Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Able UK Limited
Able Marine Energy Park (Material Change 2)
Updated Environmental Statement
SLR Ref No.: 416.01148.00005
June 2021
Technical Appendices
APPENDIX UES21-1
CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE
ABLE MARINE ENERGY PARK
(Material Change 2 – TR030006)
From: Colin Wilkinson @northlincs.gov.ukSubject: Pre-order Consultation - Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath 74A, East Halton, North Lincolnshire
Date: 24 August 2020 at 12:58To: Westwood, Steven @naturalengland.org.uk, @naturalengland.org.uk,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ,
@lincstrust.co.uk, Chris Fairbrother @northlincs.gov.uk,@northlincs.gov.uk, @nfumutual.co.uk, @nfu.org.uk, @cla.org.uk,
[email protected], [email protected], Alison [email protected], @northlincs.gov.uk, East Halton Parish Council
[email protected], Cllr PeterClark @northlincs.gov.uk, Cllr [email protected], Cllr DavidWells @northlincs.gov.uk, Richard Cram @ableuk.com
, Sophie Gooch @fairhurst.co.uk
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not clicklinks or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know thecontent is safe.
DearSir/Madam,
IshouldliketogiveyoutheopportunitytocommentonadiversionbeingproposedbyacompanycalledAbleUKonbehalfonNetworkRail.TheproposalrelatestowhereafootpathatEastHaltoncrossesarailway.Thefootpathhasyettocomeintobeing,butwilldosoinduecourseunderthetermsofadevelopmentconsentorder(DCO)grantedbytheSecretaryofStatein2014withrespecttoanaPonalinfrastructureproject(NIP)underthePlanningAct2008(forfurtherdetails,pleaseseehTps://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-humber/able-marine-energy-park/).BecausetheNIPrequiresthepermanentstoppingupofalengthofPublicFootpath50alongtheHumberbanktothesouthofNorthKillingholmeHaven,thedeveloperisprovidinganalternaPveroute,slightlyinland(theredlineontheaTachedmapenPtled‘NewLineofCoastPath’).Asthemap’sPtlesuggests,thisisofparPcularimportancebecausewithoutthisthesoon-to-openMablethorpe-to-HumberBridgelegoftheEnglandCoastalPath(ECP)wouldeitherbeseveredorentailusingtheheavily-traffickedyetnarrowHavenRoad.TherealignmentoftheECPcomprisesadistanceof5.5kilometres(3.4miles).ItisamixofnewpathsandexisPngones.OneoftheformerwillconnectPublicFootpath77,NorthKillingholme,withPublicFootpath74,EastHalton.ThisisshownasagreenlineononeofthetwoscreenshotsalsoaTached.Ithasadistanceof860metresascurrentlyenvisagedbytheDCO.Italso,however,crossesarailwayline,whichalthoughacul-de-sacwouldsPllnecessitateNetworkRailincorporaPngaformaldedicatedcrossingpoint.Moreover,NetworkRailfeelthisopPonwouldbefarsafertoo.Ibelievetherailwayisnotcurrentlyinusebutmightbecomesoatalaterdate.Whattheyareproposingthereforeisthatinsteadofthenewfootpathmakingabeelineacrosstherailway,itinsteaddeviatenorthwestalongsidetherailwaytoapointwherethetracksend,crossthere,thenheadbacksoutheastalongtherailway’soppositeside(asshownbyathickblacklineonthefurtheraTachmentenPtled‘AbleMarineEnergyPark–RightsofWayPlan’).Thiswouldadd470metrestothenewfootpath’soveralllength,givingthenewpathadistanceof1,330metresaltogether.Thenewcrossingwould,however,beonthelevel,whereasIamadvisedtheexisPngalignmentwouldrequireabridgepreciselybecauseofthetracks.
Ifanordertodivertismade,itwouldbeundersecPon119AoftheHighwaysAct1980.TheprincipalreasonforthisconsultaPonthereforeistoinviteinterestedparPestoexpressanopinionastowhethersecPon119Aappliesinthisinstance–namely,whether“itappearstoacouncilexpedientintheinterestsofthesafetyofmembersofthepublicusingitorlikelytouseitthatafootpath,bridlewayorrestrictedbywayintheirareawhichcrossesarailway,otherwisethanbytunnelorbridge,shouldbediverted(whetherontolandofthesameoranotherowner,lesseeoroccupier)”.NetworkRail’sownstatedgroundsforthediversionareasfollows:“ThelineisclassifiedasOperaPonalandincludedintheSecPonalAppendix.TheSecPonalAppendixistheofficialrecorddetailingtheclassificaPonofourinfrastructure.Wewouldsupportandrecommendthediversionoftherailwayonanon-operaPonalroute”.
ThankyouforgivingthismaTeryourconsideraPon.Ifyouwouldliketodiscusstheproposalwithmebeforerespondingformally,Ishouldbepleasedtodoso.If,however,youaregoingtoregisteranopinion,Ishouldbegratefulifyouwoulddosonolaterthan18September2020.
Yoursfaithfully,
ColinWilkinsonPrincipalAccessandCommonsOfficerNeighbourhoodServicesAssetsandInfrastructureOperaPonsNorthLincolnshireCouncil
This e-mail expresses the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the view of the Council. Please be aware that anything included in an e-mail may have to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Actand cannot be regarded as confidential. This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. Please notify the sender if received in error. All Email is monitored and recorded.Please think before you print- North Lincolnshire Council greening theworkplace.
�������������� ������� ��������� ���������������������������������� �!"���#����$����� �%� �&� �!��'�('���� �!�������� �! &������!)����� ��
Proposed alternative
route
From: Colin Wilkinson @northlincs.gov.ukSubject: RE: Pre-order Consultation - Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath 74A, East Halton, North Lincolnshire
Date: 6 April 2021 at 09:57To: Richard Cram @ableuk.comCc: Edward Bright @slrconsulting.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not clicklinks or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know thecontent is safe.
HelloRichard,
Icanconfirmthatthepre-orderconsulta7onconductedlastyearwithrespecttowherethenewfootpathwouldcrossthe‘opera7onal’railwaya=ractednoadversecomment.CruciallyperhapsthisincludedNaturalEngland,thegovernmentagencyresponsiblefortheestablishmentofaroundEnglandcoastalpath,whichthenewfootpathwouldbeapartofoncetheDCOdiversionandcrea7onasawholehastakeneffect.
Kindregards,
Colin
ColinWilkinsonPrincipalAccessandCommonsOfficerNeighbourhoodServicesAssetsandInfrastructureOpera7onsNorthLincolnshireCouncil
From: Wright Christopher @networkrail.co.uk> Sent: 12 August 2020 08:20 To: Richard Cram @ableuk.com> Cc: John Clay @ableuk.com>; Jo Salisbury @ableuk.com>; Hind Stephen
@networkrail.co.uk> Subject: RE: AMEP Network Rail Interface CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
OFFICIAL
Morning Richard, An update on the footpath crossing. Network Rail are unable to give permission for a new foot crossing because it is not in our license powers to do so. Only the ORR can grant permission for a new foot crossing. This leaves 4 options that I can see; Change the agreed new route of the footpath with the council to avoid crossing any tracks. Follow the current route but install a footbridge. Seek permission from the ORR for the foot crossing as currently routed. Look to move the buffers. I have listed them in order of complication / cost as I see it, and would caveat that all the experience suggests that the ORR route is unlikely to be approved, given that there are other options to pursue. Happy to discuss as required. Thanks, Chris.
Chris Wright | Senior Sponsor North and East Route Eastern region George Stephenson House, Toft Green, York, YO1 6JT Mobile: Email: @networkrail.co.uk
From: Richard Cram @ableuk.com> Sent: 09 July 2020 11:14 To: Wright Christopher @networkrail.co.uk> Cc: Stephen J Holmes @fairhurst.co.uk>; John Clay @ableuk.com>; Jo
From: O'Connor, Anna @orr.gov.uk>
Sent: 21 September 2020 15:42
To: WALKER Angus @bdbpitmans.com>
Cc: Goulding, Katherine @orr.gov.uk>
Subject: Consents - Able Marine Energy Park
Dear Angus
I have now had time to look at the plans supplied and to check our archives for records from the
time that this first became an issue with which ORR was involved.
It was an unusual situation at the time – requiring ORR and Network Rail to engage with Able Marine
to discuss and agree details of a variety of possible level crossings that would be created or
reinstated by the works that Able proposed to carry out. We discussed several possible diversions of
rights of way for pedestrians that would create a footpath crossing – because it was impossible to
avoid crossing a rail route, even a siding, at some point, and because we could not identify a
reasonably practicable alternative such as a footbridge. At the time of the original discussions it was
decided that the local authority would be the final arbiter of which diverted footpath route would be
selected ultimately.
I think Network Rail’s insistence that ORR must ‘approve’ the final right of way is a misremembering
or misinterpretation of what occurred.
I have looked at a DfT letter dated 28.8.13 – at para 40 refers to the Sec of State being minded to
grant the easements for four level crossings but suggests ongoing consultation between AHPL,
Network Rail and ORR in order to reconsider whether four crossings are really necessary. However,
this letter pre-dates the Consent Order and it is the Consent Order that is later granted that is the
relevant document dictating what rights were granted.
Ordinarily ORR does not ‘give permission’. If consulted, we ensure that a proper risk assessment has
been done and the duty to ensure the risks have been mitigated to the lowest reasonably
practicable level has been complied with. We did that at the time of the first discussions. If AHPL has
now concluded that a footpath level crossing is the most reasonably practicable method of
accommodating the right of way that would satisfy our involvement.
So – I cannot formally ‘grant permission’ for something over which I have no powers to grant
permission. But I am content for you to confirm to AHPL and Network Rail that ORR has no
objections to the proposed right of way – including the foot crossing – on the basis of earlier
discussions. I am assuming that nothing has changed materially in the intervening years that would
change the consideration of what reasonably practicable alternatives there might be.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards
Anna O’Connor
Carmont Investigation Manager
Head of Projects
ORR Network Rail Division
ORR staff are working normally during covid 19, but not always from an office
ORR (7th Floor) | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Mob.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by
the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by
Mimecast Ltd.
WARNING – This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not copy, forward or use any part of it or disclose its contents to any person. If you have received it in error please notify our system manager immediately on +44 (0)20 7783 3555 or +44 (0)345 222 9222. This email and any automatic copies should be deleted after you have contacted the system manager.
This email is sent from the offices of BDB Pitmans LLP, a limited liability partnership authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA ID number 448617) and registered in England and Wales with registered number OC320798. A full list of members, referred to as partners by the firm, is available for inspection on request. BDB Pitmans LLP accepts no responsibility for software viruses and you should check for viruses before opening any attachments.
Cybercrime Alert : If you receive an email purporting to be from someone at this firm and telling you that we have changed our bank details, it is likely to be from a criminal. Please do not reply to that email – instead ring the person you have been dealing with as soon as possible to check whether the change is genuine.
Internet communications are not secure and therefore BDB Pitmans LLP does not provide any guarantee or warranty that this message or any attachments shall remain confidential. To ensure client service levels and business continuity BDB Pitmans LLP operates a policy whereby emails can be read by its employees or partners other than the addressee. This policy complies with the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
