The Viking CCS Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Order 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
37 Defence to proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance
(1) Where proceedings are brought under section 82(1) (summary proceedings by person aggrieved by statutory nuisance) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to a nuisance falling within paragraphs (g) (noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance) and (ga) (noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street or in Scotland, road) of section 79(1) (statutory nuisances and inspections therefor) of that Act no order is to be made, and no fine may be imposed, under section 82(2) of that Act if the defendant shows that the nuisance— (a) relates to premises used by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that the nuisance is attributable to the carrying out of the authorised development in accordance with a notice served under section 60 (control of noise on construction sites), or a consent given under section 61 (prior consent for work on construction sites), of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or (b) relates to premises used by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that the nuisance is attributable to the carrying out of the authorised development; or (c) is a consequence of the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that it cannot reasonably be avoided; or (d) is a consequence of complying with a requirement of this Order and that it cannot reasonably be avoided; or (e) is a consequence of the use of the authorised development and that it cannot be reasonably avoided. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) above, compliance with the controls and measures relating to noise described in the CEMP will be sufficient, but not necessary, to show that an alleged nuisance could not reasonably be avoided. (3) Where a relevant planning authority is acting in accordance with section 60(4) and section 61(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the construction of the authorised development then the local authority must also have regard to the controls and measures relating to noise referred to in the CEMP approved under Schedule 2 (requirements). (4) Section 61(9) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 does not apply where the consent relates to the use of premises by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development. (5) In this article “premises” has the same meaning as in section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
37 Defence to proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance
(1) Where proceedings are brought under section 82(1) (summary proceedings by person aggrieved by statutory nuisance) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to a nuisance falling within paragraphs (g) (noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance) and (ga) (noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street or in Scotland, road) of section 79(1) (statutory nuisances and inspections therefor) of that Act no order is to be made, and no fine may be imposed, under section 82(2) of that Act if the defendant shows that the nuisance— (a) relates to premises used by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that the nuisance is attributable to the carrying out of the authorised development in accordance with a notice served under section 60 (control of noise on construction sites), or a consent given under section 61 (prior consent for work on construction sites), of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or (b) relates to premises used by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that the nuisance is attributable to the carrying out of the authorised development; or (c) is a consequence of the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that it cannot reasonably be avoided; or (d) is a consequence of complying with a requirement of this Order and that it cannot reasonably be avoided; or (e) is a consequence of the use of the authorised development and that it cannot be reasonably avoided. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) above, compliance with the controls and measures relating to noise described in the CEMP will be sufficient, but not necessary, to show that an alleged nuisance could not reasonably be avoided. (3) Where a relevant planning authority is acting in accordance with section 60(4) and section 61(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the construction of the authorised development then the local authority must also have regard to the controls and measures relating to noise referred to in the CEMP approved under Schedule 2 (requirements). (4) Section 61(9) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 does not apply where the consent relates to the use of premises by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development. (5) In this article “premises” has the same meaning as in section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.