Development Control Committee
Special Meeting to be held on 27th January 2010
Part 1 - Item No. 4
Electoral Division affected:
Wyreside
Hazardous Substance Consent Application: HSC/09/01
Hazardous Substances Consent application for the underground storage of
1.2 million tonnes of natural gas and associated facilities including the
construction of an above ground compressor station and pipelines. Preesall
Saltfield, Stalmine/Preesall, Wyre Estuary
Contact for further information:
Stuart Perigo, 01772 531948, Environment Directorate
[email protected]
Executive Summary
Application - The application is for Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) for the
underground storage of 1.2 million tonnes of natural gas associated with a planning
application for the development of underground caverns to store gas and
associated above ground infrastructure (ref 02/09/0159). The planning application
includes:












6 (initially 7 but subsequently amended) multiwell locations to create
underground salt caverns by solution mining.
Creation of caverns up to a maximum of 36 to store up to 10 million standard
cubic metres of natural gas each) (initially 42 but subsequently amended).
Compressor station compound comprising of two compressor buildings
ancillary equipment access roads and car parking area.
Seawater pump station compound comprising a pumping station stand by
generator and switchgear building transformers and ancillary infrastructure
access roads and car parking area.
Northern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump
station building a switchgear and standby generator building transformers a
de-brine facility ancillary infrastructure access roads and car parking areas.
Southern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump
station building a switchgear and standby generator building transformers a
de-brine facility ancillary infrastructure access roads and car parking areas.
Reception compound comprising the control building laydown area for
materials and equipment.
Gas manifold and distribution infrastructure.
Seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood fish dock to the perusal site
Brine discharge pipeline from the perusal site to a point approximately 2.3km
offshore to a two port diffuser.
Four power communication control pipelines from the Fleetwood dock to the
perusal site.
Electricity cables from the united utilities switchgear at the Stanah switchyard
2





to the new electricity substation.
Temporary drilling compounds to the Fleetwood fish dock and at the Stanah
switchyard.
Extension to sea wall at west way to accommodate brine outfall and new
observation platform.
Pipeline link to interconnector.
Comprehensive landscape scheme.
New access road from A588 and new upgraded internal access road within
the site.
at Preesall Saltfield, Stalmine/Preesall, Wyre Estuary.
Recommendation – Summary
That having first taken into consideration all the information submitted in connection
with the application, the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The application contains insufficient information to:
I. Properly assess and ensure the geology of the area is capable of
accommodating the proposed development;
II. Demonstrate its relationship to former solution mining activities or surface
development; and
III. Establish there is no opportunity for migrating gas through the geology or via
former mining activities;
contrary to Policies 2, and 71 of the LMWLP.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not present
an unacceptable risk of gas migration given the relationship of the proposal to
former operations and its proximity to residential areas on the east side of the
estuary and the more densely populated Fleetwood peninsula throughout its
operation, decommissioning and long term aftercare management contrary to
Policies 2 and 3 of the LMWLP.
3. The failure to provide an adequate risk assessment for the proposal would result
in considerable and understandable fear and distress within the local
communities attributable to the nature of the proposal and the potential
consequences of any accident occurring and would be contrary to Policy 2 of the
LMWLP.
4. The proposal would not maintain appropriate distances between establishments
and areas of public use contrary to the provisions of the SEVESO II Directive
and that any measures to maintain appropriate distances could only be achieved
by the closure of a section of the Wyre Way within the application boundary.
Background
There is a complex mineral extraction planning history in the Preesall area initially
associated with the extraction of brine by solution mining to serve the former ICI
works at Hillhouse in Fleetwood and more recently associated with proposals to
3
create underground caverns by solution mining for the storage of natural gas. This
application relates to a proposal for underground gas storage in caverns created by
solution mining which is the subject of a planning application reported on the agenda
(ref 02/09/0159)
This report relates to an application for Hazardous Substance Consent (HSC) to
store 1.2 million tonnes of gas in underground caverns. The application must be
considered in tandem with the planning application for the creation of caverns in salt
by solution mining.
A summary of the more recent history relating to the proposal to create caverns for
gas storage and for HSC associated with such is set out in the 'History' section of
this report.
Applicant’s Proposal
The proposal is for the large-scale storage of natural gas with a projected maximum
content of 1.2 million tonnes (described as 10 million standard cubic metres per
cavern), at a temperature of up to 50C at a pressure of up to 80 bar absolute, in an
unspecified number of underground caverns to be created by solution mining in salt
layers. The development would extend over an area of 505.6 hectares. Although the
locations of the caverns are not identified in the application, the planning application
states that up to 36 caverns would be created from six drilling compounds
accommodating up to six wellheads each.
The Hazardous Substance Consent (HSC) application has been submitted in
tandem with the planning application for the creation of the caverns by solution
mining, above ground associated pumping and compressor stations and associated
pipelines. The HSC application refers to the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) to that application, which outlines the potential environmental impacts of the
proposal and mitigation measures to be taken to minimise any adverse impacts. The
HSC application is accompanied by a supporting statement setting out the planning
history; an overview of the proposed scheme; the need for the proposed scheme;
health and safety issues; the applicant's safety policy; and the planning policy
context. Supporting documentation has also been submitted in respect of gas
releases and thermal radiation effects associated with wellheads and associated
pipe work ('Consequence Modelling from Well Heads’). The boundaries of the two
applications are common.
Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) has been submitted in support of
the planning application and the application for HSC. The most relevant part of the
SEI for the purposes of the HSC relates to hydro geological and geological
information. Further information has been submitted in respect of geology and
amended plans have been submitted in respect of a change to the application
boundary and a change to the internal layout of some of the plant and equipment to
reflect changes that were similarly made to the application boundary. The internal
changes included the relocation of the northern booster pumping station and the
reduction of wellhead compounds from 7 to 6.
A series of pipelines would connect the wellheads and each gas storage cavern to a
compressor station, which would be connected to the national gas transmission
(NTS) network in the vicinity of St Michael’s-on-Wyre. This connection does not form
4
part of the current proposal for HSC nor is the subject of the planning application for
the creation of the caverns and gas storage. The interconnecting pipeline to the NTS
is the subject of a planning application that is currently before Wyre Borough
Council.
There are no submissions accompanying the application to indicate that level of
residual risk associated with the development, or its possible effects other than those
forming part of the planning application and supporting statement to the application.
Description and Location of Site
The HSC application boundary reflects the boundary of the planning application.
It extends approximately from the mid point of the Wyre Estuary extending from the
sewerage works in the north, incorporating Arm Head, Barnaby's Marsh, Burrows
Marsh and as far as the proposed compressor station in the south adjacent to
Burrows Farm. The area extends inland to Cote Walls Farm. The area is shown on
the attached plan.
A full description of the overall site is provided as part of the planning application
report.
Legislative Background
EEC Directive 96/82/EC requires Member State's to introduce controls to prevent
major accidents, which involve dangerous substances, and to limit their
consequences for man and the environment. It requires the identification of lower
and upper tier establishments where dangerous substances are present. Top tier
establishments where the quantity of dangerous substances exceeds the specified
quantity are required to prepare a safety report, provide public access to the report,
prepare testing of on-site and off-site emergency plans and inform members of the
public likely to be affected by a major accident. The Health and Safety Executive
control these requirements.
Article 12 of the Directive requires land use planning controls to apply to both upper
and lower tier establishments to ensure that the objectives of preventing major
accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in
land use planning policies. These objectives are to be pursued through the siting of
new establishments.
In the UK there is a system of control through the HSC process under the provisions
of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. The provisions to this legislation
give hazardous substance authorities the opportunity to consider whether the
proposed storage or use of the proposed quantity of the hazardous substance is
appropriate in a particular location, having regard to the risks arising to persons in
the surrounding area and the environment. In this instance, as the planning
application is a 'County Matter' the County Council is deemed to be the hazardous
substance authority. In dealing with such an application the County Council must
have regard to any material considerations and in particular, but without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing:
a) To any current or contemplated use of the land to which the application
relates;
5
b) To the way in which land in the vicinity is being used or is likely to be used;
c) To any planning permission that has been granted for development of land in
the vicinity;
d) To the provisions of the development plan;
e) To any advice which the Health and Safety Executive have given following
consultations in pursuance with Regulations under Section 7(2) (Section 9 of
the Hazardous Substances Act 1990).
Where there is a planning application and a HSC application being considered
together, it may not be possible to act upon one authorisation without the other. The
guidance recommends that related applications be dealt together.
The HSC controls do not duplicate the requirements of the Health and Safety Act.
Rather, the controls acknowledge that even after all reasonably practicable
measures have been taken to ensure compliance with Health and Safety legislation
there will remain the residual risk of an accident that cannot entirely be eliminated.
The HSC controls seek to ensure that this residual risk, to people in the vicinity or to
the environment, is taken into account before a hazardous substance is allowed to
be present in a controlled quantity. The extent of the risk in any particular case will
depend upon where and how a hazardous substance is to be present; and the
nature of existing and prospective uses of the application site and its surroundings.
The Health and Safety Executive are required to advise local authorities on the
nature and severity of the residual risk to persons in the vicinity arising from the
presence of the hazardous substance and the Environment Agency are required to
advise on the risk to the environment.
Site History
There is an extensive history of brine workings in the area to the east of the estuary,
associated with the former ICI plant at Hillhouse. The earliest application dates back
to 1947 with subsequent permissions for brine pumping up to 1998. These
operations have now all ceased, although above ground wellheads are still evident.
There is clear evidence at the surface of ground settlement and subsidence
associated with the past workings, most particularly in the eastern part of the
proposed site. Planning permission was also granted and implemented for the
storage of mercury waste within one of the previously worked salt cavities.
An application was made in 1998 to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for
the construction of a gas pipeline from Burrow’s Farm to St Michael’s-on-Wyre, in
connection with the proposed Fleetwood Power Station. The DTI has confirmed that
no consent was issued and the application has now lapsed.
Two applications for HSC and two planning applications for the creation of caverns
and gas storage facilities have previously been submitted to the County Council.
An application for HSC was submitted in September 2004 (HSC/04/01). The
application was refused on 3rd December 2004 and an appeal was lodged.
6
An application for HSC was submitted in April 2005 (HSC/05/01). An appeal was
lodged against the failure of the County Council to determine the application. The
County Council resolved to object to the application on 26th July 2005. Following a
public inquiry, the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal on 16th October 2007.
A planning application for the creation of caverns by solution mining to store natural
gas and associated above ground infrastructure was submitted in 2003 in
conjunction with HSC/04/01 (ref 02/03/1455). An appeal was lodged against nondetermination of the application but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn.
A further planning application for the creation of caverns by solution mining to store
natural gas and associated above ground infrastructure was submitted in December
2004 (ref 02/04/1415). An appeal was similarly lodged against the non-determination
of the application.
The main issues considered by the Secretary of State were the following:











Need, alternatives and principle of development
Geology, storage technology, mining industry
Risk (gas migration/explosion), risk assessment, fear as a material
consideration
Sustainability of the working/disposal of mineral salt
Impact on internationally, nationally, and locally designated sites and
protected species
Landscape and visual amenity
Impact on the Wyre Estuary/Wyre Way and other footpaths
Highway safety and highway impact on amenity
Noise impact on areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary
Economic/tourism impact
Human rights
The Inspector to the public inquiry and the Secretary of State concluded that the
proposal would not accord with the objectives of the SEVESO II Directive, that any
measures to maintain appropriate distances could only be achieved by the closure of
this length of the Wyre Way, and that this amounts to sufficient reason to refuse the
application for HSC. She also considered that the accuracy and adequacy of the
current level of geological knowledge of the site is insufficient to allow the granting of
a meaningful HSC, and that this amounted to a further reason justifying a refusal of
HSC. The Secretary of State dismissed the appeals on 16th October 2007. A copy of
the Secretary of States decision is appended to the report on the planning
application.
A planning application for the development of underground caverns to store gas
and associated above ground infrastructure at Preesall Saltfield, Stalmine/Preesall,
Wyre Estuary was submitted in March 2009 (ref 02/09/0159). The proposal
includes the development of:


6 (initially 7 but subsequently amended) multiwell locations to create
underground salt caverns by solution mining.
Creation of caverns (up to a maximum of 36 to store up to 10 million standard
cubic metres of natural gas each) (initially 42 but subsequently amended).
7















Compressor station compound comprising of two compressor buildings
ancillary equipment access roads and car parking area.
Seawater pump station compound comprising a pumping station stand by
generator and switchgear building transformers and ancillary infrastructure
access roads and car parking area.
Northern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump
station building a switchgear and standby generator building transformers a
de-brine facility ancillary infrastructure access roads and car parking areas
Southern booster pump station compound comprising the booster pump
station building a switchgear and standby generator building transformers a
de-brine facility ancillary infrastructure access roads and car parking areas
Reception compound comprising the control building laydown area for
materials and equipment.
Gas manifold and distribution infrastructure.
Seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood fish dock to the Preesall site.
Brine discharge pipeline from the Preesall site to a point approximately 2.3km
offshore to a two port diffuser.
Four power communication control pipelines from the Fleetwood dock to the
perusal site.
Electricity cables from the United Utilities switchgear at the Stanah switchyard
to the new electricity substation.
Temporary drilling compounds to the Fleetwood fish dock and at the Stanah
switchyard.
Extension to sea wall at west way to accommodate brine outfall and new
observation platform.
Pipeline link to interconnector.
Comprehensive landscape scheme.
New access road from a588 and new upgraded internal access road within
the site.
By letter dated 10th June 2009 Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) was
submitted. This information responded to matters raised as part of the initial
consultation process and included a number of technical documents relating to
geological and geotechnical matters.
By letter dated 18th September 2009, the application was amended partly as a
result of responses to the consultation process and discussions with the Health and
Safety Executive and partly in view of land ownership issues.
When the amendments to the planning application were made, the information was
similarly submitted in respect of the HSC application.
Planning Policy
The requirement for the determining authority to have regard to the provisions of the
development plan so far as it is material to the application brings into play Section 38
(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that the
determination must be made in accordance with the plan except where material
considerations indicate otherwise. There are no specific policies in the development
plan relating to the storage of hazardous substances, however, there are a
significant number of policies relating to the protection of the environment and
8
protection on the quality of life. All the relevant policies to the proposal as a whole
are listed in the report on the planning application and against which the planning
application has been considered. The following policies are considered to be most
relevant to the assessment of the HSC:
European Policy
Energy for a Changing World – An Energy Policy for Europe – sets out the need for
Europe to deliver sustainable, secure and competitive energy. The thrust is on
sustainability and the need to reduce carbon emissions but forecasts imports of gas
to continue to increase and the need for the security of gas supply. It recognises the
risk of supply failure is growing and that additional storage facilities would help the
security of supply.
EU Habitats Directive
EU Directive – Control of Major Accidental Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances
National Energy Policy
The 2003 Energy White Paper
The Energy Challenge 2006 (2006 Energy Review Report)
The Energy White Paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge – A White Paper on Energy
(May 2007): sets out the Governments current international and domestic energy
strategy and builds on the 2003 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review – the
Energy Challenge of 2006. Four energy goals are identified:




To put the UK on a path to cutting CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050, with real
progress by 2020.
To maintain the reliability of energy supplies.
To promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond.
To ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
Relevant Guidance/documentation
SEVESO II Directive
The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990
The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992
The Planning (Control of Major-Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999
Circular 04/200 - Planning Control for Hazardous Substances
PPG1
PPG7
PPG9
PPG14
MPG1
General Policy and Principles
The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social
Development
Nature Conservation
Development on Unstable Land
General Considerations and the Development Plan System
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
Policy CZ2A Coastal Development
Policy CZ3 Coastal Communities and Economic Development
9
Policy ER1
Policy ER5
Policy ER9
Management of the North West's Natural, Built and Historic
Environment
Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Policy ER8 - Development and
Flood Risk
Minerals Extraction
Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan
Policy 2
Policy 3
Policy 15
Policy 16
Policy 18
Policy 20
Quality of Life
Buffer Zones
Internationally Important Nature Conservation Sites
Nationally Important Nature Conservation Sites
Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites
Wild Fauna and Flora
Lancashire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (LMWCS)
Policy CS1
Policy CS2
Policy CS3
Policy CS4
Policy CS5
Safeguarding Lancashire's Mineral Resources
Minimising the need for mineral extraction
Meeting the demand for new minerals
Identifying sites and areas for mineral extraction
Achieving Sustainable Minerals Production
Wyre Borough Local Plan (WBLP) (saved policies)
Policy SP2
Policy SP14
Policy ENV2
Policy ENV4 & 5
Policy ENV6
Policy ENV13
Policy ENV14
Policy ENV16
Policy TREC12
Strategic Location for Development
Standards of Design and Amenity
Open Coastline
Nature conservation
Protected Species
Development and Flood Risk
Development and Flood Defences
Ground Water Protection
Public Rights of Way
Wyre Borough Local Plan Review 2001 – 2016 (1st Deposit Draft)
ENT2
TOUR12
Undeveloped Coastline
Public Rights of Way
Other relevant publications
'Parliamentary Statement of Need for Additional Gas Supply Infrastructure' laid
before Parliament by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in May 2006
Energy Markets Outlook – Dec 2008
Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform - Gas Storage in your
area – Your questions answered
British Geological Survey – Underground Gas Storage
British Geological Survey – Mineral Planning Factsheet – Salt – Jan 2006
British Geological Survey – Mineral Planning Fact sheet – Underground Storage –
Feb 2008
10
Consultations
The following bodies have been consulted on the application. Their comments are
summarised below:
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – The HSE has assessed the risks to the
surrounding areas from the likely activities should HSC be granted. The HSE has
assessed the risk of harm from the maximum quantity of hazardous substances for
which consent is being sought. Risks that may arise from the presence of other
substances have not been taken into account in this assessment. The HSE, in
considering the application, has made the assumption that the requirements of the
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and all relevant statutory provisions, will be
met should Consent be granted. The current stage of the design of the
establishment, level of detail in the Consent application and the timescales for the
determination of the Consent, are insufficient to ensure that this will be the case.
Consequently, should HSC be granted, the applicant's attention should be drawn to
Section 29 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. This makes it clear
that nothing in any Consent granted can require or allow the building or operation of
an establishment which does not comply with the relevant statutory provisions and to
the extent that any Consent purports to require or allow and such thing is void. On
this basis the HSE has concluded that the risks to the surrounding population arising
from the proposed operation(s) are so small that there are no significant reasons, on
safety grounds, for refusing HSC. The following condition is recommended:
'The hazardous substance(s) shall not be kept or used other than in accordance with
the particulars provided on the application form, nor outside the area(s) marked for
storage on the substance(s) on the plan which formed part of the application (see
drawing number A.00100.POO Rev 1).
A plan is enclosed defining a consultation zone. Should planning permission be
granted, the zone will be used for consultation for future developments as part of the
HSE's PADHI + land use planning system.
National Grid – Gas – no comments received
Transco – no comments received
Environment Agency – There is insufficient information to fully comment but the
gas storage facility will be regulated jointly by the Health and Safety Executive and
the Environment Agency under the COMAH regulations and will be assessed at the
appropriate time before the gas storage begins.
United Utilities – No comments received
Lancashire County Council Emergency Planning Section – No comments on the
application for HSC. The Section would only become involved if planning permission
is granted and the site becomes subject to COMAH and an 'offsite' emergency plan
has to be prepared.
Natural England – It is not natural England's responsibility to comment on the detail
of the submitted geotechnical information and therefore outside Natural England's
11
remit to provide advice on the assessment of likelihood of geological failure but
comment as follows on the implications of such events:
The development is immediately adjacent to, and beneath the internationally
designated Morecambe Bay Ramsar Site, Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area
(SPA), and the nationally designated Wyre Estuary SSSI. The boundary for
Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation is at the mouth of the Wyre Estuary
less than 3km to the north of the development site. The proposal has been
considered under Regulation 48 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.)
Regulations 1994.
Control of Major Accidental Hazards - Geological failure, crown whole collapse or
subsidence during construction or operation of the gas storage facility would have a
significant effect on the statutory protected site(s), including loss of protected habitat
and potential contamination to habitats and species. Loss of habitat adjacent to the
estuary would also have significant indirect effects on the SPA and Ramsar site
since the area is important for wintering waterfowl and waders.
Hazardous Substance Consent – failure of the salt caverns to adequately contain
natural gas at such quantities is likely to cause significant environmental damage
including pollution and contamination of the Wyre Estuary and river channel and
subsequent loss of habitat and protected flora and fauna. Contamination may also
disperse and affect the designated features of Morecambe Bay SAC. There is also
potential loss of terrestrial habitat through incineration.
In order to provide further detail on the potential impacts of this proposal on
designated features, further information is required relating to the precise locations of
the salt caverns and drilling tunnels. Natural England understands this information
will not be available until the ground exploratory works have been completed and the
sub surface layout of the scheme has been finalised and would wish to be reconsulted at that stage.
Marine and Fisheries Agency – No comments received
RSPB - No comments received
Wyre Borough Council – Object. The proposal would lead to considerable and
understandable fear and distress within the local communities in view of the high
level of associated risk and potential consequences of any accident occurring,
particularly if the applicant has not satisfactorily addressed the capability of the
geology of the area to safely accommodate a development of this nature and scale.
Hambleton Parish Council – object for the following summarised reasons:





The instability of the proposed site makes it unsuitable for this purpose.
The damage to the environment and the open countryside of the Wyre
Estuary by the construction of the caverns would be irreparable.
It is considered that it would increase flood risk to the area.
The proven instability of the area could lead to subsidence and possible
damage to the infrastructure.
The proposed site is part of the Wyre Estuary, SSI and Ramsar Site. The
Wyre Way runs alongside the site and is therefore a protected area.
12


The damage the proposal would do to the long-term tourism plans for the area
would be immense. Walkers use the Wyre Way frequently and this proposal
would affect the popularity the walk enjoys.
Should an accident occur, then it has been proven that emergency evacuation
of this area would almost be impossible. There is only one means of travelling
south over Shard Bridge.
Preesall Town Council – Object to the proposal to store what is considered a
dangerous substance.
Pilling Parish Council – The application is not welcome and the Parish Council
strongly objects for the following summarised reasons.







The Parish Council accepts the need for gas storage but the development
would make a considerable impact on the immediate population of 60,000
within a 3-mile range of the site.
There is a potentially catastrophic impact from a blast occurring in a natural
underground environment that can't be proved safe beyond reasonable doubt
and could prove hazardous. Recent earth tremors support the state of the
unstable ground.
The planning application varies too insignificantly to the original that was
refused and therefore this application should be refused.
The proposal is very complex and beyond the comprehension of most parish
councillors and therefore the views expressed reflect the views of the
electorate.
Head Dyke Lane would need to be upgraded to accommodate the increase in
HGV movements associated with the development. It has no provision for
cyclists, pedestrians or horse riders. The speed limit should be reduced to
50mph for road safety reasons.
The speed limit on Lancaster Road, from Fold House Caravan Park to Land
Ends should be reduced to 30mph.
Should the application be granted, then periodic monitoring of the ecological
environment must be maintained to ensure the effects of the application do
not cause deterioration to habitats, marine stocks or birds/animals.
Stalmine–with-Staynall Parish Council – no comments received
It is the responsibility of the applicant to advertise an application for HSC in the press
and post notice on the land. The applicant advertised the application and subsequent
amendments thereto in the press and on the land.
Two letters from the same household have been received objecting to the planning
application, the HSC application and amendments thereto for the following
summarised reasons:

The boundary to the application still encroaches on third party land outside
the control of the applicant.

Multiple wellhead No 4 is sited in an extremely hazardous position. It's
proximity to BW 63 which has a marl roof puts it in extreme danger and
highlights the applicants lack of understanding of the former brine field. The
applicant has not undertaken any sonar survey of BW63. When the well
13
subsides, as it is only 10m from Grange Pool watercourse, the watercourse
will run through it creating a lake similar to that at Agglebys encroaching on
the area identified as multiple wellhead 4. The caverns drilled from wellhead 4
will pass over existing caverns, the stability of which has not been
established.

The applicant's submissions (Gas Threshold Pressure Tests (GYTP) Golder
Associates) demonstrate that low static pore pressures can have an adverse
impact on the containment of the gas cavern and that further tests should be
carried out given the findings into the test borehole. The test borehole is in
close proximity to BW129 that lost its air pressure, as did BW128. Within 12
months air from BW128 was found to be entering BW112, through the salt to
a distance of some 50m. Significantly, much lower air pressures than those
proposed were being used (200PSI). The salt is not capable of
accommodating the proposed development.

The stability of the ground, in so far as it affects land use, is a material
consideration and has been referred to by British Geological Survey (BGS)
and the Technical Assessor to the previous public inquiry. The control centre
and essential infrastructure is proposed to be located in an unstable area.
Evidence at the public inquiry indicated that the distance between certain
caverns is less than 10m. The caverns have historically been over worked,
which raises the question of their stability. Canatxx have failed to address the
advice of the Technical Assessor to the previous public inquiry regarding the
need to acquire up to date knowledge of the previous brine field workings.

BGS have made it clear that they are not able to comment on the quality or
suitability of the salt for gas storage. The applicant is of the view that the salt
could accommodate caverns, but do not specify the locations or numbers of
such.

Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive requires the prevention of major accidents
and the limiting of the consequences of such accidents to be taken into
account in land use policies and/or other policies especially through controls
on the siting of new establishments. It requires appropriate distances to be
maintained between establishments and residential areas, areas of public use
and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest. The proposed
development covers an area within which there are well used unrestricted
footpaths, most particularly the Wyre Way. The inspector to the previous
public inquiry concluded that without imposing unreasonable restrictions on
members of the public preventing them from using the Wyre Way to protect
them from the effects of a major incident the proposed development would not
accord with the objectives of the Directive.

The Directive regards sewage treatment works as an external hazard.
Hackinsall Sewage Treatment Works is surrounded by the proposed
development. If the proposed development impacted on the local sewage
network, it would cause a serious public health problem.

The landscape and ecology plans are impractical. Little if any account has
been taken of the instability in the area, the existing and extending
14
subsidence to depths of water in excess of 60m that could not be described
as a 'field pond'.

The bird surveys are not accurate due to restricted access to land.
Advice
Director of Strategic Planning and Transport– Observations
The planning application and application for HSC are very similar to those previously
submitted and refused on appeal. The planning application is for the creation of
caverns in salt by solution mining and the construction of above ground
infrastructure. Following the creation of caverns it is proposed to store up to 1.2
million tonnes of natural gas that would be imported into the storage facility via an
interconnecting pipeline to the national transmission line. Whilst the planning
application proposes a number of multiple wellhead locations with up to 6 wellheads
in each location facilitating the creation of up to 36 caverns, the location of the
caverns as projected to the surface are not identified. This is a fundamental omission
relative to the previous application when indicative locations of the caverns were
provided as part of the public inquiry. It is also contrary to the information provided
for similar developments at Byley and more recently at King Street in Cheshire. The
applicant advises that the precise location of the caverns is a matter to be addressed
at a later stage through the COMAH process overseen by the Health and Safety
Executive. The planning application states there would be up to 36 caverns although
similarly does not identify the location of such or project the extent of such to the
surface or identify the separation distances between the proposed caverns or the
existing caverns. In the absence of such information the applicant is quite simply
asking the County Council to grant Hazardous Substance Consent without
knowledge of where the storage facilities would actually be other than on the end of
a well head somewhere within the application boundary and only identifies a
wellhead exclusion zone.
Since the submission of both the planning application and the application for HSC,
Supplementary Environmental Information has been submitted, primarily relating to
geology and geotechnical matters, the boundary of the application has been
amended to provide for a revised alignment of the access road, the northern booster
pumping station has been relocated and the number of well heads in each multiple
well head location has been reduced from 7 to 6.
The application has been assessed against the relevant policies and guidance
relating to HSC.
The proposal is for the underground storage of 1.2 million tonnes of natural gas
making it an upper tier establishment. The quantities exceed the specified
thresholds for natural gas and therefore HSC is required. The SEVESO II Directive
on the control of major-accident hazards requires local authorities to have regard to
the objectives of the Directive, which are:

To prevent major accidents and limit the consequences of such accidents for
man and the environment;

In the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments
15
and residential areas, areas of public use and areas of particular natural
sensitivity or interest; and

In relation to existing establishments, for technical measures so as not to
increase risks to people.
Guidance for the consideration of applications for HSC is set out in Circular 04/2000.
The issues for consideration are the nature and severity of the residual risk arising
from the presence of the natural gas to:


Persons in the vicinity; and
The environment.
Risk to Persons
The risk to persons is addressed as part of the report on the planning application.
The issues raised under safety and security are considered to be equally applicable
to this application and therefore are repeated in part as follows.
The development involves the underground storage of 1.2 million tonnes of natural
gas in underground caverns along with associated surface development over an
area of 505.6 hectares (excluding the discharge pipeline). There would be 6
wellhead compounds with up to 6 wellheads in each location giving a potential of up
to 36 caverns, although the location and extent of each cavern is not identified or
projected to the surface. The wellhead compounds would extend over an area of
approximately 1 hectare each, would operate on an un-manned basis and be
surrounded by security fencing with a minimum safety zone of 10 metres from the
fence to the nearest part of above ground pipework. Personnel would be located in
the control centre, approximately 400 metres from the nearest and up to 1200
metres to the furthest well head compounds as the crow flies. Distances would be
increased by accessing the well head compounds via the internal suite access
roads. The caverns would be created at a depth of between 300 and 450 metres with
minimum and maximum pressures of between 25 and 80 bar absolute, a maximum
manifold pressure of up to 90 bar and a minimum riser length of 275 metres. Each
cavern would store up to 4.5 billion cubic feet of gas or 10 million cubic metres.
Natural gas is highly flammable. To avoid existing caverns associated with the
former ICI brine extraction operations it is proposed to directionally drill boreholes to
create caverns below the estuary and associated salt marshes. The interconnecting
pipelines between the northern booster station, the southern booster station,
wellheads and the compressor station pass over existing caverns and in close
proximity to the cavern containing mercuric sulphide (Well 107).
The nearest distance from a wellhead compound to an inhabited dwelling would be
approximately 150m. This would be to the house at Sportsmans Caravan Park and
to Riverside Cottage. There are two caravan parks and associated residential
properties (one of which is owned by the applicant) and isolated dwellings at Cote
Walls Farm and Burrows Farm in close proximity to the proposals. Whilst the
nearest proposed wellhead compounds would be some 150m away from the nearest
properties, in the absence of details of where the caverns would be created, it is not
possible to assess the potential impacts of the proposed caverns on any of the
properties within and near to the boundary of the application, most particularly on
16
Riverside Cottage and the Heads Farm House and associated Sportsman’s Caravan
Park close to or under which caverns could extend.
The applicant identifies the major hazard events involving loss of gas from a
wellhead as follows:




Vehicle damage.
Damage by a deliberate act.
Aircraft strike.
Catastrophic failure of a wellhead resulting in an unconfirmed loss of gas
followed by ignition.
It is accepted some of these risks could be minimised by, for example, the
employment of appropriate security measures. However, in a worse case scenario
of catastrophic failure of a wellhead leading to an unconfirmed loss of gas followed
by ignition, there would be danger to humans within a given radius and the risk of
spontaneous ignition of wood and similar combustible materials in close proximity.
The applicant advises that the opportunity of this happening would be reduced by the
design of the caverns and risers, the employment of emergency shutdown valves
and best practice.
With regard to decommissioning, the applicant has advised that within one year of
decommissioning a site, a program would be drawn up; the caverns would be
emptied of gas, filled with brine and the boreholes plugged with cement. The
wellheads would be cut off 2m below surface level and topsoil would then be spread
over the site to restore agricultural use. Ongoing monitoring of the caverns would be
implemented for a further agreed period. In the event of a cavern being found to be
unfit for purpose either during washing, testing or service, it would be emptied of gas,
filled with brine and the boreholes plugged with cement. The wellhead would be cut
off 2m below surface if the cavern had been fully developed. In regard to the cavern
washing infrastructure the applicant is willing to discuss the possibility of keeping the
facilities in place after the cavern washing programme is completed on a no gain/no
loss basis. Leaving this infrastructure in situ would minimise disturbance to
vegetation that has become established following construction and to the general
public. The applicant considers the water washing infrastructure has the potential to
be of assistance in enhancing the flood protection of the area, as the infrastructure
has a very high flow rate and could be of major assistance in pumping out floodwater
from the low lying lands of Fleetwood and Preesall.
The applicant acknowledges the need to ensure the health and safety of the local
community, workers at the site and any other people. Along with HSC the project
would also be covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999
(COMAH) under the control of the Health and Safety Executive. This legislation
seeks to ensure all workers, members of the public and others are not put into
danger. The applicant commits to ensuring that all aspects of the design,
construction and operation of the facility meet or exceed the standards imposed by
law and accepts responsibility for the health and safety of its employees, contractors,
customers and members of the public. It would also ensure all environmental
standards are met or would be exceeded and undertake operations in a way to
cause least disturbance.
17
There have been a number of incidents involving the escape and migration of gas
from underground storage caverns in the recent past where it ignited causing
extensive damage and risk to property and inhabitants and which were referred to as
part of the previous application and in representations to this application by Protect
Wyre Group (Hutchinson and Moss Bluff). There were a number of causes for these
incidents, which primarily related to the mis-management of the operation and noncompliance with accepted practices and regulations. Nevertheless, following the
incident at Hutchinson changes to American law were introduced requiring stand-offs
for facilities of this nature from residential properties/areas. Whilst there are no
current requirements or guidance for stand-offs in English law it is accepted that the
legislation within which an operation of this nature would operate would be more
stringent to minimise the risk of something comparable occurring. Nevertheless,
even when operating within a strong legislative regime, incidents for unseen reasons
can occur and these can be of a significant scale (e.g. Buncefield)
However, irrespective of what safety systems are employed, they are inevitably
reliant on man-made plant, equipment and the maintenance and employment of
technological safety measures, which have an inherent risk. It is accepted that there
are many industrial processes, plant or equipment that are relied upon in this way,
but perhaps not of a scale as the current proposal and involving such quantities of a
hazardous substance.
The applicant has accepted that geological failure constitutes a major risk to the
project. There has been extensive working of the salt deposits in close proximity to
the proposal resulting in large underground caverns, one of which contains mercury,
which in their own right could pose a risk to the proposed operations. The applicants
proposed cavern creation techniques (bottom up) are designed to enable minerals
other than salt (insolubles such as mudstone inclusions and discrete beds) to fall to
the base of the cavern. However the geological occurrence of such minerals may
allow gas migration through the surrounding rock strata. Clearly, any such migration
could present very significant public dangers dependent upon where and in what
concentrations the gas emerges or is able to collect. The integrity of local geology is
considered to be very important in determining the acceptability of any particular
proposal. The applicant has provided additional geological information as part of the
planning application and SEI, which is common to both this application and the
planning application. An assessment of this information has been made and is
reported in full in the report on the planning application on this agenda.
The assessment concludes there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the
geology is capable of supporting this development. Given the acknowledged
complexity of the geology in this area and the scale of the proposal, that is a very
different position to where HSC has been granted for other UGS projects elsewhere
in the UK.
The applicant does not have control over all properties that may be directly affected
by the proposal.
It is accepted that best practices may be employed and that the operation of the site
would have to comply with COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations
1999) process. The HSE has advised that they will assess the proposal for the
purpose of these regulations and in light of a Pre Construction Safety Report
(PCSR). The HSE has advised that whilst they cannot prohibit the commencement
18
of construction of the project, the operation of a COMAH site can be prohibited if the
necessary demonstrations have not been made. Whilst the COMAH process is
independent of the planning application and HSC process, it is important to
recognise the process and not seek to duplicate the controls.
At the end of the operational life it is proposed to fill the caverns with brine. A longterm plan for decommissioning and the after management of the site to ensure
safety and security would be required.
The planning application and HSC application are, to all intents and purposes the
same as the previous application in terms of the creation of caverns, above ground
infrastructure and the amount of gas to be stored albeit in 36 caverns rather than 24
has previously proposed. The Inspector to the previous public inquiry and the
Secretary of State concluded that the proposed development was unacceptable and
would not accord with the SEVESO II Directive in that the proposal neither limited
the consequences of accidents for the public, who are encouraged to report to the
area for recreation, nor maintained appropriate distances between establishments
and areas of public use. She accepted the conclusions of the Inspector that the
proposal would not accord with the objectives of the SEVESO II Directive and that
any measures to maintain appropriate distances could only be achieved by the
closure of a length of the Wyre Way and that amounted to sufficient reason to refuse
the previous application. The Secretary of State also concluded that the accuracy
and adequacy of the current level of geological knowledge of the site was insufficient
to allow the granting of a meaningful HSC and that amounted to a further reason for
justifying a refusal.
The HSE has made an assumption that the development if approved would be
carried out in accordance with all relevant legislation, including the Health and Safety
at Work Act. They advise that the current stage of the design of the establishment,
level of detail in the consent application and the timescales for determination of the
consent are insufficient to ensure this would be the case. However, they do refer to
the Hazardous Substances Act 1990 that makes clear that nothing in any consent
granted can require or allow the building or the operation of an establishment which
does not comply with the relevant statutory provisions. On this basis the HSC has
concluded that the risks to the surrounding population arising from the proposed
operation(s) are so small that there are no significant reasons, on safety grounds, for
refusing HSC. The HSE propose a minimum consultation zone around identified
areas/properties for future development.
Risk to the Environment
The Wyre estuary and Morecambe Bay area are subject to a number of national and
international designations that reflect their importance for wildlife and nature
conservation. The Wyre Estuary is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) and falls within the Morecambe Bay Ramsar site, Special Protection Area
(SPA) and SAC, in view of their international importance for mudflat and salt marsh
habitats, and the fauna and birds they support. There are a number of BHS
designated for their vegetation, bird, invertebrate and mammal interest on the west
side of the estuary.
An assessment of the impacts of the proposal on the environment in terms of the
marine and estuarine ecology and water quality has been undertaken as part of the
19
assessment of the planning application.
The construction and operation of the brine discharge and seawater pipeline into the
Irish Sea would cause short-term disturbance to intertidal and subtidal habitats and
associated species during construction. The discharge of brine would cause
localised mortality of sessile species during the operational phase of the pipeline,
although recovery of these species is likely to be completed in a relatively short
period of time. Scarce piddock and turf species were identified close to the route of
the pipeline, but these species have been reported to have rapid rates of recovery
one year following cessation of a discharge, hence effects on these species are not
considered to be significant.
The discharge is located some 2km to the southwest of the nearest boundary of
Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site and Wyre Estuary SSSI. The applicant’s
modelling has demonstrated that the hyper-saline plume from the discharge would
not extend to these designations. In light of the assessment work undertaken to date,
it is considered that there would be no significant effect on the qualifying features of
the Liverpool Bay pSPA or the Shell Flats and Lune Deep dSAC.
It should be noted that a discharge consent issued by the Environment Agency was
obtained in 2007 and includes a requirement for a programme of discharge
monitoring.
The route of the brine discharge and seawater pipeline across the Fylde Peninsula
would lead to both temporary and permanent loss of land within Fleetwood
Promenade – Coastal and Dune Grassland Biological Heritage Site (BHS), Rossall
School Fields BHS and Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS. This would in turn
lead to loss of habitat that is known to support terrestrial invertebrate populations
such as the Roesel’s bushcricket and striped snail. Subsequent landscaping and
habitat management would minimise the potential impacts on these sites and the
species they support. Vegetation clearance would be timed to occur outside the bird
nesting season where possible and habitat enhancement would ensure that the
availability of bird breeding habitats in the medium to long term is not significantly
reduced.
Potential impacts to the Wyre Estuary are associated with the proposed directional
drilling operation, which has the potential to cause widespread contamination of the
estuary should an accidental spill of bentonite occur. However, the implementation of
appropriate safeguards and mitigation measures would minimise the potential risks
associated with this activity.
The Preesall area supports populations of rock sea-lavender and purple rampingfumitory. Although one field that is known to support the latter would be affected
during construction, the programme of habitat replacement and enhancement would
enhance the habitat potential for these species. Ponds known to support great
crested newts would not be lost to the Scheme, but disturbance to their terrestrial
habitat may occur. Therefore, a detailed Method Statement would be produced to
accompany the submission of a licence application to Natural England in order to
ensure that the favorable conservation status of the great crested newts is
not affected.
20
The directional drilling under the Wyre Estuary is not expected to disturb wintering
wetland birds inhabiting the intertidal zone within the estuary. No construction
activities are proposed within the saltmarshes or wider intertidal zone where
significant numbers of wintering birds reside and so the effect on the birds here is not
considered to be significant.
The construction of the Gas Compressor Station, Booster Pump Stations and
multiple wellheads, with associated car parks, compounds, and access roads, would
lead to a loss of some wintering and breeding bird habitat in the fields that are
functionally linked to the Morecambe Bay SPA to the east of the seawall. However,
the extent of this habitat loss would be relatively small when considered in the
context of the retained wintering bird habitat and the available habitat within the
surrounding landscape.
A landscape and ecological enhancement strategy would be implemented as part of
the Scheme design. Farmland under the ownership of Canatxx Gas Storage Ltd
would be enhanced and managed primarily as arable land and short grazed pasture
(with the exception of headland areas), which, traditionally, are the preferred feeding
habitats for wintering waterfowl. Such management would increase cover and
nesting opportunities and extend feeding and roosting resources.
The policies of the development plan seek to protect habitats of ecological
importance. Providing the development were to be undertaken in accordance with
the relevant statutory provisions and there were to be no failure in terms of cavern
collapse or catastrophic failure of a wellhead or migration of gas through the rock
strata and overburden, the proposal in its current form would not lead to the loss and
risk of damage to internationally designated sites and to which the relevant statutory
consultees have not raised objection. However, any failure could result in major loss
or damage that could not be easily rectified. Nevertheless, given the risk associated
with such, the proposed HSC application is considered to be acceptable for the
purposes of PPG9, Policies CZ2A, CZ3, ER1 and ER5 of the Regional Spatial
Strategy, Policies 2, 3, 15,16,18,and 20 of the LMWLP, Policies SP2, ENV2, ENV4
and ENV6 of the WBLP and Policies ENVT2, ENVT3, ENVT5, and ENVT7 of the
WBLPR. These policies seek to afford the strongest levels of protection to sites with
international and national nature conservation designations encompassing Ramsar
Sites, SPA's, SAC's, National nature Reserves, SSSI's and statuary protected
species (Policy ER9). It is also a requirement to maintain, restore and expand
habitats set out in the Biodiversity Targets for the North West Region (Appendix A)
and most particularly to ensure no loss in the extent of the existing resource of the
habitat.
The ecological bodies are satisfied that sufficient mitigation or protective measures
could be employed to ensure that the development would not present an
unacceptable risk to the environment.
Whilst any gas leakages/migration and consequent fire/explosions would be likely to
have an adverse impact on those interests of acknowledged importance, the HSE
has concluded that the risks to the surrounding population arising from the proposed
operation(s) are so small that there are no significant reasons, on safety grounds, for
refusing HSC. However, this is at odds with the conclusions of the Secretary of
State to the previous application and which was refused on appeal in respect of the
Wyre Way. The Wyre Way remains in the same alignment as previous and falls well
21
within the consultation zone identified by the HSE. The views of the HSE are
therefore somewhat perplexing when there would appear to be no material change in
circumstances to those previous.
Matters raised in representations
With regard to those matters raised in representations, the concerns relate primarily
to the geology of the site, the capability of the salt to safely store gas, the potential
migratory pathways within the salt, the overlying geology, the proximity and stability
of existing caverns associated with former brine workings and the inherent risks
associated with gas storage on residents and users of the public rights of way, and
most particularly the Wyre Way in the event of an incident. These concerns are very
understandable and are shared to some degree by the findings of the County
Council's consultants.
Conclusion
The SEVESO II Directive on the control of major-accident hazards requires local
authorities to have regard to the objectives of the Directive, which are:
To prevent major accidents and limit the consequences of such accidents for man
and the environment;


In the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments
and residential areas, areas of public use and areas of particular natural
sensitivity or interest; and
In relation to existing establishments, for technical measures so as not to
increase risks to people.
Guidance for the consideration of applications for HSC is set out in Circular 04/2000.
The issues for consideration are the nature and severity of the residual risk arising
from the presence of the natural gas to:


Persons in the vicinity; and
The environment.
If it is accepted that the salt and geology is capable of safely storing natural gas and
that a COMAH assessment would satisfactorily ensure that appropriate distances
between establishments and residential areas, areas of public use and areas of
natural sensitivity or interest and that the residual risk arising from the presence of
natural gas to persons in the vicinity and to the environment, then it must be
concluded that the storage of gas for the HSC purposes is acceptable. However, this
was not the view of the Secretary of State in determining the previous application.
Whilst additional information has been submitted in respect of the geology of the site,
an assessment of such has concluded that the applicant has not demonstrated the
capability of the geology to support the development or address the risks associated
with such. In respect of those issues relating to risk to persons and risk to the
environment under the assessment of geology it is concluded that there have been
no material change in circumstances since the previous application was considered
and that irrespective of the conclusions of the Health and Safety Executive, there
would still be unacceptable risk to persons using the area for recreation purposes, in
22
particular the Wyre Way, contrary to the provisions of the SEVESO II Directive. In
this respect it is considered that the conclusions of the Secretary of State to the
previous application for HSC remain material to the consideration of this application
and that it should be refused for the same reasons.
Recommendation
That having first taken into consideration all the information submitted in connection
with the application the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The application contains insufficient information to:
I. Properly assess and ensure the geology of the area is capable of
accommodating the proposed development;
II. Demonstrate its relationship to former solution mining activities or surface
development; and
III. Establish there is no opportunity for migrating gas through the geology or via
former mining activities;
contrary to Policies 2, and 71 of the LMWLP.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not present
an unacceptable risk of gas migration given the relationship of the proposal to
former operations and its proximity to residential areas on the east side of the
estuary and the more densely populated Fleetwood peninsula throughout its
operation, decommissioning and long term aftercare management contrary to
Policies 2 and 3 of the LMWLP.
3. The failure to provide an adequate risk assessment for the proposal would result
in considerable and understandable fear and distress within the local
communities attributable to the nature of the proposal and the potential
consequences of any accident occurring and would be contrary to Policy 2 of the
LMWLP.
4. The proposal would not maintain appropriate distances between establishments
and areas of public use contrary to the provisions of the SEVESO II Directive and
that any measures to maintain appropriate distances could only be achieved by
the closure of a section of the Wyre Way within the application boundary.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background papers
Paper
HSC/09/01
HSC/05/01
HSC/04/01
02/09/0159
02/04/1415
Date
Contact/Directorate/Tel No.
Stuart Perigo
Environment
01772 531948
23
02/03/1455
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A