Representation by PD Teesport Limited (PD Teesport Limited)
- Date submitted
- 17 December 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Written representation of PD Teesport Limited in Response to the S56 Notice 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 We are instructed by PD Teesport Limited (“PDT”) in relation to the development consent application made by Net Zero Teesside Power Limited (“NZT Power”) and Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited “NZNS Storage” (the “Applicant”) for the Net Zero Teesside Project (the “Project”). This section 56 representation is made on behalf of PDT. 1.2 PDT is the statutory harbour authority for Teesport (the “Port”) under the Teesport Acts and Orders 1966 to 2008, the local legislation relating to the Port. Under section 12 of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 it is PDT’s duty “to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein”. Powers and duties relating to the Port are conferred and imposed on them under the Teesport Acts and Orders 1966 to 2008 and under public general legislation. PDT is therefore responsible for safe use and maintenance of the river and wholly committed to ensuring that the river plays its full part in supporting the future growth of our region and the UK as a whole. 1.3 PDT’s status as a harbour authority means that it is a Statutory Undertaker for the purposes of section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 (“2008 Act”). 1.4 PD Teesport is a key piece of national infrastructure and one of the largest private employers in the Tees Valley. It plays a critical role facilitating the nation’s trade. Its main operation at Teesport is the fifth largest port in the UK and only major port in England to handle more exports than imports. It supports 22,000 jobs and contributes £1.4 billion to the UK economy each year. 1.5 Handling 29 million tonnes per year, the Port supports the movement of international imports and exports throughout the North of the UK; affirming its position as a key driver in the nation’s supply chain operations. 1.6 With circa 26 vessel calls a week (excluding bulks calls), Teesport is the UK’s northern gateway for global shippers; serving worldwide markets including Scandinavia, the Baltics, the Netherlands, Russia, Belgium, France and Poland. Frequent, direct connections are complemented by monthly arrivals from Japan, expanding Teesport’s reach beyond the major hub ports of Europe and providing shippers with maximum choice. 1.7 Lying close to Hartlepool and the Tees Valley’s other industries, Teesport is part of the region’s energy hub, bringing together a business cluster that unlocks powerful collaborative potential between energy providers, world-class manufacturers and industry-leading suppliers. 1.8 With a proven reputation of delivering new, private investment, PDT has attracted over £1 billion’s worth of projects to Teesside in the last decade as part of an ambitious vision to make the River Tees the UK’s most successful port region by 2050. 1.9 The works proposed to be authorised by the Project for which application has been made would be constructed partly within PDT’s limits of jurisdiction and the Project’s construction and operation could potentially adversely affect PDT’s harbour undertaking and other harbour users. 1.10 As part of the Project, the Applicant seeks compulsory powers for the creation of new rights over various plots which PDT either owns, occupies or in which it has interests. The Applicant also proposes to take powers to extinguish, suspend or interfere with PDT’s rights and impose new restrictions on such land. 1.11 PDT supports the Applicant’s project in principle but is concerned to ensure that the construction and operation of the proposed works do not adversely affect its harbour undertaking or other harbour users/surrounding occupiers and businesses. Those concerns can be addressed by the removal of certain plots from the Order and the inclusion of appropriate protective provisions. PDT is seeking to work positively with the Applicant and believes that its knowledge and experience of the harbour area can assist the Applicant in successfully advancing its proposals whilst minimising its impacts on surrounding businesses. 2. LAND PLOTS/ISSUES 2.1 A schedule of the land plots in which the Book of Reference identifies that PDT has an interest is listed below: 2.1.1 Part 1 – Freehold interests ? Plots 91 to 92, 97 to 98, 104, 108 to 114, 117 to 118, 126 to 127, 133 to 134, 136 to 137, 140, 142 to 154, 158 to 161, 163 to 164, 166 to 168, 170 to 171, 173, 175 to 178, 180 to 192, 194, 222, 224 to 230, 258, 260 and 265 to 271. Part 1 – Occupiers or Reputed Occupiers ? Plots 91 to 92, 97, 104, 108 to 109, 117 to 118, 127, 133 to 134, 142, 154, 158 to 161, 163 to 164, 166, 171, 173, 175 to 176, 178, 181 to 183, 185, 189, 191, 194, 265, 267, 271, 305, 378, 474 to 475 and 477. Part 3 – Persons enjoying rights over land ? Plots 305, 378, 474 to 475 and 477. General concerns regarding powers sought 2.2 The powers sought by the Applicant would include the ability to acquire the freehold of and rights in land belonging to statutory undertakers (such as PDT) (Article 33). Furthermore, in relation to such acquisition and the acquisition of new rights by the Applicant, the powers in the Order provide for any private rights and restrictions in such land to be suspended, unenforceable or where notified extinguished where they would be inconsistent with the exercise of the new rights (Article 26). Whilst concerns in respect of proposed acquisition powers relating to particular areas of PDT’s harbour area are addressed below, more generally it must be noted that the harbour area is particularly complicated from a land interest perspective with a vast number of businesses relying upon the Port’s activities, historic rights and infrastructure. Not all of these businesses will have the resources and/or wherewithal to engage in the NSIP regime and PDT must seek to protect these broader interests in the continuing operations of the Port. 2.3 Such complexities are managed by the Port on a day to day basis, with the benefit of its vast experience and knowledge of the area, the businesses which it hosts and their interrelationships. For this reason, PDT considers that exercise of the Order powers within its harbour area and on land in which it has any interest must be subject to careful scrutiny once detailed scheme designs have crystallised with a view to fully understanding and minimising its impacts. It is proposed that this can be achieved in part through appropriate protective provisions. Riverside ro-ro and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT) (in the vicinity of Plots 224/225) 2.4 The acquisition/scheme boundary encompasses the area occupied by the Riverside ro-ro berth, a facility which was built in 1999/2000 to accommodate stern ramp roll on roll off (ro-ro ferries). The facility is a key component of the PDT Unitised business and will become increasingly important following a planned enhancement to the facility to enable it to handle 200m long car carriers to support the current buoyant African business in addition to the existing ferry business. The development of infrastructure to support these stern ramp vessels at a capital cost of circa £7-8m has received Board approval at the September 2021 Board meeting and is expected to commence works on site in July 2022. 2.5 The Northern gateway is a fully consented (Teesport Harbour Revision Order 2008) deep sea terminal which will ultimately consist of over a kilometre of quay, channel deepening and associated landside infrastructure. The project also includes a new rail terminal which is to be constructed in the area between the Asda and Tesco import centres and Dabholm gut (again shown on the drawing). This is a key project for PDT’s growth plans with in excess of £5m invested to date in the development stages, including the current marine and landside site investigation works. The quay construction will require piles to be driven to significant depth which could impact on any pipeline infrastructure. 2.6 Consequently, the acquisition of rights in this area (and potential interference with existing rights) to enable construction of new pipe infrastructure is likely to be very disruptive and potentially significantly determinantal to the operation of the Port and its future expansion. This is not to mention the knock-on impacts that may be experienced by the surrounding occupiers and beneficiaries of this facility. 2.7 This position has already been explained to the Applicant who considers that it is likely to be possible to accommodate its infrastructure within plots to the north and on this basis PDT understands that it is intended to remove these plots from the DCO. If the relevant plots are not removed then PDT considers that material determinant may be caused to its undertaking, within the meaning set out in section 127 of the 2008 Act. Existing Pipeline Infrastructure 2.8 The area behind the Riverside ro-ro is already fairly congested with existing pipelines which pass under the River Tees to the South Bank. This includes pipelines belonging to, inter alia, Sembcorp, Breagh, Trafigura and BOC. There is little data available on the Project proposals which allow PDT to assess the potential clashes. 2.9 It would also be necessary to consider the nature of the pipeline and any associated Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) consultation distances which could impact on the activities of PDT and its tenants including Tesco and Asda. Capital dredging of the River Tees 2.10 It is understood that works are proposed by the Applicant to introduce new sub-river pipelines. PDT has not been provided with any detailed design material in connection with these proposed works which would need to be sufficiently deep so as not to preclude any planned future capital dredged depths. Dredging is clearly an import activity for a harbour authority both in terms of maintaining accessibility for vessels but also for enabling proposed expansions to the Port. Access to South Gare Breakwater 2.11 South Gare Breakwater is an area of land located on the mouth of the River Tees which is owned and controlled by PDT. This breakwater effectively protects the river and land along the river edge from damage that would otherwise naturally occur from the North Sea. In addition to being important as a breakwater and for navigation purposes (requiring maintenance, often on an unplanned basis), access is also required for pilotage, a lighthouse and radar systems and a variety of private uses such as fishermen huts, sub aqua clubs, RNLI buildings etc. 2.12 Access to the South Gare Breakwater is taken, as of right, via the South Gare access road which runs along the edge of the former Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) site before turning north to run along the peninsula. 2.13 Part of this access track is subject to the acquisition of new rights and temporary occupation in the vicinity of plots 305, 377 and 378. The extent and type of works to be undertaken in this area is unclear but PDT must be permitted to retain access to South Gare Breakwater for operational port purposes (as well as for its tenants/licensees) at all times during the Applicant’s works and on completion of the Project. Tees Dock Road Access (Sheet 14) 2.14 The project appears to encompass a section of Tees Dock Road which could have a serious impact on the ‘arterial route’ to Tees Dock, affecting both PDT and its tenants. PDT would wish to be assured that this access will remain open and unimpeded throughout any works and subsequently. Access to Redcar Bulk Terminal (Plots 290, 222 and 223) 2.15 The Applicant proposes to acquire temporary interests in land known as Redcar Bulk Terminal (“RBT”). It is understood that this is potentially for the import of construction materials. 2.16 PDT has rights of access along the accessway that leads to the RBT (although this appears not to have been recorded in the Book of Reference) as well as holding the freehold title in RBT itself. Whilst the site is subject to a lease, PDT has retained the rights to use RBT where there is capacity. Access to RBT is required to be maintained at all times for the purposes of PDT exercising its rights to use the berth, for example being able to import its own construction materials, during and after the Applicant’s proposed works. Central Area Transmission System (“CATS”) North Sea Limited site (Plot 112) 2.17 The Applicant has identified plot 112 for freehold acquisition for the purpose of a National Grid Gas Compound. This is located within a freehold title held by PDT and subject to a long lease to CATS North Sea Limited, who uses the site as a gas terminal. 2.18 PDT considers that the acquisition of this plot is unnecessary and potentially limits the expansion of CATS North Sea Limited into its full demised area. An alternative vacant plot of land within PDT’s freehold ownership exists to the immediate east of the CATS facility which PDT would be prepared to make available to the Applicant on suitable terms. This site has good access to the local road network and avoids curtailing the future expansion of the CATS terminal. Seal Sands Pipeline Corridors and Access Roads 2.19 PDT holds the freehold ownership in much of the pipeline corridors and access roads in the Seal Sands area. Whilst it has helped to direct the Applicant to use these corridors for its proposed pipelines, this must be done in a way which is safe, avoids interruption to other critical infrastructure in the area and causes minimal disturbance to local businesses. It is expected that this will be fully addressed in protective provisions in due course. 3. DECOMMISSIONING 3.1 The current draft requirement for decommissioning states: “Decommissioning 32.—(1) Within 12 months of the date that the undertaker decides to decommission any part of the authorised development, the undertaker must submit to the relevant planning authority for its approval a decommissioning environmental management plan in relation to that part. (2) No decommissioning works must be carried out until the relevant planning authority has approved the decommissioning environmental management plan. (3) The plan submitted pursuant to sub-paragraph (1) must include details of— (a) the buildings to be demolished; (b) the means of removal of the materials resulting from the decommissioning works; (c) the phasing of the demolition and removal works; (d) any restoration works to restore the land to a condition agreed with the relevant planning authority; (e) the phasing of any restoration works; and (f) a timetable for the implementation of the scheme. (4) The plan must be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority.” 3.2 The words “Within 12 months of the date that the undertaker decides to decommission any part of the authorised development” essentially makes this requirement optional and in no way obliges the Applicant to decommission anything. In the case of pipelines in a particularly congested corridor, where capacity is an identified concern, there should be an effective requirement to decommission once use ceases. This should be an objectively identifiable event, as opposed to something at the election of the Applicant. 4. THE PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS: CURRENT POSITION 4.1 Whilst the proposed protective provisions offer some protection of PDT’s interests, these are only engaged in circumstances where the Applicant considers that the works prevent the operation or maintenance of PDT operations or access to them. This terminology is vague and potentially open to interpretation. Furthermore, PDT may under the current protective provisions insist upon reasonable requirements where these relate to safety, operational viability and access. There are a range of potentially detrimental impacts that may fall short of affecting operational viability and this is not a reasonable limitation to PDT’s requirements. 4.2 Aside from PDT’s interests, there must also be protection from the various businesses around the Port, who rely on the Port’s uninterrupted operation. 4.3 PDT proposes to work with the Applicant to agree suitable protective provisions to replace those currently proposed. 5. OBJECTION 5.1 For these reasons, PDT must currently OBJECT to the DCO application. It is also of the view that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed compulsory acquisition by the Applicant can be undertaken without serious detriment to PDT’s undertaking (as required by section 127 of the 2008 Act) and should not therefore not be approved by the Secretary of State in its current form. 5.2 It is acknowledged that discussions with the Applicant to date are ongoing and that the concerns identified above should be capable of being addressed through protective provisions, amendment to the DCO including the removal of land plots and revised requirements. PDT will update the Examining Authority as soon as possible in this regard.