The Progress Power (Gas Fired Power Station) Order PPL’s written summary of oral representations: CPO and Issue Specific Hearings, 9, 10th and 11th December 2014 Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 PINS Reference Number: EN010060 Document Reference: Written Summary Regulation Number: Author: Pinsent Masons LLP Revision Date Description 0 December 2014 Examination version

1

WRITTEN SUMMARY OF PROGRESS POWER LIMITED'S (THE "A PPLICANT") ORAL CASE PUT AT THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION HEARING OF 9 DECEMBER 2O14 AND

THE ISSUES SPECIFIC HEARING OF 10 AND 11 DECEMBER 2 014

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION HEARING OF 9 DECEMBER 2014:- 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

1.1 This note summarises the Applicant's case as presented at the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing held on 9 December 2014 at the Broome Grange Hotel, Diss (the "CA Hearing ").

1.2 No detailed items for the CA Hearing were listed at Annex A of the Examining Authority's letter of 2 December 2014.

2. INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPATING PARTIES

2.1 Michael Humphries QC (Francis Taylor Building) spoke on behalf of the Applicant.

3. UPDATE FROM THE APPLICANT

3.1 In response to a request from the Examining Authority, the Applicant undertook to provide a broad summary of its discussions with various affected parties.

3.2 Mr Humphries noted that following the October 2014 Issue Specific Hearing, the Applicant had undertaken to provide plans in relation to the GIS variant for the substation, in the event that the Secretary of State decided to impose the GIS variant substation. Mr Humphries noted that this material was provided by the Applicant on Friday 5 December 2014.

3.3 Mr Humphries then noted that following on-going discussions with third parties and further refinement, a series of indicative plans and documents relating to a potential refined redline for the Application were also submitted to the Examination on Friday 5 December 2014.

3.4 Mr Humphries noted that in relation to both sets of plans, the Applicant has taken the opportunity to bring the plans up to date in the context of various points coming out of the October 2014 Hearings. This has included:

3.4.1 the removal of plot 2_JW from the redline boundary, on the basis that the Applicant has now committed to removing the A140 junction prior to final commissioning;

3.4.2 the taking of rights over plot 1_JW (rather than the land itself), on the basis that the Applicant has now committed to removing the A140 junction prior to final commissioning;

3.4.3 the removal from the Book of Reference of the Hammonds as tenants/occupiers of land which is owned by the Moores. Further investigation has shown there to be an agricultural contract in place but the Applicant understands that this does not constitute an interest in the land that needs to appear in the Book of Reference. There has also been an addition of a farming partnership of the Moores into various plots, now shown in the Book of Reference.

3.5 Mr Humphries then provided an update on discussions with the three principal owners of the freehold interests within the Order Land (the Moores; the Talbots; and the Hammonds).

2

3.6 The Moores

3.7 The Statement of Reasons of July 2014 (the "SoR") explains that in April 2013 an option agreement was concluded with the Moores in relation to plot 1_MS and in relation to much of the gas pipeline route and cable route (to the extent that this route falls within the Moores' land) (the "Option Agreement "). Mr Humphries noted that at the time that the Option Agreement was concluded (nearly a year prior to submission of the Application), there was not finality about certain elements of the Project and as such the Option Agreement did not include all necessary land and rights for the Project. As such, in March 2014 the Applicant issued to the Moores a variation agreement which would bring in the necessary land and interests into the Option Agreement. Mr Humphries noted that although the formal variation agreement is not yet in place, there is agreement in principle, subject to the drafting of final agreements. Mr Humphries confirmed that the parties will continue to work together with a view to completing the variation agreement as soon as possible.

3.8 In response to an Examining Authority question as to whether the variation agreement will cover the land to the west of the A140 in which the Moores have an interest, Mr Humphries confirmed that this was the case.

3.9 Mr Humphries noted that section 1.35 of the SoR explains why it is appropriate to continue to have the plots that are covered by the Option Agreement within the ambit of the compulsory acquisition elements of the DCO (essentially, to ensure clean title).

3.10 The Hammonds

3.11 Mr Humphries then provided an update regarding discussions with the Hammonds. Documentation in respect of a permanent easement and a temporary easement for the electrical connection was first issued in March 2014 following a meeting with the Applicants. The Applicants instructed solicitors in early summer and the first mark up to the full documentation was received on 27th November 2014 following higher level negotiations through the land agents for the Applicant. The Applicant can confirm that despite the lack of a formal agreement in place, discussions are at a very advanced stage. The parties are optimistic that an “agreement in principle” will be in place by 9 December 2014 subject to further details to be agreed where required.

3.12 The Applicant and its legal advisers will continue to work with the Hammonds’ and their solicitors with a view to completing an agreement as soon as possible.

3.13 The Talbots

3.14 Mr Humphries then provided an update regarding discussions with the Talbots. Documentation in respect of a permanent easement and a temporary easement for the electrical connection was first issued in March 2014 following a meeting with the Applicants. The Applicants instructed solicitors in early summer. The detailed discussion for the fully termed agreement is now well underway with a few issues still outstanding but the discussions are progressing well and the parties are close to agreement in principle on all issues.

3.15 The Applicant and its legal advisers will continue to work with the Talbots’ and their solicitors with a view to completing an agreement as soon as possible.

3.16 Rights etc

3.17 Mr Humphries noted that there are a large number of other parties who have rights in the land within the redline boundary for the Project. Mr Humphries confirmed that the Applicant has tried hard to engage with these parties, including writing to such parties and chasing this up in further correspondence. For the most part there has been relatively little engagement from such parties. There has been some contact by some parties, including one party who has been in touch very recently and the Applicant has

3

issued a draft agreement that is being negotiated so that the Applicant can rely on a contractual right to deal with the land rights position, such that it does not need to rely on compulsory rights under the Order.

3.18 In response to a question from the Examining Authority, Mr Humphries confirmed that the impacts on rights etc. related both to the construction phase and the operation/maintenance phase. [Applicant Note: a table summarising the position on negotiations and discussions with landowners and those with the benefit of rights etc that are proposed to be extinguished, suspended or interfered with is included at Annex 1]

3.19 Examining Authority Questions

3.20 In response to a question from the Examining Authority, Mr Humphries confirmed that the changes to the Book of Reference reflected the points (noted above) regarding the developed understanding of the interests of the Hammonds over the Moores' land, the removal of plot 2_JW and the alteration as to the rights being sought over plot 1_JW. The plans submitted on 5 December 2014 also illustrate an option for a refined redline for the Application (i.e for a substation with a maximum footprint of 150m x 150m) as well as for a refined redline for a GIS variation substation.

3.21 In this regard, Mr Humphries noted that in the same way that the Secretary of State may choose to make any final Order on the basis of the GIS redline and plans (submitted to the Examination in indicative form on 5 December 2014), so the Secretary of State may feel that a refined redline for the Application (i.e allowing for a substation with a maximum footprint of 150m x 150m) may be the more appropriate basis on which to make any final Order. As such, it would be open to the Secretary of State to make any final Order on the basis of the indicative refined redline for the Application that was submitted by the Applicant on 5 December 2014. Mr Humphries noted that this would, in his view, be an appropriate way forward for the Secretary of State. The alternative would be for the Applicant to formally amend its Application. The Examining Authority indicated that he would give some thought to this matter.

3.22 The Examining Authority noted that it appeared from the refined GIS redline boundary that some land plots were not now required. Mr Humphries confirmed that this was the case.

3.23 Following a question from the Examining Authority, Mr Humphries confirmed that it would not be right to assume that taking less land would have a proportionate effect on the price being discussed with the relevant landowners. This is because the final price involves various factors, including severance, injurious affection etc. As such it is not correct to assume that a smaller plot would be different, or materially different, in terms of price.

3.24 In response to a question from the Examining Authority, Mr Humphries confirmed that the new red text in the Book of Reference of 5 December 2014 relates to the change in status of plot 1_JW moving from being land that is being permanently acquired to land over which rights are required for the construction period only. The red text sets out the rights that are being sought. These rights are part of the ongoing discussions with the relevant landowners (the Moores).

3.25 The Examining Authority clarified to third parties that the documents submitted on 5 December 2014 were available on PINS' website and that the most significant change relates to the (reduced) amount of land that is sought for both the Application substation of a maximum footprint of 150m x 150m and a GIS substation variant. Mr Humphries confirmed that in advance of the Issue Specific Hearing, the Applicant was seeking to produce an overlay of the refined Application and refined GIS redlines which would then sit over the extant field boundaries.

4

3.26 The Examining Authority asked if there were any representations on compulsory purchase matters from any affected persons. No reply was received.

3.27 Mr Humphries offered to produce a short note setting out the land take figures for the refined Application and refined GIS options. The Examining Authority welcomed this offer and requested that the Application figures also be provided. [Applicant Note: This information has been produced at Annex 2]

5

ISSUE SPECIFIC HEARING OF 10 DECEMBER 2014 (AT 10AM )

4. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

4.1 This document summarises the Applicant's case as presented at the Issue Specific Hearings of 10 and 11 December 2014 at the Broome Grange Hotel, Diss (the "ISH").

4.2 Detailed items for the ISH were listed at Annex A of the Examining Authority's letter of 2 December 2014. These Headings have been used below for ease of reference.

5. INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPATING PARTIES

5.1 Mr Humphries spoke on behalf of the Applicant.

6. DESIGN AND LAYOUT

6.1 The Examining Authority requested that the Applicant explain the design principles document that was submitted on 2 December 2014, following the October Hearings.

6.2 Mr Humphries introduced James Dick from Sheppard Robson. Mr Humphries explained that as part of the Application, a Design and Access Statement (Document Reference 10.2) (the "DAS") was submitted which contained various design principles. During Examination, it was noted that the Examining Authority and third parties had indicated that it would be helpful to provide further detail on these principles. The 2 December 2014 document therefore represented the outcome of further engagement with various parties and was intended by the Applicant to be used to engage further with third parties. The intention is that an agreed document will be submitted to the Examining Authority well before the end of the Examination. That document will become the subject matter of the relevant wording in the DCO. The parties intend that the definition that is provided in Article 2 of the DCO (which refers to p39 to 43 of the DAS) will be supplemented by the final, agreed design principles document.

6.3 Mr Humphries noted that Requirement 3(3) of Schedule 2 to the DCO refers to the design principles as set out in the design principles statement. Requirement 3(4) then requires details of external appearance to be submitted to Mid Suffolk District Council ("MSDC") for approval for certain numbered works.

6.4 The design principles document that is being agreed identifies the need for the Applicant to work with local groups and the Local Authorities and will include engagement with CABE.

6.5 Mr Dick then explained that a useful workshop was held on 27 November 2014 which informed the revision of the 2 December 2014 document. Following the submission of the 2 December 2014 document, comments/wording has been sent to the Applicant by MSDC - which the Applicant assumes that the Eye Airfield Parishes Working Group ("EAPWG") is also in agreement with. Mr Dick confirmed that the Applicant was content to take on board this commentary of 5 December 2014.

6.6 The Examining Authority asked for an explanation of what has changed since the previous version of the document. Mr Humphries noted that the Applicant has tried to reflect back what the Local Authorities have asked for, noting that this has not always been a request for greater specificity (as was suggested by the Examining Authority). Mr Humphries noted that Requirement 3(4) means that MSDC has ultimate control over design.

6.7 Michael Wilks of Suffolk County Council ("SCC") then confirmed that SCC had wanted greater clarity, rather than specificity. In particular, SCC had wanted to see more examples of how the Applicant could fulfil what a given principle was saying. The 2 December 2014 document focusses on taking out repetition from the DAS and uses graphic principles as to what the design may be in each circumstance.

6

6.8 Nick Ward of MSDC confirmed the usefulness of the November discussions and noted that it was important for the Local Authorities that there be a degree of flexibility. Mr Ward welcomed the intention that the revised document would contain a commitment to a design review and to community engagement.

6.9 The Examining Authority noted that the design process would therefore involve the Applicant starting with the design principles, putting together a detailed design (ensuring that there was community consultation and the input of CABE) and then submitting a final design to MSDC for approval. Mr Humphries confirmed that this was the case.

6.10 The Examining Authority requested that an agreed design principles document be submitted by 19 December 2014 if at all possible, so as to ensure that it was before him well in advance of the close of Examination.

6.11 In response to a question from the Examining Authority, Mr Wilks confirmed that both the DAS and the revised design principles document would be referred to in the definition at Article 2 of the DCO, however, in the case of any conflict, the latter would supersede the former.

7. CULTURAL HERITAGE – FIELD BOUNDARIES

7.1 The Examining Authority requested that the Applicant comment on Dr Chadwick's submission of November 2014 and confirm where the original report prepared by Dr Chadwick now stands.

7.2 Mr Humphries explained that the Applicant's Environmental Statement ("ES") ascribed a value/importance to the field system asset known as HA10. The value ascribed in the ES was a regional value. That view also coincided with Dr Tipper of SCC's view. The Applicant was then asked by SCC to commission a report from an archaeological expert on the value of the field boundaries. The Applicant did this and what was submitted to the Examination as the first report from Dr Chadwick ("Chadwick 1 ") reflects that work.

7.3 With regard to the submission made by Dr Chadwick in November 2014, Mr Humphries noted that Dr Chadwick was aware that Chadwick 1 was going to be submitted to the Examination, though there may have been a misunderstanding on his part in this respect. Chadwick 1 was submitted to SCC first and then to the Examination. More recently, comments were provided on Chadwick 1 by various parties and it appears (the Applicant has had very limited contact with Dr Chadwick) that Dr Chadwick has revised his view. The Applicant is disappointed that Dr Chadwick did not speak to the Applicant about what he wanted to do in this regard. Mr Humphries noted that it was apparent from Dr Chadwick's November submission that he felt that there was an attack on his credibility and that seems to be why he has responded.

7.4 In so far as Dr Chadwick has changed his view from Chadwick 1, the Applicant and the Examining Authority will have to take the November submission ("Chadwick 2 ") as his settled view.

7.5 What the Examining Authority therefore has now is a range of views from a range of experts on both the value of the asset and the Applicant’s view, as expressed in the ES, on the magnitude of impact on the asset. As such, the Applicant has done two things:

7.5.1 Firstly, the Applicant has asked Mr David Bonner (consultant archaeologist) to look at and review the different views that have been expressed on the value of the assets(s) and, taking all relevant submitted material into account, to express his view on the value of the asset(s). This relates to both

7

the importance or significance of the individual field boundaries ("FBs ") and the system as a whole; and

7.5.2 Secondly, in the context of the refined Application and GIS boundaries submitted on 5 December 2014, the Applicant has worked hard with Mr Bonner to focus in on the actual impact that the ‘drawn in’ Application redline boundary and ‘drawn in’ GIS redline boundary would have on the asset(s). Part of that work has involved the team going out to look again at the FBs in order to plot in greater detail where there are already gaps in the hedges which mark the boundaries. The team has then worked to take the redline boundaries and to overlay them on the FBs themselves. A summary table has then been produced that sets out that at a given point the Applicant intends to do X, the gap in the extant FB is Ym, and the Applicant would then accept a localised parameter that would limit it to only taking out Ym, with existing mitigation protecting the below ground elements of the FB. The team has then fed this work into its consideration of the impacts of the Project on the field system as a whole. As the revised redline boundaries (i.e. for the Refined Application and GIS options) are ‘drawn in’ from those assessed in the ES, Mr Bonner was asked to express his view on the magnitude of the revised impact of those boundaries on the asset(s).

7.6 Mr Humphries then noted that in addition to considering the value of the asset(s) and the magnitude of the impact on the asset(s), the Examining Authority will need to understand in EIA terms the significance of the effect of the Project on the asset(s). The Examining Authority has in front of him the relevant ES matrix (Table 13.4) that has been used (together with professional judgement) to determine the significance of an effect.

7.7 Mr Humphries then set out that the significance of effect will need to be considered in the context of the National Policy Statements and, in particular, section 5.8 of NPS EN-1. Paragraph 5.8.4 sets a test of the asset(s) in question needing to be demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument in order for the same policy considerations as apply to a scheduled monument to apply to an undesignated asset.

7.8 The value of the asset(s)

7.9 Mr Bonner confirmed to the Examining Authority that he considered that he has had adequate time to review the various documents and representations on this issue. Mr Bonner confirmed that he has made several visits to site and feels qualified to speak on this matter. [Applicant Note: Mr Bonner's CV is has been provided to the Examination on 19 December 2014].

7.10 Mr Bonner noted that he is a technical director of Network Archaeology Ltd and has 20 years experience of major infrastructure projects, including the design and routeing of pipelines.

7.11 Mr Bonner noted that he is aware that the Examining Authority has received representations from a number of experts who have suggested that the field system may be of national importance. Mr Bonner noted that the reasoning in this regard had not been laid out in the way that he would have expected. Mr Bonner's own starting point with an undesignated asset would be to look at NPS EN-1 and its wording around any undesignated asset needing to be demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument in order for it to be considered to be subject to the same policy considerations as those that apply to designated assets. In this regard, Mr Bonner's starting point would be to turn to English Heritage ("EH") criteria for scheduling. These criteria relate to period; rarity; documentation/finds; group value; survival/condition; fragility/vulnerability; diversity and potential (DCMS 2013 Scheduled Monuments & nationally important but non-scheduled monuments, October 2013, Annex 1: Principles of Selection for Scheduled Monuments). Mr Bonner noted that this

8

exercise must involve an interplay of the criteria, rather than it just being a case of ticking the box for one criteria and thereafter jumping to a conclusion that an asset is of national importance. Instead, an assessor must weigh up the various criteria, using judgement, to see if an asset is demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument.

7.12 Mr Bonner then proceeded to give his expert opinion on the various key criteria as set out in the EH guidance:

7.12.1 Period : Mr Bonner noted that it is agreed that the boundaries represent a co-axial field system, the origin of which is late pre-historic. The field system has continued in use to today and it is its partial preservation that has been discussed at length by various parties. Whilst there is general agreement on the likely origin of the system, there is debate between various specialists over the uncertainty of its chronology and significance of its constituent parts (FBs, trackways etc). Mr Bonner noted that whilst the pattern of boundaries is pre-historic, the surviving remains are of a later date and quite potentially medieval, late medieval and early modern. That is not to say that this makes individual components more or less important, however EH has reminded the Applicant (in a letter to PINS dated 14 November 2014) that it needs to look at the asset as a whole and not to break it into constituent parts in order to determine its significance. Taking this EH steer, Mr Bonner concluded that the asset derives its significance from time depth rather than specifically from a date or period of its constituent parts. In essence, it derives much of its significance from a range of dates. Mr Bonner noted that this alone would not be a criterion for national importance. Mr Bonner noted that EH in some of its guidance has made the point that there is uncertainty over the date of co-axial field systems and that this is an ongoing debate, particularly in East Anglia (English Heritage 2012, Designation, Scheduling Selection Guide: Agriculture, English Heritage, September 2012).

7.12.2 Rarity/Diversity : Mr Bonner noted that co-axial field systems are an important part of the East Anglian landscape. They exist locally, regionally and nationally. Whether or not a field system is rare is therefore related to whether it is rare because of a particular characteristic, such as its size or pattern. Both size and pattern have been raised as possible aspects of this field system that may give it greater rarity than others. Mr Bonner's view was that he was not sure that it follows when looked at closely. The field system's current size alone does not make it more important. Size might be an aspect of Diversity or Survival/Condition and is not in itself a criterion for National Status.

7.12.3 Survival and Condition : Mr Bonner noted that survival has been said by some experts to have been "moderate to good". But this has not been qualified in terms of the survival of the prehistoric pattern or the condition of the physical remains. Mr Bonner noted that he had taken full access of the land occupied by the proposed Project, looked at the physical remains, been around various fields and also taken public access elsewhere within the field system. What was noticeable was the frequency of hedgerow gaps or filled- in ditches in the extant boundaries. In short, there was a notable loss of extant boundaries and their physical components. Some of that loss has mostly arisen from intensive agriculture and industrialisation (e.g. the airfield) and both of which are on-going activities. Mr Humphries noted that the Examining Authority may wish to undertake a site visit to take a view on this point.

7.12.4 Mr Bonner noted that survival/condition cannot be fully determined without an understanding of the original extent of the field system. Mr Bonner explained that there is uncertainty on this point as the asset is not defined fully and clearly. It is an undesignated asset and not recorded (until

9

recently) in the HER. As such, one has to reference Professor Williamson's work in this regard. Professor Williamson defines an area of field system occupying at least 20km². Mr Bonner summed up the position as being that the prehistoric pattern is preserved in the functional landscape as extant hedges, ditches and banks. Whether one could say the survival was "moderate to good" was debateable, without an understanding of the extent of the asset having been reached. Mr Bonner's view was that the surviving condition was likely to be no greater than "moderate".

7.12.5 Fragility and vulnerability : Mr Bonner set out that remains that are fragile and vulnerable may merit scheduling and an enhanced importance can be gained from the need to preserve an asset. In the case of these field boundaries, Mr Bonner noted that whilst there is pressure on them, a more persuasive case would perhaps be made if the assets were shallow covered features in a ploughed, agricultural field. Mr Bonner explained that whilst the boundaries may not be robust features they are, in his view, only vulnerable in that they are located within a working landscape. As such, Mr Bonner was not of the view that these assets were particularly fragile and vulnerable and so did not consider that this criterion added value to the assets.

7.12.6 Documentation/finds and Potential : In the context of the documentation/finds criterion, Mr Bonner noted that there is a knowledge base regarding the field system that lies in maps and photos etc, but there is limited evidential information regarding the field boundaries. Mr Bonner noted that the field system's value could be enhanced through archaeological investigation. Mr Bonner noted that it may appear to be a contradiction, but that there is an argument that whilst archaeological remains are a finite resource it is a balance, and assets can in fact gain value from archaeological investigation. Mr Bonner suggested that much of this particular asset's value derives from its potential.

7.12.7 Group value : Mr Bonner explained that associations make an important contribution to the significance of an asset. The value of a single asset, such as a field system, would be enhanced by association with other remains such as settlements or funerary remains. Mr Bonner noted that a search of English Heritage's database of Scheduled Monuments showed that whilst individual field systems have been scheduled, they are rarely scheduled in their own right. Mr Bonner considered that in this instance, there are not any positively dated associations, although there are some tentative interpretations of geophysical/cropmark data which might (upon investigation) potentially contribute to the asset's value. Mr Bonner concluded that associations with other assets do not contribute significantly to value.

7.13 Mr Bonner then provided an overall conclusion, looking at all the above criteria and stated that in his view, the value of the field system was of regional importance/medium value ; this confirms the assessment in the ES. As such, Mr Bonner did not consider that the field system had met the NPS EN-1 test of being demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument.

7.14 The EAPWG then made a short statement noting that the presence of the roman road was important in the context of the field system, as was the survival above ground of the field boundaries. David Burns summarised the EAPWG position as being that Professor Williamson regards the field system as being of 'potential' national significance. Professor Williamson's point is that until further work is done, the final significance of the asset cannot be determined. As such, it is of at least regional and therefore of potentially national importance .

7.15 Mr Wilks then stated that in the view of SCC, asset HA10 is the most intact piece of the field system that remains and stated that he was confused as to whether Mr

10

Bonner was discussing the field system as a whole or HA10. In the context of NPS EN-1, Mr Wilks considered that the precautionary principle should apply and the Applicant should be showing that the asset is not of demonstrably equivalent significance. In the view of SCC, the Applicant had not done this. [Applicant Note: Mr Wilks stated that in the view of SCC, asset HA10 is the most intact piece of the field system that remains. By ‘intact’, it is assumed that SCC means that the survival/condition of the co-axial pattern in the present landscape is best in HA10.

The selection of just one particular EH criteria, survival/condition, is unsound. Nevertheless, in order to test the assertion, a comparative assessment has been made of the ratio of extant versus relict boundaries within six 25 ha blocks, divided by NGR lines. In terms of survival by counts of boundaries, the range is 42-89%, with an average of 59%. The project crosses 3 of these six blocks, these scoring 45%, 57% and 57% (i.e. less than the average).

In terms of linear metres of boundaries, the range is 41% to 83%, with an average of 55%. The 3 blocks crossed by the Project score 46%, 52%, and 61% (i.e. not the worst or best preserved).

In this assessment, the field boundaries within the 25 ha block lying to the north west of the Project (and immediately west of Judas Lane) have the highest ratio of both the count and linear length of extant boundaries to relict boundaries.

In conclusion, the Project does not appear to impact the most intact piece of the field system.

Block no. SW NGR

Extant Boundaries - linear metres

Reliect Boundaries - linear metres %survival

1 611000, 275000 2053 432 83% 2 611500, 275000 1211 1106 52% 3 612000, 275000 948 1337 41% 4 611000, 274500 1243 1590 44% 5 611500, 274500 2611 1642 61% 6 612000, 274500 1611 1906 46%

Totals/Average% 9677 8013 55%

7.16 Ms Jude Plouviez for SCC then set out that when Professor Williamson first identified the field system, it was big step forward. The entire area, in Ms Plouviez's view, has a high documentary value as it was the first place identified in East Anglia on this kind of scale. Where the asset survives above ground, it is a widely available piece of information and research. Ms Plouviez's view was that in considering HA10, one should look at whole block between the two lanes (Leys Lane and Judas Lane) to see if it is of national importance and of schedulable quality. Ms Plouviez stated that investigating an asset, as opposed to preserving it, was never a good option. Ms Plouviez noted that in terms of associations, there was time depth, a medieval village and Roman site to the north. In Ms Plouviez's view one could not give an absolute view on "is this of schedulable quality or not" but it looked very likely that it is of such quality. This area was, in Ms Plouviez's view almost certainty the best bit of the wider field system, the character of the landscape is exceptionally well preserved between the two lanes. Ms Plouviez noted that she was not a landscape archaeologist.

7.17 Mr Humphries set out that in the context of Mr Wilks's point regarding HA10 versus a wider field system, Mr Bonner was trying to reflect the criticism made by a number of archaeologists and EH that asked the Applicant not to just consider the redline of the Project but to look more widely. Because HA10 is simply a numerical attribute given in the ES to the field boundaries within the redline, Mr Bonner quite rightly looked to try

11

to understand the context in the field system as a whole. Objectors cannot have it both ways, they cannot say that the Applicant is being too narrow and then too wide. The Applicant has now considered both approaches and expressed its views.

7.18 The magnitude of impact

7.19 The Examining Authority noted that the question as to what harm/magnitude of impact was caused to any asset needed to be considered independently to the value of the asset.

7.20 The Applicant then handed out a pack containing a plan showing the refined Application redline of 5 December 2014 overlain on top of the extant field boundaries; a plan showing the the refined GIS redline of 5 December 2014 overlain on top of the extant field boundaries; a page with three photos of extant field boundaries and a short table which summarises various details regarding the field boundaries. [Applicant Note: These documents have been provided to the Planning Inspectorate in hard and soft copy and can be found on the PINS' website]

7.21 Mr Humphries noted that there was one small error on the refined Application overlay – regarding FB1, there should be a green line indicating that there is an extant boundary within the Project redline. The green line should sit between the thicker black lines which denote a gap.

7.22 Mr Philip Butler queried how the refined redline plans interacted with the indicative landscape plans for AIS and GIS, in particular, how the carparking area shown related to the landscaping area. [Applicant Note: The Applicant can confirm that the Temporary Parking and Welfare Area is not shown on the Outline Landscaping Plans as it is not permanent feature of the Project and is only required during the construction period. Furthermore, the size, shape and position of the Parking and Welfare Area are not fixed. The Area is shown only as an indicative example of the Parking and Welfare Area that may be required, to illustrate that there is sufficient space within the Order Limits to accommodate this need. The Temporary Parking and Welfare Area is shown on both the Refined Application and GIS variant Protected Hedgerow Plans (as presented to the Examination during the Issue Specific Hearings and submitted to the Examination on 19 December 2014). The Parking and Welfare Areas are not shown on the Outline Landscaping Plans for either the Refined Application or GIS variants]

7.23 Mr Bonner then ran through what was present at and what would be affected at each of the field boundaries within the refined Application redline. [Applicant Note: the table at Annex 3 sets out the points covered by Mr Bonner in this regard]

7.24 With regard to FB7, the Examining Authority queried whether the section of FB7 which adjoins FB13 would be affected. Mr Bonner stated that he would confirm with the technical team and revert. [Applicant Note: the position is that the short length of FB7 (between FB6 and FB13) will not be affected by the substation (whatever technology is used) as shown in Appendix A of the 19 December 2014 CEMP which shows that this length is to be either be protected in the case of an AIS substation or is outside the Order Limit (in the case of a GIS variant)]

7.25 Mr Bonner then summarised the loss of extant field boundary at each field boundary location within the refined Application redline as follows (the position for below ground remains and ditches was set out in the table that was part of the pack handed out by the Applicant – also contained (as amended) at Annex 3):

7.25.1 FB1: 20m out of 105m1

1 This should be corrected to 10m out of 102m as per Annex 3 (note revised measurements were undertaken using CAD post hearings to increase the accuracy of the measurements undertaken pre hearings)

12

7.25.2 FB4: 20m out of 150m

7.25.3 FB6: 0m

7.25.4 FB7: 150m out of 210m2

7.25.5 FB9: 170m out of 215m3

7.25.6 FB10: 20m out of 20m4

7.25.7 FB11: 0m

7.25.8 FB13: 0m

7.25.9 FB14: 0m

7.25.10 FB16: 4m out of 140m5

7.25.11 FB17: 20m out of 80m6

7.26 Mr Bonner then undertook the same exercise for the refined GIS redline and confirmed the loss of extant field boundary at each field boundary location within the refined GIS Project redline as follows (the position for below ground remains and ditches was set out in the table that was part of the pack handed out by the Applicant – also contained (as amended) at Annex 3):

7.26.1 FB1: 20m out of 105m7

7.26.2 FB4: 20m out of 150m

7.26.3 FB6: 0m

7.26.4 FB7: 0m (due to the use of the existing c.23m gap in the boundary)

7.26.5 FB9: 20m of 215m8

7.26.6 FB10: 0m

7.26.7 FB11: 0m

7.26.8 FB13: 0m

7.26.9 FB14: 0m

7.26.10 FB16: 4m out of 140m

7.26.11 FB17: 20m out of 80m

7.27 Mr Humphries noted that the ES had assumed the total loss of all extant and below ground boundaries within the redline. Having taken into account the refined position (as set out above) Mr Humphries then asked Mr Bonner to provide his assessment of the magnitude of impact for the refined Application and the refined GIS variant.

2 This should be corrected to 105m out of 210m as per Annex 3 3 This should be corrected to 169m out of 217m as per Annex 3 4 This should be corrected to 18m out of 18m as per Annex 3 5 This should be corrected to 6m out of 137.5m as per Annex 3 6 This should be corrected to 13m out of 63.5m as per Annex 3 7 This should be corrected to 10m out of 102m as per Annex 3 8 This should be corrected to 25m out of 217m as per Annex 3

13

7.28 Mr Bonner explained that one of the difficulties of assessing the impact on the field system as a whole is that the system as a whole is not fully defined. Mr Bonner considered however that there would be a moderate magnitude of impact for the refined Application variant (both involving indirect and direct impacts). For the refined GIS variant, Mr Bonner's view was that there could be argued to be a slight magnitude of impact but, so as to be cautious, Mr Bonner decided to place this variant as having a moderate magnitude of impact, albeit at the lower end of the moderate category.

7.29 Mr Wilks noted that the ES referred in the Ecology chapter to there being c.274m of loss of hedgerows in the context of the Application redline. Mr Wilks queried how the figure of 274m related to the summary of the position for each FB given by Mr Bonner, as it appeared that a greater length of hedgerow would be lost than 274m but the conclusion was now that the impact was less than was assessed in the ES.

7.30 Mr Humphries confirmed that the Applicant would revert to explain the relationship between the 274m used in the Ecology chapter and the figure that was used in the cultural heritage assessment in March 2014. [Applicant Note: The Applicant can confirm that the reference to 274 m made by Mr Wilks in the Hearings was taken from the Ecology chapter of the ES. At the time of production, a detailed hedge survey was not carried out and the length of hedges was estimated, with the assistance of aerial photography, as is standard best practice. Since then, and prior to the 2nd Round of Issue Specific hearings, a more detailed survey of the hedges was carried out which found that there is a minor discrepancy between the original and new data. This difference accounts to 12m along the Electrical Connection and 11m within the ECC area. These differences are very minor and do not present a material difference or have any effect on the conclusions of the ES.

For the purposes of the cultural heritage assessment in the ES, the Assessors assumed a total loss of field boundaries within the redline. As such (and as shown in the table below) there was therefore assumed to be a circa 570m loss of field boundary. This fed directly in to the ES conclusion that there was substantial harm to the regional value resource, resulting in a moderate/large adverse effect. Following the refinement in December 2014 of the Application boundary, Mr Bonner was able to establish (see table below) that there would be a loss of circa 277 m of hedgerow. This fed directly into Mr Bonner’s conclusion that there would be a moderate magnitude of impact on a regional value resource, leading to a moderate adverse effect. Following the refinement in December 2014 of GIS Variant boundary, Mr Bonner was able to establish (see table below) that there would be a loss of circa 25 m of hedgerow. This fed directly into Mr Bonner’s conclusion that there would be a moderate magnitude on a regional value resource, leading to a moderate adverse effect.

ECC only

Original Application - total

field boundary loss Refined App hedgerow

loss

GIS Variant hedgerow loss

(m) (m) (m)

FB 6 66 0 0

FB 7 141 100 0

FB 9 169 159 25

FB 10 18 18 0

FB 11 81 0 0

FB 13 21 0 0

FB 14 74 0 0

Total 570 277 25

14

Loss

]

7.31 David Burns then raised a concern regarding the difference in levels between the A140 and the Old Norwich Road. Mr Wilks noted that it would be for the Applicant to demonstrate at the time of final design that the junction was appropriate. The safety audit concluded that the gradation would not pose an issue for HGVs.

7.32 Mr Wilks then queried why 20m needed to be removed from the extant boundary at FB17. Mr Humphries confirmed that the Applicant would revert to explain the position. [Applicant Note: The Applicant can confirm that the 20m measurement provided during the Hearings was a conservative figure (arrived at in the absence of detailed information from the Applicant’s Highways Design team) and was utilised in order to calculate the worst possible impact on the archaeological asset FB17.

Following the Hearings, the figure of 20m was further reviewed by the Parsons Brinckerhoff Highway engineers who, following closer consideration of the A140 Junction design, confirmed that based on available OS maps and the conceptual design produced to date, the length of hedge to be removed along FB17 would be approximately 13m]

7.33 In response to a question from Mr Phil Watson of SCC, Mr Bonner explained that in taking on board the EH guidance - which requires an assessor to explore the immediate and wider setting of an asset - he had expected to see a historic pattern preserved in a functional landscape, and that is what he found. Whilst there are lots of gaps in the hedgerows, this does not affect one's understanding of the preservation of the prehistoric pattern. As such, this has been taken into account by Mr Bonner in assessing the impact of the Project on the field boundaries and the field system more widely.

7.34 Mr Humphries then provided a clarification to Mr Butler that whilst Mr Bonner had gone through individual FBs to see what is extant/below ground and what would be impacted for both the refined Application and refined GIS redlines, Mr Bonner did not ascribe a magnitude of impact in the semantic sense. This was only done at the end of the consideration as to what was actually being impacted by the Project and at that point, Mr Bonner had been invited to look at the field system as part of the wider system and it was in that context that he made his comment about the magnitude of impact. One can only understand the impact in the context of the system as a whole, if one has an understanding as to the loss of extant and below ground boundaries.

7.35 The Examining Authority summarised his understanding of the Applicant's position as being that:

7.35.1 the value of the field system is regional/moderate;

7.35.2 the magnitude of the impact of the refined Application redline boundary is moderate ; and

7.35.3 the magnitude of the impact of the refined GIS redline boundary is moderate (though at the low end of that scale/category);

7.36 Mr Wilks then queried whether Mr Bonner's reference to the whole asset referred to HA10 or beyond. Mr Bonner confirmed that he had taken the EH/Professor Williamson direction of a 20km² area, but that his view would be the same if the asset (HA10) was taken to be the area between Leys Lane and Judas Lane as identified by Ms Plouviez.

7.37 Mr Wilks then set out that the SCC position was that the value of the asset was considered by SCC to be of at least regional significance . In terms of impact he made clear that SCC had assessed the effect on HA10 only (as identified by Ms

15

Plouviez). For an AIS substation, SCC considered that there would be substantial harm to the asset and with the GIS substation, a moderate degree of harm would occur. No analysis was presented to explain this assessment, although Ms Plouviez confirmed that in her view there was a fundamental change in the ability to understand and appreciate the resource and as such this meant substantial harm.

7.38 David Burns summarised the EAPWG position as being that the value of the asset was potentially national and that there would be substantial harm to the field system; again, no analysis was presented to explain this assessment.

7.39 In response to an Examining Authority comment, Mr Humphries noted that HA10 is not a defined asset, it is simply the name that the Applicant gave to these particular field boundaries at the time of the ES. Professor Williamson and EH made the point that the Applicant and the Examining Authority need to understand this as part of an overall system that is 20km². As such, Mr Bonner has taken this on board and reflected this position in his assessment. Mr Bonner has both considered the impact on individual field boundaries and has had regard to the wider context.

7.40 David Burn expressed the view that HA10 is the most characteristic area in the whole field system, HA10 tells one what the whole pattern is like. Mr Humphries noted again that HA10 is not a recognised archaeological area, it was simply a function of the Applicant giving a number to some field boundaries within the Project redline for the purpose of the ES.

7.41 Precautionary Principle

7.42 The Examining Authority explained that he wanted to hear representations on the precautionary principle, as various interested parties have said that it should be applied. The Examining Authority noted that it seemed to be a strong requirement which potentially went beyond the National Policy Statements. The Examining Authority queried why the precautionary principle was something that should be applied in this context when it is generally only applied in limited circumstances in the UK.

7.43 David Burns noted that this was a specialist issue and as such, one that he could not comment on.

7.44 Ms Plouviez agreed that this was not SCC's specialist subject but that the principle was a general environmental principle which should apply to what is being done to a resource that should be there for now and future generations.

7.45 Mr Wilks gave the view that it linked to the worst case position. If there remains uncertainty about the value of an asset then there is a question as to whether the worst case has been assessed in the ES such that the effects of a project are not understated.

7.46 The Examining Authority queried whether, when many hedges and extant boundaries have disappeared through agricultural practices, interested parties are suggesting that a higher standard apply here than for the agricultural community.

7.47 Mr Wilks stated that if anyone applied now to remove these hedges then SCC would expect the same degree of evidence and confidence.

7.48 Mr Humphries noted that the phrase "precautionary principle" is often used and, when pressed, people are often hard put to say what it is and what they know about it. It is a concept that derives from certain of the founding EU treaties but it does not appear directly in UK legislation. It appears in a very few places in some English policy documents, but it does not appear in the energy NPSs as a policy approach that is to be applied. The particular context in which it is being sought to be applied here by objectors is that there is an asset that is non-designated, not a great deal is known

16

about that asset and so it is argued that one should assume that asset to be of national importance, that is, equivalent to a scheduled monument. This approach, however, cuts across the approach that is set out in NPS EN-1 paragraph 5.8.4 which requires that an asset be demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument in order for that non-designated asset to be treated in policy terms as if it was designated. Whatever the "precautionary principle" means, it is pushing it too far to say that it should be used to argue that an asset is 'demonstrably' of equivalent significance to one that is scheduled. The reason that the principle is being sought to be applied in this instance is because there is not the evidence to demonstrate that the asset in question is of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument. One needs to be very careful indeed regarding the indiscriminate application of the "precautionary principle" in giving a status to an asset that is equivalent to it being scheduled. It is for the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State to decide the weight to give to this, but even Professor Williamson only says that the field system is "potentially" of national significance. Mr Bonner has, by reference to the EH criteria, given an assessment on this point based on the knowledge that is available to date. His conclusion is that the asset(s) is not of ‘demonstrably’ equivalent significance to a scheduled monument.

7.49 Mitigation

7.50 The Examining Authority asked the EAPWG whether it considered the use of GIS technology to be suitable mitigation or whether it considered that the "precautionary principle" should apply and neither substation option should be consented.

7.51 David Burn confirmed that neither an AIS nor a GIS substation was acceptable to the EAPWG. If one option had to be accommodated then the GIS technology would have a fair degree less impact than an AIS substation.

7.52 Mr Humphries confirmed that the Applicant recognised that there was a balance to be drawn. If one went for an AIS solution then it has certain advantages, whilst a GIS variant has others. The Applicant has recognised that there is a balance and through its Application has put the relevant information before the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State in order to allow there to be a balance between those factors and for the Secretary of State to make a decision. The Applicant's preference is for an AIS option as there are cost implications of a GIS solution which ultimately are passed on to consumers. There are statutory duties under the Electricity Act 1989 that National Grid is subject to (including a duty to be economic and efficient) and one cannot just ignore those duties.

7.53 National Policy Statements

7.54 The Examining Authority confirmed that he was content to receive a written summary as to how the discussions on the value of and magnitude of impact on the asset(s) fed into the wider context of the NPSs. [Applicant Note: this written summary has been provided at Annex 4 to this document]

7.55 Mr Wilks raised a final query regarding FB9 and whether it would be possible to drill underneath the feature to preserve it. Mr Humphries confirmed that the Applicant would revert on this point. [Applicant Note: the Applicant can confirm that the position on this is set out at Annex 5 to this document]

8. CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS

8.1 Methodology

8.2 The Examining Authority asked for confirmation that there is agreement as between EH and MSDC/SCC. Mr Wilks confirmed that their representation was a joint one.

17

8.3 Mr Ward noted that the Local Authorities accepted that the DMRB methodology has been used by the Applicant and that it is an acceptable method. MSDC itself has used EH guidance in forming its views on effects on cultural heritage assets. Mr Ward noted that there is now an October Statement of Common Ground with the Applicant that outlines what is agreed and what is not.

8.4 The Examining Authority noted that there have been various criticisms of the Applicant's application of its methodology, including views from the Suffolk Preservation Society ("SPS") that there has been an insufficient number of site visits and not enough of a winter assessment.

8.5 Mr Humphries introduced Clare Hennessey and noted that Louise Parkinson was sat with Ms Hennessey, both of Parsons Brinkerhoff.

8.6 Ms Hennessey explained that the Applicant has undertaken a number of site visits, within both the 1km and the 5km radius used as part of the ES. The first site visit was to establish the number of assets that are potentially affected by the development. The team considered the Zone of Theoretical Visibility in order to establish the extent to which one might be able to view the Project. The site visit was also undertaken in order to consider topography, the relationship between buildings, key viewpoints to establish intervisibility with the proposed development. This initial site visit looked at the whole area. At the same time, the team looked in more detail at the listed buildings ("LBs ") within the 1km area.

8.7 The team then undertook a second site visit prior to submission of the Application. This was done following discussion with the local authorities and EH. The team was asked to look at specific buildings (on the Yaxley to Mellis Road, Goswold Hall, Eye Castle, and St Peters and Paul Church in Eye) in more detail in response to concerns regarding the determination of importance, based on local knowledge.

8.8 The team's third visit was done post-submission of the Application, at MSDC’s request. The purpose of the visit was to consider a wider definition of setting, in particular, to pick up the importance that was being attached to the rural landscape around the villages of Mellis, Thrandeston and Yaxley, as such the team was asked to take account of the approach to those settlements. For example, the team revisited Eye as part of this visit and considered the approach from Castleton Way, from Victoria Hill and from Cranley. The team considered what the impact of the Project might be on one's ability to appreciate the setting of an asset.

8.9 The team undertook a fourth visit at the request of MSDC in order to look at individual grade II listed buildings. The Applicant had looked at groups of Grade II LBs and MSDC was keen that the team look at more isolated buildings to see if their setting or interpretation would be different.

8.10 On each of those occasions, cultural heritage specialists undertook the visits. When the team goes out into the field, it uses a checklist based on EH guidance in order to ensure consistent assessment. In addition, photos are taken and a number of these have been included in the Desk Based Assessment ("DBA") and the ES. The locations of the photos are shown in figure 13.5 of the ES.

8.11 Ms Hennessey noted that one of the site visits was undertaken in winter and whilst not all assets were visited in winter, seasonal change is something that the team does consider out on site and as part of its assessment. For instance, the team will consider the existence of hedgerows and mature trees, the extent and depth of vegetation and the effect of loss of deciduous vegetation on visibility from or to an asset and its setting. Ms Hennessey noted that the EH guidance does not mandate that assessors have to undertake site visits during all seasons, rather they must take account of seasonal change during their assessment.

18

8.12 Andrew Fane of the SPS noted that he did not have a specific challenge to the process that the Applicant had outlined. The issue that SPS has is with the degree of harm caused by the Project. Mr Fane noted that everyone accepts that the Project will cause harm to the historic environment, however, there is variation as to the degree of harm that will be caused. SPS's view is that the Project will have a material and significant impact on LBs. Mr Fane stated that there was demonstrable harm to the historic environment but that there would be only a limited period of use (of 1500 hours per year), which should be material in assessing the benefit to balance against the harm.

8.13 Mr Humphries noted that this point has been dealt with in the Applicant's 2 December 2014 submissions. In short, peaking plant is particularly important as it both supports the transition to renewable and low carbon forms of energy and also provides capacity during times of peak demand. The 1500 hours operational limit reflects the likely times when peak demand would arise.

8.14 The Examining Authority then noted that detailed comments had been provided on the assessment of a number of individual sites with assertions being made that there are inconsistencies, and illogicalities which undermine the conclusions of the assessment as a whole. EH has been critical of the approach to assessing the significance of setting at assets in Mellis, for example.

8.15 Ms Hennessey noted that there is a level of agreement between the Local Authorities and the Applicant about the contribution that setting makes to an asset, borne out of the Applicant's re-visits to site and undertaking an assessment using a wider definition of setting.

8.16 For assets in closest proximity to the Project site, Ms Hennessey noted that the Applicant has concluded that for the majority of assets the contribution of setting to value of the assets is high. Essentially this means that the setting is linked and has a strong connection with the asset, with high intervisibility. As such, the Applicant considers that it has reflected the importance of the rural landscape in its assessment. Ms Hennessey noted that there are one or two instances where the Applicant has concluded that a setting makes a moderate contribution to the significance of the asset, rather than a high contribution. This is not to underplay the situation, but when the assessors have looked at the setting of an asset in such cases, it may have been altered, been subject to development etc.

8.17 Ms Hennessey went on to explain that the Applicant does sometimes disagree with others regarding the scale of the impact of the Project (i.e how prominent or how visible it is, its scale and massing, the interpretation of its effect on the skyline and how it may detract from the current character of an area).

8.18 In the context of mitigation, Ms Hennessey noted that the Applicant's proposed mitigation is explained in a number of places in the Application (including the ES), albeit perhaps not in detail within the Cultural Heritage chapter itself. The landscaping mitigation in particular is relevant in the context of the conservation areas. The Applicant has concluded that the magnitude of the impact of the development on the Mellis Conservation Area would be minor, and this conclusion takes into account the intervening field boundaries, substantial planting on Judas Lane etc. In addition, there is mitigation within the redline boundary – an AIS substation would have hedging and planting within the hedging of up to 25m and then mounding (now shown on the indicative landscaping plans) which provides 1.5m height. Mounds shown on the indicative plans are the minimum number and more may be possible. In the context of a GIS substation, the Applicant has retained hedgerows and within that, the ability to plant to a depth of, on average, 10m. On the western side towards Mellis, the outline plans show 6m of shrub and trees within the hedge which provides adequate screening. In addition, the design principles document has been developed and there is mitigation proposed in terms of using cladding to break up the façade of a GIS substation to assist in making it represent an agricultural style of building.

19

8.19 The Examining Authority noted that various illogicalities in the context of some assets have been put forward by interested parties. Ms Hennessey noted that the Applicant has responded to these points on 2 December 2014. Ms Hennessey noted that the concern of interested parties was presumably less about overplaying an impact on Burgate but rather an underplaying an impact on Yaxley Manor House. In this regard, the Applicant has accepted that this asset has an important setting, the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of the asset is regarded by the Applicant as being "substantial". In the Applicant's view, the impact on the setting is "minor" and what is meant by "minor" is that the impact in terms of scale, proximity and on the appreciation of the setting is a minor degrading of the setting. For the team to apply a more substantial rating to the impact, the assessors would need to feel that the contribution of the setting was appreciably reduced, the team, in its professional opinion, cannot say that as it stands.

8.20 Mr Fane then presented the view of the SPS. Mr Fane stated that any GIS substation would not look like a farm building but like a vast industrial structure. Any tree planting would, in Mr Fane's view, take the 25 year life of the plant. If planting is used near the field boundaries then they will lose legibility and as such, the mitigation measures are not convincing. Mr Fane stood by the SPS representation of 17 November 2014.

8.21 The Examining Authority asked for the Applicant's response to the EH point about the consistency of the application of the methodology. Ms Hennessey explained that she understood the EH concern to be more to do with the level of information provided than a concern that a different approach is being applied to different grade of listed buildings. EH, as Ms Hennessey understood it, wanted more evidence that the Applicant had taken a fuller consideration of how setting is experienced. In the context of the Mellis conservation area, EH was concerned as to whether the Applicant had considered the area between the conservation area and the Project site. Ms Hennessey confirmed that the Applicant has considered this. In looking at a wider definition of setting (as requested) the Applicant has looked at the approach from Mellis Road and the closest public right of way (along Judas Lane) in appreciating setting from that location. It is the Applicant's opinion that there is not a significant degree of intervisibility and the Project tends to be glimpsed through planting. The Applicant has taken a wider definition of setting beyond its original interpretation in the ES, which focussed on LBs around the common. The Applicant has now considered the relationship between the village, Judas Lane and the Project and it has concluded that the setting makes a substantial contribution to the significance of the asset but that the magnitude of the impact of the development is minor resulting in a significance of effect of moderate/slight.

8.22 In the context of Thrandeston Church, Ms Hennessey noted that the Applicant did give the church individual consideration. Originally the Applicant looked at setting on Thrandeston conservation area. The church is within the conservation area, on its edge, and the Applicant has specifically considered the church. The Applicant's view is that whilst the contribution of the setting is substantial, the impact on the setting is minor. There is not much intervisibility between the church, its setting and the Project. Impacts are felt on the approach to Thrandeston.

8.23 The Examining Authority asked the Applicant to give a summary of its approach to assessing impact and how the Applicant has tried to consistently apply this approach.

8.24 Ms Hennessey explained that inevitably, there will be a degree of professional judgement in measuring the importance of and impact on any asset. Defining the setting of an asset can be a challenge and it has the potential to introduce subjective views into the assessment. EH provides very full guidance on the types of things that any assessor should take into account. Ms Hennessey explained that the purpose of that guidance was to reduce the subjectivity of any assessment. Each of the attributes in the EH guidance has been pulled into the Applicant's methodology. EH requires that an assessor look at physical evidence , experience and associations . In all cases the guidance gives criteria as to how these elements should be assessed. For

20

example, in the case of physical evidence, assessors should look for relationships with other assets, land use and openness. On the experience of an asset, criteria include the experience of the landscape, views from and to the asset, the visual prominence of an asset in the landscape, intervisibility with other assets, rarity with other surviving settings, tranquillity, and the potential for noise, vibration and other nuisances. Thirdly, in the context of associations, the guidance requires assessors to consider cultural and economic associations with a landscape, amongst other things.

8.25 Therefore, whilst there is the potential for subjective views to be introduced, the EH guidance and criteria aim to minimise this and this is the approach that the Applicant has used. Having applied the criteria, the Applicant has applied the DMRB methodology. In this context, the Applicant has purely looked at the contribution that setting makes to an asset and the impact on setting of those assets (this is because there will not be any direct impacts on any listed building or conservation area as a result of the Project). This approach gives consistency to the Applicant's assessment, whilst leaving room for professional judgement at the end of the process. Throughout the process, the Applicant has listened to SCC and EH and adjusted its views as appropriate.

8.26 Ms Hennessey noted that guidance sets out that a Minor adverse magnitude of impact means that the contribution that a setting makes to an asset is slightly degraded but the development does not affect the character of the setting and the setting can still be appreciated. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact means that the contribution that a setting makes to an asset is reduced appreciably, and the setting is less readily appreciated. A Major adverse magnitude of impact means that the contribution that a setting makes to an asset is lost or substantially reduced and the relationship of the asset with its setting can no longer be readily appreciated.

8.27 Interpretation of Impact

8.28 The Examining Authority noted that the SPS representation had highlighted instances of the significance of an impact changing in August 2014. The Examining Authority queried why this was the case.

8.29 Ms Hennessey explained that in the context of Goswald Hall, the original assessment considered the more immediate setting of the building. On reviewing the setting using a wider definition (as requested), the Applicant looked from different vantage points: from the bridleway, close to the property as possible etc. In that situation, Goswald Hall had some screening. Taking a wider definition of setting, and taking account of the fact that there is a degree of harm that has already been experienced to the setting (including through the existing wind turbines and pylons) this meant that the Applicant downgraded the contribution that setting makes to the asset to "moderate".

8.30 The Examining Authority queried the Applicant's position on the idea that if something has already happened to an asset or its setting, then that might be a reason why further development or harm is not considered as significant as it might otherwise be.

8.31 Ms Hennessey noted that this concept is a difficult one. It was not the Applicant's intention to suggest that an impact already experienced is a justification for additional harm to an asset. Nevertheless, when looking at the contribution of a setting to an asset, one has to take into account the quality of the setting. Where one arrives at a setting where there has been significant development that affects the setting, it can often only be concluded that there is a lesser value of that setting as a result.

8.32 Ms Hennessey explained that EH has provided guidance on the value of a setting and the contribution that a setting makes to the significance of an asset. A Moderate contribution arises where a setting and an asset are linked but there are alterations which may detract from the understanding or appreciation of the asset. This is the case with Goswald Hall, for example.

21

8.33 Mr Fane stated that the idea that a cumulative effect is acceptable once one has a certain number of developments that detract from an asset or its setting is inconsistent with the spirit of the legislation and the NPPF. The SPS could not accept that the advice that the Examining Authority is receiving from the Applicant is truly objective. In the context of a vast industrial structure, one cannot assess it in respect of one building or one conservation area, one must instead look at the cumulative impact of such a huge intervention landing in that piece of landscape – it detracts from the setting of each and every asset.

8.34 The Examining Authority noted the Statement of Common Ground between the Applicant and SCC/MSDC. This document appends a list of assets where there is a difference in view as to the impact on the asset. Broadly there is agreement on the contribution that setting makes to the assets (almost all of which are either "substantial" or "high") but SCC/MSDC assign a higher overall measure of harm to the 28 assets listed. Mr Ward was asked to explain what the phrase "less than substantial but still harmful" was meant to convey.

8.35 Mr Ward noted that the language of the NPS refers to substantial harm or less than substantial harm. In assessing the assets, MSDC acknowledges that there is not destruction or total loss of any asset so there is a less than substantial degree of harm. MSDC considered that if there was a scale of 1-5 and substantial harm sat at 5 on that scale then there are a number of effects on certain assets that might be 3 or 4 on such a scale. The 28 assets listed in the Statement of Common Ground are of a higher value and MSDC took the three factors noted by Ms Hennessey into account and assessed the degree of harm accordingly. Mr Ward explained that this is a method that MSDC has sought to use internally in order to identify the assets where MSDC felt there would be an impact that would undermine the value or appreciation of that asset.

8.36 The Examining Authority queried whether the difference between MSDC's assessment and the Applicant's was based on different evidence or whether it just came down to judgement. Mr Ward confirmed that it was a matter of judgement, which the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State would have to come to a view on.

8.37 The Examining Authority asked for the Applicant's view on MSDC's approach to the 28 assets listed in the Schedule. Mr Humphries noted that the Applicant has tried to minimise the level of subjectivity of judgement by applying a clear methodology and using the EH guidance. The Applicant was concerned that the work that MSDC has undertaken involves a less strong methodology and so the results are more subjective.

8.38 Ms Hennessey noted that in discussions with MSDC, the Applicant did seek to explore the potential to use the same methodology/terminology. MSDC was concerned that the DMRB guidance was too mechanical and so was reluctant to categorise impacts and the contribution of setting using that terminology. Instead, MSDC preferred to use a more descriptive commentary. The Applicant is conscious that this makes like for like comparisons a little difficult.

8.39 The Examining Authority queried at which level of impact mitigation measures should be discussed. Ms Hennessey explained that there is no guidance on when mitigation should be applied. The Applicant has set out in its ES that effects that are of moderate or above are considered to be significant in EIA terms and at that level the Applicant would expect to discuss mitigation measures. However, this has not been used as the basis for discussing mitigation with the local authorities.

8.40 Mr Ward agreed and noted that sometimes mitigation measures can have more of an adverse impact than a proposed development.

22

8.41 The Examining Authority noted that the EAPWG had suggested that since the significance of the assets is greater than was earlier thought then greater consideration should be given to alternative locations for the development.

8.42 David Burn stated that he understood the position to be that where harm is established and that harm is significant, there is a duty to demonstrate that such harm is unavoidable. If harm elsewhere is less, then the sequential test for choosing this site has not been carried out.

8.43 Mr Fane noted the SPS position of September 2014, in particular the quotes taken from the Forge Field case, which in Mr Fane's view has a very real application in this instance.

8.44 Mr Humphries noted that the applicability of the Forge Field case (amongst other legal points) was addressed in various exchanges with Mr Clay, acting on behalf of the EAPWG, regarding a regulation 17 request that had been made by the EAPWG under the EIA Regulations. In short, the Applicant’s position was

8.44.1 That the legal duties to have regard to listed buildings and conservation areas under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 were worded differently from those in the Infrastructure Planning (Decision) Regulations 2010;

8.44.2 That the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor and the High Court in Forge Field related to the duties under the 1990 Act, not the 2010 Regulations;

8.44.3 That those decisions were not directly applicable, therefore, to an application under the Planning Act 2008;

8.44.4 However, it was accepted that it remained a matter for the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State, as a matter of policy, what weight they attached to any harm to Listed Buildings and their setting;

8.44.5 Insofar as the Examining Authority and / or Secretary of State attach significant weight to the harm to the setting of Listed Buildings in relation to this application (there is no direct physical harm), then the Applicant argues that that harm is outweighed by the need for and benefits of the proposed development.

8.45 Insofar as any assessment of the impacts on the setting of listed buildings (or indeed other cultural heritage assets) requires any consideration of alternatives, Mr Humphries noted that the Applicant had provided a lot of material on alternatives:

8.45.1 In the context of alternatives to the Project as a whole, the Applicant has explained that it has looked at a whole range of sites and is pursuing all of those that it considers are suitable and available.

8.45.2 On particular aspects of the Project, the Power Generation Plant is sited on a former airfield that is considered appropriate in policy terms – noting that there is already industrial development there.

8.45.3 As far as the substation is concerned, the Applicant has provided a specific siting report, discussed in the last ISH.

8.46 Mr Humphries noted that in various of the Applicant's submissions it has made comments on the correct approach to alternatives and the very specific guidance on this point that is set out in section 4.4 of NPS EN-1. This makes clear that NPS guidance does not impose a policy imperative to consider alternatives. The Forge Field case should not be quoted out of context. The Applicant in relation to the current

23

project has considered alternatives in what it considers, having regard to the NPS, is an appropriate level of detail. The Secretary of State will need to decide if the Applicant's view on this is correct.

8.47 The Examining Authority explained that he would like to see further information on alternative locations for the whole Project, with evidence that the Applicant has looked at other locations (including broad reasons for rejecting other sites).

8.48 Mr Humphries noted that his experience of numerous other infrastructure projects is that objectors often argue that a project could go elsewhere. Section 4.4 of NPS EN-1 is clear - consideration of alternatives must be proportionate, the Examining Authority has to consider a realistic prospect of an alternative being delivered within the same timescale, an application should not be rejected on one site just because there are fewer impacts on another site. Mr Humphries confirmed, however, that the Applicant will provide the Examining Authority with further data on the sites that were considered and rejected but objectors should not expect some large scale environmental impact assessment of all other sites. Mr Humphries explained that the Applicant is entitled to make commercial decisions, as the NPS makes clear (see paragraph 2.2.1 of NPS EN-2), in order to bring forward development. The Applicant has had a lot of regard to the duties upon it, including any requirement to consider alternatives. Mr Humphries noted that the NPS is also quite clear that if other parties are putting forward alternatives then the Examining Authority may put the onus on them, not on the applicant, to provide information on these alternatives. [Applicant Note: Annex 6 contains the Applicant's response to the Examining Authority's request in this regard]

8.49 The Examining Authority asked the parties whether there was, in anyone's view any "must have" information that was not in front of the Examination. No response was received in this regard. The Examining Authority noted that parties could consider this point overnight.

24

ISSUE SPECIFIC HEARING OF 11 DECEMBER 2014 (AT 10AM )

9. INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPATING PARTIES

9.1 Mr Humphries and Richard Griffiths of Pinsent Masons LLP spoke on behalf of the Applicant.

9.2 The Examining Authority requested confirmation that there is adequate laydown space within the refined Application and refined GIS redline boundaries to allow for field boundaries to be protected in practice. [Applicant Note: the Applicant can confirm that as shown on the Protected Boundaries Plan (see Appendix A of the 19 December 2014 CEMP for both the Refined Application and the GIS variant) submitted to the Examination on 19 December 2014 there is sufficient room for a laydown area within the redline without impacting the field boundaries]

9.3 THE DCO

9.4 The Examining Authority raised a series of points/questions on the DCO as follows:

9.4.1 The front page needs an amendment making from "2012" to "201[X]" [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.2 The front page needs to be amended from "gas fire" to "gas fired". [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.3 Article 2 : Regarding the definition of "maintain", it has been suggested that a further change in the wording from "effects as identified in the ES" to "effects from those identified in the ES" needs to be made. [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.4 Article 2 : Regarding the definition of "maintain", Mr Butler suggested that the phrase "unlikely to" should be amended to "will not". Mr Griffiths noted that the phrase has been used as a converse to the term "likely" that is used in the EIA Regulations. The wording mirrors how the ES assesses effects, it is unreasonable to move away from that. Mr Griffiths noted that Article 4 also restricts the Applicant and applies to maintenance as well. [Applicant Note: the wording has remained as previously drafted for the reasons given by Mr Griffiths on 11 December 2014]

9.4.5 Article 6 : A discussion was held on the benefit of the DCO in the context of the substation and National Grid. Written submissions were requested on this point by the Examining Authority.

9.4.6 Article 8 : It was noted that Article 32 ought also to be referenced. [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.7 Article 8 : Mr Griffiths explained that the Local Authorities had suggested that the wording used in the Hornsey DCO ought to be used for this Article, with the Secretary of State approving any alternative form of guarantee. In response to a question from the Examining Authority as to why a guarantee would not itself need approval, Mr Griffiths noted that this was not required on the Hornsey project where compensation in the order of £15m was required, compared to circa £3m in this instance. Equally, the Applicant was content to use the wording in the Hirwaun draft DCO but the Applicant noted that in this instance the Local Authorities preferred the Hornsey approach, with approval being given by the Secretary of State rather than the relevant planning authority. [Applicant Note: the Applicant has followed the Hornsey drafting for this article, as discussed]

25

9.4.8 Article 38 : all agreed that this article needed to be updated to reflect the final wording in Article 2 of the DCO. [Applicant Note: the Applicant has updated this Article]

9.4.9 Article 13 : Mr Butler requested an amendment to article 13(2) to provide for access to be ensured for all recreational users, not just those accessing their properties. Mr Griffiths noted that the current wording is a model provision, save where the drafting has been widened from "pedestrians" to "non-motorised users" at the request of Mr Butler. In addition, the Construction Transport Management Plan ensures access and as such this drafting would be repetitious and unnecessary. Mr Griffiths noted that if the Secretary of State considered it necessary to amend the wording then the Applicant would accept that. The Examining Authority noted that the wording appeared to be a good idea and was not imposing a restriction on operation that has not already been discussed. [Applicant Note: this amendment has not been made as the Applicant does not consider it to be necessary and it repeats assurances already made in the CTMP. If the Secretary of State considers that this wording is required then the Applicant will accept this position]

9.4.10 Article 40(2) : Mr Ward confirmed that the wording regarding an extension to the eight week period set out in the article has been discussed with the Applicant some time ago and the Local Authorities are content with this wording.

9.4.11 Article 40(3) : The Examining Authority suggested that the Applicant add at the end of the article the wording "in respect of discharge of requirements listed in Schedule 2". [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.12 Schedule 1 - Definition of rated electrical output : in response to an Examining Authority question, Mr Griffiths noted that the Applicant's starting point was that the phrase "rated electrical output" should not be defined. If one looks at paragraph 4.7.5 of NPS EN-1 the references are made to 300 MW net . The CCS requirement referred to in the NPS in this context has the same EU Directive as its root. On that basis the Applicant considers that if a definition is to be inserted, one should be inserted that refers to net output and not gross.

The Environment Agency then noted that its position was that gross output considered from the terminal is the correct approach, albeit there are on-going discussions with DECC on this matter. The Environment Agency would not impose a cap as it is keen to ensure maximum efficiency out of any plant.

Mr Griffiths agreed that given the lack of a definition of this phrase, guidance from the Secretary of State is key to ensure consistency. The Applicant also agreed with the Environment Agency that there should not be a cap, whether the definition refers to gross or net. As such, the only point of disagreement with the Environment Agency is the use of the term "gross" rather than "net". The Examining Authority confirmed that he would consult the NPS.

Mr Griffiths offered to assist the Examining Authority by discussing with the Environment Agency a definition for "rated electrical output" using both the concept of net and gross output. [Applicant Note: the Applicant suggests the following definitions for consideration by the Examining Authority – these have been discussed with and amended by the Environment Agency:

"“net rated electrical output" means the net electrical power as calculated by subtracting the energy used to operate the plant from the gross electrical power, and determined in accordance with standards agreed with the

26

regulating authority under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended) or subsequent legislation.”

""gross rated electrical output" means the gross electrical power as measured at the generator terminals in accordance with standards agreed with the regulating authority under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended) or subsequent legislation.”]

Schedule 1 : discussion was held on whether reference to up to 299 MW necessarily restricts the authorised development, in light of the Cotswold Grange case. That case relates to a limitation on the ‘use’ of development in the description of the development granted planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Mr Griffiths noted that Article 5 of the DCO would only allow the Applicant to carry out (Article 3) the "authorised development" (defined in Schedule 1). Given that Schedule 1 makes it clear that the ‘authorised development’ is a generating station with a rated electrical output of between 50.1 – 299MWe, the Applicant would be in breach of Article 5(1) if the generating station it constructed had a rated electrical output that exceeded 299MW. Accordingly, the capacity of the generating station is controlled by the description of the development that may be carried out (i.e. constructed) and there is no need to have a restriction controlling its ‘use’ to no more than 299MW.

9.4.13 Schedule 2 - Dry low NOx : The Examining Authority noted that the Local Authorities were concerned that there was still the possibility of the Applicant tankering on water to use for NOx control. Mr Griffiths explained that as the development is restricted under Requirement 3 as to its water tank parameters, it would be physically impossible to use anything other than dry NOx control. The water tanks are not capable of providing any wet NOx control. Tankering of water to site for NOx control would be uneconomic.

The Environment Agency confirmed that from a Best Available Techniques ("BAT ") perspective, it would only accept dry low NOx control, there would be no justification for steam injection. BAT is dry low NOx control and this would be referenced in the Project's environmental permit and enforced. All noted the need to avoid duplication between any requirements and other pollution control regimes.

To assist the Examining Authority, Mr Griffiths offered to provide wording for a possible requirement, if the Secretary of State or Examining Authority considered such a requirement to meet the relevant tests. [Applicant Note: the Applicant suggests the following requirement for consideration by the Examining Authority:

"Dry Low NOx

(1) The gas turbine generators comprised in numbered work 1A shall use dry low NOx.

(2) For the purposes of this requirement "dry low NOx" means dry low NOx as referred to in Environment Agency guidance “How to comply with your environmental permit Additional guidance for: Combustion Activities (EPR 1.01), March 2009”]

9.4.14 Requirement 4 : The Examining Authority raised queries in relation to the Landscape Mitigation Strategy of 17 November 2014 being:

(a) Paragraph 1.2.2 now excludes reference to SUDS schemes. [Applicant Note: the Applicant can confirm that the reference was removed from the LMS as it is already captured as a commitment

27

in the draft DCO in Schedule 2, Requirement 8. Section 5 of the Flood Risk Assessment (Document reference 5.4) also contains drainage principles including at 5.4.18: “Surface water runoff will be treated through the use of SUDS and oil separator”. At para. 5.4.10 the Flood Risk Assessment states that attenuation for surface water run off would be provided in the form of an unlined and open attenuation pond]

(b) Paragraph 6.4.3 refers to the substation fencing being as described for the Power Generation Plant (i.e weld mesh in black or green). However, National Grid has said that it will want palisade fencing. [Applicant Note: the Applicant can confirm that 6.4.3 of the interim LMS has been revised on 19 December 2014 to reflect the agreed position with National Grid]

9.4.15 Requirement 6(2) : Mr Griffiths noted that the Applicant will be adding reference to Appendix B in this requirement as well as Appendix A. [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.16 Requirement 11 : A discussion was held on the lighting wording used in section 3.9 of the CEMP. Mr Butler noted that the indicative lighting drawings appeared to show columns situated in the landscaping areas, as well as around four of the Gas Generation Turbines but not the fifth. Mr Griffiths noted that the error regarding the fifth turbine would be corrected and that it was not intended that lighting would be placed in areas of landscaping. [Applicant Note: regarding the indicative lighting plans, it has been agreed with the Local Authorities and the EAPWG that the indicative lighting plans should be set aside and instead the lighting principles should be used to specify the controls and commitments that relate to lighting design. The Applicant has reflected this position in Article 2 of the DCO as a result]

9.4.17 Requirement 11 : A discussion was then held on equestrian management in the context of the CEMP. Mr Butler reiterated concerns that EMF exposure could spook horses, causing them to bolt.

Dr Andy Gregory was introduced for the Applicant and explained that the Applicant has submitted an EMF assessment which finds that the effects of EMF are almost negligible. In addition, National Grid has stated that there would be zero current in the ground from cables correctly sheathed and earthed, even in fault conditions (see Responses to Second Round Questions and Comments on Written Summaries from NGET, paragraph 1.10). As the cable will be installed in compliance with all relevant legislation and standards, there is no reason to bury the cable any deeper under Leys Lane than for any other part of the route (or indeed any other cable in any other part of the country).

Dr Gregory then confirmed that in the context of the works to lay the cable under Leys Lane, the Applicant envisaged laying a small area of temporary surface in order to allow works to be done and for access throughout those works. Access would therefore be ensured at all times and the works would not be hugely disruptive. Dr Gregory confirmed that in the event that horses pass these works, the construction team will assist with allowing them to pass. The CEMP also now makes clear that there will be liaison with a community group and Local Authorities.

Mr Butler then noted that when horses cross railway lines where a train has recently passed, they sense something. In that context, certain riders are concerned regarding the cable that will pass under Leys Lane. Mr Griffiths noted that there are cables laid all over the country, including 400 kV cables of the same MVA (299 MW) as for this Project. Dr Gregory confirmed that

28

comparing a horse's reaction to an above ground railway line where a train has recently passed to a cable that is buried and subject to the sheathing and shielding that is required under current legislation and guidance is comparing "apples and oranges". [Applicant Note: For clarification, electric fields from electrical conductors depend on voltage, whilst magnetic fields depend upon current.

The voltage for both the existing Overhead Line and the proposed buried cable is 400,000 Volts (400kV). The maximum current in the cable between the Power Generation Plant and the ECC is 433A (299MVA), whereas the maximum current in the Overhead Line is 2295A, (1590MVA).

As can be seen in Table 3.2 of the Electrical Infrastructure EMF Assessment submitted with the Environmental Statement Clarificatory and Errata Document (formally accepted into the Examination on 24 July 2014), the calculated maximum electrical field due to the voltage on the existing Overhead Line is 7,605 V/m whereas the maximum magnetic field due to current flowing in the overhead line is 46.5 µT calculated in accordance with the industry Code of Practice.

By contrast, no electrical field would be created by the cable between the Power Generation Plant and the ECC, and it would produce a maximum magnetic field of only 3 µT.

The difference between the strengths of the magnetic field due to the Progress Power cable and the existing Overhead Line is explained by the difference in their maximum currents.

In summary, there would be no electrical field associated with the cable installed under Leys Lane. The magnetic field due to the cable, which was reported at the Hearing by Mr Butler to be of greater concern to local equestrians, would be approximately 16 times less than the maximum magnetic field due to the existing Overhead Line which crosses Leys Lane]

9.4.18 Requirement 14 : Mr Wilks noted that SCC, MSDC and the Applicant had agreed revised wording for this requirement that will be included in the next turn of the DCO. [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.19 Requirement 15 : Mr Wilks noted that SCC, MSDC and the Applicant had agreed revised wording for this requirement that will be included in the next turn of the DCO. [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.4.20 Requirement 20 : The Examining Authority requested confirmation that the purpose of the requirement was to ensure that each operation of any Gas Turbine Generator where power from that Generator is exported would count against the 1500 hours total, whether 10 seconds or over an hour. Mr Griffiths confirmed that this was the case. The Examining Authority requested that a definition of "metering point" be provided within the requirement, rather than a reference to the Balancing and Settlement Code. [Applicant Note: this amendment has been made]

9.5 The S106 Agreement

9.6 Mr Griffiths confirmed that the latest published draft of the S106 Agreement has now been executed by the landowners. It will then be executed by the Applicant and will be sent to the Local Authorities next week, following which it will be completed.

9.7 In response to an Examining Authority question, Mr Griffiths confirmed that the Applicant agrees with the Local Authorities that, given the ES conclusions, the obligations meet the relevant tests and that the obligations are reasonable and

29

proportionate to the scale and kind of this project. Mr Griffiths noted that the Local Authorities have submitted a paper explaining how the relevant tests are met. Mr Wilks added that there is no policy requirement that a S106 Agreement only be related to the likely significant effects of a project. Any effect can be the subject of mitigation by way of a s106 obligation.

10. ANY OTHER LOCAL IMPACT ISSUES

10.1 The Examining Authority noted that he has considered the Local Impact Report and requested that interested parties confirm whether or not there are any other local impact issues that needed to be considered. Mr Wilks confirmed that there were none from the Local Authorities' perspective. No other interested party raised any comment.

11. AOB

11.1 The Examining Authority noted that over the course of the Examination, there have been a number of changes including changes to plans, the scaling back of the size of the water tanks, refinements to the redline boundary for the Application and the GIS variant and the commitment to remove the A140 junction prior to final commissioning.

11.2 The Examining Authority noted that there is always a difficult line to draw regarding when an application has been changed enough to require further consultation. The Examining Authority noted that his view in this instance was that all changes have been published, interested parties have had a chance to comment on the changes, none of the changes has implications for emissions or other environmental concerns - other than that the changes have in effect reduced rather than increased the scale of what is proposed.

11.3 Mr Humphries confirmed that in this instance, there is not some new thing that interested parties (or others) may have had a materially different view on such that consultation is required. Nor is there some additional, materially worse environmental impact as a result of any change. Finally, no additional land has been sought to be included within the Application. Mr Humphries noted that there are examples of larger changes to other DCO Applications that have not been considered to be material amendments. [Applicant Note: The Applicant has included at Annex 7 a high level summary of the key changes made to the Applicant over the course of the Examination, together with a brief confirmation that, in the Applicant's view, none of the changes constitutes a material change that effectively constitutes a new application]

30

ANNEX 1

SUMMARY OF LAND DISCUSSIONS

31

UPDATE ON NEGOTIATIONS LAND AFFECTED PERSON AND THEIR RIGHTS

Power Station site

Freehold title secured by an option agreement to purchase the land signed on 19 April 2013. In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to a variation to the Option Agreement. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

Plot 1_MS

Elizabeth Anne Moore and Harry Charles Moore (freehold)

Removed from the Book of Reference, 2 December 2014, as further due diligence established this right was a contractual right only.

Plot 1_MS David Hammond, Eileen Hammond, Paul Hammond and Richard Hammondi (Tenants and Occupiers).

Gas Connection Easements and land required for the Above Ground Installation

The Applicant will not be seeking to compulsorily acquire the footpath. The provisions in the DCO to partially restrict the width of the footpath are by virtue of the powers of Article 13 of the DCO (Temporary prohibition or restriction of use of streets).

SCC is aware of the use of these powers.

Plots 1_GR and 1a_GR

Suffolk County Council (Occupier – footpath numbered W-583/009/0)

An easement has been secured by an option agreement completed in March 2013. The Option Agreement has been completed and a variation to that option is in the final stages of discussion.

Plots 1_GR, 2_GR, 3_GR and 4_GR.

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

Removed from the Book of Reference, 2 December 2014 as further due diligence established this right was a contractual right only.

Plots 4_GR, 4a_GR, 5_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR,

David, Eileen, Paul and Richard Hammond Tenant and Occupier as a Partner in P.H Hammond and Partners.

A fully termed offer to acquire the necessary rights was made by the Applicant on 21 March 2014. Correspondence took place in June and July.

In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to seeking to finalise a variation to the Option Agreement. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

Plots 1a_GR, 2a_GR, 2b_GR, 3a_GR, 4a_GR, 6a_GR and 7a_GR.

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

An offer to acquire the necessary rights was made by the Applicant in March 2014.

In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to the agreed variation to the Option Agreement. All the principles are agreed. Only the finer points of detail remain

Plots 5_GR and 6_GR.

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

32

outstanding.

A fully termed offer to acquire to acquire the land was made by the Applicant on 21 March 2014.

In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to the agreed variation to the Option Agreement. The principles are agreed. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

Plot 7_GR Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

Electrical Connection Easements, including Access W orks

The Applicant will not be seeking to compulsorily acquire the footpath. The provisions in the DCO to partially restrict the width of the footpath, by virtue of Article 13 of the DCO (temporary prohibition or restriction or use of streets).

SCC is aware of the use of these powers.

Plots 1_ER and 1a_ER

Suffolk County Council (Occupier - in respect of footpath W-583/009/0)

An easement has been secured by an option agreement completed in March 2013. The Option Agreement has been completed and a variation to that option is in the final stages of discussion.

Plots 1_ER, 2_ER and 3_ER and part of 4_ER

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

In respect of the remaining part of this plot, a fully termed offer to acquire the necessary rights was made by the Applicant in March 2014. In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to the agreed variation to the Option Agreement. A formal variation is anticipated imminently. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

Part of plot 4_ER

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

A fully termed offer to acquire the necessary rights was made by the Applicant in March 2014.

In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to the agreed variation to the Option Agreement. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

Plots 1a_ER, 2a_ER, 2b_ER 3a_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER and 4c_ER

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

A fully termed offer to acquire the necessary rights was made by the Applicant in March 2014.

In October 2014 the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to the agreed variation to the Option Agreement. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

Plots 6_ER and 7_ER

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

In March 2014 the Applicant wrote notifying Suffolk County Council that the Applicant wished to enter in to a private treaty agreement together with a fully termed offer comprising offer letter, heads of terms and a fully termed agreement. Subsequently the Applicant raised this matter with SCC through its agent locally and within the context of wider discussions.

In September 2014, SCC instructed a land agent who has agreed the compensation arrangements with the

Plot 5_ER Suffolk County Council (Freehold and Occupier, as Highway Authority).

33

Applicant. SCC then required an undertaking for the legal fees and in October the Applicant agreed with SCC that any legal fees incurred would be covered by the Planning Performance Agreement. The Applicant had confirmation from the land agent acting for SCC on 15th December 2014 that it has appointed legal advisers to review the documentation proposed by the Applicant. Initial contact has been received from SCC who have advised that they are reviewing the draft documentation provided.

The Applicant will be relying on the street powers contained in the Development Consent Order. The Applicant is therefore not seeking an agreement in respect of these plots.

Plots 7_ER, 8_ER, 11_ER and 12_ER

Suffolk County Council (Freehold and Occupier, as Highway Authority)

Removed from the Book of Reference, 2 December 2014, as further due diligence established this right was a contractual right only.

Plots 4_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER, 4c_ER,

David, Eileen, Paul and Richard Hammond- Tenant and Occupier as a Partner in P.H Hammond and Partners

Documentation in respect of a permanent easement and a temporary easement for the electrical connection was first issued in March 2014 following a meeting with the Applicants. The Applicants instructed solicitors in early summer and the first mark up to the full documentation was received on 27th November 2014 following higher level negotiations through the land agents for the Applicant. The Applicant can confirm that despite the lack of a formal agreement in place, discussions are at a very advanced stage.

The Applicant and its legal advisers will continue to work with the Hammonds’ and their solicitors with a view to completing an agreement as soon as possible

8_ER, David, Eileen, Paul and Richard Hammond- Freehold owner (subsoil only)

9_ER, 9a_ER, 9b_ER, 10_ER, 11_ER and 15_ER

David, Eileen, Paul and Richard Hammond- Freehold owner and Occupier

11_ER David, Eileen, Paul and Richard Hammond- Freehold owner

Documentation in respect of a permanent easement and a temporary easement for the electrical connection was first issued in March 2014 following a meeting with the Applicants. The Applicants instructed solicitors in early summer. The detailed discussion for the fully termed agreement is now well underway with a few issues still outstanding but the discussions are progressing well and the parties are close to agreement in principle on all issues.

The Applicant and its legal advisers will continue to work with the Talbots’ and their solicitors with a view to completing an agreement as soon as possible

Plots 12_ER, 13_ER, 14_ER, 16_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER and 19_ER.

David and Gordon Ellis Talbot (Freehold in respect of subsoil for 12_ER, Freehold and occupier for all other plots)

None. Plots 8_ER, 11_ER, 12_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER and

Unknown (freehold in respect of the subsoil)

34

19_ER.

In October 2014, the Applicant began correspondence with the Moore's solicitor with respect to the agreed variation to the Option Agreement. A formal variation is anticipated imminently. Only the finer points of detail remain outstanding.

1_JW and 2_JW

Elizabeth Ann Moore and Harry Charles Moore (Freehold title as for 1_MS).

Documentation in respect of a permanent easement and a temporary easement for the electrical connection was first issued in March 2014 following a meeting with the Applicants. The Applicants instructed solicitors in early summer and the first mark up to the full documentation was received on 27th November 2014 following higher level negotiations through the land agents for the Applicant. The Applicant can confirm that despite the lack of a formal agreement in place, discussions are at a very advanced stage.

The Applicant and its legal advisers will continue to work with the Hammonds’ and their solicitors with a view to completing an agreement as soon as possible

Plots 3_JW, 4_JW, 5_JW and 6_JW.

David, Eileen, Paul and Richard Hammond- Freehold and occupier as a Partner in P.H Hammond and Partners

The Applicant notes that this party has a tenancy interest in freehold land which is owned by the Hammonds.

Earlier drafts of the option agreement contained a drafting note stating that any tenants of the option site should be included in the option agreement. However, this drafting note has since been deleted as no tenancies affecting the option site have been disclosed to us by the Hammonds.

The Applicant raised CPSE enquiries with the Hammond's solicitor but a tenant was not revealed in the replies.

Plot 5_JW Quiet Sports Fishery Management

Agreements relating to Rights/Restrictive Covenants

This will be incorporated into the wider variation to the option agreement with the Moores.

Plot 5_ER Elizabeth Anne Moore and Harry Charles Moore

Rights: Covenant to not obstruct the conduits and free passage of water and soil. Rights to free passage of water and soil through the conduits which are now in or under the property.

The Applicant wrote in June 2014 and chased in August 2014. In November, the Applicant wrote to British Gas Trading Limited, enclosing a copy of the standard protective provisions in relation to gas, water, electricity, sewerage undertakers. The Applicant chased again in December.

In December, British Gas Trading Limited contacted the Applicant's solicitors with a view to entering in to

Plots 1_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 2b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR,

British Gas Trading Limited

Rights: to use for all proper purposes conduits in or over the land with power to enter for the purpose of making

35

discussions regarding the rights. The Applicant and British Gas Trading Limited are now in discussions with respect to this issue.

4_GR, 4a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR, 1_ER, 1a_ER. 2_ER, 2a_ER, 2b_ER, 3_ER, 3a_ER, 4_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER, 4c_ER, 6_ER, 1_JW, 2_JW

connections with repairing, renewing, maintaining or cleansing the same for the benefit of unknown land.

The Applicant wrote in June 2014 asking to enter into a side agreement.

In July 2014 it received confirmation that Spire Solicitors were instructed. Proposed Heads of Terms and a draft Side Agreement was circulated in August 2014. The Applicant chased for a response in September, October, November and December. No response has been received.

Plots 1_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 2b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR, 1_ER, 1a_ER, 2_ER, 2a_ER, 2b_ER, 3_ER, 3a_ER, 4_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER, 4c_ER, 5_ER, 6_ER, 1_JW, 2_JW

Roy Victor Humphrey

Rights: Restrictive covenant to not obstruct conduits and free passage of water and soil. Rights to pass and repass at all times and for all purposes. Rights to continue to draw a supply of water to Mill Farm through the water pipe and to enter from time to time. Rights to discharge water from Mill Farm into the existing airfield drains

The Applicant wrote in June 2014. In August 2014, the Applicant received confirmation that Gudgeons Prentice Solicitors were instructed. A proposed heads of terms were issued in August 2014. The Applicant chased for a response to these again in August, September and October.

In November the Applicant received an email from Colin David Matthews' solicitor, requesting further clarification regarding the plans for the Project. The Applicant responded and awaits further comments from the solicitor regarding the Heads of Terms. The Applicant

Plots 1_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 2b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR,

Colin David Matthews and Denise Kathleen Matthews

Rights: Rights to install, use, maintain, repair and renew an underground drinking water pipe. Rights to install, use, maintain, repair and renew an

36

chased again in December. 7_GR, 7a_GR,1_ER, 1a_ER, 2_ER, 2a_ER, 2b_ER, 3_ER, 3a_ER, 4_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER, 4c_ER, 5_ER, 6_ER, 1_JW, 2_JW

underground electricity supply; and all sporting, timber and mineral rights as contained in a Transfer dated 29 July 2011

Bespoke protective provisions were agreed between the parties in December 2014 and have been included in the 19 December 2014 iteration of the DCO.

Plots 1_MS, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 4_GR, 6_GR, 7_GR, 1a_ER, 2_ER, 2a_ER, 17_ER

UK Power Networks (Operations) Limited (now Eastern Power Networks plc)

Rights: in respect of equipment and apparatus.

In June 2014, the Applicant wrote to Eleco plc inviting it to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant. The Applicant chased again in August 2014. Throughout August, the Applicant and the Surveyor acting on behalf of Eleco plc engaged in correspondence, and in September 2014 a meeting was held between the Surveyor and the Applicant's solicitors in which the relevant rights enjoyed by Eleco plc were explained by the Applicant's solicitors in the context of the project.

In September 2014, the Applicant was made aware that parcels of land owned by Eleco plc are understood to be in the process of being purchased by a third party. The Applicant has engaged with that third party’s solicitors however has not received a substantive response.

Plot 3_GR Eleco plc

Rights: Rights to pass and repass for all purposes through, over and along the accessway.

In June 2014, the Applicant wrote to Energy Power Resources Limited inviting it to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant.

In July 2014, the Applicant submitted proposed heads of terms to Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP for consideration. A first draft of an agreement was issued in August 2014.

The Applicant and a representative from Energy Power Resources Limited (along with relevant legal representatives) attended a meeting in September 2014 to discuss the drafting of the agreement.

The agreement is now agreed between the parties, with engrossments in circulation. Completion is expected imminently.

It is agreed between the parties that on satisfactory

Plots 3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

Energy Power Resources Limited

Right: Right of access appurtenant to Oaksmere Business Park, Eye Airfield Industrial Estate

37

completion of the agreement, Energy Power Resources Limited will withdraw its relevant representation.

In June 2014, the Applicant wrote to EPR Eye Limited, inviting it to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant.

In July 2014, the Applicant submitted proposed heads of terms to Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP for consideration. A first draft of an agreement was issued in August 2014.

The Applicant and a representative on behalf of EPR Eye Limited (along with relevant legal representatives) attended a meeting in September 2014 to discuss the drafting of the agreement.

The agreement is now agreed between the parties, with engrossments in circulation. Completion is expected imminently.

It is agreed between the parties that on satisfactory completion of the agreement, EPR Eye Limited will withdraw its relevant representation.

Plots 3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

EPR Eye Limited

Rights: Covenants to not hold any public sale, market, public auction, car boot sale or other sale on the Access Roads or on the land at any time except on a Sunday. Rights to pass and repass with or without vehicles over and along the access roads. Rights to the free passage and running of services through the conduits serving the property. Rights of entry. Rights of support.

At the Preliminary Meeting held in July 2014, Birketts LLP approached the Applicant to state that they represented Tobar Group Trading Limited, and that Tobar Group Trading Limited benefited from rights across the aforementioned plots, however that they were not listed in the Book of Reference.

The Applicant undertook further due diligence, and established that Tobar Group Trading do in fact benefit from these rights, pursuant to an agreement with Roy Victor Humphrey. The Applicant therefore updated the Book of Reference to include these rights (July 2014).

In August 2014, the Applicant attempted to contact Birketts LLP and also issued a proposed draft agreement on broadly the same terms as Transam Trucking Limited. The Applicant continued to chase for a response.

In October 2014, Birketts LLP issued their comments. The Applicant circulated an updated agreement in November 2014 and Birketts LLP responded on 27 November 2014. The Applicant responded with further amends in December 2014. Following further correspondence received from Birketts LLP, the parties are now close to reaching agreement.

The agreement contains a provision whereby on completion, Tobar Group Trading Limited will withdraw its relevant representation.

Plots 3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

Tobar Group Trading Limited

Rights:

Rights to pass and repass, over and along the access roads.

In June 2014, the Applicant wrote inviting Transam Trucking Limited to enter in to an agreement.

In July 2014, the Applicant received confirmation that Birketts LLP would be acting. The Applicant issued proposed draft heads of terms to Birketts LLP in July

Plots 3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

Transam Trucking Limited

Rights: to pass and repass over and along the

38

2014. The Applicant continued to chase for a response, and in August 2014 issued a proposed draft agreement for review.

The Applicant continued to chase. In October 2014, Birketts LLP issued comments. The Applicant circulated an updated agreement, in November 2014 and Birketts LLP responded on 27 November 2014. The Applicant responded with further amends in December 2014. Following further correspondence received from Birketts LLP, the parties are now close to reaching agreement.

The agreement contains a provision whereby on completion, Transam Trucking Limited will withdraw its relevant representation.

accessway; water drainage rights. Gas supply rights.

In June 2014, the Applicant wrote inviting Triodos Renewables (Eye) Limited to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant.

The Applicant continued to chase for a response. In August 2014, Adrian Warman (of Triodos Renewables (Eye) Limited) contacted the Applicant confirming that they would be agreeable in principle to entering in to an agreement. Proposed draft heads of terms were issued in August 2014.

The Applicant continued to chase for a response, and in September 2014 received a telephone call from Mr Warman stating that he did not believe Triodos Renewables (Eye) Limited benefit from the rights listed in the Book of Reference. The Applicant has continued to try to engage with Triodos Renewables (Eye) Limited's appointed legal advisors (TLT) to progress the land issue.

Throughout October November and December, the Applicant and TLT engaged in email correspondence with a view to confirming Triodos's land position. The Applicant will continue to try and engage with TLT in this regard.

Plots 3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

Triodos Renewables (Eye) Limited

Plots 4_GR, 4a_GR, 5_ER

Unknown

Rights: Unknown restrictive covenants and easements as may have been imposed thereon before 17 January 1994 and are still subsisting and capable of being enforced registered under title SK136195

The Applicant wrote in September 2014, setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by Eye Wind Power Limited and inviting them to enter into an agreement with the Applicant.

The Applicant chased for a response in October, and

Plots 6_GR, 6a_GR

Eye Wind Power Limited

Rights: Right of access appurtenant to wind turbine sites on

39

received a response in November and commenced discussions with Eye Wind Power Limited.

In December 2014, Eye Wind Power Limited submitted a representation to PINS, reserving the right to make further representations pending satisfactory completion of an agreement. A draft agreement is in circulation and the Applicant's solicitors are in active discussion with Eversheds LLP (on behalf of Eye Wind Power Limited) regarding the negotiation of the agreement.

Eye Airfield

The Applicant has been in active discussions with National Grid Gas plc.

Protective Provisions have been agreed for the benefit of National Grid, and are included in Schedule 9, part 1 of the draft DCO.

National Grid and the Applicant have agreed side agreements and National Grid has removed its holding objection to the Project on 2 December 2014.

Plots 7_GR, 7a_GR

National Grid Gas plc

Rights: in respect of NTS mains. Rights granted in respect of a main or pipe for the transmission or storage of gas or other materials, and to pass over the land for the purposes of access for the benefit of unknown land.

The Applicant has been in active discussions with National Grid Electricity Transmission plc.

Protective Provisions have been agreed for the benefit of National Grid, and are included in Schedule 9, part 1 of the draft DCO.

National Grid and the Applicant have agreed side agreements and National Grid has removed its holding objection (save with regard to requirement 22 on commissioning the substation) to the Project on 2 December 2014.

Plots 13_ER, 14_ER, 16_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER, 19_ER

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc

Rights: rights in respect of the electrical line and rights of entry.

The Applicant wrote in October 2014 seeking confirmation that British Telecommunications plc was content with the proposed protection.

British Telecommunications plc responded in October, but it did not appropriately respond to the issues raised in the Applicant's correspondence. A further letter was issued in December, however no response has been received.

4b_ER and Plot 1_JW

British Telecommunications plc

Rights: in respect of overhead lines

The Applicant wrote in June 2014 setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by Yaxley Parish Council, inviting them to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant.

In August 2014, correspondence was exchanged between the Applicant and Yaxley Parish Council. In October 2014, the Applicant issued a proposed draft set of heads of terms.

Plot 5_ER Yaxley Parish Council

Rights: rights to the free and uninterrupted passage and running of water for the benefit of adjoining land.

The Applicant wrote in October, enclosing a copy of the general protective provisions to establish whether

Plot 13_ER, 14_ER,

Energis Communications

40

Energis Communications Limited was content with the proposed protection.

The Applicant has not received as response to this correspondence. The Applicant chased again in November and December.

16_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER and 19_ER

Limited

Rights: to enter the operational land, via a route to be agreed in respect of the telecommunications apparatus.

The Applicant wrote in June 2014, setting out the relevant rights enjoyed by St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance, inviting them to enter into an agreement with the Applicant.

The Applicant chased for a response in August 2014. Correspondence took place in September and in October 2014, the Applicant issued draft proposed heads of terms.

The Applicant and the St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance are now in agreement regarding the amount of compensation attributable to the value of the right to be suspended or extinguished. Further detailed discussion on the terms of the agreement are still outstanding. The Applicant will progress matters and continue to try to reach a final agreement.

16_ER St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance

Rights: Restrictive covenants and reserved rights not to erect any buildings on the land.

In June 2014, the Applicant wrote inviting Structural Holdings and Consultancy Limited to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant. The Applicant chased for a response in August, September, October, November and December.

Structural Holdings and Consultancy Limited contacted the Applicant's solicitor in December 2014, to discuss the issues raised in the correspondence sent to date. The Applicant continues to try and engage with Structural Holdings and Consultancy Limited in this regard.

3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

Structural Holdings and Consultancy Limited

Rights: to pass and repass, over and along the access roads; rights to the free passage and running of surface water, electricity, telephone and other services through the conducting media serving the property; Rights to enter for certain purposes. Right of support.

No Correspondence from Affected Persons

The Applicant wrote in June 2014, inviting Omnis Industries Limited to enter in to an agreement with the Applicant.

The Applicant chased for a response in August, September, October, November and December. No response has been received to date.

3_GR, 3a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 3_ER, 3a_ER

Omnis Industries

Rights: Right of access appurtenant to Oaksmere Business Park, Eye Airfield Industrial Estate

The Applicant wrote in June 2014. The Applicant chased in August, September, October, November and December. No response has been received to date.

1_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR,

Elizabeth Ann Baldwin and Thomas William Baldwin

41

2b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR, 1_ER, 1a_ER, 2_ER, 2a_ER, 2b_ER, 3_ER, 3a_ER, 4_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER, 4c_ER, 6_ER, 1_JW, 2_JW

Rights: Restrictive covenant to not obstruct conduits and free passage of water and soil. Rights for the free passage of water and soil (additional rights are in place re 3_GR; 3a_GR; 3_ER; 3a_ER; 6_GR and 6a_GR including a right of access. The rights of access of any party over 6_GR and 6a_GR will not be affected. Those with the benefit of rights of access over plot 3 will be diverted across plot 2b and 2 ER/GR).

42

Statutory Undertakers Sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008 Statutory Undertaker

Relevant Represe-ntation

Plot(s) Interest of Statutory Undertaker

Purpose: Extent, description, and situation of land or right to be acquired

Engagement of Section 127

Engagement of Section 138

Status

British Telecommunications PLC

None 4b_ER, 1_JW

Interest noted on title held by another party.

Includes rights in respect of Overhead Lines and Underground Cables

Temporary use of agricultural land for the laying and installation of the 400kV electrical cable circuit

Right to use the land and construct on the land a temporary access

No - British Telecommunications did not submit a Relevant Representation

Yes, in respect of relevant apparatus for the purpose of their undertaking

Part 3 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO contains protective provisions which provide suitable protection for BT's apparatus. It is not anticipated that that the authorised development will interfere in any way with BT's apparatus and/or rights but at this stage the possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is necessary to include powers to extinguish any right or remove any apparatus but made subject to the protective provisions in Schedule 9. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

Energis Communications Ltd

None 13_ER, 14_ER, 16_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER, 19_ER

Interest noted on title held by another party.

Includes the rights to enter the operational land to carry out works as may be necessary for the telecommunications

The right of entry for the Applicant for all purposes in connection with the laying, installation and use of the electrical cable

The construction, use and maintenance of an Electrical Connection

No – Energis Communications Limited did not submit a Relevant Representation

Yes, in respect of relevant right and possibly relevant apparatus in the land for the purpose of their

Part 3 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO contains protective provisions which provide suitable protection for Energis' rights and apparatus. It is not anticipated that that the authorised development will interfere in any way with Energis' apparatus and/or rights but at this stage the

43

Statutory Undertaker

Relevant Represe-ntation

Plot(s) Interest of Statutory Undertaker

Purpose: Extent, description, and situation of land or right to be acquired

Engagement of Section 127

Engagement of Section 138

Status

apparatus and for the transition of telecommunications signals

Compound

undertaking possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is necessary to include powers to extinguish any right or remove any apparatus but made subject to the protective provisions in Schedule 9. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd NOTE: the protective provisions are for the benefit of Eastern Power Networks plc 9

None 1_MS, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 4_GR, 6_GR, 7_GR, 1a_ER, 2_ER, 2a_ER, 17_ER

Interest noted on title held by another party

Includes a right in respect of equipment and apparatus

Construction maintenance and operation of the power generation plant

The laying, installation, use and maintenance of the 400kV electrical cable together with the right of entry

The laying, installation, use and maintenance of a high pressure gas pipeline and other ancillary equipment and apparatus, together with the right of entry

No – UK Power Networks (Operations) Limited did not submit a Relevant Representation

Yes, in respect of relevant right and relevant apparatus in the land for the purpose of their undertaking

The Applicant has incorporated bespoke protective provisions in to the draft DCO (19 December 2014) (Schedule 9, Part 4). It is not anticipated that that the authorised development will interfere in any way with Eastern Power Network's apparatus and/or rights but at this stage the possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is necessary to include powers to extinguish any right or remove any apparatus but made subject to the protective provisions in Schedule 9. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any

9 Eastern Power Networks plc is the licenced distribution network operating company for the area and in which the relevant apparatus is vested.

44

Statutory Undertaker

Relevant Represe-ntation

Plot(s) Interest of Statutory Undertaker

Purpose: Extent, description, and situation of land or right to be acquired

Engagement of Section 127

Engagement of Section 138

Status

Temporary use of land for the laying and installation of the 400kV electrical cable circuit and gas connection

The construction , use and maintenance of an Electrical Connection Compound

extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

British Gas Trading Ltd

None 1_MS, 1_GR, 1a_GR, 2_GR, 2a_GR, 2b_GR, 3_GR, 3a_GR, 4_GR, 4a_GR, 6_GR, 6a_GR, 7_GR, 7a_GR, 1_ER, 1a_ER, 2_ER, 2a_ER, 2b-ER, 3_ER, 3a_ER, 4_ER, 4a_ER, 4b_ER,

Interest noted on title held by another party

Includes the right to use conduits in on or over the land

Construction maintenance and operation of the power generation plant

The laying, installation, use and maintenance of the 400kV electrical cable together with the right of entry

The laying, installation, use and maintenance of a high pressure gas pipeline and other ancillary equipment and apparatus, together with the right of entry

Temporary use of land for the laying and installation of the 400kV electrical cable circuit

No – British Gas Trading Limited did not submit a Relevant Representation

Yes, to the extent that the rights held by British Gas Trading Limited and any apparatus are relevant rights and relevant apparatus (it is not clear from title deduction) in the land for the purpose of their undertaking

Part 2 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO contains protective provisions which provide suitable protection for British Gas' rights and any apparatus. It is not anticipated that that the authorised development will interfere in any way with British Gas' apparatus and/or rights but at this stage the possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is necessary to include powers to extinguish any right or remove any apparatus but made subject to the protective provisions in Schedule 9. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

45

Statutory Undertaker

Relevant Represe-ntation

Plot(s) Interest of Statutory Undertaker

Purpose: Extent, description, and situation of land or right to be acquired

Engagement of Section 127

Engagement of Section 138

Status

4c_ER, 6_ER, 1_JW, 2_JW

and gas connection

Right to use the land and construct on the land a temporary access and temporary turning head

Arqiva Telecommunications Asset Development Company Limited

Yes, Representation no. 42 dated 29 May 2014

N/A No interest listed in the Book of Reference (Arqiva are identified as a Category 3 (s44) person only)

N/A No – Telecommunications Asset Development Company Limited did make a Relevant Representation, however they do not have any rights / interests within the redline boundary.

No N/A

Anglian Water Services Limited

Yes, Representation no. 20 dated 12 May 2014

N/A

No rights listed in the Book of Reference (Anglian are identified as a Category 3 (s44) person only)

N/A No – Anglian Water did make a Relevant Representation, however they are not listed in the Book of Reference.10

No Part 2 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO contains protective provisions which provide suitable protection for Anglian Water Services Limited's rights and apparatus. It is not anticipated that that the authorised development will interfere Anglian Water Services Limited's apparatus and/or rights but at this

10 By virtue of the Private Sewer Transfer Regulations 2010 there may be as yet unmapped private sewers that are currently being added to the infrastructure network for Anglian Water, however there are no rights listed in the Book of Reference for Anglian Water Services Limited.

46

Statutory Undertaker

Relevant Represe-ntation

Plot(s) Interest of Statutory Undertaker

Purpose: Extent, description, and situation of land or right to be acquired

Engagement of Section 127

Engagement of Section 138

Status

stage the possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is necessary to include powers to extinguish any right or remove any apparatus but made subject to the protective provisions in Schedule 9. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

National Grid Gas plc

Yes, Representation no. 97 dated 6 June 2014

7_GR, 7a_GR

Interest noted on title held by another party.

Interest includes rights in respect of NTS mains.

The laying, installation, use and maintenance of a high pressure gas pipeline and other ancillary equipment and apparatus, together with the right of entry

Temporary use of land for the laying and installation of the gas connection

No – s127 is not engaged. National Grid Gas has withdrawn its Relevant Representation entirely in respect of the Project.

Yes, in respect of relevant right and relevant apparatus in the land for the purpose of their undertaking.

Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the draft DCO contains protective provisions which provide suitable protection for National Grid's rights and any apparatus. These are agreed with National Grid, as well as negotiated private treaty Side Agreements. National Grid Gas plc has confirmed (1 December 2014) that it has withdrawn its Relevant Representation completely in respect of the Project. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

National Grid Yes, 13_ER, Interest noted on title The laying, installation, National Grid Yes, in respect Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the draft

47

Statutory Undertaker

Relevant Represe-ntation

Plot(s) Interest of Statutory Undertaker

Purpose: Extent, description, and situation of land or right to be acquired

Engagement of Section 127

Engagement of Section 138

Status

Electricity Transmission plc

Representation no. 97 dated 6 June 2014

14_ER, 17_ER, 18_ER, 19_ER

held by another party

Interest includes rights to retain, use, maintain, repair, renew, inspect and remove the electrical line

use and maintenance of the 400kV electrical cable together with the right of entry and the right to construct a permanent means of access

The construction, use and maintenance of an Electrical Connection Compound

Electricity has confirmed that it is unable to fully withdraw its representation. However has committed to withdraw its representation in respect of any s127 / s138 issues. We therefore anticipate that s127 will not be engaged

of relevant right and relevant apparatus in the land for the purpose of their undertaking

DCO contains protective provisions which provide suitable protection for National Grid's rights and any apparatus. These are agreed with National Grid, as well as negotiated private treaty Side Agreements. NGET has confirmed (1 December 2014) that it has withdrawn its Relevant Representation in respect of s127 / s138 issues. Given the protective provisions in Schedule 9, the Secretary of State can be satisfied that any extinguishment or removal would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the authorised development.

48

ANNEX 2

LAND TAKE FIGURES FOR THE REFINED APPLICATION AND R EFINED GIS REDLINE BOUNDARIES 11

March 2014 Submission

(ha)

December 2014 Refined Application Submission

(ha)

December 2014 Refined

GIS Submission

(ha) Total Land Take

(Order Limits) 28.96 28.47 25.33

PGP Land Take (1_MS)

8.67 8.67 8.67

Gas Connection (1_GR - 7a_GR)

8.23 8.23 8.23

Electrical Connection (excluding the Electrical Connection Compound)

(1_ER - 13_ER)

5.89 5.89 6.06

Electrical Connection Compound

(13a_ER - 19_ER)

7.08 6.60 3.30

11 Area sizes shown in the above table are representative of the land it describes, the total land take for the Project is made up of components which are measured individually and are not to be used cumulatively to test the Project (Order Limits) area size.

49

ANNEX 3

FIELD BOUNDARY TABLE

50

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

FB112

20m / 102m

Hedgerow and earthworks within

Order Limits;

Possible below ground remains;

N/A N/A Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (20m)

Width of construction corridor and the

operational gap will be limited to c.10m

(c.5m for the access road and c.5m for the cable and drainage

etc)

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains;

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries

Plan. Retained boundary section to

be protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

not exceeded;

Total loss of c.10m comprising

c.10m hedgerow loss

c.10m earthworks loss

c.10m below ground loss

12 Note FB2, FB3, FB5, FB 8, FB 12, FB 15 and FB18 are all outside the Order Limits and so are not considered further

51

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

FB4

20m / 150m

Earthworks within Order Limits; no

hedgerow;

Possible below ground remains

N/A N/A Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (20m)

Width of construction corridor will be c.20m and the operational gap will be limited to c.10m (c.5m for the

access road and c.5m for the cable

and drainage)

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries

Plan. Retained boundary section to

be protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

not exceeded;

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains

Total loss of c.20m comprising

c.0m hedgerow loss

c.20m Earthworks loss

c.20m below ground loss

52

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

FB6

66m (RA), 23m (GISV) / 195m

N/A

N.B: Access Road runs adjacent to boundary with

variable stand-off (c. 10m at east end, c.3m

minimum stand-off from cable working areas at west end)

N/A N/A Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (66m – RA, up to 66m GISV)

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries Plan. Boundary to be

protected in construction, in accordance with

UpdatedCEMP, to ensure no accidental

damage;

RA

Total loss of c.0m

GISV

Total loss of c.0m

FB7

141m (RA), 123m (GISV) / 210m

Access Road and Cable Connection

pass within existing ‘gap’ towards south

end of the hedge (RA and GISV);

‘Gap’ = no hedgerow, no earthworks, possible below

ground remains;

Loss of up to 113m section of boundary within

Order Limits

Retained apart from loss of up to 10m of possible below-ground

remains – refer to Access Road and Cable Connection.

Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (141m

– RA, up to 141m GISV)

RA: N/A

GISV: the Order Limits/ works/ land plans have been

amended to align the internal access road

to the gap in FB7

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries Plan. Boundary to be

protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure no accidental

RA

Total loss of c.100 - 115m comprising

c.90 - 100m hedgerow loss

c.95 - 105m earthworks loss

c.100 – 115m below ground loss

GISV

Total loss of c.10m comprising

53

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

damage;

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains

c.0m hedgerow loss

c.0m earthworks loss

c.10m below ground loss

FB9

169m (RA),169m (GISV) / 217m

N/A Total loss within Order Limits - 169m of extant field boundary and possible below ground

remains

Loss of c. 20m of extant field

boundary (subject to confirmation of

suitable construction

methodology), and the loss of up to approx. 20m of

possible below ground remains

Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (169m

– RA, up to 169m GISV)

RA – N/A

GISV – Permanent boundary removal to be restricted to c.20m

to accommodate cables; Up to 10m of additional hedgerow to be coppiced only (i.e. not removed),

subject to arboricultural assessment;

Earthworks to be protected and

plated/bridged over for construction traffic, subject to

engineering/archaeol

RA

Total loss of c.169m

comprising

c.159m hedgerow loss

c.169m Earthworks loss

c.169 m below ground loss

GISV

Total permanent loss of c.25m comprising

c.25m hedgerow

54

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

ogical assessment;

The operational access would be 5m wide and require a 5

m gap subject to detailed design.

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries Plan. Boundary to be

protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure no accidental

damage;

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains

loss

c.25m earthworks loss

c.25m below ground loss

GISV

Total temporary loss of c.10m comprising

c.10m hedgerow loss

FB10

18m (RA, 0m (GISV) / 18m

N/A Total loss within Order Limits

N/A Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (18m – RA, up to 18m GISV)

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains

RA

Total loss of c.18m comprising

c.18m hedgerow

55

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

loss

c.18m earthworks loss

c.18m below ground loss

GISV

Total loss of c.0m

FB11

81m (RA), 0m (GISV) / 97m

N/A N/A N/A

Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (81m RA, up to 81m GISV)

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries

Plan. Retained boundary section to

be protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

not exceeded;

If a decommissioning requirement is imposed then a

commitment could be made to removing the landscaping planting.

RA

Total loss of c.0m

GISV

Total loss of c.0m

56

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

FB13

20.5m (RA), 0m (GISV) / 20.5m

N/A N/A N/A

None Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries

Plan. Retained boundary section to

be protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

not exceeded;

If a decommissioning requirement is imposed then a

commitment could be made to removing the landscaping planting.

RA

Total loss of c.0m

GISV

Total loss of c.0m

FB14

74m (RA), 0m (GISV) / 156m

N/A N/A N/A

None Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries

Plan. Retained boundary section to

be protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

RA

Total loss of c.0m comprising

GISV

Total loss of c.0m

57

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

not exceeded;

If a decommissioning requirement is imposed then a

commitment could be made to removing the landscaping planting.

FB16

137.5m / 137.5m

Removal of c.6m of boundary to facilitate construction access

N/A N/A Total loss of the boundary length within

the Order Limits (137.5m)

Use of HDD for cable to underpass the field

boundary - above and below ground remains avoided;

Use of tempoRAy land will not

compromise the remainder of FB16.

, Boundary recorded in Protected

Boundaries Plan. Retained boundary

section to be protected in

construction, in accordance with

Total loss of c.6m comprising

c.6m hedgerow loss

c.6m earthworks loss

c.6 m below ground loss

58

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

not exceeded;

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains

FB17

63.5m / 63.5m

Removal of c.13m of boundary to facilitate construction access

N/A N/A Total loss of the boundary length within the Order Limits (80m)

Use of HDD for cable to underpass the field

boundary - above and below ground remains avoided;

Removal of plot 2_JW

Boundary recorded in Protected Boundaries

Plan. Retained boundary section to

be protected in construction, in accordance with

revised CEMP, to ensure agreed loss is

not exceeded;

Total loss of c.13m comprising

c.13m hedgerow loss

c.13m earthworks loss

c.13 m below ground loss

59

Field Boundary No.

(incl.length within Order Limits / total

length

(as at 19 th December 2014)

Access Road and Cable Connection

– potential direct impacts

– (as at 19 th December 2014)

Refined Application

(RA)

– potential direct impacts,

(as at 19 th December

2014)

GIS Variant (GISV)

– potential direct impacts, (as at 19th December

2014)

Field boundary losses

(as at March 2014 - i,e assumed in the ES)

Refined mitigation proposed

(as at 19th December 2014)

Refined field boundary losses

(as at 19 th December 2014)

WSI agreed in SoCG with SCC / MSDC will deal with any below

ground remains

60

ANNEX 4

SUMMARY OF THE POSITION UNDER THE NATIONAL POLICY S TATEMENTS FOLLOWING THE CULTURAL HERITAGE ISSUE SPECIFIC HEAR ING

1. BALANCING EXERCISE (REFINED MITIGATION SCHEME)

1.1 YAXLEY FIELD SYSTEM (INCLUDING HA10)

1.2 Approach to assessment

1.3 In accordance with paragraph 5.8.10 of NPS EN-1, the Applicant has provided information to the Examination so that the extent of the impacts of the proposed development on the significance of the Yaxley field system can be adequately understood. Indeed, the Applicant considers that it has undertaken the only systematic and comprehensive assessment of the field system impacts submitted to the Examination.

1.4 The Applicant’s approach is most readily differentiated from the others by the fact that it also considers the relevance of the adverse impacts on the affected field system in NPS policy terms. In essence, the Applicant has taken its ES conclusions and applied them in the planning balance, including in the context of the relevant NPS EN-1 tests.

1.5 The other principal representations on this topic present conclusions on the acceptability of the impacts based solely on assessments of asset value and sensitivity; they do not consider the magnitude of impact in any systematic way or the availability of mitigation. Nor do they consider the compatibility of the Project with planning policy overall, in particular the NPS as the ExA/Secretary of State (SoS) is obliged to do. Certain objectors have proscribed a value to the asset(s) (eg high/of national importance) and jumped straight to a call for either a GIS substation or even preservation in situ without any consideration of:

1.5.1 what the change to the ES conclusion of the Applicant would be using the higher value for the asset(s) that various objectors have put forward;

1.5.2 based on that position, what the magnitude of impact would be and whether or not there is “substantial harm” to the asset(s); and

1.5.3 whatever the value of the asset(s) and magnitude of harm, how that should sit in the planning balance, particularly in the context of the relevant NPS EN-1 policies.

1.6 Field system value

1.7 At the issue specific hearing on the 10th December, Mr David Bonner (for the Applicant) explained that English Heritage’s designation scheduling selection guidance had been applied to establish whether the field system (including the field boundaries collectively referred to as HA10) is of “demonstrably equivalent significance” to a designated asset, in this case a scheduled monument (to meet the test at paragraphs 5.8.4 and 5.8.5 of NPS EN-1).

1.8 Mr Bonner explained that his assessment concluded that the field system was not “demonstrably” equivalent and that it is of regional significance overall, reflecting the ES conclusions and the latest position set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Applicant, MSDC and SCC. Mr Bonner explained that the “field system” was far broader than the local field boundaries within the ECC, a position which is compatible with the landscape description used by Professor Williamson (encompassing an area of approximately 20km2). Mr Bonner also reminded the ExA that English Heritage had encouraged the Applicant to consider impacts of the Project on the significance of the wider historic landscape.

61

1.9 Mr Humphries (for the Applicant) explained why it was inappropriate in the absence of evidence supporting national significance to apply the “precautionary principle”, an approach put forward by various opponents but not advocated by the NPS or elsewhere.

1.10 Impacts

1.11 Having demonstrated the value of the field system, the Applicant undertook professional assessment to establish the magnitude of impact on it. Opponents of the Project have suggested that the [AIS variant] substation is unacceptable because it would result in substantial harm. For harm to be “substantial”, it is the Applicant’s position that one would be looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced [see, for example, the approach in Bedford BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin) at para 25].

1.12 Taking account of the refined mitigation measures as shown on the revised AIS redline boundary and revised GIS redline boundary plans, the Applicant has concluded that the Electrical Connection (including Access Road and AIS variant substation) would result in the impacts on the field system as a whole being less than substantial in magnitude and this conclusion is compatible with those presented within the ES. The Project would not erase the significance of the Yaxley field system, nor would it come close to doing so.

1.13 Balancing impacts and benefits

1.14 Paragraphs 5.8.14 and 5.8.15 of EN-1 only apply where substantial harm or loss to significance to designated assets (or those of equivalent significance) would arise. As it has been demonstrated that the field system is of regional value and the magnitude of impact on the asset(s) is less than substantial, the Applicant does not consider it appropriate to apply the “wholly exceptional” test in EN-1 paragraph 5.8.14, nor the related “substantial public benefits” test described at paragraph 5.8.15. Nevertheless, in accordance with section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (“the Act”), the ExA/SoS must still be satisfied that the adverse impacts of the development are outweighed by its benefits and that the Project is overall in accordance with the NPS.

1.15 The benefits are more fully explained in “PPL’s comments on other parties’ Deadline 5 submission”, submitted to the Examination on 2nd December 2014. These primarily relate to the Project’s contribution to meeting urgent UK energy and climate change policy objectives set out in 3.3 of EN-1. The Applicant has explained in its 2nd December submission why the ExA/SoS must afford the Project’s benefits substantial weight in accordance with paragraph 3.1.4 of EN-1. Moreover, that the flexible operating profile of the power station enhances rather than diminishes its value.

1.16 The Applicant recognises that the adverse nature and duration of impacts to the Yaxley field system resulting from the AIS variant substation weighs against the Project. However, it is the Applicant’s view that these impacts are far outweighed in the planning balance by the substantial public benefits of the Project overall; benefits of national significance. In relation to the GIS variant, the Applicant’s view is that the impacts are, again, far outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the Project overall.

2. ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

2.1 The Applicant recognises that there are a range of different views on both the value of the field system and the magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project.

62

2.2 To assist the ExA/SoS in the event that it is persuaded by the arguments of the objectors, the Applicant has undertaken an alternative policy assessment and balancing exercise: this is summarised briefly below.

2.3 Field system value and Impacts

2.4 The Applicant acknowledges that if the ExA/SoS finds that the field boundaries are of national importance then paragraphs 5.8.14 and 5.8.15 of EN-1 may need to be considered. In considering the applicability of that policy approach, the ExA/SoS would need to be satisfied that substantial harm or loss of significance would result, and if so, whether it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that loss or harm.

2.5 Balancing impacts and benefits

2.6 If the ExA/SoS considers that the asset has been demonstrated to be of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument and that substantial harm would be caused, it is still the Applicant’s view that the scale and extent of the harm and loss overall is outweighed by the substantial public benefits associated with the Project, and as such, the “wholly exceptional” test would be passed. Furthermore, the Applicant explained at the issue specific hearings in October why it was not practicable to pursue alternative connection options on the local distribution network operated system (DNO) or other National Electricity Transmission System (NETS) connection options.

2.7 Alternatively, the ExA/SoS may conclude that the field system is of national importance/demonstrable equivalence to a scheduled monument but that the magnitude of impact on it as a whole is less than substantial. In this instance, there would be no need to apply the EN-1 “wholly exceptional"/substantial harm or loss tests. The ExA/SoS would need only apply the section 104 balancing exercise. In such an event, the Applicant considers that the benefits would still outweigh the adverse impacts.

2.8 The GIS

2.9 In the course of undertaking the balancing exercise, the ExA/SoS may decide that the GIS represents an alternative, reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits, but with less harm. Under such circumstances, the ExA/SoS would need to carefully consider the additional costs of developing the GIS as part of its own balancing exercise. The Applicant has previously indicated that the environmental benefits of a non-AIS technology variant substation do not outweigh the extra economic impacts – see the Applicant’s response to Examining Authority First Written Question 2.5, Second Written Question 2.1 and the Applicant’s The Written Summary of the Applicant’s oral case put at the Issue Specific Hearings (16th – 17th October 2014) paras 3.56 to 3.63.

3. DESIGNATED ASSETS

3.1 In assessing the Project, the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010 oblige the ExA/SoS to consider the setting of heritage assets such as listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments, and to have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

3.2 Paragraph 5.8.11 of EN-1 explains how the ExA/SoS should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development, including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset, and the Applicant has again provided a range of evidence to enable such assessment, including descriptions of significance for each asset and an assessment of the contribution of their setting to that significance (paragraph 5.8.8 of EN-1).

63

3.3 The assessment confirms that in no case would the Project result in substantial harm or loss to significance to any listed buildings or other designated cultural heritage assets. Consequently, the “wholly exceptional” test referred to in paragraphs 5.8.14 and 15 of EN-1 would not require further consideration. Paragraph 5.8.18 of EN-1 provides that where development does not preserve the setting, the harm should be weighed against the benefits, which again reflects section 104 of the Act.

3.4 Nevertheless, there would be adverse impacts on the setting of a number of designated assets and the applicant recognises that the ExA/SoS should have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings and other designated assets. It is clearly a matter for the Inspector and the Secretary of State what weight they attached to any harm to the setting of the Listed Buildings. However, it is the Applicant’s view that even if the Inspector and the Secretary of State attach substantial weight to the adverse impacts of the project on the understanding and appreciation of these assets, these impacts are outweighed in the planning balance by the substantial public benefits of the Project, again of national significance.

3.5 At the Examination hearing on the 10th December, Ms Clare Hennessey explained that the provision of landscaping mitigation/screening in particular would further reduce the magnitude of impacts on designated assets and this should be taken into account.

4. OVERALL CONCLUSION

4.1 Paragraph 4.1.2 of NPS EN-1 confirms a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs. That presumption applies unless any more specific and relevant policies set out in the relevant NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused. It is the Applicant’s view that there are no other policy reasons why consent should be withheld. The Applicant does not consider that there are any other important or relevant considerations including the relevant National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or local development plan policies which require an alternative position to be taken.

4.2 The Applicant does not consider that development consent for the Project or any part of the Project should be withheld for any reason, including on the basis of the adverse cultural heritage impacts associated with the Electrical Connection and for the reasons set out in the Planning Statement (Document 10.1).

4.3 The Applicant does recognise however that the ExA/SoS may decide, based upon the available evidence, that either the Refined Application of 5 December 2014 or the GIS variant of 5 December 2014 represents an alternative, reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits, but with less harm.

64

ANNEX 5

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING ("HDD") AND FB9

This explanation relates only to the GIS variant substation, as it would be necessary to remove all of FB9 within the order to facilitate the construction of an AIS Substation.

HDD utilises a remotely operable directional drilling head that can be ‘steered’ underground to drill along a preferred path and avoid obstacles, both underground and on the ground surface. The technique allows for a cable duct to be installed during the drilling process, through which the cable itself can be fed.

The benefit of this technique is that it can be initiated from the surface (with just a small initial surface excavation), and has minimal impact on the surface of the cable route. However, due to the nature of the technique, it does also have a number of drawbacks, including cost and cable spacing.

Cost impact

HDD up to nine cables under FB9 vs the current preferred technique of open trenching, would increase the costs for this element of the project by up to nine times.

Below ground archaeology impact - Cable Spacing

The space that is required to install the cables using HDD is also greater. When excavating trenches into which cables are to be laid, it is common practice to space these trenches at c.5m centres with 3 cables laid flat in each trench, with each trench approximately 1.5m wide. However, in the case of HDD, each individual cable is required to be drilled at a minimum distance of c.5m. As such, the underground spread of cables between the Sealing End Compound and Substation could be up to 45m, whereas cables laid within open cut trenches would require a total spread of c.20m (excluding construction swath).

Consequently, to reconnect the HDD sections to the open cut trenches, it will be necessary to excavate No.18 c.1m wide trenches (9 each side of the hedge) to taper the HDD cables back into the position of the open cut trench as shown in Figure 1 below.

Whilst an HDD scenario would give rise to no direct physical impact on the historic field boundary, a) it would give rise to direct impacts on potential below-ground archaeology along open-cut trenches of greater length than would be required if the open-cut scenario (45 m vs 20 m) were used along the whole connection, and b) it would additionally retain the inherent risk, albeit low, of indirect effects resulting from ground vibration (resulting from each HDD) along a 45m length of the boundary. By comparison, the open-cut scenario across the boundary a) would give rise to the loss of a short-cross-section of the boundary (20 m) and b) would give rise to direct impacts on potential below-ground archaeology for a short distance to either side.

The Applicant therefore believes that the open-cut scenario approach is a suitable and acceptable method for crossing FB9 as a) all impacts are contained locally over the shortest distance both across and along the boundary, b) works can be carried out in a controlled and observable manner allowing any potentially buried archaeology to be recorded, and c) the significant increase in cost of HDD vs open trenching.

It should also be noted that regardless of the position with the laying of cables, a 5m gap in FB9 will be required in any event in order to allow for access to the Sealing End Compound.

Figure 1 - Schematic sketch illustrating the greater quantity of trenching required to facilitate HDD techniques under the field boundary compared to exc avating trenches through the field boundary

65

66

ANNEX 6

INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT

4.4 Paragraph 4.4.1 of NPS EN-1 confirms that “[f]rom a policy perspective this NPS does not contain any general requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option”.

4.5 Paragraph 4.4.2 of NPS EN-1 acknowledges that applicants are obliged to include in their ES, as a matter of fact, information about the main alternatives they have studied. This should include an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental, social and economic effects and including, where relevant, technical and commercial feasibility. The NPS notes, moreover, that in some circumstances there are specific legislative requirements, notably under the Habitats Directive, for the Secretary of State to consider alternatives.

4.6 Paragraph 4.4.3 of NPS EN-1 notes that "given the level and urgency of need for new energy infrastructure, the [Secretary of State] should, subject to any relevant legal requirements (e.g. under the Habitats Directive) which indicate otherwise, be guided by the following principles when deciding what weight should be given to alternatives:

4.6.1 the consideration of alternatives in order to comply with policy requirements should be carried out in a proportionate manner;…

4.6.2 alternative proposals which mean the necessary development could not proceed, for example because the alternative proposals are not commercially viable …, can be excluded on the grounds that they are not important and relevant to the [Secretary of State’s] decision…"

4.7 NPS EN-2, however, makes clear (para 2.2.1) that “it is for energy companies to decide which applications to bring forward and the government does not seek to direct applicants to particular sites for fossil fuel generation stations.”

4.8 Section 5 of the Environmental Statement (document reference 6.1) outlines the main alternatives considered. These are:

4.8.1 Strategic alternatives

(a) Alternative development sites

4.8.2 Local alternatives

(a) Alternative Power Generation Plant layouts and technologies

(b) Alternative gas connections

(c) Alternative electrical connection

4.9 The Local alternatives are addressed in section 5 of the Environmental Statement

(document reference 6.1) and the Electrical Connection Siting Report (document reference 10.3).

4.10 Further information is provided below outlining the Applicant’s site selection process for the Project

67

4.11 Key factors in determining site selection

4.12 The following key factors are applied throughout the site selection process, but are principally brought into play once the number of sites has been distilled down into a manageable number of around 20.

4.13 Key factors considered during the site selection were broadly fourfold: technical , environmental , economic , and whether or not the proposal would be in line with local planning policy.

4.13.1 Technical criteria: To explain in more detail, two main factors were taken into consideration in relation to technical constraints: a site of up to 10 hectares (i.e. large enough to support a power generation plant of up to 299 MW and integral infrastructure), constraints in term of accessing gas and electricity connections e.g. topography / rail tracks.

4.13.2 Environmental criteria: From an environmental perspective, the site must have due regard to close sensitive receptors (to avoid unnecessary impacts from noise and visual disturbance), the current make up of the surrounding area (to limit impacts on the landscape character of the area), previous site uses and land quality (to avoid sterilisation of the best and most versatile agricultural land or mineral assets) and proximity to sensitive ecological habitats.

4.13.3 Economic criteria: Proximity of a site to appropriate gas and electrical connection points. A connection opportunities buffer for connection to gas and electrical infrastructure was set at 5 km in order to reduce the cost and environmental impact of the project and develop a cost effective solution to the UK consumer. Technology choice (i.e. Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, Combined Heat and Power, Reciprocating Gas Engines and Simple Cycle Gas Turbine) for the Power Generation Plant when running at up to 1500 hrs per year was also a factor.

4.13.4 Local planning policy : The Applicant was keen to ensure that the Project would broadly be in accordance with local planning policies, so a high level assessment was undertaken during the site selection process.

4.14 Site selection process

4.15 In 2010 the Applicant began looking for sites to locate 299 MW Power Generation Plants. (It should be noted that at this stage the Applicant had not yet identified the technology of choice for the gas fired power station – discussed in section 5 of the Environmental Statement (document reference 6.1)). In 2012 the Applicant identified 4 sites to take forward to application, including Eye Airfield.

4.16 The process for identifying those sites was as follows. The following steps were undertaken to identify appropriate sites:

4.16.1 Stage 1 - Identification of a database of sites

4.16.2 A database of brownfield sites throughout England was identified from the National Land Use Database (of Previously Developed Land).

4.16.3 This yielded more than 24,000 sites of varying size and shape.

4.16.4 Stage 2 – Further identification of sites and strat egic decision to locate sites south of the Humber

4.16.5 The Applicant made a strategic decision, driven by National Grid’s transmission use of system (TNUoS) charging zones, which incentivises

68

developers of electrical generation to locate as close as possible to large sources of demand, to locate the Project to the south of the Humber.

4.16.6 A land agent was employed to identify sites and subsequently help with land negotiations.

4.16.7 In addition to the employment of the land agent, a “call for sites” was issued to a variety of estate agents and land agents.

4.16.8 This resulted in a reduction of potential sites to some 15,000

4.16.9 Stage 3 – Application of high level screening crite ria and creation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) database

4.16.10 A GIS database, which mapped the 400 kV overhead lines and cables, 132 kV overhead lines, and the national and local gas distribution networks throughout England and Wales was used

4.16.11 Sites with an area of 10 ha and greater were then plotted on to the GIS

4.16.12 A buffer of 5 km was then applied to the electrical connections and gas pipelines. Where these buffers crossed and sites of the relevant size met, these sites were taken forward to a more fine-grained assessment.

4.16.13 Stage 3 resulted in just over 600 sites being identified.

(a) Of the ~ 600 sites considered during the site selection process, 28 separate sites (including the former Eye Airfield) were identified between Ipswich and Norwich. Sites in other parts of the country have led to another three DCO projects being progressed by sister companies of Progress Power Limited.

4.16.14 Stage 4 – Fine grained assessment and robust applic ation of the key factors for assessment as outlined at the beginning of this note.

4.16.15 A more fine-grained assessment was then undertaken of the 600 sites referred to above including:

(a) Site visits

(b) Meetings with local authorities to understand if this type of project would meet local planning policies / would be supported in principle

(i) It was typical that clusters of sites (up to five or six) were located within a particular local authority.

(c) Grid connection studies

(d) High level environmental impact assessments

(i) Habitat review

(ii) Flood Risk

(e) Meetings with National Grid, Distribution Network Operators and gas distribution network operators

(f) Discussions with land owners to determine if land was for sale

69

4.16.16 A number of sites were rejected for the following reasons (this is not an exhaustive list):

(a) Sites access concerns

(b) Close proximity to residential receptors

(c) Obvious engineering difficulties with gas and electricity connections

(d) Sites already identified for housing development

(e) Lack of grid capacity in the distribution network

(f) Sites too close to European Sites (e.g. SAC and SSSI)

(g) Sites in a Flood Risk Zone

(h) Advice from the local planning officers

(i) Land was not for sale, though it should be noted that not all landowners were available for discussion. Promising sites where the landowner could not be contacted were left as potential sites and progressed at Stage 5.

4.16.17 The more fine-grained assessment allowed the Applicant to focus down to a shortlist of 22 high graded sites and enter into discussions with landowners over the potential sale of these sites.

4.16.18 18 of these 22 high graded sites are commercially sensitive and sites which the Applicant may revisit at a future date, but for the purposes of this note, the Applicant is content to give a broad location of these sites as follows. The 18 were located in the following geographic locations:

(a) 2 in North Warwickshire

(b) 2 in Central Bedfordshire

(c) 1 in Peterborough

(d) 2 in Aylesbury Vale

(e) 2 in Wychavon

(f) 2 in Bedford Borough

(g) 1 in Nuneaton and Bedworth

(h) 1 in Market Harborough

(i) 2 in Teignbridge

(j) 3 in Hinkley and Bosworth

4.16.19 Stage 5 – Distilling the 22 sites to the four sites that have been taken forward by the Applicant

4.16.20 The principle reasons for the reduction from 22 sites to the four that have been progressed are as follows:

70

(a) Land not for sale. Land owners that were not contactable at Stage 4, were subsequently contacted, but were not interested in a sale.

(b) The Applicant was looking for a 5 year option on any site. In some instances, 3 year options were offered by the land owner. These were rejected by the Applicant

(c) In some cases, the land owner would only sell the land outright and wasn’t interested in an option agreement.

(d) Sites where a 5 year option was negotiable were prioritised by cost and the terms of the offer.

4.16.21 The Applicant is currently proposing to take four sites through the Development Consent Order process, being:

(a) Progress Power – currently in Examination (ends 24 January 2015)

(b) Hirwaun Power – currently in Examination (ends 23 January 2015)

(c) Millbrook Power – currently in Pre Application (target submission to PINS – Q1 2015)

(d) Abergelli Power - currently in Pre Application (target submission to PINS – Q1 2015)

4.17 Why the Applicant selected the former Eye Airfield

4.18 The former Eye Airfield was considered suitable for the siting of a 299 MW gas fired power station for the following reasons:

4.18.1 Close proximity (<1km) to the gas National Transmission System;

4.18.2 Close proximity (<1.5km) to a high voltage electrical transmission infrastructure;

4.18.3 The site is within an existing industrial estate;

4.18.4 The site is surrounded by similar industrial developments including the Eye Chicken Litter Power Station;

4.18.5 The area is identified in the emerging EADF as an area that MSDC has aspirations to develop as an energy park (note: this does not indicate that MSDC sold the site for development, the land is in private ownership); and

4.18.6 There is more than adequate space on site to develop the Power Generation Plant and integral infrastructure.

71

ANNEX 7

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES MADE TO THE APPLICATION OVER THE COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION AND CONFIRMATION THAT THEY DO NOT C ONSTITUTE MATERIAL

CHANGES

DATE CHANGE COMMENTARY

4 September 2014

Confirmation that Applicant is to use Dry Low NOx

This change was requested by third parties, discussed at the Hearings, sits within the existing Order Limits and reduces the environmental effects of the Project. As such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.

15-16 October 2014

Commitment to the removal of A140 Junction during operations in reaction to SCC Highways

This change was requested by third parties, discussed at the Hearings, sits within the existing Order Limits and reduces the environmental effects of the Project (as land will be reinstated). As such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.

Increase in visibility splays (within the existing Order Limits) of the Potash Lane/Castleton Way Junction in reaction to SCC Highways

This change was requested by third parties, has been made public via various Examination documents, sits within the existing Order Limits and improves the current junction. As such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.

24 October 2014 Submission of amended figures to reflect reduced size water tanks in line with commitment to Dry Low NOx

This change was requested by third parties, discussed at the Hearings, sits within the existing Order Limits and reduces the environmental effects of the Project. As such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.

5 December 2014 Removal of plot 2_JW and associated turning circle as a result of the removal of the A140 Junction prior to final commissioning

This change flows from the removal of the A140 Junction, reduces the scope of the compulsory acquisition of land that was sought in the Application and has been discussed with the landowners. As

72

such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.

Refinement of Application Order Limits

This change was discussed at the Hearings, reduces the Application Order Limits (and the scope of the land to be compulsorily acquired) and reduces the environmental effects of the Project. As such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.

Refinement of Order Limits for GIS Variant

This change was discussed at the Hearings, reduces the Application Order Limits (and the scope of the land to be compulsorily acquired) and reduces the environmental effects of the Project. As such, this does not constitute a material change to the Application.