The Meaford Energy (Gas Fired Power Station) Order

Transcription

1 The Meaford Energy (Gas Fired Power Station) Order 6.1 Volume 1: Non-technical Summary of the Environmental Statement Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 PINS Reference Number: EN Document Reference Number: 6.1 Regulation Number: 5(2) (a) Lead Author: Savills (UK) Ltd. Revision: Date: Description: 0 March 2015 Submission version

2

3 Environmental Statement u Non-Technical Summary 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Meaford Energy Limited (MEL) is applying to the Secretary of State for a Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008). The Application for the proposed Meaford (Gas Fired Power Station) Order (the Order) is for powers to construct, operate and maintain the Meaford Energy Centre (the MEC) on land within the Meaford Business Park (MBP), between Barlaston and Stone in Staffordshire (the Scheme). 1.2 The MBP Site is an area of previously-developed or brownfield land occupied formerly by two coal-fired power stations (Meaford 'A' and Meaford 'B') now demolished. The MBP Site occupies a low-lying position between the River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal and has outline planning permission for warehousing, industrial, offices and business support activities. 1.3 The Scheme constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the PA A Development Consent Order (DCO) is required to develop an NSIP. A DCO can only granted if an application is made for it to the relevant Secretary of State, in the case of the Scheme the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. 1.4 The Scheme comprises: a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station complex (the Power Station Complex); an integral electrical connection (the Electrical Connection); the integral gas connection (the Gas Connection) and Above Ground Installation (AGI); the Northern Access Road works; the temporary and permanent Laydown Areas; replacement, maintenance or refurbishment of existing surface water drainage; and the landscaping works. 1.5 A full description of the Scheme is provided in chapters one and four of the Environmental Statement (ES). 1.6 The location of the Scheme is shown in Figure NTS1 below: 1

4 Figure NTS1: Site location (excerpt from ES figure 1.1) 1.5 The Scheme is a Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station development with the capacity of generating up to 299 megawatts (MWe) rated electrical output. It comprises a Power Station Complex along with a Gas Connection from a nearby point on the gas network, an Electrical Connection for the export of electricity, and other infrastructure works all of which is or forms part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) that is the Scheme being assessed in this ES. The applicant 1.6 MEL is a joint venture company established by St. Modwen and Glenfinnan Properties. Both companies have an extensive background in the development and economic regeneration of sites throughout the UK, including the energy sector. MEL has employed a project team comprising: 2

5 Atkins - engineering design and environmental consultants; Savills - planning and property consultants; Pinsent Masons - solicitors; Local Dialogue - community and stakeholder relations consultants. 1.7 The team was tasked with preparing the Application for the Scheme in dialogue with Stafford Borough Council (SBC), Staffordshire County Council (SCC), other relevant authorities, the local community, landowners and other interested parties including relevant statutory bodies, with the aim of securing a development consent order (DCO) (the Order) for the Scheme. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 1.8 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process through which the likely significant environmental effects of a development can be identified and where possible, adverse effects avoided or mitigated. This process is reported in an Environmental Statement (ES). This Non-Technical Summary (NTS) provides a summary of the ES in non-technical language, and is structured under headings 1-18, corresponding to the content of the main ES written statement. 1.9 In accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, copies of the ES are available to be viewed in the following locations: The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Planning website via: Stafford Borough Council s offices at: Civic Centre, Riverside, Stafford, ST16 3AQ Staffordshire County Council's offices at: Number 1 Staffordshire Place, Stafford, ST16 2LP 1.10 An electronic DVD copy and print hard copy of the ES can also be provided by Savills Planning, Wessex House, Priors Walk, Wimborne, BH21 1PB. There is a charge of 5 for DVD copies, and a charge of 325 (exclusive of postage and packaging) for printed hard copies. 3

6 Consultation 1.11 Consultation under section 47 of the PA 2008 took place in accordance with a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) published beforehand by MEL. The consultation process is described in the Consultation Report that accompanies the DCO application (document Reference 5.1). Consultation documents included a Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), published on 6 June The PEIR enables the local community and other consultees to understand the likely environmental effects of the Scheme to inform their responses to the scheme consultation. Feedback from the consultation process was taken into account in the EIA process and is reflected in this ES. 2: PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT 2.1 A range of European, national, regional and local policy, regulations and guidance have influenced the Scheme. The principal sources of guidance are outlined below. 2.2 Four National Policy Statements (NPS) published in July 2011 are relevant: EN-1: Overarching NPS for Energy explains the need and urgency for new electricity generation capacity in the UK. It highlights that at least 22GW of existing electricity generating capacity will need to be replaced in the years leading up to It explains that fossil fuel power stations will play a vital role in providing reliable electricity supplies. EN-2: NPS for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure provides specific guidance for plans of this type, including considerations such as design and the ability to adapt to climate change. It also provides further guidance on issues such as air quality and emissions, landscape and visual effects, noise and vibration and water quality and resources. EN-4: NPS for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines sets out government policy on new gas import and storage infrastructure now that the UK has become a net gas importer. It is relevant insofar as it identifies site selection factors such as noise, biodiversity and landscape. EN-5: NPS for Electricity Networks Infrastructure again has relevance in terms of identifying how good design can be achieved. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG),

7 2.3 The NPPF identifies a number of issues relevant to the site selection, design and assessment process for this Scheme, including the historic and natural environment, meeting the challenge of climate change, protecting green belt land and building a strong economy. The NPPG also provides guidance on specific technical issues which have been taken into account in the design and assessment of the Scheme. Statutory Development Plan 2.4 The Development Plan for Stafford Borough comprises the Plan for Stafford Borough (June 2014) and an emerging Stafford Site Allocations Development Plan Document due to be produced in A number of adopted development plan policies have been taken into account in the design and assessment of the Scheme. Specifically, the MBP Site in which the Scheme is mainly located is designated within Policy E5 as a major developed site in the green belt, where partial or complete redevelopment will be supported for employment purposes. 3: SITE SELECTION, ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN EVOLUTION Choice of electricity generation technology 3.1 MEL has concluded that CCGT power generation represents an appropriate choice of fuel and technology for the Scheme, because CCGT technology is highly energy efficient and carbon dioxide emissions are much lower from CCGT power stations than from a coal-fired power stations. 3.2 Gas-fired power stations can also respond flexibly to peaks in energy demand, thus enabling a balanced supply of electricity to be maintained to the National Grid in combination with fluctuating energy sources such as wind and solar generation. In addition CCGT technology has a proven track record in the UK with its environmental effects being widely understood. Strategic development locations 3.3 MEL has undertaken a strategic search for potential CCGT sites in the UK using a phased methodology which considered locations where sufficient gas supply and electrical grid capacity coincide, and where specific site requirements could be met. These included the need for a broadly level site of at least 3 hectares, suitable road access, avoidance of areas of planning and environmental constraints and locations separated from housing and other sensitive land uses. 3.4 Based on these factors, the MBP Site was selected as suitable. Reasons include its status as a brownfield site with existing planning permission for business use, its history of power generation, good access to gas and electricity networks, and lack of ecological or landscape designations. 5

8 Site selection within the MBP Site and road access 3.5 On the basis that the Scheme would require c.10% of the land potentially available for development at the MBP Site, MEL undertook a review of site selection options within the MBP Site to identify the best location for the Scheme. This was informed by planning and environmental considerations and through consultation with SCC, SBC and local stakeholders. 3.6 The review concluded that it would be feasible to locate the Power Station Complex in the northern, central or southern areas of the MBP Site. However, the southern option was selected as the most suitable for reasons including visual containment, separation distance from housing and other sensitive receptors, and maximising the development potential of the remaining MBP Site, and proximity to the existing Barlaston sub-station. Consultation feedback also identified the southern site as the preferred option. Figure NTS2: Potential siting options considered 6

9 Generation capacity and carbon capture 3.7 MEL has decided to pursue a Scheme with a rated electrical output of no greater than 299 MW e. This decision has been made on the basis that the existing available gas supply and electrical distribution networks can cater for the Scheme without the need for significant infrastructure upgrades. In addition this selection avoids the need to use a substantial area of land on the MBP Site that could otherwise be used for regeneration and employment purposes. Power Station Complex layout and design 3.8 General design objectives for the Scheme were to achieve a compact, technically robust and deliverable layout that takes full account of known physical and environmental constraints. A further objective was to ensure that the layout relates well to the future development on the MBP Site and avoids any unacceptable effects to local amenity more widely. Given modern environmental restrictions on water discharges, the Scheme incorporates an air-cooled system. The ES has assessed the potential worst case of the Scheme based on the minimum and maximum parameters of development set out in Section 4 below. Combined heat and power (CHP) 3.9 The Scheme incorporates the potential for a heat network interface building from which it would be feasible to process and supply heat to future occupiers on the MBP Site. Gas Connection options 3.10 Figure NTS3 below identifies the area within which the exact routing of the Gas Connection would be made to the existing local gas supply infrastructure. 7

10 MEAFORD ENERGY CENTRE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Figure NTS3: Preliminary MEC Gas Connection route corridor 3.11 Various route options were considered, taking account of discussions with the network operators and consideration of issues such as landownership and engineering and environmental sensitivities. The final gas supply option, described in Section 4 (below), was selected because it avoids the need for a lengthy connection, avoids areas of dense vegetation and land with potential for redevelopment associated with MBP, and reuses the existing railway (Rail Bridge 104) and canal (Canal Bridge 101 (Malkin s Bridge) crossings previously used by the former Meaford A and B power stations to transport piped pulverised fuel ash. Electrical Connection options 3.12 The selection of a Electrical Connection was informed by consultation with Western Power Distribution (WPD) which identified three potential options: 8 Connecting directly into the Barlaston substation on the MBPS Site; Connecting directly to a remotely-located substation via new 132kV lines; Connecting to the existing network with the upgrade of existing 132kV lines.

11 MEAFORD ENERGY CENTRE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT : Based on its directness, comparative simplicity and avoidance of need for off-site development and associated effects, the option of connecting to Barlaston substation was selected. THE PROPOSED SCHEME MEC Site and surroundings 4.1 As shown on Figure NTS3 the MEC is located mainly within the MBP Site, which comprises approximately 43 hectares (ha) of largely brownfield land, of which 34 ha has existing outline planning permission for commercial and industrial redevelopment. The MBP Site occupies a low-lying position between the River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal and is predominantly vacant and derelict. Road access is currently gained from Meaford Road at the north-western corner (known as the Northern Access Road). Figure NTS4: Site location (excerpt from ES figure 4.1) 9

12 4.2 The MBP Site is bordered by mature trees and shrub vegetation. The Trent and Mersey Canal runs along the eastern boundary of the MBP Site for much of its length with the West Coast Main Line following a generally parallel route on the eastern side of the Canal. Meaford Road forms the western boundary of the MBP Site. To the west of Meaford Road, the River Trent follows a meandering course across its flood plain on the valley floor. 4.3 The closest residential properties to the Order Limits are properties on the A34, the closest of which is located approximately 300m to the south-west. The centre of the settlement of Barlaston is located approximately 1.2km to the north and the outskirts of Stone are located approximately 0.9km to the south. 4.4 As shown in Figure NTS1, land within the Order Limits is approximately 16.6 ha in size and includes approximately 4.6 ha in the central part of the MBP Site in which the Power Station Complex would be located. To the north of the Power Station Complex, the MEC Site incorporates two corridors; one relating to the Northern Access Road and the other to the Gas Connection. The proposed development 4.5 The Scheme comprises the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a CCGT power station development with an electrical rated output of up to 299MWe. Within the ES it has been assumed that the plant would operate continuously to present the realistic worst case. Figure NTS5 provides a diagrammatic summary of how a CCGT power station works. 10

13 Figure NTS5 Summary of how a combined-cycle gas turbine power station works (excerpt from Figure 4.3 ) 4.6 The Power Station Complex comprises the following elements: Gas Turbine Building - which contains up to two gas turbines each connected to its own generator which produces electrical power; Up to two Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and Stacks - hot exhaust gases are passed through the HRSG to recover heat and produce steam before being sent to the stack for release to the atmosphere; Steam Turbine Building - The steam produced by the HRSG is used to drive a steam turbine and generate more electricity; Water Treatment Plant and Water Storage Tanks - to provide and store demineralised water, process and fire fighting water; Air Cooled Condenser - to cool and condense turbine exhaust steam; Main and auxiliary step-up Transformers - for each gas and steam turbine. 11

14 Electrical Switchgear - to enable the full electricity output of the MEC to be exported into the electricity network via underground cables running west through the MBP to the Barlaston sub-station; Pressure Regulating Installation (PRI) - which receives the supply of gas from the existing gas network; Heat Network Interface Building - to accommodate the necessary equipment should a heating scheme be deemed viable; Admin/Control Building - containing the main plant control room and offices for staff and contractors; Workshop - for maintenance activities and the storage of chemicals, and tools; Car Parking - space for up to 20 vehicles; Internal Site Roads serving the various elements of the Power Station Complex from the Northern Access Road; Security Fencing - around the Power Station Complex up to 2.5m in height, incorporating access gates. 4.7 The Power Station Complex will make use of a disused private surface water drainage system on the MBP Site for the purposes of managing surface water drainage. All cooling and blow down water generated by normal operation and maintenance of the Power Station Complex will be directed to the foul water system. External lighting within the Power Station Complex will comprise street lights along the internal site roads, walkways, the perimeter fence and areas where access to plant would be required. Operational areas would be lit 24 hours a day. 4.8 The Scheme incorporates flexibility to allow the MEC to achieve 299 MWe of rated generating capacity by means of up to 2 gas turbines. This is due to there being only a few turbine models currently available. As such the final specification and layout will be determined at a future date, during detailed design of the Scheme, when there may be a greater range of suitable equipment. On this basis consideration of various Power Station Complex configurations have been considered within the design of the Scheme. The assessment has considered the worst-case to present a robust assessment of the potential environmental effects. 12

15 Figure NTS6: Isometric view of the proposed Power Station Complex (excerpt from Figure 4.5 ) Electrical and Gas Connections 4.9 The Power Station Complex is located next to the existing 132kV Barlaston substation which is operated by Western Power Distribution (WPD). WPD has confirmed that existing infrastructure can accommodate the Electrical Connection without significant infrastructure upgrades. On this basis, MEL will undertake the Electrical Connection up to the point of connection, which is Barlaston sub-station The proposed Gas Connection is approximately 760m in length, the majority (approx. 620m) will be underground. Above ground, the pipe would be supported on concrete plinths with a height of between 0.75 and 2m. The Gas Connection pipeline will cross the West Coast railway line and Trent and Mersey Canal on existing bridges (Rail Bridge 104 and Canal Bridge 101 (Malkin s Bridge) respectively). Access will be controlled via fencing of up to 2.5m in height. Works required to Canal Bridge 101 (Malkins Bridge) will comprise the repair of the northern parapet. Concrete plinths would be installed at either end of Canal Bridge 101 (Malkin s Bridge) so that the pipe oversails the bridge. There would be no storage of gas other than the small volume within the Gas Connection pipeline. 13

16 Access roads 4.11 Vehicular access into the MEC Site would be taken from Meaford Road via the Northern Access Road using an existing junction to the MBP Site. There is also the potential for an alternative operational access to the Power Station Complex from the south if the consented SCC Highway Works to improve the access from the A34 to the MBP Site is implemented and an internal estate road constructed. Landscaping and planting strategy 4.12 The proposed landscape strategy for the Scheme includes the retention and management of existing trees groups and woodland where possible. It also involves the undertaking of new planting including a 10m buffer strip alongside the Trent and Mersey Canal. Construction 4.13 The ES assumes an overall construction period of 36 months. Construction Traffic 4.14 Estimates for construction traffic movements at the peak of activity indicates a daily maximum of 300 light vehicles and 110 Heavy Good Vehicles. Operation and maintenance 4.15 The Scheme would be designated to operate at all times, except during annual scheduled shutdowns and will operate with approximately 30 staff working on a shift basis. The number of staff will increase during routine maintenance and shut down periods. For assessment purposes, it has been assumed that one HGV and up to 60 light vehicles will visit the MEC Site per day for routine maintenance and repair activities outside of the shutdown periods. The shutdown period will require some extra operational light traffic to the MEC for the purposes of staff transport. Decommissioning 4.16 A CCGT power station has a notional design life of 25 years. A total life of 35 years is considered, as the life of the power station may be prolonged. Decommissioning activities in many respects would be the reverse of the construction activities. 14

17 5: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EIA 5.1 In accordance with the Planning Act 2008 and the EIA Regulations, the EIA process for the Scheme has included the following: establishing the scope of the EIA by means of preparing a Scoping Report and then obtaining a Scoping Opinion from the Secretary of State; considering any potential technical and environmental alternatives and establishing a worst case scenario for the purposes of assessment; establishing a comprehensive understanding of the existing baseline conditions for the MEC Site and the relevant study areas for each environmental topic; identifying the potential environmental effects resulting from the Scheme; determining how potential environmental effects can be avoided, reduced or offset through design and/or mitigation, and how benefits may be enhanced; assessing the significance of the potential environmental effects in conjunction with other impacts arising from the Scheme and those from other neighbouring developments and / or sources (in-combination and cumulative impacts); and proposing options as to how any significant residual effects will be mitigated, managed and monitored. 5.2 To provide the flexibility needed to achieve a Scheme that has a 299 MWe generating capacity, the ES has been based on a realistic worst case scenario. With the exception of the transport and access assessment, this scenario entails 2+1 turbine arrangement (i.e. up to two gas turbines and up to two HRSGs, one steam turbine and a generator for each turbine). The maximum height of the Stack(s) is 50 metres. 5.3 In accordance with the Scoping Opinion, the EIA incorporates a cumulative assessment of the MEC alongside the consented MBP development as well as the consented SCC Highway Works. 15

18 6: SOCIO-ECONOMIC Context for assessment 6.1 The socio-economic assessment has considered employment and economic effects, local disruption, tourism, and potential effects on community infrastructure for the construction, operational (including maintenance) and decommissioning phases of the Scheme, identifying that: temporary and permanent employment arising from the MEC provides opportunities for local unemployed people; the range of opportunities created by the MEC and within its supply chain would be an opportunity for people seeking employment, or to re-skill; the MEC will diversify the local economy and presents opportunities for the workforce and businesses in sectors aligned to energy; commuting patterns suggest that the MEC is within easy access from major urban areas and a large potential workforce. Summary of predicted impacts 6.2 The assessment has identified no significant adverse socio-economic effects arising from the Scheme; it has identified the following positive effects: Creation of employment during construction (c. 495 jobs on site at peak); Creation of around 30 jobs during operation; An input to the economy of 4.5m (nationally), of which 3m is in the sub-region and income from employment of 1.9m across the sub-region; Potential for around 50% of the construction spend (c. 117m) within the UK; Unlocking of the wider MBP Site for redevelopment. This could provide high quality employment space to new and existing businesses plus the inherent benefits of the MEC providing security of supply of power and a potential heat network. Upon full build out the MBP Site could support 1,957 net new jobs and provide an input of 83.96m into the economy. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 6.3 No direct mitigation measures are required, but certain measures are recommended to enhance the positive aspects of the Scheme where possible, including the use of local traders, contractors and suppliers in the construction process and the recruitment of local people for the operational stage. 6.4 Overall, the proposed MEC is likely to have mostly positive socio-economic effects at both the local and regional levels. 16

19 7: TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC Context for assessment 7.1 The Scheme has incorporated transport and traffic assessment which includes the impact of construction, operation (including maintenance) and decommissioning on the surrounding area, as well as a cumulative assessment which takes into account the proposed SCC Highway Works and the proposed MBP development. Figure NTS7: Inbound Construction Traffic Route (excerpt from ES Figure 7.3, Volume 3) 17

20 Predicted impacts 7.2 During peak construction activity, approximately 55 additional HGV visits and 300 staff vehicle visits will be generated daily. This would have a slight adverse effect on accidents and safety, pedestrian amenity and fear and intimidation and residential amenity. However all of these impacts will be temporary and mitigation is proposed to reduce the effects. However, any effects resulting from the construction phase will be temporary and confined to Meaford Road, to the south of the Scheme, which will be used to provide vehicular access to the MEC Site via the Northern Access Road. The significance of effect on severance and driver delay is considered to be negligible. 7.3 Once operational the Scheme is predicted to generate 30 staff visits per day, the majority of which are likely to occur outside the highway peak periods. Therefore, the impact on the surrounding area is predicted to be negligible. 7.4 The cumulative effects of the Scheme, taking into account the SCC Highway Works and the proposed MBP Site development are assessed to be similar to the baseline effects, but no worse. The MBP Site itself is well set back from Meaford Road and therefore unlikely to experience any adverse effects as a result of traffic on Meaford Road. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 7.5 A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be prepared to detail initiatives and measures to mitigate construction traffic. A draft of the CTMP is included as Appendix 7.11 to this ES, and deals with matters such as managing time slots for HGVs, preventing parking on public highways, wheel washing, protocols for abnormal loads, and road closures. 7.6 Over the long term, i.e. post construction, all effects as a result of the Scheme are predicted to be neutral. Overall, it is predicted there will be no significant long-term operational traffic effects following completion of the construction phase for the Scheme. It is expected that residual effects related to decommissioning will be similar or less severe than those experienced during construction. 18

21 8: AIR QUALITY Context for assessment 8.1 The ES has assessed the potential direct and indirect effects of the Scheme on outdoor air quality during construction, operation (including maintenance) and decommissioning. Pollution concentrations are also evaluated in the context of air quality criteria set for the protection of human health and ecology. The main element of the assessment is a modelling study of Stack emissions, carried out in line with Environment Agency guidance. Changes to air quality due to vehicle movements have also been evaluated, along with an assessment of dust emissions. 8.2 The assessment zone is shown in Figure NTS8 below. Figure NTS8: Air Quality Receptor Locations (excerpt from ES Figure 8.1, Volume 3) 19

22 Predicted impacts 8.3 The assessment demonstrates that Stack emissions will not lead to exceedences of statutory air quality criteria at identified relevant receptors. Total nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates will remain below their respective objectives, and the effect of Stack emissions is considered, in line with EPUK guidance, to be insignificant. Ecological effects are also found to be insignificant. 8.4 As regards dust emissions, no residual effects are anticipated beyond the PEIR boundary, and all residential, commercial and industrial properties and ecological receptors are likely to remain unaffected by dust through the construction period of the Scheme. 8.5 As regards road traffic emissions, changes to traffic flow would have a neutral impact on local pollutant concentrations and as such, an insignificant effect on local receptors for human health and ecology. 8.6 The air quality assessment also considers potential cumulative impacts, and it is found that dust risk may increase if sensitive receptors are present on the MBP Site during construction works. However there will be no significant cumulative effects due to the additional traffic introduced by the MBP Site development during construction and operation (including maintenance). Pollutant concentrations will remain below AQS objectives and the cumulative effects of Scheme traffic will be negligible. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 8.7 A range of mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the production and dispersion of dust during the construction of the Scheme is kept to an absolute minimum, in particular during the laying down of the gas pipeline for the Gas Connection, due to its proximity to ecological sites and the Trent and Mersey Canal. These include site management and monitoring activities, incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). A draft CEMP is included as Appendix 17.1 to the ES. 8.8 At the operational stage, no further measures are proposed in addition to those incorporated in the Scheme design, because CCGT technology is inherently clean and the use of natural gas as a fuel ensures that stringent emission limits for oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide will be met and monitored under an Environmental Permit granted separately by the Environment Agency. Vehicle movements during the operational (including maintenance) phase are also negligible, meaning that further specific mitigation to control vehicle emissions is not required. 20

23 8.9 Overall, it is considered that subject to mitigation measures, it is unlikely there will be any significant adverse effects on air quality as a result of the Scheme. 9: NOISE AND VIBRATION Context for assessment 9.1 The ES has assessed potential noise and vibration effects, incorporating an assessment of the potential construction, operational (including maintenance) and decommissioning impacts. A study area of 1 km from the edge of the Order Limits has been identified for the noise assessment, as shown in Figure NTS9 below. Figure NTS9: Noise sensitive receptors (excerpt from ES Figure 9.1, Volume 3) 21

24 Predicted impacts 9.2 An assessment of off-site traffic during construction of the Scheme has shown that impacts will be negligible. It is possible that for a period of two days during concrete pouring, minor road traffic noise impacts could occur on Meaford Road south of the Northern Access Road. Parts of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area are close to the Scheme, and there may be temporary increases in ambient noise levels at the Trent and Mersey Canal during construction. However, impacts would be short-term and temporary due to the nature of construction works and the transient use of the Canal. Therefore, the potential impacts are not expected to be significant. 9.3 During the operational (including maintenance) phase, under typical operation conditions and with temporary, short-term maintenance activities, the noise impacts at occupied residential receptors are predicted to be equal to or below the BS 4142 criterion, where the standard is applicable. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 9.4 At the construction stage, the assessment has shown that in general the likely impacts from the Scheme would be negligible and thus no specific mitigation measures are required. However best practicable means should be employed throughout the construction phase, and a number of good practice mitigation measures are included in the draft CEMP presented as Appendix 17.1 to this ES. 9.5 In operation, the use of quieter plant and equipment will be preferred, and if necessary plant and equipment will be fitted with silencing equipment (e.g. enclosures, baffles, attenuators) to ensure the levels specified in this report are achieved. Walls, roofs, roof-lights and shutter doors of the process buildings of the Power Station Complex will be acoustically designed to achieve sound insulation through the building fabric. 9.6 Good operating practice will also be employed for the control of noise. This includes adequate maintenance of any parts of plant or equipment whose deterioration may give rise to increases in noise, for example turbine bearings and integrity of noise attenuation enclosures. When not in use, any roller shutter doors should be kept closed. Any mechanical ventilation systems for supply or extraction of air to and from the process buildings will also be designed to minimise noise. 9.7 Overall it is predicted that with the use of appropriate mitigation, there would be no significant adverse noise and vibration impacts associated with the Scheme. 22

25 MEAFORD ENERGY CENTRE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 10: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Context for assessment 10.1 A landscape and visual assessment (LVIA) which has informed the design process, including siting options, landscape works, layout, materials and finishes has been incorporated within the ES. The assessment focuses on likely significant effects on the existing landscape resource and visual receptors within a defined study area. Figure NTS10 below provides an excerpt of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) which has been prepared, defining from where the Scheme could potentially be visible. Figure NTS10: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (excerpt from ES Figure 10.1, Volume 3) 23

26 Predicted impacts 10.2 The LVIA concludes that, during construction, the Scheme would not result in significant effects to identified landscape character types/areas, due to the minor scale of the construction activity relative to landscape character types/areas. Construction would have a moderate adverse effect on some receptors, due to their proximity or elevated position. However, other than for the upper section of cranes, landform and vegetation would screen the majority of the construction activity During operation, whilst the Scheme would introduce new buildings and structures, the landscape effect is not assessed as significant, due to the Scheme s scale relative to the extent of the character types/areas and given that the area is notable for infrastructure. Impacts on Canal Bridge 101 (Malkin s Bridge) have been assessed as very minor in relation to the extent and landscape character of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area The Scheme s height would produce a mostly moderate adverse effect for a number of visual receptors, due to their proximity to the Order Limits, visibility above boundary vegetation and elevated views. Residential properties at one receptor (no 23, being residents along Old Road) would experience a major adverse effect with upper sections of the Scheme being visible. By year 15 only receptor 23, and users of two rights of way (PROW Stone Rural 45 and PROW Stone Rural 46 (Downs Banks) would experience a moderate adverse effect Impacts beyond 2km is reduced due to landform and vegetation which limit views to the upper sections of the Stack(s), which would be a minor component of wider views, some of which already include infrastructure features. The Scheme will increase ambient lighting within the area in conjunction with the development of the MBP. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 10.6 A range of mitigation measures are proposed which focus on: minimising visual impact through detailed design (e.g. layout, scale, facades); creation of a landscape mitigation area; further retaining and reinforcing existing tree groups and woodland; and long term monitoring and management of a landscape scheme Subject to these mitigation measures, it is considered there would be no significant effects on the landscape resource whilst there would be a major adverse effect on a limited number of visual receptors, reducing to moderate adverse, at 15 years of operation. 24

27 11: ECOLOGY Context for assessment 11.1 The ES has assessed the potential significant effects of the Scheme on features of ecological interest within a defined study area. The MEC Site has been surveyed for protected species and assessed for nature conservation value, with surveys including Phase 1 habitat surveys and protected species surveys for species including bats, newts, breeding birds, reptiles, invertebrates, otter and water vole. Measures to mitigate potential significant negative effects are proposed and the residual effects on ecological features are then summarised. It also considers potential effects on Natura 2000 European designated sites due to nitrogen from Stack emissions. Figure NTS11: Designated ecological sites around the Scheme (excerpt from ES Figure 11.2, Volume 3) 25

28 Predicted impacts 11.2 With the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant negative effects to any designated sites for nature conservation arising from the Scheme 11.3 The Scheme will result in the direct loss of semi-natural broadleaved woodland and other habitats which include tall ruderal vegetation, scattered scrub, ephemeral/short perennial vegetation and waterbodies. However, these will either be replaced by the planting of broadleaved trees or their loss will be compensated for by other planting, and hence, there would be no significant effects to these habitats within the context of the MEC Site or the wider environment Although there is the potential for limited amounts of disturbance to breeding birds, invertebrates and foraging or commuting bats, this will be mitigated including replacement habitats, and there will be no significant effects to any legally protected or notable species. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 11.5 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will specify measures for the physical protection of habitats, pollution prevention, eradication of unwanted invasive species, and precautionary methods of working to ensure legally protected species which have not been found but could potentially enter the MEC Site are taken into consideration. A draft CEMP has been prepared (and is included as an Appendix to the ES) The mitigation outlined in the draft CEMP deals with standard pollution issues of dust deposition and potential for pollution of water courses as outlined in EN-2. Where the Order Limits abut the Trent and Mersey Canal Local Wildlife Site, fencing/construction hoarding will be installed to prevent direct negative effects from construction works. Where semi-natural broadleaved woodland will be lost this will be replaced through the implementation of the landscape planting One permanent waterbody (an attenuation pond) is proposed to the north west of the Power Station Complex. This pond will incorporate native marginal planting The proposed mitigation also includes the creation of replacement habitat. This area will be suitable for invertebrates, including a butterfly bank and the scrapes to hold water ephemerally. Measures to minimise disturbance to foraging and commuting bats and breeding birds will also be undertaken as part of the agreed mitigation Subject to the mitigation above, the Scheme would give rise to no significant adverse impacts on ecology. 26

29 MEAFORD ENERGY CENTRE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 12: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT Context for assessment 12.1 The ES has assessed impacts on the historic environment, including heritage assets within and around the MEC Site. It addresses all known and potential heritage assets, and possible unknown archaeological remains. Figure NTS12: Designated cultural heritage constraints (excerpt from ES Figure 12.1, Volume 3) 27

30 Predicted impacts 12.2 The assessment has identified that during construction of the Scheme, there would be no impacts on the setting of the majority of designated assets, although construction activities and traffic movements in proximity to the MEC Site would slightly alter the current setting of 5 assets for a temporary period. In the case of one asset (the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area), repair works to the northern parapet wall on Canal Bridge 101 (Malkins Bridge) are considered to give rise to a slight beneficial effect During operation (including maintenance) the main impact on the historic environment will be caused by the visual presence of the Scheme, particularly its tall elements. A total of 3 designated assets would experience a change, with a minor adverse effect, whilst 8 designated assets would experience no change. A total of 3 non-designated assets would experience adverse effects, in each case the magnitude of impact being minor. Operational traffic will not have an impact on historic environment receptors and there will be no physical impacts on belowground archaeology. With regards to historic landscape character, whilst the Scheme will introduce a prominent industrial element, this follows the precedent of previous development and the development which will take place pursuant to the existing planning permission for the MBP and is likely to only effect a minor adverse impact on the wider character of the historic landscape Decommissioning is predicted to produce similar impacts as construction, although for a shorter period and with effects being no worse. Following decommissioning, site conditions would revert to the baseline. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 12.5 Due to a lack of archaeological impacts, no mitigation is required during construction of the Scheme. The minor adverse impacts on the setting of assets during construction cannot be mitigated further, and these are also temporary and of relatively short duration During operation of the Scheme, no mitigation measures specific to the historic environment have been identified, although the materials and colours for the external finish of the Power Station Complex, which are to be carefully considered from a landscape and visual point of view, are also relevant to the historic environment Overall the construction, operation (including maintenance) and decommissioning of the Scheme would not result in any significant effects on the historic environment. 28

31 13: GROUND CONDITIONS Context for assessment 13.1 The ES has incorporated an assessment which focuses on ground contamination and the potential effects on surface waters, groundwater and human health through the disturbance of ground previously contaminated due to the former Meaford A and B power stations. The assessment has comprised a Stage 1 land contamination risk assessment and a Stage 2 land contamination impact assessment, with the study area comprising a 500m zone around the PEIR site boundary. Predicted impacts 13.2 During construction, no significant effects are anticipated and, in general, neutral or minor adverse effects are anticipated. These effects are assessed as not significant, and temporary minor adverse effects are only likely to be realised should heavy rainfall occur during the earthworks phase of construction, which would slightly increase the mobility of contaminants in soil to groundwater and surface water Once construction is complete and the Scheme is operational, minor beneficial effects are anticipated, associated with the removal of contaminated material, the placement of hardstanding, and a formalised drainage system, which reduce the risks to humans, groundwater and surface waters. These beneficial effects are however assessed as not significant. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 13.4 Mitigation measures will be undertaken prior to and during construction, including: ground investigation to quantify the level of contamination; dust suppression measures to prevent migration of contaminated dust; remediation if necessary; if required an asbestos risk assessment and management plan; and working methods during construction to ensure that surface water cannot runoff from the works or any stockpiles into adjacent surface watercourses Such mitigation measures will be incorporated into the CEMP. A draft CEMP is included as an Appendix to this ES. No mitigation measures specific to the operation of the Scheme have been identified. However, measures identified for the construction phase will be undertaken and will improve the condition of the Site (with regards to contamination) for the operation of the Scheme and future development of the MBP Site. 29

32 13.6 Once construction is complete and the Scheme is operational, minor beneficial effects are anticipated, associated with the removal of contaminated material, the placement of hardstanding, and a formalised drainage system, which reduce the risks to humans, groundwater and surface water. 14: THE WATER ENVIRONMENT Context for assessment 14.1 The ES has identified the likely significant effects with respect to the water environment as a result of the Scheme, including through the introduction of new potential pollutants. The study area for assessment covers land within 1 km of the PEIR boundary, allowing for the identification of water receptors potentially affected. 30

33 MEAFORD ENERGY CENTRE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Figure NTS13: Study area for water environment assessment (excerpt from ES Figure 14.1, Volume 3) Predicted impacts 14.2 During construction of the Scheme, likely effects to water resources and flood risk are considered to be insignificant. There would also be insignificant impacts in terms of down gradient surface water and groundwater water quality and thus there will be an insignificant impact on ecology. However, water quality monitoring of the River Trent should be undertaken to enable mitigation to be designed and implemented if required During operation and maintenance of the Scheme, effects on water resources and flood risk are also considered to be insignificant. The cumulative impacts of the MBP Site and the MEC Site being developed simultaneously would also be negligible and insignificant. 31

34 14.4 During decommissioning of the Scheme, effects are also considered to be insignificant. Measures, including water quality monitoring within surface water bodies and the River Trent, will be undertaken to ensure adverse effects resulting from intended works during decommissioning are minimised or avoided A Water Framework Directive (WFD) screening assessment has shown that the Scheme will not cause deterioration in the status of the ecological/chemical elements of the water body, or introduce impediments to the attainment of Good WFD status. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 14.6 Mitigation measures during construction and operation of the Scheme will include: Bunding of potential contaminant sources such as tanks and excavated soils; Use of spill kits; Obtaining appropriate permits for discharge to surface water; Capturing site runoff and capturing contaminants prior to discharge; Avoiding rupture of underground services such as sewers and pipes; Carrying out a piling risk strategy prior to construction; Complying with the Environment Agency s applicable guidelines; and The use of a hydrobrake on the drainage system to enable the system to be easily shut off in case of a large spillage to prevent contaminated water discharging to the River Trent Subject to the above measures, it is predicted that the Scheme will not result in any significant adverse effects. 32

35 15: WASTE Context for assessment 15.1 The ES has assessed and identified the likely significant effects with respect to the waste as a result of the construction, operation (including maintenance) and decommissioning of the Scheme, including through the introduction of new pollutants. The Scheme will require clearance of the MEC Site, including existing stockpiles of soil and rubble associated with the breaking up of the surface and foundation structures which remain following the demolition of the former Meaford A and B power stations. The Scheme also requires vegetation clearance and excavation to allow construction of piles, foundations, floor slabs and other integral infrastructure. Predicted impacts 15.2 During enabling/excavation works, a significant proportion of waste will be from removal of contaminated soils and concrete foundations from the former power stations. However, the waste requiring off-site treatment and/or disposal is relatively small given the capacity for local recycling and treatment, and thus the overall effect is considered to be neutral. However, there are likely to be elements of hazardous waste requiring appropriate management and given a lack of available local facilities this could potentially result in a minor adverse effect During construction of the Scheme, there will be a residual amount of waste requiring disposal, however, given local recycling capacity for aggregate, this would have a neutral effect on local recycling/treatment capacity During operation of the Scheme, residual effects are also expected to be neutral following the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, given the predicted amount of waste in relation available local recycling/treatment capacity. Mitigation measures and summary of residual effects 15.5 Mitigation measures identified for the Scheme extend across the construction, maintenance, operation and decommissioning stages and include: crushing and re-using excavated concrete on site; re-using uncontaminated excavated material; treating hazardous materials on site where possible; encouraging the use of non-primary materials over primary materials; using renewable materials and materials with lower environmental effects; and regular removal of material offsite by a licensed waste carrier Overall, subject to the above measures, the Scheme will not result in any significant adverse effects. 33