Peter Woodworth
"1. Safety - leaks and/or explosions have occurred in areas where the scheme has already been tried. 2. Salinity - the discharge of brine over a long peeriod into Morecambe Bay will upsert the fine balance of salt content in the sea water in an area of great importance for the spawning and growth of young fish and other sea-life. 3. It was in the last porposal that drilling would be at an angler with the storage extending under the bed of the river. This is new and a potentially unknown hazard. 4. The area proposed is subject to subsidence and occassional earthquake activity which could affect the storage and lead to leaks. 5. The effect on house prices has already been felt. Properties are extremely difficult to sell in the area. 6. Many people live in the area. A leak/explosion would be catastrophic. 7. I note with horror that the application includes not only the storage of natural gas, but also the storage of Mathanol and Glycol. Volatile and poisonous liquids. 8. There is a question of the need for this storage facility. There is documentary evidence to show that it is not required. 9. It is a strange fact that the change of name is often tried to convince the local population that this is different. (think Sellafield) 10. Gas storage in under-sea areas where gas has been extracted, Morecambe Bay, for example, has proved to be safe and feasible."

Ray Hutchinson
"This application keeps coming back no matter how many times it has been turned down. The area is not safe. The roads are not suitable. Have the recent earthquakes in the vicinity been taken into account at all?"

Mrs Gemma Jackson
"I have had an interest in this and all previous applications since 2002. I am still of the opinion that there is not sufficient evidence given by Halite to allay my fears re the geology and its stability on the site in Preesall. Although more tests have taken place and less caverns are to be used in this latest application I am not convinced of safety and particularly the repercussions not only in the Preesall area but of the Blackpool, Bispham, Cleveleys, Anchorsholme and Fleetwood environs."

Mrs Joan Reilly
"We are registering a protest against these works on the basis of Health & Safety along with the impact on the environment."

Mr Jeanne Kenneth Manning
"i disagree with this application, mainly on the grounds of safty. i also disagree with this application on that on an evacuation would be unatainable, due to the fact that the pernisular of Fleetwood/Cleveleys/Thornton doe not have the road system to carry the trafic load. i disagree that there would be suficiant insurance to cover costs. i disagree that the caverns are able to be checked for gas migration, as older caverns have sunk years after being mined."

D.S.Jackson
"SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES ON WHICH I WISH TO MAKE FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS Personal Information in Support of my Representation D.S.Jackson I hold the tenancies of various areas of land in the Stalmine/Staynall area. I have been a resident for 52 years. I am the tenant and occupier of Height O'th Hill Farm, which falls within the development area. Since 1985, I have been employed as a sub-contractor on the Preesall brine field. I was involved during the operational phase of the brine field during drilling operations and brine field incidents such as pipeline fracture. During and after de-commisioning, I assisted in safety work, for instance sonar surveys, employed originally by ICI and subsequently Thornton Business Facilities Management, on behalf of NPL Esatates. During the 2005/2006 Public Inquiry into the previous Canatxx Gas Storage Application and HSC Application, I submitted evidence as a Rule 6 Party. There are a number os issues relating to the Halite Planning Application with which I disagree. MAIN ISSUES/TOPICS 1. Need, Alternatives and Principle of Development 2. Geology, Storage Technology, Mining History ect. including: a) Location and extent of salt deposits, site investigation, constraints on the number, location, design and scheme capacity. b) Suitability of the Preesall salt field for gas storage. c) Location and nature of faults. d) Subsidence and related issues: (i) Gas interconnector - conventional mineworkings, catastrophic crown hole collapse existing brine wells and proposed infrastructure, pressure build up and catastrophic brine release BW45. (ii) Proposed built development and gas storage infrastructure and route of service road. (iii) Route of electrical services. e) Monitoring and maintenance of existing brine field. f) De-commisioning and responsibilities following de-commissioning. 3. Risk (gas migration and explosion), Risk Assessment, Fear as a material consideration, including safety of salt cavern gas storage, effective security and emergency access, major incident response, impact on Knott End Golf Course in relation to the Seveso II Directive. 4. Sustainability of the Working/Disposal of Mineral Salt. 5. Gas Interconnector Pipeline Route Issues. 6. Impact on SPA, SAC, RAMSAR, SSSI, BHS and protected species; to include water quality, sea defences and flooding, and cavern monitoring, in particular in relation to caverns created under the SSSI. 7. Landscape Impact of Development. 8. Impact on Amenity Value of the Wyre Estuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths, including objectives of the Seveso II Directive in regard to areas of public use. 9. Highway Safety andf Highway Impact on Amenity. 10. Other Amenity Isuues e.g. noise and impact on residential areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary in the short, medium and long term and including future development in capacity and extent of the gas storage site and the impact on significant elements of public infrastructure e.g. Hackinsall STW. 11. Economic/Tourism Impact including impact on future estuary and estuary hinterland development, housing, leisure, expansion of industry Hillhouse international site, port, marina, barrage and Knott End Golf Course. 12. Human Rights."

Peter Hulme
"I do not consider that all the safety aspects in connection with this proposal have been explored."

A Beniston
"I am fundamentally opposed to all aspects of the application. My opposition is based on: Potential Health and Safety implications of the scheme for local residents, environmental impacts for both land and sea that will result if the scheme is accepted, potential impacts for motorists on local roads during any construction phase, potential impacts for local residents if a cavern or equipment fails and releases gas into the environment. I also have lack of confidence in Canatxx/Halite, given their track record to date and their recent handling of the blow-out to an old, existing cavern."

M. J. Jackson
"SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES ON WHICH I WISH TO MAKE FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS Personal Information in Support of my Representation M. J. Jackson I am a partner in a farming and engineering business trading as D.S.Jackson. I have been a resident for 42 years. My husband holds the tenancy of Height O'th Hill Farm,which falls within the development area. We both live and work on the former brine field. During the 2005/2006 Punblic Inquiry into the previous Canatxx Gas Storage application and HSE application, I submitted evidence as a Rule 6 Party. I am currently Chairman of Stalmine with Staynall Parish Council, in line with the Parish Council's Standing Orders, I have a duty to make clear that any views I may express on the planning application are my own personal views and not those of the Parish Council. There are a number of issues relating to the Halite planning application with which I disagree. MAIN ISSUES/TOPICS 1. Need, Alternatives and Principle of Development. 2. Geology, Storage Tecnology, Mining History ect. including: a) Location and extent of salt deposits, site investigation, constraints on the number, location, design and scheme capacity. b) Suitability of the Preesall salt field for gas storage. c) Location and nature of faults. d) Subsidence and related issues, gas interconnector, propsed built development and infrastructure, route of service road and electrical services. e) Monitoring and maintenace of existing brine field. f) Pressure build up and catastrphic brine release BW45. g) De-commissioning and responsibilities following de-commissioning. 3. Risk (gas migration and explosion), Risk Assessment, Fear as a material consideration, including safety of salt cavern storage, effective security and emergency access, major incident response, Seveso II Directive. 4. Sustainability of the Working/Disposal of Mineral Salt. 5. Gas Interconnector Pipeline Route Issues. 6. Impact on SPA, SAC, RAMSAR, SSSI, BHS and protected species; to include water quality and sea defences and flooding, and cavern monitoring, in particular in relation to caverns created under the SSSI. 7. Landscape Impact of the Development. 8. Impact on the Amenity Value of the Wyre Estuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths, including objectives of the Seveso II Directive in regard to areas of public use. 9. Highway Safety and Highway Impact on Amenity. 10. Other Ammenity Issues e.g. noise and impact on residential areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary in the short, medium and long term, and including future development in capacity and extent of the gsa storage site and the impact on significant elements of public infrastructure e.g. Hackinsall STW. 11. Economic/Tourism Impact including impact on future estuary and estuary hinterland development, housing, leisure, expansion of industry Hillhouse International site, port, marina, barrage and Knott End Golf Course. 12. Human Rights."

Neville Mawdsley
"This is a massive construction project for a fairly densley populated area in Fleetwood and Preeswal. I understand that it would take years to complete and it wouid be too desruptive for the people. We have farmland here which would be destroyed. This is land which is far more important for us all in the future than a constant gas supply produced by Halite who continually emphasis the benefits to to everyone but themselves. We have woodland at the rear of our property which is home to every kind of wild life. There are rareThrushes and Woodpeckers as well as all other types of birds, hedgehogs, foxes etc. This habitat, although small, would be destroyed by the pipe laying project."

Mrs. V. Parkinson
"1) If the project goes ahead, there will be massive disruption to our small farm business (and the other farmers affected). a) The pipeline would go across 12 acres of the best meadow land on the farm of 56 acres. Taking this amount of land out of production reduces the viability of the business and therefore our livelihood. b) The works would have a disruptive effect on the crops and stock production of the whole farm. There would be less output for an indefinite period of time. c) There would be financial loss of Single Farm Payment and Environmental Stewardship payment on the affected field for an indefinite period of time. d) The works would cause pollution of crops by dust, and noise pollution would affect stock for an indefintite period of time. e) The works would destroy topsoil and disrupt subsoil. f) The works would destroy ancient field drainage systems and main water courses across our farm and a large area around the pipeline - have the Environmental Agency been consulted regarding water drainage issues? g) Bisecting our field with a pipeline means that we would be unable to access the far side of the field. 2) It is wrong in principle that a large private company should be allowed to disrupt the structure and profitability of many small businesses in pursuit of their own profits. 3) The project, if it goes ahead, will affect the Human Rights of ourselves and many other people to enjoy the amenity value of our own property."

George J T Parkinson
"Dear Sirs, I would like to object strongly against the proposed storage of gas at the Preesall Salt field for the following reasons:- a) The project would have a significant impact on our small farm business and reduce the business viability by taking land out of production for a considerable period. b) The construction of the gas pipelines and gas storage facility would damage ancient hedgerows, farm drainage systems, main water courses and soil structure and quality for a considerable number of years. The Environmental Stewardship measures required in order to comply with Single Farm Payment Legislation would be impossible to maintain. c) The ground water table in this area fluctuates considerably and was subject to rigorous monitoring on our farm by ICI when they ran the brine extraction unit during the last few decades. The water movement was monitored by graph and the underground water levels moved considerably. This significant movement of underground water has the potential to move the gas pipelines following construction - a movement which may be potentially hazardous. d) It is proposed that the gas transport pipelines are to run directly through a considerable area of land that has previously been mined by ICI in the last century, before eventually reaching the gas storage facility. It is well documented that many of the old salt mines have collapsed leading to subsidence of the land over large areas. It would surely be impossible to predict accurately that no further collapses of existing salt caverns would not take place in the proposed 40 year life of this storage facility. It could be argued that to place the gas transport pipelines to the proposed storage facility directly through the old minefields is not a safe or well constructed business proposition. e) One of the existing salt caverns which is near to the proposed storage facility has previously been used to store mercurial sludge - a potential environmental hazard in the event of any accident. f) The project would have a significant effect on the environment. The construction of the storage facility would impact on the area and damage the ecology by the pumping of brine into the Irish sea."

Mr Ben Wallace MP
"As I set out in my correspondence dated 14 December 2011 to John Saunders, IPC Chief Executive, the current application is similar to two previous applications which have been submitted by Canatxx (Halite Energy Group is the de-facto new name of Canatxx) and refused by Planning Inspectors and Ministers. The previous applications have been refused on two main grounds: the special nature of the environment and its wildlife; and the stability of the geology of the area. Neither aspects have altered since the time of the last application was refused. Environment: The proposed site is located on the Preesall salt marsh and neighbouring area which falls within the Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its bird populations of European importance. The site of the proposed development is also located within the Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is located close to a number of Biological Heritage Sites (BHS). Under the provisions of Article 6 of the “Habitats” Directive 92/43/EEC SPAs such as the Morecambe Bay SPA are afforded particular protections. The Directive states: “Member States should take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds”. When the first (2003) application was submitted by Canatxx the European Commission opened a horizontal investigation into the failure of the UK statutory bodies to properly take action to protect the SPA. The Commission’s investigation was halted when the application was refused by the Secretary of State. Instability: The Preesall Salt Field has a long history of brine workings and until 1994 was solution mined for use as a source of chemical production by ICI. It is well documented that these works have led to some instances of collapse within the area. Throughout the planning process to date the instability of the geology has been questioned. While Halite/Canatxx may have changed the proposals for the gas storage facility, it cannot alter the physicality of the site. This is illustrated by the incident which occurred, as recently as 18 June 2011, when a disused salt mine (Brine Well 45) collapsed releasing contaminated brine water. At that time the Environment Agency confirmed “this type of brine well is known to collapse and cause subsidence”. I believe there are another 14 wells on the site which also hold brine. Halite/Canatxx has indicated publicly that work to stabilise these wells will not be undertaken as part of the company’s gas storage facility plans. I have always believed that the Preesall site is not suitable for underground gas storage and this incident and Halite/Canatxx’s response has confirmed my fears. The latest application is not driven by the merits of the proposals but by impatient speculative investors seeking their before the money is exhausted. It is clear from the Company House records and Halite/Canatxx’s track record that it is a highly dubious and risky application. From meetings with Ministers it is also clear that there is no established need for a gas storage facility in this region. ?"

R.S. Jackson
"SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES ON WHICH I WISH TO MAKE FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS Personal Information in Support of my Representation R.S. Jackson I am a qualified engineer and a partner in a farming and agricultural engineering business trading as D.S.Jackson. I both live and work on the former brine field at Little Height O'th Hill/Height O'th Hill Farm. There are a number of issues relating to the Halite Planning Application with which I disagree. Of particular concern are safety issues; I have genuine concerns in regard to the safety of my family; my wife and our four children. In my daily life I appreciate the unspoilt character of the Wyre Estuary and it's wildlife and have serious environmental concerns for it's future. I am also concerned at the loss of amenity in the area in regard to quiet enjoyment of the countryside currently experienced by the many walkers, horse riders and visitors to the area. MAIN ISSUES WITH WHICH I DISAGREE 1. Need, Alternatives and Principle of Development. 2. Geology, Storage Technology, Mining History ect. 3. Risk (gas migration and explosion), Risk Assessment, Fear as a Material Consideration. 4. Security and Emaergency Access Provision and Major Incident Response. 5. Monitoring and Maintenance of Existing Brine Field and De-commisioning Plans and Aftercare. 6. Gas Interconnector Pipelines to the NTS and Route of Electrical Services 7. Landscape Impact of Development and other Amenity Issues eg. Noise. 8. Impact on SPA, SAC,RAMSAR, SSSI, BHS and Protected Species. 9. Highway Safety and Highway Impact on Amenity. 10. Impact on Amenity Value of the Wyre Estuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths, including objectives of the Seveso II Directive in regard to areas of public use. 11. Economic/Torism Impact, Impact on Future Housing, Leisure and Industrial Development and Extension of Current Storage Proposal. 12. Human Rights."

Kenneth Wade
"My main comcern is one of safety to the population in the vicinity of the proposed storage area. I am also concerly about the disruption of wildlife, particularly the bird population of the estuary and Morcame Bay."

John William Croft
"I disagree with the proposition made for gas storage in the salt mines in the over wyre area of lancashire. I do not wish the area to become a sleeping time bomb."

Paul Maynard MP
"This is the third application by Halite/Canatxx for a similar project. I do not believe there has been any signficant new evidence to suggest the grounds on which their previous applications should now be overlooked. The geology has not sufficiently changed. In my view there are sufficient approved planning applications for gas storage to meet our strategic national need in other safer lcoations. The representations from my constituents have been uniformly against this application and I am urging their views be given priority consideration."

Eric Ollerenshaw OBE MP
"Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining History of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Security and emergency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR sites Amenity value of Wyre Estuary Knott End Golf Course Visual impact of proposed buildings Traffic & Highway safety Noise pollution Human rights and Seveso II Directive The actual need for this scheme Extension of current storage proposal Tourism Home insurance premiums and house prices Other infrastructure projects, port, marina, barrage, Hillhouse, Hackinsall Treatment Works, etc Decommissioning plans"

David Evans
"I have serious concerns regarding the pipeline routing to the NTS gas pipeline at Nateby. As there are two other projects which also require pipelines being laid to and from similar points it will cause serious disruption to the farming community in the area. Consideration should be given by all developers i.e. Halite, Wyre Power and NPL to the use of a shared easement corridor which would ease the disruption to the community caused by compulsory purchase options and also minimise the cost to all parties involved."

Peter Boden Haigh
"My wife and I oppose the application for gas storage in the Preesall salt fields for the following reasons:- 1) The land is unstable and previous salt extraction has made the storage of gas very unsafe, the recent wellhead collapse supports this view. 2) We only have one road into Over Wyre the sheer scale of the development will cause massive problems to the residents of Over Wyre. 3) The amount of salt the Company proposes to pump into the Morecambe Bay area will destroy vital wildlife this will take perhaps 30 to 50 years to recover. 4) Halite has not proved that it can handle a project of this size, We cannot find any evidence of projects completed by this company. 5) If the gas stored migrates due to unstable conditions we could have an explosion that would wipe out areas as far as Blackpool and Fleetwood. Finally we have firm evidence of the effects of migrating gas when we had the Abbeystead disaster, many people were killed when a gas explosion was caused by land faultsand migrating gas."

John Bradbury
"I am against the proposal because- From previous history the ground is /has been proven to be unstable due to the previous salt mine workings. Should mass evacuation be needed in the event of accident there is basically only one road into both peninsulars. There aparently have been other accidents in the USA making us all very worried ,as we live here and the developers do not . The developers are paying no attention to the worries and concerns of the people by using bully boy tactics to try to force this through. A very worried lifetime resident John Bradbury"

Ruth Bradbury
"I am against the proposal because:- I do not believe the land to be stable. No one knows the true state and I am not convinced that any further geological investigation has been done by Halite since the last rejection. We only have one main road from the village should mass evacuation become necessary. Last year a well head 'blew' causing widespread brine contamination of farmland. I am a descendent of Preesall salt mine managers and workers and was led to believe that mercury is stored in one of the caverns. I have concerns for the ecology and safety of the estuary for marine and bird life. This is a sanctuary and breeding ground for sea birds. Similar projects in the USA and China have resulted in explosions -this is our home. My family has lived here for generations and remember the subsidence which resulted in a few months a hole developing large enough to swallow up Blackpool Tower. We feel we are being stressed and bullied by a rich company who repeatedly place us in this situation. We also feel let down that repeated applications are accepted for scrutiny. How many times can this be done?"

Jacqueline Budhwani
"I am an owner of a property that is located on South Strand, Fleetwood and which may be affected by the application. I have requested confirmation as to where the pipelines will be in relation to South Strand, Fleetwood."

Fleetwood Civic Society
"Members of Fleetwood Civic Society (FCS) have the following concerns over the suitability of the salt layer proposed for housing the caverns. the visual impact of the buildings on Fleetwood foreshore especially in the light of ongoing developments and improvements in the area. regarding the increase in traffic in an already busy area, near to 3 schools in the Rossall area, which will compound the already increased congestion due to the new light railway regulations now in place with the developments on the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway system Noise and distress caused to residents in Fleetwood during the construction phase. the assumptions being made that the development is in a rural area when in fact it very much impacts on Fleetwood which is a highly populated area, particularly so as the area close to the River Wyre estuary in the older part of town consists mostly of terraced housing, Very grave concerns over the discharge of salt into the Lune Deeps as this would have many consequences on the marine environment, and for the fish stocks and breeding grounds in the area. Members also expressed grave concerns over the safety of the whole application, which is causing a great deal of distress in the area."

Mrs Rosemary Hogarth
"The geology of the area is dangerously unsuitable for the storage of gas. When I researched and wrote a series of articles "The History of Preesall Salt Industry" (published in Pilling & District Historical Society's Over Wyre Historical Journals volumes 1 to 5 inclusive) I got to know how unstable is the area. The blow-out at Brine Well 45 in 2011 demonstrated the sensitivity of the area."

Gordon Heald
"I object to the application on the following grounds - The proposals will be unsafe and result in danger to the public for the following reasons; Close proximity to a. existing brine wells b. old collapsed mine workings c. geological fault d. toxic waste cavern e. designated subsidence area f. Built up areas inhabited by more than 40,000 people The proposals will result in unacceptable degradation of the environment, as follows a. adverse impact of waste brine disposal on marine ecology b. adverse impact of construction work including roads, well heads,buildings, etc., and movements of traffic, on quiet rural byways and habitations, resulting in considerable loss of amenity at a high level for 10-30 years. c. adverse impact of construction activity and continued vehicular, maintenance and works access on the Wyre Estuary SSSI for 10-30 years There are important omissions in the application; a. No proposals for dealing with the redundant salt caverns at the end of their use for gas storage. b. No realistic proposals for coping with the results of any potential accident or disaster caused by gas leakage which might threaten the safety of residents' The proposals in the application constitute an inappropriate large scale industrial development on green belt land in clear contravention of local and regional planning policy. I am a local resident with considerable knowledge of local historical and environmental factors, particularly concerning the past results and impact of the salt extraction industry on the area, and my long experience in the architectural professsion has given me considerable insights into the impact of developments such as this."

Sarah Johnson
"I believe that this development is dangerous both to the environment and the rural economy. The development of Gas Storage over wyre has been an on-going issue for several years and the stress this has provided myself and my family in this time is extreme. The planning application has been turned down by other authorities in the past, even at the highest court in the land and I believe that now we have a change of government, a down-turn in the economy then companies such as halite are once again placing pressure on myself and our community. We have experienced earth tremours over the past 2 years, cracks in the earth and with the pipe line literally travelling next to my property my home which is dated from the 17th century will be effected both structurally with the ground works and also the value of my property will be greatly effected. Therre will also be a serious depreciation in the quality of our life in this part of the country as out peace and quiet will be hampered, additional traffic in both the development and servicing of the facility on already dangerous and difficult roads. I can not believe that this is going ahead once again. There is also considerable local hostility against this development and I feel that I have no say in this as I have requested documentation at the planning office in Poulton and there was so much - 5 stacker boxes - it is nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to be heard."

Over Wyre Action Group (OWAG)
"The organisation's views regarding this application for Gas Storage in the Preesall salt field are summarised below (in no particular order): The unsuitability of the geology for gas storage Risk of gas migration due to inherent faults and previous mining activities Pollution of Morecambe Bay due to discharge of concentrated brine solution Protection of existing SSSI / SPA / RAMSAR sites Amenity value of the Wyre Estuary - effect upon tourism, the Wyre Way coastal path etc. Fear and concern of community residents Site security and emergency services access Future expansion of the current proposal should it be allowed Gas pipeline links to NTS - unsuitability of terrain (peat moss) Traffic and Highway safety The consequences surrounding the brine blowout at Brine Well 45 Potential rise in property insurance premiums and reduction in property value Noise pollution and visual impact"

Ms Lesley Maxwell
"I am a local resident (owner/occupier) in Knott End and I believe this project were it go ahead, to be highly dangerous, not to to say detrimental to what is a quiet- mostly residential area with natural seaside/ river estuary wildlife to be considered, which do not have a voice...and to read in the Over Wyre FOCUS February magazine...19 new caverns underneath us measuring 19m in diameter x 340m deep holding a total volume of gas that would need 18,000, YES- 18,000, of the old gasometers- we used to see ONE of dotted around our larger towns- remember how enormous just one was, can anyone imagine having a restful night's sleep ever again with the equivalent of 18,000 gasometers buried underneath us, full of volatile gas- well it just beggars belief, and I cannot belive any sane person on any planning committee would allow this ANYWHERE under our land/riverbed much less our quiet backwater here !? This is a project that should only be considered far, far away from ANY urbanisation whatsoever- it's far too dangerous to contemplate if God forbid there was some emergency...only possibly way out mid-ocean where it cannot harm anyone, but even then a tsunami situation could happen if there were any serious explosion, if that were to happen here if they go ahead with their proposal- it wouldn't just blast out Over Wyre and Fleetwood, it'd be the WHOLE Flyde coast obliterated- and probably much further beyond too ! This MUST be rejected this for ALL our sakes !"

Robert Foden
"I have registered as I don't feel that the geology of the salt body is suited for the storage of gas. The Preesall Halite is a layered salt body rather than a massive salt and there is potential for collapse or leakage at bed boundaries. There is faulting in the area which is not perfectly understood. The proposed development is also very close to the existing brinefield that was worked by ICI. Problems with collapsing and leaking wells on the old brinefield still exist today. These risks put local lives in danger and that is unacceptable by anyone's standards."

Kevin Mellor
"I would like to object to the scheme 1.suitability of geology for gas storage 2.risk of gas migration and subsequent explosions 3.fear and concerns of residents 4.recent cause of blow out at brine well 45 5.noise pollution 6.security and emergency access provisions"

Cllr Lady Atkins
"I do not believe that this is the correct place to put a gas storage. Residents are fearful. Roads in the area are narrow - what happens in an emergency? Pollutions and visual impact on the area."

Anthony Coppin
"I am concerned mainly about the safety of this project, especially in view of the unstable geology of the area. I was not convinced about the outcome of the investigation of the brinewell incident in summer 2011."

South Ribble Borough Council
"South Ribble Borough Council raises no objection to the application."

Dr MD Connaughton
"I disagree with the application on the following bases: (i) The increased risk to the safety of all people in the area of Preesall and surrounding areas, in particular to my family in Preesall and to all children attending local schools such as St Aidan's in Preesall. This is based on the information available in local documents which to-date has not been satisfactorily defended by evidence from the applicant, Halite. (ii) The risk that the project will adversely affect the price of houses in Preesall and the surrounding areas. Previously I have requested assurances on this point from the applicant (then known as Canatxx), without success. (iii) The expected increase in traffic that the project will cause which will then increase the risk of traffic accidents and general traffic congestion in the affected areas."

Howard Phillips
"I wish to object to the Halite proposals on the following grounds 1 The suitability of the geology 2 The risk of gas migration 3 The instability of the old brine field and its proximity 4 The need for this particular scheme"

Kenneth Davenport
"My interests and concerns in this planning application are centred around the following matters 1) Environmental, for example damage to the Irish Sea and Morecambe Bay during the creation of underground caverns. 2) Geographical and geological concerns, for example, • taking into account the Morecambe Bay Gas field a few miles to the North West of the proposed site and the shale gas being explored even closer to the site in a South East direction with Preesall in the middle of what in effect is a single gas field; • the use of “soft” salt beds creating huge caverns with a footprint the size of a football field and twice the depth of Blackpool Tower • a large tidal river running within a few metres of the proposed site. 3) Other infrastructure schemes ‘in the pipeline’ such as Caudrilla gas exploration and the proposed Wyre barrage both of which are likely to be incompatible with the Halite application. 4) The status of the applicant, • in terms of financial capability; • the lack of in depth experience within the company, which for some time will be a mining operation and • the lack of any current business operation on which to draw, human, material and financial resources; • the 2010 Annual Report for Halite Energy Group. There are a number of issues arising and a worrying warning from the companies auditor. • Insurance bonds with values of at least several £billion are not identified, but I believe an essential ingredient for a project of this size. 5) The significant risk of insolvency should any major cost arise during construction or running of the facility. The local population and UK taxpayers will be burdened with the real risks of this project. 6) Public safety issues, for example, • arising from the unforeseen collapse of one of the existing well heads at Preesall in 2011 and • at present I have found no detailed explanation of Business Continuity planning. • I also have concerns around site security and the risk analysis carried out for the application. 7) Previous planning applications -This Company (Halite Energy Group Ltd, formally Canatxx) has already been through the full process of planning and appeals process and been rejected by the Government’s ultimate planning authorities. All documentation submitted to the previous planning Inspectors enquiries and the full text of each result must be made available to this enquiry. 8) Decommisioning - The application appears to have a short life as gas holders with 2-8 years to build and possibly 40 years to buy gas low and sell gas high. There is a huge worry as to their potential use after they become time expired for the storage of gas. 9) Finally the proposed site is in the middle a pleasant rural area bordered by several large villages. Housing attracts a premium price for the excellent shopping facilities, good schools and the absence of any major industrial complexes. The location of the proposed storage facilities will present a major disincentive to people wanting to live in the area which in turn will almost certainly create a downward pressure on the value of Over Wyre property. Fleetwood and Thornton-Cleveleys could also be seriously disadvantaged in terms of future tourism."

John Holmes on behalf of Electricity North West Limited
"Electricity North West Limited owns, operates and maintains the North West's electricity distribution network and owns one of the 14 original regulated electricity distribution networks in England. It is a statutory undertaker with statutory duties and responsibilties for the distribution of electricity in the North West of England. As such, Electricity North West Limited requires that the scheme for which the Development Consent Order has been applied protects its assets within the land affected by the scheme and does not prevent or interfere with the exercise of its statutory functions as a statutory electricity undertaker. Electricity North West Limited welcomes the discussions that it has previously had with the applicant regarding these issues, wishes to continue these discussions constructively and requests that it continues to be kept fully informed of all developments and proceedings in connection with the scheme."

Edward Hogarth
"I lived in Preesall for almost 25 years and I stay with family there at least once every month. I am deeply concerned at the thought of storing gigantic quantities of highly flammable natural gas in an area that has many large subsidences from previous workings of salt caverns (evidenced by the flooded subsidences that are now large ponds). It appears to be a very dangerous application."

Gordon McCann
"I believe that the creation of the gas storage cavities will have two negative effects. One on the ecology of Morcambe Bay and one on the availability of natural resources in future. The ecology of Morcambe bay will be affected by the discharge of many millions of tons of super saturated brine into the bay, which, by virtue of its density compared to sea water, will sink to the bottom and affect life on the sea bed and the water column adversely. Secondly I think that the washing of cavities will result in many millions of tons of salt that could be put to commercial use being wasted by discharging it into the bay in the form of brine. I do not believe that the waste of natural resources on this scale is good for the future economy of the country, as we cannot foresee just what our needs for minerals will be in future, as industry and technology evolve."

Bernard Postles
"As a local resident I am concerned that the area where it is proposed that gas be stored has been the subject of mining in the past and that the caverns left by this mining and the measures used to seal those caverns present a danger that gas could leak out of the storage and constitute a risk of causing an explosion. This is especially so given that the area where the present caverns are and where the proposed caverns will be, are made up of layered salt and present a risk that gas could leak from the storage caverns, through the salt and into the disused mined caverns. If this should occur then the gas could find its way to the surface through the pipes used to cap the mined caverns. This potential is evidenced by the blow out at Brine Well 45 which took place during the summer of 2011 when considerable amounts of brine and mud were expelled. Had gas stored in the area leaked into that cavern then there may well have been a loss of life. I am aware that Halite have alleged that the well head had been criminally damaged although the police investigation did not reveal any evidence to support that suggestion and Halite's commissioned experts attribute the blow out to the failure of the pipe well below ground level. There are dozens of these well heads in the area with no guarantee that the quality of the pipes used to seal them is any better than the one used to seal Brine Well 45. I believe that a full examination of the causes of the blow out should be undertaken by the IPC in order to ensure that if this happens in the future, that Halite can guarantee that these old caverns would not have been contaminated by leaking gas."

Preesall Town Council
"Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Security and emeregency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay and local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR sites"

Derek Mayes
"I object to this proposal on the grounds that it is within a heavilly populated area, Fleetwood, Thornton, Cleveleys and over Wyre residences coming within a Five mile zone. Residence are frightened such development is even being considered. This reflects in objections raised in previous applications by companies we all know are close to Halite. These applications were all rejected by a strong community spirit which is still there, also evidence from experts in the field, showing that this development would affect sealife, wildlife and local habitate. To my mind little has changed. Halite is not interested in local feelings, showing this by continuing to buy land and push ahead with their plans, the latest was a proposal to Knott End Golf Club to purchase some of their land, which is very close to the proposed well heads. I strikes me that this application is already guaranteed, although this cannot be true in a democratic society. If (and it is possible), that gas was to leak for whatever reason from this storage vacility and gather over these townships it would only take an ignition source to cause an explosion and fireball the consequences which would be devastating. Who then is going to underwrite such a disaster, the company, the Government, I wonder. A disaster, happened in North London at an aviation storage vacility, when we were all told it couldn't happen. There are other options to store gas, at sea for instance, expensive yes, but what price does one put on human lives, that in this case are at risk."

South Lakeland District Council
"IPC ref ENO30001 At a meeting on 26 January the South Lakeland District Council Planning Committee resolved to inform the Infrastructure Planning Commission the District Council does not wish to make any representations in respect of the proposed underground gas storage facility at Preesall, Lancashire."

Persimmon Homes Lancashire
"We are developing a housing scheme alongside Redrow Homes Lancashire at Fleetwood Docks, Fleetwood. Our detailed scheme has been approved by Wyre Borough Council under references 10/00560/MAJ (8 October 2010) and 11/00824/REMMAJ (5 January 2012). Our site is adjacent to the application site. I refer to the drawing reference "Fleetwood Master Plan" A-9000-002 Rev B dated 18 February 2011. It is noted that the proposals affecting our site comprise the installation and routing of cables/pipelines and the siting of a temporary compound for construction. It is requested that the IPC in its assessment have regard to the amenity impact on existing and future residents and that appropriate restrictions are imposed to mitigate any noise/nuisance/disturbance/dust arising from construction activities and that suitable screening and soft landscaping be utilised to screen the temporary compound for construction."

Mr Warren Hewitt
"Compensation for spoiling the view from my house, also there is the noise aspect which I feel will affect my house value,and ay future sale,also more passing traffic. There is the safety issues."

Fylde Coast Bridleways Association
"The members of Fylde coast Bridleways Association strongly object to this application because gas storage is not safe in this environment. The ground is unstable and will always present a risk of explosion or leakage to this humanly populated area. The proposed development of the land would be unsightly and disruptive. Roads, bridleways and footpaths would become hazardous for local users in this rural area with limited access due to plant traffic and route changes.There would be an unacceptable impact on the environment in an area now a haven for wildlife and birdlife."

Daniel Hamer on behalf of Knott End Golf Club
"PRINCIPLE Knott End Golf Club and its members wish to register an OBJECTION to the principle of the Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage Project on the grounds that: a) The development would have significant detrimental impacts upon the landscape character and ecological value of the Irish Sea, the Wyre Estuary and the surrounding open countryside; and b) The development would represent a significant risk to the safety of property, residents and the general public within the Preesall and Stalmine area. COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS Knott End Golf Club and its members wish to register an OBJECTION to the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) to include powers to compulsorily purchase land / rights and the right to gain temporary use / possession of lands in the ownership of the club. The subject lands are identified as parcels 66 – 79 in the ‘Book of Reference’ and illustrated on drawing 021/Halite/LP/18/11/6/6.0. The lands comprise a significant proportion of the golf course (12 holes) and agricultural fields held for potential future provision of additional playing area and ancillary facilities. Any permanent or temporary development or undertaking of operations on these lands, or indeed the perceived threat of any such activity, would have serious detrimental consequences that would undermine the financial stability of the club and jeopardise its long –term future as a valuable community and social asset and contributor to the local economy. Firstly, it would prejudice future expansion / development through the loss of land (i.e. with regard to parcel 72). Secondly, it could have a disrupting effect on playing and maintenance activity (i.e. in terms of noise, dust, changes to the landscape and diversions) which would inevitably impact upon the enjoyment of users and result in restriction / cessation of operations. Consequently, these real or perceived threats would have a direct adverse effect on the existing membership numbers of the club and its ability to attract new members / visitors. In addition, should there be any collapse of the six proposed caverns (as illustrated in drawing D-9000-030) or other industrial incident the lands may become unusable as a golf course. Further to these observations, there is a lack of information or an appropriate justification as to why rights (on and over) to the parcels 66, 67, 70, 71 and 73 need to be acquired to facilitate the development when the proposals intend to utilise slant wells to create and operate the caverns under this area. Similarly, there is no justification as to why Halite wants powers to take temporary possession of the same parcels of land as above, which have been clearly identified in 6.1, Draft Development Consent Order, Schedule 6, Article 23."

Associated British Ports
"I write on behalf of Associated British Ports (ABP) as freeholder owner and operator of the Port of Fleetwood and landlord of Halite Energy Group Ltd under an Agreement and Supplemental Agreement dated 18th September 2006 and a Lease and Deed of Easement dated 19th September 2006. ABP is the UK's largest port operator, helping to drive the vital contribution that ports make to our economy. ABP have a statutory duty to undertake and provide port facilities at its harbours and is therefore deemed a 'statutory undertaker'. As you are aware, ports are essential for UK trade and the economy, and the UK Government Policy recognises that the country 'needs a thriving ports inductry'. Whilst ABP are generally supportive of this application we do have concerns that the provisions of the current application extend beyond the rights, benefits and obligations agreed within the above completed documents and could adversely affect our ability to operate the port estate as we deem in the best interests of the port and therefore must OBJECT to the application in its current form. We have particular concerns relating to the current contents of the Book of Reference Parts 1 and 3. We believe that the rights sought in part 1 on ourselves as Category 1 owners do not co-relate with those rights already granted under preceeding documentation. We would specifically OBJECT to the current description of land for site plan number 53. We would point out that there are currently no paths or cycle paths on the land in question and would ask that all reference to the same be deleted. This is private land and no such paths exist with our consent. We would specifically OBJECT to the current potential under part 3 that infers that there may be easements or other private rights over land (including private rights of navigation over water) which it is proposed shall be extinguished, suspended or interfered with. We believe that this could compromise our statutory obligations, rights and benefits. We would specifically OBJECT to clauses 23 and 24 of the draft Development Consent Order relating to temporary possession of land. We will not accept the imposition of any rights beyond those already granted by the previously detailed documents, or agreed subsequently by the parties, which could adversely affect the use of the port estate. We would ask that the applicant makes contact with ABP as soon as possible to seek an agreed resolution to our concerns, so as to hopefully enable us to remove our objections prior to the full examination."

Mrs Judith Whitehorn
"As I live within 3 miles of the proposed development my main concern is what happens if there is a leak or an explosion. I have not been informed or read anywhere of plans to deal with either of these eventualities. The pollution after effects of pumping Brine into the river wyre and the effect this will have on the environment is also a concern. I have nothing that explains the safety of gas migration. I have no information reguarding provisions for any majorincident response"

Jonathan Hall
"I don't feel that the geology of the salt body is suited for the storage of gas. The Preesall Halite is a layered salt body rather than a massive salt and there is potential for collapse or leakage at bed boundaries. There is faulting in the area which is not perfectly understood. The proposed development is also very close to the existing brinefield that was worked by ICI. Problems with collapsing and leaking wells on the old brinefield still exist today."

Mrs Angela Lea
"As a local resident I do not wish the gas storage to go ahead under any circumstances .I worry about safety and would feel safer having a nuclear power plant locally than the proposed gas storage."

Mr B Bayley
"The proposal should be rejected for the following reasons: Recent history of earth movements / tremors in the Fylde district makes the proposal for gas storage ridiculous given such instability. Risk of gas escape/explosion is too high given the associated geology. The location of the storage facility is inappropriate given the poor road access to the site. Emergency / post explosion clean up vehicles would fail the local community . Pollution by brine of the Irish Sea is unacceptable, as is the application sites proximity to SSSI designation."

Mavis Holden
"Re: Proposed creation of an underground gas storage facility at Preesall I wish to register my objection to the above proposal to store natural gas under the River Wyre estuary for the following reasons:- • I am in no way convinced that Halite / Canatxx’s research into the safety aspects of gas storage in this area is as thorough or unbiaised as they would have us believe. I strongly feel that their inconclusive findings have far more to do with the potential profit than with the wellbeing of the region and its people. * The inherent instability of the caverns and salt beds are simply not suitable for the storage of gas under high pressure. There is already evidence that the abandoned salt mines and brine wells near Preesall are subsiding and collapsing. • The environmental impact must not be under-estimated. The hugely increased traffic during the years of the construction stage, the noise pollution, the disturbance to the flora and fauna and the catastrophic effects upon marine life of discharging many millions of tonnes of brine into the sea cannot be justified. • Access to the local area and its amenities will be jeopardised if this plan is allowed to go ahead. • Halite /Canatxx are apparently ignoring the lessons to be learned from Hutchinson, Kansas but many Wyre residents still have clear memories of the Abbeystead disaster. Presumably, given the relative scale, Abbeystead would pale into insignificance in impact when viewed alongside this proposed installation. • Besides the always-present risk of human error when administering a potentially dangerous installation such as the one proposed here, there is also the increased risk of it being targeted for a terrorist attack. • The determined way in which this company keeps resubmitting its applications provides food for thought. If they have as genuinely benevolent an attitude towards the local community as they claim, they would be more sympathetic to the justifiable concerns and anxieties of the local population and seek to provide substantiated evidence to support their proposal. Failing that, they should give in gracefully and abandon the proposal. Name: MAVIS HOLDEN 5th February 2012"

Bernard Holden
"My concerns centre upon:- the suitability of the geology for gas storage the risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion the justified fears and concerns of local residents the security and emergency access provisions the monitoring and maintenance of the existing salt field the pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge the overall effect on the amenity value of Wyre Estuary the visual impact of proposed buildings the traffic & Highway safety, particularly during the construction phase noise pollution the possible (and likely) extension of current storage proposal the effects on home insurance premiums and house prices"

Paul Hallam
"unsafe spoil the countryside spoil the bird environment on the River Wyre"

Ribble Fisheries Consultative Association
"We have already made strong objections to Canatxx previously and more recently Halite about the disposal of excessive brine into the Irish Sea in an ecologically significant area - being a nursery area for many sea fish, some of which are endangered species, and directly on the migratory path for salmonids as they migrate to and from the rivers of the North West. The company has not considered, in our view, considered these issues as they have been unable or unwilling to provide any detailed analysis of the environmental and ecological impacts of the proposed discharges. Similarly the E.A. has also refused, despite the proposed increase in the discharge, to consider the request for a full review of the previous consent on the grounds of cost. This is totally unacceptable given that the potential damage would be irrevocable. The increase in the salt concentration and distribution within the Irish Sea will have a detrimental impact upon the young salmon smolts as they move towards the North Channel and out into the Atlantic. Given that approximately only 3% return any further depletion would have a serious impact upon the prime salmonid rivers of the North West, where there have been strenuous efforts over the past few years to enhance salmonid stocks. A significant increase in the salt would have a detrimental impact upon the food chain for sea trout, an endangered species that feeds on the coastal flats being threatened by the discharge that would cause severe damage to the food chain - especially shrimps - for this species. We also believe that the increase in stocks would have a detrimental effect on sea fish in the area, especially Dover Sole - an endangered species - as the Irish Sea is a prime spawning and nursery area for this and other species. Couple with this the alterations to the sewage outfall and the resultant changes in sea currents together wit the now increased quantities, we believe that the previously granted discharge consent must be re-examined by the E.A. especially as the discharge site is only just outside a designated marine area. A second concern is the safety of the area given the recent unexpected blow out and the lack of transparency by Halite as to its cause - if this had been gas there would have been a national disaster. We now have shale gas fracking in the area that has caused minor earthquakes, which again causes concern about the safety of the whole area given the instability of salt fields. A third concern is the impact of the discharge on the quality of bathing waters along the Lancashire and Cumbia coast. The potential for failure to meet bathing water quality standards is extremely high. Lastly, while we acknowledge that the provision of gas storage facilities may be necessary we do not accept that this is the safest site and feel that the necessary environmental impacts have been explored or given due consideration."

John Laughton
"I wish to be an interested party I object to the proposal to create gas storage in caverns in the layered salt under ground in the area of Stalmine / Preesall for a number for reasons. The unsuitability of the geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Cause & consequences of the brine well 45 blow out not resolved. concern for residents Protection of SSSI,SPA RAMSAR sites Decommissioning plans The actual need for the scheme"

Michael Loraine Tucker
"1) It is questioned whether this application is in the 'National Interest' given the number of other applications, some safely offshore, which have planning approval. 2) The quantity of gas that it is proposed to store, some 650,000 tonnes, is a huge amount and this with some 80,000 plus people living within a three mile radius. 3) The original application was for storage of 2,000,000 tonnes. Halite Energy refused to guarantee that if this application were approved further applications would not be submitted to increase the storage capacity 4) The scheme is scheduled to have a 'life' of approximately 30 years. Given the experience with the collapse of previous caverns it is questioned whether Halite Energy Group are prepared to commit to long term (100 years plus) maintenance of the site. 5) the safety of the project has to be suspect given:- a) the geology in the area b) the mining history of the area c) the risk of gas migration 6) If there were a major incident the infrastructure is simply inadequate to allow the necessary emergency services access to the site at the same time that residents would be trying to leave the area. Given that Fleetwood is on a peninsular evacuation would be a particular problem. 7) Residents are already concerned. If the project were to go ahead some residents will become fearful. 8) During the construction period, which could last some ten years, there will being a significant extra amount of extra traffic on the A588. This road, which along certain stretches is no more than a country lane, is already overloaded at certain times and is entirely unsuitable for H.G.V.s. 9) The area of the proposed scheme is mostly of farmland and mashland. The engineering works and buildings required will have a significant impact on this amenity. 10) The project will have a major hazards status. This will involve the closure of exiating public footpaths. 11) Some 26,000,000 tonnes of salt will have to be dissolved to create the caverns. This will be an unacceptable waste of a natural resource. 12) If built the facility will be a terrorist target and will require a significant security presence. This will increase the concern of local residents"

Mrs Jenifer Phillips
"I am objecting to these proposals as I believe that given the geology was an important factor in the rejection of previous schemes, insufficent surveys have been carried out since, to show that it is possible to store gas in these amounts in the areas described. Given the proximity of the existing brine wells it is difficult not to have great concerns about safety issues."

Malcolm Clegg
"My local knowledge, or qualification to express views and opinions, is the result of a career occupation in Health and Safety, which included the achievement of formal qualification in Health and Safety Management from the University of Loughborough. My Industrial employment was at a top tier major hazard COMAH site where I managed the site's Fire and Rescue team and had the responsibility of producing emergency plans for that and also another satelite site. This required the definition and provision of resources adequate to ensure the health and safety of my fire team, site employees and visitors and to enable a robust emergency response should the need ever have become required. I defined three large scale emergency practice events which included input and attendance of Police, Fire and Rescue, and Ambulance personnel, and the involvement and attendance of representatives of the County Emergency Planning Office and the Health and Safety Insectorate. It is from this background experience that I have grave misgivings about the content of the Planning Application where I see only a weak inclusion of resources neccesary to provide adequate levels of site security, fire management, and thus the ability to generate a robust emergency plan. I base my comments upon a comparison of such resources provided upon twelve other top tier COMAH sites that I have worked upon during my career in industry."

Mrs. Janet Whitlow
"I have, with my family, been a tenant of Park Cottage Farm since 1959. In that time we have had as our landlords - The Imperial Chemical Industry (ICI) NPL, Canatxx and now Halite. ICI have mined and wased out the salt rock from undergound leaving vast caverns all of which are marked with pipes topped with pressure guages. This is as simple as I can explain what is going on underground. Over the years many of the caverns have collapsed and more are imminent(sometime in the next 30 years i am led to believe by Halite from the survey they did in autumn 2010) Also other brinewells are 'under pressure' and are now being constantly monitored since BW45 exploded due to pressure in June 2011. Over the years that we have been here when ICI owned the estate it was not uncommon, despite monitoring,for brinewells to blow out under pressure. ICI always told us that the brinefield site was too dangerous an area to either build on or construct a road across and yet this is exactly what Halite propose to do. My concern is that the area is far too volatile to build a road across( the proposed road goes by two wells that are due to collapse both located behind Lickow Farm which is now deserted due to being considered too dangerous to let) and by the BW45 which blew up unexpectedly last year in June 2011 and which is also next to another well which is causing concern to Halite due to pressure build up under it How can Halite justify that a road can be safely built with all that goes with it under such circumstances.? To sum up, my concern is the safety of the proposed access road and gas storage facilities on a site which is in danger of collapse due to the previous mining and washing out of salt rock and which has pressure under ground which can find its way out in any weak place in the brinefield site."

Fleetwood Town Council
"• Whilst the project is known as the Preesall Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility, if approved it is queried whether further development phases would extend further towards Fleetwood. This is a concern which has not been discussed / denied. • We acknowledge Halite’s statement that they are working to industry standards regarding investigation and provision of information, however given the nature of the proposal, safety issues are of major concern to residents in the whole region. As over 100,000 people live within a 3 mile radius of the site it is imperative that detailed consideration and explanation of safety issues is given. The view of Fleetwood Town Council is that much more detail should have been provided to alleviate fears – as follows. • Geology – we are not convinced that enough has been done to identify the exact location and depth of fault lines and therefore their proximity to the proposed caverns. The area is known to experience tremors. We need as much evidence as possible to give reassurance that caverns would withstand greater tremors than those experienced to date. • Power Station – given fault lines and earth tremors in the area and also the proximity to the Heysham Nuclear Power Station, we would like reassurance that in a worst case scenario, gas escape / explosion would not lead to a nuclear incident. • Brine wells – we would like to see more detailed evaluation of problems notified to Halite regarding the brine wells. • Emergency Services – we would like to see evidence of rigorous consultation with all emergency services to ensure that in the worst case scenario, that all residents could be safely evacuated. • Emergency Services – we would like to see confirmation of whether the emergency services would cease operation to secure their own safety given a worst case scenario – and for each of the services, at exactly what point this would be. This needs to be made available to the public so they appreciate exactly what the risk to them could be. • Evacuation – Fleetwood has 2 main routes in/out of the town, with traffic congestion at peak times during the day. We would like to see detailed plans as to how emergency services could get into the Fleetwood peninsula, and up to 100,000 people could be safely and quickly evacuated from the Fleetwood peninsula in a worst case scenario. • We would like Halite to consider compatability of the proposal with development of a Barrage across the River Wyre. Fleetwood Town Council supports the development of a barrage as it would bring employment, tourism and recreational facilities to the town and greatly contribute to the town’s regeneration – which is very much needed. We need Halite to ensure that proposals for a barrage would not be compromised by proposals for underground gas storage."

Joan Holden
"I disagree with the application for the followig reasons:Land unsuitable for gas storage.Risk of explosion from gas migration.Pollution of Morecambe Bay,thus killing the wonderful birdlife there.Traffic and highway safety.Noise pollution.Huge concerns over the cause and consequences of the blowout at brinewell 45 in June 2011.Extension of current storage proposal.No clear emergency plans for major incidents.Fear of increased house insurance and ultimately, house prices plummeting Finally, my husband and I retired to Knottend in 1995 for a peaceful and contented life by the sea and for most of that time we have been fighting this proposal which has been rufused by our council and the government (original poposal by Canatexx) and now Halite are ruining are lives once again, we hope your common sense will prevail. Yours very sincerely, Joan Holden ."

Les Holden
"I disagree with Halite's application for gas storage for the following reasons: The land is unsuitable for safe gas storage.The risk of explosion from gas migration. The pollution of Morecambe Bay and local rivers with brine discharge, thus killing the varied and wonderful bird and fish life on our doorstep which is in a RAMSAR area.Traffic and highway safety (ie;heavy vehicles on narrow country lanes).Serious concerns regarding the cause and consequences of the blow out at Brine Well 45 in June 2011.No proper emergency plans for major incidents.The extension of current storage plans.Fear of increased house insurance and the fall in property prices if Halite's application is accepted. Your sincerely, Les Holden"

Morecambe Bay Fishermens Association
"we strongly oppose salt brine being discharged into the sea as the damage it can do is ir-revesable. it is damaging to the sea life and enviroment to much salt will pollute the estuaries and kill the flora and fona,shellfish, and allsealife in the area. It will wash back in to the estuaries with the incoming tides.Why can it not be dried out and used on the roads for gritting in the winter. we dont want a dead sea we want vibrant and productive seas. also as fishermen our livelihoods."

Fylde Bird Club
"Our members conduct monthly bird counts for the British Trust for Ornithology at this site. All the birds present on the estuary, Barnaby's Sands, Arm Hill and all the fields visible from the coastal footpath between The Heads and Arm Hill are counted and recorded. From an ornithological perspective the Fylde Bird Club holds an intimate knowledge of the birds using this area which cannot be matched by any organisation or individual. Our data supports the national and international designations given to this area for its importance to birds. The Club is concerned that this development will be damaging to bird life in the area owing to a number of factors: 1) Directly destroying valuable habitat on the inland side of the coastal footpath which has no protected status. This consists or arable and pasture fields. The land is important for breeding Lapwings and Skylarks and wintering Pink footed Geese and Golden Plovers. 2) Disturbance to the saltmarsh at Barnaby’s Sands and Arm Hill. Adjacent construction and mining activities will cause significant and unacceptable disturbance to all species using these protected areas. 3) Potential subsidence of the river bed owing to creation of underground caverns. Such subsidence could lower the level of the river bed in some areas causing the intertidal mud to sink below the low water mark and become unavailable to wading birds as a feeding area. No adequate mitigation for the effects of item 3) above has been proposed. Currently members of the public, including members of the Fylde Bird Club can enjoy pleasant and undisturbed walks along the coastal footpath between the Heads and Hackensall at Knott End. This path has pleasant outlooks over the inland fields to the east and the River Wyre to the west. If the fields to the east are developed into an industrial landscape to manage the gas storage activity, then the please amenity afforded by the coastal foot path will be destroyed. This will no longer be a nice place to visit. The rich bird watching offered by the coastal footpath between the Heads and Hackensall will be seriously damaged by the industrialisation of the fields to the east. This not only represents a loss of biodiversity, owing to habitat loss, but a loss of amenity to local people and visitors. No mitigation has been proposed that would compensate for this loss of amenity."

Phil Dignan
"I am a local resident with a family of two children aged 10 and 4. I am concerned that the proposed area for Underground Gas Storage (UGS) is unsuitable for such a facility and therefore presents a long term threat to the safety and integrity of the natural environment for my family. Recently there has been gas exploration operation within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site using a ‘Fracking’ technique. This resulted in two earth tremors in the area. How do we know what impact this has had on the geology in relation to the proposed UGS facility. In geological terms 5 miles is a small distance. What risks are presented by the proposed UGS and fracking taking place in such close proximity to each other and would further tremors resulting from past or future fracking trigger an explosion resulting in loss of life. Halite Energy Group Ltd can not provide any guarantee or assurance as there has not been enough research done to understand these relationships, which may have a negative impact on public safety, property value and insurance."

Brian Paley
"I may wish to expand on the following issues: ~ the suitability of the geology for gas storage ~ the risk of gas migration and explosion ~ site security, emergency plans and emergency access ~ major incident response ~ issues raised by river crossing development ~ All environmental impacts (to include but not limited by): ~ brine discharge ~ effect on protected sites/areas ~ visual impact ~ traffic, road safety and access issues ~ noise pollution ~ risk to footpaths, bridleways and the Wyre Way"

Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
"Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust would like to raise concerns about the proposed works due to its close proximity to Rossall Hospital situated on Westway, Fleetwood FY7 8JH. Rossall Hospital is part of Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, situated by the sea front at Fleetwood and accommodates rehabilitation patients. Due to the nature of the services provided at this unit it is imperative that unhindered access is maintained to our site and that noise, vibration, dust and odour are kept to a minimum. To this end may I kindly request that the Trust are kept continuously informed of any environmental impact assessment associated with the proposed building development in particular how it will be planned, programmed and executed. Furthermore, we would welcome any information on the proposed measures to control noise vibration, dust and odour levels throughout the construction phase along with the future operation of the plant and its associated services."

AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd
"Concerns over the geological and safety effects the project may have on our adjacent chemical manufacturing site. Concerns over the environmental impact for the Wyre Estuary region"

North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
"NWIFCA has raised serious concerns about potential negative impacts caused by discharge of concentrated brine on the marine environment. NWIFCA wishes to register an interest in the IPC examination of the application. We have worked with Halite’s representatives in Hyder Consultancy, the MMO, Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE) in order to reach agreement over allaying or mitigating against our concerns. However NWIFCA still wishes these matters to be brought before the IPC for further consideration. In relation to the proposed brine discharge the EA Discharge Consent issued in 2007 was based on information contained within Halite’s Marine Dispersion Modelling Report. All the assumptions made in the application about the effects of concentrated brine on marine organisms within the immediate vicinity and on the integrity of European designated sites depend on the modelled dispersion scenario being accurate. The area is a nursery for cod, plaice, sole and rays. There are recreational fisheries for cod, codling, bass, plaice, and rays. There are concerns about the potential effects on migratory salmon and sea trout, as well as potential irrevocable effects on benthic organisms, benthic-pelagic coupling mechanisms, zooplankton and the marine ecosystem in the locality. NWIFCA considered that data for the modelling was outdated as it does not incorporate and consider the induced effects on hydrodynamics of a large rock armoured sewage outfall to the north of the diffuser placed post modelling. NWIFCA asked to see a new model created to incorporate this change in seabed topography. We requested that the EA review their consent using this new information. The EA confirmed they had reviewed supporting environmental information supplied by the applicant and feel the situation has not changed sufficiently to warrant a formal review of the consent, and that the modelling is fit for purpose. None of the parties objected to the EA decision but NWIFCA and NE felt that adequate monitoring and management of the consent and its conditions would be needed to ensure impacts are within predicted thresholds. It was agreed that a ‘marine monitoring group’ consisting of EA, NE, NWIFCA and MMO would be formed should approval be given. The aim would be to ensure robust and stringent monitoring for receiving waters around the discharge and to confirm conditions and environmental impacts set in the permit are being complied with and verified from the first moment of discharge. It was proposed that Halite/Hyder should acknowledge that construction of the sewage outfall has taken place since the modelling and they should verify they take on the risk that the modelling is accurate. If operational monitoring indicates brine dispersion and salinity concentrations are not as predicted then they are liable for any restriction imposed on them by enforcement of the consent. All parties agreed that the brine outfall will need to be buried completely with no structures sitting proud of the seabed and that this should be recommended to Hyder/Halite as a condition in their deemed marine license and will need to be verified through post construction monitoring."

Lancashire Wildlife Trust
"Regarding Question 2 – Lancashire Wildlife Trust manages Barnaby’s Sands and Burrow’s Marsh SSSIs under licence from Halite (the previous owners, Canatxx Energy Ventures Ltd, inherited the original licence from ICI). Our previous query regarding in-combination effects with Cuadrilla/Wyre Power etc. has been addressed. Our comments relate to the ecological impacts of the proposal and focus on the EIA (Chapters 5/9 and the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan (LEMSP), Appendix 14.11). Broadly speaking, we are satisfied with the survey methodology/resultant data given the constraints and assumptions made regarding data gaps and also the embedded design measures. Our principal concern relates to the delivery of the LEMSP, should the project be approved, as its design and implementation will be vital to ensuring no net loss of biodiversity and actual biodiversity gain. We appreciate its status as a working document, but being new to the IPC process, we are unclear as to how its contents will be made legally binding upon the applicant in the event of project approval. Specific LEMSP issues that require further consideration are: LEMSP life – Apparently conflicting references whereby 1.1.4 refers to a 1-3 year life but 5.2.21 refers to life of Project (elsewhere repeatedly cited as 40 years). Would suggest a minimum 40 year life to coincide with the projected whole of life project duration. LEMSP funding – The required funding for LEMSP delivery needs to be ringfenced to ensure its delivery & prevent renegation at a future date. CEMP/Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW). Experience elsewhere (Natural England Commissioned Report NERC032) suggests that this function is often best performed by multi-disciplinary team rather than one individual especially given the timescale/complexity of this project. Furthermore, detailed specifications for works need to be written into contracts to ensure that the best practice methodology is correctly delivered and monitored by the ECOW. Would suggest an advisory panel of nature conservation consultees to review the LEMSP monitoring results with the applicant and agree/adjust management as required. Bird disturbance (especially pink-footed geese on functionally-linked land) – is sufficient appropriate mitigation land available within the applicant’s ownership/control for the required duration (years 1-8 plus)? Total habitat loss e.g. Fleetwood Marsh BHS 2.21 ha. At the time of writing, I am unsure as to whether the projected total habitat loss across the project has been fully compensated for. The JNCC Guidance on Habitat Translocation is currently under review (revised guidance expected this year) which may have a bearing on the LEMSP proposals. Discharge pipeline works – These need to be integrated with the next phase of sea defence works currently being planned by Wyre Borough Council and minimise any adverse impact on affected BHS’."

Hilda Dickinson
"My objection is based on the safety/environmental effect this project would have on the surrounding area of Thornton Cleveleys/RiverWyre district. This is based on land stability i.e. recent earthquakes, water infiltration of gullies above salt flats not forgetting the fury of the Irish Sea which beached the Riverdance, and explosive material - escaping gas being ignited as happened at Abbeystead."

Mr Mark Hamer
"I live close to the proposed facility and could be at risk if one of the high pressure gas storage caverns fails. The Preesall salt workings are prone to collapse and in the late 1970’s three large cast iron pipes carrying brine and fresh water to the Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) plant shattered at the time of an earthquake. The plant was closed for several days whilst the pipes were repaired. The Halite Energy Group representatives at a Public Consultation were unaware of this incident. Redundant caverns are mostly filled with brine which is of lower density than the surrounding halite. Ground pressure acting on the cavern and movement induced by earthquakes can raise the pressure within a cavern until it escapes through a weak point. When the caverns were under the control of ICI they were regularly monitored and excess pressure was slowly discharged. After the ICI brine workings closed, regular monitoring of the caverns ceased. Since then changes to the caverns are undetected. In 2011 shortly after two minor earthquakes several miles from the brine workings, Cavern No 45 began discharging significant quantities of brine. The cause of the discharge is unknown but it could be due to the instability of the halite resulting in increased cavern pressure. The eventual collapse of redundant caverns cannot be prevented unless they are filled with a material of similar density. This will apply to the proposed caverns when they are no longer required. Potential damage is compounded by the relatively shallow depth of the halite which has an unknown but significant number of faults. The depth to the top of the halite beds in the area of interest at Preesall range from a minimum of 280m to just over 400m. With a roof salt of up to 50m, this puts the top of any proposed caverns at between 320m and 450m depth. The Halite Energy Group anticipate a second phase of caverns which would be amongst the shallowest in the UK and indeed, elsewhere in the world. The practice in the industry is not to make caverns in halite within 100 metres of a known fault. Halite Energy Group plan to form caverns at a distance of one and a half diameters from their centre to a known fault. Therefore caverns of less than 100 metres diameter will not comply with the accepted safety standard. In designing atomic plants and high risk installations a 1 in 10,000 year earthquake has to be taken into account. In the interest of public safety it would be wise to take the same precautions in storing a volatile gas in shallow caverns in unstable ground. Halite Energy Group has now come to the conclusion that the earlier proposals submitted by Canatxx were high risk. Given the instability of the ground and the incidents which have occurred in the area together with the seismic data omissions it is very questionable if sufficient information has been gathered to judge if the proposal is safe."

Peter Ryan
"I make this representation as a Thornton resident since 1975. I consider the storage of gas in the manner proposed to be unsafe in respect of the danger to residents and schools in the area. The collapse of caverns since ICI stopped extracting salt is evident at the surface. The geological evidence published during the previous three applications in the name of Canatxx has done nothing to reassure me in this respect. The more recent blow out that occurred at night which was due to a failure to regularly vent the pressure that can build up in the caverns shows the inability of Hailite to manage this site safely even at this stage. The thought of future generations growing up and attending school in a situation that, on present evidence, is unstable is more than frightening. All of us must do whatever we can to prevent such an inheritance."

Brian Simpson MEP
"I wish to register an interest in this application as a Member of the European Parliament representing this part of the North West region of England. I have fought alongside local residents in earlier campaigns opposing the development of gas storage facilities in this area. Despite the change in the company name from Cantaxx to Halite, this latest proposal appears to me to be as unsuitable for Preesall as previous applications, all of which ultimately proved unsuccessful. Gas storage yes, but in the right location. Preesall is certainly not the right location."

Catterall Parish Council
"Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history in the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concerns of residents Major incident response Pollution Protection of SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR sites Amenity value of the Wyre Estuary Decommissioning plans Tourism Need for this scheme Other gas exploration projects in the area and conflict Human rights and Seveso II Directive Traffic and Highway safety Visual impact Noise pollution Brine well 45 causes and consequences Home insurance premiums and house prices extension of current storage proposal"

Kirkland Parish Council
"The actual need for this scheme and location extension of current storage proposal suitability of geology for gas storage mining history of the area risk of gas migration and explosion fear and concern of residents and surrounding areas security and emergency access provisions monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field gas pipelines Pollution of sea adn rivers protection of SSSI, RAMSAR and SPA sites Amenity value of the Wyre Estuary Visual impact Human rights and Seveso II Directive Tourism Home insurance premiums and house prices decommissioning plans Conflict with other gas exploration in the area Traffic and highway safety Brine Well 45, causes and consequences Noise pollution"

Mr Thomas Parkinson
"I wish to state that the application would have a detrimental effect on the environment, the ecology and the wildlife in the area of the development. In addition it would have a very negative impact on local farming businesses based near to the development."

James Parkinson
"I have a keen interest in nature and believe that the proposed work would have a detrimental effect on the local environment, particularly the thriving wildlife. I am also an archaeologist and I believe that there may be potential for the existence of several important archaeological finds in the area that have yet to be investigated. For example during the 1970s an amateur metal detector utilising rudimentary equipment was able to uncover a collection of metal artefacts, which included the remains of a sword, on the land currently held by the Parkinson family."

Thornton Action Group
"Planning Inspector's report File Ref APP/Q2371/A/05/1183799 & APP/HSC/05/07 and conclusions. Safety. Environmental impact. Flood risk. Need for scheme. Traffic. Economic impact. Geology. Historic use of area. Long term site management. Best Practice."

Mr Stanley Raby
"I have concerns about the position of the proposed access road to the site, and the amount of heavy traffic on small country lanes."

Mrs Elaine Raby
"I have concerns about the proposed position of the access road to the site. It will distroy my small holding making it impossible for me to keep the amount of livestock I currently have. It will impact on the bridleway and footpaths in the area. It will impact on the wildlife in the area, and the migrating geese in winter."

Laura Green on behalf of Wyre Power Limited
"This representation is being provided by RSK Environment on behalf of Wyre Power. The aim of this representation is to highlight a potential conflict of land interest between the proposed Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage project and two existing projects by Wyre Power. The first of the two projects is the Section 36 application currently pending with DECC for Wyre Power Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Station including the amendment made in August 2010 for the realignment of the buried cable route to connect the power station to the National Grid Substation at Stannah. This Wyre application is scoped out of the cumulative assessment in the Preesall Saltfield Environmental Statement. The potential conflict between the two projects occurs where the proposed Wyre cable route crosses the Pressall cable route in plots 143, 144 and 145 as identified in the Land Plan for the Preesall application. It is understood that the Preesall cable at this location will be buried using an HDD technique. It is not clear from the application the proposed burial depth. The second of the two projects is the pipeline (application 09/00915/CIRC) for the Wyre Power Supply Pipeline, Thornton Cleveleys To St-Michaels. The route for this pipeline crosses the River Wyre (between approximate 335174 443344 and 336210 443428). Thus the pipeline route crosses the proposed cable crossing contained in the DCO application boundary of the Preesall project. It is anticipated that a conflict could take place in plot numbers 133 and 132 as shown on the Land Plan for the Preesall application. The Electric Cable Crossing drawing shows the depth of the HDD of the Preesall cable. In the Wyre Gas pipeline application potential conflict was noted in Appendix D.5 and here it is recommended that Liaison with EA is required and the HDD for the two schemes should occur at different depths. This pipeline application is not included in the cumulative assessment within the Environmental Statement for the Pressall application"

Pilling Parish Council
"There is no convincing evidence to prove that this scheme is needed What alternatives have been explored such as filling the gas caverns in the Morecambe Bay gas fields? Stability of the proposed storage facility. the ground has collapsed on many occasions as can be viewed around the site. Storing gas in a geologically faulty area. Residents fears have not be listened to or taken into account or the impact that this will have on them. If the local fracking is successful this scheme will not be needed The local fracking work could seriously impact on the precarious stability of the ground."

Stalmine-with-Staynall Parish Council
"Stalmine with Staynall Parish Council wants to make representations in the following areas: a,the need, alternatives, the principle of development and national and local policy; b, the adequacy of the geology and storage technology and the mining history off the area; c, the risk (gas migration and or explosion), the Risk Assessment,and Fear as a materailconsideration; d, the sustainability of the woorking and the diusposal of the mineral salt; e, the impact on the SPA, SAC, RAMSAR, SSSI, BHS and protected species (to include water quality, sea defences, managed retreat and flooding); f, landscape impact of the development; g, impact on the amenity value of the wyre Estuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths; h, highway afety and highway impact on amenity; i, other amenity isues,e.g., noise andimpact on residentialareas east and west of the Wyre estuary in the short, medium and long term. j, the impact on the local economy and tourism; h, human rights."

Lancashire Association Of Local Councils Wyre Area committee
"The members of the committee would like to make representations with regard to the following issues 1. Geological matters 2 Risk 3. Impact on SSSI site 4. Potential Impact upon Sea Defences 5 .Potential Impact Upon Water Quality 6. Management of Coastal Retreat 7. Impact upon Landscape 8. Impact upon the Wyre Way."

Ian Mulroy
"I have listed below a list of topics upon which I will wish to make representations to the IPC about the Halite Energy scheme:- Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Evacuation of Fleetwood Peninsula & Rural Over Wyre villages Security and emergency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response COMAH compliance Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR and other designated sites Amenity value of Wyre Estuary Knott End Golf Course Visual impact of proposed buildings Traffic & Highway safety Access to the footpaths and bridleways Noise pollution Human rights and Seveso II Directive Cause & consequences of blow out at Brine Well 45 The actual need for this scheme – other schemes available in this area Potential extension of current storage proposal Detrimental effect on tourism Potential rise in Home insurance premiums for thousands of homes Compensation claims for any drop in house prices due to the scheme Effect on other infrastructure projects, port, marina, barrage, Hillhouse, Hackensall Treatment Works, etc Halite’s name change from Canatxx and previous applications and results Decommissioning plans & financial bonds"

Marilyn Mulroy
"I will be making representations in due course on the following topics Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Evacuation of Fleetwood Peninsula & Rural Over Wyre villages Security and emergency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response COMAH compliance Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR and other designated sites Amenity value of Wyre Estuary Knott End Golf Course Visual impact of proposed buildings Traffic & Highway safety Access to the footpaths and bridleways Noise pollution Human rights and Seveso II Directive Cause & consequences of blow out at Brine Well 45 The actual need for this scheme – other schemes available in this area Potential extension of current storage proposal Detrimental effect on tourism Potential rise in Home insurance premiums for thousands of homes Compensation claims for any drop in house prices due to the scheme Effect on other infrastructure projects, port, marina, barrage, Hillhouse, Hackensall Treatment Works, etc Halite’s name change from Canatxx and previous applications and results Decommissioning plans & financial bonds"

Hodder Consultative
"Halite Registration 9th Feb 2012 Having already supported the very detailed documentation submitted by the late Dr. Ron Broughton in opposition to the original Canatxx submission, I wish to submit and reaffirm our opposition to this clearly ecologically damaging project. In order to make the submission as concise as possible, I would ask you to consider the following • The disposal of excessive brine into the Irish Sea in this particular ecologically significant area will, as Dr. Broughton’s detailed submission demonstrates, seriously impact directly on the path of returning / outgoing migratory salmonids. • Modifications to coastal defence structures have been made since the permit has been granted and it cannot be assumed that the salt / brine dispersion would conform to the modelling for dispersion under which permission was given. • In our view the company has not considered sufficiently and indeed, been unwilling, to provide detailed information to refute the damning and comprehensive report by Dr. Broughton. We refer of course to the significant environmental and ecological impacts of the proposed discharges. • The Environment Agency has also and for reasons of cost, been unwilling to review the effects of increased discharge on this ecologically sensitive area. Given the potential for harm, we regard this as sufficient reason for any competent authority to refuse the application. • Apart from the small numbers of surviving salmonids from natural losses, (only 3% return) any additional disruption caused by un-natural over saturation will prove unsustainable for both salmonid stocks and indeed the entire food chain in the coastal marine environment. • The proposed activity will negate many years of effort by conservationists, the E.A. and riparian owners of inland fisheries. • The considerable values of migratory salmonid fisheries including both riparian and estuarine, will undoubtedly be irrevocably adversely affected. • Increased salination in coastal areas will be detrimental to other endangered species like the Dover-Sole • The combination of alterations to the sewage outfall and discharges already agreed should be reviewed independently by a competent body. Especially with regard to the proximity to such an ecologically sensitive area. • A primary concern is the safety of the area given the recent unexpected blow out and the lack of transparency by Halite as to its cause - if this had been gas there would have been a national disaster. • In view of the recent connection between seismic effects of fracking, the combination of the two controversial processes operating in tandem should be of primary concern. • The effects of the proposals on bathing water quality and deteriorating European standards should also be brought into this complex equation. • Finally and whilst recognising the national requirement for increased gas storage facilities, safety must be our first priority and until all the issues raised in this objection in relation human and ecological concerns have been competently assessed and satisfied, the application should be refused. Chris Heap. Vice Chairman Bowland Game Fishing Association & Former Safety Advisor BAE Systems (Weapons Trials)."

Protect Wyre Group
"The Protect Wyre Group will be making representations to the IPC on the topics listed below:- Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Evacuation of Fleetwood Peninsula & Rural Over Wyre villages Security and emergency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response COMAH compliance Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR and other designated sites Amenity value of Wyre Estuary Knott End Golf Course Visual impact of proposed buildings Traffic & Highway safety Access to the footpaths and bridleways Noise pollution Human rights and Seveso II Directive Cause & consequences of blow out at Brine Well 45 The actual need for this scheme – other schemes available in this area Potential extension of current storage proposal Detrimental effect on tourism Potential rise in Home insurance premiums for thousands of homes Compensation claims for any drop in house prices due to the scheme Effect on other infrastructure projects, port, marina, barrage, Hillhouse, Hackensall Treatment Works, etc Halite’s name change from Canatxx and previous applications and results Decommissioning plans & financial bonds"

Fleetwood Chamber of Trade and Commerce
"We have serious doubts over the safety issues and evacuation of the Fleetwood peninsular should an accident take place and gas escape"

Mike Sanderson Electricals
"The following are bullet points which my company has great concerns with. Should the project be granted aproval we would have to seriously consider re-location of our business. Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Evacuation of Fleetwood Peninsula & Rural Over Wyre villages Security and emergency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response COMAH compliance Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR and other designated sites Amenity value of Wyre Estuary Knott End Golf Course Visual impact of proposed buildings Traffic & Highway safety Access to the footpaths and bridleways Noise pollution Human rights and Seveso II Directive Cause & consequences of blow out at Brine Well 45 The actual need for this scheme – other schemes available in this area Potential extension of current storage proposal Detrimental effect on tourism Potential rise in Home insurance premiums for thousands of homes Compensation claims for any drop in house prices due to the scheme Effect on other infrastructure projects, port, marina, barrage, Hillhouse, Hackensall Treatment Works, etc Halite’s name change from Canatxx and previous applications and results Decommissioning plans & financial bonds"

Susan Mary Tucker
"1) I have considerable doubt that the geology is suitable for the storage of such a huge amount of natural gas at high pressure. 2) I am fearful that, given incidents in the United States of America, that the stored gas could 'migrate' through the surronding strata and explode. 3) The proposed site has some 100,000 residents within a three mile radius. No major hazards plant should be sited so close to so many people. 4) If there were a major incident emergency services would have difficulty accessing the site using the A588. Such access would made more difficult given that residents would be trying to leave the area at the same time. 5) The evacuation of Fleetwood would be difficult given that it is on a peninsular. 6) The amount of salt that would have to be dissolved is enormous. It would be a waste of a natural resource and risk contamination of the area around the discharge point. 7) The proposed site is in a country area with footpaths. The development would ruin the amenity of the area and, as it would be a major hazards site, result in footpaths being closed. 8) the site, particularly during the ten year construction phase, will result in increased traffic on the A588 which is already unsuited in parts for the traffic (particularly H.G.V.s) travelling on it. 9) During the ten year construction phase there would be considerable noise pollution. 10) I question the need for this scheme given that planning approvals have been granted for other schemes, particularly those sited off shore which would be far safer. 11) If permission is given for this scheme for storage of some 650,000 tonnes of natural gas I believe that another application would soon thereafter be submitted to take the planned storage up to the original 2,000,000 tonnes. 12) As can be witnessed by subsidence in the area (caused by the collapse of existing salt caverns) there will be a danger of the new caverns suffering a similar fate. I doubt Halite Energy would be able to guarantee safeguarding the area in perpetuity 13) Residents in the area have been dealing with the threat of the scheme for some ten years. At the end of the day the scheme is more likely to be used as a trading facility and could well be only partially full should a national emergency arise. Therefore it questionable if it would be in the 'National Interest'."

A L Clempson
"I have been involved with this application for a number of years in my capacity as researcher to Ben Wallace MP and also as a resident. I am deeply concerned about the safety of local people and the way in which their views and the views of Councils, local MPs, Councillor's and indeed the then SOS has not stopped this application from being re-submitted. I also object to it on the following grounds: Suitability of geology for gas storage Mining history of the area Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion Fear and concern of residents Evacuation of Fleetwood Peninsula & Rural Over Wyre villages Security and emergency access provisions Monitoring and maintenance of existing salt field Major incident response COMAH compliance Gas pipelines to and from the NTS Pollution of the sea, Morecambe Bay & local rivers with brine discharge Protection of SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR and other designated sites Amenity value of Wyre Estuary Knott End Golf Course Visual impact of proposed buildings Traffic & Highway safety Access to the footpaths and bridleways Noise pollution Human rights and Seveso II Directive Cause & consequences of blow out at Brine Well 45 The actual need for this scheme – other schemes available in this area Potential extension of current storage proposal Detrimental effect on tourism Potential rise in Home insurance premiums for thousands of homes Compensation claims for any drop in house prices due to the scheme Effect on other infrastructure projects, port, marina, barrage, Hillhouse, Hackensall Treatment Works, etc Halite’s name change from Canatxx and previous applications and results Decommissioning plans & financial bonds"

Chris Pye
"There are two issues which I am interested to gain more understanding of from the examination of the applicants submission. These are:- How the applicant has assessed the potential risk from flooding from both the Wyre Estuary and possibly the Irish Sea during the life of the intended storage facility and how the applicant has responded to any risks identified. How the applicant has assessed the potential risk which may arise from proposed future extraction of shale gas from the Fylde Coast which may be undertaken using the fracking process. Specifically it is the potential risk from earth tremors (such as those experienced during exploratory fracking on the Fylde coast in 2010) and the potential risk for high pressure fracking fluid to escape from nereby extraction wells and cause damage to the applicants facilities which should be examined."

Health Protection Agency
"The HPA notes the applicant’s responses to the recommendations made by the HPA at the Scoping Opinion stage. The HPA’s comments below are restricted to public health impacts relating to exposure to chemicals and radiation, and the response is based on the information contained within the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and the relevant sections of the Environmental Statement (ES). The applicant has considered the storage and use of hazardous materials on-site, emissions to air, contaminated land, hazardous wastes, and contamination of water. As stated in the HIA, the applicant has identified contaminated land in an area where construction may occur at the Docks. Through the setting and validation of development consent conditions, the IPC should ensure that the development does not lead to adverse impacts associated with contaminated land, liaising as necessary with the Local Authority (contaminated land officer) and the Environment Agency. The HPA welcomes the inclusion of dispersion modelling to assess the air quality impacts associated with traffic emissions during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the proposed application. Whilst the scheme is likely to only have a minor negative impact on air quality in the area, the HPA would welcome confirmation that in case of alteration of planned works, air quality impacts would be reassessed by the promoter. Based on the information that is provided in the application, the HPA does not consider that the Preesall Underground Gas Storage facility is likely to lead to significant public health impacts provided that the management plans, and mitigation measures identified in the ES, are implemented during each phase of the project."

Walter McCann
"SUMMARY OF ISSUES ON WHICH I WISH TO MAKE FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS. Personal information in support of my Representation W McCann I am a partner in a Caravan Park business trading as Sportsmans Caravan Park and including my House, which falls within the development area. I am currently a Councillor on The Stalmine Parish Council, in line with the Parish Council's Standing Orders, I have a duty to make clear that any views I may express on this planning application are my own personal view and not of the Parish Council. There are a number of issues relating to the Halite Planning Application with which I disagree. MAIN ISSUES/TOPICS 1) Need, Alternatives and Principle of Development. 2) Geology, Storage Technology, Mining History etc including: 2a) Location and extent of salt deposits, site investigation, constraints on the number of wells, location, design and scheme capacity. 2b) Suitability of the Preesall saly field for gas storage. 2c) Subsidence and related issues gas interconnector, proposed build development and infrastructure, route of service road and electrical services. 2d) Location and nature of faults. 2e) Pressure build up and catastrophic brine release BW45. 2f) Other well failures. 2g) Monitoring and maintenance of existing brine field. 2h) Decommissioning and responsibilities following decommissioning. 3) Landscape Impact of Development and Disturbance. 4) Impact on Amenity Value of the Wyre EStuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths, including objectives of the Seveso II Directive in regards to areas of public use. 5) Impact on SPA, SAC, RAMSAR, SSSI, BHS and protected species; to include water quality, sea defences and flooding, cavern monitoring, in particular in relation to caverns created under the SSSI. 6) Risk (gas migration and explosion), Risk Assessment, Fear as a material consideration, including safety of cavern gas storage, effective security and emergency access, major incident response, evacuation procedures, Seveso II Directive. 7) Sustainability of the Working/Disposal of Mineral Salt. 8) Gas Interconnector Pipeline Route Issues. 9) Economic/Tourism Impact including impact on future estuary hinderland development, housing, leisure, expansion of industry Hillhouse International site, port and marina, barrage and Knott End Golf Course. 10) Highway Safety and Highway Impact on Amenity. 11) Other Amenity Issues e.g. noise and impact on residental areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary in short, medium and long term, including future development in gas storage capacity and the extent of the gas storage site and impact on significant elements of public infrastructure e.g. Hackinsall sewage treatment plant. 12) Human Rights and Quality of Life."

B & M Salvage Fuels Ltd
"B & M Salvage Fuels Ltd lease Unit 3 Herring Arm Rd from ABP. On our facility we have on average, six articulated lorries entering and exiting the site on a daily basis. Looking at your plans you are to run a Brine Discharge Pipeline passed the entrance to our site which could prevent access to our site which in turn will have a massive impact on our business. B & M Salvage Fuels Ltd are not objecting to the plans however if the installation causes us logistical problems we will need to take the matter further."

Ruth McCann
"SUMMARY OF ISSUES ON WHICH i WISH TO MAKE FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS Personal information in support of my Representation Mrs Ruth McCann I am a partner in a Caravan Park business trading as Sportsmans Caravan Park, which falls within the development area. There are a number of issues relating to the Halite Planning Application with which I disagree. Main Issues/Topics 1) Need, Alternatives and Principle of development. 2) Geology, Storage Technology, Mining History etc including the following: 2.1) Location and extent of salt deposits, site investigation, constraints on the number and their location, design and scheme capacity. 2.2) Subsidence and related issues including gas interconnector, electrical services, route of service road, proposed build development and local infrastructure. 2.3) Pressure build up and catastrophic brine release BW45. 2.4) Location and nature of faults. 2.5) Suitability of the Preesall salt field for gas storage. 2.6) Monitoring and maintenance of the existing brine field. 2.7) De-commissioning and responsibilities following de-commissioning. 3) Risk (Gas migration and Explosion) , Risk assessment, Fear as a material consideration, including safety of Salt Cavern Gas Storage, Effective security and emergency access, Seveso II directive and Major incident response. 4) Sustainability of the working/disposal of mineral salt. 5) Highway safety and Highway impact on the local community/amenity. 6) Landscape impact of Development and Disturbance. 7) Impact on SSSI, RAMSAR, SPA, BHS, SAC and protected species; to include water quality, sea defences and flooding, cavern monitoring in particular in relation to cavern created under the SSSI. 8) Impact on Amenity value of the Wyre Estuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths, including objectives of the Seveso II directive in regards to areas of public use. 9) Economic/ Toursium impact including impact on future estuary and estuary hinderland development, leisure, housing, expansion of industry on Hillhouse International site, Port and marina, Wyre barrage and Knott End golf course. 10) Other amenity issues e.g. noise and impact on residential areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary in the short, medium and long term, including future development in capacity and the extent of the gas storage site and the impact on significant elements of public infrastructure. 11) Gas Interconnector Pipeline and Electrical route issues. 12) Human Rights and Quality of Life."

CPRE Lancashire
"CPRE Lancashire is concerned about any short term and longer term impacts that the proposed gas storage development would have on the countryside around Preesall. CPRE would like to be able to contribute to the discussion on methods to minimise the local and wider impact of any surface facilities required for this gas storage project. This would include any temporary or permanent transport links required during the construction and long term operation of the proposed underground gas storage facility. CPRE's main objective is to minimise the environmental impact, particularly visual impact, noise and light pollution emanating from the facilities through the use of screening and other reduction measures. Our aim is to minimise the loss of tranquillity and sense of place in the landscape around the surface facilities, which if not protected would be to the detriment and enjoyment by local residents, users and visitors to the countryside in the vicinity of the proposed gas storage facility at Preesall."

Terrance Bates
"I am scared that a business that will not accept the legal and I thought binding findings of a British court is not to be trusted with my life ,there has been incidents involving these underground caverns leaking and causing fires and explosions .The site is far to near populated areas of Preesall ,Knot End ,Fleetwood and Poulton.I do not want to DIE because of a Greedy International Companies ruthless disregard for the wishes of the British Population."

Samuel Reilly
"I would like to register a complaint against the application n the basis of health & safety and potential environmental issues."

April McCann
"SUMMARY OF ISSUES ON WHICH I WISH TO MAKE FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS. Personal Information in support of my Representation Miss April McCann. I live at     ,       , which falls within the development area. I am 23 years of age, this has been my home for all those years and hopefully for many more years to come. I am currently a councillor on The Stalmine Parish Council, in line with the Parish Council's Standing Orders, I have a duty to make clear that any views I may express on this planning application are my own personal view and not of the Parish Council. There are a number of issues relating to the Halite Planning Application with which I disagree. Main Issues/Topics 1. Need, Alternatives and Principle of Development. 2. Geology, Storage Technology, Mining History etc including:- 2.1 Location and nature of faults. 2.2 Subsidence and related issues, gas interconnector, proposed build development and infrastructure, route of service roads and electrical services. 2.3 Suitability of Preesall salt field for gas storage. 2.4 Location and extent of salt deposits within the area, site investigation, constraints on the number of caverns, location, design and scheme capability. 2.5 Monitoring and maintenance of existing brine field. 2.6 Pressure build up and catastrophic brine release of BW45. 2.7 Other well failures. 2.8 Decommissioning and Responsibilities following Decommissioning. 3. Risk (gas migration and possible explosion), Risk assessment, Fear as a material consideration, including safety of salt cavern gas storage, effective security and emergency access, major incident response, major evacuation response procedures, Seveso II directive. 4. Landscape impact of development and disturbance. 5. Gas Interconnector Pipeline and Electrical route issues. 6. Sustainability of working/disposal of mineral salt. 7. Impact on SPA, SAC,RAMSAR, BHS, SSSI and protected species; to include water quality, sea defences and flooding, cavern monitoring, in particular in relation to caverns created under the SSSI. 8. Impact on the Amenity value of the Wyre Estuary, Wyre Way and other footpaths, including objectives of the Seveso II directive in regards to areas of public use. 9. Highway safety and highway impact on the Amenity. 10. Economic/Tourism impact including impact on future estuary and estuary hinderland development, housing, leisure, expansion of industry on Hillhouse International Site, Port and marina, Barrage and Knott End village and Golf Course. 11. Other Amenity issues e.g. noise and impact on residential/tourism areas east and west of the Wyre Estuary in the short, medium and long term, including future development in capacity and the extent of the gas storage site and the impact on significant elements of public infrastructure. 12. Potential compulsory purchase of businesses and property. 13. Lack of development of the ICI test boreholes with the Halite site. 14. Human Rights and the Quality of Life"

Philip Moore
"I wish to register my opposition to the above application due to concerns regarding the following potential consequences of the development :-- Gas escaping from the caverns through the ground and igniting in or near to property due to :-- • Unsuitable geological conditions. • Preferential pathways caused by previous mine workings, brine wells and other pipelines. • Potential instability of the storage caverns caused by ground movements associated with previous mining operations. Gas escaping into the atmosphere from failed pipelines, valves and compressor stations due to:- • Ground movements caused by previous mine workings. • Failures in quality of construction and maintenance procedures. • Human error or computer control failure during operation of the plant. The consequence of any gas escape would be exacerbated by the unreasonably close proximity of the installations to residential areas. The emergency services would not have the capacity to cope with the consequences of a major incident The detrimental environmental impacts of the proposal on :— • The coastal waters in the vicinity of the brine discharge outfall. • All the land surrounding the installations. • Local highways. • The appearance of the rural landscape. The detrimental effect of the installation on local amenities, tourism, property values and insurance premiums, particularly in the aftermath of any operational incident. The possibility that, if this application based on reduced storage volumes compared with previous applications is approved, it will be followed by future applications to extend the installation with consequential further increase in risk to the surrounding area. The potential stress and anxiety caused by residing in relatively close proximity to a high hazard installation with the likelihood of a major incident occurring. The lack of experience and track record of Halite as a company in the design, implementation and operation of gas storage projects."

Ann Moore
"I wish to register my opposition to the above application due to concerns regarding the following potential consequences of the development :-- Gas escaping from the caverns through the ground and igniting in or near to property due to :-- • Unsuitable geological conditions. • Preferential pathways caused by previous mine workings, brine wells and other pipelines. • Potential instability of the storage caverns caused by ground movements associated with previous mining operations. Gas escaping into the atmosphere from failed pipelines, valves and compressor stations due to:- • Ground movements caused by previous mine workings. • Failures in quality of construction and maintenance procedures. • Human error or computer control failure during operation of the plant. The consequence of any gas escape would be exacerbated by the unreasonably close proximity of the installations to residential areas. The emergency services would not have the capacity to cope with the consequences of a major incident The detrimental environmental impacts of the proposal on :— • The coastal waters in the vicinity of the brine discharge outfall. • All the land surrounding the installations. • Local highways. • The appearance of the rural landscape. The detrimental effect of the installation on local amenities, tourism, property values and insurance premiums, particularly in the aftermath of any operational incident. The possibility that, if this application based on reduced storage volumes compared with previous applications is approved, it will be followed by future applications to extend the installation with consequential further increase in risk to the surrounding area. The potential stress and anxiety caused by residing in relatively close proximity to a high hazard installation with the likelihood of a major incident occurring. The lack of experience and track record of Halite as a company in the design, implementation and operation of gas storage projects."

Andrew Hurst on behalf of Lune & Wyre Fisheries Association
"The Lune & Wyre Fisheries Association are concerned that any brine discharged from the operation may change the salinity of the water through which migrating salmon and sea trout pass through. At present there is very little known or understood on what impact this may have on migrating smolts or returning adults. In the worst case scenario discharge water may become lethal to juveniles and adults of both species and in effect wipe out the whole salmonid populations of river flowing into Morecambe Bay. The major concern is for stocks in the River Wyre which are already at an endangered level. the river is currently classified as 'At Risk' by the EA as the numbers of returning adults is below the levels at which the stock can be considered self sustaining. The River is therefore 'failing' under the Water Framework Directive and there is a legal requirement for it to reach 'Good' status for fish in the near future. Any development which therefore has the potential to interfere with migrating salmonids must therefore be very carefully scrutinized before any go ahead is permitted. As there exists little or no scientific evidence to show that this will not have an impact on migrating salmonids, it is suggested that any application is put on hold pending a full impact risk assessment. The 'precautionary principle of no development should be applied until such time as a full environmental study has been completed."

Elizabeth Brewer on behalf of WR & CM Lawrenson
"We disagree with the project planned on the grounds of safety. The undeground storage of gas, is unsafe, and the stability of the salt caverns will be disrupted should the brine be extracted for gas storage. Additionally the safety of the project in terms of a national disaster outweighs the need for such a dangerous and uncontrolled storage methodology. This brine was pumped into the caverns by ICI in an attepmt to stabilise the caverns, its removal could prove a dangerous experiment. Additional to this the taking of a pipeline through Pilling Moss would have its own destabilising problems, underneath the moss is quicksand or shifting sand., we find the safety of a pipeline through this terrain to be unsafe. Finally we raise the issue of the environmental costs to the land and its unique ecology and coastline of the pumping of brine into the area. We strongly advocate that should the country require mass gas storage, gas rings, with adequate safety mechanisms, should be constructed."

J Young
"Having attended the presentation at Thornton Lecture Hall and spoken to Halite representatives I remain unconvinced as to the proposed plans for storing gas "safely" especially the close proximity to the local population!"

Hambleton Parish Council
"Although Hambleton Parish Council does not have an interest in any land which will be affected by the proposed development we have been main consultees on all previous applications by Canatxx because of the villages close proximity to the proposed site and we are situated on the main road (A588) to the site. The Parish Council objects/disagrees to the proposal and submit the following points: - 1. Safety - fear and concern of residents which we feel contravenes their Human Rights; 2. Risk of Explosion - the entire area is affected; 3. Unsuitability of the site - geology, fault line, mining history, risk of brine well explosion and recent identified earthquakes/tremors; 4. Major incident - e.g. explosion/gas escape and the evacuation of thousands of residents; 5. Major Gas Escape could compromise all escape routes depending on wind direction; 6. Fracking, Gas Storage and the Wyre Barrage cannot live together in the same area; 7. Terrorism Threat - will the site be "policed" 24 hours per day with adequate resources; 8. Traffic and Highway Safety - damage to roads, infrastructure, traffic congestion, risk to pedestrians. Noise and pollution levels from traffic. Restricted operating times and compensation scheme required. 9. Gas and pipeline from site to Nateby would run along unstable roads which are in continual need of repair. Salt Marsh subject to tidal damage; 10. Protection of the Wyre Way, SSSI., RAMSAR Site and access to bridleways and footpaths; 11. The impact of Brine Well 45 blow out was devastating - cause not known is worrying as fear and risk that this could happen on a larger scale cannot be guaranteed. 12. Negative effect on Tourism, house prices and insurance premiums."

The Environment Agency
"The Infrastructure Planning Commission Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: CE/2012/105306/01-L01 Your ref: 02/09/0159 Date: 08 February 2012 Dear Sir/Madam UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE REGULATION 8 AND REGULATION 13. PREESALL SALTFIELD, SALTMINE, WYRE ESTUARY, LANCASHIRE We have reviewed the proposed Development Consent Order (DCO), Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above application. We are generally satisfied with the level of information that we have received from the applicants and on the whole they have incorporated our recommendations into their Environmental Impact Assessment. We strongly advise that the mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement are included as requirements of the development consent order. This should occur on the following topics: 1. Protection of the Water Environment 2. Protection of Aquatic Habitats 3. Flood Risk We will submit further more detailed comments setting out our advice on specific wording of these requirements as part of our written representations. In addition to the mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement we strongly advise that mitigation is agreed on the following topic. Possible Flood Risk Impacts During and after the project the crest levels of all flood defences within the area must be monitored by the applicant and if the project is found to have caused the crest levels to fall significantly then the applicant would need to repair the defences. This risk is acknowledged in paragraph 17.8.7 of the Environmental Statement which states “If potential subsidence problems are identified, appropriate studies would be undertaken and mitigation measures identified to ensure the existing standard of protection can be maintained over the long-term.” As part of the Development Consent Order the applicant would be required to accept an obligation to monitor and repair any damage to all flood defences as part of the development. Information Regarding Environment Agency Consents Discharge Consent Halite obtained a discharge consent from ourselves to dispose of brine generated through the excavation of the salt caverns (Permit 017290628). As part of the determination process for this consent an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations was undertaken by the Environment Agency. Halite made a successful application to vary this consent on 24th August 2011, which altered the start date of discharge to 1January 2014 or the start of commissioning of the solution mining facility, whichever is sooner. The permit does not have an expiry date, but does require the permit holder to notify the Environment Agency in writing of any known material change which is likely to increase the polluting effect of the discharge on controlled waters. Flood Defence Consents The applicant is required to apply for Flood Defence Consent for all works involving main rivers and within 8m of the watercourse. We would encourage the applicant to apply for these consents as soon as possible. Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 Refining and Combustion Activities The content of Appendix 32 - Schedule of Consents, Section 3, relating to the refining and combustion activities are consistent with the pre-application advice given by ourselves in November 2011. Section 3.1.7 refers to Drilling Waste Management and suggests that drilling wastes would be used on site as earth bunding and landscape buffers. Whilst this may be possible, we would need to be satisfied that the material was fit for this purpose prior to this taking place. Section 3.1.7 also refers to insolubles from the leaching process being disposed of to an existing cavern on site (BW123). This process would represent a waste disposal operation and would need to be permitted under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 before this activity could take place. Both of these waste activities will be regulated through an Environmental Permit. The applicants' consultant have made a request to us for an Environmental Permit pre-application meeting for the refining and combustion activities which is due to take place on the 13 February 2011. COMAH The Control Of Major Accident Hazards Regulations were introduced in 1999, amended in 2005, to implement the Seveso II Directive and the aim is to prevent major accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit the consequences to people and the environment of any accidents which do occur. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency together form the Competent Authority and they jointly regulate the duty holders to whom the COMAH regulations apply. The Health and Safety Executive have confirmed that meetings have been held with Halite to give them information as to their expectations under the COMAH regulations. This will include the production by Halite of a Pre-Construction Safety Report and Pre-Operational Safety Report. The majority of the detailed assessment will be completed by the Competent Authority when these reports are submitted. We reserve the right to add or amend these representations during the course of the examination. If you have any questions regarding these representations please contact me on the details below. Yours faithfully Amy Heys Planning Liaison Technical Specialist Direct dial   Direct fax   Direct e-mail  "

Vera Swarbrick
"i disagree with the application by halite to store gas in the caverns in the old salt mines because of the dangers to the public, the wildlife and the damage to the surrounding area, i have lived in the area all my life( 65years) the land in question is very unstable and has been for years when i was a teenager he land around the aglbys farm was fenced off because of subsidence (this was in the sixties) things have not changed much land is still falling in one day nice green field next big hole appears there is also concern about the wildlife in the area now that ici have gone the river is cleaner and we get much more wildlife the other weekend we saw seals for the first time there are birds that are now coming such as little egrets, cormmerants ,and other rare wildlife this i feel should all be considered very carfully as well as the threat of explosions we will have to live with also to consider is what its doing to the area already houses arenot selling insurance is high is this fair on the people living here we havenot asked for this and certainly dont want it after the gas explosions in kansas where the advice now is not to build these things in poulated areas also to consider is do halite know enough about the area when pushed for answers at the meetings they dont seem to be able to give a clear answer without skating round the issue infact when asked if the new road would be comming from natby they didnt know the brine wells where that far out or whre natby was so please consider the pepole who have had to put up with the uncurtenty for far to long"

Howard Phillips on behalf of Wilfred Marsh
"12 months ago earth tremors experienced several miles south of Ulverston in Morecambe Bay Nowhere in Halite application have I read of study or research of any future tremor to be expected of the time, position and intensity in this region. Until these details are presented I reserve my objection to the application."

James Swarbrick
"i object to halite storing gas in the underground caverns due to the unsuitabity of the area this has already been refused twice before so why can halite keep submmitting applications and making the people suffer so much there is also concern for the three schools in the area over 1000 children alone at the moment the area is unspoilt just as nature intented but with the amount of traffic this progect will involve there are bound to be more accidents children walking to and from school will not be safe there is also the wildlife to consider birds and animals not seen in the area before (now the river is clean)we had to live with the ici and all the cemmicels they pumbed out over the years lets not have something like that on our doorstep again the unsuitability of the ground will not get any better it will still subside in years to come brine wells will still blow because of pressure build up under ground no one knows were the pipe lines run not even the halite people some start at the heads and go through to natby others all over preesall one well head is at the bottom of preesall hill just behind where i live so you can understand my concern for myself and my family this is also just a few feet from fleetwoods charity school if it went up the school would be obliteratad with all in it halite cannot garentee this wont happen if the well head fractures or explodes as in recent months we will be stuffed"

Joseph Cooper
"I wish to object to this application on the grounds of Safety, Sacurity, Access, etc."

NHS North Lancashire
"NHS North Lancashire requested Halite to commission a Health Impact Assessment due to concerns about potential health impacts on the local population. This document is included in the Halite submission. Gas storage facilities are associated with known hazards and risks and are subject to special statutory controls and regulatory regimes to manage and control these aspects. Clearly if these regimes fail there can be serious health implications. Although the risk of an emergency scenario is low the fear of such an event is likely to have a more widespread population level effect than the actual event itself. In terms of wider public health - effects are limited to issues of disturbance and air emissions. Positive effects from the proposed development relate to this project creating a source of much needed employment in one of the nation’s most deprived communities and the potential extension of national energy supply security and resilience against energy shortages. Following completion of the HIA, NHS North Lancashire does not have grounds for opposing the planning application for this project as long as the recommendations contained within it are fully implemented."

Reverend John Squires
"I would wish to object/disagree with the proposal on the following ground: - Safety - It is felt that the proposal does not deal adequately with safety concerns - there is a major issue with evacuation of the area with only one bridge out of the community, if this were no usable there would be major delays both in evacuation and attendance by emergency services. There does not appear to be an evacuation plan/procedure. Safety - There has already been one major incident with Brine Well 45 - the reason for this does not seem to have been properly explained. I have concerns that no investigation seems to have been carried out into the impact of fracking for gas in Singleton which has caused or been attributable to ground disruption (earth tremours). It is acknowledged that this process could have cause two recent earth tremors in the area. Gas storage and fracking cannot be allowed to take place within such close proximity of each other because of the risk of ground movement. Environmental - The site for gas storage form part of a SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR site the gas storage facility would cause major ecological disturbance to this area with the risk of pollution to the Morecambe Bay through brine discharge. There is also the impact on local footpaths and the Wyre Way. Geology - The recent Brine Well 45 incident highlights potential geological faults in the area, in addition there is a fault line runs through this site and as already stated there have been two earth tremors in this area in recent months. Highway Safety - The infrastructure is not considered suitable for such development - the pipeline to Nateby runs along notoriously insecure roads. There would be increased traffic on the A588 which already has a very high fatal accident rating. There would also be high levels of noise pollution through the increase in traffic in this area. Economic - there will be adverse effects on tourism in the area, there has been no study done on the potential impact on property prices nor on insurance premiums due to increases in risk. There does not seem to be any long term benefit to the area through job creation (except during the construction period) and therefore there is no long term sustainable economic benefit to the area. There is no proven case for gas storage nationally for example there has been no issue through gas shortages problems during this winter period. Previous submissions - this is the third attempt to seek approval for gas storage both other application by Canatxx have failed at inspection stage, there are no major changes to this submission. Security - There is a major security risk through terrorism and the site needs to be "policed" 24 hours a day with adequate resources."

Gordon Marsden MP
"As a local Member of Parliament for the Blackpool and Fylde and Wyre area, I wish to add my concern and objection to the proposals from Halite Energy for an underground gas storage facility in the Over Wyre area. This is a fourth attempt to get through this type of proposal against what has been to date the overwhelming objections of the population, representatives and stakeholders across the area. Though obviously those living closest to the proposed storage area may feel the most apprehension from fears of gas migration and explosion – the reality is that if these proposals were implemented, the potential for blight, pollution and degradation of the natural environment is one that could encompass the whole of the area between Blackpool and Wyre. To give one example the potential for brine discharge to pollute the waters along that coastline, together with run-off in local rivers is a very real worry at a time when there are already very real concerns about faltering water quality from recent samplings in the area. At a time when there is great potential to develop a combination of green or eco-tourism with the Traditional seaside offer across all three council areas of Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, stabilising and potentially boosting visitor numbers and overnight stays to the benefit of the local economy, the Halite development with its infrastructure changes, potentially polluting by-products and the concerns about long-term safety, would do nothing to enhance tourist expansion and could significantly inhibit it. The attempts to neutralise the brand image of Canatxx by changing the proposal to one from Halite Energy should not obscure the solid block of reason and argument that has led to its respected rejection as a risky piece of infrastructure development. A number of people who have had business in my area but have properties close to the proposed site have expressed their opposition to me to the previous proposals – and I see nothing in the latest one to ameliorate the concerns and objection felt so widely across the area."

Iain Michael Johnstone
"- Suitability of the Geology - Insufficient location of Burn Naze fault - Close proximity of proposed caverns - Large volume of gas from a cavern leak before alarm raised - Additional loss of gas during lengthy period of reduction of pressure in a leaking cavern - Existing historic seismic activity in the vicinity - Possible increased seismic activity with Shale Gas fracking - Vulnerability of directional and "lazy S drilling" to seismic activity - Close proximity of Fleetwood residents and United Utilities Wwtw and interceptor tunnel - Loss marine habitat - Additional risk to Lune Deep, new special site still being explored - Increase in traffic movements - Disruption to residents and businesses - Lack of trust, historic and Brinewell 45 incident - Public fear and distress - Other options pose less risk, some already approved do not appear to be progressing, if there a real national requirement in this case"

Friends of the Earth
"Friends of the Earth is a charity working on environmental issues from local to global levels. We have members across Lancashire including in the Wyre area and a local group covering the county. We would like to register as an interested party because of our concerns over the potential impact that the Preesall underground gas storage facility would have on the local environment. The project has already been through three rigorous planning procedures and been found unacceptable due to the environmental, geological and public safety risks. There has also been overwhelming local opposition throughout. The development would impact on internationally important sites for ecology and biodiversity, including Morecambe Bay RAMSAR and Special Protected Area and the Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest - of global significance as habitat for migrating wading birds and wildfowl. The treatment and disposal of waste brine and chemicals used in the process poses environmental and safety risks within Morecambe Bay and local river systems. Potential gas leakage from storage and pipelines is a serious risk to public safety and the environment. Experts have raised concerns about the suitability and safety of local geology for gas storage. Significant new road infrastructure would be involved in the development including a new access road from the A558 and an extensive road network within the site, which would have a negative local impact through traffic generation, emissions and air pollution. The development would impact on the local economy including adversely affecting tourism, leisure and amenity value. In summary we are concerned that the proposal poses significant risks to the environment, public safety and health of local communities, and would like to register as an interested party so we can submit further detailed evidence to the examination."

John Howard Wasp on behalf of BRB (Residuary) Ltd
"BURN NAZE, FLEETWOOD - Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage IPC Reference: EN030001 My company, Lambert Smith Hampton, are agents employed on behalf of BRB (Residuary) Ltd owners of a disused railway formation whose land will be affected by the above proposal if it is approved. Work No 16C shows the pipeline crossing the disused railway north of Jamieson Road overbridge. At this stage I do not know whether the pipe crossing will be carried over the disused railway formation or buried beneath it. In principle, my client has no objection to either method subject to the design and method of working being agreed in advance with my client’s engineering department and suitable documentation being completed to record matters. While trains do not presently operate over the disused railway, my client is in negotiation with Wyre B. C. regarding the sale of the formation and I am aware from these negotiations that Wyre has aspirations to re-open the railway to rail traffic at some point in the future. In this regard, I am advised by the Head of Regeneration & Assets at Wyre B.C. that discussions have taken place between his Council and Network Rail (who own the remainder of the formation running southwards towards Poulton-Le-Fylde) and with the relevant Governmental departments regarding the re-opening of the railway and that there is support for this proposal within these bodies. I am further advised that the Council has made/will be making its own representations in respect of this proposal and within their proposal there is reference to the re-opening the railway line between Poulton-Le-Fylde and Fleetwood. In summary, I would ask the IPC, when reaching their decision, to have regard to the possible future re-opening of the railway and at this specific location, where the pipe will cross the railway formation, that rights are reserved for either my client or Wyre B.C. - should they complete the purchase from BRB (Residuary) Ltd - to be fully consulted over the design of the pipe crossing so as to ensure that Work No 16C will not prejudice the future re-opening of the railway to commuter and heritage services."

Biffin Ltd
"Further examination is required of the existing cavens to confirm stability after the recent blowout of one of the existing caverns. If the existing caverns can not be proved to be in a safe and stable condition it calls into question the safety of ther scheme. Further examination is required regarding the safety of the propossed location of the gas Interconnector as it enters the site by Park Farm. The proximity of the existing caverns (one of which has blown out last year ) alongside the interconnector along with an ignition source (twin 132kv cables) needs to be fully tested to ensure safe operation of the plant. further examination is required to confirm the effect of safety zones (COMAH) on surrounding properties in our case Park Cottage Farm and Pumphouse number 5."

NPL Estates Ltd
"NPL ESTATES Hillhouse Business Park. Examination is required to confirm that the Halite Energy project does not conflict with the conclusions and aspirations of the Thornton Area Action Plan (AAP). COMAH mapping is required to confirm that all the developments enshrined in the AAP are not adversely effected by the Gas Storage Development. in particular phase 3 housing (circa 450 units) on the banks of the river Wyre and the prossed 800MW CCGT Power Station currently in the Section 36 process with DECC."

Mrs Lynn Squires
"I would wish to object/disagree with the application on the following grounds: - That the area in question is not geologically suitable on the basis that there is a fault line runs through the site and the overflow from Brine Well 45 sees to suggest some kind of geological activity. There have been two earth tremors in recent months affecting this area. There is a risk of gas leakage from this are and subsequent risk of explosion. There is no evacuation plan for the area in the event of a major incident and access by emergency vehicles would be difficult if the Shard Bridge was affected. Major Environmental issues - this is a SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR site and there would be potential environmental impact on the sea and coastal areas and Morecambe Bay from Brine discharge; There is no sustainable economic benefit from the project in that there would be no supporting businesses nor significant long term employment initiatives. The infrastructure is not considered suitable to take heavy traffic and the gas pipeline to Nateby runs along notoriously bad and difficult to maintain roads. No assessment has been undertaken on the impact on property prices nor on the costs of insurance premiums due to increased risk and there appears to be no compensation scheme in place. There is likely to be noise pollution generated from this operation. The project could have an adverse effect on other infrastructure projects such as the port, marina, barrage and water treatment works - scheme that will benefit the local economy. There is concern that Fracking at Singleton will impact on the area and that there could be links between this and the Brine Well 45 incident."

Thornton Facilities Management Ltd
"Thornton Facilities Management Ltd manage the Hillhouse Business Park in thornton for NPL Estates Ltd. This business park employs in excess of 1500 people. The three main business on the park all have expansion plans . Has Halite Energy taken full cognisance (COMAH) of the expansion plans of the business so as not to hinder job creation on the park.."

Sonja Moss
"1.The risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion due to unstable geology. 2.Pollution of the sea bed due to the high brine content being expelled into the sea. 3.Pollution of the beaches as a result of all kinds of dead material being washed ashore as a result of point 2. 4.The risk of explosion to the plant and pipeline from terrorist actions. 5.In the event of terrorist actions that the down hole valve does not work and a massive gas escape occurs which may result in a massive explosion. 6.Lack of a bank guarantee to cover project failure of any type and any damages claims."

Vinnolit Hillhouse Ltd
"We wish to register our concern with reference to the proposal made by Halite Energy Ltd for a gas storage facility at Preesall. We understand that there is a need in the UK to establish a greater inventory of stored gas, and therefore in principle we support such developments to achieve the national requirements. However, our concern is with respect to the close proximity of the proposed storage facility to the chemical plants at Hillhouse which include our plant and, consequently if an incident should occur at the gas storage facility, is it possible that such an event could have any effect on our operations ? We believe that ICI created more than 100 caverns in the salt ‘fields’ within this vicinity as a consequence of the salt/ brine extraction in the past for the chemical processes in the area. It has been publicised that Lancashire County Council refused Canatxx UK permission to store 1.2m tonnes of gas in Preesall in 2009 due to the concern that caverns could collapse. On Saturday 18 June 2011 the wellhead of a disused brine well collapsed on the site owned by Halite. We believe that an aerial view of the area shows the location of former ICI caverns which have collapsed. Should this be a cause for concern with respect to the proposed gas storage, any of the required utilities, or nearby plant operations ?"

Alan Moss
"1.The risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion due to unsable geology. 2.Pollution of the sea bed due to the high brine content being expelled into the sea. 3.Pollution of the beaches as a result of all kinds of dead material being washed ashore as a result of point 2. 4.The risk of explosion to the plant and pipeline fron terrorist actions. 5.In the event of terrorist actions that the down hole valve does not work and a massive gas escape occurs which may result in an explosion. 6.Lack of a bank gurantee to cover project failure of any type and any damages"

Philip Anthony Mitchell
"I oppose this application because the location is inappropriate: because of proximity to residential areas and public activities; because of inappropriate geology; because of the impact of potential hydraulic fracturing activities and their cumulative effects. I am concerned that the risks of gas leakage are poorly understood, and that the document:Environmental Topic Potential Cumulative Effects LOCATION 14 (refer to Figure 18.1 of Volume 2B) Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration (investigative stages), does not give a true representation of the risks of the impact on the development in question of shale gas exploration and production in the region. The technology behind this form of gas extraction was invented in Texas about a decade ago and has yet to be perfected and its development is at once, at least in part, experimental. Unconventional natural gas development has gone largely unnoticed even in the United States until this past year, and many aspects of it's environmental impacts are still unknown. I do not object to underground gas storage in principle, just the location."

Highways Agency
"As part of the Development Consent Order, HALITE are proposing to compulsory obtain a licence to give them rights over Crown land under the control of the Secretary of State for Transport in order to provide, lay and maintain their pipeline aparatus under the A585 Trunk Road in Fleetwood. The Highways Agency, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport is not opposed to the principal of the project subject to this application. However, the desire to compulsory acquire rights to lay and maintain their equipment within the boundaries of the trunk is unnecessary as we already have other mechanisms in place to facilitate this type of work, namely Section 61 of the New Roads and Street Works Act (or Section 50 of the same Act, if HALITE do not become a statutory undertaker). On transport grounds we are satisfied that the impact on our network can be adequately managed. We will though be looking to work with HALITE and their representatives to develop a Statement of Common ground on the above matters prior to any hearing taking place."

Natural England
"Natural England’s Relevant Representations Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Natural England is the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features. Natural England is a statutory consultee in respect of: i. plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) and may have a likely significant effect on European sites, including Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC”), candidate Special Areas of Conservation (“cSAC”) and Special Protection Areas (“SPA”), and, by way of Government policy, sites listed under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar site”) and; ii. proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the “1981 Act”). In determining this application, the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations. The Secretary of State is also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Act in respect of the SSSIs. Natural England’s comments are based on information submitted by Halite in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) in relation to the construction of an underground gas storage facility along with associated infrastructure at Preesall, Lancashire (the “project”). Natural England’s comments relate to both terrestrial and marine development. Headline Representations Natural England is not satisfied that on the basis of information submitted that it can be demonstrated: for purposes of the Habitats Regulations, that the project will not have a likely significant effect on Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site; for the purposes of the 1981 Act, the project is not likely to damage the interest features of the Wyre Estuary (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations to confirm that there will be no likely significant effect on Liverpool Bay SPA and Shell Flat and Lune Deep candidate SAC provided that proposed mitigation measures are delivered. Natural England advises that the project, if approved, is subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements, including delivery of the proposed Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan (which we are working on with the applicant)to ensure that unacceptable environmental impacts either do not occur or are sufficiently mitigated. Natural England makes the following and more specific representations in relation to each of the following topics: Terrestrial Issues for consideration include 1. Direct or indirect physical damage to designated habitats 1.1. Issues for consideration 1.1.1. The proposed caverns, pipelines and cabling routes lie underneath the Wyre Estuary SSSI, which forms part of the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar sites. Natural England is happy the applicant’s proposed ways of working (including directional drilling and location of drilling sites and construction activities) will adequately avoid damage to designated habitats. We advise these should become a DCO requirements to ensure the project has no likely significant effect. 2. Bird Disturbance 2.1. Issues for Consideration 2.1.1. Further information is needed to show the use of this part of the designated sites by SPA, Ramsar and SSSI bird species. This will confirm which species are likely to be affected by construction, operation or decommissioning of the project. Natural England suggested in its letter dated 30 November 2011 to the applicant that further information would be needed on the bird species and their spatial distribution in and around the application site n order to allow the competent authority to make a judgement on whether the project will have likely significant effect on the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site. This information would also enable more thorough assessment of the project on SSSI interest. Natural England has been in discussion with the applicant, who is preparing further information. Natural England is confident that this additional information will allow for either confirmation that there will be no likely significant effect of the project on the SPA and Ramsar site, or that currently proposed mitigation measures need refinement. 2.1.2. In relation to Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site, and the Wyre Estuary SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with: i) Temporary and permanent loss of habitat for foraging and roosting wildfowl and waders will require adequate mitigation through guaranteed delivery of the proposed Ecological and Landscape Management Strategy Plan through appropriate DCO requirements. ii) Visual and noise disturbance to wintering and passage birds during construction, operation and decommissioning of the project cannot be ruled out at this stage. More information is required to allow for agreement of appropriate DCO requirements for maximum noise levels or timing of construction works. iii) Construction and operation disturbance of birds, especially Pink Footed Geese, using land functionally linked to the SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI will require establishment of additional feeding areas to mitigate disturbance to an acceptable level. A DCO requirement is needed to be guarantee delivery of the proposed Ecological and Landscape Management Strategy Plan. iv) Landscaping, screens and bunds could interfere with the bird usage of land functionally linked to the SPA, Ramsar site. This needs to be addressed through appropriate design and delivery of the Ecological and Landscape Management Strategy Plan. 3. Protected Species Licensing 3.1 The applicant approached Natural England’s Licensing Team in September 2011 for advice on protected species, including European Protected Species, potentially affected by the project. Natural England expects to receive two draft licence applications in March 2012, when it will be able to advice further on implications of the project for protected species. Marine 4. Offshore Outfall 4.1 Construction of the outfall and its subsequent long term presence upon the seabed pose a potential risk of physical disturbance and damage to local marine BAP habitats and fauna. Natural England highlighted these issues to the applicant and the MMO, and as consequence they have been addressed by conditions outlined within Schedule 7 of the draft DCO – Deemed Marine License. 4.1.1 Construction impacts ? Potential disturbance to Common Scoter and Red Throated Diver, qualifying species for Liverpool Bay SPA, ? Potential damage to sensitive marine BAP habitats through abrasion and smothering. 4.1.2 Long Term impacts ? Potential to change the sediment dynamics and seabed morphology of the surrounding seabed if outfall not fully buried. 4.1.3 These impacts can be avoided through the proposed Vessel Movement Plan and DCO requirements to ensure that the pipeline is buried below the sea bed surface and backfill is flush with the seabed surface. 5. Super Saline Brine Discharge 5.1 Discharge of super saline brine into the Irish Sea during cavern construction is regulated under the Environment Agency’s 2007 discharge consent. The EIA and HRA undertaken for the discharge consent concluded that the project would not have a likely significant effect on offshore European sites or adverse affect the wider marine environment. Changed potential for impact of brine discharge. The original EIA and HRA assessments did not consider impacts on the newly designated Shell Flats cSAC. In addition, a large rock armoured offshore sewage outfall has been constructed to the north of the proposed outfall. The applicant needs to verify these changes do not represent a new or higher risk to the marine environment. 6. We have not considered the implications for designated sites resulting from any risk associated with cavern collapse, which we assume will be subject to thorough examination on health and safety grounds. Natural England 10 February 2012"

Ernest Woodward
"Both my wife     and myself object to the use by Cantxx/Halite of the proposed gas storage scheme, in the brine caverns at preesall,This scheme must be stopped once and forall     ."

Wyresdale Anglers
"1 I am concerned re safety aspects of the storage, risk of fire and explosion. 2. I am concerned about the ecological effect of discharging strong brine into the path of migratory salmonids"

Central Lancashire Friends of the Earth
"Central Lancashire Friends of the Earth understands that experts have raised concerns about the suitability and safety of the local geology at Preesall for gas storage. Significant new road infrastructure would be involved in the development including a new access road from the A558 and an extensive road network within the site, which would have a negative local impact through traffic generation, emissions and air pollution. The development could impact on the local economy including adversely affecting tourism, leisure and amenity value. We are concerned that the proposal may pose significant risks to the environment, public safety and health of local communities, and would like to register as an interested party so we can submit further detailed evidence to the examination."

Dorothy Hillman
"I am making representations because I disagree with the application on the following grounds:- Unproven suitability of the geology for gas storage. Risk of gas migration and subsequent explosion. Associated fear and concern of residents. Additionally I include worrying issues which I might wish to expand on later:- Pollution of the sea - Morecambe Bay - and local rivers by brine discharge, protection of SSSI sites, traffic pollution and highway safety, cause and consequences of blow out at Brine Well 45, decommissioning plans, and the actual need for this scheme."

Morecambe and Heysham Fisherman's Association
"The main concerns are the disposal of the brine into the Irish Sea, as the danger to the environment and fish stocks, the tidal current will take the main of the brine into the Morecambe Bay area doing untold damage to fish and shellfish stocks I have also information that mercury was also dumped into the underground storage facility from the ICI at Thornton. Mercury content was found many years ago in the mussel fishery in the Wyre and the harvesting in that part is still prohibited. An ecological disaster could be on the cards."

Maritime & Coastguard Agency
"In response to the letter received from Halite Energy Group regarding the Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility the MCA confirm that the conditions contained in our letter of the 13th June 2011, see attached, remain extant and appropriate with the addition of the following condition; The developer must ensure that 'the works' do not encroach on any recognised anchorage, either charted or noted in nautical publications, within the proposed consent area. Proposed Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage Facility Thank you for your letter dated 10th May 2011 in which you invited MCA to comment on the proposed application for the Preesall Underground Gas Storage facility. We have considered the information provided and it can be noted that the works are unlikely to have an adverse impact with regards to the safety of navigation provided the conditions below are applied to this development. Please note that these conditions only apply to the cables/pipelines crossing the river and salt water outfall as described in the project plan. We would however, only confirm these conditions once we have sighted the appropriate Marine Licence application from the Marine Management Organisation or as appropriate: 1. A copy of this consent must be given to each contractor appointed to carry out part or all of ‘the works’ in order that they are clear about the extent of ‘the works’ for which consent has been given and the conditions that are attached to the consent. 2. The Consent Holder should ensure appropriate steps are taken to minimise damage to the beach/foreshore/river bank by the works. 3. The Consent Holder should ensure that any equipment, temporary works and/or debris associated with the works are removed from the foreshore upon completion of the works. 4. The Consent Holder should ensure the best method of practice is used to minimise re-suspension of sediment during these works. 5. The Consent Holder should ensure suitable bunding, storage facilities are employed to prevent the release of fuel oils, lubricating fluids associated with the plant and equipment into the marine environment. SUPPORTING 6. The Consent Holder must ensure the beach/foreshore/riverbank is returned to the original profile following the completion of the works. 7. The Consent Holder should ensure the local mariner’s and fishermen's organisations are notified. 8. The Consent Holder should notify the UK Hydrographic Office to permit the promulgation of maritime safety information and updating of nautical publications. 9. The works shall be maintained at all times in good repair. 10. The works should be removed from below the level of mean high water springs within one month of notice being given by the Secretary of State at any time he considers this necessary or advisable for the safety of navigation, and not replaced without further consent by the Secretary of State. 11. No radio beacon or radar beacon operating in the Marine frequency bands shall be installed or used on the works without prior written approval by the Secretary of State. 12. If in the opinion of the Secretary of State the assistance of a Government Department, including the broadcast of navigational warnings, is required in connection with the works or to deal with any emergency arising from the failure to mark and light the works as required by the consent or to maintain the works in good order or from the drifting or wreck of the works, the owner of the works shall be liable for any expense incurred in securing such assistance. 13. Officers of the MCA, or any other person authorised by the Secretary of State, should be permitted to inspect the works at any reasonable time. 14. The site is within port limits and the responsible local navigation authority, in close consultation with the Harbour Commissioners where appropriate, may wish to issue local warnings to alert those navigating in the vicinity to the presence of the works during the construction. Additionally, they may need to review their Port Marine Safety Code risk assessments. 15. The matter is an issue for the local harbour authority with conservancy responsibilities. They have the responsibility within their port limits for ensuring their harbour is fit for use by, for example, not permitting the spoil to foul navigable channels thus assuring the safety of navigation. 16. Vessels to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs) – as amended, particularly with respect to the display of lights, shapes and signals. 17. The works should be marked and lighted in accordance with the requirements of the General Lighthouse Authority in this case Trinity House Lighthouse Service. 18. Any jack up barges/vessels utilised during the works, when jacked up, should exhibit signals in accordance with the UK Standard Marking Schedule for Offshore Installations. The developers must also consult with the local Harbour / Navigation Authority, who has jurisdiction over the area, and under the Port Marine Safety Code the following will apply: From the Guide to Good Practice, section 6 Conservancy, a Harbour Authority has a duty to conserve the harbour so that it is fit for use as a port, and a duty of reasonable care to see that the harbour is in a fit condition for a vessel to use it. Section 6.7 Regulating harbour works covers this in more detail and have copied the extract below from the Guide to Good Practice. 6.7 Regulating harbour works 6.7.1 Some harbour authorities have the powers to license works where they extend below the high watermark, and are thus liable to have an effect on navigation. Such powers do not, however, usually extend to developments on the foreshore. 6.7.2 Some harbour authorities are statutory consultees for planning applications, as a function of owning the seabed, and thus being the adjacent landowner. Where this is not the case, harbour authorities should be alert to developments on shore that could adversely affect the safety of navigation. Where necessary, consideration should be given to requiring the planning applicants to conduct a risk assessment in order to establish that the safety of navigation is not about to be put at risk. Examples of where navigation could be so affected include: • high constructions, which inhibit line of sight of microwave transmissions, or the performance of port radar, or interfere with the line of sight of aids to navigation; • high constructions, which potentially affect wind patterns; and • lighting of a shore development in such a manner that the night vision of mariners is impeded, or that navigation lights, either ashore and onboard vessels are masked, or made less conspicuous. There is a British Standards Institution publication on Road Lighting, BS5489. Part 8 relates to a code of practice for lighting which may affect the safe use of aerodromes, railways, harbours and navigable Inland waterways."

Ministry Of Defence
"Thank you for consulting the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on the above proposed development which was received by this office on 17/01/2012. We can confirm that the MOD has no safeguarding objections to this proposal. I trust this is clear however should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me."

Lynn Carter
"1) No proper safety arrangements in case of accidents/explosions. The land is not suitable for gas storage; particuarly flammable gas using high pressure. The chances of leaks and fire hazards would cause constant fear and worry to local people. 2) Little chance of employment for local people. Infact no benefits at all. 3) The enormous danger and threat to our local beach and wildlife. Flocks of migrating birds and local flora and fauna would be spoilt. This coastline is unique in being undeveloped, and left naturally for wildlife enjoyment by so many of us. Once this has been destroyed it cannot be retrieved. 4) The noise and road disturbance will spoil a small rural town loved by many into a building site, with access to highways and the beach being impeded. The dangerously narrow roads with winding bends bode trouble for the future involving large vehicles. 5) The place people have chosen as a haven for a family life away from Blackpool and the retired, will most likely consider moving away. Causing a ghost town of the future"

Mr Roy Pickup
"The following representation is about my personal views only on the Preesall Saltfield gas storage application. I am a nobody when confronted by the might of big companies, but I have a voice which should be heard. A householder living in the effected area. This plan is like the sward of Damocles hanging over the area. Over at least the last ten years plans have been rejected three times by for more qualified people then myself, due to the unstable nature of the underlying salt formations, companies come & go and come again in different guises, new plans new methods and different capacities, The one thing they cannot change is the ground strata, thats been there for millions of years. Their promise, is (every thing safe. we know what we are doing) I cannot find out what their plans are if things go wrong, and with 900MCM in stock they could wrong in a big way If only one of the nineteen caverns ruptures 47 million cubic metres under pressure could be released, if this migrated into underground services without exploding entire towns would be shutdown, and maybe evacuated! Within 4 miles of the proposed site we have a gas company actually firing explosives into the strata (fracking) totally safe. We were told. Two earthquake later. They had to stop. Within one mile of the Pressall site there is a landfill site which has been on fire twice last year. It as I stated at the beginning I am a nobody70 yrs old. If this plan is passed I may not be around when its working fully The next generation will have to live with it. Or fight the next planning application"

Mr Gerald Carter
"1/ Lack of a firm safety case for this proposal. The control of the potential hazard cannot be guaranteed. 2/ Instability of proposed site geology, and its inherent unsuitability for storage of highly flammable gas, at high pressure. 3/ Inherent risk of (gas) leakage, migration explosion, fire, loss of life and destruction of property. 4/ Close proximity of proposed installation to areas of dense residential habitation. 5/ Inadequate provision and availability of emergency services, to manage the risk potential of such an extreme hazard. 6/ Legal and insurance implications of the proposed installation upon residential and commercial investments. 7/ The burden of pollution (from strong brine), during the period of site preparation, on the marine environment, disturbance and interference to a site of special scientific interest and a marine conservation area. 8/ Pollution by noise, due to site preparation, provision of site access, both internally and by public highways. 9/ Greatly increased traffic burden on public highways, by construction traffic, and greatly increased risk of accidents and incidents. 10/ Damage to land and property enroute to site. 11/ Denial of public access to Lancashire costal way public footpath, and other common land. 12/ Increased potential risk of terrorist activity. 13/ Negative impact on commercial and residential property value, leisure, recreation and tourism activity. 14/ De facto pre-existence of other, more remote (gas) storage facilities, and their potential development in the future. 15/ Pre-existence of two nuclear-powered electricity generation plants close by at Heysham."

Christine Alston
"I disagree with the application to store gas underground at the Preesall saltfield for the following reasons. 1) The routing of the pipeline through the existing brinefield. The existence of the old mine workings could affect the stability of the pipeline and therefore cause a gas escape and explosion. 2) In June 2011 an existing brinewell failed and brine from within the well was released into the atmosphere and surrounding land. 3) Damage will be caused to the salt marsh and mud flats which are important for bird life. 4) The roads in the area are not made to cope with the increase in traffic the contrustion of the pipeline and supporting buildings would make."

Wyre Borough Council (Estates Dept)
"Please copy and paste this link into your browser to view the representation: http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Halite-Response.pdf"

National Grid
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see National Grids relevant representation. http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PREE-00040-National-Grid.pdf"

Lancashire County Council
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the Lancashire County Council's relevant representation http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/LCC-IPC-Relevant-Representation-letter-10.2.12.pdf"

Wyre Borough Council - Planning Dept
"Proposed Application by Halite Energy Group Limited for a Development Consent Order for an Underground Gas Storage Facility at Preesall Saltfield, Lancashire (‘the development’) IPC Reference: EN030001 Wyre Borough Council request the IPC to take the following issues into account as part of the examination process but that the IPC be advised that the Council does not necessarily object to the proposal at this stage but would reserve the right to object at such a time as a full and proper assessment of the application has been made and a local impact report prepared, and unless it has been demonstrated: • That the application demonstrates accurately the amount of gas that is capable of being stored and that the proposed caverns can accommodate such in a way that not only meets but exceeds the necessary safety standards and can be developed in a way that maintains the proposed standoffs between proposed caverns and the former salt caverns and mine workings. • That the geological assessment is sufficient to demonstrate the geology of the area is capable of accommodating the proposed development without creating migratory pathways for gas. • That the project has been designed in a way to ensure that the proposed caverns and above ground infrastructure will not be adversely affected by former salt mining activities and that such former mining activities are stable and will remain stable. • That the drilling wastes are properly managed and can, as proposed, be disposed in existing caverns in an acceptable way which will not create pollution or adversely affect the integrity of the caverns to be used or surrounding caverns. • That the application demonstrates 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 • That a full risk assessment for the proposal has been carried out that would address the fear and distress within the local communities attributable to the nature of the proposal and the potential consequences of any accident / incident occurring. • That the proposal would maintain appropriate distances between establishments and areas of public use in accordance with the provisions of the SEVESO II Directive and that any measures to maintain appropriate distances can be achieved without the closure of a section of the Wyre Way within the application boundary on a permanent basis. • That the applicant has demonstrated the justification for the creation of two under River Wyre crossings given the potential disturbance associated with the electricity connection to Stanah when an alternative may be available on the western side of the estuary. The routing of the electricity cable should be aligned to ensure they are not in close proximity to existing caverns that may be unstable. • That noise and vibration associated with the development and operation of the site would not be generated to levels that would have an adverse and unacceptable impact on the amenities of the area or on residential properties. • That the impact of the development upon air quality will not have an adverse and unacceptable impact on the amenities of the area or on residential properties. • That the proposed development to the east of the estuary would not result in the introduction of an inapropriate development which by reason of its scale, design and location would have an unacceptable detrimental visual impact on the quality of the open character of the countryside, coastal plain, estuary landscape and on the regionally important Wyre Way and other public rights of way and that the proposed means of mitigating the visual impacts are both acceptable and deliverable. • That the proposal would not adversely affect/diminish the amenity value and the public’s enjoyment of the use of the local footpath and bridleway network in the area, including the Wyre Way. • That, given that the impacts of the above ground development associated with the current proposal are potentially greater than those associated with similar previous proposals on the site and which were previously found unacceptable to the Secretary of State and the County Council, the proposal must demonstrate that there are no alternatives available which would enable the majority of the above ground development being less visually intrusive. In the event that it is demonstrated that there are no alternatives, it must be shown that the visual impact of such in terms of the above ground infrastructure including the well heads, interconnecting roadways, pumping station and compressor station is minimised in a way that would reduce the visual impact in the area and particularly when seen from the Wyre Way and other public rights of way. In this respect in particular, the compressor station is no longer to be housed within a building and will introduce a large industrial style facility into a rural environment. • The location and design of the proposed development should be informed by a complete/comprehensive ecological survey and impact assessment. It should be demonstrated that the proposed development has been located and designed to avoid ecological impacts. The proposals should include adequate mitigation and compensation proposals to fully offset all unavoidable ecological impacts and to deliver overall enhancement of ecological value. Mitigation proposals should be part of a Farm Conservation Plan on land within the applicants control to ensure the protection of any disturbed species and which would need to provide for long term financial management for the operational life of the site and any subsequent restoration. That the impacts of the proposal are properly assessed and can meet the requirements of an appropriate assessment. • The assessment methodology should be based on the IEEM EcIA Guidelines. To reduce the degree of subjectivity within the methodology, it is recommended that each habitat type that would be lost, damaged, re-established, enhanced, or brought into favourable management is quantified and clearly mapped to assist in demonstrating that all habitat losses are fully off-set and that overall gains in biodiversity and habitat value will be delivered. • The location and design of the proposed development should be informed by a complete/comprehensive survey and impact assessment of the archaeological environment and any above ground heritage assets. It should be demonstrated that the proposed development has been located and designed to minimise such impacts and that adequate mitigation and compensation proposals to fully offset all unavoidable impacts have been included. Such works are likely to include a phased scheme of further archaeological investigation and mitigation both before and after any consent is granted and before and during any construction works. The post-consent archaeological work may be required either by condition or a separate legal agreement. • That the applicant has demonstrated that proposed highway improvement works or works to facilitate access to the site can be designed to meet the appropriate highway standards. • That the applicant has demonstrated that there is no better/more suitable alternative for the use of the extracted brine than to discharge it into the sea. In the event the development is to be found acceptable the Council request the following to be taken into account: • That conditions be imposed that would ensure the effective control of the development; identify the responsible bodies for enforcing such; and the opportunity for the funding of an independent monitoring regime. • An assessment of the stability of existing caverns and the establishment of an ongoing monitoring regime of the existing and future caverns throughout and beyond the operational life of the site. • That mitigation of impacts through Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 is considered. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 makes provisions for the promotion of well- being by local authorities. Consideration should be given how impacts associated with the proposal could be mitigated to assist the local authorities to promote well-being to residents affected by the proposal. • The nature of the project is that extensive development works are required on both sides of the Wyre Estuary before an underground cavern to store natural gas could be created. It is proposed that such works would be done in tandem with the initial boreholes which would be drilled to identify the suitability of the salt within which the caverns would be created. In the event the development order consent were to be successful provision should be made for the establishment of a bond to provide for the removal of all above and below ground infrastructure in the event the project were not to be successful relative to the extent of development undertaken and for decommissioning of the site at the end of its operational life. • A routeing agreement would be required to minimise the risk of construction traffic using inappropriate routes to the various sites. This is considered particularly important in the Hambleton, Stalmine and Preesall areas where there are a number of narrows lanes which are generally not suitable for use by large vehicles. • The Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment concludes there is no risk of gas leaking from the caverns necessitating large scale evacuation. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal would be subject to COMAH and which would minimise the risk of accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit the impact of the proposed development on people and the environment in the event an accident were to occur, it is considered that an emergency plan to provide for any such risk or incident should be provided. • The provision for ecological mitigation and farm management plans. • Provision for pre and post-consent archaeological work. It will be noted that the above response follows very closely (but is not identical to) the response of Lancashire County Council. Wyre Council shares the concerns raised by the County Council whilst acknowledging that the County Council employs, or has engaged relevant professional experts to consider, and take the lead upon matters that are of concern to both parties. In this respect a single joint Local Impact Report may be submitted in due course. Yours sincerely, David Thow Head of Planning Services"

Marine Management Organisation
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the Marine Management Organisation's relevant representation http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EN030001-DC9194-relevant-representations.pdf"

Marlene Vintner
"Halite wish to store 900ml cubic ft of gas under the River Wyre. A list below the reasons why this should be allowed. 1) Salt caverns under the Wyre have always been unstable. The first drilling in a farmer's field in Over Wyre caused an explosion and brine ruined a farmer's field and spilt over into the River Wyre damaging mussel beds. 2 The Fylde coast is built on a fault line and a survey by the British Geological Society has found unusual geological formations underground. 3. Gas storage has been banned in America due to gas escaping, travelling a distance and blowing up a town-ship. The town of Fleetwood is on one side of the river and agricultural farming communities on the other side 4. Gas storage plus the proposed vertical and horizontal shale gas gas drilling present a nightmare scenario. This gas storage idea should be stopped immediatley before we have an explosion and loss of life. WHO WILL PICK UP THE peices??"

Robert Wilkins
"A previous pipeline similar to the one being planned left a damaged drainage system and restrictions on the use of the farmland. The farm area is small and any reduction in size would not be desirable."

Kenneth Penswick
"Having lived at       ,     ,   for 44 years, I feel I have a good knowledge of the area and the issues related to the application by Halite for gas storage. The areas with which I disagree most strongly are as follows: 1. The heavy haul road being only 100m away from my property, the dust, noise and air pollution in this area will be very high and unbearable to live with. The haul road will be in full view for a distance of almost 1 mile to the east, north and west with an 8 - 10 year construction period, not 1-3 years as stated in the application, and 40 year project life. 2. Heavy haul road and gas pipe passing over land not proven to be geologically safe. 3. Sonar and seismic testing in that area of BW's including BW 45, 18 months ago proved nothing in respect of the blowout of that well in June 2011. 4. BW's 46, 51, 50, 44, 66 and 67 south of Lickow Farm and only 100m from the haul road and gas pipe are unstable and due to subside in the near future, say Halite. I disagree that this is a safe route, as in 2005 an agreement was reached between Canatax and Lancashire County Council that that area of land was not suitable to even re-route a footpath over. 5. Monitoring of old BW's not being carried out as they are suggesting, BW 121, 43, 36 with valves corroded and broken off, holes in stand pipes, no control of these wells, others corroded and leaking. 6. Since the blowout of BW 45, BW 78 less than 100 yards away has been building pressure!!! 7. Halite have the mineral rights on the Knott End golf course, not the rights to store gas. 8. Geology not proven on golf course, not test drilling has taken place. 9. Knott End golf course is a public amenity along with the Wyre Way footpath, a catastrophe waiting to happen. 10. All cavern locations liable to collapse and crown hole development, the safety of the sewerage treatment plant and underground pipe system must be considered at risk from this development. 11. With the entire infrastructure in place, the visual and environmental noise, dust and pollution impact on the area would be immense; the outlook from the golf course, Wyre estuary and the Wyre Way footpath would be unthinkable. If a DCO was to be granted, the area would become a blot on the landscape for the foreseeable future. 12. Infrastructure development would have a major affect on migratory birds, which use Barnaby sand and the Wyre estuary during the winter months. 13. Electrical service cable route being placed very close to BW48, subsidence on one side, and Ivy Cottage on the other, a width of only 29m, which also includes Back Lane, I feel this is an unacceptable route. 14. I disagree with Halite Energy Group who say it is safe to store gas in this area on account of many geological and safety issues, destroying the local landscape, dust, noise and visual impact on the whole area for years to come. 15. If the application was to be granted, residents in a large area both sides of the River Wyre would be living in fear due to the possibility of a major incident/accident occurring in the future. I feel we all have a human right not to be forced into this position. To view the appenices please copy the following link into your brower: - http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PREE-00001-Penswick-appenddices.pdf"

M Jeynes
"I strongly disagree with this application. The geology of the area has already been suspect with unknown well contents and faults. A previous public inquiry condemned the application on safety grounds an din particular the safety aspects for residents. A recent wellhead eruption has proven what we locals know of the area. Rather than audit the problem, the company Canatxx/Halite accused the local population of sabotage with police involvement, and we are now subjected to a 24/7 security company patrolling the farmland past our properties. The regard for the local population and environment is dismissive in the extreme. They are determined, despite every previous applications and rejections to get their way at any cost. This proposal is dangerous and the company have no regards for the safety of the population, desecration of the SSSI environment and have no plans for any evacuation procedure in the event of a massive accident The potential damage to marine life with the pumping of brine into the sea is also a great cause of concern to a costal population."

John Baines
"Preesall Gas Storage This development will severly affect the value of my property. We are the nearest occupants of private property to the proposed site and access route. This project should not go-ahead for the same reasons it has been refused 3 times previously. Environment, geology, safety."

Lesley Jeynes
"I disagree with the aspects of the application on safety issues. Impact on the countryside and the wildlife in the area. I live within a quarter of a mile from this proposed site. The land around the cottage has been subject to subsidence. In some cases over night without warning. There are two faults running through the farmland which finishes under two schools. At a recent meeting held by Halite, when asked about these faults the reply was “what faults”. When also asked about the insurance premium on our houses and the loss of value if this proposed storage of gas goes ahead, they replied “Not our responsibility.” The same answer was given when asked about evacuation plans if there was a “blow out” we live in a village with one exit unless we wish to swim. We understand the area we live in is a triple S I area. I hope that the IPC takes into account the interests of the local community and take note of local expertise with regards to geology."

Derek Booth
"1. A very similar application has already been refused 2. The proposed site is in close proximity to Singleton where Cuadrilla have made applications to extract shale gas by "fracking". Trial drills have already caused 2 earthquakes, this is from vertical drilling. Cuadrilla are planning to start horizontal drilling. This area is on a fault line. Fracking & underground gas storage in a fault line area all combine to create a very dangerous cocktail. This is a disaster waiting to happen. 3. 10 acres of grazing land has already been flooded at the Preesall site caused by an underground fault 4. There would be increased traffic on already overcrowded & inadequate roads. 5. Visually the now pleasant landscape would be ruined. 6. The proposal is environmentally unfriendly & is extremely dangerous and should not be approved."

Averil Booth
"1(a)Unsafe Project British Geological Survey 2009 showed potential for collapse of brine wells when salt beds invaded by water. Preesall salt beds at sea level (b)18.06.11 Explosion damaging 10 acres of best grazing land. Brine flooding mussel beds in River Wyre. (c)This site covers old mine workings and is on a Fylde Coast fault line therefore 900 mill cubic metres of gas stored in unstable salt caverns underground could cause seepage problems 2(a)Hazardous unsafe project Preesall in vicinity of Cuadvilla fracking operations at Singleton and Weeton. Their vertical and horizontal drilling has already caused earthquakes (April-May 2011, with 48 smaller tremors recorded. CAN WE AFFORD ANOTHER QUAKE WITH 900 mill cubic metres of GAS STORED UNDERGROUND?? (b)Due to close proximity to Fleetwood and surrounding villages, an explosion of gas would decimate the whole area and be a disaster worse than Chernobyl. 3(a)Previous company Canatxx had application rejected. Halite formed on similar principles. Halite have had unsufficient consultation with public.-NIL after explosion- 4(b)Halite can never provide cast-iron safeguards. You cannot tamper with or fully control nature. Also, you cannot account for human error 5(a)This project must be stopped immediately. It is extremely dangerous, unethical and environmentally unfriendly. (b)Preesall area has agricultural land, villages and mainly minor roads and narrow lanes. This project highly detrimental to local area. (c)Increased traffic, including tanker traffic extremely dangerous on narrow roads and lanes This whole scheme is a collosal disaster just waiting to happen. It must not go ahead."

D Myerscough
"Reasons for my disagreement with the application: ENVIRONMENT - Part of the process involves Halite discharging vast amounts of brine into the sea where tidal currents will spread it over a wide area. Contamination of the sea and river will kill off fish, shellfish and vegetation. Any of these which enter the human food chain will be a danger to health. Birds which feed in the area will be detrimentally affected. United Utilities, the authority responsible for the cleanliness of our beaches and rivers, are being forced by the Government to spend millions of pounds, which will be passed on to the consumer, to install water treatment plants to conform to E.U. requirements. The benefits from this expenditure will be totally wiped out by the brine discharge. DANGER - The proposed fracking for natural gas within the local area has already caused earthquakes. The fact that this is underground in the locality, and in a direction which is not precisely controllable, could result in opening of fissures and fractures of the storage cavern walls. This would result in uncontrollable leaks of stored gas with a very high risk of explosion. Subterranean collapse has taken place in the past so is inevitable at some future date. The existence of numerous brine wells creates a perforation of the earth crust giving rise to a weakened storage facility. PROPERTY VALUES - The present aspect of the area is of a pleasant, green and peaceful, a very desirable place to live. The fact that this application has been submitted has resulted in a depreciation of property values, and if approved, property values would be reduced drastically. Property insurers would be quick to increase premiums due to increased risk. This area has been my home from birth in 1942 and I would be devastated to see it spoiled by this ridiculous proposal. Short term we would be burdened by construction traffic, noise and mud. Commuting by the residents would be adversely affected adding to the already dangerous road conditions where several fatalities have occurred over recent years. The plant itself would not be a thing of beauty, and the present dangerous road network would be further compromised. This proposal should not be permitted."

David Barker
"1 UNSAFE PROJECT. Already explosion on 18.06.11 damaging 10 acres of best grazing land, and flooding mussel beds on River Wyre COPY ATTACHED http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PREE-00008-Barker-appendice.pdf 2 UNSAFE PROJECT. British geological survey 2009 showed potential for collapse of brine wells when salt beds invaded by water. Preesall salt beds are at sea level. 3 UNSAFE PROJECT. Preesall is in the vicinity of the 'fracking' operation at SINGLETON and WEETON. Already they (CUADRILLA) have caused earthquakes (April & May 2011), and 48 smaller tremors recorded at Weeton with their horizontal underground drilling. CAN WE AFFORD TO CHANCE ANOTHER 'QUAKE WITH 900 MILL. CUB. METRES OF GAS BELOW GROUND? 4 UNSAFE PROJECT. Due to close proximity to Fleetwood and numerous surrounding villages. An explosion of 900 M.C.M of gas would decimate the area and would be 100 times worse than the CHERNOBYL tragedy. 5 PREVIOUS COMPANY (CANATXX) found project unsuitable and application was rejected. HAILITE formed on similar principles. 6 SAFETY RISKS - GEOLOGY. Site covers old mine workings, and is on Fylde Coast 'fault' line. This amount of gas would cause 'seepage' problems. 7 SALT IS PERMEABLE - gas permeates through porous membranes (osmosis) when caverns, at sea level, become wet. 8 SAFEGUARDS NOT IN PLACE. Hailite can never provide 'safeguards', as the whole project is hazardous, and extemely unsafe. 9 INSUFFICIENT CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC. Especially after the explosion - NIL. 10 INCREASED TRAFFIC, & TANKER TRAFFIC. On minor, narrow country roads and lanes. Extremely dangerous. 11 PROPOSED BUILDINGS (EYESORES) Large booster station, gas compressor compound, well-head compounds, sea water pump station - all 'blots' in this agricultural area of beautiful Lancashire countryside. 12 HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL TO LOCAL AREA - Horrendous visual impact, creation of poor air quality, high noise levels and damaging archaeology. ALL IN ALL THIS IS A DANGEROUS, UNETHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY PROJECT, AND MUST NOT GO AHEAD. (Abbeystead was said to be safe- then 12 people died)"