas and compensation for the loss of notable habitats. The Applicant considers that this would avoid problems arising due to the loss of GCN ponds and there would not be any cumulative effect on the GCN population as a consequence.

 Do NRW and WCBC agree with this assessment?

Response to Question 1.2.6

S.143. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, for clarity, the Applicant confirms that it considers that the mitigation proposals for both the Scheme and Kingmoor Park North are sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts on the Great Crested Newt (GCN) populations. The proposed mitigation measures cover a network of sites of nature conservation interest across Wrexham Industrial Estate and are designed to mitigate any potential isolation and fragmentation impacts that might arise as a result of the Scheme. Accordingly, provided that the mitigation is implemented fully at both the Scheme and Kingmoor Park North, and that an appropriate management plan is established and maintained (as detailed in Requirement 3 Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation and Requirement 4 Construction and Environment Management Plan of the draft Development Consent Order (Rev 1, July 2016)), the Applicant considers that there is no potential for

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

cumulative effects of the two developments to have a negative effect on the favourable conservation status of the GCN population. S.144. The Applicant designed the land set-aside for ecological mitigation through consultation and detailed discussion with both NRW and WCBC. Additionally, the ecological mitigation measures are such that many of the existing features will be retained, including the mature trees on the northern boundary and two of the existing water bodies. The plans also show a linkage between the Wrexham Industrial Estate and the fields to the east of the site to allow migration, as specifically requested by NRW and WCBC to avoid isolation and fragmentation. S.145. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.2.7

Natural environment: impacts on species protected under European and domestic legislation, mitigation and monitoring (other than GCN)

Where the application proposal affects European Protected Species (EPS), the works (including mitigation measures) require a licence under Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations from NRW. NRW’s relevant representation states that the measures proposed by the Applicant to avoid, mitigate and compensate for effects on EPS (including bats) are sufficient to avoid effects on favourable conservation status.

 Can NRW advise whether there is any reason in principle why a EPS licence would not be granted for any of the EPS affected by the application proposal?  Are NRW satisfied that Requirements 3 and 4 of the draft DCO will sufficient to secure the mitigation necessary to avoid impacts on populations of species protected under European and domestic legislation?

Response to Question 1.2.7

S.146. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed to NRW. However, for the purposes of clarification, the Applicant considers, based on its conversations and meetings with NRW, that there is no reason in principle why an EPS licence would not be granted for any of the EPS affected by the application proposal. A robust survey and assessment process has been undertaken by the Applicant, with agreement on the methodology from NRW and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) at all stages, detailed in Appendix 11.4 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-133). The level of impact on the EPS that has been identified by the assessment, and the consequential measures that have been identified to mitigate those impacts, are considered appropriate, proportionate and

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

in line with current practice, such that there will be no adverse effect on the favourable conservation status of the species concerned. S.147. The Applicant further considers that Requirements 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation and Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan of the Rev 1 of draft Development Consent Order (Revision 1, submitted 26th July 2016) adequately secure the implementation of the mitigation measures that the ES identifies and which are necessary to avoid adverse impacts on populations of species protected under European and domestic legislation. These requirements prevent any work commencing until the landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme, and the construction and environment management plan, have been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority.

QUESTION 1.2.8

Natural environment: EPS mitigation and monitoring: GCN

As GCN are an EPS, the works (including mitigation measures) require a EPS licence. The Applicant has provided a draft licence application (ES Appendix 11.6 [APP-103]).

Can the Applicant confirm that the proposals referred to in the draft licence application are those shown on the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation plan? ([APP-026] Doc 2.9.7, sheet 1 of 7).

 Can the Applicant confirm that the Ecological Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP) referred to in the draft licence application is the plan secured by Requirement 3 of the draft DCO?  Are NRW and WCBC satisfied with the wording of Requirements 3 and 4 of the draft DCO?

Response to Question 1.2.8

S.148. The Applicant confirms that the proposals referred to in the draft GCN licence application are those shown on the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026 – APP-032) although only Examination Library Reference APP-026 relates to the Order Limits. In addition to this, the Applicant also confirms that the Ecological Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP) referred to in the draft GCN licence application is secured through the details identified in (a) to (i) of Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation of the draft Order Rev. 1 (July 2016).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.149. Requirement 3 requires that no authorised development may commence until details required by the Requirement have been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority” (i.e. WCBC). S.150. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with both WCBC and NRW. Updates on the progress of these Statements of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority as necessary, including with regard to all matters relating to ecology.

QUESTION 1.2.9

Natural environment: species mitigation and monitoring: butterflies

With respect to the dingy skipper and grizzled skipper butterflies:

 Are NRW and WCBC satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures for these species?  Are NRW and WCBC satisfied that Requirements 3 and 4 of the draft DCO are sufficient to secure these mitigation measures?

Response to Question 1.2.9

S.151. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, for clarity, the Applicant confirms that it considers that the proposed mitigation measures for the species in question, namely the dingy skipper and grizzled skipper butterflies, are sufficient. At paragraph 11.88 of the ES Chapter 11 – Ecology (Document Reference APP-059) it is recognised that both the dingy skipper and grizzled skipper butterfly species are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity in Wales. As described in paragraph 11.170 of Chapter 11 of the ES, the habitats within the Power Station Complex footprint that would be lost are not considered to be suitable for these species. The mosaic of brownfield habitat and scrub located along the southern extents of the Power Station Complex Site, which is considered suitable for these species, would be retained and as such there would be no associated adverse impacts on either of these species. The Ecological Mitigation Area (as shown on the Illustrative Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Master Plan), which would be secured through the implementation of the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP, as described in paragraph 11.303 in Chapter 11 of the ES) would provide a source of nectar for any other butterfly species. S.152. The Applicant considers that the provisions of Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation and

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.153. Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan of the draft Development Consent Order (Revision 1, July 2016) are sufficient to secure these mitigation measures. More particularly, these Requirements stipulate that no works may commence until the landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme and the construction and environment management plan (CEMP) have been submitted to, and approved by, the relevant planning authority (i.e. WCBC). S.154. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with both WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.2.10

HRA: scope of assessment in Wales

NRW has not raised any concerns about the scope of the Applicant’s assessment (the European sites and features identified and considered) but has not formally recorded that it is satisfied that all relevant European sites and features in Wales have been identified and considered.

 Please confirm that all relevant European sites and features in Wales have been identified and considered or indicate those European sites and/ or features in Wales that require to be further addressed.

Response to Question 1.2.10

S.155. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW). With regard to the question of whether all European sites and features in Wales have been identified and considered in the HRA, the Applicant considers that all relevant European sites and features in Wales have been identified and considered, and that accordingly there are no further European sites or features in Wales which require further consideration. S.156. In the context of the assessment that has been carried out, the Applicant acknowledges that the principal potential constraint to the Power Station Complex Site is associated with emissions to the atmosphere (air quality). As reported in chapter 8 of the ES (Document Reference APP-056), the air quality assessment for the Power Station Complex Site was undertaken in line with the Government’s guidance on air emissions risk assessment which requires that protected conservation areas need to be considered where they fall within specified distances of the permitted activity in question. The standard distance specified for Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) or Ramsar sites is 10 km. However, at the request of NRW, the Applicant determined on a precautionary basis that a more conservative distance of 15 km should be applied

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

for this larger than 50 MW thermal input CCGT plant. The locations included in the air quality assessment are shown in Figure 8.1 (Document Reference APP-080) and this includes those European sites that are situated within 15 kilometres of the Power Station Complex Site boundary rather than from the location of the stack/s. The assessment concludes that increments to oxides of nitrogen and nitrogen deposition were negligible beyond a few kilometres of the Power Station Complex Site. S.157. The HRA screening assessment (reported in the No Significant Effects Report, Document Reference APP-046) considered sites up to 15 km from the Order Land, which includes the Gas Connection. All of the aforementioned European sites within 15 kilometres have been assessed (or in the case of sites with multiple portions, a representative and conservative location was selected), and no other likely impacts with a potential zone of influence in excess of 15 kilometres were identified. S.158. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with both WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.2.12

Air emissions: regulation of operational effects

ES Chapter 8 [APP-056] makes reference to plant being maintained “in accordance with the manufacturer's specification” (para 8.218) and to the manufacturer’s performance guarantee (para 8.230).

Response to Question 1.2.12

S.159. The CCGT(s) proposed as part of Power Station Complex are a significant capital investment; the operator would need to adhere to the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule to avoid any risk of degraded plant efficiency, or costly unscheduled shut downs. Whilst regulated emission concentration limits, such as those which will be set by NRW as part of the Environmental Permit (EP), may not be compromised by an extended interval between scheduled maintenance tasks, there are other considerations that make it advantageous for the operator to adhere to the recommended maintenance schedule. Furthermore, planned maintenance, as formalised within an Environmental Management System (EMS), will be a

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

requirement of an EP, and as such will be integrated as part of the permitting process and overseen by NRW, as the regulator, in any event. S.160. In order to comply with the EP, the operator will need to demonstrate to NRW that they have in place a structured EMS. This will need to include a programme for the Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) of plant and infrastructure to avoid poor performance which could cause pollution (NRW (2014) “How to comply with your environmental permit”18). The maintenance regime is therefore not considered to be a matter to be addressed in the Order. S.161. The maintenance regime is described in paragraph 4.54 in Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) where it is stated “The plant will be designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, other than during scheduled annual shutdowns, and will be capable of generating power at 100% Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) for a minimum of 8,322 hours per annum.” The annual maintenance activities are further described in paragraph 4.62 in Chapter 4 of the ES. As stated in paragraph 8.218 of Chapter 8 (Air quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056), such maintenance will not materially affect the findings presented in the ES, which were based on 8760 hours per annum continuous operation. S.162. Maintenance is nevertheless not considered to be a primary relevant factor in meeting regulated pollutant emission limit concentrations. The compliance with the pollutant emission limit values specified in the EP by NRW is a matter for the regulator to specify (within the context of the Applicant being able to demonstrate that its plant and equipment satisfy the requirement to utilise Best Available Techniques). As stated in paragraph 4.81 in Chapter 4 of the ES, continuous emissions monitoring equipment (CEMS) will be installed to sample discharged gases in the Stack(s). The CEMS will provide the requisite hourly, daily, and long term statistics to demonstrate compliance. As the plant would not be permitted to operate where pollutant emissions show an excursion above regulatory limits, any operational factors (including inter alia ensuring an appropriate maintenance regime), that might risk a breach of permit conditions and trigger a costly shut- down, would necessarily be closely monitored and avoided by the operator. S.163. The ensuing reference in paragraph 8.218 in Chapter 8 of the ES “Occasional, short term periods of shut down for the purposes of routine and annual maintenance activities” is intended to stress the robust basis of the main assessment presented in the ES, which assumed continuous operation of the CCGT(s) throughout the year. The brief periods of planned maintenance would slightly reduce the annual average pollutant concentrations presented, in proportion to the fraction of the time over the year that the plant would be shut down for maintenance. This is addressed in the Applicant’s response to FWQ 1.1.11.

18 Available at: https://naturalresources.wales/media/2110/how-to-comply-with-your-environmental- permit.pdf

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.2.13

HRA: no significant effects conclusion

The Applicant has submitted a No Significant Effects Report (NSER) [APP-046] with the application.

 Setting aside your responses (if any) to questions 1.2.11 to 1.2.12 above, are there any further respects in which you disagree with the conclusions in that report?  Appendix F of the NSER considers the combined effects from the gas connection and the power station site. The electrical connection is not referred to in either Appendix F or the list of projects in Table 5.1. Can the Applicant provide an updated statement about the in-combination effects for the project which includes the electrical connection at Deadline 1? Other interested parties may respond to this at Deadline 2  If you disagree with any of the conclusions reached in the NSER, please identify which conclusion(s) you disagree with, your reasons for disagreement and the evidence on which your reasons are based.

Response to Question 1.2.13

S.164. The Applicant considers that an Appropriate Assessment (AA) for the Power Station Complex Site is not required, based on the conclusion of the No Significant Effects Report (NSER) (Examination Library Reference APP-046). The Applicant understands that NRW is concerned about the potential for in-combination impacts, in particular with regard to ammonia emissions from poultry farms which can contribute to elevated nitrogen deposition rates in the local area. S.165. In response to questions 1.2.11 and 1.2.12 above, the Applicant provides its rationale and justification for the assessment reported in the NSER, and maintains its opinion that it is comprehensive following an approach that is consistent with the substantive content of the position statement of the Air Quality Technical Assessment Group (AQTAG) comprised of the Environment Agency, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales, submitted to PINS by the AQTAG in March 2015. S.166. In the Scoping Opinion dated May 2014, the Secretary of State confirmed that the cumulative assessment of the Power Station Complex Site should take account of its electrical connection, potentially along with other developments in the vicinity, subject to the advice of Wrexham CBC. Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-052) sets out the methodology that was adopted for the assessment of cumulative effects, including both cumulative and in- combination effects, and which is based on the Scoping Opinion and advice received following the screening and assessment processes described in PINS Advice Note 17.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.167. The Electrical Connection is not referred to in any of the headers of the table in Appendix F to the NSER, as it does not form part of the overall "Scheme." The Scheme, for which the Applicant is seeking both development consent and planning permission, is in respect of the Power Station Complex Site (the subject of this Application for a development consent order) and the Gas Connection (the subject of an application for planning permission, reference number P/2016/0358). The NSER is a No Significant Effects Report for both of these applications, and hence the Power Station Complex Site and the Gas Connection are identified separately and as one Scheme in the table. S.168. The Electrical Connection is treated in both the Environmental Statement and in the NSER as a cumulative project (i.e. not as part of the "Scheme" - see the WEC Glossary, Examination Library Reference APP-156), along with the following other projects: Kingmoor Park North, Pickhill Bridge Solar Farm and the North Wales Prison. These projects are not expressly referred to in Appendix F but the Applicant can confirm that they have been taken into account when looking at the in- combination effects of the Power Station Complex and the Scheme, which includes the Gas Connection. Regarding Table 5.1, this Table identifies those plans and projects where an HRA had been undertaken. The Electrical Connection does not form one of those projects. Accordingly, the NSER has taken into consideration the Electrical Connection as part of the in-combination assessment. S.169. It should be noted that in relation to the Electrical Connection, the revised Grid Connection Statement Rev. 1 (July 2016) (Examination Library Reference OD-006) confirms that the connection offer from the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) is for the export of electricity into SP Manweb/SP Energy Networks’ (SPM/SPEN) 132 kV network via underground cables from the Power Station Complex Site to the existing Legacy Grid substation. No new overhead lines are therefore required and no works will be required to the existing Marchwiel or Wrexham substations or to the existing overhead lines, their support structures or the underground cables that serve Marchwiel (Wrexham Industrial Estate) substation. The in combination assessment in the NSER of the Power Station Complex with the Electrical Connection does not specifically assess the proposed revised underground solution for the Electrical Connection. The Applicant is currently re-assessing the in- combination assessment for the NSER and the cumulative assessment for the ES for the Scheme with the revised solution for the Electrical Connection based on an entirely underground solution. This update will be provided at Deadline 2. However, the initial assessments show that it is very unlikely that any new or worse in- combination / cumulative effects would occur. If this updated assessment requires Appendix F of the NSER or the NSER to be changed then this will also be submitted at Deadline 2.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.2.14

DCO and related security for natural environment matters

WCBC proposes a recommended list of draft conditions in their initial Local Impact Report (LIR) at section 7 [LIR-001], but beyond identifying that they relate to ecology, do not always provide specific reasons why these are required. Whilst some of the draft conditions state a species beneficiary or enable their biodiversity function to be inferred, others do not.

 WCBC are requested to provide a table identifying the specific biodiversity outcomes sought by each proposed draft condition, listing beneficiary sites and species and outcomes sought to be secured.  WCBC are requested to compare the proposed draft conditions with the draft requirements in the draft DCO submitted with the application and to identify whether there are existing requirements that address their concerns, whether changes are sought to specific requirements and whether any of the draft ‘conditions’ in their view require to be formed into new requirements?

Response to Question 1.2.14

S.170. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed solely to WCBC, however, for clarification purposes the Applicant has conducted a comparison of the draft conditions contained in the initial Local Impact Report (LIR) with the Requirements in Schedule 2 to draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016). Each of the conditions proposed in Section 7 of the LIR are considered in turn in the table below. S.171. By way of summary, the Applicant considers that the Requirements which are already set out in Schedule 2 to the draft Order (version 1) adequately address the concerns of WCBC that the conditions proposed in the LIR seek to address. Additional explanatory text is included in the table below as appropriate.

Table 1.2.1: LIR Conditions DCO Comparison

WCBC Proposed Condition WPL Response (References to Requirements are to those Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016)

1. No development shall take place Requirement 4(1) (Construction and (including demolition, ground works, Environment Management Plan) of the draft vegetation clearance) until a construction Order stipulates the need to submit a environmental management plan (CEMP: Construction and Environment Management Biodiversity) has been submitted and Plan (CEMP) for approval by the relevant

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

WCBC Proposed Condition WPL Response (References to Requirements are to those Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016) approved in writing. The CEMP shall include planning authority prior to the the following. commencement of the development. The a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging measures which must be included in the construction activities. CEMP, as cited below, are considered appropriate to encompass the provisions of b) Identification of biodiversity protection proposed condition 1. The Applicant has zones. identified in the left column (in bold) where c) Practical measures (both physical we consider each element of the proposed measures and sensitive working practices) to condition is satisfied by Requirement 4. avoid or reduce impacts during construction Note that a draft CEMP has been submitted (may be provided as a set of method with the Application, and is contained in statements). Covered in R4. — (1) (a), (h), (i), Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination (j), (m), (q) Reference APP-152). d) The location and timing of sensitive works ‘4. — (1)— to avoid harm to biodiversity features. Covered in R4. — (1) (a), (c) (a) the mechanism for ensuring that all relevant environmental controls and e) The times during construction when mitigation are incorporated into a specialist ecologists need to be present on construction method statement; the site to oversee works. Covered in R4. — (1) (d) & (e) (b) confirmation that no explosive blasting will be carried out during any f) Responsible lines of communication. demolition; Covered in R4. — (1) (f) (c) environmental objectives and targets; g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works. Covered in R4. — (d) environmental monitoring; (1) (e) (e) roles and responsibilities; h) Use of protective fences, exclusion (f) means of communication, record barriers and warning signs. Covered in R4. — keeping, reporting, auditing and review; (1) (j) (g) complaints procedures; The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and (h) nuisance management including implemented throughout the construction measures to avoid or minimise the impacts of period strictly in accordance with the construction works (covering dust, lighting, approved details, unless otherwise agreed. noise and vibration); Covered in R4. — (2) (i) details of construction lighting to protect potential foraging/commuting features; (j) habitats protection measures,

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

WCBC Proposed Condition WPL Response (References to Requirements are to those Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016) including fencing, protection zones for retained trees and bat roosts and means of escape for badgers and other small mammals; (k) measures to minimise the spread of invasive species; (l) a site waste management plan; (m) surface and ground water protection measures (including bunding potential contaminate sources); (n) a construction drainage strategy; (o) a methodology for using harvested water where possible; (p) ecology, landscape and visual impact mitigation; and (q) a protocol in the event that unexpected contaminated land is identified during ground investigation or construction.’ (2) The construction works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved construction and environment management plan unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority.

2. Prior to the commencement of 2. A bio-security assessment in Appendix development a bio-security method 11.7 of the ES (Examination Reference statement and risk assessment should be Library APP-136) has informed the CEMP. produced for the development throughout construction, operation and decommissioning. However, Requirements 3(1) - (5) (provision of and implementation of landscaping and ecological mitigation), and 4(1) - (3) (CEMP) of the draft Order are considered suitable to secure ecological protection and mitigation throughout the development stages. Note that an illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan and draft

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

WCBC Proposed Condition WPL Response (References to Requirements are to those Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016) CEMP have both been submitted with the Application and can be found with Examination Library Reference APP-026 and APP-152 respectively.

3. A detailed lighting design strategy should 3. Requirement 4(1)(h) (CEMP) of the draft be provided which outlines how ecologically Order requires that the CEMP must be sensitive areas will be protected from submitted for approval prior to artificial light during construction and commencement of development to include operation. measures to avoid or minimise the impacts of construction works, which includes lighting. Note that a draft CEMP has been submitted with the Application, and is contained in Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination Reference APP-152). Requirement 13 (Artificial Lighting) of the draft Order, requires written details to be submitted for approval of the control of artificial lighting during operation. These requirements are considered sufficient to afford the relevant planning authority a level of control over lighting which could potentially affect ecologically sensitive areas during the construction and operation phases.

4. A ecological management plan (EMP) shall 4. Requirement 3(1) – (5) (Provision of and be submitted and approved in writing. The implementation of landscaping and content of the EMP shall include the ecological mitigation) of the draft Order following. requires a written landscaping and ecological a) Aims and objectives of management. mitigation scheme to be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority b) Prescriptions for management options. prior to commencement of development. c) Details of the body or organisation Note that an illustrative landscape and responsible for implementation of the plan. ecological mitigation master plan has been submitted with the Application and can be d) Reporting and implementation of found with Examination Library Reference remedial measures. APP-026. The management plan should include Requirement 4(1) (CEMP) of the draft Order

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

WCBC Proposed Condition WPL Response (References to Requirements are to those Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016) prescriptions for all species and habitats of requires the CEMP that must be submitted local or national importance identified as for approval prior to commencement of being present or possibly present on the site development to include various ecological to include; native trees, hedgerows, ponds, protection measures. Note that a draft great crested newt, bats, grizzled and dingy CEMP has been submitted with the skipper. Application, and is contained in Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination Reference APP- 152). These requirements are considered sufficient to secure appropriate protection and management of ecological features and mitigation measures.

5. No development shall take place including 5. Requirement 3(1) – (5) (Provision of and ground works and vegetation clearance until implementation of landscaping and a biodiversity monitoring strategy has been ecological mitigation) of the draft Order submitted, and approved in writing. The requires a written landscaping and ecological purpose of the Strategy shall be to ensure mitigation scheme to be submitted to and the long-term functionality of populations of approved by the relevant planning authority bats and great crested newt within and in prior to commencement of development. the immediate vicinity of the development Note that an illustrative landscape and site. The content of the Strategy shall include ecological mitigation master plan has been the following. submitted with the Application and can be a) Aims and objectives of monitoring to found in Examination Library Reference APP- match the stated purpose. Covered in R3 026. (CEMP) Ecological baseline conditions are detailed in b) Identification of adequate baseline Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination conditions prior to the start of development. Library Reference APP-059) paragraphs 11- Covered in submitted ES. 43 to 11-59, Figure 11.3: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan (Examination Library Reference c) Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, APP-100), and Figure 11.5: Bat Roost triggers and targets against which the Potential Trees (Examination Library effectiveness of the various conservation Reference APP-102). measures being monitored can be judged. Covered in R3(1)(c) (CEMP) Requirement 4(1) (Construction and Environment Management Plan) of the draft d) Methods for data gathering and analysis Order stipulates the need to submit a Covered in R3(1)(a)-(f) (CEMP) Construction and Environment Management e) Location of monitoring Covered in R3(1)(d) Plan (CEMP) for approval by the relevant planning authority prior to the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

WCBC Proposed Condition WPL Response (References to Requirements are to those Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016) (CEMP) commencement of the development. The f) Timing and duration of monitoring Covered measures which must be included in the in R3(1)(d) (CEMP) CEMP, are considered appropriate to encompass the provisions of proposed g) Responsible persons and lines of condition 5. communication Covered in R3(1)(f) (CEMP) We have identified in the left column (in h) Review, publication of results and bold) where we consider each element of outcomes. Covered in R3(1)(f) (CEMP) the proposed condition is satisfied by the proposed Requirement 4. Note that a draft CEMP has been submitted with the Application, and is contained in Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination Reference APP-152). In addition, the Application also included a draft Bat Licence (Examination Library Reference APP-134) and a draft Great Crested Newt Licence (Examination Library Reference APP-135) which has been prepared for NRW to facilitate construction and during the construction stage. Together these are considered appropriate to record the baseline conditions of the Power Station Complex Site prior to the commencement of development, for which there is no reasonable necessity to replicate further. These requirements are considered suitable to secure appropriate protection and management of ecological features and mitigation measures to ensure the long-term functionality of populations of bats and great crested newts in and around the Power Station Complex Site.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.172. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with WCBC, which will address ecological issues and any amendments to the wording of the draft Requirements should they be required. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress.

QUESTION 1.2.15

DCO and related security for natural environment matters

NRW, NE and WCBC are asked to identify whether there are any matters of natural environment relevance that require to be secured by a requirement in the draft DCO but have not been.

 Are any new natural environment DCO requirements sought and if so, what biodiversity objective(s) would these address?

Response to Question 1.2.15

S.173. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Natural England (NE) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, in order to assist the Examination, the Applicant has set out below comments which it believes are relevant at this stage. S.174. The Applicant does not consider that any new natural environment requirements need to be introduced in the Development Consent Order. In this context, the Applicant highlights in particular the following Requirements which are relevant to biodiversity, ecology and he natural environment (all references to Requirements are references to Requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (Revision 1) submitted on 26 July 2016): S.175. Requirement 2: Detailed design approval – Requirement 2 requires the authorised development to be carried out in accordance with the works plans, the access rights of way plan and any other documents that WCBC approves pursuant to any other Requirements. The Requirement also secures the maximum parameters for the authorised development, the design objectives, as well as requiring the Applicant to submit to WCBC for approval details as to siting, design, external appearance, dimensions, colour, materials and surface finishes prior to commencing development. This Requirement therefore controls the overall design of the authorised development to ensure that it is controlled in the environment. S.176. Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation provides the necessary security for the delivery of ecological mitigation, which must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) and approved by WCBC prior to works commencing. In addition, Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) provides

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

the necessary security for environmental monitoring including ecological monitoring during the construction phase – a CEMP must be submitted to and approved by WCBC prior to any work commencing. The submitted CEMP must be substantially in accordance with the draft CEMP (Examination Library Reference APP-152) that has been submitted with the Application. Requirement 4 makes it clear what the CEMP must contain, and reference in particular is made to 4. -(1) (d), (f), (i), (j), (p). S.177. Contamination is controlled by Requirement 5 (Ground investigation), archaeology is controlled by Requirement 8 (Archaeology) and traffic is controlled by Requirement 9 (Construction traffic management plan) and Requirement 10 (Travel plan during operational phase). Lighting is controlled by Requirement 13 (Artificial Lighting), which controls artificial lighting during the operation and maintenance periods of the authorised development. Details of the artificial lighting must be submitted to WCBC for approval prior to the date of final commissioning. S.178. Any documents approved by WCBC may only be amended following their approval where it can be demonstrated that the amendment will not give rise to any materially new or materially different environmental effects in comparison with those identified in the ES. This provision is contained in Requirement 15.

QUESTION 1.2.16

DCO and related security for natural environment matters

NRW, NE and WCBC are asked to identify whether there are any matters of natural environment relevance that require to be secured, but which cannot be secured by a requirement in the draft DCO.

 Are any additional forms of security such as planning obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) as amended or commercial agreements sought and if so, what biodiversity objective(s) would these address?

Response to Question 1.2.16

S.179. The Applicant acknowledges that the Examining Authority’s question is directed primarily to Natural Resource Wales (NRW), Natural England (NE) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). S.180. For clarification, the Applicant wishes to highlight that the Power Station Complex Site already incorporates a number of mitigation measures, notably inherent mitigation in the form of an Ecological Mitigation Area as shown on the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) which accompanied the Application and was discussed and shared with WCBC and NRW as part of the pre-application process. Details of the Ecological Mitigation Area alongside an Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan are

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

detailed in Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-059). These mitigation measures are secured in the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016):  Requirement 3 of Schedule 2: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation;  Requirement 4 of Schedule 2: Construction and Environment Management Plan. S.181. Both of the above Requirements oblige the Applicant to submit for approval by the relevant planning authority, prior to commencement of development, a written landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme (Requirement 3) and a Construction and Environment Management Plan (Requirement 4). Note that an illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan and draft CEMP have both been submitted with the Application and can be found with Examination Library References APP-026 and APP-152 respectively. S.182. In addition to the Requirements which are currently included in the draft Order, the Application is accompanied by an 'Other Consents and Licenses' (Examination Library Reference APP-045) document which provides details of all of the other consents and licenses which will be required before the Power Station Complex can operate, in addition to those being requested as part of the Application. Specifically, in relation to the natural environment, the following other consents and licenses have been identified:  Environmental Permit (EP): A EP will be required to operate the Power Station Complex. The EP application will be made to NRW in accordance with the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010;  European Protected Species Licence: If required for protected species, such as bats and great crested newts, a licence application will be progressed with NRW as the consenting authority in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The licence will also be used to secure the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan. A draft Bat licence was submitted with the Application as Appendix 11.5 to the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-134) as well as a draft great crested newt licence in Appendix 11.6 to the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-135). S.183. The Applicant confirms that Statements of Common Ground are being progressed with both NRW and WCBC. Updates on the progress of these Statements of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority including matters related to the natural environment and the securing of mitigation measures where required. S.184. It is expected that WCBC acting as the local planning authority will impose planning conditions on any planning permission it may grant in respect of the Gas Connection. The Applicant has invited WCBC to impose planning conditions that

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

accord with Requirement 3 of the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016) for consistency between the two elements of the Scheme.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.3 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Readiness

QUESTION 1.3.1

Heat export: effects on combustion performance

The ExA has not been able to find confirmation in the ES of whether the installation of CHP and the active take-up and export of heat would have any material effect on the combustion performance of the plant.

 The Applicant is asked to provide a statement supported by necessary evidence to the effect that:  the active take-up and export of heat will have no material effect on combustion performance and hence on the operational air emissions of the application proposal; or  the active take-up and export of heat will materially affect combustion performance and presenting any consequential change to operational air emissions.

Response to Question 1.3.1

S.185. To enable the Scheme to operate as a CHP installation exporting heat, it would need to transfer heat from the installation. The only practical sources of heat from the Scheme would be recovery of waste heat within the Power Station Complex (heat which would normally be transferred to the air) or provision of a steam supply diverted from the electrical generation steam system. S.186. Waste heat could be recovered from the Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) stacks, the low pressure steam condensers and the plant equipment cooling systems. Recovery of heat from any of these sources would be independent of the installation’s combustion systems and therefore would not have any material effect on their combustion performance. S.187. Recovery of heat from the HRSG stack(s) would be facilitated by the installation of an additional air to water heat exchanger in the stack(s). This would impose a marginal efficiency effect on the gas turbine’s power output due to the increased differential pressure between the gas turbine exhaust and the stack. This change in marginal efficiency would be more than compensated by efficiency gains of the plant as a whole by the utilisation of waste heat. Additionally, the recipient of the waste heat will increase their energy efficiency due to a reduction in their energy requirements. It would also have a minor influence on the HMIP D1 stack height determinations by reducing the exhaust gas temperature; however, this effect was assessed as insignificant in the design due to the already conservative approach to emissions dispersion. The reduced exhaust temperature would reduce the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

buoyancy of the gas which would potentially increase the height of the stack/s above the current HMIP D1 stack height determination in order to meet Environmental Permitting requirements. This potential increase in the height of the stack/s has been allowed for within Table 2 of Requirement 2 Detailed design approval in the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016) and the maximum height of the stack/s of 50m. S.188. A steam supply could be taken from the installation’s electrical generation steam system either directly from the steam network or via extraction from the steam turbine(s). This would be independent of the installation’s combustion systems and therefore would not affect their performance. S.189. The Applicant confirms that the active take-up and export of heat will have no material effect on combustion performance, as any heat is extracted from the process after combustion, and hence there is no material effect on the operational air emissions of the application proposal.

QUESTION 1.3.2

Heat export: effects on combustion performance

If the response to question 1.3.1 above records that the active take-up and export of heat will materially affect combustion performance, at Deadline 3:

 Please identify how the revised combustion performance of the electricity generating station together with active CHP has been or should be secured to ensure that it remains within the Rochdale Envelope?

Response to Question 1.3.2

S.190. As set out in the response to 1.3.1 the active take-up and export of heat will not materially affect combustion performance. S.191. On the above basis, no further submission is required at Deadline 3.

QUESTION 1.3.3

Heat export: noise effects

Paragraph 4.107 of the ES states that; “[t]his ES therefore assesses a CCGT power station that is ‘CHP ready’ and space for the related heat interface building” but does not mention likely infrastructure associated with it.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Has appropriate consideration of potential siting of the infrastructure likely to be required in order to deliver CHP in the future and the noise characteristics of such equipment been provided?  Are there any circumstances in which the installation and operation of CHP could materially change noise effects beyond those assessed in the ES?

Response to Question 1.3.3

S.192. The Applicant confirms that it has given appropriate consideration to the potential siting of the infrastructure that would be required in order to deliver CHP in the future, and that the noise characteristics of such infrastructure has also been considered. Further detail is provided below. S.193. The Applicant undertook an Energy survey in September 2012. Details of this survey can be found at paragraph 5.4.1 of the Consultation Report (Examination Library Reference APP-039). The Energy survey demonstrated a substantial heat demand across the Wrexham Industrial Estate for both space heating and industrial processes. The Applicant will review the potential opportunities for the use of heat from the Power Station Complex and, if viable, will incorporate the necessary plant and pipework within the Scheme in accordance with Requirement 16 Combined heat and power of the draft Development Consent Order (Rev 1, July 2016). In undertaking the review of potential opportunities for the use of heat, and thus in determining whether there are viable opportunities for the use of heat, the total quantum and nature of the heat demand would determine the source of heat supply which should be considered. The source of heat would either be via the recovery of waste CCGT heat for a district heating network or the diversion of a portion of the installation’s electrical steam generation system from the CCGT’s steam turbines. S.194. Recovering waste heat for a district heating network would be undertaken via air to water heat exchangers requiring the provision of water pipes between the CCGT and the network of a size to be determined by the demand. This interface would require the provision of heat exchangers between the heat network and the Scheme and associated electrical powered pumps. S.195. The supply of steam heat to a consumer would more likely be supplied directly to the consumer rather than via heat exchangers between the CCGT and the consumer. This would be undertaken via buried supply pipes. Once the heat from the steam had been consumed, the resultant condensate would be returned via buried pipes using pumps situated on the consumer’s site. S.196. An initial investigation of potential consumers near the Power Station Complex Site did not demonstrate any reasonably likely demand for steam. Therefore, in the absence of any case for steam provision and unconfirmed potential for a district heating water network, provision within Power Station Complex Site has been made

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

for the installation of air to water and water to water heat exchangers, piping and associated pumps. S.197. The equipment considered likely for the provision of heat for a district heating network would consist of heat exchangers and electrically driven water pumps. This equipment which has a low noise emission signature would be sited within the Heat Interface Building (Work No 1F) on the Works Plan (Examination Library Reference APP-008) and as such would not likely result in any noise emission materially affecting the noise at the Power Station Complex Site boundary from that which has been assessed in ES chapter 9 (Examination Library Reference APP-057). S.198. The type of equipment envisaged to enable the Power Station Complex Site to operate as a CHP plant, would be heat transfer equipment with no moving parts or electrically driven pumps with a low noise emission signature. The recovery of heat via waste heat or steam diversion would be undertaken with additional pipes again with a low noise emission signature. Therefore, the Applicant confirms that it cannot foresee any circumstances where the installation and operation of CHP would materially increase the noise emissions beyond those assessed in the ES.

QUESTION 1.3.4

Heat export: water environment

Are there any circumstances in which the installation and operation of CHP could materially change water environment effects beyond those assessed in the ES and particularly would any additional water supply or abstraction be required to support a heat distribution network?

Response to Question 1.3.4

S.199. The Applicant confirms that there are no circumstances in which the installation and operation of CHP could materially change water environment effects beyond those assessed in Chapter 14 of the ES (Water Environment) (Examination Library Reference APP-062). Further detail is provided below, including with respect to water supply and abstraction to support a heat distribution network. S.200. The installation of CHP via a waste heat recovery system would involve a district heat network’s water circuit being either directly or indirectly heated by the Scheme. S.201. If the district heating network’s water circuit was directly heated by the Scheme, there would be no requirement for any additional water supply for the Scheme. The water supply required for the offsite heat network would be undertaken as part of the viability assessment carried out to comply with Requirement 16: Combined heat and power in the draft Development Consent Order (version 1, July 2016).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.202. If the district heating network’s water circuit was indirectly heated, this would be undertaken within air to water or water to water heat exchangers sited within the Scheme. The system would necessitate a closed circuit water system within the Scheme between the heat recovery heat exchangers and the heat exchanger transferring the heat to the district heat network. S.203. The closed circuit water system would consist of a pipe network entirely within the Scheme. Once the network had been commissioned it would require an initial fill of water and occasional top up for minor system leakage. Such a volume of water would be in keeping with that assessed for the Scheme’s steam and internal cooling systems. The water supply would originate from the same potable water supply as assessed for the other Scheme systems, and as such, the installation and operation of CHP would not materially change water environment effects beyond those assessed in Chapter 14 of the ES – The Water Environment (Examination Library Reference APP-062).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.4 Compulsory Acquisition and /or Temporary Possession

QUESTION 1.4.1

National Trust Land

The Applicant is asked to confirm that the application proposal does not seek to compulsorily acquire any land belonging to the National Trust which is held by the Trust inalienably and subject to the operation of s130 PA2008.

Response to Question 1.4.1

S.204. The Applicant can confirm that the National Trust do not own any land within the Order Land. The Applicant is therefore not seeking to compulsorily acquire any land or rights over land belonging to the National Trust and s130 of the PA 2008 does not apply. Part 5 of the Book of Reference (version 1) (Examination Library Reference 0D-003) confirms that there is no special category land.

QUESTION 1.4.2

Commons, open spaces etc.

The Applicant is asked to confirm that the application proposal does not seek to compulsorily acquire any land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment subject to the operation of s131 PA2008, or rights over such land subject to the operation of s132 PA2008.

Response to Question 1.4.2

S.205. The Applicant can confirm that the application proposal is not seeking to compulsorily acquire any land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment subject to the operation of s131 PA2008, or rights over such land subject to the operation of s132 PA2008. Part 5 of the Book of Reference (version 1) (Examination Library Reference OD-003) confirms that there is no special category land.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.4.3

Crown land

The Applicant is requested to provide and maintain a table identifying any Crown land subject to PA2008 s135 with reference to the latest Book of Reference [OD-003] and the Land Plans [APP-007] and to identify whether consent is required with respect to s135(1)(b) and/or s135(2) and what progress has been made to obtain such consents.

Response to Question 1.4.3

S.206. The Applicant has included Crown land, subject to s135 of the PA2008, in both the Book of Reference (version 1) (Examination Library Reference OD-003) and the Land Plans (version 1) (Examination Library Reference APP-007). The following plots are identified as being Crown land: GC12, GC12A, GC12B, GC12C, GC12D, GC12E, SAT1, SAT1A, SAT2, GC14, GC14A, GC14B, SAT3, SAT4, SAT5, GC15, GC15A, SAT6, GC16, GC16A, GC16B, GC16C, GC17, GC17A and SAT7 (the "Welsh Ministers Interests" or “WM Interests”). S.207. The Land Registry records the Welsh Ministers as being the registered proprietor of the WM Interests. However, the Applicant was informed by the person farming the land, Mr Owen, that this was an error. This was confirmed by Jacquelyn Rees of the Welsh Government's Commercial Legal Services in an email to Pinsent Masons LLP (solicitors for the Applicant) dated 5 April 2016. Ms Rees stated that the "land was registered to us in error by the Land Registry upon the occasion of voluntary first registration and has never been owned by The Welsh Ministers or its predecessors in title". S.208. However, as the Welsh Minsters remain listed as the registered proprietor at the Land Registry, it is necessary for the Applicant to treat both Mr Owen and the Welsh Ministers as being potential owners of the land in question. As a consequence, the Applicant requires formal consent from the Welsh Ministers pursuant to sections 135(1) and 135(2) of the PA2008 (such consent to be limited to the extent that the Welsh Ministers have any interests in the Order land). S.209. The Applicant formally requested consent pursuant to sections 135(1) and 135(2) of the PA2008 on 11 July 2016 (see Appendix 3). The Welsh Minsters gave their consent (to the extent that the Welsh Ministers have an interest in the land) for the purposes of sections 135(1) and 135(2) of the PA2008 in a letter dated 26 July 2016 (see Appendix 4).

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.4.4 & 1.4.6

1.4.4 Compulsory acquisition: general

The Applicant is requested to complete the attached Objections Schedule with information about any objections to the compulsory acquisition proposals in the application and to make any entries, or delete any entries that it believes would be appropriate, taking account of the positions expressed in relevant representations and written representations, giving reasons for any additions or deletions. (See Annex A of this document)

1.4.6 Temporary possession: general

The Applicant is requested to complete the attached Objections Schedule with information about any objections to the temporary possession proposals in the application and to make any entries, or delete any entries that it believes would be appropriate, taking account of the positions expressed in relevant representations and written representations, giving reasons for any additions or deletions. (See Annex A of this document)

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.4.4 & 1.4.6

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of objection Organisation No No Ref No Temporary

1 Wales and IP17 RR-038 Part 1 Compulsory AGI1, Yes WWU queried the West acquisition SAT5, Applicant's Part 2 Utilities and SAT6, intention to Limited Part 3 temporary SAT7, AR1, Compulsory compulsorily acquisition (WWU) possession MGAR1, acquire its of land MGAR2, of freehold operational land Freehold MGAR3, of plot AGI1 and associated owner (in MGAR4 pipeline. WWU respect of stated that the plots AGI1, Compulsory freehold operational SAT5, SAT6 acquisition land at Maelor and SAT7). of rights for houses critical access in national plots SAT5, infrastructure, being Rights (in SAT7, a major gas offtake respect of MGAR1, site. plots AR1, MGAR2, MGAR1, MGAR3, The Applicant has MGAR2, MGAR4 been in discussions MGAR3 with WWU

and regarding the MGAR4) in Compulsory voluntary respect of acquisition acquisition of a the siting of of rights for leasehold interest in and access pipeline in this land since January 2013.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of objection Organisation No No Ref No Temporary to gas plot SAT6 Negotiations are distribution ongoing. It is noted

equipment that in their RR, and Compulsory WWU confirm that apparatus, acquisition there is no issue and in of rights for with them providing respect of services in the Applicant with rights of plot AR1 the necessary land access to and rights as they adjoining confirm that they land and have gas "provided…indicated distribution lease terms on a facility subject to contract basis."

The Applicant has provided WWU with information regarding the location of WWU apparatus (based on the Applicant's utility searches) within the Order Land and also included draft

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of objection Organisation No No Ref No Temporary Protective Provisions within the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016). WWU has not confirmed whether it requires any amendments to these draft Protective Provisions. The Applicant remains willing to discuss the draft Protective Provisions with WWU.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Schedule of Names/Organisations with an interest in the Order land or affected by the Scheme who have made Relevant Representations regarding the Scheme but have not specifically objected to the grant of compulsory acquisition or temporary possession powers.

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation

2 National Grid IP37 RR-026 Part 1 Compulsory MGAR1, Yes National Grid's (on behalf of acquisition MGAR2, representation Part 2 Birch Sites and MGAR3, states that its rights Limited and Part 3 temporary MGAR4, Compulsory to retain its acquisition National Grid possession SAT5, apparatus in situ Gas Plc) of land SAT6, of freehold and rights of access Freehold SAT7, of plot AGI1 to inspect, owner GC17, maintain, renew The Applicant (Birch Sites) GC17A, and repair such has also in respect AGI1 Compulsory apparatus located included the of plots acquisition within or in close for rights interests of MGAR1, proximity to the for access in National Grid MGAR2, Order limits should plots Property MGAR3 be maintained at all MGAR1, Holdings and times and access to MGAR2, Limited for MGAR4) inspect and completeness MGAR3, maintain such MGAR4, apparatus must not Rights SAT5, SAT7 be restricted. (National Grid Gas Compulsory plc) in The Applicant is in acquisition respect of discussions with

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation the siting of rights for NGG regarding of gas pipeline in Protective distribution plots SAT6, Provisions for the equipment GC17 benefit of and protecting their

apparatus equipment and in respect apparatus, namely of plots feeder pipeline 04 MGAR1, which is located GC17, within the Order GC17A Land to enable the Gas Connection to

be made. The Rights Applicant has (National included Protective Grid Gas Provisions within plc) in the draft Order respect of (version 1, rights of submitted 26 July access to 2016) for the adjoining benefit of NGG. land and

gas distribution The connection facility in between the Gas respect of Pipeline and NGG's plots SAT5, feeder pipeline will be governed by a

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation SAT6, SAT7, Connection Agreement MGAR1, between the MGAR2, Applicant and NGG. MGAR3, MGAR4

Rights (National Grid Gas plc) in respect of plots AGI1

Benefit of restrictive covenants (National Grid Property Holdings Limited) in respect of plots SA5, SAT6, MGAR1,

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation MGAR2, MGAR3, MGAR4

3 Dwr Cymru IP29 RR-008 Rights in Compulsory MGAR1, Yes Dwr Cymru's (Welsh respect of acquisition MGAR2 representation

Water) the siting and states that it is keen of and temporary Compulsory to work with the access to possession acquisition Applicant to surface of land of rights for develop the water access proposal where drainage there are possible equipment impacts upon Welsh and Water assets. apparatus

On 20th July 2016 DCC confirmed that the sewer located within Plots MGAR1 and MGAR2 is a private sewer. However, DCC has not formally confirmed that it has no rights or apparatus in the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation Order land.

The Applicant is in discussions with DCC regarding Protective Provisions for the benefit of protecting their equipment and apparatus, should it be later identified. The Applicant has included Protective Provisions within the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016) for the benefit DCC.

4 FibreSpeed IP4 RR-018 Fibreoptic Compulsory OR1, OR2 Yes Relevant Limited cabling acquisition Representation

located in and submitted verge of temporary Compulsory confirming that Oak Road possession acquisition FibreSpeed has plots OR1, of rights for assets within the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation OR2 of land pipeline Order Land. The Applicant does not consider diversion will be required.

The Applicant is in discussions with FibreSpeed regarding Protective Provisions for the benefit of protecting their equipment and apparatus. The Applicant has included Protective Provisions within the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016) for the benefit telecommunications operators.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation

5 Isycoed IP22 RR-012 Rights Compulsory GC4, GC4A, Yes Relevant Community reserved to acquisition GC4B, Representation Compulsory Council use drains, and GC4C, submitted regarding acquisition repair and temporary GC4D community of rights for maintain possession consultation, need, pipeline in fences and of land site selection, respect of right to landscape and plot GC4 extend visual, noise and air services for quality. the benefit

of retained land The Applicant does not anticipate interfering with the Council's rights in order to construct the Gas Connection and therefore no voluntary agreement is required.

6 Robert J IP36 RR-032 Freehold Compulsory GC3, GC3A Yes Relevant Eccleston acquisition Representation

and submitted objecting temporary Compulsory to the application

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation possession acquisition and referring to the of land of rights for following issues: pipeline in design, noise, respect of health and safety plot GC3 and socio-economic effects.

The Applicant has been in communication with Mr Eccleston since December 2012, including non-statutory and statutory consultation, previous requests for temporary access, and project updates. A formal offer was made by the Applicant to Mr

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation Eccleston on 29th January 2016 for the acquisition of the rights and imposition of the restrictions required, as well as temporary use of land required to enable construction of the Gas Connection. A further attempt was made by the Applicant to engage in discussions with Mr Eccleston on 15th March 2016. No feedback or response has yet been received.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation

7 SP Manweb IP38 RR-035 Rights in Compulsory AR1, Yes Relevant Plc respect of acquisition Representation GC4, GC4C, access to and submitted regarding GC4D, and siting temporary Compulsory Grid Connection of possession GC7, GC7A, acquisition offer and Grid electricity of land GC7B, of rights for Connection equipment GC7D, services in Statement. and GC9, GC9A, respect of The Applicant is in apparatus GC9B. plot AR1 discussions with GC9C, SPM regarding GC10, Protective GC10A, Compulsory Provisions for the GC10B, acquisition benefit of GC10C, of rights for protecting their GC12, access in equipment and GC12A, respect of apparatus. The GC12B, plots GC7D, Applicant has SAT1, GC9A, SAT2, included Protective SAT1A, SAT3, Provisions within GC14, MGAR2, the draft Order GC14A, MGAR3 (version 1, SAT2, submitted 26 July SAT3, 2016) for the GC15, Compulsory benefit of electricity GC15A, acquisition undertakers which GC16, of rights for includes SPM. GC16B, pipeline in

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

No Name/ IP/AP Ref RR Ref No WR Ref Other Doc Interest Permanent/ Plot(s) CA? Status of Organisation No No Ref No Temporary representation GC17, respect of GC17A, plots MGAR2, GC7, GC9, MGAR3 GC10, SAT1, GC14, GC15, GC16, GC17

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.4.5

Compulsory acquisition: Maelor gas works

The application proposal includes the compulsory acquisition (CA) of land that is within the operational perimeter of Maelor gas works. Wales and West Utilities are the undertaker for that facility. It objects to CA and has proposed the granting of lease terms. NGG operates a feeder pipeline (04 – Shocklach to Maelor) within the Order limits, operates the nearby above ground installation (AGI) and owns part of the Maelor gas works.

 Wales and West Utilities is requested to explain why CA is inappropriate, with reference to the effect that it would have on the operation of the Maelor gas works.  The Applicant is asked to explain why CA is required and why its requirements for the gas connection could not be met by a lease over Wales and West Utilities operational land.  NGG is requested to clarify whether it objects to the CA of land and / or rights.

Response to Question 1.4.5

S.210. The wider area referred to as the Maelor Gas Works comprises land in the ownership of Birch Sites Limited (part of the National Grid group of companies) and Wales and West Utilities Limited (WWU). S.211. Parts of the land comprising the wider Maelor Gas works are used by WWU for various operational purposes, including a gas AGI, which is a gas offtake site, taking gas from the National Gas Transmission System (NTS) (feeder 04 Shocklash to Maelor), to serve the WWU distribution network in Mid and North Wales. S.212. Flo Gas also occupies land at the Maelor Gas Works for use as a storage, distribution and sales depot. S.213. Other land at the Maelor Gas Works is no longer in operational use, and demolition and clearance of old buildings has been undertaken by Birch Sites Limited over the past 12-24 months. S.214. National Grid Gas Plc (NGG) have a 999 year long leasehold interest in a small rectangular area of land (known as the Maelor offtake), located within the existing WWU operational gas AGI. The Maelor offtake is not located within the Order Land. The WWU operational gas AGI is located immediately to the west and south of the Applicant's proposed AGI Site. The WWU's gas AGI is not located within the Order Land. S.215. The Applicant's proposed AGI Site currently comprises an area of hardstanding and a smaller grassed area. The hardstanding is currently used as a general storage area in connection with WWU's existing operations at the Maelor Gas Works. The northern boundary of the AGI Site is vegetated with scrub and mature trees. The

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

eastern boundary is formed by the minor road to the gasworks, which continues north to provide a farm access. To the east of the road is an agricultural field with scattered mature trees, through which the Applicant’s Gas Pipeline will pass to the Applicant's proposed AGI Site. S.216. Access to the Maelor Gas Works is provided via the Maelor Gas Works Access Road from the B5130. S.217. The Application includes the compulsory acquisition of land within the ownership of WWU at the perimeter of the wider Maelor Gas Works (Plot AGI1), however, this land does not form part of WWU's self-contained gas AGI facility. S.218. The Applicant has been in discussions with WWU regarding the voluntary acquisition of a leasehold interest in this land since January 2013. However, discussions regarding a voluntarily commercial agreement have been delayed by WWU due to WWU’s proposed physical security works at Maelor Gas Works required in order to meet Critical National infrastructure (CNI) requirements as detailed in WWU’s Relevant Representation. The Applicant understands these requirements to involve the provision of additional security fencing around their existing AGI. S.219. The Applicant has met with WWU on numerous occasions since January 2013 to discuss the Scheme and in particular the location and siting of the AGI Site on land owned by WWU. At no time prior to the submission of WWU's Relevant Representation (Examination Library Reference RR-038) have WWU indicated that the land could not be made available due to operational constraints. S.220. Based on the current use of Plot AGI1 for general storage, the Applicant does not consider Plot AGI1 to be operational land used for the purposes of carrying on WWU's undertaking. If Plot AGI1 is in fact operational land, section 127 of the PA2008 applies. Based on the information available to the Applicant to date, the Applicant considers that the test set out in section 127(3)(a) can be satisfied and the land acquired and not replaced without serious detriment to the carrying on of WWU's undertaking. S.221. WPL has provided WWU with information regarding the location of WWU apparatus within the Order Land and also included Protective Provisions within the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016). WWU has not confirmed whether it requires any amendments to these draft Protective Provisions. The Applicant remains willing to discuss the draft Protective Provisions with WWU. S.222. The Applicant requires compulsory acquisition powers over Plot AGI1 in the event that a voluntary agreement cannot be reached with WWU. As a leasehold interest cannot be compulsory acquired, the Applicant is applying to acquire the land for the AGI Site. S.223. As set out in the Applicant's Statement of Reasons (Examination Library Reference APP-035), the compulsory acquisition powers for the land (in respect of the AGI Site) and rights (in respect of the Gas Connection Route) are essential to the Applicant's delivery of the Scheme.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.224. As described above, NGG operates the NTS (feeder pipeline 04 Shocklash to Maelor) which terminates within WWU’s operational AGI facility. This pipeline termination (Maelor offtake) point is above ground within WWU’s operational AGI facility. So far as the Applicant is aware, NGG has no further operational land at Maelor Gas Works. S.225. The Applicant is in discussions with NGG regarding Protective Provisions for the benefit of protecting their equipment and apparatus, namely feeder pipeline 04 which is located within the Order Land to enable the Gas Connection to be made. The Applicant has included Protective Provisions within the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016) for the benefit of NGG. It should be noted that the Applicant's proposed construction works for the Gas Connection will not affect this feeder pipeline, save for the Gas Connection ‘T’ connection itself. As set out in the Gas Connection Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-155), NGG will procure and own the part of the Gas Pipeline between the ‘T’ connection and the isolating valves within the Applicant's AGI. The Applicant will procure and own the AGI and the part of the Gas Pipeline between the AGI and the Power Station Complex Site. This connection will be governed by a Connection Agreement between the Applicant and NGG. S.226. Sections 127 and 138 of the PA2008 apply to land where NGG has an interest for the purpose of its undertaking. Based on the information available to the Applicant to date, and the inclusion of the proposed Protective Provisions within the draft Order, the Applicant considers that the test set out in section 127(3)(a) can be satisfied and the land and rights over land acquired without serious detriment to the carrying on of NGG's undertaking. The Applicant also considers that the test set out in section 138(4)(a) can be satisfied as the extinguishment or removal is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the development to which the order relates. S.227. Birch Sites Limited (forming part of the National Grid group) do own the Maelor Gas Works Access Road (Plots MGAR1, MGAR2, MGAR3 and MGAR4), which forms part of their wider ownership of land at the Maelor Gas works. However, Birch Sites Limited is not a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the PA2008 and sections 127 and 138 of the PA2008 do not therefore apply to any land owned by Birch Sites Limited.

QUESTION 1.4.7

Funding Statement: St Modwen and Glenfinnan

The Funding Statement [APP-036] suggests that Wrexham Power Ltd (WPL) (the Applicant) “is a 50/50 joint venture company established by St. Modwen Properties V sarl ("St. Modwen") and Glenfinnan Properties with the intention of promoting and securing the Order”.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Whilst St Modwen is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of St Modwen Properties Plc (a FTSE 250 company), in itself it appears to be an entity that is registered outside the United Kingdom. Please clarify the domicile of St Modwen.  Glenfinnan Properties is recorded as being domiciled in Bermuda.  The Funding Statement records the current cost estimate for the application proposal of approximately £306.5m, but does not record what proportion of that is accounted for by the need to acquire land or rights or to compensate for acquisition or possession using powers proposed in the DCO. Please provide a professionally derived estimate (such as a Chartered Surveyors’ / Valuers’ assessment) of the sum required to address this need.  Given the domicile of the shareholders in WPL, is it necessary to provide a separate form of security accessible or actionable in the UK for a sum of money equivalent to that required to acquire land or rights or to compensate for acquisition or possession using powers proposed in the DCO? If so, how should that security be provided?  There have been instances in NSIP casework where a separate form of security accessible or actionable in the UK has been provided by way of a planning obligation under the TCPA 1990 as amended. If such an approach were to be proposed in this case, this would suggest a role for WCBC. Would WCBC be content to facilitate and discharge any such obligation?

Response to Question 1.4.7

S.228. Wrexham Power Limited is a company registered in England and Wales and is governed by English law. St Modwen Properties V sarl is domiciled in Luxembourg. St Modwen Properties V sarl is 100% owned by St Modwen Properties plc (registered in England and Wales and governed by English law). S.229. The figure of £306.5m in the Funding Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-036) has been arrived at after taking professional guidance in respect of the construction cost and then adding any figure required for obtaining the necessary land and rights over third party land whether obtained compulsorily or by negotiation, as well as any compensation that may fall to be paid as a result of the suspension of rights. The figure also includes an element of contingency to cover currently unanticipated expenditure. S.230. Based on a professionally derived estimate, the cost of acquiring the land and rights, including compensation for acquisition or possession using powers proposed in the Order, required for the delivery of the Scheme, is £2.65 million or less than 1% of the total project value. Appendix 2 sets out the estimate in further detail. S.231. Prior to the commencement of the development, the Applicant will have made a final investment decision. Before reaching this point, the Applicant will have secured all funding required for the development which, as is normal for any development of this scale, is anticipated to be made up of equity, shareholder funds

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

and may also consist of third party funding, bond issue, initial public offering or other form of third party funding. S.232. Wrexham Power Limited and its shareholders, Glenfinnan Properties and St Modwen, have adequate resources to develop the Scheme. Despite this, it is likely that external funds will be raised prior to reaching a final investment decision as is normal for any development of this scale. S.233. The Secretary of State has considered the financial standing of Glenfinnan Properties and St Modwen in its decision to grant the Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016. In paragraphs 7.7.7 to 7.7.10 of the Examining Authority's report, the Examining Authority stated "As set out in the funding statement, the Applicant is a joint venture company established by St Modwen and Glenfinnan Properties to promote the DCO scheme. St Modwen is a well-known public company, listed in the FTSE 250, and prominent in the field of re-development and regeneration. The Annual Report and Financial Statements 2014, provided with the Funding Statement (APP-021) show that it has a property portfolio of some £1.3billion with profits before all tax of £138.1 million in 2014. St Modwen is involved in a number of large development projects, including the regeneration of Longbridge, Swansea Bay and New Covent Garden Market. Its partner in the MEL venture has a property portfolio of some £300 million. Both partners appear on the evidence to have extensive experience in the promotion and funding of major capital projects such as the DCO scheme…In conclusion, having regard to the DCLG Guidance I am satisfied that the evidence points to the Applicant having the adequacy of resources to ensure the proposed development would be financially viable, including any liability to pay compensation arising from confirmation of the DCO. There is nothing in the material put to the ExA in the relevant representations or during the course of the examination to suggest the contrary." S.234. In that case, neither the Secretary of State nor the Examining Authority considered it necessary for Meaford Energy Limited (which has the same shareholding as Wrexham Power Limited) to provide a form of security in order to be satisfied that the CA liabilities of the development could be adequately funded notwithstanding the domicile of the shareholders. S.235. The financial standing of Glenfinnan Properties and St Modwen has not changed since the grant of the Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016 and the Applicant therefore considers that there is no need to provide any form of security. S.236. As set out in the Funding Statement, through St. Modwen and Glenfinnan Properties, the Applicant has the ability to procure the financial resources necessary to fund the works to be authorised by the Order, and any planning permission for the Gas Connection, either from its own resources or from funding from its lenders or from the resources of other group companies, subject to final board authority of St. Modwen and Glenfinnan. Following approval by St. Modwen and Glenfinnan to fund the cost of the Scheme, the funds are released directly to Wrexham Power Limited, for onward administration by the WPL Board. This draw down mechanism

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

is available for a period of 5 years from the date the Order is made (see Article 21 of the DCO for the compulsory acquisition powers). S.237. The Applicant will have the necessary funds available prior to exercising any of the compulsory acquisition or temporary use powers in the DCO and the Secretary of State can therefore be satisfied that the CA liabilities of the development can be adequately funded.

QUESTION 1.4.8

Updated Book of Reference (BoR)

An updated BoR has been provided by the Applicant [OD-003 and OD-004]. The tracked version indicates a significant number of changes from the BoR as provided with the application. The Schedule of Changes [OD-002] records the reason for most of the changes as ‘following on-going diligent enquiry’. Whilst changes to BoRs are expected to reflect changes in land interests which continue to occur as an examination progresses, the number and nature of changes recorded in this updated BoR are larger than is typically the case and causes some doubt as to the nature and rigour of diligent enquiry undertaken when the BoR was initially prepared.

 Can the Applicant please augment the reasons in the Schedule of Changes, explaining why so many changes have been made to the BoR at this stage?  Can the ExA be confident that the updated BoR is now robust and that diligent inquiry in relation to unchanged land interests is now concluded, or are there likely to be further significant changes to the BoR?  If further significant changes are expected, the Applicant is requested to commit to a date when these might have been undertaken, which should be at least 14 days before notice for CA hearings is to be provided.

Response to Question 1.4.8

S.238. As a result of comments made by the ExA during the DCO Issue Specific Hearing, the Applicant provided a commentary of the changes made to the Book of Reference between the submission version (Examination Library Reference APP-037) and the Updated Book of Reference (Examination Library Reference OD-003). This information was submitted on 26 July 2016 in a document titled “Note explaining the changes made to the Book of Reference and which are detailed in the document titled "Schedule of Changes relating to the updated Book of Reference (Version 1)" (Note). S.239. As set out in the Note referred to above, there were only 11 changes to the Book of Reference and all of the changes were as a result of new information being made available to the Applicant following submission of the Application. However, the

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

changes appear numerous as the same change must be made in each Part of the Book of Reference. The changes comprised:  Five were a change of company service address or company name. They did not reflect a change in entity.  One was an error in company name, albeit part of the same group of companies.  Two were deletions of interests in land.  Three are new interest in land following ongoing diligent enquiry. S.240. The Applicant is confident as a result of its diligent enquiry that the Book of Reference is robust and accurately reflects the land interests in the Order Land. The nature and explanation of the changes referred to in the Note submitted on 26 July 2016, confirms that the changes were not a result of inadequate enquiries on the part of the Applicant. The Applicant does not expect any further significant changes although it will continue with its diligent enquiry to ensure that the Book of Reference remains accurate. The Applicant considers that it has a duty to update the Book of Reference in the event that it is informed of any changes to land interests during the Examination.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.5A Decommissioning

QUESTION 1.5.A1

Decommissioning strategy: general

Draft DCO requirement 17 secures a decommissioning strategy, but there is no outline strategy document or other indication as to what this strategy should contain.

 What measures should be taken to ensure that decommissioning take place within the Rochdale envelope?  Should a specific/ minimum set of topics, performance evaluation criteria and or outcomes that the decommissioning strategy needs to address be secured as part of requirement 17?  If so, how can they be delivered: should there be an outline decommissioning strategy and when should it be prepared?  Is WCBC content to take the lead role in decommissioning implied by requirement 17?  Are other relevant bodies satisfied with the apparent approach to decommissioning?

Decommissioning strategy: air quality

Further to question 1.5A.1 above, the air quality assessment in the ES at paragraph 8.253 [APP-056] recommends that “prior to decommissioning an assessment is undertaken in the light of the extant baseline and regulatory regime”. The extent to which this is relied upon as mitigation during decommissioning is not clear, and it does not appear to be secured as a specific item under requirement 17.

 Please can the Applicant comment on the necessity of this action as decommissioning mitigation and whether this could be secured by an addition to requirement 17?

Response to Question 1.5.A1

Decommissioning Strategy: General

S.241. The draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016) contains, at Schedule 2, Requirement 17: Decommissioning Strategy, which provides as follows: "Subject to obtaining the necessary consents and unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority, within 24 months of the Order land ceasing to be used for the purposes of electricity generation…, a scheme for the demolition and removal of work No.1 must be submitted to the relevant planning authority". In addition to

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

this, sub-paragraph (2) of requirement 17 requires that the demolition and removal of Work No.1 be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. S.242. The inclusion and wording of Requirement 17 provides scope for the decommissioning scheme to be developed and finally agreed with the relevant planning authority prior to any decommissioning works being implemented and carried out. The relevant planning authority will therefore be able to consult with relevant statutory bodies and other interested parties to the extent that it feels appropriate in considering and approving the decommissioning scheme. The Applicant notes in this context that the Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016, which was recently approved by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, includes the same wording that is proposed in Requirement 17 of the draft Order for the Power Station Complex Site. S.243. The Applicant considers that it is not yet in a position to prepare a detailed or outline decommissioning scheme or strategy. This is because the detailed design of the Scheme has yet to be finalised because the manufacturer, model and technical specification of important components will not be confirmed until after an Order has been made. In any event, the decommissioning scheme should be developed nearer to the time, given the proposed operational life of the plant, when decommissioning will actually occur, so as to ensure that the decommissioning scheme encompasses the latest legislation and guidance. S.244. The Scheme has been designed within a series of maximum parameters based on Best Available Techniques (BAT). The Application has identified these clearly defined maximum parameters within which the Scheme must take place and which have been assessed in the ES. This approach, known as the ’Rochdale Envelope’, is explained in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9: Using the Rochdale Envelope (Version 2, April 2012). As the Scheme can only be developed within these identified maximum parameters as defined in Schedule 2, Table 2 of the draft Order, it follows that decommissioning can only take place within these same maximum parameters. Paragraph 4.174 of Chapter 4 (The Proposal Development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) confirms that the ‘decommissioning activities would essentially be the reverse of construction activities’. Chapter 4 of the ES also acknowledges in paragraphs 4.172- 4.177 that the decommissioning activities would be shorter than the construction period and result in a smaller impact area both directly and indirectly as well as less traffic movements. To this end, the Applicant would be open to amending Requirement 17 of the draft Order as to include a new sub-paragraph that requires the submitted decommissioning scheme in sub-paragraph (1) to be, where relevant to the proposed works, substantially in accordance with the construction environmental management plan approved in accordance with Requirement 4. S.245. The effects of the Scheme during the decommissioning phase have been fully assessed in the ES. The ES has assessed these effects based on the identified maximum parameters of development in terms of the likely ‘worst-case’. On this basis the ES ensures that the likely environmental effects of decommissioning have

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

been assessed and are understood. The overall conclusions of the ES contained in Chapter 20 (Conclusions) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-068) are that there are few significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the Scheme that cannot be mitigated. Accordingly, the Scheme in all its phases, including decommissioning, which will be temporary works, is considered to be acceptable in environmental terms, and indeed will be subject to further environmental regulation in any event, principally through adherence to an Environmental Permit granted by the regulator, NRW. S.246. Given the conclusions of the ES, and the security provided by Requirement 17 in Schedule 2 of the draft Order, and the regulation provided by the Environmental Permit, the Applicant considers that it would be premature to prepare an outline decommissioning scheme at this very early stage in the process.

Decommissioning Strategy: Air Quality

S.247. The Applicant acknowledges that the reference in paragraph 8.253 of Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056) is expressed as a recommendation rather than a requirement or a mitigation measure which is deemed necessary in the context of the wider ES and its conclusions. As such, the Applicant will give due consideration to the recommendation and will, prior to decommissioning, analyse and determine whether such an assessment should be undertaken. In any event, it will be the relevant planning authority at the time of decommissioning to determine whether such an assessment is needed when it determines whether or not to approve the submitted decommissioning scheme under Requirement 17(1). To this end, the Applicant would be open to including additional wording in Requirement 17 that states that in submitting the details under Requirement 17(1), consideration is to be given as to whether an air quality assessment is to be carried out and, if not, explain why it is not necessary at the time.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.7 Gas and Electricity Connections

QUESTION 1.7.1

Electricity connection

A number of local resident IPs refer to previous proposals consulted upon and raise concerns that pylon or pole mounted overhead lines (OHL) will be required to form the electricity connection or may be required at some point in the future. The latest Grid Connection Statement [OD-006 OD-007] makes clear that an underground connection is proposed and forms the basis of a connection offer from SPM/SPEN. However, because of the legal position in relation to associated development in Wales, the electricity connection does not form part of the application proposal.

 Given that a connection offer on the basis of an underground connection is now held by the Applicant, is there any reasonable prospect of the need for an electrical connection for the application proposal requiring to be met by any means other than the underground connection currently proposed?

Response to Question 1.7.1

S.248. As referred to in the question, the Electrical Connection required for the Power Station Complex Site does not form a part of the DCO Application due to the legal consenting position in respect of "associated development" Wales. S.249. The Environment Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP -047 to 157) has assessed the effects of the Power Station Complex Site, alongside the Gas Connection and the identified Electrical Connection as part of a cumulative assessment in order that the effects of the whole development can be understood. Details of the scope of the cumulative assessment undertaken are detailed in ES paragraphs 5.48 and 5.49 (Examination Library Reference APP-053). The approach taken in the ES assessment accords with Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 Regulations 2009. S.250. As set out in the Grid Connection Statement Revision 1 (Examination Library Reference OD-006), the final design and technical solution for the underground electrical connection for the Power Station Complex Site will be determined by SPEN, the Distribution Network Operator (DNO), in their role as statutory undertaker for electrical infrastructure in the area. SPEN will also obtain any necessary consents required for the underground electrical connection; any works associated with the electrical connection will be consented through the appropriate and lawful consenting regime at the time. An Environmental Impact Assessment, if required, may be carried out as part of that consenting process.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.251. The Grid Connection Statement confirms a connection offer from SPEN based on an entirely underground solution. SPEN has confirmed that the network can accommodate the electricity generated by the Scheme, and no pylon-mounted overhead lines are proposed. On this basis there is no evidence to suggest that the electrical connection for the Scheme will be delivered by any means other than via an underground option. The Applicant would emphasise that it is relatively common for connections of this type and voltage to be constructed underground. As such, the Applicant considers the underground connection offer from SPEN to be the most likely method of connection.

QUESTION 1.7.2

Electricity connection offer

SPEN reserved its right to make further representations, should a revised grid connection offer not be made.

 Is SPEN content with the Applicant’s explanation of the latest Grid Connection Statement [OD-006 and OD007]?  Does SPEN anticipate needing to make any further representations to the examination?

Response to Question 1.7.2

S.252. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at SPEN. The Applicant confirms that the Grid Connection Statement Rev 1 (Examination Library Reference OD-006) was discussed and agreed between the Applicant and SPEN. The need for a revised Grid Connection Statement resulted from a connection offer which was made to the Applicant after the application had been made. The connection offer reflected a different solution to that which had been presented by the Applicant in the original Grid Connection Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-154). S.253. At the time of agreeing the revised Grid Connection Statement, it was not known at what point the revised statement could be introduced into the Examination. It was therefore agreed between the Applicant and SPEN that SPEN should reserve its position in their Relevant Representation until such time as the agreed revised Grid Connection Statement was submitted by the Applicant and accepted into the examination by the Examining Authority. S.254. After discussion with the Planning Inspectorate it was agreed that the revised Grid Connection Statement could be submitted ahead of the issue of the Rule 6 letter so that interested parties could understand the change in the method of connection ahead of the commencement of the Examination.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.7.3

Effects on gas supply operations at and near Maelor – Wales and West Utilities Limited

 Please detail the anticipated security works required to respond to the critical national infrastructure (CNI) designation at Maelor, providing a description of the physical interface between the proposed works and the application proposal and the likely timescale for the proposed works.  Please identify the location of existing gas mains that require to be protected.  Please identify any matters that in your view require to be subject of a commercial agreement with the Applicant?  Please identify any matters that in your view require to be addressed in the draft DCO, whether by way of requirements, protective or other provisions?

Response to Question 1.7.3

S.255. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at Wales and West Utilities (WWU). The Applicant refers the Examining Authority to its response to question 1.4.5 in respect of the on-going discussions between the Applicant and WWU relating to a commercial agreement and protective provisions in the draft Order. S.256. The Applicant understands that one WWU owned gas main is located within the Order Land, that is a high pressure gas main located beneath the Maelor Gas Works Access Road (Plot MGAR2). The Applicant can confirm that no construction works will be carried out in this location, however, the Applicant is seeking the compulsory acquisition of rights of access over the Maelor Gas Works Access Road to enable access for the construction and operation of the Gas Connection, including the AGI Site.

QUESTION 1.7.4

Effects on gas supply operations at and near Maelor – National Grid (Being National Grid Gas Plc (NGG) and Birch Sites Limited)

 Please identify the location of the existing feeder 04 main pipeline (Shocklach to Maelor) that requires to be protected.  Please identify any matters that in your view require to be the subject of a commercial agreement with the Applicant?  Please identify any matters that in your view require to be addressed in the draft DCO, whether by way of requirements, protective or other provisions?

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.7.4

S.257. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at National Grid Gas plc (NGG) and Birch Sites Limited. The Applicant refers the Examining Authority to its response to FWQ 1.4.5 in respect of the on-going discussions between the Applicant and NGG relating to a commercial agreement and protective provisions in the draft Order. S.258. The Applicant understands that one National Gas Transmission System (NTS) pipeline, being feeder 04 main pipeline (Shocklash to Maelor) owned by NGG, is located within the Order Land, beneath Plots GC17 and GC17A (travelling in a north west direction) and also beneath the Maelor Gas Works Access Road (Plot MGAR1), terminating within the Wales and West Utilities Limited gas AGI (Maelor offtake). S.259. The Applicant can confirm that construction activities in Plots GC17 and GC17A will comprise a ‘T’ connection to the NTS, that will be undertaken following a connection agreement with NGG. NGG themselves will be responsible for designing and installing the Gas Connection between the connection point on the NTS and the AGI, including the hot tap connection and the isolation valves in the AGI. S.260. No construction works will be carried out in Plot MGAR1, however, the Applicant is seeking the compulsory acquisition of rights of access over this existing road to enable access for the construction and operation of the Gas Connection, including the AGI Site. S.261. Birch Sites Limited (forming part of the National Grid group) do own the Maelor Gas Works Access Road (Plots MGAR1, MGAR2, MGAR3 and MGAR4), which forms part of their wider ownership of land at the Maelor Gas works. However, Birch Sites Limited is not a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the PA2008.

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.8 Historic Environment

QUESTION 1.8.1

Consultation: engagement with Cadw

It is unclear whether the results of the EIA process that are relevant to Cadw’s areas of responsibility have been agreed with Cadw. Cadw have not provided a relevant representation.

 The Applicant is requested to write to Cadw, seeking its view on the ES and the measures proposed within it that are relevant to Cadw’s statutory role. A reply should be sought by Deadline 2 and a copy should be provided to the examination.  In writing to Cadw, the Applicant is requested to draw that body’s attention to the further questions in this schedule that are marked for Cadw’s attention and to seek responses from Cadw to the extent that the matters raised are relevant to Cadw’s statutory role.

Response to Question 1.8.1

S.262. The Applicant confirms that it is in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with the Welsh Government on behalf of Cadw. A draft SOCG produced by the Applicant was first sent to Cadw on the 18th July 2016. The draft SOCG covers the methodology, assessment and mitigation measures in the ES and the provisions in the draft Order relating to the historic environment. A response was received from Cadw on the 28th July 2016 advising that the draft SOCG should be redirected to the Welsh Ministers instead of Cadw, specifically the Welsh Government’s Head of Energy Policy & Regulation. In accordance with the request, the draft SOCG was re-directed accordingly. S.263. The Applicant has subsequently contacted the Welsh Government advising them of the publication of the Examination First Written Questions and seeking an update on the SOCG. The Welsh Government’s Department for Economy & Infrastructure responded on the 5th August 2016 noting publication of the questions and advising that a response will be made in due course.

QUESTION 1.8.2

Methodology: extent of study area

ES paragraph 12.55 [APP-060] records that a 5km study area from the centre of the power station complex site was used to consider potential impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets. The study area for the LVIA covers a 7km radius from the order land. ES

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Chapter 18 [APP-066] assesses inter-relationships. ES paragraph 18.65 [APP-066] considers the potential for inter-relationships between the historic environment and landscape and visual chapters, in terms of setting, concluding that inter-related effects are not possible as “…the assessment of setting in both the historic environment and visual chapters are complementary rather than additive…”.

 Considering the potential interrelationship between these two topics, the Applicant is asked to explain:  why inter-related effects between the historic environment and landscape and visual are not considered to be possible;  what ‘complementary rather than additive’ means; and  why a 7km radius study area was not also used to consider the potential impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets?  In the light of the above, are WCBC and Cadw content that the study area was of an appropriate extent?

Response to Question 1.8.2

S.264. Paragraph 12.55 of Chapter 12 (Historic Environment) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-060) sets out the two impacts that can affect a heritage asset. These are direct physical impact (e.g. demolition, physical modification, or disturbance of buried archaeology) and the visual appearance of a scheme affecting an asset’s setting. S.265. Chapter 12 of the ES considers both the issue of setting (visual impact) and physical impact. S.266. Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058) considers the visual impact and this, together with Figures 10.1a and 10.1b (Zone of Theoretical Visibility West and East respectively) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-088 and APP-089) were used to identify potential impacts to the setting of heritage assets. Given the assessment of setting is considered in both Chapter 12 (Historic Environment) and Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES, it would not be appropriate to consider these in-combination as the Applicant's considers this would be duplication (hence the use of the terms complementary not additive). In both Chapters 10 and 12 of ES the impacts on heritage assets were considered cumulatively in accordance with the methodology set out in Chapter 5 (The scope of the EIA and overall methodology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-053). S.267. The 5km study area used for potential impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets was set out and established in the Revised Scoping Report (March 2014) for the Scheme. In the Scoping Opinion (May 2014) (Appendix 5.1: Examination Library Reference APP-108) the following comments were made:

100

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Cadw – (letter dated 29 April 2014) “The development has reduced in scale since Cadw provided comments to Wrexham Power Limited on 13 March 2013. As the development has been reduced in scale, many of the issues Cadw raised are now much less of a concern In Cadw’s view it does not appear that any scheduled ancient monuments will be directly affected in this proposal and the indirect impacts look much reduced…..In general the methodology is appropriate”.  WCBC – stated “The revised scheme with the deletion of the new electrical connection has substantially reduced the number of listed buildings which potentially could be impacted upon within Wrexham”. WCBC had no further comments on the extent of the study area and restated their opinion set out in the previous Scoping Opinion (January 2013). S.268. In Chapter 12 of the ES, paragraph 12.2 defines the study areas and paragraphs 12.55 and 12.56 set out the parameters of the study area. The study areas were agreed in discussion with Cadw and WCBC as well as taking into consideration the relevant key policies and guidance as set out in paragraphs 12.3 to 12.51. The study areas are illustrated through Figures 12.1 and 12.2 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-104 and APP-105). The Applicant considers the 5km area to be sufficient to identify heritage assets whose setting may be affected by the Power Station Complex Site. The limited height of the Power Station Complex (excluding the stacks) means that at distances of more than circa 2 kilometres it is unlikely to form a notable element of views from an asset and to views of an asset. The Stacks themselves are the feature most likely to have a visual presence and given their limited form at distances of over 5 kilometres they will not form a strongly perceived feature of views to and from assets and hence would not have a significant impact on the setting of such assets. S.269. Section 3 of the Draft Local Impact Report submitted by WCBC at the pre- examination stage and accepted at the discretion of the Examining Authority stated “The Senior Conservation Officer agrees with the conclusions of the Environment Statement in so far as impacts are known and designated heritage assets have been assessed. Both the physical impacts and the impact upon the setting of a small number of heritage assets are not considered to be significant”. The Applicant therefore considers that both WCBC and Cadw were satisfied that the extent of the study area was appropriate. S.270. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and the Welsh Government (Cadw), which will address historic environment matters. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress.

101

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.8.3

Historic environment: CIA

Can WCBC and through WCBC, the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) and (to the extent that these are relevant to their statutory responsibilities) Cadw please confirm whether or not they are content with:

 The developments included in the CIA; and  The conclusions of the CIA for historic environment purposes?

Response to Question 1.8.3

S.271. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed at WCBC, CPAT and Cadw. The developments included within the CIA in Chapter 12: Historic Environment of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-060) were those specified in paragraphs 5.46 to 5.63 (inclusive) of ES Chapter 5: The Scope of the EIA and overall methodology (APP-053). These developments were common across all disciplines reported on in the ES. Please refer to the Applicant's answer to FWQ 1.12.1. S.272. In the Applicant's opinion, the developments included in the CIA and the conclusions of the CIA are correct.

QUESTION 1.8.4

Additional archaeological investigations and the written scheme of investigation (WSI)

It is not clear that WCBC has confirmed that the proposed suite of post-approval archaeological investigations are agreed. Given the views of CPAT referred to in paragraph 3.1 of WCBC’s initial draft LIR [LIR-001]:

 Are any additional pre-approval archaeological investigations warranted and if so in respect of what locations / features?  Would it be valuable for the Applicant to produce an outline WSI, with which the final WSI must generally accord?

Response to Question 1.8.4

S.273. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed at WCBC and Cadw. The Applicant has sought to gain agreement on archaeological mitigation measures at various times throughout the application process. Copies of the correspondence between Atkins (on behalf of the Applicant), WCBC and Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) in 2014, 2015 and 2016 are given at the end of this response and comprise:

102

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 E-mail 1 - 20 January 2016: Atkins to WCBC requesting confirmation that proposed approach is acceptable;  E-mail 2 - 16 February 2015: Atkins to WCBC setting a revised approach to archaeological mitigation in light of CPAT’s comments;  E-mail 3 - 16 December 2014: CPAT to Atkins setting out their comments;  E-mail 4 - 15 December 2014: Atkins to CPAT requesting their view on proposed approach. S.274. It is important to note the respective roles of WCBC and CPAT in relation to this correspondence. Planning Policy Wales (PPW edition 8, January 2016 - see paragraphs 6.5.2 to 6.5.4 in ES Chapter 12: Historic Environment (Examination Library Reference APP-060)) and paragraph 5.8.21 of NPS EN-1 make it clear that it is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority (WCBC) to sign-off on proposals for archaeological works required to support development. S.275. As set out in 6.2.2 of PPW (edition 8 January 2016), CPAT’s role as one of the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts is to ‘…maintain the Historic Environment Record and implement schemes to mitigate adverse development impacts on archaeological remains. They also provide archaeological advice to local planning authorities and should be contacted, as appropriate, in the exercise of plan preparation and development management functions’. CPAT is therefore an advisor to WCBC and it is the responsibility of WCBC to decide whether pre- or post-determination archaeological works are required. S.276. In this context, the Applicant has consistently sought to gain agreement with WCBC as the LPA, while seeking the opinion of CPAT. S.277. As set out in E-mail 3 (see below) it was a surprise in December 2014 to receive comments from CPAT indicating the need for pre-application works. WCBC, and hence their advisors, had been in receipt of two separate Scoping Reports and the PIER by this time and no indication had been received that pre-application works were required. It is important to note that much of the Power Station Complex is proposed to be built on previously developed brownfield land. The areas to which the e-mail refers are proposed for use as a temporary construction laydown and parking area (Work No 2A) and for landscape and ecology mitigation, with the balance remaining undeveloped. The risk to the potential archaeological resource is limited. S.278. Following CPAT’s email in December 2014 (E-mail 3), the Applicant’s approach to post-consent archaeological works was revised to include CPAT’s technical suggestions to undertake geophysical surveys as part of the archaeological works. S.279. However, the Applicant considers that further pre-determination archaeological works are not required given the likely limited nature of the archaeological resource within the Power Station Complex Site. This is due to the lack of archaeological finds in the area most likely attributed to the area being a rural hinterland (paragraph 12.85 of Chapter 12 of the ES), the development of the southern part of the site

103

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

previously which would have removed any archaeological remains (paragraph 12.86 of ES Chapter 12), and the likelihood of any archaeological remains in the northern part of the site being of local value only (paragraph 12.87 of ES Chapter 12). The proposed staged approach to post-consent archaeological investigations provides a proportionate response to archaeological issues and will enable any archaeological remains to be addressed appropriately in accordance with EN-1 and PPW. S.280. The Gas Connection is subject to a separate planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requirements for archaeological investigations associated with the construction of the Gas Connection fall outside of the scope of the DCO Application. The Applicant believes that its proposal for a written scheme of investigation rather than undertaking any further pre-determination archaeological works is a proportionate response in the light of the archaeological requirement in The Willington C Gas Pipeline Order 2014. That project consisted of a 27km 800mm wide underground gas pipeline. Requirement 14: Archaeology of the Willington C Order states that no stage of the authorised development should commence until a written scheme for the investigation (WSI) of areas of archaeological interest has been submitted and approved, in writing, by the relevant planning authority. S.281. The Applicant also refers the Examining Authority to Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and Requirement 8: Archaeology in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (Version 1, submitted 26 July 2016). The CEMP is required to be approved by the relevant planning authority prior to any authorised development commencing. A draft CEMP is included in the Application in Appendix 19.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-152), in which paragraph 5.51 outlines that a Written Scheme of investigation (WSI) will be agreed with the Local Authority and include the following activities:  geophysical survey of the greenfield areas of the scheme;  targeted archaeological investigation of amenities identified by the geophysical surveys;  archaeological watching brief. S.282. Draft Requirement 8: Archaeology states that no authorised development may commence until a written scheme setting out the methodology for a watching brief over areas of archaeological interest has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. S.283. The Applicant considers the above requirements provide for the adequate protection of any archaeology as required by WCBC/CPAT. S.284. The Applicant confirms that a Statement of Common Ground is being progressed with WCBC and the Welsh Government. Updates on the progress of this statement of common ground will be provided to the Examining Authority including matters relating to archaeology.

104

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Copy of Email no. 1

From: Neustadt, Kae Sent: 20 January 2016 10:09 To: [email protected] Cc: Croft, Andrew ; Holmes, Andrew ; Collins, Pete Subject: Wrexham Energy Centre

Kevin,

I understand that Andrew Croft has previously been in contact with you regarding the Wrexham Energy Centre DCO application. I hope you are still the correct person to contact; if not, I would appreciate being put in contact with the appropriate person.

As you may be aware, Atkins are in the process of completing the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed development. As part of this we have completed an archaeological desk-based assessment and Preliminary Environmental Information report.

Given the scarcity of known archaeological assets and the level of research already completed as part of the EIA, we do not feel that pre-submission archaeological investigations are necessary. We would however welcome further discussions regarding the need for appropriate planning conditions to ensure proper treatment of potential archaeological remains during development.

We have proposed the following programme of post-consent archaeological works: 1) Geophysical survey of the greenfield areas of the development areas, including gas pipeline corridor 2) Targeted archaeological investigation of anomalies identified by the geophysical surveys 3) Archaeological watching brief for sample ‘blank’ areas to ground truth the geophysical survey results All of the above would be set out and agreed in a Written Scheme of Investigation for the development.

Given the limited archaeological potential of the development site we believe that this is more than adequate approach to addressing potential archaeological issues, and meets the requirements set out in 5.8.18 to 5.8.22 of EN-1.

At this point, we are seeking written confirmation from yourselves as to the suitability of this methodology to address potential archaeological impacts of the WEC. I have attached previous correspondence regarding for reference.

Thank you in advance for a quick response.

105

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Regards,

Kae Neustadt

Heritage Consultant: Water, Ground & Environment

ATKINS

Copy of Email no. 2

From: Croft, Andrew Sent: 16 February 2015 21:34 To: [email protected] Cc: Mace, Darren ; Swan, Lucy ; Neustadt, Kae Subject: Wrexham Energy Centre - clarification request

Dear Kevin

We are contacting you in relation to the Wrexham Energy Centre project and in particular to request clarification on the need for, and scope of, a programme of archaeological works to support the construction phase of the project. This contact is being made in the context of the Local Planning Authority’s duties set out in Planning Policy Wales (paragraphs 6.5.2 to 6.5.4) and paragraph 5.8.21 of NPS EN-1, to sign-off on proposals for archaeological works required to support the construction phase.

As you are aware we have provided two Scoping Reports and a Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) as part of the DCO process. Following on from discussions with you in late August 2014 we provided additional information to CPAT, culminating in an email to them in mid-December (please see attached) requesting clarification around potential conditions. Given that 2 scoping reports and a PEIR had been supplied to consultees, we were somewhat surprised by their response on the 16th of December (also attached) requesting a programme of pre-submission archaeological works. At no point in the Scoping process had such a request been articulated.

Having reviewed their request we are of the view that such a programme of works is not necessary or proportionate given the limited archaeological potential of the development area and the ability to address archaeological issues through a programme of post-consent works.

However, we do recognise the potential benefits in adopting a staged approach to post- consent archaeological investigations and we are therefore proposing to amend our original proposals for post-consent archaeological works to include CPAT’s suggestion for geophysical surveys.

106

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

We are therefore now proposing the following programme of post-consent archaeological works: 1) Geophysical survey of the greenfield areas of the development areas, including gas pipeline corridor 2) Targeted archaeological investigation of anomalies identified by the geophysical surveys 3) Archaeological watching brief for sample ‘blank’ areas to ground truth the geophysical survey results All of the above would be set out and agreed in a Written Scheme of Investigation for the development.

We would welcome the Planning Authority’s views on the proposed works as we would like to include draft conditions (drawing on Welsh Government Circular 16/2014) with the DCO application for discussion and agreement through the examination process.

I would be more than happy to discuss the above with you at a convenient time and if necessary could come up to Wrexham to see you

Kind regards

Andrew Croft

Andrew Croft Associate Operations Manager for Ecology and Heritage

ATKINS

107

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Copy of Email no. 3

From: Mark Walters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 December 2014 11:36 To: Neustadt, Kae Subject: RE: Wrexham Energy Centre

Hi Kae

In an effort to clear stuff off the desk before Christmas I managed to take a look at your DBA and walkover report and the PEIR this morning.

In a nutshell we will require more pre-determination evaluation on this scheme so that the LPA and Planning Inspectorate are fully informed about the archaeological potential of the Wrexham Energy Site and its associated gas pipeline connection.

As you state in your own report at 1.8.4 the “significance of the surviving potential of archaeological deposits is largely unknown”. There is no information relating to the true below ground potential of this scheme presented anywhere in the PEIR. Our knowledge of the archaeological potential prior to the medieval ridge and furrow is essentially zero. Recent work at Borras Quarry just to the north of the Wrexham Industrial Estate has shown that the sub-surface potential for prehistoric and later archaeology is high in areas where there was previously no recorded archaeology. Your own report indicates some potential for this earlier archaeology in 7.202 of the PEIR with the proximity of PRN 86009.

We would therefore recommend that geophysical survey using magntometry (caesium- vapor technology preferred) is deployed across the full assessment corridor for the gas pipeline and in the fields at the Energy Centre site. Any significant anomalies discovered with this technique will require further evaluation to determine their character, extent, date, function and relationship to adjacent features. The geophysical survey and trenching should not be completed as a condition of consent as it is designed to inform the decision making process with regard to layout and future mitigation, which would be set out in the ES.

I will comment further when we have seen the full reported results of the geophysical survey so that we can agree any trenching methodology that may be necessary.

Kind regards

Mark Walters

------Mark Walters Development Control Archaeologist / Swyddog Rheoli Datblygiad http://www.cpat.org.uk

108

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Copy of Email no. 4

From: Neustadt, Kae [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 December 2014 11:41 To: Mark Walters Subject: Wrexham Energy Centre

Dear Mark

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

As you are aware the Wrexham Energy Centre (WEC) and associated gas pipeline is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project that is being addressed through the Development Control Order process, as such we have consulted with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and Cadw at a number of stages in the process, including at the Scoping Stage. Cadw and the LPA have indicated that they do not anticipate there being any significant heritage impacts associated with the proposed development. We are now contacting you in your role as an adviser to the LPA, following a request from the LPA.

As part of the DCO process we are producing an Environmental Statement (ES) for the scheme which will accompany the full application. In addition, earlier this year a Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) was published. I can arrange for a copy of this to be emailed to you if you wish or it can be downloaded from the following location (http://www.wrexham-power.com/library-eng.html). This summarises the likely environmental effects of the proposed development. In respect of the historic environment its conclusions were based on archaeological desk-based investigation and site visits etc. Our views of the likely impacts and effects have not notably altered since the publication of the PEIR and we anticipate the ES will report very similar outcomes.

As part of the ES and PEIR process we have undertaken desk-based baseline work to provide an understanding of the likely are critical potential of the land within the order limits. For your information, I attach a draft of that baseline information which will be appended to the ES when it is published.

Based on the result of the assessment it is clear that the site of proposed power station (WEC) has predominately been used for agricultural purposes from at least the medieval period, if not earlier. This is testified to in the modern landscape by the open field pattern, continuing agricultural usage, historic maps, and also the presence of extant traces of ridge and furrow earthworks. No significant known remains have been identified within the power station site and there is limited known material in the wider landscape.

The line of the proposed gas connection corridor contains a small number of geographically constrained industrial and defence related remains, in the form of marl pits and pill boxes. The Marl Pits represent areas of past truncation, while the 4 pill boxes recorded have all been removed bar one [120550], which is of local significance. Based on the findings of this report it is concluded that there is a low potential for the recovery of complex / significant

109

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

below ground archaeological remains within the line of proposed gas corridor, although there is an unknown potential for the recovery of palaeo-environmental remains within the area surrounding the line of the River Clywedog. Where previously unknown archaeological features do survive within the limits of proposed development they are likely to be of local importance, at most, given the surrounding resource.

Our view is that the proposed development is unlikely to disturb or remove major archaeological remains and result in significant environmental effects. However, we do recognise that there is some background archaeological potential within the Order Limits and we would therefore propose standard archaeological conditions (as per Welsh Government Circular 16/2014) relating to the need for a written scheme of investigation to be agreed with the LPA prior to works on the site commencing. At this point we would suggest that such works would include an archaeological watching brief in the southern part of the gas pipeline corridor and a similar exercise in the vicinity of the River Clywedog, potentially with palaeo-environmental sampling should such deposits be encountered. In terms of the main power station site we would suggest that, at most, an archaeological watching brief should be employed during the initial ground clearance phase.

We would welcome your initial views on the above.

Regards

Kae Neustadt

Heritage Consultant

ATKINS

110

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.8.5

Historic environment: Mitigation

An assessment of the potential effects resulting from the electricity generating station site is provided from ES paragraph 12.92 [APP-060] onwards. An assessment of the potential effects resulting from the gas connection route is provided from ES paragraph 12.114 [APP- 060] onwards.

Paragraph 12.64 [APP-060] notes that the assessment of significance has taken into account “the possibility and nature of available mitigation options”. The significance of effects prior to mitigation is therefore unclear.

 Can the Applicant please describe what mitigation measures in respect of which receptors they have taken into account in the assessment of significance?

Response to Question 1.8.5

S.285. The mitigation measures taken into account in the main assessment are described in Paragraphs 12.67 and 12.68 in Chapter 12: Historic environment of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-060). These measures relate to the mitigation inherent in the design of the Power Station Complex Site and the associated landscape mitigation for all receptors. The relevant section of ES Chapter 12 is reproduced below for ease of reference:

Embedded mitigation - Power Station Complex Site

12.67 Mitigation embedded in the Scheme design is specified in chapter 4 (The Proposed Development) and further detailed in Chapter 10 of this ES (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment). Key aspects of this in relation to the historic environment include:

 siting of the Power Station Complex within the extent of an existing industrial estate (Wrexham Industrial Estate), limiting its likely impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets; and  implementation of an illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation masterplan (Document reference 2.9.1 to 2.9.7).

Embedded mitigation - Gas Connection

12.68 Embedded mitigation included in the Scheme design is specified in chapter 4 of this ES. This included routing the corridor away from designated assets and known concentrations of archaeological remains.

S.286. No specific mitigation measures have been identified for individual assets/ receptors. The statement in paragraph 12.64 in Chapter 12 of the ES referred to the mitigation measures described above. As the mitigation measures are part of the

111

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

siting and design of the Power Station Complex Site, the Applicant considers this to be an appropriate way of assessing the significance of effects. S.287. Paragraph 12.107 in ES Chapter 12 describes a programme of post-consent archaeological works that would be undertaken to address potential impacts on currently unrecorded archaeological remains during the construction phase. S.288. Paragraph 12.109 in ES Chapter 12 states that no specific mitigation measures for the operational phase are proposed. This is because only neutral to slight adverse effects were identified as a result of changes at designated heritage assets/receptors, which were not considered to be significant.

QUESTION 1.8.6

Barn Farm Ridge and Furrow

Slight adverse effects which would not be significant are predicted on the Barn Farm ridge and furrow, as a result of construction of the power station complex, construction of the gas connection and the electrical connection routes. However, is there any scope for these effects in-combination to lead to a significant adverse effect on this feature?

 To what extent would the remaining portion of the Barn Farm ridge and furrow be representative of the current feature?  Could replacement of the overhead line poles for the Electrical Connection result in additional physical impacts on the Barn Farm ridge and furrow?  Paragraph 12.135 [APP-060] states that “[r]eplacement overhead line poles may result in localised impacts on archaeological remains, however, the scope of such impacts cannot be assessed at this time”. The Applicant assumes that micro-siting of pole locations would avoid significant impacts. Even if the electrical connection would only result in very small impacts on the Barn Farm ridge and furrow, when considered cumulatively with the effects from construction of the power station and gas connection route, could this lead to a significant effect on this asset?  Do the above issues give rise to any concern from WCBC or Cadw?

Response to Question 1.8.6

S.289. It should be noted that there is a minor error in Chapter 12: Historic Environment of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-060) in relation to this issue. S.290. Paragraph 12.94 of Chapter 12 currently reads ‘Physical impacts: Aside from a small area of low importance ridge and furrow (ID 128257), there are no known assets recorded within the Power Station Complex Site and only limited potential for archaeological remains to be present. The construction of the Power Station Complex would remove the aforementioned ridge and furrow, creating a major

112

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

adverse impact on a low value asset, resulting in a slight adverse effect. This is not a significant effect. No significant effects are therefore anticipated’. S.291. The reference to ID 128257 in this paragraph in Chapter 12 is incorrect. ID 128257 relates to the Barn Farm Ridge and Furrow which lies circa 90 metres east-north- east of the Power Station Complex Site. Paragraph 12.94 relates solely to a separate small fragmented area of ridge and furrow identified within the Power Station Complex Site. This is a different asset to ID 128257 and is not currently recorded on the Historic Environment Record. S.292. Construction on the Power Station Complex Site will not physically affect the Barn Farm Ridge and Farrow (ID 128257). S.293. The Gas Connection would cross the area of the Barn Farm Ridge and Furrow within the Order Land. This would result in the limited loss of part of the asset. S.294. The Electrical Connection is described in the Grid Connection Statement (Revision 1, Examination Library Reference OD-006) and will not require replacement of overhead line poles as previously anticipated in paragraph 12.135 in Chapter 12 of the ES. This is due to the connection offer the Applicant has received from SPEN, the DNO, to provide an underground connection to Legacy Grid substation. S.295. The Applicant considers that the Scheme will not have a significant effect on the Barn Farm ridge and furrow and, assuming that the Electrical Connection follows existing roads to the west, that there would be no in-combination effects for the reasons that only the Gas Connection would result in a limited loss to the Barn Farm Ridge and Furrow.

QUESTION 1.8.7

Sutton Green Barrow

Using the significance of effect matrix in ES Table 12-3 [APP-060], the effect on Sutton Green Barrow Scheduled Monument (a high value asset, with an adverse impact of minor magnitude) is categorised as ‘moderate or slight’ adverse. Professional judgement has been used to determine that the effect would be slight adverse and therefore not significant rather than moderate adverse and significant.

 Can the Applicant please [provide] a clearer explanation of how professional judgement has been applied to conclude that the effect on this barrow would not be significant?  Do the above issues give rise to any concern from WCBC or Cadw?

113

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.8.7

S.296. Paragraph 12.63 in Chapter 12: Historic Environment of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-060) describes how the magnitude of impact was defined using terms developed by Atkins’ cultural heritage professional experts. These terms were based on professional judgment and experience of other similar projects and reflect guidance on ‘substantial harm’ and something that is less than substantial harm as set out in National Policy Statement EN-1 and established methodologies such as Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The methodology was presented in the Scoping Report (May 2014), and no objections to these criteria were raised by consultees. The same approach was applied in the assessment of the Meaford Energy Centre, in respect of which the Secretary of State has granted a DCO, The Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016. S.297. The criteria for assessing the magnitude of an impact are set out in Table 12-2: Broad Criteria for Assessing the Magnitude of Change/Impact in Chapter 12 of the ES. Minor Adverse Impacts cover a range of potential harm:

‘Limited harm to an asset’s significance as a result of changes to its physical form or setting (Less than Substantial Harm). For example, this could include: physical changes that alter some elements of significance but do not noticeably alter the overall significance of the asset; and small-scale alterations to the setting of an asset that hardly affect its significance’/

S.298. In the context of the Sutton Green Barrow (Scheduled Monument, DE291) the degree of the adverse impact on its setting and significance is very limited in nature. As stated in the assessment (see ES Table 12-8: Impacts on designated heritage assets during operational phase and significance of effect in Chapter 12 of the ES) the barrow lies nearly 2km from the Power Station Complex Site and ‘There are existing distant views of the WIE and elements of the Power Station Complex will be glimpsed as part of these views. The addition of the Scheme will not however significantly alter the rural setting of the monument’. This scale of change is considered to be very limited in nature and hence professional judgement placed the impact at the lower end of the scale of change that would constitute a Minor Adverse Impact. Given this, it is appropriate to record a Slight Adverse Effect, rather than a Moderate Adverse Effect. S.299. Based on previous discussions, neither WCBC nor CADW has raised any concerns on the impact of the Scheme on the round barrow.

114

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.9 Landscape and Visual

QUESTION 1.9.1

Landscape and visual impact: location of residential properties for design and impact assessment process

A relevant representation from Mr Michael Morris suggests that there may be “[r]esidential properties to the West […] within 100m of the site” and that not all such properties are located to the east (in Isycoed).

 The Applicant is requested to comment at Deadline 2 on any properties identified by Mr Morris pursuant to question 1.1.1 above at Deadline 1, indicating whether it agrees these to be residential properties for the purposes of the design and environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes and whether they have been taken into account as receptors for visual impact assessment?  In doing so, a distinction should be drawn by the Applicant between the boundary of what is proposed to be the operational electricity generating station site and the boundary of land required for the gas connection.

Response to Question 1.9.1

S.300. S.2 The Applicant understands that Mr Morris will identify the residential properties referred to in his written representation for Deadline 1. The Applicant will then comment on any properties identified by Mr Morris at Deadline 2. S.301. S.3 As far as the Applicant is aware, there are no residential properties within 100 metres to the west of the Power Station Complex Site. The Applicant refers to its response to FWQ 1.1.1.

QUESTION 1.9.2

Landscape and visual impact: access to private land

ES Chapter 10 [APP-058] at paragraph 10.7.6 states that there has been no access to residences and therefore descriptions and photographs have been undertaken from the nearest publicly accessible location.

 Are there locations on private land which the Applicant, WCBC or relevant local IPs considered ought to be viewed in order to ensure that ES conclusions on landscape and visual impact and related mitigation are robust?

115

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.9.2

S.302. The viewpoints employed in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in the ES were agreed with WCBC and Cheshire West Council (paragraph 10.31 of Chapter 10: Landscape and visual impact assessment of the ES refers - Examination Library Reference APP-058). Consultation on viewpoints was undertaken throughout the assessment process, including the PEIR, and no views to the contrary were expressed from statutory consultees including WCBC. S.303. Although described as a difficulty in paragraph 10.76 of ES Chapter 10 (Examination Library Reference APP-058), it is usual practice for a LVIA for all viewpoints to be assessed only from publicly accessible land. The potential views from private land were considered carefully to ensure that each viewpoint chosen represented potential views from private land, to ensure a fair judgement of the impact of the Power Station Complex Site on each property. For example, visual receptor group 20, as shown on Figure 10.4a of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-094), was taken from the public highway. However, this location was chosen because it was representative of the viewpoint from the residential receptors immediately to the east of the B5130. As the viewpoint was slightly closer to the Order Limits than those receptors, the Applicant was able to ensure that a worst case assessment had been undertaken. S.304. The LVIA presents a proportionate assessment of the potential effects on views for the visual receptors within the study area. This is reflective of the approach described in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition, which states that ‘The emphasis must always be on proportionality in relation to the scale and nature of the development proposal and its likely significant effects…’ (paragraph 6.21). The Applicant considers the ES’s conclusions on landscape and visual impact and related mitigation to be robust and that there is no need for the Applicant to undertake further assessment from locations on private land.

QUESTION 1.9.3

Landscape and visual impact: baseline data and methodology

ES Chapter 10 [APP-058] refers to a study area, a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and a Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI).

In addition to the study area shown in Figures 10.2a and 10.2b [APP-090 and APP-091], the ES has also defined a ZTV (see Figures 10.1a and 10.b [APP-089 and APP-090 respectively]) which largely lies within the study area. The methodology and assumptions used to define the ZTV are described in ES Chapter 10, paragraphs 10.35 – 10.39. The ZTV was verified through fieldwork which included consideration of the estimated height of adjacent buildings (Chapter 10, paragraph 10.76). The ES also refers to a ZVI (also shown on Figures 10.1a and 10.1b) where, if the power station site buildings are visible, significant visual effects are

116

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

considered to be most likely. There is no explanation of the methodology used to define the ZVI.

The approach taken is complex and unusual, in that the ZTV has not been used to frame the study area, and assessments of landscape character areas and visual receptors extend beyond the ZTV into the broader study area [APP-092 to APP-095].

 Do WCBC and IPs consider that the study has been robust?  Are there any landscape character areas or visual receptors that require to be identified or made the subject of an impact assessment but have not been identified, or have been identified but for which a different impact assessment is argued to be necessary?  Has the methodology materially affected the outcome of the assessment?

Response to Question 1.9.3

S.305. The Applicant contends that the methodology is robust, transparent and comprehensive. The methodology is based on current best practice and the guidance as set out in the Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition. S.306. As referred to in paragraph 10.57 of Chapter 10: Landscape and visual impact assessment of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058), during the LVIA process the Applicant consulted with stakeholders, including WCBC and NRW on the LVIA methodology, identification of visual receptors, photomontage locations, requirements for mitigation and the definition of the assessment study area. The consultation correspondence is presented in Appendix 10.3 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-124) with key items noted in Table 10.8 of Chapter 10 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058). Paragraph 8.1 of the Local Impact Report of WCBC (LIR) (Examination Library Reference LIR-001), states that ‘A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has informed the design process and focuses on likely significant effects on the landscape resource and visual receptors and photomontages agreed with Wrexham County Borough Council and neighbouring Cheshire West and Chester’. S.307. The ZTV (highlighted blue on Figure 10.1a and 10.1b of the ES - Examination Library Reference APP-088 and APP-089) was produced for a 2.5km study area only, to focus the field-based assessment work by identifying areas potentially affected by the Scheme, i.e. with a possible view towards the Power Station Complex. The blue highlighted areas do not indicate that the whole Power Station Complex would be visible from the areas shaded but that there would be theoretical visibility of a part of the structure, however small, from that location. During the field work the ZVI (highlighted orange on ES Figures 10.1a and 10.1b (APP-088 and APP-089) was established to highlight those areas that, if within the theoretically visible area of the ZTV, might potentially have identifiable impacts from the Scheme. The ZVI

117

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

therefore identifies areas where the Scheme is most likely to influence the appearance of the view. Atkins’ landscape specialists deem this to be an appropriate process for identifying potential areas of visual impacts. S.308. All Landscape Character Areas and key visual receptors within and beyond the 2.5km ZTV to the full study area of 7km, including those agreed with consultees, were considered in the assessment to ensure a comprehensive but proportionate assessment of the impact of the Scheme (paragraph 10.87 of Chapter 10 of the ES). S.309. It was not considered that any Landscape Character Areas beyond the 7km study zone need be assessed as any impact is unlikely to be significant due to the distances involved. This was confirmed through site visits. S.310. It is not considered that any additional visual receptors should be included. The assessment concentrates on receptors where impacts are potentially most significant, within 2.5km, but also considers a reasonable representation of potential receptors, in all directions, up to 7km from the Power Station Complex Site. S.311. The impacts assessed for each Landscape Character Area and visual receptors within Appendix 10.6 and Appendix 10.7 of the ES (APP-127 and APP-128) respectively are considered to be fair and reasonable assessments. S.312. For the reasons set out above, the Applicant considers the assessment to be fair, comprehensive, transparent and proportionate. S.313. It is confirmed that the Applicant is in discussions with WCBC over a Statement of Common Ground, which should include agreement in respect of the landscape and visual impact assessment for the Scheme.

QUESTION 1.9.4

Landscape and visual impact: inherent mitigation

The LVIA in ES Chapter 10 [APP-058] takes into account the ‘inherent mitigation’ described in paragraphs 10.62 – 10.66. This appears to be the proposals shown in the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation plan [APP-026]. Work No. 3 and No. 4 in the draft DCO [APP-033] include landscaping, tree planting and ecological mitigation. Requirement 3 of the draft DCO means that no development can begin until a written landscaping and mitigation scheme has been approved by Wrexham CBC which is “substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan”.

 Does this wording offer sufficient certainty that the inherent mitigation relied on in ES Chapter 10 will be delivered?

118

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.9.4

S.314. Both the Works Plans (Examination Library Reference APP-008) and the Illustrative Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Master Plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) show how the areas for the landscape and ecological mitigation are incorporated into the design of the Power Station Complex Site. The plans show how the mitigation areas can be accommodated and delivered alongside the other Power Station Complex Site components. S.315. Paragraphs 10.62-10.66 of Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058)) explain the considerations behind the inclusion of this inherent mitigation, including providing screening to reduce the impact of the Power Station Complex Site on visual receptors, and enhancing the landscape character and habitat diversity of the Power Station Complex Site. S.316. The inherent mitigation is further emphasised via its identification within Work No.3 and Work No. 4 of Schedule 1: Authorised Development of the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016). S.317. The landscape and ecological mitigation will be secured by Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation of the draft Order, which states that "No authorised development may commence until a written landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. The landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan…". Requirement 3 also makes provision for the landscaping and ecological mitigation works to be managed and maintained throughout the lifetime of the authorised development, including provision for any planting to be replaced should it die or be removed. S.318. The Applicant considers that Requirement 3 provides sufficient certainty that the landscaping and ecological mitigation relied on in the ES will be both delivered and secured for the lifetime of the Power Station Complex Site. The wording "substantially in accordance with" has been tested and approved by the Secretary of State as being sufficiently certain whilst providing the ability for any necessary amendments to be made to the draft details to take into account any changes that may occur between the submission of an application and commencement of its development. The Applicant notes that the Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016 has used the same wording at Schedule 2, Requirement 4. Similar wording was also included in Schedule 2, Requirement 5 of the North Wales Wind Farms Connection Order 2016. S.319. The Applicant confirms that a Statement of Common Ground is being prepared with WCBC. Updates of progress of this statement of common ground will be provided to the Examining Authority including matters related to the landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme and the requirements in the draft Order.

119

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.9.5

Landscape and visual impact: siting and land requirement

A number of local resident IPs express concerns that the selection of the application site on the outside edge of the built area of the Wrexham Industrial Estate (WIE) is inappropriate as it limits the degree to which the adverse impact of tall and bulky built structures can be mitigated. Some also suggest that as the application proposal is for a much smaller generating station than that originally proposed, such an extensive application site is no longer needed.

 The Applicant is requested to produce a table summarising its position on these matters and identifying where its responses to these concerns can be located in its responses to relevant and written representations.

Response to Question 1.9.5

S.320. The Applicant refers the Examining Authority to its answer to Relevant Representations Report Section 8 (Landscape and Visual Effects) as it addresses issues raised by local resident IPs in relation to the site selection and the visual impacts of the Scheme. The following table sets out the issues raised by the IPs alongside where the Applicant’s responses can be found in both the submission and examination documentation. Table 1.9.1: Applicant’s Response to IPs: Landscaping and visual impact

IP reference Representation WPL’s response

RR-006 The siting of the power Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Clive Roberts station on the edge of Relevant Representations’ document the WIE will have the responds to the matters raised by IPs in most visual impact on respect of site selection. In addition, Section residents 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

Furthermore, ES chapter 3: Site selection, alternatives and design evolution, ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the Design and Access Statement (Examination Library References APP-051, APP-058 and APP-042 respectively) explain the process that WPL

120

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response has followed in order to find a site and refine a design for the Scheme.

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment provides a full landscape and visual impact assessment of the Scheme as a ‘worst case ‘assessment’, in accordance with Rochdale envelope principles, including consideration of the visual impact of the Scheme on local receptors.

The Applicant’s Response to First Round Question 1.9.6 provides reassurances to the Examining Authority that the ES assessment has assessed the maximum parameters of the Scheme identified in Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

RR-007 Light pollution will have Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Dennis and a big effect on lifestyle Relevant Representations’ document Angela Edwards responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of site selection. In addition, Section 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

Requirement 13: Artificial lighting of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016 makes provision for the submission and approval of details of artificial lighting ‘to include measures to keep external lighting to the minimum necessary for operational safety and security reasons, incorporating cut-offs to reduce light pollution’.

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact

121

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response Assessment provides a full landscape and visual impact assessment of the Scheme as a ‘worst case’ impact, in accordance with Rochdale envelope principles including consideration of the effects of the proposed lighting associated with the Scheme on local receptors.

Matters related to potential health effects arising from the Scheme have been assessed in ES Chapter 17: Health, Safety and Security (Examination Library Reference APP-065).

RR-009 Concerned at the height Section 8 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Elizabeth Cross of the stacks and their Relevant Representations’ document effect on the skyline. responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations. There is insufficient information about power station ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact dimensions Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-058) assesses the landscape and visual effects of the Scheme as a ‘worst case’ impact, in accordance with Rochdale envelope principles.

Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016) accurately identifies the maximum height, width and length of all the principal elements (i.e. numbered works) of the Scheme, and these dimensions were, as noted, employed as the ‘worst case’ in the Applicant’s landscape and visual impact assessment.

122

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response The Applicant’s Response to First Round Question 1.9.6 provides reassurances to the Examining Authority that the ES assessment has assessed the maximum parameters of the Scheme identified in Requirement 2 of the draft DCO (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

RR-010 Power station will be Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Frank Lloyd situated in open Relevant Representations’ document countryside and will be responds to the matters raised by IPs in very intrusive to the respect of site selection. In addition, Section surrounding area 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment provides a full landscape and visual impact assessment of the Scheme as a ‘worst case ‘assessment, in accordance with Rochdale envelope principles, including consideration of the visual impact of the Scheme on local receptors.

123

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

RR-011 Visual impact of this Section 3 of the Applicants’ ‘Response to Grant Scott magnitude cannot be Relevant Representations’ document mitigated. The Scheme responds to the matters raised by IPs in should be refused on respect of site selection. In addition, Section visual impact grounds 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

124

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response The Applicant’s Response to First Round Question 1.9.4 identifies the inherent mitigation associated with the Scheme as identified in the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) and secured by Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation in the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

RR-012 Other sites on the Section 3 of the Applicants’ ‘Response to Isycoed industrial estate would Relevant Representations’ document Community be less visually intrusive responds to the matters raised by IPs in Council respect of site selection. In addition, Section 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

The Applicant’s Response to First Round

125

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response Question 1.9.6 provides reassurances to the Examining Authority that the ES assessment has assessed the maximum parameters of the Scheme identified in Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

RR-015 Development would be Section 3 of the Applicants’ ‘Response to John Graville visually intrusive to the Relevant Representations’ document surrounding area, visible responds to the matters raised by IPs in from Cheshire and might respect of site selection. In addition, Section look out of place in 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in farmland respect of landscape and visual considerations. There is insufficient information about Furthermore, ES chapter 3: Site selection, power station alternatives and design evolution, ES dimensions. More chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact renderings would be Assessment and the Design and Access desirable. Statement (Examination Library References APP-051, APP-058 and APP-042 respectively) explain the process that WPL Little consideration of has followed in order to find a site and landscaping to reduce refine a design for the Scheme. disruption to residential amenity ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment provides a full landscape and The development could visual impact assessment of the Scheme as exacerbate light a ‘worst case ‘assessment, in accordance pollution from the with Rochdale envelope principles, including industrial estate. consideration of the visual impact of the Scheme on local receptors.

126

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment provides a full landscape and visual impact assessment of the Scheme as a ‘worst case’ impact, in accordance with Rochdale envelope principles including consideration of the effects of the proposed lighting associated with the Scheme on local receptors.

Matters related to potential health effects arising from the Scheme have been assessed in ES Chapter 17: Health, Safety and Security (Examination Library Reference APP-065).

Section 8 of the Applicants ‘Response to Relevant Representations’ document responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-058) assesses the landscape and visual effects of the Scheme as a ‘worst case’ impact, in accordance with Rochdale

127

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response envelope principles.

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-058) identify the range of landscape mitigation measures proposed in the Scheme. Extensive landscape works and new planting are shown on the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP- 026).

Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation of the draft DCO (Revision 1, 26 July 2016) requires the provision, implementation and maintenance of the landscape and ecological mitigation.

128

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response RR-017 Concerned that the Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Jonathan Young proposal is on a mainly Relevant Representations’ document greenfield site on the responds to the matters raised by IPs in most environmentally respect of site selection. In addition, Section sensitive side of the 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in industrial estate respect of landscape and visual overlooking open considerations. countryside. Furthermore, ES chapter 3: Site selection, alternatives and design evolution, ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the Design and Access Statement (Examination Library References APP-051, APP-058 and APP-042 respectively) explain the process that WPL has followed in order to find a site and refine a design for the Scheme.

The Applicant's Response to First Round Question 1.9.6 provides reassurances to the Examining Authority that the ES assessment has assessed the maximum parameters of the Scheme identified in Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016).

RR-023 Wishes to understand Section 8 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Martin Shea the visual effects on Relevant Representations’ document

129

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response residents and the school responds to the matters raised by IPs in in Bowling Bank respect of landscape and visual considerations.

ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-058) includes assessment of the landscape and visual effects on receptors to the east and south-east of the Scheme. Viewpoints 19, 20 and 21 (see ES Figure 10.4b: Photomontage Viewpoint Locations: East - Examination Library Reference APP- 089) are considered to provide a representative impression of views from the east. From Bowling Bank further to the south, viewpoints 5, 7 and 22 enable representative assessment from a landscape and visual perspective.

RR-025 The previous use of the Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Michael Morris site was a car park with Relevant Representations’ document no visual impact responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of site selection. This responds to the previous site use. Final building and stack heights are not clear and impede informed Figures DAS5 to DAS9 of the Applicant’s judgement Design and Access Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-042) provide photographs of the Power Station Complex Site both in its current condition and with the former Owens Corning fibreglass factory in place.

Section 8 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Relevant Representations’ document responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations. In addition, Section 9

130

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of design.

With respect to building heights, Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26 July 2016) accurately identifies the maximum height, width and length of all the principal elements (i.e. numbered works) of the Scheme. These dimensions were used as the ‘worst case’ for the purpose of the landscape and visual impact assessment in accordance with the Rochdale Envelope principles, and it is possible that elements of the Power Station Complex will be more compact than the dimensions shown.

RR-029 The Scheme will have a Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Nicola Vesty huge impact on the Relevant Representations’ document countryside and leave an responds to the matters raised by IPs in eyesore respect of site selection. In addition, Section 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual It will completely ruin a considerations. beautiful part of the world and gateway into Wales from the English ES chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact border Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-058) assesses the landscape and visual effects of the Scheme

RR-034 The application contains Section 8 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to insufficient information Relevant Representations’ document Sesswick Community on stack heights, responds to the matters raised by IPs in Council landscape and build respect of landscape and visual finish to enable the considerations. In addition, Section 9 application to be responds to the matters raised by IPs in

131

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response determined respect of design.

Importantly, Requirement 2 in Schedule 2 of the draft Order provides for the approval of the detailed design by the relevant planning authority. Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation of the draft Order covers the provision, implementation and maintenance of the landscape and ecological mitigation.

RR-036 The RR advises that his The Applicant will consider and respond to Stephen Whitby written representation Written Representation as appropriate. will address adverse landscape effects

132

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response RR-037 Location on the edge of Section 3 of the Applicant’s ‘Response to Susan Harber the industrial estate will Relevant Representations’ document be visually prominent responds to the matters raised by IPs in with no possible respect of site selection. In addition, Section mitigation 8 responds to the matters raised by IPs in respect of landscape and visual considerations.

133

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

IP reference Representation WPL’s response landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP- 026).

Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation of the draft Order (Revision 1, 26July 2016) requires the provision, implementation and maintenance of the landscape and ecological mitigation.

S.321. Environmental and technical considerations as well as consultation feedback have exerted an influence throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment. The design of the Scheme, including the identification of the WIE as a potential location for a power station, the selection of a partly brownfield site with an extant planning permission, the generating capacity of the Scheme, the arrangement and orientation of building structures, have also been important considerations on the Power Station Complex Site and the proposed mitigation measures.

Site Selection

S.322. Chapter 3 (Site Selection, alternatives and design evolution) of the ES (document reference. 6.2.3) summarises the process that the Applicant followed in order to select a site. The process has been iterative, informed by the site search and the non-statutory and statutory consultations as described in the Consultation Report (document reference 5.1).The approach taken in the ES accords with National Policy Statement EN-1 (NPS EN-1) and it should be noted that paragraph 2.2.1 of NPS EN-2 provides that “it is for energy companies to decide which applications to bring forward and the government does not seek to direct applicants to future sites for fossil fuel generation”. S.323. Paragraphs 3.12 to 3.25 of Chapter 3 of the ES explain how the Kingmoor Park South was selected at WIE which is a substantial industrial estate, one of the largest in Europe, of 550ha in size and employing around 7,000 people. The WIE and its vicinity are not designated for their landscape value or sensitivity and nor is the area recognised as being a ‘gateway’ into Wales.

134

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.324. Chapter 3 of the ES goes on to explain how the Kingmoor Park South site was selected and includes consideration of how other sites within the WIE were considered and discounted leading to the final selection of the Kingmoor Park South site. Paragraph 3.22 of Chapter 3 of the ES details the reasons for its selection including:  It is part of a major land allocation made under Policy E3 of the 2005 Wrexham UDP;  It has extant planning permission for 22,159 m² of ‘warehouse’ floorspace, along with 2,144m² of office space, confirming its suitability for substantial industrial development;  it is a broadly level site with sufficient room for all construction, operational requirements including landscape and ecological mitigation;  its proximity to gas and electricity grid connection points;  road access is suitable for construction and operational traffic;  the site avoids areas of designated landscape, natural or heritage interests;  the site is partly brownfield; and  neighbouring industrial land uses are compatible with a modern CCGT development and the site is suitably separated from dense housing and other sensitive land uses such as schools. S.325. A number of technical, planning and environmental factors were considered in optimising the location and layout of the CCGT power station within the Site. Full details of the considerations which led to the selection of the south-western part of the Site are detailed in paragraph 3.25 of Chapter 3 of the ES. Key factors included:  the south-western part is adjacent to the existing industrial estate where the character is more urban and industrial;  the nearest residential properties lie to the north and east, and hence distances from these would be maximised thereby reducing the potential for adverse effects;  the southern parts have previously been developed for industrial use and has the benefit of an extant planning permission for employment related uses. S.326. The considerations which informed the site selection constitute inherent mitigation in terms of minimising the potential for significant adverse effects. The overall conclusions in Chapter 20 (Conclusions) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-068) are that the Scheme is acceptable in environmental terms given the very few significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated. In landscape and visual terms, the few predicted significant effects would be limited to within a close proximity of the Power Station Complex Site. S.327. Paragraph 2.6.5 of National Policy Statement EN-2 (NPS EN-2) acknowledges that it is not possible to eliminate the visual impacts associated with a fossil fuel

135

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

generating system. Mitigation is therefore to reduce the visual intrusion of the buildings in the landscape and minimise impact on visual amenity as far as reasonably practicable’. In addition, NPS EN-1 states that ‘virtually all nationally significant energy infrastructure projects will have effects on the landscape’. As outlined previously, site selection and design within the site have aimed to minimise the potential effects as far as practically possible within the technical engineering parameters required for the Scheme. S.328. Whilst some significant landscape and visual effects have been predicted, as detailed in the Planning Statement that accompanied the Application (document reference. 5.2) and paragraph 5.9.15 of NPS EN-1, these impacts must be judged on the basis of whether these adverse impacts would be so damaging that they are not offset by the benefits of the Scheme. These benefits are set out in Chapter 6 (Socio- economics) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-054) including the national need for new power generation capacity. S.329. At the time of consultation there were no other sites suitable for the use of a CCGT power station on the WIE. This is still the case. S.330. When balanced against the benefits of the Scheme, the long-term effects of the Scheme are considered to be positive and consistent with the National Policy Statements, Welsh national policy, the Local Plan and other material considerations.

Extent of Overall Site

S.331. The Works Plan (Examination Library Reference APP-008) demonstrate how land is used within the Power Station Complex Site, including the extensive use of land that will be used to provide the inherent landscape and ecological mitigation area on the eastern boundary. The reduction of the size of the Scheme was due to technical and environmental constraints, as well as feedback from non-statutory consultation. Additionally, as the Scheme’s proposals were developed and discussions were held with WCBC and NRW it became clear that there would be a requirement for 50% landscape and ecological mitigation when compared with the development footprint as a whole. In addition to the permanent features a construction laydown area is required to enable the project to be constructed. The total land requirement as shown on the Works Plan is in excess of 12 hectares (30 acres). S.332. Another reason for reducing the size of the proposal from 1,200MW to up to 299MW, in addition to the reasons stated above, is that once the 50% ecological mitigation was imposed the Kingmoor Park South Site ceased to be large enough and WPL were in discussion with NRW about the possibility of providing offsite mitigation. Therefore, by reducing the footprint of development it reduced the land requirement and enabled the Scheme to be accommodated within the confines of the Kingmoor Park South Site. To further minimise potential landscape, visual and ecological impacts the reduction of the scale of the Scheme and inclusion of additional mitigation measures necessitated a site similar in size to Kingmoor Park South. The size of the Power Station Complex Site has been dictated by the need to

136

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

accommodate the maximum parameters of development alongside this inherent landscape and ecological mitigation and as such is fully justified. S.333. The Applicant’s response to Relevant Representations (Deadline 1; 23 August 2016) have also responded to those concerns of IPs Section 3 (Site Selection). In summary, the output of the proposed power station did reduce but the site required for the Scheme is matched by the Kingmoor Park South Site. Additionally, although not required to comply with the NPS, it is worth noting that no other site on the WIE is available that meets the required parameters.

QUESTION 1.9.6

LVIA: the appearance of major built elements

Requirement 2(4) of the draft DCO [APP-033] provides that the final floor levels, colour, materials and surface finishes of all permanent buildings and structures would be agreed with the local authority, but the visual effects of these are not constrained to meet identified design objectives or to be within a range or palette defined within the ES. Given this:

 what reassurance can the Applicant give that, when built, the generating station complex would have broadly the same visual impact as predicted by the ES;  is WCBC content that the outcomes of the landscape and visual impact assessment have been sufficiently secured; and  are any draft or outline plans sought during the examination, to which later submissions should be linked?

Response to Question 1.9.6

S.334. The maximum likely significant effects that the Power Station Complex would have on landscape and visual considerations has been assessed in Chapter 10: Landscape and visual impact assessment of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058). The assessment is based on the likely worst-case maximum parameters of development identified in ES Chapter 4: The proposed development (APP-052), including a standard and generic finish to the built form facades. These maximum parameters are secured by Requirement 2: Detailed Design Approval of the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016). Requirement 2 ensures that the authorised development does not exceed the identified maximum parameters. S.335. Paragraph 10.24 of Chapter 10 of the ES states that:

The LVIA also assumes that, as a worst case assessment:

137

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 the built form facades of the Power Station Complex will have a standard and generic grey finish - a more sympathetic finish will be considered as secondary mitigation during the detailed design process;  the finished floor level of the Power Station Complex design is 30m AOD;  construction activity will be undertaken up to Order Land boundary, although in reality, most of the works will be restricted to the main working areas of the Gas Connection and Power Station Complex and will exclude those areas of vegetation to be retained and enhanced (see Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) at Appendix 10.8, and illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation masterplan Document Ref 2.9.1); and  site clearance of on-site vegetation will be greater than actually proposed to be undertaken during construction as set out in Table 10.14. S.336. This approach accords with the widely understood and accepted Rochdale Envelope principles. S.337. Requirement 2(4) requires the Applicant to submit written details of the colour, materials and surface finishes of all permanent buildings and structures. Prior to commencement of numbered work 1, these details must be approved by WCBC, as the relevant planning authority. The Applicant must also ensure the numbered works are designed substantially in accordance with the design objectives as set out in the design objectives statement which is contained within the Design and Access Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-042). S.338. The Secretary of State approved the wording of Requirement 2 in The Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016. The Applicant considers that it is appropriate for the relevant planning authority to approve the final floor levels, colour, materials and surface finishes for all permanent buildings and structures at the relevant time. As the ES has considered the likely worst case assessment, there is no need to specify a range or palette in the ES in order to ensure that the visual impact of the Scheme is as predicted by the ES. S.339. Along with Requirement 2, Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation of the draft Order (version 1, submitted 26 July 2016) requires the Applicant to submit and obtain approval to a written landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme, which must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (see Examination Library Reference APP-026), prior to commencing the authorised development. Taken together, Requirements 2 and 3 ensure that the visual impact of the Scheme is no worse than predicted in the ES. S.340. On the basis of the above, the likely maximum landscape and visual effects arising from the Power Station Complex Site have been assessed. The ES conclusions provide assurance that the likely worst case visual impacts arising from the Power Station Complex Site have been covered and reported. Compliance with

138

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Requirements 2 and 3 will ensure that the Power Station Complex Site will not result in any landscape and visual effects that exceed those assessed in the ES. S.341. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with WCBC. Updates on the progress of these statements of common ground will be provided to the Examining Authority, including matters relating to the landscape and visual impact assessment and the Requirements in the draft Order.

QUESTION 1.9.7

Landscape and visual impact: the appearance of fencing and lighting

Details of fencing and lighting design must be approved by WCBC (see draft DCO Requirements 7 and 13).

 What reassurance can the Applicant give that, when built, the generating station complex would have broadly the same visual impact as predicted by the ES;  is WCBC content that the outcomes of the landscape and visual impact assessment have been sufficiently secured; and  are any draft or outline plans sought during the examination, to which later submissions should be linked?

Response to Question 1.9.7

S.342. The likely” worst-case” likely significant effect that the Power Station Complex Site would have on landscape and visual considerations has been assessed in Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP - 058). As part of the assessment, the likely effect of the Scheme from any glow, glare or ambient lighting of the car park areas, paths and maintenance access platforms and the Power Station Complex fencing, has been assessed in year 1 of operation during winter at night when the existing vegetation is not in leaf. This represents a worst case scenario for the purposes of EIA. Details of the proposed lighting are contained in Chapter 4 (The Proposed Development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP - 052) specifically paragraph 4.110. S.343. Paragraph 4.109 of Chapter 4 of the ES provide details of the security fencing associated with the Power Station Complex Site which relates to fencing of up to 2.5m in height located along the perimeter of the Power Station Complex Site. As acknowledged in paragraph 10.78 of Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP - 058) the Power Station Complex Site contains existing boundary fencing on its south and west perimeters. The security fencing used will be selected to be unobtrusive and have minimal impact on views and the character of the Power Station Complex Site.

139

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.344. Paragraph 10.73 of Chapter 10 of the ES refers to primary design measures, which are the minimisation of the use of obtrusive lighting and the positioning of the Power Station Complex close to Bryn Lane and the existing factory (Kellogg’s) and industrial buildings. Table 10.17 of Chapter 10 provides the assessment of visual amenity effects and acknowledges that glow from existing and proposed lighting around the Power Station Complex may illuminate the facades of the building and stacks to a degree meaning that they would be visible, although they would not be directly lit. The Power Station Complex would have a similar degree of night time visibility to the adjacent Kellogg’s factory. S.345. Designing the layout to minimise the lighting impact through layout and the Power Station Complex’s orientation has been assessed as well using full cut off lighting as stated in paragraph 10.146 in Chapter 10 of the ES. S.346. The minimisation of external lighting is a design objective, which is secured in Requirement 2(3) of the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016). Therefore, in preparing the lighting details for submission under Requirement 13: Artificial lighting, the Applicant must ensure that the lighting details satisfy the design objectives as required by Requirement 2(3). S.347. The Secretary of State has approved the wording of Requirements 7: Fencing and other means of enclosure and 13: Artificial lighting in the draft Order in The Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016. The Applicant considers that it is appropriate for the relevant planning authority to approve the final fencing and lighting at the relevant time, using the submitted ES as a benchmark for determining the details under Requirements 7 and 13. The likely maximum landscape and visual effects arising from the lighting and fencing for the Scheme have been assessed in Chapter 10 of the ES. The conclusions of the ES therefore provide assurances that the likely worst case visual impacts arising from these elements of the Scheme have been fully covered and reported. S.348. The Applicant confirms that a Statement of Common Ground is being progressed with WCBC. Updates of progress of this statement of common ground will be provided to the Examining Authority including matters related to fencing and lighting for the Scheme.

140

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.9.8

Landscape and visual impact: lighting effects

ES Appendix 10.6 [APP-127] does not appear to consider lighting. No evidence has been provided to support the statements in ES Appendix 10.7 [APP-128] about the effects of lighting.

 How has the Applicant determined the effects of lighting?  Please can it produce a map showing the predicted light levels at night in the vicinity of the power station site at Deadline 1, upon which other IPs can provide observations at Deadline 2.?

Response to Question 1.9.8

S.349. The methodology for determining the effects of lighting on landscape and visual receptors is set out in Appendix 10.2 (Night time assessment methodology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-123). The qualitative likely effect of the operation of the Power Station Complex on the surrounding receptors during the night time period from any glow, glare or ambient lighting was assessed. S.350. A site visit was undertaken during the night-time to determine the baseline view of existing lighting for the identified visual receptors and Landscape Character Areas. S.351. The Power Station Complex's lighting is expected to be limited to that required only for health and safety reasons, i.e. minimal lighting to entrances, car park and paths. These are expected to be full cut off lighting units, limiting glare and light spill. In the context of existing lighting at the adjacent Kellogg’s factory and the surrounding areas, although the proposed lighting is expected to be noticeable, it is considered that this would have a negligible effect on the existing view and character from landscape and visual receptors. The stacks would be fitted with infra-red beacons for aircraft safety, although these S.352. would not be visible to the human eye. The building materials, design and the lighting scheme are secured by Requirement 2: Detailed Design Approval Subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b) and Requirement 13 Artificial Lighting of the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016). S.353. In the context of similar existing lighting at Kellogg’s factory and surrounding areas, interpolation of the impact of the proposed minimal lighting was considered to be adequate for the assessment. A predicted light level map is therefore not considered necessary to understand the impacts of the Scheme lighting on landscape and visual receptors at this stage as the Scheme has been assessed in accordance with the Rochdale Envelope principles. The design of the lighting and its approval will be undertaken in accordance with Requirement 2 and 13.

141

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.9.9

Landscape and visual impact: CIA

Have all relevant developments been included in the Applicant’s cumulative impact assessment for landscape and visual impact purposes?

Response to Question 1.9.9

S.354. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at WCBC and NRW. The relevant developments included in the cumulative impact assessment (CIA) for the landscape and visual impact assessment are set out in paragraphs 10.177 to 10.203 of Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058). The relevant developments are:  the Kingmoor Park North development, immediately north of the Power Station Complex Site;  the North Wales Prison on the former Firestone Site;  the anticipated Electrical Connection upgrade and reinforcement works to connect the Power Station Complex Site to the existing 132kv local distribution network; and  Pickhill Bridge Farm Solar Array S.355. The above developments were identified and agreed with WCBC (email correspondence with Matthew Philips dated 14/12/2015) and are set out in Chapter 5 (The scope of the EIA and overall methodology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-053) S.356. It should be noted that in relation to the Electrical Connection, the revised Grid Connection Statement Rev. 1 (July 2016) (Examination Library Reference OD-006) confirms that the connection offer from the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) is for the export of electricity into SP Manweb/SP Energy Networks’ (SPM/SPEN) 132 kV network via underground cables from the Power Station Complex Site to the existing Legacy Grid substation. No new overhead lines are therefore required and no works will be required to the existing Marchwiel or Wrexham substations or to the existing overhead lines, their support structures or the underground cables that serve Marchwiel (Wrexham Industrial Estate) substation. The cumulative impact assessment (CIA) carried out in the Application does not specifically assess the proposed underground solution for the Electrical Connection. The Applicant is currently re-assessing the (CIA) for the Electrical Connection based on an entirely underground solution. An updated CIA will be provided at Deadline 2. However, the initial assessments show that there will be significant reduction on the landscape and visual impact assessment as the Electrical Connection will be entirely underground and therefore it is very unlikely that any new or worse cumulative effects would occur.

142

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.357. The Applicant confirms that a Statement of Common Ground is being progressed with WCBC. Updates on the progress of this Statement of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority including matters related to the cumulative impact assessment for the landscape and visual impact assessment.

QUESTION 1.9.10

Landscape and visual impact: CIA: mitigation of Impacts on the Dee Terraces

ES Chapter 10 (see paragraph 10.193) discusses CIA with reference to the effects of the application proposal in combination with the Kingmoor North development. It identifies that the boundary of the Dee Terraces landscape character area (LCA) would be amended, with part of the LCA lost to industrial buildings. Whilst boundary vegetation would be retained and enhanced at both sites, the land use, appearance and scale of the two developments are considered to be incongruous with the LCA and to detract from the existing character of the area. The ES assesses that the magnitude of change is medium and the cumulative effect would be moderate adverse. It notes that further mitigation of the cumulative effects on the Dee Terraces Landscape Character Area would not be possible because the change is driven by the physical change in land use and addition of buildings.

 Why is further mitigation not possible?

Response to Question 1.9.10

S.358. The statement made in paragraph 10.193 of Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058) was referring to the combined presence of the Power Station Complex Site and the proposed Kingmoor Park North development in this location on the edge of the Dee Terraces Landscape Character Area (LCA) as being expected to have the effect of amending the boundary of the character area. It is considered that the extent of the existing LCA, as illustrated on Figure 10.3a (Landscape Character Areas – East) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-092), would be reduced; whilst the Wrexham Industrial Estate Landscape Character Area would expand, encompassing the Power Station Complex Site and the proposed Kingmoor Park North development. It should be noted that although the Power Station Complex Site and the Kingmoor Park North development will affect the LCA boundaries in approximate equal measure, part of the Power Station Complex Site is already part of the Wrexham Industrial Estate LCA S.359. Mitigation, including retention of existing vegetation and the proposed screening vegetation, as shown in the illustrative landscape and ecological mitigation master plan (Examination Library Reference APP-026), would limit the impact on the remainder of the LCA. The allocation of the Kingmoor Park North and South sites for major employment development within policy E3 of the WCBC Unitary

143

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Development Plan and then the subsequent granting of planning consents for major development of these sites would have, upon implementation, removed both the Power Station Complex Site and Kingmoor Park North from the LCA and included them within the Wrexham Industrial Estate Landscape Character Area regardless of the current Scheme. The amount of development footprint (Works number 1A-1G on the Works Plan (Examination Library Reference APP-008) within the Power Station Complex Site is less than that consented under the extant planning consent (Appeal Reference APP/H6955/A/12/2188910) and the amount of landscaping and ecological mitigation, plus undeveloped land, is greater than that which is already consented. Other than this mitigation when compared with the extant consent, the Applicant considers that there is no feasible additional mitigation measure available to specifically address the loss of the land area within the LCA as a result of the development of the Power Station Complex Site and Kingmoor Park North. As stated in paragraph 10.193 of Chapter 10 of the ES, it is the physical change in land- use and addition of buildings that are driving the effect on the LCA. The cumulative effect of this loss of land area within the LCA is considered to be moderate adverse. S.360. Whilst a cumulative significant effect on the LCA has been predicted in the ES, in accordance with paragraph 5.9.15 of EN-1, these impacts must be judged on the bases whether these adverse impacts would be so damaging that they are not offset by the benefits of the Scheme as described in the Planning Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-041) and Chapter 6: Socio-economics of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-054), including the national need for new power generation capacity. On the basis of the ES assessment conclusions, it is concluded that this is not the case. It is also the case that changing the LCA of the Power Station Complex Site from Dee Terraces Landscape Character Area (LCA) to Wrexham Industrial Estate Landscape Character Area would have been envisaged in the allocation of the Kingmoor Park for major employment development under Policy E3 of the WCBC UDP and the granting of the extant consent under Appeal Ref App/H6955/A/09/2113258. The overall conclusions of the ES are that subject to the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, it is considered that the Scheme would be acceptable in terms of its landscape and visual effects.

QUESTION 1.9.11

Landscape and visual impact: mitigation and monitoring

WCBC has raised concerns about the loss of mature trees and has requests an arboricultural method statement and a detailed landscaping scheme. ES paragraph 10.149 explains that a final landscaping and ecological management scheme would be implemented to ensure the establishment of the new planting and to manage existing and replacement habitats. This includes annual monitoring and is secured by requirement 3 of the draft DCO. Requirement 4 includes tree protection measures. No other monitoring arrangements have been proposed in respect of action to mitigate landscape and visual impacts.

144

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Are any measures that are not secured under these requirements necessary and if so, how might they be secured?

Response to Question 1.9.11

S.361. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at WCBC. The Applicant considers that all proposed landscape and ecological mitigation measures and their management would be sufficiently secured by Requirement 3: Provision of and implementation and maintenance of landscaping and ecological mitigation and Requirement 4 Construction and Environment Management Plan in Schedule 2 of the draft Order (version 1) submitted on 26 July 2016. S.362. Requirement 3 states that “no authorised development may commence until a written landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. The landscaping and ecological mitigation scheme must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative landscape and ecological master plan and must include details of all proposed hard and soft landscaping and ecological mitigation works, including: (d) an arboriculture method statement including details of existing trees and tree groups identified for retention, management and reinforcement with the type and extent of protection to be in accordance with BS 5837: 2012”. S.363. WCBC, in Section 9 of their Local Impact Report (LIR) (Examination Library Reference LIR-001), set out their requirements for a landscaping scheme. “Such a landscaping scheme, method statement and arboricultural supervision should be the subject of the following planning conditions:  Arboriculture Method Statement  Arboriculture Supervision  Pre- commencement landscape and ecological enhancement scheme” S.364. The Applicant considers the request set out by WCBC in their LIR is sufficiently dealt with in Requirement 3 of the draft DCO. Furthermore, Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan of the draft order provides that the Applicant must submit a CEMP prior to authorised development commencing to be approved by the relevant planning authority. Requirement 4 part (j) provides for “habitats protection measures including fencing, protection zones for retained trees……”. A draft CEMP was also submitted with the Application in Appendix 19.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-152). S.365. The Applicant has also carried out an Arboricultural Impact Assessment as part of the Application in Appendix 10.8 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-129). This assessment provides in Chapter 6 an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS)to address the removal of trees and tree protection as well as arboricultural supervision.

145

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.366. The Applicant will respond fully to the LIR at Deadline 2, including WCBC‘s concerns relating to the loss of mature trees. However, it should be noted that Power Station Complex Site has extant planning consent (planning reference: P/2008/0993; Appeal reference: APP/H6955/A/09/2113258) for a large B2/B8 industrial building, which required the removal of the trees – T47, T48, T49, T50, T51, T52, T57 and T59 as identified Appendix 10.8 of the ES and referred to in WCBC’s LIR, and WCBC has therefore previously accepted the removal of those trees in relation to that development. The amount of landscaping, including tree planting, shown on the illustrative landscape and ecological masterplan (Examination Library Reference APP-026) is likely to be in excess of the landscaping area and tree planting proposed for the extant consent described above. S.367. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with WCBC, which will cover landscape and visual issues and the draft requirements. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress.

146

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.10 Noise and Vibration

QUESTION 1.10.1

Noise and vibration: location of residential properties for design and impact assessment process

 The Applicant is requested to comment at Deadline 2 on any properties identified by Mr Morris at Deadline 1 pursuant to question 1.1.1 above, indicating whether it agrees these to be residential properties for the purposes of the design and EIA processes and whether they have been taken into account as sensitive receptors for acoustic and/ or vibration assessment during construction, operation or decommissioning?  In doing so, a distinction should be drawn by the Applicant between the boundary of what is proposed to be the operational electricity generating station site and the boundary of land required for the gas connection.

Response to Question 1.10.1

S.368. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Councillor Michael Morris [RR-025] as regards the information that is to be provided at Deadline 1. The Applicant will review the information provided by Councillor Michael Morris at Deadline 1, and will subsequently provide additional comment at Deadline 2, as requested. The Applicant has also provided some comments below at this stage, for the purposes of clarification. S.369. The Power Station Complex Site boundary is the quadrilateral shape as shown on the Works Plan (Examination Library Reference APP-008). The Gas Connection Route boundary can be taken to end at the south eastern corner of Power Station Complex Site, as shown on the Land Plans (Examination Library Reference APP-007). S.370. The receptors addressed in the noise and vibration assessment are described in paragraphs 9.70 to 9.72 of Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-057). The receptors identified represent all of the properties in the area that could potentially be affected by noise emissions from both the Power Station Complex Site and the Gas Connection; the acoustic model adopted also includes noise contours which cover other locations and properties for informational purposes, as shown Appendix 9.3 (Baseline noise monitoring and contour map (Examination Library Reference APP-121))

147

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.371. The noise sensitive receptors and their distances from the Order Limits boundary are detailed in Table 9.3 of Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057). The noise sensitive receptors and their distances from the Order Land boundary (for the Gas Connection) are detailed in Table 9.4 in Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057). The receptor points are shown graphically in Figure 9.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-086) as blue circles. S.372. There are no noise sensitive receptors within 100m of the Power Station Complex Site. Receptor 4 on Bryn Lane to the north west represents several properties that are 245 metres at their closest point to the Power Station Complex Site. Receptors 2 and 10, to the east also represent multiple properties along the B5130, with the closest of these being 260m from the Power Station Complex Site. S.373. Parkey Lodge (Receptor 12, a residential property) is the only noise sensitive receptor that is situated within 100 metres of the Gas Connection Route boundary. Receptors 8 and 11 represent multiple properties on Oak Road that are 120 metres at their closest point to the Gas Connection Route boundary. Receptor 2, to the east, also represents multiple properties along the B5130, the closest being 165m from the Gas Connection Route boundary. S.374. There are no other residential properties within 100 metres of the relevant boundaries, as confirmed with reference to the Land Plans APP-007 Sheet 2.2. Consequently, the Applicant doesn’t believe that there are any residential properties within 100 metres to the west of the Power Station Complex Site. The Applicant refers to its response to FWQ 1.1.1.

QUESTION 1.10.2

Noise: methodology and baseline data

Baseline conditions are described in the ES at Volume 9, paragraphs 9.68 – 9.75 [APP-057]. These define the study areas for the electricity generating station complex and the gas connection route, including selection of the nearest noise sensitive receptors for both (Tables 9.3 and 9.4 respectively and Figure 9.3).

Tables 9.3 and 9.4 list the assigned identification numbers for the relevant receptors, although they are not consecutive. Numbers 5-7 and 13-17 are missing from the combined identification numbers in Tables 9.3 and 9.4 with no explanation as to whether additional receptors have been identified in the sequence of missing numbers.

 The Applicant is asked clarify that the receptors have been identified correctly within the chapter and explain why there appear to be some numbers missing?

148

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.10.2

S.375. In order to ensure consistency within the Environmental Statement, the noise assessment (ES Chapter 9 Examination Library Reference APP-057) used the same receptors as the Air Quality assessment (ES Chapter 8 Examination Library Reference APP-056, particularly the human health receptors shown in Figure 8.1). This approach allows results to be compared between chapters. However, some of the air quality receptors are outside the noise study area or are not noise-sensitive, therefore the numbering of the receptors in the noise section is not sequential. Further details are given below; S.376. Receptors ID5 (Little Acorns, Bryn Land) and ID14 (Oakfields, Isycoed) were not expressly included within Tables 9.3 and 9.4 of Chapter 9 of the ES because of their locations - they were considered sufficiently proximate to Receptors ID4 and ID10 respectively. The overall noise assessment for Receptor ID5 is considered the same as Receptor ID4, and Receptor ID14 is considered the same as Receptor ID10. S.377. Receptors ID6 (Bryn Cottages, Bryn Lane), ID13 (Maesgwyn Farm), ID15 (Pentre Maelor, Bridge Road S), ID16 (Gorton Hall, Llan-Y-Pwll), ID17 (Hugmore Lane Farm), ID19 (Lane-end, Shocklach) and ID20 (Crewe Hill) were not included in the noise assessment due to their distance from the Order Limits (the distance between the source and the Receptor ID is too large for an accurate assessment). Receptors ID7 (Kelloggs factory, Bryn Lane) and ID21 (Public right of way footpath ISY/18) were not included within Tables 9.3 and 9.4 of Chapter 9 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057) because they are non-residential. S.378. Activities along the footpath (Receptor ID21) were noted on site as being recreational in nature, including walking, dog walking, running and cycling. No picnic or camping areas have been identified along the sections of the footpath within the noise study area. Due to the transient nature of the noted activities the users would only be exposed to the effects of the Scheme for short periods of time. As noted in Paragraph 9.152, a noise contour map for operational noise is shown in Appendix 9.3 (Examination Library Reference APP-121). Insert A9.5 within Appendix 9.3 shows the noise levels from the operation of the Scheme. Along the footpath, noise levels from the Scheme are in the range 35-40dB. The World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines referred to in paragraphs 9.20 and 9.21 do not contain any specific guideline values for footpaths, but it is noted that 35-40dB is significantly below the 50-55dB onset of adverse community effects in residential areas given in the WHO guidelines. S.379. The table, below, shows all of the Environmental Sensitive Receptors identified.

149

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Within Noise Included Noise Reason for not ID Address Sensitive in Noise Study including Receptor? Chapter? Area?

Harcourt, Ridleywood 1 Yes Yes Yes n/a Road

2 Plum Tree Farm, B5130 Yes Yes Yes n/a

3 Marshley Farm, B5130 Yes Yes Yes n/a

4 4 - 6 Bryn Lane Yes Yes Yes n/a

Impacts at ID4 are 5 Little Acorns, Bryn Lane Yes Yes No more prominent given proximity

Distance between source and receptor 6 Bryn Cottages, Bryn Lane Yes Yes No (735 meters) too large for accurate assessment.

Factories are not Kelloggs factory, Bryn 7 No Yes No classified as noise Lane sensitive receptors.

8 Higher Oak, Oak Road Yes Yes Yes n/a

9 Cae Bryner Farm, B5130 Yes Yes Yes n/a

10 St Pauls School, B5130 Yes Yes Yes n/a

Lower Oak Farm, Oak n/a 11 Yes Yes Yes Road

12 Parkey Lodge Yes Yes Yes n/a

13 Maesgwyn Farm Yes No No Outside of study area

Impacts at ID10 are 14 Oakfields, Isycoed Yes Yes No more prominent given proximity

15 Pentre Maelor, Bridge Yes No No Outside of study area

150

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Within Noise Included Noise Reason for not ID Address Sensitive in Noise Study including Receptor? Chapter? Area? Road S

16 Gorton Hall, Llan-Y-Pwll Yes No No Outside of study area

17 Hugmore Lane Farm Yes No No Outside of study area

18 Parkey Farm Yes Yes Yes n/a

19 Lane-end, Shocklach Yes No No Outside of study area

20 Crewe Hill Yes No No Outside of study area

Public right of way Non-residential and 21 No Yes No Footpath ISY / 18 transitory receptor

QUESTION 1.10.3

Noise: methodology and baseline data

Fifteen relevant representations, mainly from local resident IPs, refer to the potential for the application proposal to have adverse noise effects during construction and/ or operation. Some relevant representations refer to the tranquil nature of the local rural environment. Others refer to the existing noise from WIE use and development and to the potentially significant construction and operational noise from the application proposal.

ES chapter 9 [APP-057] describes the background noise survey as being undertaken over seven days of continuous monitoring in two locations and three fifteen-minute spot measurements at a further six locations. In comparison with other surveys for equivalent purposes, the temporal extent of this survey is perhaps rather limited in the view of the ExA. Surveys were not repeated at different times of day to verify the representative nature of the results. ES paragraph 9.133 explains the characteristics of the noise environment that were experienced during the baseline conditions survey. ES paragraph 9.134 states that “there were some seasonal agricultural works underway during the noise measurements, from the observations taken on site it is anticipated that these activities have not significantly affected the measurements”. No further justification is given as to what effect these agricultural works activities had on the baseline conditions. However, it remains possible that higher background noise levels were recorded as a result, and the consequence of this alongside the limited temporal extent of the survey may have the effect of raising the recorded background against which the significance of impacts have been assessed.

151

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 The Applicant and WCBC are requested to review the background noise survey method recorded in the ES in the light of the concerns raised by resident IPs and the methodological issues raised above.  Are there any prospective noise sensitive receptors that have not been identified in the ES but in respect of which analysis would be justified?  Have reliable background noise measurements been obtained at representative locations and over a sufficient duration?  Is there any possibility that nearby agricultural activities might have raised the recorded background levels?  What effects might temporarily raised background levels have on the impact assessments set out in the ES?  Is any further evaluation required to ensure that the effects of operational noise emissions are robustly assessed?

Response to Question 1.10.3

S.380. As requested, the Applicant has reviewed the background noise survey methodology that is recorded in the ES and agreed with WCBC and NRW (Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-057) Appendix 9.2), in light of the concerns and issues raised in the Relevant Representations. There are six points set out above in FWQ 1.10.3, each of which is addressed in sequence by the Applicant in the following table.

The Applicant and WCBC are Paragraph 9.60 in Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of requested to review the background the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057) sets noise survey method recorded in the out the method that was adopted for assessing ES in the light of the concerns raised background noise levels. The methodology used by resident IPs and the complies with the requirements set out in BS methodological issues raised above. 4142:2014.

Are there any prospective noise The noise sensitive receptors identified in Chapter 9 sensitive receptors that have not (Noise and vibration) of the Environmental been identified in the ES but in Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP- respect of which analysis would be 057) and set out in paragraphs 9.70 to 9.75, Tables justified? 9.3 and 9.4 and Figure 9.3, are judged to be representative of all sensitive receptors. See also the Applicant’s response to FWQ 1.10.1 and FWQ 1.10.2. Having reviewed the prospective noise receptors, the Applicant does not consider that there are any prospective noise sensitive receptors that have not been identified in Chapter 9 of the ES which would

152

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

change the outcome of the assessment. However, in order to assist the Examination, by way of example, the Applicant has undertaken a brief analysis of Redbrook Day Nursery which is located approximately 450 metres to the south of the site within a small industrial site. This potential receptor was not included in the ES as there were other closer sensitive receptors which represented a worse case assessment. The nursery is located in the middle of the Wrexham Industrial Estate and is adjacent to a large B2 industrial facility, which would provide shielding of noise emissions from the Power Station Complex. The highest construction noise levels are those which would occur during the piling associated with the construction of the Power Station Complex. The resulting noise levels at Redbrook Day Nursery are expected to be less than 50dB, with other construction activities being less than 40dB, and are therefore significantly below the lowest daytime construction noise threshold of 65dB (As set out in BS5228:1, described in paragraph 9.87 and shown in Table 9.7 of Chapter 9 of the ES – receptors in Category A). Accordingly, construction noise would be considered to be negligible. Noise levels from construction traffic and operational traffic would be 28-30dB, and therefore unlikely to result in a change in traffic noise, again with a negligible overall impact. Operational noise is estimated to be 25dB at the façade of the nursery identified above. As stated in paragraph 9.104 and 9.158 of Chapter 9 of the ES, this level is significantly below the threshold of 50dB described in paragraph 9.104 of Chapter 9 of the ES, and as such the impact of operational noise would be negligible.

Have reliable background noise The baseline information assessment is set out in measurements been obtained at Chapter 9 of the ES in paragraphs 9.120 to 9.134. representative locations and over a Further information is provided in Appendix 9.3 sufficient duration? (Baseline noise monitoring and contour map) and inserts A9.3 and A9.4 of the ES. These show that the noise levels from the 2 loggers that were set up to

153

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

gain a long term view of the noise levels over a seven- day period, taking 5-minute measurements, are reasonably constant over one week, and allow an assessment of the operational noise of the Power Station Complex. The locations of the 2 loggers are described in paragraph 9.123 in Chapter 9 of the ES. Paragraph 9.133 in Chapter 9 of the ES confirms that the dominant noise sources for the 2 loggers near the Power Station Complex are traffic noise and plant noise from the Wrexham Industrial Estate, which includes the Kellogg’s Factory, which is located opposite the Power Station Complex. These background noise levels are unlikely to vary significantly on a week-to-week or a season-to- season basis, and as such the noise are expected to remain relatively constant across the period of a year. The sample positions 3, 4, 5 and 6, as described in paragraph 9.123 in Chapter 9 of the ES, are further south and east of the Power Station Complex and are used in the construction assessment for the Gas Connection, and daytime measurements are all that is required for the assessment given that construction activities will cease at night. The methodology used to assess background noise was agreed in advance with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and is set out in Appendix 9.2 (Consultation) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-120). The Local Impact Report (Examination Library Reference LIR-001), in section 6 Noise and Vibrations, states that “the officer considered that the noise and vibration assessments and proposed mitigation measures are acceptable”. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with Wrexham County Borough Council and NRW, which will address noise and vibration matters including methodology. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress as necessary.

Is there any possibility that nearby The Applicant has adopted the methodology set out agricultural activities might have in BS 4142:2014, as agreed in advance with WCBC raised the recorded background and NRW. The noise sources noted in paragraph

154

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

levels? 9.134 in Chapter 9 of the ES are for information. The sources were distant, and at a low level, and are not judged to have affected the measured levels due to the overall background noise levels from other noise sources such as Wrexham Industrial Estate.

What effects might temporarily As per the answer above, the Applicant does not raised background levels have on the consider that agricultural uses have raised the impact assessments set out in the background noise levels. ES? Paragraphs 9.25 to 9.31 in Chapter 9 of the ES set out BS 4142:2014 methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. For example, for the operational noise assessment, a lower background noise level would result in a smaller difference between Rating and Background level. For the construction noise assessment, the results at the NSRs presented in Tables 9.15, 9.16, 9.24 and 9.25 in Chapter 9 of the ES are all below 65dB, which is the lowest threshold for significance. If the measured levels were lower and placed all NSRs into the lowest Baseline Category, A, the results would still be below that threshold, and would remain negligible. It should be noted, however, that Table 9.21 in Chapter 9 of the ES shows that internal noise levels are at least 9dB below the internal design targets, which indicates that noise from the Power Station Complex would not cause disturbance from people within their property at night or during the day, and this result is irrespective of background noise levels. The traffic assessments do not use background levels; they evaluate change in noise. Lower measured levels would have no effect on this assessment.

Is any further evaluation required to The Applicant considers that a robust assessment ensure that the effects of operational has been carried out and that no further evaluation noise emissions are robustly is required. It is noted in this context that WCBC will assessed? ultimately approve the detailed design, and that will necessarily incorporate further noise mitigation measures. During the operational phase, noise will also be regulated through the Environmental Permit

155

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

and the conditions attached to it, and as such the Applicant considers that there is no further assessment that is required at this stage to ensure that operational noise emissions are appropriately addressed and managed.

S.381. In addition to the comments set out above, the Applicant confirms that it has also provided detailed responses to the Resident IPs' comments within its responses to the Relevant Representations. No evidence has been provided which indicates that the Applicant carried out its noise assessment incorrectly or that the Applicant adopted a methodology that was not robust. If such evidence is provided in the Written Representations at Deadline 1, the Applicant will comment at Deadline 2.

QUESTION 1.10.4

Vibration: non-traffic related construction and operational effects

The preliminary environmental information (PEI) as referred to in ES Chapter 9 (at Table 9.6 discussing Scoping Opinion issues) [APP-057] assumed that vibration associated with construction or operation would not propagate beyond 75m from the site boundary. The ES has assessed the vibration effects of percussive piling (at paragraphs 9.143 and 9.144) and concluded that these would be negligible. No reference is made to any other non-traffic related construction vibration impacts or to any operational vibration impacts.

 Are there any foreseeable sources of significant vibration impact at sensitive receptors not identified in the ES?  Is there a need for any additional performance measures or controls to address vibration?

Response to Question 1.10.4

S.382. It is acknowledged that this question is asked of WCBC, but the Applicant has provided a response to assist the Examination. Percussive piling activities are generally the most vibration-inducing activities on construction sites. Calculations were undertaken for the nearest sensitive receptor (ID 4 – The properties on Bryn Lane, described in Paragraph 9.143 of Chapter 9 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057)), based on the assumption that the activities are being undertaken at the edge of the Order Limits. In practice, the percussive piling activities are unlikely to be carried out at the edge of the Order Limits, and this close to a sensitive receptor, and therefore the assessment considers the 'worst case' scenario for impacts from percussive piling activities. Given that all other

156

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

vibration generating equipment during construction would have lower vibration levels than piling (as described in 9.144 of Chapter 9 of the ES), the effects would be less than for percussive piling and therefore are expected to be negligible. S.383. Paragraph 9.63 of Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES describes the vibration that will arise from the operation of the Power Station Complex Site and that has been considered as part of the assessment. Chapter 9 of the ES details that there will be no processes within the Power Station Complex Site which are known to generate significant levels of vibration, and on this basis concludes that significant vibration effects at the noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) are not anticipated. S.384. Based on the advice in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency (now Highways England), November 2011, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 7 HD 213/11 – Revision 1 Noise and Vibration, paragraphs 3.30 to 3.32 inclusive), the ES concludes vibration effects from road traffic are not expected. Within the DMRB it is stated that ground-borne vibration effects only occur when roads pass within a few metres of a receptor, and then only when there are irregularities in the road surface. Airborne vibration effects are described as following the same relationship as noise, but effects are restricted to those receptors that are close to the road (within around 40 metres). Therefore, all negligible changes in noise would lead to negligible changes in vibration. The only location to experience a moderate impact during the construction phase is Site 6 (Kingmoor Park Access Road) from Table 9.18 in Chapter 9 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057) although this site is more than 40 metres from the nearest receptor, and so vibration effects are not expected. S.385. Given the conclusions of the ES, the Applicant considers that no further performance measures or controls are necessary or justified, other than what is already proposed in Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan in Schedule 2 to the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016), which in sub-paragraph (h) of the requirement provides for nuisance management measures to avoid or minimise the impacts of the construction works including noise and vibration. S.386. A draft Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) is provided as part of the Application in Appendix 19.1 (Examination Library Reference APP-152), and Section 5.22 of the draft CEMP refers to noise and the use of best practical means to minimise risk of nuisance from noise and vibration. S.387. The Applicant further confirms that it is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. Updates on the progress of these Statements of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority in due course, including with regard to matters relating to noise and vibration.

157

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.10.5

Noise: construction traffic

The assessment of road traffic noise for the gas connection concluded upon in ES Chapter 9 at paragraph 9.188 [APP-057] suggests that the assessment presented in relation to the main plant construction works (paragraph 9.145) covers the gas connection works as well. However, Figure 3.2 of the CTMP at Appendix 7.5 [APP-114] shows access routes for the gas connection construction traffic that do not appear to be considered through the selection of measurement locations in Figure 9.4 or the presentation of location assessments in Table 9.18 of Chapter 9.

 Does the ES sufficiently predict and assess construction traffic impacts, taking account of all proposed access routes for gas connection construction traffic?  If it does not, is additional traffic data and modelling required?

Response to Question 1.10.5

S.388. Paragraphs 7.201 and 7.202 in Chapter 7 (Transport and traffic) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-055) confirm that the construction traffic associated with the Gas Connection is not considered to exceed the threshold for assessment, and that it is considered to have a negligible impact on the surrounding highway network. Accordingly, the Applicant has concluded that construction traffic for the Gas Connection does not require a full assessment of traffic flows. This approach was agreed with Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) on 30th September 2014, and subsequently confirmed in an email dated 27 February 2015 from WCBC. This email is provided in Appendix 7.1: WCBC correspondence (Examination Library Reference APP-110). S.389. On the basis of the above, the construction access routes for the Gas Connection have not been assessed within the noise assessment contained in the ES. S.390. It is noted that the peak traffic for the Gas Connection is 10 heavy vehicles (HGVs) and 10 staff vehicles per day, giving a total of 40 vehicles movements per day (Paragraphs 7.185 and 7.186 in Chapter 7 of the ES). A change in flow of 40 vehicles movements per day is a small proportion of the overall flow on any route, and unlikely to give rise to a perceptible change in noise levels. S.391. Given the low construction traffic flow for the construction of Gas Connection, and the conclusions of the traffic assessment that are set out in paragraphs 7.192 to 7.201 of Chapter 7 of the ES, the Applicant considers, and has concluded, that the ES does sufficiently assess the construction traffic impacts and that no further data or modelling is required.

158

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.10.6

Noise: construction traffic

ES Chapter 9 at Table 9.18 identifies ‘Site 6’ as the only location likely to experience significant effects in EIA terms (moderate adverse effects). However, as no noise sensitive receptors are identified near ‘Site 6’, no mitigation is proposed.

 Could any significant effects from the environs of ‘Site 6’ be experienced at any noise sensitive receptor location (including those already identified in the ES)?

Response to Question 1.10.6

S.392. ‘Site 6’ is the access road, Kingmoor Park Access Road, which leads from Bryn Lane to the Power Station Complex Site. 'Site 6' is situated approximately 480 metres away from the nearest Noise Sensitive Receiver (NSR), being ID4 (Properties on Bryn Lane). S.393. Given the distance between ‘Site 6’ and the nearest NSR and considering that noise levels reduce with increasing distance, traffic noise impacts from 'Site 6' are considered to be unlikely at any NSR because of their distance from ‘Site 6’. S.394. To demonstrate this, an estimate of the likely noise level from Site 6 at ID4 has been carried out using Chart 7 (distance attenuation) and Chart 8 (ground absorption) from Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), the standard method for assessing road traffic noise in the UK (confirmed in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7, HD 213/11, paragraph 2.15):

푟2 + 3.5 6퐻 − 1.5 퐿푝2 = 퐿푝1 − 10 log ( ) + 5.2 log ( ) 푟1 + 3.5 푟2 + 3.5

Where: Lp2 = resultant sound pressure level Lp1 = source sound pressure level (10m from the edge of the road) r1 = source distance (10m from the edge of the road) r2 = receiver distance H = average height of propagation (taken to be 2.5m)

S.395. Table 9.18 in Chapter 9 (Noise and vibration) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-057) shows that the roadside traffic noise level at Site 6 is 55.1 dB. Therefore, the noise level at receptor ID4 is estimated to be:

483.5 13.5 퐿푝2 = 55.1 − 10 log ( ) + 5.2 log ( ) 13.5 483.5

159

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

퐿푝2 = 31.5푑퐵 S.396. In practice, there would also be additional attenuation from a reduced angle of view, and potentially from intervening screening. Given that the existing background noise level at Bryn Lane is 48dB (Table 9.13 in Chapter 9 of the ES, Position 1, LA90), this shows construction traffic noise from ‘Site 6’ would be more than 10dB below background levels, and therefore negligible, at the nearest NSR, ID4. S.397. Accordingly, the Applicant considers that that impacts from construction traffic on ‘Site 6’ would be negligible at all other NSRs.

QUESTION 1.10.7

Noise: general construction and construction traffic in combination

Can the Applicant please explain how the effect of construction traffic noise associated with the generating station and the gas connection has been assessed in combination with construction-related noise from both activities?

Response to Question 1.10.7

S.398. The assessment of construction traffic and other construction activities use different indices in the assessment of potential impacts. As detailed in paragraphs 9.93 to 9.95 of Chapter 9 (Noise and vibration) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-057), traffic noise is assessed in terms of LA10,18hr which describes the noise level that is exceeded for 10% of the 18hr period. Construction noise impacts are temporary in nature and hence a higher level of noise impact is of lesser significance than would be the case for permanent noise changes. Paragraphs 9.85 to 9.91 in Chapter 9 of the ES set out how construction related noise is assessed in terms of the LAeq,16hr index, which is the constant noise level containing the same acoustic energy as the time varying noise. S.399. There is no standard method to combine the two different indices set out above (i.e. LA10,18hr and LAeq,16hr). The combination of the effects of construction related noise (which occur within a well-defined area) with construction traffic noise (which occur along linear routes leading to the power station complex area) is a professional judgement, with one of the key factors being proximity to each source of noise emissions. At locations further away from the Power Station Complex Site, the noise from construction activities is shown to be ‘negligible’ – for example with respect to receptor ID1 identified in Tables 9.15 and 9.16 of Chapter 9 of the ES for the Power Station Complex Site, and receptor ID18 in Tables 9.24 and 9.25 of Chapter 9 of the ES for the Gas Connection. At locations remote from the construction access routes, the noise from construction traffic is also shown to be ‘negligible’, as described in paragraph 9.147 of Chapter 9 of the ES.

160

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.400. The location with the greatest potential for a combined impact from noise is the area where the construction traffic passes closest to the Power Station Complex Site, principally receptor ID4, described in Table 9.3 and shown in Figure 9.1 in Chapter 9 of the ES. Table 9.16 in Chapter 9 of the ES shows that typical construction noise levels at this location are 47dB, more than 20dB below the baseline ambient level, and Table 9.15 shows the worst case construction noise levels at this location to be 62dB, more than 5dB below the baseline ambient level. S.401. Table 9.18 in Chapter 9 of the ES shows that traffic assessment Sites 4 and 5 (which are shown in Figure 7.5 in Chapter 7 of the ES and are along Bryn Lane either side of receptor ID 4) the change in noise due to construction traffic is less than 1dB, which is a negligible change. Roadside noise levels are shown to be in the low 60’s dB. The proportion of heavy vehicles (HGVs) is shown to remain approximately the same, indicating that the construction traffic would not change the character of the traffic along these roads. S.402. At this sensitive location, receptor ID4, during typical construction activities the construction noise is sufficiently below ambient levels for there to be no effect from the combination of construction traffic and construction activities. With the worst case construction scenario, which is for drop-hammer piling and concrete break-out activities, as described in Paragraph 9.137 of Chapter 9 of the ES, the levels are still below the lowest threshold of significance for construction noise. It is judged that in the context of the existing ambient noise, the two negligible impacts do not combine to give a minor (or greater) impact.

QUESTION 1.10.8

Noise: operational effects

ES Chapter 9 at Table 9.2 [APP-057] presents the list of operational noise sources associated with the application proposal. The sound power levels (SPLs) for these sources are not related back to verifiable data such as manufacturers specifications. The draft DCO does not appear to restrict the Applicant to selecting equipment that is no more adverse in terms of SPLs than that assessed in the ES.

 Will all relevant operational effects by regulated under the EP and, if not;  does an operational noise envelope need to be secured in the draft DCO?

Response to Question 1.10.8

S.403. It is acknowledged that this question is directed to NRW and WCBC. However, the Applicant offers the following response to assist the Examination. S.404. The Applicant has responded to FWQ 1.10.10 which answers the question concerning Rw (the "Weighted Sound Reduction Index", as defined in ISO 10140-

161

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

2:2010) factors for the design of the plant and buildings to provide mitigation to the propagation of sound. This forms part of the acoustic design to make sure that the sound attenuation properties of the Power Station Complex are appropriate to control noise. It is also noted in this context that Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) will be required to ultimately approve the detailed design (Requirement 2: Detailed design approval of the draft Order, Revision 1, submitted 26 July 2016), which will necessarily include noise mitigation measures. S.405. The conclusions reached by the ES in Chapter 9 (para 9.175) are that with appropriate design, the noise emissions will be at or below the agreed criterion. Furthermore, at the operational stage of the Scheme, and indeed for its entire life span, noise management and monitoring requirements will be governed by the Environmental Permit (EP) granted by the regulator, Natural Resources Wales (NRW). An environmental monitoring plan forms an integral part of an EP (NRW (2014)) and would formalise monitoring requirements (NRW (2014) “How to comply with your environmental permit” 19). The Applicant therefore considers that it is not necessary for an operational noise envelope to be included within the Development Consent Order. S.406. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with NRW. Updates on the progress of this Statement of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority as necessary, including with regard to matters relating to noise and vibration.

QUESTION 1.10.9

Noise: monitoring

Noise monitoring is referred to in generic terms in ES Chapter 9 [APP-057] (see paragraphs 9.165 (mitigation of the generating station assessment) and 9.191 (mitigation for the gas connection works). There appears to be no direct reference to monitoring plans or programmes as part of the draft CEMP. The draft DCO does not appear to have a mechanism for securing operational noise monitoring through a management plan or otherwise.

 Can the Applicant and WCBC advise further on the need for monitoring and the details as to how it will be agreed and secured as part of the draft DCO?

Response to Question 1.10.9

S.407. Paragraphs 9.165 and 9.191 of Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057) relate to the operational phase of the Power Station Complex Site, and are therefore outside the scope of the draft

19 Available at: https://naturalresources.wales/media/2110/how-to-comply-with-your-environmental- permit.pdf

162

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Construction and Environment Management Plan (Appendix 19.1; Examination Library Reference APP-152). S.408. Paragraph 9.149 of Chapter 9 of the ES provides confirmation that WCBC Environmental Health Officer agreed that the operational noise ‘rating level' from the Power Station Complex Site, derived in accordance with BS 4142:2014, should not exceed the background noise levels at the noise sensitive receptors (NSRs). Therefore, there is no justification for any operational noise controls to be placed on the Power Station Complex Site. S.409. In any event, during the operational and decommissioning phases of the Power Station Complex Site, noise management and monitoring requirements will be regulated by the conditions attached to the Environmental Permit (EP) that will be granted by the regulator, NRW. An environmental monitoring plan (EMP) will be agreed with NRW and will thereafter form an integral part of the EP, and will formalise the monitoring requirements and ensure that the Scheme is operated in accordance with the agreed conditions and standards (NRW (2014) “How to comply with your environmental permit” 20). S.410. Monitoring of complaints is considered part of standard best practice, and the Applicant will ensure that all complaints are properly monitored and addressed. It is vital in securing the amenity of local neighbours against changes in operational factors (for example due to maintenance issues) or environmental factors (new receptors being built) throughout the life of Power Station Complex Site. This will form part of the EP conditions and therefore does not need to be secured by the Draft Order. S.411. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. Updates on the progress of these Statements of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority as necessary, including on matters relating to noise and vibration.

QUESTION 1.10.10

Noise: operational effects and mitigation

ES Chapter 9 [APP-057] at paragraphs 9.108 and 9.151 state some assumptions regarding the design of the plant and buildings providing mitigation to the propagation of sound. “For the purpose of this assessment an insulated metal panel system construction that will achieve an overall Rw of 43dB has been assumed” (where Rw characterises the airborne sound insulation of a material or building element). (BS EN ISO 10140:2010 “Acoustics — Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements.”)

20 Available at: https://naturalresources.wales/media/2110/how-to-comply-with-your-environmental- permit.pdf

163

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Similarly, paragraph 9.109 of chapter 9 of the ES states that “Stack noise will be mitigated by the use of silencers as standard, limiting the noise emissions to an SWL of 86dB”.

 Should there be a commitment to meeting the assessed Rw factors and stack noise limits as part of the design in the DCO, or would/should these matters fall to be controlled via the EP?

Response to Question 1.10.10

S.412. By way of further contextual information, Rw is the "Weighted Sound Reduction Index", as defined in ISO 10140-2:2010 entitled “Acoustics. Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements. Measurement of airborne sound insulation”. It is a measure of sound reduction offered by a building element. Rw is a performance specification determined in a laboratory under pre-specified conditions. It is measured by a certified independent laboratory, on behalf of the manufacturer of the cladding products and derived after extensive testing, and is commonly used in the industry to specify commercial products which meet a desired acoustic performance. The overall sound reduction performance of buildings is determined by the sound insulation performance of the individual building elements such as walls, roofs, doors, roof-lights and louvres as well as the presence of any gaps/ weaknesses inherent in the construction. The walls, roofs, roof-lights and shutter doors of the process buildings will be acoustically designed to achieve the required sound insulation through the building fabric, subject to final technical design. S.413. The assessed Rw factors and stack noise limits should be considered as an integral part of the overall noise emissions at the noise-sensitive receivers during the operation of the Power Station Complex. The resulting noise emissions will be managed and monitored through the conditions attached to the Environmental Permit that will be agreed with NRW. S.414. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. Updates on the progress of these Statements of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority in due course, including with regard to matters relating to noise and vibration.

164

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.10.11

Noise: CIA

The CIA is undertaken in ES Chapter 9 [APP-057] at paragraphs 9.204 to 9.214.

Paragraph 9.206 acknowledges “impacts to NSRs to the north of the Power Station Complex Site are likely to be ‘significant’, but dominated by the intervening Kingmoor Park North construction”. There is no attempt to quantify this ‘significant’ impact to noise sensitive receptors. There is no information provided as to the likely overlap in construction programmes and timescales associated with the Kingmoor Park construction and the application proposal.

Significant cumulative noise effects are identified during construction at paragraph 9.206 of Chapter 9 of the ES. Paragraph 9.214 states (in summary) “No additional mitigation measures have been identified as being required as a result of this cumulative assessment” so it is not clear if additional mitigation could be proposed in response to the significant construction impacts identified above. There is also no description as to if or how the mitigation that is proposed (in the form of the draft CEMP) addresses this ‘significant’ cumulative effect and whether this significant effect is a residual effect, notwithstanding the delivery of the proposed mitigation.

 Can the Applicant provide quantitative modelling taking into account common receptors within both assessments (e.g. receptors 1, 3 and 4) as to the magnitude of these significant impacts as well as clarification by way of further defining the overlap in construction programmes.  Notwithstanding the Applicant’s conclusion at paragraph 9.210 of ES Chapter 9, can the Applicant comment on the potential cumulative effects in terms of construction road traffic noise at ‘site 6’ where moderate adverse (significant) effects are identified as a result of the proposed development alone (Table 9.18 of ES Chapter 9).

Response to Question 1.10.11

S.415. Details of the construction methods for Kingmoor Park North were not available at the time of assessment, and are still not available, and as a result the Applicant is not in a position to provide a quantitative modelling assessment as requested. S.416. Chapter 9 (Noise and vibration) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-057) relating to the construction of the Scheme concludes that the construction of the Power Station Complex would result in ‘negligible’ noise impacts as shown in Table 9.15. During the Cumulative Impacts Assessment, it was identified that ‘significant’ noise impacts may occur at NSRs to the north of the Power Station Complex Site from potential piling at the proposed Kingmoor Park North development. The ES determined however that these effects would occur as

165

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

a result of the piling activity in isolation in any event, and as such would not be brought about only by an overlap of the construction programmes for the Power Station Complex and the Kingmoor Park North development. The selection of piling technique and other relevant mitigation measures for Kingmoor Park North are outside of the control of the Applicant. S.417. The Applicant has provided additional information in its response to FWQ 1.10.6 regarding the impacts of construction traffic noise from 'Site 6'. The Applicant further confirms that construction traffic at ‘Site 6’ (Kingmoor Park Access Road) has been assessed as being unlikely to cause ‘significant’ impacts at any NSRs. Site 6 is the Kingmoor Park Access Road which leads to the Power Station Complex Site, and traffic for the other developments identified for the cumulative assessment will not use this access road. This will result in no change in impacts at this location in the cumulative assessment. S.418. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC), which will address noise and vibration including the cumulative assessment. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress.

166

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.12 Other Strategic Projects and Proposals

QUESTION 1.12.1

CIA included projects

Chapter 4 [APP-052] of the ES identifies the projects which have been considered in CIA within the ES. These are:

 the electrical connection for the project;  the North Wales Prison proposal;  the Kingmoor Park North application; and  Pickhill Bridge Farm Solar Park.

The ES does not clearly explain how the Applicant identified the schemes to be taken into consideration in the CIA.

One other consented scheme within 2km of the project has been excluded on the grounds that it considered to be is too far away to lead to cumulative impacts with the project, but it is not clear what the effects of this scheme would be and so whether this decision was appropriate.

 Can the Applicant explain and justify how they identified the developments included and not included in the CIA?  Are stakeholders satisfied that all the relevant developments have been included in the CIA?  Should any others be included and if so, what are they, why should they be included and what ES topics are they relevant to?

If additional developments are identified at Deadline 1, can the Applicant please respond to these at Deadline 2, providing a table to make clear for each additional development that either:

 analysis is not required (for stated reasons); or  a need for analysis is accepted and that analysis is provided.

Response to Question 1.12.1

S.419. The Scoping Opinion for the Scheme (Examination Library Reference APP-108) confirmed in paragraph 2.60 that the Secretary of State ‘welcomes and agrees with the statement in the Scoping Report that the electrical connection will be included in

167

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

the cumulative impact assessment for the project’. Paragraphs 3.50 and 3.70 of the Scoping Report in respect of the cumulative assessment scope advised that ‘the applicant should seek advice from WCBC on which developments should be taken into account’. S.420. Prior to submission, the Applicant (in consultation with WCBC) carried out an extensive search of recently approved and pending determination planning applications located within the vicinity of the Order limits. The focus of this search was on planning applications of major status given that smaller schemes of non- major status would be unlikely to result in significant cumulative effects. The need to focus on major status developments only, was agreed in consultation with WCBC (email correspondence with Matthew Philips dated 14/12/2015). Major planning applications are defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 as: (a) ‘the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits; (b) waste development; (c) the provision of dwellinghouses where- (i) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or (ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i); (d) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or (e) development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more.’ S.421. In accordance with the Scoping Opinion, the scope of the ES cumulative impact assessment (CIA) detailed in Chapter 5 (The scope of the EIA and overall methodology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-053) includes the Electrical Connection. In respect of the other three developments that have been identified for cumulative assessment, both the North Wales Prison and the Kingmoor Park North development were identified in consultation with WCBC (email correspondence with Matthew Philips dated 14/12/2015). The Pickhill Bridge Solar Park was identified by the Applicant as requiring cumulative assessment given that part of the solar park is located within the Scheme Order Land. S.422. Appendix 5.2 of the ES: Cumulative Assessment Tables (Examination Library Reference APP-109) provides further details on the justification for the identification of the cumulative developments based on their scale, nature and likelihood to have a significant effect. The matrix tables contained in Appendix 5.2 accord with The Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 17: Cumulative effects assessment.

168

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.423. The cumulative assessments undertaken within the technical chapters of the ES take into account a likely worst-case scenario for construction and operation (where applicable) of the identified developments. S.424. The Land at Abenbury Way development (Planning Application Ref: P/2015/0361 and P/2014/0195) comprising of planning permission for an industrial unit (7,200 sqm) and associated vehicular and pedestrian access was the only other consented scheme identified within a 2km radius of the Scheme. This development was considered to be too distant for effects to combine cumulatively on any shared receptors, to any measurable degree, during either operation or construction for the following reasons:  Transport: The conclusions of Chapter 7 (Transport and Traffic) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-055) are that the Scheme would not result in any significant effects. The only slight adverse effects would be very localised and confined to the construction route north of the Power Station Complex Site and the small number of dwellings on Bryn Lane to the south. On this basis it is not considered there is any likelihood of significant cumulative effects alongside the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km;  Air Quality: In terms of air quality, the study areas for the construction dust assessment and the traffic emissions assessment are identified in paragraphs 8.121 - 8.123 of the Chapter 8 (Air Quality) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-056). Based on these study areas and the conclusions of Chapter 8 of the ES, dust and traffic emissions would be insignificant, it is therefore not considered there is any likelihood of significant cumulative effects alongside the Land at Abenbury Way development or beyond a radius of 2km;  Noise: The study area for the noise assessment is 1km as set out in paragraph 9.68 of Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-057). Given the separation distance and context provided by the Wrexham Industrial Estate, it is not considered there is any likelihood of significant cumulative effects on the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km in respect of noise;  Landscape and Visual: The zone of influence of the Scheme is principally located within a radius of 2km as shown in Figures 10.1a and 10.1b of Chapter 10 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058). Given the location of the Scheme on the north eastern part of the Wrexham Industrial Estate and the conclusions of Chapter 10 of the ES, as well as Chapter 12 (Historic Environment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-060), it is not considered there is any likelihood of significant cumulative effects on the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km in relation to landscape and visual or historic environmental impacts during construction or operation.

169

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Ecology: Chapter 11 (Ecology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP- 059) concludes that the Scheme will not result in any significant effects. Given the separation distance and the lack of habitat linkages, it is not considered there is any likelihood of significant cumulative effects on the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km in relation to ecology;  Ground Conditions: The study area for the ground conditions assessment is a maximum of 500m as set out in paragraphs 13.22 and 13.23 of Chapter 13 (Ground Conditions) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-061). No cumulative impacts in respect of ground conditions are considered likely on the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km;  Water Environment: Given the separation distances and the conclusions of Chapter 14 (The Water Environment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-062 ) concluding that the Scheme would not result in any likely significant effects, no cumulative impacts in respect of the water environment are considered likely on the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km.  Heritage: Chapter 12 (Historic Environment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-060) concludes that the Scheme will not result in any significant effects on the historic environment. On this basis and considering separation distances, it is not considered there is any likelihood of significant cumulative effects on the Land at Abenbury Way or beyond a radius of 2km S.425. In summary, and for the reasons identified above, the Applicant considers that the scope of the cumulative assessment contained in the ES is wholly appropriate, and that the methodology adopted in respect of the cumulative assessment was agreed through on-going dialogue with WCBC. S.426. The Applicant further confirms that a Statement of Common Ground is being prepared with WCBC. Updates of progress of this statement of common ground will be provided to the Examining Authority including matters related to the cumulative and in-combination assessment of the ES.

QUESTION 1.12.2

Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA): worst-case scenarios

The Applicant is asked to clarify what has been included in the ‘worst case’ cumulative impact scenario. Paragraph 5.55 of the ES says that it covers the construction of the Kingmoor Park North development at the same time or sequentially with the power station complex, gas connection and electrical connection. It is not clear whether this means that the Applicant has used one scenario which covers a combined worst case scenario consisting of both the worst temporal and the worst spatial effects, or one scenario for the worst temporal effects and another for the worst spatial effects?

170

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

(It should be noted that a combined worst case scenario is likely to be significantly worse than any realistic assessment of project effects and hence that providing separate temporal and spatial scenarios can provide a more realistic assessment.)

Response to Question 1.12.2

S.427. In the Scoping Opinion dated May 2014, the Secretary of State confirmed that the cumulative assessment of the Wrexham Energy Centre (WEC) should take account of the electrical connection, potentially along with other developments in the vicinity, subject to the advice of Wrexham County Borough Council. S.428. Chapter 5 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-053) sets out the developments that have been included within the cumulative assessment as follows;  the proposed Electrical Connection for the WEC  the Kingmoor Park North development of B1 (office), B2 (General industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) uses, immediately north of the Power Station Complex Site  the Solar Park development at Land North West of Pickhill Bridge Farm  the North Wales Prison on the former Firestone site that is currently in construction S.429. With regards to the Kingmoor North development Paragraph 5.55 of the ES states “To ensure a robust “worst case” assessment a cumulative scenario have been identified to assess construction of, the Kingmoor Park North development at the same time as, or sequentially with, the Power Station Complex, Gas Connection and the Electrical Connection. This would either increase the total area of construction at any one time, or extend the continual length of time within which construction would be taking place.” S.430. The cumulative effects of the WEC (the Power Station Complex and Gas Connection) with the other developments listed have been assessed based on one scenario for construction and one scenario for operation.  Construction cumulative effects – assumes construction of the WEC at the same time as construction of the Electrical Connection, construction of the Kingmoor Park North development, construction of the Pickhill Bridge Farm Solar Array and operation of the North Wales Prison.  Operational cumulative effects – assumes operation of the WEC at the same time as operation of the Electrical Connection, operation of the Kingmoor Park North Development, operation of the Pickhill Bridge Farm Solar Array and operation of the North Wales Prison.

171

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.431. It was considered that this approach provided the realistic worst case scenario and as such the most robust assessment. Chapter 18 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-066) concludes that no significant effects will arise when the WEC is considered cumulatively with the other stated developments. It is therefore not anticipated that a revised assessment methodology would result in a different outcome.

172

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.13 Risk and Hazard Management

QUESTION 1.13.1

Health impact assessment

ES Chapter 17 [APP-065] states that it has been drafted to ensure a discrete reference source for public health impacts and the ways in which the Applicant proposes that these might be addressed.

 PHW are asked to elaborate on their relevant representation, to draw out any specific public health risks in respect of which it is concerned and to identify any particular action that it considers should be taken, including the securing of design or mitigation through the draft DCO.

Response to Question 1.13.1

S.432. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Public Health Wales (PHW) (RR-031) with regard to its Relevant Representation which states that ‘Public Health Wales will work with the Local Health Board to review any potential for adverse public health impacts or potential for any health gains’. S.433. In this context, the Applicant wishes to draw PHW’s attention to the Relevant Representation made by Public Health England (PHE) (RR-030) which at the outset notes that PHW had previously requested that the applicant considers ‘any risks or impacts that might arise as a result of electric and magnetic fields associated with the connection of the proposed generation station to the national grid’. PHE thereafter concludes in its Relevant Representation that it 'is satisfied that the development’s potential impacts on public health have been adequately addressed and, where necessary, suitable mitigation has been proposed’. S.434. In respect of an electromagnetic field (EMF) assessment, PHE's Relevant Representation acknowledges that the documentation accompanying the application does not include an EMF assessment, but that, because the majority of the works connecting the generation facility to the national grid will be regulated outside of the Development Consent Order, the Applicant is not required to submit an EMF assessment. PHE nonetheless acknowledges that the proposed Development Consent Order does include the 132kv switchyard within the development site, and as such PHE recommends that 'the applicant be asked to provide further information regarding the potential impacts of EMF relating to the 132kv switchyard and to either provide a suitable EMF risk assessment or to demonstrate why an assessment is not necessary.’ S.435. The Applicant has provided its rationale and justification as to why it considers that an EMF assessment relating to the 132kv switchyard is not necessary in its

173

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Relevant Representations. However, for clarification, the approach adopted in Chapter 17 (Health, safety and security) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-065) takes account of the DECC (now DBEIS) voluntary code of practice: Demonstrating compliance with EMF public exposure guidelines (March 2012) which advises that specific evidence of compliance to exposure guidelines is not required for:  Overhead power lines at voltages up to and including 132 kV;  Underground cables at voltages up to and including 132 kV; and  Substations at and beyond the publicly accessible perimeter. S.436. Accordingly, and as stated in paragraph 17.31 of Chapter 17 of the ES, evidence of compliance with the guidelines is not required on the basis that the occupational guidelines are unlikely to be exceeded and public access to the Power Station Complex Site will be restricted, evidence of compliance with the guidelines is not required. Therefore, the Chapter 17 of the ES in paragraph 17.31 concludes that the effects of EMF’s on public health as a result of the Scheme are considered to be negligible and no further assessment has been undertaken. S.437. The Applicant will consider PHW’s response to this FWQ 1.13.1 and provide further comment at Deadline 2 if necessary.

QUESTION 1.13.2

Health impact assessment: EMF assessment for 132kV switchyard

ES Chapter 17 [APP-065] states that it has aimed to meet PHE advice at the scoping stage. Whilst the PHE relevant representation accepted that the ES did not need to include an electro-magnetic field (EMF) evaluation for the electrical connection (as this is to be separately consented), it identified that such an assessment should still be provided for the proposed 132kV switchyard included in the application proposal (part of Work 1D as identified in ES Chapter 4 [APP-052] in Table 4.1). An EMF assessment has not been provided.

 The Applicant is requested to provide an assessment of the potential EMF impacts of the switchyard proposal, to meet PHE requirements, or alternatively to demonstrate why such an assessment is not necessary.

Response to Question 1.13.2

S.438. Chapter 17 (Health, Safety and Security) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-065) identifies those health, safety and security measures which have been addressed through the design of the Scheme, alongside a summary of the various assessments that have been undertaken in the ES and are relevant to these health, safety and security considerations. Specifically, Chapter 17 of the ES incorporates an assessment of the Scheme in relation to EMF (paragraphs 17.27 - 17.31) which takes

174

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

into account, and is based on the guidance set out in, the DECC (now DBEIS) voluntary code of practice: Demonstrating compliance with EMF public exposure guidelines (March 2012). This code of practice advises that specific evidence of compliance with exposure guidelines is not required for:  Overhead power lines at voltages up to and including 132 kV;  Underground cables at voltages up to and including 132 kV; and  Substations at and beyond the publicly accessible perimeter. S.439. Accordingly, and as stated in paragraph 17.31 of Chapter 17 of the ES, the Applicant considers that evidence of compliance with the guidelines is not required in relation to the Scheme, on the basis that the thresholds stipulated in the code of practice will not be exceeded, and that public access to the Power Station Complex Site will be restricted during the construction and operational phases. The ES therefore concludes that the effects of EMF on public health as a result of the Scheme are considered to be negligible, and that no further assessment is necessary.

QUESTION 1.13.3

Specific health, hazard and security issues

Mr Christopher Briggs’ relevant representation [RR-005] outlines but provides no detail in respect of possible concerns in respect of (amongst other issues):

 security arrangements;  blast radius;  evacuation planning; and  proximity to local housing and the primary school.  Mr Briggs is requested to detail these concerns in his written representation or in a specific response to this question at Deadline 1.  The Applicant is requested to respond to them at Deadline 2.

Response to Question 1.13.3

S.440. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily to Mr Christopher Briggs [RR-005] in respect of the information that is required at Deadline 1. The Applicant will review the comments of Mr Christopher Briggs and will provide further comment at Deadline 2, as requested. The Applicant also sets out below comments which it considers are relevant at this stage, in order to assist the Examination.

175

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.441. The Applicant would like to direct Mr Christopher Briggs to Chapter 17 (Health, Safety and Security) of the Environmental Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-065) which considers the health, safety and security of the Scheme. S.442. The Applicant would further like to direct Mr Briggs to the Applicant’s responses to the Relevant Representations and First Written Questions (in particular, FWQs 1.13.4, 1.13.5 and 1.13.6), in which the Applicant has considered and addressed some of the issues and concerns raised by Mr Briggs in this First Written Question 1.13.3. S.443. The Applicant would also like to highlight that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has commented on the planning application for the Gas Connection, and has concluded that it does not 'advise, on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this case’. The HSE has made no comment in respect of the application for the Power Station Complex Site. S.444. The Applicant will provide further comment in response to Mr Briggs’ response to this First Written Question 1.13.3 at Deadline 2, as requested.

QUESTION 1.13.4

Risk in relation to land uses

A number of local resident IPs have expressed concerns that:

 the application site and/ or the gas connection are located too close to residences;  the application site and/ or the gas connection are located too close to a primary school;  that hydraulic fracturing might pose a risk to the integrity of the gas connection; and / or  that there could be risks associated with accidents or leakage or other breach of the gas connection.

The Applicant is requested to respond to these concerns and to clarify the measures taken to manage these risks. In relation to leakage risks, would an odorant such as mercaptan be present in gas to be transported through the connection or within the application site?

Response to Question 1.13.4

S.445. The concerns raised by IPs in respect of the distance of the application site and/or the Gas Connection from local residences and a primary school are also addressed in detail by the Applicant in its answer to FWQ 1.13.6. However, for the purposes of clarification in response to this FWQ 1.13.4, the Applicant confirms that the concerns raised about safety will be addressed through the Scheme's adherence to

176

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

the normal safety and asset management procedures that apply to the UK gas pipeline industry, and its compliance with all applicable health and safety and environmental legislation, further detail of which is provided below. In addition, the Applicant notes the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) comment on the planning application for the Gas Connection which advises and concludes that ‘HSE does not advise, on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this case’ in a letter date 28 April 2016 to WCBC. S.446. As set out in the Applicant’s response to Relevant Representations submitted at Deadline 1 (23 August 2016), the Scheme has been designed in accordance with all applicable health and safety and environmental legislation, as detailed in paragraphs 17.14 to 17.32 of Chapter 17 of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-065). In particular, explosion risks will be addressed and managed through the design and operation of the Scheme, both of which will comply with all applicable legal requirements and industry best practice guidance, including the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 which establish a legal requirement for the design of the Scheme to eliminate foreseeable risks to health and safety, as far as practicable. Residual health and safety risks would thereafter be regulated by the HSE in accordance with its regulatory functions and the wider legal framework set out in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. S.447. The Scheme design and operation is also governed by the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015 and the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015, both of which address the storage and use of substances that could present a major off-site risk, including the storage and use of natural gas. Gas would not be stored at the Power Station Complex, and the amount of gas present in pipes at the Power Station Complex would not exceed the thresholds set out in the Regulations, such that a separate Hazardous Substances consent is not required for the Scheme. S.448. The Applicant also considers it appropriate to highlight that the Scheme does not fall within the zone of influence of a Major Hazard Site as defined by the HSE, or within the zone of influence of an HSE explosive site. During the construction and decommissioning phases, the Power Station Complex Site will be fenced off with no public access, and will be manned by 24-hour security. During operation, the Power Station Complex Site will be secured by fencing and again manned by 24-hour security. S.449. Chapter 4 of the Design and Access Statement submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-042) explains how the proposed route and design of the Gas Connection Route responds to and reflects the guidance on route selection in accordance with paragraphs 2.19.7 – 2.19.10 of the National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4). In summary, the proposed location of the Above Ground Installation and Gas Connection Route respond to physical and land use constraints, with the proposed route for the Gas Pipeline being underground. The extent to which the Scheme

177

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

follows advice on noise and vibration, biodiversity, landscape and visual considerations, water quality and resources, and soil and geology, as set out in paragraphs 2.20 - 2.23 of EN-4, is considered under the respective topic headings in the Planning Statement submitted with the Application (Examination Reference APP-041) and the Environmental Statement (Examination Library Reference APP- 047 – APP-152).S.7 The location of the proposed Gas Connection is such that it would be well separated from homes and schools. Table 1.13.6-1 of the Applicant response to FWQ 1.13.6 identifies the distances between the proposed Gas Connection and the closest occupied properties. Measures that will be taken to ensure its safe construction and operation are summarised in Section 7 of the Gas Connection Statement submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-155). S.450. The Gas Pipeline will be designed, constructed and tested so as to ensure that it complies with the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers ‘Recommendations on Transmission and Distribution Practice’ (IGE/TD/1: Edition 5, 2009 – Steel Pipelines and Associated Installations for High Pressure Gas Transmission’) (IGE/TD/1). The standards contained in IGE/TD/1 incorporate and reflect accepted design measures that mitigate the possible risks arising from proximity of pipeline infrastructure to any inhabited locations. The Gas Pipeline will comply with these - for example, paragraph 7.2 of the Gas Connection Statement confirms that the standard pipeline wall thickness would comply with the requirements of IGE/TD/1, which also defines the minimum safe separation distance between high pressure gas pipelines and buildings/major roads/major railways which are normally inhabited. This minimum safe separation distance is known as the ‘Building Proximity Distance’ (BPD), and this will be applied through the detailed design of the Gas Pipeline and its routeing for the Gas Connection. S.451. The minimum BPD is calculated based on the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline. For the Gas Connection, this minimum distance has been calculated as 39.6m. The nearest inhabited building to the Gas Connection Route is measured as 150m, as Table 1.13.6-1 of the Applicant’s response to FWQ 1.13.6 demonstrates, and is therefore significantly outside the BPD radius of 39.6m. S.452. Based on the minimum BPD calculated for the Gas Connection design (39.6m), and the actual distances detailed in Table 1.13.6-1 in the answer to FWQ 1.13.6, the Applicant is confident that the proposed Gas Connection complies with all relevant practice standards and legislation and can therefore be considered to be situated at a reasonable and safe distance from both residences and Primary School in the area. Accordingly, the Applicant does not consider that there is any need for any additional design measures to be incorporated in the Scheme. S.453. The Gas Pipeline which runs to the Power Station Complex would be monitored continually. Any loss of pressure in the Gas Pipeline, which would be indicative of a potential leak in the infrastructure, would be identified immediately via monitoring of a loss of pressure in the pipeline and investigated. The Gas Pipeline would be shut down immediately if there was any risk to the public associated with the loss of

178

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

pressure. In addition to this, the laying of the Gas Pipeline at a suitable depth underground, and the provision of clearly visible markings along the Gas Connection Route at the surface, will minimise the risk of the Gas Pipeline being physically compromised by any activity at or near the surface, for example by farming or excavation. The Gas Pipeline will be buried to a depth of cover which is in accordance with recognised industry standards which are set out in section 7 of the Gas Connection Statement. The physical condition of the Gas Pipeline would be monitored through regular inspections and maintenance with the aid of a Pipeline Inspection Gauge in accordance with standard industry good practice and the Gas Connection Route itself will be regularly monitored as part of the monitoring and maintenance plan.

Hydraulic fracturing

S.454. The Applicant is not aware of any proposals for hydraulic fracturing to be carried out in the vicinity of the Scheme such that it would fall to be considered and assessed as part of the Applicant's ES. S.455. Any proposal for hydraulic fracturing to be carried out in the area would need to be consented from a planning perspective under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before any such activity was carried out. Proposals for hydraulic fracturing would also be subject to regulation by the environmental regulator, Natural Resources Wales (NRW), through an environmental permit, and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as well as the additional safeguards that are built into both the Petroleum Act 1998 and the relevant Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence that is held by the operator and overseen by the Oil and Gas Authority. All of the consents and approvals that would be required before any hydraulic fracturing could be carried out in the area would necessarily have to take account of any equipment or apparatus that already exists in the land where the hydraulic fracturing is proposed, and this would include infrastructure such as the Gas Pipeline for the Scheme which would fall to be assessed as part of the cumulative impact assessment. The Applicant thus considers that any hydraulic fracturing in the area would only be permitted where the relevant operator could robustly demonstrate that the proposed activity would not pose any risk to the integrity of the Gas Connection.

Gas leakage

S.456. The gas for the Scheme will be supplied directly from the National Grid’s owned and operated NTS adjacent to the Maelor Gas Works, which is located 3.5km south of the Power Station Complex, off the B5130 and suitably separated from nearby residential dwellings and the Primary School. The existing Maelor Gas Works and the associated National Grid gas pipelines do not have any odorant added as National Grid does not allow any odorant to be added to the gas within the NTS. Therefore, there will be no odorant added to the gas that is supplied via the Gas Pipeline to the Power Station Complex.

179

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.457. The monitoring and management for potential gas leakages within the Scheme is managed by the use of automatic gas detection systems. These systems continually monitor for potential leakage. They do not require an odorant for their monitoring function and are used across the industry as a standard practice.

QUESTION 1.13.5

Health, risk and security assessment

A number of local resident IPs have expressed concerns about the health, risk and security effects of the application proposal, including the generating station, gas and electricity connections. IPs who have made such representations are requested to review ES Chapter 17 [APP-065] and identify whether the Applicant has addressed their concerns through the design of the application proposal including any mitigation. If further mitigation is sought it should be identified.

Response to Question 1.13.5

S.458. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily to local resident IPs. For clarification purposes, however, the Applicant has responded to the concerns raised in line with the ‘Applicant’s response to Relevant Representations’ (Deadline 1 August 2016) document in Section 18 (Health and Safety). S.459. Chapter 17 (Health, Safety and Security) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-065) identifies those health, safety and security measures which have been addressed through the design of the Scheme, alongside a summary of the various assessments that have been undertaken in the ES and are relevant to these considerations. S.460. The Scheme has been designed in accordance with all applicable health and safety legislation, as detailed in paragraphs 17.14 to 17.32 of Chapter 17 of the ES. For example, explosion risks will be managed through the appropriate design and operation of the Scheme, which will comply with all relevant legal requirements and best practice guidance, including the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 which establish a legal requirement for the design of the Scheme to eliminate foreseeable risks to health and safety, as far as practicable. Residual health and safety risks are thereafter regulated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in accordance with its regulatory functions. S.461. The Scheme design and operation is also governed by The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015 and the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH). These two sets of Regulations address the storage and use of substances that could present a major off-site risk including the storage and use of natural gas. In this context, the Applicant notes that gas would not be stored at the Power Station Complex, and that the amount of gas present in pipes at the

180

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Power Station Complex would not exceed the thresholds set out in the Regulations, meaning that a separate Hazardous Substances consent is not required for the Scheme. S.462. It should be noted that the Scheme does not fall within the zone of influence of a Major Hazard Site as defined by the HSE, or within the zone of influence of an HSE explosive site. During the construction and decommissioning phases, the Power Station Complex Site will be fenced off with no public access, and will be manned by 24-hour security. During the operational phase, the Power Station Complex Site will be secured by fencing and again manned by 24-hour security. S.463. In respect of the Relevant Representations made by Public Health England [RR-030], the Applicant notes that Chapter 17 of the ES incorporates an assessment of the Scheme in relation to Electromagnetic fields (paragraphs 17.27 - 17.31). Account has been taken of the DECC (now DBEIS) voluntary code of practice: Demonstrating compliance with EMF public exposure guidelines (March 2012). This code of practice advises that specific evidence of compliance to exposure guidelines is not required for:  Overhead power lines at voltages up to and including 132 kV;  Underground cables at voltages up to and including 132 kV; and  Substations at and beyond the publicly accessible perimeter. S.464. Accordingly, and as stated in paragraph 17.31 of Chapter 17 of the ES and as referenced in the Applicant's response to the ExA's First Round Question 1.13.2, evidence of compliance with the exposure guidelines is not required on the basis that the thresholds set out above will not be exceeded, and that public access to the Power Station Complex Site will be restricted during both construction and operation. Therefore, the ES concludes that the effects of EMFs on public health as a result of the Scheme are considered to be negligible and no further assessment has been undertaken. S.465. In terms of the potential impacts on the health of local residents, the conclusions of Chapter 17 of the ES are that the Scheme, both in isolation and cumulatively when considered alongside other specified developments, would not result in any likely significant effects on public health. On this basis, and on the wider conclusion that there would be no likely significant health, safety or security impacts arising from the Scheme, the Applicant considers that the Scheme is wholly compliant with relevant national planning policy and all applicable legislative requirements.

181

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.13.6

Risk in relation to land uses

A number of local resident IPs have expressed concerns that:

 the application site and/ or the gas connection are located too close to residences; and  the application site and/ or the gas connection are located too close to a primary school.

There have been no representations from relevant agencies suggesting that any consequential risks have been managed in an inappropriate manner.

The Applicant is asked to review and respond to such matters raised in relevant representations and provide a table relating their responses to the locations in the ES at which risk management is considered.

Response to Question 1.13.6

S.466. As set out in the Applicant’s response to Relevant Representations submitted at Deadline 1 (23 August 2016), the Scheme has been designed in accordance with all applicable health and safety and environmental legislation, as detailed in paragraphs 17.14 to 17.32 of Chapter 17 (Health Safety and Security) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-065). In particular, explosion risks will be managed through the appropriate design and operation of the Scheme, which will comply with all applicable legal requirements and best practice guidance, including the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 which establish a legal requirement for the design of the Scheme to eliminate foreseeable risks to health and safety, as far as practicable. Residual health and safety risks are thereafter regulated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in accordance with its regulatory functions and the wider statutory framework in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. S.467. The Scheme design and operation is also governed by the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015 and the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015. Both of these sets of Regulations address the storage and use of substances that could present a major off-site risk, including the storage and use of natural gas. Gas would not be stored at the Power Station Complex, and the amount of gas present in pipes at the Power Station Complex would not exceed the thresholds set out in the Regulations, and as such a separate Hazardous Substances consent is not required for the Scheme. S.468. It is also notable that the Scheme does not fall within the zone of influence of a Major Hazard Site, as defined by the HSE, or within the zone of influence of an HSE explosive site. Furthermore, during both the construction and decommissioning

182

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

phases, the Power Station Complex Site will be fenced off with no public access, and will be manned by 24-hour security. During the operational phase, the Power Station Complex Site will also be secured by fencing and again manned by 24-hour security. S.469. Chapter 4 of the Design and Access Statement, submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-042), explains how the proposed route and design of the Gas Connection respond to the guidance on route selection set out in paragraphs 2.19.7 – 2.19.10 of the National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4). In summary, the proposed location of the Above Ground Installation and the Gas Connection Route respond to physical and land use constraints, with the proposed route for the Gas Pipeline being underground. The extent to which the Scheme follows advice on noise and vibration, biodiversity, landscape and visual considerations, water quality and resources, and soil and geology, as set out in paragraphs 2.20 - 2.23 of EN-4, is considered under the respective topic headings in the Planning Statement submitted with the Application (Examination Reference APP-041) and the Environmental Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-047 – APP-152). S.470. The location of the proposed Gas Connection is such that it would be well separated from homes and schools. Measures that will be taken to ensure its safe construction and operation are summarised in Section 7 of the Gas Connection Statement submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-155). S.471. The Gas Pipeline will be designed, constructed and tested so as to ensure that it complies with the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers ‘Recommendations on Transmission and Distribution Practice (IGE/TD/1 Edition 5, 2009 – Steel Pipelines and Associated Installations for High Pressure Gas Transmission’ (IGE/TD/1). The standards contained in IGE/TD/1 incorporate and reflect accepted design measures that mitigate possible risks arising from proximity of pipeline infrastructure to any inhabited locations. The Gas Pipeline will comply with these - for example, paragraph 7.2 of the Gas Connection Statement confirms that the standard pipeline wall thickness would comply with the requirements of IGE/TD/1, which defines the minimum safe separation distance between high pressure gas pipelines and buildings/major roads/major railways which are normally inhabited. This minimum safe separation distance is known as the ‘Building Proximity Distance’ (BPD), and is calculated by reference to the maximum operating pressure of the relevant pipeline. For the Gas Connection, the minimum BPD is calculated as 39.6m. The nearest inhabited building to the Gas Connection Route is measured as 150m, and is therefore significantly outside the BPD radius of 39.6m. A table is provided below showing an assessment of the distance to inhabited buildings along the Gas Connection Route.

183

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Table 1.13.6-1: Distances between the Gas Connection Route and the closest occupied properties (the distance is from the pipeline boundary of order land to the buildings)

Building Approximate Distance at Approximate Direction of nearest point to Gas Building from Gas Connection Route Connection Route (m)(boundary of Order Land)

Situated on B5130

St Paul’s Primary School 230 E

IsyCoed Village Hall 170 E

Plum Tree Farm, LL13 9RN 160 NE

Hillview House, LL13 9RN 160 NE

Rowntree Cottage, LL13 300 E 9RL

Unknown Farm, LL13 9RH 270 (53°02'04.4’N 2°53'52.7’W)

Situated on Oak Road

‘Durholme’, 3 Oak Road, 150 E LL13 9RG

Lower Oak Farm, LL13 150 W

Situated near Talwyn/ Maelor NTS connection

Parkey Lodge 60 E

Nant Cottage 330 SE

S.472. Based on the minimum BPD calculated for the Gas Connection design (39.6m), and the actual distances detailed in the above table, the Applicant is confident that the proposed Gas Connection complies with all relevant practice standards and legislation and can therefore be considered to be situated at a reasonable and safe distance from both residences and the Primary School in the area. Accordingly, the Applicant does not consider that there is any need for additional design measures to be incorporated in the Scheme.

184

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.473. The Gas Pipeline which runs to the Power Station Complex would be monitored continually. Any loss of pressure in the Gas Pipeline, which would be indicative of a potential leak in the infrastructure, would be identified by automatic process condition monitoring instrumentation. Remotely operated valves would be closed in the event of a gas leak being identified to isolate and immediately shut down the pipeline. In addition to this, the laying of the Gas Pipeline at a suitable depth underground, and provision of clearly visible markings along the Gas Connection Route at the surface, will minimise the risk of the Gas Pipeline being physically compromised by any activity at or near the surface, for example by farming or excavation. The Gas Pipeline would be buried to a depth of cover which is in accordance with recognised industry standards which are set out in section 7 of the Gas Connection Statement. The physical condition of the Gas Pipeline would be monitored through regular inspections and maintenance with the aid of a Pipeline Inspection Gauge in accordance with standard industry good practice, and the Gas Connection Route itself will be regularly monitored as part of the monitoring and maintenance plan. S.474. Table 1.13.6-2 below identifies all of the concerns raised by IPs in respect of the proximity of the proposed Gas Connection to occupied property.

Table 1.13.6-2 - Concerns raised by IPs in respect of the proximity of the Gas Connection Route to occupied property

IP Name Concern raised

RR-002 Barbara Pilson Power station site is close to a primary school

RR-005 Christopher James Gives notification that his written representation will Briggs include evidence concerning the ‘effective blast radius’

RR-010 Frank Lloyd Proximity to local primary school and housing

RR-019 Kathleen Briggs St Paul’s School is 275 metres from the pipeline and would come to within 175 metres of a residential property

RR-022 Marian Hughes Gas pipeline is 250 metres from Ms Hughes’ home and 275 metres from the village primary school

RR-032 Robert J Eccleston The pipeline is too close to houses and a school

185

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.475. Whereas not all IPs are specific about the individual properties allegedly at risk, none has identified an occupied property that is not included in table 1.13.6-1 above. As all of the properties identified in Table 1.13.6-1 lie at least three and a half times further away than the minimum BPD for the proposed Gas Connection, the Applicant considers that it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed location of the Gas Connection does not present a significant risk to these properties or their occupants. Specifically, in response to RR-002, who expresses concern about the proximity of the Power Station Complex to St Paul’s Primary School in Isycoed, the Applicant notes that the distance between the two sites exceeds 800 metres. S.476. Achieving a suitable separation from occupied properties was an explicit concern when the proposed route for the Gas Connection was considered, both in order to reduce any disturbance to local amenity during the construction of the pipeline, and to mitigate any residual risks once the Gas Connection is in operation. Given the relatively significant distance between occupied properties and the Gas Connection along the proposed route, and the BPD of 39.6m that has been calculated for the Gas Connection Route, the ES does not include a risk assessment for individual occupied properties closest to the Gas Connection route. Having regard to the layers of legal and regulatory protection summarised earlier in this response and explained in paragraphs 17.14 to 17.32 of Chapter 17 (Health, Safety and Security) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-065), which are reflected in the siting and design of the Scheme, the ES concludes that, following mitigation, all residual risks arising from the Scheme have been assessed as insignificant (paragraph 17.94 in Chapter 17 of the ES). S.477. For the reasons stated above, the Applicant and the ES have concluded that the risk to occupied properties from the Gas Connection are not significant, and that an additional assessment of the risk to any individual property in the vicinity of the Gas Connection would not arrive at any different conclusion.

186

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.14 Socio-economic Effects

QUESTION 1.14.1

Local security of supply and related economic benefits

ES Chapter 6 [APP-054] suggests that socio-economic benefits of the application proposal could include:

 enhanced local security of electricity supply, with particular reference to reduced intermittency for local businesses;  enabling local business users to obtain local and reduced-cost energy (reference is made at paragraph 6.39 to a potential gas buying consortium, but there does not appear to be a reference to the provision of reduced cost electricity);  the potential development of a heat network (CHP) (although this is not part of the current application proposal);  opportunities for local business to become involved in construction and in the operational supply chain; and  supporting science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) education opportunities for local schools, colleges and universities.

These benefits are disputed by some local resident IPs. ES table 6.16 records the proposed socio-economic enhancements flowing from the application proposal in operation. It appears to make few firm commitments.

To the extent that the Applicant seeks to rely on economic benefits and takes the view that they should be accorded weight in the planning decision-making process, it is asked to:

 document the particular local benefits proposed to be provided; and  identify whether and how they are proposed to be secured?

Response to Question 1.14.1

S.478. Chapter 6 (Socio-Economics) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-054) has assessed the socio-economic effects of the Scheme. The benefits of the Scheme although not deemed to be significant will be real and beneficial and can be summarised as:  Total (peak) construction jobs to total 515 (ES Chapter 6 Paragraph 6.139);  Average employment over the total construction period to total 220 (ES Chapter 6 Paragraph6.81);

187

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 The number of full time equivalent (FTEs) jobs during the construction phase is 29 locally, 67 sub-regionally and 99 regionally (both direct and indirect) (ES Chapter 6 Paragraph 6.84);  The operational phase would create 30 FTE permanent jobs whilst the decommissioning phase is anticipated to generate 50 FTE jobs (ES Chapter 6 Table 6.16);  Total Scheme investment during the construction phase is £230m, of which half could be procured from within the UK (ES Chapter 6 Table 6.18);  The construction phase is anticipated to result in £3.19m of direct gross value added (GVA) and an employment income of £1.9m in the sub-region (ES Chapter 6 Table 6.18);  The operational phase is anticipated to result in £1.45m of direct GVA annually and between £0.6m and £2.2m of indirect GVA annually through the supply chain (ES Chapter 6 Table 6.18). S.479. In addition to the above benefits that are inherent to the Scheme and should be considered in the planning balance, there are several other potential benefits, which are wider in scope and difficult to measure or quantify. Chapter 6 of the ES identifies potential benefits which could be delivered which are summarised in Table 6.16. Such measures include those identified by the Examining Authority within the First Written Question but also include:  Reducing unemployment through the provision of jobs which meet the profile of job seekers locally – Secured through Requirement 14: Local economic benefit of the draft Order (Revision 1, July 2016) and benefit should be considered in the planning balance;  Improving the skills profile of local people through upskilling connected to employment at the scheme – Secured through Requirement 14: Local economic benefit of the draft Order (Revision 1, July 2016) and benefit should be considered in the planning balance;  Potential agglomeration spill-over benefits for energy and manufacturing businesses – inherent in the nature of the Scheme, therefore does not need to be secured and benefit should be considered in the planning balance;  Utilisation of local hotels, accommodation and services from new and visiting workers – Secured through Requirement 14: Local economic benefit of the draft Order (Revision 1, July 2016) and benefit should be considered in the planning balance;  Contributing to national energy targets for low carbon energy and additional capacity – inherent in the nature of the Scheme, therefore does not need to be secured and benefit should be considered in the planning balance. S.480. S.4 Taking each of the socio-economic benefits that the Examining Authority has identified in turn:

188

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1) Enhanced local security of electricity supply, with particular reference to reduced intermittency for local businesses

S.481. Revision 1 of the Grid Connection Statement (Examination Library Reference OD- 006) explains the method of connecting the Scheme to the Distribution Network Operators' (DNO) electrical network. The connection will involve two underground connections being brought into the Wrexham Industrial Estate (WIE) and into a switchyard, a section of which will be owned and operated by SP Manweb Plc (SPEN), the DNO. This will result in a substantial increase in capacity and provide new equipment on the WIE into which occupiers will be able to connect. S.482. The electrical supply and connectivity to local businesses is a potential benefit. However, this is not the only benefit or element identified for the purposes of assessing the scheme as future connectivity is dependent on several issues.

2) Enabling local business users to obtain local and reduced-cost energy (reference is made at paragraph 6.39 to a potential gas buying consortium, but there does not appear to be a reference to the provision of reduced cost electricity)

S.483. The Applicant would, once the commissioning date of the Scheme is known, make offers to occupiers on the WIE to enter into power purchase agreements with the Applicant. As the Scheme will be connected into the distribution network, it is embedded into the electrical infrastructure from which occupiers are supplied. This connection arrangement currently enables the Applicant to offer competitive rates to occupiers. A similar arrangement could be made available for the provision of gas as the occupiers of the WIE could benefit from the Applicant's buying power based on the volumes of gas required for their commercial operation. It is not considered that these benefits can be fully secured as the energy market is constantly evolving and such potential benefits may not be available in the future. Therefore, the Applicant does not rely on this benefit for the purposes of assessing the Application.

3) The potential development of a heat network (CHP) (although this is not part of the current application proposal)

S.484. In accordance with EN-1, EN-2 and the 2006 Guidance21, the Applicant has fully explored the opportunities for CHP as part of the Scheme. This is explained in the Planning Statement, paragraphs 2.42 – 2.57. S.485. The potential viability of a site for CHP was adopted as a criterion when considering locations for the Scheme. As explained in Chapter 3 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-051), the potential to supply heat and power to industrial occupiers

21 Guidance on background information to accompany notifications under Section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 and applications under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 ("the 2006 Guidance")

189

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

on the WIE was identified as a benefit of the proposed Power Station Complex Site at an early stage. S.486. The Applicant undertook an Energy Survey in September 2012. Details of this survey can be found at paragraph 5.4.1 of the Consultation Report (Examination Library Reference APP-039). The energy survey demonstrated a substantial heat demand across the Wrexham Industrial Estate for both space heating and industrial processes. S.487. As a result of the energy surveys and follow up meetings, the Applicant considers that opportunities to supply heat through CHP may arise in the future. In accordance with EN-1, EN-2 and the 2006 Guidance, the Applicant has therefore ensured that the Power Station Complex is ‘CHP ready’. S.488. The Power Station Complex Site includes sufficient space for future CHP. The Works Plan (Examination Library Reference APP-008) includes a Heat Network Interface Building (Works Plan element 1F) from which heat would be transferred and distributed in the event that a heat network is developed. S.489. The Applicant will review the potential opportunities for the use of heat from the Power Station Complex and, if viable, will incorporate the necessary plant and pipework within the Scheme in accordance with Requirement 16: Combined heat and power of the draft Development Consent Order (Rev 1, July 2016). As such, the development of such a CHP network, if viable, is secured through Requirement 16 of the Development Consent Order and should be considered in the planning balance.

4) Opportunities for local business to become involved in construction and in the operational supply chain

S.490. The Applicant is committed to delivering local economic benefits and to this end has included a Requirement in the draft Development Consent Order Rev 1 (July 2016), specifically Requirement 14: Local economic benefit. Therefore, this benefit should be considered in the planning balance. The wording of Requirement 14 states that no development can commence until a scheme for the promotion of local economic benefit from the authorised development has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. This scheme must include:  a commitment by the Applicant to tendering processes that include local companies;  a methodology for engaging local people and businesses during construction;  a strategy for the provision of training opportunities for local companies who successfully tender for work, and construction workers. S.491. During both the non-statutory and statutory consultations, the Applicant received many expressions of interest from local companies demonstrating the services that they could offer in the construction, operation and maintenance of the Scheme.

190

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

The Applicant has maintained a list of these suppliers and is confident that the required skills are available.

5) Supporting science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) education opportunities for local schools, colleges and universities

S.492. The North Wales Economic Ambition Board (NWEAB) is a collaborative group of private and public organisations including local colleges, universities in Bangor and Wrexham, and the North Wales Business Council. NWEAB is committed to promoting economic growth in Anglesey, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd and Wrexham and it puts the Scheme as one of the five most important key transformational projects in North Wales alongside Wylfa Newydd, North Wales Prison, Menai Science Park and Parc Adfer. S.493. As explained in Table 6.16 of Chapter 6 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-054), the Applicant will work proactively with the Wrexham County Borough Council, local Universities (including Glyndwr), Colleges (Yale) and Schools to promote Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) education. The Applicant is committed to delivering local economic benefits, and to this end has included a Requirement in the draft Development Consent Order Rev 1 (July 2016), specifically Requirement 14: Local economic benefit of the draft Development Consent Order (Revision 1, July 2016). Therefore, this benefit should be considered in the planning balance.

QUESTION 1.14.2

Effects on infrastructure – Fibrespeed Limited

FibreSpeed [RR-018] has identified infrastructure that may require protection or diversion as a consequence of the application proposal.

 What infrastructure is affected (please describe the infrastructure and provide a location plan)?  What measures are required to protect or divert it?  Are there any matters that in your view require to be subject of a commercial agreement with the Applicant?  Are there any matters that in your view require to be addressed in the draft DCO, whether by way of requirements, protective or other provisions?"

Response to Question 1.14.2

S.494. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at FibreSpeed. The Applicant understands that FibreSpeed Limited own one Fibre Optic Cable

191

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

which is located in the verge on the north side of Oak Road, located underground beneath Plot OR1. The Applicant understands this is a 114mm PVC duct installed in the road verge at this location, approx. 0.5m from the edge of the carriageway and is installed at a depth of cover between 200mm and 600mm. This information is based on an email received from FibreSpeed Limited’s agents, JSM Group on 02nd September 2015 and utility plans provided on 02nd September 2015 and 23rd March 2016. A copy of the utility plans are appended at Appendix 6. S.495. The Applicant has also included FibreSpeed Limited as having a potential interest within the Book of Reference (Examination Library Reference OD-003) on the southern side of Oak Road (OR2). This interest has been included on a precautionary basis in the event that the fibre optic cable may in fact be located in the southern verge. S.496. The Applicant is of the opinion that the fibre optic cable does not need to be diverted. Construction of the Gas Connection pipeline in this location will be by Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) method to cross Oak Road and the River Clywedog. This method of construction will not involve the opening up of the surface of the road or the verge and will therefore not necessitate the removal of the fibre optic cable as the Gas Connection pipeline will pass beneath FibreSpeed Limited’s apparatus. S.497. The Applicant engaged with FibreSpeed Limited (and JSM Group on their behalf) at an early stage and has requested a response to the adequacy of the Protective Provisions put forward by the Applicant for the benefit of FibreSpeed Limited, prior to the Application being submitted. The Applicant has also suggested reference to JSM Group/FibreSpeed Limited’s own “guide to contractors undertaking excavations in the vicinity of Fibrespeed Plant” be referenced in the Protective Provisions. To date, no formal response has been received by the Applicant from either FibreSpeed Limited or their agents. S.498. The Applicant does not believe a commercial agreement is required as it considers that Protective Provisions in the draft Order to be sufficient to protect FibreSpeed Limited’s equipment and apparatus located within the Order Land during construction and operation of the Gas Connection, and also to ensure FibreSpeed Limited’s access to their equipment and apparatus is maintained.

QUESTION 1.14.4

Effects on Deliveries and Logistics

Royal Mail Group has made a relevant representation [RR-033].

 Please identify any material effects of the application proposal on deliveries or logistics that you would wish the ExA to take into account.

192

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Are there any matters that in your view require to be subject of a commercial agreement with the Applicant?  Are there any matters that in your view require to be addressed in the draft DCO, whether by way of requirements, protective or other provisions?

Response to Question 1.14.4

S.499. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily to Royal Mail Group (RR-033). However, the Applicant also sets out below comments which it considers are relevant at this stage, in order to assist the Examination. S.500. The Applicant would like to direct Royal Mail Group to the Applicant’s responses to the Relevant Representations and to Chapter 7 (Transport and Traffic) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-055) and to the Transport Statement contained in Appendix 7.6 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-115) which have assessed the transport and traffic effects arising from the Scheme during its construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases, alongside potential cumulative effects. S.501. The assessment was informed by chapter 8 of Planning Policy Wales (January 2016), which sets out the requirements for transport assessments. In addition to the above policy, the scope of the assessment has been further informed by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment ‘Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993) and the Department for Transport, ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, HA 205/08 Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects’. S.502. The assessment considered the construction and operational phases of the Scheme but focussed on the construction phase given that operational traffic volume will be significantly lower. S.503. The assessment considered peak traffic flows during construction. Additionally, the assessment cumulatively considered potential traffic from other developments being constructed concurrently. The methodology was reviewed by Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC), who confirmed that a Transport Assessment would not be required, but that a Transport Statement should be submitted with the ES. WCBC confirmed that a Transport Statement was sufficient to assess the transport impacts of the Scheme and that junction capacity assessments in the vicinity of the Power Station Complex Site were not required. S.504. The Transport Statement (Examination Library Reference APP-115) demonstrates that the recent upgraded junctions associated with the newly constructed Industrial Estate Road (N) are considered to be operating well within capacity (see paragraph 1.12). The conclusion of Chapter 7 of the ES in respect of driver delay, which would be the principle concern of Royal Mail Group, is that the impact of the Scheme would be negligible and after taking into account the importance of receptors

193

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

(existing road users) the effects of the Scheme are assessed as neutral (see paragraphs 7.148). S.505. As a result, the Applicant does not consider that a commercial agreement or protective provisions are required. However, in order to secure the mitigation measures proposed within the ES and to ensure that construction traffic use the newly constructed Industrial Estate Road (N), a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is secured in Requirement 9: Construction traffic management plan of the draft Order (Revision 1, submitted 26 July 2016). Requirement 9 prevents construction of the authorised development until a CTMP has been submitted to, and approved by, WCBC. The CTMP must be substantially in accordance with the draft of the CTMP submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-114). S.506. The draft CTMP (Examination Library Reference APP-114) provides in Section 3 that construction traffic to the Power Station Complex Site will use the route from the north via the A534, the new Industrial Estate Road (N) and Bryn Lane before turning left into Kingmoor Park Access Road. Figure 3.1 shows the construction traffic access route. Section 4 of the draft CTMP identifies various mitigation measures which will minimise the impact of the construction traffic on the local community and local highway network, including timings of construction traffic trips, abnormal load delivery plans and a Construction Travel Plan. S.507. Royal Mail Group made a similar relevant representation in respect of Meaford Energy Centre. The Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station Order 2016 was made without the Applicant entering into protective provisions or a commercial agreement with the Royal Mail Group. S.508. The Applicant will provide further comment in response to Royal Mail Group’s response to this First Written Question 1.14.4 at Deadline 2.

QUESTION 1.14.8

Nearby development proposals

A relevant representation from Mr Michael Morris refers to appeal decisions under references APP/H6955/A/09/2113258 and APP/H6955/A/12/2188910 on land close to the application site.

 WCBC are requested to provide copies of the application and appeal papers for these proposals at Deadline 1 and to provide a view as to whether these relate to active development proposals.  The Applicant is requested to comment on the effects (if any) of the DCO development on these appeal proposals and on the effects (if any) of the appeal proposals on the DCO development

194

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.14.8

S.509. The Power Station Complex Site (known as Kingmoor Park South) is the subject of an outline planning permission (Ref P/2008/0993) by Kingmoor Park Properties Ltd for ‘B2/B8 development and associated ecological mitigation area including means of access and siting’. This permission was granted at appeal in May 2010 (Appeal Ref APP/H6955/A/09/2113258) following a refusal by WCBC in July 2009. The appeal decision recognised (paragraph 40) that no alternative sites were available on the Wrexham Industrial Estate that could provide the scale or nature of the development proposed on the appeal site. The planning permission for the Kingmoor Park South development has been subject to a further application to extend the time for the consent to be implemented (Ref: P/2013/0270). This application is still pending consideration by WCBC with a resolution to grant pending the completion of a S.106 agreement. S.510. For clarification, the appeal was partly approved, and partly dismissed. Parcel 3A known as Kingmoor Park North, was dismissed. Parcel 3B, within which the Power Station Complex Site is situated, as indicated in Figure 1 below known as Kingmoor Park South, was approved. The permission included a large rectangular building, along with extensive areas of landscape works, planting and habitat mitigation. Figure 1: Excerpt from approved plan from appeal scheme Appeal Ref App/H6955/A/09/2113258 (Parcel 3B)

195

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.511. In his relevant representation (Examination Library Reference RR-025), Councillor Morris suggests that the appeal decision relating to Kingmoor Park South was influenced by the need to develop the site for the expansion of a neighbouring company. It is acknowledged that, at the time, the intended occupier of the proposed development was likely to be TDG Limited, however this formed only part of the Inspectors decision, and as indicated at paragraph 49 of the Inspectors report “TDG’s involvement in the scheme cannot be assured”. Furthermore, within this paragraph the Inspector states that “The Council also considers that this part of the development [3B] is acceptable whether or not it would be for TDG and whether or not any other possible occupier would be currently locally based.” S.512. The second appeal referenced in RR-025 is APP/H6955/A/12/2188910 which was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in February 2013, and determined August 2013. This appeal related to the land north of the Power Station Complex Site (Kingmoor Park North), referred to as parcel 3A, pursuant to refusal of planning application Ref P/2011/0891 which was submitted to WCBC in November 2011 and refused June 2012. S.513. It is noted in the Inspectors report for the second appeal that at the time TDG was in negotiations with NDL to take over the company, and as such was not in a position to expand its operations. Subsequent to the acquisition by NDL potential expansion options were reconsidered which resulted in the planning application subject to the appeal being submitted. S.514. Given that the previous appeal had been dismissed for the subject site (3A), the Inspector considered that, on balance “the need for the development in order to allow the continued presence and expansion of NDL, the consequent economic benefits this would bring, and the other matters referred to above together carry significant weight sufficient to override the relevant policies of the UDP in respect of the location of new employment development.” (Inspectors report paragraph 46). Consequently, the second appeal was allowed. S.515. The planning permission for Kingmoor Park North granted via the appeal expired on the 06/08/2016. This followed a refusal by WCBC in respect of a planning application to renew the consent (Ref: P/2016/0327) which was determined on the 06/06/2016.

Effects of appeal proposals on DCO

S.516. The development approved in appeal ref APP/H6955/A/09/2113258 relating to parcel 3A (Kingmoor Park South) would not progress if the Power Station Complex Site were to be approved and constructed given that the Power Station Complex Site would occupy part of the approved building footprint, as illustrated in Figure 2, and therefore materially affect the approved development to such a degree that the permission would not be implementable. Since the grant of outline planning permission, a specific user of the site has not come forward and the Applicant therefore considers that it is not an active development proposal. Consequently,

196

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

the Power Station Complex Site is the first proposal in over ten years that would implement an employment-generating use on the site.

Figure 2: The approved B2/B8 development layout on the Kingmoor Park South site on Wrexham Industrial Estate, with the proposed Power Station Complex overlain. The permission has not been implemented.

S.517. The Power Station Complex Site would not prohibit or in any way restrict the development of Kingmoor Park North approved pursuant to appeal decision APP/H6955/A/12/2188910. As confirmed in in paragraphs 5.53 - 5.56 of Chapter 5 (The scope of the EIA and overall methodology) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-053), the ES has taken into account the potential development of the Kingmoor Park North as part of the ES cumulative assessment. S.518. The conclusions of the ES are that there would be no significant adverse effects resulting from the construction and operation of the Power Station Complex Site and the Kingmoor Park North development based on the ‘worst-case’ assessment

197

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

scenario relating to construction of the approved Kingmoor Park North development at the same time as, or sequentially with, the Power Station Complex, Gas Connection and the Electrical Connection.

198

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.15 Statutory Undertakers

QUESTION 1.15.1 & 1.15.2

Statutory undertakers: land or rights

The Applicant is requested to review relevant representations and written representations made as the Examination progresses and to prepare a table identifying if any representations made by statutory undertakers with land or rights to which the PA2008 s127) applies. Where such representations are identified, the Applicant is requested to identify:

 the name of the statutory undertaker;  the nature of their undertaking;  the land and or rights affected (identified with reference to the most recent Book of Reference [OD-003] and to the Land Plans [APP-007]);  in relation to land, whether (and if so how) the tests in s127(3)(a) or (b) can be met;  in relation to rights, whether (and if so how) the tests in s127(6)(a) or (b) can be met; and  in relation to land and/or rights, whether any protective provisions and/or commercial agreement are required, and if so whether they are already available to the ExA or whether a new document describing them is attached to the response to this question?

The Applicant is requested to review its proposals to acquire or possess land and rights and to prepare a table identifying if these proposals affect the relevant rights or relevant apparatus of any statutory undertakers to which PA2008 s138 applies. If such rights or apparatus are identified, the Applicant is requested to identify:

 the name of the statutory undertaker;  the nature of their undertaking;  the relevant rights to be extinguished; and / or  the relevant apparatus to be removed;  how the test in s138(4) can be met; and  whether any protective provisions and/or commercial agreements are required, and if so whether they are already available to the ExA or whether a new document describing them is attached to the response to this question?

199

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.15.1 & 1.15.2

Sections 127 and 138 Planning Act 2008 – Statutory Undertakers’ Land

S.519. The draft Order (Version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016) includes provision for the compulsory acquisition of land and the compulsory acquisition of rights in land including the acquisition of interests and rights and the imposition of restrictions in “statutory undertakers’ land” (Article 28), as defined by section 127 of the Planning Act 2008. As the Order would affect statutory undertakers’ land, sections 127 and 138 of Planning Act 2008 apply. S.520. It is the Applicant’s case that:  The acquisition of land and the creation of new interests and rights are necessary over the plots listed in Table 1.15.1 and Table 1.15.2 below to facilitate the authorised development and the Gas Connection;  The Scheme could affect land, rights and/or apparatus vested in or belonging to statutory undertakers;  The nature of the proposed works and inclusion of protective provisions in the draft Order means that the Secretary of State can be satisfied that there will be no serious detriment to the carrying on of the statutory undertakers' undertaking.  The Applicant requires the ability to acquire new land and new rights, extinguish, suspend or interfere with such rights and/or remove or reposition such apparatus, and such powers are necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Scheme; and  Protective provisions for electricity, gas, water and sewerage and telecommunications undertakers are included at Schedule 8 of the draft Order, subject to further negotiation with the statutory undertakers. S.521. Section 127 applies to land (statutory undertakers’ land) if: (a) the land has been acquired by a statutory undertaker for the purposes of its undertaking; (b) a representation has been made, and not withdrawn about an application for development consent; and (c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that (i) the land is used for the purposes of carrying on the statutory undertakers’ undertaking; or (ii) an interest in land is held for those purposes. S.522. Various statutory undertakers have made a representation to the Examination in relation to the draft Order. The Applicant is in ongoing discussions with these statutory undertakers regarding the draft Order and protective provisions, but at

200

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

this stage these representations (not objections) have not currently been withdrawn. S.523. If these representations have not been withdrawn and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the land or an interest in the land is used for the purposes of carrying a statutory undertaking, then the Order may include provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of land or a right over statutory undertakers’ land by the creation of a new right over land only to the extent that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the requirements of section 127 have been met. S.524. Section 127(2) if the Planning Act 2008 provides that a development consent order may include provisions authorising the compulsory acquisition of statutory undertakers' land only to the extent that the Secretary of State is satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (3). S.525. The matters set out in subsection (3) are that the nature and situation of the land are such that: (a) it can be purchased and not replaced without serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking; or (b) if purchased it can be replaced by other land belonging to, or available for acquisition by, the undertakers without serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking. S.526. Section 127(5) of the Planning Act 2008 provides that a development consent order may include provisions authorising the compulsory acquisition of a right over statutory undertakers’ land by the creation of a new right over land only to the extent that the Secretary of State is satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (6). S.527. The matters set out in subsection (6) are that the nature and situation of the land are such that- (a) the right can be purchased without serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking, or (b) any detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking, in consequence of the acquisition of the rights, can be made good by the undertakers by the use of other land belonging to or available for acquisition by them. S.528. Section 127 only applies to the compulsory acquisition of land or rights over land and is not engaged where powers of temporary possession are being applied for pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 of the draft Order (version 1) (submitted 26 July 2016). S.529. Table 1.15.1 identifies any representations made by statutory undertakers with land or rights to which section 127 of Planning Act 2008 applies. S.530. Section 138 of the Planning Act 2008 applies to land if: (a) there subsists over the land a relevant right; or

201

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

(b) there is on, under or over the land relevant apparatus. S.531. Section 138 also provides that a development consent order may include provision for the extinguishment, suspension or interference of the relevant right, or the removal of the relevant apparatus, only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the extinguishment or removal is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the development to which the development consent order relates. S.532. Article 28 of the draft Order gives the Applicant the power to extinguish the rights of, remove or reposition the apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers, over or within the Order Land. S.533. Section 138 applies to land where powers of temporary possession are being applied for pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 of the draft Order. S.534. Table 1.15.2 identifies the relevant rights or relevant apparatus of any statutory undertakers to which section 138 of the Planning Act 2008 applies.

202

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Table 1.15.1

Wales and Gas IP17 Freehold land AGI1 Acquisition of Based on the N/A The Applicant has been in West Utilities Distribution freehold current use of discussions with WWU (RR- Limited Operator plot AGI1 for regarding the voluntary 038) (WWU) general acquisition of a leasehold redundant pipe interest in this land since storage, the January 2013. Negotiations Applicant does are ongoing. not consider Plot Unfortunately, progress has AGI1 to be been slow because WWU operational land proposed upgraded physical used for the security works to their own purposes of AGI on adjoining land, to carrying on comply with critical national WWU's infrastructure (CNI) status, undertaking. If needed to be considered. Plot AGI1 is in fact operational The Applicant is in land, the discussions with WWU Applicant regarding the proposed

203

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Name of the Nature of IP/ Statutory Plot(s) in Extent, How test in How test in Protective Statutory Undertaking Undertaker's Book of description, s127(3)(a) or (b) 127(6)(a) or (b) Provisions/Commercial AP Ref Undertaker Interest – land Reference and situation can be met can be met Agreement No or rights and on Land of land or affected Plans right to be acquired by Applicant considers that physical security works, and a the land can be site meeting was held on acquired and not 17th August 2016 to better replaced without understand interface serious detriment between WWU security to the carrying on works and the interface with of WWU's the Applicant’s land undertaking. The requirements. The Applicant Applicant is currently assessing the understands that effect of the WWU security there is other works upon the land land within requirement, but believes WWU's with minor amendment to ownership that the boundary, and minor can be used for reduction in the size of plot redundant pipe AGI1, that plot AGI1 remains storage, if suitable. required. The The Applicant has provided Applicant has WWU with information met with WWU regarding the location of on numerous WWU apparatus (based on occasions since the Applicant's utility search) January 2013 to

204

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

205

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Wales and Gas IP17 Owner (in AR1, Rights for N/A The Applicant See comments for Plot AGI1 West Utilities Distribution (RR- respect of services considers that above. SAT5, Limited Operator 038) plots SAT5, the rights can Rights for WWU proposed upgraded (WWU) SAT6 and SAT6, be acquired physical security works to

206

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Name of the Nature of IP/ Statutory Plot(s) in Extent, How test in How test in Protective Statutory Undertaking Undertaker's Book of description, s127(3)(a) or (b) 127(6)(a) or (b) Provisions/Commercial AP Ref Undertaker Interest – land Reference and situation can be met can be met Agreement No or rights and on Land of land or affected Plans right to be acquired by Applicant SAT7). SAT7, pipeline without serious their own AGI on adjoining detriment to land, to comply with critical MGAR1, Rights of the carrying on national infrastructure (CNI) MGAR2, access Rights (in of the requirements, need to be MGAR3, respect of undertaking. considered. MGAR4 plots AR1, The Protective The Applicant is in MGAR1, Provisions in discussions with WWU MGAR2, the draft Order regarding the proposed MGAR3 and ensure that physical security works, and a MGAR4) in WWU's site meeting was finally held respect of the apparatus will on 17th August 2016 to siting of and be protected better understand interface access to gas and access between WWU security distribution maintained works and the interface with equipment during the Applicant’s land and construction. requirements. The Applicant apparatus, The Protective is currently assessing effect and in respect Provisions also of WWU security works upon of rights of ensure that (if the land requirement, but access to necessary) no believes with minor adjoining land rights will be amendment to the boundary and gas extinguished or to reduce the size of plot distribution apparatus

207

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

National Grid Gas IP37 In respect of AGI1 Acquisition of The Applicant N/A The Applicant is in Gas plc (NGG) Transmission rights granted freehold considers that discussions with NGG (RR- Operator by a deed the land can be regarding Protective 026) dated 25 May acquired without Provisions for the benefit of 2001 serious detriment protecting their equipment to the carrying on and apparatus, namely registered of the feeder pipeline 04 which is

208

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

209

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

National Grid Gas IP37 Rights in SAT5, SAT6, Rights of N/A The Applicant See comments for Plot AGI1 Gas plc (NGG) Transmission (RR- respect of SAT7, access considers that above. Operator 026) access to and the rights can GC17, Rights for the siting of be acquired MGAR1, pipeline high pressure without serious MGAR2, gas detriment to MGAR3, transmission the carrying on MGAR4 equipment of the and apparatus undertaking. The Protective Provisions in the draft Order ensure that

210

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

211

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

SP Manweb Electricity IP38 Rights in AR1, GC4, Rights for N/A The Applicant The Applicant is in Plc (SPM) DNO (RR- respect of services considers that discussions with SPM GC7, GC7D, 035) access to and the rights can regarding Protective GC9 Rights for siting of be acquired Provisions for the benefit of pipeline electricity GC9A, GC10, without serious protecting their equipment Rights of equipment GC12 detriment to and apparatus. The Applicant and access the carrying on has included Protective apparatus. SAT1, GC14, of the Provisions within the draft SAT2, SAT3 undertaking. Order (version 1, submitted The Protective 26 July 2016) for the benefit GC15, GC16, Provisions in of electricity undertakers GC17, the draft Order which includes SPM. MGAR2 ensure that MGAR3 SPM's apparatus will be protected and access

212

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

213

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Dŵr Cymru Water and IP29(RR- Rights in MGAR1, Rights of N/A DCC have On 20th July 2016 DCC Cyfyngedig sewerage 008) respect of the access confirmed they confirmed that the sewer MGAR2 (Welsh Water) undertaker siting of and do not have any located within Plots MGAR1 (DCC) access to equipment or and MGAR2 is a private surface water apparatus sewer. However, DCC has not drainage located in plots formally confirmed that it equipment MGAR1 and has no rights or apparatus in and apparatus MGAR2. If the Order land. necessary, the The Applicant is in Applicant discussions with DCC considers that regarding Protective the rights can Provisions for the benefit of be acquired protecting their equipment without serious and apparatus, should it be detriment to later identified. The Applicant the carrying on has included Protective of the Provisions within the draft undertaking. Order (version 1, submitted The Protective

214

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

215

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Dee Valley Water N/A Rights in AR1 Rights for N/A Dee Valley The Applicant has included Water plc undertaker respect of services Water plc has Protective Provisions within access to not made a the draft Order (version 1,

water supply representation submitted 26 July 2016) for equipment and therefore the benefit of water and apparatus section 127 undertakers. located on does not apply. adjoining Dee Valley property. Water do not have any equipment or apparatus located in plot AR1, and only use this road for occasional access. In any event, the Applicant considers that the rights can be acquired

216

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

217

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Table 1.15.1 shows all known interests and rights belonging to "statutory undertakers" as defined in Section 127 (7) of the Planning Act 2008 which have been discovered by diligent enquiry. Land or rights belonging to National Grid Property Holdings Limited, Birch Sites Limited, BT plc and FibreSpeed Limited have not been included as the Applicant understands that they are not statutory undertakers for the purposes of the Planning Act 2008.

S.535. The Applicant considers there would be no serious detriment to any statutory undertaker's ability to deliver its undertaking because the land and rights that the Applicant is seeking to acquire would co-exist within the plots affected, alongside those rights of the statutory undertakers set out above in Table 1.15.1. The Protective Provisions in the draft Order (version 1, 26 July 2016) ensure that the statutory undertaker's apparatus is protected during construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the Scheme. Draft Protective Provisions were sent to the relevant statutory undertakers prior to the Application being submitted. S.536. Negotiations regarding the Protective Provisions with the statutory undertakers are ongoing. Negotiations with the statutory undertakers will continue in parallel with the compulsory acquisition examination process with a view to concluding an agreement as soon as possible subject to the statutory undertaker engaging with the Applicant.

218

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Table 1.15.2

Wales and West Gas Distribution IP17 Owner (in respect of AR1, Rights for For the reasons The Applicant has Utilities Limited Operator (RR- plots SAT5, SAT6 and services set out in the provided WWU with SAT5, (WWU) 038) SAT7). Statement of information regarding Rights for SAT6, Reasons the location of WWU pipeline SAT7, (Examination apparatus within the Rights (in respect of Rights of access Library Reference Order Land (based on its plots AR1, MGAR1, MGAR1, APP-035), the utility searches) and also MGAR2, MGAR3 and MGAR2, Applicant requires included draft MGAR4) in respect of MGAR3, the ability to Protective Provisions the siting of and MGAR4 extinguish rights within the draft Order access to gas or remove (version 1, submitted 26 distribution apparatus in order July 2016). WWU has equipment and to construct, not confirmed whether apparatus, and in operate, maintain it requires any respect of rights of and decommission amendments to these access to adjoining the Scheme. The draft Protective land and gas Protective Provisions. The distribution facility. Provisions in the Applicant remains draft Order ensure willing to discuss the that no rights will draft Protective be extinguished or Provisions with WWU. apparatus

219

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

National Grid Gas plc Gas Transmission IP37 Rights in respect of SAT5, Rights of access For the reasons The Applicant is in (NGG) Operator (RR- access to and the SAT6, set out in the discussions with NGG Rights for 026) siting of high pressure SAT7, Statement of regarding Protective pipeline gas transmission Reasons Provisions for the GC17, equipment and Temporary use (Examination benefit of protecting GC17A, apparatus Library Reference their equipment and AGI1, APP-035), the apparatus, namely Applicant requires feeder pipeline 04 which MGAR1, the ability to is located within the MGAR2, extinguish rights Order Land to enable MGAR3, or remove the Gas Connection to MGAR4 apparatus in order be made. The Applicant to construct, has included Protective operate, maintain Provisions within the and decommission draft Order (version 1, the Scheme. The submitted 26 July 2016) Protective for the benefit of NGG. Provisions in the

draft Order ensure

220

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

SP Manweb Plc Electricity DNO IP38 Rights in respect of AR1, Rights for For the reasons The Applicant is in (SPM) (RR- access to and siting of services set out in the discussions with SPM GC4, 035) electricity equipment Statement of regarding Protective GC4C, Rights for and apparatus Reasons Provisions for the GC4D, pipeline (Examination benefit of protecting GC7, Rights of access Library Reference their equipment and GC7A, Temporary use APP-035), the apparatus. The GC7B, Applicant requires Applicant has included GC7D, the ability to Protective Provisions GC9, extinguish rights within the draft Order GC9A, or remove (version 1, submitted 26 GC9B. apparatus in order July 2016) for the GC9C, to construct, benefit of electricity GC10, operate, maintain undertakers which

221

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Name of the Nature of Undertaking IP/AP Statutory Plot(s) in Extent, How test in Protective Statutory Ref Undertakers Interest Book of description, and s138(4) can be Provisions/Commercial Undertaker No – land or rights Reference situation of land met Agreement affected and on or right to be Land acquired by Plans Applicant GC10A, and decommission includes SPM GC10B, the Scheme. The GC10C, Protective GC12, Provisions in the GC12A, draft Order ensure GC12B, that no rights will SAT1, be extinguished or SAT1A, apparatus GC14, removed until GC14A, alternative SAT2, apparatus has SAT3, been constructed. GC15, The Applicant is GC15A, not intending to GC16, extinguish any GC16B, rights belonging to GC17, SPM or remove GC17A, any high voltage MGAR2, apparatus in order MGAR3 to construct the Gas Connection.

British Telecommunications N/A Rights in respect of AR1, GC1, Rights for For the reasons The Applicant is in Telecommunications siting of and access to OR1, OR2, set out in the discussions with BT

222

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Name of the Nature of Undertaking IP/AP Statutory Plot(s) in Extent, How test in Protective Statutory Ref Undertakers Interest Book of description, and s138(4) can be Provisions/Commercial Undertaker No – land or rights Reference situation of land met Agreement affected and on or right to be Land acquired by Plans Applicant Plc (BT) telecommunications GC9, services Statement of regarding Protective equipment GC9A, Reasons Provisions for the Rights for GC9B, (Examination benefit of protecting pipeline MGAR1, Library Reference their equipment and MGAR2, Rights of access APP-035), the apparatus. The MGAR3, Temporary use Applicant requires Applicant has included MGAR4 the ability to Protective Provisions extinguish rights within the draft Order or remove (version 1, submitted 26 apparatus in order July 2016) for the to construct, benefit BT. operate, maintain and decommission the Scheme. The Protective Provisions in the draft Order ensure apparatus can be diverted at the Applicant's expense. However, the Applicant is not intending to

223

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

FibreSpeed Limited Telecommunications IP4 Equipment and OR1, OR2 Rights for For the reasons The Applicant is in (RR- apparatus pipeline set out in the discussions with 018) Statement of FibreSpeed regarding Reasons Protective Provisions for (Examination the benefit of protecting Library Reference their equipment and APP-035), the apparatus. The Applicant requires Applicant has included the ability to Protective Provisions extinguish rights within the draft Order or remove (version 1, submitted 26 apparatus in order July 2016) for the to construct, benefit operate, maintain telecommunications and decommission operators. the Scheme. The Protective

224

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Dŵr Cymru Water and Sewerage IP29 Rights in respect of MGAR1, Rights of access DCC have On 20th July 2016 DCC Cyfyngedig undertaker (RR- the siting of and MGAR2 confirmed they do confirmed that the 008) access to surface not have any sewer located within (Welsh Water) (DCC) water drainage equipment or Plots MGAR1 and equipment and apparatus located MGAR2 is a private apparatus in plots MGAR1 sewer. However, DCC and MGAR2. For has not formally

225

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Name of the Nature of Undertaking IP/AP Statutory Plot(s) in Extent, How test in Protective Statutory Ref Undertakers Interest Book of description, and s138(4) can be Provisions/Commercial Undertaker No – land or rights Reference situation of land met Agreement affected and on or right to be Land acquired by Plans Applicant the reasons set confirmed that it has no out in the rights or apparatus in Statement of the Order land. Reasons The Applicant is in (Examination discussions with DCC Library Reference regarding Protective APP-035), the Provisions for the Applicant requires benefit of protecting the ability to their equipment and extinguish rights apparatus. The or remove Applicant is awaiting apparatus in order DCC’s final approval of to construct, said Protective operate, maintain Provisions. The and decommission Applicant has included the Scheme. The Protective Provisions Protective within the draft Order Provisions in the (version 1, submitted 26 draft Order ensure July 2016) for the that no rights will benefit DCC. be extinguished without DCC's agreement.

226

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Dee Valley Water plc Water undertaker N/A Rights in respect of AR1 Rights for Dee Valley Water The Applicant has access to water supply services to not have any included Protective equipment and equipment or Provisions within the

apparatus located on apparatus located draft Order (version 1, adjoining property. in plot AR1, and submitted 26 July 2016) only use this road for the benefit water for occasional undertakers. access. For the reasons set out in the Statement of Reasons (Examination Library Reference APP-035), the Applicant requires the ability to extinguish rights or remove apparatus in order to construct, operate, maintain and decommission the Scheme. The

227

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Table 1.15.2 includes existing "statutory undertaker" apparatus where it has been identified by the Applicant following diligent enquiries. Where no entry is shown the plot may nevertheless be subject to existing apparatus and rights of "statutory undertakers" which may need to be extinguished, suspended, interfered with or removed.

Conclusion

S.537. For the reasons set out in this response, it is the Applicant’s position that, pursuant to section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that the prescribed tests of section 127 can be met and that the statutory undertakers’ land and rights over land may be included for compulsory acquisition in the draft Order without serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking.

228

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.538. It is also the Applicant’s position that, pursuant to section 138 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that the power for the Applicant to extinguish, suspend or interfere with the rights of, remove or reposition the apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Scheme, and that the test of section 138 can therefore also be met. Summary of all land and rights to be acquired within the Order Land (both statutory undertaker and non-statutory undertaker land):

Plots Land or rights to be acquired

PS1, AG1 Acquisition of freehold

AR1 Rights for services: 1. The right for the undertaker and all persons authorised on its behalf to access and egress on foot, with or without vehicles, plant and machinery in common with the owner its lessees and tenants and all other persons from time to time authorised by it and them respectively; 2. The right for the undertaker to enter in order to install new Conduits under (but not on or over) the land; 3. The right for the undertaker to enter for the purpose of inspecting repairing renewing relaying cleansing maintaining and connecting up to any future Conduits installed in connection with paragraph 2 above; 4. The right for the undertaker to enter in order to carry out any works whether of improvement, repair, maintenance or otherwise and the right to carry out those works without interruption at all times. 5. Together with temporary use.

GC1, GC2, GC3, GC4, GC5, GC6, GC7, GC8, OR1, OR2, GC9, GC10, GC11, Rights for pipeline: GC12, GC13, SAT1, GC14, SAT3, GC15, SAT6, GC16, GC17 1. The right for the undertaker and all persons authorised on its behalf to

229

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Plots Land or rights to be acquired enter on foot, with or without vehicles, plant and machinery for all purposes in connection with the laying, installation, retention, use, maintenance, inspection, repair, adjustment, alternation, removal, refurbishment, reconstruction, replacement and improvement of a high pressure gas pipeline (and up to two high pressure gas pipelines in respect to Plots GC16 and SAT6 only) up to 400mm nominal bore, telecommunications, other ancillary apparatus and any other works as necessary; 2. The right for the undertaker to lay, install, retain, use, maintain, inspect, repair, adjust, alter, remove, refurbish, reconstruct, replace and improve the said pipelines, telecommunications and other ancillary apparatus and any other works as necessary. 3. Together with temporary use.

Imposition of restrictions: 1. To prevent any works on or uses of the Land which may interfere with or damage the high pressure gas pipelines up to 400mm nominal bore, telecommunications, other ancillary apparatus and any. 2. To prevent any interference with, interruption of or obstruction of access by the undertaker and/or those authorised on its behalf from and to the said pipeline, telecommunications, other ancillary apparatus and other works as necessary; 3. To prevent the installation of or planting of and to require the removal

230

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Plots Land or rights to be acquired of the whole or any part of any building, fixed or moveable structure, tree, shrub or other plant or any other thing whatsoever that may interfere with or damage, or interfere with, interrupt, or obstruct access from and to, said pipelines, telecommunications, other ancillary apparatus and works; 4. To prevent the undertaking of any works or uses which may alter the surface level, ground cover or composition of the Land above the said pipelines, telecommunications, other ancillary apparatus and other works as necessary.

GC5C, GC7D, GC9A, GC12C, SAT2, SAT3, SAT4, SAT5, SAT7, MGAR1, Rights of access: MGAR2, MGAR3, MGAR4 1. The right for the undertaker and all persons authorised on its behalf to access and egress on foot, with or without vehicles, plant and machinery in common with the owner its lessees and tenants and all other persons from time to time authorised by it for all purposes in connection with the construction, use and maintenance of a gas above ground installation and the laying, installation, use and maintenance of a high pressure gas pipeline up to 400mm nominal bore, telecommunications, other ancillary apparatus and any other works as necessary; 2. Together with temporary use. Imposition of Restrictions: 1. To prevent any interference with, interruption of or obstruction of access by the undertaker and/or those authorised on its behalf from and to the said gas above ground installation, pipelines, telecommunications,

231

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Plots Land or rights to be acquired other ancillary apparatus and other works as necessary

PS1A, PS1B, GC3A, GC4A, GC4B, GC4C, GC4D, GC5A, GC5B, GC5D, GC5E, Temporary use only GC7A, GC7B, GC7C, GC8A, GC9B, GC9C, GC10A, GC10B, GC10C, GC12A, GC12B, GC12D, GC12E, SAT1A, GC14A, GC14B, GC15A, GC16A, GC16B, GC16C, GC17A

232

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.16 Transportation and Traffic

QUESTION 1.16.1

Highway safety: Bryn Lane during construction

Inter-relationships are considered in ES Chapter 18 [APP-066]. A combined effect on drivers using Bryn Lane from the interaction of noise, visual amenity and accident risk during the construction phase is considered but this is not predicted to be significant because of the temporary nature of drivers passing along a road and the fact that drivers’ attention will not be fully on visual and sound effects (paragraph 18.25).

 As the highways authority, is WCBC also satisfied that the effect is insignificant?

Response to Question 1.16.1

S.539. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at WCBC as the Highways Authority for the area. However, to provide further clarity, the Applicant wishes to highlight that paragraph 7.164 of Chapter 7 (Transport and traffic) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-055) identifies that “Due to the change in traffic composition and the increase of traffic flows as a result of the Scheme, particularly HGVs, the risk of accidents may slightly increase, so the magnitude of impact is considered to be minor. On the basis of this assessment of the magnitude of impact, and the importance of road users, pedestrians and cyclists being low to medium, the significance of residual effect can be concluded to be no more than slight adverse”. S.540. In addition to the above, the landscape assessment that has been carried out highlights that road users may be subjected to negative visual effects, however paragraph 10.131 of Chapter 10 (Landscape and visual impact assessment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058) details that hedgerow and existing tree and shrub planting alongside Bryn Lane will be retained, thereby forming a buffer between the highway and the Power Station Complex such that visual impacts are minimised. S.541. The noise and vibration assessment concludes in paragraph 9.147 in Chapter 9 (Noise and vibration) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-058) that noise impacts on Bryn Lane would be negligible in the short-term, and as such the Applicant considers that drivers' attentions will not be diverted. S.542. Paragraph 18.24 of Chapter 18 (In-combination effects) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-066) concludes that “it is not considered that these three effects [being visual effects, minor adverse accidents and safety effects] combine to create a significant effect; the traffic effect is highly generalised rather than being an assessment of specific locations, and slight adverse visual effects and

233

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

minor/moderate noise effects will not weigh heavily on drivers”. The Applicant maintains this view. S.543. WCBC, as Highways Authority, were consulted by the Applicant, and discussions were held with Mr Phil Palmer (WCBC Highways); an email to the Applicant from Mr Palmer on 11/07/16 states that “I would not anticipate the visual and noise impact of the construction of the Energy Centre to have a significant impact on drivers/road users. However, I assume that our Public Protection Department will be assessing this aspect of the scheme and will comment accordingly”. S.544. The Applicant would also like to highlight that in section 2.3 - Construction Phase in WCBC’s Local Impact Report (Examination Library Reference LIR-001), confirmed that “the proposed additional traffic movements during the construction phase are not considered likely to have any significant effect on highway safety”.

QUESTION 1.16.2

Public rights of way

The Applicant is asked to confirm that none of the streets referred to in Schedules 3, 4 or 5 to the DCO or land identified in the latest Book of Reference [OD-003] and the Land Plans [APP- 007] forms part of or is subject to a public right of way to be extinguished and to which PA2008 s136 applies.

Response to Question 1.16.2

S.545. The Applicant can confirm that there are two public rights of way which pass through the Order Land (specifically the Gas Connection Route).  ISY / 18 passes through Land Parcel GC4, as shown on the Land Plans (Revision 1) (submitted 26 July 2016) and the Access Rights of Way Plan (Revision 1) (submitted 26 July 2016).  SES / 25 passes through Land Parcels SAT1, SAT1A and SAT2, as shown on the Land Plans (Revision 1) (submitted 26 July 2016) and the Access Rights of Way Plan (Revision 1) (submitted 26 July 2016). S.546. There are no public rights of way within the Power Station Complex Site. S.547. The public rights of way ISY / 18 and SES / 25 will be crossed by the Gas Connection Route. The Applicant can confirm that neither of these two public rights of way will be extinguished as a result of the construction, operation or maintenance of the Power Station Complex Site or the Gas Connection and therefore section 136 of the PA2008 does not apply. S.548. The only power that the Applicant is seeking in the Order, is the power (Article 11 of the draft Order (Version 1, submitted 26 July 2016) to temporarily alter, divert, prohibit the use of or restrict the use of the public rights way which will be required

234

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

when constructing the Gas Pipeline. The Applicant has noted that the Access Rights of Way Plan and Schedule 5 of the draft Order do not refer to the specific areas along ISY / 18 and SES / 25 which would require temporary management. The Applicant proposes to amend Schedule 5 of the draft Order to add in express references to these Public Rights of Way as well as amend the Access Rights of Way Plan and will submit these changes when the next draft of the Order is issued.

QUESTION 1.16.3

Public rights of way

Are there any public rights of way to which PA2008 s136 applies affected by the CA of land for the gas connection? Is any additional provision needed in the DCO?

Response to Question 1.16.3

S.549. As explained in the Applicant's answer to Question 1.16.2, no public rights of way are going to be extinguished as a result the Scheme or the Gas Connection, therefore no additional provisions are required in the draft Order in respect of section 136 of the PA2008.

QUESTION 1.16.4

Engagement on transport matters

The WG Transport Division has sought the submission of the following information / documentation either through the examination or pursuant to requirements:

 a Transport Assessment ‘detailing the traffic values for the duration of the works’;  a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) detailing the proposed delivery routes in-line with the programme; and  A Traffic Management Plan (but making clear that this is only required if Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL’s) are to be delivered to the site).

The WG Transport Division is asked to liaise with WCBC to agree the additional transport information / documentation that is sought and the specification of this documentation.

By Deadline 3, the Applicant is requested to provide the additional transport information / documentation that is sought or to indicate for reasons why it is not necessary.

235

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

Response to Question 1.16.4

S.550. The Applicant notes that this question, FWQ 1.16.4, is directed primarily to the Welsh Government Transport Division and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, for clarity, the Applicant confirms that Chapter 7 (Transport and traffic) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP- 055) details the ‘traffic values for the duration of the works’ in paragraphs 7.39 to 7.41. In addition, paragraph 7.69 in Chapter 7 of the ES details that consultation with WCBC (the Local Highway Authority) was undertaken during the preparation of the ES Scoping Report, and includes email correspondence that was exchanged with WCBC in September 2014 at Appendix 7.1 (WCBC Correspondence) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-110). The key outcomes of the correspondence included the need to consider the impact of construction traffic, and the volume and type of vehicles accessing the site; WCBC and the Applicant also agreed that a separate Transport Statement would be required, and the Applicant has therefore prepared a Transport Statement as part of the Application in Appendix 7.6 (Examination Library Reference APP-115). S.551. A draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been produced for the Application in Appendix 7.5 (Examination Library Reference APP-114) which details the proposed delivery/construction routes during the construction of the Scheme. S.552. WCBC in its Local Impact Report (Examination Library Reference LIR-001) in section 2.11 requests a Final Construction Travel Plan (CTP) to be included in the Final Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) which “The Applicant will be required to submit…..prior to commencement of works” to be approved by WCBC. Paragraphs 4.18 and 5.5 in the draft CTMP set out the framework for the CTP. In addition, the draft CTMP sets out a proposal for managing abnormal load deliveries in paragraph 4. 16. S.553. Requirement 9: Construction traffic management plan of Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order (version 1, July 2016) provides that no authorised development may commence until a CTMP has been submitted and approved by WCBC), and that the final CTMP must be substantially in accordance with the draft CTMP. S.554. On the basis of the above, the Applicant does not consider that it is necessary to provide any additional transport information by Deadline 3.

236

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

1.17 Water Environment

QUESTION 1.17.1

Water environment: baseline data and study area

The study area used to collect the baseline data is defined in paragraph 14.27 of ES Chapter 14 [APP-062]. The study area includes the land within the Order limits (including the gas connection corridor). Ground conditions are considered up to 0.5km from the Order limits, main rivers are covered up to 1km and designated sites are covered up to 3km. Although paragraph 14.27 provides some justification for the area considered it is not entirely clear why these distances were chosen.

 Are NRW and WCBC satisfied that the Applicant has provided adequate reasoning for selecting the study area?  Is the study area appropriate?

Response to Question 1.17.1

S.555. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily to Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, the Applicant offers the following response at this stage in order to assist the Examination. S.556. Paragraph 14.27 of Chapter 14 (The water environment) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-062) defines the study area for the impact assessment with regards to the water environment. For this particular environmental topic area, there is no single methodology or legislative requirement setting out how the study area should be selected; differing environmental settings, receptors and pathways can result in different study area extents being required. On this basis, the study areas proposed were given in the Scoping Report on which NRW and WCBC were asked to comment. In their responses to the Scoping Report, no comments on study areas were made by either NRW or WCBC, and no concerns were raised by either organisation at any point during the detailed and on-going consultation and dialogue with NRW and WCBC pre-submission and post- submission of the Application. S.557. Ground conditions (geology and hydrogeology) are necessarily an important consideration in any project for assessing the potential impact of contaminants on groundwater. Contaminants can migrate vertically through the unsaturated zone undergoing dispersion, retardation and biodegradation, and once contaminants reach the groundwater table they undergo further dilution, dispersion, retardation and degradation in the direction of groundwater flow. The potential impact on the water environment of these processes is essentially constrained by the infiltration

237

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

rates. With regards to the Scheme, paragraph 14.125 of Chapter 14 of the ES describes the infiltration rates associated with the clay ground conditions within the Orders Limits, and concludes that infiltration is not a significant component of the drainage regime. It is worth noting that these geological and hydrogeological conditions on site are the same as those up to 2.5km from the Power Station Complex Site. In such situations of clay geology and where infiltration rates are not significant, the area which would have the greatest potential impact would be where water infiltrates into groundwater immediately underlying the site or in very close proximity to it. The study area with regards to ground conditions therefore reflects this and is limited to land up to 0.5km from the Order Limits. S.558. Where runoff from the Power Station Complex Site could potentially enter a network of drains and small watercourses, the migration of potentially contaminated water away from the Power Station Complex Site and into a main river watercourse is a potential risk. Where these water networks are not present in the nearby area, there is a lesser risk of an impact the surface water environment as runoff is more likely to infiltrate to ground, and thereafter enter the surface water environment as base flow to rivers following dilution, dispersion, retardation and degradation within the aquifer. The greatest impact on the surface water feature would be where there is a discharge of contaminated water into a low flow environment where there was limited water available for dilution. The further along the network the water flows the greater the potential for dilution, dispersion, retardation and biodegradation within the receiving watercourses. A distance of 1km from the site will identify where there is a network of drains and small watercourses which could transport the water to a main river. The study area for surface water courses reflects this and is extended up to 1km from the Order Limits. S.559. Where contaminants that enter ground or surface water environments are shown not to pose a risk to the water environment within 1km, they could still potentially pose a risk to sensitive ecosystems at greater distances. Designated sites are often ecologically sensitive, and minor changes in the groundwater or surface water quality could have a significant impact on the quality of the designated site. Therefore, in consideration of the processes of dilution, dispersion and retardation of contaminants as they enter ground or surface water environments, the study area for Designated sites is extended to up to 3km from the Order Limits. As with the wider methodology, this approach was discussed between the Applicant and NRW and WCBC. S.560. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with both WCBC and NRW. Updates on the progress of this Statement of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority as necessary, including with regard to matters relating to the water environment including the study area/s used for assessment.

238

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.17.2

Water environment: methodology

The assessments in ES Chapter 14 [APP-062] include:

 flood consequences assessment;  Water Framework Directive (WFD) screening;  Effects on groundwater and aquifer quality and flow;  effects on surface water quality and flow; and  effects on the River Dee Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special;  Area of Conservation (SAC).

It is noted that the methodology described in Chapter 14 of the ES appears to be based on the approach suggested in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges which is designed for road schemes.

 Are NRW and WCBC satisfied that the Applicant has used appropriate methods to assess effects on the water environment due to the application proposal?  Are there any particular matters in respect of which a different method or methods should have been used?  Are there any matters in which methodological concerns are sufficient to affect judgements reached in the light of the assessment, and if so, is any additional data and/ or analysis required?

Response to Question 1.17.2

S.561. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at NRW and WCBC. The assessment criteria which have been used to assess the likely significant effects of the Scheme on the water environment are based on the methodology for appraising the impact of projects set out in the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit A3 and the specific guidance for the water environment sub-objective set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3. Although this methodology has been developed for the assessment of road and bridge projects, however it is widely used to assess the impacts of other types of development and is considered suitable for this Scheme. This standard gives guidance on the assessment and management of the impacts that new construction, improvements, technology and maintenance projects may have on the water environment. Examples of the types of developments where this methodology has been used include: Power Station Complex (Meaford Energy Centre), Sand and gravel quarries (Oxfordshire), Renewable Energy Facility (Stockton-on-Tees), Low Carbon Energy Facility (Avonmouth and Dorset), Energy

239

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

from Waste Facility (Peterborough), Intermediate Level Waste Storage Facility (Oxford) and large mixed use developments (Droitwich). S.562. This methodology was used to assess the effects on the water environment on the Meaford Energy Centre, the Order for which was made by the Secretary of State in July 2016. The Applicant therefore considers that it has used appropriate methods to assess the effects on the water environment for the Scheme. The Statement of Common Ground between Natural England and Meaford Energy Limited was agreed in September 2015 and can be found in the Meaford Energy Centre part of the National Infrastructure Planning website:www.infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/west- midlands/meaford-energy-centre (Examination Library Reference REP2-016). S.563. The Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) has been prepared to examine the possible sources of flooding, in line with the standard approved guidance provided in the Technical Advice Notes (TAN); TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk and the policy and approach set out in the Planning Policy Wales (PPW) in relation to development and flooding. This was agreed with NRW and the consultation correspondence is provided in Appendix 14.2 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-147). NRW stated that they “welcome the commitment to produce a FCA (Flood Consequences Assessment) to support the proposed development and broadly agree with the approach outlined in section 6” of the EIA Scoping Report (Examination Library Reference APP-108) which stated that the assessment of flood risk would be prepared in accordance with TAN 15, EA standing advice, and following the guidance given in CIRIA Report Development and Flood Risk – Guidance for the Construction Industry. S.564. The Applicant refers to section 14 of the Applicant’s response to Relevant Representations submitted for Deadline 1 in respect of the specific comments made by NRW in its relevant representation (RR-028) relating to drainage and flood risk. Specifically, in response to NRW the Level 2 Flood Consequence Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-043) will be updated to take account of the small unnamed watercourse located in the Power Station Complex Site. S.565. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC. However, as provided for in Appendix 14.2 of the ES (Water Environment Consultation) the methodologies for the assessment of the water environment for the Scheme were agreed.

240

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.17.3

Water environment: WFD screening

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) screening in ES Appendix 14.3 [APP-146] does not identify any effects which, once mitigation is taken into account, would cause deterioration in the ecological or chemical status of a water body or affect the attainment of good status under the WFD.

 Does NRW agree with the approach used by the Applicant in the WFD screening?  Does NRW agree with the conclusions of the WFD screening?  If not, what additional matters need to be taken into account?  Is mitigation sufficiently secured in the DCO?

Response to Question 1.17.3

S.566. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at NRW. The Applicant consulted with NRW in February 2016 in relation to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) screening approach used by the Applicant. Discussions were held between the Applicant’s consultant and NRW and an email issued to NRW by the Applicant’s consultant seeking formal approval. NRW did not formally respond to this email, despite further attempts by the Applicant to confirm approval; however, NRW did not raise any immediate concerns relating to the WFD screening approach during these discussions. The WFD screening approach was agreed with the Environment Agency on the Meaford Energy Centre scheme, consented by the Secretary of State in July 2016. S.567. The proposed mitigation in accordance with the WFD is set out in paragraphs 14.14 to 14.17 in Chapter 14 (Water environment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-062). The mitigation measures are set out in paragraphs 14.159 to 14.165 and in Tables 14.10, 14.11 and 14.12 in Chapter 14 of the ES is considered by the Applicant to have been sufficiently secured in the draft Order. Revision 1 of the draft Order (submitted 26 July 2016). The draft Order states in Schedule 2 Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan that no development may commence until a Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted and approved by the relevant planning authority. The CEMP must contain details on surface and ground water protection measures (including bunding potential contaminate sources) (Requirement 4(1)(m) and a construction drainage strategy Requirement 4(1)(n). A draft CEMP is provided with the Application in Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-152) and section 5, paragraphs 5.19 to 5.21. S.568. Requirement 12 Foul and Surface Water Drainage of the draft Order requires details of the surface and foul water drainage system for the operation of the authorised development to be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority

241

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

prior to the commencement of Numbered works 1 and 2. The surface and foul water drainage system for the authorised development must be constructed in accordance with the approved details. The surface and foul water drainage system must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative foul and surface water drainage plan, which has been submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-148). S.569. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with NRW. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCG with NRW.

QUESTION 1.17.4

Water environment: groundwater

NRW’s relevant representations [RR-028] state that it is generally satisfied with the approach in the ES to assessing effects on groundwater and contaminated land but it has ‘some minor concerns’ about the approaches used to assess potential source-pathway-receptor linkages which it would like the Applicant to resolve during the examination.

 Can NRW explain these concerns more fully?  Can NRW and the Applicant explain what progress has been made in resolving these concerns?

Response to Question 1.17.4

S.570. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is primarily directed at NRW. The importance of the groundwater receptors has been identified as Low (Devensian Till), Medium (Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits) and Very High (Kinnerton Sandstone Formation) which are considered appropriate for the strata present and the very high status of the sandstone acknowledges its good status and potential as an important groundwater source now and in the future. This is set out in Table 14.5 in Chapter 14 (The water environment) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-062). S.571. In order for sources of contamination to affect a receptor, a pathway must be present. The following potential pathways were considered in the assessment in relation to the groundwater environment: infiltration to the groundwater system and the development of new pathways during and as a result of the construction process, for example excavation or piling may create a preferential pathway for infiltration to the groundwater system. In paragraphs 14.43 to 14.38 in Chapter 4 of the ES the basis of assessment is set out as follows “the assessment commences with a detailed review of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), using the Environment Agency’s (EA) Source-Pathway-Receptor approach141. The CSM uses information on baseline conditions and the aspects of the proposed Scheme that are likely to

242

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

impact the water environment to identify the Source-Pathway-Receptor linkages as part of the assessment”. The Applicant considers the approach to the assessment of potential source-pathway-receptor linkages in the ES to be appropriate. The assessment concluded that the Scheme in isolation and cumulatively with other developments does not result in any likely significant effects on the Water Environment. S.572. It should be noted that Chapter 14 (the Water Environment) of the ES does not assess the potential impact of the mobilisation of contaminants within the current ground and potential impact of these on the underlying groundwater environment as this was assessed within Chapter 13 (Ground Conditions) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-061). S.573. Requirement 5: Ground Investigation of Revision 1 of the draft Order (submitted 26 July 2016) requires the Applicant to submit and obtain approval from the relevant planning authority, for a scheme to deal with the contamination of any land, including groundwater, which is likely to causes significant harm to persons or significant pollution of controlled waters or the environment. Additionally, Requirement 6: Piling of Revision 1 of the draft Order requires the Applicant to submit and obtain approval for a piling strategy, to include a piling risk assessment, prior to undertaking any piling activities. The Applicant considers that these requirements ensure that any potential impacts on the groundwater environment and any potential risks of contamination of land are appropriately mitigated. S.574. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with NRW and WCBC. The Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC.

QUESTION 1.17.5

Water environment: flood risk assessment

NRW’s relevant representation [RR-028] identifies that the flood risk arising from the smaller watercourse on the application site is unknown. (The Applicant has relied on the Development Advice Map but this does not include watercourses with a catchment area of less than 3km2.) NRW advised that the flood risk from this watercourse should be addressed.

 Can the Applicant provide an updated flood risk assessment which includes consideration of the smaller water course on the site together with any other relevant watercourses?

Response to Question 1.17.5

S.575. The WEC Level 2 Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) (Examination Library Reference APP-043) that forms part of the Application does not specifically review the flood risk from the small watercourse that flows along the field perimeter to the

243

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

west and north of the Power Station Complex Site (labelled as an existing brook in Drawing 5105324-WRE-DRG-409, Appendix 14.3 to the ES - Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Examination Library Reference APP-0148)). S.576. It is noted that the field terrain slopes down in a north easterly direction away from the Power Station Complex Site. Topographic survey levels across the Power Station Complex Site range from 31.99 metres above ordnance datum (AOD) down to 24.15 metres AOD (see Figure 10.2 of the ES (Examination Library Reference [APP-090 and APP-091]). S.577. Therefore, should there be a backing up of water within the watercourse as a result of a blockage of existing structures downstream of the Power Station Complex Site then the flood water is likely to over top the watercourse banks downstream of the Power Station Complex Site and flood the lower lying land rather than the Power Station Complex Site. However, the likelihood of such an event would be low. S.578. As mentioned in NRW’s relevant representation [RR-028] there is the presence of a culvert located immediately upstream of the Power Station Complex Site where the watercourse passes under the access track (approximate location SJ3907650503) to the south west of the Power Station Complex. Should the culvert become blocked then there is the potential for water to back up and overflow the road and migrate towards the Power Station Complex Site. The likelihood of such an event would be very low. S.579. In addition, the scale of impact would be dependent of whether there is active management or maintenance of the upstream culvert. It is noted that the topographic survey suggests that the watercourse in this area is at an elevation of less than 28 metres AOD whilst the Power Station Complex has levels in that area of more than 29 metres AOD. It is therefore considered that the potential impact on the proposed development should the culvert become blocked would be low. S.580. The above will be added to a revised FCA/FRA submission which will be submitted at Deadline 2. S.581. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with WCBC, which will address the Water Environment. The Examining Authority will be kept updated of progress.

QUESTION 1.17.6

Water environment: flood risk and drainage: construction phase

WCBC is the lead flood authority. Relatively little detail is provided in the ES or the draft CEMP [APP-152] on the content of the construction drainage strategy. The delivery of the CEMP is secured under Requirement 4 of the draft DCO which states that no construction can begin before the CEMP has been approved by the local authority, must be substantially in accordance with the draft CEMP provided in Appendix 19.1 of the ES and must include a construction drainage strategy. Further to the issue raised in question 1.17.5 above and

244

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

taking information provided by the Applicant at Deadline 2 into account together with information about the construction drainage strategy in the ES at appendix 14.3 [APP-148] (where a proposal for a permeable laydown area is set out in paragraph 5.19), WCBC are requested to address the following question at Deadline 3:

 Is the proposed construction drainage strategy appropriate?  Are WCBC and NRW satisfied with the current level of information about the content of the construction drainage strategy?  Is more detail needed in an updated outline CEMP?  Does DCO requirement 4 provide sufficient security that appropriate surface water drainage arrangements will be made?  Is any change required to DCO requirement 4?

Response to Question 1.17.6

S.582. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed primarily at Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). However, for clarity, the Applicant makes the following comments in advance of WCBC providing further comment at Deadline 3. S.583. The draft Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) provided in Appendix 19.1 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-152) describes the procedures and principles that will be implemented during the construction phase of the Scheme, the measures that will be applied to mitigate potentially adverse effects on the environment from the construction of the Scheme, and the specific measures that will be applied to mitigate potentially adverse effects on the environment from the construction of the Scheme. Paragraph 5.120 of the draft CEMP provides a list of specific mitigation measure including the implementation of the foul and surface water strategy The Foul and Surface Water Strategy for the Scheme (Examination Library Reference APP-015 and Examination Library Reference APP-148) considers two phases: construction and operation. The strategy was agreed in consultation with NRW and WCBC and the relevant correspondence is provided in Appendix A of the Foul and Surface Water Strategy. S.584. As the Applicant has stated in its response to FWQ 1.17.6, Requirement 4: Construction and Environment Management Plan in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order (Revision 1, July 2016) provides the security of agreeing a CEMP prior to authorised development commencing. Requirement 4(1), sub-paragraphs (m) and (n) provide that the CEMP must include surface and ground water protection measures and a construction drainage strategy. The CEMP to be submitted under Requirement 4 must be substantially in accordance with the draft CEMP submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-152). S.585. Also submitted with the Application, is a Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Examination Library Reference APP-015 and Examination Library Reference APP-

245

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

148), which contains an illustrative foul and surface water drainage plan. The Local Impact Report (Examination Library Reference LIR-001) in section 4 states that “this strategy [the Foul and Surface Water Strategy] does satisfy our normal requirements, and I would expect to see detailed drainage design included as a condition if permission were to be granted”. Requirement 12 Foul and surface water drainage in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order (Revision 1, July 2016) requires the Applicant to submit details of the surface and foul water drainage system for the operation of the Power Station Complex Site to WCBC for approval prior to commencement of Numbered Works 1 and 2. These details must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative foul and surface water drainage plan submitted with the Application. Accordingly, the Applicant considers that no further information is required and that Requirements 4 and 12 of the draft Order provides the necessary security. S.586. The Applicant is currently in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with WCBC and NRW, which will address the drainage strategy and the CEMP. Applicant’s Deadline 1 submissions include a position statement regarding the progress of the SOCGs with both NRW and WCBC S.587. The Applicant will respond further at Deadline 4 if further matters arise from WCBC and NRW at Deadline 3.

QUESTION 1.17.7

Water environment: flood risk and drainage: operational phase

WCBC is the lead flood authority.

The surface water drainage strategy during operation is Work No. 3 in the draft DCO [APP- 033]. The draft DCO also includes requirement 12 which states that Work No. 1 must not commence until the details of the foul and surface water drainage strategies have been approved by Wrexham CBC. These details must be ‘substantially in accordance with the illustrative foul and surface water drainage plan’ [APP-015]. Other measures to avoid contaminants affecting the water environment (such as bunding of fuel tanks) would be delivered through the design of the project and through the controls imposed through the Environmental Permit (EP) (ES Chapter 19 [APP-067]). This means that the application proposal appears to rely on mitigation which is not secured in the DCO and will be delivered pursuant to the EP process under the oversight of NRW.

Further to the issue raised in question 1.17.5 above and taking information provided by the Applicant at Deadline 2 into account together with information about the operational drainage strategy in the ES referred to above and at appendix 14.3 [APP-148], WCBC are requested to address the following questions at Deadline 3:

 Is the proposed operational drainage strategy appropriate?

246

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Is WCBC content with the division of matters and responsibilities between its own role and that of NRW pursuant to the EP?  Are there any matters relevant to the surface water drainage strategy that require input from DC/WW and if so, is that body content with the arrangements and distribution of responsibility on this topic as currently proposed?

Response to Question 1.17.7

S.588. The Applicant acknowledges that this FWQ 1.17.7 is primarily addressed to Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC), with additional information requested from WCBC at Deadline 3. However, for clarity at this stage, the Applicant would refer the Examining Authority to paragraph 1.12 of the Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Examination Library Reference APP-015 and in Appendix 14.3 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-148)) which confirms that “this Drainage Strategy has been prepared in accordance with the Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN15): Development & Flood Risk. The scope of this Strategy has been established through consultations with (NRW), Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) and Welsh Water and is specific to the Power Station Complex Site of the Scheme”. Chapter 2 (Background information) of Appendix 14.3 of the ES, sets out the responses to the Applicant’s enquiries from NRW (paragraph 2.1), Welsh Water (paragraph 2.2) and WCBC (paragraph 2.3) in respect of foul and surface water drainage. Appendix 14.2 (Water environment consultation) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-147) provides the correspondence between the Applicant, NRW and WCBC confirming the drainage strategy for the Scheme. S.589. The Applicant also confirms that the surface water design will also be in compliance with BS 8582:2013 Code of Practice for Surface Water Management for Development Sites and C697 The SuDS Manual. This was agreed with WCBC and is set out alongside other matters in paragraph 2.3 of Appendix 14.3 of the ES and the correspondence is provided in Appendix A of Appendix 14.3 of the ES. S.590. Requirement 12: Foul and surface water drainage in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order (Revision 1, July 2016) provides the necessary security to ensure that the surface water and foul water drainage system for the operation of the authorised development is submitted to and approved by WCBC. Elements and other sources of potential contamination to the water environment, such as the bunding of fuel tanks, are matters that will be regulated by the environmental regulator, Natural Resources Wales, and monitored as part of the Environmental Permit arrangements for the Scheme.

247

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1.17.8

Water environment: foul drainage: operational phase

DC/WW is the foul drainage provider in Wrexham Industrial Estate (WIE). The application proposal seeks a connection to the existing public sewer network in WIE and the ES suggests that both domestic and trade effluent (comprising flows up to 6l/sec) would be discharged to the network (Appendix 14.3 [APP-148) at para 6.2). It is not fully clear from the ES Appendix whether the existing network is capable of receiving domestic or trade effluent or both. The DC/WW relevant representation [RR-008] identifies a potential capacity shortfall in the existing infrastructure suggesting the need for works before a connection could be made and that it is unclear about the type(s) of trade effluent flows that are proposed to be discharged to the sewer, its volume, exact nature and composition and whether any screening or pre- treatment would be provided before discharge.

 The Applicant is requested to engage with DC/WW and to provide an update setting out responses to the matters raised at Deadline 2.  Are any additional works required that are not provided for in the DCO as applied for and if so, would these take place on land that is outside the Order land as currently identified?  How is it proposed that any additional works would be consented?  DC/WW are requested to identify any outstanding matters not agreed.

If these tasks are addressed in a Statement of Common Ground, the responses to this question should indicate where the information that it seeks can be found.

Response to Question 1.17.8

S.591. Chapter 14 (The Water Environment) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-062) has assessed the potential impact of the Scheme on the water environment. The Application is also accompanied by a Level 2 Flood Consequence Assessment (Examination Library Reference APP-043) and a Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Examination Library Reference APP-015 and in Appendix 14.3 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-148)). The Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy has been prepared in consultation with Natural Resource Wales (NRW), Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) and Welsh Water (WW), and confirms that “this Drainage Strategy has been prepared in accordance with the Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN15): Development & Flood Risk. The scope of this Strategy has been established through consultations with (NRW), Wrexham County Borough Council and Welsh Water and is specific to the Power Station Complex Site of the Scheme”. Chapter 2 (Background information) of Appendix 14.3 of the ES sets out the responses to the development enquiries that were received by the Applicant from NRW (paragraph 2.1), WW (paragraph 2.2) and WCBC (paragraph 2.3). Appendix 14.2 (Water

248

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

environment consultation) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-147) provides the correspondence between the Applicant, NRW and WCBC confirming the drainage strategy for the Scheme. The drainage strategy was developed on the basis of the plant discharging the following three effluents: (i) Water treatment system reject water. The water treatment system will consist of reverse osmosis technology, as this technology is expected to best demonstrate Best Available Techniques for the purposes of the Environmental Permit that will be required for water discharge. The raw water source is expected to be potable water from the mains. This water will be softened and demineralised in the water treatment system. The reverse osmosis process effectively separates some of the incoming water from its chemical constituents leaving a percentage of the incoming water stream with concentrated constituents. The “concentrated water” will be discharged to the sewer. (ii) Boiler blowdown water. The boilers will discharge (blowdown) water from the feedwater system to remove the build-up of sludge in the steam drums. The sludge is the result of the demineralised water becoming concentrated in the drums as steam is produced. The blowdown water will contain the chemicals used to control pH and prevent corrosion in the steam system. The chemical regime will be agreed between the designer and operator of the plant but is likely to consist of either an ammonia or phosphate regime. This blowdown water will be discharged to the sewer. (iii) The Power Station Complex will have domestic foul connection for amenities. This has been estimated to result in a total discharge rate of 1 litre per second. S.592. The Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Examination Library Reference APP- 015 and in Appendix 14.3 of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-148)) confirms that the outfall for the surface water drainage system for the Power Station Complex will be to the watercourse that runs along the northern boundary of the Power Station Complex Site. The maximum discharge rates will be limited to the greenfield runoff rate which equates to a rate of 12.2l/s, as agreed with NRW. It is anticipated that all parts of the Power Station Complex Site’s surface water drainage system will remain in private ownership. S.593. As explained in the Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy, all foul water flows would be discharged into the local public combined sewerage system via a combined manhole located adjacent to the amenity tip approximately 150m south of the Power Station Complex Site. The downstream pipe size and the invert level of this manhole are currently unknown. WW has confirmed that its network would need to be remodelled with these additional flows to see if the system could accommodate the flow without requiring enabling works. If such modelling indicated there was not sufficient capacity, WW would provide a report indicating the works required in order to provide the necessary capacity. Any enabling works

249

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

outside the Order limits and Order land, would likely be permitted development and carried out by WW using their statutory powers. S.594. The Applicant has carried out further discussions with WW who have identified that there is unlikely to be capacity within the public sewer network to accommodate the trade effluent flows from the Power Station Complex. An update will be provided by the Applicant at Deadline 2 as requested.

QUESTION 1.17.9

Water environment: foul drainage adoption of assets: operational phase

DC/WW has also commented on the application proposal for a retained (private) pumping station and rising main beyond the operational area of the generating station. It suggests that such assets are required to be adopted by it under s104 of the Water Industry Act (1991) (WIA1991). The implication from this is that the specification for these works would need to be to the satisfaction of DC/WW.

 The Applicant is requested to engage with DC/WW and to provide an update setting out responses to the matters raised at Deadline 2.  DC/WW is requested to identify any outstanding matters not agreed.

If these tasks are addressed in a Statement of Common Ground, the responses to this question should indicate where the information that it seeks can be found.

Response to Question 1.17.9

S.595. The Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy in paragraph 5.26 of Appendix 14.3 of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Examination Library Reference APP-148 states that the on-site pumping station and rising main will remain private. However, as referenced in FWQ 1.17.9, Welsh Water (WW) has indicated that the pumping station and rising main are required to be adopted under s104 of the Water Industry Act (1991). S.596. The Applicant and WW have been in discussion about this matter for some time, and WW confirmed on 16 August 2016 (see email below) that a Trade Effluent Consent can offer the required control and that there is no requirement for any other legal agreement to limit the level of trade discharge leaving the Power Station Complex Site. Therefore, as there is control through this trade consent, WW will not need to adopt the pumping station. S.597. WW has, however, now stated that they would only look to adopt the rising main from where it leaves the Power Station Complex Site boundary to the point at which it connects into the public sewer. The pumping station and rising main within

250

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

the Power Station Complex Site boundary can remain private as previously stated in Appendix 14.3 of the ES.

Copy of email from Henry Jones-Hughes at Welsh Water to Liz Bowers – Atkins 16/8/16@ 14:20

Hi Liz

Following on from our earlier telephone conversation I have discussed the adoption of the on-site pumping station and rising main. As you have stated Welsh Water will have a control mechanism by way of the trade effluent consent which will limit the level of trade discharge leaving the site. This was my only real concern about the pumping station remaining private. Any solution as a result of the hydraulic modelling assessment would be based on a set discharge rate, As there is control by way of this trade consent we will not need to adopt the pumping station.

The Trade Effluent Officer has said that they would need a testing point (a manhole) upstream of the pumping station which enables us to test the trade effluent flows. The domestic flows would need to be separate from the trade up to the point it connects into the pumping station.

I’ve also discussed this with our engineers and they have confirmed that we would only adopt the part of the rising main which is beyond the development site boundary to the point at which it connects into the public sewer. The pumping station and rising main within the site boundary can remain private.

I hope this is clear. Let me know if you need any more information

Regards

Henry

Henry Jones-Hughes

Development Control Officer | Developer Services | Dwr Cymru Welsh Water

PO Box 3146 | Cardiff | CF30 0EH | T: 0800 9172652| F: 02920 740472 | Ext. 65813

251

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

S.598. To the extent that additional matters arise, the Applicant will engage further with WW over the coming weeks and, if necessary, will provide a further update at Deadline 2.

QUESTION 1.17.10

Water environment: foul drainage

Taking the matters raised by the above questions into account, is WBCB satisfied with the proposed foul drainage arrangements?

Response to Question 1.17.10

S.599. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed at Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC). S.600. The Applicant further acknowledges that additional responses to FWQs 1.17.8 and 1.17.9 are to be provided at Deadline 2. S.601. The Applicant would, however, emphasise at this stage that WCBC has already stated in paragraph 4.3 of section 5 (The Water Environment) of its Local Impact Report (Examination Library Reference LIR-001) that “this strategy [Foul and surface water drainage strategy in Examination Library Reference APP-015 and Examination Library Reference APP-148] does satisfy our normal requirements, and I would expect to see detailed drainage design included as a condition if permission were to be granted”. S.602. In addition to this, Requirement 12: Foul and surface water drainage in Schedule 2 to the draft Development Consent Order (revision 1, July 2016), provides the necessary security that the surface water and foul water drainage system for the operation of the authorised development will be submitted to and approved by WCBC before Numbered Works 1 and 2 can commence. The details submitted under Requirement 12 must be substantially in accordance with the illustrative foul and surface water drainage plan submitted with the Application (Examination Library Reference APP-015).

QUESTION 1.17.11

Water environment: new water supply/ abstraction

The proposed generating station is to be air cooled and so water abstraction will not be required during operation (however please refer to question 1.3.4in respect of CHP readiness above).

252

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

 Is there any foreseeable water demand on site that would require a new (additional) water supply or abstraction?  If so, what volume is likely to be required and where will this new supply / abstraction come from?

Response to Question 1.17.11

S.603. The Applicant confirms that there is no foreseeable water demand for the operation of the Power Station Complex Site that would require a new (additional) water supply or abstraction. Chapter 4 (The proposed development) of the ES (Examination Library Reference APP-052) provides details of the Power Station Complex Site, including matters relating to water supply and abstraction. Specifically, paragraph 4.85 (Cooling Systems) of Chapter 4 of the ES states “The cooling medium for exhaust steam will be air, via a dry air-cooled condenser for all turbine configurations “. Paragraph 4.86 (Water Treatment Plant) of Chapter 4 of the ES states “A water treatment plant would be installed to provide demineralised water for the Power Station Complex steam system…….the make-up water will be provided by the local water supply company Dee Valley Water”. S.604. With regard to CHP readiness, further details of which are given in the Applicant's response to FWQs 1.3.4, the Applicant confirms that there is the potential to need an additional volume of water to fill a closed circuit pipe network internal to the Power Station Complex. The pipe network would be used to transfer heat from the Power Station Complex Site to an external heat supply network to be developed, if viable, on Wrexham Industrial Estate. The volume of water required for this internal network would be of a similar nature to the existing steam and closed circuit plant cooling systems (Water Treatment Plant) within the Power Station Complex Site. The source of this water would be the same local supplier’s potable water system from Dee Valley Water.

QUESTION 1.17.12

Water environment: CIA

Are bodies concerned with water environment effects (flooding, surface and foul drainage, water abstraction and supply) content that the cumulative impact assessment (CIA) in the ES takes sufficient account of additional development and other major projects?

Response to Question 1.17.12

S.605. The Applicant acknowledges that this question is directed to Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water and Wrexham County Borough Council

253

WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE  RESPONSES TO EXA FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS

(WCBC). However, the Applicant offers the following response at this stage in order to assist the Examination. S.606. The Applicant confirms that it discussed in detail, and agreed, with WCBC the list of cumulative developments which were to be included within the cumulative impact assessment. Both the Applicant and WCBC agreed that the projects included within the cumulative impact assessment take sufficient account of additional development and other major projects in the area. For the purposes of clarification, the projects agreed between the Applicant and WCBC are as follows:  The Electrical Connection;  The North Wales Prison;  Kingmoor Park North; and  Pickhill Bridge Solar Farm. S.607. Following receipt of the Electrical Connection Offer from SP Manweb (SPM/SPEN) confirming that the connection would be a wholly underground solution to the Legacy Substation, the Applicant is undertaking an updated cumulative impact assessment to take into account the confirmed solution. This updated assessment will be submitted to the Examination at Deadline 2, but the current findings show that the wholly underground connection will have no worse cumulative effects than the Electrical Connection that has been assessed to date. S.608. The Applicant is also currently in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with NRW and WCBC. Updates on the progress of this Statement of Common Ground will be provided to the Examining Authority as necessary, including with regard to matters relating to the water environment.

254