written representation by first corporate shipping limited ... · 52 bedford row london wc1r 4lr ....

WRITTEN REPRESENTATION BY THE BRISTOL PORT COMPANY

26.02.2015

WB1\9658963\5

Written representation by

First Corporate Shipping Limited trading as The Bristol Port Company

26 February 2015

Application by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc for an order granting development consent for the Hinkley Point C Connection Project

Planning Inspectorate reference EN020001 Registration identification reference 10029652

WEDLAKE BELL LLP 52 Bedford Row

London WC1R 4LR


26.02.2015

WB1\9658963\5

CONTENTS

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

2. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................ 2

3. PORTBURY ROUTE OPTIONS ............................................................................................. 4

4. SERIOUS DETRIMENT .......................................................................................................... 5

5. CROOK'S MARSH ................................................................................................................. 7

6. PORT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 8

7. LOCATION AND DESIGN OF APPARATUS ...................................................................... 11

8. OPTION A WORKS .............................................................................................................. 14

9. OPTION B WORKS .............................................................................................................. 19

10. OTHER WORKS: WORK NOS. 1G, 4L, 4M, 4N, 4O AND 5 ............................................... 28

11. WORK NO. 4G ..................................................................................................................... 35

12. POWERS TO TAKE TEMPORARY POSSESSION AND POWERS TO UNDERTAKE ANCILLARY WORKS ................................................................................... 38

13. ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY ........................................................................................ 50

14. PERMANENT EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 54

15. ECOLOGY/MITIGATION ...................................................................................................... 57

16. CONTROLS DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 58

17. PORT BYELAWS ................................................................................................................. 60

18. NAVIGATION........................................................................................................................ 61

19. COMMENTS ON DRAFT DCO ............................................................................................ 64

Appendix A: Definitions 74

Appendix B: Option A Works, Option B Works and Other Works 75

Appendix C: Protocol 87

Appendix D: Plans 89


26.02.2015

- 1 -

WB1\9658963\5

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Pursuant to the Bristol Dock Acts and Orders 1848–2010 First Corporate Shipping Limited, trading as The Bristol Port Company ("BPC"), is the statutory undertaker (harbour and competent harbour authority) for Bristol and the owner and operator of the commercial port of Bristol (the "Port"). It is an interested party for the purposes of this DCO process.

1.2 In its relevant representations, BPC recognised the need for electricity connections between generators and energy consumers; for a secure national energy supply as envisaged by the National Policy Statements for Energy; and therefore the need in principle for the Hinkley C connection to cross BPC's land. However, BPC fundamentally disagrees with major elements of the Applicant's proposals, because they will materially and adversely affect the efficient, safe and economic operation of the Port both now and in the future. In order to preserve its interests, and in accordance with its statutory functions, BPC seeks, amongst other things material amendments to the DCO, including an appropriately worded protective provision.

1.3 Since submitting its relevant representations in August 2014, discussions have taken place between BPC and the Applicant to try to reach agreement as to the nature and extent of powers sought by the Applicant in the DCO and how those powers should be regulated and restricted, should the DCO be made. Those discussions are continuing but have not, as yet, reached any agreed conclusions.

1.4 While those discussions have helpfully clarified some aspects of the Applicant's scheme, others remain opaque. BPC therefore necessarily reserves its position to add to or amend this representation as necessary or appropriate and to make further written and oral representations.

1.5 In BPC's submission, the requirement for it to comment in this representation on those aspects of the Applicant's scheme which are inaccurate or lack adequate detail – such as the BoR and the respective detailed routes for Option A and Option B – means that significant costs continue to be incurred needlessly and unreasonably, in relation to which BPC's position is reserved.

1.6 At Appendix A certain words and expressions used throughout this representation are defined.


26.02.2015

- 2 -

WB1\9658963\5

2. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES

2.1 The Applicant's proposed development will have significant adverse impacts on BPC's land, the conduct of its commercial port activities, and the respective business interests of its customers and tenants.

2.2 Based on its assessment so far, which relies on incomplete information provided by the Applicant, BPC has identified issues of particular concern including those described below which are considered in more detail later in this representation. Without prejudice to the more detailed exposition which follows, BPC’s present objection can be taken to include the following:

2.2.1 the Applicant's apparent determination to seek a DCO containing dual permission for it to construct Option A and Option B, despite its statements that it expects the Secretary of State to select one of those options but without the DCO containing any mechanism to authorise that selection (on the apparently disingenuous basis that it would involve no more than the deletion of one or two paragraphs of the DCO);

2.2.2 despite the discussions referred to below, the lack of any adequate detail to enable BPC to assess the respective impacts of Option A and Option B on BPC's land and operations;

2.2.3 the Applicant's failure to demonstrate any compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of rights over BPC's land as allegedly set out in the DCO;

2.2.4 the serious detriment which BPC, as a statutory undertaker, would suffer if compulsory acquisition were to be authorised, including:

(a) significant loss and/or impairment of essential operational flexibility caused by the location of the Applicant's apparatus; and

(b) air draught constraints resulting from inadequate OHL clearances which would constrain warehouse development and the use of cargo-handling equipment within the dock estate;

2.2.5 during construction:

(a) the material interference with port operations resulting from the use of port roads (traffic type/volumes and traffic management);

(b) dust, debris and dirt caused by construction traffic on port roads and resulting air pollution which will, or may, contaminate motor vehicles and other sensitive cargoes handled at the port and be regarded by the motor vehicle trade as significantly detrimental to their vehicles and falling wholly short of the quality expectations which the apply to ports; and

(c) the creation and use of construction compounds;

2.2.6 port security and health and safety issues caused by the Applicant's intrusive activities on BPC's land;

2.2.7 navigation, health and safety and socio-economic risks resulting from the Applicant's proposed river crossing;

2.2.8 the Applicant's proposed disapplication of some of the Port's byelaws;


26.02.2015

- 3 -

WB1\9658963\5

2.2.9 ecological effects, particularly the inadequacy of the Applicant's proposed mitigation measures which conflict with BPC's statutory duties in relation to the environment;

2.2.10 the proposals set out in the DCO permitting the future transfer of its powers to a third party; and

2.2.11 the interests of BPC's customers and tenants.

2.3 These matters all need to be dealt with satisfactorily and, in many cases, by appropriate amendment to the DCO.


26.02.2015

- 4 -

WB1\9658963\5

3. PORTBURY ROUTE OPTIONS

3.1 Since submission of its relevant representations, BPC has been able to obtain (some) further information from the Applicant about the detail of its proposals. In particular, BPC has had sight of preliminary draft drawings prepared by the Applicant indicating the split between Option A and Option B, although more definitive information is not yet available.

3.2 Based on its current assessment of the further information from the Applicant - and in circumstances where a material lack of clarity persists - BPC has been forced to make certain assumptions (but only for the purposes of preparing this representation) about Option A and Option B in relation to certain aspects of the DCO, including the Parcels which would be affected. For convenience, Appendix B contains BPC's resulting assessment of various matters as they relate respectively to the Option A Works, the Option B Works and the other works under the DCO, showing whether particular Parcels or works are required in each case. On that basis, BPC has made a fuller assessment of the implications of each of Option A and Option B, including the respective alternative (temporary and permanent) works required.

3.3 BPC has assessed each option by reference to its likely impact, both during and after construction, on BPC's land, its port operations and the activities of its customers and tenants. By reference to those criteria, while it regards neither option as desirable BPC has now concluded - on the basis of information emerging since its relevant representation - that Option B would have a considerably greater intrusive and disruptive effect: it would penetrate the dock estate far more deeply and directly affect the use and operation of, and access to and from, the port's motor vehicle compounds and other cargo-handling areas. By contrast Option A, while still causing intrusion and disruption, would have lesser effects because the Applicant's works would be confined principally to the south-eastern boundary of BPC's land.

3.4 Assuming that the further information received from the Applicant is and remains correct and that it is reflected by appropriate changes to the DCO, BPC now therefore considers that Option A would be the less undesirable of the two options.

3.5 BPC has reached its view with considerable reluctance, because it recognises the concerns held by the residents of Portbury and Elm Tree Park about the visual and other effects which Option A would have on them. It has been an incredibly difficult decision for BPC to make and it has only done so having regard to its statutory functions and the need to safeguard the Port’s ability to function in the public and national interest. BPC urges the Applicant to renew its engagement with those local residents affected by Option A with a view to seeking ways in which to mitigate its effect. For example, BPC understands that low height steel lattice pylons may not have been considered for that part of Option A which affects Portbury and Elm Tree Park. While BPC expresses no view as to the suitability of those pylons, it queries the appropriateness of the Applicant's failure to consider the issue.

3.6 BPC's above view does not indicate, and should not be construed as, a general acceptance of the remainder of the DCO including, in particular, the powers of compulsory acquisition sought by the Applicant. Nor does it, for instance, accept the manner in which either option is presently proposed to be constructed; for example, the conductor height presently proposed above ground represents an unacceptable, and seriously detrimental, impact on port operations.


26.02.2015

- 5 -

WB1\9658963\5

4. SERIOUS DETRIMENT

Statutory undertaker's land

4.1 BPC's land has been acquired by BPC as a statutory undertaker for the purposes of its undertaking. The land is used for the purposes of carrying on BPC's statutory undertaking, or the land is held for those purposes.

4.2 BPC's land is therefore land to which section 127(1) of the Planning Act 2008 applies. Further, in BPC's view, the Secretary of State could not be satisfied that serious detriment to the carrying on of BPC's statutory undertaking would not occur in consequence of the proposed acquisition of rights over BPC's land sought by the Applicant in the DCO.

4.3 Land lost to the Applicant's proposed development could not be replaced. Even if it could, significant planning and other constraints would deny BPC the ability to utilise it for operational port purposes. For example, in 2000, concerned that it was running out of land to support the Port's growing trade, BPC acquired an adjacent site of 68 acres at Shipway Farm in order to expand its operational land area. Attempts to secure development consent for that use were unsuccessful.

Effect of the authorised development

4.4 The Applicant's proposals mean, among other things, that:

4.4.1 use of BPC's land for port operations by BPC and its customers will be disrupted during and after construction of the Applicant's works;

4.4.2 as a result, BPC's ability to meet customer demand will be impaired, resulting in the failure to retain and/or attract key trades;

4.4.3 BPC's ability to accommodate cargo volumes at times of peak capacity will also be impaired, resulting in loss of business and/or delays to vessels, for which BPC will be liable to pay compensation with consequent long-term (or even permanent) damage to the Port's market reputation, an issue which is especially acute in relation to BPC's motor vehicle trade, where that reputation has been hard won over many years;

4.4.4 BPC's ability to compete for business will therefore be materially constrained;

4.4.5 lost trade will adversely affect BPC's ability to maintain and invest in essential port infrastructure in discharge of its statutory duties; and

4.4.6 the Port's strategic significance for the UK will be seriously damaged and its economic contribution locally, regionally and nationally will be adversely affected.

4.5 Further examples of serious detriment are set out elsewhere in this representation.

OHL clearances

4.6 BPC considers that:

4.6.1 so far as they affect the Avonmouth dock estate, the above-ground conductor clearances for OHL forming part of the authorised development (as proposed in the design drawings submitted with the DCO application) are inadequate. They signally fail to accommodate either the current or future activities and operations of BPC, including the erection of buildings required in connection with the operation of the Port; and


26.02.2015

- 6 -

WB1\9658963\5

4.6.2 the construction of those OHL, and the required acquisition and imposition of rights and restrictions on and over BPC's land, cannot occur without serious detriment to the carrying on of BPC's undertaking.

4.7 BPC requires an increase under the DCO of all conductor clearances throughout the Avonmouth dock estate as referred to later in this representation.

Pylon locations

4.8 The Applicant's proposed location of pylons within motor vehicle compounds will materially affect, and occasion serious detriment to, the efficient use and operation of those compounds and each relevant pylon should be relocated, as specified later in this representation.


26.02.2015

- 7 -

WB1\9658963\5

5. CROOK'S MARSH

5.1 The Crook's Marsh site is part of BPC's land to the north-east of Avonmouth docks and includes, for example, Parcels G567 and G575.

5.2 The Applicant's proposals for connection works for the new 400kV line and the associated undergrounding of other lines (see Works Plans Section G, inset A to sheet 7 of 7) mean that more than 70% of the c.15ha (36 acre) Crook's Marsh site will be directly and adversely affected.

5.3 The site has previously been identified by BPC for future development as part of its undertaking. Potential uses include warehousing and distribution to support trades handled by BPC.

5.4 The resulting configuration of the site, with existing OHLs, new OHLs and undergrounded cables means that the majority of the site will be permanently lost to economically-viable use and development by BPC. The unaffected part of the site has unsatisfactory road access and is less than 30% of the site.


26.02.2015

- 8 -

WB1\9658963\5

6. PORT OPERATIONS

6.1 The Port is a major deep water commercial facility and one of the largest in the UK. Its natural deep water gives it the ability to handle the largest ships that currently call in UK waters, and to that extent puts it in a unique position amongst UK ports. Its strategic importance is recognised at regional, national and European levels. In total, BPC's land - the dock estate - comprises 980 hectares (2,419 acres). It is divided by the River Avon and served by two lock systems, which provide access to Royal Portbury Dock ("RPD") and the Avonmouth and Royal Edward Docks (together "Avonmouth") respectively.

6.2 The Port benefits from excellent hinterland links. Both ports at RPD and Avonmouth have direct motorway access (at junctions 18 and 19 of the M5 respectively) and the M4/M5 interchange is within 12 kilometres of the Port. Both RPD and Avonmouth are also connected directly to the UK national rail network and have sufficient capacity for rail paths to key destinations. It is, in terms of access to strategic road and rail links, one of the best located ports in the country.

6.3 The Port is recognised as nationally significant infrastructure and a key gateway for UK trade: the cargoes handled, as described below, are distributed across the UK. In particular, its location and transport connections enable it to serve to the heavily populated Manchester-London-Bristol 'triangle'.

6.4 The Port is an important employer in its own right; around 19,000 jobs around the UK are supported by BPC and its tenants. Together, they supported an estimated £1bn gross value added contribution to UK GDP in 2012.

6.5 An exceptionally wide range of trades is handled at the Port including:

6.5.1 motor vehicles;

6.5.2 bulk energy trades (for example, coal and biomass);

6.5.3 dry and liquid bulks (for example, aggregates, petroleum products and fruit juice);

6.5.4 animal feed and grains;

6.5.5 containers;

6.5.6 forest products and metals;

6.5.7 fresh produce;

6.5.8 project and heavy lift cargo; and

6.5.9 cruise.

6.6 BPC's business, as with many ports, is highly dynamic: it is impossible to predict the nature, type and/or volume of cargo which it may be asked to handle. So it is essential that BPC always has the ability to respond positively to customer demand often for large, flexible areas of land without significant air draught limitations, capable of accommodating varying quantities, sizes, heights and types of cargo in open and/or covered storage facilities. Ports must, by their very nature, be reactive and able to meet demand at very short notice and in whatever form it may arise.


26.02.2015

- 9 -

WB1\9658963\5

Motor vehicles

6.7 Around 700,000 motor vehicles are handled by BPC annually, either for export to overseas markets or import for sale in the UK.

6.8 By land area, the motor vehicle import trade is a significant part of the Port's business and it is exceptionally sensitive to the impact of the Applicant's proposed development. Large areas of BPC's land are either leased to major car manufacturers or allocated for their use as secure motor vehicle compounds in order to receive and transit-store large volumes of motor vehicles prior to their inland distribution to motor dealer networks.

6.9 Imported motor vehicles are unloaded from deep-sea vessels at RPD and driven individually by BPC's stevedores to their first point of rest and then the relevant motor vehicle compound. From there, subject to a period of transit-storage, they are loaded onto road transport for delivery to motor dealers. Those activities, operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, mean that there are significant volumes of traffic using the private dock roads. BPC is extremely concerned about the Applicant's proposals: they would materially disrupt the operation of BPC's motor vehicle business because of their effect on dock roads and motor vehicle compounds and threaten the security of those compounds.

6.10 Competition between ports to handle the motor vehicle trade is intense. Any disruption of BPC's ability to service its customers, or any risk of damage to, or contamination of, the motor vehicles handled at the Port would materially prejudice its market reputation and customer relationships.

6.11 It is for the above reasons that BPC has reluctantly concluded that Option A would, subject to BPC's other concerns, be the less undesirable of the Applicant's two options at Portbury; this is because - on BPC's present understanding of the Applicant's proposals – construction and future maintenance traffic would largely be contained on the southern edge of BPC's land and therefore be likely to cause a lower level of disruption to trades operating at the Port (in particular, but not only, the motor vehicle trade) both during and after completion of the Applicant's proposed works.

Warehousing and storage

6.12 In order to service bulk and unitised (for example, palletised) trades, BPC needs to provide extensive areas of covered transit warehousing and open storage, frequently making significant capital investment to maintain existing customers and on a speculative basis in order to win new customers. For example, BPC has recently developed two new warehouses at Avonmouth at a capital cost of £5m in order to provide an additional 9,000m² of storage for general port use.

6.13 To be able to store the relevant cargoes efficiently and safely (to accommodate large volumes and to manage, for example, weather sensitive cargo and risks of overheating), warehousing has to be constructed within the dock area to a minimum ridge height of, currently, approximately 15 metres. Open storage areas also need to be located within the dock area with sufficiently large surrounding operating areas and air draught in order to operate cranes and other equipment needed to handle the cargoes concerned (including, for example, wind turbine blades and columns; Airbus wings; and unusual, heavy lift equipment).

Port security

6.14 Security at the Port is a major consideration: BPC and its customers operate bonded facilities under HMRC approvals; the Port holds one of the largest licences to handle explosives in the


26.02.2015

- 10 -

WB1\9658963\5

UK; high value cargoes are routinely handled and it is a customer requirement that they must be secure at all times within the port area. For those reasons, the Port maintains an outer, fenced security perimeter with access only permitted through specific checkpoints.

6.15 BPC's security and policing is the responsibility of its own non-Home Office force of uniformed, warranted constables sworn under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, established under the powers set out in the relevant local legislation applicable to the Port.

6.16 The Port Security (Avonmouth Dock and Royal Portbury Dock and Port of Bristol Security Authority) Designation Order 2010, made pursuant to the Port Security Regulations 2009, designates the boundaries of RPD and Avonmouth. It also establishes the Port of Bristol Security Authority. The Chief Officer of the Port Police acts as the Port Facility Security Officer, as defined in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code ("ISPS"). The ISPS is a series of special measures to enhance maritime security, contained in the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter XI-2 and transposed into English law by EU regulation.


26.02.2015

- 11 -

WB1\9658963\5

7. LOCATION AND DESIGN OF APPARATUS

7.1 Existing 132kV OHLs cross the dock estate and Portbury. They have been features of the dock estate at Portbury since it opened for business in 1977. BPC is therefore well aware of the limitations that result from the presence of those pylons and associated conductors, the sterilising effect that they have on areas of the surrounding land and the extent to which they constrain what would otherwise be the optimum use of the Port's land. BPC's operational port compounds and other facilities have had to be designed and operated around those current areas of sterilisation so as to maximise the usable areas still available to BPC.

7.2 BPC is now being asked to accommodate further and more intrusive apparatus on its dock estate, and that apparatus will also affect for the first time areas in the immediate vicinity of the dock berths. It is therefore essential that the apparatus is designed and located in such a way as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, both (i) its impact on existing activities and the use of existing facilities, and (ii) the extent to which it will inhibit or prevent entirely BPC's future ability to operate and develop the port facilities.

7.3 BPC has therefore considered very carefully the precise location of each pylon (including its proposed form – lattice or T-pylon), conductor, cable and item of associated equipment proposed by the Applicant, together with the resulting clearances to conductors at their maximum sag and swing, all as shown on the submitted design drawings and works plans, to ascertain the effect they will have on dock activities now and in the future. In making an assessment of this kind, various factors must be taken into account, including:

7.3.1 the cargoes/trades using or intended to use the facilities, and their particular requirements as to layout, security, building design and height;

7.3.2 ensuring provision is made for efficient access to all necessary infrastructure, including clear access to roads, rail and quayside facilities;

7.3.3 air draught required for cargo handling, including craneage requirements; and

7.3.4 ensuring flexibility to accommodate future change.

7.4 BPC contends that, in its design of the proposed works so far as they affect the dock estate, the Applicant’s assessment of these factors has been wholly inadequate or totally absent, with the result that serious detriment will be occasioned to BPC's carrying on of its statutory undertaking by the implementation of the current design drawings. For example, the Applicant has taken no account of the current use of the area of the dock estate at Avonmouth known as the railway land for handling and storage of wind turbine components; that use requires significant air draught. Nor has the Applicant taken into account BPC's current proposals, for which it has planning permission, for the construction on that site of a transit shed with a ridge height of circa 15.4 metres. The Applicant's design locates a pylon (LD110) in the centre of the operational area with related conductors crossing the whole area providing only minimal clearances from ground level, which does not permit the continuation of the current storage use nor the construction of transit sheds1.

7.5 Details are given in the following sections 8, 9 and 10 of changes that must be made to the design drawings and/or works plans if serious detriment is to be avoided.

7.6 In relation to the remainder of the proposed development under the DCO so far as it affects the dock estate, it is critical that it be constructed exactly in accordance with the design drawings

1 See further section 10 below.


26.02.2015

- 12 -

WB1\9658963\5

and works plans (once they have been amended as BPC requires). Any change – no matter how small – to the location of pylons, conductors or cables may change the effect that the development has on BPC's land and operations. In particular it is vital that no change is made that would result in the conductor clearances shown on the design drawings (once they have been amended as BPC requires) being reduced.

7.7 Under article 3(6), the undertaker is required to construct the authorised development only in "general" accordance with the levels shown on the design drawings. BPC contends that this qualification is in any event excessively lax and inappropriate. BPC agrees with the Examining Authority's view, as expressed in Question 4.4 of the Examining Authority's first written questions, that the use of this qualification is in any event unduly vague and imprecise. However, in relation to the placement of works on the dock estate it is wholly unacceptable, for the reasons given above.

7.8 Under Requirement 3 (Schedule 3, paragraph 3), the wording again appears that the authorised development may be carried out only in "general" accordance with the design drawings, and further allows for the local planning authority to authorise changes that, presumably, go beyond what that qualification would already allow. BPC notes the Examining Authority's view, as expressed in Question 4.42 of the Examining Authority's first written questions, that both of these qualifications should be removed from the Requirement, and would endorse that view, for the reasons given above. Also, given BPC's specialist knowledge of the needs of the Port in terms of the use and development of its dock estate, it is not appropriate for the local planning authority to be given a discretion to change the settled design of the authorised development so far as it affects BPC as a statutory undertaker.

7.9 Under article 5(a) the undertaker is given powers to deviate from the design drawings laterally (and so also longitudinally) within the relevant limits of deviation. Such deviations would not be acceptable in relation to the placement of works on the dock estate, for the reasons given above. It is also understood that the Applicant's intent is that the maximum swing of conductors must remain within the limits of deviation – rather than just the apparatus itself when stationary. This is not currently clear in the DCO.

7.10 Under article 5(b)(ii) the undertaker is given powers to deviate from the design drawings vertically downwards to any extent. For the reasons given above it would not be acceptable for any such deviation to be made in relation to works on the dock estate if that would have the effect of further reducing conductor clearances. Indeed, and as already set out, the DCO parameters in the vertical plane already allow the slinging of conductors so low as to result in serious detriment to port operations.

7.11 The definition of “maintain” in article 2(1), combined with the powers under article 4, would permit changes to the apparatus as originally installed without any assessment being made of the effect that might have on BPC’s operations. This ability must be excluded in relation to the dock estate.

Amendments to DCO

7.12 For these reasons, BPC requires that the DCO be altered, including as follows:

7.12.1 by way of amendment:

(a) to insert a requirement in article 3(1) that the works referred to may be carried out only within the Order limits;

(b) to delete the word "general" in article 3(6); and


26.02.2015

- 13 -

WB1\9658963\5

(c) in relation to Requirement 3 as proposed in Question 4.42 of the Examining Authority's first written questions; and

7.12.2 to include a protective provision to the effect that, unless BPC agrees otherwise, in so far as the authorised development is situated on, under or over the dock estate:

(a) all pylons and related conductors and all cables (relating to both 132kV and 400kV works) must be constructed exactly as shown on the works plans and design drawings (as amended to accommodate BPC's requirements);

(b) despite article 5(a), no lateral or longitudinal deviation from the lines or situations of the authorised development shown on the works plans (as amended to accommodate BPC's requirements) is permitted;

(c) despite article 5(b), no downwards vertical deviation from the levels of the authorised development shown on the sections or on the design drawings is permitted if that deviation would have the effect of any as built conductor clearance being reduced from that shown on the design drawings; in this context the 'design drawings' should be taken as a reference to those drawings as BPC requires that they are amended, as described in section 10; and

(d) unless BPC agrees otherwise, no powers under the DCO in relation to the maintenance of the authorised development shall authorise any adjustment, alteration or addition to be made to the authorised development as originally constructed nor (except to the extent necessary to effect a repair) any replacement or relaying of the authorised development.

7.13 As explained in section 14 below, BPC considers that the permanent rights and restrictions as set out in the BoR, which the Applicant seeks powers through the DCO to impose on BPC's land, are excessive and unrealistic. In order to make a more realistic assessment of the potential impact of the authorised development BPC's assessment of the impact of the proposed works referred to in 7.3 above is based on the assumption that the permanent rights and restrictions which the Applicant seeks to impose on BPC's land will be limited as set out in section 14 below. If the Applicant is authorised to impose rights and restrictions in excess of those, BPC reserves its right to revisit its assessment described at 7.3 above and to make further representation as to further changes to the design of the authorised development required in consequence.


26.02.2015

- 14 -

WB1\9658963\5

8. OPTION A WORKS

8.1 This section 8 applies on the assumption that the Option A Works (and not the Option B Works) are authorised and constructed. As set out in section 3, BPC now considers that implementing this Option would be less undesirable than Option B.

Pylon and cable locations

8.2 The Applicant's proposed location of the 132kV pylon referenced BW29A (within Work No. 4P) is within a secure, compounded area used to handle motor vehicle imports. BPC's assessment of the impacts of the authorised development referred to in 7.3 above demonstrated that its presence in the location suggested is unwarranted and the pylon can be constructed outside the surfaced, secure compound.

8.3 Pylon BW29A must therefore be moved north to a position beyond the current extent of the compounded area as shown on Plan 1 in Appendix D and the related conductors and cables relocated.

8.4 The works plans must be amended accordingly.

Proposed access routes

General

8.5 The Applicant has not consulted with BPC in relation to the access routes across BPC's land which the Applicant proposed for use for construction and long term maintenance access to any part of the authorised development. As a result, many of those proposals, as reflected in the DCO and the relevant figures in the ES, are based on a flawed understanding of the extent of public access rights over BPC's land. In other respects the proposals are wholly inappropriate given the nature of the land they affect. This section deals with BPC's objections to the proposed accesses so far as they relate to access to the Option A Works; objections to access arrangements for the Option B Works, the Other Works and Work No. 4G will be covered in the sections below relating to those parts of the authorised development. Particularly serious issues arise in relation to Option B, as discussed below.

Sources of access information

8.6 The DCO does not specify the exact routes over which powers are being sought by the Applicant in relation to access, whether temporary powers for construction access alone (category 6 in the BoR) or permanent rights for inspection and maintenance (category 3 in in the BoR). While some routes can be identified, others cannot, because the area intended for access (category 3 or 6) is hidden within an area where higher (category 1 or 2) rights apply. Equally there is currently no certain division between those accesses needed for each of Option A and Option B.

8.7 Volume 5.3.3.3 of the ES contains plans apparently showing proposed access routes for the construction and (expressed to be on an indicative basis) maintenance of each pylon and other works in connection with the Option A Works and the Option B Works2.

2 For the Option A Works the construction access plans are found at Figure 3.4.3 drawing G1979.2333.3F issue A, Figure 3.4.4 drawing G1979.2333.4F issue A, and Figure 3.4.5 drawing G1979.2333.5F issue A; the indicative maintenance access plans are Figure 3.6.3 drawing G1979.2334.3D issue A, Figure 3.6.4 drawing G1979.2334.4D issue A and Figure 3.6.5 drawing G1979.2334.5D issue A. .


26.02.2015

- 15 -

WB1\9658963\5

8.8 Based on these plans and the preliminary draft drawings which BPC has seen in respect of the Option A Works, BPC believes that the Parcels over which the Applicant is seeking access rights (temporary or permanent) are those set out in Table 3 in Part 1 of Appendix B. Its comments on each proposed access are as follows. However, BPC remains in essence uncertain as to which Parcels are required for Option A and which for Option B, and reserves its position to make further or different comment on these issues one the Applicant has produced the required amended plans and forms of DCO to confirm the true position.

Pylons LD100, LD101, LD102 and LD103

8.9 BPC does not object to the proposed arrangements for construction access and maintenance access in respect of pylons LD100, LD101, LD102 and LD103 and construction access to the scaffolding on either side of Royal Portbury Dock Road, but this is subject to the Applicant also obtaining the agreement of the tenants of those areas where relevant.

Pylon LD104

8.10 BPC objects to the proposed access route to construct pylon LD104, located in Parcel G19. Access to the location in Parcel G19 is proposed over parcels G20 and G21: the route proposed is unacceptable because Parcel G20 comprises a strip cutting across the operating areas of two secure car compounds and an associated ditch crossing which is only designed for use by light vehicles.

8.11 The Applicant must propose an alternative route from Marsh Lane for discussion with BPC so that appropriate construction and maintenance routes can be agreed.

Pylon LD105

8.12 BPC objects to the proposed access route to construct and maintain pylon LD105 also located in Parcel G19. Access is proposed continuing across Parcel G19 from pylon LD104, out of Parcel G19 into an access strip Parcel G22 and back into Parcel G19 at the location of the pylon. The route proposed is unacceptable because the affected areas again comprise the operating areas of two secure car compounds and an associated ditch crossing which is only designed for use by light vehicles.

8.13 The Applicant must similarly propose an alternative route for discussion with BPC.

Pylon LD106

8.14 The proposed access into Parcel G36, where pylon LD106 is located, is shown leading from an internal dock access road which runs along the north eastern side of the Royal Portbury Dock rail link. This is a private dock road, over which no public rights of way or access exist. Access to pylon LD107 (which is part of the Other Works) also seems to assume use of this road. The Applicant's proposals are unclear, but the fact that it seeks access rights over Parcels G120 to G130 suggests it also envisages passing along parts of this dock access road further towards RPD, otherwise Parcels G120 and G130 lead nowhere. If this is right – and BPC cannot be sure of this from the available material - the Applicant must mistakenly believe this is public highway and therefore that it can use it to access various parts of the authorised development, although its use in connection with the authorised development does not appear to have been assessed in the relevant part of the ES. In the DCO, the Applicant has not sought any wider private powers of access which would enable it to use this dock access road or the other roads on the RPD estate that would connect to it.

8.15 BPC anyway objects to the Applicant's proposed use of this road. As is the case with The Drove, described in section 9 below, it is used for the movement of motor vehicles between car


26.02.2015

- 16 -

WB1\9658963\5

compounds and for the same reasons as are set out in relation to The Drove it would not be acceptable for it to be used for construction traffic in connection with the authorised development. It is also wholly unsuitable for the use proposed by the Applicant. It is designed only for light vehicles and has a height restriction (of three metres) where the Applicant's intended route would (presumably) involve passing beneath the bulk conveyor in the vicinity of RPD. The presence of the OPA’s jet fuel pipelines (twin, 406mm dia) alongside the road also bring restrictions on its use because the pipelines run overground except at particular crossing locations where special protective measures have been designed including to ensure electrical separation for the buried sections. Given the presence of the pipelines, BPC doubts whether the proposed access arrangements which appear to be intended in respect of Parcels G120 to G130 are practically capable of implementation.

8.16 Accordingly, BPC objects to the proposed access route to construct and maintain pylon LD105. The Applicant must discuss alternative routes with BPC avoiding the use of the private dock access road.

Work 4P: haul road to site of work from vicinity of pylon LD-107

8.17 Access to Work 4P is affected by the same issue concerning use of the internal dock access road. The immediate access to the site of the works is via Parcels G112 and G113. While BPC does not object in principle to the use of these Parcels for construction access, it does object to the use of the internal dock access road which would need to be used in conjunction with them.

8.18 The Applicant must therefore also propose an alternative route to access Work No. 4P which avoids the use of the private dock access road.

8.19 As a result, the proposed closure of the public right of way LA/8/63 is not required.

Pylon foundation removal

8.20 As part of the Option A Works, within Work 4P, the 132kV pylon BW28 will be removed. The pylon is currently situated on Parcel G31 within one of BPC's operational car compounds. The Applicant proposes that the foundations of that pylon will be removed to a depth of only 1 metre4.

8.21 The Statement of Reasons5 states that the foundations are being removed only to 1 metre "so as to facilitate normal agricultural activities in the future". This justification clearly cannot apply in respect of BPC's land which is in use for port operational purposes and is held by BPC specifically for use and/or development for that purpose in connection with its statutory undertaking. The Statement of Reasons is therefore wholly inadequate in so far as it purports to justify the proposed provisions of the DCO relating to the very limited removal of pylon foundations.

8.22 BPC notes question 3.7 of the Examining Authority's first written questions. Despite the statement referred to in the ES6 as to foundations being removed entirely "in exceptional circumstances" no provision of the DCO, so far as it affects BPC's land, would provide for those exceptional circumstances to apply. BPC contends that, given the status of its land as

3 See article 13 and Schedule 7. 4 See article 30(5)(b) and (c), article 30(6)(b) and (c), article 31(5)(b) and (c), article 31(6)(b) and (c) and Schedule 12 Parts 1 and 2, column (4). 5 Volume 3.1, page 68, paragraph 6.11. 6 Volume 5.3.1, paragraph 3.3.24.


26.02.2015

- 17 -

WB1\9658963\5

land used and held for the purposes of a statutory undertaking and its requirement for development, those exceptional circumstances should apply in relation to all pylons on its land.

8.23 BPC also notes question 4.21 of the Examining Authority's first written questions. BPC strongly agrees with the suggestion in it that there is no legal or equitable basis for foundations to be left in the ground once WPD's rights in relation to the retention of the 132kV works concerned have been extinguished. Leaving foundations in situ would continue to impose a(n unnecessary) restraint on the landowner's enjoyment of the land – by virtue of restricting or making more costly its future development – and without affording the landowner any compensation for that continuing restriction.

8.24 Once the pylons are removed, BPC should be free to develop the land affected as it sees fit and without needing to incur the additional expense of removing WPD's remaining works. The Applicant's proposal that it be permitted to leave part of those works in the land is tantamount to passing to private landowners costs which the Applicant should properly incur.

8.25 BPC therefore contends that all pylon foundations on its land must be removed in full. Where this is impossible from an engineering perspective, BPC might on a case by case basis agree that a lesser degree of removal might be acceptable while still preserving the ability for the land to be developed freely in the future at no additional cost.

Amendments to DCO relating to the Option A Works

8.26 Given the above, various amendments are needed to the DCO and accompanying documents, including the following.

8.27 Articles 30 and 31 should be amended to add an obligation on the part of the undertaker that:

8.27.1 before giving up possession of land of which temporary possession has been taken, unless the owners of the land agree otherwise, the undertaker must:

(a) remove the entirety of the foundations of any pylon removed as part of the authorised development. In the context of the Option A Works, this would refer only to the removal of pylon BW28 as part of Work No. 4P, but the point is of wider application in relation to BPC's land since pylons are also to be removed under Work Nos. 4P (so far as it relates to the Option B Works), 4G, 4L, 4M and 4N; and

(b) reinstate the ground to match the surrounding area in relation to both specification and appearance, all to the reasonable satisfaction of the owners of the land.

8.28 Article 30(5)(b) and (c), article 30(6)(b) and (c), article 31(5)(c) and (d), article 31(6)(c) and (d) and column (4) of Schedule 12 Parts 1 and 2 should be deleted.

8.29 Alternatively, BPC requires a protective provision in relation to its land to the same effect as 8.27 and 8.28 above.

8.30 The works plans must be amended as set out in 8.4.

8.31 The DCO and accompanying plans must be amended to delete the Applicant's power to acquire or exercise any right of access, temporary or permanent, in respect of the access routes currently proposed to pylons LD104, LD105, LG106 and to Work No. 4P.


26.02.2015

- 18 -

WB1\9658963\5

8.32 In particular, the DCO and the BoR must be amended to excise Parcels G20, G21, G22, G112 and G113 entirely from the ambit of the DCO and any powers exercisable under it, including powers of compulsory acquisition and to take temporary possession.

8.33 The DCO must also be amended to delete the public right of way LA/8/6 from the ambit of article 13 and Schedule 7, and to provide that the undertaker must not exercise any powers under article 13 in relation to it.


26.02.2015

- 19 -

WB1\9658963\5

9. OPTION B WORKS

9.1 This section 9 applies on the assumption that the Option B Works (and not the Option A Works) are authorised and constructed. As set out in section 3, BPC now considers that implementing this Option would be more undesirable and more disruptive to its operations than Option A, because it would penetrate the dock estate far more deeply and directly affect the use and operation of, and access to and from, the port's motor vehicle compounds, as this section explains. BPC therefore objects to the proposal to implement Option B.

Major construction access routes at Royal Portbury Dock

9.2 BPC has found the Applicant's proposals in relation to construction access at Royal Portbury Dock very difficult to interpret. Major construction traffic routes and proposed haul roads across the area are shown on Figure 22.1.9 within the Transport Assessment7. BPC was horrified by the proposals because of the severe impact they would have on operations at RPD. As discussed below, many of the roads proposed for use are part of the private dock road network for which BPC is the street authority, yet the Applicant has not consulted with BPC about the proposal to use these routes before submitting the application for the DCO, its consultations having been limited to those with affected local authorities which have no jurisdiction over these dock roads8. The proposals also revealed the Applicant's apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of the layout and status of the road network in the dock area and operating and security arrangements in the dock estate. Table 12.36 of Volume 5.12 of the ES (Traffic and Transport)9 contains a list of what are stated to be "highway links" to be used during construction, but for the most part the roads listed in the table on the dock estate are not 'highways' but private roads.

9.3 However, although this is not stated in the Transport Assessment, based on its sight of the preliminary draft drawings of the land impacts of each of Option A and Option B referred to in 3.1 above and its recent discussions with the Applicant, BPC now understands that the construction traffic routes shown on Figure 22.1.9 would only be required if the Option B Works were to be authorised and constructed. It is this clarification and assurance that has been an important factor in BPC's re-assessment of the relative impacts of Options A and B on its operations, both in the short and long term, and its reluctant decision that Option A is the less undesirable.

9.4 Moreover BPC contends that, as a result of the flawed assessments made by the Applicant, the implementation of Option B as proposed by the DCO is simply unworkable.

9.5 The Applicant's proposals shown on Figure 22.1.9 envisage:

9.5.1 a major construction traffic route from junction 19 of the M5, along Royal Portbury Dock Road, at the roundabout turning left along Portbury Way and then continuing onto what is drawn as a continuation northwards of Portbury Way along the eastern bank of the Drove Rhyne, then crossing the Rhyne onto The Drove and accessing BPC's operational car compound, known as Plot 33a via a new bellmouth AC102 (referred to below as Route 1);

9.5.2 a second major construction traffic route branching from the first at the Royal Portbury Dock roundabout then continuing north along Royal Portbury Dock Road

7 Volume 5.22.3 Environmental Assessment Transport Assessments Figures; Figure 1 - Construction Routes and Bellmouth Location Plans. 8 See for example paragraphs 12.1.14 and following of Volume 5.12 of the ES (Traffic and Transport). 9 Also Table 5.29 in Volume 5.22.1 (Transport Assessment).


26.02.2015

- 20 -

WB1\9658963\5

until turning off to the south east across secure car compounds occupied by BPCs customers, across the public highway at Marsh Lane and continuing along an internal dock access road (believed to be that referred to in the DCO as "Un-named Road (Perpendicular to Marsh Lane)") to access a proposed haul road at bellmouth AC101 (referred to below as Route 2); and

9.5.3 a haul road leading westwards from bellmouth AC102 through the car compound at Plot 33a and continuing through and breaching the main dock security fence to connect to, amongst other things, the proposed construction compound for Work No. 4P on land to the west (referred to below as the Haul Road).

9.6 BPC objects to these proposals, for reasons including the following.

Route 1

9.7 Portbury Way is not public highway beyond its junction with Banyard Road, shortly before Figure 22.1.9 shows it turning northwards. The Applicant therefore has no right of access over that part of the road, nor over its continuation up to the proposed point of crossing the Drove Rhyne. The DCO does not contain any powers to address this.

9.8 The continuation of Portbury Way on the eastern side of the rhyne shown on the Figure is a private internal dock road serving a customer's car transporter and muster facility with associated car storage. It is not a through road but is an essential vehicle despatch facility for one of the Port’s key customers.

9.9 The description of Portbury Way in the ES10 is therefore incorrect. First, it makes no reference to its status as a private road for the key area along the rhyne. Secondly, it states that it provides access to bellmouth AC102, which is wrong since the route relies upon access through a Port tenant’s operational facility and, to the extent BPC can discern from the proposals any clear method for crossing the rhyne, can only appear to rely upon access over a bridge designed only for light traffic.

9.10 Whether that small bridge is anticipated as the crossing point, or whether – which seems more likely - the Applicant intends to carry out works to create a new heavy duty crossing of the rhyne, it would then need to use the road on the other side (The Drove) to access the bellmouth. The Drove is also a private road designed for light traffic. However, it is not mentioned at all in the relevant part of the ES, so the Applicant appears to have made no assessment of what BPC assumes are its plans to both connect into it, via a new rhyne crossing, or use it to the extent required to access the bellmouth.

9.11 Despite that omission, various provisions of the DCO suggest the Applicant's intentions concerning plans for a rhyne crossing, works on and to The Drove and then continuing access across The Drove, as follows.

9.11.1 Parcels F325 to F330 and G70 to G81 and G86 are subject to powers under articles 30 and 31 for the undertaker to take temporary possession (category 4 in the BoR) or, in the case of adjacent Parcels F325 and G82, to use as construction accesses (category 6). The purpose of possession is stated in Schedule 12 of the DCO as (in relation to those Parcels in Section F) works/use in connection with Works Nos. 1F, 4G and 4P, and (in relation to those in Section G) works/use in connection only with Works Nos. 1F and 4P, except for G86 (presumably intended as a visibility splay)

10 Volume 5.12 paragraphs 12.4.286 and 12.4.287. See also the reference to Portbury Way in Table 12.36.


26.02.2015

- 21 -

WB1\9658963\5

where use is limited in connection with Work No. 1F. Given the location of the Parcels, these differences would appear to be errors. The Applicant should clarify the position and, if necessary, the DCO should be amended accordingly.

9.11.2 Article 12 and Schedule 6 allow for the creation of bellmouth AC102, to be constructed on Parcels F325 and G82, providing access from The Drove to Plot 33A

9.11.3 Article 10 and Schedule 5 provide for street works to The Drove.

9.11.4 Article 41 and Schedule 13 purport to provide for powers of traffic regulation in relation to part of The Drove in the vicinity of the proposed crossing, although apparently in error since The Drove is not a 'road' within the meaning of article 4111.

9.12 In other respects the DCO still seems inadequate to authorise what is proposed, since the Parcels noted in 9.11.1 do not include or even directly abut the end of the private extension of Portbury Way on the east side of the rhyne, so it is still unclear how the Applicant would intend to create the construction access shown on Figure 22.1.9.

9.13 The Applicant has provided no information to BPC about the works proposed in this area, their nature and extent; nor has it consulted with BPC as to the appropriateness of these or any works on its land and within the working area of the dock estate. The Applicant has made no assessment of the impact that these proposed works, during construction as part of the authorised development, would have on BPC's operations, those of its customers and tenants and traffic and access at RPD. Similarly, the Applicant has not assessed the impact that use of this proposed construction traffic route over the duration of Works Nos. 1F, 4G and 4P would have on other traffic using the accesses in question.

9.14 The creation and use of the Route 1 above as a major construction traffic route, used to access multiple works over a prolonged construction period, is wholly unacceptable to BPC.

9.15 The majority of the route is not public highway and beyond the transport compound within the Port’s Plot 40 (adjacent to the former Asda building) the pavement is designed only for light traffic.

9.16 On the other side of the rhyne, The Drove is a busy road, in constant use for large volumes of trade vehicle movements between the berths and vehicle storage compounds. Vehicles which have been imported through RPD will be individually driven (by BPC stevedores) from the berth and then along The Drove to be delivered to various car storage compounds, including, for example, those belonging to Toyota and the compound operated by BPC at Plot 33a. The Port handles the very largest car vessels, and the loading and discharging arrangements associated with one vessel call alone can sometimes involve 5500 vehicle movements. Specifically, a typical ship carrying Toyota vehicles can carry up to 2,000 units. At an average discharge rate of 150 vehicles an hour (so more than one every 30 seconds), it will therefore take over 13 hours to clear all vehicles from a Toyota ship, during which time there will be a continual stream of vehicles being driven southwards along The Drove with crew buses travelling in the opposite direction taking stevedores back to the ship. Added to this traffic will be vehicles using the road throughout the day being moved from the car compounds, such as those to the north of the former Asda building, to the pre-delivery and inspection facilities operated by the car companies in close proximity to RPD, and then making the return journeys.

11 Article 41 refers to the "roads" in Schedule 13, which term is defined (article 41(7)) by reference to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Act as (a) a highway or (b) another road to which the public has access (s142(1)). The Drove is therefore not a 'road' since it is privately owned and access to it is not available to the public.


26.02.2015

- 22 -

WB1\9658963\5

9.17 Against that background, it is clear that the works that seem to be proposed for The Drove – and which would be required if it were to form part of the route proposed - would be substantial and extremely disruptive to BPC's operations and those of its customers. The works themselves would subject the high-value and sensitive cargoes of motor vehicles in the nearby car compounds to damage from dust and debris caused in the carrying out of the work to create the accesses as well as obstructing the use of the road. The construction traffic which would then be crossing The Drove would continue that disruption and would lead to the unacceptable situation where expensive motor vehicles, newly imported through RPD, would over a prolonged period be forced to negotiate the road being crossed by HGVs, plant and other construction traffic. Delays in the flow of vehicles along The Drove would be inevitable, a fact that would be wholly unacceptable to BPC's motor vehicle trade customers, who expect and enforce a strict KPI regime in relation to the time to be taken in relation to vehicle movements. Delays in discharging vehicles would also lead to delay in vessel departures, causing vessels to miss the tide and be locked into the Port until the next, causing congestion at the RPD berths.

9.18 The increased activity on the Drove also brings the risks of damage to the new vehicles whether from collision, increased air pollutants, debris left on the carriageway or the condition of the road surface. This kind of damage, combined with delays of the sort referred to the previous paragraph, will rapidly erode BPC's reputation in the motor vehicle trade.

9.19 The road, although comprising two carriageways, is suitable only for light vehicles driven by staff familiar with its hazards, since it is narrow and has no edge protection: drivers not used to negotiating it, or those attempting to cross it with large vehicles or heavy plant, are at risk of finding themselves falling into the rhyne which runs alongside it or at the very least causing damage to the road or to associated works including bollards, gates and fencing.

9.20 BPC cannot accept this incursion into the heart of and risks to its dock operations. It would cause serious detriment to the carrying on of BPC's undertaking. All powers in the DCO relating to the creation of Route 1 as a major traffic route must be deleted. In particular, the Applicant should not undertake any street works on or under The Drove and should not construct or use the access to land to the west of The Drove proposed as bellmouth AC102 (at The Drove) referred to in Schedule 6 of the DCO.

Route 2

9.21 Royal Portbury Dock Road is not public highway beyond a point just north of the Portbury Way roundabout. It is a private road owned and controlled by BPC. It is the main thoroughfare to and from RPD for port traffic, including car transporters and vehicles carrying abnormal and sensitive loads such as aeroplane wings

9.22 In its assessment of this part of Royal Portbury Dock Road in the ES, no reference is made to the status of the road as a private road controlled by BPC12.

9.23 The relevant paragraphs of the ES note various industrial units said to be along the road – some of which are in fact incorrect - and conclude that in view of the local receptors, the road has been given a minor sensitivity classification. In reaching this conclusion, there is no evidence that any account was taken of the use of the road as the main access to RPD, a fact that is not mentioned at all.

12 See paragraphs 12.4.283 and 12.4.284 and its inclusion in Table 12.36.


26.02.2015

- 23 -

WB1\9658963\5

9.24 The DCO does not contain any powers to address the Applicant's lack of access rights over the necessary portion of Royal Portbury Dock Road. Had such rights been sought, BPC would have been concerned that no assessment appears to have been made as to the likely effect of the construction traffic on Port traffic, including the impact that it would have on the movement of sensitive and high value cargoes up and down the road.

9.25 Route 2 then continues across a car compound between Royal Portbury Dock Road and Marsh Lane. BPC assumes this is part of what is described in the ES as "Unnamed Track off Royal Portbury Dock Road13". The route on Figure 22.1.9 is drawn very broadly, and the relevant Land Plans14 similarly show a very broad swathe of land affected by category 2 rights (which could therefore include construction access rights for the Applicant). Nonetheless, so far as the area between Royal Portbury Dock Road and Marsh Lane is concerned, the route passes directly over and through marked out parking spaces in a secure vehicle compound. There is no road or track of any sort on the route and to create and use the route would involve breaching the security fences around the compound. It would also require a new access across green areas and verge to be created onto the public highway at Marsh Lane, for which no provision is made in the DCO.

9.26 None of this is consistent with what is said in the ES about the "Unnamed Track off Royal Portbury Dock Road". It seems bizarre that Table 12.36 could refer to this area as a 'highway link' when there is no road or link of any kind. What is proposed would clearly be serious intrusion into a port customer's compound and would have a very detrimental effect on the port undertaking. It would also involve bringing heavy goods traffic - with the concomitant dust, other air pollution and debris - into very close proximity to very expensive motor vehicles in storage with inevitable damage to and depreciation of those vehicles.

9.27 The final stretch of Route 2 continues along an internal dock access road leading off the east side of Marsh Lane around the southern edge of the bulk stockyard. This length of the route is not separately described in the ES, presumably merely being seen as part of the "Unnamed Track off Royal Portbury Dock Road" despite being divided from Royal Portbury Dock Road by the public highway at Marsh Lane. BPC believes this final stretch must be that described in the DCO as "Un-named Road (perpendicular to Marsh Lane).15

9.28 Again, contrary to what the ES says, this is a private road controlled by BPC. Access to it is only available through a locked gate, protecting the car compounds served its southern side and eastern end. It is not suitable for heavy goods traffic and must be subject to stringent security measures.

9.29 For all these reasons the creation and use of the Route 2 above as a major construction traffic route is also wholly unacceptable to BPC.

Haul Road

9.30 For the reasons given above, BPC cannot accept the creation of bellmouth AC102 the purpose of which is to serve the Haul Road. However, the Haul Road itself is also unacceptable in the form proposed.

9.31 The Haul Road would breach the main dock security fence, which separates Parcels F312/F313 from Parcels F303/F310/F311. Valuable motor vehicles are stored in the car

13 See paragraphs 12.4.285. The track also appears in Table 12.36. 14 Volume 4.2.8A. 15 See 12.39 below.


26.02.2015

- 24 -

WB1\9658963\5

compounds along the entire eastern side of this fence, which is therefore a key security measure at the Port. No breaches of this fence are acceptable.

9.32 There is, in any case, no need for the Haul Road as proposed since an alternative access is readily available to the Work No. 4P compound from Wharf Lane over land to the west of the compound in respect of which the DCO already provides the necessary access rights. This route is also more convenient for the site of Work No. 4P.

Conclusion on construction access

9.33 The Applicant's proposals for construction access shown on Figure 22.1.9, so far as they affect the dock estate, are clearly flawed, have not been properly assessed and are in any event unacceptable to BPC as street authority and statutory undertaker. The DCO does not contain the necessary powers to enable them to be implemented. The Applicant has confirmed that those routes would be used in case Option B was authorised, but they would not be required in the case of Option A. For this reason alone, BPC contends that Option B cannot be authorised and should not be authorised because of the serious detriment it would cause to the carrying on of its statutory undertaking. Any powers authorising the creation and/or use of the relevant construction accesses must be removed from the DCO, including the excision of all relevant Parcels from powers to take temporary possession or of compulsory acquisition.

9.34 Despite the inconsistencies in Schedule 12 noted in 9.11.1 above, to the extent that the Applicant's intention was to use any of the powers referred to above in connection with access for the purpose of Work No. 4G, BPC considers this is unnecessary for the reasons given in 11.3 and following below.

Use of T-pylons

9.35 Section 14 explains BPC's contentions as to need for lattice tower pylons to be used throughout the dock estate, rather than T-pylons. It describes how the use of T-pylons is substantially untested and the resulting uncertainties as to their stability.

9.36 The Applicant's current proposals involve using T-pylons on the route of Option B, which would run close to and through several operational port compounds. BPC is concerned that it is being asked to accommodate these new structures in such close proximity to people working and valuable cargoes. From its own experience, ground conditions at the port are challenging for supporting large structures. The risk of an untested T-pylon becoming unstable is a real one and would have catastrophic consequences in the working environments concerned.

9.37 Section 14 also explains how heavier plant and machinery is needed to install and maintain T-pylons than is the case with lattice towers and how there are greater (and to a degree still uncertain) maintenance requirements. These facts only reinforce the inadequacy of the construction access scheme for Option B and the degree of unacceptable interference and detriment Option B would bring to BPC's undertaking, not only during its construction but also in the long term as a result of its increased need for maintenance and continuing heavy plant access.

Pylons and conductors

9.38 The Applicant's proposed location of pylons P-LD105 and P-LD106 (Portbury) and related conductors is within a secure, compounded area used to handle motor vehicle imports and surfaced with bituminous tarmacadam.

9.39 BPC fails to understand why the new 400kV route cannot follow the alignment of the existing 'G' 132kV route in this area, thus ensuring BPC's continued use of its land. The Applicant has


26.02.2015

- 25 -

WB1\9658963\5

confirmed that the 'G' route must be demolished prior to erection of the 400kV route thus pylons P-LD 105 and P-LD 106 can be repositioned to the line of the existing 'G' route as noted below.

9.40 To avoid serious detriment to BPC’s operations, were Option B to be authorised, those pylons and related conductors must be positioned in accordance with the new alignments shown on BPC drawing 41621 Proposed OHL Route Royal Portbury Dock - Plan 1 Nov 14 attached as Plan 2 in Appendix D.

9.41 No centre line is shown on the works plans for the new 132kV line required between pylon BW35 and new CSE pylon BW36R as part of Work No.4P. This should be corrected.


Other access routes

9.43 In addition to Figure 22.9.1, based on the construction plans and indicative maintenance plans and on its sight of the preliminary draft drawings it has seen in respect of the Option B Works BPC believes that the Parcels over which the Applicant is seeking access rights (temporary or permanent) in relation to Option B are those set out in Table 10 in Part 2 of Appendix B. Its comments on each proposed access are as follows. However, as for Option A, there is currently no certainty that BPC's identification of these accesses is wholly correct. BPC therefore reserves its position to make further or different comment in relation to these issues once the Applicant has produced the required additional plans and forms of DCO in relation to each of Option A and Option B.

Pylon P-LD100

9.44 BPC does not object in principle to the access proposed, provided it is limited to being taken (as shown on the construction plans) from Wharf Lane and over the land to the west, and not from the dock estate and/or via the Haul Road referred to above.

Pylon P-LD101

9.45 BPC objects to the use of Parcels F310 and F311 for access. These Parcels make up Sheepway Lane, which is a narrow, unsurfaced track which runs immediately alongside the main dock security fence. It is the route of a public footpath. Although its title to only part of the track is registered, BPC claims ownership of the soil of it for much of its length. The proposed use of the track for construction traffic will cause significant disturbance to users of the public footpath and will imperil the security of the main Port fence.

9.46 The proposed use of the track is therefore inappropriate when alternative access to pylon P-LD101 is readily available from Wharf Lane and then over land to the west in respect of which the DCO already provides the necessary access rights.

9.47 As a result, the proposed closure of the public right of way over Parcels F310 and F311 (LA/15/22)16 is not required.

Pylon P-LD102A

9.48 This pylon should not be accessed via the proposed route across Parcels F323 and F324. These cross the operational area of a secure BPC car compound. BPC also notes that using

16 See article 13 and Schedule 7.


26.02.2015

- 26 -

WB1\9658963\5

this access assumes a right to use The Drove beyond even the area where works are proposed under the DCO.

9.49 BPC therefore objects to this proposed access. The Applicant must propose an alternative access to BPC for discussion.

Pylons P-LD102B and P-LD102C

9.50 BPC objects to the proposed use of the accesses shown over Parcels G91 and G92, since they cut directly across the operational areas through car secure compounds and would compromise both operations at and the security of those compounds.

9.51 In addition, as discussed in the context of Route 2 above, there is no public right of way over that part of Royal Portbury Dock Road which the Applicant would need to use to enable access along the proposed routes at Parcels G91 and G92. Using them would also involve passing through the security gate operated by the Port Police and complying with their requirements in that respect.

9.52 BPC therefore objects to this proposed access as currently proposed. The Applicant must propose an alternative access to BPC for discussion.

Pylon P-LD103

9.53 BPC does not object in principle to the proposed access route to this pylon from Marsh Lane but this is subject to the Applicant also reaching agreement with the tenant of the land concerned.

9.54 It is also subject to the Applicant not gaining access from Marsh Lane other than through the existing tenant's security gate in that approximate location.

Pylon P-LD104

9.55 BPC objects to the proposed access route to this pylon, since it creates the need for an additional breach of the port fence.

9.56 BPC contends that the appropriate route would be to utilise the existing security gate on the east side of Marsh Lane within Parcel 47. The access route would then become via Parcel 47 (Marsh Lane highway), G108 and G109. No access would be needed over Parcel G38.

Pylon P-LD105 and P-LD106

9.57 BPC reserves comment as to its views on the proposed access routes to these pylons until their final position has been determined17. However, BPC's comments on access to pylon LD10618 are likely to apply equally to P-LD106.

Work 4P: haul road

9.58 BPC objects to the proposed creation and use of the proposed haul road connecting the construction compound to The Drove for the reasons set out in 9.30 to 9.32.

9.59 The haul road must therefore be removed from the proposed access arrangements entirely.

17 See 9.37 above. 18 See 8.14 and following.


26.02.2015

- 27 -

WB1\9658963\5

Pylon removal

9.60 As part of the Option B Works, within Work 4P, the 132kV pylons BW36 and BW37 will be removed. These pylons are currently situated on Parcels F287 and F284 respectively. Paragraph 8.20 and following above explains the works BPC contends are necessary in relation to the removal of these pylons and consequential amendments required to the DCO.

Amendments to the DCO in relation to the Option B Works

9.61 The DCO must therefore be amended, including by:

9.61.1 the deletion from the powers under article 10 and from Schedule 5, of the reference to The Drove;

9.61.2 the deletion from the powers under article 12 and from Schedule 6 of the reference to bellmouth AC102;

9.61.3 the excision of Parcels F325 to F330 and G70 to G82 and G86 from the land in respect of which the undertaker can exercise powers to take temporary possession, including their deletion from Schedule 12 Part 1 and Part 2;

9.61.4 the deletion from the powers under article 41 and Schedule 13 of the reference to The Drove;

9.61.5 the removal of Parcels F325 to F330 and G70 to G82 and G86 from the BoR; and

9.61.6 (to the extent not covered by the above) the removal from the DCO of any powers authorising the creation and/or use of the construction access shown on Figure 22.1.9, including the excision of all relevant Parcels from powers to take temporary possession or of compulsory acquisition.

9.62 The DCO and accompanying plans must be amended to delete the Applicant's power to acquire or exercise any right of access, temporary or permanent, in respect of the access routes currently proposed to pylons P-LD101, P-LD102A, P-LD102B, P-LD102C and P-LD104 and the proposed haul road between the Work No. 4P construction compound and The Drove. Further amendments may be required in relation to access to pylons P-LD105 and P-LD106.

9.63 In particular, the DCO and the BoR must be amended to excise Parcels F310, F311, F314, F316, F317, F322, F323, F324, G38, G91 and G92 entirely from the ambit of the DCO and any powers exercisable under it, including their deletion from Schedule 12 Part 1 and Part 2. Further, no powers to take temporary possession of Parcels F313 and F315 shall be exercised.

9.64 The DCO must also be amended to delete the public right of way LA/15/22 from the ambit of article 13 and Schedule 7, and to provide that the undertaker must not exercise any powers under article 13 in relation to it.

9.65 The DCO must also be amended as set out in 8.27 to 8.29 above.


26.02.2015

- 28 -

WB1\9658963\5

10. OTHER WORKS: WORK NOS. 1G, 4L, 4M, 4N, 4O and 5

Conductor height

10.1 The existing 132kV routes do not cross Avonmouth Docks in the vicinity of cargo-handling areas, so they are currently free from operating constraints and from constraints on development. The proposals for the installation of the new 400kV OHL in that area as part of Work No. 1G will therefore introduce a significant new restraint on BPC's use and development of the dock areas.

10.2 Information provided by the Applicant to BPC confirms that, as proposed, the clearance from ground level to the lowest conductor between the proposed pylons at Avonmouth Dock are as set out in columns A and B in the table below.

Column A

Location

Column B

Clearance

Column C

Maximum permitted height of structure

Between pylons LD109 and LD110

10.4 metres 5.1 metres

Between pylon LD110 and LD111








10.3 The optimum use of BPC's land at Avonmouth is fully flexible open storage or, close to the quays, transit warehouses. Accommodating the new 400kV route through the dock estate here will severely limit the use of the ground beneath and to each side of the conductors. The restrictions which the Applicant seeks to impose on the relevant category 2 land in the BoR reflect include a restriction on doing anything which might interfere with the OHL. Regardless of the precise extent of the restriction imposed by the Applicant, health and safety obligations would in any event severely restrict BPC's ability to carry out cargo handling operations involving any degree of cargo or plant movement in the areas around the new lines. The use of the land for open storage of equipment, plant and materials that require the use of cranes, reach stackers or large forklift trucks will have to be curtailed in order to avoid any chance of electrical contact or arcing. Low level storage might, in theory, be achievable subject to appropriate safety considerations, but this is of little practical value to BPC since cargoes using the docks at Avonmouth are generally unsuitable for storage of that nature.

10.4 As a result of constraints of this kind, based on the conductor clearances currently proposed, BPC will not be able to continue its current use of some areas of the dock estate once the new OHL lines are installed. This applies, for example, to the railway land (covering the area from pylon LD109 to LD111) where BPC will not be able to continue cargo handling operations of any sort given the exceptionally low conductor heights proposed in that area.


26.02.2015

- 29 -

WB1\9658963\5

10.5 BPC also needs the ability to construct transit sheds in areas immediate around the quays. When BPC acquired Avonmouth Dock and Royal Edward Docks, they included several old transit sheds and facilities. BPC has gradually been updating and replacing these, sometimes involving rebuilding in situ to modern sizes and standards and on other occasions building entirely new sheds in slightly altered locations to meet the changing needs of cargo storage and handling. As explained in section 7, the exact location and orientation of sheds has to be planned carefully to ensure access to quays and roads is preserved and that there is sufficient space around the sheds to enable efficient and safe vehicle and cargo movements.

10.6 Ideally, transit sheds would be located only in those quayside areas. However, in areas where cargo handling operations would no longer be possible because of the constraints brought by the new OHL, BPC might – with considerable reluctance – consider whether use of the land for construction of transit sheds instead could offer some mitigation of the detriment to BPC's undertaking otherwise caused, even though this would be a distinctly sub-optimal option given the distances from the quayside. However, the conductor clearances proposed across the Avonmouth dock estate would not permit this use either.

10.7 The restrictions which the Applicant seeks to impose on the relevant category 2 land in the BoR include prohibiting the erection of any building or structure on the land concerned, or changing the level of the land in any way. Despite this, the Applicant has told BPC that it would be amenable to buildings being constructed below the conductors, provided certain safety clearances were maintained. If it can be assumed (contrary to what the Applicant is seeking in the DCO) that the restrictions would be curtailed as set out in section 14 below, BPC would be constrained in its construction of new sheds by the requirement for a minimum 5.3 metres clearance (at all angles) between the structures and the OHL. Based on this restriction the maximum permitted building heights across Avonmouth dock between the various pylons are set out in column C of the table above.

10.8 While greater clearances may be achievable closest to the pylons, BPC understands that the restrictions the Applicant envisages would prevent structures being built within a certain radius of the pylon bases, and other practical considerations of the sort mentioned in 10.5 above mean it is not simply a matter of fitting sheds into theoretically possible spaces. Other port infrastructure, such as the coal conveyor, also has to be accommodated and given sufficient clearance.

10.9 To avoid the new OHL restricting BPC's use of the dock estate, and thereby causing serious detriment to the carrying on of BPC's statutory undertaking, the conductor clearances must be designed so that BPC is able to construct suitable structures wherever the needs of port operations demand it, including, if necessary mid-way between pylons and the lowest point of conductor sag.

10.10 Transit warehousing within the Port is typically constructed with structural steelwork and profiled steel sheeting meeting the Port’s specification. Portal frames are utilised for the main structure and internal columns avoided where practical. Building sizes vary to suit the use, particular customer requirements and location but typically, transit sheds need a ridge height of approximately 15 metres. Roofs are usually shallow pitched in order to provide the maximum storage space in the shed and eaves heights are therefore often not significantly lower than ridge heights.

10.11 Sheds located on narrower quayside locations will typically have a floor area of approximately 4,500m2, as exemplified by the recently constructed sheds at Royal Edward Dock. Where more space is available, larger facilities can be constructed. Sheds 3 and 4 at RPD are each divided into 3 bays each with an internal floor area of 10,000 m2.


26.02.2015

- 30 -

WB1\9658963\5

10.12 It is evident from column C in the table above that none of the conductor clearances proposed by the Applicant could accommodate structures of the sort needed by BPC at Avonmouth Docks. The construction of those OHL, and the consequent acquisition and imposition of rights and restrictions on and over BPC's land, cannot occur without causing serious detriment to the carrying on of BPC's undertaking since it will prevent entirely the use of large areas of the immediate dock areas for cargo handling and port development. It is apparent that in designing its proposals for the authorised development the Applicant wholly failed to assess BPC's needs in relation to both its current operations and its future development requirements. Nor is it in a position to satisfy the Secretary of State that serious detriment to the Port undertaking will not occur; indeed, the present proposals make such serious detriment inevitable.

10.13 Greater conductor clearances are being proposed elsewhere on Work. No 1G and BPC understands that there is no reason, from an engineering perspective, why they cannot equally be increased throughout the Avonmouth Dock estate. BPC therefore requires that the authorised development is redesigned so that that the minimum conductor clearance (from ground) throughout the area between pylons LD109 and LD114 is 21 metres.

10.14 The design drawings must be amended accordingly.

10.15 BPC's requirement in 10.13 assumes that the DCO is amended so that the permanent restrictions which may be imposed on land affected by the 400kV OHL do not exceed those proposed by BPC in section 14 below. If this is not the case, BPC reserves its right to make further representation in relation to the design of the authorised development at Avonmouth Dock.

Pylon location

10.16 To minimise their impact on the railway land, pylons LD110 and LD111 and related conductors should be moved four metres in a north-easterly direction.


Major construction accesses at Avonmouth Docks

10.18 Figure 22.1.20 in the ES Transport Assessment19 shows the Applicant's proposed major construction traffic route into and through Avonmouth Docks. It shows access being from West Town Road onto Victoria Road, then following Victoria Road through the docks around to the main dock access gate at the level crossing at the junction with King Road Avenue.

10.19 Section 9 refers to the lack of consultation between the Applicant and BPC in relation to the Applicant's proposals for major construction traffic, and the proposed route through Avonmouth Dock is another example of where this lack of consultation has led to the Applicant's proposals being based on incorrect information.

10.20 The construction traffic plan for Avonmouth depends entirely on the use of Victoria Road. Like the roads at RPD referred to in section 9, it is referred to as a 'highway link' in Table 12.36, but it is not a highway. It is a private road, owned and controlled by BPC, and for which BPC is the street authority.

19 Volume 5.22.3.


26.02.2015

- 31 -

WB1\9658963\5

10.21 The Applicant therefore has no right of way over Victoria Road and the DCO does not confer any such powers except in respect of the very limited areas where category 2 rights are being sought in relation to easements for the new works.

10.22 In its description of the road in the ES20 no reference is made to the private status of the road. The description also odd in its reference to the "Bristol Docks Ferry Landing": there is no ferry landing stage in the area. What is most startling, however, is that the description of the road in the ES over its entire length through the dock estate fails to mention any of the dock complexes, transit sheds and conveyors through or in close proximity to which it passes, or the two Port Police security gates through which anyone using the road would need to pass.

10.23 As with the various roads at RPD, BPC believes that the Applicant is under the misapprehension that Victoria Road is a public highway21. Although it is not, and the DCO does not therefore make adequate provision for the execution of the authorised development at Avonmouth, in contrast to the position at RPD BPC would be prepared to discuss with the Applicant how and on what terms access might be made available over Victoria Road, so that the development might proceed. However, these discussions would need to take into account the sensitive location of Victoria Road in the dock estate and the needs of other traffic and cargoes using it, together with arrangements to gain access through the Port of Bristol Police controlled accesses.

10.24 The more detailed discussion of access arrangements in relation to each pylon which follow assume that agreement can be reached on those matters. Until agreement is reached, BPC necessarily objects to the proposed use of Victoria Road and all the associated accesses described below.

Access routes

10.25 The construction access plans for the Other Works do not in all cases clearly show the intended access routes to each element of the works. However, from the information available22, BPC believes that the Parcels over which the Applicant is seeking access rights (temporary or permanent) in respect of the Other Works are those set out in Table 17 in Part 3 of Appendix B.

Pylon LD107

10.26 The Applicant's proposed access route to pylon LD107 is affected by the same issue concerning use of the internal dock access road alongside the RPD rail link as affects access to pylon LD106 and Work No. 4P as discussed in the context of the Option A Works (see section 8 above). The access route assumes use of the dock access road as a public highway, and provides for the creation of a wider construction access off the carriageway (Parcels G120 to G130) during construction, the access route then continuing north eastwards across various Parcels to the site of the pylon in Parcel G136. Use of a more confined access strip on the same alignment is proposed on a permanent basis. However, the access areas of Parcel G120 to G130 are shown over and in proximity to only part of the dock road and so lead nowhere.

20 Volume 5.12 paragraphs 12.4.295 and 12.4.296. 21 Its inclusion in Schedule 13 and the ambit of article 41 supports this. 22 For the Other Works the construction access plans are in Volume 5.3.3.2 at Figure 3.3.43 drawing G1979.1535.43X issue A, Figure 3.3.44 drawing G1979.1535.44X issue A and Figure 3.3.47 drawing G1979.1535.47X issue A; the indicative maintenance access plans are in Volume 5.3.3.3 at Figure 3.5.43 drawing G1979.2099.43J issue A, Figure 3.5.44 drawing G1979.2099.44J issue A and Figure 3.5.48 drawing G1979.2099.48J issue A.


26.02.2015

- 32 -

WB1\9658963\5

10.27 For the reasons given in 8.15, BPC objects to the use of the private dock access road as proposed.

10.28 The Applicant must therefore also propose an alternative route to access pylon LD107 which avoids the use of road.

Pylon LD108

10.29 BPC does not object to the proposed arrangements for construction and maintenance access in respect of pylon LD108 shown on those plans to the extent that they relate to Parcels G149 to G152. However, the Applicant must intend in turn to access those Parcels from Victoria Road. Use of the proposed access over Parcels G149 to G152 is therefore subject to the Applicant reaching agreement with BPC as to the use of Victoria Road as well as to the agreement of the tenant of the land concerned.

Pylons LD109 to LD113

10.30 The same issue arises in relation to the proposed access to each of pylons LD109 to LD113, and BPC's agreement to use of Victoria Road will be required. Furthermore, these pylons lie with the secure area of the dock, and so access to them will also require passage through the Police Gate and compliance with the requirements of the Port Police in that respect.

Pylons LD110 and LD111

10.31 In addition, in relation to the proposed access to pylons LD110 and LD111 BPC objects to the proposal to create bellmouth AC105 at a new access point to the dock area lying within Parcel 168. Two access points from Victoria Road to this Parcel, known as the railway land, and referred to at 7.4 above, already exist, one close to each of pylons LD110 and LD111 (shown on Plan 3 in Appendix D) and are used by BPC regularly for cargo movements. It is inappropriate to create a further and unnecessary access point in the middle of the site.

10.32 In the absence of the need to construct bellmouth AC105, no powers to carry out street works at Victoria Road under article 10 and Schedule 5 are necessary, nor is any power needed under article 41 and Schedule 13 in relation to traffic regulation in relation to Victoria Road23.

10.33 Accordingly, and without detracting from its contention at 10.21 above that the Applicant has no access right over Victoria Road, the Applicant must not:

10.33.1 construct or use the access to the railway land proposed as bellmouth AC105 referred to in Schedule 6 of the DCO;

10.33.2 exercise any powers under the DCO in relation to Parcels G171 to G177;

10.33.3 undertake any street works on or under Victoria Road; nor

10.33.4 make any order under article 41 in relation to Victoria Road.

Pylons LD112 and LD113

10.34 Access to pylon LD113 is proposed in a straight line from pylon LD112. BPC objects to a proposed access to LD113 on that alignment since the land crossed is part of the dock operational area, subject to frequent movements of vehicles, plant and cargo.

23 It would seem in any event that, like The Drove, Victoria Road appears in error in Schedule 13 since it is not a 'road' within the meaning of article 41.


26.02.2015

- 33 -

WB1\9658963\5

10.35 Accordingly, and without detracting from its contention at 10.21 above that the Applicant has no access right over Victoria Road, the Applicant must identify an alternative access route to pylon LD113.

Pylon removal

10.36 As part of Work Nos. 4L, 4M and 4N various 132kV pylons noted in column 1 below, located in the corresponding Parcels set out in column 2, will be removed.

(1) Pylon

(2) Parcel

Work No. 4L

DA1 Part G599/part G600

DA2 G589

Work No. 4M

BW1 G603

BW2 G578

Work No. 4N

G42 G578

G43 G603

10.37 Paragraph 8.20 and following above explains the works BPC contends are necessary in relation to the removal of these pylons and consequential amendments required to the DCO.

Amendments to the DCO relating to the Other Works

10.38 Given the above various amendments are needed to the DCO and accompanying documents, including the following.

10.39 The design drawings must be amended in respect of conductor clearances as set out in 10.14 and the DCO amended appropriately to enforce these minimum conductor heights.

10.40 The works plans must be amended in relation to pylon locations as set out in 10.17.

10.41 The DCO and accompanying plans must be amended to delete the Applicant's power to acquire or exercise any right of access, temporary or permanent, in respect of the access routes currently proposed to pylon LD107.

10.42 Unless agreement can be reached between BPC and the Applicant as to access over Victoria Road, the DCO and accompanying plans must be amended to delete the Applicant's power to acquire or exercise any right of access, temporary or permanent, in respect of the access routes currently proposed to pylons LD108 to LD113 and to excise Parcels G149, G150 and G152 entirely from the ambit of the DCO and any powers exercisable under it.

10.43 The DCO and the BoR must be amended to excise Parcels G120 to G130 and G171 to G177 entirely from the ambit of the DCO and any powers exercisable under it.

10.44 The reference to bellmouth AC105 must be deleted from Schedule 6.


26.02.2015

- 34 -

WB1\9658963\5

10.45 The reference to Victoria Road must be deleted from Schedule 5 and Schedule 13.

10.46 The DCO must be amended as set out in 8.27 to 8.29 above in relation to the removal of the foundations of the pylons listed in 10.36 above.


26.02.2015

- 35 -

WB1\9658963\5

11. WORK NO. 4G

Pylon removal

11.1 As part of Work No. 4G, the 132kV the pylons noted in column 1 below, located in the corresponding Parcels set out in column 2, will be removed.

(1) Pylon

(2) Parcel

Unreferenced F278

Unreferenced F298

Unreferenced F320

Unreferenced F320

Unreferenced G65

Unreferenced G65

Unreferenced G61

Unreferenced G53

Unreferenced G108

Unreferenced G108

Unreferenced G108

Unreferenced G111

Unreferenced G138

Unreferenced G147

11.2 Paragraph 8.20 and following above explain the works BPC contends are necessary in relation to the removal of these pylons and consequential amendments required to the DCO.

Access routes

11.3 Established accesses exist which are used by WPD for necessary inspections and maintenance work to the G OHL, including removal and replacement of equipment where required. So far as BPC's land is concerned, so far as it is aware these generally follow the corridor of the OHL. The DCO appears to propose additional and/or alternative access arrangements for the purposes of Work No. 4G.

11.4 We comment above on the difficulties in establishing the precise access requirements for individual elements of the works. Given the uncertainty as to the requirements for each of Option A and Option B it is particularly difficult to be certain which Parcels the Applicant wants to use for additional accesses purely for the purpose of Work No. 4G.


26.02.2015

- 36 -

WB1\9658963\5

11.5 BPC contends that rights of access for the purposes of carrying out Work No. 4G should be restricted to those areas where the dismantling activity is authorised to be carried out, namely24:

F277, F278, F282, F293, F295, F297, F298, F302, F304, F320; and

G38, G39, G42, G43, G45 G46, G47, G48, G52, G53, G57 to G59, G61, G64, ,G65, G69, G84, G107, G108, G111, G116, G118, G134, G137 to G139, G144 to G148, G151 and G248 to G255.

11.6 In particular, BPC believes from the preliminary draft drawings it has seen in respect of the Option A Works and the Option B Works that the Applicant may be seeking access rights for the purpose of Work No. 4G over all or parts of the following additional Parcels:

F272, F283, F287, F291, F292, F303, F307, F308, F313, F314, F316, F317, F322 and F325.

11.7 Despite this, in Schedule 12 Parts 1 and 2, to the extent these Parcels appear, carrying out Work No. 4G is not a stated purpose in relation to several of them, either in respect of the Applicant, WPD or both. Parcel F303 is omitted entirely from Schedule 12 Part 2 although the BoR (as revised) categorises it as category 6 for WPD. The Applicant should clarify its intentions and amend the BoR and Schedule 12 accordingly.

11.8 However, given the existing access arrangements which have proved adequate to date, it is excessive for the Applicant to seek additional rights when this will have a detrimental effect on further land of BPC used for its statutory undertaking.

11.9 BPC believes that the additional areas are being sought by the Applicant only for its own convenience and without full consideration of the extent of existing rights. The Statement of Reasons25 refers to the existing wayleave rights and their potential inadequacy in some areas, with the result that wider rights are being sought over large areas but without consideration of whether that is necessary and so justified in particular areas.

11.10 The same paragraph in the Statement of Reasons continues that the additional access rights are being sought only where they would coincide with rights required by the Applicant in respect of other parts of the authorised development. This is not correct in the case of the Parcels listed at 11.6 above, since from the preliminary draft drawings BPC has seen in respect of the Option A Works it is apparent that the Applicant is seeking those additional rights in respect of the Parcels set out in that paragraph when there are no other works in the vicinity. Even were this not the case, this coincidence of the location of works does not justify imposing additional access rights where these are not otherwise required: the two sets of works might be carried out at wholly different times so there can be no assurance given to the affected land owner that its enjoyment of the land is not to be interrupted on two occasions, one of which is wholly unnecessary.

11.11 Some of the Parcels listed at 11.6 above are used by BPC as car compounds in connection with its operation of the port. Use of the access route as envisaged by all of them would require the main Port security fence to be breached. Both these effects are unacceptable to BPC in the context of its operation of its statutory undertaking.

24 We note that Parcels G38 and G45 are each categorised in the Book of Reference as 3/0, giving WPD no power of temporary possession for the purposes of Work No. 4G although the Parcels appear to fall within the area where relevant apparatus lies. 25 Volume 3.1 paragraph 7.25.


26.02.2015

- 37 -

WB1\9658963\5

11.12 Accordingly, the Applicant's requirement for these additional access Parcels is unacceptable and clearly does not meet the tests in Section 122 of the Planning Act 2008 nor those in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the DCLG September 2013 Guidance referred to in the Statement of Reasons.

Amendments to the DCO relating to Work No. 4G

11.13 The DCO must therefore be amended, including the following changes:

11.13.1 to include a protective provision to the effect that the undertaker shall not gain access over BPC's land, including private roads and ways, for the purpose of Work No. 4G other than in accordance with existing wayleave rights; and that in particular no powers shall be exercised under the DCO in connection with Work No. 4G (including under articles 30 and/or 31) in respect of Parcels F272, F283, F287, F291, F292, F303, F307, F308, F313, F314, F316, F317, F322 and F325;

11.13.2 in Schedule 12 to remove Work No. 4G as an authorised purpose in relation to those Parcels; and

11.13.3 as set out in 8.27 to 8.29 in relation to the removal of the foundations of the pylons listed in 11.1 above.


26.02.2015

- 38 -

WB1\9658963\5

12. POWERS TO TAKE TEMPORARY POSSESSION AND POWERS TO UNDERTAKE ANCILLARY WORKS

Article 18: authority to survey and investigate the land

12.1 The powers proposed under this article will affect a very large area of land given the extent of the Order limits so far concerns BPC's land. However, the article seeks to extend its geographic reach to include yet further land "which may be affected by the authorised development", which is disproportionate and unnecessary given that no works are permitted outside those limits and all necessary assessments of the impacts of the authorised development have presumably already been undertaken. It is also unacceptable for the Applicant to seek compulsory powers of access, of carrying out intrusive works and of leaving apparatus over an undefined area the owners and occupiers of which cannot be identified and so will have had no opportunity to comment on the proposed powers.

12.2 As proposed, the proposed powers also do not take account of the need to limit their potential area of effect according to whether the Option A Works or the Option B Works are authorised and constructed.

12.3 The powers are in any event unworkable within the dock estate on the terms sought since they purport to grant the undertaker unlimited access to a large and undefined area of land as often as is required and without any consultation with BPC or its customers and tenants whose land and operations will be affected by the activities. This is not acceptable in the context of BPC's (and BPC's tenants') need to plan and manage the use of land in connection with its operations, ensuring it can plan to accommodate all cargoes due for arrival/despatch and all necessary arrangements for storage and onward despatch. Although the article requires the Applicant to give advance notice of entry, this would not prevent the Applicant, perhaps unwittingly, from insisting on access to a particular area or facility and for a period that would cause serious detriment to BPC's operations and those of its customers.

12.4 Section 16 below explains why BPC requires further controls over all works executed on the dock estate, and those controls must, so far as applicable, apply equally to activities carried out under this article. This will include the need for those undertaking the relevant activities to produce evidence of authority before access to the dock estate is sought.

Land subject to powers to take temporary possession under articles 30 and 31

12.5 Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 above give details of various Parcels proposed for use for construction-related access which BPC contends should not be used and which should be excised from the relevant provisions of the DCO.

12.6 In addition to those Parcels, BPC contends that there is no need for Parcels G33 and G35 at Portbury to be used in connection with the authorised development.

12.7 BPC believes that the Applicant intends Parcel G33 to be included in the lands of which temporary possession may be taken only in connection with the Option A Works. However, there are no works to be carried out on the Parcel and it does not form part of the haul road alongside the route of the new 132kV cable nor of any other access route and provision is already made elsewhere (on Parcels G29 and G30) for a construction compound for Work No. 4P. There is therefore no justification for this Parcel to be subject to powers to take temporary possession.

12.8 Parcel G35 forms part of the same overall area, merely being divided from Parcel G33 by the proposed access (used only for Option B) over Parcel G34.


26.02.2015

- 39 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.9 Parcels G33 and G35 should therefore be removed from the exercise of any powers under the DCO.

Access arrangements

12.10 Section 16 explains the arrangements BPC requires in relation to programming the undertakers' access to the dock estate.

Purpose of access and handback

12.11 BPC requires greater clarity as to the purpose for which each Parcel of its land of which temporary possession is being sought is required, both generally and in connection with the requirements in the DCO for handback.

12.12 Each of articles 30 and 31 define two categories of land to which temporary access is permitted. For the purpose of the commentary below, reference is made to article 30 and Part 1 of Schedule 12, but the same comments apply in respect of article 31 and Part 2 of Schedule 12.

12.13 The two categories are:

12.13.1 in line with the MPs, the Parcels listed in Part 1 of Schedule 12 ((article 30(a)(i)). So far as the Applicant is concerned, these are those falling within categories 4 to 6 in the BoR, being land not subject to any form of compulsory acquisition; and

12.13.2 as a departure from the MPs, any land within the Order limits (a30(a)(ii)). In relation to Parcels which are to be compulsorily acquired (rather than being the subject only of the acquisition of rights) article 30(a)(ii) provides authority for access only until notice of entry is served, but this qualification will be of little effect given the small number of Parcels listed in Schedule 11.

12.14 The categories of land created in articles 30(a)(i) and (ii) are not expressed to be mutually exclusive. Therefore, all the land listed in Schedule 12 Part 1 can also be accessed under article 30(a)(ii), along with the remaining land within BoR categories 1 to 3. The effect of article 30(a)(ii) is therefore extensive. The Statement of Reasons26 states that Schedule 12 lists the land of which temporary use is needed, but in fact it lists only part of such land.

12.15 A specific purpose is stated in Schedule 12 Part 1 when access is sought under a30(a)(i). Completion of this specified element of the authorised development enables the landowner to regain possession 12 months later27. In contrast, access under a30(a)(ii) is required only to be "in connection with the carrying out of the authorised development"28 and return of land taken under it is therefore linked to an undefined event. The Statement of Reasons29 states that where the undertaker requires temporary use of land which is also to be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition the temporary use will be only for the purpose for which the land or right may be acquired, but this not reflected in the DCO where no such control applies.

12.16 This means that the stated limitations as to the permitted purpose of access under Schedule 12 are effectively overridden in relation to all land within the Order limits and both article 30(1)(a)(i) and Schedule 12 appear redundant.

26 Paragraph 6.9. 27 Article 30(3)(a). 28 Article 30(3)(b). 29 Paragraph 6.10.


26.02.2015

- 40 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.17 It also means that there is no clear mechanism to establish when the land must be handed back, since no specific purpose is defined for its use if access is taken under article 30(a)(ii).

12.18 In any event, there is no justification for the undertaker being able to retain possession of land for up to a year after it by definition had ceased to need it. That period should be significantly curtailed.

Obligations to restore and vacate

12.19 The obligation to vacate land taken under article 30(a)(ii) also appears fundamentally unclear in relation to large areas of land. The obligation in article 30(3)(b) is stated not to apply in cases where a notice of entry is served, which it appears from article 30(6) may include cases of the acquisition of rights. Article 30(6) itself expressly releases the undertaker from the obligation to restore the land taken to any extent if the undertaker then acquires a right over that land.

12.20 This is clearly unacceptable. The undertaker will not be acquiring outright the large areas of land falling within classes 2 and 3 in the BoR, merely rights over them. The undertaker must remove its temporary works, restore the land and give up possession to the landowner.

12.21 Articles 30 and 31 must be amended to address these issues.

Powers to clear land, apparatus and vegetation

Articles 30(1)(b) and 31(1)(b)

12.22 Articles 30(1)(b) and 31(1)(b) contain powers, amongst other things, for the undertaker to remove the following items from land of which it takes temporary possession:

12.22.1 buildings and other structures;

12.22.2 electric lines, electrical plant and other apparatus; and

12.22.3 vegetation.

Under articles 30(5)(a), 30(6)(a), 31(5)(a) and 31(6)(a) the undertaker is not obliged to replace these items.

12.23 The Applicant's proposals as to the land which it should seek to use for construction purposes should have taken into account the nature of that land and its current and likely future state. These provisions are therefore unacceptable.

12.24 In relation to those physical features of the land which were present at the time the Applicant made its decision as to the land it required, the Applicant's proposals should have incorporated those features (so far as they were not assets belonging to the Applicant). To the extent that the Applicant could properly have concluded that there was no alternative but to use the land concerned and to alter or remove some or all of those features, it should have consulted with the landowner concerned, to establish whether and how it would be possible to mitigate the effect on the landowner. No such consultation has occurred with BPC.

12.25 Some considerable time has passed since the Applicant made its assessment of the land which it would seek to include within its DCO powers. Until publication of the draft DCO, landowners, including BPC, would not have been aware of what was to be proposed in relation the Applicant's ability to clear their land and so would have been unaware that, for example, any new buildings they might have constructed since the Applicant's initial assessments could be removed at some indeterminate time in the future.


26.02.2015

- 41 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.26 The DCO proposes to allow the Applicant eight years to start the authorised development. It is both unrealistic and unfair that during that time the land is effectively sterilised from development. This is a particularly acute issue in the dock estate where BPC must be free to use and develop its land for its statutory undertaking.

12.27 These site clearance provisions of article 30 and 31 are also inappropriate and disproportionate in that they:

12.27.1 are very broadly drafted such that the undertaker may remove any of the listed features on the land, without the need to consider whether that is to any degree necessary for the purposes for which the land in question is authorised to be taken; and

12.27.2 impose a permanent loss on landowners where the undertakers' need for the land is only temporary.

Article 34(b)

12.28 Overlapping with powers in articles 30 and 31, article 34(b) would permit the undertaker to remove apparatus belonging to and used by BPC, as a statutory undertaker, from any location within the Order limits, and to extinguish rights in respect of such apparatus. Both the article and the EM indicate that this provision is regarded as reasonable because of the protective provisions in Schedule 15. The EM in particular states that the rights and apparatus intended to be extinguished or removed would be "as agreed" with the undertakers and this is reflected in, for example, paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 15 in relation to the apparatus of electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers. In line with this, the EM also refers to the bodies which will be affected by the provision as being "utilities" and the large extent of their potentially affected apparatus is the justification given for seeking powers of removal and extinguishment over the entire extent of the Order limits, rather than adopting the approach required by the MPs of specifying the apparatus to be affected by the power.

12.29 BPC is not a utility and so there is no justification for the powers of the article to apply in the general terms proposed so as to affect any of its apparatus. Nor does BPC have any protection under the provisions in Schedule 15. The Applicant has not identified any particular apparatus belonging to BPC in respect of which it considers the exercise of the power is necessary in connection with the authorised development. Accordingly, BPC contends that it is not necessary for the purposes of carrying out the authorised development that any apparatus belonging to it is removed nor that any right vested in BPC in relation to the laying down, erecting, continuing or maintaining of apparatus is extinguished.

12.30 Article 34(b) must not apply to BPC.

12.31 BPC notes the issues raised in the Examining Authority's first written questions as to the intended interrelationship of this article and articles 24 and 25, and reserves its right to make further representation on the effect of DCO powers in relation to BPC's apparatus and the compulsory suspension and/or extinguishment of rights in respect of apparatus once it has had sight of the Applicant's response to those questions and any resulting amendments to the draft DCO.

Articles 42 and 43

12.32 Articles 42 and 43 contain additional powers enabling the undertaker to remove or cut back trees and shrubs on BPC's land, which overlap with certain powers under articles 30 and 31


26.02.2015

- 42 -

WB1\9658963\5

relating to the removal of vegetation but also appear to provide ongoing powers to the undertaker.

12.33 BPC has created around its estate various wildlife areas and corridors, either voluntarily or under conditions in planning permissions. Its Environmental Management Plan for Royal Portbury Dock sets out, in particular, certain areas of broadleaved woodland which it is seeking to manage, including areas at Plot 33a and Portbury Wood, and habitat management measures for Vole City, each of which could be affected by the authorised development. The planning permission for the railway land requires the maintenance of the green buffer areas around the operational area of the site.

12.34 BPC has not been consulted by the Applicant about the Applicant's proposals to remove areas of vegetation, trees and shrubs on BPC's land and is concerned about the effect those proposals will have on the environment at the Port and BPC's ability to fulfil its obligations. It notes that the vast majority of the trees listed in Schedule 14 as subject to TPOs but to be removed are within the railway land.

12.35 BPC therefore requires some level of control over the undertaker's removal of vegetation etc on the dock estate.

Street and access works: article 10, article 11 and Schedule 5 (street works) and article 12, article 14 and Schedule 6 (accesses)

12.36 Section 13 below explains the importance of unobstructed, 24 hours a day, seven days a week access being available across BPC's entire road network. The Applicant has not consulted with BPC about the street works and other works it proposes under these articles on BPC's land and private roads and has provided no details of the nature, purpose and extent of those works.

Street works: article 10, article 11 and Schedule 5

Streets affected

12.37 Three private roads belonging to and controlled by BPC are listed in Schedule 5 of the DCO. BPC is the street manager and hence street authority for these roads. No public right of way exists over them. They are:

(1) Authority (2) Street subject to street works

North Somerset Council Un-named Road (perpendicular to Marsh Lane)

The Drove

Bristol City Council Victoria Road

12.38 Article 10 permits street works on named streets "within the Order limits". In relation to each of The Drove and Victoria Road, more than one area of those roads falls within the Order limits. BPC has assumed the areas concerned in each case where those in the immediate vicinity of bellmouths AC102 and AC105 respectively, neither of which should be constructed. For the reasons given in sections 9 and 10 above no street works should therefore be authorised under the DCO in respect of The Drove and Victoria Road. References to these roads should therefore be deleted from Schedule 5 entirely. However, the Applicant (and if necessary the DCO) should clarify the precise areas in relation to those streets where works were proposed.


26.02.2015

- 43 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.39 Although it is unclear from the DCO, BPC assumes that "Un-named Road (perpendicular to Marsh Lane)" is a reference to BPC's internal access road located in the general vicinity of Parcels G108 and G109. Nonetheless, the Applicant should clarify this and the DCO should also be clarified accordingly.

Lack of controls over street works

12.40 MP 34 makes specific provision for street works on private roads under the control or management of, amongst others, navigation authorities, which includes BPC as statutory harbour authority. Under it, the consent of the undertaker is required to any street works otherwise authorised under the general street works powers in a development consent order. This provision has been omitted from the DCO but equivalent protections must be provided for BPC.

12.41 The EM states that the usual street works powers have been extended to include (as article 10(1)(c)) power to remove or use earth and materials in or under the street to reflect the street works powers available to the Applicant in paragraph 1(b)(iii) of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989. However, those powers do not apply in relation to land not dedicated to the public use30 such as BPC's private roads, so the power should be excluded in that case.

12.42 The EM paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 contain seemingly contradictory information as to the inclusion in the DCO of MP 8(2), which does appear as article 10(2). It states that the authority for works given by paragraph (1) is a statutory right for the purposes of sections 48(3) (streets, street works and undertakers) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, so that works of the description in section 48(3)(a) or (b) if undertaken by the undertaker will be caught by the 1991 Act provisions. It is therefore unclear on what basis the DCO seeks to apply only certain sections of the 1991 Act. The explanation in the EM suggests in relation to article 11 that the 1991 Act provisions have been slimmed down so that they can apply also to closures of rights of way under article 13. Article 11(2), (3) and (4) appear to be based on Model Provision 3(2), (3) and (4) of the Model Clauses for Railways31 which deals only with stopping up etc of streets, hence its limited application of the 1991 Act. The legacy of this provenance is apparent in article 11(4) where there is (wrongly) no reference made to street works, only to stopping up. Whether or not this slimming down of the application of the 1991 Act is an appropriate approach in relation to article 13, it does not adequately explain why the (full) normal street works provisions should not apply to works under article 10. The Applicant should be asked to explain and justify the DCO provisions in this respect.

Access works: article 12, article 14 and Schedule 6

12.43 For the reasons given in sections 9 and 10 above bellmouths AC102 and AC105 should not be constructed under any circumstances. References to these bellmouths should therefore be deleted from Schedule 6 entirely.

12.44 On the information provided, apart from the remaining bellmouths in Schedule 6, no other bellmouths or changes to accesses (permanent or temporary) are needed on the dock estate, and the DCO powers should be limited accordingly.

Methodology for street and access works

12.45 There has been no consultation by the Applicant with BPC about the detail of the works which might be proposed under article 10, 12 and/or 14 to BPC’s private land and roads.

30 See the words at the end of that paragraph 1(1). 31 Transport and Works (Model Clauses for Railways and Tramways) Order 2006 2006 No. 1954.


26.02.2015

- 44 -

WB1\9658963\5

Requirement 2232, which provides protection in relation to this issue for various access works affecting public highways, does not extend to require the consent of the relevant street authority for similar works to private roads. BPC will therefore require the submission to it by the Applicant for approval of details of all works of this kind proposed together with proposed programmes for the work and method statements, so that BPC, as street authority for the private dock road network, can ensure that disruption to port operations and other port infrastructure is minimised.

12.46 Section 13 describes roads other than BPC’s private dock estate roads which form an important part of the road system at the Port. Some of these - referred to in section 13 as the Dock Public Roads - directly connect with or immediately abut BPC’s private roads and land. Any works proposed under the DCO to create accesses to or change the layout of these public roads therefore have the potential to affect traffic flows at the Port. Although the local highway authority may have oversight of these works33, BPC also requires that its consent as street authority for the private road network is obtained so that any impact of the proposals on the private dock road network can be assessed before works start. No need for any works of this kind have to date been identified in the Applicant’s proposals.

Duration and scope of powers

12.47 The respective ambits of articles 12 and 14 are unclear and the provisions appear to overlap. The bellmouths to be created under article 12(1) are specified in Schedule 6, but both article 12(2) and article 14 would appear to authorise further bellmouths in unspecified locations within the Order limits. The EM states that article 14 is intended to deal only with accesses to and from public highways but it is not limited in that way and, in any event, the bellmouths listed in article 12 and Schedule 6 already include many accesses onto public highways. The consultation and consent requirements in article 14 also seem inconsistent with those in article 12 and Requirement 22: unlike article 12 the consenting body is proposed as the local planning authority with the local highway authority being only a consultee.

12.48 The Applicant should clarify and define the differing powers sought under these articles and their relationship with articles 30 and 31.

12.49 In relation to the dock estate, BPC also objects to the very broad power given to the undertaker in article 12(2) because of the effect that these further, as yet unspecified works, could have on access arrangements at the Port,

12.50 None of the powers in any of articles 10, 12 and 14 should be exercisable after completion of construction. Any accesses required for long-term maintenance will have been created as part of the construction works.

Article 29

12.51 This article is described in the EM as a power to "use" unspecified streets within the Order limits for the purpose of the authorised development. This is not an accurate description of the power, which is limited to use of subsoil or airspace. The Statement of Reasons34 refers to this powers as relating (only) to highways, but the article is not limited in that way and as drafted would apply to BPC’s private roads.

32 Paragraph 22 of Schedule 3. 33 See article 12(4) and Requirement 22 in Schedule 3. 34 Paragraph 3.8.


26.02.2015

- 45 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.52 In relation to the dock estate, none of the Applicant’s proposals involve installing equipment under BPC’s roads, so the powers under article 29 are not required for that purpose. So far as rights for conductors to overfly BPC’s land, all necessary rights are being sought under article 23 and/or articles 30 and 31.

12.53 Therefore there is no need for powers of compulsory acquisition to be exercised under article 29 in relation to any private road or way on BPC’s land. The DCO should be amended so that article 29 applies only to public highways.

Article 16

12.54 There are a considerable number of watercourses on BPC's land, many of which form an integral part of surface water drainage systems of large cargo handling and storage areas. Some may be the immediate subject of existing discharge consents, others not. In addition to Environment Agency controls, works affecting or discharges into these must be carefully controlled and balanced to prevent flooding or ponding in other areas around the dock estate.

12.55 BPC will also be affected by the proposed power for the Applicant to be able to use "public" sewers and drains, since its capacity as harbour authority will mean that for the purposes of the DCO all of its purely privately-owned sewers and drains will be treated as if they were public35.

12.56 Further, BPC needs generally to control works affecting water and drainage infrastructure around the dock estate.

12.57 While the DCO appears to contain some controls for BPC, as owner of the infrastructure concerned, these are not comprehensive. For example, no specific consent is stated as required for physical works authorised under article 16(1).

12.58 Since it is not a water undertaker, it is not appropriate that article 16(2) should apply to BPC.

12.59 Article 16(6) should not be limited to main rivers.

12.60 Paragraph (d) of the definition of Associated Development in Schedule 1 permits works to alter the course of or otherwise interfere with a watercourse, and article 16 gives certain powers in relation to watercourses. Since the definition of watercourse in the DCO is an inclusive one, it must therefore be made clear that the definition cannot include any impounded docks within the Port.

Amendments to the DCO

12.61 Accordingly, the DCO must be amended, including as follows.

Surveys and investigations

12.62 BPC requires a protective provision, including to the effect that:

12.62.1 the undertaker shall not exercise any powers under article 18 respect of any of BPC's land outside the Order limits;

12.62.2 access will be permitted under the article only so far as is necessary in relation to either the Option A Works or the Option B Works in accordance with whichever is authorised and is to be constructed, and not in relation to both;

35 See article 16(10).


26.02.2015

- 46 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.62.3 the undertaker may not exercise any powers under the article on any occasion and in relation to any of BPC's land other than by prior agreement with BPC (such agreement not be unreasonably withheld, but which may be given subject to reasonable conditions) and on at least 14 days' notice, all requests for access to be accompanied by full details of the activities proposed (including risk assessments and method statements and likely duration), the personnel/contractors who would undertake them and any apparatus that might be left on site;

12.62.4 BPC may, without limitation, refuse access as requested on any occasion for operational reasons, in which case BPC will act reasonably in seeking to offer alternative arrangements;

12.62.5 before access is permitted to the undertaker on any occasion, BPC may require evidence of the existence of adequate insurance with insurers of repute, the proceeds of which will be available to cover all liability, costs, claims, expenses and demands which may arise as a result of that access;

12.62.6 in carrying out all activities on BPC's land pursuant to those powers, the undertaker must comply with the Protocol referred to in section 16 below and with the condition attached to BPC's consent under 12.62.3 above;

12.62.7 any equipment left on BPC's land must be removed as soon as reasonably possible after completion of the relevant surveys and investigations; and

12.62.8 at the undertaker's expense, copies of all survey results and ground investigations shall be made available to BPC promptly after their production in order that BPC maintains, for the purposes of its undertaking, its knowledge of those issues in relation to the dock estate.

12.63 This provision is in addition to that required and set out in 16.7 below. The Protocol referred to in that paragraph must be agreed before the undertaker exercises any powers under article 18 in respect of BPC's land.

Land subject to powers to take temporary possession

12.64 The DCO and the BoR must be amended to excise Parcels G33 and G35 entirely from the ambit of the DCO and any powers exercisable under it, including their deletion from Schedule 12 Part 1 and Part 2.

Access arrangements

12.65 Articles 30 and 31 must be amended to address the issues identified in 12.11 and following above.

12.66 BPC requires a protective provision, including to the following effect.

12.66.1 Temporary possession of any Parcel of BPC’s land shall not be taken until the undertaker has secured BPC's agreement as to:

(a) the particular purpose and/or works within the authorised development for which temporary possession of that Parcel may be taken;

(b) the programme of the activities and/or works to be carried out on that Parcel;

(c) the date on which possession will be required; and


26.02.2015

- 47 -

WB1\9658963\5

(d) the date on which the land will be handed back to BPC.

12.66.2 Unless otherwise agreed by BPC, the date on which the land will be handed back to BPC must not be later than two weeks after completion of the works and activities for which BPC agreed possession was required.

12.66.3 The undertaker shall not take temporary possession of BPC's land other than in accordance with the agreed programme referred to above and unless it has given BPC not less than 8 weeks' written notice in each case before possession is taken of each Parcel.

12.66.4 Unless BPC agrees otherwise, the undertaker shall not give notice of the need for possession to BPC's tenants or other occupiers/users of the affected areas.

12.66.5 Unless BPC agrees otherwise the undertaker must vacate each Parcel within two weeks of completion of the agreed works for which possession was required. The undertaker will notify BPC of the completion of those works within seven days.

12.66.6 Unless BPC agrees otherwise, the undertaker may not take temporary possession of any Parcel more than once.

12.66.7 No Parcel will be used except for the agreed purpose. No permanent works or buildings may be constructed on any Parcel and no buildings or other structures may be demolished (except in each case to the extent this forms part of the authorised development, such as the construction and removal of pylons).

12.66.8 Before vacating each Parcel, the undertaker shall, unless BPC agrees otherwise, restore and reinstate it and any buildings and structures on it to the condition they were in before possession was taken and will make good any damage caused to surrounding land, all to BPC’s reasonable satisfaction.

12.66.9 The undertakers' obligations to vacate and restore each Parcel extend to those in categories 2 and 3 in the BoR as well as those in categories 4, 5 and 6 and shall apply regardless of whether any easement may have been granted to the undertaker in respect of the Parcel or any steps in pursuance of any power of compulsory acquisition may have been taken.

Powers to clear land, apparatus and vegetation

12.67 Articles 30(1)(b) and 31(1)(b) must be deleted from the DCO, or must be confined in their application to the items listed in them which belong to the undertaker. Articles 30(5)(a), 30(6)(a), 31(5)(a) and 31(6)(a) must also be deleted.

12.68 BPC requires a protective provision, including to the effect that in the exercise of any powers under the DCO:

12.68.1 no building or other structures constructed on BPC's land may be demolished by the undertaker;

12.68.2 the undertaker may not remove or re-position any apparatus belonging to BPC or its tenants and may not extinguish any rights vested in BPC or its tenants in relation to such apparatus;

12.68.3 the undertaker may not remove any vegetation on BPC's land, nor fell or lop any tree or shrub or cut back its roots, in each case without BPC's consent, not to be


26.02.2015

- 48 -

WB1\9658963\5

unreasonably withheld. BPC's consent may impose reasonable conditions as to the provision of replacement plantings; and

12.68.4 the undertaker may not carry out any temporary works (including erecting temporary buildings) or mitigation works or works to create or modify means of access to any land, without BPC's consent, not to be unreasonably withheld.

Watercourses


12.69.1 no part of any impounded dock at the Port shall be included within the definition of "watercourse" in the DCO;

12.69.2 the undertaker shall not use or discharge water into any watercourse, sewer or drain belonging to BPC or in respect of which BPC has rights of use, such consent not be unreasonably withheld but which may be given subject to reasonable conditions, including limitations as to permitted quantities and duration;

12.69.3 except as permitted by BPC, the undertaker shall not make any crossing over or culvert, opening or connection into any watercourse, sewer or drain belonging to BPC or in respect of which BPC has rights of use nor lay down, take up or alter any pipes for that purpose;

12.69.4 the undertaker must not, in carrying out or maintaining works on the dock estate pursuant to article 16 damage or interfere with the bed or banks of any watercourse; and

12.69.5 article 16(2) shall not apply to BPC.

Street and access works


12.70.1 unless BPC otherwise agrees, no works may be carried out on, over or under, nor any equipment left or erected on, any roads and ways on BPC's land in connection with the authorised development except as permitted under article 10 and 12 (as amended as required above);

12.70.2 in particular, no works will be carried out on BPC’s land under article 14 of the DCO;

12.70.3 unless BPC agrees otherwise, no works shall be permitted under article 12 of the DCO on BPC’s land (including private roads) or so as to affect any Dock Public Road (as defined in section 13) except for the creation of bellmouths AC101, AC104 and AC113 pursuant to article 12(1) of the DCO to the extent applicable;

12.70.4 no works otherwise authorised by the DCO (including those authorised under articles 10 and 12) may be carried out on, over or under any roads and ways on BPC's land nor any plant or equipment (including scaffolding) left or erected on such roads and ways under except in each case with BPC’s prior consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld but which may be given subject to reasonable conditions;

12.70.5 in carrying out any works and/or activities referred to in 12.70.4 the undertaker must minimise disruption to traffic so far as reasonably practicable and must not interfere with street furniture, signage and lighting masts nor leave any deposits or spoil or materials to remain on any road or way;


26.02.2015

- 49 -

WB1\9658963\5

12.70.6 all works and/or activities referred to in 12.70.4 shall be carried out only in accordance with specifications, programmes and methodologies first approved by BPC, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld; and

12.70.7 unless BPC otherwise agrees, the undertaker may not remove or use earth and materials in or under the roads.

12.71 The DCO must also be amended:

12.71.1 as set out in paragraphs 12.38 and 12.43 above;

12.71.2 to clarify the precise powers sought under articles 12 and 14;

12.71.3 to limit the powers in articles 10, 12 and (if applicable) 14 so that they cannot be exercised after completion of construction; and

12.71.4 to limit the effect of article 29 to public highways.


26.02.2015

- 50 -

WB1\9658963\5

13. ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

Vehicular access

13.1 Section 6 describes typical operations at the Port. Ships arrive and are loaded and discharged 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Motor vehicles which have been imported will be driven off the ships delivering them to the Port and around designated routes on the private dock road network to their first point of rest and then to transit storage compounds, a process described in more detail in section 9 in so far as it affects The Drove. Vehicles for export will make similar journeys in reverse. Car transporters operate over parts of the road network. Bulk and other cargoes will be discharged at the quayside and transported by road vehicle to stocking areas and warehouses around the dock estate. HGVs and tankers arrive throughout the day to collect and deliver bulk liquids, containers and other cargoes. Abnormal loads are required for transport of project cargoes, such as aeroplane wings, for which designated routes must be maintained clear of obstruction. The Port is served by the two main M5 junctions 18 and 19 at Avonmouth and Portbury and the efficient operations of these junctions and connecting roads, including those connecting the two parts of the dock estate at Avonmouth and Portbury via the M5, are critical to operations at the Port. If bottlenecks are to be avoided – both on the road network and at the quays – all parts of the network must be allowed to run with as little potential for obstruction as possible. Achieving this requires the co-operation and liaison of both the local highway authority and BPC as street authority for the private dock roads network.

13.2 The majority of roads within the Port are private. There are no public roads on or crossing the dock estate at Avonmouth. The following public roads (referred to below as the Dock Public Roads) are on or cross the dock estate at Portbury:

13.2.1 Marsh Lane and Redland Avenue (part);

13.2.2 Gordano Way and Garonor Way;

13.2.3 Royal Portbury Dock Road between M5 junction 19 and a point just north of the junction with Portbury Way; and

13.2.4 Portbury Way, up to its junction with Banyard Road, and Banyard Road.

13.3 In addition, the following other roads (referred to below as the Dock Access Network) form part of the key access routes for traffic resorting to and from the Port and its estate:

13.3.1 M5;

13.3.2 Portbury Hundred;

13.3.3 Sheepway, including Station Road;

13.3.4 Wharf Lane;

13.3.5 West Town Road;

13.3.6 Gloucester Road;

13.3.7 King Road Avenue, Crowley Way and Portway;

13.3.8 A403 St Andrew's Road, Smoke Lane, Chittening Road and Severn Road; and

13.3.9 Severn Road, Ableton Lane and Minors Lane.

13.4 Many of the existing private roads and routes across dock compounds have been designed and constructed only to accommodate light traffic (less than 3 tonnes) equipped with tyres and


26.02.2015

- 51 -

WB1\9658963\5

are therefore unsuitable for HGV access and tracked construction equipment. BPC has referred to particular inadequacies on sections 8, 9 and 10 when explaining why the Applicant's proposals to use certain access routes are unacceptable. To the extent that the Applicant does use BPC's private road network, it must first assess the suitability of routes including the pavement and any structures (bridges culverts, services crossings) and undertake such strengthening, reinforcement and protection as may be deemed appropriate and agreed with BPC before use. The Applicant must make good at its cost any damage and wear and tear caused to the accesses it uses and must restore them to at least as good a condition as they were in before the Applicant's use of them started. In certain cases, to avoid further disruption, BPC may prefer that the improvement works carried out by the Applicant to accommodate construction traffic be left in situ, in which case with BPC's prior written consent (and subject to the availability of necessary consents) they need not be restored by the Applicant.

13.5 Various controls required in relation to carrying out works to the private dock roads are set out in sections 8 to 12 and sections 9 and 10 also refer to specific access issues relating to various roads at Portbury and Victoria Road which BPC considers unacceptable. BPC also needs to control or be involved in all proposals under the DCO which may lead to closure or restrictions on use of any of its private roads or which may affect the Dock Public Roads or the Dock Access Network, to ensure that decisions made in relation to those proposals take into account any relevant operations at the Port.

13.6 Article 13(1) would permit closure of many of BPC’s private roads and their use as a working area36. Similar measures could be taken in relation to several roads within the Dock Public Road or the Dock Access Network. Article 4137 would allow various traffic restrictions to be put in place affecting the Dock Public Roads or the Dock Access Network and for parts of roads to be designated as parking areas38.

13.7 BPC requires that any closure of its private roads and any Dock Public Road, and any traffic restriction affecting a Dock Public Road, takes place only with its consent, which is within its discretion so far as its private roads are concerned, and that it is consulted about all proposals for similar measures affecting the wider Dock Access Network.

13.8 The power under article 13(1) and (2) encompasses the power to "alter" streets. This seems to overlap with powers under article 12. The Applicant should explain why the word is needed in article 13.

13.9 It should be made clear that none of the powers in articles 13 and 41 should be exercisable after completion of construction.

Public rights of way

13.10 Various PROWS crossing or adjacent to BPC’s land are proposed for temporary closure, or restriction on use, in connection with the carrying out of the authorised development39. Many of these have been constructed by BPC as part of its commitments to the local community and to the environment. It is therefore concerned to ensure that as little adverse impact is caused by the works to user of these paths.

36 Article 13(2). 37 Particularly article 41(2). 38 Article 41(2)(c). 39 See article 13(4) and Schedule 7. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix B to this representation contains details of the PROWs which with BPC is concerned.


26.02.2015

- 52 -

WB1\9658963\5

13.11 It therefore requires to be consulted before the PROWs specified in Schedule 7 are closed or their use is restricted, and would want a suitable diversion to be provided in each case. It would also want to be involved, and to give its consent to, any proposals for closures of PROWs on its land which are not specified in Schedule 7.

Amendments required to DCO

13.12 BPC requires protective provisions, including to the following effect.

13.12.1 The undertaker must make good at its cost any damage and wear and tear caused to the accesses it uses and (except to the extent BPC agrees otherwise in writing) must restore them to at least as good a condition as they were in before its use of them started. If BPC requires it, surveys will be carried out by the undertaker at its cost and to BPC's specification to show the condition of the accesses, associated structures, signs and barriers before and after the undertaker's use of them and BPC may inspect all works of reinstatement being carried out to ensure that appropriate works are being carried out to any of BPC's assets affected by the works.

13.12.2 No powers may be exercised under the DCO or otherwise to close, stop-up, alter, divert, divert traffic from or prevent or restrict passage along or impose any traffic restriction in respect of:

(a) any private road, path or way on BPC's land; or

(b) any Dock Public Road without BPC's prior consent, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld but may be given subject to reasonable conditions.

13.12.3 The undertaker must consult with BPC in relation to its proposals for the closure of any part of the Dock Access Network or the imposition of any traffic restriction affecting it, before submitting those proposals to the relevant highway, street and/or traffic authority for approval under the DCO, and must similarly consult with BPC in relation to any proposed variations or extensions to those proposals.

13.12.4 For these purposes, a "traffic restriction" means any of the prohibitions, regulations, permissions and other provisions that might otherwise be made under article 41.

13.12.5 The undertaker must not exercise any powers under the DCO or otherwise to close, stop-up, alter, divert, divert traffic from or prevent or restrict passage along or impose any traffic restriction in respect of40:

(a) any public right of way referred to in Schedule 7 of the DCO on BPC's land comprising a footpath, bridleway and/or cycle path or any part of the LA/15/15 unless it has first consulted with BPC;

(b) any other public right of way on or abutting BPC's land comprising a footpath, bridleway and/or cycle path without BPC's consent, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld but which may be given subject to reasonable conditions; and

(c) any public right of way on BPC's land comprising a footpath, bridleway and/or cycle path unless a suitable diversion has been provided, to be

40 These restrictions are in addition to those set out in respect of LA/8/6 and Victoria Road and LA/15/22 and The Drove set out in sections 8 and 9 respectively.


26.02.2015

- 53 -

WB1\9658963\5

approved by BPC (acting reasonably) or, if it is intended that any restrictions on use short of closure will be imposed, unless BPC has approved the nature and extent of those restrictions.

13.12.6 Unless BPC agrees otherwise, no road or way (including any footpath, bridleway or cycle path) on BPC's land or which is part of any Dock Public Road which has been stopped up, altered or diverted under the DCO or otherwise in connection with the authorised development may be used for parking vehicles or as a temporary working site.

13.13 The DCO should be amended:

13.13.1 to delete the word "alter" and its derivations throughout article 13; and

13.13.2 to limit the powers in articles 13 and 41 so that they cannot be exercised after completion of construction.


26.02.2015

- 54 -

WB1\9658963\5

14. PERMANENT EFFECTS

14.1 BPC objects to (a) the nature and extent of the proposed compulsory acquisition of rights over land held and/or used for the purposes of BPC's statutory undertaking, the freehold of which is owned by Bristol City Council ("BCC") and (b) the acquisition of land in BCC's ownership which will directly affect BPC's activities.

Land take, rights and restrictions

14.2 The DCO fails to justify the requirement for powers of compulsory acquisition and inadequately defines the rights sought which are expressed in unjustifiably wide terms.

14.3 BPC does not agree that the applicable conditions set out in the Planning Act 2008 (including those in section 127 and 138) are met in relation to BPC’s land in respect of which powers of compulsory acquisition and/or the extinguishment of rights are sought in the DCO. The DCO must not therefore authorise the exercise of any powers of compulsory acquisition over or in respect of BPC’s land.

14.4 Nor should the DCO authorise the exercise of any powers of compulsory acquisition in relation to Parcels G186 and G187 and those parts of Parcels G28, G36, G185 to G188, and G192, G193 and G201 which lie outside the limits of deviation for Work 1G (known as the "bowties").

Crook’s Marsh

14.5 The DCO must not authorise the exercise of any powers of compulsory acquisition in respect of Parcel G599 (freehold and leasehold interests). Instead WPD should agree to surrender Parcel G599 under its lease from BPC and, subject to any third party approval needed, BPC will add the Parcel to the existing lease of adjacent land between BPC and the Applicant dated 20 January 1996.

Extent of rights and restrictions

14.6 If, despite BPC's above views, the DCO does authorise the acquisition of rights by the undertaker, those rights should be limited as follows:

14.6.1 the right to retain the OHL, pylons and cables in agreed locations and to use them for the transmission or distribution of electricity in pursuance of the Applicant’s and WPD’s respective statutory undertakings; this right must not extend to permitting any adjustment, alteration or addition to be made to the apparatus as originally constructed nor (except to the extent necessary to effect a repair) any replacement or relaying of the apparatus;

14.6.2 with BPC's consent and to the extent necessary, to fell, trim or lop trees and bushes on BPC's land which interfere with the installed apparatus or access to it; and

14.6.3 any ancillary rights of access over the agreed permanent access routes to which BPC may agree provided that no permanent access rights will be exercised other than on two working days' notice to BPC's nominated contact and in compliance with BPC's health and safety requirements and such other instructions as may be appropriate at the time.

BPC also requires that article 32 of the DCO is excluded in relation to its land, so that any access to the works, once completed, is governed solely by the terms of the rights acquired.

14.7 The undertaker must indemnify BPC against all actions, claims, costs and expenses incurred as a result of the exercise by the undertaker of any relevant rights.


26.02.2015

- 55 -

WB1\9658963\5

14.8 BPC considers that the restrictions described in the BoR are wholly without justification. While reserving its position to make further representation about the content of restrictions sought:

14.8.1 so far as they seek to protect the 400kV works and accordingly to constrain the erection of structures on land, BPC contends that there is no justification for any restriction beyond, for example, the Applicant's own safety requirement of 5.3m clearance between structures and the lowest point of conductors;

14.8.2 the Applicant should identify and agree with BPC the permanent rights and restrictions, if any, intended to affect the areas to be used for the erection of scaffolding/netting across roads; and

14.8.3 other provisions must be applied for the protection of BPC’s land and operations at the Port, which must include provisions:

(a) to ensure the minimum height of conductor clearances; and

(b) to preserve the benefit of private rights and restrictions that would otherwise be extinguished under article 24 or 25 of the DCO.

Pylon design

14.9 BPC disagrees with the Applicant's proposed use of T-pylons for these reasons:

14.9.1 the standard design width of a T-pylon is approximately 80% greater than that of a standard lattice pylon, with the result any relevant restrictions affect a significantly larger land corridor;

14.9.2 T-pylons have not been used elsewhere on the Applicant's network, so their suitability (including stability) and utility are entirely unproven: to use a commercial port facility as an experimental location for new technology makes no sense at all and poses significant business risks when used in a port environment;

14.9.3 the method of constructing T-pylons is unequally undeveloped: for example, BPC understands that the stringing method is still being developed experimentally;

14.9.4 the dock estate and similar coastal areas will require particular foundation solutions, which are already proven for lattice towers with their basic 4-point ground loading while the options to use a mono-pile or some platform supported by several piles to support a T-pylon are, as yet, not demonstrated and validated;

14.9.5 the construction requirements for T-pylons require two large (100-200mt) cranes and multiple MEWPs (mobile elevated work platforms), while lattice pylons only require one large crane;

14.9.6 T-pylons require more plant movements during construction which would exacerbate the effects described earlier in this representation, including the effect of construction traffic on the Port's road network, the disruption to port operations and the need for access roads to be of heavier duty construction; and

14.9.7 after construction T-pylons cannot be climbed, so routine maintenance would involve different access methods which may require installation of temporary access tracks because larger vehicles (MEWPs) are needed: by contrast, lattice towers are typically maintained by climbing, without the need for heavy plant.


26.02.2015

- 56 -

WB1\9658963\5

14.10 Accordingly:

14.10.1 where the current design drawings show the use of lattice towers on any part of the route across BPC's land the Applicant must not use T-pylons; and

14.10.2 lattice towers should be used throughout the dock estate, regardless of whether Option A or Option B is authorised.

Electro-magnetic field

14.11 In its Relevant Representations, BPC expressed its concerns in relation to the effects the electric fields generated by the new 400kV OHL would have on its operations.

14.12 For the reasons given above, BPC objects to the extent of the restrictions proposed in the BoR in relation to land in the vicinity of the 400kV OHL, but is concerned that, no matter how those restrictions are ultimately framed, its ability to continue use of those areas for car storage will be inhibited by these electric fields and the risk of shocks to personnel involved in vehicle movements and storage. While BPC has become accustomed to those issues so far as they arise in relation to the current 132kV OHL crossing the dock estate, it is concerned as to how these will be magnified by the increased voltage and what effect this will have on its current assumptions as to how its operations will be affected.

14.13 BPC's concerns also include:

14.13.1 the risks which arise where the new OHL will pass close to pipelines and areas where flammable cargoes may be stored; and

14.13.2 the effect of the electric fields on the various communications systems used on the dock estate, including those related to traffic in the port and harbour. The current 132kV OHL do not affect the operational dock areas at Avonmouth whereas the Applicant's proposals will bring 400kV lines into those areas.

14.14 BPC remains to be satisfied as to the assessments which the Applicant has made of these specific issues and that no serious detriment to its undertaking will result from them.

14.15 The principles set out in this section 14 should be enshrined in protective provisions and the DCO amended accordingly.


26.02.2015

- 57 -

WB1\9658963\5

15. ECOLOGY/MITIGATION

15.1 The Applicant's assessment of the impacts of its application on ecological features in the vicinity of the Port is inadequate and fails fully to consider effects on protected and notable species in certain wildlife areas and to identify appropriate mitigation measures.

15.2 BPC's answers to the Examining Authority's first written questions 2.7 and 2.16 set out further detail about those inadequacies.

15.3 The Applicant must, as a minimum, provide the following additional mitigation measures:

15.3.1 undertake construction within the Drove Rhyne area as set out in the relevant current bird and water vole method statements (subject to the Applicant correcting the inadequacies in the species method statements, particularly in relation to water vole, as referred to in BPC's reply to the Examining Authority's first written question 2.7);

15.3.2 the application of the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve and Portbury Wharf SNCI mitigation measures set out in the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy to both the AWT and BPC sites;

15.3.3 funding of a BPC ECoW during construction works on BPC's land, to include a full understanding of the ecological interest of the sites and existing management, maintenance and monitoring measures as set out in the Portbury Ecological Management Plan and other relevant biodiversity management plans;

15.3.4 funding for woodland management at Portbury Dock Wood SNCI; and

15.3.5 to address the impacts on grassland and woodland within the Gloucester Road Railway Sidings SNCI, with particular regard to the requirements of condition 12 to the development consent granted by Bristol City Council on 8 March 2013 (application no. 11/02773/F).

15.4 The BMS and CEMP should be amended to reflect the above additional mitigation measures and the DCO should also be amended accordingly.


26.02.2015

- 58 -

WB1\9658963\5

16. CONTROLS DURING CONSTRUCTION

Programming

16.1 Except for permitted surveys and investigations, no work in connection with the authorised development (including work to prepare construction compounds) will start on any part of BPC's land until 1 March 2018. All works will be completed, including all work of site clearance and reinstatement/restoration, before 31 January 2022.

16.2 The Applicant must consult and co-operate with BPC in designing a detailed programme for the execution of work on BPC's land and in the wider vicinity of the Port, the Applicant using all reasonable endeavours in doing so to minimise the impact of proposed activities on BPC's land, access to and the operation of the Port and the activities of tenants and customers, but taking into account the availability of periods of outage in the WPD distribution network.

16.3 The programme shall, in particular, provide:

16.3.1 for the overall order of work to be (1) work to underground the 132 kV BW OHL at the point of crossing the 400kV OHL, whether under Option A or Option B; (2) removal of the 132kV G OHL; and (3) construction of the 400kV OHL;

16.3.2 for the identification of areas required for construction activities which shall be as small as possible; and

16.3.3 to the greatest extent reasonably possible, for all elements of the construction work to be carried out over a continuous period of the minimum duration reasonably possible; this may include providing for the removal of the 132kV G OHL across the River Avon and the subsequent support of the remaining conductors on temporary stays to enable the removal of the rest of the G line at a time convenient to BPC.

16.4 The Applicant's final programme (and any proposed amendments to that programme) resulting from the consultation process above must be presented to BPC not later than 6 months before any of the work contained in it is to start, and should be subject to BPC's approval, not to be unreasonably withheld. Unless BPC otherwise agrees, the Applicant must not carry out the works other than in accordance with the agreed programme. BPC may at any time request amendments to the agreed programme, which the Applicant must use its reasonable endeavours to accommodate.

Execution

16.5 The Applicant must take all steps and measures available to it to minimise the impact of construction activities on BPC's land, the operation of the Port and the activities of BPC's tenants and customers. In particular the Applicant must:

16.5.1 not do anything which would create any nuisance on or to or damage BPC's land or property or those of its tenants and customers; and

16.5.2 proceed diligently with the works for which each Parcel is required and must use all reasonable endeavours to vacate each Parcel on or before any agreed hand back date.

16.6 In order to ensure the continuity of the efficient working of the Port, the protection of the environment and the safety of all persons, the Applicant and BPC should agree a protective provision requiring them to enter into a binding protocol before any work is started on BPC's land.


26.02.2015

- 59 -

WB1\9658963\5

16.7 The Protocol must set out the detailed arrangements for the execution of all surveys, investigations and works on BPC's land; and access to those parts of BPC's land which lie beyond the various Port security gates at Avonmouth and Portbury. The Applicant must ensure compliance with the Protocol by all staff and contractors.

16.8 The Protocol should cover, as a minimum, those matters specified in Appendix C.

16.9 The Applicant must pay BPC's reasonable costs of designing and operating the Protocol until its terms no longer apply.



26.02.2015

- 60 -

WB1\9658963\5

17. PORT BYELAWS

17.1 BPC objects fundamentally to article 49 in so far as it excludes and/or disapplies and/or would enable a power under the DCO to be exercised despite, or without having regard to, the Bristol Port General Byelaws 2005 and BPC seeks the deletion of article 49 from the DCO to that extent.

17.2 BPC does not accept the Applicant's rationale for seeking the exclusions as set out in paragraphs 10.24 - 10.27 of the EM:

17.2.1 article 49 is incongruent with article 6 of the MP, which only addresses the incorporation, and modification, of primary legislation and not the exclusion of secondary legislation;

17.2.2 the subsurface Thames Tideway Tunnel is not an adequate precedent and bears no comparison to the position of the Port as an operating port asset and essential national infrastructure;

17.2.3 the Applicant's proposed exclusion of specific byelaws is entirely disproportionate: the byelaws exist to enable BPC, as the statutory undertaker, to ensure the safe, efficient and secure operation of a complex port facility in the interests of all port users and the Applicant cannot expect to be able to over-ride BPC's statutory duties and/or to interfere with the operation of the Port; and

17.2.4 as one example of the Applicant's disproportionate approach, it is entirely inappropriate for it to seek to exclude the operation of byelaw 98 which prohibits, among other things, a person from opening lockgates at the Port.

17.3 BPC is prepared to consider modifying, but not excluding, the application of certain byelaws using, as a mechanism, the Protocol referred to in section 16 and the DCO should be amended accordingly, but unless and until agreement can be reached on this, BPC maintains its fundamental objection as set out in 17.1 above.


26.02.2015

- 61 -

WB1\9658963\5

18. NAVIGATION

Background

18.1 The Applicant is proposing works in the vicinity of and over the River Avon which are a licensable marine activity by the MMO under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Draft licence conditions to the deemed marine licence are contained in Schedule 9. Associated with these works, the Applicant is applying for powers to enable the closure of part of the River Avon during construction on the grounds of health and safety only, suspending the rights of navigation and any obligations of BPC to maintain navigation during the period of closure (article 40).

18.2 BPC is the statutory harbour authority and local lighthouse authority in the relevant part of the River Avon. Its principal concerns with respect to the proposed River Avon crossing works and associated river closures relate to risks to navigation and the potential for adverse impacts on harbour users.

18.3 Recent discussions have taken place between BPC and the Applicant about the Applicant's above proposed marine works, which are expected to continue.

Issues

18.4 BPC was not consulted by the Applicant during the pre-application planning stage in relation to the proposed River Avon crossing marine works and the associated closure of part of the river.

18.5 The Applicant’s ES makes no mention of the proposed River Avon crossing works and closure. No assessment appears to have been undertaken of the potential impacts of these proposals on the safety of navigation or socio-economic interests of harbour users, nor have appropriate mitigation measures to avoid and minimise these potential impacts been identified as part of the EIA process.

18.6 A draft method statement has been prepared by the Applicant for the River Avon crossing works which fails to mention the need to consult with and gain permission from BPC as the statutory harbour authority to undertake works in the statutory harbour area in order to ensure safety of navigation. The method statement does not provide sufficient information on the likely timing and duration of the river crossing works and importantly the proposed number and duration of river closures. Nor does the method statement give consideration to the method or timing of the works in order to minimise the risks to navigation and impacts on harbour users.

18.7 The Applicant has currently provided insufficient information in order to enable BPC to determine the risks to navigation as a result of the marine works and river closures. The current proposed conditions in the deemed marine licence are therefore considered insufficient to safeguard navigation.

18.8 In addition, BPC understands that current MMO thinking is that the removal of the 132kV line no longer falls within the definition of marine works, with only the new pylon crossing of the River Avon being considered to be marine works. As a result, the inclusion of conditions within the deemed marine licence will not address all relevant aspects of the crossing works which, in BPC's view, should therefore be set out in protective provisions. It would in any event be more expedient for the Applicant and BPC to agree protective provisions (see below) capable of implementation by them without the involvement of the MMO.


26.02.2015

- 62 -

WB1\9658963\5

Essential requirements

18.9 Construction activity in the River Avon and the associated river closures will lead to temporary disruption of navigation in the vicinity of the works. This risk to navigation must be managed and minimised through ongoing liaison with BPC. In particular, the Applicant should consult BPC in relation to a detailed method statement, risk assessment and programme for the River Avon crossing works, in order to ensure that, amongst other things:

18.9.1 the number and duration of river closures, and the associated disruption to navigation, is kept to a minimum;

18.9.2 navigation risks are minimised to a level as low as reasonably practicable through the adoption of appropriate safety measures which should be formalised as conditions of any approval/deemed marine licence;

18.9.3 the timing of river closures is planned in order to minimise the disruption to harbour users and any associated socio-economic impacts;

18.9.4 the safety risks associated with undertaking works in and adjacent to the extreme marine environment in the mouth of the River Avon are fully considered by the Applicant, particularly in relation to the very high and variable tidal range and strong tidal currents;

18.9.5 safe tidal windows for undertaking the works, particularly boat work, are defined in consultation with BPC; and

18.9.6 a communication procedure is established and agreed between the Applicant and BPC in order to manage the marine works in a safe and timely manner and to reduce risks to other harbour users.

18.10 BPC will need to issue Notices to Mariners regarding the construction works and river closures which would be promulgated to harbour users, adjacent authorities and interested parties. Notices to Mariners would need to be updated and reissued in response to any significant changes in construction methodology or timescales, such as delays due to poor weather.

18.11 Guard/safety boats must be positioned by the Applicant both upstream and downstream of the crossing area during periods of river closure in order to both prevent vessels entering the construction area and to ensure the safety of construction craft.

18.12 All vessels used for the river crossing works must:

18.12.1 comply with national legislation and be safe and suitable for the purposes proposed. BPC must be notified of the vessel name, vessel type, vessel IMO number, vessel owner or operating company and master’s name and contact details in advance of the construction works commencing;

18.12.2 display lights, shapes and signals in accordance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; and

18.12.3 report to Bristol Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Centre in accordance with an agreed communication procedure. Construction traffic and guide/safety boats to operate on (VHF Channel 12) advising Bristol VTS of their activities and movements when undertaking the river crossing works and river closures, enabling Bristol VTS to monitor construction activities and to provide information on vessel movements, tides and weather conditions.


26.02.2015

- 63 -

WB1\9658963\5

18.13 Further measures to manage and minimise risks to navigation may be identified by BPC after undertaking a navigation risk assessment which first requires more detailed information from the Applicant about the proposed works, including a method statement, risk assessment and programme.

18.14 The Applicant should consult with BPC, Bristol City Council, the RYA and local marinas and boat clubs over the proposed timing of these works in order to minimise the disruption to harbour users and any associated socio-economic impacts. Closure of the River Avon may have an adverse impact on recreational craft and passenger vessels in the River Avon, particularly if undertaken over high water during weekends and peak periods in the Easter and the summer months. Effort should be made to plan the works to avoid or minimise disruption during peak periods where possible. As a minimum the works should be programmed to avoid the Bristol Harbour Festival which generally occurs over a weekend in the last two weeks in July. Events in the river, such as sailing regattas and races, are generally scheduled months or years, in advance, and early consultation over the timing of the works would help de-conflict activities and reduce impacts.

Protective provisions

18.15 The DCO should therefore be amended to include protective provisions covering, amongst other things, the following:

18.15.1 the Applicant must agree in writing the detailed methodology, risk assessment and programme of the river crossing works and river closures with BPC as the statutory harbour authority 84 days weeks prior to start of works;

18.15.2 the Applicant must agree in writing a communication procedure/plan with BPC 28 days prior to start of works;

18.15.3 the Applicant must provide 28 days' notice of start of works to BPC in order that Notice to Mariners can be issued to harbour users, with any changes in planned works, including timing of works and river closures, being notified to BPC immediately to allow Notices to Mariners to be updated as necessary;

18.15.4 the Applicant must notify BPC of all vessels to be used in undertaking the river crossing works. Notification should include the vessel name, vessel type, vessel IMO number, vessel owner or operating company and master’s name and contact details;

18.15.5 the Applicant must provide guard/safety boats to be positioned both upstream and downstream of the crossing area during periods of river closure;

18.15.6 all vessels associated with the river crossing works must display lights, shapes and signals in accordance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; and

18.15.7 all vessels associated with the river crossing works must report to Bristol VTS Centre (VHF Channel 12) advising of their activities and movements when undertaking the river crossing works and river closures in accordance with the communication procedure/plan agreed with BPC.

18.16 The need for further protective provisions may be identified during the continuing consultation process.



26.02.2015

- 64 -

WB1\9658963\5

19. COMMENTS ON DRAFT DCO

19.1 The comments which follow are in addition to those made in relation to specific issues in the preceding sections.

Article 2

19.2 In article 2(1), the words “unless the context requires otherwise” should be deleted, in the interests of clarity and certainty.

19.3 The Highways Act section reference in the definition of "traffic" seems incorrect.

Article 3

19.4 Article 3(2) and 3(3) authorise installing and keeping installed underground cables. The Applicant should clarify why these powers are needed and the legal basis for their inclusion here. The statements in the EM41 concerning the basis for their inclusion are correct only in relation to electric lines.

19.5 Also, why does the Applicant need the power to “keep installed” the WPD Works? They are not part of its undertaking.

Article 6

19.6 It is not apparent what aspects of articles 25, 30 and 31 should be seen as exceptions to the general provision as to the benefit of the DCO set out in article 6(1). Please can the Applicant clarify its intention?

19.7 The word “solely” should be inserted in article 6(1) after the words “….the provisions of this Order have effect”.

19.8 To the extent that the benefit of the DCO and the powers granted under it vest in each of the Applicant and WPD, this should be limited so that the powers may be exercised only for the benefit of their respective statutory electricity transmission and distribution undertakings, and not any wider activities of those bodies. Article 6(1) should be amended accordingly.

19.9 It is understood that the Applicant might choose to undertake the WPD Works itself, and therefore needs the benefit of the same powers to take temporary possession of land within categories 4 to 6 in the BoR as WPD. However, only WPD is the Distribution Network Operator and the body authorised by articles 3(5) and 4(2) to operate, use and maintain the WPD Works. There is therefore no need for the Applicant to have powers of compulsory acquisition over the land in categories 1 to 3 of the BoR which are required only for the retention and maintenance of WPD Works. Despite this, throughout the BoR, whenever powers to acquire permanent rights and impose restrictions are sought by WPD over a Parcel in respect of new apparatus being installed as part of the WPD Works (for example, Work No. 4P) the Applicant also seeks the same powers, even though it would have no authority to use the apparatus concerned. This is reflected in the BoR ‘coding’ of the Parcels concerned as, for example, 2/2.

19.10 The issue is important because the rights and restrictions being sought are extensive. So far as they relate to the retention of the WPD Works, the benefit of these rights and restrictions should vest in WPD alone and should be for the benefit of its statutory electricity distribution undertaking only. The Applicant’s powers of compulsory acquisition, throughout the DCO

41 Volume 2.2 paragraph 6.4.


26.02.2015

- 65 -

WB1\9658963\5

should be limited in the same way and relate only to the elements of the authorised development comprising the 400kV works.

19.11 Amendments to this effect should be made to article 6(1)(a) and all articles conferring powers of compulsory acquisition, including article 23.

19.12 BPC is concerned as to the funding of WPD’s obligations under the DCO. The Funding Statement42 refers to an agreement between the Applicant and WPD, which is said to be commercially confidential. It is explained that additional details remained to be agreed to reflect an agreed principle that the Applicant should be responsible for the costs incurred by WPD in delivering its obligations43.

19.13 WPD is, at the Applicant’s discretion, able to exercise the DCO powers in relation to the WPD Works44. BPC is legitimately concerned to ensure that it has sufficient resources to do so, both in terms of its ability to progress the works efficiently and its ability to meet all compensation liabilities, in relation to the permanent acquisition of rights and those relating to the substantial loss and damage that will be caused during the construction process (discussed further in relation to article 7 below). It is not sufficient that WPD’s ability to do so is dependent on the terms of an agreement between it and the Applicant, which is not available for scrutiny and which may therefore be qualified and/or capable of termination by the Applicant, particularly since it is the Applicant which can allocate the exercise of powers between itself and WPD.

19.14 The Panel must enquire further into the arrangements to ensure there are adequate resources available to WPD to meet its obligations under the DCO and the DCO should be amended to secure the Applicant’s guarantee that those obligations will be met.

Article 7

19.15 The Applicant is the effective monopoly Transmission System Operator in England and Wales, and WPD is the Distribution Network Operator for the region. Given the nature of the infrastructure to be created by the authorised development, it is difficult to see in what circumstances the need for the transfer of the benefit of the DCO powers might arise. The MP on which article 7 is based is designed to deal with situations where an NSIP development is constructed on land and the development consent powers granted by the relevant DCO need to be exercisable by the owner or a tenant of the land concerned from time to time, in the nature of a planning permission. This is not the situation here, and the fact that the article is based on MP5 does not, of itself, justify its inclusion.

19.16 The EM gives no explanation of the need for inclusion of the article. Nor does it explain how in this case the power to lease the benefit of the DCO powers45 would operate: this should be deleted in any event.

19.17 The need for the authorised development is stated to arise from the Applicant’s obligation to provide a connection to the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear generating station together with a more general (and undefined) need to provide additional transmission capacity in the South West/South Wales regions46.

42 Paragraph 3.1. 43 Paragraph 3.3. 44 Article 6(2). 45 Article 7(1)(b). 46 ES volume 5.2.1 (Project Need and Alternatives) paragraph 2.3.4.


26.02.2015

- 66 -

WB1\9658963\5

19.18 The Funding Statement47 states that there is a high degree of certainty that the Project will receive funding because the Applicant has a connection agreement to connect the Hinkley Point C nuclear generating station to the national transmission network and the pre-commencement works for the construction of Hinkley Point C nuclear generating station have commenced. Sole reliance for funding the construction of the scheme and all compensation payments is placed on the resulting internally-generated resources of the Applicant in its capacity as transmission operator, and those of National Grid plc.

19.19 BPC questions the accuracy of the assessments made in the Funding Statement48 of the likely quantum of compensation payable as a consequence of the implementation of the authorised development, in so far as they are intended to take into account compensation payable to BPC. The Applicant’s understanding of the impact of the authorised works on BPC’s land is inadequate which will, in this one location alone, affect the accuracy of the figure. It is clear, however, that considerable compensation claims must be capable of being funded, and that these will relate not only to the acquisition of permanent rights over substantial parts of the dock estate but also to substantial claims for loss and damage arising during the execution of the work under the various powers of the DCO which would apply during construction.

19.20 The Applicant’s case, in the Funding Statement, is that the cost of the construction works themselves must also be funded from its same internally-generated resources, accepting that the authorised development could not be constructed by anyone else. BPC is very concerned to ensure that, once work to construct the authorised development on its land starts, it progresses quickly and is not subject to period of inactivity and delay. The person constructing the works therefore needs to be sufficiently resourced to enable this to happen.

19.21 The scheme will introduce high-voltage transmission equipment into the heart of the dock estate which is a busy working environment. Once constructed, it will therefore be critical that the works are properly maintained, again by an adequately resourced and technically experienced entity.

19.22 That being the case, and given the Applicant’s acceptance that funding for these amounts can only be sourced from the Applicant itself and its status as sole transmission operator for England and Wales, it is hard to see the basis on which any transfer of the DCO powers could be justified.

19.23 Since the statement in paragraph 1.1 of the Funding Statement was made the Applicant has reported that a new connection agreement has been signed, at the request of the proposed Hinkley Point C developer, deferring the connection date. There is well publicised doubt as to whether the Hinkley Point C scheme will progress at all, and if so when, with the proposed developer recently again postponing the date on which it will make a final investment decision. There must therefore be a strong possibility that the connection date will be deferred again, if it is required to occur at all. In that case, the Applicant may consider that the authorised development is, nonetheless, needed for the wider purpose of increasing regional transmission capacity, but in this case it is unlikely that the entire scheme would be needed in its current form. In this situation there would appear to be nothing to prevent each of WPD and the Applicant choosing to construct only parts of the authorised development using the DCO powers. BPC is concerned that in these circumstances the Applicant might seek to transfer some parts of the benefit of the DCO to another body creating a delayed and fragmented

47 Volume 3.2 paragraph 1.1. 48 Paragraph 4.3.


26.02.2015

- 67 -

WB1\9658963\5

construction programme which is poorly resourced and controlled. Therefore, in any event, the DCO should not permit the transfer of a part, as oppose to the whole, of the DCO powers.

19.24 In the light of these concerns and other the points raised above, the Applicant must explain the circumstances in which any transfer might be necessary and, to the extent it can do so satisfactorily, limit the provisions of article 7 accordingly.

Article 10 and Schedule 5

19.25 On the Applicant’s proposals, street works to The Drove would be required only if the Option B Works were authorised and constructed and Schedule 5 should be amended accordingly, but for the reasons given in section 9 above, no street works should be permitted on The Drove in any case, so The Drove should be deleted entirely from Schedule 5 and the scope of article 10.

19.26 Street works to the Un-named Road (perpendicular to Marsh Lane) would also on the Applicant's proposals, be required only if the Option B Works were authorised and constructed. The DCO should be amended so that should only the Option A Works be authorised or constructed the reference to Un-named Road (perpendicular to Marsh Lane) is deleted from Schedule 5 and the scope of article 10.

19.27 No street works to Victoria Road should be permitted for the reason given in section 10 so Victoria Road should be deleted entirely from Schedule 5 and the scope of article 10.


19.28 Bellmouths AC101 (at Un-named road (perpendicular to Marsh Lane)) and AC103 and AC104 (at Wharf Lane) referred to in Schedule 6 of the DCO would, on the Applicant's proposals, be required only if the Option B Works were authorised and constructed. The DCO should be amended so that should only the Option A Works be authorised or constructed references to bellmouths AC101, AC103 and AC104 are deleted from Schedule 6.

19.29 On the Applicant’s proposals, bellmouth AC102 would also only be required if the Option B Works were authorised and constructed and Schedule 5 should be amended accordingly, but for the reasons given in section 9 above, bellmouth AC102 should not be constructed in any case, so should be deleted entirely from Schedule 6 and the scope of article 12.

19.30 Similarly bellmouth AC105 should not be constructed in any case, so should be deleted entirely from Schedule 6 and the scope of article 12.


19.31 On the Applicant’s proposals, neither LA/15/15 (Wharf Lane) nor LA/15/22 (Sheepway Lane) would need to be closed if only the Option A Works were authorised and constructed and Schedule 7 should be amended accordingly. However, for the reasons given in section 9 above, Parcels F310 and F311 should not be used as an access by the Applicant at all. Therefore LA/15/22 should not be closed in any event and should be wholly deleted from Schedule 7 and the scope of article 13.

19.32 On the Applicant’s proposals, if only the Option B Works were authorised and constructed, there would be no need for any of LA/15/21, LA/8/66, LA/8/67 or LA/8/6 to be closed and Schedule 7 should be amended accordingly. However, for the reasons given in section 8 above, Parcels G112 and G113 should not be used as an access by the Applicant at all. Therefore, LA/8/6 should not be closed in any event and should be wholly deleted from Schedule 7 and the scope of article 13.


26.02.2015

- 68 -

WB1\9658963\5

Article 17

19.33 BPC will not accept that the undertaker would have the ability to make any alteration whatsoever to BPC's dock assets in the terms of this provision. Should any works of the sort referred to be required, this must be discussed and agreed with BPC outwith the DCO provisions.

19.34 BPC therefore requires a protective provision to disapply the provisions of this article in respect of BPC's land.

Article 22

19.35 The heading of this article, and its positioning within the DCO, suggests its application may be limited to cases of compulsory acquisition of land under article 19, as opposed to the acquisition or rights under article 23. Equally, its application in relation to article 27 is unclear.

19.36 BPC assumes that the time limit in article 22 is intended to apply to all relevant powers of compulsory acquisition.

19.37 The DCO should be amended to clarify this.

19.38 BPC also notes Question 4.41 in the Examining Authority's first written questions, relating to this article and the corresponding time limit in Requirement 2 (paragraph 2 of Schedule 3). BPC is also concerned that the Applicant has not sufficiently justified the extended period for the start of the authorised development. BPC awaits sight of the Applicant's answer to Question 4.41 and reserves the right to make further comment on this issue if necessary.

Article 23

19.39 If the Applicant and/or WPD is not authorised to construct, or does not construct, the Option A Works the Parcels specified in Tables 2 and 3 in Part 1 of Appendix B will not be required in connection with the carrying out of Work No. 1F and/or Work No. 4P nor any associated development, and no powers of compulsory acquisition of rights should be exercisable under the DCO over or in relation to those Parcels which should be excised from the ambit of the powers in the DCO accordingly.

19.40 Conversely, if the Applicant and/or WPD is not authorised to construct, or does not construct, the Option B Works the Parcels specified in Tables 9 and 10 in Part 2 of Appendix B will not be required in connection with the carrying out of Work No. 1F and/or Work No. 4P nor any associated development, and no powers of compulsory acquisition of rights should be exercisable under the DCO over or in relation to those Parcels which should be excised from the ambit of the powers in the DCO accordingly.

19.41 BPC objects to the extent of the rights and restrictions described in the BoR, as explained in section 14 above.

19.42 The powers under article 23 are stated to be exercisable by "the undertaker" meaning either the Applicant or WPD. For the reasons given in its comments in relation to article 6, BPC contends that these powers should be limited so that they are exercisable only by the appropriate statutory undertaker.

19.43 BPC would also endorse the request by the Examining Authority in question 3.9 of its first written questions for clarity as to how this article connects to the BoR and the two categories (2 and 3) specified in it. This connection should be made clear on the face of the DCO.


26.02.2015

- 69 -

WB1\9658963\5

19.44 The extent to which this article is "subject to" articles 19, 30 and 3149 is unclear. The Applicant should please clarify what is intended.

Article 24

19.45 BPC notes the Examining Authority's various questions about this article in its first set of written questions, and reserves the right to make further comment on this article once it has had sight of the Applicant's response. Some of BPC's initial comments follow. BPC therefore requires a protective provision to the effect that, except as BPC may agree, article 24 shall not operate to suspend or extinguish any rights or covenants over BPC's land, all of which shall be preserved and remain exercisable.

19.46 BPC assumes that article 24(1) was intended to apply to the (limited) number of Parcels in respect of which powers of outright compulsory acquisition are sought, as listed in Schedule 11 and falling within category 1 in the BoR. BPC owns land adjacent to one such Parcel (G600) and is the long leasehold owner of another (G599), but section 14 explains why it contends that compulsory acquisition of that latter Parcel is unnecessary.

19.47 Without detracting from that contention, article 24(1) purports to extinguish all rights and covenants over land in category 1, without any consideration of whether this is necessary in the light of the undertaker's intended use of the land. This is disproportionate. By contrast, in relation to land already owned by the undertaker but which is being used for the authorised development (which BPC understands to be the category of land the subject of article 24(2)) rights and covenants are extinguished only if they would be breached or infringed by the works, demonstrating that a power of greater extinguishment is unnecessary. The difference causes a particular issue in relation to Parcel 599 in which (respectively) superior and inferior leasehold interests are held by BPC and WPD. It is wholly unclear how article 24 is intended to operate in this case.

19.48 BPC assumes that article 24(3) is intended to apply to the Parcels within categories 2 and 3 in the BoR. BPC considers that the extent of the extinguishment proposed here is also unnecessary, vague and unacceptable given the use of the land actually proposed by the Applicant. In most cases, land falling within this section will merely be overflown by conductors. Should there be particular rights and interests in relation to certain sites which will conflict with the authorised development, it is for the Applicant to identify these: the DCO should not provide a blanket extinguishment dependent on a test of inconsistency, leaving beneficiaries of rights and restrictions uncertain as to their position. BPC notes that in the BoR, in identifying possible Part 3 claimants for each Parcel, the Applicant has not undertaken a detailed review of the Parcels actually affected by the rights concerned, in many cases merely referring to rights that affect other parts of land in the same registered title as a Parcel, so that the BoR does not provide a good starting point for assessing the effect of article 24(3).

19.49 BPC assumes article 24(4) is intended to relate to all land of which temporary possession is taken, which would therefore include land in categories 1 to 3 during its period of use for the works. It is unclear, however, if it is intended to extend to category 6 land. The provision is unacceptable because it suspends the effect of all rights and restrictions during the undertaker's use of the land, without consideration of whether this is necessary to enable the works to proceed.

19.50 The cross references in article 24(7) appear incorrect and the language of article 24(7)(a)(ii) should be altered to conform with article 24(2).

49 See article 23(2).


26.02.2015

- 70 -

WB1\9658963\5

Article 25

19.51 The ambit of article 25 is currently unclear.

19.52 The EM suggests that the purpose of the article is to suspend all private rights over land of which temporary possession is taken, except for those private rights relating to the retention on the land of apparatus which is removed, which are simply extinguished once the undertaker hands back the site. This explanation is repeated at paragraph 3.6 of the Statement of Reasons but does not make sense, nor does it reflect the wording of the article.

19.53 In article 25(2) the particular rights that the article intends to deal with are spelt out as being those in relation to “apparatus removed from any land……pursuant to Schedule 1 (authorised development….” [emphasis added]. Article 25(3) then refers to the retention of pylon foundations. It seems clear that the article was intended for the very specific purpose of extinguishing WPD’s current rights in relation to those parts of its distribution network which are to be removed as part of the scheme, such as the ‘G’ OHL, and any similar items belonging to the Applicant. The extinguishment is to take effect not immediately on removal, but when the undertaker hands back the site of the removal works, presumably reflecting the need to preserve existing wayleave access rights until the dismantling is complete50. That this is the intention of the article is supported by a statement later in the Statement of Reasons51.

19.54 However, the article is inadequate to fulfil this intention because the land to which it relates is restricted to the Parcels in Schedule 8. These are, we assume, intended to include the site of each pylon and conductor being removed, but the list is incomplete, since it contains only those Parcels which fall within categories 4 to 6 of the BoR. It does not include those Parcels within categories 1 to 3 which accommodate equipment to be removed. The extinguishment of rights in relation to the land in categories 1 to 3 cannot occur under article 24(3) because of the uncertainty of the requirement in that article of inconsistency, the terms of article 24(6) and because of article 34(b). We also do not understand the purpose or need for the division of Schedule 8 into Parts 1 and 2.

19.55 The article is also inadequate because the extinguishment is expressed to be dependent on temporary possession being taken under the DCO of the land concerned. This is an unnecessary qualification, which could cause problems where land could instead be said to have been taken by agreement or under existing wayleaves. Even if the geographic extent of the extinguishment were extended to all relevant land in the Order limits (regardless of whether possession was taken of it), this still may not be adequate to achieve the stated objective since, for example, wayleave access rights may affect land outside the limits of the current Order. The extinguishment of all connected rights should simply occur once the apparatus had been removed and the site of the works vacated.

19.56 This article needs to be amended to clarify and limit its ambit and purpose, and so as to bring about the effective extinguishment of all private rights and restrictive covenants (including those vested in the relevant statutory undertaker and including those related to their inspection and maintenance) in respect of the pylons, conductors and related equipment which is being removed as part of the authorised development, no matter where situated.

19.57 Article 25(3) should be deleted for the reasons given in 8.20 and following above.

50 See paragraph 11.9 above. If, contrary to BPC’s contention in that paragraph, the DCO is to grant additional access rights, then the extinguishment of wayleave rights under this article should occur immediately upon removal of the apparatus. 51 See paragraph 6.10.


26.02.2015

- 71 -

WB1\9658963\5

Articles 30 and 31 and Schedule 12

19.58 If the Applicant and/or WPD is not authorised to construct, or does not construct, the Option A Works the Parcels specified in specified in Tables 2 and 3 in Part 1 of Appendix B will not be required in connection with the carrying out of Work No. 1F and/or Work No. 4P nor any associated development, and no powers to take temporary possession should be exercisable under the DCO over or in relation to those Parcels which should be excised from the ambit of the powers in the DCO accordingly, including by their deletion from Schedule 12 Parts 1 and 2.

19.59 Conversely, if the Applicant and/or WPD is not authorised to construct, or does not construct, the Option B Works the Parcels specified Tables 9 and 10 in Part 2 of Appendix B will not be required in connection with the carrying out of Work No. 1F and/or Work No. 4P nor any associated development, and no powers to take temporary possession should be exercisable under the DCO over or in relation to those Parcels, which should be excised from the ambit of the powers in the DCO accordingly, including by their deletion from Schedule 12 Parts 1 and 2.

19.60 In article 31(1)(a)(ii) it is unclear how the extent of the "Order land in respect of the WPD Works" is to be established.

19.61 The cross reference in article 30(4) seems incorrect and there various incorrect cross references in article 31.

Article 41

19.62 On the Applicant’s proposals, the exercise of powers under article 41 in relation to The Drove would be required only if the Option B Works were authorised and constructed and Schedule 13 should be amended accordingly, but for the reasons given in section 9, no powers under that article are appropriate in relation to The Drove, nor should any purported powers be exercised, so The Drove should be deleted entirely from Schedule 13 and the scope of article 41.

19.63 Similarly, for the reason given in section 10, no powers under article 41 are appropriate in relation to Victoria Road, nor should any purported powers be exercised, so Victoria Road should be deleted entirely from Schedule 13 and the scope of article 41.

Article 47

19.64 Article 47(2) and (3) and Schedule 4 must be disapplied in relation to BPC or any consent or approval needed from BPC in connection with the authorised works.

Schedule 3, paragraph 1 Interpretation – definition of "commence"

19.65 BPC notes Question 4.39 of the Examining Authority's first written questions and agrees strongly with the comment made that the exclusions in this definition allow too great an extent of work to be done without the necessary controls over those works and mitigation being delivered. As currently proposed, an enormous amount of potentially damaging activities could be undertaken which would be wholly unregulated under the DCO.

19.66 This definition must be amended so that the proposed exclusions are removed.

Schedule 3, paragraph 2: Requirement 2

19.67 As set out in section 16, because of the adverse effects on its operations at the Port of the works necessary to construct the authorised development BPC requires certainty as to the proposed programme for the works and diligent pursuit of that programme. It requires completion of the works on its land by the end of January 2022.


26.02.2015

- 72 -

WB1\9658963\5

19.68 The principle reason given by the Applicant as to the need for the development is its obligation to provide a connection for the Hinkley C power station. At the Preliminary Meeting, the Applicant confirmed that the required connection date is now October 2022. Given the anticipated duration of the works (even before the construction period was stretched in the October 2014 proposals), it is simply impossible that a delay of eight years in starting the work to create that connection could occur. That would remain the case even if the connection date were to be delayed further, unless that delay was so great as to cast doubt upon the entire need for the project. BPC contends that such a delay in the start date could only happen if the authorised development was not being implemented for the initially envisaged purpose, but for some different purpose, as suggested above in relation to article 7, where BPC's concerns as to a delayed and fragmented construction programme are expressed.

19.69 As BPC's representation has demonstrated there are a significant number and range of issues arising from the Applicant's proposals for the construction of the authorised development which cause grave concern to BPC in the context of the question whether the authorised development can be implemented without serious detriment to the carrying on of BPC's undertaking. BPC does not currently know whether those concerns can be resolved, but considers any resolution will only be possible if there can be, so far as practicable, certainty as to the timeframe for the development to occur. BPC understands that the need to accommodate certain elements of the works within outages in the WPD distribution network means that it is not possible to be wholly certain of the detailed programme of works now. Nonetheless, given the severe disruption to BPC's operations that the Applicant proposes, it is incumbent on the Applicant to deliver as much certainty in its proposals as possible. A greater degree of certainty might, for example, enable BPC and its customers to plan for the adverse effects that will result and arrange to put in place mitigation measures and temporary changes to working practices to protect and preserve so far as possible their operations during the construction. If, instead, the Applicant's powers are to be available and in held reserve for the prolonged period sought this will effectively blight operations at the Port throughout that same prolonged period. Reference is made elsewhere in this representation to, for example, the powers to take temporary possession of large areas of the dock estate which would be hanging over BPC throughout the proposed eight year period, perhaps never to be implemented. Its ability to offer security to its customers in relation to their continued use of dock facilities affected by either temporary use powers or future permanent easements would be inhibited which will have a seriously detrimental effect on BPC's undertaking.

19.70 The current proposals can be distinguished from many NSIP projects where longer periods for the start of construction may have been sought or allowed. In this case, the Applicant's proposals predominantly affect land owned and occupied by a large number of private businesses and individuals other than the Applicant, so it is their enjoyment of their land which will be blighted, without compensation, by delays in the start of construction. The situation is therefore very different from that where the developer is seeking powers in respect of the development of its own land as would be the case with, for example, energy or port facilities, or from that where works affect roads and other public transport networks. Secondly, the works envisaged in this case for the main part require the Applicant to be given extensive surface access over the land which is authorised under the DCO at whatever future point that the Applicant decides to start work, so unlike other projects involving mainly subsurface works, the blight affecting the land in the intervening period is very real.

19.71 BPC therefore contends that the proposed prolongation of the period for starting work is any event unjustified, and additionally will cause serious detriment to its undertaking. The


26.02.2015

- 73 -

WB1\9658963\5

permitted time frame (both in this Requirement and in relation to compulsory acquisition under article 22) must be severely curtailed.

Schedule 3, various paragraphs

19.72 Many of the Requirements contain the qualification of requiring only "general" compliance with the various documents referred to in them and/or a tailpiece allowing departures from them to be authorised by various authorities.

19.73 The form and/or terms of the documents concerned will have been relied on by private parties, such as BPC, in agreeing to or withdrawing objection to various elements of the Applicant's proposals which affect their private interests. It is therefore inappropriate for departures from these documents then to be permitted at either the (effective) discretion of the Applicant or the various authorities alone.

19.74 The "general" qualification and the tailpiece must be removed from all Requirements.

19.75 As set out elsewhere in this representation, BPC requires protective provisions relating to the need for consultation with or approval from BPC in respect of various plans, schemes and strategies to be submitted and approved under the Requirements.

Schedule 3, paragraph 15 – Requirement 15

19.76 This Requirement appears to conflict in many respects with the restoration obligations set out in articles 30 and 31. In relation to privately-owned land, the question of the standard of the restoration required is for the landowner alone, not the local authority. Equally, the local authority should not be able to extend the period allowed for restoration. It is anyway unclear how the six and 12 month periods referred to in the Requirement are intended to relate to the periods prescribed under article 30 and 31.

19.77 The Applicant should clarify the intended operation of this Requirement, following which BPC reserves the right to make further comment as required.


19.78 The requirement in paragraph 16(4) of compliance with approved details should not be limited to permanent fences, but should also extend to temporary fences.


19.79 The junction referenced at subparagraph 23(1)(k) should more correctly be named "A403 St Andrew's Road/Kings Weston Lane".

19.80 Paragraph 6.4.5 of the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan52 (CTMP) refers to two further junctions where restrictions are to be imposed at certain times. Why does this requirement not appear in paragraph 23?


19.81 Paragraph 6.2 of the Draft CTMP states that all HGV and LGV construction vehicles associated with the project will be subject to the vehicle identification scheme. Requirement 24 is currently limited to HGVs only. This should be amended in line with the CTMP.

52 Volume 5.26.5A.


26.02.2015

- 74 -

WB1\9658963\5

APPENDIX A Definitions In this written representation, references:

1. to powers of compulsory acquisition mean powers under articles 19 to 24 and 27 to 29 of the DCO and references to taking temporary possession of land are to the exercise of powers under articles 30 and 31 of the DCO;

2. to "Parcels" are to the numbered parcels of land in the BoR for sections F and G submitted by the Applicant with its application for the DCO;

3. to the "railway land" are to the land within the dock estate at Avonmouth alongside Victoria Road comprised of Parcels G168, G170 to G177 and G180;

4. to Option A and Option B are to the alternative proposals for the construction of Work 1F and related parts of Work 4P referred to in Schedule 1 of the DCO;

5. to "BPC's land" are to all the leasehold and freehold land and, where applicable, rights and the benefit of covenants, owned by or vested in BPC at Avonmouth, Chittening and Portbury;

6. to the "Option A Works" are to works set out in Table 1 in Part 1 of Appendix B;

7. to the "Option B Works" are to works set out in Table 8 in Part 2 of Appendix B;

8. to the "Other Works" are to the rest of the authorised development which affects BPC’s land not comprised in either the Option A Works or the Option B Works, but excluding Work No. 4G, details of which are set out in Table 15 in Part 3 of Appendix B;

9. to "WPD" is to Western Power Distribution (South West) plc;

10. to the "ES" is to the Environmental Statement submitted with the DCO application;

11. to the "EM" is to the Explanatory Memorandum submitted with the DCO application;

12. to "MP" is to one or more of the general Model Provisions for development consent orders set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 200953; and

13. to the "BoR" is to the Book of Reference submitted with the DCO application.

53 2009 no 2265


26.02.2015

- 75 -

WB1\9658963\5

APPENDIX B Option A Works, Option B Works and Other Works

PART 1 OPTION A WORKS

Table 1 Option A Works

400 kV OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE

Within Work 1F The erection of pylons LD100, LD101, LD102, LD103, LD104, LD105 and LD106

WPD WORKS

Work 4P The works within Section G comprised in Work 4P as it applies to Option A

Table 2 Parcels required by the Applicant for the Option A Works

Section F F131 to F136

Section G G2 to G33

G35

G36 but within the limits of deviation for Work No. 1F only

G108 as to part only

G112 and G113

Table 3 Parcels required by the Applicant for access to the Option A Works

Element of Work Parcel Construction Access Permanent Access

Pylon LD100 F133, F134, F135, F136 Yes Yes

Pylon LD101 F133, F134, F135, F136, G2,

Yes Yes

Pylon LD102 F133, F134, F135, F136, G2

Yes Yes

Scaffolding on the west side of Royal Portbury Dock Road

F133, F134, F135, F136, G2

Yes No

Scaffolding on the east side of Royal Portbury Dock Road

G6, G7 and G8 Yes No

Pylon LD103 G9 and G10 Yes Yes


26.02.2015

- 76 -

WB1\9658963\5

Pylon LD104 G19, G20 and G21 Yes Yes

Pylon LD105 G19, G20, G21 and G22 Yes Yes

Pylon LD106 G36 (part only) Yes Yes

Work 4P G112 and G113 (and G23, G24, G26 and G30)

Yes No

Table 4 Option A Works Schedule 5: STREETS SUBJECT TO STREET WORKS

(1) Authority (2) Street subject to street works Required for Option A Works?

North Somerset Council Un-named road perpendicular to Marsh Lane No

The Drove No

Bristol City Council Victoria Road No

Table 5 Option A Works Schedule 6: STREETS SUBJECT TO ALTERATION OF LAYOUT

(1) Street subject to alteration of layout

(2) Description of alteration of layout Required for Option A Works?


Bellmouth AC101 No

The Drove Bellmouth AC102 No

Wharf Lane Bellmouths AC103 and AC104 No

Bristol City Council

Victoria Road Bellmouth AC105 No

Minors Lane Bellmouth AC114 No


26.02.2015

- 77 -

WB1\9658963\5

Table 6 Option A Works Schedule 7 Part 2: STREETS OR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY TO

BE TEMPORARILY STOPPED UP FOR WHICH NO DIVERSION IS TO BE PROVIDED

(1) Area (2) Street or public right of way to be temporarily stopped up

(3) Extent of temporary stopping up Required for Option A Works?

North Somerset Council

LA/15/15 From point RW141 to point RW142 as shown on Section F, Sheet 3 of the access and rights of way plans

No

LA/15/22 From point RW143 adjacent to Sheepway to point RW144 as shown on Section F, Sheets 2 and 4 of the access and rights of way plans

No

LA/15/21 From point RW151 to point RW152 adjacent to the Royal Portbury Dock Road as shown on Section F, Sheet 2 and Section G, Sheet 1 of the access and rights of way plans

Yes

LA/8/66 From point RW153 adjacent to the Royal Portbury Dock Road to point RW154 adjacent to Marsh Lane as shown on Section G, Sheets 1 and 2 of the access and rights of way plans

Yes

LA/8/67 From point RW155 adjacent to Marsh Lane to point RW156 adjacent to the M5 as shown on Section G, Sheet 2 of the access and rights of way plans

Yes

LA/8/6 From point RW157 to point RW158 as shown on Section G, Sheet 2 of the access and rights of way plans

Yes54

54 But see 8.33.


26.02.2015

- 78 -

WB1\9658963\5

Table 7 Option A Works Schedule 13: Part 2 TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OF VEHICULAR

ACCESS AND NO WAITING RESTRICTION

(1) Road (2) Extent (Note column (3) omitted) Required for Option A Works?

North Somerset Council The Drove Between TRO35.1 and TRO35.2 as shown on Section F, Sheets 2

and 4 of the traffic regulation plans No


Victoria Road Between TRO37.1 and TRO37.2 as shown on Section G, Sheet 2 of the traffic regulation plans

No


26.02.2015

- 79 -

WB1\9658963\5

PART 2 OPTION B WORKS

Table 8 Option B Works


Within Work 1F The erection of pylons P-LD100, P-LD101 and P-LD102A, P-LD102B, P-LD102C, P-LD103, P-LD104, P-LD105 and P-LD106

WPD 132kV WORKS

Work 4P The works within Section F comprised in Work 4P as it applies to Option B

Table 9 Option B Works Parcels required by the Applicant

Section F F266 to F272

F277

F279 to F281

F283 to F292

F294 to F297

F299 to F330

Section G G28 (part only)

G34

G36 to G38

G40 and G41

G44 to G110

Table 10 Option B Works Parcels required by the Applicant for access

Element of Work Parcels Construction Access Permanent Access

Pylon P-LD100 F266, F267 Yes F267 only

Pylon P-LD101 F310 and F311 Yes Yes

Pylon P-LD102A F324, F323 and F318 Yes Yes

Scaffolding on the west side of Royal

No access provision


26.02.2015

- 80 -

WB1\9658963\5

Portbury Dock Road

Scaffolding on the east side of Royal Portbury Dock Road

No access provision

Pylon P-LD102B G91 and G92 to location of pylon in G88

Yes Yes

Pylon P-LD102C G91 and G92, G88 to location of pylon in G90

Yes Yes

Pylon P-LD103 G40, G41, G44, G45, G49, G50, G51, G53 to location of pylon in G108

Yes Yes

Pylon P-LD104 G38, G37, G108, G109 Yes Yes

Pylon P-LD105 G109, G108, G34, G36 to pylon location in G108

Yes Yes

Pylon P-LD106 G36 Yes Yes

Work 4P: haul road between construction compound for Work No. 4P (in Parcel F307) and The Drove

F307, F310, F313, F314, F315, F316, F317, F322 and F325

Yes No

Table 11 Option B Works Schedule 5: STREETS SUBJECT TO STREET WORKS

(1) Authority (2) Street subject to street works Required for Option B Works?

North Somerset Council Un-named road perpendicular to Marsh Lane Yes

The Drove Yes55

Bristol City Council Victoria Road No

55 But see 9.61.1.


26.02.2015

- 81 -

WB1\9658963\5

Table 12 Option B Works Schedule 6: STREETS SUBJECT TO ALTERATION OF

LAYOUT


(2) Description of alteration of layout (in brief) Required for Option B Works?


Bellmouth AC101 Yes

The Drove Bellmouth AC102 Yes56

Wharf Lane Bellmouths AC103 and AC104 Yes


Victoria Road Bellmouth AC105 No

Minors Lane Bellmouth AC114 No

Table 13 Option B Works Schedule 7 Part 2: STREETS OR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

TO BE TEMPORARILY STOPPED UP FOR WHICH NO DIVERSION IS TO BE PROVIDED


(3) Extent of temporary stopping up

Required for Option B Works?



Yes


Yes57

LA/15/21 From point RW151 to point RW152 adjacent to the Royal Portbury Dock Road as shown on Section F, Sheet 2 and Section G, Sheet 1 of the access and rights of way

No

56 But see para 9.61.2. 57 But see para 9.64.


26.02.2015

- 82 -

WB1\9658963\5

plans

LA/8/66 From point RW153 adjacent to the Royal Portbury Dock Road to point RW154 adjacent to Marsh Lane as shown on Section G, Sheets 1 and 2 of the access and rights of way plans

No


No


No

Table 14 Option B Works Schedule 13: Part 2 TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OF

VEHICULAR ACCESS AND NO WAITING RESTRICTION

(1) Road (2) Extent (Note column (3) omitted) Required for Option B Works?

North Somerset Council The Drove Between TRO35.1 and TRO35.2 as shown on

Section F, Sheets 2 and 4 of the traffic regulation plans.

Yes58



No

58 But see para 9.61.4.


26.02.2015

- 83 -

WB1\9658963\5

PART 3 OTHER WORKS

Table 15 Other Works


Within Work No.1G The erection of pylons LD107, LD108, LD109, LD110, LD111, LD112 and LD113

The installation of conductors between pylons LD113, LD114 and LD115 to the extent that they oversail BPC's land

The erection of pylons LD131 and LD132 and all related 400kV conductors, insulators and fittings

WPD 132kV WORKS

Work No. 4L

Work No. 4M

Work No 4N

Work No. 4O

Work No. 4P The works within Section F comprised in Work 4P as it applies to Option B

SEABANK 400Kv SUBSTATION

Work No. 5

Table 16 Other Works Parcels required by the Applicant

Section G G114 to G137

G140 and G141

G149 to G206

G214

G216

G553

G556

G562 to G570

G575 to G598

G600 and G601


26.02.2015

- 84 -

WB1\9658963\5

G603 to G605

Table 17 Other Works Parcels required by the Applicant for access

Element of Work Parcel Construction Access Permanent Access

Pylon LD107 G120 to G130, then across G119, G116, G135 and G136

Yes Part of these Parcels only

Pylon LD108 G149 to G152 Yes Yes

Pylon LD109 No access requirement provided

Yes Yes

Pylon LD110 G171 to G177 and G168 Yes G174 and G175 only

Pylon LD111 G171 to G177 and G168 G174 and G175 only

Pylon LD112 G185 Yes Yes

Pylon LD113 G185 Yes Yes

Pylon LD131 G570, G569, G566, G563, G557

Yes Yes

Pylon LD132 G570, G569, G566, G563, G557, G579, G578, G587, G588 and G591

Yes Yes

Works 4L, 4M and 4N Various parcels within Crook's Marsh

Yes Yes

Table 18 Other Works Schedule 5: STREETS SUBJECT TO STREET WORKS

(1) Authority (2) Street subject to street works Required for Other Works?

North Somerset Council Un-named road perpendicular to Marsh Lane No

The Drove No

Bristol City Council Victoria Road Yes59

Table 19 Other Works Schedule 6: STREETS SUBJECT TO ALTERATION OF

LAYOUT


(2) Description of alteration of layout (in brief) Required for Other Works?

North Somerset Council Un-named Road Bellmouth AC101 No

59 But see para 10.45.


26.02.2015

- 85 -

WB1\9658963\5

(perpendicular to Marsh Lane)

The Drove Bellmouth AC102 No

Wharf Lane Bellmouths AC103 and AC104 No


Victoria Road Bellmouth AC105 Yes60

Minors Lane Bellmouth AC114 Yes

Table 20 Other Works Schedule 7 Part 2: STREETS OR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

TO BE TEMPORARILY STOPPED UP FOR WHICH NO DIVERSION IS TO BE PROVIDED


(3) Extent of temporary stopping up

Required for Other Works?



No


No

LA/15/21 From point RW151 to point RW152 adjacent to the Royal Portbury Dock Road as shown on Section F, Sheet 2 and Section G, Sheet 1 of the access and rights of way plans

No

LA/8/66 From point RW153 adjacent to the Royal Portbury Dock Road to point RW154 adjacent to Marsh Lane as shown on Section G, Sheets 1 and 2 of the access and rights of way

No



26.02.2015

- 86 -

WB1\9658963\5

plans


No


No

Table 21 Other Works Schedule 13: Part 2 TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OF

VEHICULAR ACCESS AND NO WAITING RESTRICTION

(1) Road (2) Extent (Note column (3) omitted) Required for Other Works?

North Somerset Council The Drove Between TRO35.1 and TRO35.2 as shown on

Section F, Sheets 2 and 4 of the traffic regulation plans.

No



Yes61



26.02.2015

- 87 -

WB1\9658963\5

APPENDIX C Protocol 1. Approval by BPC and implementation of the design of:

1.1 fencing and lighting of permanent installations, accesses, working areas and compounds (and associated utilities provision, including water, sewerage, electricity and telecoms);

1.2 piling;

1.3 scaffolding;

1.4 all works affecting roads or ways (including kerbs, verges and carriageways) and any works to alter, improve or create accesses, including access bellmouths and haul roads;

1.5 culverts and other crossings affecting watercourses/drainage ditches;

1.6 temporary works and mitigation works, including the provision and future maintenance of landscaping and replacement planting; and

1.7 the Applicant's proposals for the underground sections of the 132kV BW OHL.

2. Submission to BPC of risk assessments and method statements and, where reasonably requested by BPC, the provision of as built drawings of any temporary or permanent works in a format acceptable to BPC.

3. Submission to and approval by BPC of all proposals in relation to the timing of works will affect the free passage of vehicles over any road within the dock estate, any Dock Public Road and any part of the Dock Access Network.

4. Vehicle/contractor identification for all vehicles.

5. Definition of and admission to the docks of abnormal loads.

6. A HGV booking system and the measures to be adopted to avoid queuing of vehicles.

7. Traffic management, signage and banksmen.

8. Staff/contractor safety inductions and compliance with BPC's health & safety procedures.

9. Welfare facilities.

10. Storage of materials, stockpiles and waste management.

11. Avoidance of contamination and the protection of watercourses.

12. Implementation of a hot works permit system.

13. Security of the site(s) and the Port, including ISPS and Port Marine Safety Code compliance, and the role of the Port Police. Where temporary accesses are to be created through the Port's secure fencing, the Applicant must provide security at these gates 24 hours a day, seven days a week in liaison with the Port Police.

14. Measures to control dust, debris and dirt and for the protection of cargo.

15. Approval of any working or other operations outside core working hours.

16. Port emergency plan.

17. Drainage of temporary and permanent works.

18. Communications with Port tenants and customers, including assistance to be provided by the Applicant.

19. Consultation with BPC in relation to any mitigation plans, schemes and strategies prepared (whether by the Applicant /WPD or any contractor) under the Construction Environmental Management Plan to the extent they relate to or affect BPC's land, operations at or access to the Port, before submission to the relevant authority; precise compliance with the CEMP and all


26.02.2015

- 88 -

WB1\9658963\5

such plans, schemes and strategies and BPC approval to any departures from them affecting BPC's land or operations at or access to the Port; no works of any kind shall start on BPC’s land or any of the Dock Public Roads or Dock Access Network until all applicable mitigation plans, schemes and strategies have been approved under the DCO.

20. Payment by the Applicant of BPC's costs (including internal costs) in connection with the administration of the protocol.


26.02.2015

- 89 -

WB1\9658963\5

APPENDIX D Plans

Plan 1: BPC drawing 41692: Cable Route Option A, Royal Portbury Dock Feb 2015

Plan 2: BPC drawing 41621A: Proposed OHL Route Royal Portbury Dock Nov 14

Plan 3: BPC drawing 41223A: Former Rail Sidings Avonmouth Dock Accesses Feb 15

written representation by first corporate shipping limited ... · 52 bedford row london wc1r 4lr ....

Documents