Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) · 10/5/2013 · Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: P-aD.1...

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: P-aD.1

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)

Ferrybridge Power Station Site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report Volume 1 – Main Report

The Planning Act 2008

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009

Regulation 2(1) & Schedule 4 (Part 1)

Applicant: Multifuel Energy Limited

Date: October 2013


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report – Volume 1 Main Report

Document History

TITLE: Preliminary Environmental Information

DOCUMENT REF: P-aD.1

Version Status/Purpose/ Description

Originator Checked Authorised Date

1.0 Initial Draft LR KW RL Sept 13

2.0 Final Draft LR KW RL Oct 13

Author: URS



Glossary

AAWT Average Annual Weekday Traffic LCA Landscape Character Area

AC Ambient Baseline Concentration LCyA Life Cycle Assessment

ACC Air Cooled Condenser LCPD Large Combustion Plant Directive

ACM Asbestos Containing Materials LCT Landscape Character Type

ADMS Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System

LDF Local Development Framework

APFP Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure

LGV Light Goods Vehicles

AQMA Air Quality Management Area LNA Leeds Nature Area

AQS Air Quality Standard LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

ARM Alternative Raw Material LWS Local Wildlife Site

ATC Automatic Traffic Count MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan mAOD Meters Above Ordnance Datum

BAT Best Available Technology MCC Manual Classified Turning Count

BRE Building Research Establishment MEL Multifuel Energy Limited (‘the Applicant’)

BREEAM Sustainable Building Design MSW Municipal solid waste

BREF Business Real Estate Finance MW Megawatts

C&I Commercial and Industrial MWe Megawatts of electrical power

CCTV Closed Circuit Television NAQS National Air Quality Standard

Cd Cadmium NBN National Biodiversity Network

CD&E Currently Data on Construction, Demolition and Excavation

NCA National Character Area

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

NCV Net Calorific Value

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System

NE Natural England

CHP Combined Heat and Power NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities

CIBSE Certified Institute of Building Services Engineers

NEYEDC North Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre

CIEEM Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

CLPVE Critical Levels for the Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

CMS Construction Method Statement NPS National Policy Statement

CO2 Carbon Dioxide NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project

CO Carbon Monoxide NTS Non-Technical Summary

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (ii)



COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health

OHL Overhead Line

CSM Conceptual Site Model ONS Office for National Statistics

dB (A) Decibels adjusted with ‘A’ contour to account for how the human ear responds to different frequencies of sound

PC Proposed Development process contributions

DB Threshold Value PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration

DCO Development Consent Order PEI Preliminary Environmental Information

DEFRA Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

PINS Planning Inspectorate

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges PPS10 Planning Policy Statement 10

DoE Department of Environment PPV Guidance on Human Effects of Vibration Levels

DO Dissolved Oxygen PROW Public Right of Way

DPD Development Plan Document RBMP River Bank Management Plan

EA Environment Agency RoO Reverse Osmosis

EAL Environmental Assessment Level SAC Special Area of Conservation

EfW Energy from Waste SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument

EH English Heritage SEGI Site of Ecological or Geological Importance

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SINC Site of Interest for Nature Conservation

ELV Emission Limit Value SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

EMS Environmental Management System SO2 Sulphur Dioxide

EN-1 Overarching NPS for Energy SOCC Statement of Community Consultation

EN-3 NPS for Renewable Energy SoS Secretary of State

EN-5 The NPS for Electricity Networks Infrastructure

SPZ Source Protection Zone

EN-X National Policy Statements relating to Energy Infrastructure.

SSE SSE Generation Ltd

ES Environmental Statement SSLP Site Specific Policies Local Plan

EZ Employment Zone SSI Site of Scientific Interest

Ferrybridge Power

Station site

The site of Ferrybridge Power Station, incorporating the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, FM1 and the Proposed Development Site

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

FGD Flue Gas Desulphurisation SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

FGT Flue Gas Treatment TA Transport Assessment

FM1 Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station 1 (under construction)

TC Traffic Contributions

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (iii)



FM2 Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station 2 (the Proposed Development)

The Site The site within which the Proposed Development will be constructed, as defined by the DCO (Application Site) red line boundary

FRA Flood Risk Assessment TN Target Note

FWEP Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan Tpa Tonnes per annum

GP3 Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (EA guidance document)

TRO Traffic Regulation Order

GTA Guidance on Transport Assessment TTWA Travel to work Axa

GW Gigawatts VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

HCL Hydrogen Chloride W Watt

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle WDF Waste Derived Fuel

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment WFD Water Framework Directive

HV High Voltage WID Waste Incineration Directive

IED Industrial Emissions Directive WMDC Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

IEEM Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management

WNA Wakefield Nature Area

IEMA Environmental Management and Assessment

WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme

LA90 Ambient Noise Level in the Absence of the Source

WRATE Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment

LAeq Ambient Noise Level average (or equivalent continuous level)

WTI Wheelabrator Technologies Incorporated

LAeq,T Ambient Noise Level average (or equivalent continuous level) over the time period of measurement

WYE West Yorkshire Ecology

ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (iv)



Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. The Applicant ................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. The Proposed Development ............................................................................................ 1 1.4. The Purpose of the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report ....................... 2 1.5. References ....................................................................................................................... 3

2. The Development Consent Order (DCO) and EIA Processes .................................... 4

2.1. The DCO Process ............................................................................................................ 4 2.2. The EIA Scoping Exercise ............................................................................................... 4 2.3. Preliminary Environmental Information ............................................................................ 5 2.4. Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.5. Timing of the Application and Proposed Development .................................................... 8 2.6. Environmental Permit ....................................................................................................... 8 2.7. References ....................................................................................................................... 8

3. The Site and Its Surroundings ...................................................................................... 9

3.1. The Ferrybridge Power Station Site ................................................................................. 9 3.2. The Site .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3. The Surrounding Area .................................................................................................... 11 3.4. Site History ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.5. Potential Environmental Sensitivities/Receptors ............................................................ 12

4. The Proposed Development ........................................................................................ 14

4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 14 4.2. The Proposed Development Description ....................................................................... 14 4.3. Principal Development ................................................................................................... 16 4.4. Auxiliary Facilities ........................................................................................................... 20 4.5. Associated Development ............................................................................................... 22 4.6. Ancillary Development ................................................................................................... 24 4.7. Design Parameters ........................................................................................................ 24 4.8. Additional Process Inputs ............................................................................................... 27 4.9. Process Outputs/Residues ............................................................................................. 28 4.10. Access and On-Site Vehicle Movements ....................................................................... 30 4.11. Shared Facilities ............................................................................................................. 32 4.12. Geographical Source of Fuel ......................................................................................... 33 4.13. References ..................................................................................................................... 34

5. Environmental Controls .............................................................................................. 36

5.1. Environmental Management .......................................................................................... 36 5.2. Accidental Discharges to Water/Spillages ..................................................................... 36 5.3. Emissions to Air.............................................................................................................. 36 5.4. Odour and Dust Suppression ......................................................................................... 38 5.5. Effluent ........................................................................................................................... 38 5.6. Noise .............................................................................................................................. 38 5.7. References ..................................................................................................................... 39

6. Construction Programme and Management ............................................................. 40

6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 40

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (v)


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 6.2. Enabling Works .............................................................................................................. 40 6.3. Construction Phase ........................................................................................................ 41 6.4. Decommissioning ........................................................................................................... 45 6.5. References ..................................................................................................................... 45

7. Planning Policy Context .............................................................................................. 46

7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 46 7.2. The Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statements ............................................... 46 7.3. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ................................................................ 47 7.4. National Waste Policy .................................................................................................... 47 7.5. Wakefield Development Plan ......................................................................................... 48 7.6. References ..................................................................................................................... 48

8. The need for the project, Alternatives and Design Evolution ................................. 50

8.1. The Need for the Project ................................................................................................ 50 8.2. Alternative Sites ............................................................................................................. 52 8.3. Consideration of Alternative Locations within the Selected Site .................................... 53 8.4. Consideration of Alternative Design Options and Design Evolution .............................. 54 8.5. References ..................................................................................................................... 55

9. Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ............................................... 56

9.1. Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 56 9.2. Baseline .......................................................................................................................... 56

10. Transport and Access ................................................................................................. 61

10.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 61 10.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 61 10.3. Key Parameters for Assessment.................................................................................... 63 10.4. Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................................... 64 10.5. Modified Baseline and Modified Future Baseline Conditions ......................................... 68 10.6. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................... 69 10.7. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ............................................. 70 10.8. Residual Effect Assessment .......................................................................................... 81 10.9. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ..................................................................... 82 10.10. References ..................................................................................................................... 82

11. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 83

11.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 83 11.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 84 11.3. Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................................... 88 11.4. Development Design and Impact Avoidance ................................................................. 93 11.5. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................... 95 11.6. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ............................................. 95 11.7. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 98 11.8. Residual Effect Assessment .......................................................................................... 99 11.9. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 100 11.10. References ................................................................................................................... 100

12. Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 101

12.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 101

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (vi)


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 12.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 101 12.3. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 105 12.4. Development Design and Impact Avoidance ............................................................... 107 12.5. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 107 12.6. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 108 12.7. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 118 12.8. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 119 12.9. References ................................................................................................................... 119

13. Socio-Economics ....................................................................................................... 121

13.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 121 13.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 121 13.3. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 123 13.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 125 13.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 125 13.6. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 133 13.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 133 13.8. References ................................................................................................................... 133

14. Landscape and Visual ............................................................................................... 135

14.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 135 14.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 136 14.3. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 136 14.4. Development Design and Impact Avoidance ............................................................... 145 14.5. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 145 14.6. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 146 14.7. Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ..................................................... 148 14.8. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 156 14.9. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 157 14.10. References ................................................................................................................... 157

15. Water Resources and Flood Risk ............................................................................. 158

15.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 158 15.2. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 159 15.3. Development Design and Impact Avoidance ............................................................... 161 15.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 163 15.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 164 15.6. Mitigation measures ..................................................................................................... 169 15.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 170 15.8. References ................................................................................................................... 171

16. Ground Conditions .................................................................................................... 173

16.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 173 16.2. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 177 16.3. Development Design and Impact Avoidance ............................................................... 179 16.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 180 16.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 181 16.6. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 184 16.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 184 16.8. References ................................................................................................................... 184

17. Ecology ....................................................................................................................... 185

17.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 185

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (vii)


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 17.2. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 189 17.3. Correspondence/agreement with consultees to date .................................................. 194 17.4. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 194 17.5. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 202 17.6. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 203 17.7. References ................................................................................................................... 203

18. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage .......................................................................... 204

18.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 204 18.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 204 18.3. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 206 18.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 208 18.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 209 18.6. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 211 18.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 212 18.8. References ................................................................................................................... 212

19. Waste and Resources ................................................................................................ 213

19.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 213 19.2. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 214 19.3. Development Design and Impact Avoidance ............................................................... 216 19.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 217 19.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 218 19.6. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 224 19.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 224 19.8. References ................................................................................................................... 224

20. Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 226

20.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 226 20.2. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 227 20.3. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 227 20.4. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects ........................................... 227 20.5. Limitations or Difficulties .............................................................................................. 233 20.6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 234 20.7. References ................................................................................................................... 234

21. Health .......................................................................................................................... 236

21.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 236 21.2. Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 236 21.3. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date.................................................. 238 21.4. Likely Health Impacts and Significance of Effects ....................................................... 238 21.5. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 238 21.6. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined ................................................................... 239 21.7. References ................................................................................................................... 239

22. Cumulative Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 240

22.1. Projects to be Considered ............................................................................................ 240 22.2. Overview of Likely Cumulative Effects ......................................................................... 241

23. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 243

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (viii)


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 23.1. Summary of Effects ...................................................................................................... 243 23.2. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 248

Tables Table 2.1 Key Issues from Informal Consultation/EIA Scoping Table 4.1 Plant Design Performance Table 4.2 Maximum Design Parameters Table 4.3 Minimum Design Parameters Table 4.4 Fixed Design Parameters Table 4.5 Raw Material Usage Estimates Table 4.6 Residue Production Estimates Table 5.1 Estimated Limit Values for selected air quality variables Table 6.1 Anticipated Mobile Plant and Equipment Required for Construction Table 9.1 Matrix defining the relative significance of effects Table 10.1 Assessment of Significance of Effects Matrix - Transport (Ref 10-1) Table 10.2 Traffic Volumes on Stranglands Lane Table 10.3 Traffic Volumes on Kirkhaw Lane Table 10.4 Traffic Volumes on A162 South of Pontefract Lane Table 10.5 Traffic Volumes on A162 Just North of the River Aire Table 10.6 Summary of Recorded Accidents 1 May 2009 to 31 March 2013 Table 10.7 TEMPRO Traffic Growth Factors Table 10.8 Summary of Consultation Responses Table 10.9 Peak Period Construction Traffic Flows Table 10.10 Percentage Impact on Stranglands Lane due to Additional Construction Traffic Flows Table 10.11 Percentage Impact on Kirkhaw Lane due to Additional Construction Traffic Flows Table 10.12 Percentage Impact on A162 South of Pontefract Road due to Additional Construction

Traffic Flows Table 10.13 Percentage Impact on A162 just North of River Aire due to Additional Construction

Traffic Flows Table 10.14 Fuel and Ash / IBA Assumptions – Low NCV Fuel Table 10.15 FM2 Road Deliveries / Ash Removal Assumptions Table 10.16 Operational Traffic Flows Table 10.17 Percentage Impact on Stranglands Lane due to the FM2 Operational Traffic Flows in

2018 - Worst Case Table 10.18 Percentage Impact on Kirkhaw Lane due to FM2 Operational Traffic Flows – Worst

Case Table 10.19 Percentage Impact on A162 South of Pontefract Road due to Additional FM2

Operational Traffic Flows – Worst Case Table 10.20 Percentage Impact on A162 just North of River Aire due to Additional FM2 Operational

Traffic Flows – Worst Case Table 10.21 Fuel and Ash / IBA Assumptions – Average NCV Fuel Table 10.22 Road Deliveries & Ash / IBA Removal Assumptions Table 10.23 Operational Traffic Flows – Design Case Table 10.24 Percentage Impact on Stranglands Lane due to the Additional FM2 Operational Traffic

Flows in 2018 – Design Case Table 10.25 Percentage Impact on Kirkhaw Lane due to Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows

in 2018 – Design Case Table 10.26 Percentage Impact on A162 South of Pontefract Road due to Additional FM2

Operational Traffic Flows in 2018 – Design Case Table 10.27 Percentage Impact on A162 just North of River Aire due to Additional FM2 Operational

Traffic Flows in 2018 – Design Case Table 10.28 Traffic Management Measures and Effects Table 11.1 Determination of Magnitude of Change – Air Quality

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (ix)


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report Table 11.2 Significance of Effects NO2 and PM10 – Air Quality Table 11.3 Annual Average Continuous and Diffusion Tube NO2 Monitoring Data Table 11.4 Background Air Quality – Additional species Table 11.5 Sensitive Human Health Receptors Table 11.6 Sensitive Ecological Receptors Table 11.7 Modified NO2 and PM10 Baseline Table 11.8 Modified Baseline Calculations – Other species, maximum Process Contribution Table 11.9 Consultation Summary Table 11.10 Proposed Development NO2 Operational Contributions Table 11.11 Proposed Development PM10 Operational Contributions Table 11.12 Proposed Development Operational Contributions - Maximum Predicted

Concentrations from Dispersion Modelling Table 12.1 Construction Noise Criteria Table 12.2 Semantic Scale for Description of Construction Noise Effects at Residential receptors Table 12.3 Guidance on Human Effects of Vibration Levels (PPV) Table 12.4 Traffic Noise Assessment Criteria Table 12.5 BS 4142 Noise Rating Table 12.6 Significance of Operational Noise Effects Table 12.7 URS 2009 Noise Survey Results Table 12.8 Consultation Responses Table 12.9 Measured LAeq,T Noise Levels and Associated ‘ABC’ Assessment Category Table 12.10 Construction Noise Limits Table 12.11 Daytime Construction Noise Predictions Table 12.12 Daytime Construction Noise Effects Table 12.13 Example Piling Vibration Levels Table 12.14 Construction Traffic Table 12.15 Construction Traffic Noise Calculations Table 12.16 Operational Noise Predictions Table 12.17 Night-time Noise Effect of Operational Facility Table 12.18 Operational Traffic Table 12.19 Operational Traffic Noise Calculations Table 13.1 Impact Assessment and Significance Criteria Table 13.2 Socio-Economic Impacts by Geographical Scale Table 13.3 Estimated Employment Created During Construction Table 13.4 Breakdown of jobs by skill level Table 13.5 Estimates of Employment Created During Operation Table 14.1 Landscape Character Assessments Table 14.2 Representative viewpoints Table 14.3 Consultation Summary Table 14.4 Rochdale Envelope Parameters Assessed in this Chapter Table 15.1 Summary of Consultation Responses Table 16.1 Descriptive scale for different sources of land contamination Table 16.2 Descriptive scale for sensitivity of receptors Table 16.3 Summary of the most likely sources of potential land contamination impacts that may

affect sensitive receptors Table 16.4 Descriptive scale for different sources of land contamination Table 16.5 Summary of Consultation Responses Table 17.1 CIEEM scales of ecology and nature conservation value Table 17.2 Environmental parameters that influence the severity of a potential impact or the

significance of the resulting effect. Table 17.3 Definitions of magnitude of impact Table 17.4 Comparison of terminology used to describe the relative effect significance Table 17.5 Confidence levels

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (x)


Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report Table 17.6 Statutory Designated Sites within the 5 km search radius of the Study Area Table 17.7 Non-Statutory Designated Sites Table 17.8 Consultees and a Summary of Their Responses Table 17.9 Rochdale Envelope Parameters Assessed in this Chapter Table 17.10 Details of Habitat Loss as a Result of the Proposed Development Table 18.1 Value of Cultural Heritage Assets Table 18.2 Consultation Summary Table 19.1 Significance Assessment of Waste Impacts Table 19.2 Summary of Consultation Responses Table 19.3 Rochdale Envelope Parameters Assessed in this Chapter Table 19.4 Estimated CD&E Waste Arisings - Maximum Scenario Table 19.5 Estimated CD&E Waste Arisings – Minimum Scenario Table 19.6 Significance of Forecast Construction Waste Effects for the Development Table 19.7 Production Related Waste Arisings Table 19.8 Non Production Related Waste Arisings Table 19.9 Significance of Forecast Operational Waste Effects for the Development Table 20.1 Total footprint emissions Table 20.2 BREEAM Categories Table 21.1 Life Expectancy Table 21.2 Baseline Morality Rates Table 23.1 Summary of Significant Effects

Figures Figures are provided in Volume II – Figures and Appendices

Appendices Appendices are provided in Volume II – Figures and Appendices

Multifuel Energy Limited Date: October 2013 (xi)



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background 1.1.1. This ‘Preliminary Environmental Information Report’ (PEI Report) has been prepared on

behalf of Multifuel Energy Limited (the Applicant) in support of a proposed application (the Application) that will be made to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (SoS) under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008, seeking an ‘Order’ granting Development Consent (a Development Consent Order, or DCO).

1.1.2. The DCO would provide the necessary authorisations and consents for the construction and operation of a new build ‘multifuel’ power station of up to 90 megawatts (MWe) gross output and associated development (the Proposed Development). The Proposed Development would be located on land within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire, within the administrative boundary of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC).

1.2. The Applicant 1.2.1. The Applicant comprises a 50:50 joint venture that has been formed by SSE Generation

Ltd (SSE) and WTI/EFW Holdings Ltd. (a subsidiary of Wheelabrator Technologies Incorporated (WTI)) to develop a low carbon electricity generating plant that will be fuelled by waste derived fuels (WDF).

1.2.2. SSE is one of the UK’s leading energy companies and the largest non-nuclear electricity generator, operating a diverse portfolio across the UK and Ireland. SSE owns and operates the Ferrybridge Power Station site, which includes the operational Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal-fired Power Station, in addition to the land to which the proposed Application for Development Consent relates.

1.2.3. WTI is a leading developer, owner and operator of energy from waste (EfW) facilities and has been established for over 37 years. WTI currently owns and/or operates 22 energy facilities in the USA, 17 of which are EfW facilities. It has also recently acquired part of a business in China that has three operational plants and a further six under development.

1.3. The Proposed Development 1.3.1. The Applicant is already constructing a similar multifuel power station on land within the

Ferrybridge Power Station site. This project is known as ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 (FM1) Power Station’ and was consented under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 in October 2011. FM1 is currently under construction and is due to be completed by September 2014, when commissioning will commence. It is anticipated that FM1 will be fully operational from March 2015. The effects of the FM1 development have been included in a modified baseline for the Proposed Development, allowing for any environmental effects predicted to arise out of the FM1 development once operational (as identified in the Environmental Statement for that project). This approach is outlined in more detail in Chapter 9 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria.

1.3.2. The Proposed Development is known as ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station’ and will be located within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site on land to the north of the FM1 site. The proposed Application Site (the FM2 site, referred to in the remainder of this report as ‘the Site’) extends to approximately 33 hectares (ha) and comprises for the most part land within the former golf course of Ferrybridge Power Station. The land required for the Proposed Development will be leased by the Applicant from SSE. An option agreement for the Site will be in place prior to submission of the DCO application,

Multifuel Energy Limited October 2013 1



and it should be noted that SSE is a 50% shareholder in Multifuel Energy Limited (the Applicant). The extent of the Site is shown in Figure 1.1.

1.3.3. The Proposed Development will be capable of producing low carbon electricity through the use of WDF from various sources of processed municipal solid waste (MSW), ‘commercial and industrial’ (C&I) waste and waste wood. It will therefore make a positive contribution toward addressing a number of challenges, namely:

• the UK Government's climate change commitments, which necessitate achieving an ambitious reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions (principally CO2);

• security of national electricity supply, which can be addressed through having a mix of energy generating technologies and a diverse range of fuel sources;

• maximising energy recovery from WDF obtained from the processing of various sources of MSW, C&I waste and waste wood into fuel suitable for use in the Proposed Development;

• complementing recycling initiatives by accepting waste after these initiatives have been carried out, thereby forming part of an integrated waste management system and supporting the waste hierarchy; and

• positive use of waste materials that may otherwise be disposed of to landfill, saving valuable landfill space. This will also result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (including methane) that would otherwise have been generated from the breakdown of the waste materials had it gone to land fill.

1.3.4. The level of interest received from potential fuel suppliers in relation to FM1 has demonstrated that there is demand in the market for further WDF electricity generating facilities at Ferrybridge, hence the Applicant’s decision to progress the Proposed Development. The need for the Proposed Development is outlined in Chapter 8 The Need for the Project, Alternatives and Design Evolution of this PEI Report, which also describes the alternatives that have been considered during the evolution of the Proposed Development.

1.3.5. Environmental impacts are being studied systematically as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, the results of which will be presented within an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES will consider impacts resulting from the enabling, construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development and propose measures to eliminate, reduce or mitigate any significant adverse effects on the environment. The ES will form part of the Application for Development Consent. The baseline for the assessment has been derived from measurements in and around the Site, and modified where applicable to account for the likely effects of FM1 (which will be operational when FM2 commences construction). This is explained further in Chapter 9 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria.

1.3.6. The EIA also addresses ‘residual’ impacts, defined as impacts remaining following the implementation of mitigation measures. Finally, the EIA addresses the cumulative impact of the Proposed Development in combination with other known or consented schemes agreed with WMDC, as outlined in Chapter 22 Cumulative Impact Assessment.

1.4. The Purpose of the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report

1.4.1. The purpose of the PEI Report is outlined in The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) Advice Note 7: Environmental Impact Assessment: Screening, Scoping and Preliminary Environmental Information (Version 4) (Ref 1-1), where it is described as a document to




‘enable the local community to understand the environmental effects of the proposed development so as to inform their responses regarding the proposed development’.

1.4.2. PEI is defined in the EIA Regulations as ‘information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 (information for inclusion in environmental statements) which (a) has been compiled by the applicant; and (b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)’.

1.4.3. In order to enable the consultees to develop ‘an informed view of the project’ (Ref 1-2) this report presents preliminary findings of the environmental assessments undertaken to date. This allows consultees the opportunity to provide informed comment on the Proposed Development, the assessment process and preliminary findings prior to the finalisation of the ES. The Applicant is actively seeking the views of consultees on the information contained within this report, and there is opportunity within the process for both the EIA and the project design to take account of any comments received.

1.4.4. It should be noted that this PEI Report does not constitute a full ES, but rather presents the assessments completed as part of the EIA process to date. The various assessments are at differing stages of completion due to outstanding design and baseline information in some areas and any gaps are highlighted where relevant. It is, however, considered that the information presents sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project. Following the formal consultation process and once the design is further developed, this report will be developed into a final ES taking into consideration comments raised during the consultation, and it is intended to further communicate with consultees on this final document.

1.4.5. The information presented in this report depicts the extent of the environmental assessment work undertaken to date based upon the information available. The design will continue to evolve and some baseline data are not yet available, although this is not considered to be material to understanding the potential impacts and effects of the Proposed Development. As such it is not possible to present a complete impact assessment on each environmental topic, but instead this report depicts what the likely impacts are, based upon current information, and what work will be undertaken in the future to complete the individual assessments. Presentation of preliminary environmental information in this way also allows the EIA process to take account of comments received during the formal consultation process.

1.4.6. Where data are missing or there are assumptions made for this preliminary assessment, this is made clear in the text of the report and the information will be made available in the final ES. The information provided within this report has been compiled in order to seek comments on the Proposed Development from the consultees. Comments will be taken into consideration during the final stages of the EIA process and project design.

1.5. References Ref. 1-1 Advice Note Seven: Environmental Impact Assessment Screening and

Scoping, August 2010; Infrastructure Planning Commission

Ref. 1-2 Guidance on associated development: Applications to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (Communities and Local Government, September 2009)




2. THE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER (DCO) AND EIA PROCESSES

2.1. The DCO Process 2.1.1. The Proposed Development falls within the definition of a ‘Nationally Significant

Infrastructure Project’ (NSIP) under Section 14(1)(a) and Section 15(2)(a-c) of the Planning Act 2008 (Ref 2-1) because it is an onshore generating station within England, that will have a generating capacity greater than 50 MW gross output. As such, a Development Consent is required to authorise the Proposed Development under Section 37 of the Planning Act.

2.1.2. Development Consent is granted by the SoS by means of an ‘Order’ (a Development Consent Order, or DCO). A DCO can have the effect of granting planning permission in addition to a range of other consents and authorisations for a development. Section 115 of the Planning Act also provides for Development Consent to be granted for ‘associated development’, that is, development that is associated with (i.e. to either support the construction or operation of or help to address the impacts of) the ‘principal development’.

2.1.3. An application for Development Consent is submitted to PINS acting on behalf of the SoS. Subject to the application being accepted, PINS will examine it and make a recommendation to the SoS, who will subsequently determine whether to grant a DCO for the NSIP.

2.1.4. It is anticipated that the Application for Development Consent will be submitted in Quarter 2/ Quarter 3 (Q2/Q3) of 2014.

2.2. The EIA Scoping Exercise 2.2.1. The Proposed Development is considered to fall within Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (Ref 2-2), the (‘EIA Regulations’), and constitutes an ‘EIA development’. As such, an EIA will be undertaken, and an Environmental Statement (ES) produced and submitted in support of the DCO application in accordance with Regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (‘APFP Regulations’) (Ref 2-3)

2.2.2. The issues to be addressed within the ES were identified in the EIA Scoping Report submitted to PINS in June 2013 (Ref 2-4). This Scoping Report was developed following initial consultation with a number of statutory consultees and was informed by experience from the FM1 development. A Scoping Opinion was received on 13th July 2013. Key issues raised in the Scoping Opinion received are summarised at the start of each technical chapter in this report.

2.2.3. Formal EIA Scoping Responses received by the SoS on the EIA Scoping Report are reproduced as Appendix 2A, and are being considered within the ES. The various suggestions received as part of the Scoping Opinion have been taken into account during the EIA process and in the completion of this PEI Report.

2.2.4. The topics included within this PEI Report reflect the topics that will be presented within the final ES. Where it has not been possible to complete an impact assessment to date for a topic, the topic is still included in this report, setting out details of what will be assessed and a prediction of likely effects is provided, based on information available and experience from FM1.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 2.2.5. The scoping process concluded that the following technical topics are not relevant to the

EIA and could be scoped-out. It is therefore intended that these topics will not be the subject of assessment within the ES, though comments on this are invited from consultees.

2.2.6. Aviation – a scoping response was received from the Civil Aviation Authority and presented as part of the Scoping Opinion of 13th July 2013 (Appendix 2A). The Opinion considered that the EIA should ‘check any safeguarding maps lodged with relevant planning authorities to identify any aerodrome specific safeguarding issues’. The response went on to state the CAA ‘believe there to be a need for aviation warning lighting’ because a stack of 120 m in height could constitute an ‘aerodrome obstruction’. If the structure did not constitute an issue, lighting would only be mandatory if it exceeded 150 m in height (Ref 2-4). The response states that by virtue of the location and nature of the stack it may be considered a significant navigational hazard. Investigations were, however, carried out for the FM1 development which is a similar height and location. The nearest airfield is Church Fenton airfield, located 15 km north east of the Site, which at this time is non-operational and a stack of 120 m (136 mAOD) would be lower than the existing emissions stacks on the site, which are approximately 198 m tall (at a ground level of approximately 14 mAOD, therefore total height 212 mAOD). The need for warning lights will be discussed further with the relevant authorities, however the Proposed Development is not considered to present any aerodrome issues, and aviation has been scoped out of the EIA for FM2.

2.2.7. Electronic Interference (TV Reception) – a desktop study undertaken for FM1 concluded that the development would not have a significant impact upon electrical interference given its location adjacent to existing structures of equivalent heights and distance from existing transmitters, and as such electrical interference was scoped out of the EIA for FM1 and similarly has been scoped out of the EIA for FM2.

2.2.8. Accidental Events/Health and Safety – the majority of emergency response plans and contingency measures will be dealt with in the Environmental Permit that will be required for the operation of the Proposed Development, which is granted and regulated by the Environment Agency (EA). However, the potential for impacts of air emissions on human health are being considered as part of the EIA and in this PEI Report.

2.3. Preliminary Environmental Information 2.3.1. As part of the EIA process, the assessment of the potential environmental impacts on the

various potential receptors is underway. The assessments are at various stages depending upon the information that is currently available and the extent of any investigations or site surveys that have been undertaken to date. A number of surveys are underway or still to be commissioned, for example detailed ground investigations in the form of geotechnical works and topographic survey are being undertaken. Where further data become available after the production of this report, they will be used to further inform the assessments, as they are developed for the final ES. The information presented within this report is therefore in the form of initial findings and is subject to change upon receipt of further data, consultation responses and any changes arising through the design process.

2.3.2. Each assessment highlights any current data gaps and details the methodology that will be employed following receipt of the data.

2.3.3. Additional information received, along with the responses from the consultation process will be used to inform the design process and the final ES. Any changes that arise




between the production of this PEI Report and the final ES will be highlighted and clearly explained within the final ES.

2.4. Consultation 2.4.1. The process of consultation is integral to the DCO application and EIA processes and

important to the development of a comprehensive and balanced environmental assessment of the Proposed Development. The views of the interested parties serve to focus the environmental studies and to identify specific issues that require further investigation. It is an on-going process as part of design development.

2.4.2. The Planning Act 2008 (Ref 2-1) requires applicants for Development Consent to carry out formal (statutory) consultation on their proposals prior to submitting an application (during the pre-application stage).

2.4.3. Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 requires the applicant to consult with ‘prescribed persons’, which includes certain statutory consultees such as the EA and Natural England (NE), relevant statutory undertakers, relevant local authorities, those with an interest in the land and those who may be affected by the development. PEI is generally provided to the ‘prescribed persons’ as part of the Section 42 consultation.

2.4.4. Section 47 requires the applicant to consult with the local community on the development. Prior to this, the applicant must agree a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) with the relevant local authority. The SoCC must set out the proposed community consultation and, once agreed with the relevant local authority, the SoCC notice must be published in local newspapers circulating within the vicinity of the Site. The community consultation must then take place in accordance with the SoCC. It is recommended that PEI is made available to the community and that it includes a non-technical summary. In addition, Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 requires the applicant to publicise the proposed application in the prescribed manner in a national newspaper, The London Gazette and local newspapers circulating within the vicinity of the land.

2.4.5. Consultation on the preparation of the EIA for NSIPs forms an important part of the overall DCO consultation process. Applicants can apply for a Scoping Opinion from PINS regarding the scope of environmental topics to be considered as part of the EIA and reported in the ES. The provision of PEI as part of the Section 42 (and Section 47) consultation will further inform the EIA process and ultimately assist in the preparation of the final ES to accompany the application for Development Consent.

2.4.6. The consultation that the Applicant has undertaken to date and is in the process of undertaking is summarised below:

• Informal consultation - this has encompassed initial meetings with WMDC and other relevant authorities and statutory consultees; informal consultation with the local community within the vicinity of the Site between early July and early September 2013, including a number of public exhibitions; and informal consultation with the relevant local authorities on the preparation of the SoCC and the proposed community consultation for Section 47. Comments received during the informal consultation will be afforded the same weight as those received during the formal consultation.

• EIA related consultation - this has taken place alongside the ‘informal consultation’ and has included initial meetings and discussions with the technical departments of the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees such as the EA, NE, English Heritage and the Highways Agency to inform early environmental assessment work and the preparation of the EIA Scoping Report to form the basis of the application made to PINS for a ‘Scoping Opinion’; consideration of the responses to the PINS




scoping consultation and further discussions with relevant consultees to inform the preparation of PEI - EIA related consultation will continue through the formal (statutory) consultation stage.

• Formal (statutory) consultation, which will comprise:

Section 42 consultation of ‘prescribed persons’;

Section 47 consultation of the local community;

Section 48 publicity and related notification of those consulted by PINS during the EIA scoping process.

2.4.7. A number of issues or comments raised through the informal consultation process have been addressed through further development of the design, as described in this report. Where comments are still under consideration or aspects of the design not yet finalised, these will be carried forward through the formal consultation process and considered as the design evolves further.

2.4.8. The key issues that have emerged from the informal consultation and EIA scoping stages are summarised in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Key Issues from Informal Consultation/EIA Scoping

Informal Consultation EIA Scoping

Economy and employment - importance of new jobs and maximising opportunities for local labour during operation and construction – considered within this PEI Report.

Motorway safety from cooling tower plumes - air cooled condensers (ACCs) now selected to avoid this.

Design - should mirror FM1 design where possible; should be appropriate to its context and location within an existing power station site – design has considered FM1 and the setting of the FM2 location.

Groundwater risk from sub-water table fuel bunker - option now discounted.

Landscape/Visual - should be less obtrusive than Ferrybridge ‘C’; views from residential areas important; importance of appropriate/effective landscaping – considered within this PEI Report.

Air quality/emissions dispersion – 120 m high stack (top point set at 136 mAOD) proposed to ensure adequate dispersion.

Noise/Air Quality – noise from construction activities a potential concern; dust may have been generated by FM1 construction and there is potential for the same with FM2; need to ensure no odour issues associated with the plant; important to take account of and learn from FM1 construction; cumulative impacts of stack and traffic emissions need to be considered – considered within this PEI Report.

Need for aviation lighting on tall structures - being investigated and will be incorporated into design as required.

Transport - traffic should avoid school drop-off/pick-up times; traffic should be routed away from settlements where possible; local road improvements/traffic control perceived to be potentially needed – transport effects considered within this PEI Report.

Separate Health Impact Assessment (HIA) requested to accompany application - being prepared.

Other issues – continuation of energy generation at Ferrybridge; timing of removal of cooling towers given planned closure of Units 3 and 4 of Ferrybridge ‘C’; appropriate use of waste diverted from landfill; maintenance of woodland owned by SSE to the north of the site; importance of continuing to keep residents informed,

Habitats surveys of site required - these have been undertaken.




building on experience of FM1; what is happening with replacement golf facilities? – followed up by SSE and FM1 teams as appropriate.

Transport Assessment (TA) required - being undertaken.

2.4.9. This PEI Report forms part of the information that is being provided for the purposes of the formal (statutory) consultation pursuant to Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008. It is intended to inform the ‘prescribed persons’ and local community on the extent of the environmental assessment work undertaken to date on the Proposed Development, what is being done in relation to issues raised during informal consultation and EIA scoping stages that are of relevance to the EIA process and also any changes that have been made following this consultation. Responses received to the formal (statutory) consultation will be recorded alongside those received through the informal consultation and all will be considered in the further development and finalisation of the FM2 proposals. The consultation that has been undertaken and how this has informed the final form of the Proposed Development will be fully documented within a Consultation Report that will form part of the application for Development Consent.

2.5. Timing of the Application and Proposed Development 2.5.1. It is currently proposed that the DCO application will be submitted in Q2/Q3 of 2014. If a

DCO is granted, work on site is anticipated to commence in 2015 and will consist of approximately three years of on-site work commencing with ground preparation works followed by construction of the plant, buildings and structures. The construction phase is therefore anticipated to be completed in 2018 and the Proposed Development is expected to commence commercial operation that year. This programme may be influenced by the DCO application and decision making timescales, and therefore is subject to change.

2.6. Environmental Permit 2.6.1. The Proposed Development will require an Environmental Permit under the

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, as amended. This Permit will be subject to determination by the EA. It is intended that an application for an Environmental Permit will be submitted to the EA within similar timescales as the DCO application, and it is noted that there are overlaps in consideration between the two consenting regimes. This PEI Report has considered all potential environmental effects of the Proposed Development (as will the final ES), and will therefore also inform and support the Environmental Permitting process.

2.7. References Ref. 2-1 Planning Act 2008

Ref. 2-2 Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended)

Ref. 2-3 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

Ref. 2-4 Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report; June 2013; URS




3. THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

3.1. The Ferrybridge Power Station Site 3.1.1. The Site comprises land entirely within the boundary of the Ferrybridge Power Station

site, Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, West Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ. The Ferrybridge Power Station site is situated between the River Aire to the north and east and the A1(M) Motorway immediately to the west. The Site is centred on Grid Reference 447261, 425319. The location of the Site (and the Ferrybridge Power Station site) is shown in Figure 3.1.

3.1.2. The Ferrybridge Power Station site extends to an area of approximately 300 ha. The Power Station site is bounded by the River Aire to the north and east, Kirkhaw Lane and railways lines to the east and south-east, Stranglands Lane to the south and south-west, the A1(M) and its embankment to the west and a triangular shaped piece of woodland known as Fryston Wood to the north-west.

3.1.3. The Power Station site currently comprises four distinct areas; the main plant area for the operational Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal-fired Power Station (Ferrybridge ‘C’); the coal storage area for Ferrybridge ‘C’, including its associated rail and river wharf facilities for coal deliveries; the remainder of the Power Station’s former golf course; and the FM1 site.

3.1.4. In terms of topography, the main plant area of Ferrybridge ‘C’ is predominantly flat, and gently sloping towards the River Aire, with the northern parts of the site, including the coal storage area and the former golf course at an elevation of around 21 mAOD and the coal-fired power station at an elevation of around 14 mAOD. The main areas of the Ferrybridge Power Station site are shown in the aerial photograph in Figure 3.2.

3.1.5. The main plant area of Ferrybridge ‘C’ includes land that formerly accommodated Ferrybridge ‘B’ Power Station. It comprises principally four 500 MWe coal fired units, two flue stacks and eight cooling towers, a number of heavy fuel oil storage tanks, flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) units and associated equipment, in addition to electricity substations, workshops and storage buildings, administrative offices, staff welfare facilities, extensive areas of hardstanding and the Ferrybridge ‘C’ pilot carbon capture plant.

3.1.6. The coal storage area and its associated facilities is located to the north and north-east of the main plant area of Ferrybridge ‘C’, adjacent to the River Aire to the east. This area encompasses the coal storage area itself, the associated rail link, rail ‘merry go round’ system and rail unloading facilities, in addition to the wharf on the River Aire.

3.1.7. The former golf course is located to the north and north-west of the main plant area of Ferrybridge ‘C’ and south-west of the coal storage area. Its northern boundary is formed by Fryston Wood, while its eastern and southern boundaries are delineated by a rail spur that branches off the rail ‘merry go round’ system associated with the coal storage area. To the west it borders the A1(M) and its embankment.

3.1.8. The former golf course was previously used by the Ferrybridge Golf Club but was closed in 2011, in part to facilitate the delivery of FM1. It comprised a 9 hole course with a series of bunkers and landscaped areas, with landscaping to its boundaries. Alternative facilities are to be secured for Ferrybridge Golf Club in accordance with conditions attached to the FM1 consent.

3.1.9. FM1 is largely being constructed on land within the north-western part of the main plant area of Ferrybridge ‘C’ adjacent to the former golf course. Part of the FM1 plant footprint includes land that was originally within the former golf course.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 3.1.10. As part of the consented FM1 development, the rail spur that branches off the coal

storage area rail ‘merry go round’ system and runs to the north of the FM1 plants footprint, will be extended and used to tie into a newly constructed rail gantry. The extended rail spur and new rail gantry will be available for unloading containerised fuel that may be transported to FM1 by rail. These facilities will also be available to the Proposed Development. The rail gantry has been provided upon land that originally comprised the southern edge of the former golf course.

3.1.11. The south-western part of the former golf course, to the north of the rail spur and gantry, is currently being used as a temporary construction laydown area in connection with FM1. Part of this area (outside the consented FM1 site) has been stripped of topsoil under permitted development rights and is being used for the storage of materials in connection with the construction of FM1.

3.1.12. The extent of the FM1 site to which the Section 36 consent relates can be seen in Figure 3.3.

3.2. The Site 3.2.1. The Site (the proposed limits of the land to which any DCO would apply) extends to circa

33 ha in area. The full extent of the Site is defined by the red line on Figures 1.1 and 3.1.

3.2.2. The majority of the permanent development works associated with the Proposed Development will be accommodated within the footprint of the former golf course, adjacent to the upgraded rail spur and new rail gantry. This will include all of the main buildings and components of the Proposed Development.

3.2.3. The remainder of the Site is required for auxiliary and associated development, including for temporary works associated with the construction of the Proposed Development, and also to facilitate a number of potential connection options between FM2 and the electricity network. Figure 3.1 shows the proposed general uses of the various areas of the Site, as described here.

3.2.4. Any existing infrastructure that lies within the DCO (Application Site) red line boundary is associated with other facilities within the Ferrybridge Power Station site and will be retained in operational use and will not be affected by the Proposed Development. It is not anticipated that any demolition of existing infrastructure will be required.

3.2.5. There is some degree of overlap between the Site and the consented FM1 site. This relates primarily to land that is currently being used for construction laydown purposes in connection with FM1, much of which is former golf course land.

3.2.6. Construction on FM1 is due to be completed in September 2014, when commissioning will commence. Full operation is anticipated to commence in March 2015. Subject to a DCO being issued, construction of the Proposed Development would not commence until 2015. Therefore, the land within the Site that is currently being used to facilitate the construction of FM1 would be available for the Proposed Development at that time.

3.2.7. There are no Public Rights of Way crossing the Site that will be affected by the Proposed Development during either the construction or operation phases. Works may be required at the Site boundary with Kirkhaw Lane (a Public Highway) relating to potential utility connections (foul water), however, these are not anticipated to require any significant diversions of traffic or pedestrians.




3.3. The Surrounding Area 3.3.1. To the north and north west of the Ferrybridge Power Station site, beyond the A1(M) and

to the north-east and east, the land is largely rural, characterised by arable fields bounded by hedgerows, punctuated by a network of B and C roads and interspersed with small villages and farms.

3.3.2. The Brotherton Ings ash settlement ponds are located in the north-east of the Power Station site on the left (eastern) bank of the River Aire, and there are numerous industrial and commercial premises and a water treatment works, amongst other land uses, located adjacent to the Power Station site’s eastern boundary. The village of Brotherton is located approximately 600m to the east of the Power Station site across the River Aire.

3.3.3. To the south across Stranglands Lane and to the south-east are the residential areas of Pollards Fields in Ferrybridge as well as Knottingley.

3.3.4. The area to the west is far more urban in character with Castleford adjoining the wider West Yorkshire conurbation. The area between Castleford and the A1(M) comprises for the most part parkland, including Fryston Park, which is a Local Wildlife Site, woodland and agricultural land. Oakhill Park, a retirement home park, is located to the south of Fryston Park, close to the western side (northbound carriageway) of the A1(M), as is Holmfield Farm and some adjoining cottages.

3.3.5. Given the Site’s location, the nature and scale of the Proposed Development and the character of the surrounding area, there will not be any transboundary effects arising from FM2 that would affect any other European Economic Area state.

3.4. Site History 3.4.1. There is a long history of power generation at Ferrybridge from 1920 to the present,

including the development of the currently operational Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal-fired Power Station (comprising four units with a total capacity of 2 GW), which was approved in 1961. This incorporated additional land to the west of the coal-fired Power Station, which was subsequently severed by the realignment of the A1(M).

3.4.2. In 2001 the SoS for Trade and Industry gave consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning permission under section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment (FGD) to unit Nos. 3 and 4, with these works being undertaken between 2006 and 2009.

3.4.3. The Section 36 consent for FM1 (granted in October 2011), provides for a plant with a greater generating capacity (up to 108 MWe gross output) than is now being constructed in accordance with the details approved by WMDC within the scope of the Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission. FM1 is being constructed up to 90 MWe gross output and FM2 is being designed to a similar scale, using similar fuel feed stocks delivered to Site using the same transport arrangement. It is the Applicant’s intention to build on the successes of, and lessons learned from FM1 when applying for permission to construct and operate the Proposed Development. FM1 is planned to be fully operational in March 2015.

3.4.4. The area occupied by the former golf course was historically open fields until the construction of Ferrybridge ‘C' Power Station in the 1960s when it then became associated with the Power Station. The golf course itself was modified to its most recent layout (prior to the FM1 construction works) following the loss of part of the land area to the A1(M) when construction of the diverted motorway began in 2003.




3.5. Potential Environmental Sensitivities/Receptors 3.5.1. When undertaking an EIA it is important to understand which receptors will be considered

as part of the assessment. Key receptors for each topic area have been identified as part of the assessment process and details are included in the relevant chapters. Where distances are quoted here and in following chapters the distance is defined (unless otherwise stated) as the closest point from the red line boundary to the closest point on location described), The potentially sensitive receptors to the Proposed Development include:

• Human Receptors

o Local farms and including Holmfield Farm (200 m west), Top Farm (340 m west), Manor Farm (40 m south east) and Fryston Hall Farm (900 m north);

o Local residents at Oakland Hill off Fryston Lane immediately west of the A1(M);

o Local residents immediately to the south of the Ferrybridge Power Station Site off Stranglands Lane and Kirkhaw Lane;

o Local residents of the surrounding urban areas including Castleford, Brotherton, Ferrybridge and Knottingley; and

o Users of local recreational facilities;

• Ecological Receptors

o Fryston Park LWS, bounding the Site to the north and occupying a small portion of the north eastern corner of the Site;

o Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI and Local Nature Reserve, approximately 2.1 km ad 1.5 km north of the Site respectively;

o Madbanks and Ledsham Banks SSSI and Local Nature Reserve, approximately 3.8 km and 1.6 km northeast of the Site respectively; and

o Ecological receptors immediately within and adjacent to the Site;

• Hydrological / flood risk, geological and hydrogeological

o River Aire, 300 m to the north east and east of the Site;

o The Site lies mostly within Flood Zone 1 (low flood risk), with areas nearest the eastern boundary and a small area to the west of the current FM1 development lying within Flood Zone 2 (areas at risk of flooding during an extreme, or 1 in 1000 year, flood); and

o Groundwater resources (including a Principal Aquifer beneath the Site);

• Cultural Heritage and Landscape

o Ledstone Hall and Park, and Friarwood Valley Gardens Registered Park and Gardens, 4.7 km and 3.3 km to the northeast of the Site respectively;

o Earthwork W of Ferrybridge, Ferrybridge and St. John’s Priory SAMs, 530 m and 260 m south of the Site respectively; and

o Key short, medium and long-distance views and the potential impact upon the Wakefield Landscape Character Areas;

• Traffic and Transport

o Local transport network including junctions to the Motorway network;




• Other

o Infrastructure, including the A1(M) forming the western boundary of the Site, the Pontefract Baghill to Sherburn-in-Elmet railway line 90 m to the southeast of the northern Site boundary and various overhead cables and underground services; and

o An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) within which the Site is located.

3.5.2. Figure 3.4(a) & 3.4(b) illustrates a number of the environmental considerations known at this stage of the EIA within the study area (the Site and surrounding areas).




4. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4.1. Introduction 4.1.1. The main purpose of the Proposed Development is to produce energy through the

combustion of WDF. The plant will be capable of producing low carbon electricity through the use of WDF from various sources of processed MSW, C&I waste and waste wood. The Proposed Development will complement recycling initiatives by accepting WDF after these initiatives have been carried out, thereby forming part of an integrated waste management system.

4.1.2. In addition to its capacity to generate low carbon electricity the Proposed Development will be Combined Heat and Power (CHP) ready. Heat will potentially be available for use in a Heat Network by local businesses, subject to a demand for a total heat load which would make the investment in the network commercially viable and subject to reaching commercial agreements with the heat users. In such an event, a Likely Heat Network Route, as defined in CHP guidance, would be assessed as a separate study outside the scope of this DCO application. A CHP evaluation has already been undertaken as part of the development of FM1, and will be reviewed and updated as part of the DCO Application for FM2 in accordance with the updated CHP Guidance.

4.1.3. There are some aspects of the Proposed Development design that have yet to be fixed. It will not be possible to fix these elements in advance of a contract being awarded for the detailed design and construction of the Proposed Development. For example, the scale of the buildings within the Proposed Development may vary depending upon the contractor appointed and their specific selection and configuration of the plant and process equipment. The design of the Proposed Development therefore needs to incorporate a degree of flexibility to allow for such circumstances.

4.1.4. The elements of the Proposed Development where flexibility is required are described in detail below (see Section 4.9). In order to ensure a robust assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development, the EIA will be undertaken adopting the principles of the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ (Ref 4-1). This will involve assessing the maximum and minimum parameters for the elements where flexibility needs to be retained. Where this approach is applied to the specific aspects of the EIA this has been confirmed within the relevant chapters of this PEI Report and will also be confirmed within the relevant chapters of the ES that will report on the complete findings of the EIA and form part of the Application for Development Consent.

4.2. The Proposed Development Description 4.2.1. The Proposed Development is a Multifuel Power Station with a capacity of up to 90 MWe

gross output (circa 70 MWe net output), capable of producing low carbon electricity and heat through the combustion of WDF, which is to be sourced from various supplies of processed MSW, C&I waste and waste wood. Generated electricity will be exported to the electricity network. The Net Calorific Value (NCV) of fuels varies depending on content. The nominal design basis of the facility is 570,000 tonnes per annum (pa) of fuel based on a design NCV of 12 MJ/kg. The plant will be designed to be able to accept fuel within an NCV range of 8.5-16.5 MJ/kg and therefore fluctuations in the delivered fuel NCV may vary the annual waste throughput, but this will not exceed 675,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of WDF.

4.2.2. Fuel can be delivered to the Proposed Development by road and potentially rail. The preferred transport route for different fuel contracts will be determined on a case by case basis by the fuel supplier, based on proximity to the Site, volume of fuel, economics and




transport facilities at the fuel provider locations. However, as fuel contracts for the Proposed Development have not been finalised, the EIA will consider the worst case option. For traffic and transport the conservative assumption adopted is that all fuel will be delivered by road; the same is assessed for air quality, whereas for noise and vibration transport by rail is also considered within the assessment. The baseline ‘worst case’ scenario adopted and any variations assessed are described within each chapter. The same transport assumptions have been made for ash disposal from the Site. Transport options are discussed further in Chapter 10 Transport and Access.

4.2.3. In outline the process assessed within this PEI Report is as follows:

• fuel will be delivered to the Proposed Development by road, with the additional option of rail deliveries. The fuel will be unloaded in the tipping hall and stored in a fuel bunker;

• fuel will be removed from the bunker by a crane and loaded into the feed chutes for delivery to the furnace through two combustion lines;

• in the furnace the fuel will be combusted, generating flue gas and bottom ash residues;

• bottom ash will be ejected to a water bath to cool the ash and provide a gas seal;

• flue gas will be passed through a boiler to raise steam. The steam will then be passed to a steam turbine to generate electricity for use within the facility and for export;

• the flue gas will be cleaned in a Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) plant. This is anticipated to include temperature control, the injection of activated carbon (primarily to control dioxin and furan and heavy metal emissions), the injection of lime or suitable equivalent to control acid gas emissions, and the use of fabric filters to remove dust. Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) will be installed, which would be used to abate nitrogen oxide emissions if required;

• the cleaned exhaust gases will be released to atmosphere via a 120 m high stack: and

• the facility will be CHP Ready as defined within EA guidance (Ref 4-2). If a local heating demand becomes available, the provision of a heat off-take to supply a potential network would be possible with minimal modifications to the installed system.

4.2.4. The facility will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with programmed offline periods for maintenance. The plant will have a design life of 30 years and an operational life of up to 50 years.

4.2.5. Table 4.1 below sets out the overall anticipated design performance of the plant.

Table 4.1 Plant Design Performance

Units Total

Gross Electrical Output MWe Up to 90

Auxiliary Load MWe Circa 8.5

Net Electrical Output MWe Circa 70

Net Efficiency % Circa 29%

Design Fuel NCV MJ/Kg 12

Thermal Load MWth 234.8




Annual Availability % Circa 90%

Waste Throughput (based on annual availability and

design NCV)

t/h 71.25

tpa 570,000

4.2.6. As outlined in Section 4.2.1 above, the NCV of different fuels will vary and therefore while the design fuel will have an NCV of 12 MJ/kg, the plant is being designed to operate efficiently with fuels within an NCV range of 8.5 to 16.5 MJ/kg. In order to maintain the planned plant electrical output across the NCV range, the annual fuel tonnage requirement could therefore vary from 410,000 – 675,000 tpa (based on a design plant availability of circa 90%). A worst case scenario has therefore been adopted for the EIA assessments of 675,000 tpa of fuel being delivered to the site (by road).

4.2.7. The concept layout of the plant is shown in Figure 4.1. This is based on the maximum parameters defined for the development, as described in Section 4.9 below.

4.3. Principal Development

Fuel Reception and Storage 4.3.1. The Fuel Reception and Storage will comprise up to four new weighbridges and a fully

enclosed fuel reception area incorporating a Tipping Hall and fuel storage bunker.

4.3.2. Fuel will be delivered by road and potentially rail. The existing rail facilities within the Ferrybridge Power Station site are to be upgraded as part of the construction of FM1, including the installation of a gantry to allow offloading of containers adjacent to the FM1 site. It is anticipated that the same facilities will be available to the Proposed Development, and the design of the Proposed Development will aim to maximise the potential for rail use.

4.3.3. Road deliveries will occur only between specified times, in line with agreed delivery times for other operational activities within the Ferrybridge Power Station site; there are designated bays and parking areas for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) for queuing at the weighbridge on the Site (within the Ferrybridge Power Station site) if required. Upon arrival the vehicles will be checked and weighed after which they will be directed to a vacant tipping bay to discharge the fuel into a bunker adjacent to the Tipping Hall. This comprises an enclosed building, maintained under slight negative pressure to reduce the risk of odours escaping. The storage bunker will be of sufficient size to hold up to seven days fuel supply, to facilitate the plant being able to operate 24 hours a day in the event of disruptions in fuel supply. Figure 4.2 shows the proposed transport routes to the site during operation.

4.3.4. The dimensions of the fuel bunker building (including control room and administration block) will be up to 48 m height, occupying an area of up to 4,300 m2. This is based on a fuel storage bunker that extends to circa 3 m below ground level (which is assumed as being at 16 m above Ordnance Datum (mAOD)) (Figure 4.3, Option 2) so that the bunker does not extend below the groundwater table, in accordance with the EA Groundwater Protection Principles and Practice (GP3) document (Ref 4-3). To facilitate constructing a bunker above the groundwater table, access ramps are likely to be required for HGVs to be able to tip the fuel into the bunker and exit the tipping hall safely.

4.3.5. A second option is also being considered for a fully above-ground bunker (Figure 4.3, Option 3). This would potentially have implications for building heights, spoil management and plant operability (though it is anticipated the maximum building height




would not vary due to the layout of the fuel handling cranes for each option), and the final selection of bunker design will be based on a Best Available Techniques (BAT) justification, considering the technical and environmental aspects of the options available. Maximum and minimum parameters presented for each of the buildings incorporate the options of installing an above or a below ground bunker, as well as possible variations in the plant layout and the equipment that may be used, depending on the eventual construction contractor. Figure 4.3 illustrates the two bunker options that remain under consideration (Option 1 has now been discounted); see Chapter 8 The Need for the Project, Alternatives and Design Evolution for further information.

4.3.6. If the fuel is delivered by rail, gantry cranes (to be constructed as part of FM1) will be used to offload the containers, either directly onto trucks that will take them into the tipping hall or into a container storage area before they are then taken to the tipping hall.

Combustion System 4.3.7. While there are several alternative technologies available for combustion of WDF, the

technology considered to represent BAT for FM2 is a reciprocating grate-based system, based on the flexibility required and the nature of the fuel to be used.

4.3.8. A single stream combustion system cannot achieve the planned electrical output, as no commercially available system of that size is available. Instead, the plant will have two combustion lines housed in the same building. Having a two line system also retains operational flexibility.

4.3.9. The fuel will be moved from the bunker onto the grate using an overhead grab crane via a feed chute. The facility will be designed and operated to meet the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (Ref 4-4) and its operations will be strictly regulated by the EA under an Environmental Permit. Combustion will be automatically controlled through the fuel feed rate, addition of combustion air and control of the grate, in order to achieve good combustion of the fuel and control emissions of pollutants. Process optimisation will be maintained through monitoring of oxygen and carbon monoxide levels and temperatures within the combustion system and in particular to attain a flue gas temperature of at least 850°C for a minimum of two seconds; if necessary using auxiliary burners.

4.3.10. Once the fuel has been combusted, the residual ash will fall off the end of the grate into a removal system, where it will be cooled and transported to the ash handling system.

4.3.11. The hot combustion gases produced during the combustion process will pass through the boiler to raise steam, before being passed to the FGT System.

Boiler 4.3.12. The combustion lines and associated boilers are located in the Boiler Hall, which will

occupy an area of up to 3,800 m2 and be up to 58 m in height. The boilers will be designed to operate reliably and efficiently and to withstand the corrosivity of the flue gases at high temperatures.

Steam Turbine 4.3.13. It is proposed that a single steam turbine will be installed to serve the two combustion

lines, as this is more thermally efficient at full load than independent smaller turbines operating with the same steam flow. Turbine bypass will be included to allow 100% of the steam to go to the condensers so that the boilers can be operated (to continue to process waste) in the event that the steam turbine/generator is unavailable. The steam




turbine will be located in the Turbine Hall, which occupies an area of up to 1,600 m2 and is up to 28 m in height.

Cooling System 4.3.14. The Proposed Development will require a cooling system to condense the steam from the

turbine exhaust for re-use. Two main systems were initially considered for cooling – a hybrid cooling option and use of Air Cooled Condensers (ACCs). Technical feasibility studies have been undertaken, including a review of work done as part of FM1 regarding the potential use of a hybrid cooling option.

4.3.15. A BAT assessment has been undertaken, and has concluded that the use of ACCs represents BAT for this installation based on its geographical location. This is largely driven by the concerns of the Highways Agency (HA) regarding the potential for fogging or freezing effects arising from the use of hybrid cooling and potential risks on the A1(M) motorway. The full BAT justification is to be agreed with the EA and will be presented with the DCO application, although preliminary discussions with the EA indicate that they concur with the view that ACCs represent BAT for this installation. In light of the initial BAT conclusions therefore, this PEI Report is based on the use of ACCs for cooling, which is the same technology being used for the FM1 power station under construction.

4.3.16. It is anticipated that the ACCs would occupy an area of up to 3,920 m2 although this may reduce in the final design.

Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) 4.3.17. The FGT system will be designed to achieve the emission limit values specified in the

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (Ref 4-4) and enforced through the Environmental Permit required for the operation of the plant.

4.3.18. Each combustion line is anticipated to be fitted with:

• Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for the abatement of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx);

• lime injection for the abatement of acid gases including sulphur dioxide;

• activated carbon injection for the abatement of dioxins, furans and heavy metals; and

• fabric bag filters for the abatement of particulate emissions, including the injected lime and activated carbon.

4.3.19. Nitrogen oxide emissions will be controlled through a combination of primary and secondary means. Primary means, such as control of the combustion air, will be used to limit the formation of NOx in the combustion system. If necessary, additional NOx control may then be abated by SNCR, which would involve injecting ammonia solution or urea into the boiler to reduce the nitrogen oxides and produce nitrogen and water. The rate of ammonia or urea injection is automatically controlled on the basis of continuous analysis of the NOx concentrations in the flue gas.

4.3.20. A scrubbing system that uses hydrated lime as a reagent will remove sulphur dioxide and acid gases produced during combustion. The spent lime is recovered in the bag filters although a proportion of this may be re-circulated to improve the gas clean-up and reduce the amount of fresh hydrated lime used. Activated carbon is also injected to minimise emissions to air of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), mercury and other heavy metals.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 4.3.21. After flowing through the scrubber, acid gases will be passed through a fabric bag filter to

remove particulates (including the injected lime and activated carbon). The treated gas will then pass through an induced draught fan, into the stack for release.

4.3.22. The FGT system will occupy an area of up to approximately 3,500 m2 and be of up to 40 m in height.

4.3.23. Demonstration of compliance with the IED will be specifically addressed in the Environmental Permit application to be submitted to the EA for approval.

Stack 4.3.24. Treated flue gas will be emitted to the atmosphere via a twin-flue standalone stack,

located to the east of the boiler house. Each boiler will have its own flue housed in the single windshield. Typically, the top of the flues will be stainless steel lined to avoid corrosion.

4.3.25. Flue gas will be emitted with an efflux velocity in excess of 15 m/s. Combined with the thermal buoyancy of the warm gas, the flue gas will rise before becoming dispersed. Chapter 11 Air Quality, sets out the findings of the dispersion modelling associated with the proposed stack, which have been used to inform the design process.

4.3.26. The stack will be built to the minimum height necessary to ensure adequate dispersion of the emitted pollutants. Technical studies, including air dispersion modelling, have been undertaken to define the height of the stack. A range of stack heights were considered from 100 m to 120 m, and this range was included as part of the informal consultation. Considering the output of the studies and the responses received from consultation (which indicated that public concern was greater regarding air quality than landscape and visual impact) the decision has been made to fix the stack height at 120 m above ground level (assumed at 16 mAOD, giving a fixed maximum stack height of 136 mAOD), which is slightly higher than the adjacent Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers at 115 m above ground level (with ground level at approximately 12.5 mAOD, the top of the cooling towers lies at 127.5 mAOD), but lower than the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ emissions stacks at 198 m above ground level (212 mAOD).

Ash Handling System 4.3.27. Two types of solid by-products will be produced from the operation of the Proposed

Development, as described below in Section 4.9, each of which has separate handling and disposal arrangements.

4.3.28. Bottom ash is the burnt-out residue from the combustion process. The bottom ash may be passed under a magnetic separator to remove ferrous materials (unless this process is to be carried out off site) and then discharged to a bottom ash bunker for storage via a quench system. Bottom ash will either be recycled as an aggregate, or, if not feasible, would be sent off site for disposal.

4.3.29. FGT residues comprise fine particles of ash and residues from the FGT process, which will be collected in the bag filters. The FGT residue will be stored in sealed silos adjacent to the FGT facility. Due to the alkaline nature of the FGT residues, they are classified as hazardous waste (in much the same way as cement). As a result, the residues will be transported by road in a sealed tanker to an appropriate treatment facility.

4.3.30. The ash handling system will occupy an area of up to 2,070 m2 and be up to 23 m in height.




4.4. Auxiliary Facilities

Bulk Material Storage 4.4.1. Above ground gas oil storage tanks will be installed for plant start-up and as an auxiliary

fuel in the event that the temperature of the flue gas in the combustion system falls in order to ensure it attains 850°C for a minimum of two seconds. The tanks will have a storage capacity of approximately 200 m3.

4.4.2. Above ground bulk storage silos or tanks for the storage of FGT reagents (ammonia or urea solution, hydrated lime powder, activated carbon powder) and FGT residue will also be installed. They will have a total capacity of around 1,200 m3.

4.4.3. Containers of fuel delivered by rail could be stored in a designated Container Storage Area located to the north of the rail siding. An area of 24,000 m2 will be covered with impermeable hardstanding for the storage of the containers, which will then be transferred into the Tipping Hall by site trucks as required. Containers may be stacked two high.

Water Treatment Plant 4.4.4. A water treatment plant will be required to provide demineralised water for steam

generation. The water treatment plant will likely use a reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process and be supplied by groundwater (with public water supply available as a back-up). Grate cooling will be performed in a closed circuit using demineralised water and a cooler.

4.4.5. The current understanding is that groundwater to supply the water treatment plant will be received from a borehole to be developed as part of the FM1 development (prior to submission of the final DCO application). If this is not the case, the alternative scenarios for consideration are use of existing boreholes on site, connection to public water supply or a new groundwater abstraction. The options will be assessed within the final ES.

Site Access, Roads, Gatehouses and Weighbridges 4.4.6. During both construction and operation, access to the Ferrybridge site will be via two

routes. HGV access will be via Kirkhaw Lane, off Stranglands Lane, and via the new internal bridge constructed within the Ferrybridge site as part of the development of FM1, to enter the Site from the East. It is proposed that cars and vans will access the site via an unnamed road adjacent to the A1(M) off Stranglands Lane, along the former golf course access route. Where a reference to an unnamed road is made in this report, it refers to this route adjacent to the A1(M) (as shown on Figure 4.2). It should be noted that this route is subject to a technical feasibility study. The alternative route would be for cars and vans to also enter the Site via Kirkhaw Lane. Both options are assessed within this preliminary assessment. Figure 4.2 shows the proposed access routes during operation and construction.

4.4.7. A new internal site road will be constructed within the Site (which lies within the Ferrybridge Power Station site) as a spur off the access road built for FM1, with the road following a route to the south of the main plant to the access ramp for the Tipping Hall and to the site car park.

4.4.8. The existing access route off the unnamed road is proposed to be upgraded and potentially widened and a new site entrance constructed to the west of the main plant accessing the site car park, subject to ongoing technical feasibility studies.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 4.4.9. The Proposed Development will require at least three and potentially four new

weighbridges to be constructed within the boundary of the facility (at least two on entry and one on exit). Incoming bulk transport vehicles will enter the site through the main entrance for FM2. They will proceed to the weighbridge where the quantity of incoming fuel will be checked and recorded. Loads are assumed to be nominally 22 tonnes for all fuel types for the purpose of this preliminary assessment. If required, vehicles will be placed in a quarantine area and inspected prior to discharge into the storage bunker.

4.4.10. After being weighed on the incoming weighbridges, fuel delivery vehicles would proceed to the Tipping Hall and directed to a vacant tipping bay, where the fuel would be directly discharged into the storage bunker. On completion of the tipping operation, the vehicles will leave the Tipping Hall via a separate exit; a one-way traffic system will be operated around the site to reduce congestion and minimise the risk of vehicle accidents.

4.4.11. The route will be defined for all vehicles and they will be restricted to follow the pre-defined route. Changes to the route may be required on some occasions, which will be planned, risk assessed and communicated to all concerned.

4.4.12. The weight of the outgoing vehicles will be recorded on a separate weighbridge as they leave the site.

Foul Sewer Connection 4.4.13. A connection to the foul sewer will be needed for sanitary connection from

Offices/Admin/Welfare facilities and in case an abnormal discharge of process effluent is required. An alternative option will be the installation of a bespoke package plant for the treatment of foul waste. This is under consideration currently and subject of feasibility studies, but for the purposes of this preliminary assessment it is assumed that the solution will be a foul sewer connection either independent of or utilising the proposed connection for FM1. Such a connection would either be in the vicinity of FM1 or at Kirkhaw Lane.

Storm Attenuation and Drainage 4.4.14. The current concept drainage strategy for the Proposed Development assumes the use

of a pond for stormwater attenuation prior to discharge to Fryston Beck at Kirkhaw Lane. Potentially the existing pond on the former golf course could be utilised for this purpose. Capture and reuse of rainwater is also being considered as an alternative to groundwater to supplement process water when required. This design concept will be refined as the project progresses and the drainage strategy is further developed.

Firewater and Fire Protection 4.4.15. The fire protection strategy for the Proposed Development will be developed to comply

with the functional requirement of the Building Regulations (Ref 4-5). Appropriate standards will also be referenced to provide the necessary fire safety design. Additional fire protection will be provided with reference to British Standards and insurance recommendation for the property and business protection purposes.

Parking 4.4.16. The Proposed Development parking arrangements consist of dedicated staff/ visitor and

operatives car parks with the preferred option being a dedicated vehicular route from the main site access via the unnamed road. The visitor/ staff car park is located close to the main administration/visitor building’s entrance. Accessible bays have been specifically




marked out in the concept design in accordance to BS8300 (Ref 4-6) with sufficient transfer zones and provided as near as possible to the main entrance.

Fencing and Site Security 4.4.17. Security systems will be required to cover the Proposed Development Site as a

standalone facility. The Site will be fenced and fully secure with closed circuit television (CCTV), gatehouse reception and manned 24-hours per day. The power station’s existing security system will be utilised.

4.4.18. Paladin fencing, intruder alarm and turnstiles to manage people access will be employed in addition to those mentioned above.

Lighting 4.4.19. It is envisaged that external lighting will be required throughout the night as the plant will

operate 24 hours a day. All lighting will be controlled via a local photocell unit to limit operation to hours of darkness only. Use of motion sensitive passive infrared sensor technology has been considered and dismissed on the grounds of security, safety (people working but stationary, causing the lights to go out) and nuisance caused by for example spurious activation by wildlife etc. The standard for all other exterior lighting on the Ferrybridge Power Station site is the use of dusk to dawn photocells.

4.4.20. Lighting column positions, equipment selection and orientation of equipment will be designed in consideration of the recommendations given within the Institute of Lighting Engineers document ‘Guidance for the reduction of obtrusive light’ (Ref 4-7) – these primarily relate to the following criteria:

• light trespass – spill of light beyond boundaries of the site;

• sky glow – the brightening of the night sky resulting in lack of amenity; and

• glare – the uncomfortable brightness of a light source viewed against a dark background.

4.5. Associated Development 4.5.1. The Planning Act 2008, Section 115, defines ‘associated development’ as development

that is associated with a NSIP as defined in Part 3 of the Act, and which is granted consent under the Act. The Act sets out other requirements which must be satisfied in order for development to be associated development. Guidance published by PINS sets out what constitutes associated development within the Act.

4.5.2. At the current stage of design and assessment, the aspects of the Proposed Development that constitute associated development have not yet been finalised. A full definition will be included in the ES of what aspects constitute associated development for the purposes of the DCO application. The aspects that may be considered as ‘associated development’ will constitute part of the main development as detailed in the DCO application. It is envisaged at this stage that the connection to the electricity grid would constitute one of the ‘associated development’ aspects.

Grid Connection 4.5.3. The Proposed Development will require a connection to export electricity to the

transmission grid or the distribution network, owned and operated by National Grid (NG) and Northern Powergrid (NPG) respectively. Early discussions have indicated three possible options, described below. A feasibility assessment of these options and




associated design work is currently being undertaken which may be completed by the date of DCO submission. It is likely that more than one option will be included in the DCO application and therefore will be assessed within the EIA. The three options described below are shown on Figures 4.4 to 4.7. It should be noted that all options are subject to technical feasibility studies by NPG and NG, and therefore potential cabling routes and locations of substations are shown as corridors or hatched areas, and are subject to finalisation during the design process.

Option 1 (NPG connection) 4.5.4. A substation is under construction for the FM1 project, to the south east of the FM1 site

(just off the unnamed road). This substation has been completed with a spare bay to allow for a potential second connection. This could be utilised for the Proposed Development, however it is understood that there are some capacity issues on the cables to which this substation connects. This may lead to restrictions on the combined output of the two plants at certain times, which would be operationally and commercially restrictive.

4.5.5. This option would involve laying an underground cable from the main plant building of the Proposed Development, around the FM1 plant building to the substation currently under construction. Although there is a spare connection point, an additional circuit breaker and supports are required. To utilise this connection option, the current civil works for the substation would be altered to take account of any future connection, though the connection process may have operational implications for FM1 which will be taken into account in the decision making process. This option is illustrated in Figure 4.4.

Option 2 (NG connection) 4.5.6. An existing substation is located at the site of the former Ferrybridge ‘B’ power station to

the east of the Proposed Development, which also has an additional bay. This option would be similar to Option 1, with a cable laid from the main plant building of the Proposed Development to the existing substation, connecting to a spare bay in this location. This option is shown in Figure 4.5. As above this is subject to ongoing technical feasibility study.

Option 3 (NPG Connection) 4.5.7. A 132 kV underground line crosses the former golf course from the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power

Station site to a tower located within Fryston Wood to the north of the Site, and from there runs as an overhead line.

4.5.8. Early discussions with NPG indicate that it may be possible to connect to one of the cables which cross the Proposed Development Site. A new substation with a looped connection would be constructed within the Site boundary, immediately to the east or north east of the main plant building of the Proposed Development with cabling from the plant to the substation.

4.5.9. There are two potential scenarios for this connection Option. Either an underground connection (Option 3A - Figure 4.6) or an overhead connection (Option 3B – Figure 4.7) to this line are under consideration and the preferred design and route will be confirmed later in the project. For the overhead line connection scenario (Option 3B), a new transmission tower will be built to the north east of the Site, close to Fryston Lane and the existing transmission tower (see Figure 4.7).




4.6. Ancillary Development 4.6.1. The Planning Act 2008, Section 120, defines ‘ancillary development’ as a range of

matters including acquisition of land, intrusive works and other connections and agreements. These will be considered and documented in the DCO application.

4.7. Design Parameters 4.7.1. The design of the Proposed Development has followed an iterative process based on

preliminary environmental assessments, consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees and engagement with contractors and equipment providers. In particular, the design for FM2 has been shaped by lessons learned from the evolution and construction of the adjacent FM1 power station.

4.7.2. A number of the design features of the Proposed Development cannot be confirmed until the tendering process for the Design and Build contract has been completed, as for example the building sizes may vary depending on the contractor selected and their specific configuration and selection of plant. Focussed use of the Rochdale Envelope approach has therefore been adopted for the purposes of the DCO application and supporting documents (including the EIA) to define maximum and minimum parameters for any aspect or parameter that cannot currently be finalised. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 set out the aspects of the Proposed Development that are not finalised and the maximum and minimum parameters for each aspect, respectively.

4.7.3. For the purposes of the assessments within this PEI Report, each chapter has adopted the worst case scenario for its assessment. For the majority this will be the maximum design parameters, though it is recognised that the final design will not utilise the maximums for every building as it depends on the plant selected and the layout; therefore this is a highly conservative assumption (for example, a vertical boiler design may utilise the maximum building heights but the site footprint may be smaller than the maximum, while a horizontal boiler design may use the maximum footprint stated but lower building heights). Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual adopts the maximum footprint and height parameters as the worst case for the assessment, but to aid visualisation of the final scheme the photomontages presented for two viewpoints include not only the visualisation of the maximum parameters but also examples of typical plant layouts utilising a vertical boiler and a horizontal boiler, which are more realistic examples of the possible final plant sizing and layout.

4.7.4. It should be noted that maximum heights are quoted in mAOD. The finished ground level is estimated at 16 mAOD, but depending on the results of the topographical survey and the final design this may vary slightly (in order to minimise generation of spoil). In order to fix the relevant parameters for the environmental assessments (in particular the height of the tallest structures visually and the emissions point for the stack) the maximum height of each structure is a fixed height. This means if the contractor chooses to vary the ground level slightly depending on the final design, they will adapt the building heights accordingly i.e. retaining the emissions point at 136 mAOD no matter what the ground height is, and ensuring the buildings are not higher than their quoted AOD height.




Table 4.2 Maximum Design Parameters

Design Aspect Maximum Length (m)

Maximum width (m)

Maximum Height (m)

Maximum Referenced Height (mAOD)

Maximum Footprint (m²)

Tipping Hall 45 102 37 53 4590

Bunker Hall 42 102 48 64 4300

Control Room and administration block

15 55 48 64 825

Boiler hall 63 60 58 74 3800

Substation 100 60 22 38 6000

Circuit breaker, transformer & switchyard

40 15 15 31 600

ACC cooling system

98 40 25 41 3920

Turbine hall 40 40 28 44 1600

Ash collection bay

43 48 23 39 2070

Workshops 30 40 23 39 1200

Fire Water Tank

12 15 20 36 180

Weighbridge Gate House

20 4 4 20 80

Process Effluent Holding Tank

15 6 3 19 90

Table 4.3 Minimum Design Parameters

Design Aspect

Minimum Length (m)

Minimum width (m)

Minimum Height (m)

Minimum Referenced Height (mAOD)

Gross external area (m²)

Tipping Hall 31 58 15 31 1798




Design Aspect

Minimum Length (m)

Minimum width (m)

Minimum Height (m)

Minimum Referenced Height (mAOD)

Gross external area (m²)

Bunker 31 58 33 49 1798

Control Room and administration block

11 27 30 46 297

Boiler hall 27 45 41 57 1,215

Substation (if required)

80 50 18 34 4,000

Circuit breaker, transformer and switchyard

9 27 9 25 243

ACC cooling system

63 18 18 34 1134

Turbine hall 27 27 18 34 729

Ash collection bay

13 13 13 29 169

Workshop (if required)

0 0 0 16 0

Workshops Workshops could be located under tipping hall (subject

to bunker option) and so would not require a separate building. Otherwise dimensions same as max case.

Fire Water Tank

6 7 8 24 42

Weigh bridge Gate House

10 2.5 3 19 25

Process Effluent Holding Tank

9 3.5 1 17 32

4.7.5. Whilst the maximum and minimum parameters are not yet able to be fixed, in order to allow for specific technical assessments and to control design options through the construction contractor selection process, a number of factors have been ‘fixed’ and will be specified within the design contract. These are set out in Table 4.4.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 4.7.6. The fixed locations are that of the emissions stack (the location informed by air quality

modelling to date and the concept layout design evolution) and the position of the ACCs (the location informed by noise modelling carried out to date and the concept layout design evolution). Fixing the location of these items is critical in the EIA process as these are key elements to inform conservative modelling undertaken as part of that process.

Table 4.4 Fixed Design Parameters

Design Aspect Point that is Fixed Grid Reference

Stack Centre point 447250 425345

ACCs North west corner 447226 425285

4.7.7. Figure 4.1 shows a concept plant layout utilising the maximum parameters. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 have also been included to illustrate a ‘typical’ layout utilising a vertical boiler (4.8) and a horizontal boiler (4.9) design. Depending on the eventual selection of the construction contractor, the final layout and sizing of the plant is likely to be similar to one of these example layouts.

4.7.8. Figures 4.10 to 4.13 show a comparison of elevations for the two typical layouts.

4.7.9. Fuel contracts for the plant are not finalised, and will not be finalised prior to the DCO application submission. It is therefore not possible to determine the specific sources of fuel and their geographical location and mode of transportation to the Site. A fuels assessment is being undertaken to understand the likely geographical spread of potential fuel sources and the conformity of the Proposed Development with the waste hierarchy and local, regional and national waste plans. Similarly the process of identifying recycling, recovery or disposal facilities for waste from the Proposed Development is ongoing.

4.7.10. The relevant assessments (e.g. Chapter 20 Sustainability) set out any assumptions made regarding indicative travel distances for delivery of fuel and removal of residues.

4.8. Additional Process Inputs 4.8.1. In addition to fuel, the Proposed Development also uses a range of raw materials during

the combustion and processing operations. Table 4.5 illustrates the additional materials to be used and the typical annual usage of each.

Table 4.5 Raw Material Usage Estimates

Raw Material Process Typical Annual Usage

No. of Annual

Deliveries by road

No. of Weekly

Deliveries

Hydrated Lime (Ca(OH)2)

FGT– acid gas scrubbing

9,900 tonnes

542 11.5

Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH) 25%

FGT– SNCR 1,100 tonnes

61 1.3




solution

Activated carbon FGT– removal of dioxins/ heavy metal

210 tonnes 12 0.3

Low sulphur gas oil or distillate

System start-up and back-up fuel

946 m3/a 52 1.1

Total water demand (groundwater and public water supply)

Boiler feedwater supplied via water treatment plant; portable water provided via towns water supply; and fire water

100,000 m3/a

n/a n/a

4.8.2. For SNCR flue gas treatment either ammonium hydroxide or urea will be used. Typically on larger plants ammonium hydroxide is the preferred option, therefore this is used as the assumption within the figures in Table 4.5 and for the subsequent assessments. Hydrated lime, ammonium hydroxide, activated carbon and gas oil are assumed to be delivered to the Site in HGVs.

4.8.3. The following additional consumables will be utilised for operation and maintenance of the plant:

• hydraulic oils and silicone based oils; and

• boiler water dosing chemicals.

4.8.4. All chemicals will be stored in fully bunded above ground storage areas, with each bund having a volume of 110% of the stored capacity. Gas oil for use on plant start-up and combustion temperature control will be stored in above ground bunded storage tanks within the vicinity of the boiler house and the delivery point will also be located within a bunded area.

4.8.5. The establishment of new utilities and/or connections to existing utilities will be required in respect of groundwater and towns water. The following utilities are expected to be required for plant use:

• groundwater from an onsite borehole, for use in the demineralisation water treatment plant (described in Section 4.4) to provide boiler feed; and

• public (towns) water supply, for use as potable water, in welfare facilities, as back-up for boiler feed water and fire fighting provision.

4.8.6. The plant will supply its own electricity. The estimated parasitic load of the plant is approximately 8.5 MWe.

4.9. Process Outputs/Residues

Bottom Ash 4.9.1. Bottom ash is defined as ash from the grate mechanism in the combustion system, as

well as ash precipitating within the boiler. It will be stored in a bottom ash storage bunker until such time it can be removed from site. Ferrous materials may be removed from the




ash by means of magnetic separators (unless the ferrous materials removal is undertaken off site). The ferrous materials will then be reprocessed off site.

4.9.2. The bottom ash will be removed from the combustion system and fed into a water filled quench pit. The wet ash will then be transported to the ash storage bunker. It is intended that the ash would be transferred to an offsite Ash Recycling Facility where it will be processed to produce a substitute aggregate material. If a suitable recovery facility will not accept the residue, it may be transferred for disposal to an off-site landfill.

4.9.3. The residue production from FM2 has been estimated in Table 4.6 below.

Table 4.6 Residue Production Estimates

Design Fuel Worst Case Fuel

Fuel NVC MJ/Kg 12 10

Fuel Flow T/y 570,000 675,000

IBA (wet) T/y 76,000 116,000

APC Residue T/y 21,700 22,500

FGT Residue 4.9.4. FGT residue is the second main solid by-product from the Proposed Development. The

FGT residue will contain reagents and reaction products from the hydrated lime scrubber. This material is designated as hazardous waste and therefore is required to be treated before disposal to landfill. It will be stored in dedicated enclosed silos on site before being transported to and stored in an appropriate off-site facility, in line with Hazardous Waste legislation.

Effluent and Wastewater 4.9.5. Liquid effluent will be produced from the boiler water treatment system and from boiler

blowdown. No process effluent water will be discharged directly from the site under normal operating conditions, as it will be recycled within the plant through the ash discharger, via the process water system. A bunded above ground liquid effluent storage tank will be installed to balance effluent in the system and for use in the event of abnormal operation; in the event of abnormal operation, the effluent would be disposed of to the foul sewer (as described in paragraph 4.4.12 above) or tankered off-site for treatment and disposal.

Heat 4.9.6. As discussed above, the hot gases from the combustion process will pass through a

boiler to raise steam. The steam will then be passed through a single steam turbine from the two combustion lines, which will generate electricity, with the steam subsequently being condensed for re-use using ACCs.

4.9.7. In order to comply with the DCO requirements, the Applicant will demonstrate that it has explored the potential for the plant to operate in CHP mode, exporting heat and/or steam to off-site users. If there is sufficient demand, depending upon the requirements, it may be possible to export heat from the facility in the form of steam or hot water. A full CHP evaluation has already been undertaken as part of the development of FM1 and no suitable options are currently available, however this will be reviewed and updated as part of the DCO Application for FM2.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 4.9.8. The electricity that is produced will be exported to the transmission grid or the distribution

network (as described in Section 4.5 above).

4.10. Access and On-Site Vehicle Movements

Vehicular Access and Movements 4.10.1. Operational traffic will enter the Site through the same access route as for FM1, namely

utilising the motorway network as far as possible before accessing the Site via Kirkhaw Lane (for HGVs) and likely to be via the unnamed road (for cars and vans). It is anticipated at the current time that construction traffic will utilise the same routes as agreed for FM1 (as above). This is the preferred access route for cars and vans, though is subject to ongoing technical feasibility studies. The alternative is for all vehicles to access the site via Kirkhaw Lane. For the purposes of the assessment in this report, access via Kirkhaw Lane is considered to be the worst case scenario in terms of potential effects, therefore this is presented as the base case. The alternative access via the unnamed road is also considered and discussed in the relevant Chapters.

4.10.2. Routing for HGVs will be agreed with the Local Authority, but is likely to be as follows:

• in from the South (off M62) via A162 – Old Great North Road – Stranglands Lane; and

• out via Stranglands Lane – Old Great North Road – A162 northbound – U-turn at the new Dish Hill Roundabout – A162 Southbound.

4.10.3. A new roundabout at Dish Hill is under construction. This is independent of this DCO application. The aim of the roundabout is to facilitate a restriction on HGVs using the centre of Ferrybridge to access the A162 and ultimately the M62/A1(M); instead they will access the motorway network via the route defined above. The roundabout will also avoid southbound HGV traffic having to pass through Brotherton to turn round. The construction of this roundabout is due for completion by the end of 2013. These routes are illustrated on Figure 4.2.

4.10.4. Maximum vehicle movements have been calculated based on the following assumptions that have been used for both the Proposed Development and the consented FM1 development for the purposes of the preliminary assessment, to provide a worst case calculation for the density of traffic on any given day:

• as discussed above, the volume of fuel delivered to site will vary based on the CV of the fuel. The maximum tonnage of fuel required (based on lowest CV of fuel in the design range accepted by the plant) has been calculated to be 675,000 tpa;

• if use of road vehicles is required, HGVs with net 22 tonne weight will be used for delivery of fuel. Fuel will be delivered in sealed containers, for example those which utilise walking floors;

• for the purposes of the traffic calculations only, it is calculated that deliveries will be for an equivalent of 47 weeks of the year (to account for outages of single or both lines during the year, whereby the volume of fuel arriving at the site may be reduced)6 days per week - Monday to Saturday 0700-18:30, resulting in 282 delivery transport days per year, this approach allows a calculation of the maximum daily movements for use in the Transport Assessment and Chapter 10 Traffic and Access; in reality deliveries will potentially occur across 52 weeks of the year, though volumes may vary when outages occur;

• ash disposal is assumed to be via road vehicles as a worst case. Due to the ash density, it is assumed a maximum of 18 tonnes of ash can be transported per HGV;




• peak staff numbers are expected to be around 500 for construction and up to 46 for operation (recognising that average construction numbers and actual operational staff numbers may be lower than these estimates); and

• based on standard modal splits, 72% of staff travelling to the site are assumed to arrive as car drivers, with the remainder as passengers / bus / cycle / walk / rail.

4.10.5. The hours for delivery are currently under consideration (in terms of extending delivery hours), though the times quoted here are the basis for the current transport and access assessment, and are considered to be worst case from a transport perspective. The option for increased delivery times is to be consulted upon during the formal consultation.

4.10.6. Total road deliveries based on a worst case scenario of fuel NCV and conservatively assuming all fuel is delivered to site by road and all ash is removed by road are set out in Chapter 10 Transport and Access. While the design of the Proposed Development will aim to maximise the potential for rail use, utilising the rail siding and gantry being installed for FM1, to date no specific contracts have been established for FM1 that will be able to utilise such facilities and contracts will not be let for FM2 for some time. Conservatively therefore, it is assumed – and assessed in this PEI Report – that all deliveries and ash removal would be by road.

Rail Access 4.10.7. The existing rail facilities within the Ferrybridge Power Station site are being upgraded as

part of the FM1 development, including the installation of a gantry crane to allow the offloading of containers on the rail siding adjacent to FM1 and FM2. It is anticipated that the same rail off-loading facilities will be available for the Proposed Development should any fuel contracts eventually signed involve delivery by rail.

4.10.8. In the event that rail deliveries are utilised for fuel, the following assumptions would apply:

• each rail container will be able to hold circa 12 tonnes of fuel;

• there will be a maximum of 60 containers per train;

• deliveries could theoretically be possible Monday to Saturday (excluding bank holidays), and potentially 24 hours per day; and

• a 60 container train would take approximately 4.5 hours to unload using a gantry crane and four transfer vehicles.

Barge Access 4.10.9. It is recognised that the Aire and Calder Navigation is a designated freight waterway and

given the Site’s location there is a theoretical possibility that deliveries of material to the site and removal of waste from the site could occur by barge.

4.10.10. For construction of FM1, the use of the Aire and Calder Navigation was considered for delivery of construction materials, however, access points and off-loading facilities were not suitable for use due to various constraints including proximity to supplier locations and dimensions of abnormal loads. The use of the River would have entailed excessive cost to reinforce and upgrade the existing infrastructure, including the existing wharf at the Ferrybridge Power Station site, which was considered prohibitive for FM1, and a similar position is considered applicable to the Proposed Development.

4.10.11. Discussions have been held with potential fuel suppliers for FM1 and the Proposed Development and the lack of appropriate infrastructure at the fuel supply locations, and




between those locations and the Site, renders the use of barge for fuel and material deliveries as unviable.

4.10.12. The activity that has the most potential for use of barge is the removal of ash from the Site, though ongoing work as part of FM1 has not yet identified specific recipients of ash that will be able to utilise such facilities. At the current time it is therefore anticipated that whilst access by the River Aire remains a potential option that could be pursued in future, this cannot be assumed in the application for Development Consent for the Proposed Development.

4.10.13. As the Proposed Development is not dependent on the use of barge and any infrastructure (including its operation) will be the subject of separate assessments if the work on FM1 identifies a recipient for ash that can utilise barge use, the current assessment and the final DCO application will not include specific consideration of use by barge and the assessments undertaken for the EIA therefore focus on the use of road and rail transport, with all deliveries assumed to be by road as worst case scenario.

4.10.14. If an opportunity for the use of barge is identified, any infrastructure required to facilitate the use of barge would be developed outside this DCO process and would be subject to environmental assessments to ensure there are no adverse environmental effects arising from associated construction and operational impacts.

Pedestrian/Cycle Access 4.10.15. The pedestrian and cycle access to the site is anticipated to be via the unnamed road.

The nearest bus stop is located close to Holmfield Farm at Stranglands Lane.

4.11. Shared Facilities 4.11.1. A number of facilities are under construction or proposed as part of the FM1

development. For clarity these are listed here, but as they are to be constructed as part of the FM1 development the impacts of their construction are not considered further within this assessment (though for the purposes of the modified baseline, it is assumed that these facilities will be in place prior to commencement of FM2 construction). The operation of these facilities are considered within the assessment where the additional use by FM2 has the potential to lead to effects on any identified receptor over and above those considered for FM1.

4.11.2. The facilities to be shared with FM1 may include:

• rail spur and gantry crane;

• storage capacity for containerised fuel offloaded from rail deliveries;

• groundwater borehole for process water;

• foul and storm water drainage;

• substation - use of FM1 sub-station is being considered and evaluated as part of the Grid Options Appraisal and is subject to technical/commercial considerations;

• barge loading or unloading facility – which may be implemented as part of the FM1 development and will not be included in this DCO application; and

• access route to FM2 Site within the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site and associated infrastructure (e.g. internal bridge over the coal conveyors).

4.11.3. The use of the proposed FM1 groundwater borehole and the FM1 substation are both subject to technical feasibility studies and appropriate licensing. Alternative solutions are




also under investigation as described previously and have been considered within this PEI Report.

4.11.4. There are also potentially opportunities for sharing of utilities connections e.g. foul sewer connection via the FM1 site, however the feasibility work has not been completed for the Proposed Development, therefore the full range of options for connections have been considered in this preliminary assessment.

4.12. Geographical Source of Fuel 4.12.1. It has been established in several planning decisions for major facilities that can recover

energy from residual waste, most recently the decision of the Secretary of State (Ref 4-9) regarding the 60 MW Lostock generating station, that for merchant facilities, where no contracts of waste have been obtained at the date of the application, the sourcing of fuel for the facility should be, as it is for existing fossil fuelled electricity generating stations, a matter of commercial judgment for the operator.

4.12.2. The Inspector’s report (Ref 4-10) on the Lostock project concluded, in paragraph 18.4 that “the letting of contracts and hence the source of the waste, would be largely a commercial matter for the operators. This has been the view taken in recent decisions (Ref 4-10), which have not sought to constrain such processes.”

4.12.3. However, in that residual waste is produced on a much more widespread basis than alternative fossil fuels (which tend to have point source extraction and shipping points), the origin of the residual waste, in relation to the location of the site at which energy is recovered from it, is of relevance from both commercial and environmental and policy perspectives. In the Lostock decision the Inspector noted that “the waste to be used as a fuel arises everywhere”.

4.12.4. The FM2 project is well located with regard to potential supplies of residual waste which could be used as fuel in that it has a central location in the northern part of England and benefits from multi-modal transport links, with good access by road and rail.

4.12.5. Commercial and environmental considerations, relating to the need to minimise the cost and effects of transport, indicate that FM2 would tend to draw the majority of its residual waste fuel from the local area and the surrounding region. However, the supply from a wider national area is also feasible in circumstances where a supply to FM2 is the best option. It is considered, therefore, that it is realistic to expect that the FM2 facility would also be capable of meeting part of the local and wider need for waste recovery, as well as meeting the national need for additional energy generation capacity, the urgent need for which is set out in the Overarching National Policy Statement EN-1 at paragraph 3.1.3.

4.12.6. For FM1, a Sustainable Fuel Transport Plan is being developed in consultation with WMDC. This Plan is supported by a Sustainable Transport Management Appraisal Tool that is used to evaluate the most appropriate fuel delivery method for larger fuel contracts. A comparable Plan and Tool will be developed for use on FM2.

4.12.7. From the waste policy perspective, the revised Waste Framework Directive (Ref 4-11), requires EU member states to have an integrated and adequate network of facilities for the recovery of mixed municipal waste and similar wastes collected from other establishments. This network should enable waste to be recovered “in one of the nearest appropriate installations by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies” (Ref 4-11).

4.12.8. The government in its Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 has confirmed, in paragraph 214 and 230, the need for energy from waste recovery facilities to have the flexibility to be able to react to changes in waste composition or the volume of waste




available. The government acknowledges, in paragraph 263 of the policy review, that there is a “need to look at waste management needs across different waste streams and across administrative barriers” and that there is no requirement for individual authorities to be self-sufficient, recognising that “transporting waste to deliver the best environmental solution should not be considered a barrier”.

4.12.9. As FM2 would be a merchant facility, the letting of contracts to obtain adequate fuel supplies would be a matter for commercial consideration, which could realistically only be concluded once the availability of the facility was certain. This is consistent with the findings of planning inspectors and secretaries of state in relation to examination of other similar proposals in relation to the source of fuel derived from waste.

4.12.10. It is considered, therefore, that it would be both unrealistic and potentially misleading to attempt, at this stage, to provide definitive information with regard to the origin of the waste fuel. As noted above, there are commercial, environmental and policy considerations which determine the origins of the fuel for the Proposed Development and the transport routes and modes which would be involved in supplying that fuel to the Site.

4.12.11. In light of the above, the Fuels Assessment that will accompany the DCO application will address the following considerations:

• conformity with the waste hierarchy;

• lifecycle carbon emissions of waste management practices to demonstrate the carbon benefits of the multifuel power station as part of an integrated waste management strategy; and

• conformity with the requirements of National Policy Statement EN-3 and national, regional and local waste policies and plans.

4.13. References Ref. 4-1 Advice Note 9 – Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’; Planning Inspectorate; 2013

Ref. 4-2 CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energy from Waste Power Plants; Environment Agency, V1.0 February 2013

Ref. 4-3 Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3); Environment Agency; November 2012;

Ref. 4-4 Directive 2012/75/EU on Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)

Ref. 4-5 Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidelines; CLG; 2007

Ref. 4-6 BS8300: Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people. Code of practice; 2010

Ref. 4-7 Guidance for the reduction of obtrusive light; Institute of Lighting Professionals; 2012

Ref. 4-8 CIBSE lighting guide 6: The Outdoor Environment; Society of Light and Lighting

Ref. 4-9 Decision Letter. Application for Consent to Construct and Operate an Energy From Waste-Fuelled Generating Station at Land Formerly Occupied by the Lostock Power Station, Lostock, Northwich, Cheshire, DECC, 2 October 2012

Ref. 4-10 Report to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, by Elizabeth Hill, Ref DPI/A0665/11/10 LI A0655, March 2012




Ref. 4-11 Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives




5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

5.1. Environmental Management 5.1.1. SSE already operates an ISO 14001:2004 accredited Environmental Management

System (EMS) on the Ferrybridge Power Station Site and this will be used to develop comparable systems for the Applicant to use at the Proposed Development. The EMS is used to identify, control and eliminate or minimise environmental risk during the design and construction process. A site-specific management plan will be established to cover all aspects of the works through construction, commissioning and operation. The plans will identify risk and outline procedures to minimise or eliminate risk, incorporating best practice and guidance.

5.1.2. An application for an environmental permit is being compiled in line with the regulations enforced by the EA.

5.2. Accidental Discharges to Water/Spillages 5.2.1. On-site liquid storage (e.g. oil and ammonium hydroxide) will be in sealed vessels and

appropriately bunded to minimise the risk and impact of spillages. The facility will be designed such that surface water run-off from areas used for storage of liquids will be prevented by means of bunds, kerbing and interceptor drains. Washdown liquids will be drained in a controlled manner, so that liquid can be treated and re-used where possible. In addition, it is likely a stormwater attenuation pond will be incorporated into the design, which will collect surface water run-off before it can enter any watercourse. Any surface run off to the attenuation pond or water course will go via an oil interceptor.

5.3. Emissions to Air 5.3.1. The plant will comply with the IED (Ref 5-1) so that the impact of emissions to air, soil,

surface and ground water, to the environment and human health will be minimised. In particular:

• under all conditions when IED-classified fuel is being fired, gas residence times will exceed two seconds at a temperature of 850°C, measured from the last point of injection of secondary air to the point where the flue gas temperature falls below 850°C; and

• the boiler will be automatically controlled to activate auxiliary fuel burners to maintain 850°C if the temperature falls below this and will prevent the feeding of waste classified fuel if the flue gas temperature is less than 850°C.

5.3.2. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the IED emission limit values for pollutant emissions to air from the Proposed Development. The environmental permit to be issued by the EA is likely to adopt similar emission limits to these values, although tighter limits could be imposed if considered appropriate. An air impact assessment for the Proposed Development is presented in Chapter 11 Air Quality of this report.




Table 5.1 Estimated Limit Values for selected air quality variables

Substance Half hour average

Concentration (mg/Nm3)

Daily average Concentration

(mg/Nm3)

Periodic Limits (mg/Nm3)

Oxides of Nitrogen (as NO2)

400 200 -

Sulphur Dioxide 200 50 -

Particulate Matter 30 10 -

Carbon Monoxide 100 50 -

Hydrogen Chloride 60 10 -

Hydrogen Fluoride 4 1 -

Cadmium and Thallium - - 0.05

Mercury - - 0.05

Other metals (as Chromium)

- - 0.5

Volatile Organic Compounds

20 10 -

Dioxins and Furans - -

0.1 ηg/m3 (nanograms)

5.3.3. All concentrations are expressed as mg/Nm3 at 11% O2 dry, 1bar, 273K.

5.3.4. Sampling and analysis of all pollutants, including dioxins and furans, will be carried out to appropriate standards (e.g. ISO, national, or international standards). Exhaust emission levels will be monitored by a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) and discharged through the single stack.

5.3.5. To ensure IED compliance, emissions monitoring equipment will be maintained in good working order, and repaired within the specified period or the plant would be shut down.

5.3.6. Continuous monitoring of the following process variables will be carried out as required by IED:

• fuel throughput will be recorded (hourly and annually) to compare with the design throughput;

• flue gas temperature following secondary air injection;

• oxygen content of flue gases exiting the boiler;

• emission concentrations of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride (HCl), carbon monoxide, VOCs and particulates;

• differential pressure across fabric filters;

• reagent feed rates;




• upstream HCl concentration (to optimise performance of emissions abatement equipment); and

• ammonia concentrations in flue gas (to optimise performance of SNCR system).

5.4. Odour and Dust Suppression 5.4.1. Bag filters will be installed to abate particulate emissions from the process, with each filter

divided into compartments that can be isolated. Bag filter cleaning will automatically and periodically undertaken by pulsing compressed air back through the filters, displacing any dust into hoppers for subsequent disposal. Continuous dust monitoring will be used to monitor that the bag filters are effectively abating the emission. In addition, differential pressure gauges will monitor the pressure drop across the filters, to inform the cleaning frequency and detect burst bags should they occur. If this should happen, the compartment of the fabric filter that is leaking will be isolated and replaced. The plant is designed to remain in operation throughout any such maintenance operation, through provision of sufficient redundancy.

5.4.2. Fugitive dust emissions will be minimised through the use of the enclosed Tipping Hall, silos for the collection of FGT residue and a quench system for bottom ash.

5.4.3. Buildings will be kept at a slight negative pressure to minimise odour release into the environment, with the air drawn into the plant for use as primary combustion air. An Odour Management Plan will be prepared for the Proposed Development if required, based on the experience of FM1. This would inform the need for any additional odour controls beyond those presented in this Report. Odour levels around the plant will be monitored by site management daily to assess the effectiveness of the installed odour control measures.

5.4.4. During the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development, monitoring of any dust and odour complaints received will be undertaken regularly and appropriate responses will be initiated. The process for this will be set out in the CEMP and the operational EMS.

5.5. Effluent 5.5.1. During normal operation there will be no direct discharge of process effluent from the

Proposed Development. Blowdown and washwater will be recycled within the plant, buffered through an above ground bunded process water tank. Under abnormal operating conditions, there may be a need to discharge this process effluent. It is expected that this will be directed to foul sewer for off-site treatment, although it could be tankered off-site for treatment and disposal if required.

5.5.2. The connection to foul sewer is discussed further in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development.

5.5.3. In the event of a fire and the use of firewater, potentially contaminated run-off would be contained on Site and would be tested prior to appropriate discharge from the Site for further treatment and disposal.

5.6. Noise 5.6.1. Noise levels will be regulated as defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974

(amended 1989) (Ref 5-2) and conform to British Standard ISO 140-4 (1998) (Ref 5-3) and those detailed within the Planning Conditions. A noise assessment for the Proposed Development is presented in Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration of this report.




5.7. References Ref. 5-1 Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution

prevention and control)

Ref. 5-2 Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended 1989)

Ref. 5-3 British Standard ISO 140-4 (1998)




6. CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME AND MANAGEMENT

6.1. Introduction 6.1.1. The Applicant will appoint a Main Contractor for the main works phase, who will appoint

subcontractors to undertake all of the associated civil works. The Applicant is committed to ensure the safe working environment for all employees and contractors. Safety health and environment performance will be a key factor in the selection of main contractor. A Construction Method Statement (CMS) will be prepared by the main contractor, and a framework of this document will be included with the DCO application. This CMS will set out the key measures to be employed during the main works phase to control health and safety and minimise the impacts on the local environment.

6.1.2. The entire site preparation and Construction Programme is anticipated to take approximately 36 months from commencement to commissioning. The following diagram gives an indicative construction programme.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Design and Procurement

Site Enabling

Construction

Main Civil Works

Detailed Engineering

Stack

Fuel Store

Commissioning

6.2. Enabling Works 6.2.1. The Proposed Development Site is an area that has previously been primarily used as a

golf course. Due to the nature of the Site, the enabling works required are minimal, and it is anticipated that they will be undertaken as part of the main contract. The main requirements of the enabling works are listed below.

Levelling of site 6.2.2. The Site is primarily a former golf course and therefore has a number of undulations.

Prior to any development the Site will need to be levelled to remove the undulations and




uneven ground and make a level working platform. The works associated with this levelling are anticipated to be relatively minor as the undulations are relatively small. Topsoil would be stockpiled and retained for landscaping. It is envisaged that the ground level at the main plant will be levelled, for the purposes of this preliminary assessment it is assumed to be approximately 16 mAOD. This level may vary, however, depending on the findings of the topographical survey (currently underway) and the final design of the contractor. It is not anticipated that there will be any spoil generated that will need to be disposed of outwith the Site (as the ground level may be adjusted as necessary to obtain a materials balance).

6.2.3. It should be noted that whilst the finished ground level may vary slightly, the relevant points in space that are considered within this assessment (i.e. the emissions point at the top of the stack and the maximum heights of buildings as shown on the photomontages) have been fixed as a mAOD height, therefore if the ground level varies the actual height of the structure will be varied accordingly. For example if the ground is levelled at 15 mAOD the stack height will be 121 m in order to retain an emissions point at 136 mAOD).

Protection of 132 kV cables 6.2.4. Two 132 kV cables crosses the south eastern part of the Site. These cables will require

protection prior to any development on the Site. Based on the cable location and the current FM2 plant layout, none of the main development is expected to be built over the cable though the access road for cars and vans may cross the cable depending on the route selected.

Infrastructure 6.2.5. The fuel, consumables and residue disposal vehicle movements will use existing internal

roads within the Ferrybridge Power Station site to access FM2. However, these roads will require extension to the entrance of the facility. The junction on the existing internal road which is adjacent to the Site will require extension to the Site entrance. The length and exact location of the new internal road required will depend on the location of the rail gantry for FM1. The layout will need to ensure the access road to FM2 is not blocked if a train is being unloaded from the rail gantry, therefore a level crossing may be installed on the rail sidings. The internal road extension must be suitable for HGVs which will be delivering fuel.

6.2.6. The enabling works will also include development of access for staff. Currently it is proposed that the staff entrance and the fuel and material deliveries entrance will be separated for health and safety reasons. Therefore, the staff entrance is proposed via the unnamed road that was the access to the former golf course from the South of the site. The existing access will need upgrading to a road suitable for daily use by employee vehicles. The track will also need to be extended to provide access to the proposed staff car park. This is subject to technical feasibility studies, and should it not prove possible, the alternative is for cars and vans to access the site via the same route as HGVs as described in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development.

6.3. Construction Phase

Construction Staff 6.3.1. It is estimated that during construction, there will be a peak of 500 personnel contracted

to work on site. The personnel resource is anticipated to peak during 2016 to 2017.




Construction staff are anticipated to travel to site via the existing trunk road and local networks. The Applicant seeks to maximise sustainable transport options such as public transport, cycling and car share in accordance with its current practice and policy and this is being considered in the Travel Plan that accompanies the DCO application.

Construction Hours of Work 6.3.2. Construction working hours will generally be Monday to Friday 0700 to 1900 and

Saturday 0700 to 1300, though based on the experience from FM1 it is likely that construction activities will be required to be 24 hours during the peak periods, therefore this has formed the basis of the assessments contained within this report, unless specified otherwise. Where on-site works are to be conducted outside the core hours they will comply with any restrictions agreed with the planning authorities, and in particular regarding control of noise and traffic.

Construction Traffic/ Site Access 6.3.3. The designated route for delivery of construction plant and materials is via Security Gate

B which is at the rear of the Ferrybridge Power Station site and accessed from the A162 via Stranglands Lane and Kirkhaw Lane (see Figure 4.2). All HGVs will access the site in this manner, though abnormal loads may require alternative delivery. It is not possible at this stage to identify the exact number and size of such abnormal loads, as these will be dependent on the supplier of the plant, which is yet to be determined. Typically no more than 24 abnormal deliveries are required for a project of this nature. Such loads will be identified in advance to the local authorities, and suitable routes and delivery times agreed to minimise any potential disruption. It is not envisaged that any deliveries will require any modifications to roads and all deliveries will comply with UK road regulations.

6.3.4. Traffic management information will be issued to suppliers and subcontractors in a timely manner in the form of directions and maps to ensure that full compliance to this route is achieved throughout the project.

6.3.5. Upon completion of unloading, the vehicle will return to Security Gate B having first been checked for cleanliness and cleaned to a satisfactory standard at the wheel wash location.

6.3.6. HGVs will exit the site through Security Gate B and follow Kirkhaw Lane and Stranglands Lane to join the A162 northbound at the Old Great North Road access. It will then travel to the Dish Hill roundabout (currently under construction), where it will turn, returning southbound on the A162 to M62, Junction 33, where it can join the primary road network.

6.3.7. During any concrete slip forming works during construction (which require 24 hour working due to the process of continuous pouring of concrete), in order to reduce the traffic impact, a concrete batching plant will be utilised in order to keep traffic movements related to this section of the works inside the Ferrybridge Power Station site boundary. The noise impact of vehicles will be limited by restricting the speed limit of vehicles to 10 mph and prohibiting the use of radios, horns and idling engines. Concrete deliveries from off-site would therefore only be required in the event of a failure of the proposed on-site batching plant during critical activities.

6.3.8. Raw materials for any batching plant will, where possible, make use of the rail lines that are near to where the batching plant is to be sited.




Staff Transport and Parking 6.3.9. Currently it is proposed that the staff entrance is via the existing access to the former golf

course from Stranglands Lane to the South of the site. The existing access will need upgrading to a road suitable for daily use by employee vehicles and this proposal is subject to feasibility studies to confirm the upgrade is possible. The track will also need to be extended to provide access to the proposed staff car park. This is the preferred access route for cars and vans, though is subject to ongoing technical feasibility studies. The alternative route, should this not prove possible, is for staff to access the Site via the same route as set out for HGVs, via Kirkhaw Lane.

6.3.10. Parking provisions for both operatives’ and visitors’ vehicles will be made adjacent to the proposed location of the temporary site offices. This route will only be for the access of light vehicles (vans), cars and the occasional LGV that will be delivering supplies to the offices and welfare facilities. The temporary car park to be constructed within the contractor’s compound will be impermeable and have a positive drainage system (traditional gullies and pipe work).

6.3.11. All vehicles will be reverse parked and a one way system will be put into place around the car park. Designated pedestrian walkways will be installed from the car park to the main entrances of the temporary offices and welfare.

Construction Plant and Machinery 6.3.12. The mobile plant and equipment expected to be used during the course of the

construction of the Proposed Development are listed in Table 6.1. The Table also includes the maximum number of Mobile Work Plant required at any one time during the construction programme.

Table 6.1 Anticipated Mobile Plant and Equipment Required for Construction

Plant and Equipment Anticipated Number Required

Excavators 5

Dump Trucks 6

Cranes 6

Cherry Pickers 8

Hoists 3

Fork Lift Trucks 4

Concrete Delivery Trucks 25

Concrete Pumps 3

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) (delivering and collecting) 10

Piling Rigs 4

Compressors 6

Generators 5

Pumps 2




Storage of Plant and Materials 6.3.13. Laydown and contractor’s compound areas will be located within the DCO (Application

Site) red line boundary. Temporary project office and welfare facilities are also anticipated to be located in this area.

6.3.14. There will be gravelled laydown areas positioned close to access roads on the Site where any materials will be unloaded and then transported to the area of works that is required for installation. It is not envisaged that these will be for the storage of materials for the long term (6 months or more).

6.3.15. At the end of the shift, mobile plant will be returned to a secure overnight plant storage area where drip trays can be utilised under the various types of plant if needed.

6.3.16. Storage areas for flammable/toxic/corrosive materials will be located in a separate locked fenced off area. Material data sheets will be available for all these materials and the COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) assessments kept within the relevant Risk Assessment for the task, all subject to the Applicant’s approval.

Lighting 6.3.17. Construction temporary site lighting is proposed to enable safe working on the

construction site in hours of darkness. Construction temporary lighting will be arranged so that glare is minimised outside the construction site.

Wheel Wash Facilities 6.3.18. The Applicant will require that Main Contractor appoints a Delivery Control operative for

the duration of the contract that will be responsible for ensuring that all deliveries are controlled once on site and take the correct routes upon leaving the Site. In addition to this a self-contained wheel wash will be installed.

6.3.19. For loads unable to use the fixed wheel wash, localised wheel washing will be set up to cater for these individually and as required to ensure no detrimental effect to the highway.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 6.3.20. The Applicant will require that the Main Contractor produces and maintains a CEMP to

control site activities to minimise any impact on the environment. This will include industry best practice measures, and specific measures set out in this document including any mitigation required specifically to control environmental emissions during the construction phase. A framework for the CEMP will be presented with the final ES in the event that the Main Contractor has not been appointed at that time.

Site Waste Management Plan 6.3.21. In order to control the waste on site the Applicant will require that the Main Contractor

implements a skip segregation system to separate the main waste streams on site, prior to them being taken to a waste facility for recycling.

6.3.22. In order to manage and monitor the waste process, a Site Waste Management Plan will be set up, which will allow for waste streams to be estimated and monitored and goals set with regards to the waste produced.

6.3.23. All waste to be removed from site will be undertaken by fully licensed waste carriers and taken to licensed waste facilities.




6.4. Decommissioning 6.4.1. The Proposed Development is expected to have a design life of 30 years and an

operating life of up to 50 years. At the end of operation it would be expected that the plant would have some residual life remaining and an investment decision would then be made based on the market conditions prevailing at that time.

6.4.2. At the end of its operating life, the most likely scenario is that the plant and all equipment will be shut down and removed from the Site. Prior to removing the plant and equipment, residues and operating chemicals would be cleaned out from the plant and disposed of in an appropriate manner. This would include bottom ash and FGT residues and any remaining operating chemicals such as hydrated lime, activated carbon, boiler water treatment chemicals or aqueous ammonia/urea. The bulk of the plant and equipment is likely to have some limited residual value as scrap or recyclable materials.

6.4.3. All chemical storage will be above ground in bunded areas. The fuel reception area and Tipping Hall will also be sealed to contain any leaks or spillages. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Proposed Development will create any new areas of ground contamination. Once the plant and equipment have been removed to ground level, it is expected that the hardstanding and sealed concrete areas will be left in place. Any areas of the plant which are below ground level will be backfilled to ground level to leave a levelled area.

6.4.4. The decommissioning and demolition of the Proposed Development would be considered at the detailed design stage as required by the Construction Design and Management Regulations (Ref 6-1).

6.4.5. A Decommissioning Plan (including Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan) will be produced and agreed with the EA as part of the environmental permitting process.

6.5. References Ref. 6-1 Construction Design and Management Regulations, 2011




7. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

7.1. Introduction 7.1.1. This Chapter provides an overview of the national and local planning policies relevant to

the Proposed Development. The local administrative boundaries are shown in relation to the Site in Figure 7.1.

7.1.2. A more detailed review of legislative and policy matters will be provided in a Planning Statement that will form part of the DCO application; also the ES will refer to relevant guidance, policy and legislation in each technical chapter. A summary of the specific planning policy relevant to each technical assessment is provided in Appendix 7A.

7.2. The Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statements 7.2.1. The Planning Act 2008 provides a system for granting DCOs for NSIPs. Responsibility for

receiving and examining DCO applications lies with PINS, which will make a recommendation to the relevant SoS. The Proposed Development is above the 50 MW threshold for onshore generating stations and is therefore categorised as a NSIP.

7.2.2. The Planning Act 2008 enables the SoS to designate a statement as a NPS, if it sets out national policy in relation to specified descriptions of nationally significant infrastructure development. A number of NPSs relating to energy infrastructure (including technology specific NPSs) were designated by the SoS for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in July 2011.

7.2.3. The NPSs that are relevant to the Proposed Development are the:

• Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) (Ref 7-1);

• NPS for Renewable Energy (EN-3) (Ref 7-2); and

• NPS for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5) (Ref 7-3).

7.2.4. The Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1), combined with the relevant technology specific NPSs, provide the primary basis for decisions by the SoS in relation to nationally significant energy infrastructure.

7.2.5. Part 3 of EN-1 defines and sets out the ‘need’ that exists for nationally significant energy infrastructure. Paragraph 3.1.1 states that the UK needs all the types of energy infrastructure covered by the NPS in order to achieve energy security at the same time as dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Paragraph 3.1.2 goes on to state that it is for industry to propose new energy infrastructure and the Government does not consider it appropriate for planning policy to set targets for or limits on different technologies.

7.2.6. Notably, paragraph 3.1.3 stresses that the SoS should assess applications for Development Consent for the types of infrastructure covered by the energy NPSs on the basis that the Government has demonstrated that there is a need for those types of infrastructure. Paragraph 3.1.4 continues that the SoS should give substantial weight to the contribution that projects would make towards satisfying this need. As such, the ‘need’ for energy infrastructure is not open to debate or interpretation.

7.2.7. In making decisions on NSIPs, the SoS must also have regard to any local impact report submitted by a relevant local authority, any relevant matters prescribed in regulations and other matters that the SoS thinks are both important and relevant to his/her decision. Other matters that may be considered both important and relevant may include local development plan documents (DPDs). The NPSs provide guidance on assessment




principles and identify a number of generic impacts relating to energy infrastructure that applicants should consider in preparing their application and which the SoS should have regard to in determining applications.

7.2.8. The SoS is required to determine applications for Development Consent in accordance with the relevant NPSs unless this would:

• lead to the UK being in breach of its international obligations;

• be in breach of any statutory duty that applies to the SoS;

• be unlawful;

• result in adverse impacts from the development outweighing the benefits; or

• be contrary to regulations about how decisions are to be taken.

7.2.9. The energy NPSs also provide guidance on the principles to be applied in assessing applications for Development Consent and identify a number of generic and technology specific impacts relating to energy infrastructure that applicants should consider in preparing their applications and which the SoS should have regard to in making decisions.

7.2.10. The scope of the EIA undertaken will address the requirements set out in the energy NPSs EN-1 (Ref 7-1), EN-3 (Ref 7-2) and EN-5 (Ref 7-3). In particular, the scope will take account of EN-1 Part 4 ‘Assessment Principles’ and Part 5 ‘Generic Impacts’ and EN-3 Part 2 ‘Assessment and technology-specific information’. In relation to EN-3 Part 2 the relevant matters will be considered in the EIA on a topic-by-topic basis, which will include specifying what is required in terms of both an ‘applicant’s assessment’ and ‘decision making’ and 'mitigation'.

7.3. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 7.3.1. The NPPF (Ref 7-4) came into effect in March 2012; it sets out the Government’s

planning policies for England and how they are to be applied. The NPPF is clear that it does not contain specific policies for NSIPs. Such applications are to be determined in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 and relevant NPSs as well as any other matters that are considered both important and relevant. The NPPF confirms that it may be considered to be a matter that is both important and relevant for the purposes of assessing applications for Development Consent. The EIA and ES will therefore have regard to the relevant policies of the NPPF.

7.3.2. It is also envisaged in the NPPF that due weight will be given to relevant policies in existing development plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Therefore the EIA and ES will have regard to the NPPF as part of the overall framework of national planning policy.

7.4. National Waste Policy 7.4.1. Documents reflecting current national waste policy and legislation include the Waste

Strategy for England 2007 (Ref 7-5), Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management March 2011 (PPS 10) (Ref 7-6) and its Companion Guide 2006; the Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 and its Action Plan (Ref 7-7). These documents will be taken into account during the EIA process.

7.4.2. In addition to the above, compliance will be required with the revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (Ref 7-8) and The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011




(as amended) (Ref 7-9) when determining the environmental permit for the Proposed Development.

7.5. Wakefield Development Plan 7.5.1. While EN-1 (Ref 7-1) recognises that local development plan documents may be both

important and relevant to decision making, in the event of conflict with an NPS, it is expected that the latter will prevail.

7.5.2. Within WMDC’s administrative area, the following local development plan documents apply and will be considered during the EIA process:

• Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2009) (Ref 7-10);

• Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Development Policies Development Plan Document (2009) (Ref 7-11);

• Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Waste Development Plan Document (2009) (Ref 7-12);

• Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Site Specific Policies Local Plan (SSLP) (2012) (Ref 7-13); and

• Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Local Development Framework Policies Map (2012) (Ref 7-14)

7.5.3. The SSLP designates a number of Employment Zones (EZs) within the District. This includes Employment Zone (EZ) 18 ‘Knottingley’, which includes Ferrybridge and specifically land within the Power Station site (Ref 7-14), including land to which the Proposed Development relates. The SSLP states that: “Within this zone permissible development proposals will be restricted to employment development directly associated with power generation and related infrastructure, including the generation of renewable energy [...] The creation of an Employment Zone on part of the operational land at Ferrybridge Power Station, for power generation and associated uses related infrastructure only will encourage investment in power generation, including generation from renewable energy sources”.

7.5.4. The SSLP also stipulates that a number of considerations should be addressed as part of any future development proposals, including:

• recognising, conserving and enhancing Fryston Park Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS);

• taking full account of parts of the Site that are affected by flood zones;

• for proposals for the development of power stations, passing the exception and sequential tests in relation to flood risk;

• assessing impact on public transport and transport networks;

• assessing archaeological potential of the Site; and

• providing a survey on the potential ecological value of the Site.

7.5.5. The EIA will also take account of policies within the local development plans of neighbouring local authorities where this is relevant to the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development.

7.6. References Ref. 7-1 Overarching Energy National Policy Statement EN-1




Ref. 7-2 Renewable Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statement EN-3

Ref. 7-3 Electricity Networks Infrastructure National Policy Statement EN-5

Ref. 7-4 National Planning Policy Framework, 2012; Communities and Local Government

Ref. 7-5 Waste Strategy for England 2007; Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Ref. 7-6 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management March 2011 (PPS 10)

Ref. 7-7 Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 and its Action Plan

Ref. 7-8 Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

Ref. 7-9 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended)

Ref. 7-10 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2009)

Ref. 7-11 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Development Policies Development Plan Document (2009)

Ref. 7-12 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Waste Development Plan Document (2009)

Ref. 7-13 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Site Specific Policies Local Plan (2012)

Ref. 7-14 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Site Specific Policies Local Plan; September 2012

Ref. 7-15 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Local Development Framework Policies Map (2012)




8. THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT, ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN EVOLUTION

8.1. The Need for the Project 8.1.1. A number of NPSs for energy Infrastructure were designated by the SoS under the

Planning Act 2008 on 19th July 2011. NPS EN-3 (Ref 8-1), together with the Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) (Ref 8-2), provides the primary basis for decisions on applications for nationally significant renewable energy infrastructure defined at Section 1.8 of EN-3, which includes energy from biomass and/or waste.

8.1.2. The Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1 Part 3) (Ref 8-2) emphasises that the UK needs all of the types of energy infrastructure covered by EN-1, including energy from waste, that it is for industry to propose new energy infrastructure projects within the strategic framework set by the Government and that applications should be considered on the basis that the Government has demonstrated need as described and that substantial weight should be given to the contribution which projects make towards satisfying need. EN-1 Part 4 goes on to state that the decision maker should “…start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs… unless any more specific and relevant policies set out in the relevant NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused”.

8.1.3. As part of the UK’s need to diversify and decarbonise electricity generation, the Government is committed to increasing renewable energy and it notes that increasingly this may include plant powered by the combustion of waste and/or biomass, helping to avoid over-dependence on any single fuel type. Among current national waste policy, the Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 (Ref 8-3) prioritises efforts to manage waste in line with the waste hierarchy while a further goal is to ensure “Recovery of energy from waste makes an important contribution to the UK’s renewable energy targets minimising waste to landfill and helping to meet UK carbon budgets”.

8.1.4. EN-3 (Ref 8-2) Part 2.5 states that “Electricity generation from renewable energy is an important element in the Government’s development of a low-carbon economy… a significant increase in generation from large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target”. Specifically “The recovery of energy from the combustion of waste, where in accordance with the waste hierarchy will play an increasingly important role in meeting the UK’s energy needs…” and that the recovery of energy from the combustion of waste forms an important element of the waste management strategy in England and Wales. This section goes on to recognise the role that recovery of energy from waste can play in the delivery of waste management services in the UK, as long as schemes comply with the waste hierarchy and do not prejudice local, regional and national waste management strategies and plans. It is of note that the scale and location (centrally located, with excellent rail access) of the Proposed Development facilitate contribution to waste targets on a regional and national scale, and the needs assessment for the Proposed Development (which will be presented in the planning statement and a fuels assessment to support the DCO application) will consider waste strategies and plans on local, regional and national levels.

8.1.5. The 2007 Meeting the Energy Challenge White Paper (Ref 8-4), which formed the basis of the Energy Act 2008, set out the Government’s plans for tackling climate change by reducing carbon emissions whilst ensuring the availability of secure, clean, affordable energy.

8.1.6. In response to an application for FM1 under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the SoS granted consent and deemed planning permission for FM1 in which he stated that




the “Development will contribute to the meeting of landfill diversion targets under the European Landfill Directive by diverting material that is otherwise likely to end up in landfill in a manner which is consistent with the waste hierarchy”. The Proposed Development would equally contribute to meeting the targets, utilising non-hazardous materials diverted from landfill in accordance with the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, which are derived from the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (Ref 8-5) and the Waste Strategy for England 2007 (Ref 8-6). This will divert waste from landfill and reduce the associated methane emissions, whilst providing low carbon electricity in accordance with the aims of the Energy White Paper 2007 (Ref 8-4), the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) (Ref 8-7), and NPSs for Energy 2011.

8.1.7. Changes to the current mix of electricity generating plant are occurring as a large number of existing oil, coal and nuclear power stations close as a result of the requirements of the IED (incorporating the requirements of the former Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) (Ref 8-8) and/or as power stations reach the end of their operational lives. Projections quoted in EN-1 (Ref 8-1) indicate that some 22 GW of electricity generating capacity will need to be replaced in the period up to 2020. This clearly underlines the urgency of the need to provide new electricity generating capacity to ensure security of supply to homes and businesses. EN-1 Part 3.4.4 also specifically recognises the increasing need in the UK for dispatchable power, providing the ability to meet variations in electricity demand and supply, as can be provided by the Proposed Development. This section states that “As more intermittent renewable electricity comes onto the UK grid, the ability of biomass and Energy from Waste to deliver predictable, controllable electricity is increasingly important in ensuring the security of UK supplies”.

8.1.8. In terms of energy production at the Ferrybridge Power Station site, there is a planned reduction in capacity at Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station by 2014, due to the required closure of Units 1 and 2 of the existing coal-fired power station. It is therefore SSE’s intention to invest in new energy production facilities at Ferrybridge by diversifying to a mix of energy types in accordance with national policy as stated above.

8.1.9. It is anticipated that the Proposed Development will help to:

• maximise energy recovery from WDF obtained from the processing of various sources of MSW, C&I waste and waste wood into a fuel suitable for use in the Proposed Development;

• complement recycling initiatives by accepting waste after these processes have been carried out, thereby forming part of an integrated waste management system and supporting the waste hierarchy; and

• maximise positive use of waste materials that may otherwise be disposed of to landfill, saving valuable landfill space. This will also result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (including methane) that would otherwise have been generated from the breakdown of the waste material had it gone to landfill.

8.1.10. The need for the Proposed Development (and its location at Ferrybridge) are being assessed in detail and presented in the Planning Statement (policy need) and a separate Fuels Assessment report, which will form part of the DCO application. This will include detailed consideration of the conformity of the Proposed Development with the waste hierarchy and the effects of the scheme on (and ability to support) relevant waste plans, as set out in EN-3 (Ref 8-2), Part 2.5.




8.2. Alternative Sites 8.2.1. The final ES will provide a full description of alternatives considered for the Proposed

Development, including the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario, alternative locations and alternative layouts, technologies and systems. The following provides a summary of decisions made to date.

8.2.2. The Proposed Development is under consideration for the reasons set out above, and it is considered that the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario is not appropriate given the established need for new energy generation. Furthermore the allocation by WMDC of the Ferrybridge Power Station site for power generation and associated infrastructure, and the recent announcement regarding the closure of Units 1 and 2 of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station underline the importance of providing new generating capacity at the Site. The other key disadvantage of the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario would be the lack of additional investment in the local economy.

8.2.3. The reasons for the selection of Ferrybridge Power Station site for FM1 included:

• its location in relation to the fuel sources available in the Region;

• availability of existing infrastructure;

• excellent road links and availability of rail links;

• access to a pool of skilled labour for operations and maintenance;

• solid record of environmental compliance at the Power Station; and

• site remediation issues to be addressed at the other sites considered in the region.

8.2.4. These reasons, as set out in the ES for FM1, (Ref 8-9) still apply for the Proposed Development, and there have been no changes to the alternative sites considered that would change the conclusions reached during that process. The choice of Ferrybridge for the Proposed Development is also now heavily influenced by the location of FM1, allowing shared use of key facilities (such as the upgraded rail link and gantry), services and storage areas.

8.2.5. The location within the Ferrybridge Power Station site has been selected for a number of reasons, including:

• allocation of the Site by the Local Planning Authority for development associated with power generation;

• availability of facilities associated with FM1 for delivery of fuel by road and rail in close proximity;

• previously used land within the Ferrybridge Power Station site available for development;

• limited existing constraints and services crossing the available site that would require diversion, demolition or relocation; and

• planned reduction in generating capacity at the Site through closure of part of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station.

8.2.6. For these reasons, sites outside of the Ferrybridge Power Station site have not been reconsidered as alternative locations for the Proposed Development, as there are not considered to be alternative sites that would be more appropriate for a development of this nature (e.g. those considered as alternative sites for FM1, including Keadby power station and Fiddler’s Ferry power station (Ref 8-9)), especially considering the benefits of locating close to FM1 outlined above.




8.3. Consideration of Alternative Locations within the Selected Site 8.3.1. There are a number of options available in relation to the specific location of plant within

the indicative DCO boundary and the layout of the plant. The preferred location, adopted for the concept design to date and as assessed in the preliminary environmental assessments, is adjacent to the FM1 site to the north of the new rail gantry to be built as part of FM1.

8.3.2. There are three main reasons for the selection of this location within the site:

• known site constraints;

• the outcome of early environmental appraisals; and

• proximity to FM1 (for use of shared infrastructure).

8.3.3. Within the land available for FM2 there are a number of existing physical site constraints including two underground 132 kV cables, an overhead cable, an existing borehole and the A1(M) motorway embankment. In addition there are environmental constraints such as Fryston Wood in the northern part of the site which were considered. This restricts the available ‘working area’ within the former golf course site that is available for the Proposed Development.

8.3.4. Initial air quality, noise, ecological and archaeological constraints appraisals were undertaken to inform the location within the Ferrybridge Power Station site. This included identification of key receptors and initial modelling to inform whether the specific location of the plant affected the levels of noise or emissions that may be experienced by specific receptors.

8.3.5. The third point for consideration is the potential for FM2 to share infrastructure with FM1. The selected location allows use by FM2 of the rail off-loading facility and potentially allows the use of several shared facilities and services . The proposed location of the plant leaves a gap between the plant and the rail gantry to avoid construction over the existing underground 132 kV cables, and minimise any impact on that existing infrastructure.

8.3.6. In terms of plant layout, as a Main Contractor has not yet been selected for the construction of the Proposed Development, the concept design has been developed to allow for a range of technologies and plant layouts. The objective of this is to ensure a range of potential contractors could tender for and ultimately construct the Proposed Development utilising their preferred technology and plant layout. A range of maximum and minimum parameters have therefore been defined (see Chapter 4 The Proposed Development) and assessed within this PEI utilising a Rochdale Envelope approach (see Chapter 9 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria). Information received during the FM1 procurement process from the various contractors, along with information from other multifuel plants constructed elsewhere in the UK or overseas, has been utilised to establish the maximum and minimum parameters required for each element of the plant, to allow for the range of preferred plant designs of the likely future contractors for the Proposed Development.

8.3.7. A number of items have been ‘fixed’ in terms of location for the purposes of the preliminary assessment, with the remaining buildings retaining more ‘flexibility’ in their layout within the Rochdale Envelope. This is set out in Section 4 above and Figures 4.1 and 4.8 to 4.11.




8.4. Consideration of Alternative Design Options and Design Evolution

8.4.1. Throughout the design process consideration has been made to alternative technologies, design options and plant layout. These decisions have, where relevant and possible, been informed by environmental appraisal work and the design has evolved through a continuous process of environmental assessment and design development.

8.4.2. Aspects where options have been considered and are now ‘fixed’ include:

• stack height; and

• cooling option.

8.4.3. As set out above the stack height has been informed by air dispersion modelling, technical feasibility studies and the informal consultation process, and has been fixed at 136 mAOD for the purposes of this PEI Report (equivalent of a 120 m stack assuming ground level is fixed at 16 mAOD).

8.4.4. Chapter 4 The Proposed Development sets out the aspects considered with respect to cooling system and outlines the key aspects within the BAT justification for the choice of system. The full BAT justification is to be agreed with the EA and will be presented with the DCO application, although preliminary discussions with the EA indicate that they concur with the view that ACCs represent BAT for this installation, therefore the selected cooling system is ACCs.

8.4.5. There are a number of aspects of the design where options remain available. Some of these aspects will have a final option determined at the time of the application, though some are likely to retain options within the final DCO application. The selection of specific options, along with any design evolution of the concept design, will be informed, where appropriate by the environmental impact assessment work, on-going discussions with potential bidders for the construction of the plant and the feedback received through the consultation process.

8.4.6. The key aspects where design options continue to be considered include:

• vertical position of the fuel bunker; and

• grid connection.

8.4.7. Three options for the vertical position of the fuel bunker have been considered to date:

• the bunker base sited below ground and below the groundwater table (Option 1);

• the bunker base sited below ground but remaining above the groundwater table (Option 2); and

• completely above ground (Option 3).

8.4.8. The three options present a range of advantages and disadvantages in terms of constructability, materials management, environmental impacts and cost. At the informal consultation stage of the project all three options were retained.

8.4.9. Subsequent to that consultation, in further consultation with the EA, Option 1 – the base of the bunker sited below the groundwater table – has been discounted from further consideration. The EA had raised concerns that this option may present risks to groundwater flow during construction and operation. This was the preferred option for FM1, but different site levels and concerns regarding the volume of spoil potentially generated, along with the potential impact of two sub-surface structures within the water




table on groundwater flow, have led to this option being discounted for FM2. Figure 4.3 shows the remaining two options under consideration (Options 2 and 3 described above).

8.4.10. Of the two remaining options, the preferred option will be selected on the basis of an evaluation of BAT through a BAT assessment (which considers all of the factors mentioned above). The BAT assessment is currently being undertaken to inform that decision.

8.4.11. The final area where a number of options are available is that of Grid Connection, as outlined in Section 4.5. There are three main options (with a further sub-option) available for a Grid Connection which are currently being evaluated and this work is likely to be on-going when the final DCO application is submitted. All three main options are therefore currently retained in the DCO (Application Site) red line boundary and the concept design, and will be assessed in the EIA.

8.4.12. A final area where the design has evolved since the submission of the Scoping Report and the informal consultation is regarding the number of combustion lines within the design. The preliminary design allowed for a three line plant, and the maximum parameters indicated in the scoping report and images produced for that stage allowed for this. Subsequent discussions with potential contractors and evolution of the design have confirmed that a three line option will not be economically viable compared to a two line option to achieve the same output, therefore the three line option has been discounted from further consideration, and the maximum and minimum parameters adopted in the Proposed Development description have been updated accordingly.

8.5. References Ref. 8-1 Overarching Energy National Policy Statement EN-1

Ref. 8-2 Renewable Energy Infrastructure National Policy statement EN-3

Ref. 8-3 Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011

Ref. 8-4 Meeting the Energy Challenge. An Energy White Paper; 2007; Department of Trade and Industry

Ref. 8-5 Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC

Ref. 8-6 Waste Strategy for England 2007; Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Ref. 8-7 UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009; Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Ref. 8-8 European Large Combustion Plant Directive 2001/80/EC

Ref. 8-9 Proposed Multi Fuel Power Station: Environmental Statement, October 2009; URS




9. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

9.1. Assessment Methodology

General Assessment Approach 9.1.1. The ES will be prepared to comply with The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended), which implement the Codified Directive No. 2011/92/EU for projects deemed to be Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. In preparing this PEI Report (in line with the regulations as it forms part of the EIA process), reference has been made to the following guidance:

• Planning Inspectorate - Advice Note 3: EIA Consultation and Notification; July 2013;

• Planning Inspectorate - Advice Note 7: Environmental Impact Assessment, Screening and Scoping; July 2013;

• Planning Inspectorate - Advice Note 9: Rochdale Envelope; July 2013;

• Department of the Environment (DoE) 1995 – Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that require Environmental Assessment – A Good Practice Guide;

• Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) 2004 – Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment; and

• Environment Agency 2002 – Scoping Guidance on the Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects.

9.1.2. This PEI Report is based on a number of related activities (as will the final ES), as follows:

• establishing the baseline conditions for the ES;

• consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees;

• consideration of relevant local, regional and national planning policies, guidelines and legislation relevant to EIA;

• consideration of technical standards for the development of significance criteria;

• design review;

• review of secondary information, previous environmental studies, publicly available information and databases;

• expert opinion;

• physical surveys and monitoring;

• desk-top studies;

• modelling; and

• reference to current guidance in relation to sustainability.

9.2. Baseline

Spatial Scope 9.2.1. The assessment chapters of this PEI Report (Chapters 10 to 20) describe as necessary

their spatial scope including their rationale for determining the specific area within which




the assessment is focussed. The study areas are a function of the nature of the impacts and the locations of potentially affected environmental resources or receptors.

Temporal Scope: Baseline and Assessment Years

9.2.2. The approach to assessment has been to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Development at key stages in its construction and operation / use and, where possible, decommissioning.

9.2.3. The 'current baseline year' is taken as 2013 since this is the period in which the majority of baseline work for the EIA was undertaken. Whilst construction of the Proposed Development is not anticipated to commence until 2015, unless specifically highlighted in a technical chapter, it is not considered likely that the current baseline will change in that time period, therefore the baseline at time of construction is assumed to be the same as current baseline. Assessment years that are considered within this assessment are:

• Current baseline (2013);

• Modified baseline accounting for FM1 operational impacts (2015), see below;

• Construction (2015-2018);

• Commencement of full operation / use (2018); and

• Decommissioning in 50+ years (2068 or later).

9.2.4. Consideration is also given to any 'end of life' impacts that will occur due to the Proposed Development, for example, material likely to be generated during the decommissioning of the Proposed Development.

Definition of Baseline and Modified Baseline 9.2.5. The baseline will be defined for each technical assessment. Given the proximity of the

FM1 development to the Site, the fact that FM1 is still under construction, and the similarities between FM1 and the Proposed Development, in order to identify and fully assess any likely significant effects, it will be necessary to account for the proposed FM1 development within the assessment baseline. The approach for definition of baseline will therefore be to define the pre-FM1 baseline (through use of data available prior to commencement of FM1 construction or accounting for construction impacts for surveys undertaken during FM1 construction). The impact assessment for each subject area (where relevant) will then consider the ‘baseline plus operational FM1’ scenario, which will become the baseline for the assessment of the Proposed Development, and then assess ‘baseline plus operational FM1 plus the Proposed Development’.

9.2.6. It should be noted that the consent granted for FM1 was for the development of a generating plant of up to 108 MWe gross output. Details of the scheme as built, approved by the local planning authority and the EA in accordance with the Section 36 Consent and Environmental Permit, respectively, are for a power station of up to 90 MWe gross output (circa 70 MWe net output). Assessments carried out as part of the EIA for FM1 will, therefore, be reviewed and updated where appropriate to account for the development under construction.

9.2.7. As the FM1 development is currently under construction, the design for that plant is approaching completion. Information relating to the FM1 development is therefore becoming more robust as the EIA for the Proposed Development progresses. Information regarding the FM1 development within the EIA will remain live as long as possible through the process in order that the final ES incorporates the most robust information to




inform the baseline. This information, along with actual information from the construction stage of FM1, will also inform the design basis for FM2 where possible, allowing more robust values and predictions for the Proposed Development to be utilised in the various assessments.

9.2.8. Where current construction activities have the potential to impact on the baseline data collected in 2013, these have been taken account of in the methodology for surveys (e.g. traffic counts separately identified construction traffic and these figures were removed from the base survey of the surrounding road network and night time noise surveys were undertaken when no night time construction work was occurring).

9.2.9. It is currently proposed that Ferrybridge ‘C’ Station units 1 and 2 will close in 2014/15, as these units have been opted out of the Large Combustion Plant Directive. This has not been specifically taken into account within the assessment for FM2 as this action and any future change to Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station are not under the direct control of the Applicant. Potential changes to baseline conditions for the Proposed Development that may arise from this will be considered where appropriate in the Cumulative Impact assessment chapter of the final ES if more information becomes available.

Impact Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 9.2.10. The significance of residual effects (e.g. after the effective implementation of defined

mitigation measures) have been evaluated with reference to legislation, definitive standards, and accepted criteria relevant to the individual technical studies. Where it has not been possible to quantify effects, qualitative assessments have been carried out, based on available knowledge and professional judgment. Where uncertainty exists, this has been noted in the individual technical study.

9.2.11. The significance criteria generally lead to a common outcome of classifying the significance of effects as major, moderate, minor or negligible. Effects are also described according to whether they are considered to be adverse, neutral or beneficial. Methodologies and criteria definitions necessarily differ between the different technical studies, but where possible the same language is used, such that the significance of the residual effects can be compared.

9.2.12. Specific significance criteria for effects have been developed, giving due regard to the following:

• extent (local, regional or national) and magnitude of the impact;

• effect duration (whether short, medium or long-term);

• effect nature (whether direct or indirect, reversible or irreversible);

• whether the effects occur in isolation, are cumulative or interactive;

• performance against environmental quality standards;

• number of receptors affected;

• sensitivity of receptors;

• compatibility with environmental policies; and

• professional experience and judgement of the assessor.

9.2.13. Where the quality standards for each technical discipline result in deviations in the methodology, these will be described in the relevant chapters as applicable.

9.2.14. In order to provide a consistent approach to the treatment of different technical effects, the following terminology has been used in the ES to define residual effects as follows:




• Adverse - Detrimental or negative effects to an environmental resource or receptor;

• Neutral - Effects to an environmental resource or receptor that are neither advantageous or detrimental; and

• Beneficial - Advantageous or positive effect to an environmental resource or receptor.

9.2.15. Where adverse or beneficial effects have been identified, these generally have been assessed against the following scale:

• Negligible - Imperceptible effects to an environmental resource or receptor;

• Minor - Slight, very short or highly localised effect;

• Moderate - Limited effect (by extent, duration or magnitude); and

• Major - Considerable effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) of more than local scale or in breach of recognised acceptability, legislation, policy or standards.

9.2.16. Moderate and major effects are generally considered to be significant for the purposes of the EIA Regulations. Some of the technical chapters have assessed effects as either ‘not significant’ or ‘significant’, rather than using the above scale, in accordance with the guidance provided for those specific technical assessments.

9.2.17. Each of the technical chapters provides details of the significance criteria used for quantifying residual effects, including data sources and justifications. Where possible, this has been based upon quantitative and accepted criteria (for example, noise assessment guidelines), together with the use of value judgement and expert interpretation to establish to what extent an effect is significant.

9.2.18. In the context of the Proposed Development, short term effects are considered to be those associated with the Site preparation and construction phase; long term effects are those associated with the completed, operational development; and permanent effects extend into the post-operational phase. Effects on areas on the scale of the Wakefield region (or similar scale, even if they occur across local authority boundaries) are considered to be at a regional level, whilst effects that cover different parts of the country, or England as a whole, are considered to be at a national level. Smaller scale effects are considered to be at a local level.

9.2.19. The relationship between the sensitivity of receptors and the magnitude of likely impacts allows the relative significance of predicted effects on the landscape to be defined. Table 9.1 below provides a matrix used to describe this relationship, and so allow a relative level of significance of any predicted effects to be categorised.

Table 9.1: Matrix defining the relative significance of effects

Magnitude of Impact

Sensitivity of Receptor

High Medium Low

Very Low

High Major Major Moderate Minor

Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible

Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 9.2.20. Where there are deviations away from the matrix as presented above, this will be

highlighted within the chapter and the reason for the variation explained.

9.2.21. Each assessment chapter will set out specific measures which have been incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development to avoid or minimise impacts, and any mitigation measures that are to be implemented that are considered to be standard or common throughout the construction or power industries. These include compliance with Best Practice guidance documents (e.g. EA pollution prevention guidelines). The initial impact assessment is undertaken giving consideration to these measures already implemented or to be implemented as standard. Due to the current stage of the design process it has not been possible to specify all measures adopted to date within this PEI Report, however any assumptions made regarding avoidance or mitigation measures within the preliminary assessment are summarised within the chapters. Specific measures included in the design and standard mitigation will be set out in full in a specific Design Impact and Avoidance section within each chapter of the final ES.

9.2.22. Once the likely effects have been identified and quantified, consideration is given to any further mitigation (over and above anything identified within the Design Impact and Avoidance section of the chapter) that may be required to mitigate any significant effects identified.

9.2.23. Finally, the residual effects once mitigation has been implemented are assessed and presented. These residual effects are also summarised in Chapter 23 Summary of Effects.

Inter-relationships and Cumulative Effects 9.2.24. As required by the EIA Regulations, the various technical chapters also consider the

inter-relationship of effects, also sometimes referred to as in-combination effects (those which could be caused by various impacts of the Proposed Development in combination such as noise and dust impacts together). In particular these are considered in the chapters that focus on specific receptors, such as Chapter 17 Ecology, which considers the in-combination effects of noise, air quality, habitat loss, disturbance etc. on ecological receptors; Chapter 21 Health, which considers the in-combination effects on the health of people living and working in the study area; and Chapter 20 Sustainability.

9.2.25. In addition to in-combination effects, it is important to consider the potential for cumulative effects with other developments planned or consented in the vicinity of the Proposed Development. These issues are further explained and discussed in Chapter 22 Cumulative Impact Assessment of this PEI Report. Due to the iterative nature of EIA and the timescales for other developments in the area it has not been possible to undertake a full cumulative effects impact assessment for this report. The projects to be considered are set out in Chapter 22 Cumulative Impact Assessment, and a full cumulative impact assessment will be presented within the final ES.




10. TRANSPORT AND ACCESS

10.1. Introduction 10.1.1. This chapter seeks to quantify the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on

existing road traffic patterns and assesses the significance of these impacts.

10.1.2. The Proposed Development would be in addition to the already consented FM1, which is currently being constructed. The traffic effects of FM1 are included in the future modified baseline scenarios, on top of which the impacts of FM2 traffic are assessed.

10.1.3. It should be noted that this appraisal assumes all deliveries to and from the Site for the construction and operational phases would be via road vehicle. The Applicant is continuing to pursue alternative options for material deliveries and residue removal by rail, and has invested significantly in the onsite rail infrastructure as part of the FM1 project, and this infrastructure could be utilised for FM2. The assumption of all deliveries being by road is therefore considered to represent a worst case scenario for road traffic impact.

10.1.4. While the traffic assumptions in this chapter represent the worst case scenario for road traffic impacts, where it is considered possible that rail transport will give rise to additional effects (e.g. noise from rail deliveries), these have been conservatively assessed in the relevant chapters and the assumptions made in these chapters are clearly stated.

10.1.5. The Study Area for the Transport Assessment covers the following areas:

• Western Access – Stranglands Lane / unnamed road;

• Eastern Access – Stranglands Lane / Kirkhaw Lane;

• Stranglands Lane / Old Great North Road / The Square;

• A162 Ferrybridge Bypass; and

• A162 Slip Roads to and from the M62, Junction 33.

10.1.6. The Transport Assessment report for the Proposed Development will provide a full assessment of the Traffic Impact within the local highway network, and will be presented within the final ES. This chapter, however, summarises the main impacts on Kirkhaw Lane, Stranglands Lane and the A162 Ferrybridge Bypass, as these are the roads closest to the Site used by the delivery and personnel vehicles.

10.1.7. Traffic surveys were undertaken in May 2013 at the above locations. Traffic count data were also available from the Department for Transport (DfT) for the A162, Ferrybridge Bypass. Accident Data was obtained from Wakefield District Council.

10.1.8. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Transport and Access assessment. For the Purposes of this PEI Report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

10.2. Methodology 10.2.1. The methodology employed in this assessment has been developed from guidance given

in the Institute of Environmental Assessments (IEA) now known as the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (Ref 10-1).



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 10.2.2. The DfT’s ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA)’ (Ref 10-2) recommends that

transport assessments within ESs for large developments should be assessed in accordance with the IEA guidelines noted above.

10.2.3. To assess the impacts of the additional traffic generated by the Proposed Development, the following approach has been adopted:

• Identify:

- the geographical boundaries of the study area (i.e. the extent of the road network to be considered); and

- the years of assessment (i.e. peak construction and when the Proposed Development will first be operational).

• Determine the existing and future baseline:

- the existing character of the road network;

- the existing traffic levels on the road network; and

- the forecast traffic levels for the peak construction year and the opening year.

• Determine the ‘with Development’ scenario:

- the additional traffic generated during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.

• Assess:

- the impact of changes in traffic levels against the stated significance criteria.

10.2.4. Information used within the assessment has been derived from the following sources:

• data on the likely traffic generation of the Proposed Development, based on design data for FM1 and FM2;

• site inspections; and

• 2013 and 2009 Traffic surveys and summary 2011 DfT Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) traffic flows on the A162.

Assessment of Sensitivity 10.2.5. The sensitivity of roads to increased severance of communities, pedestrian delay and

intimidation etc. through changes in traffic levels has been evaluated based on the proximity and size of residential properties to each road section, in accordance with the IEA guidelines (Ref 10-3). The assessment also considers the sensitivity of the road network itself to changes in traffic, in terms of its capacity to accommodate additional traffic (as described further in paragraph 10.2.8 below).

10.2.6. The IEA guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating sensitivity. However, for the purposes of the assessment, the sensitivity of road sections to changes in traffic levels has been evaluated on a scale of ’very low’, ’low’, ’medium’ and ’high’, based on their usage by pedestrians and cyclists (judged by the presence/absence of foot-ways and cycle lanes) and the size of communities through which the road section passes.

Assessment of Magnitude 10.2.7. The magnitude of traffic impacts is a function of the existing traffic volumes, the

percentage increase due to the Proposed Development and the changes in type of traffic. The IEA guidelines (Ref 10-3) identify thresholds for impact magnitude on severance and




mitigation based on percentage changes in traffic levels. The magnitude of impacts arising from the percentage increase in traffic volumes (taken as being either the traffic flow including all vehicles or the heavy goods vehicles traffic flow, whichever is higher) is categorised as follows:

• Major: Above 90% increase in existing traffic/HGV levels;

• Moderate: Between 60% and 90% increase in existing traffic/HGV levels;

• Minor: Between 30% and 60% increase in existing traffic/HGV levels; and

• Negligible: Under 30% increase in existing traffic/HGV levels.

Assessment of Significance 10.2.8. In assessing impact using the criteria set out above, consideration has also been given to

the composition of the traffic on the road network under both existing and predicted conditions. For example, cars and light goods vehicles (LGVs) have less impact on traffic and the road system than HGVs. The effect of a change in traffic levels of any given road segment or junction is generally assessed by considering the residual capacity of the network under existing conditions and the sensitivity of that road to change. Where there is a high degree of residual capacity, the network may readily accept and absorb an increase in traffic, and therefore (depending on the sensitivity of the network in relation to its users as set out in Paragraph 10.2.5 above), the significance of effect may be said to be low. Conversely, where the existing traffic levels are high compared to the road capacity, there is little spare capacity and therefore the significance of effect of any change in traffic levels may be high.

10.2.9. The significance of potential effects has been assessed based on the categories of sensitivity and magnitude (identified in accordance with the IEMA guidelines approach outlined previously, Ref 10-1), as shown in Table 10.1. The sensitivity to change is based on the criteria set out in Para 10.2.5 above. The Magnitude of Impact is based on the criteria outlined in Paragraphs 10.2.6 and 10.2.7 above.

Table 10.1 Assessment of Significance of Effects Matrix - Transport (Ref 10-1)

Magnitude of Impact

Sensitivity to Change in Traffic Levels

High Medium Low Very Low

Substantial Major Major Moderate Negligible

Moderate Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Slight Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

10.3. Key Parameters for Assessment 10.3.1. The key parameters for the transport assessment are to quantify the additional traffic

from the Proposed Development on the surrounding highway network and assess the effect of the increases in accordance with the IEMA guidelines on Traffic Impact. The IEMA guidelines (Ref 10-1) outline that “Previous research has identified that the most discernible environmental impacts of traffic are noise, severance, pedestrian delay and intimidation”. The noise effects of changes in road traffic associated with the development are assessed in Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, and the air quality effects of emissions from road traffic are assessed in Chapter 11 Air Quality.




10.4. Baseline Conditions

Existing Baseline Conditions

Highway Network

10.4.1. Existing access to the Ferrybridge Site is gained off Stranglands Lane via Kirkhaw Lane, which forms the main eastern access. This route is proposed to be used for all HGVs accessing the Proposed Development and is in line with the agreed HGV access route for FM1.

10.4.2. Access is also available from the unnamed road further west along Stranglands Lane. This route is proposed to be used by workers and visitors during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. It should be noted, however, that this route is currently subject to further investigation and technical feasibility assessment as part of the project development. The alternative route, if this is not feasible, is for workers and visitors to access the Site via Kirkhaw Lane, as per the HGVs. Information has been presented on both options within this preliminary assessment.

10.4.3. The A162 (Ferrybridge Bypass Dual Carriageway) is located approximately 350 m to the east of the Site.

10.4.4. Existing traffic arriving from the A162 North, routes via High Street, The Square and Stranglands Lane. Existing traffic arriving from the south routes via Old Great North Road and then onto Stranglands Lane.

10.4.5. Existing access to the A162 North for departing traffic can be gained via Old Great North Road. However, A162 South departing traffic has to currently route via Argyle Road and Doncaster Road before joining the A162. However this will change later this year when a new improvement scheme is opened (see Future Road Improvements below).

10.4.6. To the south, the A162 provides access to Junction 33 of the M62.

10.4.7. To the north, the A162 forms an intersection referred to as the “Selby Fork”. The A162 splits to the A1246, which runs in a northwest direction joining the A63, however northeast it continues as the A163.

10.4.8. The proposed access routes, as described, are shown on Figure 4.2.

Rail Network

10.4.9. A railway siding runs round the coal stockyard in the northeast of the Ferrybridge Power Station Site which is used in current Ferrybridge ‘C’ operations. There is a spur from the rail siding running along the southern boundary of the FM2 Proposed Development Site, separating the FM2 and FM1 developments. Typical daily rail movements are:

• coal - 12 trains/ day;

• limestone / gypsum - 1 train/ day; and

• oil - up to 2 trains/ day.

10.4.10. There is the potential to use this rail system to facilitate the additional delivery of fuels to and removal of materials from the Proposed Development, but as stated previously, for the purposes of this chapter, it is assumed that all movements of materials will be by road.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 10.4.11. Rail offloading facilities through a gantry crane and dedicated siding are being

constructed as part of the FM1 project and these facilities would be available for use by the FM2 Proposed Development.

10.4.12. As part of FM1 the Applicant is in discussions with fuel suppliers and rail hauliers to establish the feasibility of using rail for fuel deliveries.

Wharf Facilities

10.4.13. A wharf exists on the Aire and Calder Navigation, located to the east of the coal stockyard, which was used as the offload point for coal deliveries until 2001, when Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station ceased to use significant quantities of locally sourced coal, provided by local suppliers with barge loading facilities. The Navigation provides inland water access to Leeds, Rotherham and the Humber ports.

10.4.14. The Applicant has examined the feasibility of facilitating multifuel deliveries to the Site or ash disposal from it by barge. Initial correspondence has been held between the Applicant and the Canal and Rivers Trust (formerly British Waterways) and the Commercial Boat Operators Association to establish the principal options. At this time it is not considered feasible to utilise barge for fuel or material transport, as discussed in Chapter 4, although ash disposal is currently being considered as part of the FM1 development. For the purpose of this preliminary assessment therefore, it is assumed within the baseline scenario that all movements of material will be by road.

Existing Traffic Conditions

10.4.15. Traffic surveys were undertaken in May 2013 at the following locations, as shown in Figure 10.1:

• Kirkhaw Lane (Manual Classified Turning Count – (MCC));

• the unnamed road (FM1 site access) (MCC);

• Stranglands Lane (Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) – 1 week);

• Temporary FM1 Construction Staff Car Park (ATC – 1 week);

• HGV Construction Traffic Route to FM1 (MCC); and

• Northbound On and Off Slip roads onto the A162 (MCC).

10.4.16. As FM1 construction traffic had already started at the time of the above traffic surveys, separate traffic counts were undertaken to quantify traffic flows associated solely with the temporary FM1 construction. This allowed traffic flows to be adjusted at all other count locations to arrive at a 2013 base without the temporary FM1 construction traffic.

10.4.17. Traffic count data were also available from the DfT for the A162, Ferrybridge Bypass for 2012. A summary of the results of the traffic surveys are given below in Tables 10.2 to 10.6.

10.4.18. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) flows include both weekends and weekdays. Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) includes only working week days (Monday to Friday) and are generally slightly higher than AADT flows.




Table 10.2 Traffic Volumes on Stranglands Lane

Two-way Traffic Flows

No. % of 5-day mean No. HGV % HGV

7-day AADT 11,599 89.1% 885 7.6%

5-day AAWT 13,011 100.0% 1127 8.7%

AM Peak 947 7.3% 92 9.7%

PM Peak 1,056 8.1% 55 5.2%

12-hour Total 10,523 80.9% 1012 9.6%

24hour, 7 day AADT and 5-day AAWT for 2013

Table 10.3 Traffic Volumes on Kirkhaw Lane

Period


Total No. of Vehicles No. of HGV HGV Proportion of Total Vehicle

7-day mean AADT 1,010 390 38.6%

7-day mean AAWT 1,133 496 43.8%

24 hour , 7-day AADT and 5-day AAWT for 2013

Table 10.4 Traffic Volumes on A162 South of Pontefract Lane

Period



7-day mean AADT 13,023 556 4.3%

24 hour (hr) 7-day AADT for 2012 (see paragraph 10.4.17)

Table 10.5 Traffic Volumes on A162 Just North of the River Aire

Period



7-day mean AADT 14,767 391 2.6%

24 hour (hr) 7-day AADT for 2012 (see paragraph 10.4.17)



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 10.4.19. It has been established from these counts that the weekday morning and evening peak

are 0800 – 0900 hours and 1700 – 1800 hours respectively. Figures 10.2 and 10.3 show the surveyed traffic flows for the morning and evening peak periods respectively.

Road Capacities

10.4.20. Typical capacities for a variety of road types are provided within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Ref. 13.6). The assumed capacities, which are quoted in the DMRB as one-way flows, are 1,020 vehicles per hour in each direction or 2,040 vehicles in two-directions. This is equivalent to 48,960 vehicles per day in two directions for single carriageway roads and 97,920 for dual carriageways.

10.4.21. By comparing the hourly flows on the roads examined with the capacity limits indicated above, it is apparent that the roads within the vicinity of the Site are operating well below their respective capacity limits, even at peak times. This would indicate that there is a low degree of sensitivity of the study area, in terms of traffic flow capacities, to changes in these flows.

Baseline Accident Record

10.4.22. WMDC has provided road traffic injury data for the near four year period from 01 May 2009 to 31 March 2013 for the local highway network.

10.4.23. The data was analysed to determine the severity of accidents, causation factors and to establish whether any accident trends could be identified that may be influenced by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Accident Locations and Descriptions

10.4.24. In total, 23 accidents were recorded within the analysed area (which included Ferrybridge centre). Of these, twenty were recorded as ‘Slight’, two as ‘Serious’ and one fatal. Table 10.6 summarises the accidents that have occurred over the specified five-year period.

Table 10.6 Summary of Recorded Accidents 1 May 2009 to 31 March 2013

Location Accident Severity

Slight Serious Fatal Total

Stranglands Lane 2 1 0 3

Western Access 0 0 0 0

Pollards Field / Stranglands Lane 0 0 0 0

Castleford Lane / Stranglands Lane 2 0 0 2

Stranglands Lane / Old Great North Road / The Square

6 1 0 7

Old Great North Road Approach to Stranglands Lane

3 0 0 3

High Street / The Square 2 0 0 2

High Street 2 0 0 2

The Square to Fishergate Link 1 0 1 2




Location Accident Severity

Slight Serious Fatal Total

Argyle Road / Fishergate 0 0 0 0

High Street / Station Road 0 0 0 0

A162 Southbound 1 0 0 1

A162 Northbound 1 0 0 1

Total 20 2 1 23

10.4.25. As can be seen from the above table, the local highway network in the vicinity of the Site has a low accident record. The cause of the majority of accidents was driver error. There were no repeated accidents that stemmed from highway infrastructure deficiencies.

10.5. Modified Baseline and Modified Future Baseline Conditions

Future Road Improvements - A162 Dish Hill Roundabout

10.5.1. In October 2012 funding for the roundabout from the Regional Growth Fund was approved by Government and accepted by WMDC. The improvement scheme involves a new roundabout at Dish Hill, Ferrybridge, just north of the Site, located in North Yorkshire.

10.5.2. The roundabout will enable the diversion of all HGV traffic away from Ferrybridge centre by allowing southbound A162 traffic heading along Stranglands Lane to turn directly onto the northbound carriageway and then U-turn at the proposed new roundabout. This is seen as a substantial benefit to the local area as A162 traffic would be removed completely from the residential and sensitive areas of The Square, High Street and Argyle Road.

10.5.3. The works are due to be completed in late 2013 prior to the completion of the construction of FM1.

10.5.4. The roundabout will also improve road safety at the junction of Brotherton and the A162. It will reduce the speed of vehicles on the A162 northbound slip into Byram, on the overbridge. This will benefit those in the community using the Village Hall and the main pedestrian link between Byram and Brotherton via Church Road Bridge.

10.5.5. Once completed, the new roundabout will enable a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to be implemented which will prevent HGVs from travelling through the centre of Ferrybridge.

10.5.6. Associated environmental works are also planned for the Square at Ferrybridge. None of these works are associated with this consent application for FM2.

FM1

10.5.7. FM1 is currently being constructed and construction traffic was present during the traffic surveys undertaken in May 2013. To enable an accurate future traffic baseline to be forecast, the FM1 temporary construction flows were counted separately during the May 2013 traffic counts. This allowed construction traffic numbers to be identified and deducted from the 2013 traffic counts for calculating future base year flows (see 10.2.33 above).



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 10.5.8. By the end of 2017, FM1 is expected to be operational and therefore the future baseline

traffic flows from 2017 need to include the operational traffic associated with FM1. The operational traffic flows used for FM1 were based on the anticipated worst case delivery volumes for fuel, ash and ancillaries (see further details below).

Traffic Growth

10.5.9. Traffic flow data available for the local roads are limited to the surveys previously detailed. No historic flow data is available due to the opening of the new A1(M) motorway in January 2006 which has resulted in a significant reduction of traffic on the A162 in recent years (which was previously the A1 trunk road).

10.5.10. In the absence of any reliable long-term data, traffic growth has been calculated using TEMPRO V6.2 and the National Traffic Model dataset for Wakefield.

10.5.11. Appropriate growth factors to be applied to the baseline traffic year (i.e. 2012 and 2013) and the estimated peak construction year of 2017 and opening year of 2018 for the Proposed Development are indicated in Table 10.7. These growth factors have been taken into account when comparing the baseline and future traffic scenarios.

Table 10.7 TEMPRO Traffic Growth Factors

Year Vehicle Type Growth Factor

2012 – 2017 Peak of Construction All 1.070

2013 – 2017 Peak of Construction All 1.062

2012 – 2018 Start of Operation All 1.098

2013 – 2018 Start of Operation All 1.090

10.6. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 10.6.1. Pre-application consultations have been formalised in a Scoping Report and Scoping

Opinion, and where necessary, subsequent discussions with relevant stakeholders will take place as the design of the Proposed Development is developed further through the DCO process. A summary of the formal consultation responses that have been received to date is provided in Table 10.8.

Table 10.8 Summary of Consultation Responses

Consultee Summary

WMDC Prepare a Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and input into the Transport Chapter for the EIA.

North Yorkshire County Council via the SoS as part of the Scoping Opinion

Appropriate to include a TA and Travel Plan, consultation should be undertaken with NYCC transportation officers; assessments should include both HGV and staff travel patterns.




Consultee Summary

Highways Agency via the SoS as part of the Scoping Opinion

A Transport Assessment is required and this should cover both the construction and operational phases of the development. Where the impact of the proposal is shown to create more than 30 two way vehicular trips at a junction or directional on a sliproad, the applicant should discuss with the Highways Agency the requirement to provide an operational assessment of the junction. Travel Plans should also be provided for both construction and operational phases, although depending on the number of employees a Travel Plan Statement may be adequate for the operational phase.

Highways Agency The chapter should assess the traffic impact of both the construction phase and the final operational phase, and this approach is considered to be acceptable.

The developer should promote the development of a combined Travel Plan for the whole Ferrybridge Power Station site.

10.7. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects

Construction

Maximum Scenario

10.7.1. The construction period for the Proposed Development is estimated to be approximately 36 months, currently anticipated to commence in 2015 with a view to being fully operational in 2018 (subject to obtaining necessary approvals).

10.7.2. Transportation of construction materials to and from the Proposed Development will be via the existing trunk and local networks. The following major roads are likely to be utilised:

• A162 Ferrybridge Bypass;

• Stranglands Lane;

• Kirkhaw Lane – main site access for HGVs and possibly personnel;

• the unnamed road – main site access for personnel; and

• it is assumed that all HGV movements will ultimately arrive and depart via the M62 Junction 33.

10.7.3. Construction vehicle numbers and working hours have been estimated. The working hours proposed for FM2 are 24 hour with HGV deliveries typically from 0700 to 1900 Mondays to Saturdays. The peak construction traffic is forecast to occur in Quarter 3 2017 based on a 2015 start date and Table 10.9 summarises the construction phase peak traffic levels. At the peak of construction in 2016 to 2017 it is forecast that around 500 temporary construction staff would be employed. It should be noted that staff are assumed to arrive between 0600-0700 hours, 1300-1400 and 1900-2000 hours for three-shift start times.




Table 10.9 Peak Period Construction Traffic Flows

Time Beginning HGVs Cars

Arrival Departure Arrival Departure

0600 0 0 117

0700 3 2 117

0800 3 2

0900 4 4

1000 5 5

1100 6 6

1200 6 6

1300 6 6 117

1400 6 6 117

1500 4 5

1600 4 4

1700 3 3

1800 0 1

1900 0 0 116

2000 0 0 116

2100 0 0

Total 50 50 350 350

10.7.4. The GTA (Ref 10-2) published by the DfT suggests that the threshold for detailed traffic assessment relates to those developments which generate 30 two-way peak hour vehicle trips. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Development will generate vehicle trips above this DfT threshold. When assessed against the existing traffic levels in Figures 1 and 2 it can be seen that during construction there would be a negligible traffic impact on the surrounding highway network during the morning and evening peak periods.

10.7.5. The GTA also recommends that Transport Assessments within Environmental Statements for large developments should be assessed in accordance with the IEMA ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (Ref 10-1).

10.7.6. Using the 2013 base traffic flows given in the Baseline data above, Tables 10.10 to 10.13 show the percentage traffic impact along Stranglands Lane, Kirkhaw Lane and the A162 respectively as a result of the construction traffic.

Table 10.10 Percentage Impact on Stranglands Lane due to Additional Construction Traffic Flows

Two-Way Traffic Flows

Total Flow Increase HGV Increase

7-day mean AADT 5.4% 7.3%

5-day AAWT 5.6% 6.8%




AM Peak 0.6% 5.4%

PM Peak 0.3% 3.7%

12-hour Total 6.9% 7.4%

Table 10.11 Percentage Impact on Kirkhaw Lane due to Additional Construction Traffic Flows



7-day AAWT 46.5% 9.6%

Table 10.12 Percentage Impact on A162 South of Pontefract Road due to Additional Construction Traffic Flows



7-day mean 4.8% 10.3%

Table 10.13 Percentage Impact on A162 just North of River Aire due to Additional Construction Traffic Flows



7-day mean 4.3% 13.1%

10.7.7. The additional traffic due to the Proposed Development construction activities will result in some increases in traffic flows including HGVs on the observed roads leading to the Site.

10.7.8. In line with the significance criteria set out in 10.1.14, the effects of construction traffic on all road sections and junctions are considered to be adverse and temporary, but of negligible significance. All roads experience less than a 30% increase in either total flows or HGV flows apart from Kirkhaw Lane during the peak of construction where a change of 46% is forecast in total traffic (assuming the worst case option of routing all traffic via Kirkhaw Lane becomes necessary). The sensitivity of all of the roads to increases in traffic is considered to be very low, based on the number of cyclists, pedestrians and users of the road, and therefore the overall significance (including for Kirkhaw Lane) is considered to be negligible. Should the preferred route of Stranglands Lane and the unnamed road be feasible for use by personnel, all roads will experience less than a 30% increase in total flows or HGV flows.

10.7.9. It is envisaged that there will be a small number of abnormal loads when the main plant items are delivered to the Site. These deliveries would be timed to minimise disruption to other road users following consultation with the relevant local authorities.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 10.7.10. A Traffic Management Plan will be developed to route abnormal road traffic and the

Highways Agency and Police will be consulted in its development.

10.7.11. Due to the location of the Site and its ease of access onto the main trunk roads and motorway network, it is considered that abnormal loads movements would not have an impact on highway network operations.

Operational Phase – Worst Case Scenario 10.7.12. Operation of the Proposed Development will result in fewer total traffic movements than

those associated with construction but a higher number of HGV movements. This section considers the scale and potential impact of the additional traffic that would be generated after completion of the new facility.

10.7.13. It is expected that up to 46 new staff positions may be required to fully run the plant (recognising that actual operational staff numbers may be lower than these estimates). The provisional split of these positions might be as follows:

• 29 shift operatives;

• 8 fuel and ash operatives;

• 2 maintenance engineer;

• Maintenance technicians;

• 1 fuel manager;

• 3 fuel engineers; and

• 3 fuel administrators.

10.7.14. The majority of the fuel will be delivered to the Site via the A162 and M62. For the purposes of this assessment, a worst-case scenario has been used where it is assumed that all movements are made by road. The Applicant has facilitated the use of rail by fuel suppliers through the investment in infrastructure via FM1.

10.7.15. It should be noted that all WDF delivered to the site is pre-processed prior to delivery, therefore the timing of deliveries to the site is not dependant on standard waste collection times (as it may be the case were the site accepting ‘black bag’ refuse). As fuel is being sourced through a number of contracts, it is envisaged that deliveries will be spread over the working day, which has been taken into account in the assumptions made regarding times of HGV deliveries.

10.7.16. Based on all deliveries and ash removal from the Site taking place by road, the total increase in road deliveries over the currently consented amount is summarised in Table 10.14. It should be noted that the granted FM1 consent was for a 108 MWe gross output facility whereas only a 70 MWe net output plant is being constructed. The FM1 facility currently being constructed will therefore generate less HGV movements than were consented, and this application for FM2 will therefore, in effect, be adding a smaller net increase in HGV movements over the previously consented figure. Table 10.14 summarises the calculations for the operational traffic flows resulting from FM2.

10.7.17. These vehicle estimates are conservative as they are based on the worst case of using the lowest acceptable calorific value of fuel specified for the FM2 plant and hence the maximum weight of fuel to be delivered, as a worst case scenario.

10.7.18. The following staff car parking and HGV routeing has been allowed for in this assessment.

• FM2 operational staff will access a new car park via Kirkhaw Lane; and




• FM2 fuel deliveries will arrive via Stranglands Lane and Kirkhaw Lane.

10.7.19. It is possible that the operational staff car park for FM2 may be taken directly off Stranglands Lane further west of Kirkhaw Lane and the unnamed road (this would be the preferred route). However this may be restricted by the final FM1 rail siding design and the engineering feasibility of this access location is being investigated.

Table 10.14 Fuel and Ash / IBA Assumptions – Low NCV Fuel

Assumption 10 MJ/kg Fuel

NCV of Fuel 10 MJ/kg

Fuel per year 675,000 tonnes

IBA per year (wet) 116,000 tonnes

APC residue per year 22,500 tonnes

Consumables per year 12,200 tonnes

General HGV capacity 22 tonnes

IBA HGV capacity 18 tonnes

Delivery weeks per year 47

Monday-Saturday opening 07:00-18:30

Sunday opening Closed

Days per week 6

Hours per day 11.5

Availability Circa 90%

10.7.20. Table 10.15 summarises the additional operational traffic flows, which are split over a typical working day in Table 10.16. The calculations are based upon transport in containers or bulkers with an average 22 tonne payload for fuel and 18 tonne payload for ash / IBA removal. For the purposes of the transport impact assessment deliveries have been assumed to take place between the hours 07:00 to 18:30 which are the delivery times currently consented for FM1. For the Proposed Development extended delivery times are proposed, however, as this is likely to reduce the hourly traffic movements (as they are spread over a long period), for the purposes of this assessment the shorter delivery hours have been conservatively assessed.

10.7.21. Table 10.16 shows an example pattern of HGV deliveries across the day. It should be noted that this is only an example of how arrivals and departures may work, and it may vary on a day to day basis and dependant on the source and type of fuel.

10.7.22. The figures in Tables 10.14 to 10.16 are based on the worst case of all fuel (from an annual fuel throughput perspective) being at the lowest average CV of 10 MJ/kg. FM2 has a design envelope for the fuel giving a range of 8.5 to 16.5 MJ/kg instantaneous CV (from a boiler capability perspective). In reality the average CV of the fuel received is likely to be around 12 MJ/kg, which is the design case for the power station, with the low average of 10 Mj/kg for a worst case fuel delivery scenario. The traffic figures for this design case value would be around 20% lower than those presented in this assessment. This Design Case is assessed separately below, for comparison.




Table 10.15 FM2 Road Deliveries / Ash Removal Assumptions

Total Road Deliveries/ Ash Removal, HGVs – Fuel NCV of 10 MJ/kg

Fuel Consumables Ash / IPA Total

Per year 30,727 550 7,467 38,744

Per week 654 12 159 824

Per weekday 109 2 27 138

Per hour 9.5 0.2 2.4 12.0

Table 10.16 Operational Traffic Flows



0600 0 0 10 0

0700 17 13 0 10

0800 8 9 3 0

0900 10 9 0 0

1000 15 14 0 0

1100 15 14 0 0

1200 14 14 0 0

1300 14 14 10 0

1400 14 14 0 10

1500 12 13 0 0

1600 8 10 0 0

1700 7 9 0 3

1800 5 6 0 0

2200 0 0 10 10

Total 138 138 33 33

10.7.23. Based on this initial assessment it is anticipated that the Proposed Development would not generate vehicle trips above the DfT threshold of 30 vehicles at peak times and further traffic analysis of the surrounding highway network is not justified.

10.7.24. For the traffic impact on the Highways Agency trunk roads it has been assumed that all HGV deliveries would arrive and depart via the M62 Junction 33. During the peak hours of the day around 14 HGVs would arrive and 14 HGVs depart. These arriving and departing vehicles would arrive and leave the M62 Junction 33 roundabout via different slip roads (the A162 northbound on-slip and the southbound off-slip). The forecast peak directional hourly flows on the slip roads would therefore be 14 vehicles/hr, well within the 30 vehicle threshold, and no further traffic assessment of the trunk road network is therefore justified.

10.7.25. Tables 10.17 to 10.20 show the percentage traffic impact along Stranglands Lane, Kirkhaw Lane and the A162 respectively.




Table 10.17 Percentage Impact on Stranglands Lane due to the FM2 Operational Traffic Flows in 2018 – Worst Case



7-day mean 2.3% 19.7%

5-day AAWT 2.4% 18.4%

AM Peak 1.9% 14.7%

PM Peak 1.6% 21.3%

12-hour Total 2.9% 20.0%

Table 10.18 Percentage Impact on Kirkhaw Lane due to FM2 Operational Traffic Flows – Worst Case



7-day mean 18.9% 26.0%

Table 10.19 Percentage Impact on A162 South of Pontefract Road due to Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows – Worst Case



7-day mean 2.0% 28.0%

Table 10.20 Percentage Impact on A162 just North of River Aire due to Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows – Worst Case



7-day mean 1.8% 35.6%

10.7.26. The generation of traffic associated with the operation of FM2, taking into account Travel Plan measures such as car sharing, cycling and public transport is likely to be minimal and impose an insignificant impact on the local highway network.

10.7.27. It can be concluded that the effects associated with the levels of traffic anticipated during the operation phase of FM2 will be adverse in nature, but are considered to be of Negligible significance when considering total flows.

10.7.28. In terms of HGV increases, under the IEMA Guidelines (Ref 10-1) the HGV increases against existing HGV levels are considered minor (between 30% and 60% increases over




existing HGV levels) along Kirkhaw Lane and the A162 just north of the Site. However this is due to the low existing number of HGV’s recorded along this length of the A162 in recent years, since the new A1(M) motorway was opened. It also reflects the routeing of all HGVs departing from the Site and utilising the new Dish Hill Roundabout to U-turn prior to returning southbound on the A162. This stretch of the A162 used to form part of the A1 trunk road, with significantly higher HGV flows (10,000 HGVs per day) than currently (400 HGVs per day). It has no sensitive receptors along it and therefore the sensitivity of the road is considered very low, resulting in an overall adverse effect of negligible significance.

10.7.29. The assessment has not taken account of any potential expected reduction in traffic flows to the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station. It is expected that current biomass deliveries to the coal-fired power station will drop to zero from an annual average of around 45,000 tonnes (over the last 4 years) and coal delivery volumes will also drop, as Units 1 and 2 (half the existing power station) close by 2016. The annual average coal road deliveries over the last 4 years have been 341,000 tonnes. It is therefore likely that a reduction of around 200,000 tonnes per year (or more) of deliveries to the existing power station will occur. This would reduce the net maximum impact of the Proposed Development (675,000 tonnes) on the surrounding roads considerably (by around 30%).

Operational Phase - Design Case 10.7.30. The assessment of operational traffic above assumed the worst case of all fuel being

delivered to both FM1 and FM2 being of the lowest CV within the plant design envelope (NCV of 10MJ/kg). In reality the average CV of fuel is more likely to be around 12MJ/kg, which is the design case for both FM1 and FM2. Based on the design case, the number of fuel deliveries would reduce from those stated above. Tables 10.21 and 10.22 show the traffic flows based on the design case NCV of 12MJ/kg.

Table 10.21 Fuel and Ash / IBA Assumptions – Average NCV Fuel

Assumption 12 MJ/kg Fuel

NCV of Fuel 12 MJ/kg

Fuel per year 570,000 tonnes

IBA per year (wet) 76,000 tonnes

APC residue per year 21,700 tonnes

Consumables per year 12,200 tonnes

General HGV capacity 22 tonnes

IBA HGV capacity 18 tonnes

Delivery weeks per year 47

Monday-Saturday opening 07:00-18:30

Sunday opening Closed

Days per week 6

Hours per day 11.5

Availability Circa 90%




Table 10.22 Road Deliveries & Ash / IBA Removal Assumptions

Total Road Deliveries/ Ash Removal, HGVs – Fuel NCV of 12MJ/kg

Fuel Consumables Ash / IPA Total

Per year 25,600 550 5,206 31,356

Per week 545 12 111 668

Per weekday 91 2 19 112

Per hour 8 0.2 1.3 10.0

10.7.31. Using the same delivery profiles as previously the traffic flows and effects shown in Table 10.23 would be applicable based on the design case.

Table 10.23 Operational Traffic Flows – Design Case



0600 0 0 10 0

0700 14 10 0 10

0800 7 7 3 0

0900 8 7 0 0

1000 12 11 0 0

1100 12 11 0 0

1200 11 11 0 0

1300 11 11 10 0

1400 11 11 0 10

1500 9 10 0 0

1600 7 8 0 0

1700 6 7 0 3

1800 4 5 0 0

2200 0 0 10 10

Total 112 112 33 33

10.7.32. Tables 10.24 to 10.27 show the percentage traffic impact along Stranglands Lane, Kirkhaw Lane and the A162 respectively using the design flows.

Table 10.24 Percentage Impact on Stranglands Lane due to the Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows in 2018 – Design Case

Two-Way Traffic Flows – Design Case








5-day AAWT 2.0% 15.4%

AM Peak 1.6% 12.3%

PM Peak 1.4% 18.1%

12-hour Total 2.5% 16.9%

Table 10.25 Percentage Impact on Kirkhaw Lane due to Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows in 2018 – Design Case




Table 10.26 Percentage Impact on A162 South of Pontefract Road due to Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows in 2018 – Design Case




Table 10.27 Percentage Impact on A162 just North of River Aire due to Additional FM2 Operational Traffic Flows in 2018 – Design Case




10.7.33. The percentage increases based on the design case of using average calorific value fuel show a reduction to those for the worst case scenario as would be expected. All increases are below 30% apart from the A162, north of the River Aire.

Operational Phase – Other Options

10.7.34. The above assessments have allowed for both a worst case and design case of fuel deliveries. These were based on the calorific value of the fuel being delivered being at

• the lowest value for the worst case (resulting in more fuel being required);

• the average value for the design case (resulting in less fuel being required).

10.7.35. A third scenario exists, which would be to use the highest value CV fuel, which would demonstrate the best case (minimum traffic scenario). However, compared to the two




scenarios presented this would not change the conclusions of the assessment. The scenario that is most likely to occur in reality is a situation where the CV value of the fuel fluctuates within the range indicated over time depending on the source of the fuel and processing carried out. At any one time the volume of fuel delivered to the site will therefore vary, within the ranges assessed within this chapter.

10.7.36. The above assessments also allowed for both operational staff vehicles and fuel delivery vehicle accessing the Site via Kirkhaw Lane. A further option is being considered which would provide an alternative staff car park access directly off Stranglands Lane via then unnamed road, further west of Hinton Lane. This would reduce the impacts on Kirkhaw Lane compared to the figures shown above while increasing the impact on Stranglands Lane marginally due to the increase in staff cars. The overall conclusions would not change as a result of this option.

Decommissioning Phase 10.7.37. The activities involved in the decommissioning process are not yet known in detail but in

outline are presented in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development. There would be expected to be some traffic movements associated with the removal (and recycling, as appropriate) of material arising from demolition and the import of materials for land restoration and re-instatement. However, vehicle numbers are not expected to be any higher than experienced during the construction period.

10.7.38. Current baseline data collected for the purposes of this assessment will not be valid at the year of decommissioning, which is currently unknown. The Proposed Development has a design life of 30 years and an expected operational life of at least 50 years. As it is unlikely that baseline traffic figures on local roads will reduce appreciably over the next twenty five years or so, it is considered that the percentage increase in traffic due to decommissioning would be negligible, and that overall the effects of decommissioning traffic would be no greater than that of the construction traffic detailed above. From a road capacity perspective the change from operational traffic to decommissioning traffic would not be anticipated to lead to any effect on road capacity.

Mitigation Measures 10.7.39. Whilst assessments have demonstrated that, for both the construction and operational

phases of the Proposed Development, there will be no impacts of significance to any of the road sections assessed, a number of traffic management measures will be implemented including sourcing fuel from a number of suppliers which is expected to spread fuel deliveries over the working day and designation of transport routes to and from the Site.

10.7.40. In addition, as part of the formal consultation process, opportunities to explore the use of extended delivery times (thereby reducing hourly traffic volumes accessing the Site) and alternative access routes into the Site for operational personnel are being presented.

10.7.41. The Applicant is committed to the implementation of sustainable transport solutions for the Proposed Development (based on those already agreed with the relevant authorities for FM1) and hence will continue to liaise with fuel suppliers to identify options for the transport of fuel to the Site utilising alternative means. During the construction phase, the Applicant will apply the following mitigation measures in respect of the local highways:

• pedestrian and cycle access routes to/from the Site will be identified and communicated to employees during construction. Appropriate facilities will be provided on the site for the safe storage of cycles;




• local bus connections to the Site will be identified and communicated to all construction employees;

• the Applicant will liaise with construction personnel for potential to implement staff minibuses and car sharing options;

• the Contractor will be required to prepare a Traffic Management Plan to identify appropriate and safe routes to and from site including the options listed above such as pedestrian and cycle access; and

• to implement a Travel Plan aimed at reducing the volume of construction staff and employee trips to the Site, especially during peak hours (a Travel Plan Framework will be included within the final ES).

10.7.42. With regard to HGV movements and construction traffic, all construction vehicles will be required to use only the approved access routes to the Site.

10.7.43. As a worst case scenario, this chapter has assessed the impact from the operational phase of the Proposed Development assuming all fuel will be delivered and waste materials removed by road, as fuel delivery contracts have not yet been finalised and hence it cannot be guaranteed at this stage that other modes of transport will be used. The existing site has infrastructure in place for the delivery of fuels by rail. These facilities have spare capacity which the Applicant is exploring the use of, to maximise the use of these potentially more sustainable transport options for fuel sourced from greater distances from the Site.

10.7.44. All deliveries to the Site would be recorded at the weighbridge. The source of the delivery, vehicle weight, registration number, date and time are stored on the operator’s system, which may be interrogated at any time.

10.7.45. Output from the system would be reported to WMDC on a six-monthly (or as required) basis by the operator, and the system would be available for random checking at any time.

10.7.46. During early consultation the Highways Agency suggested it would be helpful for the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site to have a site wide Travel Plan, covering the various separate developments within the Site. The wider site is owned by SSE who would need to co-ordinate such a plan, therefore this will be promoted by the Applicant to the site owner for consideration.

10.8. Residual Effect Assessment 10.8.1. Residual effects are those predicted following consideration of any proposed mitigation

measures. No additional mitigation measures to those outlined in Section 10.5 are proposed given that all effects are predicted to be of negligible significance. Table 10.28 outlines the traffic and travel mitigation measures and the residual significance of effects.

Table 10.28 Traffic Management Measures and Effects

Effect Traffic and Travel measures (see 10.5)

Residual Effect

Construction Phase Severance and intimidation on all roads associated with construction traffic (normal loads)

Traffic and Travel measures (see 10.5)

Negligible

Delay, health and safety issues and severance associated with abnormal loads


Negligible




Effect Traffic and Travel measures (see 10.5)

Residual Effect

Operation Phase Severance and intimidation on all roads associated with operational traffic


Negligible

Decommissioning Phase Severance and intimidation on all roads associated with decommissioning traffic


Negligible

10.8.2. Peak hour traffic increases during both the morning and evening highway network peak periods are Negligible.

10.8.3. The additional traffic due to the Proposed Development construction activities will result in small, temporary, increases of traffic flows, including HGVs, on the observed roads leading to the Site. In line with the significance criteria presented earlier in this chapter the impacts of construction traffic on all road sections and junctions are considered to be of Negligible adverse effect and not considered to be significant.

10.8.4. The generation of traffic, taking into account Travel Plan measures such as car sharing, cycling and public transport, is likely to be minimal and have an insignificant impact on the local highway network. During the operational phase of the Proposed Development, the potential effects are considered to be of Negligible adverse effect and not considered to be significant.

10.8.5. Whilst assessments have demonstrated that, for both the construction and operational phases, there will be no impacts of any significance to any of the road sections assessed, a number of traffic management measures will be implemented to further minimise any traffic increases as a result of the Proposed Development.

10.8.6. An assessment of the impact of traffic with regard to noise impacts and emissions to air have been undertaken and are presented in Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 11 Air Quality.

10.9. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 10.9.1. The full Transport Assessment, which will support the DCO application, has not yet been

completed, though the outcomes are anticipated to be in line with the assessment within this chapter. There are no impacts and effects yet to be determined, though it should be recognised that various design decisions may lead to changes in the assumptions used. Where this is the case changes will be highlighted in the final ES and the reasons for them.

10.10. References Ref. 10-1 Institution of Environmental Management and Assessments (IEMA) (1994)

‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’

Ref. 10-2 Department for Transport (March 2007) ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA)’

Ref. 10-3 IEA guidelines Department of Energy & Climate Change




11. AIR QUALITY

11.1. Introduction 11.1.1. This chapter addresses the potential effects on local air quality predicted to arise as a

consequence of emissions to air from the Proposed Development.

11.1.2. The assessment considers:

• the existing baseline, assumed to be represented by baseline conditions in 2011, to specifically exclude the contributions from the adjacent FM1 plant (committed development) construction;

• the future (modified) baseline, against which the Proposed Development impacts are assessed, including process emissions from operation of the adjacent FM1 plant and associated pollutant traffic contributions. Full commissioning of the FM1 plant operations is assumed to have been completed by 2015, which is before the construction of the Proposed Development;

• the impacts from construction of the Proposed Development (FM2), with respect to associated construction traffic, on-site plant emissions and construction dust, currently anticipated to commence in 2015 (dependent on obtaining necessary permits); and

• the impacts from operational process emissions and road traffic emissions associated with the Proposed Development in the opening year (assumed to be 2018).

11.1.3. The study area for process emissions extends up to 10 km from the Site, in order to assess the potential impacts on sensitive human health and ecological receptors, in line with EA EPR H1 guidelines (Ref 11-1). However, in practice the predicted impacts become negligible beyond a distance of around 3 km from the Proposed Development.

11.1.4. The study area for road traffic emission impacts extends up to 1.5 km from the Site with receptors identified along routes to and from the Site (e.g. A162 and Stranglands Lane).

11.1.5. The assessment of road traffic impacts has been based on conservative traffic estimates for the construction and operation of FM2. Further details of the traffic data utilized are presented in Appendix 11A – Air Quality.

11.1.6. At this design stage of the Proposed Development it is not possible to fully characterize any potential VOC or heavy metal release from the Proposed Development, as the exact fuel and combustion conditions are not yet established. The species with the most stringent Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) currently published have therefore been used in this assessment to predict the worst-case impact.

11.1.7. The dispersion modelling of process emissions has taken into consideration the sensitivity of predicted results to model input variables, and to ultimately identify the realistic worst-case results for inclusion in the assessment. These variables include:

• meteorological data, for which 5-years’ of data from a representative meteorological station have been used; and

• buildings and structures that could affect dispersion from the source.

11.1.8. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the proposed development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Air Quality assessment. For the Purposes of this PEI Report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.




11.2. Methodology 11.2.1. The potential emissions for construction and operation have been determined or

estimated, and key local receptors have been identified, together with the current local ambient air quality. The potential concentrations resulting from the projected emissions arising from the Proposed Development have been predicted using atmospheric dispersion modelling techniques, which has enabled the assessment of the impacts associated with the Proposed Development on the existing local ambient air quality and in particular on the identified sensitive receptors. The assessment methodology for each type of emission is detailed below.

11.2.2. In particular the process and traffic emissions assessments have been made with reference to the national air quality standards (NAQSs) and objectives laid out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations (Ref 11-2).

Assessment of Emissions Generated from Construction Site Plant

11.2.3. The enabling and construction phase (herein referred to as the construction phase as the minimal enabling development required is intended to be included within the main construction works) for FM2 is anticipated to last a total of 36 months, anticipated to be completed in 2018, which has therefore been assumed to be the first year of operation of the Proposed Development.

11.2.4. Emissions to air during construction activities will be associated with on-site construction vehicles and plant. The screening criterion in the DMRB (Ref 11-3), which states that only properties and habitat sites within 200 m of roads should be considered in traffic assessments, has been applied to determine the potential for impacts from construction plant on sensitive receptors for the Proposed Development.

Assessment of Dust Emissions Generated During Construction Works

11.2.5. The movement and handling of soils and spoil during the construction activities is anticipated to lead to the generation of some additional short-term airborne dust, over that generated by current activities. The concurrence and significance of dust generated by earth moving operations is difficult to estimate, and depends heavily upon the meteorological and ground conditions at the time and location of the work, and the nature of the actual activity being carried out.

11.2.6. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) (Ref 11-4) undertook six months of continuous PM10 sampling at three locations within 200 m of a demolition and construction site (of area 0.65 hectare). The site was a former chemical works and required demolition of existing buildings, excavation of soil to a depth of 1 m across the site, and subsequent erection of apartments using standard practices and control measures. On average, throughout the 6 month period, PM10 levels within 1m of the study site boundary increased by approximately 11 µg/m³ during demolition, 3 µg/m³ during site preparation and 5 µg/m3 during piling and earth working. PM10 levels about 150 m from the construction site were indistinguishable from background levels.

11.2.7. The findings of the BRE study have been applied to the Proposed Development, taking into consideration the ambient background levels of particulate matter for the area and the fact that there will be some earth moving and site levelling activities.

Assessment of Construction and Operational Road Traffic

11.2.8. Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) (Ref 11-5) and DMRB HA207/07 guidance (Ref 11-3) set out criteria to establish the need for an air quality assessment. Both guidance




documents consider the changes in traffic anticipated as a result of the development, to identify the need for further evaluation or assessment. For example, in the DMRB guidance changes in traffic of more than 1,000 AADT are considered further by quantitative assessment. At changes in traffic below this criteria, significant changes in air quality are not expected. This guidance has been utilised for both the construction and operational assessments.

11.2.9. Further quantitative assessment of road traffic impacts has been undertaken, where the above criteria have been exceeded, using ADMS-Roads. ADMS-Roads is a detailed dispersion model.

11.2.10. Details of the quantitative assessment methodology including: the traffic data used in the assessment, key input parameters and model verification procedures are presented in Technical Appendix 11A – Air Quality.

Assessment of Process Emissions from the Operational Plant

11.2.11. Emissions from the Proposed Development have been assessed using the EPR H1 guideline methodology (Ref 11-1) in order to identify where proposed emissions can be screened as having an insignificant impact. Detailed dispersion modelling using the atmospheric dispersion model ADMS5 has been used to calculate the ground level concentrations at identified receptors. These concentrations have been compared with the air quality objective or environmental assessment level (EAL) for each pollutant species, as summarised in Technical Appendix 11A.

11.2.12. Dispersion modelling calculates the predicted ground level concentrations arising from the emissions to atmosphere, based on Gaussian approximation techniques (Ref 11-6). The model employed has been developed for UK regulatory use and its use in such assessments is approved by the EA.

11.2.13. The assessment has been based on the operational design parameters for the Proposed Development, which includes two operational lines venting via abatement plant to dedicated flues within a single windshield.

11.2.14. EPR H1 indicates that for the assessment of point source emissions, long term ground level concentrations arising from point sources which are less than 1% of an air quality objective or Environmental Assessment Level (EAL) can be treated as insignificant (or negligible). Similarly, short term ground level concentrations arising from point sources which are less than 10% of an air quality objective or EAL can also be treated as insignificant (or negligible). Where emissions are not screened as negligible, the descriptive terms for the significance of the effect outlined in Table 11.2 below have been applied.

11.2.15. An assessment of nutrient enrichment has been undertaken by applying published deposition velocities to the predicted annual average NO2 and NH3 concentrations at the worst affected Statutory Habitat site, determined through dispersion modelling, to calculate nitrogen deposition rates. These deposition rates have then been compared to the critical loads for nitrogen available for the Habitat site. The deposition rates have been taken from EA guidance AQTAG06 (Ref 11-7) and have been selected for the most sensitive species at the habitat receptor (grassland/woodland).

11.2.16. Increases in acidity from deposition contributions of SO2 and NO2 from the process contribution have been considered. In this assessment, the nitrogen or sulphur kilo equivalent Keg/ha/yr, which are the units in which acidity critical loads are described, have been derived from nitrogen and sulphur deposition modelling values using standard conversion factors. The acidity deposition rates and background deposition rates have been used within the Critical Load Function Tool (Ref 11-6) to determine whether the




contribution will result in exceedance of the defined critical levels for the most sensitive feature. Non-statutory habitat sites have not been assessed as the sensitive species present at these receptors and their associated critical loads for nutrient and acid deposition are not on public records and no critical levels are available.

11.2.17. A qualitative assessment has been made of the potential impacts arising from operational emissions of dioxins and furans, odour and visible plumes at this design stage of the Proposed Development.

Evaluation of Significance

11.2.18. The evaluation of the significance of road traffic air quality effects has been based on the criteria outlined in the EPUK publication (Ref 11-5). The evaluation of combined process contributions and road traffic contributions has also utilised this approach. There are three aspects of a potential effect caused by a development that must be taken into account when assessing its significance. These are:

• the magnitude of the change caused by the Proposed Development;

• the absolute predicted environmental concentration in relation to the air quality objectives;

• the number and sensitivity of people exposed.

11.2.19. Particular significance should be given to a change that takes the concentration from below to above the NAQS objective or vice versa because of the importance ascribed to the objectives in assessing local air quality.

11.2.20. Table 11.1 presents the EPUK criteria for the determination of the “magnitude of change”, based on the percentage increase in pollutant concentrations due to the Proposed Development. Table 11.2 presents the significance of potential effects, taking into account the magnitude of change over baseline conditions and the absolute concentration in relation to air quality objectives. The latter has been modified slightly to accommodate the terms High to Very Low for magnitude of change (where High = Large; Low = Small; and Very Low = Imperceptible compared to the EPUK terminology) and the terms ‘Major’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Minor’ in relation to significance of effect, as described in Chapter 9 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria, to ensure consistency with other assessment chapters within this report.

Table 11.1 Determination of Magnitude of Change – Air Quality

Magnitude of change Annual Mean Concentration NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 (µg/m³) Days PM10 >50µg/m3

Large Increase/decrease Increase/decrease > 4

Medium Increase/decrease Increase/decrease 2 - 4

Small Increase/decrease Increase/decrease 1 - 2

Imperceptible Increase/decrease Increase/decrease < 1




Table 11.2 Significance of Effects NO2 and PM10 – Air Quality

Absolute Concentration in Relation to Objective/Limit Value

Change in Concentration

High Medium Low Very Low

Increase with Proposed Development

Above Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (>40 µg/m3)

Major Adverse Moderate Adverse

Minor Adverse

Negligible

Just Below Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (36 - 40 µg/m3)

Moderate Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Minor Adverse

Negligible

Below Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (30 - 36 µg/m3)

Minor Adverse Minor Adverse

Negligible Negligible

Well Below Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (<30 µg/m3)

Minor Adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible

Decrease with Proposed Development

Above Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (>40 µg/m3)

Major Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Minor Beneficial

Negligible

Just Below Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (36 - 40 µg/m3)

Moderate Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Minor Beneficial

Negligible

Below Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (30 - 36 µg/m3)

Minor Beneficial

Minor Beneficial

Negligible Negligible

Well Below Air Quality Standard or Guideline with the Proposed Development (<30 µg/m3)

Minor

Beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible

11.2.21. The criteria in Table 11.1 relate to air quality statistics that are elevated about the objective values in many urban locations: this is not the case with PM2.5. A change in the annual mean concentration of PM2.5 equivalent to 1% of the objective value is 0.25 µg/m3. Changes above 0.25 µg/m3 would be considered to be a small change (up to 1.25 µg/m3).

11.2.22. EPR H1 indicates that for the assessment of point source emissions, long term ground level concentrations arising from point sources which are less than 1% of an air quality objective or EAL can be treated as insignificant (or negligible). Similarly, short term ground level concentrations arising from point sources which are less than 10% of an air quality objective or EAL can also be treated as insignificant (or negligible). Where emissions are not screened as negligible, the descriptive terms for the significance of the effect, outlined in Table 11.2, have been applied.

11.2.23. The significance of effects of point source emissions on ecological receptors, through deposition of nutrient nitrogen or acidity, has been evaluated using the Environment Agency insignificance criterion of 1% of the long term objective, as above.




Key Parameters for Assessment 11.2.24. The Rochdale Envelope parameters do not significantly affect the input parameters

utilised in either the operational or construction air quality assessments, and consequentially the outcome of these assessments will not vary. Therefore, no further discussion of the Rochdale Envelope parameters is provided in this chapter and the assessment adopts conservative (worst case) values where assumptions are necessary.


Existing Baseline Conditions 11.3.1. Baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Site have been investigated through a review of

local air quality management reports, consultation with WMDC and a review of data held on the national air quality archive. Sensitive receptors have been identified through desk study, local site knowledge and consultation with WMDC.

Air Quality Management 11.3.2. The statutory review and assessment of local air quality within the area covered by

WMDC resulted in the designation of eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) under the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) regime. The Proposed Development and surrounding Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station site are located within the M62 AQMA, designated because of the potential for exceedance in the annual NO2 National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) objective, which is primarily as a consequence of motorway traffic emissions. Castleford AQMA, also designated for NO2, is located approximately 4km west of the Site, within the town centre.

Background Air Monitoring 11.3.3. Monitoring undertaken by WMDC includes a number of continuous monitoring stations

and a network of NO2 diffusion tubes. WMDC was contacted to obtain details of the continuous monitoring stations and also the diffusion tube locations in the Ferrybridge area.

11.3.4. A summary of the data from continuous and diffusion tube monitoring operated by WMDC in the closest monitoring station to the Site is presented in Table 11.3.

Table 11.3 Annual Average Continuous and Diffusion Tube NO2 Monitoring Data

Type Location Grid Ref (x,y)

Location from site

In AQMA? NO2 (μg/m3)

2011

NO2 (μg/m3

) 2010

Automatic (R)

Castleford Centre

443360, 425275

3.9 km W Yes (Castleford)

31 35

Diffusion tube (B)

75a Pontefract Road, Ferrybridge

447613, 423920

1.5 km S Yes (M62) 47 47

Diffusion tube (B)

52 Doncaster Road, Ferrybridge

448349, 423981

1.7 km SE Yes (M62) 43 42

Diffusion tube (B)

The Bungalow, Cattlelaithe

448841, 422335

3.4 km SE Yes (M62) 40 43




Type Location Grid Ref (x,y)

Location from site

In AQMA? NO2 (μg/m3)

2011

NO2 (μg/m3

) 2010

Diffusion tube (R)

51 Hill Top, Knottingley

449880, 423965

2.9 km SE Yes (M62) 41 36

Table Notes: 1. B = Background, R=Roadside

2. Diffusion tube data reported with local bias factors

11.3.5. Automatic particulate monitoring (PM10) is also undertaken at the Castleford monitor, with an annual average PM10 in 2011 of 20 µg/m3 (24 µg/m3 in 2010).

11.3.6. All of the locations listed in Table 11.3 are likely to be subject to additional pollutant contributions above background levels. For example, the Castleford continuous monitor is located within 5 m of the kerb of the nearest road, and therefore is likely to overestimate background concentrations due to the proximity of traffic sources. Therefore, the above sites are likely to over-estimate background pollutant concentrations.

11.3.7. In the absence of a local background monitoring location, background data has been utilised from Defra Background mapping for 2011 (Ref 11-9). Defra background mapping indicates that the background NO2 concentration in the site vicinity was 24.4 µg/m3 in 2011 (1 km grid square 447500, 424500).

11.3.8. For each receptor considered in this study a receptor-specific background concentration has been determined, based on the nearest Defra grid square concentration for NO2 and PM10. Where the road component has been explicitly modelled for this assessment, the road component has been removed from the background (sector removal as per LAQM TG(09) guidance) and the modelled road contribution has been added, taking into account changes in traffic flow for 2018 and with FM1 traffic contributions as this is anticipated to be operational at the time of construction of the Proposed Development.

11.3.9. Additional modelled FM1 process contributions have been added to the modelled traffic pollutant concentrations, to give an overall estimation of the 2018 baseline with FM1 operational contributions. Further details of this process to develop a ‘modified baseline’ are provided in Technical Appendix 11A – Air Quality.

11.3.10. Estimates for other IED listed species for the combustion of waste derived fuels have been obtained from the Defra air quality database and Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) (Ref 11-10) on behalf of Defra, as appropriate, and are provided in Table 11.4. FM1 contributions to these background levels, to determine the ‘modified baseline’, are discussed in Technical Appendix 11A – Air Quality.

Table 11.4 Background Air Quality – Additional species

Pollutant Estimated background (2013)

Averaging period

SO2 7.21 Annual mean

PM2.5 12.41 Annual mean

CO 3551 Annual mean

NH3 2.04 Annual mean

VOC (as benzene) 0.41 Annual mean




Pollutant Estimated background (2013)

Averaging period

HCl 0.33 Annual mean

HF(as HCl) 0.33 Annual mean

Hg 1.8e-52 Annual mean

Cd and Tl (as Cd) 2.2e-42 Annual mean

Other Metals (as Pb) 1.3e-22 Annual mean

Other Metals (as Cr) 7.7e-32 Annual mean Table Notes: 1. Defra Background Mapping, most recent available year, grid ref [447500, 424500] 2. CEH, Sheffield Centre, Urban Heavy Metals 3. Defra, Caenby, AGANET 4. CEH, Tadcaster, NAMN

Human Health Receptors 11.3.11. Sensitive human health receptors identified in the vicinity of the Proposed Development

are detailed in Table 11.5 below. The receptors have been selected to represent the assessment of worst-case impacts on human heath (e.g. residential and schools) from process contributions and traffic contributions, including those located within the M62 AQMA.

11.3.12. Isopleths of predicted dispersion have been reviewed to ensure that these locations represent the maximum process contributions, where a number of receptors are present.

Table 11.5 Sensitive Human Health Receptors

Receptor Number Sensitive Receptor Type of

Receptor In

AQMA? Grid

Reference Location

from Plant

R1 Manor Farm Ferrybridge

Residences Yes 447975, 424560

40 m SE

R2 Pollard’s Fields Ferrybridge

Residences / School

Yes 447705, 424365

1.1 km S

R3 Limetrees Pontefract Residences Yes 447395, 423733

1.6 km S

R4 Pontefract Road Residences Yes 447613,

423920 1.5 km S

R5 Sunny Nook, Stranglands Lane

Residence Yes 448152,

424575 1.2 km SE

R6 The Elms, The Square

Residence Yes 448288,

424502 1.3 km SE

R7 Holmfield Farm Residence Yes 446845,

424820 200 m SW

R8 Kirkhaw Bungalow Residence Yes 447989,

424591 1.0 km SE

R9 Brotherton School School No 448355,

425363 1.1 km E

R10 Oakland Hill – Fryston Lane

Residences Yes 446745,

425020 0.6 km W





Receptor In

AQMA? Grid

Reference Location

from Plant

R11 Low Street Residences No 448400,

425270 1.1 km E

R12 Castleford Lane Residences Yes 447885,

424446 1.1 km SE

R13 Wentcliffe Cottage Residences Yes 448337,

424253 1.5 km SE

R14 Pinfold Close Residences Yes 448339,

424122 1.6 km SE

R15 Doncaster Road Residences Yes 448384,

423821 1.9 km SE

R16 The Square Residences Yes 448400,

424430 1.5 km SE

R17 Kirkhaw Lane Residences Yes 447969,

424722 0.8 km SE

R18 Church Street Residences No 448200,

425650 0.3 km E

Ecological Receptors 11.3.13. Sensitive ecological receptors within 10 km of the Proposed Development have been

identified through desk study and consultation with Natural England, including statutory Habitat sites and national and local nature reserves. These are presented in Table 11.6 below.

11.3.14. Figure 11-1 shows the locations of sensitive human health receptors and the closest ecological receptors, in relation to the Proposed Development (shown in red outline). These ecosystems have been assessed quantitatively for process contributions from the power station stack only, as these locations are all greater than 200 m from the road traffic study area.

Table 11.6 Sensitive Ecological Receptors


Receptor2 Grid Reference1 Location from Plant

E1 Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI 447379, 427282 2.1 km N

E2 Madbanks and Ledsham Banks

SSSI 446010, 429770 3.8 km NW

E3 Sherburn Willows SSSI 448760, 432275 7.1 km NE

E4 Wentbridge Ings SSSI 447700, 418215 7.1 km S

E5 Brockadale SSSI 450065, 417680 8.2 km S

E6 Forlorn Hope Meadow SSSI 454250, 417210 7.5 km SW

E7 Townclose Hills SSSI 440850, 430300 8.1 km NW

E8 Roach Lime Hills SSSI 441995, 431330 8.0 km NW

E9 Micklefield Quarry SSSI 444600, 432410 7.6 km NW





Receptor2 Grid Reference1 Location from Plant

E10 Mickletown Ings SSSI 440725, 427320 6.8 km NW

E11 Well Wood LNR 445700, 426600 2.0 km NW

E12 Fryston Wood LWS 447100, 425500 0.2 km N

E13 Fryston Park LWS 446905, 425570 0.4 km NW

E14 Bank of River Aire LWS 447547, 426240 300 m N

E15 Byram Park, Burton Salmon LWS 448687, 426237 1.7 km NE

E16 Woodland, western edge of Byram Park

LWS 448497, 426417 1.6 km NE

E17 Orchard Head LWS 446250, 423697 1.9 km SW Table Notes: 1. Taken as the nearest point to the Proposed Development 2. SSSI = Site of Special Scientific Interest, LNR = Local Nature Reserve, LWS = Local Wildlife Site

Modified Baseline and Future Baseline 11.3.15. The modified baselines of NO2 and PM10, taking into account the existing baseline and

anticipated contributions from the operational FM1 process emissions and associated road traffic, have been determined for the identified receptors, as presented in Table 11.7 below. The modified future baseline has been determined for 2018, as this is the year that the Proposed Development will become operational. Further detail on the derivation of these values is provided in the Appendix 11A.

Table 11.7 Modified NO2 and PM10 Baseline

Sensitive Receptor

Existing 2011 Annual NO2

(µg/m3)

Modified NO2 2018 Baseline

(µg/m3)

Existing 2011 Annual PM10

(µg/m3)

Modified PM10 2018

Baseline(µg/m3)

R1 28.1 28.9 20.6 20.7

R2 27.6 28.2 20.6 20.6

R3 30.2 30.5 20.9 20.9

R4 30.2 30.6 20.9 21.0

R5 30.9 33.7 20.3 20.6

R6 29.1 30.7 20.1 20.3

R7 24.9 25.3 19.1 19.1

R8 27.3 28.4 20.4 20.5

R9 18.7 19.7 17.2 17.2

R10 20.3 21.0 18.6 18.7

R11 19.4 21.2 17.4 17.6

R12 27.8 28.3 20.5 20.6

R13 27.9 29.1 19.9 20.1

R14 31.3 33.0 20.5 20.7

R15 24.9 25.9 21.2 21.4

R16 31.0 32.3 20.5 20.7




Sensitive Receptor

Existing 2011 Annual NO2

(µg/m3)

Modified NO2 2018 Baseline

(µg/m3)

Existing 2011 Annual PM10

(µg/m3)

Modified PM10 2018

Baseline(µg/m3)

R17 26.3 28.1 20.2 20.4

R18 18.7 19.4 17.2 17.2

11.3.16. The anticipated FM1 annual process contributions of other IED listed species have been added to the existing baseline concentration, where available, to give the modified baseline at the location of maximum predicted concentration (on- or off-site). These values are presented in Table 11.8 below. Existing baseline concentrations have been obtained for the nearest representative Defra or CEH monitoring stations.

Table 11.8 Modified Baseline Calculations – Other species, maximum Process Contribution (PC)

Species Existing Annual Baseline (µg/m3)

Maximum FM1 Process Contribution

(µg/m3)

Modified 2018 Baseline (µg/m3)

SO2 7.21 0.6 7.8

PM2.5 12.41 0.13 12.5

CO 3551 0.61 356

NH3 2.04 0.13 2.1

VOC (as benzene) 0.41 0.13 0.5

HCl 0.33 0.13 0.4

HF(as HCl) 0.33 0.013 0.3

Hg 1.8e-52 6.4e-4 6.6e-4

Cd and Tl (as Cd) 2.2e-42 6.4e-4 8.6e-4

Other Metals (as Pb) 1.3e-22 6.4e-4 1.9e-2

Other Metals (as Cr) 7.7e-32 6.4e-4 1.4e-2 Table Notes: 1. Defra Background Mapping, most recent available year, grid ref [447500, 424500] 2. CEH, Sheffield Centre, Urban Heavy Metals 3. Defra, Caenby, AGANET

11.3.17. The assessment undertaken for 2018 assumes that there has been no improvement in either background pollutant concentrations for NO2 or PM10 or vehicle emission factors. This is considered to be a conservative approach for 2018 as some improvements are anticipated in both background pollutant concentrations and also vehicle emissions by this date.

11.4. Development Design and Impact Avoidance

IED Emission Limit Value (ELV) Compliance 11.4.1. The Proposed Development will be designed such that process emissions to air comply

with the ELV requirements under IED. Conventional FGT is anticipated to be installed as necessary to comply with such requirements, and is likely to include SNCR for abatement of NOx, lime injection for abatement of acid gases, activated carbon injection for




abatement of dioxins and furans and heavy metals and particulate abatement equipment such as bag filtration. These have been taken into consideration when establishing the ELVs used within the assessment of process releases.

Stack Height 11.4.2. The FM2 main stack height has been optimised with consideration given to minimisation

of ground level air quality impacts, and visual impacts of a taller stack. Dispersion modelling was undertaken to determine the optimum stack height range (100-120 m) and local residents informally consulted regarding their preference. The selected stack height (136 m AOD, equivalent to 120 m stack at an assumed ground level of 16 mAOD) has been incorporated into the plant design.

Dioxins and Furans 11.4.3. Emissions of dioxins and furans from the Proposed Development will be controlled to

within the ELVs set out in the IED for combustion of waste derived fuels. At this design stage of the development, it is not possible to fully characterize the process emission parameters and therefore no formal assessment of dioxins impacts has yet been undertaken. The assessment of dioxins and furans impacts on human health through inhalation exposure and ingestion exposure for releases from the FM1 plant were, however, determined to be insignificant. The Proposed Development is anticipated to be comparable to the FM1 plant in terms of emissions and therefore the impacts from dioxin and furan releases also comparable. In combination, the impacts from both plants are also anticipated to be insignificant. To verify this, however, further assessment of the potential impacts from the Proposed Development and cumulative process contributions will be made and presented within the final ES.

Odour 11.4.4. Odour generation will be minimised by the implementation of good management

practices, such as ensuring that the flow of fuel through the Site from receipt to combustion is continuous and by managing fuel stocks so that older fuel is combusted first. Buildings will be kept at a slight negative pressure to stop odour release into the environment, with the air drawn into the plant for use as primary combustion air. Odour levels around the plant will be monitored to assess the effectiveness of the installed odour control measures. At this design stage there are not anticipated to be any significant odour releases. A full odour assessment and BAT justification will be prepared for the DCO application or Environmental Permit application at a later stage of process design.

Visible Plumes 11.4.5. There is the potential for visible plumes to occur from the multifuel power station main

stack as a result of the water content and temperature of the flue gas. The European Waste Incineration Best Available Techniques Reference Document (BREF Note) (Ref 11-8), states that plume visibility can be greatly reduced by maintaining stack release temperatures above 140°C, which is the current design intention for FM2.

11.4.6. Recovery of waste heat from the flue gas, which increases the thermal efficiency of the process, could mean that the flue gas may be emitted below this temperature and therefore there may be potential for visible plume impacts. However at this design stage the heat balance has not been finalised and a lower temperature is not currently envisaged; therefore this potential has not been assessed. The on-going design process




will consider the potential for visible plume impacts, and in particular the potential for visible plume grounding, and the final process design will ensure that visible plume impacts will be minimised.

11.5. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 11.5.1. The consultation undertaken with statutory consultees is presented in Table 11.9.

Table 11.9 Consultation Summary

Consultee Date Summary of Response

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council October 15th

2013

Assessment approach for operational emissions and background sources outlined to WMDC. Response received indicating acceptability.

Environment Agency Meeting 4th September 2013

TBC (meeting minutes under review)

Secretary of State – Scoping Opinion

July 2013

Applicant to agree scope and extent of data for the assessment with relevant consultees; should consider potential effects of deposition on protected sites; take account of anticipated air emissions from FM1; consider offsite impacts; consideration given to appropriate mitigation measures.

Environment Agency via the SoS in the Scoping Opinion

July 2013

Confirm the Proposed Development would require an Environmental Permit and confirm they agree with the approach to the modelling of the impact on Air Quality.

Public Consultation Informal Consultation July to Sept 2013

Informal consultation identified a general preference for a taller stack (120 m) with associated beneficial emissions dispersion and adverse visual impacts over a shorter stack (100 m).


Construction Phase Impact

11.6.1. The impacts from the construction phase on air quality at sensitive receptors include increased NO2 and PM10 from on-site construction vehicle/plant emissions and increased particulates and deposited dust from soil and spoil movement and handling.

11.6.2. A review of changes in road traffic vehicle trips for the routes around the site indicates that none of the DMRB or EPUK screening criteria are anticipated to be exceeded during construction (e.g. through additional HGV deliveries). Therefore, no further quantitative assessment works have been undertaken for construction road vehicles.

11.6.3. It is anticipated that there will be relatively few vehicles/plant present on-site at any one time, and that the total number used will be relatively small compared to background road




traffic levels in the area. The BRE study identified that PM10 levels were indistinguishable from background levels at greater than 150 m from the construction site. The boundary of the Proposed Development site area is greater than 200 m from the nearest residential properties (R7-Holmfield Farm, R10-Oakland Hill) and greater than 1 km from the nearest designated habitat (E1-Fairburn and Newton Ings), therefore greater than the distance at which vehicle/plant emissions or construction dust are expected to have a quantifiable impact on receptors.

11.6.4. The nearest local wildlife site (E12-Fryston Wood) borders the northern boundary of the Site, where site works may be anticipated, particularly if one of the grid connection options is undertaken, although the main construction area for plant will be located 100 m south of the receptor. The impacts on vegetation at the receptor are likely to be temporary dust deposition. There are no designated or protected species within this receptor.

Effect

11.6.5. No DMRB or EPUK vehicle screening criteria have been exceeded for the construction phase and therefore any changes in pollutant concentrations (e.g. particulates and NO2) are anticipated to be imperceptible and of negligible significance.

11.6.6. The impacts from on-site construction vehicle/plant emissions and construction dust are considered to have negligible, adverse direct effects on human health receptors. The construction phase is expected to be 36 months, however soil and spoil movement will represent only a small portion of this phase and therefore any such effects are considered short term, temporary and reversible.

11.6.7. The impacts from on-site construction vehicle emissions and construction dust are considered to have negligible, adverse effects on ecological receptors, and any such effects will be short term, temporary and reversible.

Operational – Human Health Receptors Impact

11.6.8. The Proposed Development PCs and traffic contributions (TCs) of NO2 and PM10 have been added to the modified baseline at each sensitive receptor to give the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC). These values are presented in Tables 11.10-11.11 below.

11.6.9. The PCs of other IED species have been added to the modified baseline at the location of maximum impact to give the PEC, as presented in Table 11.12 below. The PCs have been compared with the EALs defined for human health.

Table 11.10 Proposed Development NO2 Operational Contributions

Sensitive Receptor

Modified 2018 NO2 Baseline

(µg/m3)

2018 NO2 with development

(µg/m3)

Change

(µg/m3)

Significance of effect

R1* 28.9 29.5 0.6 Negligible

R2* 28.2 28.5 0.3 Negligible

R3* 30.5 30.6 0.1 Negligible

R4* 30.6 30.8 0.1 Negligible

R5* 33.7 35.4 1.8 Minor adverse

R6* 30.9 31.5 0.8 Negligible




Sensitive Receptor

Modified 2018 NO2 Baseline

(µg/m3)

2018 NO2 with development

(µg/m3)

Change

(µg/m3)


R7* 25.3 25.3 0.1 Negligible

R8* 28.4 29.3 0.9 Negligible

R9 19.7 20.1 0.4 Negligible

R10* 21.0 21.1 0.1 Negligible

R11 21.22 21.6 0.4 Negligible

R12* 28.3 28.8 0.5 Negligible

R13* 29.1 29.9 0.8 Negligible

R14* 33.0 33.9 0.9 Negligible

R15* 25.9 26.6 0.7 Negligible

R16* 32.3 32.8 0.5 Negligible

R17* 28.1 29.2 1.24 Negligible

R18 19.4 20.1 0.8 Negligible Notes: *Denotes Receptor within NO2 AQMA

Table 11.12 Proposed Development PM10 Operational Contributions

Sensitive Receptor

Modified 2018 PM10 Baseline

(µg/m3)

2018 PM10 with development

(µg/m3)

Change

(µg/m3)


R1 20.7 20.7 <0.1 Negligible

R2 20.6 20.7 <0.1 Negligible

R3 20.9 21.0 <0.1 Negligible

R4 21.0 21.0 <0.1 Negligible

R5 20.6 20.8 0.16 Negligible


R7 19.1 19.2 <0.1 Negligible


R9 17.2 17.3 <0.1 Negligible

R10 18.7 18.7 <0.1 Negligible

R11 17.6 17.6 <0.1 Negligible

R12 20.6 20.6 <0.1 Negligible

R13 20.1 20.1 0.1 Negligible

R14 20.7 20.8 0.1 Negligible

R15 21.4 21.4 0.1 Negligible

R16 20.7 20.8 <0.1 Negligible

R17 20.4 20.4 0.1 Negligible

R18 17.2 17.2 <0.1 Negligible


Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: P-aD.1.


Table 11.13 Proposed Development Operational Contributions - Maximum Predicted Concentrations from Dispersion Modelling

Pollutant Measured as EAL

(µg/m3)

PC

(µg/m3) PC / EAL

AC

(µg/m3)

PEC

(µg/m3) PEC / EAL

Significance for human

health receptors

SO2

24-Hour Mean (99.2nd %ile) 125 2.22 1.8% 15.6 17.8 14% Negligible

Hourly Mean (99.7th %ile) 350 8.60 2.5% 15.6 24.2 7% Negligible

15-Minute- Mean (99.9th %%ile) 266 10.38 3.9% 15.6 26.0 10% Negligible

PM2.5 Annual Mean 25 0.05 0.3% 12.5 12.6 63% Negligible

CO 8-Hour Rolling Annual Mean 10,000 6.70 0.1% 711 718 7% Negligible

NH3 Annual Mean 180 0.05 <0.1% 2.1 2.2 1% Negligible

Maximum Hourly Mean 2,500 2.42 0.1% 4.2 6.6 <1% Negligible

VOCs (as benzene) Annual Mean 5 0.05 1.0% 0.5 0.6 12% Negligible

HCl Maximum Hourly Mean 750 0.05 <0.1% 0.4 0.5 <1% Negligible

HF Annual Mean 16 0.005 <0.1% 0.3 0.3 2% Negligible

Maximum Hourly Mean 160 0.242 0.2% 0.6 0.9 <1% Negligible

Mercury Annual Average 2.5E-01 2.7E-04 0.1% 6.6E-04 9.2E-04 <1% Negligible

Maximum Hourly Mean 7.5E+00 1.2E-02 0.2% 1.3E-03 1.3E-02 <1% Negligible

Cd and Tl Annual Average 5.0E-03 2.7E-04 5.5% 8.6E-04 1.1E-03 23% Minor Adverse

Other Metals (as lead) Annual Average 2.5E-01 3.0E-04 1.1% 1.9E-02 2.2E-02 9% Negligible

Other Metals (as chromium) Maximum Hourly Mean 150 0.121 <0.1% 0.014 0.135 <1% Negligible Table Notes: EAL= Human Health Environmental Assessment Level; PC = Process Contribution; AC = Ambient Baseline Concentration (Modified for 2018 with FM1 data as appropriate),annual mean

concentration doubled for short term estimation; PEC = Predicted Environmental Concentration.




NOx (as NO2) Process Contribution Impacts

11.6.10. The long term process contribution assumes a 70% conversion of NOx to NO2, as per EA guidance. The proposed development is located within the AQMA declared by WMDC for NO2. The receptor R12 (Castleford Lane) is within the AQMA and is predicted to experience an increase in process contribution of 1% of the long term EAL and is therefore at the threshold for insignificance. However the PEC at this receptor is less than 75% of the long term air quality standard and therefore no exceedence of the NAQS is predicted. The assessment uses conservative assumptions, including that the process is operating at the ELV continuously for the year, therefore this process contribution is considered to represent the worst-case.

11.6.11. The highest impacts from the process emissions are predicted in Brotherton. Residences on Church Street (R18) are predicted to experience the worst-case long term PC (2% of EAL) whilst Brotherton School (R9) is predicted to be at the threshold for insignificance (1% of the EAL). However these receptors are not located within the AQMA and are not affected by increased road traffic emissions from the Proposed Development.

11.6.12. The short term process contribution assumes a 50% conversion of NOx to NO2, as per EA H1 screening guidance. The maximum PEC of NO2 is 33% of the hourly NAQS objective, and therefore can be considered to be well below the objective. It is therefore considered very unlikely that the Proposed Development would result in a breach of the hourly average NAQS at off-site locations, and consequently is unlikely to cause significant impacts on sensitive human health receptors.

Particulates (expressed as PM10) Process Contribution Impacts

11.6.13. The maximum annual average PM10 PC is 0.1 µg/m³, representing less than 1% of the annual average NAQS objective.

11.6.14. The PM10 maximum process contribution (as the 90.4th percentile of 24-hourly averages) is predicted to be less than 1% of the NAQS objective. Due to the relatively high baseline concentration (taken to be 39 µg/m3, twice the annual average concentration) the predicted environmental concentration of PM10 is 79% of the NAQS objective, however it is considered very unlikely that the contribution from the Proposed Development would lead to an exceedance of the NAQS objective.

Other Species

11.6.15. The majority of other species included within the scope of the modelling assessment are predicted to have process contributions less than 1% of the long term EAL or less than 10% of the short term EAL and are therefore considered to be insignificant in accordance with EA EPR H1 guidance.

11.6.16. The exception is emission of cadmium and thallium for which maximum annual average process contribution of the Proposed Development are predicted to be around 6% of the EAL(as worst-case cadmium (Cd)), as a result of emissions assumed to be at IED limits for the use of waste derived fuels on a continuous basis, a highly conservative assumption. An estimate of the ambient concentration for Cd has been obtained for this assessment from Defra’s Urban Heavy Metals Monitoring Network, operated by the National Physical Laboratory. The ambient concentrations are measured as the particulate fraction and are taken from the nearest background site, in Sheffield Centre. The estimate for ambient Cd is 17% of the EAL. The PEC, including the modified baseline with FM1 contributions, is predicted to be 23% of the EAL and therefore the process contribution is considered unlikely to present a risk of exceedance of the EAL. The impact of process emissions are therefore considered to have negligible effect.




Traffic Impacts on NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations

11.6.17. Full traffic results for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are provided in Technical Appendix 11A – Air Quality.

11.6.18. All receptor locations are predicted to comply with the NO2 annual average NAQS objective and no locations are anticipated to exceed the 1-hour NO2 NAQS objective. Annual average increases in concentration of NO2 from traffic associated with the Proposed Development are predicted to range between 0.1 and 1.5 µg/m³. These changes equate to imperceptible and small magnitude changes in concentration. The biggest changes in NO2 annual average concentration are predicted at Receptor R5 on Stranglands Lane close to the Site.

11.6.19. All receptor locations are predicted to comply with the PM10 annual average NAQS objective and no locations are anticipated to exceed the 24-hour PM10 NAQS objective. Annual average increases in concentration of PM10 from traffic associated with the Proposed Development are predicted to range between less than 0.1 and 0.1 µg/m³. Additionally, there is no change predicted in the number of days exceeding 50 µg/m³. These changes in annual average and 24-hour PM10 concentration are considered to be of an imperceptible magnitude.

11.6.20. All receptor locations are predicted to comply with the PM2.5 annual average NAQS objective. Annual average increases in concentration of PM2.5 with the Proposed Development are predicted to range between less than 0.1 and 0.1 µg/m³. These changes are considered to be of an imperceptible magnitude.

Combined Process Contribution and Traffic Impacts on NO2, PM10 and PM2.5

11.6.21. A combined assessment of road traffic pollutant concentrations from vehicles using routes to and from the Site along with point source emissions has also been undertaken. This assessment has been undertaken by combining results from the stack emissions assessment and road traffic emissions assessment undertaken for those receptors modelled for both sources (Receptors R1, R2, R5, R6, R8, R11 to R17). In particular, the combined annual average NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 results have been considered.

11.6.22. All receptor locations are predicted to comply with the NO2 annual average NAQS objective. Annual average increases in concentration of NO2 with the Proposed Development are predicted to range between 0.2 and 1.9 µg/m³. These changes equate to imperceptible and small magnitude changes in concentration. The biggest changes in NO2 annual average concentration are predicted at Receptor R5 on Stranglands Lane close to the Site.

11.6.23. All receptor locations are predicted to comply with the PM10 annual average NAQS objective. Annual average increases in concentration of PM10 with the Proposed Development are predicted to range between less than 0.1 and 0.2 µg/m³. These changes in annual average PM10 concentration are considered to be of an imperceptible magnitude.

11.6.24. All receptor locations are predicted to comply with the PM2.5 annual average NAQS objective. Annual average increases in concentration of PM2.5 with the Proposed Development are predicted to range between less than 0.1 and 0.1 µg/m³. These changes are considered to be of an imperceptible magnitude.

Effect

11.6.25. The effects of emissions of pollutants resulting from operation of the Proposed Development on human health receptors are considered to be negligible for all other species emitted individually from FM2 point sources, road traffic or combined.




Operational – Ecological Receptors Impact

11.6.26. The impact of process emissions on ecological receptors has been assessed through comparison of the maximum predicted process contributions, at any of the identified sensitive Habitat receptors, with the CLPVEs. The results of the dispersion modelling and impact assessment are provided in the Technical Appendix 11A for the worst-case Habitats receptor. The impact of traffic emissions on ecological receptors are not considered as these are localised impacts only.

11.6.27. None of the CLPVEs for ecological receptors are predicted to be exceeded as a result of additional process contributions from the Proposed Development. Process contributions of NO2, SO2 and HF are close to below the threshold for insignificance as defined in the EPR H1 guidance.

11.6.28. The worst-case annual average process contribution of ammonia at any habitat site is predicted to be 0.03 µg/m3, representing 1% of the CLPVE defined for higher plants or 3% of the CLPVE for sensitive species. Whilst it is recognised that the predicted environmental concentrations at the Habitat Receptors represent up to 200% of the CLPVE for more sensitive lichen communities and bryophytes, this is composed almost wholly of the background concentration obtained for a rural area, where levels of ammonia are likely to be higher than in urban areas, due to its use in farming practices. The process contribution is at the threshold for insignificance, with conservative modelling assumptions.

Effect

11.6.29. The effects of emissions of pollutants resulting from operation of the Proposed Development on ecological receptors are considered to be negligible.

Deposition Process Contribution Impacts – Nutrient nitrogen

11.6.30. A review of the habitats closest to the Proposed Development has identified that the most sensitive habitat type to nitrogen deposition is ‘Fens and Marshes –Lowland Valley Mires’ present at Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI. This habitat has a critical load range of 5-10 kg nitrogen per hectare per year (N/ha/yr).

11.6.31. The APIS site indicates that the Fairburn and Newton Ings site is already subject to a nitrogen deposition rate of 21.5 kg N/ha/yr, which is 6.5 kg N/yr higher than the highest critical load. Relative to the current rate of deposition, plus potential worst-case contribution from FM1, the maximum increase in nitrogen deposition predicted with the Proposed Development represents an increase of less than 1%.

Deposition Process Contribution Impacts – Acidity

11.6.32. The highest predicted process contribution to acid deposition is at E1 – Fairburn and Newton Ings. The most sensitive feature present at this site is ‘Fens and Marshes –Lowland Valley Mires’. The background deposition at this location is currently below the critical levels for sulphur acidity and below the upper critical level defined for nitrogen acidity; the total acid deposition is below the critical level.

11.6.33. The total process contribution to acid deposition is less than 1% of the upper critical load and the total PEC, including baseline contribution, is 39% of the upper critical load.

Effect

11.6.34. The effects of NOx (as NO2) on ecological receptors are considered to be negligible, as whilst the baseline concentration is 77% of the AQS, the change in concentration is very small at the worst-case receptor.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 11.6.35. Comparing the increase in nitrogen deposition from the Proposed Development with the

critical load range shows an increase of less than 1%. Given the worst-case assumptions made in this assessment, the effects of process contributions on nutrient nitrogen are considered to be negligible at ecological receptors.

11.6.36. The increase in acidity deposition from the Proposed Development with the critical load range shows an increase of <1%. Given the worst-case assumptions made in this assessment, the effects of process contributions on acidity deposition are considered to be negligible at ecological receptors.

11.7. Mitigation Measures

Construction 11.7.1. It has been assumed in this assessment that the application of standard dust control

measures will be normal working practice at the Site during the construction phase, based on a CEMP that will be prepared and implemented by the construction contractor.

11.7.2. Appropriate best practice control measures to be considered for implementation include:

Site Planning

• no bonfires on site;

• site layout will be planned – machinery and dust causing activities will be located away from sensitive receptors where possible;

• all site personnel will be fully trained in dust management and control;

• trained and responsible manager on site during working times to maintain logbook and carry out site inspections; and

• hard surfaces on major site haul routes.

Construction Traffic

• all vehicles to switch off engines when not in use– no idling vehicles;

• regular vehicle cleaning and specific fixed wheel washing on leaving site and damping down of haul routes;

• all loads entering and leaving site will be covered;

• minimise movement of construction traffic around site; and

• hard surfacing and effective cleaning of haul routes and appropriate speed limit around site.

Site Clearance Works

• use water as dust suppressant where appropriate during dry weather; and

• use enclosed chutes and covered skips.

Operational 11.7.3. In view of the potential for adverse environmental effects, and the restrictions on

emissions to air from the Proposed Development that will be incorporated into any Environmental Permit, a comprehensive suite of controls on emissions to air will be




implemented as an integral part of the design and operation of the power station, in accordance with the use of BAT.

11.7.4. In summary the key controls incorporated in the Proposed Development, representing BAT, would include the following:

• control on combustion conditions (e.g. maintaining the flue gases above the minimum temperature specified in the IED for a sufficient time and with adequate mixing);

• rapid cooling of the flue gases to reduce the formation of dioxins and furans;

• injection of ammonia solution or urea to remove oxides of nitrogen from the flue gases (if required);

• injection of lime or sodium bicarbonate for control of acid gases, including SO2;

• injection of activated carbon for control of mercury and dioxins and furans;

• a bag filter system for removal of particulate matter; and

• continuous monitoring of emissions and combustion performance to optimise process conditions and maintain compliance with emission limit values.

11.7.5. The final controls and monitoring required for the operation of FM2 will be agreed in consultation with the EA, as the Pollution Control Authority for the Proposed Development.

Decommissioning 11.7.6. In the decommissioning phase similar mitigation measures as outlined for the

construction phase would be implemented.

11.8. Residual Effect Assessment

Construction 11.8.1. The air quality assessment has assumed that the measures outlined within the mitigation

section would be incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development, as they are standard best practice measures that are routinely applied across UK construction sites. No specific additional mitigation has been identified as necessary for the construction phase of the Proposed Development. For this reason, the residual effects would be as reported within the Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects section of this chapter. A summary of residual effects is provided in Table 23.1.

Operational 11.8.2. The air quality assessment has assumed that the measures outlined within the mitigation

section would be incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development, as they are required to be applied in accordance with the best practice requirements of the Environmental Permitting regime. No specific additional mitigation has been identified as necessary for the operational phase of the Proposed Development. For this reason, the residual effects would be as reported within the Potential Impacts section of this chapter. A summary of residual effects is provided in Table 23.1.

Decommissioning 11.8.3. Consistent with construction mitigation, it has been assumed that relevant best practice

mitigation measures would be in place during any decommissioning works. No specific




additional mitigation has been identified as necessary for the operational phase of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the decommissioning residual effects would be as reported within the Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects section of this chapter. A summary of residual effects is provided in Table 23.1.

11.9. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 11.9.1. There are no impacts and effects yet to be determined, though it should be recognised

that various design decisions may lead to changes in the assumptions used. Where this is the case changes will be highlighted in the final ES and the reasons for them.

11.10. References Ref. 11-1 Environmental Permitting Regulations Horizontal Guidance, Environmental

Risk Assessment, Annex F - Air Quality; Environment Agency; 2011

Ref. 11-2 Environmental Protection. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. 2010 No. 1001; The National Archives; 2010

Ref. 11-3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 1, HA207/07 Air Quality, dated May 2007; Highways Agency; 2007

Ref. 11-4 Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities; Building Research Establishment; 2003

Ref. 11-5 Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update); Update guidance from Environmental Protection UK on dealing with air quality concerns within the development control process; EPUK; 2010

Ref. 11-6 Critical Load Function Tool. Available from http://www.apis.ac.uk/critical-load-function-tool; APIS; Accessed August 2013

Ref. 11-7 Air Quality Management Technical Guidance 2009 LAQM; Defra (2009)

Ref. 11-8 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration; European Commission; 2006

Ref. 11-9 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html; Defra; Accessed August 2013

Ref. 11-10 Environmental Information Data Centre; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2013). Available from: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/index.html Accessed August 2013.


http://www.apis.ac.uk/critical-load-function-tool

http://www.apis.ac.uk/critical-load-function-tool

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/index.html



12. NOISE AND VIBRATION

12.1. Introduction 12.1.1. This chapter assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed

Development with respect to noise and vibration.

12.1.2. Impacts are considered during the construction phase and on completion and operation of the Proposed Development. In particular, the chapter considers potential impacts on identified receptors, in terms of:

• predicted noise and vibration levels from the construction works;

• noise resulting from operation of the Proposed Development; and

• an increase in noise associated with increases to road and rail traffic attributed to the Proposed Development.

12.1.3. The extent of the study area is governed by the nearest receptors in each direction to the Proposed Development Site and transport corridors that will be affected by changes in road traffic flows during the construction and operational phases of the development.

Key Parameters for Assessment 12.1.4. The Rochdale Envelope is not applicable to this chapter in that the variation in building

dimensions presented in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development is unlikely to affect noise outputs (including in the provision of any screening function for noise). There is variation in the height of the ramp that HGVs will use to access the tipping hall; however, noise modelling has been carried out assuming the ramp reaches 11 metres in height (as may be required for a fully above ground fuel bunker) to cover a worst case scenario. The area of the ACCs is subject to change as per the parameter tables in Chapter 4 The Project Description. From a noise perspective, as the northwest corner is a fixed location, the effect of screening from the proposed buildings and structures surrounding the ACCs will be the same no matter the dimensions of the ACCs, therefore this assessment is based only on the maximum ACCs size/area and representative noise figures for industry standard ACCs. This is considered to represent worst case noise levels that may result from the ACCs.

12.1.5. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Noise and Vibration assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

12.1.6. There are no prescribed national standards or guidelines that give noise limits for construction sites. British Standard 5228 (Ref 12-1) provides a number of example criteria including an assessment of the significance of noise effects based on fixed noise limits.

12.2. Methodology 12.2.1. A methodology for assessing the significance of demolition and construction noise

impacts in relation to the ambient noise levels, known as the ‘ABC’ method is contained within the British Standard BS 5228:2009 (Ref 12-1). The assessment criterion is presented in Table 12.1.




Table 12.1 Construction Noise Criteria

Assessment Category Threshold Value (dB)

Category A Category B Category C

Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) 45 50 55

Evenings and Weekends 55 60 65

Daytime (07:00 – 19:00) and Saturdays (07:00 – 13:00) 65 70 75

NOTE 1: A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level, including construction, exceeds the threshold value for the category appropriate to the ambient noise level. LAeq is defined as the equivalent continuous level of ambient noise – when noise varies over time this is the equivalent continuous sound which would contain the same sound energy as the time varying sound.

NOTE 2: If the ambient noise level exceeds the threshold values given in the table, then a significant effect is deemed to occur if the total noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to construction activity.

NOTE 3: Applies to residential receptors only.

Category A: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than these values.

Category B: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as Category A values.

Category C: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than Category A values.

19:00 – 23:00 weekdays, 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays, 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.

12.2.2. Significance criteria for construction noise have been derived from the BS5228 guidance (Ref 12-1). A semantic scale for description of the noise effects is shown in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2 Semantic Scale for Description of Construction Noise Effects at Residential receptors

Description of Impact Significance of Effect

Combined ambient and construction noise level is not greater than the noise limit Negligible

Combined ambient and construction noise level exceeds the noise limit by no greater than 5 dB Minor Adverse

Combined ambient and construction noise level exceeds the noise limit by between 5 dB and 10 dB Moderate Adverse

Combined ambient and construction noise level exceeds the noise limit by greater than 10 dB Major Adverse

Construction Vibration – Human Receptors 12.2.3. BS 5228 Part 2 (Ref 12-2) provides further guidance on the perception of vibration within

occupied buildings. This provides a simple method of determining annoyance alongside evaluation of cosmetic damage associated with vibration.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 12.2.4. Table 12.3 details Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) levels (a standard measure of vibration

effects) and their potential effect on humans, and provides a semantic scale for description of construction and demolition vibration effects on human receptors.

Table 12.3 Guidance on Human Effects of Vibration Levels (PPV)

Vibration Level Description of Impact Significance of

Effect

0.14 mm/s

Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most vibration frequencies associated with

construction. At lower frequencies, people are less sensitive to vibration.

Negligible

0.3 mm/s Vibration might be just perceptible in residential

environments. Minor Adverse

1.0 mm/s

It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint, but can be tolerated if

prior warning and explanation has been given to residents.

Moderate Adverse

10 mm/s Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a

very brief exposure to this level. Major Adverse

Underground Services 12.2.5. BS 5228 Part 2 (Ref 12-2) contains information on vibration levels that are considered to

be the limits of tolerability for underground services. The following noise PPV vibration limits are recommended:

a) maximum PPV for intermittent or transient vibrations 30 mms−1; and

b) maximum PPV for continuous vibrations 15 mms−1.

12.2.6. Criteria should be applied at the nearest point to the source or activity.

12.2.7. In the event of encountering elderly and dilapidated brickwork sewers, the base data should be reduced by 20% to 50%. For most metal and reinforced concrete service pipes, however, the values in a) and b) are expected to be quite tolerable.

Traffic and Rail Noise 12.2.8. Construction traffic and operational traffic noise has been assessed by considering the

changes in traffic flows following completion of the Proposed Development, following the principles of Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) (Ref 12-3) and DMRB (Ref 12-4).

12.2.9. The criteria for the assessment of traffic noise changes arising from the Proposed Development have been taken from Table 3.1 of DMRB (Ref 12-4) and are provided in Table 12.4. It is considered reasonable to apply similar significance of effect categories to rail traffic movements.

Table 12.4 Traffic Noise Assessment Criteria

Increase in Road Traffic Noise Level Significance of Effect

0 dB(A) No change

0.1 – 0.9 dB(A) Negligible

1 – 2.9 dB(A) Minor Adverse




Table 12.4 Traffic Noise Assessment Criteria

Increase in Road Traffic Noise Level Significance of Effect

3 – 4.9 dB(A) Moderate Adverse

5 dB(A) or more Major Adverse Table Notes: dB (A) is decibels adjusted with ‘A’ contour to account for how the human ear responds to different frequencies of sound

12.2.10. In addition to the above, DMRB advises that an increase in road traffic flows of 25% (where the traffic speed and composition remain consistent) equates to an increase in road traffic noise of 1 decibel (dB). An increase in traffic flow of less than 25% is assumed to represent a negligible noise effect, as a change in noise of 1 dB upon opening of the project is considered the smallest level that is perceptible to the human ear.

12.2.11. Road traffic flows used in noise calculations are for the period from 06:00 hours to 24:00 hours, given in terms of the 18 hour Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) flow, percentage of HGVs, and vehicle speeds. The CRTN (Ref 12-3) contains the following equation for the calculation of the Basic Noise Level (BNL) from a road in terms of the 18-hour traffic flow from 06:00 to 24:00:

12.2.12. BNL LA10,18hour = 29.1 + 10log(Q) dB

• where Q is the traffic flow in 18 hour;

• where the percentage of HGVs is known, the following correction to the predicted noise level has been applied;

• correction = 33log(V+40+500/V) + 10log(1+5p/V) – 68.8; and

• where V is the mean traffic speed in km/hour; and p is the percentage heavy vehicles.

12.2.13. This methodology has been used to calculate road traffic noise levels in this chapter.

British Standard 4142 12.2.14. BS 4142 – ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial

Areas’ (Ref 12-5) provides guidance on the assessment of the likelihood of complaints relating to noise from plant and equipment. The standard presents a method of rating noise levels by comparing the noise level of the new source (the Rating Level) with the existing background noise level in the area in the absence of the plant and equipment noise (the BNL). Table 12.5 details assessment criteria to assess the likelihood of complaints due to plant noise.

Table 12.5 BS 4142 Noise Rating

Difference between Rating Level 1 and Background Level 2 BS 4142 Rating

-10 dB(A) or less Positive indication that complaints are unlikely.

+5 dB(A) Marginal significance.

+10 dB(A) or more Indicates complaints are likely. Table Notes: 1 - The Rating Level is the noise level attributable to the new source(s), plus a 5 dB(A) penalty if the new source has tonal or intermittent characteristics; 2 - The Background Level is taken as the LA90; this is the ambient noise level in the absence of the source which is exceeded for 90% of the time.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 12.2.15. The effects of industrial noise stated within BS 4142 (Ref 12-5) can be interpreted

differently. WMDC requires that noise emissions should be targeted to be 10 dB below the background noise level; whereas Environmental permitting requirements specify that operational noise should be the same as the background noise level to be sure there is no reasonable cause for annoyance.

12.2.16. A table of significance of noise effects has been derived based on guidance within BS 4142 (Ref 12-5), and noise criteria defined by WMDC and by the EA for Environmental Permitting is presented in Table 12.6.

Table 12.6 Significance of Operational Noise Effects

Description of Impact Significance of Effect

Greater than 10 dB below background noise level Negligible

Between 0 and 10 dB below background noise level Minor adverse

Between 0 and 10 dB above background noise level Moderate adverse

Greater than 10 dB above background noise level Major adverse


Receptors 12.3.1. The locations of noise sensitive receptors selected for the assessment are presented in

Figure 12.1. These receptors were considered to be representative of the nearest settlements to the Proposed Development. Consequently, these receptors represent locations at which worst case noise impacts from the Proposed Development will occur.

12.3.2. It should be noted that noise levels at the two Oakland Hill receptors are considered to be comparable, and noise levels logged at the Pollards Field location are considered representative of Kirkhaw Lane noise levels.

Existing Baseline Conditions 12.3.3. A noise survey was undertaken by URS as part of the 2009 ES for FM1 (Ref. 12-6) from

the 22nd to 24th April 2009 to derive background noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Site. The LA90 noise metric is a statistical value that represents the noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time. Consequently, the value of the LA90 depends on the range of noise levels; a large range in noise levels will result in a large difference between LA90 and LAeq (the equivalent continuous ambient noise level) whereas a stable and continuous noise will result in a small difference between LA90 and LAeq.

12.3.4. The results of noise measurements are presented in Table 12.7.

Table 12.7 URS 2009 Noise Survey Results

Location Daytime (07:00-23:00) Night-time (23:00-07:00)

LAeq (dB) LA90 (dB) LAeq (dB) LA90 (dB)

Pollards Fields 58.6 – 61.6 48.3 – 50.5 45.4 – 54.3 41.7 – 47.7

Holmfield Farm 56.9 – 58.9 49.8 – 52.4 47.2 – 52.7 40.2 – 49.8

Oakland Hill Estate Mobile Caravan Park

59.0 – 59.3 55.1 – 57.0 - -




Table 12.7 URS 2009 Noise Survey Results

Location Daytime (07:00-23:00) Night-time (23:00-07:00)

LAeq (dB) LA90 (dB) LAeq (dB) LA90 (dB)

Water Fryston, Castleford 50.2 – 61.3 43.0 – 46.9 45.0 – 49.3 38.3 – 42.8

Low Street, Brotherton Village

51.9 – 53.4 48.5 – 50.4 41.5 – 50.7 38.3 – 44.7

High Street, Brotherton Village

48.9 – 55.5 45.0 – 51.9 43.1 – 46.9 38.2 – 45.8

12.3.5. No night-time noise measurements were undertaken at Oakland Hill so the noise criteria for FM1 EIA was derived from background noise measurements logged at Holmfield Farm. As Holmfield Farm is well screened from the A1(M) it was considered necessary to take additional noise measurements at Oakland Hill, which receives significantly less screening from the A1(M). Consequently, the site was revisited by SLR Consulting Limited who undertook a noise survey during the night-time period on 10th and 11th June 2013 at Oakland Hill Estate and Holmfield Farm. Construction work was taking place on FM1 during the noise monitoring period; however, no construction activities were taking place during the night-time period.

12.3.6. The results of the SLR noise survey indicate that the LA90 background noise levels logged at Oakland Hill Estate receptors are approximately 5 dB higher than those logged in the 2009 URS survey at Holmfield Farm. This is corroborated by the daytime LA90 background noise measurements at Holmfield Farm and Oakland Hill presented in Table 12.7 which are approximately 5 dB different.

12.3.7. Consequently, the night-time LA90 background noise level at Oakland Hill is considered to range from around 45 dB to 55 dB, and the LAeq,T (the equivalent continuous ambient noise level over a set time period) at night was logged as 55 dB.

Modified Baseline 12.3.8. The noise metric used to assess noise generated by FM2 is the LA90 background noise

level.

12.3.9. The modified baseline is defined as the existing baseline including noise that is predicted to originate from the consented FM1 development. As the background LA90 is a statistical value and cannot be accurately estimated for future noise conditions, the current measured baseline noise levels will be used to assess the impact of the proposed FM2 development. This is considered to represent a worst case assessment scenario as background noise levels are unlikely to decrease in the future and hence the noise limits derived from the background noise level are unlikely to be lower for the modified baseline and future baseline scenario.

12.3.10. This methodology is considered to be robust as, if noise generated from the consented FM1 development were to result in an increase in background noise level, the threshold against which noise generated from the FM2 development is to be assessed would correspondingly increase. Similarly, there is an operational permitting condition for the FM1 plant for the noise levels from FM1 to not give rise to an increase in background noise levels at the identified sensitive receptors.




12.4. Development Design and Impact Avoidance 12.4.1. Design of the Proposed Development has been carried out in conjunction with URS

acoustics consultants to identify locations and building orientations that would minimise the noise impact at nearby noise sensitive receptors.

12.4.2. Noise mitigation measures that were analysed during the preparation of the concept layout included:

• locating the main FM2 development in the north-east section of the Site thus increasing the separation distance to Oakland Hill receptors;

• locating the main FM2 development so it would screen Oakland Hill receptors from FM1 air cooled condensers noise; and

• locating FM2 buildings so they would provide maximum screening of FM2 air cooled condensers noise for Oakland Hill receptors.

12.4.3. The chosen layout considers the findings of the noise assessment along with other appraisals of potential environmental impacts and construction and operation factors to achieve the optimal layout considering all relevant factors.

12.4.4. Construction activities may take place outside of normal working hours, as undertaken during the construction of FM1. Conditions will be set to minimise potential noise impacts due to construction activities outside of normal working hours. These conditions will involve:

• abiding by construction noise limits at nearby noise sensitive receptors;

• application of best practicable means construction practices; and

• consultation with WMDC and local residents to advise of potential noisy works that are due to take place.

12.5. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 12.5.1. The consultation responses received regarding noise are summarised in Table 12.7

below.

Table 12.8 Consultee Responses


Secretary of State – Scoping Opinion

July 2013

Inclusion of FM1 noise into the baseline for the assessment should include traffic movements related to FM1; scope of noise and vibration assessment should be clarified and agreed in consultation with relevant consultees; noise and vibration effects on ecology should be considered; assessment should cross-reference transport and access assessment; should consider potential noise disturbance during unsocial hours; consideration should be given to appropriate mitigation measures.




Table 12.8 Consultee Responses


Public Consultation Informal Consultation July to Sept 2013

Local residents raised concerns about the potential for noise from the facility. In general no issues to date from FM1 construction re noise or vibration (one reported noise issue proved not to be due to FM1 works); concern about nature of noise as well as sound levels.

WMDC October 2013

WMDC confirmed they were satisfied with the assessment methodology and the selection of noise sensitive receptors used to assess noise impacts.

12.5.2. A scoping report (dated June 2013) was submitted which detailed the noise and vibration assessment methodology. A point was raised by the Secretary of State to clarify if operational vibration would be considered in the assessment; however, due to the separation distance from the Site to nearest receptors (approximately 200 metres) it is considered that operational vibration will not be perceptible to sensitive receptors. Construction vibration is considered below.


Construction Noise

Impact 12.6.1. The proposed construction programme for FM2 has been assumed to be comparable to

the process employed for construction of the FM1 facility. Consequently, the assessment methodology for calculating construction noise levels utilised in the 2009 FM1 ES (Ref. 12-6) has been referenced for calculation of anticipated construction noise levels from FM2 construction.

12.6.2. Construction predictions have been carried out using noise data for plant and calculation methodologies from BS 5228. Noise predictions have been carried out using Cadna-A noise modelling software. Full details on the noise modelling methodology, including a full list of construction plant and associated sound power levels for each construction phase, are presented in Appendix12A. Noise contour plots showing the results of construction noise predictions are presented in Figures 12.2 to 12.6. A summary of noise predictions at key receptor locations are presented in Table 12.8.

12.6.3. As no evening ambient noise levels were logged, it is considered appropriate to use the night-time noise levels as equivalent. Although the evening noise levels are likely to be higher than the night-time noise levels, using the night-time noise levels ensures that noise limits can be applied which cover a worst case scenario.

12.6.4. A summary of measured LAeq,T noise levels at receptors and the associated ‘ABC’ noise criteria categories (as per Table 12.1) are presented in Table 12.9.




Table 12.9 Measured LAeq,T Noise Levels and Associated ‘ABC’ Assessment Category

Receptor

Day Evening Night

LAeq,T

dB ABC

Category LAeq,T

dB ABC

Category LAeq,

T dB ABC

Category

Pollards Field, Ferrybridge

60 A 51 A 51 C

Lumb Bungalow, Ferrybridge

60 A 51 A 51 C

1 & 2 Kirkhaw Lane, Ferrybridge

60 A 51 A 51 C

Holmfield Farm, Knottingley

58 A 51 A 51 C

94 Willow Lane, Oakland Hill

59 A 55 B 55 C


59 A 55 B 55 C

Water Fryston, Castleford 58 A 48 A 48 C


53 A 48 A 48 C


57 A 46 A 46 B

12.6.5. Construction noise limits have been derived using the BS 5228 ABC methodology and ABC categories assigned to each receptor (see Table 12.10). Part of the condition for carrying out construction work outside of normal working hours is that it is proposed that these noise limits will not be exceeded at nearby noise sensitive receptors.

Table 12.10 Construction Noise Limits

Receptor

Construction Noise Limit LAeq,1h dB

Daytime Evening Night-time

Pollards Field, Ferrybridge 65 55 55

Lumb Bungalow, Ferrybridge 65 55 55

1 & 2 Kirkhaw Lane, Ferrybridge 65 55 55

Holmfield Farm, Knottingley 65 55 55

94 Willow Lane, Oakland Hill 65 60 55


Water Fryston, Castleford 65 55 55

Low Street, Brotherton Village 65 55 55

High Street, Brotherton Village 65 55 50




12.6.6. Construction predictions of typical daytime constructions activities have been carried out using noise data for plant and calculation methodologies from BS 5228. Noise predictions have been carried out using Cadna-A noise modelling software. Full details on the noise modelling methodology, including a full list of construction plant and associated sound power levels for each construction phase, are presented in Appendix 12A. Noise contour plots showing the results of construction noise predictions are presented in Figures 12.2 to 12.6. A summary of noise predictions at key receptor locations are presented in Table 12.11.

Table 12.11 Daytime Construction Noise Predictions

Receptor

Predicted Façade Noise Level for Construction Activity LAeq,1h dB

Site Clearance

Piling and Foundation Building Fit Out Landscaping

Pollards Field, Ferrybridge 36 38 37 35 25

Lumb Bungalow, Ferrybridge 37 33 32 29 25

1 & 2 Kirkhaw Lane, Ferrybridge 41 35 34 32 29

Holmfield Farm, Knottingley 55 57 56 55 44

94 Willow Lane, Oakland Hill 60 60 59 58 49

73 Willow Lane, Oakland Hill 66 68 67 64 54

Water Fryston, Castleford 37 38 37 34 25

Low Street, Brotherton Village 54 53 52 49 42

High Street, Brotherton Village 53 55 54 52 41

Effect 12.6.7. The significance of effect of construction noise during the daytime period (see Table

12.12) have been derived using noise criteria in Table 12.1 and semantic descriptors in Table 12.2. The noise criteria adopted for all locations is 65 LAeq,1h dB which is the daytime construction noise limit for ambient noise levels in category A of the BS 5228 ABC method, as identified in Table 12.10.

Table 12.12 Daytime Construction Noise Effects

Receptor Site

Clearance Piling and

Foundation Building Fit Out Landscaping

Pollards Field, Ferrybridge


Lumb Bungalow, Ferrybridge





1 & 2 Kirkhaw Lane, Ferrybridge


Holmfield Farm, Knottingley





Minor Adverse Minor Adverse Minor Adverse Negligible Negligible

Water Fryston, Castleford






12.6.8. Construction noise effects at all receptors are negligible during the daytime period with the exception of noise effects at 73 Willow Lane which are predicted to be of minor adverse significance during site clearance, piling and foundation, and building construction work.

12.6.9. It is necessary for some construction activities, such as slip-forming, to take place continuously over day, evening and night periods, and during peak construction times 24 hour working may be necessary. Due to the sensitivity of receptors to construction noise generated outside of normal working hours, the potential impact of construction activities outside of normal working hours is considered to be significant and can be qualitatively be described as of moderate significance. Noise limits for evening and night-time periods have been defined in Table 12.10. Construction activities taking place outside normal working hours will need to be mitigated appropriately so they do not exceed the limits for construction noise that have been defined. If noise limits are not exceeded, construction activities outside of normal working hours can be considered as having a negligible effect.

12.6.10. A number of mitigation measures will be considered to control construction noise, examples of which are set out in Section 12.7 below. Specific measures will be implemented to control noise for any night time working. The measures to be adopted will be set out in the final ES and it is anticipated that once controls are in place the significance of construction noise effects will be negligible.

Construction Vibration

Impact 12.6.11. BS 5228 (Ref 12-1) indicates that construction activities (particularly piling) usually only

generate significant vibration impacts when they are located within 20 m from sensitive locations. The magnitude of effect depends on the type of piling, ground conditions, and receptor distance.

12.6.12. Table 12.13 provides PPV levels for auger piling activities at various distances sourced from BS 5228 Part 2 (Ref 12-2).




Table 12.13 Example Piling Vibration Levels

BS 5228 Reference No. Soil Conditions Piling Mode Plan Distance

(m) PPV (mm/s)

101 Fill / dense

ballast / London Clay

Augering 20 0.05

Auger hitting base of hole 20 0.23

103 Fill clay

Augering 20 0.30

Dollying casing 20 0.55

Spinning off 20 0.44

104 Fill / sand / clay

Augering 15 0.10

Auger hitting base of hole 14 0.30

Mudding in 14 0.20

Dollying casing 14 0.80

Effect 12.6.13. The nearest sensitive receptors (Oakland Hill Estate) are approximately 200 metres away

from the Proposed Development Site. Based on the separation distance between source and receptor and the example vibration levels in Table 12.13, potential vibration levels from piling affecting nearby sensitive receptors are considered to be limited to effects of negligible significance.

12.6.14. The likelihood of vibration resulting in cosmetic building damage to existing surrounding buildings would require levels of vibration in excess of vibration levels that may result in complaints. Consequently, the likelihood of cosmetic building damage due to piling vibration is of negligible significance.

12.6.15. A full utilities search is underway, but at the current time it is understood that the nearest off-site underground facilities are on Stranglands Lane, which is approximately 500 metres from the Site. These facilities are located far enough away that piling vibration will not have an adverse effect.

12.6.16. There are underground pipework and cables on-site which are associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’ and FM1. Although it is unlikely that piling will result in high enough levels of vibration to damage pipework, due care should be taken if pipework or cables are located in close proximity to piling activities (i.e. within 5 metres).

12.6.17. Additionally, the Fryston Beck is culverted under part of the site. The FM1 site is in closer proximity to the Fryston Beck Culvert and no damage to the culvert is known to have been caused during piling so it is anticipated that no damage will be caused during FM2 piling given the increased distance from the culvert. The location of culverts should, however, be taken into account when compiling a methodology for carrying out piling. Piling in close proximity to underground culverts should be avoided where possible and due care should be taken when piling in close proximity to culverts to avoid unnecessary damage.




Construction Traffic Impact

12.6.18. Information on existing traffic flows on surrounding roads is provided in Chapter 10 Transport and Access. Based on information in Chapter 6 Construction Programme and Management, the estimated daily numbers of vehicles accessing the Proposed Development site during the construction works are presented in Table 12.14.

12.6.19. 18-hour AAWT flows have been derived from 24-hour 5 day AADT flows using a correction factor of 0.964 for total vehicles and 0.975 for HGVs. This correction factor is based upon traffic counts carried out on Stranglands Lane.

12.6.20. It is considered that road traffic flows on Stranglands Lane will be representative of minor roads in the local road network so the conversion factor can be applied to all road links covered in the assessment. The conversion factor may result in an under-prediction of baseline traffic flows on the A162, lower baseline flows will result in a higher percentage increase in and thus changes in road traffic noise on the A162 can be considered as worst case.

12.6.21. The BNL for each road link has been calculated for the baseline scenario and corresponding baseline with construction traffic scenario. The results of BNL calculations are presented in Table 12.15. The difference in calculated BNL between the two scenarios allows the significance of construction traffic noise impacts to be derived (see Table 12.1).

Table 12.14 Construction Traffic

Road Link Speed (km/h)

Baseline Road Traffic

Baseline + Construction Road Traffic

AAWT HGV % AAWT HGV %

Kirkhaw Lane 20 1480 54% 1609 59%

Stranglands Lane –West of the unnamed road

30 11718 3% 12292 3%

Stranglands Lane - Between unnamed road & Kirkhaw Lane

30 12905 7% 13538 7%

Stranglands Lane - Kirkhaw Lane & Old Great North Road

30 13413 11% 14071 11%

The Square - Between Old Great North Road & High Street

30 15355 5% 16108 5%

A162 South of B6136 70 15019 7% 15740 7%

A162 North of B6136 from new Roundabout

70 16984 5% 17800 5%

Table 12.15 Construction Traffic Noise Calculations

Road Link Baseline BNL

Baseline + Construction

BNL Difference Significance

Kirkhaw Lane 56.2 56.6 +0.4 Negligible




Stranglands Lane - West of the unnamed road

65.0 65.2 +0.2 Negligible

Stranglands Lane - Between unnamed road & Kirkhaw Lane






A162 South of B6136 70.4 70.6 +0.2 Negligible



Effect

12.6.22. The worst case predicted change in noise level due to construction traffic is approximately 0.4 dB. A change of this magnitude is considered to be of negligible significance.

12.6.23. It should be noted that construction HGV movements may be required outside normal working hours although they are likely to occur between 06:30 and 22:30. It is possible in exceptional circumstances that deliveries may take place after midnight if a situation arises where, for example, the on-site batching plant goes off-line and deliveries of concrete are required so the slip-forming process can continue.

12.6.24. The potential of construction vehicles to disturb sensitive residential receptors at night is considered to be significant, so the noise effect of night-time construction traffic can be considered qualitatively as moderate adverse.

12.6.25. Consequently, while potential emergency deliveries and abnormal loads outside of normal working hours may be required during construction, noise mitigation measures will be developed during the EIA process and put in place to minimise potential noise impacts that may occur due to HGV movements outside of normal working hours.

Operational Impacts Impact

12.6.26. Noise predictions have been carried out to quantify the potential noise impact arising from the operational facility. A 5 dB correction has not been applied to take into any impulsive or tonal features of operational noise as it is assumed that operational noise will not contain any impulsive or spectral characteristics. Spectral data for ACCs units will be reviewed when vendor data become available at the detailed design stage. If tonal characteristics are evident, mitigation measures will be considered to reduce tonality in ACC noise emissions.

12.6.27. Noise predictions at nearby sensitive receptors have been carried out using Cadna-A noise modelling software. Full details on the noise modelling software including noise source data for buildings and plant, and associated noise source site locations, are presented in Appendix 12A. The results of operational noise predictions are presented in Figure 12.7 and Table 12.16.




Table 12.16 Operational Noise Predictions

Receptor FM1 LAeq,T dB FM2 LAeq,T dB Cumulative

(FM1+FM2) LAeq,T dB

Pollards Field, Ferrybridge 22 24 26

Lumb Bungalow, Ferrybridge 13 21 22

1 & 2 Kirkhaw Lane, Ferrybridge 15 26 27

Holmfield Farm, Knottingley 37 36 40



Water Fryston, Castleford 17 23 23

Low Street, Brotherton Village 22 34 35

High Street, Brotherton Village 29 33 35

12.6.28. The effects of predicted noise from the combined FM1 and FM2 facilities in comparison to measured background noise levels are presented in Table 12.17. The background noise levels were the lowest measured during the night-time period. The lowest background noise levels provide the lowest noise limits against which operational noise is assessed. Consequently, impacts identified during the night-time period can be considered as worst case.

Table 12.17 Night-time Noise Effect of Operational Facility

Receptor

Measured Background

Night-time Noise Level

LA90,T dB

Cumulative (FM1+FM2) LAeq,T dB

Difference - dB Significance

Pollards Field, Ferrybridge 42 26 -12 Negligible

Lumb Bungalow, Ferrybridge 42 22 -20 Negligible

1 & 2 Kirkhaw Lane, Ferrybridge 42 27 -15 Negligible

Holmfield Farm, Knottingley 40 40 0 Minor Adverse

94 Willow Lane, Oakland Hill 45 42 -3 Minor Adverse

73 Willow Lane, Oakland Hill 45 45 0 Minor Adverse

Water Fryston, Castleford 38 23 -15 Negligible

Low Street, Brotherton Village 38 35 -3 Minor Adverse

High Street, Brotherton Village 38 35 -3 Minor Adverse

12.6.29. Operational noise effects do not consider potential noise impacts that may occur due to rail deliveries. Rail deliveries will occur on the rail siding, the impacts of which have previously been assessed in the FM1 ES. The number of deliveries at night is constrained by unloading times and availability of slots on the rail network, therefore the FM1 ES assessed the maximum possible number of deliveries (up to two trains a night).



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 12.6.30. The FM2 operational noise model does account for movement of deliveries on site on all

sections of road and access ramps. However, the noise model assumes that movements of containers at night will occur via the equivalent of HGV movements, so predicted operational noise levels may increase if delivery vehicles are noisier than HGVs. Although changes in the cumulative noise level radiated from the FM2 site may occur due to a change in noise level of vehicles moving containers within the site, the change would need to be significant to noticeably alter the cumulative FM2 noise level.

Effect

12.6.31. Noise predictions indicate that there may be minor adverse effects at Holmfield Farm, properties in Oakland Hill and Brotherton Village. However, as the predicted noise levels of the operational FM1 and FM2 facilities do not exceed the lowest measured background noise levels, a minor adverse effect is not considered to be significant.

Operational Traffic Impact

12.6.32. Information on existing traffic flows and future predicted traffic flows due to the operational site on surrounding road links are provided in Chapter 10 Transport and Access. Baseline road traffic flows and future road traffic flows due to the operational FM2 scheme are presented in Table12.18. Road traffic flows have been derived from 24-hour 5 day AADT flows using the methodology described in Paragraphs 12.6.18 to 12.6.19.

12.6.33. The BNL for each road link has been calculated for the baseline scenario and the baseline with operational traffic scenario. The results of BNL calculations are presented in Table 12.19. The difference in calculated BNL between the two scenarios allows the significance of operational traffic noise impacts to be derived (see Table 12.1).

Table 12.18 Operational Traffic

Road Link Speed (km/h)

Baseline Road Traffic Baseline with

Operational Road Traffic

AAWT HGV % AAWT HGV %

Kirkhaw Lane 20 1480 54% 1855 68%


30 11718 3% 12011 4%

Stranglands Lane - Between the unnamed road & Kirkhaw Lane

30 12905 7% 13228 8%


30 13413 11% 13749 13%


30 15355 5% 15739 6%

A162 South of B6136 70 15019 7% 15394 9%


70 16984 5% 17392 7%




Table 12.19 Operational Traffic Noise Calculations

Road Link Baseline BNL

Baseline with Construction

BNL Difference Significance

Kirkhaw Lane 56.2 57.3 +1.1 Minor Adverse



Stranglands Lane - Between the unnamed road & Kirkhaw Lane






A162 South of B6136 70.4 70.5 +0.1 Negligible



12.6.34. As discussed above, it is possible that some deliveries may be made by rail. Rail deliveries will occur on additional slots on existing rail corridors that are already utilised by freight trains and so additional rail movements may result in an increase in rail noise.

12.6.35. As stated in paragraphs 12.6.29 and 12.6.30 above, the actual movements and unloading of trains was assessed as part of the FM1 development, now consented. The Proposed Development cannot lead to additional rail movements over and above that already assessed (as the number of movements is limited by unloading times and availability of rail network slots) therefore this assessment considers only the movements of containers within the Site once unloaded.

12.6.36. The current assessment is based on HGV movements within the site, though containers may be moved by other means. Potential noise impacts associated with unloading of rail and movements of containers within the Site will be further considered for the final ES when further information is available about how unloading will occur and how containers will be moved around the Site.

Effect

12.6.37. Noise predictions indicate that changes in noise levels due to operational road traffic flows will be negligible at all road links with the exception of Kirkhaw Lane at which there will be a change in noise level that is considered to be of minor adverse significance.

12.6.38. As further details become available about how unloading will occur and how containers will be moved around the Site, a more detailed assessment on the noise impact of freight trains will be carried out.

Decommissioning Impact

12.6.39. The predicted noise impact due to the eventual decommissioning process of the Proposed Development is expected to be comparable to that presented for the construction phase discussed above.




Effect

12.6.40. The construction noise assessment indicates a negligible effect on the nearest noise sensitive receptors for daytime construction activities. Therefore, assuming decommissioning work occurs during normal working hours, the noise effects of this stage are also expected to be of negligible significance.

12.7. Mitigation Measures 12.7.1. Outline construction mitigation measures have been identified below, which will be

applied wherever practicable to ensure noise impacts are minimised.

12.7.2. The preferred approach for controlling construction noise is to reduce levels where possible, but with due regard to practicality. Sometimes a greater noise level may be acceptable if the overall construction time, and therefore length of disruption, is reduced.

12.7.3. Construction noise mitigation measures to be considered for inclusion in the CEMP for the Proposed Development include:

• hydraulic techniques for breaking to be used in preference to percussive techniques where practical;

• off-site pre-fabrication to be used, where practical;

• all plant and equipment to be used for the works to be properly maintained, silenced where appropriate, and operated to prevent excessive noise and switched off when not in use where practicable;

• plant will be certified to meet relevant current legislation as defined by BS 5228 (Ref 12-1) standards;

• all Contractors will be made familiar with current legislation and the guidance in BS 5228 (Parts 1 and 2) (Ref 12-1 & 12-2) which will form a prerequisite of their appointment;

• loading and unloading of vehicles, dismantling of site equipment such as scaffolding or moving equipment or materials around the site will be conducted in such a manner as to minimise noise generation and where practical will be conducted away from noise sensitive areas;

• deviation from approved method statements to be permitted only with prior approval from the lead Contractor and other relevant parties. This will be facilitated by formal review before any deviation is undertaken;

• noise complaints, or exceedances of action levels should be reported to the Contractor and immediately investigated;

• noise generating night-time work should be kept to a minimum and noisy construction activities should be carried out during normal working hours whenever possible; and

• Implementation of noise limits at nearby noise sensitive receptors for construction activities outside of normal working hours.

12.7.4. A CEMP is to be prepared and put in place to ensure best practicable means are adopted. The CEMP will highlight when the potentially noisy activities are likely to take place and the appropriate mitigation measures that will be undertaken to minimise noise effects.

12.7.5. Potentially significant construction noise effects may occur during evening and night-time periods. Construction noise limits have been specified for nearby noise sensitive




receptors during evening and night-time periods. Compliance with these noise limits will ensure that adverse effects are unlikely. In practice it is likely that noisy activities can be restricted to normal daytime working hours and compliance with noise limits can be achieved.

12.7.6. Through careful implementation of noise management and mitigating procedures, it is likely that the residual impact of construction noise can be managed to a level no worse than minor adverse.

12.7.7. Abnormal or emergency construction traffic movements may occur outside of normal working hours. In the event of these occurrences noise mitigation measures will be put in place to minimise potential noise impacts at nearby noise sensitive receptors.

12.7.8. Careful management of construction traffic will be carried out, and the following measures will be considered for inclusion in the CEMP:

• vehicles and mechanical plant employed for any activity associated with the construction works will, where reasonably practicable, be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and shall be maintained in good working order and operated in a manner such that noise emissions are controlled and limited as far as reasonably practicable;

• time slots for spoil removal to ensure that convoys of vehicles do not arrive simultaneously;

• provision for remote holding areas where vehicles can park to await clearance of any blockages or delays at the site or in the local road network;

• strict control to prevent temporary parking on kerbside in the vicinity of noise sensitive receptors near the work site; and

• the use of sufficient clear signage to ensure that construction vehicles use only designated routes.

12.7.9. Noise effects due to the operational site and changes in road traffic flows have been identified as, at worst, minor adverse, which is not considered to be significant.

12.7.10. Assuming decommissioning activities take place during normal daytime working hours, it is anticipated that they will have a negligible effect on nearby receptors in relation to noise and vibration.

12.8. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 12.8.1. Potential noise impacts from movement of containers delivered by rail within the Site will

be further considered for the final ES when further information is available.

12.8.2. Additionally, it should be recognised that various design decisions may lead to changes in the assumptions used. Where this is the case changes will be highlighted in the final ES and the reasons for them.

12.9. References Ref. 12-1 British Standard BS 5228-1:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration

control on construction and open sites. Noise; 2009

Ref. 12-2 British Standard BS 5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Vibration; 2009

Ref. 12-3 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise; HMSO; 1988

Ref. 12-4 Design Manual for Road Building; Highways Agency; 2013 update




Ref. 12-5 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, The Department of Transport & The Welsh Office, HMSO, 1988

Ref. 12-6 BS 4142 – ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas’

Ref. 12-7 Environmental Impact Assessment for a proposed Multi Fuel Power Station; 2009; URS

Ref. 12-8 Control of Pollution Act 1974




13. SOCIO-ECONOMICS

13.1. Introduction 13.1.1. This chapter assesses the extent to which the Proposed Development conforms to

relevant socio-economic planning policy at appropriate spatial levels.

13.1.2. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Socio-economic assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

13.1.3. The principal economic impacts of the Proposed Development are considered relative to the Travel to Work Area (TTWA) for the development, which along with Wakefield District (which covers the City of Wakefield and the towns of Horbury, Ossett, Castleford, Knottingley, Hemsworth and South Kirkby) includes parts of North Yorkshire, including Selby. The chapter also considers the indirect economic benefits arising from the increased employment within the area such as increased spending at local hotels, restaurants etc.

13.1.4. It should be noted that the appointment of the main contractor is subject to a competitive bidding process. The main plant providers are all based outside the UK, and may partner with UK or overseas civils contractor. The figures regarding potential for local employment generation provided in this chapter are based on construction industry averages, but the figures achieved will be dependent on the selected contractor’s procurement strategy.

13.1.5. The principal social impacts on land use and amenity and leisure activities are considered to occur within a 5 km radius from the Site. This is because it can reasonably be assumed that beyond this point the Proposed Development will have negligible effects on sensitive receptors.

13.1.6. This assessment uses a range of data sources to assess the expected impacts against a current baseline position. These include the Office for National Statistics, Nomis and the Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES). Other secondary sources have also been referenced such as the English Partnership and Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury.

Key Parameters for Assessment

13.1.7. The Rochdale Envelope is not deemed applicable to this assessment, as technological changes in the design of the Proposed Development and variations in building size or layout are not likely to change socio- economic impacts on local labour, economy and land use (as the variations maintained within the project design do not affect the number or type of jobs and benefits generated by the Proposed Development during either the construction or operational phase).

13.2. Methodology 13.2.1. The methodology employed to establish the effects of the Proposed Development follows

that described in Chapter 9 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria. The specific definitions and terminology that is used when discussing the effects on socio-economics is detailed below.

13.2.2. With regard to receptor or resource sensitivity, the following definitions are used:

• High: Individuals, businesses or groups who are already at risk and that have little or no capacity to experience the impact without incurring an economic loss (or gain), loss




(or gain) of access to a social or economic resource, or loss (or gain) of amenity; or resources that are scarce and not easily re-provided within an accessible distance.

• Medium: Individuals, businesses or groups that have a limited or average capacity to experience the impact without incurring a change in economic or social well-being; or resources that are available elsewhere within an accessible distance.

• Low: Individuals, businesses or groups that generally have adequate capacity to experience impacts without incurring a change in economic or social well-being; or resources that are abundant with available / accessible alternatives.

13.2.3. With regard to magnitude of impact, the following definitions are used:

• High: severe detrimental/ very beneficial or very likely to affect large numbers of people, businesses or groups.

• Medium: a lesser scale of change is experienced by the receptor or the resource than ‘high’, and likely to concern a moderate number of people, businesses or groups.

• Low: a small change relative to the baseline situation, likely to affect a small number of people, businesses or groups.

• Negligible: unlikely to measurably affect the wellbeing of people, or a lower value resource so that the existing base case remains constant.

13.2.4. Table 13.1 below shows how the assessment of the significance of effects is arrived upon.

Table 13.1 Impact Assessment and Significance Criteria

Significance Sensitivity of Receptor

High Medium Low

Impact magnitude

High Major adverse/beneficial – significant

Major adverse/beneficial – significant

Moderate adverse/beneficial - significant

Medium Major adverse/beneficial – significant

Moderate adverse/beneficial – significant

Minor adverse/beneficial – not significant

Low Moderate adverse/beneficial –significant

Minor adverse/beneficial – not significant

Negligible – not significant

Negligible Minor adverse/beneficial – not significant



13.2.5. Table 13.2 presents the different components of the assessment and the geographical scale at which they are assessed. This methodology is consistent with the approach for the Ferrybridge Multi Power Station (FM1) Environmental Statement.

Table 13.2 Socio-Economic Impacts by Geographical Scale

Impact Geographical Area of Impact Rationale for Impact Area

Employment generation during construction phase, operational phase and

Wakefield, Selby, Doncaster, Leeds

Travel to Work Area, derived from existing employee patterns




decommissioning phase (direct, indirect and induced impacts)

Impact on land use 5 km radius from Site Location of sensitive receptors to impacts arising from Proposed Development

Impacts on leisure and recreational activities

5 km radius from Site Location of sensitive receptors to impacts arising from Proposed Development

13.3. Baseline Conditions 13.3.1. The baseline is established with regards to the following:

• Population;

• Skills and Education;

• Wakefield District Economy;

• Land Use; and

• Recreational Resources.

Population 13.3.2. The population of Wakefield expanded from 315,400 to 326,400 between 2001 and 2011,

representing a 3.4% increase over a period of 10 years. Over the same period, the regional population of Yorkshire and the Humber increased by 6.3%, and the population of Great Britain increased by 6.9% (Ref. 13-1).

13.3.3. The population of Knottingley was 13,710 in 2011 (Ref. 13-2).

Skills and Education 13.3.4. A skills profile of the working age residents of Wakefield indicates lower skills levels than

the regional and national population, and the skills levels of the Yorkshire and Humber region are below the national average.

13.3.5. In 2012, 41.3% of the working age population (defined by the Office for National Statistics as men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59) of Wakefield held a GNVQ Level 3 or above compared to 51.5% in Yorkshire and the Humber and 55.1% in Great Britain.

13.3.6. In addition, approximately 12.7% of the local population held no qualifications, compared to 11.5% regionally, and 9.7% nationally (Ref. 13-3).

Wakefield District Economy

Labour Force and Employment 13.3.7. A skills profile of the working age residents of Wakefield indicates lower skills levels than

the regional and national population, and the skills levels of the Yorkshire and Humber region are below the national average.

13.3.8. Historically employment in Wakefield was consistently above the regional average, and until 2006, employment was above the national average. In 2012 employment in Wakefield stood at 69.8%, slightly above the regional average (69.0%) but below the national average (70.7%) (Ref 13-4).



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 13.3.9. In 2005 the unemployment rate stood at 3.6% in Wakefield, which compared to 4.8%

nationally. The economic recession has resulted in increasing unemployment rates in the region, currently at 10.0% in Wakefield and 9.3% in Yorkshire and the Humber and nationally, based on the 2012 figures (Ref 13-4).

Occupational Profile 13.3.10. The occupational profile of Wakefield differs from the regional and national profiles. The

District’s profile is slightly skewed towards lower level occupations compared to the regional and national trends.

13.3.11. Wakefield has a higher proportion of employment in elementary occupations (15.4%) compared to regional (12.3%) and national levels (10.9%). Conversely, professional occupations account only for 6.9% employment compared with regional (8.6%) and national levels (10.1%).

13.3.12. The Wakefield District Growth and Jobs Plan 2012-2017 (Ref 13-5) (which has replaced the Wakefield District Economic Generation Plan) shows that there are relatively low numbers of scientists, engineers and technicians working in Wakefield.

Key Sector Employment 13.3.13. Wakefield has higher employment rates in the transport and communications industry

(12%), compared to the Yorkshire and Humber region (8.3%) and Great Britain (8.5%) and lower employment in the finance, IT and business activities sector (14.2%) compared to regional (17.9%) and national levels (16.6%) (Ref 13-6).

13.3.14. The median gross weekly income by workplace in 2012 was £470.7 within Wakefield, which was higher than Yorkshire and the Humber (£464.7) but lower than within Great Britain as a whole (£507.6) (Ref 13-7).

13.3.15. Travel to work data extracted from the 2001 Census indicates that in 2001 approximately 73% of people working in Wakefield also live within the district, with a further 17% of the workforce living in the urban areas of Leeds (7%), Kirklees (5%) and Barnsley (5%) (Ref 13-8).

13.3.16. The Wakefield District Growth and Jobs Plan 2012-2017 (Ref 13-5) shows that relatively few businesses are engaged in professional, scientific and technical activities compared to nationally and that Wakefield has a high proportion of jobs in the public sector compared to the Great Britain average, making it more exposed than most to public sector spending cuts.

Land Use 13.3.17. The Proposed Development occupies the footprint of the former Power Station Golf

Course and residual land, a portion of which is currently being used as a laydown area during the construction of FM1. The Site bounds and potentially occupies a small portion of Fryston Park Local Wildlife Site to the north (depending on the grid connection option selected).

13.3.18. Land uses within a radius of 5 km radius include local farms and residential properties west of the A1, south of the Ferrybridge Power Station Site and in surrounding areas including Castleford, Brotherton, Ferrybridge and Knottingley.




Leisure and Recreational Resources

13.3.19. There are some protected green areas within a 5 km radius from the Proposed Development as well as other leisure and recreational facilities in the locality. There are no public rights of way.

13.3.20. The Site has a boundary with Fryston Park Wood LWS to the north and Fairburn and Newton Ings Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located 1.6 km to the north-west of the Site. The small portion of Fryston Park Wood immediately to the north of the Site has no public access.

Modified Baseline 13.3.21. This section establishes the modified baseline with regards to the socio economic

characteristics relevant to the Proposed Development once the construction of FM1 is completed. This takes account of the close proximity of FM1 and the fact it will be operational when FM2 construction is proposed to commence.

13.3.22. Changes to the current baseline as a result of FM1 being fully operational in 2015 are only likely to be related to the additional local and regional employment generated by FM1, which is expected to create 46 net permanent jobs. The actual jobs figures are different from the figures contained within the 2010 Environment Statement. This is due to the fact that the contract for the power station is now let and the design has been firmed up, which means the Applicant has a firmer indication of the number of positions within the power station.

Future Baseline Conditions 13.3.23. Baseline conditions in 2018, assuming no development, are not likely to have

substantially changed in terms of population or local economy from the modified baseline described above. Some land uses may have changed, however it is not possible to forecast such changes with any accuracy at this stage.

13.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 13.4.1. As part of the EIA process, the Applicant has held preliminary meetings with key

stakeholders, local authorities and statutory bodies, however it has not been necessary to date to undertake any consultation specific to socio-economics. As per Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 a SOCC has been produced, detailing how the Applicant intends to consult ‘people living in the vicinity of the land’.


Construction

Employment Generation

Direct Construction Employment 13.5.1. The direct expenditure involved in the construction phase will lead to increased output

generated in the UK economy. In this assessment economic impacts have been quantified in terms of estimated employment generation.

13.5.2. The Proposed Development will generate positive but temporary economic impacts during the construction phase. The construction phase of the Proposed Development is expected to last for 36 months (currently anticipated to be between 2015 and 2018, dependent on obtaining necessary permissions), during which a total of approximately




2,525 employment opportunities or ‘workspaces’ (with a duration of approximately three months) are expected to be generated in the construction sector, with a peak of around 500 construction jobs and an average of around 350 jobs over the construction period.

Displacement Effects 13.5.3. Displacement measures the extent to which the benefits of a project are offset by

reductions of output or employment elsewhere. Any additional labour demand on such a market cannot simply be treated as a net benefit because it removes workers from other posts and the net benefit is reduced to the extent that this occurs. This consideration is referred to as displacement and is part of the standard approach to assessing the additional impact of projects described by English Partnerships (Ref 13-9).

13.5.4. Wakefield District has a strong and stable construction industry and it is assumed that construction workers typically move between construction projects when delays occur in order to help the workforce meet particular construction deadlines; with the movement of construction workers balancing out and displacement impacts being low. Consequently, a low displacement of 25% is suggested, as per the English Partnerships Additionality Guide (Ref 13-9). The effect of displacement is presented in Table 13.2 below, representing deductions from the ‘gross direct employment’ figures.

Multiplier Effect 13.5.5. In addition to the direct construction employment generated by the Proposed

Development, further economic activity in the region will be witnessed and the development will also have ‘knock-on’ effects elsewhere in the region, through supply chain linkages and local expenditure from those employed at the Site.

13.5.6. Multiplier effects can include employment growth locally through services and supplies to the construction process, and part of the income of construction workers and suppliers will be spent locally, generating further employment (induced or income multipliers).

13.5.7. The impact of the multiplier depends on the size of the geographical area that is being considered, the local supply linkages and income leakage from the area.

13.5.8. The English Partnerships Additionality Guide (Ref 13-9) provides an estimate of a composite multiplier (the combined impact of indirect and induced multipliers) where there are normal supply chains. Wakefield District is likely to have ‘medium’ supply linkages based on the scale of its economy. For a medium supply linkage, the Guide determines that composite multiplier of 1.15 is appropriate at the local level.

As a result, the indirect and induced employment impacts taking leakage, displacement and multiplier effects into account are presented in Table 13.3. For the Proposed Development, the total net additional employment opportunities created within the local area is estimated to be around 1,900 workspaces over the construction period.

Table 13.3 Estimated Employment Created During Construction

Total

Employment opportunities/ workspaces

Workspaces

Gross direct employment 2,525

Displacement -631

Net direct employment 1,894




Indirect & induced employment 284

Total estimated workspaces 2,178 Source: URS calculations 2013

13.5.9. The construction jobs generated would mostly include construction plant operators, as well as professionals to manage construction, and engineers to provide technical skills. The profile presented in the baseline indicates that the local labour force would be well-placed to meet these requirements, as it is characterised by lower skills levels and a higher proportion of process plant and machine operatives than regionally and nationally. In addition, the development of FM1 would have contributed to increased plant expertise in the local labour force and supply chain.

13.5.10. To maximise the beneficial impacts for the residents of the district, where it is within the control of the Applicant, there is an aim to source local labour where practicable (dependant on skills being available locally). It would be appropriate for WMDC to work in collaboration with Job Centre Plus and the Applicant to identify opportunities for local recruitment.

Impact 13.5.11. Given the scale of employment likely to be generated by the Proposed Development

relative to the size of local and regional construction sector, the Proposed Development is likely to have a medium short-term beneficial impact on the economy.

Effect 13.5.12. Based on baseline information on skills and the local labour force in Wakefield, and the

recession being experienced by the UK economy, it is assessed that the local and regional economy will have a medium sensitivity to the creation of additional jobs and associated economic benefits.

13.5.13. Therefore, the direct, indirect and induced employment and expenditure created by the temporary construction phase of the Proposed Development would be likely to have a temporary moderate beneficial, effect on the local economy, which would be considered to be significant. This will contribute to meeting the economic inclusion objectives of the Wakefield District Jobs and Growth Plan.

Land Use

Impact 13.5.14. The Proposed Development will result in a slight change in the existing land use patterns

at the Site. Part of the Site has been historically used as a golf course, which is currently a construction lay down area for FM1 and partly not in use; this will be part of the land take of the Proposed Development.

13.5.15. The Proposed Development is not likely to impact on land use patterns of the surrounding areas during the construction or operational phase.

13.5.16. The majority of the Site occupies the footprint of the former Power Station Golf Course, whilst the remainder of the Site is residual land that is currently being used as laydown areas by the contractors for the construction of FM1. Alternative facilities are to be secured for the Ferrybridge Golf Club as part of FM1.

13.5.17. A small proportion of Fryston Park Wood to the north of the former route of Fryston Lane is included in the Site to allow for potential grid connections in the area. Fryston Park Wood is within the Ferrybridge Power Station site boundary and while it is used informally by the local community it is not a Public Right of Way (PRoW).



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 13.5.18. There is also the potential for nuisance or health and safety implications, or other

environmental effects, to restrict or affect land use in the immediate surroundings during the construction period.

13.5.19. There is potential for landscape and visual effects to be experienced in proximity to the Site during the construction period. This is most likely to occur along the western edge of Brotherton which lies approximately 1 km to the east of the Site and the south eastern edge of Castleford to the west. However, due to the current massing of Ferrybridge “C” Power Station, and the similar but lower height of the Proposed Development, these effects are largely considered to be not significant. Please refer to Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual for more details.

13.5.20. Effects associated with air quality, noise and vibration and traffic and transport could also arise in relation to surrounding land uses. For more details, please refer to Chapter 10 Transportation and Access, Chapter 11 Air Quality, Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 21 Health.

13.5.21. Taking these considerations into account, the impact of the Proposed Development on land use is assessed to be negligible.

Effect

13.5.22. Based on information provided in the baseline, and given the pre-existing industrial character of the Site, it is considered that the surrounding land uses have a medium sensitivity to land use impacts.

13.5.23. Therefore, the Proposed Development would be likely to have a negligible effect on surrounding land uses, which is not considered to be significant.

Leisure and Recreational Resources

Impact 13.5.24. The baseline identified the nearby presence of a number of leisure and recreational

features.

13.5.25. None of the leisure and recreational resources are within the land take during the construction phase, apart from a small portion of Fryston Park Wood, which is owned by the Applicant and which while used informally by the local community is not a PRoW.

13.5.26. Effects associated with air quality, noise and vibration and traffic and transport could also arise in relation to surrounding leisure and recreational resources. These are assessed in in detail in Chapter 10 Transportation and Access, Chapter 11 Air Quality, Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 21 Health.

13.5.27. The effect of the Proposed Development on leisure and recreational sites of archaeological value has been assessed in detail in Chapter 18 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

13.5.28. Taking these considerations into account, the impact of the Proposed Development on leisure and recreational resources in the local area is assessed to be negligible.

Effect 13.5.29. Based on information provided in the baseline, and given the pre-existing industrial

character of the Site, it is deemed that the surrounding leisure and recreational resources have a low sensitivity, due to the previous industrial character of the Site.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 13.5.30. As such the Proposed Development would be likely to have a negligible, non-significant

effect on users of leisure and recreational resources.

Operational

Employment Generation 13.5.31. It is anticipated that during the operational phase, the Proposed Development will

generate up to 46 full-time permanent jobs for the operation of the power station (recognising that actual operational staff numbers may be lower than this estimate – at around 35 staff - depending on operations management) as well as other full-time support jobs outlined below. It is anticipated that direct employment from the Proposed Development would follow shortly after completion of construction, and would remain at a relatively constant level throughout the duration of its proposed use. Table 13.4 provides a breakdown of estimated jobs by skill level.

Table 13.4 Breakdown of potential jobs by skill level

NVQ Level Estimated Number of Jobs

6 2

5 10

4 15

3 14

2 5

Total Up to 46 Source: Applicant figures

Leakage Effects

13.5.32. The operational phase of the Proposed Development will produce a labour demand with moderate levels of skills. Based on Office of National Statistics travel to work information, it is estimated that 90% of workers will reside in the TTWA. This corresponds to a low leakage as set out by English Partnerships Guidance (Ref 13-9), and implies that the majority of employment opportunities will go to people living within the TTWA. Applying a 10% discount to the 46 workspace opportunities created by the operational phase indicates that 5 workspace opportunities outside the TTWA and that 41 workspace opportunities for residents in the TTWA could theoretically be created (see Table 13.4).

13.5.33. To minimise the potential leakage effects and maximise the impacts for local residents it may be appropriate for the local authority to work with the applicant to recruit locally, or at least advertise vacancies through Job Centre Plus.

Displacement Effects 13.5.34. Given the scale of the Proposed Development and the size of the local labour market,

displacement effects are considered to be low (less than 25% using the English Partnerships guidance).

13.5.35. Displacement effects of -25% are expected to reduce local and regional employment opportunities by around 11 jobs. Therefore the net direct employment during the operational phase is envisaged to be up to 35 employees, including approximately 30 local employees and potentially four regional employees (see Table 13.4).




Multiplier Effects 13.5.36. In estimating the total employment creation impact of the Proposed Development it is

necessary to also consider the indirect and induced employment. The indirect employment arises from secondary businesses supplying goods and services to the Proposed Development activities (e.g. fuel supply firms, cleaners, maintenance etc), which, in turn, create further economic activity by purchasing additional supplies. The induced employment arises from the creation of additional personal income derived from the first (direct income) and successive (indirect workers) rounds of spending.

13.5.37. Based on English Partnership guidance, a ‘medium’ supply linkage multiplier of 1.15 at the local level has been applied to the net direct employment figures. As a result, the indirect and induced employment impacts taking leakage, displacement and multiplier effects into account are presented in Table 13.5.

Table 13.5 Estimates of Employment Created During Operation

Local Regional Total

Workers

Workers

Workers

Gross direct employment 41 5 46

Displacement 10 1 11

Net direct employment 31 4 35

Indirect & induced employment

4 3 7

Total estimated workspaces 35 7 42

Source: URS calculations 2013.

13.5.38. Based on the above, during the operational phase, the direct, indirect and induced employment generated by the Proposed Development is predicted to be a total of 42 job opportunities; 35 of these are expected to be local opportunities, with a further 7 likely to be in the regional supply chain.

Impact 13.5.39. Given the scale of the local labour market, and based on the assessment of direct,

indirect and induced employment once operational, the impact of the Proposed Development is likely to be low. These potentially 42 jobs would represent an increase of employment of 1.9% in the mining, quarrying and utilities sector in Wakefield.

13.5.40. The operational jobs generated would include plant operators and technicians, engineers and electricians as well as some administrative jobs. This represents a good fit with the local labour profile, Wakefield is characterised by lower skills levels than regionally and nationally but with over 20% of the population qualified to NVQ4 or above, and a higher proportion of process plant and machine operatives than regionally and nationally. In addition, the development of FM1 would have contributed to increased plant expertise in the local labour force and supply chain.

13.5.41. There may be a possibility for staff from the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station to take up some of these jobs following closure of Units 1 and 2, although FM2 will only become operational following their closure.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 13.5.42. To maximise the beneficial impacts for the residents of the district, there will be a

commitment to source local labour where practicable. It would be appropriate for WMDC to work in collaboration with Job Centre Plus and the Applicant to identify opportunities for local recruitment.

Effect 13.5.43. Based on baseline information on skills and the local labour force in Wakefield provided

in the baseline, it is assessed that the local economy has a medium sensitivity to the creation of additional jobs.

13.5.44. Therefore, based on current estimates of job creation and the assessment presented within this chapter, the Proposed Development is anticipated to have a minor beneficial (not significant) effect on the local economy. This will contribute to meeting the economic inclusion objectives of the Wakefield District Jobs and Growth Plan.

Land Use

Impact 13.5.45. The Proposed Development will maintain the existing land use patterns at the Site, and is

not likely to impact on land use patterns of the surrounding areas during the operational phase. The majority of the Site occupies the footprint of the former golf course, whilst the remainder of the Site is residual land that is currently being used as laydown areas by the contractors for the construction of FM1. Alternative facilities are to be secured for the Ferrybridge Golf Club as part of the FM1 development. A small proportion of Fryston Park Wood to the north of the former route of Fryston Lane is included in the Site to allow for potential grid connections in the area.

13.5.46. As well as direct land take, there is also the potential for nuisance or health and safety implications, or other environmental effects, to restrict or affect land use in the immediate surroundings during the construction period.

13.5.47. There is potential for landscape and visual impacts to be experienced in proximity to the Site. This is most likely to occur along the western edge of Brotherton which lies approximately 1 km to the east of the Site and the south eastern edge of Castleford to the west. However, due to the current massing of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, and the similar but lower height of the Proposed Development, these effects are considered to be largely not significant, other than for one viewpoint where a visual effect of moderate significance has been identified. Please refer to Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual for more details.

13.5.48. There is the potential for nuisance or health and safety implications that might restrict or affect land use in the immediate surroundings. For more details, please refer to Chapter 10 Transportation and Access, Chapter 11 Air Quality, Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 21 Health.

13.5.49. Taking these considerations into account, the impact of the Proposed Development on surroundings land uses is assessed to be negligible.

Effect 13.5.50. Based on information provided in the baseline, and given the pre-existing industrial

nature of the Site, it is deemed that the surrounding land uses have a medium sensitivity, due to the previous industrial character of the Site.

13.5.51. Therefore, the Proposed Development would be likely to have a negligible, non- significant effect on surrounding land uses.




Leisure and Recreational Activities

Impact 13.5.52. The baseline identified the nearby presence of a number of leisure and recreational

features.

13.5.53. None of the leisure and recreational resources are within the land take during the construction phase, apart from a small portion of Fryston Park Wood, which is used informally by the local community and is not a PRoW.

13.5.54. The impact of the Proposed Development on leisure and recreational sites of archaeological value has been assessed in detail in Chapter 18 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. The impact of the Proposed Development on users of the Fryston Park Wood and other local green resources has been assessed in detail in Chapter 11 Air Quality and Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration.

13.5.55. Also, the existing industrial character of the area means that users are unlikely to experience different amenity in the operational phase of the Proposed Development compared with the baseline conditions.

13.5.56. Taking these considerations into account, the impact of the Proposed Development on surrounding leisure and recreational resources is assessed to be negligible.

Effect 13.5.57. Based on information provided in the baseline, and the pre-existing industrial nature of

the Site, it is deemed that the surrounding leisure and recreational resources have a medium sensitivity.

13.5.58. As such the Proposed Development would be likely to have a negligible, non-significant effect on users of leisure and recreational resources

Decommissioning

Employment Generation

Impact 13.5.59. It is envisaged that the plant will have a design life of 30 years and an operating life of up

to 50 years and so decommissioning would commence in approximately 2068 and take approximately one year.

13.5.60. During the decommissioning period, the 42 net permanent jobs created by the Proposed Development will be lost. Based on the current scale of the local and regional construction workforce, the magnitude of this impact is considered to be low.

Effect 13.5.61. Based on baseline information on skills, and the local labour force in Wakefield provided

in the baseline, it is assessed that the local economy has a medium sensitivity to the loss of additional jobs.

13.5.62. Therefore, the decommissioning of the Proposed Development would be likely to have a minor adverse (not significant) effect on the local economy.




Land Use

Impact 13.5.63. The decommissioning phase will result in uncertain effects on the surrounding land uses,

due to the timescale of decommissioning. The decommissioning process will be managed so as to minimise disruption and change experience by surrounding receptors and resources. Therefore it is assumed that the impact will be negligible.

Effect 13.5.64. Based on information provided in the baseline, and the pre-existing industrial character of

the Site, it is deemed that the surrounding land uses have a medium sensitivity.

13.5.65. Therefore, the decommissioning of the Proposed Development would be likely to have a negligible, non-significant effect on surrounding land uses.

Leisure and Recreational Activities

Impact 13.5.66. The decommissioning phase will result in uncertain effects on local leisure and

recreational resources, due to the timescale of decommissioning. The decommissioning process will be managed so as to minimise disruption and change experience by surrounding receptors and resources, therefore it is considered that the impact is likely to be negligible.

Effect

13.5.67. Based on information provided in the baseline, it is deemed that the surrounding leisure and recreational resources have a low sensitivity.

13.5.68. As such the decommissioning of the Proposed Development would be likely to have a negligible, non-significant effect on users of leisure and recreational resources.

13.6. Mitigation Measures 13.6.1. No mitigation measures are required because the only significant effects identified are

beneficial.

13.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 13.7.1. There are no impacts and effects yet to be determined, however, the scheme design may

be subject to change prior to submission of the final DCO application. Any changes that lead to differing or new impacts and effects will be highlighted within the final ES, along with the reasons for the change.

13.8. References Ref. 13-1 Nomis (2013), ONS (2011) Mid-year Population Estimates.

Ref. 13-2 ONS (2013), Census 2011.

Ref. 13-3 Nomis (2013), ONS (2012) Annual Population Survey.

Ref. 13-4 Nomis (2013) Labour Market Statistics for Wakefield.

Ref. 13-5 Wakefield Growth and Jobs Plan 2012 to 2017; Wakefield Metropolitan District Council; 2012




Ref. 13-6 ONS (2013); Business Register and Employment Survey 2008-2011.

Ref. 13-7 Nomis (2013); ONS (2012) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings - Workplace Analysis.

Ref. 13-8 ONS (2013), Census 2001.

Ref. 13-9 English Partnership (2004); Additionality Guide: A Standard Approach to Assessing the Additional Impact of Projects, 2nd Edition, English Partnership, London.




14. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

14.1. Introduction 14.1.1. This chapter considers direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Development on

landscape and visual amenity, covering construction and operation and decommissioning scenarios.

14.1.2. For the purpose of this assessment, a clear distinction is drawn between landscape and visual impacts:

• landscape impacts relate to the impacts of development upon the physical characteristics or components of the landscape, which together form the character of that landscape, e.g. landform, vegetation and buildings; whilst

• visual impacts relate to the changes arising from development to an individual ‘receptor’s’ views of that landscape, e.g. views experienced by local residents or motorists passing through the area.

14.1.3. An assessment of the existing landscape features, character, condition and visual amenity of the development site and surrounding area has been undertaken in order to establish the ‘baseline’ conditions. The baseline conditions provide a ‘benchmark’ against which the degree of change (effects) in landscape features, character, condition and visual amenity arising from the Proposed Development have been measured.

14.1.4. The Study Area has been defined to include areas where it is considered that there is potential for significant direct or indirect impacts on landscape character and visual amenity arising from the construction, operational or de-commissioning phases. The boundary for the Study area has been therefore limited to 5 km radii from the centre of the Site (as illustrated on Figure 14.1) to take into account the likely visibility of these structures, the sensitivity of the wider landscape and the location of high sensitivity receptors whilst recognising the limitations of visibility due to local topography and visual acuity.

Key Parameters for Assessment 14.1.5. The exact layout and dimensions of the Proposed Development are not fully determined

at this stage, as such this assessment has been undertaken in line with PINS Guidance Note Nine: Using the Rochdale Envelope (Ref 14-1).

14.1.6. The focus of the assessment within this chapter is the worst case scenario, however where the minimum parameters would affect the conclusions of the assessment this is highlighted. To facilitate the reader’s interpretation of the information, photomontages include examples of the maximum parameters but also a typical vertical and horizontal boiler layout, which are indicative layouts that are more typical of what is likely to be the final design.

14.1.7. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Landscape and Visual assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.




14.2. Methodology

Visual Impact Assessment Methodology

14.2.1. In assessing the predicted effects from any likely impacts to the landscape as a result of the Proposed Development, the following criteria have been considered:

• landscape character;

• landscape sensitivity;

• landscape capacity;

• magnitude of likely impacts that may affect the landscape; and

• significance of landscape effects.

14.2.2. Landscape impacts are considered, including both the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Development upon landscape elements and features (or components), as well as the impact upon the general landscape character of the surrounding area.

14.2.3. The sensitivity of the landscape to change is the degree to which a particular Landscape Character Area (LCA) or feature can accommodate changes or new features without unacceptable detrimental effects to its essential characteristics.

Visual Impact Assessment Methodology

14.2.4. The assessment of effects likely to result from visual impacts is structured by receptor groups (residents, users of recreational spaces, business users and motorists). Individual receptors are identified through the definition of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) (Figure 14.11), within which views of the development are likely to be possible. Individuals are subsequently categorised into receptor groups within different areas. The sensitivity of each receptor group is then evaluated as being high, medium or low dependent upon their susceptibility to changes in views and visual amenity and the value attached to particular views (in accordance with the criteria set by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (2013)).

14.2.5. Views from each identified representative viewpoint are recorded, considering distance from the Site (as the crow flies), receptor type, sensitivity and a short description of the view.

14.2.6. For the purposes of assessment, the sensitivity of a receptor and the magnitude of a likely impact are combined to assess the effects that the Proposed Development is predicted to have on existing baseline visual conditions for that given receptor. Specific terminology is used to describe the magnitude of impact (see Appendix 14A for details).

14.3. Baseline Conditions 14.3.1. The relevant published landscape character assessments were reviewed in relation to the

Proposed Development and are presented in Table 14.1.




Table 14.1. Landscape Character Assessments

Scale Character Assessment Character Area

National Countryside Character Volume 3: Yorkshire & The Humber, The character of England’s natural and man-made landscape

National Character Area (NCA) 30: Southern Manganese Limestone NCA 38 - Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfield;

NCA 39 - Humberhead Levels;

Regional

Landscape Character Assessment of Wakefield District

Limestone Escarpment Landscape Character Type

North Yorkshire Magnesian Limestone Ridge Landscape Character Type (LCT)

Local Selby River Aire Corridor LCT

14.3.2. The Site is located within NCA 30: Southern Manganese Limestone (Ref 14-2). The character area is described as having an agricultural context but also being heavily influenced by urban and industrial infrastructure with mines, shale tips, transport routes, power lines and industrial settlements all present. The Proposed Development is likely to be visible from parts of NCA 38 (Ref 14-3) and NCA 39 (Ref 14-4). It is located close to the north east boundary of the Wakefield Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 14-5) study area, and specifically, within the Limestone Escarpment LCT.

14.3.3. The county boundary of North Yorkshire is located along the centreline of the River Aire, as such the North Yorkshire and York Landscape Characterisation Project (Ref 14-6) is relevant to assessment of the Proposed Development.

14.3.4. The Site is located approximately 1 km from the boundary of Selby Borough Council, which is defined by the centre line of the River Aire. The Selby Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 14-7) defines the closest LCT as being the River Aire Corridor LCT. The relevant key characteristics of this LCT are:

• strong influence of large scale industrial and infrastructure development, in particular power stations and the motorway on the river landscape.

14.3.5. This assessment goes on to describe the character of parts of the LCT as having its otherwise rural character “considerably modified and degraded by urbanising, industrial influence of multiple features of infrastructure that are large in scale. These features, which detract from the character of the landscape include the M62 motorway, the Eggborough Power Station and numerous overhead electricity transmission lines……”

14.3.6. Furthermore it goes on to describe the presence of the large power stations as follows:

“The large scale Eggborough power station and its associated chimneys, cooling towers, plumes of vapour, pylons and transmission lines is visually very prominent in the local area, and detracts from the character of the landscape, despite the belts of woodland screen planting that are established on its perimeter. The Ferrybridge power station, which is located adjacent to the District boundary has a similar effect, as does the Drax power station, which is located within the Camblesforth Lowlands, close to the confluence of the Ouse and Aire”.

14.3.7. The wider context of the Site is within a landscape dominated by large scale industrial development and transport routes. In particular, the following are all located close to the Proposed Development:


http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/nottinghamshire_derbyshire_and_yorkshire_coalfield.aspx


http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/humberhead_levels.aspx



• Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station;

• Ferrybridge FM1 (under construction);

• Siniat plasterboard factory; and

• M62 and A1 (M) motorways and their associated infrastructure.

14.3.8. To the north of the Site is a section of Fryston Park Wood (dissected by the construction of the A1(M)) and the coal stockyard area for Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station. The area to the east of the Site is a mixture of industrial developments including the Siniat plasterboard factory, workshops and training centre and a series of railway lines and embankments. The network of High Voltage (HV) power lines and pylons associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station are also significant large scale structures within the landscape.

14.3.9. The area to the south of the Site contains the FM1 facility currently under construction and the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station with large scale cooling towers.

14.3.10. Along the western boundary, the A1(M) rises along large embankments to pass over the M62 via a complex of bridges, ramps and embankments

14.3.11. The Site currently consists of a mix of amenity grassland and small stands of juvenile and semi-mature trees. Within the Site there are no features of noteworthy landscape value.

14.3.12. The Proposed Development Site lies between 14 to 20 mAOD.

14.3.13. A number of large urban areas extend into the study area, these being: Ferrybridge, Knottingley, Pontefract and the outskirts of Castleford, along with the smaller settlements of Fairburn, Brotherton and Byram-cum-Sutton.

14.3.14. The close proximity of the larger settlements to each other, and as a whole, creates a primarily urban setting to the outer edge of the study area.

14.3.15. Although the Site is not specifically covered by any landscape related designations, the West Yorkshire Green Belt and designated Green Corridors (WMDC) lie immediately to the west of the Site but are separated by the A1(M) motorway. A Locally Important Landscape Area (Selby District Council) is located within the study area and lies to the north east.

14.3.16. The River Aire and Aire and Calder Navigation are key components within this landscape, both of which have extensive riparian woodland along their banks.

14.3.17. The major transport corridors of the M62 and A1(M) motorways are located close to the Site. Located 500 m to the southwest of the Site, is the complex junction linking the two routes which include large embankments and over-bridges. A comprehensive network of ‘A’ roads criss-cross the study area, linking Castleford, Pontefract, Knottingley and Ferrybridge and surrounding villages.

14.3.18. A computer generated ZTV was produced to establish an area of study within the 5 km radius search area. The ZTV produces a bare-ground scenario that does not take into account localised screening effects of vegetation and built form. Due to the low lying nature of the surrounding landscape, the resulting ZTV indicates that theoretically the Proposed Development would be visible across a substantial amount of the study area. However, in such a landscape built structures, and tall vegetation such as trees and hedgerows, play an important role in screening views locally. As such it was felt that the inclusion of the ZTV, which included as many of the major screening elements as practicable, would be beneficial to the assessment.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 14.3.19. Within the vicinity of the Proposed Development a relatively low number of Public Rights

of Way (PRoWs) have been identified on the relevant Definitive Maps. The closest of these is the footpath linking Fryston Beck Pond to Kirkhaw Lane (running in a north – south direction, approximately 150 m to the east of Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers).

14.3.20. Users of local roads gain dynamic views towards the sites to varying degrees dependent on intervening structures, screening vegetation, elevation and direction of travel. Due to the height of the tallest structure within the Proposed Development (the stack, with a height of 136 mAOD) these receptors will gain a wide variety of views, dependent upon the proximity to the Proposed Development, and direction of travel.

14.3.21. Locations within the ZTV where views of the Proposed Development were considered to be potentially visible were identified through desk-based assessment and a review of the adjacent Ferrybridge FM1 Environmental Statement (which has a similar, though slightly lower, stack height of 100 m, equating to an elevation of around 114 mAOD).

14.3.22. Ten potential individual views have been identified, recorded and assessed as part of the baseline study (see Figures 14.1 to 14.10a for a map of the viewpoints and existing views from each location). A number of the viewpoints assessed within the Ferrybridge FM1 Environmental Statement have been discounted due to changes in the baseline environment, e.g. the construction of new development which now screens views, as described below. The full list of FM2 representative viewpoints can be found in Table 14.2.

Modified Baseline

14.3.23. At the time of the winter field survey, construction of the FM1 development had not commenced. As such, the photographs do not show this development. However, at the point of the summer field survey the FM1 facility was in the early stages of construction. As such, the photographs show a limited number of structures, generally the tower cranes and partially built bunker hall. This development is scheduled to be operational by 2015 and as such is considered within the baseline assessment of the landscape and visual impacts.

Future Baseline Conditions

14.3.24. The future baseline is a prediction of baseline conditions in the future but assuming the Proposed Development has not gone ahead. In 2018, the future baseline conditions are assumed to be as described above for the modified baseline. It is assumed that the areas of the Site which are currently being utilised for the construction of FM1 will return to open grassland.

14.3.25. For the purpose of this assessment, the future baseline has been set at 2018.




Table 14.2 Representative Viewpoints

Viewpoint Receptor Type Description Co-ordinates

Distance Sensitivity Description of view towards the Proposed Development site

A Residential Silver Street, Fairburn

53.741363

-1.281942 2.3 km High

Middle distance wooded views screening the far distance, Ferrybridge C cooling towers, stack and HV pylon and power lines visible in the background, railway line partial visible in a cutting in the near distance.

B Highway Hillam Lane, Hillam

53.749948

-1.236689 4.6 km Medium

Views across arable farmland with woodland defining the skyline in the far distance. The upper portion of the Ferrybridge C cooling towers and stacks visible in the far distance as incongruous landscape elements in an otherwise rural scene.

C Residential Old Great North Road, Brotherton

53.730739

-1.272984 1.4 km High

Views across the main highway route into Brotherton are elevated above the industrial landscape to the south west. The lower woodland canopy is punctuated by large industrial and power related developments including Ferrybridge C cooling towers, large scale lighting columns, HV pylons and power lines and material conveyor buildings.

D Residential Low Street, Brotherton

53.722022

-1.268759 1.1 km High

Views are limited to the middle distance by a combination of large industrial developments including Ferrybridge C cooling towers and parts of the Siniat plasterboard factory. Views of the lower portion of these structures are screened by vegetation along the railway line embankment (running across the view) and HV lines on wooden poles in the close distance.

E PRoW (footpath) Primrose Dene, Bryam

53.719766

-1.260544 1.7 km Medium

Views across rolling arable farmland, with hedgerows and trees in the middle distance defining the edge of the agricultural landscape. To the rear of these are the Ferrybridge C cooling towers and stacks, HV pylons and power lines, materials conveyors and silos associated with the Siniat plasterboard factory, and other industrial buildings.




Table 14.2 Representative Viewpoints

Viewpoint Receptor Type Description Co-ordinates

Distance Sensitivity Description of view towards the Proposed Development site

F Residential Darkfield Lane, Pontefract

53.707662

-1.291822 1.6 km High

Views across gently rolling arable farmland in the close distance are restricted by the A1(M)/M62 network of embankments and over bridges. To the rear of this the scene is dominated by the Ferrybridge C power station and its eight cooling towers and two large stacks, and associated HV pylons and power lines. The construction activities of the FM1 facility are partially visible to the north of Ferrybridge C.

G

Public Open Space – Play area and sports pitches

Orchard Head Lane, Pontefract

53.706221

-1.300099 1.9 km Medium

The site is elevated above the landscape to the east with vegetation along the eastern boundary of the sports pitches providing partial screening to the large scale structures in the background. These include five of the Ferrybridge C cooling towers, the upper parts of construction activities at the FM1 site and HV pylons and power lines.

H PRoW (footpath) Holywell Wood, Castleford

53.712958

-1.325312 2.7 km Medium

Views eastwards are across a gently sloping arable landscape towards the urban edge of Castleford, with residential development defining the character of the middle distance. Long distance views include both Ferrybridge C and Eggborough power stations and a network of HV pylons and power lines.

I Residential Meadow Court, Castleford

53.717376

-1.304425 1.1 km High

Residential properties to the western extent of Castleford with oblique views across rising arable farmland towards Ferrybridge C power station and the M62/A1(M) junction. The rising landscape of the middle distance provides screening of lower level structures associated with the power station site.

J PRoW (footpath) Wheldale Lane, Castleford

53.735383,

-1.298382 1.7 km Medium

Views over arable fields are limited at low to medium level by residential development at the urban edge of Castleford and the mature woodland at Whin Covert. The upper portion of the cooling towers and stacks at Ferrybridge ‘C’ and the FM1stack are partially visible in the far distance beyond the woodland.




14.4. Development Design and Impact Avoidance 14.4.1. The design of the Proposed Development is largely based upon the technical

requirements of the scheme, however informal consultation responses in respect to the finishes of the Proposed Development have been taken into account. In order to aid visual integration and to reduce the effect of increased massing within the Site, it has been assumed that the final finishes will be the same as those agreed for FM1, however this will be subject to further consultation.

14.4.2. The following impact avoidance measures will either be incorporated into the design or are standard construction or operational practices. These measures have therefore been taken into account during the impact assessment process described in this assessment.

• suitable materials will be used, where possible, in the construction of structures to reduce reflection and glare and to assist with breaking up the massing of the buildings and structures;

• the selection of finishes for the buildings and other infrastructure will be informed by the final selection for the FM1 facility (chosen in consultation with WMDC and other relevant consultees) in order to minimise the visual impact of the Proposed Development;

• lighting required during the construction and operation stages of the Proposed Development will be designed to reduce unnecessary light spill outside of the site boundary;

• new security systems will be required to cover the new site as a standalone facility. The Site will be fenced and fully secure with closed circuit television (CCTV), gatehouse reception and manned 24-hours per day. The power stations existing security system will be utilised; and

• paladin fencing, intruder alarm and Turnstiles to manage people access.

14.5. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 14.5.1. The consultation undertaken with regards agreeing the location of representative

viewpoints is set out in Table 14.3. In addition, during the informal consultation phase the public consultation feedback forms and general discussions posed a number of queries regarding visual impact of the Proposed Development. These queries and the general responses are also noted in Table 14.3.


Consultee Date Issue Raised Summary of Response

Ian Pollard

Wakefield Metropolitan

District Council

2nd August 2013

Location of representative

viewpoints to assess

‘I would recommend that you appraise the viewpoints used for the

MF1 application’

Selby District Council

2nd August 2013


viewpoints to assess No response

Selby District Council

15th August 2013


viewpoints to assess No response




Consultee Date Issue Raised Summary of Response

Secretary of State (Scoping Opinion)

July 2013 Scope of LVIA

ES should describe models used, timing of survey and methodology used; agree location of viewpoints

with local authorities; careful consideration should be given to the form, siting and use of materials and

colours in terms of minimising the adverse visual impact and the extent

to which they will appear coherent with the existing structures in the

wider Ferrybridge Power Station Site; consideration of lighting and night-time views as part of the LVIA or justification as to why it has been

excluded.

Natural England (via SoS in

Scoping Opinion) July 2013

Designated Landscapes and

Landscape Character

EIA should include assessments of visual effects on surrounding area and landscape; encourage all new

development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the

area with the siting and design of the Proposed Development reflecting

local design characteristics; consider whether there are designated

landscapes of national importance in the area.

Public consultation (informal)

June to September

2013

Location of important viewpoints

General response received that viewpoints from various nearby residential properties should be

considered


June to September

2013

General finish of buildings

Should be in line with FM1 and planting used to screen buildings

where possible


June to September

2013

Relative importance of stack height

(whether people consider visual

impact most important or would have a preference for higher stack to

increase dispersion)

Various responses received but overall majority stated they

considered air quality impacts more of an issue than visual impact given

the context and setting of the Proposed Development

14.6. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects Key parameters for Assessment

14.6.1. The key measurements for the implementation for the Rochdale Envelope are detailed in Table 14.4. They are derived from the range of parameters set out in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development.

14.6.2. The magnitude of visual effects of the Proposed Development relate to (amongst other criteria) the size and scale of the structures and geographical extent of the area




influenced. It is considered that the combination of existing development, vegetation and landform and the Proposed Development will provide extensive low level screening of low level activities and auxiliary facilities from the majority of the surrounding landscape. As such, the assessment is based upon the largest possible dimensions for the Proposed Development, as these are considered most likely to result in significant impacts and represent the worst case scenario.

14.6.3. The maximum dimensions are based upon the widest building footprint and tallest potential height as described below in Table 14.4, which reproduces the information presented in Table 4.2 that also includes the elevations to reference height (mAOD). For the purposes of aiding consultees in understanding the likely visual effects, photomontages and aerial images generated have also included examples of ‘typical’ vertical and horizontal boiler layouts, which represent typical examples of what the final design may look like.

Table 14.4 Rochdale Envelope Parameters Assessed in this Chapter

Potential Impact

Maximum height (m)

Minimum height (m)

Maximum width (m)

Minimum width (m) Justification

Visibility of Tipping Hall

37 15 102 58 Design parameters set to allow maximum flexibility in term of construction technique and dependent upon undetermined issues such as whether the boiler will be horizontal or vertical.

Visibility of Bunker Hall

48 33 102 33

Visibility of Boiler Hall

58 41 60 45

Visibility of Stack

120 120 9 6

Lighting

14.6.4. The effects of lighting have been reviewed as part of the landscape and visual assessment, to determine its effects on the landscape character of the Site and the surrounding area. The visual impact of lighting on night-time views has also been considered on the relevant viewpoints around the Proposed Development which may be affected, with reference to The Institution of Lighting Engineers report, Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Obtrusive Light (2005) (Ref 14-8). The following assumptions have been made with regards to the extent of lighting within the Proposed Development. These assumptions are based on the lighting design for FM1:

• the lighting of walkways and site roads will be provided by 8 m pole mounted lights and supplemented with building mounted lights;

• the lighting of External Gantry areas will be provided with 2X54W Waterproof luminaires; and

• all luminaires will have a flat glass optic to minimise direct upward light distribution and reduce contribution to sky glow. The lighting equipment will have a maximum upward tilt of 5 degrees to minimise the potential for obtrusive glare, upward light spill and light trespass.

14.6.5. The External Lighting installation will adhere to the guidance of the CIBSE Lighting Guide 6: The outdoor environment (Ref 14-9).

14.6.6. Temporary construction site lighting is proposed to be provided to enable safe working on the construction site in hours of darkness.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 14.6.7. It is the intention that the construction temporary site artificial lighting shall only be

required at times of darkness during the construction phase. Working hours for the construction phase are anticipated to be up to 24 hours a day during peak construction months.

14.7. Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects 14.7.1. Details of the Proposed Development are provided in Chapter 4 The Proposed

Development. For the landscape and visual assessment, the dimensions (especially elevations) of the Proposed Development are of particular relevance, and largely determine the landscape and visual impacts of the development. Unless otherwise stated, the impact avoidance measures, best practice and other landscape and visual mitigation outlined above have been assumed to be incorporated within the Proposed Development, and are taken into account in the consideration of impacts.

14.7.2. The impact on landscape character can be due to a direct loss of landscape features, change in land use and the visibility of structures. Where impacts are experienced in areas outside the Site they tend to be related to the visibility of the larger structures within the Site and vessels affecting their aesthetic and perceptual aspects.

14.7.3. Appendix 14A details the criteria for assessing magnitude of impact, sensitivity of receptors and the significance of impact matrix.

Landscape Character

Construction Phase 14.7.4. The following activities have been identified as having potential to impact on the

landscape character:

• movement of plant and heavy goods vehicles, both on site and in the surrounding area;

• stripping of existing ground cover and trees;

• temporary stockpiling of earth and storage of materials on site;

• establishment of site compounds resulting in temporary structures to serve the workforce;

• crane activity to assist high level construction works;

• building construction including the new stack; and

• external lighting to illuminate site operations after dark.

14.7.5. The activities listed above are perceived to be the most significant operations associated with the Proposed Development with regard to landscape. Initial site activities will include the stripping of the existing golf course vegetation and levelling the site to create a level construction platform. Since the nature of these elements is low lying, their visibility is generally limited to areas within the site. As such the loss of these will have limited impact on the perceived landscape character.

National Character Areas

14.7.6. Other than the landscape character areas in which the Site is located, the effects of the Proposed Development on nearby character areas will be direct and relate to its visibility from within these adjacent areas.




NCA 30 Southern Manganese Limestone

14.7.7. At a national level, the Proposed Development is located within NCA 30 Southern Manganese Limestone. This is a relatively narrow long ridge running in a north south direction.

14.7.8. The character of the NCA is described as being heavily influenced by industrial infrastructure, which is representative of the site context. The extent of the Proposed Development’s influence on the NCA is very small, due to the limited impact on the physical character of the NCA through change in land use and its context adjacent to the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station and FM1 facility.

14.7.9. NCA 30 is assessed to be of medium sensitivity to change due to its large scale nature, areas of degraded landscape and areas of historic landscape value.

14.7.10. It is assessed that during construction there would be a very low magnitude of impact on the medium sensitivity NCA 41, resulting in a negligible and temporary significance of effect on landscape character.

14.7.11. Due to the relatively narrow scale (in a national context) of the NCA, the Proposed Development is also likely to be visible from the following adjacent NCAs:

• 38 - Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfield: and

• 39 - Humberhead Levels.

NCA 38 - Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire & Yorkshire Coalfield

14.7.12. This NCA has a landscape character which is heavily influenced by industry and large urban areas resulting in a fragmented landscape with areas of dilapidation.

14.7.13. Due to the size of the NCA, combined with the context of the Proposed Development being closely associated with the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station (with large scale cooling towers), it has been judged that the potential impact upon landscape character during construction will be negligible.

NCA 39 - Humberhead Levels

14.7.14. One of the key characteristics of this NCA is its long views and big open skies. This results in large scale developments such as power stations and wind turbines being highly visible from many areas. Due to the proposed stack being located very close to the Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers, and being of similar size, from a distance it will be either screened by them or viewed in association with them. Additionally, when viewed from a distance, they will appear as a minor element of the scene. As such it is considered that there will be a very low impact on landscape character of the adjacent NCA.

14.7.15. The Proposed Development will therefore result in a negligible effect on this medium sensitivity landscape.

Regional Landscape Character Area

Wakefield Landscape Character Assessment - Limestone Escarpment LCT

14.7.16. The Proposed Development will have a direct effect on the landscape character of the Limestone Escarpment LCT through the change in land use and visual effects of the Proposed Development. Due to the influence exerted on the LCT from the existing Ferrybridge power station site, it is anticipated that the FM2 development will not result in an increase to this influence. It is therefore judged that the medium sensitivity LCT will








experience a very low direct impact during the construction period, resulting in a negligible and temporary effect.

North Yorkshire and York Landscape Characterisation Project

14.7.17. The county boundary of North Yorkshire is located along the centreline of the River Aire, within 1 km of the Proposed Development. As such the visibility of the structures will have a potential impact on its landscape character.

14.7.18. It has been judged that the existing large scale power related development within the context of the Proposed Development will result in the medium sensitivity LCT experiencing a very low direct impact during the construction period, resulting in a negligible and temporary effect.

Local Landscape Character Areas

River Aire Corridor LCT

14.7.19. The adjacent River Aire Corridor LCT (Selby Landscape Character Assessment) will experience a direct impact from the Proposed Development relating to its visibility. However, due to the context of the Proposed Development being adjacent to the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’, it has been judged that the medium sensitivity LCT will experience a very low direct impact during the construction period, resulting in a negligible and temporary effect.

The Site and Its Immediate Setting

14.7.20. Although the nature of the site will change during construction, the Proposed Development is congruous with the adjacent developments within the Ferrybridge power station site. Therefore the context of the wider area in which the Proposed Development is located will remain as an active power station site with industrial land use and character. Proposed buildings and structures are congruent with that of the existing site and will therefore be in keeping with the characteristics of the site context.

14.7.21. It has been assessed that the low sensitivity Site will experiencing a medium impact during the construction period, resulting in a minor and temporary effect.

Operational Phase 14.7.22. This section describes the impacts and effects of the Proposed Development at opening

in 2018 and assumes the site is fully operational. During the operational phase, the following have been identified as having potential to impact on landscape character:

• visibility of the new structures, including the new bunker hall, tipping hall, boiler and turbine hall;

• movement of plant and heavy goods vehicles both on site and in the surrounding area; and

• external lighting to illuminate site operations after dark.

14.7.23. Impacts on landscape character at opening are considered to include the direct and indirect effects relating to the change of land use, introduction of new structures, and increased vehicle movements. The anticipated effects of the Proposed Development on adjacent character areas/types will relate to the visibility of the largest structures such as the stack, boiler hall, turbine hall and bunker hall. These buildings will be industrial in appearance and similar to the FM1 facility currently under construction. As the Proposed Development will be located within the Ferrybridge power station site, the industrial landscape character of the wider landscape will not be impacted upon by its operation.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 14.7.24. The Proposed Development is of a similar scale and massing as the FM1 facility and

significantly smaller scale than the Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers.

14.7.25. The Proposed Development is located within the landscape which has been assessed as being of a low sensitivity to change.

14.7.26. It is envisaged that the Proposed Development will not be materially different at the point of opening. As such, it is therefore considered that there will be no change in the magnitude of impact and resulting significance of change on any of the character areas.

Decommissioning 14.7.27. For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that the Proposed Development will be

decommissioned and demolished at the end of its working life. As such views will return to their pre-construction status.

Mitigation 14.7.28. The assessment of landscape impacts does not consider that any significant landscape

effects will result. As such no mitigation has been proposed.

Visual Impact

Construction Phase Viewpoint A – Silver Street, Fairburn

Maximum Scenario

14.7.29. Views from the upper storey windows of the residential receptor may include the upper portions of the tower cranes, appearing above the wooded hilltop in the middle distance (which currently defines the skyline in the centre of the scene). Adjacent to this feature, the large scale Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers and stack are clearly visible as major detractors. It is anticipated that during a large part of the construction period, the only views of construction will be the tower crane. Only once the stack is substantially complete will the actual FM2 facility be visible (in part). Once visible, the FM2 stack will be viewed in close proximity to the FM1 stack.

Impact

14.7.30. The representative viewpoint will experience a low magnitude of impact.

Effect

14.7.31. The high sensitivity receptor will experience a minor significance of effect on visual amenity.

Minimum Scenario

14.7.32. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only. As such they will remain the same with a minimum scenario.

Viewpoint B – Hillam Lane, Hillam

Maximum Scenario

14.7.33. Road users travelling in a south-west direction along the A162 from Hillam have views towards the site; however, the tower cranes being used in the construction of FM1 are barely visible in the current view (partially visible above the woodland in the far distance). It is therefore anticipated that only the tower cranes and stack (once substantially




complete) will be partially visible during the construction phase of FM2. However these will be of such a size that they will represent only a minor part of a wide expansive view.

Impact

14.7.34. It is anticipated that there will be a very low magnitude of impact.

Effect

14.7.35. The medium sensitivity receptor will experience a negligible significance of effect on visual amenity.

Minimum Scenario

14.7.36. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only, as such there will be no material change from the maximum scenario.

Viewpoint C – Old Great North Road, Brotherton

Maximum Scenario

14.7.37. The residential receptor is elevated above the landscape to the south west, resulting in views over tree canopies in the middle distance against a backdrop of the large scale industrial and power related development in and around the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station site. Views of tower cranes at the FM1 construction site are partially visible, and viewed in the context of numerous HV pylons and lighting masts, which reduces their visibility.

14.7.38. It is anticipated that during the construction of FM2 all ground level activities will be screened from view and only the upper parts of the largest building, stack and tower cranes will be visible.

14.7.39. Due to the view being heavily degraded by the presence of the large scale industrial and power related development, it is considered that the partially visible Proposed Development will be congruous with the existing scene.

Impact

14.7.40. There will be a low magnitude of impact.

Effect


Minimum Scenario

14.7.42. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only. As such there will be no material change from the maximum scenario.

Viewpoint D – Low Street, Brotherton

Maximum Scenario

14.7.43. Long distance views are generally limited by intervening vegetation along the railway line and Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers in the middle distance (which dominate the scene). The upper portion of tower cranes at the FM1 site are partially visible between cooling towers, and it is anticipated that during the construction of FM2 a similar view would be possible, with the Siniat development providing additional screening. Only the tower cranes and stack are anticipated to be visible during this period.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 14.7.44. Due to the effects of perspective, the FM2 stack will also appear similar in size and scale

to the HV poles within the middle distance.

Impact


Effect


Minimum Scenario

14.7.47. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the partial visibility of the stack and tower cranes only. As such they will remain the same with a minimum scenario.

Viewpoint E – Primrose Dene, Byram

Maximum Scenario

14.7.48. Vegetation and buildings within the landscape close to the site will screen low level activities during the construction period. Larger buildings such as the turbine and boiler halls will be partially visible between the cooling towers of Ferrybridge ‘C’, as will the tower cranes and stack.

14.7.49. The visible elements will be viewed in the context of the large scale development of Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers, the visible parts of the FM1 development and the Siniat plasterboard factory.

Impact

14.7.50. Partial views of the Proposed Development and tower cranes during construction will not materially alter the nature of the view. As such it is judged that there will be a low magnitude of impact.

Effect


Minimum Scenario

14.7.52. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate largely to the visibility of the largest buildings, stack and tower cranes only. It is considered that the limited reduction in building size will not result in a change to the above maximum scenario assessment.

Viewpoint F – Darkfield Lane, Pontefract

Maximum Scenario

14.7.53. From this location, the Proposed Development will be partially screened by the FM1 facility (appearing behind and slightly to the left), but disassociated with the cooling towers at Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station. The low level activities within the construction site will be screened by the overbridges/embankments association with the M62/A1(M) junction, resulting in only the taller structures, such as the turbine and boiler halls, stack and tower cranes being partially visible in the middle distance. The stack and tower cranes will be viewed against the sky, which will increase their visibility compared to the main buildings of the Proposed Development. It is anticipated that there will be a slight increase in the number of light sources visible in the scene during the night time. However, these will be in the context of the existing Ferrybridge complex and the highway lighting along the M62 and A1(M) motorways located in the intervening landscape.




Impact

14.7.54. There will be a medium magnitude of impact.

Effect

14.7.55. The high sensitivity receptor will experience a moderate significance of effect on visual amenity.

Minimum Scenario

14.7.56. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate largely to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes against the sky, as such there will be no change from the maximum scenario assessment.

Viewpoint G – Orchard Head Lane, Pontefract

Maximum Scenario

14.7.57. The upper parts of the tower cranes, stack (once substantially complete) and potentially a small part of the turbine or boiler halls will be visible in the distance. Although they will be viewed within the same scene as Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers, they are slightly disassociated due to the angle of view. However, this will also result in FM1 facility offering partial screening to FM2, as such the new stack will be viewed in close association with the FM1 stack.

Impact


Effect

14.7.59. The medium sensitivity receptor will experience a minor significance of effect on visual amenity.

Minimum Scenario

14.7.60. The majority of the impacts and effects of the Proposed Development largely relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only, as such they will remain the same with a minimum scenario.

Viewpoint H- Holywell Wood, Castleford

Maximum Scenario

14.7.61. During construction, the visibility of construction activities will be limited to movement of tower cranes and the construction of the stack, both which will be viewed in the context of the Ferrybridge ‘C’ cooling towers and the FM1 facility. Additionally, they will be viewed from such a distance that they represent only a small part of an expansive scene.

Impact


Effect


Minimum Scenario

14.7.64. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only, as such there will be no change with a minimum scenario.




Viewpoint I - Meadow Court, Castleford

Maximum Scenario

14.7.65. The receptor has direct views towards the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station and M62, with oblique views towards the site. Rising topography in the middle distance will screen ground level activities at the FM2 construction site, resulting in only the taller structures being partially visible.

Impact


Effect


Minimum Scenario

14.7.68. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only, as such they will remain the same with a minimum scenario.

Viewpoint J – Wheldale Lane, Castleford

Maximum Scenario

14.7.69. The receptor has views towards the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station and FM1 stack which are screened at low to medium level by intervening residential development and woodland. As such views during construction will be limited to the movements of the upper parts of tower cranes and the stack (once substantially complete). The FM2 stack will be viewed against the cooling towers of Ferrybridge C and it is therefore anticipated that they will be easily missed by the casual observer.

Impact


Effect

14.7.71. The medium sensitivity receptor will experience a minor significance of effect on visual amenity.

Minimum Scenario

14.7.72. The impacts and effects of the Proposed Development relate to the visibility of the stack and tower cranes only, as such they will remain the same with a minimum scenario.

Lighting

14.7.73. Since the Proposed Development is well screened at a low level, it is anticipated that the only lighting visible at night time will be the lighting columns, if installed. From many locations the large structures within the Ferrybridge power station site will screen these also, but from a small number of areas, e.g. viewpoint C, partial views may be possible. However, it is anticipated that these will be viewed in the context of the existing lighting within the wider site context and therefore there will be no increase in the overall impacts of lighting on the surrounding landscape and its sensitive receptors.

Operational

14.7.74. Potential views of the Proposed Development during the construction period relate largely to the visibility of the tower cranes, stack and largest buildings (once substantially complete). During the operational period the tower cranes will have been removed




leaving only the stack and in some instances the largest buildings partially visible. Since the tower cranes are only a relatively small component of the construction period view, it is anticipated that during the operational period there will be no material change in the impacts and effects assessed during the construction period.

14.7.75. The removal of construction plant such as large tower cranes from the scene, will not result in a material change to the view. A series of photomontages have been produced for a number of the viewpoints (those most likely to experience a visual effect) to illustrate the Proposed Development.

14.7.76. It is anticipated that there will be no visible emissions from the stack during operations. Please refer to Chapter 11 Air Quality for further information. As such, this element is not considered further.

Decommissioning

14.7.77. For the purpose of the assessment, it is assumed that the Proposed Development will be decommissioned and demolished at the end of its working life. As such views will return to their pre-construction status.

14.8. Mitigation Measures 14.8.1. The opportunity for mitigation of the visual effects of the Proposed Development is limited

due to their size and scale. However, as shown in the assessment, the effects on visual amenity largely relate to the height of tallest structures, in particular the stack height.

14.8.2. A number of measures relating to building finishes, massing of component parts and use of lighting have been considered during the design stage in order to minimise the impact on both landscape character and visual amenity.

14.8.3. The use of off-site planting has the potential to reduce the visibility of the Proposed Development from specific sensitive receptors. As such it is proposed that the possibility of tree planting close to representative viewpoint F (which has been assessed as having the potential to experience a significant effect on visual amenity (moderate adverse)) is investigated, and, if possible, offered to properties that may experience the predicted impact. This could result in an overall beneficial effect through providing screening of the existing industrial facilities in the area. It is, however, recognised that some property owners may prefer to retain the open aspect, therefore this should be an optional mitigation. In the event that this option is favourable to the property owner(s), then this will be undertaken as part of a Section 106 consent(s) separate to this Application.

14.8.4. Additionally, a range of landscape measures are to be proposed within the site to aid low level screening from locations on or very close to the site boundary to increase the amenity value to site workers and visitors and enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

14.8.5. The provision of a landscaping scheme within the Site boundaries will result in no reduction in the significance of effects on landscape character or visual amenity outside the Site boundaries. However, the provision of off-site planting close to representative viewpoint F has potential to provide long term screening to FM2. The benefits associated with this planting also include the long term screening of FM1, Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station and part of the M62 infrastructure during the operational phase.

14.8.6. On this basis, if potentially affected property owners opt for offsite planting, there will be medium magnitude of impact resulting in a long term moderate beneficial significance of impact on the visual amenity of the high sensitivity receptor.




14.9. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 14.9.1. There are no impacts and effects yet to be determined, however, the scheme design may

be subject to change prior to submission of the final DCO application. Any changes that lead to differing or new impacts and effects will be highlighted within the final ES, along with the reasons for the change.

14.10. References Ref. 14-1 Guidance Note Nine: Using the Rochdale Envelope; Planning Inspectorate;

2013

Ref. 14-2 NE464 NCA Profile 30: Southern Manganese Limestone; Natural England; 2013

Ref. 14-3 NE402: NCA Profile 38: Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield

Ref. 14-4 NE339: NCA Profile 39: Humberhead Levels

Ref. 14-5 Landscape Character Assessment of Wakefield District; WMDC; 2004

Ref. 14-6 North Yorkshire and York Landscape Character Assessment; North Yorkshire County Council; 2011

Ref. 14-7 Landscape Character Assessment of Selby District; Selby District Council; 1999

Ref. 14-8 Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Obtrusive Light; Institute of Lighting Professionals; 2012

Ref. 14-9 Lighting Guide 6: The outdoor environment; CIBSE; 1992




15. WATER RESOURCES AND FLOOD RISK

15.1. Introduction 15.1.1. The assessment identifies key water resources and sensitivities, and addresses the direct

and indirect effects of the Proposed Development on these resources. Consideration of effects is made in the context of the existing Site conditions, construction phase (including any enabling works) and the operational phase. The need for mitigation measures is addressed and any residual effects are identified.

15.1.2. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be undertaken to inform this assessment and presented in the final ES. Upon receipt of the required data and once the drainage strategy has been further developed, this assessment will be updated to detail the existing levels of flood risk associated with the Site and quantify the volume of surface water currently generated, identify the impacts that the Proposed Development will have upon these aspects, and suggest potential mitigation measures to reduce the impact and manage the risk.

15.1.3. This assessment considers surface water bodies that are hydrologically connected with the Site, based on available data. The assessment also considers groundwaters that have the potential to be affected.

15.1.4. The main watercourses in the vicinity of the Proposed Development Site are the River Aire and Fryston Beck. The final assessment will consider these watercourses within an area spanning from immediately upstream of the site, to as far downstream as a potential impact may influence the quality or quantity of the watercourse.

15.1.5. The Site is not located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ), although bedrock beneath the Site is designated as a ‘Principal Aquifer’. The study area for consideration of potential impacts on groundwater is therefore larger than the surface water study area, in order to consider potential impacts on the Aquifer.

15.1.6. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Water Resources and Flood Risk assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

Key Parameters for Assessment 15.1.7. The Rochdale Envelope parameters outlined in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development

do not significantly affect the input parameters utilised in either the operational or construction water resources or water quality assessments, and consequentially the outcome of these assessments will not vary. Therefore the assessment adopts conservative (worst case) values where assumptions are necessary.

15.1.8. The FRA (and information from it that will be included in the final ES) will consider the maximum and minimum scenarios in terms of building and hardstanding footprint and the effect of this on runoff from the Site.

Methodology 15.1.9. There is no standard methodology for assessing the magnitude of impacts and

significance of effects of Proposed Developments on the water environment. Each project is evaluated according to its individual characteristics.

15.1.10. The assessment criteria used in this chapter are based on the web-based DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) document 'Transport




Analysis Guidance' (known as WebTAG) Unit 3.3.11 (DfT, 2003) (Ref 15-1). This methodology provides an appraisal framework for taking the outputs of the environmental impact process and analysing the key information of relevance to the water environment. Although this guidance is intended for transport studies, it is suitable for application to other development schemes in the absence of other suitable guidance.

15.1.11. For the purpose of this assessment, a number of modifications to the WebTAG criteria have been made in order to address recent legislative changes (notably the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Ref 15-2). These modifications are based on other more recent guidance, where possible (for example DMRB, 2009 (Ref 15-3)) or professional judgement.


Surface Waterbodies 15.2.1. The River Aire lies approximately 300 m to the east of the Site. The source of the River

Aire is in the Yorkshire Dales near Malham, at the convergence of Gordale Beck, Malham Beck and Tranlands Beck. The River Aire is approximately 100 km long with a catchment area of approximately 1,982 km². The tidal extent of the River Aire is at Chapel Haddlesey, which is approximately 15 km downstream of the Site.

15.2.2. Fryston Beck flows from the west of the Site, draining an area of approximately 8 km². Fryston Beck is culverted underneath the A1(M) motorway adjacent to Stranglands Lane. There is a small open channel section immediately downstream of the A1 motorway, after which the watercourse is culverted underneath the Site. Fryston Beck re-emerges to the south east of the Site where it flows southeast, before it is culverted under the railway line and enters the River Aire approximately 500 m to the south east of the Site.

15.2.3. There are a number of water bodies within the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station site including a number of channels between cooling towers to the south east of the Proposed Development and a pond approximately 500 m to the south east of the Site (though on the west side of the A1(M), which from historical drawings, appears to have been the route for the original Fryston Beck.

15.2.4. There is a pond in the north east of the Site that forms part of the former golf course.

15.2.5. The Knottingley and Goole Canal emerges from the River Aire immediately to the east of the A162 to the east of the Site, and flows south east alongside the River Aire as far as Knottingley, before diverging South.

River Aire (includes Fryston Beck) 15.2.6. The River Aire at this location (defined in the WFD as River Aire from River Calder to

River Ouse i.e. the reach between the confluences with the River Calder and the River Ouse) is classified as heavily modified due to the presence of flood defences and navigation modifications. The River Aire waterbody is currently of moderate ecological potential with regards to the WFD (Ref 15-2) and is failing to meet good chemical potential (this section of the River Aire includes Fryston Beck which runs beneath the site). Good ecological potential and good chemical status is expected to be met in 2027 (Ref 15-4 and 15-5). Overall, the River Aire is classified as having Moderate potential (Ref 15-4 and 15-5).

15.2.7. There are a range of pressures on the river preventing it achieving good ecological potential, including discharges upstream and direct to the Estuary, recreation and commercial uses of the river, dredging etc.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 15.2.8. Proposed mitigation measures for the River Aire to achieve good ecological potential

include the preservation of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and the riparian zone, improving floodplain connectivity, appropriate vegetation control, set back and the removal of obsolete structures (Ref 15-4 and 15-5).

15.2.9. Mitigation measures already in place on the River Aire include the strategic management of sediment, bank rehabilitation, a reduction in the impact of dredging and sediment suspension (Ref 15-4 and 15-5).

15.2.10. The River Aire is designated under the Freshwater Fish Directive (Ref 15-6) and Nitrates Directive (Ref 15-7).

15.2.11. Upstream of the site, urban, commercial/ industrial and agricultural runoff may enter the identified watercourses, and this may affect the status of the watercourses.

15.2.12. The Site is not located within a groundwater SPZ. The groundwater is designated as a Drinking Water Protected Area and is designated and under the Nitrates Directive (Ref 15-7).

15.2.13. The underlying geology is classified as a principal aquifer with high permeability. These are highly permeable formations usually with a known or probable presence of significant fracturing. They may be highly productive and able to support large abstractions for public water supply and other purposes. The soil has a high leaching potential and therefore the groundwater is termed highly vulnerable to any potential polluting activity.

15.2.14. According to the Environment Agency’s Indicative Flood Zone Map and based on the DCO (Application Site) Red Line Boundary, a small area of the Site to the north east is located within Flood Zone 3, which is classed as high risk of flooding, while the east and south of the Site is situated in Flood Zone 2, which is classed at medium risk of flooding from fluvial sources.

15.2.15. The area of the former golf course, in the north and west of the Site, is situated in Flood Zone 1, which is classed at low risk of flooding from fluvial sources. This is the main development area within the Site.

Modified Baseline 15.2.16. The final FM1 development will have a consented clean surface water discharge to

Fryston Beck, with foul effluent discharging to either sewer or a package treatment plant. This is not anticipated to adjust the baseline conditions from those described for existing baseline.

15.2.17. The only area where there is a potential for a modified baseline (or cumulative effect between FM1 and FM2) is in the event of spillages during the operation of FM1. The ES for FM1 did not identify any significant impacts associated with water quality during the construction or the operational phase of the development, following the implementation of standard good practices, the application of good operating procedures and the implementation of identified mitigation measures.

15.2.18. The main area whereby cumulative impacts between the FM1 and FM2 site could occur, is following the unlikely scenario that both sites would suffer a spillage incident concurrently. However, following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures/ good practices at FM1 and the implementation of similar good practices at FM2, the magnitude of such an impact is not likely to increase from that assessed within this chapter for FM2, and therefore no cumulative impacts associated with construction and operational activities are anticipated.




Future Baseline Conditions 15.2.19. Baseline conditions in 2018 are not expected to be significantly different to current

baseline conditions. In respect of water quality, the WFD is driving improvements in waterbodies, but the deadline for the River Aire to achieve ‘good’ ecological and chemical potential is 2027, and it is not anticipated that significant progress will have been made by 2018. The future baseline is therefore assessed to be similar to current baseline conditions, though the requirement for long term improvement is a key driver in management of discharges to all waterbodies therefore the long-term objective of good ecological and chemical potential is taken into consideration throughout the assessment presented below.

15.2.20. Groundwater quality of the underlying Principal Aquifer is currently of poor overall status and poor chemical quality. It is expected that groundwater status will improve in the future, meeting the requirements of the WFD (Ref 15-2) (good quantitative status by 2015 and good chemical quality by 2027).

15.3. Development Design and Impact Avoidance 15.3.1. The following impact avoidance measures have either been incorporated into the design

or are standard construction or operational practices. These measures have, therefore, been taken into account during the impact assessment within this chapter.

Construction

15.3.2. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the measures set out below will be required of any contractors undertaking construction work in relation to the Proposed Development.

15.3.3. As a general measure to protect ground and surface water from a range of potentially dangerous activities associated with construction of this type, best practice will be implemented through a CEMP, whilst the contractors undertaking works at the Proposed Development will comply with relevant guidance during construction, including:

• Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 1 General guide to the prevention of pollution (Ref 15-8);

• PPG 2 Above ground oil storage tanks (Ref 15-9);

• PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems (Ref 15-10);

• PPG 4 Treatment and disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is available (Ref 15-11);

• PPG 5 Works and maintenance in or near water (Ref 15-12);

• PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites (Ref 15-13);

• PPG 7 Refuelling activities (Ref 15-14);

• PPG 8 Safe storage and disposal of used oils (Ref 15-15);

• PPG 13 Vehicle washing and cleaning (Ref 15-16);

• PPG 18 Managing fire water and major spillages (Ref 15-17); and

• PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning (Ref 15-18).




Staff Awareness/ Training 15.3.4. The contractor(s) will ensure that site personnel are fully aware of the potential impact to

water resources associated with the proposed construction works and procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental pollution event occurring. This will be included in the site induction and training, with an emphasis on procedures and guidance to reduce the risk of water pollution.

Pollution Plans 15.3.5. Plans to deal with accidental pollution will be drawn up and agreed with the EA prior to

construction commencing and any necessary equipment (e.g. spillage kits) will be held on site and all site personnel will be trained in their use. The EA will be informed immediately in the unlikely event of a suspected pollution incident.

Storage of Materials 15.3.6. The CEMP will incorporate measures set out in the EA PPG documents listed above.

Examples of such measures include:

• placing arisings and temporary stockpiles away from watercourses and drainage systems, and directing surface water away from stockpiles to prevent erosion;

• containment measures will be implemented, including drip trays, bunding or double-skinned tanks of fuels and oils; all chemicals will be stored in accordance with their Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) guidelines, whilst spill kits will be provided in areas of fuel/ oil storage;

• preparation and implementation of an Emergency Spillage Plan; and

• locating refuelling and delivery areas away from surface water drains.

Discharge/Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Site Runoff/ Material 15.3.7. All foul water from any site compound (including temporary toilets) will be either tankered

away to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed waste disposal contractor, or discharged via connection to the existing foul sewer. Any potentially contaminated water will be tested, and if it is not of a suitable quality, agreed disposal procedures will be followed. Construction drainage details will be developed in consultation with the EA.

15.3.8. If any suspected contaminated material is discovered during the works, it will be tested and dealt with appropriately. If material is considered to be contaminated it will be disposed of to a licensed facility (see also Chapter 16 Ground Conditions).

15.3.9. Any waters removed from excavations by dewatering will be discharged appropriately, subject to the relevant licenses being obtained.

15.3.10. Foundations and services will be designed and constructed to prevent the creation of pathways for the migration of contaminants and should be constructed of materials that are suitable for the ground conditions and designed use. For example, water supply pipes should be designed in accordance with current good practice and applicable guidance to ensure pipes are protected from potential impacts associated with contamination.

Temporary Drainage and Settlement 15.3.11. Measures that should be considered for implementation for temporary drainage include:

• installation of measures such as swales, silt fences and appropriately sized settlement tanks/ ponds to reduce sediment load;




• cut-off ditches or geotextile silt-fences, installed around excavations, exposed ground and stockpiles to prevent uncontrolled release of sediments from the Proposed Development;

• site access points will be regularly cleaned to prevent build-up of dust and mud:

• a valve to isolate the settlement tank/ ponds in the event of a polluted discharge;

• oil interceptors to be installed (notably the outflow from the settlement pond/ tank) to reduce the potential risk for contamination of groundwater and surface water; and

• all potentially polluted waters (including washdown areas, stockpiles and other areas of risk for water pollution) to have separate drainage and to be tankered away from the site.

Operation 15.3.12. A number of the impact avoidance measures employed during the construction phase will

remain for the operation phases of the development (where relevant), and will be described in an Operational Environmental Management Plan, for example:

• plans to deal with accidental pollution and any necessary equipment (e.g. spillage kits) will be held on site and all site personnel will be trained in their use;

• containment measures will be implemented, including bunding or double-skinned tanks for fuels and oils; all chemicals will be stored in accordance with their COSHH guidelines; and

• interceptors will be incorporated into the drainage system to prevent material entering the surface water drainage system or local waterbodies.

Site Drainage 15.3.13. The drainage strategy will incorporate features such as:

• silt traps and interceptors, where appropriate, to prevent material entering the surface water drainage system or local waterbodies;

• attenuation basins, where necessary, to capture any fine sediment that may be generated and washed from site in surface water;

• SUDs to attenuate flow from the site and maximise infiltration (where appropriate); and

• all site surface water drainage will be designed to the intent of Sewers for Adoption in order to meet current best practice design standards.

15.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 15.4.1. A summary of the formal consultation responses that have been received to date is

provided in Table 15.1.


Consultee Summary

Environment Agency The report should consider flood risk and a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The FRA should consider flooding from all sources and show that flood risk to others would not be increased.




Consultee Summary

The report should be undertaken in regard to the obligations under the Water Framework Directive to protect and prevent the deterioration of local surface water bodies including the River Aire.

The report will consider potential impacts on groundwater from the development including potential below ground structures where these are included in the design. If below ground structures are progressed discussion with the Environment Agency should be sought.

Wakefield MDC Drainage department should be consulted regarding consenting requirements for the ordinary watercourse of Fryston Beck.

Environment Agency via the SoS as part of the scoping opinion

All finished floor levels of any proposed building should be set to a minimum of 600mm above the 1:100yr climate change flood level.

Any development within the section of the site that lies within floodzone 3 would require compensatory flood storage, if the development was to reduce the amount currently available.

Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to the source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach. There should be o increase in surface water runoff from the new development.

An on-site storm water storage facility should be provided to accommodate the flood volume for a 1 in 100 year return period, plus a 30% allowance for climate change.


Construction

Surface Water – Contaminated Runoff Entering Watercourses and Spillage of Pollutants

15.5.1. During construction, there is an elevated risk of leakage or accidental spillage of building materials and potential pollutants used on site, migrating to nearby surface watercourses or infiltrating to groundwater. Washout facilities (washing of tools, plant and equipment), storage and use of various liquids and soluble solids, unstable exposed soils, excavated materials, stored aggregates, contaminated road surfaces, and fuel storage and handling all have the potential to result in pollution of water resources. Inappropriate disposal of waste materials associated with the construction phase also has the potential to enter surface water.

15.5.2. Some construction activities could have the potential to create pathways through the subsurface strata and lead to contamination of the underlying principal aquifer. A




significant discharge of fuel, for example, or a toxic substance would be detrimental to surface water and groundwater receptors and attributes.

15.5.3. Contaminated material exposed or disturbed during the construction works has the potential to affect surface water or groundwater as discussed in Chapter 16 Ground Conditions. As described, there is not a significant risk of impact from contaminated material on surface water and groundwater receptors after the implementation of defined mitigation measures. Details are provided in Chapter 16 Ground Conditions which should be referred to for further information.

15.5.4. With the measures set out in the Impact Avoidance section above, the likelihood of such an event occurring is low. Taking this into account, and based on the information available to date, the anticipated potential effects on different attributes are described below.

River Aire

• water quality and WFD (Ref 15-2); status: - (high importance) -

− there is the possibility of a measurable but highly localised and temporary change in water quality, assuming a worst case scenario of a major spillage of a pollutant (this conclusion is reached having consideration to the dilution potential of the river and its current quality). Given the distance from the site to the River Aire, any spillage of pollutant is likely to infiltrate into the surface layers or pond on the surface, allowing clean up, prior to reaching the watercourse. Similarly during construction phase temporary drainage including attenuation ponds will be installed to capture any spillage. If, however, a spillage of pollutant did reach the River Aire, considering the dilution potential and current quality, the potential impact is evaluated to be of very low magnitude. Whilst effects might be experienced in the localised area, no effect on the quality of the river and WFD status would be experienced with the implementation of the impact avoidance measures. The significance of this effect is therefore considered to be minor adverse.

• recreation (medium importance) -

− there exists the potential for a localised temporary impact on recreational activity such as walking and river navigation, but given the localised nature, such an impact is evaluated to be of low magnitude as a worst case scenario.

− the resulting effect would be minor adverse considering the magnitude and importance.

• biodiversity (high importance) -

− there is the possibility of a highly localised effect on water quality that could potentially have a temporary and localised ecological impact. The impact and effect, however, would be constrained to the area immediately adjacent to the site and given the level of dilution, distance from site and attenuation existing on the site, the magnitude of impact on the ecology (populations of fish, invertebrates etc. being affected from the changes to water quality) would be expected to be very low. The significance of this effect is therefore considered to be minor adverse.

Surface Water

15.5.5. The movement and storage of construction and waste materials to and from the Site, and from other construction activities has the potential to give rise to suspended solids that




could become entrained in surface water run-off from the Site following rainfall. This creates a potential risk of increased sediment loads being discharged into the nearby surface water.

15.5.6. High sediment input has the potential to affect waterbodies by increasing turbidity, reducing dissolved oxygen (DO) levels and reducing light penetration. There could also be toxic effects caused by inorganic and organic compounds associated with suspended sediment. Indirect effects could include impacts on invertebrates and fish communities, and destruction of feeding areas, refuges and both breeding and spawning grounds.

15.5.7. With the measures set out in the Impact Avoidance section above, however, the likelihood of this occurring will be very low. Taking this into account, the following effects on different attributes are described below.

River Aire

• water quality and WFD (Ref 15-2) status (high importance) -

− possible localised and temporary changes in water quality, no effect on water quality and WFD status would be experienced. The significance of this effect is therefore considered to be neutral.


− there exists the potential for a localised temporary impact on recreational activity, but given the localised nature, such an impact is evaluated to be of low magnitude as a worst case scenario.

− the resulting effect would be minor adverse.


− it is possible that the River Aire could experience a localised and temporary impact with the potential to affect ecology (fish, invertebrates etc., resulting from a change in water quality). Considering a worst case scenario, this impact is evaluated to result in an impact of very low magnitude in the localised area immediately adjacent to the site. The significance of this effect is therefore considered to be minor adverse.

Disturbance of Contaminated Materials 15.5.8. Contaminated material exposed or disturbed during the construction works has the

potential to affect surface water or groundwater as discussed in Chapter 16 Ground Conditions. As described, there is not a significant risk of impact from contaminated material on surface water and groundwater receptors after the implementation of defined mitigation measures. Therefore the significance of this effect is assessed as negligible. Details are provided in Chapter 16 Ground Conditions which should be referred to for further information.

Groundwater – Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Pollutants 15.5.9. As discussed in relation to impacts on surface water, during the construction phase there

is a low risk of leakage or accidental spillage of potential pollutants used during construction, which may then migrate to underlying groundwater (though the impact avoidance measures set out above will minimise the risk). The site is underlain by superficial deposits that are classed as a Secondary A Aquifer, and it is considered that they are high permeability, providing limited protection to the Principal Aquifer below.




Measures included in Chapter 16 Ground Conditions and in the impact avoidance section above will act to prevent such an incident from occurring, and therefore it is assumed there will be no potential for impact on the Principal Aquifer and the significance of effect is assessed as negligible. The impact on the water quality and quantity of the perched groundwater (Secondary A Aquifer of low importance) would potentially be of moderate magnitude, although some attenuation of pollutants would occur in the superficial deposits, and there would be a minor adverse effect. This is based on the poor quality of the Secondary A Aquifer (superficial aquifer of low importance based on it being an attribute of low quality).

Opening and Operation

Surface Water – Contamination of Site Runoff or Leaks from the Drainage System

15.5.10. A conceptual drainage strategy is under development for the Proposed Development. It is assumed that the drainage system will be designed to ensure any polluting waste is sent for treatment (either via foul sewer to the public sewerage system or to a dedicated package treatment plant) and that any uncontaminated surface water will be discharged to an adjacent watercourse (likely to be Fryston Beck). Whilst pollution prevention features will be included in the design as set out in the Impact Avoidance section above, there always remains the potential for a cross-connection or leakage from the system to occur (albeit the risk is very low).

15.5.11. The impacts associated with contamination of surface water (with sediments, fuels etc.) are considered to be the same as those assessed in relation to leakage from drainage system, as any potentially polluting substances would be stored inside buildings as set out below. Implementation of the Impact Avoidance measures as described above will ensure the risk of contamination of site runoff is low.

15.5.12. Pollution from leaks within the foul drainage system or runoff of contaminated surface water from the Proposed Development entering the river will cause little change to the River Aire due to the level of dilution in the waterbody.

15.5.13. The effects of pollution from foul drainage or contaminated surface runoff will be:

River Aire

• water quality and WFD status (high importance) -

− given the distance from the site to the River Aire, any contaminated run off is likely to infiltrate into the surface layers or pond on the surface, allowing clean up, prior to reaching the watercourse. The surface drainage system will be designed with attenuation features that have the potential to capture any contaminated runoff for treatment. If, however, a spillage of pollutant did reach the River Aire, or a leak occurred in the foul drainage system, considering the dilution potential and current quality, the potential impact would be localised and temporary, and evaluated to be of very low magnitude.

− no effect on water quality and WFD status would be experienced, the significance of this effect is therefore considered to be minor adverse.


− there exists the potential for a localised temporary impact on recreational activity, but given the localised nature, such an impact is evaluated to be of very low magnitude as a worst case scenario.




− the resulting effect would be negligible.


− it is possible that the River Aire could experience a localised and temporary impact. Considering a worst case scenario, this impact is evaluated to result in an impact of very low magnitude in the localised area immediately adjacent to the site with no overall impact on ecological populations the significance of this effect is therefore considered to be minor adverse.

Drainage and Flow to Surface Water and Ground Waters 15.5.14. The changes to drainage have the potential to alter the discharge rates from the Site and

thus flow dynamics within adjacent watercourses (increase in spate flows, scouring of the stream bed, etc.), along with decreasing infiltration to groundwater and therefore recharge of the aquifer. However, the anticipated flow changes would not be significant enough to affect larger waterbodies, such as the River Aire.

15.5.15. Although the detailed drainage design has not been completed, drainage will follow the existing site catchment and outfall routes to surface watercourses and will be designed so as not to increase flood risk. These measures allow the design criterion of no flooding during a 1 in a 100 year storm to be achieved.

Groundwater

15.5.16. Once the Proposed Development is operational, the probability of any operational activity occurring that would affect groundwater is low. There is, however, the potential for leakage or accidental spillage of potential pollutants (e.g. any fuel stored on site or vehicle washing) that may migrate to the underlying groundwater.

15.5.17. Unless a pathway to the underlying Principal Aquifer is created in the construction phase (and it is assumed that mitigation measures incorporated into the design will prevent this from occurring) then it is considered highly unlikely that any contaminant would reach the Principal Aquifer during site operation.

15.5.18. The effect of a spillage on the superficial deposits (Secondary A Aquifer) could cause a measurable but localised temporary change in groundwater quality (impact of low magnitude). Given the low importance of this attribute, the effect on the superficial aquifer would be negligible.

Potential Impacts on WFD Status

15.5.19. The WFD status has been considered for each of the potential impacts described as part of this assessment.

15.5.20. Given the nature of the impacts (notably that they are largely of temporary nature and/or unlikely to affect the WFD (Ref 15-2) elements), and assuming the measures included in the Impact Avoidance section are effectively implemented, there will be no effect on WFD status and objectives.

15.5.21. Proposed WFD mitigation measures as included within the Humber River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) (Ref15-4) include the preservation of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and the riparian zone, improving floodplain connectivity, appropriate vegetation control, set back and the removal of obsolete structures (Ref 15-4 and 15-5).

15.5.22. Mitigation measures already in place on the River Aire include the strategic management of sediment, bank rehabilitation, reducing impact of dredging and reducing sediment suspension (Ref 15-4 and 15-5).



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 15.5.23. The Proposed Development is unlikely to significantly impact upon the ability these

mitigation measures to be implemented and for the current mitigation measures to remain.

15.6. Mitigation measures 15.6.1. The following groundwater and surface water impact avoidance measures are

recommended for incorporation into the design or are standard construction or operational practices.

15.6.2. As a general measure to protect ground and surface water from a range of potentially dangerous activities associated with construction of this type, best practice will be implemented through a CEMP, whilst the contractors undertaking works at the Proposed Development will comply with relevant guidance during construction.

15.6.3. The contractor(s) will ensure that site personnel are fully aware of the potential impact to water resources associated with the proposed construction works and procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental pollution event occurring. This will be included in the site induction and training, with an emphasis on procedures and guidance to reduce the risk of water pollution.

15.6.4. Plans to deal with accidental pollution will be drawn up and agreed with the EA prior to construction commencing and any necessary equipment (e.g. spillage kits) will be held on site and all site personnel will be trained in their use. The EA would be promptly notified in the unlikely event of a suspected pollution incident.

15.6.5. The contractor(s) will be required to place arisings and temporary stockpiles as far away from watercourses and drainage systems as possible, and surface water will be directed away from stockpiles to prevent erosion.

15.6.6. Containment measures will be implemented, including bunding or double-skinned tanks of fuels and oils; all chemicals will be stored in accordance with their Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) guidelines (Ref 15-19), whilst spill kits will be provided in areas of fuel/ oil storage.

15.6.7. An Emergency Spillage Plan will be produced, which site staff will have read and understood.

15.6.8. The mixing and handling of materials will be undertaken in designated areas and as far away from surface water drains as possible.

15.6.9. Plant and machinery will be kept away from surface water bodies wherever possible and will have drip trays installed beneath oil tanks/ engines/ gearboxes and hydraulics, which will be checked and emptied regularly. Refuelling and delivery areas will be located away from surface water drains.

15.6.10. Exposed ground and stockpiles will be protected as appropriate and practicable to prevent windblown migration of potential contaminants.

15.6.11. A number of impact avoidance measures are identified herein which have been taken into account in the assessment. No additional mitigation requirements have been identified as being required.

15.6.12. Temporary drainage facilities will be provided during the construction phase, where necessary, to ensure controlled discharge of surface water runoff.

15.6.13. Measures that should be implemented for temporary drainage include:

• installation of measures such as swales, silt fences and appropriately sized settlement tanks/ ponds to reduce sediment load;




• cut-off ditches or geotextile silt-fences, installed around excavations, exposed ground and stockpiles to prevent uncontrolled release of sediments from the Proposed Development;

• site access points will be regularly cleaned to prevent build-up of dust and mud:

• a valve to isolate the settlement tank/ ponds in the event of a polluted discharge;

• oil interceptors to be installed (notably the outflow from the settlement pond/ tank) to reduce the potential risk for contamination of groundwater and surface water; and

• all potentially polluted waters (including washdown areas, stockpiles and other areas of risk for water pollution) to have separate drainage and to be tankered away from the site.

15.6.14. Flood risk management measures will be provided to minimise the risk of flooding from all sources, but specifically fluvial, overland flow and surface water run-off. The following measures can be adopted to ensure the operation of the plant is maintained during times of inundation and enable swift recovery following a flood event:

• placement of main plant and flood sensitive equipment above the River Aire 1 in 100 year flood level plus an allowance for climate change;

• to prevent the ingress of overland flow to buildings, finished floor levels will be raised above adjacent ground levels and the site drainage and landscape design will follow such guidance as CIRIA C635 (Ref 15-20), to minimise the risk from exceedance flows and any overland flow entering the Proposed Development Site buildings;

• adequate containment of storage areas, to ensure that material does not wash away and cause pollution and damage to infrastructure; and

• adoption of flood proofing and resilience measures to minimise damage to buildings and the timescales for the resulting clean-up operation. Examples of such measures include wet-proofing by raising electrical wiring above flood levels.

15.6.15. Details of the final site drainage have yet to be confirmed, and these details will be incorporated into the final ES on receipt. It is likely that surface water run-off from the Proposed Development site will be restricted to the current Greenfield run-off rate through the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). All new developments should aim to direct surface water runoff into infiltration schemes or nearby watercourses/ surface water systems that discharge to rivers directly, in line with the requirements of Building Standards Regulations Part H (Ref 15-11). By using separate surface water sewers, the risk of urban flooding and exceedance of foul sewers will be avoided.

15.6.16. A Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan (FWEP) will be considered for the Proposed Development, dependent on the findings of the final FRA. A FWEP will inform and assist the site occupant on the protocols and procedures required to overcome the risk from flooding and emergency evacuation in the event of a flood occurring from the Humber Estuary River Humber.

15.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 15.7.1. The drainage strategy, topographical survey, geotechnical investigation and some of the

baseline data have not yet been received, therefore it has not yet been possible to complete the FRA for the site, and the water resources effects identified within this chapter are provisional pending receipt of that information. In addition, design and operational management aspects are subject to potential change as the design process




progresses. Any changes arising from this or the receipt of the additional data will be set out clearly within the final ES including the reasons for the changes.

15.8. References Ref. 15-1 DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions)

document 'Transport Analysis Guidance' (known as WebTAG) Unit 3.3.11; DfT; 2003

Ref. 15-2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy (or the EU Water Framework Directive)

Ref. 15-3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; Volume 11 Environmental Assessment; 2009 (as amended 2013)

Ref. 15-4 River Basin Management Plan for the Humber River; Environment Agency; 2009 (as amended)

Ref. 15-5 Environment Agency What’s in Your Backyard? website available at http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/ (last accessed 15/08/13)

Ref. 15-6 Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (or the EU Freshwater Fish Directive)

Ref. 15-7 Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (as amended by Regulations 1882/2003/EC and 1137/2008/EC) (or the EU Nitrates Directive)

Ref. 15-8 Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 1 General guide to the prevention of pollution; Environment Agency; 2000

Ref. 15-9 PPG 2 Above ground oil storage tanks; Environment Agency; 2010

Ref. 15-10 PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems; Environment Agency; 2007

Ref. 15-11 PPG 4 Treatment and disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is available; Environment Agency; 2006

Ref. 15-12 PPG 5 Works and maintenance in or near water; Environment Agency; 2007

Ref. 15-13 PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites; Environment Agency; 2010

Ref. 15-14 PPG 7 Refuelling activities; Environment Agency; 2004

Ref. 15-15 PPG 8 Safe storage and disposal of used oils; Environment Agency; 2004

Ref. 15-16 PPG 13 Vehicle washing and cleaning; Environment Agency; 2007

Ref. 15-17 PPG 18 Managing fire water and major spillages; Environment Agency; 2000

Ref. 15-18 PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning; Environment Agency; 2009

Ref. 15-19 Guidance on the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH); HSE; 2002

Ref. 15-20 Designing for Exceedance in Urban Drainage – Good Practice (C635); CIRIA; May 2006


http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/



Ref. 15-21 The Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document H Drainage and Waste Disposal (Part H3) 2002 edition incorporating 2010 amendments; HM Government.




16. GROUND CONDITIONS

16.1. Introduction 16.1.1. This assessment addresses the potential effects predicted to arise on ground conditions

and groundwater resources as a consequence of impacts resulting from the Proposed Development. Consideration of impacts associated with potentially contaminated soils and groundwater is made in the context of existing site conditions, construction works, and following completion of the Proposed Development. The need for mitigation measures is addressed and any residual effects have been identified.

16.1.2. A Landmark Envirocheck® Report (Ref. 11-1) was commissioned to evaluate the regional presence of water abstractions and potentially contaminative land uses. In addition, a variety of data sources were consulted, such as published maps, reference materials and historical Ordnance Survey (OS) maps. All data sources are referenced as relevant in the following sections.

16.1.3. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the ground conditions assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

Methodology 16.1.4. Baseline conditions were first established, taking into account any known history or

conditions at the site. Potential receptors were then identified and their relative sensitivity evaluated.

16.1.5. The Proposed Development was then considered in detail, with respect to construction phase activities. Any ground contamination or soil quality related impacts that are considered likely to result have been described and, where possible, quantified.

16.1.6. The impacts or risks associated with contaminated land have generally been assessed by means of a hazard-pathway-receptor model (the Pollutant Linkage), where the following definitions apply:

• Hazard = source of contamination;

• Receptor = the entity that is vulnerable to harm from the hazard; and

• Pathway = the means by which the hazard can come into contact with the receptor.

16.1.7. This assessment considers both the impacts of existing contaminants at the Proposed Development site, and the potential for the Proposed Development to impact on land quality and receptors on and adjacent to the Site. The assessment also considers the potential for the Proposed Development to impact upon any geological/ geomorphologic features.

16.1.8. Land contamination sources can be described qualitatively according to the categories shown in Table 16.1. This is a qualitative judgement, but has been developed in line with accepted methodology for Phase 1 Desk studies and Part 2A contamination studies.

Table 16.1: Descriptive scale for different sources of land contamination

Qualitative description of source (Hazard)

Previous land uses

Low Greenfield site, or previous or on-going activities with





Qualitative description of source (Hazard)

Previous land uses

low potential to cause contamination (e.g. residential, retail or offices) OR site investigation data indicating no significant contamination.

Moderate Previous or on-going activities with some potential to cause moderate contamination (e.g. railways, collieries, scrap yards) OR site investigation data indicating limited contamination.

High Previous or on-going activity on or near to site with high potential to cause land contamination (e.g. gasworks, chemical works, landfills) OR site investigation data including widespread or severe contamination.

Receptors

16.1.9. Using information gathered during the desk-based study, the presence and relative sensitivity of receptors at risk from potential land contamination and risks to geological/ geomorphologic features have been evaluated by consideration of the following factors:

• surrounding land uses, based on mapping and site visits and consideration of the occupants of adjacent sites;

• proposed end-use, based on the nature of the Proposed Development;

• type of construction operations that will be necessary as part of the Proposed Development;

• surrounding sites of nature conservation importance;

• underlying groundwater;

• surrounding sites and/ or areas of geological/ geomorphologic importance; and

• geology, hydrogeology and hydrology of the Site and its surrounding area.

16.1.10. The sensitivity of potential receptors or geological features that could be affected by the Proposed Development is described qualitatively according to the categories presented in Table 16.2.

Table 16.2: Descriptive scale for sensitivity of receptors

Qualitative description

Receptor sensitivity

Low Moderate High

End users (operational workers/ visitors)

“Hard” end use (e.g. industrial, car parking).

Landscaping or open space.

Residential, allotments, play areas.

Surrounding land uses Industrial area. Open space or

commercial area. Residential area.




Table 16.2: Descriptive scale for sensitivity of receptors

Qualitative description

Receptor sensitivity

Low Moderate High

Construction workers

Minimal disturbance of ground.

Limited earthworks.

Extensive earthworks, and demolition of buildings.

Ecological sites

No sites of significant ecological value close by.

Locally designated ecological sites.

Nationally or internationally designated ecological sites.

Built environment Not applicable.

Buildings, including services and foundations.

Nationally or internationally designated sites of historic value or other sensitivity.

Geology/ geomorphology

Areas of superficial geology or geomorphologic features with no special significance.

Other areas of potential mineral resources.

Exposed geological features of local importance or educational value.

Nationally or internationally designated geological sites.

Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS).

Mineral reserve allocated on Local Minerals Plan

Groundwater

Non aquifer.

Low quality resource.

No abstraction within 1 km.

Secondary Aquifer.

Abstraction point within 1 km.

Ground Protection Zone (GPZ) within 1 km of the site.

Principal Aquifer.

High quality resource.

Abstraction point within 250 m.

GPZ on site.

Prediction of Potential Impacts 16.1.11. If a hazard has been identified and potentially sensitive receptors are present, then the

likely impacts associated with the Proposed Development can be predicted by considering the pathways by which the hazard may affect the receptors. Table 16.3 indicates the most likely potential impacts that may occur in relation to the site for different categories of receptor.

16.1.12. The impacts are assessed based on the existing use and predicted construction and operational stages of the Proposed Development.




Table 16.3: Summary of the most likely sources of potential land contamination impacts that may affect sensitive receptors

End users (operational

workers/ visitors)

Surrounding land uses

Construction workers

Sensitive water resources

Ecological sites

Built environment

Direct or indirect ingestion of contaminated soil

(operation)

Inhalation or deposition of wind-borne dust

(construction)

Direct or indirect ingestion of contaminated soil

(construction)

Existing and/ or new pollutant pathways

(construction)

Phytotoxic impacts on plants

(operation)

Chemical attack of buried concrete structures

(operation)

Concentration of flammable or asphyxiating in-ground gases in enclosed spaces

(operation)

Migration of contamination in sub-surface strata (including gases)

(construction)

Concentration of flammable or asphyxiating gases in confined spaces

(construction)

Generation of liquid and/ or mobile contaminants

(operation)

Toxic impacts on fauna

(operation and/or construction)

Concentration of flammable/ explosive gases in confined spaces.

Permeation of water supply pipelines

(operation)

Inhalation of harmful in-ground vapours/ dusts indoors and outdoors

(operation)

Inhalation of asbestos during building demolition

(construction)

Indirect impacts via contamination of water resources

(operation and/or construction)

16.1.13. The magnitude of a potential impact is described wherever possible by using the terms defined in Table 16.4.


Magnitude of impact

Examples of typical impacts

High

Loss of exposed designated geological feature.

Very high risk of exposure of a sensitive receptor to potentially harmful levels of contamination via a confirmed pathway.

Moderate

Quarrying of rock for imported fill, or substantial changes due to cuttings.

Proven source – pathway – receptor pollutant linkage identified with elevated level of contamination recorded/ or potential to be present.





Magnitude of impact

Examples of typical impacts

Low

Superficial disturbance to geology; changes in geomorphology.

Identified source – pathway – receptor pollutant linkage identified but contamination likely to be low risk.

Very Low Changes to made ground deposits.

No source – pathway – receptor pollutant linkage identified.

16.1.14. The significance of effects is then determined using the standard assessment matrix, as indicated in Chapter 8 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria.


Geology 16.2.1. The geology of the site is indicated in the British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 scale

Solid and Drift geological map of the site (Sheet 78 Wakefield) and the 1:10,000 scale Solid and Drift map Sheet SE 42 SE. The 1:50,000 geological map indicates the site to be underlain by Middle Permian Marl or Lower Magnesian Limestone bedrock of the Cadeby Formation, which is of Permian age. The Cadeby Formation is described on the 1:10,000 scale plan as ‘Yellow-brown and buff, friable dolomite with patch reefs in the basal 20 m’. It is considered from the geological map that the Cadeby Formation is over 50 m in thickness in the location of the site. It is believed that the Lower Magnesian Limestone outcrops or subcrops across the majority of the site area, and dips to the south or south-east.

16.2.2. The Cadeby Formation rests unconformably on the Upper or Middle Coal Measures. Productive coal seams within the Middle Coal Measures are known to have been worked under the site. The 1:10,000 scale geological map indicates that the entire site area is covered by Made Ground. Top of bedrock is expected to subcrop at the western side of the site, covered with a layer of cohesive material typically ranging in thickness from 0.5 m to 2 m, while on the eastern side glaciofluvial deposits cover the bedrock. The thickness of the granular material increases moving towards east and expected maximum depth of bedrock is about 9 m. The Fairy Hill fault passes through the site, dipping to the north-east. The Pontefract Fault passes to the south of the site, dipping to the north-east. These faults may influence the local hydrogeological regime.

Coal Mining 16.2.3. A Coal Authority Report obtained for the Site indicates that it is within the likely zone of

influence of workings from seven seams of coal at depths of 140 m to 640 m. The seams were last worked in 1984. Any ground movement from these coal workings should have ceased by now.

16.2.4. The Site is not within an area for which the Coal Authority is determining whether to grant a license to remove coal, although reserves of coal exist in the local area that could be worked in the future.




Hydrogeology 16.2.5. The EA website indicates that the Site is underlain by a Principal Aquifer (highly

permeable), which is considered to relate to the underlying dolomitic limestone. These are layers of rock or drift deposits that have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability - meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale.

16.2.6. The EA website also indicates that there is a Secondary A Aquifer associated with the superficial alluvium and glaciofluvial deposits located in the eastern part of the Site. Secondary A Aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers.

16.2.7. Groundwater in the Secondary A Aquifer is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the underlying Principal Aquifer due to the granular nature of the superficial deposits. Groundwater (in both aquifers) is anticipated to flow south east towards the River Aire.

16.2.8. The Landmark Envirocheck® Report shows there are three groundwater abstractions and one surface water abstraction located within 1km of the Site boundary. Trustees of Ferrybridge Golf Club are licensed to abstract groundwater for irrigation and Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station has two licenses for the abstraction of groundwater for the production of energy (boiler feed). The surface water abstraction is from the River Aire and licensed to Keadby Generation Ltd for General Cooling at Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power station.

16.2.9. There are no Source Protection Zones located within 1km of the Site and the groundwater is listed as ‘probably not at risk’ Drinking Water Protected Area by the EA.

Hydrology 16.2.10. The surface water hydrology baseline is described in Chapter 15 Water Resources and

Flood Risk.

Historical Information and Previous Studies 16.2.11. Information regarding the site is available from the Landmark report and a number of

previous studies on the Ferrybridge Power Station site. A full history of the site and summary of previous studies will be provided in the final ES. To inform this preliminary assessment, the following documents have been reviewed:

• Ordnance Survey Maps;

• BGS, National Geoscience Information Service’

• Landmark Envirocheck® Report;

• Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station (Ref 16-1);

• Geotechnical Interpretive Report for FM1 (Ref 16-2); and

• Knowledge gained during construction of FM1.

Potential Receptors and Sensitivity 16.2.12. Potential receptors and their associated sensitivity include:

• site workers during operation – low based on covering of site in hardstanding;

• surrounding land uses – a low sensitivity based on Ferrybridge ‘C’ power Station and high with regards to Fryston Park;




• construction workers - high based on extensive earthworks during construction including levelling of golf course and construction of the fuel storage bunker;

• ecological sites – low as no sites of significant ecological value within 500 m of the site;

• built environment – moderate due to the close proximity of Ferrybridge ‘C’ power Station;

• geology – low as no significant sites identified within 500m radius of the site;

• groundwater – moderate sensitivity associated with the shallow Secondary A Aquifer in the superficial deposits. A high sensitivity is associated with the deeper Principal Aquifer in the Cadeby Limestone; and

• surface water – moderate sensitivity as Fryston Beck is culverted within the site boundary.

16.3. Development Design and Impact Avoidance 16.3.1. A number of impact avoidance measures have either been incorporated into the design

or are standard construction and/ or operational practices. These measures have therefore been taken into account during the assessment presented in this chapter. The list of measures below are those identified in addition to the measures already described in Chapter 15 Water Resources and Flood Risk, which are also relevant to this chapter.

Construction

16.3.2. During construction of the development the contractor(s) will be required to minimise adverse land contamination effects on sensitive receptors by implementing good operational practices (e.g. the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as dust masks if necessary, and suitable surface water drainage control).

16.3.3. During earthworks operations, the contractor(s) will ensure that all material is suitable for its proposed use and will not result in an increase in contamination-related risks on identified receptors including any landscaped areas. This is proposed to be controlled under a Material Management Plan as defined in the CIRIA Definition of Waste (Ref 16-3).

16.3.4. The contractor(s) will be required to implement pollution control measures to deal with any contaminated land encountered during the site construction operations. These measures will include the following:

• should any potentially contaminated ground, including isolated ‘hotspots’ of contamination, be encountered during construction, the contractor(s) will be required to investigate the area and then assess whether there is a need for containment or disposal of the material. The contractor(s) will also be required to assess whether any additional health and safety measures are required. Any such investigations will be required to be undertaken in consultation with the Environment Agency and other appropriate consultees. To further minimise the risks of contaminants being mobilised and contaminating other soils/ water during the development of the site, construction workers will be briefed as to the possibility of the presence of such materials; and

• in the event that contamination is identified during site works, appropriate remediation measures will be undertaken to protect construction workers, future site users, water resources, structures and services.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 16.3.5. There is limited evidence that asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are located on the

site (asbestos was found during the FM1 works but it was highly localised and in very low levels). However, should any ACM be encountered during the construction phase (such as in infilled ground/ made ground), associated works will be undertaken in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (which includes measures set to safeguard human health and the environment).

16.3.6. Construction activities will include piling which has the potential to have a residual effect on ground conditions at the site. Piling design and construction works will be completed following a risk assessment completed in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Guidance on Pollution Prevention in piling (Ref 16-4).

Operation

16.3.7. Of particular relevance to the assessment of impacts on groundwater is the design of the fuel storage bunker. Three options have been considered as set out in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development. In order to avoid potential impacts on groundwater, issues with spoil and due to other technical considerations, the option of a below-groundwater bunker has been dropped. Still under consideration are a storage bunker totally above ground and one sunk to below ground but above the groundwater table (circa 3 m below ground level).

16.3.8. The following measures will be implemented through the implementation of an Operational Environmental Management Plan:

• all site operatives will be provided with appropriate PPE for their designated tasks;

• procedures as set out by the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) England Regulations 2001 and related guidance (e.g. Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) 2 (Ref 16-5) will be followed during the design and installation of any oil storage tanks. Any tanks required will be bunded and double skinned in accordance with the Regulations;

• appropriate environmental controls for the handling of chemicals and oils (including COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) assessments etc.) will be implemented. Any chemicals present within Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) or drums will adhere to storage and handling guidance presented within PPG 26 (Ref 16-6);

• any oil and/ or chemical spills will immediately be cleared up and documented, and the Environment Agency will be notified of any large spillages of fuel or chemicals; and

• surface water collection drains will be used in conjunction with interceptors to collect runoff. This will help reduce potential contamination of land and groundwater. The site drainage design will be developed in consultation with the Environment Agency.


16.3.9. Future baseline conditions in 2018 are expected to remain the same as the existing baseline described above.







Consultee Date Summary


July 2013 Baseline of ES should explain in detail the extent of the study area (with justification); approach to Phase 1 and conceptual site model should be agreed with the EA; SoS welcomes approach of alternative design options for the fuel bunker and discussion with consultees; potential for cumulative effects on groundwater flow and quality with FM1 should be considered;

Environment Agency via the SoS as part of the scoping opinion

July 2013 Preferred option in this location would be an above ground bunker, the option of below sub-water table storage is of concern due to potential detrimental impacts on the water environment, especially the in-combination effects of two very large structures both acting as a barrier to flow. We welcome opportunities for further discussion on this issue as the investigations progress.

.


Construction Impacts and Effects

Impacts

16.5.1. Potential impacts on ground conditions during the construction phase are anticipated to include the following:

• the magnitude of impact arising from discovering soils returning visual and olfactory evidence of contamination during groundworks is considered to be low given the history of the site;

• foundation methods and construction activities that may open and/ or modify potential pollutant linkages, including the disturbance of soils and creation of additional pathways via piling methods etc. The magnitude of this activities impacting on the environment is considered to be low given the history of the site;

• the magnitude of impact arising from re-profiling the site, including the possible introduction of new fill materials and the removal of unsuitable materials for off-site disposal, is considered to be low, assuming that a Material Management Plan (MMP) is commissioned;

• the magnitude of runoff from contaminated material exposed and/ or stockpiled during site construction works is considered to be low given the history of the site; and

• the magnitude of contamination arising from spillages associated with vehicles and construction materials is considered to be low assuming that the necessary controls and preventative measures are adopted.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 16.5.2. The magnitude of impact arising from airborne contamination arising from potentially

contaminated dusts is considered to be moderate. Previous investigations completed adjacent to this site have encountered low concentrations of asbestos that can be controlled using good working practices such as dust mitigation and ensuring that the site engineers have completed asbestos awareness training:

• the magnitude impact resulting from the removal of any waste materials and/ or contaminated soil, and the introduction of contaminated materials during infilling activities is considered to be low assuming that a Material Management Plan is commissioned;

• the potential for the construction work, and piling in particular, to increase the risks to the quality of the groundwater are assessed to be slight, assuming that future site investigation determines the extent of potential contamination and remedial measures are employed to mitigate the potential risks from ground and groundwater contamination; and

• the magnitude of impact arising from the collection of ground gases in open excavations is assessed to be low.

Effects

16.5.3. No ground investigation data are currently available for the Site. This preliminary assessment is based on other data available for the site, including from FM1. A ground investigation is underway and information from that survey will be included in the final EIA. Given the historical and current land uses (primarily off-site associated with Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station), there is the potential for risks to human health associated with land contamination. Following the implementation of standard impact avoidance measures (based on industry best practice guidance documents, and to be set out in full in the final ES), the adverse effect upon construction worker human health from soil-borne contamination has been assessed as minor.

16.5.4. No ground gas monitoring has been undertaken for the Site. Based on the findings of the baseline study there is the potential for ground gases to be present primarily from organic matter natural alluvium and glaciofluvial deposits, which during construction could have an adverse effect on the health of construction workers in confined spaces. There are also potential risks of explosion if explosive gases were able to accumulate in excavations. Following the implementation of standard site management measures the adverse effect upon construction workers from ground gases and vapours has been assessed as minor.

16.5.5. The site is located in an area occupied by industrial/ commercial activities to the south and east (low risk receptors), the A1 viaduct to the west (low risk receptor) with Fryston Park (high risk receptor) beyond. Although no specific ground investigation data are currently available for the Site, considering the data available from adjacent areas and following the implementation of standard site management measures, the effect to adjacent areas due to the migration of contaminated airborne dust is likely to be negligible.

16.5.6. Baseline conditions indicate that there is the potential for contamination sources to be present on the Proposed Development Site which could impact upon water quality during the construction phase (in particular piling activities or dewatering which could facilitate impacts upon the underlying Principal Aquifer), whilst surface waters could be impacted through the horizontal migration of contaminants. With the implementation of standard impact avoidance measures, the adverse effects to controlled waters (groundwater and surface waters) have been assessed as minor.




Commissioning and Operation

Impacts

16.5.7. Potential impacts on ground conditions at the commissioning of the Proposed Development and thereafter during its operation are considered to comprise the following.

16.5.8. The magnitude of leaks and spillage from bulk storage including fuel oils for plant start-up and auxiliary burners, fuel oils for on-site machinery and plant, hydraulic oils for operation and plant maintenance, hydrated lime and above ground storage of flue gas treatment reagents (ammonia or urea solution, hydrated lime powder, activated carbon powder) is considered to be slight given all bulk storage will be in fully bunded areas with appropriate drainage and oil/water separators.

16.5.9. Waste generation including ash will have a low magnitude of impact assuming all ash is collected and disposed off-site appropriately.

16.5.10. The potential for downward migration of potential contamination from site activities is considered to be slight as the majority of the site will be covered in hardstanding, or bunded where necessary.

16.5.11. The magnitude for the build-up of ground gases in enclosed spaces and below ground voids/bunkers is considered to be low.

16.5.12. The potential magnitude of impacts arising from leaks and spillages from substations, transformers and maintenance workshops is considered to be moderate.

16.5.13. The magnitude of impact from drains as preferential pathways and surface water run-off from washdown liquids is considered to be low given the installation of adequate drainage and installation of oil/water separators.

Effects

16.5.14. Where present, impermeable surfaces on the Proposed Development Site should reduce the infiltration of rainwater and any chemical leaks or spills to the underlying ground. Large volumes of chemicals and fuels should be suitably stored in bunded areas of 110% of the storage capacity. Delivery points for fuel oils will also be within bunded areas and the surface water drainage system will include oil / water separators. The adverse effects upon the health of site users from leaks and spills and contamination arising from waste storage areas following the implementation of such impact avoidance measures has been assessed as minor.

16.5.15. The effects to surrounding land uses (off-site commercial workers at Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station) are also considered to be minor.

16.5.16. Similarly the effects to controlled waters have been assessed as moderate with respect to groundwater and minor with respect to surface water, ecological sites and geological sites.

16.5.17. Risks associated with ground gases are uncertain and represent a potential risk to future site users entering confined spaces (e.g. drain access covers) during the operational phase. Ground gas build-up may generate acute risks such as asphyxia or an explosive/ flammable risk. The adverse effects to future site users and buildings have been assessed as minor, following the implementation of impact avoidance measures, but without additional mitigation). The ongoing ground investigation will inform whether further ground gas monitoring is required on site.




16.6. Mitigation Measures 16.6.1. At present there are limited ground investigation data relating specifically to the Site,

covering the area consented under FM1 Section 36 application. In addition, site investigation data for FM1 and Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station is available. Given the historical and current land use, both on and off site, and the underlying natural alluvium, there is limited potential for contamination to be present on the Site which could impact upon human health, controlled waters and ecological receptors.

16.6.2. A site specific ground investigation has been undertaken within the Site, and the results will be analysed and incorporated into the final ES. The ground investigation has been designed to assess the ground conditions across the Site, including the quality of the subsurface soils, which could typically be encountered during the construction works, the quality of groundwater, shallow perched groundwater and the potential for ground gas generation and migration.

16.6.3. On receipt of data from the ground investigation it should be possible to define the need for any mitigation measures.

16.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 16.7.1. Ground investigations have not been completed at the Proposed Development Site and

therefore potential contamination impacts presented herein are based on a conservative (worst case) assessment of the potential ground conditions determined through the review of historic and existing site land uses. The findings are subject to review in the final ES once the ground investigation results are available.

16.8. References Ref. 16-1 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National

Planning Policy Framework.

Ref. 16-2 Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. Contaminated Land Research Report No. 11.

Ref. 16-3 Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice

Ref. 16-4 Environment Agency (2001) Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention.

Ref. 16-5 Environment Agency (2011a) Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks: PPG2.

Ref. 16-6 Environment Agency (2011b) Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Drums and Intermediate Bulk Containers: PPG26.




17. ECOLOGY

17.1. Introduction 17.1.1. A programme of desk-based and field surveys was undertaken within the site boundary of

the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station in 2009 in order to establish the ecological baseline for FM1. This information was used to inform the FM1 ES.

17.1.2. An updated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out on May 16th 2013, the data from which has been used, along with information from an updated desk-based study, to reassess the baseline currently present at the Site, map habitats present and identify the need to update any protected species surveys. Decisions on whether to undertake further updated surveys in 2013 were based on changes in regional species distribution and the identification of any changes to habitats with the potential to change the baseline conditions relating to protected and notable species.

17.1.3. The standard study area for habitat assessment extends to approximately 500 m from the Site boundary where accessible. The nature and location of the FM2 site means that natural and man-made barriers restrict relevance and necessity to extend further than the A1(M), which borders the site to the west and north-west, the River Aire which borders the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site to the east and north-east, and the operational power station, elements of which border the Proposed Development Site both to the east and the south.

17.1.4. Given the nature of the Proposed Development and its potential operational impacts the desk-based study extended up to 5 km from the Proposed Development Site boundary.

17.1.5. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Ecology assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

Methodology

17.1.6. The ecological assessment of the Proposed Development follows established guidelines. Although the approach adopted for the study, particularly the evaluation of ecological resources, has been based upon recognised techniques of ecological impact assessment published by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2006) (Ref. 17-1), there are some deviations. Such deviations are explained in full where implemented.

17.1.7. In this document the evaluation of species of plants and animals is based on the status of populations internationally important to receptors which are only of importance within the site boundary itself (i.e. of no ecological value outside the immediate surroundings).

17.1.8. The status of species that are rare or threatened is outlined nationally in various Red Data Books and lists and also in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (Ref 17-2) Section 41 list of species of principal importance for nature conservation in England. The local status of species is detailed in the Wakefield Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) in West Yorkshire (Ref. 17-3). There are national criteria for rarity and level of threat to populations for different groups of species. Species may be widespread or common nationally, but of scarce occurrence in the district. Conversely, a species may be common in a district context, but considered rare nationally. In addition, some species, termed legally protected species, such as bats, badger and the more common species of reptiles, are given statutory protection that protects them from harm or forms of disturbance.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 17.1.9. The assignment of value to a specific receptor requires use of relevant published

evaluation criteria (where available). Where published evaluation criteria do not exist it has been necessary to apply best judgement, supported by a carefully reasoned argument. The following categories of species value have been adopted for this study (Table 17.1).

Table 17.1 CIEEM scales of ecology and nature conservation value

CIEEM scale of value

Criteria Example

International

(European community and wider)

High importance and rarity, international scale and limited potential for substitution

Internationally designated sites (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs))

Sustainable area of a habitat listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such habitat where they are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole

Sustainable population of a species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive and Annex 1 of the Birds Directive

National

(England and UK)

High importance and rarity, national scale, or regional scale with limited potential for substitution

Nationally designated sites (e.g. SSSIs)

Regionally important sites with limited substitution possibilities

Sustainable area of a priority habitat identified in the Section 41 of the NERC Act

Sustainable population of a species listed on Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, of a species identified in Section 41 of the NERC Act, of a UK Red Data Book species, or of a nationally rare species (15 or fewer 10 km-squares in the UK)

Region/County

(Yorkshire and the Humber/ West Yorkshire)

High or medium importance and rarity local or regional scale and limited potential for substitution

Regionally important sites with potential for substitution Locally designated sites (e.g. SINCs)

Sustainable area of a priority habitat identified in the Wakefield Local BAP

Sustainable population of a priority species identified in the Local BAP or as a nationally scarce species (16-100 10 km squares in the UK)

District/ Local

(Wakefield/ Ferrybridge)

Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale

Undesignated sites that are good examples of a more widespread habitat, or species-poor examples of a habitat of note (as described above), or of earth heritage interest

Population of a species that is of low importance and rarity but of some value locally

Site

(Ferrybridge Power Station site)

Not applicable Sites, habitats and species not meeting any of the above criteria and valuable only within the site and immediate surroundings.

17.1.10. The ecological impact assessment is undertaken for the Proposed Development as currently designed. Sources of potential impacts of the Proposed Development are identified and then the magnitude of those impacts assessed. The rationale for assigning




these qualitative summaries of impact is supported through the provision of additional information as shown in Table 17.2. It is recognised that the design is currently evolving and there are some aspects (e.g. grid connection) not yet finalised. Where changes occur between this PEI Report and the final ES these will be specified in the ES and the assessment updated accordingly. It is not currently anticipated that any changes will occur that are likely to alter the conclusions of this preliminary assessment substantially.

Table 17.2. Environmental parameters that influence the severity of a potential impact or the significance of the resulting effect.

Factors affecting degree of impact

Explanation

Magnitude or extent Where the source of impact is land-take for construction of the Proposed Development, magnitude and extent would be the same, as they require an area of land. They may differ if indirect impacts are considered such as changes in water quality or disturbance. This is not the same as and should not be confused with ‘magnitude of impact’ (see Table 17.3).

Duration Where land take is taken for the Proposed Development, any loss of habitat is permanent, although new habitats may be created after construction. Other impacts may be of shorter duration, e.g. dust or disturbance during construction.

Reversibility The degree to which new habitats may provide a substitute for habitats lost during construction depends on the type and importance of the existing habitat affected and the time scale considered.

Timing Timing of habitat loss will be gradual and incremental unless otherwise indicated, but timing of other impacts may vary, for example seasonal disturbance to breeding birds.

Frequency (where applicable) This refers to intermittent or recurrent impacts, which may have more or less impact than lesser continuous impacts.

17.1.11. The magnitude of the impact on ecological receptors depends upon all of the above parameters and can relate to site integrity (where the site is related to the receptor being considered). Ecological integrity is defined in the Government circular: biodiversity and geological conservation – statutory obligations and their importance within the planning system (Ref 17-4) as follows:

“The integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and / or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified.”

17.1.12. The magnitude of an impact can be Major, Moderate, Minor or Neutral, as summarised in Table 17.3.

Table 17.3 Definitions of magnitude of impact

Scale of Magnitude Definition

Major A permanent or long-term effect on the integrity of a site or conservation status of a habitat, species assemblage / community, population or group. If adverse, this is likely to threaten its sustainability; if beneficial, this is likely to enhance its conservation status.




Table 17.3 Definitions of magnitude of impact

Scale of Magnitude Definition

Moderate A permanent or long-term effect on the integrity of a site or conservation status of a habitat, species assemblage / community, population or group. If adverse, this is unlikely to threaten its sustainability; if beneficial, this is likely to be sustainable but unlikely to enhance its conservation status.

Minor A short-term but reversible effect on the integrity of a site or conservation status of a habitat, species assemblage / community, population or group that is within the range of variation normally experienced between years.

Neutral/ No Change A short-term but reversible effect on the integrity of a site or conservation status of a habitat, species assemblage / community, population or group that is within the normal range of annual variation.

17.1.13. Although the methodology broadly follows CIEEM guidelines, the terminology used to describe significance of effects has been altered to allow for continuity between the chapters. Consequently, those categories of significance of effect that would ordinarily be used if the CIEEM guidelines were followed exactly have been converted to categories as shown in Table 17.4.

Table 17.4 Comparison of terminology used to describe the relative effect significance

Relative level of effect categories used for this

Environmental Statement

Corresponding Significance of effect categories (following CIEEM Guidelines)

Major adverse Significant at International/ National Level

Moderate adverse Significant at Regional/ County Level

Minor adverse Significant at Local/ District Level

Negligible Significant with the Zone of Influence/ No Effect

Minor beneficial Significant at Local/ District Level

Moderate beneficial Significant at Regional/ County Level

Major beneficial Significant at International/ National Level

17.1.14. Effects on ecology and features of nature conservation importance can be direct or indirect and include both adverse effects and beneficial effects. In most cases beneficial effects will arise from the provision of new habitats or restoration of existing habitats as part of the Proposed Development.

17.1.15. It is important to attribute a level of confidence by which the predicted effect has been assessed, particularly in the case where only a qualitative assessment can be made. The criteria for these definitions, as defined in CIEEM guidelines (Ref 17-1) are set out in Table 17.5. Unless otherwise stated, confidence levels are certain/ near certain.




Table 17.5 Confidence levels

Confidence Level Description

Certain/ near-certain Probability estimated at 95% chance or higher.

Probable Probability estimated to be at or above 50% but below 95%.

Unlikely Probability estimated to be at or above 5% but less than 50%.

Extremely unlikely Probability estimated at less than 5%.

17.2. Baseline Conditions 17.2.1. Interrogation of Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) online

resource reveals the presence of five statutory designated sites within 5 km of the search area. The site names and a brief summary of the reason for their designation are shown in Table 17.6 below:

Table 17.6 Statutory Designated Sites within the 5 km search radius of the Study Area

Name Designation Area (ha)

Location Key interest Level of Importance

Fairburn and Newton Ings

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

173.93 SE 453 275. Approximately 2.1 km north-west

Permanent open water with diverse wetland flora. Large numbers of birds, especially wintering wildfowl and migrants.

National

Madbanks and Ledsham Banks

SSSI 5.95 SE 452 290, SE 461 301. Approximately 3.8 km north-west

Lowland calcareous grassland. Permanent pasture with short, varied limestone turf.

National

Fairburn Ings

Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

189.32 SE 443 275. Approximately 2.1 km north-west

Extensive areas of marsh, open water and wet pasture attracting large numbers of birds. Especially migrating and wintering wildfowl.

National

Well Wood LNR 6.28 SE 457 266. Approximately 1 km north-west

Small calcareous grassland area surrounded by deciduous woodland. Plants include orchids such as common twayblade, other plants include yellow-wort and trefoils. There are butterflies throughout spring and summer.

National




Table 17.6 Statutory Designated Sites within the 5 km search radius of the Study Area

Name Designation Area (ha)

Location Key interest Level of Importance

Pontefract Country Park

LNR 22.66 SE 439 233. Approximately 3.3 km south-west

Wetlands and neutral grasslands. Large colony of orchids. Good population of reed bunting, frequent herons, yellowhammer, snipe and wintering gooseander. Brown hares on reserve and adjacent parkland.

National

17.2.2. West Yorkshire Ecology (WYE) returned records for 20 non-statutory designated sites within the 5km search area (see Table 17.7). North Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre (NEYEDC) returned records for 9 non-statutory sites within 5 km of the site.

Table 17.7 Non-Statutory Designated Sites

Name Designation Location (from site)

Level of Importance

Fryston Park LWS, Site of Ecological or Geological Importance (SEGI)

Within site boundary

County

Fryston Wood LWS (Wakefield Nature Area (WNA))

Within site boundary

District

Newfield Plantation LWS (Site of Scientific Interest - SSI)

3.2 km to NW County

Holywell Wood LWS (SSI) 2.5 km to W County

Willowgarths LWS (SSI) 4.3 km to E County

Newton Ings/ Ledston Ings

LWS (SSI) 3.7 km to NW County

Allerton Ings LWS (SSI), Leeds Nature Area (LNA)

3.7 km to NW County/District

Fryston Phase I and II LWS (SSI) 1.7 km to N District

Orchard Head LWS (SSI) 2.1 km to SW District

Well Wood LWS (SSI) 1.7 km to NW District

Wormstall Wood LWS (SSI) 3.7 km to N District

Newton Quarry LWS (SSI) 3.2 km to NW District

Cobblers Lane LWS (SSI) 2.8 km to S District

Wheldale Phase I LWS (SSI) 2.2 km to NW District

Leys Lane LWS (SSI) 3.3 km to SE District

Stansfield Road LWS (SSI) 2.6 km to W District




Table 17.7 Non-Statutory Designated Sites

Name Designation Location (from site)

Level of Importance

Pontefract Park north end

LWS (SSI) 3.9 km to SW District

Healdfield Quarry LWS (SSI) 3.5 km to W District

Harewood Park Pontefract

LWS (SSI) 3.8 km to S District

Smawthorne Marsh LWS (SSI) 4 km to W District

Bywater Wood LWS, SINC 3.9 km to NE County

Field at Betteras Hill Rd LWS SINC 4.2 km to NE County

Bank of R. Aire Fairburn-Brotherton

LWS, SINC 300 m to NE County

Frog Hall Quarry LWS, SINC 2.2 km to NE County

Woodland Edge at W of Byram Park

LWS, SINC 1.4 km to NE County

Meadow nr Hilliam Gate level crossing

LWS, SINC - Deleted 4.2 km to NE District

Wake Wood LWS, SINC 5 km to SE County

Byram Park (part in Brotherton)

LWS, SINC 1.9 km to NE County

Byram Park LWS, SINC 2.3 km to NE County

17.2.3. The Phase 1 Habitat Map for the Proposed Development site is included in Figure 17-1. The map shows the distribution of habitats throughout the site and includes target notes for features of particular interest or where further detail is necessary. Target notes are included in Technical Appendix 17A and are denoted in the following text as ‘TN’ with a number.

17.2.4. The buildings, plant and hard-standing within the site boundary have very little value for wildlife and are considered to have a negligible level of importance. They are not considered further in this assessment.

17.2.5. A large area within the Site is currently used to store topsoil from the FM1 construction site (TN12).

17.2.6. There is a pond within the Site boundary within the remaining area of the former golf course, in the north eastern corner of the site (TN13). The pond contains a diverse community of aquatic and emergent plants including: hard rush (Juncus inflexus), bulrush (Typha latifolia), flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus), Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), brooklime (Veronica beccabunga), willow moss (Fontinalis antipyretica). The former golf course pond within the Site is known to support common toad, which is a UK BAP species. It qualifies under the criterion and is, therefore, considered to be a Priority Habitat. It is judged to have local level importance for ecology and nature conservation.

17.2.7. The River Aire runs north-south close to the northeast extremity of the Site, 300 m from the location of FM2 at the closest point. Its banks are both wooded for large sections and




engineered, with pilings and plant relating to historical and existing power station operations. Although it has not been formally assessed against the relevant benchmarks (UK BAP criteria are still under development), given its scale it is considered likely to be at least of county importance for nature conservation.

17.2.8. Fryston Beck (TN1) runs beneath the existing power station site and emerges from culverts at two points within the Proposed Development site boundary. It runs, exposed, for approximately 150 m within the site boundary. It is approximately 3 m deep and 3 m wide with engineered banks set at approximately 45°. It does support a range of aquatic, wetland and grassland species along its length, but fails to meet any of the criteria for flowing water under the SINC Guidelines (Ref 17-5). In combination with the further downstream section and its associated pond/wetland, it is considered that the watercourse is of local importance for ecology and nature conservation.

17.2.9. The dominant habitat on the Site, amenity grassland is the primary habitat on what remains of the former Ferrybridge golf course and the proposed location for the main FM2 plant. The grassland is species poor and, despite the golf course not being used, is still maintained as such and the grass kept short with no areas of rough. There are some areas of species poor semi-improved grassland in eastern sections of the Proposed Development site.

17.2.10. There are areas of scrub and tall ruderal vegetation in the northern areas of the site on and around the railway embankment and other infrastructure (TN6).

17.2.11. There are a number of small areas of semi-natural woodland and plantation (and scattered trees) within the Site (TN4, TN5, TN8) including an area of woodland within the locally designated Fryston Park SEGI (TN3, TN7).

17.2.12. The area of Fryston Park SEGI and Fryston Wood LWS that falls within the Site (TN17) comprises woodland dominated by young mature sycamore and ash (Fraxinus excelsior).

17.2.13. ‘Lowland mixed deciduous woodland’ is identified as a priority in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and is also listed as a Habitat of Principal Importance under the provisions of Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 (Ref 17-2).

17.2.14. The woodland habitat within the Site comprises approximately 8 ha of semi-natural broadleaf woodland within the Fryston Park SEGI. The woodland is part of a historic woodland and has a diverse understorey with ancient woodland indicator species (although the site is not ancient woodland) characteristic of this site. The nationally rare green flowered helleborine (Epipactis phyllanthes) listed in the citation is, however, absent from the woodland. The constituent parts of the SEGI have county level importance. The areas of semi-natural woodland outside the SEGI do not meet the criteria for Habitats of Principal Importance and are judged to have local value for wildlife and nature conservation.

17.2.15. The area of the SEGI within the Site boundary shows signs of previous disturbance. There is a grass and herb dominated wayleave above the existing cable connection (TN3) and the woodland around the existing pylon and cable connection is dominated by young, suckering ash trees with little understorey, indicative of previous disturbance.

17.2.16. Protected species surveys carried out for the Ferrybridge Power Station site in 2009 recorded no European Protected Species on the site. The results of the Desk Study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey performed in 2013 revealed no significant changes to distributions of protected species in the local area.

17.2.17. Although the nearest record for great crested newt is approximately 3 km from the Proposed Development site boundary, there are data for smooth newt and common frog from Fryston Beck Pond. There are also records for palmate newt and common toad




from the vicinity of the Proposed Development Site. This local distribution was confirmed by surveys of the former golf course pond, which identified breeding populations of smooth newt, common toad and common frog.

17.2.18. Due to the absence of water voles on the site they are not considered within this assessment.

17.2.19. There are no buildings within the Proposed Development Site or in the adjacent power station suitable for roosting bats. Trees within the Site and adjacent woodland have negligible potential for roosting bats. However, bat surveys carried out in 2009 recorded no bat activity.

17.2.20. Given the conditions on the site and the incidental records made it is expected that the Site would support fewer than ten species of breeding bird. Using the Fuller method (Ref 17-6) for assessing the ornithological interest of sites the bird assemblage is considered to have a site level of importance which equates to negligible importance for ecology and nature conservation.

17.2.21. No evidence of badger was recorded during the field survey work.

17.2.22. All British reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000) (Ref 17-7). Grass snake, slow worm, common lizard and adder are protected against intentional killing or injury and against sale. In addition, all British reptiles are UKBAP priority species and are listed as Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 (Ref 17-2).

17.2.23. The desk-based study identified the presence of grass snake, common lizard and slow worm within the search area, but not within the Site. The records show that the nearest location where they have been identified is over 3 km away from the Site. Due to this and the absence of substantive areas of suitable habitat within the Site, reptiles are not considered further within this assessment.

17.2.24. Although the habitat within the local area is sufficiently varied to support a range of notable invertebrates, the general unsuitability or small area of habitats within the Site means that the invertebrate assemblage is likely to be of no more than site importance.

Modified Baseline

17.2.25. Upon completion of construction of FM1 the stock piled earth at TN12, which is stored under permitted development rights, will be removed and the area returned to amenity grassland. This will result in a 6.4 ha increase in the area of amenity grassland in the land take for the Proposed Development. The inherent low ecological value of this habitat type will be emphasised by its immaturity in this area. Its restoration is not considered a significant enhancement to the value of the Site for ecology and nature conservation and its loss therefore will not result in significant additional impacts to the ecological value of the Site. There are not anticipated to be any significant changes to the baseline ecological conditions found on the Site as a result of the ongoing construction, completion or operation of FM1.


17.2.26. There are no significant differences anticipated between the modified and future baseline ecological conditions on site by 2018.




17.3. Correspondence/agreement with consultees to date 17.3.1. The consultees contacted to date and a summary of their responses are presented in

Table 17.8 below:

Table 17.8 Consultees and a Summary of Their Responses

Consultee Summary of Response

Natural England Meeting held to introduce the Proposed Development, identify any key initial areas of interest or concern, and seek agreement of no need for Habitat Regulations Assessments

Natural England via the SoS as part of the Scoping opinion

EIA Scoping response included advice to consider the impacts and effects of the Proposed Development on:

internationally and nationally designated sites;

protected species;

regionally and locally designated sites;

BAP habitats and species; and

air quality impacts on designated sites.

West Yorkshire Ecology Agreed with the scope of the survey and assessment based on site conditions and 2009 survey results.

Recommended consideration of:

potential for emissions to affect sensitive designated sites, particularly calcareous habitats; and

potential impacts of lighting on suitable bat foraging habitat.

Friends of Fryston Park Wood No specific comments, would like to be involved in consultation process


Key Parameters for Assessment 17.4.1. The areas for which there is currently variability in the design that could affect the

assessment are set out below. These are defined as maximum and minimum parameters, and both sets of parameters are assessed in this chapter.


Potential Impact Maximum Minimum Justification

Construction

Clearance of Habitat Within Fryston Park SEGI

Clearance of woodland within SEGI to allow the running of two cables to and from grid connection.

Grid connection runs beneath existing power station. No Clearance of woodland.

Three options for the connection of FM2 to the grid are proposed with associated disturbance to woodland within the SEGI. Effect and Impacts of each option on SEGI are discussed.




17.4.2. Regarding the main building sizes, it is assumed that all vegetation within the main works area will be cleared to facilitate construction, therefore from an ecological perspective there is not considered to be a difference in the impact depending on the final sizing and layout of buildings.

Construction

Statutory Designated Sites Habitat Loss or Disturbance to Statutory Sites

17.4.3. The closest statutory designated nature conservation site to the Proposed Development is Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI, 2.1 km to the north. This has a national level of importance. Due to the intervening distance and lack of ecological connectivity between the Proposed Development and this site, Fairburn and Newton Ings will not be subject to habitat loss, disturbance or other direct impacts during any stage of the development.

17.4.4. No direct effects are anticipated on statutory designated sites during the construction period. The construction phase will, therefore, have a neutral effect on habitats at statutory designated sites.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites Habitat Loss or Disturbance to Non-Statutory Sites

17.4.5. A small area of Fryston Park SEGI lies within the Site boundary. The Site has a county level of importance. This spur on the site boundary relates entirely to Options 3 and 3A for connecting FM2 to the grid.

Grid Connection Options

17.4.6. Options for connecting FM2 to the grid are presented in Figures 4.4 to 4.7. Options 1 and 2 involve the laying of new cables within the footprint of the existing power station infrastructure and the footprint of FM2 itself, therefore having no additional ecological impacts. Options 3 and 3A include the construction of a new substation on the amenity grassland of the former golf course and two options for connections for linking FM2 with the existing 132 kV line that runs beneath the wayleave within Fryston Park Wood near TN3 and the existing tower (located in Fryston Park Wood close to TN17).

Option 3A (Maximum)

17.4.7. Option 3A involves the construction of a new tower within the former golf course, south of Fryston Park Wood, from which an overhead line (OHL) will be strung over a section of woodland to the existing tower to the north. To ensure the cable is not shorted by connecting with nearby trees some tree pruning and potentially some tree removal of an area less than 0.1 ha of woodland is likely to be required to allow a 4 m wayleave to be established. The proposed route of the overhead cable runs over an existing track (Fryston Lane) and ruderal edge habitat, which indicates previous disturbance. Low growing vegetation such as tall herb and grasses will be permitted to grow back after completion.

17.4.8. In addition to the above modifications to habitat for the OHL wayleave Option 3A involves running an underground cable through a small section of woodland and connecting with the 132 kV cable beneath the existing wayleave. This option may require the creation of a new short wayleave to ensure the integrity of the underground cable and permit future access should it be needed. Creation of the wayleave would require the clearance of a maximum of 0.1ha of open woodland with some semi-mature trees and a herb




understorey, within the Fryston Park SEGI. Upon completion of work shallow rooting herbs and grasses will be permitted to re-colonise.

17.4.9. The combined loss of woodland habitat within the SEGI of county level importance for the above connection will be a maximum of 0.2 ha which equates to a loss of less than 0.4% of this 51 ha site. The recolonisation of the cleared areas by low growing species will go some way to reversing this.

17.4.10. The magnitude of the impact is judged to be neutral (certain).

Effect 17.4.11. The removal of 0.2ha of woodland within Fryston Park SEGI despite its county value,

does not threaten the integrity of the designated site. The replacement of the cleared trees by naturally colonising, low growing shrubs and herbs will allow more floral variety and diversity of structure into the woodland by opening the canopy and create new opportunities for species of fauna such as foraging birds and bats.

17.4.12. The overall effect of this impact is judged to be neutral (certain).

Option 3 (Minimum)

17.4.13. Grid connection Option 3 will not involve any work within the woodland so no impacts. Option 3 will have a neutral effect on Fryston Park SEGI.

17.4.14. The concept drawings for both Options 3 and 3A show a theoretical potential substation location overlying the existing pond. At the current time it is not anticipated that the existing pond will be lost to the development. If this changes as the grid options and construction methodologies are developed further, the full effects of any impact on the existing pond will be assessed in the final ES.

17.4.15. Chapter 11 Air Quality within this ES sets out the potential for adverse impacts on a number of receptors, including those relating to ecology. The issue of emissions during the construction phase from plant and vehicle movements has been assessed and is likely to result in neutral changes in pollutant levels in the immediate local area, with a neutral impact anticipated on statutory designated sites.

17.4.16. Potential impacts and effects of dust deposition are also assessed in Chapter 11 Air Quality. The potential effects of dust deposition at Fryston Park Wood are assessed as neutral, short term, temporary and reversible. There are no rare or uncommon plant species within the neighbouring woodland which might be particularly susceptible to the effects of dust.

Effect 17.4.17. The construction phase will, therefore, have a neutral effect on statutory designated sites

as a result of vehicle emissions (near certain). No significant indirect effects of emissions or dust deposition are anticipated on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites during the construction period.

Vegetation and Habitats Standing Water – Former Golf Course Pond

17.4.18. Management of water run-off from the Proposed Development, buildings and hard standing is expected to be required to maintain greenfield run-off rates. The design of the drainage system for FM2 is yet to be finalised however it is likely to involve the former golf course pond to some degree. The extent to which the pond will be impacted will be determined upon completion of the detailed drainage design and will be assessed further




in the final ES. Presently it is considered that the control of water levels may involve the installation of an outfall from the pond.

17.4.19. Installation of a water level management system to the pond is likely to involve a small amount of disturbance to a fairly discrete section of pond aquatic and marginal habitat. The pond will be retained and the habitats subject to short–term disturbance. The impact would be minor and reversible.

17.4.20. The finalised drainage system will be assessed in the final ES.

Effect 17.4.21. Impacts on the pond habitat are predicted to be short-term and reversible. The predicted

effect is judged to be neutral (near certain).

Running Water – Deposition of Dust and Silt into Fryston Beck

17.4.22. Construction related traffic and run-off from soil stockpiles have the potential to introduce significant quantities of silt and dust into Fryston Beck either as plant and traffic move through the wider power station site to and from the construction zone or as a result of particulate dust in the air settling in the water course. Details of potential impacts on Fryston Beck and the River Aire are set out in Chapter 15 Water Resources and Flood Risk. The magnitude of these potential impacts is judged to be negligible and localised.

Effect 17.4.23. Potential effects of this impact are expected to be negligible.

Loss of Amenity Grassland

17.4.24. The amenity grassland within the Proposed Development site is judged to be of site level value for nature conservation. The construction phase of the development will result in a permanent loss of this habitat within the site. This equates to a loss of 2.5 ha of amenity grassland.

17.4.25. The construction of FM2 is expected to result in the loss of the amenity grassland habitat in the short to medium term (landscaping proposals may go some way to reversing these impacts). The proposed grid connection options 3 and 3A involve the construction of an additional sub-station within the amenity grassland habitat. These will not result in the loss of any additional amenity grassland habitat and so this potential installation is not considered separately. It represents a major, permanent impact on this habitat.

Effect 17.4.26. Amenity grassland habitat represents a low value feeding resource for a limited number

of bird species and poor quality foraging habitat for bats. The effect of this habitat loss is judged not to be significant outside of the site’s immediate zone of influence. Whilst permanent, the loss of this regionally abundant habitat of low conservation value represents a neutral effect on ecology and nature conservation (near certain).

Loss of Broadleaf Plantation and Parkland

17.4.27. ‘Lowland mixed deciduous woodland’ is identified as a priority in the UK BAP, and is also listed as a Habitat of Principal Importance under the provisions of Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 (Ref 17-2). However the broadleaf plantation and parkland within the site boundary do not meet the criteria set out in the UK BAP for this habitat type.

17.4.28. There are approximately 2.16 ha of plantation woodland or parkland habitat within the Site boundary, 1.6 ha of which will be lost. Aside from those areas within the SEGI, detailed above within the “Grid Connections” section, the losses to these habitats are




comprised of young native and ornamental plantation trees associated with the former golf course.

17.4.29. The magnitude of this impact on the ecology and nature conservation status of the site is judged to be moderate at the site level.

Effect 17.4.30. The permanent loss of the plantation areas within the former golf course, judged to have

site value for ecology and nature conservation, is judged to be neutral (certain).

Table 17.10 Details of Habitat Loss as a Result of the Proposed Development

Habitat Area to be lost

Amenity Grassland 7.5 ha

Broadleaf Plantation/ Parkland 1.6 ha

Other Impacts

17.4.31. There will be no significant impacts on any of the other habitats found within the Proposed Development site.

Protected and Notable Species Amphibians – Former Golf Course Pond

17.4.32. If required, the installation of outfalls into the former golf course pond will involve some temporary disturbance to amphibian, including common toad (NERC S41 species of principal importance (Ref 17-8)), habitat. It is likely that in order to perform remodelling works the pond will have to be de-watered and some vegetation and earth removed, depending on the nature of the works. Upon completion of work the pond will be left to regenerate and therefore the impact will be reversible and of minor magnitude.

Effect 17.4.33. Depending on the time of year during which works take place there is potential that toads

and other amphibians may be injured or killed. Some degree of disturbance to amphibians in the short-term, during the construction period, is likely to be unavoidable. The amphibian community present in the pond is of local importance for ecology and nature conservation and despite the above mentioned impact the temporary nature of the impact means the effect on the amphibian assemblage will be neutral (near certain).

Effect 17.4.34. There is unlikely to be significant disturbance to birds breeding or foraging in

neighbouring habitats as a result of construction of the Proposed Development, given the industrial setting and proximity to a major road. These factors dictate that the baseline bird population present must already be relatively tolerant to disturbance.

17.4.35. The effect of this impact is assessed as neutral (near certain).

Bats – Lighting

17.4.36. Construction has the potential to be undertaken 24 hours per day. The extent of lighting required for the construction site has yet to be defined exactly however the site will be lit in order to ensure safe working during hours of darkness.

17.4.37. As the northern extent of the site is likely to be used for storage of stockpiled top and sub soil the requirement for lighting of this area is unlikely to be a priority. As a result the




potential impacts of lighting on any bats foraging near the adjacent section of Fryston Park Wood are relatively easy to control.

17.4.38. Once the lighting requirements for the construction site have been set the requirement for more detailed assessment of light spill into Fryston Park Wood will be decided upon and the lighting design modified accordingly.

17.4.39. The lighting that will be situated closest to the SEGI will be designed in such a way that the radius of the light spill will be restricted. Any light spill that extends as far as the woodland will be capped at 3Lux.

Effect 17.4.40. If levels of light spill to the woodland are restricted to the above lux levels then the

impacts on bats with site level value will be neutral.

Other Protected and Notable Species

17.4.41. There are no significant impacts or effects anticipated on any other Protected or Notable Species as a result of the construction phase of the Proposed Development.

Other Impacts Noise

17.4.42. Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration sets out the potential noise-related impacts of construction on residential receptors close to the site. The effects of noise on the nearest residential receptors are expected to be minor adverse. Information generally available on the impacts and effects of noise on ecological receptors is limited. As a result the assessment of the effects of construction noise is based on the measured effects on residential (human) receptors coupled with details of the fauna assemblage and any available information on the sensitivity of the species or groups to the effects of noise disturbance.

17.4.43. Given that there is expected to be a minor adverse effect on the closest residential receptor and the closest ecological receptor (Fryston Park Wood) is closer and not screened by any other feature, noise levels reaching Fryston Park Wood can be expected to be higher than those reaching Willow Lane.

17.4.44. The most sensitive group of fauna found to be present in Fryston Park Wood is limited to common species of birds. The stand-off between the construction zone and the wood is some 70 m (other than works related to Grid Connection Option 3A, which are considered above, and the construction works are anticipated to be temporary and localised) and the trees within the woodland edge will act as a slight screen from the main part of the wood.

17.4.45. The background levels of noise, both constant and acute from the adjacent A1(M) and the existing power station site are expected to have either discouraged particularly noise-sensitive species from inhabiting the site and neighbouring Fryston Park Wood, or have caused animals, primarily birds, to become habituated to noise and vibration. The additional effects of the construction phase of the Proposed Development are not expected to cause significant disturbance to the fauna assemblage.

17.4.46. Changes to the intensity of noise levels are expected to be minor and the magnitude of the predicted impact negligible and short term (near certain).

Effect 17.4.47. The effect of noise emitting from the FM2 construction site on ecological receptors of site

value is judged to be negligible (near certain).




Water Resources and Flood Risk

17.4.48. Chapter 15 Water Resources and Flood Risk sets out the potential impacts of the Proposed Development and resulting increase to flood risk and potential changes to water resources on the site. The chapter addresses the impacts and effects on ecological receptors (biodiversity) within Fryston Beck and the River Aire based on the information currently available. The worst case scenario approach evaluates the magnitude of impacts to be negligible in the local area and the effect on ecological receptors is therefore judged to be negligible.

Operation

Statutory Designated Sites Direct Effects on Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

17.4.49. There will be no direct impacts or effects on any statutory and non-statutory sites as a result of the operational phase of the Proposed Development.

Deposition of Operational Emissions at Statutory and Non-Statutory Sites

17.4.50. For the operational phase, the annual average NH3, SO2 and NOx process contributions at ecological receptors are expected to be less than 1% of the Critical Level for Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems (CLPVE) for both higher plant and lichens and bryophytes, except in the case of NH3 which is expected not to exceed 3% of the CLPVE for lichens and bryophytes. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) will be employed which should further reduce NH3 emissions.

17.4.51. Fen, marsh and lowland mire habitats at the nearest designated site, Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI, are identified as being sensitive to nitrogen deposition and acidification as a result of nitrogen and sulphur deposition. The APIS website indicates that the SSSI is already subject to 6.5 kg N/yr deposition over the upper critical load. The process emissions at FM2, in combination with FM1 process emissions, are expected to represent less than a 1% increase to nitrogen deposition levels. In the case of acidity, background levels of deposition at Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI are currently below critical loads. The process contribution to acid deposition of FM2, in combination with FM1, is predicted to be <1% of the upper critical load with the PEC expected to reach 39% of the upper critical load.

17.4.52. The above changes to nutrient and emission deposition levels at ecological receptors, including the Fairburn and Newton Ings SSSI habitats are predicted to result in very minor magnitude changes to the concentrations and acidity of the most sensitive receptors. For the most part they represent <=1% additional emissions which do not threaten to exceed CLPVE.

17.4.53. The magnitude of the increase in air quality impacts from the Proposed Development is predicted to be negligible.

Effect 17.4.54. No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated on statutory designated sites during the

operational period. The effect of the operational phase on statutory designated sites will therefore be neutral.




Non-Statutory Designated Sites Maintenance of Wayleave through Fryston Park Wood

17.4.55. Grid connection option 3A will require some on-going management of the woodland beneath the overhead power-line to maintain a wayleave and avoid the risk of shorting the connection. Adverse and beneficial impacts will be minor in magnitude.

Effect 17.4.56. Maintaining the wayleave through this small area of woodland will ensure the area does

not become overshadowed by the tree canopy or recolonized with tree species. This will encourage floral diversity and maintain any improved condition for foraging birds and bats. The maintenance of the wayleave will result in a neutral effect on the woodland’s value for ecology and nature conservation.

Vegetation and Habitats

17.4.57. No other impacts on vegetation and habitats are expected as a result of power station operation.

Protected and Notable Species Bats – External Lighting

17.4.58. Poor quality bat foraging habitat over most of the Proposed Development site, the absence of any recorded bat activity on the site in 2009 and the reduction in habitat quality in the local area since then mean the site is judged to be of site level (at most) importance for its foraging bats. The area of Fryston Park Wood, adjacent to the proposed boundary, offers a limited amount of better foraging habitat although its isolated position means its significance will not extend far beyond its immediate zone of influence.

17.4.59. Details of the lighting scheme for the Proposed Development can be found in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development.

17.4.60. The closest light source associated with the development will be approximately 70 m from the northern site boundary.

17.4.61. Given the planned design of the lighting scheme for the Proposed Development, the above parameters and stated guidance to be followed the light spill from the operational power station into Fryston Park Wood is not expected to exceed 3Lux, the level which is generally considered to adversely affect bats.

17.4.62. The magnitude of the impact of light spill on potential bat foraging habitat at the edge of Fryston Park Wood is judged to be minor.

Effect 17.4.63. Given the site level value of the woodland for bats the effect of the operational lighting

scheme for the Proposed Development is therefore judged to be neutral on foraging bat species.

Other Impacts on Protected and Notable Species Operational Traffic Noise

17.4.64. Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration indicates that noise relating to the operational phase of the Proposed Development may originate from traffic, either road or rail, arriving at the site. The largest magnitude of these impacts is expected to be felt by residential receptors along Kirkhaw Lane with an additional 1.1dB to the traffic related noise level. This equates to a minor adverse effect on this residential receptor.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 17.4.65. The nearest ecological feature to Kirkhaw Lane is the woodland, scrub and ponds

associated with Fryston Beck Pond. There is no reason to expect that birds or other fauna would suffer significant additional disturbance as a result of this increase in noise levels within the Fryston Beck Pond area. Animals will already be habituated to a level of noise and activity just below that expected and are screened from disturbance by dense vegetation. The magnitude of the impact of operational vehicle noise on ecological receptors is expected to be minor.

Effect 17.4.66. Given the site value of the bird assemblage and the minor magnitude of the impact the

significance of the effect is judged to be neutral.

Decommissioning

17.4.67. Impacts of the decommissioning phase are likely to be similar to those of the construction phase. Since there will be no further direct impacts on habitats as a result of land take the impacts and effects will be neutral.

17.5. Mitigation Measures 17.5.1. No significant direct or indirect effects on Statutory Designated Sites are anticipated as a

result of the Proposed Development. Therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.

17.5.2. No significant direct or indirect effects on Non-Statutory Designated Sites are anticipated, however, given the potential disturbance to Fryston Park Wood SEGI as a result of the grid connection option 3A, a precautionary approach should be taken which will mitigate the disturbance impacts on the woodland including consideration of the following measures.

17.5.3. The minimum amount of woodland should be cleared to facilitate the installation of underground or overhead cables and their on-going requirements. Machinery should be refuelled away from the woodland to minimise the chances of any adverse effects resulting from spills.

17.5.4. In order to mitigate for the loss of amenity grassland an active management programme for grassland within the wider Fryston Park SEGI, isolated from the site by the A1(M), is recommended.

17.5.5. During construction, good practice methods should be employed to manage emissions and dust and reduce possible impacts on Fryston Park Wood. All site personnel should be trained in dust management. The construction site layout should be planned, if possible, to locate dust causing activities away from sensitive ecological receptors. All major site haul roads should be hard-surfaced to reduce the creation of dust. Construction traffic will switch off engines when not in use, and keep to appropriate site speed limits. Vehicles will be cleaned regularly at wheel washes and haul routes will be dampened with water. All loads entering and leaving the site will be covered. During site clearance water will be used to suppress dust as appropriate and enclosed chutes and covered skips will be used.

17.5.6. It is considered that in order to reduce the impact of disturbance to the former golf course pond as a result of any works that might be required the clearance of vegetation should take place outside the growing season. The topsoil and silt layer from within the pond should be retained along with the rootstock of any perennials during the construction period. Upon completion these materials should be replaced to allow re-establishment of aquatic and emergent vegetation as quickly as possible.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 17.5.7. Mitigation measures to ensure compliance with legislation protecting the nests of all

species of wild bird from damage and direct disturbance during construction of the Proposed Development will be enacted. It is expected that this will be enforced, as per usual practice, through DCO provisions.

17.5.8. Mitigation measures to avoid impacts and effects of contamination and run-off of water from the site into Fryston Beck and therefore the River Aire during the construction and operational phase of the Proposed Development are set out in Chapter 15 Water Resources and Flood Risk. The residual effects on ecology of the construction phase of the Proposed Development, with appropriate mitigation as detailed above, are judged to be minor adverse effects and therefore not significant.

17.5.9. As detailed in Chapter 11 Air Quality, in order to minimise the effects of emissions from FM2 a suite of Best Available Techniques will be employed within the design of the power station.

17.5.10. Controls and monitoring required for the operation of FM2 are a requirement of the Waste Incineration Directive and Industrial Emissions Directive, and will be designed in accordance with the relevant regulations and prescribed ELVs. The exact details will be agreed in consultation with the EA, as the Pollution Control Authority for the Proposed Development.

17.5.11. The residual effects on ecology of the operational phase of the Proposed Development, with appropriate mitigation as detailed above, are judged to be minor adverse effects and therefore not significant.

17.5.12. The residual effects on ecology of the decommissioning phase of the Proposed Development, with appropriate mitigation as detailed above, are judged to be minor adverse effects and therefore not significant.

17.6. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 17.6.1. The drainage strategy and lighting strategy are yet to be determined. The assessment

carried out to date will be reviewed on receipt of this information and updated in the final ES if required. Where any changes arise from these or any other design amendments they will be clearly set out within the ES, along with the reasons for the change.

17.7. References Ref. 17-1 EcIA Guidelines (Terrestrial and Freshwater); CIEEM; 2006

Ref. 17-2 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

Ref. 17-3 Wakefield Biodiversity Action Plan; WMDC

Ref. 17-4 Government circular: biodiversity and geological conservation – statutory obligations and their importance within the planning system; ODPM; 2005

Ref. 17-5 West Yorkshire Local Wildlife Site Selection Criteria; West Yorkshire Local Sites Partnership; 2011




18. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

18.1. Introduction 18.1.1. This chapter concerns the assessment of cultural heritage assets present within and in

the vicinity of the Proposed Development Site and assesses the potential impacts the Proposed Development will have upon the receptors.

18.1.2. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Archaeology and Heritage assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

18.2. Methodology 18.2.1. For the purposes of this chapter, and in respect of information relating to English Heritage

(EH) only, the term ‘significance’ is sometimes used in the same way that EH applies it (being in respect of a feature’s importance, value or sensitivity), in addition to it being used in its more familiar context (consistent with all other chapters of this ES) i.e. when reporting the conclusions of the impact assessment. In this respect, the ‘significance’ (read importance) of a heritage asset is judged upon statutory and non-statutory designations, and is the sum of its architectural, historic, artistic or archaeological interest. The importance rating of that ‘significance’ is assigned in accordance with EH’s Conservation Principles (2008) (namely evidential, aesthetic, communal and historical value) (Ref 18-1). Taking these criteria into account, each identified feature can be assigned a level of importance/ value/ sensitivity in accordance with a five-point scale (see Table Factors for Assessing the Significance of Effects).

18.2.2. The significance of an asset is determined by a number of different factors, but is mainly expressed in terms of Aesthetic, Historical, Evidential and Communal value. Assets can be assigned a level of importance in accordance with the five-point scale indicated in Table 18.1. The level of significance of heritage assets cannot be as easily defined as their importance, for example a non-designated site may be much more sensitive to change than a Scheduled Monument and therefore have a higher sensitivity rating, disproportionate to its importance. The significance has been balanced with the importance of the asset to arrive at a balanced assessment of the asset.

18.2.3. The nature of a building, structure, area or landscape reflects its significance as a historic asset and, therefore, its sensitivity to change. Significance is judged upon statutory and non-statutory designations, architectural and historic significance and contribution to local character. EH has outlined a number of values which contribute to an asset’s significance. These include evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. Non-designated structures may exhibit equivalent values to those which have been granted statutory protection. This has been reflected in the sensitivity value given. Taking these criteria into account, each identified feature can be assigned to a level of significance in accordance with a five-point scale (See Table 18.1).

Table 18.1 Value of Cultural Heritage Assets

Value Example of Receptor

Very High Remains of inscribed international importance, such as World Heritage Sites. Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings. Scheduled Monuments.




Value Example of Receptor

Historic landscapes of international sensitivity, whether designated or not. Extremely well preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s). Grade I and II* designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest.

High Grade II listed buildings. Conservation areas of exceptional quality. Other assets that can be shown to have exceptional or particularly important qualities in their fabric or historical association. Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international or national research objectives. Grade II designated landscapes of high quality and importance. Non-designated landscapes of outstanding interest. Well preserved historic landscapes, exhibiting considerable coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s).

Medium Historic buildings that are of special interest and can be shown to have important qualities in their fabric or historical association. Conservation areas. Historic Townscapes with historic integrity. Non-designated assets that contribute to regional research objectives. Non-designated special historic landscapes, landscapes of regional sensitivity. Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s).

Low Non-designated assets of local importance and/ or modest quality. Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or survival or contextual associations. Assets of limited value, but with the potential to contribute to local research objectives. Robust non-designated historic landscapes. Historic landscapes with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups, but with limited sensitivity. Historic landscapes whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation and/or survival of contextual associations. Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest.

Negligible Buildings of no architectural or historical merit. Buildings of an intrusive character.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 18.2.4. The assessment of impact includes the consideration of an asset’s setting. This varies

from case to case and cannot be generically defined.

18.2.5. The following are identified as receptors and considered to be part of the EIA process:

• Listed Buildings;

• Scheduled Monuments;

• Registered Historic Parks and Gardens;

• Historic Battlefields;

• Conservation Areas;

• Locally listed buildings;

• Non-designated assets (archaeological findspots, sites, structures) identified on the West Yorkshire Historic Environment Record; and

• Non-designated assets of architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic value (as defined by NPPF Annex 2, Ref 18-2).


18.2.6. It is assumed that the majority of the main works area will be cleared of vegetation and topsoil, no matter what the final sizing and layout of the buildings is. The Rochdale Envelope parameters do not, therefore, significantly affect the approach utilised in either the operational or construction cultural heritage assessments, and consequently the outcome of these assessments will not vary. Therefore, no further discussion of the Rochdale Envelope parameters is provided in this chapter.

18.3. Baseline Conditions Existing Baseline Conditions

18.3.1. The information below provides a summary of the baseline conditions relevant to the Proposed Development. A full detailed cultural heritage baseline will be provided in the final ES and is available on request. For the purposes of this assessment the study area is defined as a 1 km radius from the Site boundary. All known cultural heritage assets within the study area have been considered.

18.3.2. There are no designated or non-designated assets within the Site. The searches identified a total of 53 heritage assets. Of these, two were Scheduled Monuments and eleven were listed buildings with one at Grade I level, the remainder at Grade II (see Figures 18.1 and 18.2).

18.3.3. A review of all cropmarks within the surrounding area that were identified as part of the English Heritage National Mapping Programme has been undertaken to aid in understanding the history of the wider landscape and the potential for such landscape features to exist within the Site (see Figure 18.3).

Prehistoric and Roman (30,000BC – 410AD)

18.3.4. There is a substantially well recorded prehistoric ritual landscape within the study area and the site boundary from both aerial photographic mapping and from archaeological fieldwork. Evidence for human activity here is well established, although evidence for permanent settlement activity is rare. The site is situated upon the Magnesian Limestone ridge which has witnessed human activity from the post-glacial period onwards. The ridge provided a communication route connecting the Midlands to northern England




without having to traverse the uplands of the Pennines. The extensive cropmark landscape has been mapped as part of the English Heritage National Mapping Programme and the results can be seen on Figure 18.3.

18.3.5. There are a total of 29 assets within the study area relating to this period consisting of cropmarks, previous archaeological interventions, and chance finds (3901, 4475, 6758, 7716, 1296, 1299, 1289, 4530, 1448, 994, 995, 997, 7796, 982, 7616, 977, 979, 980, 981, 993, 1290, 1291, 1294, 8115, 1304, 4128, 1300, 1303, 1297, and 1298),

Early Medieval (410AD – 1066)

18.3.6. The transition from the Roman period into the early medieval period is not well known in this region. Only two sites (1448 & 8115) have been identified from within the study area dating to this period although it is likely that the main settlements in close proximity to the Proposed Development Site were established in this period due to their recorded presence in the Domesday Book. In terms of landscape development, there seems to be little change, with evidence that there was no re-forestation in this area but a continuation of the agricultural economy. However there does seem to be a move towards the removal of enclosures and towards open fields.

Medieval (1066 – 1540)

18.3.7. The medieval period saw the expansion of Ferrybridge, but Water Fryston and Ferry Fryston appeared to stay very much nucleated. A small number of sites dating to this period have been identified from the study area, which are of agricultural origin.

18.3.8. The Proposed Development Site was still in agricultural use during this period, providing food for the surrounding settlements.

18.3.9. There are a total of 5 assets within the study area relating to this period consisting of previous archaeological interventions, and the church of St Andrews (7700, 903, 1142, 904, and 2615).

Post-Medieval (1540 – 1750)

18.3.10. No assets were identified from the post-medieval period.

Early Modern (1750 – 1914)

18.3.11. The Proposed Development Site continued in agricultural use in this period. There is one asset within the study area relating to a stone bridge (2089).

Modern (1914 – Present)

18.3.12. The modern period saw major changes within the landscape in and around the Proposed Development Site. These major changes have been related to the upgrade and insertion of new transport and communication routes in the area and the construction of the various phases of the Ferrybridge power station site.

18.3.13. There are 7 records within the study area relating to this period consisting of those associated with Ferrybridge Power Station and including records of archaeological interventions (6147, 6148, 6277, 7667, 7793, 8111, and 8147).

Uncertain

18.3.14. A large number of heritage assets are of uncertain date. The majority of these are cropmarks, which although in the vicinity of the prehistoric cropmarks and typologically similar, may not be visible enough or well-preserved enough to allow a secure date to be ascribed to them. In addition, without any archaeological fieldwork to investigate these nebulous cropmarks, their date can never be stated with certainty. There are 10 uncertain assets: 6752, 6755, 6756, 6757, 6349, 1285, 1287, 1295, 998, 983.




Recent Site Activity 18.3.15. A number of archaeological investigations have been undertaken within the Ferrybridge

Power Station site over the course of the last two years. These include an archaeological watching brief on foundation trenches and the excavation of soakaways for the construction of a new cricket pavilion. The cricket pavilion is located to the south of the cooling towers of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, immediately north of Stranglands Lane. The watching brief proved negative for archaeology.

18.3.16. An archaeological watching brief was undertaken during some of the groundworks for FM1. The extent of the watching brief was determined by the results of geotechnical investigations, which highlighted that large portions of the site had been disturbed by modern activity. The results proved negative for archaeology (Ref 18-3).

18.3.17. The main development area within the Site comprises the former golf course. As highlighted in the suite of English Heritage guidance on the construction of golf courses, they can be very destructive to any archaeological resource within their footprint. Prior to the construction of the gold course a desk-based assessment was undertaken by Bullen Consultants, following which it is documented that an archaeological watching brief was undertaken by On-Site Archaeology. The results of this work showed that the site had been repeatedly disturbed in the 19th and early 20th centuries when it was in use as a coal and refuse tip (Ref 18-4), however, it has not been possible to obtain a copy of the fieldwork report.

Modified and Future Baseline Conditions 18.3.18. The modified (with FM1 completed) and future (2018) baseline conditions are considered

to be as described above for the existing baseline.

18.4. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 18.4.1. Consultation was undertaken with English Heritage and West Yorkshire Archaeology

Advisory Service (WYASS), as detailed in Table 18.1 below. An archaeological desk-based assessment was prepared to inform this ES chapter, for which information on all un-designated assets within the site and a 1 km radius were obtained from the WYAAS Historic Environment Record (HER).



EH (Neil Redfern) 09/04/2013 Considered the proposals would be unlikely to have a significant effect upon any designated heritage assets or their settings. In the case of non-designated heritage assets and in particular the potential for archaeological deposits English Heritage agreed to defer to West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service.

EH via the SoS as part of the scoping opinion

26/06/2013 Agree with the conclusions and recommendations put forward in the scoping report. In future EH would defer to the expertise of West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS).






WYAAS (Rebecca Remmer) 08/08/2013 Agree with Nick Finch (URS, Senior Archaeologist) that potential archaeological deposits may exist within the confines of site. However, significant levels of disturbance had occurred in the recent past within and surrounding the confines of the wider Ferrybridge Power Station site. Analyse geotechnical results in the site to establish previous truncation. If negative, a programme of archaeological works will be undertaken to mitigate any potential impacts.

Friends of Fryston Wood 18/09/2013 Representatives of the Applicant and URS attended the monthly meeting of the Friends of Fryston Wood to discuss the scheme and request any additional environmental data that they may hold on the site and surrounding landscape.

18.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects 18.5.1. Due to the large number of heritage assets within the 1 km study area, only those which

will be impacted by the Proposed Development will be discussed in this section. The assets which will not be impacted are either single find spots which have a localised setting or cropmarks which may be in close proximity to the site, but which are enclosures of low significance derived from their group value. The Proposed Development will not affect this significance. Other sites are at such a distance from the site that there will be no impact.

18.5.2. One known asset lies within the Site – cropmark 998. It should be noted that this lies within the footprint of the former golf course, which may have been heavily disturbed as outlined in 18.3.16. As per the numerous EH guidance documents regarding golf courses they are known to be destructive to archaeological features, often resulting in the loss of any features. Unfortunately it has not been possible to obtain a copy of the archaeological reports associated with the golf course construction. Therefore it is currently unknown to what extent this asset still exists. A geotechnical investigation is currently underway, and the results of this are expected to confirm the level of disturbance across the site of the golf course. For the purposes of this preliminary assessment, however, a precautionary approach has been adopted and it is assumed that the asset remains intact. This will be confirmed and amended as necessary for the final ES.

Construction 18.5.3. The construction of the multifuel site will require a number of elements, each of which

have the potential to impact on the heritage resource.

Impact – Access Tracks 18.5.4. There will be a requirement for access tracks to be constructed within the boundary of the

Proposed Development Site. Indicative routes are shown in the concept layout drawing




(Figure 4.1), however specific dimensions and design information for such tracks are unknown at present. There is the potential for the construction phase therefore to cause a high impact on cropmark (998) within the Site. However this is probably of recent origins associated with the nearby power station and has therefore been assigned a low value.

Effect 18.5.5. Therefore this will result in Minor effect (assuming the asset has not already been

affected by previous development, which is to be confirmed).

Impact – Construction of the Multifuel Plant 18.5.6. Exact construction depths are not known at present however it is likely that foundations

will be required which would permanently impact upon cropmark (998) in the area, due to the unquantifiable extent of this potential asset (i.e. because records are limited it may extend across parts of the main plant area as well as access tracks considered above). However this is probably of recent origins associated with the nearby power station and has therefore been assigned a low value.

Effect 18.5.7. Therefore this will result in Minor effect (assuming the asset has not already been

affected by previous development, which is to be confirmed).

Impact – Use of Cranes 18.5.8. Any tall cranes that are required for the construction of the multifuel area may produce

short term, reversible setting impacts. However, the setting of most of the cropmarks is their relationship with one another and the extensive ritual landscape. The setting has also been compromised already by the construction of Ferrybridge ‘C’. Therefore this has been assigned No Change.

Effect 18.5.9. Therefore this will result in Negligible effect upon all assets.

Impact – Setting of Listed Buildings 18.5.10. There will be no impacts on the listed buildings resulting from the construction of the

multifuel site. There will be no temporary impacts on the setting of the listed buildings during the construction. The setting has already been compromised by the construction of Ferrybridge ‘C’. Therefore this has been assigned No Change.

Effect 18.5.11. Therefore this will result in Negligible effect upon all assets.

Operation 18.5.12. The operation of the new multifuel site will not impact upon any of the identified

archaeological assets. There will be no setting impacts due to the existence of the Ferrybridge C. The new multifuel site will be an extension to this and therefore constitutes a continuation of the existing industrial landscape. Therefore the operation represents no change to the archaeological assets.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 18.5.13. The construction of the multifuel site will not impact upon the setting of any of the

identified listed buildings. The setting and significance of the listed buildings grouped around the former site of Fryston Hall (342468, 342469, 342470, 342471) is their association with the former Fryston Hall. They all form part of the wider estate and service buildings and their significance lies in their group value and evidential value. The setting is the remainder of the Fryston Estate to the West of the A1(M). The setting of the listed buildings in Brotherton (326064, 326063) is the historic medieval and early modern core of the settlement. The setting is now very narrowly defined due to the Ferrybridge Bypass to the east and the River Aire to the west.

18.5.14. The setting of the listed buildings around Ferrybridge (422278, 326065, 422272, 422275) is their group value associated with the grade I listed bridge and the ancient river crossing. Their setting has already been compromised by the construction of Ferrybridge C and the Proposed Development is an extension of this setting. The listed building of the electricity generating board (422278) was associated with Ferrybridge A. Therefore its setting is linked with Ferrybridge C which represents the evolution of the power station landscape. St. Andrews Church (425999) to the southeast of the site has already experienced a change in its setting when it was removed from its original position to allow construction of Ferrybridge B. Therefore the setting of this is its current surroundings with the residential estate. Therefore the operation of the multifuel plant represents no change to the listed buildings.

Decommissioning

Impacts 18.5.15. Unless an additional area of land is required for decommissioning that is not subject to

disturbance through the construction and operational stages, no impacts with relevance to archaeological assets would be anticipated at the decommissioning stage. Therefore no effects are anticipated.

18.6. Mitigation Measures 18.6.1. It has been identified there may be potential impacts from the construction of the multifuel

site on potential archaeological resources consisting of an undated cropmark which could extend into the multifuel site.

18.6.2. The Site is, however, located within the confines of the current power station and associated golf course. Construction of the existing golf course will have impacted upon the archaeological resource to some degree, with truncation of subsurface deposits expected by bunker locations, landscaping and drainage. Therefore it is recommended in the first instance that the results of any geotechnical investigations be analysed to assess if there has been any previous truncation or reduction in ground level which may have removed the archaeological significant layer.

18.6.3. If these geotechnical results show that there has not been significant truncation a mitigation strategy will be agreed, if required. The form and extent of any further work will be determined with reference to the design footprint, and should only be undertaken within areas where the ground level will be impacted by the construction of the Proposed Development.




18.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 18.7.1. The geotechnical investigation is on-going and has not yet been received. Once this has

been received it will be reviewed and the assessment updated for the final ES, as necessary. Any changes will be highlighted in the ES, along with the reasons for them.

18.8. References Ref. 18-1 Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance Sustainable Management of

the Historic Environment; English Heritage; 2008

Ref. 18-2 National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2; Communities and Local Government; 2012

Ref. 18-3 Archaeological Services WYAS, 2013, Ferrybridge Powerstation, Ferrybridge, West Yorkshire: Archaeological Watching Brief, Report 2503

Ref. 18-4 Environmental Statement – 2011 Addendum for a proposed Multi Fuel Power Station; 2011; URS




19. WASTE AND RESOURCES

19.1. Introduction 19.1.1. The environmental impacts associated with the construction and operational waste

arisings have been assessed in terms of the likely quantities of waste arising, the proposed management of the waste at source, the regional capacity to treat or dispose of residual waste and applicable legislation. Consideration is given to proposed measures for the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste and, where appropriate, mitigation measures are proposed.

19.1.2. This assessment does not consider the impact of fuel (which is waste-derived) brought to site and used for the generation of electricity. This is being undertaken separately as part of the Fuels Assessment that will accompany the application. The Fuels Assessment considers a Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) analysis, discussed further in Chapter 20 Sustainability.

19.1.3. Only the residual by product following the recovery of energy from the WDF and the construction waste materials generated on site during the development of the FM2 facility have been included in this chapter. In addition, the outcome of the WRATE analysis may be used to inform the assessment of waste and resources presented in the final ES for the Proposed Development.

19.1.4. The spatial scope of this waste assessment is not easily defined as issues associated with waste management are far-reaching and extend beyond the proposed Site boundary. The area in which construction and operational waste arisings are likely to occur, however, is defined by the Site boundary.

19.1.5. Waste is defined by EC Directive 2008/98/EC (the Waste Framework Directive), as amended by EC Directive 91/156/EEC (Ref 19-1), as "any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard".

19.1.6. The transport effects of the movement of waste materials are considered in Chapter 10 Transport and Access, and the wider sustainability effects of the waste produced on site (along with other aspects of the development) are considered in Chapter 20 Sustainability. This chapter in particular considers the in-combination effects of the various site activities in terms of carbon and sustainability effects, which is consistent with the government’s preferred approach as set out in paragraph 40 of its Waste Policy Review of 2011 in which it suggests that it is promoting the “measurement and reporting of waste management in carbon terms, as an alternative to weight based measures”.

19.1.7. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Waste and Resources assessment. For the Purposes of this PEI Report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

Methodology 19.1.8. There are no specific criteria for assessing the magnitude of impacts, sensitivity of

receptors and significance of effects arising from the management of waste. Each project is evaluated according to its individual characteristics. Overall, the purpose of a waste management assessment is to characterise waste types and arisings and to identify existing and potential methods employed for their reduction and management, as well as the significance of change associated with a Proposed Development in comparison to the current and likely future situation without the development. For the purposes of this assessment, a methodology has been utilised that takes into account:




• the type and quantity of waste (magnitude of waste impact) when compared to the current baseline, scored 1 to 5 (1 = less than 1% current baseline (<1%), 2 = Between 1 and 2% of current baseline (1 - 2%), 3 = Between 2 and 5% of current baseline (2 - 5%), 4 = Between 5 and 10% of current baseline (5 - 10%), 5 = Above 10% of current baseline (>10%)). The score is a subjective assessment based on the Applicant’s understanding of local conditions and infrastructure;

• the distance waste is transported for processing or disposal, scored 1 to 3 where score 1 = immediately local disposal or very high locally available capacity, score 2 = regional disposal, and score 3 = distant and or limited capacity available; and

• the method of disposal with regard to the waste hierarchy (sustainability) considering mitigation and impact avoidance measures, scored 1 to 4, where score 1 = re-use, score 2 = recycle, score 3 = recovery (e.g. energy from waste), score 4 = disposal (e.g. landfill).

19.1.9. This assessment approach broadly conforms with the standard environmental assessment approach of assessing significance as a function of the magnitude of impact and sensitivity of any receptors. In this case, magnitude of impact, proximity and sustainability of receptors.

19.1.10. The multiplication of scores from the three categories detailed above provides an indication of the significance of the effect of each type of waste arising. Based on various waste arising and handling scenarios, a threshold scale of significance is subsequently used as a guide for assessment (see Table 19.1).

Table 19.1 Significance Assessment of Waste Impacts

Score and Significance

1 – 9 10 – 20 21 – 39 40 – 60

Negligible effect Minor effect Moderate effect Major effect

Description

Large quantity & local disposal & recycling/ recovery/ landfill

OR

Small quantity & national disposal & landfill

OR

Medium quantity & regional disposal & recycling/recovery

Large quantity & national disposal & recycling

OR

Medium quantity & regional disposal & landfill

OR

Quite small quantity & national disposal & landfill

Large quantity & regional disposal & landfill

OR

Medium - large quantity & national disposal & landfill

19.1.11. For the purposes of this assessment, moderate and major impacts will be deemed ‘Significant’. This assessment will be supported by the WRATE analysis being undertaken.


Existing Baseline Conditions 19.2.1. The Site, as defined on Figure 1.1, was previously used as a golf course associated with

the Ferrybridge Power Station site, and is now used partly as construction laydown area




for FM1. Waste arisings from this land use are minimal and therefore not significant to the assessment.

Construction and Excavation Waste

19.2.2. The Proposed Development site is located within the region classified by the EA as 'Yorkshire and Humber' and in the sub region 'West Yorkshire'.

19.2.3. Currently data on construction, demolition and excavation (CD&E) waste arisings are not readily available at a local authority level. However, a report by the EA published in 2010 (Waste Data Modelling Project: Yorkshire and Humber) (Ref 19-2), estimated that total CD&E waste arisings in the Yorkshire and Humber Region in 2007 stood at approximately 4.7 million tonnes, with a little over 2 million tonnes going to landfill.

19.2.4. According to the Department for Communities and Local Government report ‘Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England 2005, Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste’ (2007) (Ref 19-3), the CD&E waste arisings for West Yorkshire was estimated as being 3.5 million tonnes.

19.2.5. The report from WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) in 2010 ‘Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste Arisings, Use and Disposal for England 2008’ (Ref 19-4) indicates that there was an overall drop of 21% of UK arisings between 2005 and 2008, which represents a real drop in waste of approximately 357,000 tonnes. Approximately 85% of CD&E waste arisings in 2008 in England were recovered or reused without the need for further processing (Ref 19-4).

19.2.6. The latest Environment Agency figures from 2011 indicate that within the West Yorkshire region 1,469,000 tonnes of waste were disposed of to landfill, including hazardous waste, non-hazardous and inert (approximately 979,000 m3 based on an average m³ density of 1.5 tonnes).

Commercial and Industrial Waste

19.2.7. Businesses in West Yorkshire in 2013 are predicted to have produced an estimated 3.8 million tonnes of C&I waste and in Wakefield an estimated 1.26 million tonnes of C&I waste. This is a reduction on figures from 2006 of 4.35 million tonnes for West Yorkshire and 1.4 million tonnes for Wakefield. (Local Government Yorkshire and Humber Annual Waste Digest 2009 (Ref 19-5)).

19.2.8. Approximately 52% of C&I waste in 2009 was recycled (including reuse and composting) with 24% being sent to landfill, on a national scale (Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011, DEFRA, 2011 (Ref 19-6)). Table 21 of the same Evidence Paper as quoted above indicates that C&I waste arisings from 2012 until 2026 are predicted to stay relatively constant.

Waste Facilities and Capacity

19.2.9. Landfill capacity in 2011 within the West Yorkshire region was 18,776,000 m³. Based on the 2011 tipping rates local/ regional landfill void capacity for waste including hazardous, commercial and construction waste is estimated as being sufficient for the next 15 to 20 years.

19.2.10. A number of landfill sites suitable for the disposal of inert, C&I waste are currently active in the Yorkshire and Humber region. The Environment Agency indicates that Welbeck Landfill Site is located approximately 8km to the southwest of the site and accepts inert waste (CD&E) and industrial and commercial waste.




Modified Baseline 19.2.11. The ES for FM1 did not identify significant volumes of waste likely to be produced during

the construction and operation phases of the FM1 development.

19.2.12. Waste arisings during the enabling phase are estimated at approximately 75,000 m3 the majority of which is currently anticipated to be reused on site or to be utilised in the proposed golf course development to satisfy a Planning Condition of the FM1 development. Therefore, no cumulative impacts associated with construction waste generation are anticipated.

19.2.13. During operation of the site it was estimated at the time of preparation of the ES for FM1 that operational wastes would comprise bottom ash (around 60,000 tonnes per annum) and flue gas treatment residue (around 25,000 tonnes per annum) (Ref 19-7).

Future Baseline Conditions 19.2.14. No significant changes in the waste arisings on the Proposed Development site are

anticipated by 2018 (assuming no development) as the existing uses on the site are not anticipated to change significantly.

19.2.15. Local and regional C&I waste arisings are predicted to remain at a relative stable level until 2018 specifically within the Power and Utilities sector. The Projection of Commercial & Industrial Waste Arisings in Yorkshire & Humber to 2018 indicates a drop of around 1 % from 2006 to 2018 of C&I waste.

19.2.16. EA data indicates a drop of totalled landfilled waste in the region from 2.4 million tonnes for West Yorkshire in 2000/ 2001 to 1.4 million tonnes in 2011. Should this downward trend be maintained this would represent a significant reduction in future landfilled waste in the region.

19.3. Development Design and Impact Avoidance 19.3.1. Waste management procedures from the point of generation, through storage, transport

and final treatment/ disposal are regulated in the UK. Enforcement of the legislation ensures environmental protection and an auditable trail for waste. Compliance with waste management legislation during both construction and operation of the Proposed Development will minimise the environmental impacts associated with on and off-site management of wastes. In particular the Duty of Care imposed by Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Ref 19-8) and associated regulations imposes a range of responsibilities on (amongst others) producers of waste. Compliance with the responsibilities of the Duty of Care would be achieved by adhering to the Department of Environment’s Waste Management Duty of Care Code of Practice (Ref 19-9). This assessment assumes that all of the relevant legislative, policy and best practice procedures are implemented on site.

Construction 19.3.2. In order to minimise impacts associated with construction waste, the developer would

require the construction contractor(s) to produce and implement a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008 (Ref 19-10) which have been mandatory for construction projects with a value above £300,000 since April 2008. In March 2012 DEFRA issued a report called Red Tape Challenge – Environment Theme Proposals (Ref 19-11) that states that the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations will become redundant. However, the




document does not provide a timescale for when this will happen and therefore at the time of writing these regulations still apply.

19.3.3. As part of the SWMP, the construction contractor would reduce, re-use and recycle waste, where possible. This would, if necessary, include the use of on-site re-processing equipment such as screens and crushers, where appropriate and practical.

19.3.4. Materials arising from site clearance and excavations would be integrated with the future works programme onsite or be considered for appropriate off site building projects, or off site treatment.

19.3.5. Waste segregation would be implemented to allow for materials to be reused and recycled therefore reducing the volume of waste material requiring disposal.

19.3.6. Where practicable the construction off-site of components for the construction of buildings would be undertaken i.e. prefabrication. This would reduce the requirement for raw materials to be brought to site and reduce the potential for construction waste generation.

19.3.7. Where possible, further reductions in construction waste would be achieved through the reduction of packaging used in the transport of both raw materials and fabricated construction components.

19.3.8. It is also important to consider broader sustainability issues such as resource consumption. The contractor, where possible, would minimise the consumption of virgin raw materials by specifying products and materials with recycled content and which are durable with a long life.

19.3.9. All construction staff would be trained in the appropriate use of materials on site through inductions, tool box talks and at regular intervals.

Operation 19.3.10. Waste from commercial activities would be controlled and monitored by MEL.

19.3.11. All commercial wastes would need to be stored in appropriate containers and a commercial contract entered into with an appropriate waste carrier.

19.3.12. Recyclable items will be recycled for collection, and there would be adequate storage facilities for the various types of wastes within the proposed commercial areas.



19.4.2. It should be noted the Scoping Opinion highlighted a number of requirements with respect to the sourcing of waste as a fuel, and the fit of the Proposed Development within the waste hierarchy. It should be noted that this chapter focusses on waste produced at the site, and waste as a fuel is being considered separately as part of a Fuels Assessment. Chapter 20 Sustainability includes consideration of the waste hierarchy and the sustainability of the Proposed Development and Chapter 4 The Proposed Development addresses the geographical source of fuel.





Consultee Summary


Encourage applicant to discuss proposed approach with EA and WMDC; FM2 will result in production of a range of different types of waste throughout the construction, operation and decommissioning phases; combined effects of FM1 and FM2 will be important consideration; SWMP should be prepared; inter-relationships between waste and other assessments should be cross-referenced; ES should describe any mitigation measures necessary to deal with adverse impacts.

19.5. Likely Environmental Impacts and Significance of Effects 19.5.1. The significance of waste arisings is largely based on the nature of the waste, the

location and capacity of local and regional waste management facilities, and the sustainability of the disposal or processing method.

Key Parameters for Assessment 19.5.2. This section sets out the Rochdale Envelope parameters that describe the maximum and

minimum parameters in environmental terms for assessing the potential impacts on Waste Resource Management (Table 19.2), developed from the range of parameters set out in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development.


Potential Impact Maximum Minimum Justification

Construction

Generation of excavation material

through site construction.

71,920 tonnes

59,920 tonnes

Depending on the placement of the fuel storage bunker either above or below ground, there is potential to

generate a large volume of excavation material.

19.5.3. The ’Maximum’ potential volume is based on the placement of the fuel storage bunker below ground and comprises excavation material and general construction material based on benchmark figures. The ‘Minimum’ potential volume is based on general construction wastes based on current benchmark figures.

Construction 19.5.4. Generation of waste during the construction phase is anticipated to be minimal, as it is

the intention of the Applicant to encourage re-use of materials on-site.

19.5.5. The following major construction materials are anticipated to be used during the construction phase:

• concrete;

• aggregates for infilling and road construction;

• steel piles;




• concrete piles;

• steel reinforcement; and

• mechanical and electrical equipment.

19.5.6. The majority of such construction materials will not be delivered to site in packaging. Therefore it is anticipated that packaging waste arisings will be minimal.

19.5.7. Table 19.3 provides an indicative estimate of the waste streams and quantities likely to be generated during site construction. It also provides an indication of how that waste stream is likely to be managed.

Maximum Scenario

19.5.8. Construction waste in the ‘Maximum Scenario’ is likely to comprise waste generated from site levelling, excavation waste from the bunker and potential construction waste materials.

19.5.9. Site levelling may be required in some areas, which may to lead to the generation of soil arisings. This is, however, considered to be minimal as undulations across the development site are small. It is assumed that any waste material generated from site levelling would be reused during site reprofiling.

19.5.10. Maximum volumes of excavation waste relating to the bunker are estimated at 13,500 m³ which equates to approximately 20,250 tonnes. This is calculated by the proposed size of the ‘Bunker Hall’ and the proposed depth below ground level that the bunker may be placed (3 m bgl). This figure is considered an overestimate. It is assumed that any waste material generated from site levelling would be reused during site reprofiling.

19.5.11. There are no available data for potential waste construction materials, therefore potential waste from this element of construction has been calculated using BRE Benchmark Summary Data for June 2012 (Ref 19-12). Benchmark data indicates that approximately 12.6 tonnes of waste is produced for each 100 m² of an industrial development. This equates to approximately 52,920 tonnes of construction waste.

19.5.12. 85% of CD&E waste arisings in 2008 in England were recycled, recovered or reused without the need for further processing. If this figure is achieved the volume of CD&E waste would be significantly reduced (see Table 19.3 below for further details).

Table 19.4 Estimated CD&E Waste Arisings – Maximum Scenario

Waste Type Waste (m3) Conversion

Factor Waste (Tonnes) Waste after 85%

Reuse/ Recycling (Tonnes)

Excavation1 13,500 1.5* 20,250 3,038

Construction2 - - 52,920 7,938

Total CD&E Waste 73,170 10,976 Construction Waste Density – Estimate based on CIWM (2000) material density data for brick rubble, earth and gravel

1 – Calculated from Bunker Hall size and potential depth below ground level (4,500 m2 x 3 m)) 2 – Construction waste is based on the following development size (420,000m2), waste in tonnes per 100m2 BRE Waste Benchmark Summary data June 2012 (Industrial – 12.6 tonnes/100m2)

Minimum Scenario

19.5.13. Construction waste in the ‘Minimum Scenario’ is likely to comprise waste generated from site levelling and potential construction waste materials.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 19.5.14. Site levelling may be required in some areas, which may to lead to the generation of soil

arisings. However, this is considered to be minimal as undulations across the development site are small. It is assumed that any waste material generated from site levelling would be reused during site reprofiling.

Table 19.5 Estimated CD&E Waste Arisings – Minimum Scenario

Waste Type Waste (m3) Conversion

Factor Waste (Tonnes) Waste after 85%

Reuse/ Recycling (Tonnes)

Construction1 - - 52,920 7,938

Total CD&E Waste 52,920 7,938 Construction Waste Density – Estimate based on CIWM (2000) material density data for brick rubble, earth and gravel 1 – Construction waste is based on the following development size (420,000m2), waste in tonnes per 100m2 BRE Waste Benchmark Summary data June 2012 (Ref 19-12) (Industrial – 12.6 tonnes/100m2)

19.5.15. Table 19.4 indicates that the total estimated CD&E arisings from the Proposed Development are estimated to be approximately 52,920 tonnes. These are based on conservative estimates and the only available data at the time of undertaking this assessment. The scale of construction waste arisings is considered within the context of CD&E waste arisings of around 1.1 million tonnes per year in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Predicted arisings from the Proposed Development thus equate to approximately 1.5% of the current baseline. However, assuming that 85% of waste is reused/ recycled reduces the volume of CD&E waste in need of disposal to approximately 7,938 tonnes which equates to approximately 0.17% of the current baseline.

Effect

19.5.16. Construction phase related wastes have the potential to impact on sensitive receptors (humans, wildlife and controlled waters) if not stored and managed appropriately. As such, the measures detailed in Section 19.6: Mitigation measures will be implemented throughout the construction phase, as applicable.

19.5.17. The significance of the effects of construction waste arisings for both the ‘Maximum’ and ‘Minimum’ scenario are included in Table 19.5 below.


Table 19.6 Significance of Forecast Construction Waste Effects for the Development

Waste Type Annual waste

forecast (Tonnes)

Magnitude of waste

arising:

Score based on waste type and quantity

(1 = Low, 5 = high)

Proximity/ capacity of

disposal facility:

Local/ regional/ national

(1 = local/ high capacity

available, 3 = distant/ limited

capacity)

Sustainability of disposal method:

Position of disposal route on

the waste hierarchy

(1 = re-use to 4 = disposal)

Score

<10 neutral significant

effect

10 – 20 minor

21 – 45 moderate

46 – 60 major effect

Maximum Scenario

10,976 1 2 4 8 (neutral

effect)




Table 19.6 Significance of Forecast Construction Waste Effects for the Development

Waste Type Annual waste

forecast (Tonnes)

Magnitude of waste

arising:


(1 = Low, 5 = high)


disposal facility:


(1 = local/ high capacity

available, 3 = distant/ limited

capacity)

Sustainability of disposal method:

Position of disposal route on

the waste hierarchy

(1 = re-use to 4 = disposal)

Score


effect

10 – 20 minor

21 – 45 moderate


Minimum Scenario

7,938 1 2 4 8 (neutral

effect)

Opening and Operation 19.5.19. Data available from Chapter 14 of the Ferrybridge Multi Fuel Power Station ES (URS,

2009) (Ref 19-7) has been used (due to the similarity of the developments) herein to forecast potential operational phase waste arisings. Whilst the estimated waste arising figures are the best available, they are only indicative.

Impacts 19.5.20. The main sources of fuel for the plant will be processed:

• MSW;

• Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&I)); and

• waste wood, excluding hazardous (impregnated) waste.


Bottom Ash 19.5.22. Bottom ash consists of the non-combustible fraction of the various fuels, including

predominantly paper fillers, residual grits, glass and metal. It is envisaged that there will be approximately 76,000 tonnes (wet) bottom ash produced per year (which includes ferrous material) based on the design fuel and 116,000 tonnes per annum based on a worst case fuel source. It will be discharged to a conveyor system from the boilers.

19.5.23. WDF will be processed off-site to remove ferrous and non-ferrous metals prior to use as fuel, so quantities of ferrous metals within the feedstocks are expected to be low. It is estimated that this will amount to less than 1% of the bottom ash tonnage, approximately 510 tonnes per annum.

19.5.24. The bottom ash discharge system may be fitted with an overband magnet to remove any residual ferrous metal after combustion (although depending on the ash processor selected, they may carry out this process off site). The ferrous material removed from the bottom ash will be discharged to a skip and recycled.

19.5.25. Bottom ash will be discharged into a controlled area where it will be temporarily stored awaiting final disposal. The residue is inert and will be recycled for use as Alternative




Raw Material (ARM) in cement kilns or in general low-grade aggregate use. Where recycling is not possible, a back-up landfill site will be used for disposal of bottom ash.

19.5.26. The scale of the Bottom Ash arisings (including ferrous material) is considered within the context of C&I waste arisings of around 1.26 million tonnes per year for Wakefield. Worst case Bottom Ash arisings from the development equate to approximately 10% of the current baseline.

19.5.27. In 2009 approximately 52% of C&I waste in the UK was recycled. If this was achieved at the Proposed Development, the volume of C&I waste would be reduced from 10% of the current baseline arisings to approximately 4.8% (61,440 tonnes per annum).

FGT Residue 19.5.28. FGT residues contain residual fuel ash from the boiler together with reagents and

reaction products from the hydrated lime scrubber. It will be stored in a sealed silo adjacent to the flue-gas treatment facility. It is anticipated that in the best case 21,700 tonnes of FGT residue will be produced and in the worst case 22,500 tonnes of FGT residue will be generated each year.

19.5.29. The scale of the FGT residues is considered within the context of C&I waste arisings of around 1.26 million tonnes per year for Wakefield. Worst case FGT residues from the development equate to approximately 2% of the current baseline.

19.5.30. FGT residue is designated as hazardous waste (due to its alkaline nature) and therefore will be sent for off-site treatment prior to disposal to an appropriate facility.

Table 19.20 Production Related Waste Arisings

Waste Type Waste (Tonnes)

(Worst Case Estimates)

Bottom Ash (Including Ferrous materials) - wet 116,000

FGT 22,500 * Volume of potential bottom ash following 2009 recycling rates, requiring disposal

Non – Production Related Waste

19.5.31. Non production related waste relates to general office generated wastes. No benchmark data for waste generated per employee have been identified. Therefore Envirowise/ Environment Agency (2000) data which provides a figure of 200 kg per employee per year as a good practice benchmark for office based workers has been used. It is estimated that 46 employees will work at the Proposed Development site during operation.

19.5.32. The majority of employees would not be office based therefore they are unlikely to generate significant quantities of office waste. As a result, this figure is therefore considered to be an over-estimate and a conservative (worst case) approach to non-production waste.

Table 19.21 Non Production Related Waste Arisings

Waste Type Waste per employee / year (Tonnes)

Approximate No. employees

Annual Waste (Tonnes)

Office/ general waste from employees

0.2 46 9.2



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 19.5.33. The scale of the non-production related waste is considered within the context of C&I

waste arisings of around 1.26 million tonnes per year for Wakefield. Non-production related waste from the development equates to less than 0.01% of the current baseline.

Combined FM1 and FM2 Operational Waste 19.5.34. Potential operational waste as estimated in URS Environmental Statement October 2009

for FM1 when combined with the estimated operational for FM2 will have a limited impact on the overall effects of the scheme. Although the volume of operational waste will increase from the site, compared to the current regional baseline the increase is considered to be negligible.

Effects 19.5.35. Operation related wastes have the potential to impact on sensitive receptors (humans,

wildlife and controlled waters) if not stored and managed appropriately. As such, the measures detailed in Section 19.6 (Mitigation measures) will be implemented throughout the operational phase, as applicable.

19.5.36. Table 19.8 shows the significance of effects of operational waste arisings which indicates that the significance of the effect associated with non-production waste is neutral, whilst production waste effects will be minor adverse significance.

Table 19.22 Significance of Forecast Operational Waste Effects for the Development

Waste Type Annual waste forecast (Tonnes)

Magnitude of waste arising:


(1 = Low, 5 = high)


disposal facility:


(1 = local/ high capacity available, 3 =

distant/ limited

capacity)

Sustainability of

disposal method:

Position of disposal

route on the waste

hierarchy

(1 = re-use to 4 =

disposal)

Score


effect

10 – 20 minor

21 – 45 moderate


Non-production related waste

9.2 1 1 4 4 (neutral

effect)

Production waste (Recycled - Bottom Ash)

60,320 3 1 2 6 (neutral

effect)

Production waste (Landfilled – Bottom Ash)

55,680 3 1 4 12 (minor

effect)




Table 19.22 Significance of Forecast Operational Waste Effects for the Development

Waste Type Annual waste forecast (Tonnes)

Magnitude of waste arising:


(1 = Low, 5 = high)


disposal facility:


(1 = local/ high capacity available, 3 =

distant/ limited

capacity)

Sustainability of

disposal method:

Position of disposal

route on the waste

hierarchy

(1 = re-use to 4 =

disposal)

Score


effect

10 – 20 minor

21 – 45 moderate


Production waste (Landfilled – FGT Residue)

22,500 2 1 4 8 (neutral

effect)

19.6. Mitigation Measures 19.6.1. No specific mitigation measures beyond those presented within the Development Design

and Impact Avoidance section are considered necessary or appropriate to reduce the assessed significance of effects during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development.

19.7. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 19.7.1. No further impacts and effects relating to waste generation are to be assessed. However,

construction waste generation from FM1 may be substituted for the estimated construction waste figures used within this assessment as and when they become available. This does not change the methodology used to undertake the assessment.

19.8. References Ref. 19-1 EC Directive 2008/98/EC (the Waste Framework Directive), as amended by

EC Directive 91/156/EEC

Ref. 19-2 Waste Data Modelling Project: Yorkshire and Humber 2010

Ref. 19-3 Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England 2005, Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste; Department for Communities and Local Government; 2007

Ref. 19-4 Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste Arisings, Use and Disposal for England 2008; Waste and Resources Action Programme; 2010

Ref. 19-5 Yorkshire and Humber Annual Waste Digest; CLG; 2009

Ref. 19-6 Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011; DEFRA; 2011

Ref. 19-7 Environmental Impact Assessment for a proposed Multifuel Power Station; URS; 2009




Ref. 19-8 Environmental Protection Act 1990

Ref. 19-9 Waste Management Duty of Care Code of Practice; Department of Environment

Ref. 19-10 Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008

Ref. 19-11 Red Tape Challenge – Environment Theme Proposals; Defra; 2012

Ref. 19-12 BRE Waste Benchmark Summary Data; BRE; Issued June 2012




20. SUSTAINABILITY

20.1. Introduction 20.1.1. This chapter addresses the potential wider sustainability impacts predicted to arise as a

consequence of the Proposed Development. It aims to outline the measures that will be considered for implementation to improve the sustainability of design and management of the Proposed Development.

20.1.2. The chapter considers national, regional and local policy guidance which promotes sustainability principles and addresses the impacts (and where appropriate proposed mitigation measures) of the Proposed Development through consideration of the following key sustainability themes:

• Natural Resource efficiency (land, materials, energy, water);

• Waste Minimisation;

• Sustainability of Fuel Supply;

• Transport;

• Climate Change mitigation and adaptation; and

• Sustainable Building Design.

20.1.3. It should be noted that this chapter addresses the in-combination effects of the key sustainability themes, due to the overlap between subject areas. Therefore many of the sustainability issues are also discussed within other specific chapters, due to overlap between subject areas, and relevant chapters are referenced where appropriate.

20.1.4. This chapter is also supported by a preliminary Carbon Impact assessment and a preliminary Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) assessment of the Proposed Development, the results of which are summarised here. A full detailed carbon impact assessment and WRATE assessment report will be submitted with the final ES setting out the final assumptions and full methodology. The WRATE analysis has also been used to inform the Fuels Assessment being undertaken, which will be submitted to support the DCO application.

20.1.5. The calculation of the carbon footprint reported in this chapter is based on the current design stage of the Proposed Development, and therefore may be subject to change going forward. Any changes will be set out and explained in the final ES, along with the final assessment conclusions.

20.1.6. Chapter 7 Planning Policy Context sets out the overarching policy framework relevant to the Proposed Development. The final ES will include a detailed description of the policies relevant specifically to the Sustainability assessment. For the Purposes of this report these are summarised in Appendix 7A.

Methodology 20.1.7. There is no standard methodology for assessing the magnitude of sustainability impacts

and significance of effects of proposed developments. Each project is evaluated according to its individual characteristics. The approach taken is to systematically and qualitatively consider the Proposed Development against key sustainability themes and policy objectives relevant to the Proposed Development and outline the measures that will be considered for implementation to incorporate and improve sustainability within the




design and management. This is considered to be appropriate for the likely types of impact that may result from the Proposed Development.

20.1.8. The Sustainability Assessment provides a mechanism for considering the sustainability of the project as a whole and for integrating sustainability considerations throughout the lifecycle of the development, to enhance the benefits which such a development can generate. It summarises the features and attributes of the Proposed Development that will contribute to or affect each of the sustainability themes, and sets out actions which could be taken during the design, construction and operation that would further assist in delivering sustainability benefits for the local and wider area.


20.1.9. The Rochdale Envelope is not applicable to this Chapter in that the variation in building dimensions or grid connection presented in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development is unlikely to affect the outcomes of the sustainability assessment. Therefore, no further discussion of the Rochdale Envelope parameters is provided in this Chapter.

20.2. Baseline Conditions 20.2.1. This chapter summarises and assesses the findings of a number of other assessments

within the PEI Report. Baseline information can be found in the relevant chapters referenced throughout this assessment.

20.3. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 20.3.1. No specific EIA Scoping responses have been received in relation to Sustainability and

no specific consultation has been undertaken. The Scoping Opinion confirmed the proposed approach to sustainability as acceptable, and highlighted the need to cross-reference other sections of the report where sustainability principles are considered. This includes consideration of fuel sourcing for the Proposed Development, which is being addressed in the Fuels Assessment currently under preparation.


Natural Resource Efficiency 20.4.1. Reducing the use of natural resources in construction materials: The selection of

materials for the construction of the Proposed Development has been informed by sustainability principles, including the prudent and efficient use of natural resources and the use of re-used and recycled materials.

20.4.2. To minimise the use of natural resources and unnecessary materials procured for the Proposed Development, where possible, infrastructure associated with the FM1 development under construction and the existing Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station will be used. For example, the site access routes, internal roadways and bridge over the coal conveyors that was constructed for FM1 and the rail siding and off-loading infrastructure being constructed for FM1.

20.4.3. It is anticipated that surface water discharges from the Site will be controlled through a natural collection and attenuation pond. Where possible, the consumption of virgin raw materials will be reduced by considering products and materials with recycled content and which are durable with a long life.

20.4.4. Minimising use of Greenfield land: The land to be used for the Proposed Development encompasses the footprint of the former golf course within the wider Ferrybridge Power




Station site boundary. A parcel of the former golf course is currently being utilised for temporary material storage by the contractors constructing the FM1 development. Topsoil removed from the Site during levelling for construction of FM2 would be stockpiled and retained for landscaping and re-use where possible. The landscape proposals for the Site are to create high ecological value landscape through extensive planting of native species.

20.4.5. Minimising use of water: The Proposed Development is estimated to require approximately 100,000 m3 of water per annum for boiler feed. Air cooled condensers will be installed to facilitate plant cooling, avoiding the need for water abstraction from the River Aire for cooling purposes.

20.4.6. Water for boiler feed and steam generation is likely to be abstracted from groundwater from an on-site borehole, with public water supply used as a back-up and for potable water.

20.4.7. Steam from the turbine exhaust will be condensed for reuse.

20.4.8. The potential to collect rainwater runoff from uncontaminated areas of the Proposed Development for re-use and to reduce the need for domestic water will be considered (e.g. to feed into the process applications and dust and odour suppression systems).

20.4.9. Welfare facilities such as showers and toilets including flow control mechanisms will be considered for implementation. In addition, during operation, water consumption will be monitored through process and administration areas to identify opportunities for water usage reduction and leak detection.

20.4.10. Maximising energy efficiency: The design of the proposed plant is based on Best Available Techniques (BAT) for plants fired on solid waste derived fuels and is expected to operate at an anticipated net thermal efficiency of around 29%, which compares favourably with indicative BAT efficiencies for energy from waste plants of 17-30% as outlined in the Waste Incineration BREF.

20.4.11. Elements of the plants design that will be considered to help achieve this efficiency include:

• modern design following current best practices in optimising efficiency;

• plant components are sized appropriately for the design capacity of the plant with no over sizing of equipment;

• the plant is designed to fire on fuel with a NCV from 8.5 to 16.5 MJ/kg which will allow for changes in composition due to changes in recycling practices affecting the WDF element of the input fuel, whilst maintaining efficiency;

• a single steam turbine will be installed to serve the two combustion lines, to improve thermal efficiency at full load;

• where possible variable speed drives will be included on all sizeable motors (such as cooling water pumps and fans);

• plant to be designed as CHP ready, to enable viable CHP opportunities to be explored and utilised where feasible, which would facilitate the use of waste heat from the plant; and

• insulation of surfaces.

20.4.12. The plant will also be subject to regular planned maintenance in order to optimise the efficiency of the equipment on site.



Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report 20.4.13. The Applicant is focused on generating electricity as efficiently as possible and

maximising exported power. Therefore, the following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) regarding energy will be regularly monitored and tracked:

• tonnage of fuel per MWh exported electricity; and

• electricity consumption on site (the parasitic load).

20.4.14. SSE, one half of the joint venture comprising the Applicant, is strongly committed to providing energy in a reliable and sustainable way and a key priority is a significant and continuing reduction in the carbon intensity of the electricity produced by its generation fleet. This is defined in SSE’s goal to reduce the carbon intensity of its energy generation by 50% by 2020 (against a 2006 baseline).

20.4.15. This goal will be achieved through a diverse range of solutions including:

• the commissioning and development of additional renewable energy capacity;

• lower emissions from more efficient and flexible gas-fired generation;

• delivering innovative solid fuel solutions at coal-fired stations; and

• reduced output from coal-fired stations as they use up their allocated running hours under the EU’s Industrial Emissions Directive.

20.4.16. SSE has also successfully completed the Certified Emissions Management and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) and encouraged eighty six of its main suppliers to sign up to the programme (Ref. 20-9).

Waste Minimisation and Recycling 20.4.17. The Applicant endorses the waste hierarchy. This means that the first priority is to

prevent waste, second priority to reuse with the last resort being disposal.

20.4.18. A detailed assessment of Waste Management for the Proposed Development is considered in Chapter 19 Waste and Resources, which includes details of measures to minimise waste generation that will be considered for implementation by the Applicant.

Sustainability of Fuel Supply 20.4.19. The following fuel types are considered as the main sources of fuel for the Proposed

Development:

• WDF processed from MSW;

• C&I waste; and

• waste wood.

20.4.20. It is recognised that there are many sustainability issues associated with the generation and sourcing of fuel, e.g. use of waste hierarchy and distance of fuel transportation.

20.4.21. As set out in Chapter 4 The Project Description, it is not yet possible to identify the source of fuel for use at the Proposed Development. However, as noted above there are commercial, environmental and policy considerations which will define from where the fuel is sourced.

Transport 20.4.22. A detailed Transport assessment is considered in Chapter 10 Transport and Access.

Whilst assessments have demonstrated that, for both the construction and operational




phases, there will be no significant effects to any of the road sections assessed, a number of traffic management measures will be considered for implementation. These measures are set out in Chapter 10 Transport and Access and will be agreed with WMDC and the Police prior to implementation as appropriate.

20.4.23. A preliminary assessment of carbon emissions arising from the transport of WDF and other raw materials to the Site and waste arising from the Site has been undertaken.

20.4.24. The Applicant is committed to the implementation of sustainable transport solutions for the Proposed Development and hence will continue to liaise with fuel suppliers and ash contractors to identify options for the transport of fuel to the Site and ash from the Site, and have invested significantly in the onsite rail infrastructure as part of the FM1 project, which can be utilised by FM2. It has been demonstrated through the FM1 Sustainable Fuel Transport Tool that the use of rail may not be the most sustainable form of transport for fuel sourced from the region if for example additional vehicle movements and handling operations are required.

20.4.25. All fuel contracts will be assessed using the Sustainable Transport Appraisal Tool developed for FM1 in order to evaluate the most appropriate fuel transport method to the Site. For the purposes of the transport impact assessment and the carbon impact assessment a worst case scenario has been assumed of all fuel and other deliveries (and removal of materials) occurring by road.

Climate Change 20.4.26. The design, construction and operation of the Proposed Development will seek to

mitigate the causes of climate change by contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the predicted impacts of climate change.

Mitigation / Minimising Carbon Emissions

Carbon Footprint 20.4.27. A preliminary Carbon Impact assessment based on data currently available has been

undertaken of the Proposed Development, which is summarised here. As the design of the Proposed Development is evolving and further assessments are undertaken, the assumptions selected for this preliminary assessment are based on the best data currently available. Some of these assumptions may change, for example on completion of the Fuels Assessment at a later stage in the project. Where this is the case any changes will be highlighted in the final ES and the assumptions on which the final assessment is based will be clearly stated. It is not currently anticipated that any such changes would substantially change the outcome of this preliminary assessment.

20.4.28. The indicative operational annual carbon footprint of the Proposed Development has been calculated using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. It provides a methodology for calculating the carbon footprint of a project and was developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

20.4.29. At this stage the exact composition of the MSW and C&I waste is unknown, as they are strongly dependant on the origins of the waste. Therefore, for the purposes of this carbon assessment the default composition of Refuse Derived Fuel has been sourced from the WRATE tool (RDF produced via Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) of standard Municipal Solid Waste for England). Using waste wood as a separate fuel source has not been accounted for in this assessment. In the absence of information regarding the exact sources of WDF to be taken by the Proposed Development, this RDF




composition is considered representative and is also considered to represent the worst case.

20.4.30. Table 20.1 below summarises the total annual carbon footprint of the Proposed Development based on the preliminary assessment, which is calculated at approximately 238,000 tonnes CO2e.

Table 20.1 Total footprint emissions

Element of Footprint tonnes CO2e Emission Scope

Gas Oil combustion 3,200 Scope 1

Waste derived fuel combustion 225,000 Scope 1

Electricity consumption 0 Scope 2

Gas Oil Transport 10 Scope 3

Waste derived fuel transport 8,700 Scope 3

Raw materials transport 100 Scope 3

Waste transport 1,300 Scope 3

Approx. TOTAL annual carbon emissions

238,000

20.4.31. Based on currently available information the carbon intensity of the Proposed Development (Scope 1 emissions only) is approximately 393 tonnes CO2 per GWh. The average UK power station (for all fuel types including nuclear and renewable) has a carbon intensity of 443 tonnes CO2 per GWh (Ref 20-7). Therefore, the Proposed Development will outperform the average existing power stations within the UK and the generation of electricity by the Proposed Development using waste derived fuel represents annual carbon savings of approximately 28,900 tonnes CO2e compared to the UK average power station for the generation of electricity alone. Note these indicative carbon savings include the emissions associated with the Scope 1 emissions only.

20.4.32. As Table 20.1 above shows, the majority of emissions will originate from the combustion of the WDF. However due to uncertainty surrounding the location of the source of WDF, alternative calculations were undertaken to assess the sensitivity of doubling the distance the multifuel is transported to site from a nominal 80 km to 160 km. The sensitivity testing revealed that whilst, as expected, the carbon footprint is greater with a longer transportation distance, it is marginal, with an increase in total carbon emissions of just 4%. This sensitivity testing will be further evaluated as part of the final ES.

WRATE Analysis 20.4.33. WRATE is a Life Cycle Assessment tool developed by the Environment Agency. WRATE

allows users to quantify and compare environmental burdens of equivalent waste management systems across their entire life cycle. WRATE calculates and presents the environmental impact in terms of six default impacts: abiotic resource depletion, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicology, acidification, eutrophication, global warming potential and human toxicity. A preliminary WRATE assessment has also been undertaken for the Proposed Development, which is summarised here.

20.4.34. The WRATE assessment compares the following two scenarios:

• the disposal of waste directly to landfill (the baseline); and




• the treatment of waste to produce waste derived fuel for combustion at the FM2 facility.

20.4.35. WRATE calculates the potential impacts arising from all processes in the waste management scenarios including the collection, transportation, transfer, treatment, disposal and recycling of materials. The model takes account of the construction and operation of infrastructure and vehicles, and offsets this burden against the avoided burdens associated with materials and energy recovery. All inputs of waste, energy and materials, and outputs of energy, process residues, materials and emissions are accounted for.

20.4.36. The primary purpose of undertaking the preliminary WRATE assessment was to assess the carbon impact of the proposed facility. Climate change impact in WRATE is expressed in kg CO2-equivalent (eq). It is important to note that where the model shows a minus value for the kg CO2-eq this is not indicative of a process being a carbon ‘sink’ but of a process displacing conventional energy or electricity use.

20.4.37. The WRATE model shows that the transfer of waste derived fuel to the FM2 facility presents significant carbon savings, of over 610 million kg CO2-eq (610,000 tonnes CO2-eq) in comparison to the baseline scenario of disposal of waste directly to landfill.

Maximising the Provision of Renewable Energy 20.4.38. The Proposed Development will be designed to be ‘CHP-ready’. If CHP is introduced

then there would be carbon reduction benefits associated with the offset of grid gas and electricity to generate heat. A CHP assessment is currently being prepared for the Proposed Development to identify whether there are any available options for CHP to be utilised immediately. The FM1 study did not identify any immediate options, but the assessment is to be updated to identify whether there are any proposed new developments that may be able to take heat or steam, or whether having two CHP ready plants makes a difference to the options that are available. The final ES will incorporate the findings of this CHP assessment.

Climate Change Adaptation 20.4.39. In addition to any potential impacts of the Proposed Development on climate change,

climate change also has the potential to impact on the design and operation of the Proposed Development. For example, increased incidences of heavy and prolonged rainfall could increase flood risk from surface water, groundwater and drainage systems. Consequently, adaptation to climate change concerns how the Proposed Development avoids or reduces its exposure to the effects of future climate change, such as increased temperatures and flood risk.

20.4.40. A full FRA will be provided with the DCO application and the findings included in the final ES. Chapter 15 Water Resources and Flood Risk sets out what has been undertaken to date and what will be undertaken as part of the FRA.

20.4.41. Resilient to increased temperatures and risk of drought: As discussed above, the Proposed Development incorporates a number of measures to conserve water during operation, which increase resilience to future temperature rises and potential droughts as a result of climate change.

Sustainable Building Design (BREEAM) 20.4.42. The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)

sets the standard for best practice in sustainable building design, construction and




operation and is one of the most comprehensive and widely recognised measures of a building's environmental performance.

20.4.43. A BREEAM assessment uses recognised measures of performance which are set against established benchmarks to evaluate a building’s specification, design, construction and use. The measures used represent a broad range of categories and criteria from energy to ecology. They include aspects related to energy and water use, the internal environment (health and well-being), pollution, transport, materials, waste, ecology and management processes.

20.4.44. The Applicant is committed to undertaking a formal BREEAM Assessment at an appropriate stage in the design evolution of the Proposed Development, when specific issues such as choice of building and insulation materials are being addressed, recognising that the design is likely to be similar to that of FM1. It is anticipated that, as per the FM1 development, the Proposed Development will achieve at a minimum a BREEAM rating of “Very Good”, based on the BREEAM New Construction: Industrial 2011.

20.4.45. The BREEAM scheme covers ten categories; each category has a number of issues which are summarised in Table 20.2 below:

Table 20.2 BREEAM Categories

Category Main Issues

Management Commissioning; Construction site impacts; Security

Health &Wellbeing

Daylight; Occupant thermal comfort; Acoustics; Indoor air and water quality; Lighting

Energy CO2 emissions; Low or zero carbon technologies; Energy sub metering; Energy efficient building systems

Transport Public transport network connectivity; Pedestrian and Cyclist facilities; Access to amenities; Travel plans and information

Water Water consumption; Leak detection; Water re-use and recycling

Materials Embodied life cycle impact of materials; Materials re-use; Responsible sourcing; Robustness

Waste Construction waste; Recycled aggregates; Recycling facilities

Land Use & Ecology

Site selection; Protection of ecological features; Mitigation/enhancement of ecological value

Pollution Refrigerant use and leakage; Flood risk; NOx emissions; Watercourse pollution; External light and noise pollution

Innovation Exemplary performance levels; Use of BREEAM Accredited Professionals; New technologies and building processes

20.5. Limitations or Difficulties 20.5.1. The findings of the preliminary carbon footprint assessment and WRATE Assessment

reported here are based on the current design stage of the Proposed Development, and therefore may be subject to change going forward. Any changes will be set out and explained in the final ES, along with the final assessment conclusions.




20.6. Conclusions 20.6.1. The Proposed Development has several characteristics incorporated into its design,

construction and management which meet the key sustainability requirements as set out in national, regional and local policy.

20.6.2. BREEAM sets the standard for best practice in sustainable building design, construction and operation and is one of the most comprehensive and widely recognised measures of a building's environmental performance. The Applicant is committed to undertaking a formal BREEAM Assessment at an appropriate stage in the design evolution of the Proposed Development. It is anticipated that, as per FM1, the Proposed Development will achieve at a minimum a BREEAM rating of “Very Good” based on the BREEAM New Construction: Industrial 2011 e.g. through incorporating energy and water efficient features of the building design, efficient use of natural resources, sharing of resources with FM1 and the use of re-used and recycled materials.

20.6.3. The design, construction and operation of the Proposed Development will seek to mitigate the causes of climate change by contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with waste disposal and electricity generation and adapting to the predicted impacts of climate change.

20.6.4. The Proposed Development will provide a low carbon source of electricity. The carbon assessment demonstrates that the Proposed Development will outperform the average existing power stations within the UK on a tonnes CO2 per GWh basis.

20.6.5. Modes of transport with a lower carbon footprint compared to road (such as rail over longer distances) have been and will continue to be considered for the transport of the fuel to the Site on a case by case basis for each fuel contract. The Applicant is committed to the implementation of sustainable transport solutions for the Proposed Development and hence will continue to liaise with fuel suppliers and ash contractors to identify options for the transport of fuel to the Site - and waste from the Site have invested significantly in the onsite rail infrastructure as part of the FM1 project, which can be utilised by FM2.

20.6.6. There is also potential for the Proposed Development to incorporate CHP (the plant is designed to be ‘CHP ready’) in the future. This would represent further carbon savings as heat from the Proposed Development could be reused by other local developments, reducing the need for grid electricity or gas.

20.6.7. The main purpose of the Proposed Development is the generation of electricity rather than to function as a waste disposal facility. However, a positive consequence of the Proposed Development will be the diversion of waste from landfill in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Results of a preliminary WRATE assessment show that the transfer of waste to the FM2 facility presents significant carbon savings, of over 610 million kg CO2-eq (610,000 tonnes CO2-eq) in comparison to the baseline of disposal of waste directly to landfill.

20.6.8. In addition, the Proposed Development will consider a number of design and operational measures to increase resilience to potential effects of climate change including the mitigation of potential flood risk.

20.7. References Ref. 20-1 Department of Communities and Local Government (2012) National

Planning Policy Framework. Available from: www.gov.uk.


http://www.gov.uk/



Ref. 20-2 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (2009) Core Strategy Development Plan Document. Available from www.wakefield.gov.uk

Ref. 20-3 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (2009) Development Policies Development Plan Document. Available from www.wakefield.gov.uk

Ref. 20-4 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (2012) Site Specific Policies Local Plan. Available from www.wakefield.gov.uk

Ref. 20-5 World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2005). GHG Protocol for Project Accounting

Ref. 20-6 Environment Agency (April 2009) “Biomass: Carbon sink or carbon sinner?”

Ref. 20-7 BREEAM (2008) Scheme Document SD 5052: BREEAM Industrial 2008. Available from www.breeam.org




21. HEALTH

21.1. Introduction 21.1.1. The final ES will include a chapter on the potential for effects on health. This will be a

summary section highlighting the findings of other technical assessments, as set out in various chapters of this document. The information will be brought into one chapter for the purposes of ensuring health related information is in a readily accessible place for interested parties.

21.1.2. The section will aim to identify and assess the potential health effects (both adverse and beneficial) of the Proposed Development and to deliver evidence based recommendations that maximise health gains and reduce or remove potential negative impacts or inequalities.

21.1.3. The assessment will be a ‘signposting’ document highlighting key aspects of the technical assessments completed. As such it will refer to relevant legislation, guidance and policy relating to the technical assessments completed (e.g. air quality and noise), and similarly the methodologies employed in those assessments. A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) is under preparation and will be reported on in this section as well as referenced in the Air Quality section in the final ES. Similar assessments were undertaken for the FM1 development.

21.1.4. Where potential for specific health impacts is identified in a technical assessment this section will set out the significance of effect on the receptors identified and any specific health mitigation required.

21.2. Baseline Conditions 21.2.1. This section will consider the community profile in the study area including the current

health status of the population and their existing environmental exposure for key parameters, and will identify specific receptors within the study area.

21.2.2. Health profiles are produced annually by the Association of Public Health Observatories (APHO) and these provide a summary of the health of people within defined areas and a comparison of local health with average values for all areas of England. Health profiles have been obtained for the local authority areas of Selby, Leeds, Wakefield and Doncaster. Local average life expectancy for people living within each local authority tends to be slightly less than the national average (see Table 21.1), although there are well documented health inequalities within each individual area. Various factors contribute to an increase in the relative rates of deaths between summer and winter months (excess winter deaths). Excess winter death rates for the study area are not reported to be significantly different to the national average.

21.2.3. There are well documented health inequalities between individual areas within each local authority. The most deprived areas within the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (MDC) administrative area have an average life expectancy for men that is 9.9 years shorter than for men in the least deprived areas (based on the Slope Index of Inequality (Ref 21-1)). The equivalent difference for women is 7.9 years. Similar differences in the average male life expectancy were found between the most and least deprived areas of the local authority areas of Leeds (12.4 years), Selby (9.6 years) and Doncaster (10.9 years).




Table 21.1 Life Expectancy

Location

Female Average

(yearsa)

Male Average

(yearsa)

England 82.6 78.6

Selby 83.4 79.9

Leeds 82.2 77.9

Wakefield 81.1 77.0

Doncaster 81.4 76.8 a values at birth (2007-2009) sourced from the Health Profile for the individual local authority.

21.2.4. Both the male and female average life expectancy values for all the local authority areas shown in Table 3.1 are less than 2 years below the average life expectancy for males and females in England as a whole, with the exception of Selby, which shows an increase of greater than 1 year.

Table 21.2 Baseline Mortality Rates

Community

Health Outcome per 100,000 Populationa

Infant Deathse

Deaths from Smokingb

Early Deaths: heart disease and strokec

Early Deaths: Cancerc

Road injuries and deathsd

England 211 67.3 110.1 44.3 4.6

Selby 186 55.6 92.4 76.3 4.2

Leeds 249 75.2 116.5 42.1 4.9

Wakefield 261 85.5 122.3 48.2 4.9

Doncaster 275 79.7 125.9 52.6 5.1 a sourced from the Health Profile for the individual local authority. b values expressed as per 100,000 population age 35+, directly age standardised rate 2006-2008 sourced from APHO and Department of Health, 2010. c values expressed as directly age standardised rate per 100,000 population under 75, 2006-2008. d values expressed as rate per 100,000 population 2006-2008.e rate per 1,000 live births 2006-2008 sourced from the Health Profile for the individual local authority.

21.2.5. The health outcomes for people living in the different local authority areas of the region set out in Table 21.2 are contrasted against the England average and will be considered for each administrative area in turn in the final assessment.

21.2.6. An annual report on the health of the local population is undertaken on each administrative area in combination with the local National Health Service (NHS). This used to take the form of an annual report by the director of public health for the area but these are being gradually replaced by a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) report on the health and well-being of the local population. The health of the local population living within each local authority areas in the region will be discussed in the final assessment.

Future Baseline 21.2.7. The future baseline conditions in 2018 are not anticipated to be significantly different to

the existing baseline conditions. Potential future changes in air quality, which may affect




human health, including changes as a result of the operation of FM1, are described in Chapter 11 Air Quality.

21.3. Correspondence/ agreement with consultees to date 21.3.1. The Scoping Opinion stated that it is a matter for the Applicant to decide whether to

submit a standalone Health Impact Assessment and that the methodology for the HHRA should be agreed with relevant statutory consultees.

21.3.2. Public Health England submitted a response to the Scoping Opinion consultation highlighting that assessments undertaken to inform the ES should be proportionate to the potential impacts of the proposal (with respect to health impacts). They also highlighted that they will only consider information contained or referenced within a separate section of the ES summarising the impact of the Proposed Development on public health.

21.3.3. As part of the HHRA, consultation will be undertaken with the relevant Local Authorities and Health Authorities, and the findings of the Scoping Opinion will be taken into account within the assessment and in the health chapter.

21.4. Likely Health Impacts and Significance of Effects 21.4.1. It is not yet possible to report on likely health effects as the HHRA and other relevant

assessments are currently under preparation. At this stage, however, it is anticipated that impacts on health have the potential to arise from:

• Construction phase – dust, noise, traffic (emissions and accidents), direct and indirect employment (beneficial health impacts);

• Operation Phase – atmospheric pollutant deposition, water discharges, traffic (emissions and accidents), noise (disturbance), direct and indirect employment (beneficial health impacts) and wider benefits in terms of providing power for local/regional/national business; and

• Decommissioning Phase – as for construction phase.

21.4.2. Each of these potential effects has been considered and reported on in the preliminary technical assessments within this PEI Report. The final ES will include a summary of effects on health from each potential impact source within the health section.

21.4.3. Based on the preliminary assessments undertaken to date and presented within this PEI Report and findings of the assessments undertaken for FM1, it is considered unlikely that any significant health impacts (arising from an individual impact source or impacts leading to in-combination effects) will be identified through the HHRA or health impact assessment.

21.5. Mitigation Measures 21.5.1. Until the HHRA and other assessments are complete it is not possible to identify the likely

significant effects and therefore what mitigation will be required. Examples of mitigation measures that may be considered are Construction Environmental Management Plans, Emergency Procedures (all phases), specific Employment Policies (all phases) and air emissions controls (all phases).

21.5.2. The HHRA is based on emissions that would meet the emission limit requirements for an installation set under the Waste Incineration chapter (Chapter IV) of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). As IED limits have been set across the EU based on the adoption of good practice design and the use of mitigation measures to abate emissions




to a value at which significant effects are unlikely to be experienced at sensitive receptors, it is unlikely that any additional mitigation requirements will be brought forward as a consequence of the HHRA.

21.6. Impacts and Effects yet to be Determined 21.6.1. The preliminary assessments included in this PEI Report consider potential health

impacts, but it has not been possible to complete the HHRA or overall impact assessment at the current stage of the project. This section will be completed in full in the ES.

21.7. References Ref. 21-1 APO (2011) Health Inequality Indicators for Local Authorities, Slope Index of

Inequality for Life Expectancy by Deprivation Deciles




22. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

22.1. Projects to be Considered 22.1.1. In accordance with the EIA Regulations, consideration will also be given to the potential

for ‘cumulative impacts’ to arise. These are impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other reasonably foreseeable developments.

22.1.2. For the cumulative impact assessment, two types of impact will be considered:

• the combined impacts of several development schemes which may, on an individual basis be insignificant but, cumulatively, have a significant impact; and

• the combined effect of individual impacts, for example noise or pollutants on a single receptor.

22.1.3. Cumulative impacts are those that accrue over time and space from a number of development activities. The impact of the Proposed Development will be considered in conjunction with the potential impacts from other projects or activities which are both reasonably foreseeable in terms of delivery (e.g. have planning consent) and are located within a realistic geographical scope where environmental impacts could act together to create a more significant overall effect.

22.1.4. It should be noted that for the purposes of this preliminary assessment the cumulative impact assessment has not yet been completed. This is due to the stage that the various projects in the region are at, limiting the amount of information available to enable completion of a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment, and the fact that this assessment is preliminary at the current stage. A full cumulative impact assessment will be completed for the final ES based on publicly available information from the other identified projects.

22.1.5. The cumulative effects of the Proposed Development with the construction and operation of the FM1 power station have been considered as a special case throughout the EIA process, through the use of a modified baseline as outlined in each technical chapter of this report. The cumulative impact of FM1 and FM2 is therefore not specifically addressed in this chapter.

22.1.6. A review of the Planning Register has identified a number of additional developments that are proposed within the region. The list of developments considered for inclusion within the cumulative impact assessment is:

• Lyndale Caravan Park, Brotherton - erection of additional 12 dwellings (630 m from the Site);

• Knottingley Power Project – a proposed 1500 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station, Knottingley (3.2 km from the Proposed Development);

• Castleford R L FC –erection of a foodstore, petrol filling station and drive through restaurant on Wheldon Road, Castleford (3.5 km from the Proposed Development);

• Factory and Distribution Buildings –Former Pioneer Electronics Technology, Whitwood Common Lane, Castleford (4.3 km from the Proposed Development);

• Hillam Gardens - works to increase retail area at Hillam Gardens, Leeds (6.2 km from Proposed Development);

• Land to the north of Pontefract Road –up to 450 residential dwellings (6.8 km from the Proposed Development);




• Former Crystal Springs –Class A1 retail foodstore (6.6 km from the Proposed Development);

• Land at California Drive – proposed biomethane refuelling station at Castleford (6.8 km from the Proposed Development);

• Southmoor Energy Centre – a proposed Energy from Waste facility with CHP located at Kellingley Colliery (7.56 km from the Proposed Development);

• Prince of Wales Colliery spoil tip – works to the existing spoil heap on Park Road, Pontefract (3.5 km from Proposed Development);

• Tunstall Telecom –residential development at Selby Road, Whitley, Goole (8.9 km form Proposed Development);

• Prowind Wind Farm, Birkin Knottingley – 14 turbine wind farm located at Birkin, Knottingley (5.8 km from the Proposed Development);

• Pollington Airfield, Heck And Pollington Lane Heck - Proposed process plant for grinding wood fuel at Goole (12.1 km from Proposed Development);

• Bowmans Mill - Erection of warehouse, bagging plant, processing tower, tanker loading bay, eight silos and associated works at Selby Road, Whitley, Goole (8.4 km from Proposed Development);

• National Grid CO2 Pipeline – extensive pipeline proposal as part of national carbon capture proposals. Nearest location is a significant distance from the Site; and

• White Rose Carbon Capture and Storage – a coal fired power station (with the potential to co-fire biomass) that is equipped with full carbon capture and storage technology, to be located at the site of the existing Drax Power Station.

22.2. Overview of Likely Cumulative Effects 22.2.1. Following an initial review of the list of schemes above, the following schemes are

considered to be of such a nature and proximity to the Site to have the potential to generate cumulative impacts when considered in context with the Proposed Development. These will be subject to further review regarding the nature of predicted impacts and considered for inclusion in the cumulative impacts assessment. This list may not be exhaustive, and will be finalised through the EIA process in discussion with Local Authorities and statutory consultees. The location of the following developments is shown in Figure 22.1.

• Knottingley Power Project – a proposed 1500 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station and associated infrastructure, located at former Oxiris Chemical Works, Knottingley (3.2 km from the Proposed Development); Currently at pre-application stage in the DCO process;

• Prowind Wind Farm, Birkin Knottingley – a proposed 14 turbine wind farm located at Birkin, Knottingley; Awaiting planning decision (5.8 km from the Site);

• Factory and Distribution Buildings – proposals for the development of a proposed factory and distribution buildings with associated structures, parking and landscaping, located at Former Pioneer Electronics Technology, Whitwood Common Lane, Castleford (6.4 km from the Proposed Development); Screening Opinion requested;

• Lyndale Caravan Park, Brotherton - erection of additional 12 dwellings (1.2 km from the Site); approval received for reserved matters following outline approval. Unlikely to




give rise to cumulative impacts but may be taken into consideration if Lyndale Caravan Park identified as a receptor; and

• Southmoor Energy Centre – a proposed Energy from Waste facility with CHP located at Kellingley Colliery (4.4 km from the Proposed Development). The facility would have the capacity to produce 26 MW of low carbon electricity and heat that could be supplied to the local colliery. A planning application has been submitted and a decision is anticipated in Autumn 2013.




23. CONCLUSIONS

23.1. Summary of Effects

Introduction 23.1.1. Chapters 11 to 21 of this PEI Report have considered the potential environmental

impacts and effects of FM2 (the Proposed Development). This chapter provides a summary of those adverse and beneficial environmental effects that are considered to be significant (i.e. moderate and major effects).

Significant Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation Measures 23.1.2. Table 23.1 summarises the significant environmental effects of the Proposed

Development, following implementation of the impact avoidance measures included in the Proposed Development’s design. The table also summarises any additional mitigation measures that have been identified by the specialist assessments contained in the PEI Report. In-combination effects are included within the table where relevant.

23.1.3. As set out in Chapter 22 Cumulative Impact Assessment, it has not been possible to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the Proposed Development with other developments (with the exception of FM1) at the current time. This will be completed in full and any significant effects included in the summary in the final ES.

23.1.4. For the purposes of this ES an effect is considered to be ‘significant’ if it is assessed to be moderate (adverse or beneficial) or major (adverse or beneficial). Minor and neutral effects are only referenced in this Chapter where a ‘significant’ effect has been reduced to a ‘not significant’ effect through mitigation.

23.1.5. To provide further clarification on the nature of the effects, each has been identified as

• short term (St) – effects occurring only over a small period of time, e.g. an effect that only lasts for the duration of the construction period, or one that lasts for only part of the operational phase;

• medium term (Mt) – effects occurring for the duration of the development’s operation, but which cease when operations cease; or

• long term (Lt) – effects occurring beyond the operation of the proposed scheme, for example the permanent change to archaeology; and

• reversible (R) – effects that are not permanent because the effect would no longer occur if the impact was removed within the relevant timescale (for example visual amenity would be restored when a construction structures is removed would be described as St, R); or

• irreversible (IR) – effects that are permanent and cannot be readily reversed within the relevant timescale (for example an environmental feature that is lost and cannot be replaced until after decommissioning would be Mt, IR. In the event that it could not be replaced at all, this would be IR Lt).




Table 23.1 Summary of Significant Effects

Development stage

Environmental effect (following scheme design and impact avoidance measures)

Effect prior to mitigation

Additional mitigation (if identified)

Residual effect after additional mitigation

Nature of effect(s)

Socio-Economics

Construction Economic benefit from creation of construction industry jobs

Moderate Beneficial

None required

Moderate Beneficial St, R


No significant effects identified

Traffic and Transport

Construction No significant effects identified



Noise and Vibration

Construction

Evening and night-time noise effect due to construction activities at nearby noise sensitive receptors

Moderate Adverse

Employment of best practicable means working practices; agreement of noise limits for nighttime working, restrict night time working for specific activities that could potentially give rise to noise impacts; agree conditions limiting noise generating activities with WMDC in order to carry out construction activities outside of normal working hours.

Negligible St, T, R, and D





Development stage





Nature of effect(s)

Potential for abnormal night-time construction traffic on Kirkhaw Lane

Moderate Adverse

Abnormal deliveries to be the exception, all to be agreed in advance with WMDC. Public and WMDC to be kept informed of any planned abnormal deliveries during unsocial hours.

Moderate Adverse St, T, R, and D

Opening and operation

No Significant effects identified

Air Quality and Dust


Operation and opening


Ground Conditions




Water Quality, Drainage and Flood Risk





Development stage





Nature of effect(s)




Ecology




Landscape and Visual

Construction The tower cranes will be viewed against the sky, increasing visibility of vertical structures at Darkfield Lane, Pontefract (Viewpoint F).

Moderate Adverse

None Moderate Adverse ST, T and D


Visibility of boiler/ turbine halls and stack at Darkfield Lane,

Moderate Adverse

Offsite planting at affected properties – should be offered as optional mitigation.

Moderate Beneficial (if mitigation accepted)

Lt, P, R and D





Development stage





Nature of effect(s)

Pontefract (Viewpoint F). Moderate Adverse (if mitigation

not accepted)

Cultural Heritage




Waste




Note: Lt = long term, St = short term, Mt = medium term, P = permanent, T = temporary, R = reversible, I – irreversible, D = direct and In – indirect.




23.2. Conclusions 23.2.1. This preliminary assessment has concluded that the Proposed Development will result in

significant (moderate) beneficial socio-economic effects by the creation of jobs during the construction phase (and minor beneficial benefit through creation of jobs and economic influx during operational phase).

23.2.2. The Proposed Development is set within an existing power station site, and has been designed in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure including in relation to operational regime. This has worked to minimise the potential for significant adverse effects arising from the Proposed Development.

23.2.3. Whilst an increase in traffic will arise as a result of the Proposed Development, it is not anticipated that the increase predicted will result in a significant effect on the users of the roads or in terms of noise or air quality. The transport effects arising from the Proposed Development will be assessed further in the Transport Assessment currently under preparation.

23.2.4. The noise assessment has concluded that the operational noise effect will be negligible. During construction there is potential for a moderate effect from night time construction works, though implementation of noise controls and mitigation measures will reduce this effect to negligible (not significant). Potential night time noise from unloading activities associated with rail deliveries will be further considered in the final ES once further information is available.

23.2.5. The air quality assessment has modelled the dispersion of pollutants from the stack and the potential emissions associated with transport. The air dispersion modelling has informed the height selected for the stack to ensure sufficient dispersion is achieved. The preliminary assessment has concluded a minor or negligible impact (not significant) on all receptors.

23.2.6. There are, however, a number of significant effects identified as part of the Proposed Development during the construction phase, including the potential for a moderate effect of noise arising from night time abnormal deliveries and a moderate adverse visual effect in the area of one viewpoint assessed (Viewpoint F – Darkfield Lane, Pontefract).

23.2.7. During the operational phase there is the potential for a significant (moderate) adverse visual effect for the same viewpoint. It is proposed that offsite planting is offered to households potentially affected in this area as an optional mitigation, which would have the potential to deliver a moderate beneficial effect in providing screening for the existing structures and FM1 also (though it is recognised that households may have a preference to retain the open view, hence this is proposed as optional).

23.2.8. All other environmental specialist assessments have concluded that no significant effects will result from the Proposed Development (taking into account design measures already incorporated to avoid impacts arising and best practice site management measures) as a result of the preliminary assessments undertaken.


Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) · 10/5/2013 · Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: P-aD.1...

Documents

Transcript of Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) · 10/5/2013 · Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: P-aD.1...