NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Transcription

1 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY CONTENTS Introduction... 1 The Proposed Development... 1 Planning Policy and Need... 2 Landscape and Visual Impact... 3 Noise... 4 Ecology... 4 Hydrogeology... 5 Land Quality... 6 Air Quality... 6 Traffic and Transportation... 7 Cultural Heritage... 8 Socio Economic... 9

2 INTRODUCTION 1. Gedling Colliery closed in 1991 and is currently allocated within the Gedling Borough Local Plan for residential and employment development. The former colliery spoil heaps to the north of the site have been largely restored, although the site of the former colliery buildings remains largely unrestored. 2. Tamar Energy wishes to develop an Anaerobic Digestion facility on part of the land that is currently allocated for industrial development. The proposed development site is on an unrestored part of the colliery that previously housed buildings and structures. It is located adjacent to an existing mine gas extraction and utilisation plant operated by Alkane Energy. The location of the proposed facility is shown on Drawing GE 1/1 and the proposed layout is shown on drawing GE3/1. 3. The proposed Anaerobic Digestion facility will consist of a main reception building together with a series of enclosed tanks and two gas engines that will generate renewable energy in the form of electricity and heat. Other equipment, including gas upgrade equipment will also be included. The residual material from the AD plant would be suitable to use as a soil improver/fertiliser. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4. The AD plant would utilise by-products from the food industry, and agricultural wastes such as spoilt crops, in order to generate energy. The process is fully enclosed. Incoming material would be delivered to an enclosed reception building by dedicated refuse collection vehicles and bulk carrier vehicles. The material would then be processed and mixed with process water before being transferred to digestion tanks where the biogas would be generation by the degradation of the organic material. 5. The biogas would be used to power two containerised (CHP) engines which would generate approximately 3MWe of renewable electrical energy. The electricity would power the AD plant with the remaining power exported to the local electricity distribution grid, from which it will serve houses and businesses in the immediate area of the site. 6. As an alternative to the generation of electricity on site from the CHP engines it is possible to supply the gas directly into the national gas network. A gas upgrade compound is therefore proposed to provide the ability to supply direct to the national gas network. This will be retained as an option, but either one or other of CHP or gas upgrade will be pursued. 7. A bespoke odour abatement system would be provided. This would maintain the main building at a negative pressure to prevent the escape of odours, and is likely to consist of the following elements: a biofilter system using dry organic materials to scrub odour; and ductwork and fans. Gedling AD P a g e 1 SLR Consulting Limited

3 8. The throughput of the plant would be around 60,000 tonnes per annum net of untreatable residues at c. 5%. The feedstock would be sourced primarily from the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire areas. 9. Although the plant would operate 24 hrs per day, lorry movements would be limited to: 07:30 to 18:30 Mondays to Fridays 08:00 to 14:00 Saturdays 10. Anticipated lorry movements are 81 per day which is lower than the predicted daily traffic movements set out in the scoping report (96 movements) due to a reduction in the throughput of the facility and the installation of additional equipment to reduce the volume of digestate leaving the site by road. 11. Until the completion of the Gedling Access Road all lorries would turn right onto Arnold Road on leaving the site, and turn left into the site. There would therefore be no traffic through Gedling Village other than local collections. PLANNING POLICY AND NEED 12. There is significant support at a national level for the generation of renewable energy by Anaerobic Digestion. The National Planning Policy Framework refers to the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources, and the Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan 2011 confirms that AD offers a local, environmentally sound option for waste management which helps us divert waste from landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce renewable energy which could be used to power our homes and vehicles. 13. Government guidance has also indicated that applicants will no longer have to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy or for their particular proposal to be sited in a particular location. 14. Gedling Colliery is allocated for residential and employment development in the Gedling Borough Local Plan. Policy E1 allocates the proposed site of the AD plant as employment land. From the Local Plan it can be appreciated that the proposed AD plant is located within an area of derelict and unsightly brownfield land that has been allocated for industry for a number of years, without attracting any employment creating activities. There are no restrictions on the type of employment use proposed at the Gedling Colliery site. 15. A development brief was produced for the Gedling Colliery site in July 2008 and was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. This shows the application site as an employment allocation adjacent to a proposed household waste facility. 16. A new road, known as the Gedling Access Road, is proposed running immediately to the south of the proposed AD plant and due to be completed by The land to the north and east of the proposed AD plant is identified as Gedling Colliery Park, under Policy ENV 44. Gedling AD P a g e 2 SLR Consulting Limited

4 17. The Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy Submission Version notes that Gedling Colliery is an allocation in the adopted Gedling Borough Replacement Local Plan. 18. The Nottinghamshire Waste Core Strategy was adopted in late Policy WCS 3 Future Waste Management Provision, seeks to give priority... to the development of new or extended waste recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion facilities; In terms of need the Waste Core Strategy envisages the need for approximately 200,000 tonnes of additional energy recovery capacity for commercial and industrial waste. The proposed AD facility would provide approximately one third of this required capacity. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 20. A landscape and visual impact assessment has been undertaken. The application site is located within part of the former Gedling Colliery. The proposed development is of an industrial nature, a land use similar to that of former and adjacent land uses. 21. The perceived landscape effects from the proposed AD Plant are limited due to the existing screening provided by the landform and the existing woodland and tree screening which greatly assists in reducing the effects of the proposed development within its surrounding landscape. 22. There would be no significant landscape effects associated with the proposed Gedling AD Plant development. To accommodate the proposed Gedling AD Plant at a proposed floor level of 55/56m AOD, the slopes to the north and west of the proposed development would be re-graded to create a level platform for the AD Plant and its associated tanks. The proposed development would not introduce significant change to the existing landscape resource. The proposed development would be similar to previous industrial land uses. 23. The most noticeable effects would be from within higher ground of the proposed Country Park to the north of the AD Plant; however the existing woodland and tree planting will provide filtered views of the proposed AD Plant from within the country park. Mitigation planting is proposed, which consist of tree planting to the north and south of the proposed AD Plant will further assist screening views from within the proposed Country Park. 24. All other viewpoints considered are of moderate, minor, negligible or no change. The proposed AD Plant is situated in the central part of the former Gedling Colliery and would be well screened from the majority of viewpoints in the surrounding study area by topography and vegetation provided which are existing features of the former colliery site, except views from the proposed Gedling Country Park as noted above. Following the appraisal of the likely visual effects, we find that it would be unlikely that the proposed development would protrude above the surrounding topography of the colliery tip. It is important to note that this area is subject to urban expansion by future housing development and a new access road. If the surrounding Gedling AD P a g e 3 SLR Consulting Limited

5 NOISE woodland and tree planting to the former colliery site will remain, this will assist with any increases in cumulative effects caused by future urban developments. However removal of existing trees as a result of development of the proposed Gedling Access Road could open up views of the AD Plant from the proposed housing areas to the south. 25. A noise assessment has considered noise emissions generated by operations at the proposed Gedling AD Plant at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor locations. The assessment has shown that: Noise levels generated by the proposed plant would meet the daytime noise limit of not more than 5dB above the prevailing background noise levels specified by Nottinghamshire County Council at all locations; Noise levels generated by the proposed plant would meet the night-time noise limit of not exceeding the prevailing background noise levels specified by Nottinghamshire County Council at all locations except Featherstone Close and Scotgrave Farm; When assessed against the existing ambient noise levels, site-related operational traffic movements would only have a negligible impact at any of the receptor locations assessed; and The cumulative effects, when assessed against the existing ambient noise levels, would have a minor, barely perceptible impact at Glebe Farm View/Glebe Farm and Spring Lane during the night-time with no impact at any other times at the receptor locations assessed. 26. Consideration has also been given to the guidance contained in the World Health Organisation document Guidelines for Community Noise and BS8233 Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings Code of practice with the following conclusions: cumulative noise levels generated by the proposed Gedling AD Plant would be well within the WHO 50dB L Aeq guidance level for moderate annoyance at all locations; and cumulative noise levels generated by the proposed Gedling AD Plant, including vehicle movements, would be well within the good criteria for reasonable resting/sleeping conditions in living rooms and bedrooms at all existing locations and well within the reasonable criteria for the proposed development between the site and Arnold Road. 27. Based on the results of the assessment, noise should not pose a material constraint for the proposed development. ECOLOGY 28. An ecological impact assessment including a site survey was undertaken. This found that the site is considered unlikely to be critical for populations of any species of fauna or flora of nature conservation importance. However, it Gedling AD P a g e 4 SLR Consulting Limited

6 forms a supporting, but not critical, part of the larger County-designated Gedling Colliery Site and Dismantled Railway LWS. All habitats within the proposed development footprint would be subject to loss or change; these habitats are assessed as being of less than Local ecological value. 29. The proposed development would lead to a loss of 1.8ha of land designated as part of Gedling Colliery Site and Dismantled Railway LWS. This is approximately 5% of the total area of the designated LWS. The loss of 5% of the designated LWS is not considered to significantly adversely affect its function or ecological value. 30. Therefore, whilst it is not possible to fully mitigate for loss of habitats as a result of the proposal, within the application site boundary, there are anticipated to be no significant adverse impacts at the Local level. 31. Mitigation and compensation is proposed in order that the ecological value of the undeveloped part of the application site is maintained at a minimum of current levels, with a view to increasing the biodiversity value of the undeveloped parts of the site and surroundings in the medium to long term. 32. Whilst it is not possible to fully mitigate for loss of habitats as a result of the proposal, within the application site boundary, there are anticipated to be no significant adverse impacts at the Local level. 33. With the inclusion of mitigating measures, the residual effects to ecological receptors are not significant in the short or long-term. HYDROGEOLOGY 34. The potential impacts of the proposed development upon the hydrological environment have been identified and assessed, and where appropriate, mitigation measures have been accommodated into the design of the proposed facility. 35. It has been shown that the site is not undermined and is not at risk of instability as a consequence of historic coal mining. 36. All aspects of the construction and operation of the facility would be in accordance with best practice guidance. With the adoption of this guidance and the mitigation measures included in the site design, the residual risk to groundwater and surface water quality is near zero to low. Specially, measures have been included in the site design that allow for: further site investigation prior to detailed design and construction to further characterise ground conditions (it is anticipated that this can be secured by use of an appropriately worded planning condition); surface water runoff to be collected and attenuated on site prior to discharge; potentially dirty water to be segregated and contained onsite prior to disposal at an appropriately licensed facility. Gedling AD P a g e 5 SLR Consulting Limited

7 37. It has been shown that with the proposed controls runoff from the proposed development would not impair ground or surface water quality at or near to site. 38. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared and concludes that the development is deliverable and highly sustainable in flood risk terms, and that key requirements set out within the NPPF and local planning policies would be adequately satisfied. 39. The residual flood risk is assessed as low, and the proposed development would not result in an increase in flood risk to site users or to downstream property. 40. Thus, following review of the mitigation included in the site design and the specific mitigation measures identified in this section, the overall potential significance of impact to the water environment is assessed as acceptable and low to near zero. LAND QUALITY 41. A Preliminary Land Quality Assessment has been undertaken which records the findings of a site walkover survey and presents a desk study, collating information with respect to the site s environmental setting, land use history and the potential for contamination. A coal mining report has also been prepared for the site. 42. In summary, the site was undeveloped until 1914, when it was developed as part of Gedling Colliery until the 1990s. 43. By 2002 the Colliery had closed and been demolished; with some restoration of the surrounding spoil heaps. 44. The majority of the site is unsurfaced with a number of spoil stockpiles, and is partially vegetated with grass and scrub. A central rectangular area is laid to a concrete slab. Several informal dirt roads run across the site. The site falls approximately 10m in elevation from north to south via a series of benched platforms. 45. The commercial / industrial nature of the proposed AD development will require hard standing across the majority of the site. 46. A programme of site investigation and potential mitigation measures has been identified to quantify and address any potential land quality impacts. AIR QUALITY 47. The air quality assessment has considered the potential impacts of the application for an AD plant on part of the former Gedling Colliery. Impacts on air quality from the two CHP engines have been assessed in addition to odour and dust associated with AD plant construction and operation. Gedling AD P a g e 6 SLR Consulting Limited

8 48. The impacts from combustion emissions from the CHP engines in terms of short term and long term impacts for NO 2, SO 2, PM 10, CO and NMWOC have been assessed using detailed dispersion modelling. This found that all impacts were insignificant at the majority of existing human receptor locations. In terms of annual mean NO 2 the impact is considered minor adverse at two receptors representative of properties immediately adjacent to the A6211, using conservative worst case assumptions. Despite this the development would not lead to a significant increase in emissions above the baseline or cause an exceedence of the Air Quality Objective in this worse case. At proposed receptors realistically the impact is considered to be insignificant, but at a worse case, minor adverse. 49. The maximum ground level concentration for 15-minute SO 2 is considered to be minor adverse immediately adjacent to the site to the south. This would only be a relevant receptor location if the Gedling Access Road is built. 50. The impact of pollutants on ecological receptors was assessed where at all receptors there was considered to be no significant pollution with the exception of 24-hr NOx at Gedling Colliery LWS where for 0.95% of the site it cannot be assumed there is no significant pollution. However due to the small area potentially affected this is not considered significant in terms of loss of function or ecological value. 51. The detailed modelling of odour emissions has shown that emissions at all existing and proposed receptors are less than C 98,1-hour 1.5ou E /m 3. Therefore the impact is considered to be negligible at existing and proposed receptors. 52. A qualitative assessment of deposited dust impacts has considered the potential risk of impact from the construction and operation of the AD plant.. By considering the potential sources of dust emissions and the frequency of exposure the risk has been determined to be insignificant. 53. Impacts on local air quality from traffic emissions have been screened out of further assessment as traffic generated by the proposed development would be below the DMRB criteria and therefore considered to be neutral. 54. The overall impact of the development is not considered significant as any minor adverse impacts are limited to a small number of properties, whether existing or proposed, and are based on worse case assumptions. There is predicted to be no exceedances of the Air Quality Objective as a result of the development and therefore the development is not considered to cause a significant air quality impact. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 55. The transport assessment assesses the potential environmental impacts on the highway network as a result of the proposed development. The impacts have been based on existing traffic flows with the conclusion that the predicted increase in traffic on the road network would not exceed thresholds defined in the IEMA Guidelines. Gedling AD P a g e 7 SLR Consulting Limited

9 56. Anticipated lorry movements are 81 per day which is lower than the predicted daily traffic movements set out in the scoping report (96 movements) due to a reduction in the throughput of the facility and the installation of additional equipment to reduce the volume of digestate leaving the site by road. This reduces the traffic load by more than a third from the original proposals. 57. These additional vehicle trips have been quantified as being negligible when set against background traffic flows. 58. The site is designed to integrate with the forthcoming Gedling Access Road, from which it will gain access once the new link is completed. Until such time that the Gedling Access Road is complete, access will be via the existing entrance off the A6211 Arnold Lane. Improvements are proposed to enhance highway safety at the existing site access for the interim period. Should the Gedling Access Road be unable to proceed or is delayed significantly, the applicant shall seek to improve the junction further. 59. Lorry traffic would all be routed away from Gedling Village, and only local traffic would travel through the Village. 60. The proposed development would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on road or junction capacity, driver delay, road safety or public amenity. 61. In overall terms, it is concluded that the forecasted traffic levels can be comfortably accommodated on the local and wider highway network and has been demonstrated as having a minimal impact in terms of transportation and highways. CULTURAL HERITAGE 62. The application site has been fully disturbed due to its former use as a colliery and subsequent demolition of the structures. 63. Due to the existing ground disturbance it is predicted that no archaeological remains will be preserved within it, and therefore the construction of the proposed development would cause no harm to cultural heritage through direct impacts. 64. Assessment of indirect impacts on designated heritage assets has taken into account the heritage significance of potentially affected assets within 2km of the application site, the contribution made to that significance by the setting of the assets including the area around the application site, the existing detrimental effects of recent / modern change on these settings, and the magnitude of the change which would be created by the construction and operation of the proposed development. These considerations have been combined into an overall assessment of the significance of the effect of construction and operation on the heritage significance of the assets. 65. It is predicted that the proposed development would cause no harm, or negligible adverse harm in the case of certain assets in Gedling, to the identified assets through indirect impacts. Gedling AD P a g e 8 SLR Consulting Limited

10 66. The proposed development would therefore not conflict with any legislation or planning policies related to the historic environment. SOCIO ECONOMIC 67. The proposal would provide temporary construction employment for around 50 Individuals during construction, and permanent employment for at least 5 individuals during the operation of the plant. In addition the plant would generate indirect employment through items such as haulage and security. 68. There are proposals for major residential development on the Gedling Colliery/Chase Farm site to the south of the proposed AD plant. The closest proposed residential areas would be separated from the proposed AD plant by the Gedling Access Road and a belt of existing woodland and structural landscaping along the line of the access road. 69. The site is currently derelict brownfield land with no restoration requirements and is allocated for industrial development. Work has recently commenced on the creation of the Gedling Country Park on the adjacent land, although the proposed facility would be well screened from the majority of the Country Park. 70. Other waste facilities have been permitted in close proximity to existing and proposed residential properties and housing areas. 71. Waste would be transported to site in sealed containers and therefore not be comparable to lorries carrying animal by-products to an animal rendering facility on Stoke Lane, Stoke Bardolph. 72. Tamar has committed to make surplus heat from the facility available for third part users, although the process utilises some of the heat. Gedling AD P a g e 9 SLR Consulting Limited