Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 2: Environmental Statement

Transcription

1 Energy from Waste Facility Plot 8, Protos Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2: Environmental Statement April 2018

2 This Environmental Statement has been prepared by Turley Planning on behalf of This is Protos with contributions from: Copies of the Scoping Report can also be obtained from: Turley 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD Tel

3 Contents Glossary i 1. Introduction 1 2. Site Location and Surroundings 6 3. Background 7 4. Section 73 Application: Proposed Amendment to the EFW Facility Permission Updated Project Description Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment Consideration of Alternatives Matters Scoped Out of the Environmental Statement Climate Change Human Health Transport Environmental Management Summary and Conclusions 177 Contact Stephen Bell Stephen.bell@turley.co.uk Amy Longmore amy.longmore@turley.co.uk April 2018

4 Glossary Term Air Quality Management Strategy ALC AOD AQMS AQS Associated Committed Development Associated development BAP Biodiversity Biomass Renewable Energy Plant Permission BREP BREP ES 2010 BREP ES 2014 BREP Scoping Report 2010 BREP Scoping Report 2014 Definition A designation made by a local authority where an assessment of air quality results in the need to devise an action plan to improve the quality of air. Agricultural Land Classification Above Ordnance Datum Air Quality Management Strategy Air Quality Standards Projects on Protos comprising: Dry Cargo Facility (first phase); Rail line and rail head (first phase), Vehicular access to the berth and rail from Plot 8; and Ecological Mitigation Areas A, C and E, and landscape mitigation areas to be delivered pursuant to the Proposed Development via planning conditions and planning obligations. These works have planning permission under the RRP Outline Permission, RRP Section 73 Permission, RRP Section 73 Permission 2015, and the Deemed Permission The proposed access road from Grinsome Road to Plot 8, and landscaping within Plot 8 and adjoining the access road that together with the EFW Facility comprise the Proposed Development Biodiversity Action Plan This term is derived from 'biological diversity' and means the variety of life and great richness of living things in the natural world. BREP Permission The Biomass Renewable Energy Plant development authorised on Plot 9 of the RRP under full planning permission ref. 11/00040/WAS granted January 2013 (as an alternative to the use of the site for a Bioethanol Plant authorised by the RRP Outline Permission, RRP S73 Permission, and RRP S73 Permission 2015) Biomass Renewable Energy Plant The report outlining the results of the environmental impact assessment for the BREP prepared in 2010 The report outlining the results of the environmental impact assessment for the BREP prepared in 2014 The report outlining the scope of the environmental impact assessment for the BREP prepared in 2010 The report outlining the scope of the environmental impact i

5 Term BREP Section 73 Permission BS Bund Definition assessment for the BREP prepared in 2014 Amendment of the BREP Permission (ref 11/00040/WAS) under Section 73 of the 1990 Act which defers the implementation of the first phase of the Dry Cargo Berth, first phase rail line upgrade works, and defers the need for the implementation of the Ecological Mitigation Areas B, C and E to a later stage in the development. Reference 14/02278/S73, approved on 26 March 2015 British Standard An earth embankment Cheshire West and Chester Council CWACC The jurisdiction within which the Proposed Development lies CHP Commercial and industrial waste Controlled waste Cumulative DBA db A Deemed Permission Development Plan Dry Cargo Facility (first phase) Combined Heat and Power - a system which uses waste heat from power generation to heat other buildings nearby. C&I Waste derived from commercial and industrial activities Household, commercial or industrial waste A number of developments in a locality or a continuous activity over time that together may have an increased impact on the environment, community or economy. Desk-based Assessment The sound pressure level of a signal which has been passed through an 'A' filter whereby both low and high frequency components are attenuated. Represents the audible frequency. The deemed planning permission (ref. GDBC/001/00265C and /36C) granted by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change in relation to the RDF Plant, on 11 August Subject to a series of Non Material Amendments granted by Cheshire West and Chester Council. The Deemed Permission has been lawfully implemented by a material commencement of development and remains capable of implementation. A statutory document setting out the local planning authority's policies and proposals for the development and use of land and buildings in the authority's area. The Dry Cargo Facility will be located within Plot 1 of Protos along the Manchester Ship Canal, and is approximately 11ha in size. The Dry Cargo Facility involves the upgrade of the existing liquid berth to the Manchester Ship Canal, and provision of associated infrastructure to allow for the loading/unloading of ii

6 Term EA Ecological Mitigation Area A Ecological Mitigation Area C Ecological Mitigation Area E EHO EMS Energy from Waste (EFW) Facility Definition dry cargo. The first phase of works includes the development of the following: Mobile hopper; Container stacking area along the Manchester Ship Canal One Mobile Crane Seven 35 metre Lighting towers Access road with passing places Berth traffic counter Container storage area to the east of the site Vehicular access to the Berth from Plot 8 Environment Agency Located between the proposed Dry Cargo Berth and Holme Farm, and comprises an area of approximately 16 ha. This will comprise a SUDS wetland, fields sown with high seed yield crops and areas of open grassland with shallow scrapes Located on the fields to the east of the Dry Cargo Berth, and comprises an area of approximately 9ha. This area would be managed specifically for wintering birds This area is located in the south east corner of Protos. This area will contain water attenuation features for Plots 8 and 9 Environmental Health Officers Environmental Management Systems EFW Facility The proposed energy from waste plant on Plot 8 of Protos Environmental Impact Assessment EIA The process for assessing significant environmental impacts on the environment Environmental Management Plan Environmental Statement First Phase infrastructure works EMP A document describing the mitigation measures to implemented ES The report which presents the EIA Works presently being undertaken pursuant to the RRP Section Permission, which will conclude by the end of 2016 and comprising: Section 278 upgrading works to Pool Lane Roundabout Widening of Grinsome Road Grinsome road roundabout Permanent internal road infrastructure Diversion of Marsh Lane Bridleway Construction of Ecological Mitigation Areas A and D Landscape mitigation iii

7 Term Flood Risk Assessment Grinsome Road Heavy Goods Vehicle Household Waste IBAA ES 2011 Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate Facility / IBAA Facility Landscape Mitigation Areas L eq Local Planning Authority LPA Megawatt Multi-modal Municipal solid waste National Grid Definition FRA An assessment undertaken to identify the potential risk of flooding to the Proposed Development, and as a result of the Proposed Development on the surrounding area The private road (owned by Peel) formerly named Kemira Road, which is the primary access to Protos from the A5117 and Junction 14 of the M56. HGV A large goods vehicle is the European Union term for any truck with a gross combination mass (GCM) of over 3,500 kilograms Refuse from household collection rounds, waste from street sweepings, public litter bins, bulky items collected from households and wastes which householders themselves take to household waste recovery centres. The report outlining the results of the environmental impact assessment for the IBAA prepared in 2011 Planning Permission (ref. 11/04081/WAS) granted for the development of an Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate (IBAA) facility on Plot 4 of Protos, including external stockpile areas, site access and car parking provision, surface water management systems, site boundary fencing and other ancillary development, landscaping and associated highways infrastructure (including noise attenuation fence) as an alternative use to the TRP permitted under the RRP Section 73 Permission. The IBAA Permission has expired. Comprises two areas for landscaping to mitigate the visual effects of the RRP and the RDF Plant: one to the east of Plot 8; and one to the east of Ecological Mitigation Area E The equivalent continuous sound level (L eq ) that is the notional steady noise level, which, over a given period, would deliver the same amounts of sound energy as the actual fluctuating level. The local authority or council that is empowered by law to exercise planning functions. These are usually the local borough or district council, and also National Parks and the Broads authority. Local Planning Authority MW Unit of energy Transport by different modes e.g. road, rail, canal, rather than for example just using roads. MSW Waste derived from municipal areas The high voltage electric power transmission network in the iv

8 Term National Nature Reserve / NNR NO NO 2 NTS OS PADHI Piling Proposed Development Protos Rail line and rail head (first phase) RDF Definition UK, interconnecting power stations and major substations and ensuring that electricity generated anywhere in Britain can be used to satisfy demand elsewhere. Areas designated with the aim of securing protection and appropriate management of the most important areas of wildlife habitat and geological formations, and to provide a resource for scientific research. All National Nature Reserves are Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Nitric Oxide Nitrogen Dioxide Non-Technical Summary Ordnance Survey Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations (HSE) The process of driving a column of wood or steel or concrete into the ground in order to provide support for a structure. The proposed EFW Facility and associated development for which planning permission is being sought under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 The overall development comprising the authorised RRP and the EFW Facility, which extends to approximately 134 hectares of land at Ince Marshes, off Pool Lane / Grinsome Road, Ince, Cheshire A new railway line is proposed to be aligned on a north-south axis within Protos. The consented route of the rail line is from Plot 1 south through Protos, along the route of an existing track and beyond the southern edge of Protos to link into an existing unused rail spur which connects to the main rail network. The first phase of works includes the development of the following: One rail line from the Dry Cargo Berth south along the West Central Drain to approximately just north of Plot 4 Two rail lines connecting from the single rail line, which will head south, along the West Central Drain One rail line connecting from the two rail lines, which will head south, along the West Central Drain and over Grinsome Road and connect to the existing rail spur Upgrade of the existing rail spur, where the new rail line will connect Refuse Derived Fuel - a fuel product produced from the combustible fraction of waste v

9 Term Recycling Refuse Derived Fuel Plant Resource Recovery Park Definition Separation of a specific material from the waste stream and processing it so that it may be used again as a raw material for products or in some cases as a fuel. RDF Plant The Refuse Derived Fuel Generating Station element of Protos as approved under the Section 36 Consent and Deemed Permission on Plot 8 of Protos. The RDF Plant comprises: RDF-fired power plant with three energy recovery boilers; Single condensing steam turbine generator; Mechanical draught cooling system; Chimney stack; Ash maturation unit; RDF store; Ancillary plant and equipment; and The necessary buildings (including administration offices) and civil engineering works. RRP The Resource Recovery Park element of Protos. The authorised RRP comprises the following: Plot 1 Dry Cargo Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 2 Soil Treatment Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 3 Timber Recycling Plant (TRP) (approved under the TRP S73 Permission reference 14/02271/S73) Plot 4 vacant plot (previously approved for a TRP under the RRP Outline Permission, RRP Section 73 Permission, and RRP Section 73 Permission 2015, and approved for an IBAA facility (ref. 11/04081/WAS). Both the IBAA Permission and permission for a TRP on Plot 4 have expired. There is therefore no alternative development for Plot 4). Plot 5 Integrated Waste Management Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 6 Plastics Recycling Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 7 Waste Treatment Plant (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 9 Biomass Resource Recovery Plant (approved under the BREP S73 Permission reference 14/02278/S73) Plot 10 Resource Recovery Business Centre (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 11 Commercial / Industrial Waste Transfer Station vi

10 Term RRP ES 2014 RRP Outline Permission RRP Section 73 Permission RRP Section 73 Permission 2015 Scoping Report Site of Special Scientific Interest SPO stopped up SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Definition (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plots 12 and 13 Resource Recovery Village (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 14 Block Making Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Internal road infrastructure (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Ecological Mitigation Areas A, B, C, D and E (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Full Rail Link (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) The report outlining the results of the environmental impact assessment for the RRP prepared in 2014 The outline planning permission (ref. APP/Z0645/A07/ ) granted by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in relation to the RRP The planning permission (ref. 10/01488/FUL) granted by Cheshire West and Chester Council under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the variation of conditions of the RRP Outline Permission, approved December 2010 The planning permission for the RRP (ref: 14/02277/S73) being a variation of 10/01488/FUL, which deferred the implementation of the first phase of the Dry Cargo Berth, first phase rail line upgrade works, and deferred the need for the implementation of the Ecological Mitigation Areas to a later stage in the development, approved on 26 March 2015 A report describing the scope of the environment impact assessment to be presented in the ES Area of land of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, geology of physiographical features notified under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Supplemental Planning Obligation Where an existing public right of way or bridleway is diverted and the old route is no longer a definitive right of way or bridleway Sustainable Drainage Systems Sustainable drainage is a concept that includes long term environmental and social factors in decisions about drainage. It takes account of the quantity and quality of runoff, and the vii

11 Term TA The ES 2007 The ES 2016 The Project The Section 36 Consent Timber Recycling Plant Permission / TRP Permission TMP Topography Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017 EIA Regulations 2017 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / 1990 Act TRP TRP ES 2014 TRP Scoping Report 2014 TRP Screening Report 2011 TRP Section 73 Permission West Central Drain Definition amenity value of surface water in the urban environment. Traffic Assessment An assessment of the availability of, and levels of access to, all forms of transportation. The report prepared to present the findings of the EIA undertaken for the RDF Plant in 2007 The report prepared to present the findings of the EIA undertaken for the EFW Facility in 2016 The Proposed Development and Associated Committed Development as amended The Section 36 consent (ref. GDBC/001/00265C and /36C) relating to the RDF Plant granted by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change on 11 August The Section 36 Consent remains capable of implementation. The planning permission (ref. 11/04083/OUT) granted by Cheshire West and Chester Council for the development of a Timber Recycling Plant on Plot 3 of the RRP (as an alternative to that authorised by the RRP Outline Permission, RRP S73 Permission, and RRP S73 Permission 2015) Traffic Management Plan The physical features or configuration of a land surface. Secondary legislation which provides the detailed regulatory requirements for EIA in England and Wales. The legislation under which planning permission is sought for the Proposed Development Timber Recycling Plant The report outlining the results of the environmental impact assessment for the TRP prepared in 2014 The report outlining the scope of the environmental impact assessment for the TRP prepared in 2014 The report outlining the likelihood of the TRP causing significant environmental impacts prepared in 2011 Amendment to the TRP Permission under Section 73 of the 1990 Act which defers the implementation of the first phase of the Dry Cargo Berth, first phase rail line upgrade works, and defers the need for the implementation of the Ecological Mitigation Areas B, C and E to a later stage in the development (reference 14/02271/S73), approved on 26 March 2015 Refers to an existing Environment Agency maintained drainage viii

12 Term Definition channel located approximately 20 metres to the east of the eastern boundary of the Application Site, which provides one of the main drainage links from the Ince Marshes drainage catchment via the Ince Marshes Pumping Station to the Manchester Ship Canal. The West Central Drain currently performs a crucial role in draining the Ince Marshes site and maintaining current watercourse water levels. ix

13 1. Introduction Introduction 1.1 This document comprises Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement ( ES ) which has been prepared on behalf of This is Protos LLP ( TIP ). 1.2 An Energy from Waste Facility ( EFW Facility ) was granted full planning permission on land at Protos on 7 th September 2017 (planning application reference: 16/03074/FUL) ( EFW Facility Permission ). 1.3 TIP is submitting an application to Cheshire West and Chester Council ( CWACC ) to remove Condition 13 of the EFW Facility Permission, which requires the delivery of the first phase of the rail line and rail head prior to the operation of the EFW Facility. 1.4 The application will be made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( S73 Application ) to remove Condition 13, and thereby remove the requirement to deliver the first phase of the rail line and rail head prior to the operation of the EFW Facility. 1.5 Pursuant to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 ( EIA Regulations 2017 ), the proposal is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA ). The development falls within Schedule 2 (10(b)) as an urban development project. The outcome of the EIA is presented in this ES. 1.6 This ES reports on the identified likely significant effects of the Project as now proposed. In doing so, it is informed by the previous ESs completed to support previous applications at the site, and the scoping that has been undertaken as part of the EIA process. 1.7 The EIA Regulations 2017 replaced the EIA Regulations 2011 (which the previous ES was completed under). A review of the additional environmental information required to be included under the EIA Regulations 2017 has been undertaken. Additional environmental information included in this EIA includes expected significant effects on climate change (Chapter 9), human health (Chapter 10), and from the vulnerability of the Project to major accidents or disasters that are relevant to the development (Chapter 6). Purpose of an Environmental Statement 1.8 In accordance with Part 1, Regulation 4 (2) and Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017, this ES identifies and evaluates the likely significant environmental effects arising from the Project as now proposed both in its own right and in combination with other relevant developments (i.e. the likely significant cumulative impacts) on: population, human health, biodiversity, for example flora and fauna(with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC(a) and Directive 2009/147/EC(b)), land (for example land take), soil (for example organic matter, 1

14 erosion, compaction, sealing), water (for example hydromorphological changes, quantity and quality), air, climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions and impacts relevant to adaptation), material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological aspects, and landscape 1.9 In accordance with Part 5, Regulation 18 and Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017, this ES includes the following information: a description of the location of the Project; a description of the physical characteristics of the Project including where relevant, requisite demolition works, and the land use requirements during construction and operational phases; a description of the main characteristics of the operational phase of the Project; an estimate by type and quantity of expected residues and emissions such as air and noise during the construction and operational phases; a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the Project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the chosen option including a comparison of the environmental effects; a description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (baseline conditions) and an indication of the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the Project as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed; a description of the factors referred to in regulation 4(2) likely to be significantly affected by the Project; a description of the likely significant effects of the Project development on the environment resulting from, inter alia: Construction and operation of the Project ; The use of natural resources (such as land, soil, water, biodiversity); The emission of pollutants (such as noise and light); The risks to human health, cultural heritage or the environment; The inter-project cumulative effects taking account other committed developments; The impact of the project on climate (for example through green-house gas emissions) and; The technologies and substances used. a description of effects addressing any direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative, trans-boundary, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the Project; a description of the forecasting methods or evidence used to identify and asses the significant effects of the Project is presented, as is a description of the measures envisages to prevent, reduce or, if possible, offset any significant adverse effect and where appropriate of any proposed monitoring arrangements; and a description of the expected significant effects of the development on the environment deriving from the vulnerability of the Project to risks of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project. 2

15 1.10 A non-technical summary of information outlined above is also provided within the Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (Volume 1). ES Structure and Guidance 1.11 The ES for the Development is presented in three volumes as follows: Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (NTS); Volume 2: Main Text (this document); Volume 3: Figures; and Volume 4: Technical Appendices The respective organisations who have contributed to the ES is presented below: Table 1.1: Structure of the ES Volume 2 Chapter Number Topic Consultant n/a Glossary Turley 1 Introduction Turley 2 Site Location and Surroundings Turley 3 Background Turley 4 Section 73 Application: Proposed Amendment to the EFW Facility Permission Turley 5 Updated Project Description Turley 6 Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment Turley 7 Consideration of Alternatives Turley 8 Matters Scoped Out of the Environmental Statement Turley 9 Climate Change Turley Sustainability 10 Human Health Turley Economics 11 Transport Turley 12 Environmental Management Turley 13 Summary and Conclusion Turley 1.13 Volume 3 and Volume 4 of the ES comprises the various figures and technical appendices which the individual ES chapters rely on and make reference to, and which have informed the EIA process. The content of Volume 3 and Volume 4 is provided below: 3

16 Table 1.2: Chapter Number List of Volume 3 Figures Topic Figure 1 Introduction n/a 2 Site Location and Surroundings Figure 2.1: Site Location 3 Background Figure 3.1: Protos Figure 3.2: EFW Facility Layout Plan 4 Section 73 Application: Proposed Amendment to the EFW Facility Permission n/a 5 Updated Project Description n/a 6 Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment n/a 7 Consideration of Alternatives n/a 8 Matters Scoped Out of the Environmental Statement n/a 9 Climate Change n/a 10 Human Health n/a 11 Environmental Management n/a 12 Summary and Conclusion n/a Table 1.3: Chapter Number List of Volume 4 Technical Appendices Topic Technical Appendix 1 Introduction 2 Site Location and Surroundings n/a 3 Background n/a 4 Section 73 Application: Proposed Amendment to the EFW Facility Permission n/a 5 Updated Project Description n/a 6 Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment Appendix 6.1: CVs Appendix 6.2: ES

17 7 Consideration of Alternatives n/a Appendix 6.3: ES Scoping Report 2016 Appendix 6.4: ES 2016 Appendix 6.5: ES Scoping Report Matters Scoped Out of the Environmental Statement Appendix 8.1: CWACC Scoping Opinion Appendix 8.2: Energy Output Amendment Air Quality Appraisal Fichtner Consulting 9 Climate Change Appendix 9.1: Protos GHG Assessment 10 Human Health n/a 11 Transport Appendix 11.1 Transport Statement Environmental Management n/a 13 Summary and Conclusion n/a Appendix 11.2 Transport Statement

18 2. Site Location and Surroundings 2.1 The site of the EFW Facility comprises approximately 10 ha of relatively flat marshland which was historically used for agricultural purposes until The site is located within the jurisdiction of Cheshire West and Chester Council. It is approximately 1.2km northeast of the village of Elton and approximately 2km northwest of the village of Helsby. The location of the site is shown at ES Volume 3: Figure The site is immediately bounded by a block of woodland on its eastern boundary, and further expanses of flat marshland on its northern and western boundaries. There is an existing drainage network within the expanses of the surrounding marshland; the West Central Drain travels north and south along the western boundary of the site and the Tang Running is one of the main drains that runs across the northern part of the site. A recently constructed Biomass Renewable Energy Plant ( BREP ) bounds the site to the south, part of the Protos development which is under construction and within which the site lies. 2.3 The site is set within a wider industrial context, with the CF Fertiliser plant approximately 200m south of the site; ENCIRC glass plant approximately 650m west of the site; and Stanlow Oil Refinery complex approximately 2km west of the site. Frodsham Windfarm is approximately 850m east of the site and comprises 19 turbines at 125m tall. The Manchester Ship Canal is approximately 600m north of the site and the M56 is approximately 1.5km south of the site. Holme Farm is approximately 950m northeast of the site. Access and Transport 2.4 There is currently no direct pedestrian access to the site. Similarly, there is no direct vehicular access to the site. However, there is vehicular access to the surrounding area: the main access to the surrounding area is from Junction 14 of the M56 Motorway and the A5117. From the A5117, access can be made via Pool Lane and then Grinsome Road. Grinsome Road serves the CF Fertiliser plant, and by recently constructed estate roads, the Protos development. 2.5 A passenger rail service on the Ellesmere Port to Helsby line, providing links to Liverpool and Warrington, via Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby, stops at Ince and Elton. There are bus services serving Elton village. 2.6 With regard to freight movement, rail access to the CF Fertiliser plant is provided in the form of a rail siding from the Ellesmere Port to Helsby line which lies approximately 350m south of the site. There is no current rail access to the site. There is a partly derelict liquid berth facility along the Manchester Ship Canal approximately 700m north of the site, which formerly served the Ince B Power Station. 6

19 3. Background Introduction 3.1 The EFW Facility is located at Protos, which is an intended hub for energy and resource development. This section describes the background context to the site and the surrounding area, in terms of authorised developments. Protos 3.2 Protos comprises a Resource Recovery Park or RRP. The RRP will comprise a waste reprocessing and low carbon energy facility to be developed on a plot basis, organised around principal infrastructure and a landscape framework. The authorised RRP is covered by a series of different planning permissions, and comprises the following developments: Plot 1 Dry Cargo Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 2 Soil Treatment Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 3 Timber Recycling Plant (TRP) (approved under the TRP S73 Permission reference 14/02271/S73) Plot 4 vacant plot, no authorised development (previously approved for a TRP under the RRP Outline Permission, RRP Section 73 Permission, and RRP Section 73 Permission 2015, and separately approved for an Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate ( IBAA ) facility (ref. 11/04081/WAS). Both the IBAA Permission and permission for a TRP on Plot 4 have expired. There is therefore no alternative development for Plot 4). Plot 5 Integrated Waste Management Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 6 Plastics Recycling Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 7 Waste Treatment Plant (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 9 Biomass Renewable Energy Plant (approved under the BREP S73 Permission reference 14/02278/S73) Plot 10 Resource Recovery Business Centre (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 11 Commercial / Industrial Waste Transfer Station (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) 7

20 Plots 12 and 13 Resource Recovery Village (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Plot 14 Block Making Facility (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Internal road infrastructure (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Ecological Mitigation Areas A, B, C, D and E (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Full Rail Link (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) Dry Cargo Berth (approved under the RRP S73 Permission /02277/S73) 3.3 The masterplan of Protos, covering each of the above approved developments, is shown at ES Volume 3: Figure The following aspects of the RRP have been completed pursuant to the RRP S73 Permission 2015: The completed construction of the Biomass Renewable Energy Plant (Plot 9) (due to be operational in Summer 2018) The commencement of construction of the Timber Recycling Plant (Plot 3) The completion of the first phase infrastructure works within the RRP, including: Section 278 upgrading works to Pool Lane Roundabout Widening of Grinsome Road and construction of Grinsome Road roundabout The permanent internal road infrastructure within the RRP (first phase) Diversion of Marsh Lane Public Right of Way Construction of Ecological Mitigation Areas A and D Landscape mitigation east of the EFW Facility and east of the BREP are being constructed. Refuse Derived Fuel ( RDF ) Plant 3.5 In addition to the above, on Plot 8 of Protos, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) granted consent for a 95MW Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 on 11 August 2009 (reference GDBC/001/00265C and /36C) ( the Section 36 Consent ). The Secretary of State for DECC also directed for the Development to be deemed to be granted planning 8

21 permission under Section 90(2) of the 1990 Act ( Deemed Permission ). The Deemed Permission was subsequently implemented by the erection of an authorised acoustic fence. No other part of the RDF Plant has been built, but it remains capable of implementation. Energy from Waste Facility 3.6 The EFW Facility was granted full planning permission on 7 th September 2017 (planning application reference: 16/03074/FUL) ( EFW Facility Permission ), also on Plot 8 of Protos, as an alternative to the RDF Plant. It is the intention of TIP to develop the EFW Facility instead of the RDF Plant. 3.7 The description of development on the decision notice is as follows: Erection of an Energy from Waste Facility (up to 35MW) and associated development including access and landscaping 3.8 The application was supported by the following: Environmental Statement (including detailed assessments on air quality and noise) (completed under the Town and Country Planning EIA Regulations 2011) (completed July 2016) ( ES 2016 ); Transport Statement (completed July 2016); Flood Risk Assessment (completed July 2016); Water Vole Survey (completed July 2016); Full suite of architectural plans, including detailed plans on landscaping and access; and Supplemental Planning Obligation (SPO). 3.9 The EFW Facility Permission is tied to the S73 RRP Permission 2015 via planning conditions and via a SPO, which binds the EFW Facility Permission to a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) for the RRP development. Together the conditions on the EFW Facility Permission and the SPO secure the delivery of a certain proportion of infrastructure and ecological mitigation ( Associated Infrastructure ), including: The first phase of the Dry Cargo Facility approved within the RRP, involving the upgrade of the existing liquid berth to the Manchester Ship Canal, and provision of associated infrastructure to allow for the loading/unloading of dry cargo (required pursuant to Condition 12 of the EFW Facility Permission). The first phase of the rail line and rail head, involving the upgrade of a stretch of existing track at the southern end of the site and the construction of a new rail line extending from this existing track to the berth, with adjacent hardstanding to allow for the loading /unloading of trains (required pursuant to Condition 13 of the EFW Facility Permission). 9

22 Access from Grinsome Road (with associated roundabout improvements and widening) and internal distributor road (required pursuant to Condition 10 of the EFW Facility Permission). Ecological Mitigation Areas, namely areas A, C and E (required pursuant to the SPO attached to the EFW Facility Permission). Large parts of the landscaping scheme approved under the S73 RRP Permission 2015 as well as approved under the EFW Facility Permission (required pursuant to the SPO attached to the EFW Facility Permission and Conditions 24 and 25 of the EFW Facility Permission) The EFW Facility and the Associated Infrastructure together comprise the Project which was environmentally assessed in the ES Amendments to the EFW Facility 3.11 Since planning permission was granted for the EFW Facility, non-material changes have been proposed to the EFW Facility, including: Reconfiguration of the road access into and within the EFW Facility; and A higher electrical energy output than originally approved These amendments are described below. EFW Facility: Access Road Amendment 3.13 A non-material amendment application was submitted to CWACC for the reconfiguration of the internal access roads within the EFW Facility plot to facilitate a more efficient access route (application reference: 18/00083/NMA). This application was approved by CWACC on 6 th March Full planning permission has been granted by CWACC on 1 st March 2018 for a different access arrangement within Protos to the EFW Facility (which falls outside of the boundary of the EFW Facility) (planning application reference: 18/00088/FUL). The new access arrangement provides a more direct access to the EFW Facility without needing to loop through other Plots within Protos, as was originally intended Environmental Review Reports were completed to support the applications, both of which concluded that the proposed changes to the access roads would result in no changes to the results of the environmental assessments completed to support the EFW Facility Permission (principally the ES 2016) The updated layout plan of the EFW Facility which shows the amended access roads is provided at ES Volume 3 Figure 3.2. Together these changes are referred to as Access Road Amendment. EFW Facility: Energy Output Amendment 3.17 TIP, in partnership with Covanta and Biffa, have identified means of improving the efficiency of the EFW Facility and, in doing so, achieve a higher electrical energy output than originally approved. These improvements would see the scheme operate at a 10

23 higher energy output of up to 49MW, rather than up to 35MW. This will enable the scheme to generate more energy from the same development proposal and without increasing the fuel input or altering the mix TIP submitted a non-material amendment application to amend the description of the development to reflect the increased energy output ( Energy Output Amendment ) (application reference: 18/01095/NMA). The amendment to the energy output is nonmaterial in character and substance. This application was approved by CWACC on 17 April The updated description of development is as follows: Erection of an Energy from Waste Facility (up to 49MW) an associated development including access and landscaping Environmental Impact Assessments 3.19 There has been significant evaluation of the local environment and the prospective impact of the various developments at Protos. EIAs have been undertaken to support a number of the developments that have been authorised under the planning permissions described above. The following Screening and Scoping Reports and ESs have been prepared: RRP and RDF Plant ES December 2007 ( the ES 2007 ) this ES assessed the likely significant impacts of the RRP and the RDF Plant on the environment, and the cumulative impacts of both developments on the environment. Biomass Renewable Energy Plant Scoping Report (September 2010) ( the BREP Scoping Report 2010 ) Biomass Renewable Energy Plant ES December 2010 ( the BREP ES 2010 ) Timber Recycling Plant Screening Report (June 2011) ( the TRP Screening Report 2011 ) IBAA Facility ES August 2011 ( the IBAA ES 2011 ) RRP Scoping Report (March 2014) ( the RRP Scoping Report 2014 ) RRP ES May 2014 ( the RRP ES 2014 ) this ES assessed the likely significant impacts on the environment as a result of the changes to the phasing of the supporting infrastructure works as consented by the RRP Section 73 Permission The ES identified where there were new, different, or more significant effects than identified in the original ES Biomass Renewable Energy Plant Scoping Report (March 2014) ( the BREP Scoping Report 2014 ) Biomass Renewable Energy Plant ES May 2014 ( the BREP ES 2014 ) this ES assessed the likely significant impacts on the environment as a result of the changes to the phasing of the supporting infrastructure works as consented by 11

24 the BREP Section 73 Permission. The ES identified where there were new, different, or more significant effects than identified in the original ES Timber Recycling Plant Scoping Report (March 2014) ( the TRP Scoping Report 2014 ) Timber Recycling Plant ES May 2014 ( the TRP ES 2014 ) this ES assessed the likely significant impacts on the environment as a result of the changes to the phasing of the supporting infrastructure works as consented by the TRP Section 73 Permission. EFW Facility Scoping Report (June 2016) EFW Facility ES July 2016 ( ES 2016 ) The ES 2016 to support the EFW Facility was completed by undertaking a detailed review of the ES 2007 for the RDF Plant, along with a review of the subsequent ESs prepared to support the various applications at Protos (ES 2014 for the RRP). Where required, additional surveys, monitoring, and assessments were undertaken to update previous assessments. EFW Facility Scoping Report (March 2018) this Scoping Report establishes the scope of this ES for the updated EFW Facility which removes the requirement to deliver the first phase rail infrastructure prior to the operation of the development. EFW Facility ES April 2018 this Environmental Statement. 12

25 4. Section 73 Application: Proposed Amendment to the EFW Facility Permission Objective 4.1 At the time the planning application was submitted for the EFW Facility (July 2016) the sources of the waste feedstock were not established, but it was anticipated that Covanta (operators) could secure waste contracts which could make use of the rail infrastructure. Such a contract position is now much less certain, and there are no other meaningful opportunities to secure rail-based contracts. 4.2 As such, the rail infrastructure is not expected to be used by the EFW Facility to commence operations and there must be the flexibility for the development to proceed without it. Therefore, an amended position is required whereby there is no requirement for the rail facility to be in place prior to the operation of the EFW Facility. 4.3 The requirement to implement the consented rail line and rail head (first phase) prior to first operation is contained within condition 13 of the EFW Facility Permission. The means of removing this requirement will be achieved by an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( S73 Application ). 4.4 If the S73 Application is approved in the form proposed, a new planning permission would be granted with condition 13 removed, together with all other conditions and obligations remaining. No other changes to the EFW Facility or the EFW Facility Permission are proposed in the S73 Application. Scope of the Section 73 Application 4.5 The S73 Application is supported by the following documents and plans: Application Form Planning Statement Location Plan (note: no approved plans are required to be updated as part of the S73 Application) Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) A review of the existing FRA will be undertaken to ensure the FRA remains valid taking into account the proposed change Transport Statement (TS) A review of the existing TS will be undertaken to ensure the FRA remains valid taking into account the proposed change Updated Water Vole Survey Environmental Statement Deed of Variation to the SPO 13

26 5. Updated Project Description 5.1 This section provides an updated description of the EFW Facility and the Associated Development ( the Project ) proposed within the S73 Application. 5.2 The description also takes into account the non-material changes to the development since full planning permission was granted in September 2017, including the Access Road Amendment (as described in Section 3), and the Energy Output Amendment (as described in Section 3). 5.3 This section of the ES re-provides the description of the Project from the ES 2016 upon which the original EIA was based, and clearly identifies the updates by striking through text which is no longer relevant and inserting new text in bold and underline. The Energy from Waste Facility 5.4 The EFW Facility comprises: The EFW Facility plant and equipment Access roads extending from a new roundabout on Grinsome Road, being constructed at present as part of the wider Protos development, to the EFW Facility Landscaping areas within the development plot surrounding the EFW Facility and along the access roads Energy from Waste Facility 5.5 The EFW Facility is designed to generate up to 35MW up to 49MW of electricity. To produce this energy it would combust approximately 350,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of waste. This compares to the 95MW electrical output and 850,000 tpa throughput anticipated for the consented RDF Plant. Waste Feedstock 5.6 The waste feedstock for the EFW Facility will comprise commercial and industrial (C&I) waste and municipal solid waste (MSW) from the UK. No hazardous waste would be used in the proposed EFW Facility. This is consistent with the intended waste feedstock (type and derivation) for the consented RDF Plant. Waste Transportation 5.7 It is expected that the plant will receive waste fuel on 5.5 days per week all year. 5.8 As per the consented RDF Plant, It is the ambition for the proposed EFW Plant to be a multi-modal facility via road and the dry cargo berth (first phase). The delivery of the dry cargo berth (first phase) multi-modal infrastructure will be is a commitment of the Proposed Development which is will be to be secured through planning obligations and planning conditions (as it is under condition 12 of the EFW Facility Permission). of any permission (described in further detail later in this Section). 14

27 5.9 It is anticipated that approximately 25% of the 350,000 tonnes of waste per year will be delivered via rail, subject to securing contracts where the use of the rail would be viable. However, For environmental assessment purposes, a worst case scenario has been assumed that 100% of waste will be received via road The maximum number of HGV movements is controlled by planning condition 6 of the EFW Facility Permission. Condition 6 states: In any monthly period heavy commercial vehicle movements serving the commercial operation of the development shall not exceed an annual average daily limit of 101 movements in to the development and 101 movements out of the development, and on any day shall not exceed 111 movements in and 111 movements out of the development No amendments are proposed to this condition; it is proposed that the same condition will be attached to the grant of a new permission. All HGV movements will be within the conditioned limits It is the intention to source waste feedstock from within the UK and from a variety of sources, where possible from the regions surrounding the EFW Facility within a 2 hour drive. Road deliveries could be from (but not limited to): Cheshire West and Chester Cheshire East Lancashire Warrington Stoke-on-Trent Greater Manchester Merseyside Process 5.13 The process of generating energy from the waste feedstock within the EFW Facility is shown graphically at Figure 5.1 and described below. This is the same process as would occur within the consented RDF Plant. Waste is taken to the EFW Facility; Waste is transferred to the EFW tipping hall and transferred to the boiler hall; Waste is combusted to produce heat; Heat is used to boil water to create steam; 15

28 The steam is then used to generate electricity through the movement of turbines, which takes place in the turbine hall. The electricity is distributed to the national grid; State of the art air pollution control equipment cools and cleans the gases, and a baghouse controls the emissions. This takes place in the air cooling condenser and flue gas treatment building, and released via the stack. Emissions are continuously monitored; Particulate matter is collected, and metals are recovered for recycling. Residual material is beneficially reused. That which cannot be reused is disposed of at landfill. 16

29 Figure 5.1: Flow diagram of EFW Facility 17

30 Principal Building 5.14 The EFW Facility comprises a principal building divided into internal subcomponents. Other components of the facility adjoin and/or are adjacent to the principal building: the control and administration room, turbine hall, residue building, grizzly building, and fuel tanks adjoin the principal building. The air cool condenser, stack and silos are adjacent to the principal building. The internal access road will loop around the main components of the EFW Facility Improvements in technology, the reduced waste through-put, and the reduced energy out-put have enabled the proposed EFW Facility to be designed on a smaller scale than the consented RDF Plant Due to the smaller throughput of waste, no more than two processing streams are required, compared to the consented RDF Plant which required three processing streams. Furthermore, any pre-treatment of waste (if required) can now be accommodated within the principal building, rather than at a separate part of the site as previously consented. This allows for a more compact EFW Facility compared to the consented RDF Plant. The EFW Facility will have a length of c.176m and a width of c.120m. The principal building has a maximum height of 60m The principal building and other components of the Facility have been designed in accordance with the principles of the consented RDF Plant, and modern EFW Facilities seen around Europe. The design of the EFW Facility has also taken into account the BREP being developed to the south of the site. The proposed EFW Facility will have composite cladding, glazing and aluminium cladding mesh The components of the EFW Facility are described below: Tipping Hall 5.19 The tipping hall is where the waste is first taken to, and is designed to allow for the HGVs to back-in toward the pit. The tipping hall will be totally enclosed except for the roll-up doors, one each at the entrance and exit. The design will be such as to prevent release of dust and odours. Odours will be controlled by continuously drawing air from the refuse pit for the combustion units i.e. the negative air pressure will suck any odours into the building rather than let them out. The tipping floor material will be concrete, suitable for HGV, and the floor will be sloped to the pit to contain any spillage. Boiler Hall 5.20 The boiler hall is where the waste feedstock combusts in a furnace, releasing heat. There will be up to two processing streams transferring waste into the boiler (rather than three as previously consented). The hot gases which are generated pass through the boiler, which contains steam and water. As the combustion gases from the furnace pass through the boiler, they are cooled to a temperature suitable for the flue gas cleaning system Fuel oil is required to start and shutdown the plant but once operating temperatures are reached, waste can be burned without the need for auxiliary fuel. 18

31 Turbine Hall 5.22 The steam generated by the boilers passes a single condensing steam turbinegenerator. The steam expands through the turbine, so releasing its energy, which is converted into electricity by the generator The overall net efficiency of the energy conversion process at the power plant is expected to be around 25% when the plant is producing electricity only (fully condensing mode). Air Cooled Condenser 5.24 The steam is exhausted at low pressure from the turbine into an air-cooled condenser which condenses the steam back into water. The water is then pumped back into the boiler to produce more steam. The heat lost by the steam when it condenses is transferred to the atmosphere. The air-cooled condenser has fans which draw air across the condenser tubes, so there is no visible plume. Flue Gas Treatment Building 5.25 The flue gas treatment (FGT) building houses air pollution control (APC) equipment for the boilers, which cleans the gas prior to being discharged at atmosphere. Stack 5.26 Once cleaned, the flue-gases from the boilers are discharged to atmosphere via a stack. Consistent with the consented RDF Plant, the stack will be located to the south of the site (grid references , ) and will be 100 metres high. A single circular outer shell chimney will cover the two insulated steel flues. Residue Building 5.27 Recovered metals and residual bottom ash will be stored in a residue storage bunker building. Storage bunkers will be sized to store 3 days of residue and metals generation Boiler fly ash and FGT residue are collected and transferred to storage silos. The silos will feed transfer trucks and will be sized for 3 days of storage. Fuel Oil and Ammonia (or Urea) Storage 5.29 Fuel oil will be utilised for the refuse boilers which will accommodate fuel for the startup and shutdown at outage periods of the EFW Facility A fuel oil storage tank, with a secondary containment, will be provided. A HGV unloading area adjacent to the road will also be provided Aqueous ammonia (or Urea solution) will be used on site. Ammonia (or Urea) solution will be delivered to the facility in tank HGVs and stored in a storage tank, which will be sized to hold 7 days of expected consumption. Switch yard and HV Transformer 5.32 The turbine generator will generate power at 11 kv. The electrical system shall include a generator step-up transformer from 11 kv to 33 kv. An interconnection study between the facility and utility will be performed to ensure that the interconnection is designed and established in accordance with local grid code and utility requirements. 19

32 Fire Fighting Water Tank 5.33 A fire protection water storage tank will be provided on site. Standby Diesel Generator 5.34 In case of a power interruption or outage, a standby diesel generator is provided to power the auxiliaries necessary to assure an orderly shutdown of the plant in the event of a total loss of power. The generator and the diesel engine will be mounted on a steel base frame. The diesel generator shall be enclosed. Gatehouse 5.35 The gatehouse will be located adjacent to the HGV weigh scales at the entrance to the site, which shall house the scale control room and a single restroom. The scale house shall be a pre-engineered metal frame structure designed to complement the aesthetics of the main plant building. Grizzly Building 5.36 The grizzly building is used to move the bottom ash up to the residue building. Larger items of ash will be removed. Settling Basin 5.37 This is a small open basin that accepts the water that has been used to cool down the hot bottom ash as it is moved from the boiler hall. It allows any solids to settle so the clean water can be pumped off. The solids are removed on a regular basis and sent for disposal. Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) 5.38 The CEM is a small building that will house equipment to continuously monitor the flue gasses as they pass up the stack. Control and Administration Building 5.39 This houses the main control room for the facility and includes changing rooms, locker and mess facilities for operatives and training, and administration and management facilities for staff. Equipment Fuelling Station 5.40 This is a bunded area that has the connection points for the fuel oil tank so that in the event of leakage the spillage is contained. Access 5.41 Access to the site will be as previously consented: access for the operation of the EFW Facility will be from Junction 14 of the M56 Motorway and the A5117. From the A5117, access will be made via Pool Lane and then Grinsome Road, which is currently being has been widened pursuant to the RRP Section 73 Permission Grinsome Road allows access to the wider Protos internal estate roads from a roundabout which is also currently being has been constructed pursuant to the RRP Section 73 Permission A proposed access road will connect into Grinsome Road and extend north, then east, and split to access the EFW facility from the north and south. 20

33 5.43 Operational HGVs, and other operational vehicles, will access the site from the north. Once within the plot, the internal site roads will operate on a one-way clockwise system. The access within the site will follow the eastern boundary Access to the site is also available at the southern boundary for emergency vehicles During the construction of the Proposed Development, the same access route will be used from the M56 to Grinsome Road. From Grinsome Road, the temporary haul roads will be utilised (which are being constructed pursuant to permissions 14/04225/FUL and 14/02268/FUL) until such a time as the internal estate roads will be completed. Landscaping 5.46 Soft and hard landscaping will be incorporated into the design of the site. Hard landscaping will be used for the access roads, hardstanding areas for the equipment/components, and for parking areas. Soft landscaping will be incorporated around the perimeter of the site with grass and vegetation. A detailed landscaping plan will be submitted with the planning application. has been approved as part of the EFW Facility Permission and will be implemented pursuant to conditions (as per Conditions 24 and 25 of the EFW Facility permission). Drainage 5.47 A Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was prepared in November 2012 (reference: DS R1 (8)) pursuant to the RRP Permission. The SWMP provides an overview of the drainage for Protos: it confirms that the five ecological mitigation areas across the site will also act as surface water sub-catchment areas, the existing drains and ditches will be utilised, and additional ponds and scrapes will be created. Surface water from the EFW Facility site will be drained to Ecological Mitigation Area E (the creation of this area is consented under the RRP S73 Permission 2015; its delivery to serve the EFW Facility will be secured by planning obligation, as it is under the SPO which accompanies the EFW Facility Permission) A Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was prepared for the consented RDF Plant and the RRP as a whole. This addressed attenuation required for all Plots of the RRP, allowed for flow restrictions within the drainage system, provided for flood compensation, and in addition, contributed to the ecological mitigation and habitat creation proposed The SWMP has been subject to a number of updates in relation to subsequent planning applications within Protos and evolution of the design; the latest version is dated As the development of the Plots at Protos comes forward, individual drainage strategies with discharge into the wider surface water ditch network will be prepared in accordance with the overall strategy established in the SWMP The SWMP will be reviewed and updated following completion of the Flood Risk Assessment, and a site specific drainage strategy will be prepared for the proposed EFW Facility at Plot 8. 21

34 Comparison Summary 5.52 Table 4.1 below summarises the differences between the Proposed Development with the consented RDF Plant. The differences in the layout of the developments are also shown at Figure 4.2. Table 5.1: Summary of Differences Dimension Consented RDF Plant Proposed Development Difference Length 183 metres 176 metres 7 metres Width 132 metres 120 metres 13 metres Height 60 metres 60 metres 0 metres Stack (height) 100 metres 100 metres 0 metres Same location (346797, ) Same location (346797, ) Waste Feedstock C&I waste and MSW from the UK C&I waste and MSW from the UK No differences No hazardous waste No hazardous waste Waste throughput 600, ,000 tpa 350,000 tpa Reduction of 250, ,000 tpa Energy output 95MW 35MW Reduction of 60MW 5.53 Table 5.2 below provides a summary of the changes to the consented EFW Facility since it was granted planning permission in September Table 5.2: Summary of Differences Dimension Approved EFW Facility Changes to the EFW Facility from the Access Road Amendment and the Energy Output Amendment Changes to the EFW Facility by removing the requirement to construct Phase 1 of the Rail Infrastructure prior to Operation Length 176 metres No change No change Width 120 metres No change No change 22

35 Dimension Approved EFW Facility Changes to the EFW Facility from the Access Road Amendment and the Energy Output Amendment Changes to the EFW Facility by removing the requirement to construct Phase 1 of the Rail Infrastructure prior to Operation Height 60 metres No change No change Stack (height) Waste Feedstock Waste throughput HGV Movements 100 metres Same location (346797, ) C&I waste and MSW from the UK No hazardous waste No change No change No change No change 350,000 tpa No change No change In any monthly period heavy commercial vehicle movements serving the commercial operation of the development shall not exceed an annual average daily limit of 101 movements in to the development and 101 movements out of the development, and on any day shall not exceed 111 movements in and 111 movements out of the development No change No change Energy output Up to 35MW Up to 49MW No change (remains up to 49MW) 23

36 Figure 5.2: Comparison of the Proposed Development vs the Consented Development Associated Committed Development 5.54 There are other principal elements associated with the Proposed Development EFW Facility as approved, which already have planning permission as part of the RRP S73 Permission 2015 and Deemed Permission and will be (or are already being) delivered pursuant to the RRP Section 73 Permission 2015 alongside the Proposed Development. These comprise the following Associated Committed Developments, which include: Dry Cargo Facility (first phase) (shown at Appendix 3) Rail line and rail head (first phase) Ecological Mitigation Areas, namely areas A, C and E (shown at Appendix 4) Landscape mitigation areas, beyond those to be contained within the planning application (shown at Appendix 5) 5.55 The different access arrangement within Protos to the EFW Facility (which falls outside of the boundary of the EFW Facility) (planning application reference: 18/00088/FUL) is also considered as Associated Development. The new access arrangement provides a more direct access to the EFW Facility without needing to loop through other Plots within Protos Consistent with the terms of the Deemed Permission for the RDF Plant, the planning application will commit to deliver the Associated Committed Developments prior to the operation of the Proposed Development, and will propose that this will be secured via planning conditions (for the rail, berth, and landscaping) and planning obligations (for the delivery and management of the ecological mitigation areas) tied to the new planning permission As they are already consented, there is no need for them to be contained within the planning application. The Associated Committed Developments are shown within the blue line project boundary at Appendix 5 and described in detail below. As noted in the introduction to this section, the Proposed Development and the Associated Committed Development together constitute the Project for EIA purposes (as the latter cannot be separated from the former and the potential for impact will arise from both occurring) The Deemed Permission for the RDF Plant also included works to Grinsome Road, Pool Lane Roundabout, Station Road, and the erection of an acoustic fence. These works are complete or are currently being developed pursuant the RRP Section 73 Permission 2015 (described in detail at Section 6 of this Report). Accordingly, these works do not form part of the Project, but rather are considered as part of the baseline environment and can be relied upon as existing infrastructure The EFW Facility Permission is committed to deliver the Associated Committed Developments prior to its operation. These are presently secured via planning 24

37 conditions: Condition 12 controls the delivery of the dry cargo berth; Conditions 24 and 25 control the delivery of the landscaping; and the SPO controls the delivery and management of the ecological mitigation areas. It is proposed that permission granted for the S73 Application will be subject to the same controls Under the S73 Application it is proposed to remove Condition 13 of the EFW Facility which will remove the requirement to deliver the first phase of the rail infrastructure prior to the operation of the EFW Facility. The rail infrastructure will however continue to be authorised and required to be delivered under the RRP S73 Permission Dry Cargo Facility (first phase) 5.61 The RRP S73 Permission 2015 authorises the upgrade to the partly derelict liquid berth at the northern edge of Protos adjoining the Manchester Ship Canal. It is proposed to convert this existing liquid berth into a combined liquid and dry cargo berth as part of the consented RRP proposals The Deemed Permission required a first, defined phase of these works to be delivered prior to operation of the RDF Plant. This is also the commitment for the Proposed Development. Condition 12 of the EFW Facility Permission controls the delivery of these works and a comparable condition would be expected The Dry Cargo Facility will be located within Plot 1 of Protos along the Manchester Ship Canal. The first phase of works (as shown at Appendix 3) comprises the development of the following: Mobile hopper; Container stacking area along the Manchester Ship Canal One Mobile Crane Seven 35 metre Lighting towers Access road with passing places Berth traffic counter Container storage area to the east of the site Rail Line and Rail Head (first phase) 5.64 Presently there is no direct rail-link into the Protos development site As part of the RRP Section 73 Permission 2015, a new railway line is proposed to be aligned on a north-south axis through the Protos site. The consented route of the rail line is from Plot 1 south through the RRP, along the route of an existing track and beyond the southern edge of the built RRP to link into an existing unused rail spur which connects to the main rail network. 25

38 5.66 The Deemed Permission required a first, defined phase of these works to be delivered prior to operation. This is also the commitment for the Proposed Development. The first phase of works comprises the development of the following: Upgrade of the existing rail spur, where the new rail line will connect From the existing rail spur, one rail line which will travel north adjacent to the West Central Drain and over Grinsome Road From Grinsome Road, two rail lines connecting from the single rail line, which will head north along the West Central Drain to approximately just north of Plot 4 From the north of Plot 4, one rail line which will connect to the Dry Cargo Berth Landscaping & Ecological Works 5.67 A substantial amount of land has been set aside for ecological and landscape mitigation as part of the RRP Section 73 Permission 2015, which would incorporate flood storage volumes and a Sustainable Drainage Scheme (SUDS), and which would be designed to provide habitat for wader and farmland bird species, water voles and other fauna. A Community Ecological Park (Ecological Mitigation Area A) is also consented for the RRP under the RRP Section 73 Permission The Deemed Permission included a requirement for the delivery of Ecological Mitigation Areas A, C and E, and two landscape mitigation areas to the east of Plot 8 prior to occupation (as shown at Appendix 4 and Appendix 5). This is also the commitment for the Proposed Development. The SPO tied to the EFW Facility Permission controls the implementation of these works and a comparable obligation would be proposed The detailed design of Ecological Mitigation Areas A, C and E and the two landscape mitigation areas (along with the detailed design of the wider ecological and landscape mitigation areas for the RRP) have been agreed through meeting the obligations of the Section 106 Agreement of the RRP Section 73 Permission 2015, through the preparation of the Habitat Creation Management Plan (2015). The detail of the Ecological Mitigation Areas A, C and E and the two landscape mitigation areas is therefore known. Ecological Mitigation Area A 5.70 Ecological Mitigation Area A is located on fields along the western extent of Protos, and is currently being has been delivered pursuant to the RRP Section 73 Permission Whilst this Area is being delivered for the RRP, it is also required to mitigate the Proposed Development. Accordingly, this Area will also be delivered and managed as committed works associated with the Proposed Development Ecological Mitigation Area A is between the canal berth and Holme Farm, an area of approximately 16 ha. This will include a SUDS wetland, fields sown with high seed yield crops and areas of open grassland with shallow scrapes. The SUDS area includes both ponds and ditches, interconnected internally, and across the site with the other mitigation areas. The ditches have been designed to provide habitat for water voles 26

39 with one steep and one shelved bank. The SUDS scheme includes reed beds for birds such as reed bunting. The fields of winter barley and other crops will be managed to provide a year-round supply of food for birds. Ecological Mitigation Area C 5.72 Ecological Mitigation Area C is located on the fields to the east of the canal berth, and comprises an area of approximately 9ha. This area would be managed specifically for wintering birds. It lies adjacent to the canal and hence closest to the Mersey Estuary SSSI/SPA. The area would be designed as open fields, without significant hedgerow division. Shallow scrapes of various sizes would be provided as part of the SUDS design for this area with regulated water levels. Ecological Mitigation Area E 5.73 This area is located in the south east corner of Protos. This area will contain water attenuation features for Plots 8 and 9. While not specifically set aside for ecological benefit, it will create a further area of open water, ditches and wildflower grass planting. Landscaping Areas 5.74 The Deemed Permission included the delivery of two landscaping areas: one to the east of Plot 8; and one to the east of Ecological Mitigation Area E. The landscape areas have been delivered pursuant to the RRP Section 73 Permission Whilst these areas are being delivered for the RRP, they are also required to mitigate the Proposed Development. Accordingly, these areas will also be delivered and managed as committed works associated with the Proposed Development. Conditions 24 and 25 of the EFW Facility Permission control the implementation of these works and comparable conditions would be expected. Construction Methods 5.75 This section describes the likely construction activities involved in developing the Project The construction of the first phase of the rail line and head, alterations to the berth, road access, and ecological mitigation areas will be developed prior to the occupation/use of the EFW Facility The construction of the Proposed Development and Associated Committed Developments can be undertaken simultaneously The construction period is expected to extend to 36 months. The construction is likely to commence in 2019 and be completed in Construction Hours of Work 5.79 Normal construction hours of work are proposed to be as follows: Monday to Friday: 07:30 to 18:00. Saturday: 08:00 to 13:30. 27

40 Sundays & Bank Holidays: No construction work These hours would be generally adhered to at all times, unless for some exceptional or emergency works. Construction Activities 5.81 The principal engineering activities to be carried out for all parts of the development would be: Site establishment including installation of site offices, utility services and welfare facilities; Creation of ecological mitigation areas; Stripping of the site; Demolition work and removal of existing services; Installation of drains; Land-raising operations; Groundwork construction; Earthworks; Piling work; Concrete construction of foundations, walls etc.; Steelwork erection; Roof and cladding works; Building work; Construction of roads, paved areas, rail link, car and HGV parking; Construction of temporary structures (including scaffolds, formwork and falsework); Mechanical installation including pipework and fixed plant; Electrical installation including lighting and connection to the Grid; Security fencing; Site finishes, signing etc.; Plant commissioning and testing; and Landscape planting. 28

41 6. Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment 6.1 The Project, as now proposed, is the subject of an EIA which has been undertaken pursuant to the EIA Regulations In accordance with the requirements of Part 5, Regulation 18 (5) the ES has been completed by competent experts, and their CVs are provided at ES Volume 4: Appendix The EIA identifies the likely significant effects of the Project as now proposed and the results are presented in this ES. 6.4 In doing so it takes into account: The Access Road Amendment and the Energy Output Amendment; The proposed removal of the requirement to deliver the first phase of the rail infrastructure (Condition 13 of the EFW Facility Permission); Updates to the baseline environment; Embedded mitigation; and Any other changes in circumstances. 6.5 It is also informed by ESs completed to support previous applications at the site, in particular the ES which supported the application for the EFW Facility (the ES 2016), and the scoping that has been undertaken as part of the EIA process. The following documents are provided as part of the ES, contained in appendices: ES 2007 (completed for the Refuse Derived Fuel Plant) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.2) ES Scoping Report 2016 (completed for the EFW Facility Permission) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.3) ES 2016 (completed for the EFW Facility Permission) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.4) ES Scoping Report 2018 (completed for this S73 Application) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.5) 6.6 This ES describes the results of the EIA and identifies any significant adverse or beneficial effects as a result of the Project as now proposed. 6.7 The purpose of the ES is to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the Project. In doing so it describes: the baseline environmental conditions; the options for development which have been considered and discounted to date; the design of the 29

42 Project; and provides an assessment of likely significant environmental effects of the construction and operational phases of the Project in each environmental topic area. Where it has not been possible to design the Project to avoid occurrence of likely significant adverse environmental effects, the ES describes the mitigation measures that have been identified and which will be incorporated into the scheme. 6.8 The ES has been prepared having regard to the EIA Regulations 2017 and associated best practice guidance documents. 6.9 All environmental topics have evaluated and identified the likely significant environmental effects arising from the Project. Significant environmental effects have been identified for the construction and operational phases of the Project. Mitigation methods, residual effects, and intra-project and inter-project cumulative effects, have also been identified The design process has been influenced by the environmental impact assessment such that mitigation measures have, where possible, been embedded into the scheme design The remaining sections of this chapter describe the approach to the EIA method including the principles of the assessment and the approach to: considering alternatives; considering risks from accidents and disasters; considering likely significant environmental effects; and considering cumulative effects. Principles of Assessment 6.12 Set out below are a series of key principles which have been followed in the completion of individual assessments: The only change proposed in this application is the removal to the deliver the first phase rail infrastructure (removing Condition 13 of the EFW Facility Permission). The assessments have taken into account the other changes to the EFW Facility Permission relative to the Project as assessed in the ES 2016, including the Access Road Amendment and the Energy Output Amendment. All other elements of the EFW Facility will remain as consented including: Commercial vehicle movements shall not exceed the limit controlled by Condition 6 of the EFW Facility Permission; The first phase of the scheme for upgrading the existing berth on the Manchester Ship Canal shall be implemented prior to the operation of the EFW Facility pursuant to Condition 12 of the Permission; Operational noise emissions shall comply with the limits controlled by Condition 23 of the EFW Facility Permission; 30

43 Air quality monitoring shall comply with the limits controlled by Condition 35 of the EFW Facility Permission; and All other conditions of the EFW Facility Permission are expected to be replicated in a new permission and shall be complied with As previously assumed in the ES 2016, all assessments have been completed on a worst-case scenario that all deliveries of waste will be via road. EIA Regulations A review of the additional environmental information required to be included under the EIA Regulations 2017 (compared to the EIA Regulations 2011) has been undertaken Additional environmental information included in this EIA (compared to the ES 2016 completed under the EIA Regulations 2011) includes expected significant effects on human health and climate change (assessments described at Chapters 9 and 10 of this ES). It also includes expected significant effects from the vulnerability of the Project to major accidents or disasters that are relevant to the development, as described below. Approach to Accidents and Disasters 6.16 In accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 (8) of the EIA Regulations 2017, this ES presents: a description of the expected significant effects of the development on the environment deriving from the vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project where appropriate this description should include measures envisaged to prevent or mitigate the significant adverse effects of such events on the environment and details of the preparedness for and proposed response to such emergencies The assessment process to identify the vulnerability of the Project to risks of major accidents (human causes) and/or disasters (natural causes), relevant to the scheme has been undertaken by: Identifying all of the potential effects from major accidents (human causes) and disasters (natural causes) that are relevant to the Project; Identifying the likelihood of these accidents and disasters occurring, taking into account any embedded/designed mitigation; and Where expected effects of the Project on the environment are likely to arise from the vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters, an evaluation of their significance (using the assessment methodology described below) has been completed and is provided in relevant environmental topic chapters. Where effects are not likely, these have been scoped out of further assessments. 31

44 6.18 Table 6.1 provides a list of the potential effects from major accidents (human causes) and disasters (natural causes) that are relevant to the Project, and the likelihood of these accidents and disasters occurring, taking into account any embedded/designed mitigation. Where applicable, the table identifies where in the ES the significance of the effects from/on the major accidents (human causes) and disasters (natural causes) have been assessed It is important to note that the construction industry is heavily regulated by standards pertaining to health and safety in form of The Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 ( CDM 2015 Regulations ). A Principal Designer will be appointed during construction to ensure compliance with the CDM 2015 Regulations. This will include identification and mitigation of risks to the development The Energy from Waste Facility will be designed to applicable HSE, International and British Standards, European standards and IGEM standards in order to follow best practice in respect to reducing risks through design. The applications of these standards are subject to a quality system in accordance with ISO9001, ISO and OHSAS Table 6.1 summarises the initial risk identified in terms of potential accidents and disasters that could affect the design of the Development. During the design process the design is continually risk assessed by the team in order to design out risks before construction begins. 32

45 Table 6.1: Accidents and Disasters Assessment Major Accident / Disaster Control Measure Likelihood of Occurrence Assessment Fire Explosion Risk of fire will be mitigated through embedded / designed-in measures: Fire Alarms will be fitted with remote monitoring; gas detection and automatic gas shut off and compartmentation will be fitted in accordance with Building Regulations Part B. The risk of an explosion will be mitigated by embedded / designedin measures. This includes a mechanical ventilation strategy with safety interlocks to prevent build-up of gases, gas detection and automatic shut off of gas supply. A DSEAR assessment will be undertaken at Design Stage, incorporating design requirements. This will be validated by an external body during design and then after construction to certify in respect of HSE guidance. Flooding The site is within Flood Zone 3, which is deemed to have a high Low Low Low The effects from the risk of fire is not included in the ES due to the very low likelihood of a fire occurring. The effects from the risk of an explosion occurring is very low due to the embedded / designedin mitigation, and is therefore not included in the ES. The site / development will not be at risk of flooding following 33

46 Major Accident / Disaster Control Measure Likelihood of Occurrence Assessment probability of flooding, absent the presence of defences. A Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken which concludes the site / development is not at risk from flooding. In addition, the following measures will be implemented: Finished floor levels of proposed buildings are set no lower than m AOD. Finished floor levels of access roads are set no lower than m AOD. the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Flood Risk Assessment. The mitigation identified in the FRA will be implemented pursuant to a planning condition (currently Condition 27, 28 and 45 of the EFW Facility Permission). An assessment of flooding is therefore not included in this ES. Pollution of water resources / geological receptors There is a risk of leaks and spillages during the construction and operation process. This will be mitigated through appropriate measures as specified in the Environmental Management Plan (reference, RSK Rev ). Low Where applicable, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the risk of pollution occurring and these measures are identified in the Environmental Management Plan (reference, RSK Rev ). The measures will be implemented pursuant to a planning condition (currently condition 15 of the EFW Facility Permission). An assessment of pollution is 34

47 Major Accident / Disaster Control Measure Likelihood of Occurrence Assessment therefore not included in this ES. Eradication of sensitive species / habitats A Habitat and Creation Management Plan has been prepared and will be implemented pursuant to obligations of the Section 106 Agreement. Water Vole and Badger surveys have been undertaken and identified no presence of the species at the site. Further surveys and checks will be undertaken at the site prior to construction. Low There are no sensitive species / habitats at site which will be affected by the Development. A Habitat and Creation Management Plan has been prepared and will be implemented pursuant to obligations of the Section 106 Agreement. Additional Water Vole and Badger Surveys will be undertaken at the site prior to construction pursuant to a planning condition (currently conditions 29 and 38 of the EFW Facility Permission). An assessment of ecological species and habitats is therefore not included in this ES. Structural Collapse (Natural/Unnatural causes) The EFW Facility will be designed to British Standards, Euro-codes and building regulations. The design and construction will be continually reviewed by an independent accredited building control inspector during the design and construction. Low The effects from the risk of structural collapse are not included in the ES due to the very low likelihood of it occurring. 35

48 Major Accident / Disaster Control Measure Likelihood of Occurrence Assessment Structural condition surveys will be undertaken prior to works taking place within existing buildings. Injury During Maintenance The EFW Facility will be designed in accordance with the CDM2015 regulations. Therefore any risks to injury will be designed out or controlled. Maintenance will be performed by a highly qualified and experienced operator whose internally developed procedures will supplement UK regulatory standards. Low The effects from the risk of injury are not included in the ES due to the very low likelihood of it occurring. Fall from heights Access on roof / working at height to be restricted to authorised personnel only with working at heights safety equipment and training in accordance with applicable legislation and guidance. Low The effects from the risk of falling from heights are not included in the ES due to the very low likelihood of it occurring. Electricity - Possible injury, shock and burns from faulty electrical equipment or installation Regular inspections of electrical equipment and danger signs will be undertaken. Only competent persons permitted to carry out any electrical works. Buried services designed and protected in Low The effects from the risk of injury from electricity are not included in the ES due to the low likelihood of it occurring. 36

49 Major Accident / Disaster Access to open trenches/construction areas Control Measure Likelihood of Occurrence Assessment accordance with British standards. All trenches will be cordoned off by high fencing and locked gating preventing unauthorised access. Low The effects from the risk of accidents from access to the trenches are not included in the ES due to the low likelihood of it occurring. 37

50 Approach to the Consideration of Alternatives 6.22 In accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 (2) of the EIA Regulations 2017, this ES presents the reasonable alternatives considered during the iterative design and consultation process which are relevant to the Project and its specific characteristics (Chapter 7). Approach to Identifying Significant Environmental Effects 6.23 The following sections describe the approach to the EIA and how significant environmental effects have been identified, assessed, and the information presented in this ES The assessment process to identify significant environmental effects has been undertaken by: developing an understanding of the environmental baseline; identifying environmental effects and evaluating their significance (generally by evaluating magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor); considering whether cumulative effects will occur; designing mitigation methods to minimise significant adverse effects; and identifying residual effects The assessment process to identify significant environmental effects has been undertaken for the operational and construction phases Unless otherwise stated, decommissioning effects are assumed to be the same as the effects identified for the construction phase and will not be assessed separately. Approach to the Baseline Environment 6.27 This section describes the baseline environment of the Project as now proposed, and whether the baseline differs from that provided in the ES The baseline establishes the basis for assessments: Existing baseline February 2018 Expected construction start date Early 2019 Expected Operational date Mid 2022 (construction period is 36 months) Existing Baseline Environment February Since the completion of the ES 2016, the following works have been completed at Protos pursuant to the RRP S73 Permission 2015, ( First Phase infrastructure works ): Section 278 upgrading works to Pool Lane Roundabout 38

51 Widening of Grinsome Road Grinsome Road roundabout Permanent internal road infrastructure Diversion of Marsh Lane Public Right of Way Construction of Ecological Mitigation Areas A and D Landscape mitigation the two strips of landscape mitigation east of the proposed EFW Facility and east of the BREP 6.29 In addition the following have been completed or are under construction at Protos: Construction of the temporary haul road from Grinsome Road to Plot 9 (under permission 14/04225/FUL). Construction of the temporary bailey bridge (under permission 14/02268/FUL). Completion of the construction of the BREP on Plot 9 (under BREP Section 73 Permission reference 14/02278/S73) (commercial operation is expected in Spring 2018) Commencement of the construction of the Timber Recycling Plant (on Plot 3) (under permission 14/00277/FUL) Berth 6.30 There is a partly derelict liquid berth facility within Protos adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal. Rail 6.31 Rail access to the CF Fertiliser Plant is provided in the form of a rail siding from the Ellesmere Port to Helsby Line to the south of the Protos site. There remains no rail access in to Protos. Surrounding Area 6.32 In April 2018, the baseline environment surrounding Protos comprises the following: Northern boundary the Manchester Ship Canal forms the northern boundary of Protos and beyond the canal are the Ince Banks and the Mersey Estuary. To the south of Protos a 132/33/11kV primary substation has been constructed for Frodsham Windfarm (under permission reference 10/01489/FUL). To the south east of Protos CF Fertilisers UK facility (formerly GrowHow), which extends to approximately 67 hectares. To the east of Protos approximately 42 hectares of reclaimed marshland, separated by the Hoolpool Gutter from further areas of the Ince and Frodsham Marshes. 39

52 To the east of Protos, beyond Frodsham Marshes Frodsham Windfarm has been constructed and is in operation. It comprise 19 wind turbines at 125 metres high. Land immediately to the southwest of Protos glass recycling plant operated by ENCIRC (formerly Quinn Glass). Settlements the villages of Elton and Ince lie approximately 1km to the west of Protos. The larger village of Helsby lies approximately 2km to the south-east of Protos. The Stanlow Oil Refinery Complex lies to the west of Protos, beyond the villages of Elton and Ince. The M56 Motorway is approximately 1.5km south of the Protos. Future Baseline Environment Construction Commencement Early The baseline environment remains as described above (April 2018), with the exception of the following developments: The Timber Recycling Plant (on Plot 3) will be complete and in commercial operation The BREP (on Plot 9) will be in commercial operation Future Baseline Environment Operation of the EFW Facility The baseline environment remains as described above (April 2018), with the exception of the following developments: The Timber Recycling Plant (on Plot 3) will be complete and in commercial operation The BREP (on Plot 9) will be in commercial operation Other Plots of the RRP may also be developed Approach to Assessing the Significance of Environmental Effects 6.35 To assess the overall significance of an effect it is necessary to establish the magnitude of the effect occurring i.e. the changes to the baseline conditions as a result of the Project, and the sensitivity or importance of the receiving environment or receptor Each environmental topic assessment will identify its own method to assess significance of effects although each will be broadly based on the following criteria from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment s (IEMA) on the approach to assessing significant environmental effects 1. 1 IEMA: The State of Environmental Impact Assessments in the UK: IEMA,

53 6.37 The method will depend on the resource being affected and will follow published legislation, policy and good practice guidelines where practicable with any variation highlighted with reasoning. Magnitude of Effect 6.38 The magnitude of potential effects (both beneficial and adverse) on environmental baseline conditions will be identified through the detailed consideration of the Project taking into account the following: relevant legislation, policy or guidelines; the degree to which the environment is potentially affected for example, whether the quality is enhanced or impaired; the scale or degree of change from baseline conditions as a result of the Project; the duration of the effect for example, whether it is temporary or permanent; and the reversibility of the effect The following criteria provide a general definition for determining the magnitude of a particular effect: High Magnitude - Total loss or major alteration to key elements or features of the baseline conditions to the extent that post-development character or composition of baseline conditions will be fundamentally changed. Moderate Magnitude - Loss or alteration to one or more key elements or features of the baseline conditions to the extent that post-development character or composition of the baseline conditions will be materially changed. Low Magnitude - Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Changes arising will be detectable but not material; the underlying character or composition of the baseline conditions will be similar to the pre-development situation. Negligible Magnitude - Very little change from baseline conditions. Change is barely distinguishable, approximating to a no change situation. Sensitivity of Receptor 6.40 The sensitivity of the receptor will be assessed with reference to the relative importance of existing environmental features on or near to the Project, and by the sensitivity of receptors which could be affected. Sensitivity will be considered in relation to characteristics of the Project and the anticipated effects Criteria for the determination of sensitivity (high, medium, or low) will be established based on legislation, statutory designation, guidance and professional judgment The following criteria provide a general definition for determining the sensitivity of receptors: 41

54 Very High - The receptor has little or no ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering its present character, is of very high environmental value, or of international importance e.g. special qualities of a Special Protection Area or National Park; High - The receptor has low ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering its present character, is of high environmental value, or of national importance e.g. special qualities of a Site of Special Scientific Interest or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); Moderate - The receptor has moderate capacity to absorb change without significantly altering its present character, has some environmental value, or is of regional importance. e.g. special qualities of a regionally important geological site; Low - The receptor is tolerant of change without detriment to its character, is of low environmental value, or local importance e.g. qualities of a hedgerow or industrial areas; and Negligible - The receptor is resistant to change or is of little environmental value. Duration of the Effect 6.43 The duration of effects will be taken into consideration when determining the overall significance of the effects. The timescales that will be used are shown at Table 6.2 (these timescales will be used unless stated otherwise, in accordance with applicable guidance to the topic assessment): Table 6.2: Duration of Effect Timescale Short term Medium term Long term Definition 0 to 3 years including the construction period and on completion 3 to 15 years including establishment of replacement and proposed mitigation planting 15 years onwards for the life of the Project Significance of the Effect 6.44 The significance of effect can be determined by taking the magnitude of the likely effect and the sensitivity of the receiving receptor. The significance of the likely effects arising from the Project will be categorised as follows (unless stated otherwise): Major adverse; Moderate adverse; Minor adverse; None; Minor beneficial; 42

55 Moderate beneficial; and Major beneficial. Table 6.3: Example Matrix for Assessing the Significance of Effects Magnitude of Effect Sensitivity of Receptor Very High High Moderate Low Negligible High Major Major Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Minor None Low Moderate Moderate Minor None None Negligible Minor Minor None None None 6.45 Unless otherwise stated in each topic assessment, effects are considered to be significant where the results of the magnitude and sensitivity equate to a moderate or major adverse or beneficial effect The assessments intend to identify any changes or any different significant environmental effects as a result of the Project as now proposed, relative to the Project assessed in the ES Approach to Cumulative Assessment 6.47 The EIA Regulations 2017 (Schedule 4) requires a description of the likely significant effects resulting from the cumulative effects to be presented in the ES. Intra-Project Cumulative Effects 6.48 Intra-project cumulative effects arise between the different environmental topics being assessed for the EIA (also known as indirect effects). The effects arise as a result of one topic assessment s proposals leading to an effect on another aspect of the environment. An example can be drawn from the impacts of increased traffic movements which may have implications for air quality and ecological receptors in terms of nitrogen deposition The intra-project cumulative effects assessments have been reviewed and are presented in each environmental topic chapter of the ES. Inter-Project Cumulative Effects 6.50 Consideration has been given to the potential cumulative impacts from other existing and/or approved projects proposed developments The following list of developments has been considered in the technical ES assessments. Where they are considered to have a significant cumulative impact, this is identified in the technical chapters. 43

56 Table 6.4: List of developments Ref Development/allocation Application Ref Development Description Status/Assumed Status Development 1 The remaining RRP 14/02277/S73 14/02271/S73 14/02278/S73 Plot 1 Dry Cargo Facility (approved under the S73 RRP Permission /02277/S73) Plot 2 Soil Treatment Facility (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plot 3 Timber Recycling Plant (TRP) (approved under the TRP S73 Permission reference 14/02271/S73) Plot 4 vacant plot (previously approved for a TRP under original S73 RRP Permission (10/01488/FUL), and separate permission for an Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate (IBAA) facility (ref. 11/04081/WAS); however both permissions on this Plot have expired) Plot 5 Integrated Waste Management Facility (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plot 6 Plastics Recycling Facility (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plot 7 Waste Treatment Plant (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plot 9 Biomass Resource Recovery Plant (approved under the BREP S73 Permission reference 14/02278/S73) Plot 9 BREP: February 2018 construction complete Early 2019 commercially operating Mid 2022 commercially operating Plot 3 TRP: February 2018 under construction Early 2019 commercially operating Mid 2022 commercially operating 44

57 Ref Development/allocation Application Ref Development Description Status/Assumed Status Plot 10 Resource Recovery Business Centre (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plot 11 Commercial / Industrial Waste Transfer Station (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plots 12 and 13 Resource Recovery Village (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Plot 14 Block Making Facility (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Internal road infrastructure (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Ecological Mitigation Areas B and D (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) Full Rail Link (approved under the S73 RRP Permission 14/02277/S73) 2 Frodsham Windfarm 10/00597/DECC The development will comprise of the erection of 19 wind turbines each 125m. Development construction commenced April Coal Bed Methane Extraction 09/02568/MIN Planning permission obtained for Coal Bed Methane exploratory drilling February 2018 complete and in operation Exploratory drilling has been undertaken and no further works are currently being undertaken 45

58 Ref Development/allocation Application Ref Development Description Status/Assumed Status 4 Holme Farm Anaerobic Digester 13/04187/WAS Construction of an anaerobic digester (AD) facility, associated reception and product storage tanks, weighbridge and conversion of an existing building. Application approved July Consent granted but construction has not yet commenced No evidence of construction starting i.e. no discharge of conditions applications submitted to LPA. 5 Solar Farm proposal, Land At Elton Elton Lane Dunham On The Hill Chester 15/01909/FUL Development of solar photovoltaic panels and associated works including inverter housings, access tracks, security fencing and cameras Application pending consideration Appeal refused. 6 Former Horse & Jockey, Chester Road, Helsby 16/03313/FUL Demolition of former public house and construction of 15 dwellings. Consent granted but construction has not yet commenced Permission granted 3rd August 2017 No evidence of construction starting i.e. no discharge of conditions applications submitted to LPA. 7 Approval of reserved matters, Helsby Frodsham WA6 0DJ 16/05566/REM Approval of reserved matters following outline application 13/02503/OUT for erection of up to 69 residential dwellings and access. Permission granted 16th March 2017 Latest Discharge of Condition 19th Oct 2017 (LPA Conditions are being discharged. It is assumed development will commence in late 2018 and be completed by

59 Ref Development/allocation Application Ref Development Description Status/Assumed Status Ref. 17/04518/DIS) 47

60 Approach to Mitigation Embedded Mitigation 6.52 An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was submitted and approved as part of the EFW Facility Permission. This lists the relevant mitigation measures from the ES 2016 and ES 2007 which were identified to reduce the significance of the effects. The implementation of the mitigation measures in the EMP is secured via planning condition 15 of the EFW Facility Permission. These measures are embedded mitigation into the Project as now proposed The planning conditions attached to the EFW Facility Permission, are also regarded as embedded mitigation. These include, but are not limited to: Commercial vehicle movements shall not exceed the limit controlled by Condition 6 of the EFW Facility Permission; The first phase of the scheme for upgrading the existing berth on the Manchester Ship Canal shall be implemented prior to the operation of the EFW Facility pursuant to Condition 12 of the EFW Facility Permission; Operational noise emissions shall comply with the limits controlled by Condition 23 of the EFW Facility Permission; and Air quality monitoring shall comply with the limits controlled by Condition 35 of the EFW Facility Permission All conditions of the permission will be followed / implemented and will be replicated in a new permission with the exception of Condition 13 which the S73 Application proposes to remove Similarly, the commitments in the SPO are also regarded as embedded mitigation and will be delivered pursuant to the implementation of the EFW Facility Permission, via a Deed of Variation, which has been submitted with this S73 Application. These include: The delivery of the Ecological Mitigation Areas; The delivery of a Travel Plan; Implementation of the Habitat Creation and Management Plan (2015). Additional Mitigation 6.56 Each environmental assessment in this ES identifies mitigation, where required, beyond the embedded mitigation ( additional mitigation ). Additional mitigation is required where likely significant environmental impacts are identified in the assessment of construction and operational phase. The purpose of the additional mitigation measure is to prevent, reduce or offset any likely significant environmental effects The proposed mitigation measures are presented in such a way that the reader is able to relate the proposed measure back to the likely significant environmental effect 48

61 identified earlier (when assessed against the current and predicted baseline conditions) Consideration is also given to the provision of any measures of environmental enhancement over and above required mitigation. Residual Effects 6.59 This final stage of assessment identifies any residual environmental effects and their significance taking account of the application of the mitigation measures outlined above. The assessment of residual effects is presented in each assessment chapter of this ES. 49

62 7. Consideration of Alternatives Introduction 7.1 The EIA Regulations 2017 require: A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects. (EIA Regs 2017, Schedule 4 (2)) Consideration of Alternatives 7.2 The consented EFW Facility Permission and the implemented Deemed Permission (for the RDF Plant) has established the acceptability of developing the site for an energy from waste plant of significant scale. The development as now proposed does not alter the intended use of the site and it is almost in every respect identical to the consented EFW Facility. 7.3 The ES 2007 considered alternatives to both the RRP and RDF Plant and its constituent elements, including a thorough appraisal of potentially alternative sites. 7.4 The ES 2007 alternative site area of search extended to the four areas of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire (including the unitary boroughs of Halton and Warrington) and Lancashire. 7.5 The assessment resulted in the identification of 207 sites meeting the minimum size criteria of 7.5 hectares (the RDF Plant); 36 sites for the minimum size of 50 hectares (RRP excluding RDF Plant) and 30 sites for the minimum size of 57.5 hectares (RRP i.e. combined scheme). 7.6 It was concluded in the ES 2007 that the various alternatives considered for the development of the combined scheme and its constituent elements were less desirable from a variety of perspectives than the proposal at Protos. The site at Protos was deemed to be the only suitable and viable site available in the North West region able to address the need and convey the benefits identified in the ES Sites were identified that may be capable of accommodating the RDF Plant in isolation, but those sites were either not available or suitable. 7.7 On this basis it was concluded that Protos was the best option for delivering a combined waste reprocessing and energy park on a regional scale in the North West region, and that the major benefits associated with the project could not be delivered by alternatives. 7.8 The development as now proposed will remain a key element of the overall Protos development and does not alter the principal intended use of the site. 50

63 7.9 The environmental effects of alternative energy from waste facilities in terms of its design, technology, location, size and scale have been completed in previous EIAs, and results provided in the ES 2007 (for the larger RDF Plant), the ES 2016 (for the consented EFW Facility), and this ES (for an amendment to the rail infrastructure) Accordingly, no further consideration or assessment of alternatives is necessary. 51

64 8. Matters Scoped Out of the Environmental Statement 8.1 The EIA Regulations 2017 require assessment of likely significant effects of the Project on the receiving environment. Where effects on particular receptors would be less than significant these may be scoped out of the EIA process. 8.2 This section of the ES describes the aspects of the environment where the Project is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment and these matters have therefore been scoped out of this ES. A more detailed description is provided in the Scoping Report 2018 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.5). 8.3 This section of the ES should be read alongside the following: ES 2007 (completed for the Refuse Derived Fuel Plant) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.2) ES Scoping Report 2016 (completed for the EFW Facility Permission) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.3) ES 2016 (completed for the EFW Facility Permission) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.4) ES Scoping Report 2018 (completed for this S73 Application) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.5) 8.4 In scoping the EIA for the Project, as reported in the Scoping Report 2018, Assessors undertook a detailed review of the existing environmental information contained within the ES 2016 in particular to identify whether there would be a change to the outcome of the significant effects originally assessed. In so doing they considered the following: Embedded mitigation; The Access Road Amendment and the Energy Output Amendment; The proposed removal of the requirement to deliver the first phase of the rail infrastructure (Condition 13 of the EFW Facility Permission); Updates to the baseline environment; and Any other changes in circumstances. 8.5 In respect of embedded mitigation, mitigation measures identified in the ES 2016 were incorporated into conditions of the EFW Facility Permission. All conditions of the permission will be followed / implemented and will be replicated in a new permission (with the exception of Condition 13 which the S73 Application proposes to remove). Accordingly, these measures are regarded as embedded mitigation. These include, but are not limited to: 52

65 Commercial vehicle movements shall not exceed the limit presently controlled by Condition 6 of the EFW Facility Permission; The first phase of the scheme for upgrading the existing berth on the Manchester Ship Canal shall be implemented prior to the operation of the EFW Facility (presently Condition 12 of the EFW Facility Permission); Operational noise emissions shall comply with the limits presently controlled by Condition 23 of the EFW Facility Permission; and Air quality monitoring shall comply with the limits presently controlled by Condition 35 of the EFW Facility Permission. 8.6 Similarly, the commitments in the SPO are also regarded as embedded mitigation, as it is proposed to tie identical obligations to any new permission granted for the S73 Application. These include: The delivery of the Ecological Mitigation Areas; The delivery of a Travel Plan; Implementation of the Habitat Creation and Management Plan (2015). 8.7 The Scoping Report proposed that topics would be subject to no additional assessment beyond that contained within the Scoping Report and the ES 2016 (i.e. they would be scoped out ), where the following applied: The ES 2016 concluded that no significant environmental effects would arise, and that this conclusion would be unaffected by the factors listed at Paragraph 8.4 above (i.e. that it would evidently be the case that no significant environmental effects would arise as a consequence of the change to the project, or other changes in baseline or circumstance); The ES 2016 concluded that significant environmental effects would arise, but that this conclusion would be unaffected by the factors listed at Paragraph 8.4 above (i.e. that it would evidently be the case that there would be no change in significant environmental effects as a consequence of the change to the project, or other changes in baseline or circumstance). In such instances, the ES 2016 (and where applicable, by cross reference within the ES 2016, the ES 2007) could be wholly relied upon as part of the EIA for the Project as now proposed; The ES 2016 did not assess the topic, on the basis no significant environmental effects were likely to arise (i.e. it was scoped out ), and this conclusion would be unaffected by the factors listed at Paragraph A summary of the environmental assessments scoped out of this ES is presented at Table 8.2. Further detail is provided in the Scoping Report 2018 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.5). 53

66 8.9 Cheshire West and Chester Council provided a Scoping Opinion on 17 April 2018 which can be found at ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1. A summary of the Scoping Opinion is provided at Table 8.1. Table 8.1: CWACC Scoping Opinion Environmental Topic Contamination, soils and geology Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk Scope in / out Out Out Response from CWACC Scoping Opinion to Scoping Report Environment Agency confirms they have no specific comments (therefore it concurs with the findings of the Scoping Report) Environment Agency confirms they have no specific comments (therefore it concurs with the findings of the Scoping Report) Historic Environment Landscape and Visual Socio-Economics Traffic and Transport Out Out Out Proposed to be scoped-out in the Scoping Report; however is now scoped-in to the ES following the Highways Officers response. Lead Local Flood Authority - No response received CWACC Archaeology Officer agrees the assessment can be scoped-out. CWACC Landscape Officer agrees the assessment can be scoped-out. Highways England agree the assessment can be scoped-out, provided the HGV movement limits imposed by Condition 6 of the EFW Facility Permission are replicated, which is the intent. CWACC Highways Officer the Highways Officer notes that transport impacts should be included within the ES. No reasoning is provided by the Officer to clarify why significant impacts are likely to arise. An ES must be based on the most recent scoping opinion in accordance with Section 18 (4) (a) of the EIA Regulations Accordingly, an assessment on the impacts on / from transport is now included within this ES (Chapter 11). Ecology Out CWACC Biodiversity Officer agrees the assessment can be scoped-out. Natural England - confirm that the application site is not located within, or partly within any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or Ramsar Site and is not likely to significantly 54

67 Environmental Topic Scope in / out Response from CWACC Scoping Opinion to Scoping Report affect the interest features for which they are notified. Air Quality Out Environmental Protection Officer - No response received Public Health England no significant concerns regarding risk to health of the local population. Noise Out Environmental Protection Officer - No response received Climate Change In CWACC Planning Officer agrees for the assessment to be scoped in Human Health In CWACC Planning Officer agrees for the assessment to be scoped in Public Health England no significant concerns regarding risk to health of the local population At the point of issuing the Scoping Opinion, CWACC were awaiting responses from the Environmental Protection Officer and the Lead Local Flood Authority. Consultation will continue with the Environmental Protection Officer and the Lead Local Flood Authority during the determination of this S73 Application. However, in the absence of any contrary opinion to that contained in the Scoping Report, for the relevant topics (Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk; air quality; noise) the position reached in the Scoping Report is adopted (i.e. they are scoped out ) In accordance with Section 18 (4) (a) of the EIA Regulations 2017 an ES must be based on the most recent scoping opinion. Accordingly, an assessment on the impacts on transport is now included within this ES (Chapter 11). It remains TIP s position that the Project will cause no significant traffic related effects, as presented in the Scoping Report Table 8.2: Assessments Scoped Out of the EIA Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Reason for Scoping Out of the EIA Contamination, soils and geology All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. 55

68 Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Reason for Scoping Out of the EIA A review of the Flood Risk Assessment is submitted with the Section 73 planning application for the Project as now proposed. Historic Environment All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Landscape and Visual All Some significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project which were deemed acceptable and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Socio-Economics All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Ecology All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Updated surveys for Badgers and Water Voles will be undertaken as their territories change seasonally and from year to year. The most up to date Water Vole Survey (November 2017) is submitted with this S73 Application. Air Quality All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Noise All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now proposed. Cumulative All No significant residual effects were identified in the previous assessments for the Project and this remains unchanged as a result of the Project as now 56

69 Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Reason for Scoping Out of the EIA proposed The ES 2016 included assessments on air quality and noise. These topics have been scoped out of this ES for the following reasons (as largely explained within the Scoping Report 2018): Air Quality: The ES 2016 concluded there would be no significant air quality impacts associated with the construction (and decommissioning) and operation of the Project. Since the ES 2016, there has been a change to the dispersion model used to predict the impact of operational process emissions and that is used to predict the impact of road traffic emissions. In addition more recent weather data and updated vehicle emission factors are available. These were taken into account in the Scoping Report 2018, and it was confirmed the changes would not alter the conclusions of the ES 2016, which would remain as not significant. There have been no other changes to legislation, best practice or baseline levels than those described in the ES This application is not seeking to change any of the construction phase activities and therefore the construction / decommissioning impact predicted as part of the ES 2016 remains valid. The ES 2016 assumed that all deliveries would be by road to test a worstcase scenario and therefore the operational impact predicted as part of the ES 2016 remains valid. The other proposed amendments (Amended Access Road and Amended Energy Output) do not entail any material difference in the characteristics of the Project and therefore the air quality effects of the Project as now proposed will be no different than those assessed in the ES A separate assessment was completed to support the Amended Energy Output application. Dispersion modelling was used to demonstrate the effect of the increased output on the conclusions of the ES 2016 in relation to air quality impacts. This demonstrated that there will be no material changes to the air quality and health impacts than those assessed in the ES This assessment is provided at ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.2. This assessment conclusion reinforces that there will be no significant impacts on air quality and the assessment can be scoped out of the ES. 57

70 No changes are proposed to the agreed mitigation which will be implemented pursuant to replicate planning conditions. Therefore, the Project as now proposed has already been tested in EIA terms (within the ES 2016, which is appended to this ES) and the conclusions of the ES 2016 would not change. Noise: The ES 2016 concluded there would be no significant impacts from noise associated with the construction (and decommissioning) and operation of the Project. There are no changes in policy, legislation or baseline conditions since 2016 that would materially affect the outcomes of the previous assessments presented in the ES The Project as now proposed does not present any change in the proposed quantity or timings of construction (or decommissioning) traffic or plant and hence there will be no material change in construction effects compared to those assessed as part of the approved development in the ES It was assumed during the 2016 assessment that all waste entering the facility would be brought in by road, and the operational assessments presented in the ES 2016 are therefore unchanged by the proposal removal of Condition 13. The other proposed amendments (Amended Access Road and Amended Energy Output) do not entail any material difference in the characteristics of the Project and therefore the noise effects of the Project as now proposed will be no different than those assessed in the ES No changes are proposed to the agreed mitigation which will be implemented pursuant to replicate planning conditions. Therefore, the Project as now proposed has already been tested in EIA terms (within the ES 2016, which is appended to this ES) and the conclusions of the ES 2016 would not change The ES 2016 included an assessment of likely significant impacts arising from cumulative effects. The Scoping Report 2018 provided an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the Project as now proposed, and concluded that no significant cumulative effects would arise. A summary of the reasoning for this is provided below: Inter-Project Cumulative Effects: The ES 2016 concluded there would be no significant inter-project cumulative impacts associated with the construction (and decommissioning) and operation of the Project. 58

71 Two additional cumulative projects have been identified in the vicinity of the EFW Facility as listed at Table 6.4 above. These include the construction of 15 dwellings, and the approval of detailed design for 69 dwellings which already have outline planning permission. Since the ES 2016, the First Phase Infrastructure works of the RRP Section 73 Permission 2015 have been completed and therefore form part of the baseline environment for both construction and operation of the EFW Facility. The EIA Regulations 2017 now only require existing and/or approved projects to be assessed. There have been no other changes to legislation, best practice or baseline levels than those described in the ES In the Scoping Report 2018, each environmental assessment topic assessed the cumulative impacts of the Project as now proposed, and whether the changes to the cumulative assessment would alter the conclusions of the ES All environmental topics identified that the Project as now proposed causes no significant cumulative effects, and does not materially change the conclusions of the previous cumulative assessments in the ES 2016, and the additional developments would cause no significant cumulative effects. The other proposed amendments (Amended Access Road and Amended Energy Output) do not entail any material difference in the characteristics of the Project and therefore the cumulative effects of the Project as now proposed will be no different than those assessed in the ES No changes are proposed to the agreed mitigation which will be implemented pursuant to replicate planning conditions and planning obligations. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project as now proposed has already been tested in EIA terms and the conclusions of the ES 2016 and Scoping Report 2018 would not change. The environmental assessment topics scoped in to this ES do consider the inter-project cumulative impacts, as these have not been assessed in previous EIAs. Intra-Project Cumulative Effects: The ES 2016 concluded there would be no significant intra-project cumulative impacts associated with the construction (and decommissioning) and operation of the Project. 59

72 There have been no changes to legislation, best practice or baseline levels than those described in the ES 2016 which would affect the approach to the assessments. In the Scoping Report 2018, all environmental topics identified that the Project as now proposed does not materially change the conclusions of the previous intra-project cumulative assessments in the ES 2016, and causes no new significant intra-project effects. No changes are proposed to the agreed mitigation which will be implemented pursuant to replicate planning conditions and planning obligations. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project as now proposed has already been tested in EIA terms and the conclusions of the ES 2016 and Scoping Report 2018 will not change. The environmental assessment topics scoped in to this ES do consider the intra-project cumulative impacts of the Project, as these have not been assessed in previous EIAs The Project as now proposed may have significant effects on the following aspects of the environment, as described in the Scoping Report (with the exception of transport) 2018 and presented at Table 8.3. The assessments are presented in this ES. Table 8.3: Assessments Scoped In to the ES Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Reason for Scoping In to the ES Human Health All This assessment is now required as part of the EIA Regulations 2017 and will be scoped into the ES Climate Change All This assessment is now required as part of the EIA Regulations 2017 and will be scoped into the ES Traffic and Transport All This assessment has been requested in the Scoping Opinion from CWACC. An ES must be based on the most recent scoping opinion in accordance with Section 18 (4) (a) of the EIA Regulations Accordingly, an assessment on the impacts on / from transport is now included within this ES. A Transport Statement is submitted with this Section 73 planning application for the Project as now proposed. Cumulative effects Intra-project and There is potential for cumulative impacts for the assessment chapters scoped into the ES and these 60

73 Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Reason for Scoping In to the ES Inter-Project will be assessed within the specific topic assessments 61

74 9. Climate Change Introduction 9.1 This Chapter has been prepared by Turley Sustainability and its purpose is to assess the likely significant climate change effects on and as a result of the Project, as is described in Chapter 5 of this Environmental Statement (ES) during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. The requirement to address climate change has been introduced by the EIA Regulations (2017) (Ref 9.1) with a specific requirement to consider the following: The impact of the Project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions) ( Climate Change Mitigation ); and the vulnerability of the Project to climate change ( Climate Change Adaption ) 9.2 This Chapter sets out: the assessment methodology; baseline conditions of the Project site; likely environmental effects; mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant effects; the likely residual effects after these measures have been implemented; and any monitoring required to mitigate residual effects. 9.3 Information has been drawn from the ES 2016 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.4) and the Scoping Report 2018 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.5) where required to understand the overall environmental impacts of the Project and inform this assessment. 9.4 The assessment has been undertaken broadly in accordance with guidance documents developed by the Institute of Environmental Management Assessment (IEMA) (Ref 9.10, Ref 9.11 and Ref 9.12) and through the application of professional judgement. 9.5 Following this introductory section and a review of legislation, guidance and policy relevant to both climate change mitigation and adaptation, this Chapter is split into two sections: Section 1: Climate Change Mitigation - Provides an assessment of the likely significant climate change effects resulting from the Project and their mitigation(including estimation of the quantum, scale and significance of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) ; and Section 2: Climate Change Adaptation Provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of climate change on the Project (including the need for any adaptation measures and the resulting resilience to climate change). 9.6 The Mitigation section of this Chapter is further supported by ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1, which provides a full assessment of GHG emissions associated with the Project. 62

75 Legislative Framework, Policy and Guidance Documents 9.7 This section details the relevant legislation and specific planning policy that is relevant to the Project and this impact assessment, all key provisions of relevant legislation, policy and guidance are addressed throughout this chapter. Table 9.1: Relevant legislation and policy and guidance Legislation / policy / guidance Legislation: Climate Change Act 2008 (Ref 9.2) Key provisions The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a legally binding target for reducing UK CO 2 emissions by least 80% on 1990 levels by At the end of June 2016, Government published the Fifth Carbon Budget, setting out a target for emission cuts of 57% from 1990 levels by Relevant section of chapter where key provisions are addressed The Mitigation section of this Chapter assesses the GHG emissions from the Project and assesses the impact on climate change, with specific reference to government carbon budgets. Legislation: The Carbon Plan delivering our Low Carbon Future ( Carbon Plan ) (Ref 9.3) Legislative Guidance: Meeting Carbon Budgets: Closing the Policy Gap (Ref 9.4) In 2011, the Government published an updated Carbon Plan setting out how the UK will achieve decarbonisation and make the transition to a low carbon economy. It sets this objective within a framework of mitigating and adapting to climate change and maintaining energy security in a way that minimises costs and maximises benefits to the economy. With regards to development, the Carbon Plan presents the UK Government s approach to promoting the delivery of low carbon, resilient and adaptive buildings and enabling sustainable transportation as positively contributing to these national carbon reduction targets. The 2017 Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report to Parliament sets out the latest update on the UK s progress to meeting its GHG targets. The documents states that the UK urgently needs new policies to cut GHG emissions. Although UK emissions fell by 6% in 2016 and are down by 19% since 2012, however progress has been dominated by the power sector, CO 2 emissions form transport and buildings rose in 2015 and 2016, while progress in driving emissions The Mitigation Section of this Chapter assesses the impacts of proposed decarbonisation measures through the assessment of GHG emissions over time. The Adaptation Section of this ES chapter has assessed the resilience of the Project to the impacts of climate change. The Mitigation section of this Chapter assesses the GHG emissions from the Project and assesses the impact on climate change, with specific reference to government carbon budgets. 63

76 Legislation / policy / guidance Key provisions reductions in industry and for non-co 2 GHG has been minimal. Relevant section of chapter where key provisions are addressed National Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 9.5) National Guidance: Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref 9.6) Following its publication in March 2012, national planning policy is now provided by the NPPF sets out the Government s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It also sets out the requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. The Government has made clear its expectation that the planning system should positively embrace well-conceived development to deliver the economic growth necessary to create inclusive and mixed communities. The NPPF states that: The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It states clearly that in order to deliver sustainable development, the planning system must perform three distinct roles, aligned to the three pillars of sustainability, economic, social and environmental sustainability, which must not be taken in isolation and should be pursued jointly. Paragraph 95 states that local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In March 2014 the Government released the updated Planning Practice Guidance ( the Guidance ). The Guidance provides information to local authorities on how to implement the policies of the NPPF and approach specific policy aims. The Guidance sets out how local authorities should include polices that protect the local environment and strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It reiterates that local The Mitigation section of this Chapter assesses the GHG emissions from the Project and assesses the impact upon climate change. The Adaptation section of this Chapter presents the measures proposed to ensure the Project is resilient to a changing climate. The Mitigation section of this ES Chapter presents the embedded and further mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions, with further reductions to be sought during detailed design. All measures are considered in line with government guidance. The Adaptation section of this Chapter presents the measures 64

77 Legislation / policy / guidance Key provisions authorities should set sustainability policies for new development that are line with the Government s policy and nationally described standards. It supports developments of good design that are functional and adaptable for the future. Relevant section of chapter where key provisions are addressed proposed to ensure the Project is resilient to a changing climate. Local Guidance: Cheshire West & Chester Council Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies (Ref 9.7) Adopted in 2015, the Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies sets out the overall vision, strategic objectives, spatial strategy and strategic planning policies for the borough tot Policy STRAT 1 Sustainable Development sets out sustainable development principles that include: mitigating and adapting to climate change, ensuring development makes the best use of opportunities for renewable energy use and generation; and ensuring the prudent use of natural finite resources whilst promoting the re-use, recovery and recycling of materials. Policy ENV 6 High Quality Design and Sustainable Construction sets out that development should incorporate energy efficiency measures and provide for renewable energy generation; provide for the sustainable management of waste; and mitigate and adapt to the predicted effects of climate change. Policy ENV 8 Managing Waste sets out how the waste management needs in the borough will be met and how this will be achieved. Proposals for waste management facilities are required to be consistent with the waste hierarchy, prioritising prevention, reuse, recycling and composting ahead of other recovery or energy generation, with disposal as a final resort. The policy states that the Ince Park site on which the Project is based is safeguarded for waste uses. The Mitigation and Adaptation sections of this Chapter present in greater detail those areas where the Project supports the requirements of the Local Plan. 65

78 Legislation / policy / guidance Key provisions Relevant section of chapter where key provisions are addressed Local Guidance: Cheshire West & Chester Council Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies (Submission) (Ref 9.8) Policy EP 6 sets out that Land at Ince Park (Protos) is safeguarded for a multi-modal resource recovery park and energy from waste facility for use in connection with the recycling, recovery and reprocessing of waste materials. Relevant to this assessment, it states that development will be supported, where practicable, it maximises opportunities for freight movements on the Manchester Ship Canal or rail network, particularly to minimise the impact of increased traffic generation the local road network; and it minimises any flood risk arising from the development both on and off-site. The Mitigation section of this Chapter assumes a worst-case scenario whereby 100% of the waste is transported by road. Local Guidance: Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan (Ref 9.9) Best Practice Guidance: IEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance (Ref 9.10) Within Cheshire there is currently a very high dependence on the landfilling of waste with over one million tonnes of waste being landfilled in Specific policies have been replaced by Policy ENV 8 within Part One (Strategic Polices). Published in 2017, the guidance provides thoughts, guidance and areas of consideration for practitioners assessing GHG emissions and evaluating their significance. The guidance document provides a suggested methodology for the assessment of GHG emissions within EIA. It provides a number of key recommended steps along with guidance for practitioners to address each of the key stages. The Mitigation section of this Chapter sets out the GHG emission savings as a result of diverting waste from landfill for energy generation purposes. The Mitigation section of this Chapter presents in greater detail those areas where the guidance is implemented within this assessment. The guidance has been followed comprehensively and where necessary has been supplemented using professional judgement. Best Practice Guidance: IEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (Ref Published in 2015, the guidance provides provide thoughts, guidance and areas of consideration for practitioners assessing climate change resilience and adaptation. The Adaptation section of this Chapter presents in greater detail those areas where the guidance is implemented within this assessment. The guidance has been followed comprehensively and where necessary has been supplemented using 66

79 Legislation / policy / guidance Key provisions Relevant section of chapter where key provisions are addressed 9.11) professional judgement. 9.8 The best practice guidance produced by IEMA in 2015 (Ref 9.11) and 2017 (Ref 9.10) is intended to provide guidance to EIA practitioners with regards to the EIA Regulations (2017) and the requirement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Both documents provide a framework for the effective consideration of climate change but also acknowledge a number of principles when addressing this issue. These are that: the documents are not prescriptive how to guides but provide thoughts, guidance and areas of consideration for practitioners; as with all EIA topics, professional judgement and proportionality are key to determining the correct scope and methodology of assessment; with regards to assessment of significance, there is no single preferred methodology with on-going research to determine thresholds for GHG emissions along with science-based targets; and the assessment of climate change with EIA is still an emerging science and as such further guidance is likely as technical experts implement the new requirements. 9.9 These documents are, however, key in providing guidance for the assessment of climate change related to the Project and have been referenced within the methodology sections of this Chapter for both Mitigation and Adaptation. 67

80 Section 1: Climate Change Mitigation Introduction 9.10 This section considers the anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of the Project; the predominant impact which is as a contributor to future climate change; and the measures taken to mitigate these impacts during and post-construction This assessment considers the GHG emissions that occur as a result of the construction and operational activities within the Project Site, and the associated upstream and downstream effects that occur as a result of the Project The main source of GHG emission effects from the Project result from the operation EFW Facility, which will generate partially renewable electricity from residual waste that would otherwise have been sent to landfill. In order to assess the net GHG effect, a counterfactual GHG emissions scenario relating to the treatment of waste at landfill is developed and applied It should be noted that the assessment of GHG emissions is still an emerging science, despite the recent publication of specific guidance from IEMA (Ref 9.10) to which the authors of this ES chapter contributed. The guidance also confirms that it will be updated once the process of incorporating GHG assessment in EIA matures. Nonetheless the IEMA guidance has been followed where possible in order to ensure a robust assessment. Notwithstanding the above however, the guidance has been followed where it is considered appropriate for this assessment as set out in paragraph 9.11 below As stated previously, this Chapter is supported by a full GHG assessment which is provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1. Assessment Methodology 9.15 The method of assessment adopted in this chapter comprises the following components with those measures specifically listed which are in accordance with the IEMA GHG guidance: A review of legislation, regulation and planning policy, focussing on climate change issues (see previous section). An establishment of the Scope and Boundaries of the GHG assessment as per Sections 4 and 5 of the IEMA Guidance. An assessment of the GHG emissions arising from existing use of the site to establish the baseline as per Section 4 of the IEMA Guidance An assessment of the GHG emissions arising during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project. An assessment of additionality and resulting net emissions taking into account comparator scenarios such as the disposal of waste at landfill and the generation of electricity from alternative sources. 68

81 An assessment of the GHG emissions of the Project in the context of the Government carbon budgets to establish context and magnitude of GHG emission impact. A wider assessment of the impacts of GHG emissions on the baseline environment before and after mitigation in accordance with the EIA hierarchy for managing project related GHG emissions The Greenhouse Gas Protocol suite of standards provide the basis for the majority of emissions assessments, and although the Corporate Standard (Ref 9.12) and Scope 3 Standards (Ref 9.13) are designed for organisations reporting on emissions that have occurred in the past, the general approach can be applied to anticipated future emissions. The GHG Protocol is one of the standards identified in the IEMA Guidance (Ref 9.10) and has been applied to the assessment of emissions in this assessment. The Study Area 9.17 For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the Project on climate change, the immediate boundary is considered to be the red line boundary of the Project Site. However, in some instances, due to the upstream and downstream nature of emissions and emission impacts, the boundary extends beyond this area. This includes emissions associated with transport to and from the site, where gases are combusted in transit; or where emissions occur indirectly as a consequence of the Project. Emission Scopes & Boundaries 9.18 An assessment boundary has been identified that applies the principles of the operational control approach set out within the GHG Protocol to the Project Site. The GHG assessment boundary therefore includes all relevant on-site, upstream and downstream emissions. These are categorised as follows: Scope 1 emissions: direct emissions from the combustion of fuels and/ or gases within the Project Site boundary, during construction, operation and decommissioning. Scope 2 emissions: indirect emissions associated with the use of purchased electricity consumed within the Project Site boundary, during construction, operation and/ or decommissioning. Note that the emissions associated with the generation of purchased electricity occur upstream of the development. Scope 3 emissions: indirect emissions emitted as a consequence of the Project, upstream or downstream of the Project Site. This could include the combustion of fuels to transport people, goods or waste; other fuel and energy related emissions (e.g. associated with upstream transport and distribution losses); emissions from the production of goods and materials consumed; and the downstream use of electricity generated Further, to ensure that all emission sources are considered, the following categories are applied to allow their identification: 69

82 Stationary combustion: the use of fuels or purchased electricity to generate heat, steam or electricity in stationary equipment (e.g. boilers, heat pumps and generators) Mobile combustion: the use of fuel or purchased electricity to generate heat, steam or electricity in mobile equipment (e.g. vehicles and construction plant) Process emissions: the use of fuel or purchased electricity in a process (e.g. the manufacture of materials used in construction) Fugitive emissions: the controlled or un-controlled release of gases (e.g. leakage of refrigerant gases or the release of methane from landfill operations) There is inherent uncertainty in the assessment of GHG emissions, as they can only be truly measured at source, as they occur. In reality, this is temporally not possible, and in any case would be impractical and disproportionate to the scale of any emissions expected as a result of the Project Instead, activity data (e.g. the estimated consumption of fuel) is multiplied by an appropriate emission factor (e.g. estimated quantity of GHG emissions produced per unit of fuel) to estimate GHG emissions as a result of each identified activity; this approach is applied to assess both baseline and future emissions. Baseline Surveys Desk Based Research 9.22 Details of the current land use and emission sources are provided in the description of the Site; additional information relating to current land management practices has been obtained from the Applicant. Field Survey Work 9.23 No field surveys have been undertaken in relation to this assessment. Consultations 9.24 An Environmental Statement Scoping Report was issued to Cheshire West and Chester Council in March No specific issues were raised in the Scoping Opinion. Method of Assessing Significance 9.26 Determining the significance of impact is a complex issue as climate change is a consequence of numerous activities and developments across the globe, the vast majority of which are outside the control of the applicant. In this context, the approach taken has been to reasonably assess the potential impact on climate change of the Project as a result of GHG emissions and minimise the impact of the development in accordance with the EIA hierarchy set out in Table There are currently no established significance criteria for GHG emissions or a defined threshold. Therefore, the magnitude and significance criteria adopted for this 70

83 assessment have been based on the IEMA guidance previously described, and developed through professional judgement IEMA s Climate Change Mitigation and EIA Principles published in 2010 (Ref 9.12) and reinforced within the 2017 Guidance (Ref 9.10) suggests that: GHG emissions have a combined environmental effect that is approaching a scientifically defined environmental limit, as such any GHG emissions or reductions from a project might be considered to be significant; and the EIA process should, at an early stage influence the location and design of projects to optimise GHG performance and limit likely contribution to GHG emissions This Chapter has qualitatively assessed the scale and significance of effect by calculating the net GHG emissions for the Project and considering the predicted deviation from the existing baseline site condition and existing local, regional and national GHG estimates, both before and after adaptive mitigation. Magnitude of Effect 9.30 The contribution of the emissions of a single project to global climate change is small, however the combined GHG emissions as a result of global activities have been found to be significant. Determining an appropriate scale for the magnitude of effect is therefore a complex issue as the vast majority of emissions are outside of the control of the applicant Current emission levels are already having an impact on the climatic system and to avoid catastrophic climate change, the level of global warming must remain within a two-degree limit, which will be exceeded if global emission reductions are not achieved; however, even by limiting warming to two degrees, there will still be some irreversible climatic impacts This means that maintaining current emission levels (assumed to be zero), with no change in emissions as a result of the Project, would still have a climatic impact In the absence of any defined criteria for assessing magnitude of effect, a qualitative assessment utilising professional judgement and the criteria set out in Table 9.2, has been undertaken. Table 9.2: Defining Magnitude of Effect Magnitude of Effect Very High High Moderate Description Very high decrease (beneficial)/ increase (adverse) in GHG emissions relative to the baseline and the government carbon budgets. High decrease (beneficial)/ increase (adverse) in GHG emissions relative to the baseline and government carbon budgets. Moderate decrease (beneficial)/ increase (adverse) in in GHG emissions relative to the baseline and governments 71

84 Magnitude of Effect Low Negligible Description carbon budgets. Low decrease (beneficial)/ increase (adverse) in in GHG emissions relative to the existing baseline and governments carbon budgets. Negligible decrease (beneficial)/ increase (adverse) in GHG emissions relative to the existing baseline and government carbon budgets. Sensitivity of Receptor 9.34 In the case of GHG emissions, the receptor is the climatic system and as per IEMA principles, this receptor is considered to be sensitive to any increase in GHG emissions. Significance of Effect 9.35 Given that it is established that the climatic system is sensitive to any increase in GHG emissions, the level of sensitivity of the receptor does not vary and the significance of effect is applied by qualitatively assessing the impact of the magnitude of effect. The scale applied in this assessment is set out in Table The effect can either be adverse (i.e. increase in GHG emissions) or beneficial (decrease in GHG emissions). A negligible effect is also possible if the magnitude of GHG emission change is marginal. Table 9.3: Magnitude of Effect Very High High Moderate Low Negligible Defining Significance of Effect Significance of Effect Major Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible 9.37 At this stage it is considered that any major or moderate increase or decrease in GHG emissions is considered significant in EIA terms. Mitigation Methodology 9.38 Where emissions are identified as a result of the Project, the EIA Hierarchy for Managing Project Related Emissions, described in IEMA Guidance (Ref 9.12), is applied to where practicable, avoid, reduce, substitute or compensate for those emissions. The hierarchy is outlined in Table 9.4 below: Hierarchy Table 9.4: EIA Hierarchy for Managing Project Related GHG Emissions Description 72

85 Hierarchy Avoid Reduce Substitute Compensate Description Investigate and deploy options to eliminate GHG emissions Ensure that construction and operational activities will deliver efficient use of energy and resources. Commit to deploying renewables and low carbon materials, methods and technologies in place of more carbon intensive sources. Develop a strategy to compensate for residual or unavoidable emissions. Residual Impact Methodology 9.39 Given the absence of any significant criteria or thresholds, professional judgement will be utilised to determine the scale and significance of any residual impacts, as described previously under Significance of Effect described above. Baseline Environment 9.40 Baseline emissions occur as a result of activities already taking place on the existing site, and upstream/downstream of the site. Existing Baseline Environment 9.41 The site of the EFW Facility comprises approximately 10ha of land described as marshland, which until 2015 was used for agricultural purposes Whilst the Project site is described as marshland, the previous agricultural use and the pumping of water from the area indicate that the wetland is degraded, likely having caused an increase in methane emissions and loss of carbon stocks historically; the current baseline emissions are however expected to be minimal, would not change as a result of the Project and are therefore assumed to be zero As there are currently no agricultural uses on site, there are no emissions associated with agricultural practices. Predicted Baseline Environment Construction (2019) 9.44 As it is assumed that existing site emissions are zero, there is no change in the baseline by the commencement of construction at Operation (2022) 9.45 As it is assumed that existing site emissions are zero, there is no change in the baseline by the commencement of operation at Assessment of Significance of Effects Limitations and Assumptions 9.46 As this is a predictive assessment, there is inherent uncertainty in the results. As far as practicable, data specific to the Project has been used to develop the activity and emissions profiles, but in some cases this is not possible and other external sources of 73

86 data are used. In accordance with the principles of the GHG Protocol, all assumptions and data uncertainties are disclosed. Activity Data 9.47 Activity data is obtained from various sources as set out in ES Volume 4 Appendix 9.1, within the relevant emission scope and category depending on the emission type being assessed The availability of activity data is dependent on the information available at the time of the assessment. At this stage, design details are only available from the approved plans of the EFW Facility Permission, so assumptions regarding technical detailed aspects such as the design of buildings, quantities of materials and the precise quantities of waste that will be handled over time must be made. Assumptions related to each category of emissions are detailed in ES Volume 4, Appendix Estimates of operational and counterfactual operational emissions are based on data set out in a number of reports published and commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS); all assumptions applied in this assessment are fully referenced in ES Volume 4: Appendix Information pertaining to the detailed design of the scheme is not yet available, so where necessary, proxy data has been used to provide an estimate of activity for both baseline and estimated actual emissions. Assumptions made have been fully disclosed in the Data Sources sub-section for each category of emissions; any uncertainty around those assumptions has been assessed in the relevant Data Quality and Uncertainty subsection. GHG Emission Factors 9.51 In line with UK energy policy, energy infrastructure in the UK is changing, and there is an increasing proportion of renewable and low-carbon energy as a component of grid and non-grid supplies; in combination with closures of coal-fired power stations, this is supporting national decarbonisation targets The reduction of emissions associated with grid electricity has been a key focus over recent years, and as a result, the emissions associated with grid electricity have significantly reduced a trend that is predicted to continue The primary source for current emission factors used in this assessment is the UK government GHG conversion factors for company reporting (Ref 9.15), termed BEIS Emission Factors hereafter. The BEIS Emission Factors are produced annually and are provided for use by UK based organisations reporting on UK operations that occurred during the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March However, it should be noted that this data is two years out of date and relates to the period 1st April 2014 to 31st March BEIS Emission Factors are based on various sources that are reviewed at different frequencies, some of which may not be annual. Where annual averages are provided, they may not be reflective of the actual supply that will be procured. 74

87 9.55 Additionally, assessments have been made of likely future emission factors based on data published by various sources relating to the decarbonisation of energy supplies Each year, BEIS publishes updated energy projections, which analyse and project future energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. The projections are based on assumptions of future economic growth, fossil fuel prices, electricity generation costs, UK population and other key variables. They also take into account climate change policies where funding has been agreed and where decisions on policy design are sufficiently advanced to allow robust estimates of policy impacts to be made For electricity, this includes data from Table 1: Electricity emissions factors to 2100, kgco2e/kwh, supporting the Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal (Ref 9.17). This is the supplementary guidance to the Treasury s Green Book (Ref 9.16), providing government analysts with rules for valuing energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions The Green Book advises that for estimating changes in emissions from changes in grid electricity use, analysts should use the (long run) marginal grid electricity emission factors Whilst there is likely to be some reduction in the GHG emissions associated with fuels, this would be achieved through the introduction of greater quantities of bio-sources; most applications, including the gas grid, are limited by the percentage of bio-fuels they can accept, so the decarbonisation of these fuels is limited without the use of dedicated plant. Unless such plant is specified, current emission factors for fuels have been conservatively assumed and current BEIS emission factors for the use of corporate reporting have been applied Assumptions relating to other fuels are made and explained in full in ES Volume 4 Appendix 9.1 along with a full table of emission factors applied in this assessment. Matters Scoped Out 9.61 The GHG assessment (ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1) assesses the GHG emissions for the existing site (Ex), construction (C) and operation (O) of the Project. Table 9.5 sets out the emission sources within each scope and the stages at which they are relevant. Some emission sources may be relevant, but the assessment of those emissions may be disproportionate to this assessment; in those instances, emission sources have been scoped out (SO). Where emissions have been scoped out, a full justification is provided within ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1. Table 9.5: GHG Emission Scopes and Sources Scope Emission Sources within Scope Relevance Scope 1 Stationary combustion Production of electricity, heat or steam. Mobile combustion Use of fuels in mobile plant and equipment Fugitive emissions C (SO), O C (SO), O (SO) 75

88 Scope Emission Sources within Scope Relevance Agricultural emissions HFC emissions arising from the use of refrigeration and airconditioning equipment. Methane emissions Ex (SO) O (SO) Ex (SO), O Scope 2 Scope 3 Stationary combustion Use of purchased electricity, heat or steam. Mobile combustion Transportation of waste Transportation of materials/ products Employee business travel Employee commuting Process Emissions Fuel and energy related emissions Production of purchased materials/ products C (SO), O (SO) C (SO), O C (SO), O (SO) C (SO), O (SO) C (SO), O (SO) C, O C (SO), O (SO) Embedded Mitigation 9.62 The EFW Facility is designed to provide emission reductions over alternative residual waste management and marginal electricity generation methods; the emissions savings are considered to be embedded within the Project and the Project emissions are presented net of these benefits In addition, the EFW Facility is strategically placed to take advantage of circular economy opportunities; it is intended that a significant proportion of the residual materials that might otherwise go to landfill (i.e. from the bottom ash) will be recovered and that the onward processing will occur on site through the future development of a block making facility within the boundaries of Protos. Assessment of Construction Phase Effects 9.64 Construction effects are the GHG emissions that will occur as a result of the construction process. They include the on-site emissions associated with mobile construction plant and equipment (Scope 1) and the use of purchased electricity (Scope 2) in the construction process; as well as the upstream and downstream emissions (Scope 3) associated with the transport of materials, waste and employees, and the production of energy and materials used on site Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions relate to the use of energy in site cabins and in plant and machinery. There is no reliable source of information to allow an accurate estimate of these emissions, but data collected relating to the construction of an EFW plant in Sweden with a 30-month construction period was estimated to be 4,700 MWh (Ref 9.18). It is not clear what the differences in terms of construction methods are between the UK and Sweden, particularly in relation to the use of different fuels; it is expected that in the UK, a lower quantity of electricity and a higher quantity of diesel would be used, but in the absence of more reliable data, this figure has been applied to estimate the emissions associated with the construction phase of the EFW Facility. 76

89 Scope 1 emissions are therefore stated as zero, and all construction emissions are recorded under Scope The largest source of construction phase emissions will be the Scope 3 emissions embodied in the materials used to construct the EFW Facility (and the counterfactual landfill facility). Quantities of materials relating to the Project are not currently known, so proxy data based on other EFW facilities has been applied instead. In the paper Quantifying capital goods for waste incineration (Ref 9.18), data is provided for a number of different EFW facilities elsewhere. Quantities of the main building and machinery components are estimated and presented per tonne of waste handled over a 30 year operational period. This data has been used to estimate the total quantity of materials expected in the construction of the EFW Facility This data is then multiplied by available Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data for the materials identified. This includes data relating to the production of materials (Phases A1 A3) and where available, the transportation of those materials (Phase A4) Counterfactual information is available for the construction of landfill facilities, however a conservative assumption is made, assuming that the waste diverted to the EFW Facility would be managed at landfill sites already in operation Where average transportation data in not available, the emissions associated with the movement of materials are assessed assuming an average distance from source to site of 100km, moved by articulated HGV Table 9.6 sets out the estimated construction emissions for the Project. Table 9.6: Construction Emissions Construction Emissions GHG Emissions [tco 2 e] Stationary combustion: Use of purchased electricity 1,027 Total Site (Scope 1 & Scope 2) Emissions 1,027 Mobile combustion: Transportation of materials 15 Process Emissions: Fuel and energy related emissions 531 Process emissions: Processing of construction materials 642 Total Upstream & Downstream (Scope 3) Emissions 1,888 Total Construction Phase Emissions 2, During the construction phase of development, the Project is expected to result in 2,215tCO 2 e, which equates to an increase in GHG emissions equivalent to % of the carbon budget for the period. All GHG emissions are considered temporary as they occur at a single point in time and last for a known period of time, depending on their radiative efficiency; however, for 77

90 the purposes of GHG emission assessments they may result in potentially irreversible and permanent climate change impact As the assessment considers the quantity of CO 2 e over a 100-year lifespan, all operational emissions are therefore considered to have long-term effects As there is a net increase in emissions over the current site baseline, construction emissions are deemed to have a minor adverse effect on climate change (not significant). Assessment of Operational Phase Effects 9.74 Operational effects are the GHG emissions that will occur as a result of the operation of the Project. They include the Scope 1 on-site emissions associated with fuel use and Scope 2 emissions associated with the use of purchased electricity in buildings and site infrastructure; and the Scope 3 upstream and downstream emissions associated with the transport of waste and employees, and the production of energy used on site The Project will have displacement impacts during operation, which will include: the diversion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste from landfill and the generation of electricity from a partially renewable resource, resulting in lower GHG emissions than the current grid average generation mix; and the diversion of components of residual waste within the bottom ash of the incineration for use as a replacement for virgin materials in other processes downstream of the EFW Facility Energy used in the operation of the Project site is accounted for under the assessment of EFW Facility and counterfactual scenario emissions. Data on the relative contribution of input fuels (other than waste) and electricity are not known at this stage; instead, all fuel inputs and parasitic loads (assumed to be electrical) are accounted for in energy terms through the application of a net efficiency factor for each type of plant This approach assesses the power generated as a result of the system inputs, which include the waste, other fuel inputs and parasitic loads. The resultant emissions, taking into account the counterfactual landfill and marginal electricity generation scenarios are reported as Scope 1 emissions Only the fossil carbon released from the waste is considered to have a GHG impact, but biogenic emissions are also stated for information The difference between gross electricity and net energy generated relates to the additional fuel oil and electrical energy input. The proportions of fuel oil and electricity are at this stage unknown, so a worst-case assumption that all electricity is gridsupplied (and not as a result of on-site generation) is made. Fuel oil and grid electricity currently have similar emission factors, allowing an estimate of current input emissions. These are recorded under Scope 1 emissions (although it is recognised that Scope 2 purchased electricity emissions are included here as well). 78

91 9.80 Scope 2 emissions associated with the operation of the site have been scoped out on the basis that those of any significance are already included in the parasitic loads associated with the operation of the EFW Facility and as described above, are reported under Scope 1 emissions as they cannot be individually identified A 25 year operational timeframe is set out in DEFRA modelling guidance which assumes a planned lifetime for EFW plant of 25 years (Ref 9.33); emissions are therefore assessed in both Year 1 and over a 25 Year period These emissions are presented net of the emissions resulting from the counterfactual landfill and marginal electricity generation scenario Other fuel and energy related emissions related to the upstream transmission, distribution and transport of fuels are accounted for under Scope 3 emissions Upstream of site operations, waste must be transported to the site; downstream, following the generation of electricity waste products will be generated that will either be sent for further processing or sent to landfill. An assessment of the quantity of residual materials is made and used to assess the transportation emissions associated with upstream and downstream waste movements As previously outlined, in order to remain within the limits set by the UK carbon budgets, there is an on-going process of decarbonisation, particularly of the electricity grid. Over time, this will have an impact on both grid average and marginal electricity emission factors A number of scenarios have been tested, all of which are set out in ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1. The emissions presented relate to the scenario considered to most likely reflect the anticipated operational parameters of the plant Table 9.7 sets out the Year 1 (2022) annual and then cumulative emissions considering a 25-year operational period ( ). Table 9.7: Operational Emissions ( ) Operational Emission Sources ( ) Year 1 (2022 ) GHG emissions [tco 2 e] 25 Year ( ) GHG emissions [tco 2 e] Scope 1 Stationary combustion: Production of heat & electricity 134,744 3,503,334 Scope 1 Fugitive emissions: Oxidation and methane release -200,711-5,218,478 Scope 2 Stationary combustion: Use of purchased electricity -78, ,872 Total Site (Scope 1 & Scope 2) Emissions -144,493-2,517,016 Scope 3 Mobile combustion: Transportation of waste 2,777 72,196 Scope 3 Process Emissions: Fuel and energy related emissions -10, ,313 Total Upstream & Downstream (Scope 3) Emissions -7, ,214 Total Operational Phase Emissions -152,459-2,724,119 79

92 9.88 Scope 1 and 2 emissions relate directly to the operation of the EFW Facility and counterfactual landfill facility; as noted above, other scenarios have been tested. These are fully outlined in ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1 and include four different waste compositions (with differing calorific values, biogenic and fossil carbon components) and a counterfactual scenario that addresses the overall lifetime efficiency of landfill capture (as opposed to the efficiency during the operational phase) The waste composition scenario presented in Table 9.7 results in lower short-term emissions, but over the 25 year assumed life of the plant, results in a slightly smaller reduction than some of the other scenarios assessed. The range of uncertainty relating to waste composition is +11.1% in Year 1 and between +2.37% and -6.95% over the 25 year operational period The emissions stated in Table 9.7 above are the fossil emissions, which are deemed to have a GHG impact. Biogenic emissions (generated as a result of recently grown materials) are not considered to have a climatic impact, as they have recently sequestered carbon which is accounted for elsewhere. However, it is best practice to separately state these emissions and these are provided in Table 9.8. Table 9.8: Biogenic Emissions Operational Emission Sources ( ) Year 1 (2022) GHG emissions [tco 2 e] 25 Year ( ) GHG emissions [tco 2 e] Scope 1 Stationary combustion: Production of heat & electricity -187,652-4,878,952 Scope 1 Fugitive emissions: Oxidation and methane release -15, ,812 Scope 2 Stationary combustion: Use of purchased electricity - - Total Site (Scope 1 & Scope 2) Emissions -203,491-5,290, Beyond the fossil emissions saved, the EFW Facility prevents the release of 5,290,763tCO 2 e biogenic emissions. Whilst these emissions are considered short-term and are accounted for elsewhere, the EFW Facility provides additional benefit in ensuring that these emissions remain sequestered and are not released Further benefit will also be delivered through the recovery of residual waste materials from the incineration process (e.g. bottom ash and metals); these benefits are outside the scope of this assessment and have not been calculated During the operational phase of development, the Project is expected to result in a GHG saving of 2,724,119tCO 2 e; this is equivalent to 0.03% of the 25 Year carbon budget for the period. Table 9.9: 25 Year Operational Emissions compared with UK Carbon Budgets 25 Year Operational Emissions Year Carbon Budget [million tco 2 e] 7,998 Net Project Operational Emissions [tco 2 e] -2,724,119 80

93 Net Project Operational Emissions as % of Carbon Budget % 9.94 All GHG emissions are considered temporary as they occur at a single point in time and last for a known period of time, depending on their radiative efficiency; however, for the purposes of GHG emission assessments they may result in potentially irreversible and permanent climate change impact As the assessment considers the quantity of CO 2 e over a 100-year lifespan, all operational emissions are therefore considered to have long-term effects As there is a moderate net reduction in emissions over the current site baseline, operational emissions are deemed to have a high beneficial effect on climate change (considered to be of moderate beneficial significance, and in EIA terms, therefore significant). Assessment of Decommissioning Phase Effects 9.97 Decommissioning effects are the GHG emissions that will occur as a result of the decommissioning of the Project. As decommissioning is not expected to take place in the short- to medium-term, it is difficult to predict with any certainty decommissioning phase effects; the following qualitative assessment has been made in the absence of any detailed data Beyond the useful life of the plant (assumed 25 years), it is likely that the site would continue to be used for energy generation or waste management purposes. In doing so, more efficient plant and equipment are likely to be specified, and so the operational emissions would not be expected to increase In decommissioning the plant and buildings, it is anticipated that the majority of materials could be recovered and/ or recycled, resulting the quantity of virgin materials required from elsewhere and reducing in an emissions benefit The decommissioning of the site is therefore likely to have a negligible effect (not significant). Assessment of Cumulative Effects Intra-Project Cumulative Effects All relevant GHG emissions associated with other EIA topics (as presented in the ES 2016 and Scoping Report 2018) have been considered within this chapter and no additional intra-project effects are considered likely. The impact of global emissions is considered in the adaptation section of this Chapter For the reasons as set out above there is therefore no need to assess any intra-project cumulative effects. Inter-Project Cumulative Effects The GHG emissions presented in this Chapter are based on circumstances specific to the Project; whilst external factors could have an impact on the quantity of estimated emissions, reasonable endeavours have been taken to ensure that likely scenarios are 81

94 accounted for, for example in projections of future emission factors. Beyond this, there are no specific projects identified that are likely to have an inter-project effect on the quantity of GHG emissions It should be noted that IEMA s overarching principles on climate change and EIA state that the GHG emissions from all projects will contribute to climate change, the largest inter-related cumulative environmental effect. Central estimates of the effects of climate change are presented as part of the Adaptation section of this Chapter, and no further assessment of cumulative effects is considered necessary. Mitigation of Effects IEMA guidance recommends the use of the IEMA GHG Mitigation Hierarchy which presents a structure for mitigating GHG emissions and which has been adopted in relation to the Project; this is outlined in Table No significant effects for the construction and decommissioning phases have been identified and mitigation measures are not required Despite the assessment of the operational GHG effects of the Project on climate change revealing a moderate beneficial effect, additional mitigation measures have been considered on the basis that any further reductions in GHG emissions can only be beneficial. Table 9.10: Proposed Mitigation Measures Potential effect Proposed mitigation Means of implementation Mechanism for securing mitigation Construction Quantity of GHG Emissions N/A N/A N/A Operation Quantity of GHG Emissions Monitoring of biogenic and fossil content of waste and adjustment of waste streams to target the proportion that is biogenic is on average > 62%. Operational monitoring procedures. Operational monitoring procedures. Residual Effects Table 9.11: Summary of Residual Effects Description of impact Significance of effect Possible mitigation Residual effect 82

95 measures Construction Phase Quantity of GHG emissions Minor adverse effect (not significant) n/a Minor adverse effect (not significant) Operational Phase Quantity of GHG emissions Moderate beneficial effect (significant) Monitoring of biogenic and fossil content of waste and adjustment of waste streams to ensure the proportion that is biogenic is on average > 62%. Moderate beneficial effect (significant) Cumulative (Intra-Project and Inter-Project) Quantity of GHG emissions No effects n/a No effects Monitoring Monitoring procedures will be implemented by the EFW Facility operator in order to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Permit for the facility, and for voluntary reporting purposes (for example, the submission of GHG emissions data to the Carbon Disclosure Project). 83

96 Section 2: Climate Change Adaptation Introduction This section of the climate change chapter addresses the issue of climate change adaptation i.e. how the Project may be affected by the future climate and what measures, if any, are needed to adapt to the future climate and improve resilience. This section has been guided by the IEMA adaptation guidance (Ref 9.11) in combination with professional judgement of the Chapter authors It should be noted that the assessment of climate change in new development is still an emerging science despite the recent publication of specific guidance from IEMA (Ref 9.101). The guidance acknowledges that the documents are not a prescriptive how to guide but provides areas for consideration by EIA practitioners which should be applied in accordance with professional judgement. Assessment Methodology Climate change is anticipated to have a significant impact on the UK climate leading to more frequent periods of weather extremes including higher peak and average temperatures and increased rainfall events There is now a requirement within the EIA Regulations for the built environment to understand the potential future effects of climate change and identify the need for any resilience measures It is also appropriate to note that the potential effects of climate change may also be addressed by other chapters within this ES in accordance with policy and legislation specific to that environmental topic. This chapter will not duplicate such work but will reference such assessments where necessary in order to provide a holistic overview of how the impacts of climate change has been assessed for the Project Key development elements which are affected by climate change in the context of the Project include hydrology, and ecology. Where appropriate key measures included within the site application documents considered to be embedded mitigation such as the EMP have been reviewed. Details of climate change adaptation measures considered in this assessment are included as part of the intra-project cumulative effects section further on in this chapter The method of assessment adopted in this chapter to assess climate change adaptation comprises the following principal components: A review of legislation, regulation and planning policy, focussing on climate change issues (as set out above). Identification of the existing baseline climatic conditions utilising data from the met office and identification of the relevant UKCP09 future climate change scenario and baseline (see above). 84

97 Preparation of a strategic Climate Change Risk Assessment which identifies the risks Project receptors as a result of climate change. A qualitative assessment of the potential effects and impacts of the future climate change scenario during the construction and operational phases of the development. Identification of any mitigation measures as necessary and a review of the residual impacts. The Study Area The study area for the climate change adaptation assessment comprises the Project which includes the site of the development and associated enabling works including the first phase of the scheme for upgrading the existing berth on the Manchester Ship Canal linked to the development permission Due to the nature of climate change, the impacts and implications of the effects may be outside of the study area and may be affected by the development or have an impact on the development, for example: the risk of surface water flooding, likely to increase due to climate change, can both impact on the development with surface water from the surrounding area impacting on the site or surface water from the site travelling across the site boundary to the wider area. Baseline Surveys The current and future baseline climate data for the Project are based on available data from the UK Met Office and the UK Climate Change Projections published in Desk Based Research Current Climatic Baseline The current climatic baseline is based on the long-term average data from the UK Met Office (Ref 9.20). The Met Office continually records climate data from over 300 locations around the UK and long-term average data from is available The nearest climate station to the Project is Hawarden approximately 18km to the south west and is considered appropriate to use in setting out the baseline conditions for the site. This has been used qualitatively to provide context for the assessment of future climate change. Climate Change Predictions The future baseline and climate change adaptation assessment are based on data sourced from the UKCP09 website which is the source of the climate projection data for the United Kingdom (UK). The UKCP09 website (Ref 9.21) is managed by the Environment Agency working with the Met Office The UKCP09 website allows users to access information on plausible changes in 21st century climate for the United Kingdom. UKCP09 provides future climate Projections for land and marine regions as well as observed (past) climate data for the UK UKCP09 was produced in 2009, funded by a number of agencies led by DEFRA. It is based on sophisticated scientific methods provided by the Met Office, with input from 85

98 over 30 contributing organisations. UKCP09 can be used to help organisations assess potential impacts of the projected future climate and to explore adaptation options to address those impacts UKCP09 provides climate projections for the UK for three different future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: a low emissions scenario; a medium emissions scenario; and a high emissions scenario. All three scenarios are based on the scenarios presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Emissions Scenarios Report (Ref 9.22). The climate projections under each scenario differ with greater variability in climate impacts Projected using the high emissions scenario with corresponding lower variability from the low emissions scenario The consideration of potential climate change impacts have been undertaken in accordance with defined and agreed timeframes for construction and operation. Table 9.12 below details the anticipated project construction and operational timescales. Table 9.12: Project and UKCPO9 timeframes Timeframe Construction First Operation Long Term Operation Project Timeframe Corresponding UKCPO9 Timeframe In this context it is proposed that to identify the key effects of climate change on the Project data will be sourced from the UKCP09 for the periods of 2020 and 2050 under the high emissions scenario to determine the change in local climate and impacts faced by the Project It should also be noted that the Government has recently provided funding to update the UKCP09 datasets in line with recent trends in global GHG emissions and internationally significant GHG reduction agreements such as the Paris Accord. Field Survey Work No field surveys were considered necessary for the production of the climate change adaptation assessment as the effects of climate change are related to the construction and operation of the Project and not the existing site. Consultations Consultations have been carried out as necessary with the project team and those consultants responsible for preparing supporting information such as the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Flood Risk Assessment and Habitat Management and Creation Plan. These key documents are considered to be embedded mitigation, and will be implemented pursuant to replicated conditions of the EFW Facility Permission. Method of Assessing Significance Determining the magnitude and significance of climate change on the Project is a complex issue given the uncertainty in the magnitude of the future changes to the climate and the frequency of climate change related events. 86

99 9.131 The magnitude, sensitivity and significance criteria adopted for this assessment have been developed based on available IEMA guidance and through the application of professional judgement. The tables in this section provide a summary of how significance of impact has been determined for the climate change adaptation assessment. Magnitude of Effect Table 9.13 sets out the definition for the magnitude of the effects associated with climate change, which have the potential to impact on the construction and operational phases of the different Project components The effects of climate change can be either positive or negative; for example, an increase in winter temperature could create a positive impact by improving working conditions, or, an increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature could lead to overheating of buildings thereby creating a negative impact Potential negative impacts can be seasonal or on-going and could have physical effects (for example on structural elements such buildings and roads), or operational effects (for example on how buildings are operated during climate events). Table 9.13: Climate Change Adaptation Defining Magnitude of Effect Magnitude of Effect High Moderate Low Very low Negligible Description On-going annual impact with the potential for extreme events to cause operational or structural damage. For example higher temperatures causing a major failure in structures or buildings with the potential for injury. Seasonal impact with the potential for climatic events to cause operational or structural damage. For example, increased summer maximum temperatures could affect structures through the movement of materials, foundations etc. Seasonal impact with the potential for minor operational loss. For example, higher summer temperatures could cause overheating which could lead to a loss in operational hours. Increased maintenance required to mitigate annual operational impacts. For example, increased winter rainfall could cause damage to drainage systems resulting in additional maintenance requirements. Minimal impact, either positive or negative and likely to be mitigated through resilience measures included through regulatory or best practice. Sensitivity of Receptor The sensitivity of the identified receptors is key in determining the need for mitigation. In the case of the Project the most sensitive receptors are considered to be those whereby any impact may lead to a risk or injury to humans or that may constitute safety critical infrastructure. The Climate Change Risk Assessment Summary set out in 87

100 the Predicted Future Baseline section identifies the potential risks of climate change and receptors Table 9.14 therefore sets out criteria for determining the sensitivity of a receptor which will be identified using professional judgement. Table 9.14: Climate Change Adaptation Defining Sensitivity of Receptors Sensitivity of identified receptor High Moderate Low Very Low Negligible Description Receptor particularly sensitive to the climate effect and potential impacts, and/or, receptor includes safety critical infrastructure which if damaged could result in significant risks to people and/or property. Mitigation is required to reduce the impact as a priority. Receptor sensitive to the climate effect and potential impacts and mitigation will need to be provided Receptor has low sensitivity to potential climate effects, additional mitigation may be considered to further reduce sensitivity to the climate effect Receptor has very low sensitivity to potential climate effects and mitigation unlikely to be required, although could be used to improve resilience. Receptor not sensitive to the effects of climate change effects and mitigation not required. Significance of Effect The significance of the effects has been assessed using Table 9.15, which has been developed based on IEMA guidance (Ref 9.11) and professional judgement, which defines the significance from negligible, i.e. a very low magnitude of impact likely to only effect annual maintenance with a very low sensitivity of the receptor and unlikely to need specific mitigation, to, a major adverse effect where there is the potential for impacts to particularly sensitive receptors and where additional mitigation will be required Depending on the effect the significance of effect may be either positive or negative. Table 9.15: Climate Change Adaptation - Significance of Effect Climate Change Adaptation Significance of Effect Magnitude of Effect Sensitivity of Receptor High Moderate Low Very Low Negligible High Major Major Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Major Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Low Moderate Moderate/Mi nor Minor Negligible Negligible 88

101 Climate Change Adaptation Significance of Effect Very Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible At this stage it is considered that any effects with moderate negative or moderate beneficial significance and above are considered significant in EIA terms and would require mitigation to ensure the resilience of the Project to climate change effects. Climate Change Resilience Once the significance of the impact has been identified the resilience of the Project to the impact of the climatic variables will be assessed The level of climate change resilience will be assessed using Table 9.16 below which has been developed using professional judgement. Table 9.16: Climate Change Resilience Climate resilience level High Medium Low Very Low Definition A low level of climate vulnerability to specific climate risk. Further action or adaptation not considered necessary. A moderate level of vulnerability remains. Further action or adaptation could improve resilience, however appropriate resilience is considered to have been provided. A significant level of vulnerability to specific climate risk remains. Mitigating action or adaptation is required. A very significant level of vulnerability to specific climate risk remains. Mitigating action or adaptation is required. Mitigation Methodology The assessment of effects and climate change resilience will identify potentially significant effects which require mitigation. Once identified, consultation will be undertaken with the appropriate members of the Project team to determine appropriate mitigation. This will include measures which include both physical mitigation and management control measures In addition, the initial assessment will identify areas where additional enhancement may be provided to improve the climate change resilience of the Project. Opportunities for enhancements will be reviewed alongside the required mitigation. Residual Impact Methodology The residual impact of the identified climate change effects will be reassessed taking into account of any proposed mitigation using the methodology described above The residual impact assessment will determine the final climate change resilience of the Project. 89

102 Baseline Environment This section sets out the existing and future baseline conditions, setting out how the UK and North West climate is anticipated to change over time relevant to the Project The EIA Regulations 2017 require that the ES presents an outline of the likely evolution of baseline conditions without implementation of the Project (i.e. the do nothing scenario ) as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge With regards to adaptation, as noted in the previous section, the future baseline scenario at 2050 is presented as this is considered to be the worst case future climate scenario for the purposes of the assessment based on the anticipated long-term operation of the site The existing and future climatic scenarios, based on UKCP09 projections are set out below to aid the qualitative assessment of the predicted effects of climate change on the Project. Existing Baseline Environment (2018) The existing climate for the Project Site is represented by Hawarden climate station (Ref 9.23), approximately 18km to the south west of the Project Area; Table 9.17 sets out the average climate data from 1981 to

103 Table 9.17: Baseline Climate Data Month Max. temp ( C) ( C) Min. temp( C) ( C) Days of air frost (days) Sunshine (hours) Rainfall (mm) Days of rainfall >= 1 mm (days) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Predicted Future Baseline Environment With regards to the predicted future baseline, the Project comprises of two phases: the Construction Phase (2019); and the Operational phase (from 2022). Table 9.12 sets out the timeframe for each phase and the corresponding climate change period used in the assessment of effects The following sections set out the potential climate change risks to the Project, identifying potential risks and receptors, and future climate impacts. Climate Change Risk Assessment This section sets out the assessment of climate change effects on the different stages of construction, operation and decommissioning, taking into consideration the potential impacts of climate change and potential risks these pose to development; and embedded mitigation measures included at this stage Following a review of the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 (Ref 9.19), relevant guidance and the anticipated future climate within the North West of England the following climate change risks and opportunities have been identified that are specific to the Project. 91

104 Table 9.18: Climate Change Risk Climate Change Impact Risk Opportunity Receptors Increase in winter mean temperature Risk to species and habitats from changing climate space Opportunity for new species colonisation and increase in climate space Habitats and species Opportunity for improvement in health and wellbeing, i.e. during construction Construction employees Opportunity for reduced energy use and therefore reduced GHG emissions Operational energy use climate change mitigation Increased summer mean and daily maximum temperature Risk to species and habitats from changing climate space Increase in energy demand from additional cooling required in buildings Opportunity for new species colonisation and increase in climate space Habitats and species Operational energy use contributing to climate change Risk of overheating impacting health and wellbeing Building occupants Risk of extreme heat for energy infrastructure EfW operation Decrease in summer rainfall Risk to species and habitats from water restrictions Habitats and species Risk to fresh water supplies Habitats and species Risk to building and infrastructure foundations from ground movement and differential settlement Building infrastructure Increase in winter rainfall Risk of increase in flooding (fluvial and surface water) due to increased rainfall Building infrastructure, habitats and species and 92

105 Climate Change Impact Risk Opportunity Receptors building occupants Sea Level Rise Risk to building and infrastructure foundations from ground movement and differential settlement Increased risk for coastal flooding and erosion Building infrastructure Building infrastructure, habitats and species and building occupants Given the nature of the development and the provision of local energy, there is also an inherent risk to an element of local infrastructure. Construction (2019) The initial construction is anticipated to begin in 2019 and continue through to 2022 when the site becomes operational. Given the short timescale for construction, the potential climate change impacts are considered minimal. In this context the climate change predictions to 2020 are used in the assessment of construction phase effects Table 9.19 below summarises the UKCP09 dataset for North West England for the 2020s (Ref 9.24), for the high emissions scenario, covering the construction phase of the Project. Table 9.19: UKCP09 North West England Climate Change Projections as obtained from the UKCP09 website (Central Estimate, High Emissions Scenario) Timeframe 2020s Temperature Increase in winter mean temperature is 1.2C Increase in summer mean temperature is 1.5C Increase in summer mean maximum temperature is 1.9C Increase in summer mean daily minimum temperature is 1.4C Rainfall Change in annual mean precipitation is 0% Change in winter mean precipitation is 4% Change in summer mean precipitation is -5% Operation (2022) 93

106 9.158 It is anticipated the site will become operational in 2022 and is anticipated to be operational for at least 25 years in line with the DEFRA plant life expectancy (Ref 9.33). The climate change impacts over this time period are anticipated to be significant and therefore the climate change projections to 2050 have been used as a worst case scenario Beyond this point the climate change effects are anticipated to become more pronounced and extreme and may continue to have, or have more severe effects on development. At this stage the long term lifespan of the development is not known and given the potential variability in projections this has not been assessed at this stage. Climate Change Impacts Temperature and Rainfall Table 9.20 below summarises the UKCP09 dataset for North West England for the 2050s (Ref 9.25), for the high emissions scenario, in line with the operational phase of the Project. Table 9.20: UKCP09 North West England Climate Change Projections as obtained from the UKCP09 website (Central Estimate, High Emissions Scenario) Timeframe 2020s 2050s Temperature Rainfall Increase in winter mean temperature is 1.2C Increase in summer mean temperature is 1.5C Increase in summer mean maximum temperature is 1.9C Increase in summer mean daily minimum temperature is 1.4C Change in annual mean precipitation is 0% Change in winder mean precipitation is 4% Change in summer mean precipitation is -5% Increase in winter mean temperature is 2.1C Increase in summer mean temperature is 3C Increase in summer mean maximum temperature is 3.8C Increase in summer mean daily minimum temperature is 2.9C Change in annual mean precipitation is 0% Change in winter mean precipitation is 13% Change in summer mean precipitation is -18% Climate Change Impacts Wind, Storms, Lightning, Snow and Fog In addition to the summary of findings set out in Tables 9.19 and 9.20, Table 9.21 presents the UKCP09 climate change predictions of potential changes relating to wind, storms, lightning, snow and fog where possible for the period up to For each of the climate variables below, where available the change described is specific to the period up to 2050 where possible (and 2080 where stated due to data limitations) and takes into account the 50% probability estimated; this is used on the basis that it is considered a worst-case scenario for assessment. 94

107 Table 9.21: Changes in Wind, Storms, Lightning, Snow and Fog in the North West Climate Variable Estimated potential changes at 2050 and where stated 2080 Wind (Ref 9.26) Storms (Ref 9.27) Lightning (Ref 9.28) Snow (Ref 9.29) Fog (Ref 9.30) Minor decrease in wind speed of between -0.1m/s in winter and -0.2 in summer under the high emissions scenario. There is no consistent signal of change in either storms or blocking near the UK. Such changes as are seen are relatively modest, and the potential for substantial change appears to be small. Data is not time specific. Increase in lighting projected for all four seasons across the UK up to the period of Reduced snowfall - Snow days projected to reduce by 80-90% in winter and 60-80% in Spring due to a shift from snow to rain up to the period of Reduced fog predicted across the UK between 10-40% through to the year Climate Change Impacts Sea Level Rise One of the key impacts of Climate Change is rising sea levels and over the course of the 21st Century the UK projections show the potential for sea level to rise by around 40-50cm above 1990 levels by Table 9.22 presents the UKCP09 sea level rise predictions (Ref 9.3) which demonstrate the anticipated sea level rise for the UK in four key locations, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Situated between Cardiff and Belfast the Mersey Estuary is anticipated to be impacted by sea level rise by a comparable amount With regards to the Project, sea level rise could increase the risk of flooding given the location of the site leading to an increased risk, or regularity of inundation at high tide which could damage equipment and infrastructure, pose a risk to human health and/or impact on the operation of the site. 95

108 Table 9.22: UKCP09 - Climate Change Projections - Sea Level Rise Year London Cardiff Edinburgh Belfast High Med Low High Med Low High Med Low High Med Low

109 Summary of Climate Change Impacts Qualitatively, the future climate of the Project location at 2020, and with increasing variability up to 2050, will likely include: an increase in annual average temperature by 2.1 degrees in winter and 3 degrees in summer; more very hot days, particularly in long term operation, with an increase in daily maximum temperature of 3.8 degrees; more intense downpours of rain; a reduction in snowfall, with winter rainfall increasing by 13%; an increase in dry spells, particularly in summer months, with summer rainfall dropping by 18%; minimal change in wind speed; no consistent changes in storm frequency; An increase in lightning events; reduced fog and snowfall; and A significant increase in sea level rise between 40 and 53cm over the next 80 years In this context, for the assessment of effects, the following impacts have been identified: Increase in winter mean temperature. Increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature. Decrease in summer rainfall. Increase in winter rainfall. Sea level rise. Assessment of Effects The following sections set out the assessment of climate change effects on the different stages of construction and operation and decommissioning of the Project Table 9.18 and the Climate Change Risk Assessment Summary set out the potential climate change impacts, associated areas of risk and receptors considered in the following Assessment of Effects. 97

110 9.170 The following sections and tables set out the initial assessment of effects with the Embedded Mitigation proposed and the level of climate change resilience incorporated into the Project at this stage Given the construction timeframe proposed the impacts have been considered under the climate change projections for 2020 which have a lower impact than those stretching out to As the construction phase is relatively short the effects of climate change over this period are predominantly considered to be temporary. Limitations and Assumptions There are a number of limitations and assumptions relevant to the climate change projections and adaptation assessment carried out in this chapter; these are set out in the following sections. Climate Change Projections The future impacts of climate change are based on data from the IPCC (Ref 9.22), reviewed and updated for the UK climate. The IPCC data is based upon a range of assumptions with regards to global GHG emissions and climate modelling which themselves are variable The UK projections as set out on the UKCP09 website provides climate projections for the UK for three different future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, low, medium and high. The climate projections under each scenario differ with greater variability in climate impacts projected using the high emissions scenario with corresponding lower variability from the low emissions scenario At this time, the UKCP09 data is being updated in light of recent GHG emission data and internationally significant GHG emission reduction agreements such as the Paris Accord. These variances in data and predicted future climate must therefore be considered in the context of this assessment In this context the data and projections themselves may change in the future, however while the expected temperature or rainfall changes may alter it is anticipated the overall trends generated are proven and provide a sound basis for the assessment of effects set out in this Chapter. Climate Change Adaptation Assessment Climate change adaptation is a unique assessment as it reviews the impacts of the changing climate and how this may affect the Project. As acknowledged within the IEMA Guidance, there is no regulated or agreed method of presenting climate information and approaches vary depending on the scale of the Project and the application of professional judgement Where possible as part of this assessment key evidence to determine the risks posed by climate change to the Project have been reviewed to provide context for the qualitative assessment carried out. This approach is considered suitable given the nature of the Project. 98

111 Matters Scoped Out Utilising professional judgement, it is considered that the following future climatic factors can be scoped out of this assessment: Wind and Storms - Potential impacts associated with wind and storms: Given the marginal projected difference in the 2050 (worst case) scenario from the current baseline no significant effects from climate change influenced wind or storms are anticipated. Lightning - Although there is an anticipated increase in lightning events from the current baseline these are relatively rare with the vast majority confined to the atmosphere with little or no impact upon the built environment, new buildings and structures include lightning protection as standard. It is therefore not considered appropriate to assess the potential effects and impacts of lightning further. Fog - The occurrence of fog is also thought to reduce as a result of climate change and as this is a phenomenon that currently does not appear to have any negative impact on the built environment it is not considered appropriate to assess this further. Snowfall - A significantly reduced occurrence of snowfall is likely to have a projected benefit on the Project in terms of reduced disruption due to a decrease in snow days; however it is noted that the reduced snowfall will transfer to an increase in rainfall. Embedded Mitigation As part of the original application for the project, a number of technical documents were prepared which include a range of physical and management/control measures in relation to the potential impacts of climate change Through a review of the supporting documents deemed to be embedded mitigation and consultation with the relevant members of the project team, the following embedded climate change adaptation mitigation has been considered during the initial assessment of effects. Environmental Management Plan The Environmental Management Plan prepared by RSK in May 2015 sets out the environmental commitments to be delivered by the Construction Contractor and includes guidance and measures in relation to construction including: Environmental Management; Air Quality; Waste Management; Ecology; and Pollution Prevention The 2015 EMP sets out a framework for the entire Ince Park Project and outlines the environmental commitments to be delivered. As a framework document, individual developments, including the EFW Facility, are required to prepare a detailed Project Environmental Plan (PEP) setting out how environmental issues will be identified and managed during the construction phase. 99

112 9.185 At this stage, the EMP does not include any specific climate change adaptation measures beyond those which are inherent in legislative requirements relating to construction Through discussions with the project team the preparation of the specific EFW Facility PEP will include a section to consider the impacts of climate change and will form part of the residual mitigation/ climate change enhancements for the development The implementation of the measures in the EMP has been conditioned to the EFW Facility Permission (Condition 15) which will be replicated on a new planning permission. Flood Risk Assessment The Flood Risk Assessment [FRA] prepared by RSK in July 2016 set out the potential sources of flood risk for the site and appropriate mitigation measures including consideration of climate change. The implementation of the measures in the FRA have been conditioned to the EFW Facility Permission (Conditions 27, 28, and 45). These conditions will be replicated on a new planning permission. The FRA builds on the Surface Water Management Plan prepared by RSK in 2010 which sets out the surface water management strategy for the site The Project is located in a defended Flood Zone 3 and is subject to potential flooding form both fluvial (river) sources of the Ince Marsh Catchment and from tidal inundation As part of the assessment of the site the FRA considers the risk of flooding from rivers, sea and surface water and includes a range of mitigation measures to reduce the risk of flooding to and from the site and protect site infrastructure and occupants which are summarised below Peak Rainfall The FRA and surface water management strategy have considered a 40% allowance for climate change for rainfall. The wider development site includes the creation of new attenuation ponds and management of the existing site ditches to attenuate surface water flows before discharging locally Peak River Flows The FRA includes a 70% increase in peak rivers flows. The development is considered outside the flood level for the 1 in 100 year event including the 70% allowance Sea Level Change To minimise the potential risk from tidal flooding, the development floor levels will be set above the predicted sea level rise of 415mm over a 60 year period, taking into account a 1 in 200 year flood event In addition to the measures above, a range of additional flood mitigation measures will be included such as minimum road levels, minimum flood levels, provision of flood warning systems and implementation of a flood plan showing evacuation procedures and routes. 100

113 Habitat Creation Management Plan The Habitat Creation Management Plan [HCMP] prepared by RSK to support the application for the RRP provides an overview of the existing site and measures proposed to mitigate and enhance the ecology and biodiversity of the site. The HCMP will be implemented pursuant to the terms of the SPO attached to the EFW Facility Permission (and RRP S73 Permission 2015) and will be replicated on a new planning permission via a Deed of Variation (submitted with this application) As part of the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (Ref 9.19), a number of evidence documents have been prepared. This includes Chapter 3: Natural Environment and Natural Assets (Ref 9.32) which sets out the potential climate change risks and opportunities facing habitats and species in the UK The report concludes that there are both opportunities and risks as a result of climate change with species climate space changing as temperatures and rainfall profiles across the country change. In addition, the provision of greater resilience now is easier than attempting to restore biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services once they have been degraded In this context, it is anticipated that increasing ecological value and biodiversity and taking into account potential local climate changes could improve long term resilience of the Project to climate change In addition, taking an ecosystem based approach could deliver synergies between climate change and mitigation. For example, measures to restore natural carbon stores such as the reinstatement of saltmarsh and woodlands could contribute to reducing GHG emissions, and could also directly increase resilience to climate change effects such as flooding The Project site forms part of the wider Protos development site and currently comprises of land previously used for agricultural livestock grazing and arable farming. To mitigate the impact of the wider development and Project, the HCMP identifies five key mitigation areas and ten operational objectives designed to manage and enhance existing habitats and species as well as ecological enhancements in the proposed mitigation areas The creation of mitigation areas A and C are noted to include a series of shallow scrapes planted with wet meadow planting and will be regularly inundated. The creation of this type of wetland area could have additional GHG benefits The measures proposed and long term management of the site aim to improve the habitat quality and diversity; improving site ecology and biodiversity is considered to be key to enhancing the ability of habitats and species to adapt to climate change. In this context, the proposals set out in the HCMP are anticipated to reduce the risk of climate change and provide resilience to climate change. Assessment of Construction Phase Effects Table 9.23 sets out the assessment of construction phase effects related to the Project. At this stage it is anticipated that given the short-term nature of the construction phase, and limited climate change impacts during the 2020s, the significant 101

114 environmental effects which would require additional mitigation beyond that embedded into the proposals are relatively limited. The potentially significant effects are identified and noted below. Significant Effects Annual temperature and rainfall fluctuations - Increased temperature extremes and changes to rainfall over the longer term can cause issues with ground conditions and differential settlement rates leading to a potential risk to building and infrastructure foundations in the long term. While these effects may manifest themselves during the operation of the site the mitigation is required at the construction phase Given the nature of this impact the magnitude is considered moderate, as is the sensitivity of buildings and infrastructure. At this stage the EMP sets no embedded mitigation beyond that which is inherent in legislation and Building Regulations on the construction of foundations, buildings and infrastructure. Enhanced Climate Change Resilience In addition to the significant effects identified above, there are aspects of the construction phase where there is no significant effect due to the embedded mitigation proposed, however the resilience of the development to climate change could be improved through enhanced mitigation. During the construction phase this includes the following: Higher average summer temperatures construction employee welfare: At this stage the EMP has been developed in line with relevant legislation but includes no specific measures to enhance the welfare of employees during construction during periods of increased summer average and maximum temperatures. Decreased summer rainfall: The potential for a decrease in summer rainfall may lead to an increase in water stress in the local area; this could impact on water resources available for construction. Whilst the Project is in an area of low water stress, and therefore this is not considered a significant effect, measures could be put in place to minimise resource use which could enhance climate change resilience. 102

115 Table 9.23: Assessment of Construction Phase Effects Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and nature of impact Sensitivity of receptor(s) Significance of effect Climate change resilience Increase in winter mean temperature Higher average winter temperatures are likely to result in lower instances of disruption from ice and snow and provide for a warmer working environment. No embedded mitigation proposed Low beneficial This is a temporary impact associated with construction. Low Sensitivity of construction equipment and employees and equipment considered low. Minor Beneficial (Not Significant) High Increase in summer daily maximum temperature Higher average mean summer temperatures and daily maximum temperatures may increase the potential for impacts upon the foundations of infrastructure and buildings as a result of shrinkage. No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation Moderate negative Ground movement has the potential to have structural impacts to development elements. Moderate Buildings, and infrastructure sensitive to ground movement and foundation damage Moderate negative (Significant) Medium Higher average mean summer temperatures and daily maximum temperatures may lead to a health and safety risk. No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation Low negative temporary impact associated with construction Moderate Sensitivity of employees moderate given lack of enhancements noted in EMP. Minor negative (Not Significant) Medium 103

116 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and nature of impact Sensitivity of receptor(s) Significance of effect Climate change resilience Increase in winter rainfall An increase in winter rainfall may increase the potential for construction site flooding, damage to materials and disruption to construction. The EMP sets out guidance on the storage of waste and materials to avoid impacts from flooding. Low negative - This is a temporary impact associated with construction Very Low - Sensitivity of construction equipment and construction considered Negligible (Not Significant) High Increase in winter rainfall An increase in winter rainfall may increase the potential for contamination to nearby water courses and/or ground water through increased run off washing contaminants from the site. The EMP sets out measures to minimise the risk of surface water flooding and location of diesel storage tanks on hardstanding as well as a section on Pollution prevention during construction. Very Low negative - This is a temporary impact associated with construction but mitigation will reduce potential magnitude Low With the potential for pollution to nearby watercourses these receptors are considered to have a low sensitivity Minor adverse (Not Significant) High Increased winter rainfall Increased winter rainfall may increase the potential for impacts upon the foundations of infrastructure and buildings as a result of ground movement and subsistence. No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation Moderate negative Ground movement has the potential to have structural impacts to development elements. Moderate Buildings and infrastructure sensitive to ground movement and foundation damage Moderate negative (Significant) Medium 104

117 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and nature of impact Sensitivity of receptor(s) Significance of effect Climate change resilience Decrease in summer rainfall A decrease in summer rainfall may restrict water supply disrupting construction. No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation Low Lack of water availability has the potential for minor seasonal operational loss Low Located in an area of low water stress no additional mitigation is considered necessary. Minor negative (Not Significant) Medium While no mitigation is considered necessary the use of water management measures to reduce water consumption can improve resilience. Decrease in summer rainfall A decrease in summer rainfall may lead to an increase in dust generation from construction due to dry land conditions impacting on existing habitats. The EMP sets out measures to mitigate the risk of air quality and dust pollution. Very Low negative - This is a temporary impact associated with construction Very Low Low sensitivity of receptors to dust considered appropriate Negligible (Not Significant) High Sea Level Change An increase in sea level has the potential to increase tidal flooding potential of the site which could affect construction, site employees and lead to pollution. No embedded mitigation at this stage Low Potential risk during high tides/storm surges, however the short term nature of construction Low The short term nature of the construction phase means the risk of sea level rise impacting the Minor negative (Not Significant) High 105

118 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and nature of impact Sensitivity of receptor(s) limits this effect. site is low. Significance of effect Climate change resilience 106

119 Assessment of Operational Phase Effects Table 9.24 sets out the assessment of operational effects of future climate change on the Project. Given the operational timeframe proposed the impacts have been considered under the climate change projections for 2050 to cover the operation of the EFW Facility over 25 years and worst case scenario. Significant Effects Annual temperature and rainfall fluctuations: Increased temperature extremes and changes to rainfall over the longer term can cause issues with ground conditions and differential settlement rates leading to a potential risk to building and infrastructure foundations in the long term. While these effects may manifest themselves during the operation of the site the mitigation is required at the construction phase Given the nature of this impact the magnitude is considered moderate, as is the sensitivity of the projects buildings and infrastructure. At this stage the EMP sets no embedded mitigation beyond that which is inherent in legislation and the Building Regulations on the construction of foundations, buildings and infrastructure. Residual mitigation is required to ensure the design and construction of these elements takes into account the long term potential for negative effect. 107

120 Table 9.24: Assessment of Operational Stage Effects Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and Sensitivity of nature of impact receptor(s) Significance Climate change resilience Increase in winter mean temperature Higher winter mean temperatures are anticipated to have different effects on species providing benefits to some and negative impacts on others. Habitats of low biodiversity may be significantly impacted by the effects of climate change. The ecological value of the proposed Project site is considered relatively low. In addition the HCMP supporting the wider development site includes 5 Areas of Mitigation including areas of new wetland habitat, new native planting and measures to increase onsite fauna. Low Given the low ecological value of the Project site and proposed embedded mitigation, the magnitude of this impact is considered low. Very Low The enhanced biodiversity of the site will reduce the impact of climate change on site habitats and species. Negligible (Not Significant) High Increase in winter mean temperature Higher winter mean temperatures will reduce heating requirement and therefore energy use and GHG emissions. No embedded mitigation proposed Low This is a benefit to the Project, although given the size of the occupied space within the EFW Facility, this is low Low A minor reduction in GHG emissions will have a low impact on climate change. Minor Beneficial (Not Significant) High Increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature Higher average mean summer temperatures and daily maximum temperatures may increase the potential for impacts upon the foundations of infrastructure and No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation Moderate negative Ground movement has the potential to Moderate Buildings, and infrastructure sensitive to ground Moderate negative (Significant) Medium 108

121 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and Sensitivity of nature of impact receptor(s) buildings as a result of shrinkage. have structural impacts to development elements. movement and foundation damage Significance Climate change resilience Increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature Higher average mean summer temperatures and daily maximum temperatures could impact on the sites electrical equipment and infrastructure. No embedded mitigation proposed Moderate Given the nature of the development damage to electrical equipment could impact on the operation of the EFW Facility. Low electrical impact may be impacted by high temperatures, however best practice design is anticipated to negate this risk. Minor negative (Not Significant) High Increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature Higher average mean summer temperatures and daily maximum temperatures may lead to building overheating No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation and the Building Regulations Low Higher temperatures leading to overheating may impact on the health and wellbeing of occupants. Low Building design and the Building Regulations include an assessment of overheating risk and therefore cooling can be included as appropriate Minor negative (Not Significant) High 109

122 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and Sensitivity of nature of impact receptor(s) Increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature Higher summer temperatures and an increase in daily maximum temperatures may lead to an increase in cooling requirements, increasing energy use and GHG emissions. No embedded mitigation proposed Low Higher cooling requirements and increase energy use and GHG emissions will be minor given the scale of the occupied spaces Low Buildings designed in line with the cooling hierarchy and best practice will reduce energy requirements, reducing GHG emissions Significance Minor negative (Not Significant) Climate change resilience High Increase in summer mean and daily maximum temperature Higher summer mean and daily maximum temperatures are anticipated to have a mixed impact providing benefits and disadvantages for the on-site biodiversity. The ecological value of the proposed Project site is considered relatively low. In addition the HCMP supporting the wider development site includes 5 Areas of Mitigation including areas of new wetland habitat, new native planting and measures to increase onsite fauna. Low Given the low ecological value of the Project site and proposed embedded mitigation the magnitude of this impact is considered low. Very Low The enhanced biodiversity of the site will reduce the impact of climate change on site habitats and species. Negligible (Not Significant) High Increase in winter rainfall An increase in winter rainfall is likely to lead to an increase in surface water run-off and risk off flooding to the development causing damage to buildings and equipment. The FRA accompanying the 2016 application includes details of surface water risk and measures to mitigate surface water flooding including a 40% Low While there is a risk to damage to buildings and infrastructure Low The provision of SuDS and specified floor levels reduce Minor Negative (Not Significant) High 110

123 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and Sensitivity of nature of impact receptor(s) Increase in winter rainfall Increase in winter rainfall An increase in winter rainfall could lead to an increased risk of flooding from increased river flows and damage to buildings and equipment. An increase in winter rainfall may increase the potential for impacts upon the foundations of infrastructure and buildings as a result of ground movement and subsistence. allowance for climate change. The FRA accompanying the 2016 application includes details of surface water risk and measures to mitigate the risk of fluvial, river flooding including a 70% allowance for climate change in the modelling and specification for minimum floor levels. No embedded mitigation proposed beyond that inherent in legislation from surface water flooding the provision of minimum floor levels and SuDS reduces the risk Low While there is a risk to damage to buildings and infrastructure from surface water flooding the provision of minimum floor levels and SuDS reduces the risk Moderate negative Ground movement has the potential to have structural impacts to development the risk of surface water flooding. Low The provision of SuDS and specified floor levels reduce the risk of surface water flooding. Moderate Buildings, and infrastructure sensitive to ground movement and foundation damage Significance Minor Negative (Not Significant) Moderate negative (Significant) Climate change resilience High Medium 111

124 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and Sensitivity of nature of impact receptor(s) elements. Significance Climate change resilience Decrease in summer rainfall A decrease in summer rainfall may have an adverse impact on site biodiversity The ecological value of the proposed Project site is considered relatively low. In addition the HCMP supporting the wider development site includes 5 Areas of Mitigation including areas of new wetland habitat, new native planting and measures to increase onsite fauna Low Given the low ecological value of the Project site and proposed embedded mitigation the magnitude of this impact is considered low. Very Low The enhanced biodiversity of the site will reduce the impact of climate change on site habitats and species. Negligible (Not Significant) High Decrease in summer rainfall A decrease in summer rainfall may lead to reduced water availability for the development effecting operation of the EFW Facility. No specific mitigation proposed, however the proposed operation of the EFW Facility includes the recycling and reuse of water within its operational process. Low Lack of water availability has the potential for minor seasonal operational loss Low Located in an area of low water stress no additional mitigation is considered necessary. Minor negative (Not Significant) High Sea Level Change As a result of climate change sea levels are anticipated to rise by 40 50cm over the next 80 years increasing the risk of tidal The FRA accompanying the 2016 application includes details of tidal flood risk which include an allowance for sea level rise of 415mm over a 60 year period. Low Whilst there is a risk to damage to buildings, Low The provision of specified floor levels, flood Minor Negative (Not Significant) High 112

125 Climatic Variable Potential climatic effect Embedded Mitigation Magnitude and Sensitivity of nature of impact receptor(s) inundation. Minimum floor levels, flood planning and warning systems aim to minimise the risk of flooding to buildings, infrastructure and site employees. infrastructure and site employee safety the proposed mitigate reduces the risk. planning and warning systems reduces the sensitivity of the site and receptors to tidal flooding. Significance Climate change resilience 113

126 Assessment of Decommissioning Phase Effects Decommissioning includes all works and processes required to undertake the closure, dismantling and removal of the development. At this stage, the long-term operational lifespan of the Project is unknown and therefore the climate projections at the time of decommissioning are unknown; an assessment of decommissioning effects has therefore not been undertaken and has been scoped out of this assessment. Assessment of Cumulative Effects This section sets out the inter-project, and intra-project cumulative effects of the Project. Intra-project Cumulative Effects As stated throughout this chapter there are a number of noticeable interactions between the future effects of climate change and other ES topics (as presented in the ES 2016 and Scoping Report 2018). Where necessary relevant members of the technical team have been contacted to discuss these intra-project cumulative effects and appropriate assessment and mitigation undertaken accordingly Below is a summary of the interaction with Project consultants, setting out a summary of discussions and information received with regard to the Projects embedded mitigation, the significant effects and residual mitigation, as well as measures to enhance the resilience of the Project to climate change. Ecology and Biodiversity The potential changes to the future climate bring both positive and negative impacts upon site ecology and biodiversity. Discussions with the ecologist have confirmed however that the mitigation measures included in the HCMP ensure an overall increase in site biodiversity and therefore there is considered to be only a negligible impact which is not considered significant on biodiversity from climate change. Flood Risk and Drainage The ES 2016 and its supporting Flood Risk Assessment includes specific mitigation to mitigate the projected impacts from sea level rise. These are conditioned as part of the EFW Facility Permission and will be replicated in a new permission (conditions 27 and 28). As a result of this mitigation it is considered that there is a minor adverse impact which is not considered significant. Inter-Project cumulative effects The effects of climate change predominantly impact on the development rather than the development impacting on climate change (with the exception of GHG emissions assessed in the Mitigation Section of this chapter). However, indirectly there is a risk associated with surface water runoff that could affect other development in the locality. As noted above and in the following mitigation section, the FRA aims to reduce surface water runoff as there is an increased risk of flooding due to an increase in winter rainfall associated with climate change In combination with related cumulative development, i.e. the wider Protos Site, there is the potential for a greater increased risk of surface water flooding, however, as 114

127 noted in this section and in the FRA, measures will be put in place to limit this risk from all forms of flooding to within acceptable levels taking into account the impacts of climate change There are no other inter project cumulative climate change adaptation effects noted in relation to the other developments noted in the Scoping Report In this context with regards to climate change adaptation, no inter-project cumulative effects are anticipated on the basis that the adaptation effects and impacts are specific to this particular development and will not result in any additional impacts to neighbouring development. Mitigation of Effects The initial assessment of effects for the Project noted a number of significant effects during construction and operation. The following table sets out the measures proposed to mitigate the significant effects identified and further enhance the climate change resilience of the site. Table 9.25: Mitigation of Significant Effects Potential effect Proposed Mitigation Means of implementation Construction The potential for ground movement from annual temperature and rainfall fluctuations leading to damage to buildings and infrastructure Design of foundations to take into account increased potential ground movement as a result of climate change Design measure to be incorporated in the Construction Management Plan for the Project via a condition of a planning permission. Operation The potential for ground movement from annual temperature and rainfall fluctuations leading to damage to buildings and infrastructure Design of foundations to take into account increased potential ground movement as a result of climate change Design measure to be incorporated in the Construction Management Plan for the Project. via a condition of a planning permission. Decommissioning N/A Cumulative N/A Enhancing Climate Change Resilience The following table sets out the additional mitigation to enhance the climate change resilience of the development. 115

128 Table 9.26: Mitigation Enhancing Climate Change Resilience Potential effect Proposed Mitigation Means of implementation Construction Increase in summer temperatures may increase the risk of overheating and health risks to construction employees Provision of additional facilities for site employees to mitigate against increase in heat such as areas of shade and access to drinking water Provision to be included in PEP which will be prepared as part of the Environmental Management Plan. This is a condition of the existing EFW Facility Permission and will be replicated on a new permission. A decrease in summer rainfall may lead to issues with water supply during construction. Operation N/A Inclusion of water management measures in the PEP to monitor and target water reduction during construction. Provision for water management in the Project PEP which will be prepared as part of the Environmental Management Plan. This is a condition of the existing EFW Facility Permission and will be replicated on a new permission. Residual Effects The following table sets out the assessment of residual climate change effects taking into account the mitigation measures proposed in the previous section. This includes an assessment of the climate change resilience of the development in this context. Table 9.27: Assessment of Residual Effects Description of Impact Significance of Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Effect Residual Climate Change Resilience Construction The potential for ground movement from annual temperature and rainfall fluctuations leading to damage to buildings and infrastructure Moderate negative (Significant) Design of foundations to take into account increased potential ground movement as a result of climate change Minor Negative (Not Significant) High Increase in summer temperatures may increase the risk of Minor negative (Not Provision of additional facilities for site employees including Negligible (Not High 116

129 overheating and health risks to construction employees Significant) shade and water supply. Significant) A decrease in summer rainfall may lead to issues with water supply during construction. Minor negative (Not Significant) Inclusion of water management measures in the PEP to monitor and target water reduction during construction. Negligible (Not Significant) High Operation The potential for ground movement from annual temperature and rainfall fluctuations leading to damage to buildings and infrastructure Moderate negative (Significant) Design of foundations to take into account increased potential ground movement as a result of climate change Minor Negative (Not Significant) High Decommissioning N/A Cumulative N/A In conclusion, the mitigation measures proposed reduce the significance of identified significant impacts to a level where the effects are not significant in EIA terms. Monitoring As the proposed mitigation measures, which would be enforced through planning conditions, reduce the identified significant effects, no post-mitigation monitoring is required. 117

130 References 9.1 HM Government (2017) The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, HM Government. 9.2 HM Government (2008) Climate Change Act 2008, HM Government. 9.3 Department of Energy & Climate Change (2001) The Carbon Plan Delivering out Low Carbon Future, HM Government. 9.4 Committee on Climate Change (2017) Meeting Carbon Budgets: Closing the Policy Gap, Committee on Climate Change. 9.5 Department for, Communities & Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework, UK Government. 9.6 Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Planning Practice Guidance, HM Government. 9.7 Cheshire West and Chester Council (2015) Cheshire West & Chester Council Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies, Chester West & Chester Council Local Plan. 9.8 Cheshire West and Chester Council (2018) Cheshire West & Chester Council Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies (Submission), Chester West & Chester Council. 9.9 Cheshire West and Chester Council (2015) Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan, Chester West & Chester Council Arup and IEMA (2017) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance, IEMA Mott MacDonald and IEMA (2015) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation, IEMA IEMA (2010) IEMA Principles: Climate Change Mitigation & EIA, IEMA World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004) The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, GHG Protocol World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004) Corporate Value Chain (Scope 33) Accounting and Reporting Standard, GHG Protocol Committee on Climate Change Carbon Budgets 9.15 BEIS (2017) Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Conversion Factors 2017, UK Government BEIS (2018) Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal, UK Government BEIS (2018) Data tables 1 to 19: supporting the toolkit and the guidance, UK 118

131 Government L. K. Broggard, C. Riber, T.h. Christensen (2013) Quantifying capital goods for waste incineration, Waste Management Committee on Climate Change (2017) UK Climate Change Risk Assessment HM Government UK Met Office, (2018) UK Met Office historic climate data website, accessed March 2018, UK Met Office UK Met Office, (2018) UK Met Office historic climate data website, accessed March 2018, UK Met Office Environment Agency (2018) UKCP09 Climate Change Projections, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) Emissions Scenarios Report, Website: accessed August 2017, IPPC 9.23 UK Met Office (2018) UK Met Office climate data, Hawarden Climate Station, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Met Office 9.24 Environment Agency (2009) North West England Climate Change Projections, High Emissions Scenario 2020s, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Environment Agency (2009) North West England Climate Change Projections, High Emissions Scenario 2050s, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Environment Agency (2009) Technical note on probabilistic wind Projections, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Environment Agency (2009) Technical note on storm Projections, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Environment Agency (2009) Technical note on Projection of lightning from the 11- member RCM, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government. 119

132 9.29 Environment Agency (2009) Technical note on Projection of snow from the 11-member RCM, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Environment Agency (2009) Technical note on Projection of fog from the 11-member RCM, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Environment Agency (2009) Sea Level Rise Projections, Website: accessed March 2018, UK Government Committee on Climate Change (2017) Chapter 3: Natural Environment and Natural Assets HM Government 9.33 DEFRA (2014) Energy recovery for residual waste: A carbon based modelling approach, UK Government. 120

133 10. Human Health Introduction 10.1 This chapter assesses the likely significant effects of the Project to human health. It has been prepared by Turley Economics, who have experience in assessing social infrastructure requirements and undertaking Health Impact Assessments This chapter assesses the potential effects of the Project on local environmental, social and economic conditions (referred to as the wider determinants of health ) during construction and operation. This assessment incorporates an understanding of current (2018) and future baseline conditions (2019 and 2022), from which the significance of effects can be established Information has been drawn from the ES 2016 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.4) and the Scoping Report 2018 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 6.5) where required to understand the overall environmental impacts of the Project and inform this assessment. Legislative Framework National Planning and Health Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 10.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 10.1) sets out the Government s planning policies for England. The NPPF is built around a policy commitment to sustainable development The following aspects of national policy are of relevance to measuring the human health impact of the Project : The social role of the planning system to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being (Ref 10.1, Para 7); A focus on creating health strategies in order to take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs (Ref 10.1 Para 17); and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 10.6 The NPPF is supplemented by the web-based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref 10.2). The Health and Wellbeing section of the PPG highlights that decision making should consider how: Development proposals can support strong, vibrant and healthy communities and help create healthy living environments which should, where possible, include making 121

134 physical activity easy to do and create places and spaces to meet to support community engagement and social capital (Ref 10.2, Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: ). Public Health England Annual Business Plan Public Health England, established in April 2013, is an executive agency with an overall aim to protect and improve the nation's health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities In April 2017, Public Health England published the Annual Business Plan (Ref 10.3, which highlights the need to make better progress in tackling obesity, reducing smoking and harmful drinking, ensuring a better start in life, reducing dementia risk and tackling antimicrobial resistance and tuberculosis. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review, In 2008, Professor Sir Michael Marmot was tasked with chairing an independent review to propose evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England from The strategy includes policies and interventions that address the social determinants of health inequalities. The report had a profound impact on the way health inequalities and social determinants of health were considered within policy The final report was published in 2010 and concluded that six policy objectives were required to reduce health inequalities: 1. Give every child the best start in life 2. Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives 3. Create fair employment and good work for all 4. Ensure healthy standards of living for all 5. Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities 6. Strengthen the role and impact of ill-health prevention The report proposed that socio-economic characteristics of a local area, such as income, education, employment and neighbourhood circumstances, were central to understanding asymmetries in health and well-being across the UK. The central message of the report is that the social determinants of health should be addressed despite the economic cost. The report concludes that health inequalities are unfair and putting them right is a matter of social justice (p.29) (Ref 10.4) Thriving at Work: The Stevenson/Farmer review of mental health and employers The Stevenson and Farmer review, published in January 2017, is an independent review which considers how employers can better support the mental health of all people currently in employment, including those with mental health problems or poor well-being to remain in and thrive through work. 122

135 10.13 Mental Health Core Standards have been created as a result of the report s findings and outline a framework for a set of actions which the authors believe all organisations in the country are capable of implementing quickly. These include areas such as: Develop mental health awareness among employees and encourage open conversations about mental health and the support available when employees are struggling (Ref 10.5). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment was published by the Government in 2018 (Ref 10.6). The third of the strategy s six themes focuses in on connecting people with the environment to improve health and wellbeing. The strategy makes the link between increased environmental protection to beneficial human health and wellbeing outcomes, noting that the natural world underpins our nation s prosperity and wellbeing (p.15) The fourth theme focuses on increasing resource efficiency and reducing pollution and waste (p.83), with three main aims to: Make sure that resources are used more efficiently and kept in use for longer to minimise waste and reduce its environmental impacts by promoting reuse, remanufacturing and recycling; Work towards eliminating all avoidable waste by 2050 and all avoidable plastic waste by end of 2042; and Reduce pollution by tackling air pollution in our Clean Air Strategy and reduce the impact of chemicals (p.83). Local Planning and Health Policy Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan: Strategic Policies The Cheshire West and Chester Council s Local Plan, Part One on Strategic Policies was adopted in January This document provides the overall vision, strategic objectives, spatial strategy and strategic planning policies for the borough to 2030 (Ref 10.7) The vision sets out that the sustainable use of resources and improved energy efficiency will achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases and our carbon footprint. Waste will be managed in the most sustainable way and will be utilised as a valuable resource (p.14) The promotion of human health and wellbeing is recognised as one of the founding five programmes to support the success of the Local Plan. In terms of the Strategic Objectives, the following are of relevance: SO8 Create stronger, safer and healthier communities by enabling access to leisure, recreational and community facilities and promoting walking and cycling; and 123

136 SO15 - Take action on climate change by promoting energy efficiency and energy generation from low carbon and renewable resources (p.16) The spatial strategy focuses on sustainable development and proposes to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, ensuring development makes the best use of opportunities for renewable energy use and generation (p.21) and ensure the prudent use of our natural finite resources whilst promoting the re-use, recovery and recycling of materials (p.21) The Local Economic Assessment, which informs the Local Plan, identifies that in Ellesmere Port environmental technology and energy generation, specialist chemicals, automotive, retail, tourism and leisure, ports and logistics and education uses are most suitable. Cheshire West and Chester Council Health and Wellbeing Strategy Cheshire West and Chester Council s Draft Health and Wellbeing Strategy was launched in 2015 with the strategy valid until 2020 (Ref 10.8) The five year strategy highlights the connection between environmental conditions in which people live has an impact on health and wellbeing: health and wellbeing is influenced by a wide range of social, economic and environmental factors, some of which are influenced by large-scale universal trends and others by individual behaviour (p.9) In terms of environmental indicators air quality in particular is highlighted as having an influence on human health and wellbeing. Cheshire West and Chester Council Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) Cheshire West and Chester Council s JSNA includes a Compendium of health and wellbeing statistics, published in 2016 (Ref 10.9) The report highlights the environment as influencing resident s health in the local area. In particular, air pollution is highlighted as a key indicator, although it is noted that the proportion of the local mortality rate which can be attributed to air pollution has fallen in recent years from 5.6% in 2010 to 5.1% in Health Impact Assessment Guidance While health and wellbeing is considered in planning policy, there is no overarching guidance that sets out the preferred methodology for the preparation of assessments of the likely human health effects of major development proposals. Several established methodological guides have been published to cover HIAs, published by WHO, The assessment of human health impacts will refer to the following documents where relevant: Public Health England s Health and Environmental Impact Assessment (Ref 10.10) IEMA Health in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Primer for a Proportionate Approach (Ref 10.11) 124

137 Merseyside Guidelines for HIA (2001; 1998) (Ref 10.12) HUDU Rapid Health Impact Assessment Tool (Ref 10.13) Assessment Methodology The Study Area This ES Chapter assesses the effects on human health in relation to a study area informed by an understanding of the relevant geography alongside consideration of the availability and reliability of data at a variety of spatial scales: The neighbourhood impact area reflects the community living in the immediate settlements surrounding the Project, such as Frodsham and Ellesmere Port. The impact area at this level includes 12 local wards surrounding the site 2 ; The local impact area reflects the broader influence of the Project. The unitary authority of Cheshire West and Chester is considered to be the local impact area. The wider impact area covers the North West region and is used to define the human health impact on the wider population. Baseline Surveys Desk Based Research The assessment involves the consideration of published secondary data, and as such the assessment is entirely desk-based. The assessment involves a review of policy, legislation and good practice documents outlined above, as well as further analysis of baseline conditions across the city centre where necessary The baseline conditions have been established through the collation and analysis of the most up-to-date available secondary data that is nationally recognised, including: ONS Population Estimates, via Nomis (Ref 10.14) ONS Annual Population Survey, via Nomis (Ref 10.15) Census 2011 (Ref 10.16) Index of Multiple Deprivation (Ref 10.17) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (Ref 10.18) PHE s Index of Wider Determinants of Health (Ref 10.19) The baseline will examine in detail the extent to which key indicators have changed over time. The following public health profile of the population living in the neighbourhood and local impact area are analysed: 2 Include: E : Ellesmere Port Town, E : Elton, E : Frodsham, E : Grange, E : Helsby, E : Ledsham and Manor, E : Netherpool, E : Rossmore, E : St Paul's, E : Strawberry, E : Sutton, E : Whitby 125

138 Demographics Deprivation Economy General Health Crime The economic, social and environmental context in which people live can impact individual health. These are termed the wider determinants of health in the context of this report. These will be analysed within the baseline to discern the quality of the surroundings in which local residents live. These include: Environmental conditions (e.g. air quality, noise, contamination) Employment opportunities Recreation and open space Social infrastructure Transport and connectivity Field Surveys No additional survey work is required to inform the assessment of human health effects. Consultations The initial scoping identified that consultation with Public Health England and/or Cheshire West and Chester s Public Health team would be required to inform the baseline conditions. This was not considered necessary at the assessment stage due to the good availability of data and documentation available. Method of Assessing Significance An assessment of the significance of impacts generated within each impact area will be made based on the magnitude of effect and the importance of the relevant receptor. Given that there is no established methodology for undertaking an assessment of human health, the assessment has drawn upon experience and professional judgement. Magnitude of Effect The following table defines the different magnitudes of effect that may arise during the construction and operation of the Project (the magnitude of the decommissioning of the Project is anticipated to be the same as construction). In the absence of published policy or guidance, the definitions have drawn upon previous experience and professional judgement. 126

139 Table 10.1: Defining Magnitude of Effect Level of Magnitude Definition of Magnitude High Moderate Low Negligible Large scale and most likely permanent change in social, economic and environmental conditions, or wider determinants of health, that would affect the provision or quality of receptors; Notable change in social, economic and environmental conditions, or wider determinants of health, above or below that which would otherwise be expected, which is likely to affect the provision or quality of receptors in an ongoing but not necessarily permanent nature Some measurable but likely reversible change regarding wider health determinants or unmeasurable change in baseline conditions Effect does not result in variation beyond baseline conditions, and is unlikely to measurably affect people and/or businesses. Sensitivity of Receptor Groups The assessment considers the sensitivity of receptor groups living in the respective impact areas. A receptor group can be defined as a group of individuals sharing similar characteristics, with a similar sensitivity to health and wellbeing (for example elderly, those with a long term disability etc.). The sensitivity of each receptor group is determined by an understanding of the community health profile and availability of social infrastructure (such as hospitals, schools and accessible open space), if applicable The following table provides a framework for the definition of different levels of sensitivity of the receptor groups. Table 10.2: Defining Sensitivity of Receptor Groups Sensitivity High Moderate Low Negligible Definition Receptor groups are highly sensitive to change with low or little ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering present character or health. Vulnerable groups are of high importance in public health policy and priorities. Poor access to social infrastructure. Receptor groups that are moderately sensitive to change with moderate capacity to absorb change without significantly altering present character or health. Vulnerable groups have some importance in public health policy and priorities. Moderate access to social infrastructure. Receptor groups have a low sensitivity to change with high capacity to absorb change without significantly altering present character or health. Vulnerable groups have small importance in public health policy and priorities. Good access to social infrastructure. Receptor groups with a very low sensitivity are resistant and fully adaptable to change. The receptor groups may not appear in policy or be considered a priority 127

140 Source: Ref Duration of Effect The duration of effects will be taken into consideration when determining the overall significance of the effects. The following timescales will be used: Short term: 0 to 5 years including the construction period and on completion; Medium term: 5 to 15 years including establishment of replacement and proposed mitigation planting; and Long term: 15 years onwards for the life of the Project. Significance of Effect In the absence of published policy or guidance, the definitions have drawn upon experience and professional judgement. Qualitatively a significant impact has been defined by the Scottish Health and Inequality Impact Assessment Network (SHIIAN) (Ref 10.20) as: potentially severe or irreversible negative impacts impacts affecting a large number of people impacts affecting people who already suffer poor health or are socially excluded positive impacts with potential for greater health improvement In order to establish more systematic criteria, the following table provides the framework by which the overall significance of human health effects are assessed. This is based on the Matrix for Assessing Significance of Effect (below). The level of significance determined through this process is then sense checked using professional judgement and modified where necessary For the purposes of this assessment, any effect that is above minor is considered to be significant in EIA terms with regard to its human health effects. Table 10.3: Matrix for Assessing Significance of Effect Assessing Significance of Effects Sensitivity of Receptors Magnitude of Effect High Moderate low Negligible High Major Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor None Low Moderate Minor None None Negligible Minor None None None 128

141 Mitigation Methodology The relevant mitigation will be identified by considering whether measures will impact the six health topics being considered in the assessment. Where likely significant adverse effects are identified then mitigation measures to reduce the effect to less than significant levels will be proposed. Residual Impact Methodology The residual impact will be primarily based on professional judgement, drawing on case studies and secondary research from elsewhere. The impact of the mitigation, and subsequent residual impact, on the vulnerable groups living and working with the centre and local areas will primarily be considered. Baseline Environment Existing Baseline (Feb 2018) Public Health Profile The Public Health Profile of the neighbourhood and local area provides a baseline of the general physical health and socio-economic characteristics of the local population. The purpose is to identify the vulnerable populations within the neighbourhood and local impact area The neighbourhood impact area is characterised by a large working population compared to the resident population; circa 79,000 people currently live in the neighbourhood impact areas, while 97,000 work in the same area The working population in the neighbourhood impact area can be understood according to the following high level socio-economic indicators: Qualification Employees tend to have level 1 and 2 qualifications (equivalent to GCSEs or A Levels) (31.8%), which is a similar proportion compared to the local impact area average (30.1%). Overall the workplace population has a lower qualifications profile than compared to the local and wider impact areas (Ref 10.16); and General health High proportion of employees have a very good health (46.8%), which is similar to the local authority average (48.2%). A low proportion of the population have very bad health (1.5%), but this is slightly higher than the local authority average (1.2%) (Ref 10.16); and National Statistics Socio-economic classification (NS-SeC) 18.5% of the working population in the neighbourhood impact areas identifies as working in lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations and 18.9% identify as working in semi-routine occupations, according to ONS socioeconomic classification. Overall 4.7% state that they have never worked and are classified as being long-term unemployment. This is relatively high compared to the local authority average (3.7%) (Ref 10.16) 129

142 10.48 According to geo-demographics data published by the Consumer Data Research Centre (CDRC) 3, the resident population is mixed and can be described as hard-pressed living or rural residents. The neighbourhood impact area population typically has the following socio-economic characteristics: a higher proportion of rented and owned detached properties and residents are likely to have higher educational qualifications and be working in energy and manufacturing related industries. Those working are also likely to be employed in information and communication and financial related industries. Residents are less likely to use public transport or walking or cycling, but vehicles are the preferred mode of transport (Ref 10.21) A more detailed assessment of the socio-economic characteristics of residents living in the neighbourhood and local impact area can be summarised by the following indicators: The profile of the neighbourhood impact areas is largely reflective of the wider local authority including a relatively low proportion of children and a relatively high proportion of retirement age residents. Overall 20.9% of the population are aged 18 and under (compared to 21.4% in England) and 24.5% are over 60 years old (compared to 22.3% in England). The neighbourhood impact area is less ethnically diverse than the wider impact area; the largest ethnic minority group are those who identify as Asian (1.3%). This proportion is relatively low compared to the regional (6.2%) and national average (7.8%) (Ref 7.16); There is a relatively low proportion of residents with a university degree (Level 4+) (22.2%) compared to the local impact area (29.4%) and the North West (24.4%). The proportion of residents without a qualification is slightly higher at 23.8%, compared to the local impact area (21.0%) and the North West (21.0%) (Ref 7.16); 80.2% of the neighbourhood population report having very good or good health, which is similar to the local authority average (81.5%) and the regional average (79.5%) (Ref 7.16). This is illustrated in Table 10.4 below. Table 10.4: Self-assessed general health Neighbourhood Local Impact Area Wider Impact Area England Very good 47.2% 48.5% 46.5% 47.2% Good 33.0% 33.1% 32.8% 34.2% Fair 13.5% 12.9% 13.9% 13.1% Bad 4.9% 4.3% 5.3% 4.2% Very bad 1.4% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2% Source: Ref Project funded by UCL and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) 130

143 According to the Cheshire West and Chester latest PHE Health Profile, priorities for the local authority Clinical Commissioning Group include reducing inequalities, improving mental health and wellbeing and addressing key lifestyle issues (reducing smoking and substance misuse, and improving healthy eating and physical activity)(ref 7.22). Levels of deprivation in the neighbourhood impact area are mixed. For example, in Ellesmere Port the wards to the north are within the most deprived decile, while those located in the south west are some of the least deprived. Figure 10.1: Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015) Source: Ref 10.17; Ref Vulnerable groups are more sensitive to changes in the determinants of health. Vulnerable groups as a proportion of the neighbourhood resident population are outlined in Table Table 10.5: Vulnerable Groups as proportion of resident population Neighbourhood Impact Area Cheshire West and Chester (provides a comparator) Children (0-18 years) 20.9% 20.0% Lone parents families (% of all households) 11.7% 9.8% Older residents (65 years +) 18.0% 18.5% Residents with existing bad / very bad health 6.3% 5.5% Unemployed residents 2.5% 2.2% Residents who are long term unemployed 1.6% 1.4% Residents with no qualifications 23.8% 21.0% 131