Energy from Waste Facility Environmental Statement Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary. July 2016

Transcription

1 Energy from Waste Facility Environmental Statement Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary July 2016

2 This Environmental Statement has been prepared by Turley Planning on behalf of This is Protos with contributions from: The Environmental Statement can be downloaded in full via the This is Protos website ( Copies of the Environmental Statement can also be obtained from: Turley 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD Tel The cost of printing will be charged at a cost price. However, the Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement (Volume 1) is available free of charge, and an electronic copy of the Environmental Statement can be provided on DVD for 10.

3 Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment 9 3. Summary of Environmental Effects 10 Appendix 1: Site Location Plan 18 Appendix 2: Proposed Development 19 Contact Stephen Bell Stephen.bell@turley.co.uk Amy Longmore amy.longmore@turley.co.uk July 2016

4 1. Introduction About this Document 1.1 This document is the non-technical summary (NTS) of the Environmental Statement (ES) which has been prepared by This is Protos LLP (a company of Peel Environmental Limited) in respect of their proposals for the construction and operation of a 35 Megawatt (MW) Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility and associated development ( the Proposed Development ), on land at Plot 8 of Protos, Ince, Cheshire. The location of the Proposed Development is shown at Appendix This ES supports a full planning application for the Proposed Development which is submitted to Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the 1990 Act ). 1.3 Preparation of the document has been led by Turley on behalf of This is Protos LLP. Expert contributions have been provided by RSK and Fichtner. 1.4 The purpose of the NTS is to summarise the content and main findings of the ES in a clear and concise manner to assist the public in understanding what the environmental effects of the Proposed Development are likely to be. The full ES provides a more detailed description of the Proposed Development and the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. 1.5 This ES is presented in three documents as follows: Volume 1: this Non-Technical Summary Volume 2: Main ES Volume 3: Appendices and Figures The Purpose of an Environmental Impact Assessment 1.6 An EIA has been undertaken pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) ( the EIA Regulations 2011 ), due to the nature, size, location, and the likely significant effects on the environment as a result of the Proposed Development. The results of the EIA are reported in this ES. 1.7 The purpose of the suite of ES documents is to describe: the baseline environmental conditions; the options for development which have been considered and discounted; the design of the Proposed Development; and to provide an assessment of likely significant environmental effects during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases in each environmental topic area. Where it has not been possible to design the Proposed Development so as to avoid the occurrence of likely significant environmental effects, the ES describes the mitigation measures that have been identified and incorporated into the scheme. A description of the subsequent residual effects post mitigation is provided.

5 Application Site Location 1.8 The Proposed Development site comprises approximately 10 ha of relatively flat marshland which is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is located within the jurisdiction of CWAC. It is approximately 1.2km northeast of the village of Elton and approximately 2km northwest of the village of Helsby. 1.9 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 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, which is currently being developed, is approximately 850m east of the site (at its nearest point) and will comprise 19 turbines at 125m tall. A Biomass Renewable Energy Plant (BREP) is also currently being erected on land immediately south of the Proposed Development site 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 Two ecological mitigation areas are currently being created: one approximately 600m northwest of the site; and one approximately 200m west of the site There is currently no direct vehicular or pedestrian access to the Proposed Development Site. There is an existing bridleway (known as Marsh Lane Bridleway) which runs across the wider area connecting the village of Ince (approximately 1.6km west of the site) to Frodsham (approximately 4.5km east of the site), which is currently being diverted The main vehicular 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 is a private road. Construction works to upgrade the Pool Lane roundabout and Grinsome Road are currently being undertaken. Background to the Application Site and Surroundings 1.16 The Proposed Development is located on Plot 8 of Protos, which is an intended hub for energy and resource recovery development. Plot 8 has an existing consent (Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989) and deemed planning permission (Section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) for a 95MW Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant, which was granted in August 2009 (reference GDBC/001/00265C and /36C) ( the Section 36 Consent / the Deemed Permission ) The RDF Plant consent has been implemented by the commencement of development (construction of an acoustic timber fence) and is consequently safeguarded, but the RDF Plant has not otherwise been built out.

6 1.18 The RDF Plant is a similar facility to the Proposed Development, in that it would process waste to produce energy; however the consented RDF Plant is on a larger scale than the Proposed Development. The Proposed Development is an alternative to the RDF Plant The Proposed Development site forms one part (Plot 8) of a wider authorised and emerging development known as Protos. Protos comprises a Resource Recovery Park or RRP, one component of which is the authorised RDF Plant (to be superseded by the Proposed Development) The RRP development covers a total of approximately 134 hectares of land at Ince Marshes, off Pool Lane / Grinsome Road, Ince, Cheshire. Plot 8 is part of the RRP, but is subject to separate planning permission as referred to above The RRP will comprise a waste reprocessing and renewable energy facility to be developed on a plot basis, organised around principal infrastructure and a landscape framework. The RRP was originally granted Outline Planning Permission in August 2009 ( the RRP Outline Permission ) (ref. APP/ZO645/A/07/ ). The Proposed Development 1.22 The Proposed Development comprises: The EfW Facility; 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 The Proposed Development is shown at Appendix The EfW Facility is designed to generate up to 35MW of electricity to export to the national grid or use within Protos. 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 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 It is expected that the plant will receive waste fuel on 5.5 days per week all year. As per the consented RDF Plant, it is the ambition for the proposed EfW Facility to be a multimodal facility The EfW Facility comprises a principal building divided into internal subcomponents. The internal access road will loop around the main components of the EfW Facility.

7 1.28 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 Access to the site will be as previously consented: access for the operation of the EfW Facility will be from the A5117 via Pool Lane and then Grinsome Road, which is currently being widened. New access roads will connect to Grinsome Road 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 If granted planning permission, the Proposed Development will replace the existing Section 36 Consented and Deemed Permission for a 95MW RDF Plant. Associated Committed Development 1.32 There are other principal elements associated with, but separate from, the Proposed Development, which already have planning permission and will be (or are already being) delivered alongside the Proposed Development. These comprise the following Associated Committed Developments : Dry Cargo Facility (first phase); Rail line and rail head (first phase); Ecological Mitigation Areas, namely areas A, C and E; Landscape mitigation areas, beyond those to be contained within the planning application 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). Consideration of Alternatives 1.34 The consented and implemented Deemed Permission secures the principle of the use of the site for energy from waste development. The Proposed Development does not alter the principal intended use of the site, it is purely of a smaller scale than originally proposed, with associated change to the built form The Proposed Development will remain a key element of the overall Protos development and will only supersede what is already committed as authorised and implemented under the Deemed Permission Accordingly, no further consideration of alternatives is necessary.

8 Background to Environmental Assessments undertaken 1.37 The RDF Plant Section 36 Consent and Deemed Permission, and the RRP Outline Planning Permission, was supported by an ES completed in 2007 ( the ES 2007 ) Since the original grant of planning permission there have been a number of planning permissions granted and amendments approved to alter the originally approved RRP development, each supported by environmental assessments A Scoping Report (June 2016) was submitted to CWAC which proposed the scope of the EIA and the information to be presented in this ES for the Proposed Development. CWAC provided their formal Scoping Opinion on 12 July CWAC provided their formal Scoping Opinion on 12 July There has been continuous dialog with CWAC during the preparation of their Scoping Opinion, which has been informed by advice from statutory consultees. Where appropriate, comments received from statutory consultees have been addressed The only consultee comment which remains to be addressed is from Natural England. In discussion with CWAC, it is agreed that the response from Natural England is generic and does not take into consideration the depth of environmental surveys already completed at the proposed development site. Continuing efforts are being made to discuss this position with Natural England to agree that the ecology and landscape topics can remain scoped out of the remaining EIA process, which is reflective of the results of the technical assessments undertaken at the site. Accordingly, in this situation, the response from Natural England does not alter the scope of EIA / ES, and it will remain described in the Scoping Report June CWAC have been included in addressing comments raised and, since their Scoping Opinion was issued, have verbally clarified they are satisfied with the proposed scope and approach of the EIA which was presented in the Scoping Report (June 2016). This ES has been prepared pursuant to the agreed approach with CWAC The Scoping Report (June 2016) compared the results of the ES 2007, and other environmental assessments undertaken at Protos, with the likely effects arising as a result of the Proposed Development, taking in to account updated baseline information and current circumstances Where the same or less significant effects were identified, no further assessments were undertaken, and were scoped out of the remaining EIA process. Where there was likely to be significant environmental effects that hadn t otherwise been adequately assessed, further assessments were scoped in to the remaining EIA process and the results are reported in this ES.

9 2. Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment 2.1 EIA is a process that identifies the likely significant environmental effects (both beneficial and adverse) of a proposed development and proposes mitigation to avoid, reduce and offset any potential significant adverse environmental effects. 2.2 This ES has been prepared in accordance with the latest regulations and guidance and good practice including: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) National Planning Policy Guidance: Environmental Impact Assessment The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA): Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment IEMA: The State of Environmental Impact Assessments in the UK 2.3 The aim of EIA is to identify the likely significant effects the proposal could have on the environment, and identify measures to protect the environment to reduce the significance of the effects. The assessment process to identify significant environmental effects has been undertaken by: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 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. 2.4 The assessment process to identify significant environmental effects has been undertaken for the operational and construction phases. 2.5 Unless otherwise stated, decommissioning effects are assumed to be the same as the effects identified for the construction phase and have not been assessed separately.

10 3. Summary of Environmental Effects Introduction 3.1 This section of the NTS presents a summary of the results of the environmental assessment undertaken for the Project. It summarises the results of the scoping assessment undertaken (reported in the Scoping Report, June 2016), and the results of the further assessments that were scoped in to the remaining EIA process and reported in this ES (Volume 2). Scoping Assessment 3.2 The Scoping Report (June 2016) compared the results of the ES 2007, and other environmental assessments undertaken at Protos, with the likely effects arising as a result of the Proposed Development, taking in to account updated baseline information and current circumstances. 3.3 Table 3.1 summarises those effects identified for the Proposed Development which were considered to be the same or less significant than the effects identified for the RDF Plant in the ES Accordingly, no further assessments were undertaken as part of the remaining EIA process. Table 3.1: Comparison of residual effects Predicted Effect Significance of residual effect identified in ES 2007 Change in significance of the effect as a result of the proposed Project Contamination, soils and geology Removal of soil/shallow deposits during construction Negative impacts on geology, soils or hydrogeology due to fuel spills, etc. Negative impacts due to release of existing contamination Damage to surface soils due to plant movements Negative impact on physical environment due to damage to Slight (not significant) Slight (not significant) Slight (not significant) Slight (not significant) Slight (not significant)

11 Predicted Effect existing pipeline infrastructure Disturbance to canal sediments during dredging operations Generation of waste materials from EfW Facility (accidental release of solid or liquid wastes) Discharge of water to Manchester Ship Canal Release of existing contamination Air Quality Vehicle emissions Fugitive dust emissions Significance of residual effect identified in ES 2007 Slight (not significant) Slight (not significant) Slight (not significant) None to Slight (not significant Negligible Negligible Change in significance of the effect as a result of the proposed Project Not likely to change Not likely to change Ecology Construction and Operational Not Significant Phase: Mersey Estuary SPA Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Phase: Frodsham, Helsby and District Level Ince Marshes SBI No Change No Change Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Site No Change Phase: Hedgerows Level Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Site No Change Phase: Grassland Level Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Phase: Ditches Local Level Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Phase: Badger Local Level No Change No Change Positive. Significant at Site No Change Construction and Operational

12 Predicted Effect Phase: Bats Significance of residual effect identified in ES 2007 Level Change in significance of the effect as a result of the proposed Project Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Site No Change Phase: Water Voles Level Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Site No Change Phase: Breeding Birds Level Construction and Operational Positive. Significant at Phase: Wintering Birds Local Level No Change Historic Environment Possible direct effects on known and potential archaeological remains associated with: The Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) (NLHE No ) Approximate location of Bronze Age looped spearhead (HER No. 1014) Grinsome Farm (site of) (identified in ES 2007 from place name assessment) Sluice gate to the east of Holme Farm (identified in ES 2007 from site visit) Identified effects not significant Mitigated through scope of works agreed in Rev05 WSI (RSK, 2012) in significance of effect Mitigation implemented since 2007, or ongoing Slight visual effects predicted to Scheduled Monuments: Roman fortlet (SM 27589) and Promontory Fort on Helsby Hill (SM 25689) Landscape and Visual Landscape effect Visual effect Identified effects not significant The existing tree and scrub screening to the east of Plot 8 provides mitigation for the worstcase visual effects.

13 Predicted Effect Landscape effect Visual effect Socio-Economics Job creation Indirect effects from spend in local area Loss of land for informal recreation and impact on local footpaths Job creation Indirect effects from spend in local area Benefits to waste and energy industries Public benefits diversion from landfill and contribution to sustainable energy Traffic and Transport Increased volume of traffic Road network increased traffic Road network HGV traffic through local villages Increased canal traffic Significance of residual effect identified in ES 2007 Significant for some views (principally local footpaths and settlements with views over landcover to the upper parts of the RDF Plant and stack). Not quantified Not quantified Change in significance of the effect as a result of the proposed Project

14 Predicted Effect Increased rail traffic Noise Construction Traffic Construction Plant Significance of residual effect identified in ES 2007 Not Significant Not Significant Change in significance of the effect as a result of the proposed Project Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk Due to changes in guidance and assessment methodologies, if the hydrology and flood risk assessment undertaken for the ES 2007 was to be completed in 2016 a very different assessment methodology and different significance criteria would be applied. It is therefore not considered appropriate to directly compare the identified effects of the consented RDF Plant with those of the Project. A detailed EMP will be prepared and implemented for the Project (which will consider the potential for cumulative construction effects). A FRA has been undertaken in accordance with the latest guidance and standards and confirms the proposal is not at risk of, and will not cause an increase to, flooding. On this basis it is predicted that residual effects of the Project on water quality, hydrology, drainage and flood risk would not be significant. 3.4 When undertaking the comparative assessment, where different or more significant effects were identified, or where there was likely to be significant environmental effects that hadn t otherwise been adequately assessed, further assessments were scoped in to the remaining EIA process and the results are reported in this ES. Further Assessments 3.5 The ES (Volume 2) describes: the baseline environmental conditions; the alternative options for the Proposed Development; the design of the Proposed Development; provides an assessment of likely significant environmental effects during the construction and operational phases in each environmental topic area; provides an assessment of likely significant cumulative environmental effects; and identifies appropriate mitigation measures required as part of good practice and to reduce significant effects to a level which are not deemed significant in EIA terms. 3.6 A summary of the significance of effects identified in this ES before and after mitigation measures are implemented are presented at Table 3.2.

15 Table 3.2: Summary of Assessment of Significant Residual Effects Topic Identified Effect Significance of Effect Significance of Residual Effect Noise Predicted Industrial noise from the EfW Facility Predicted Industrial noise from the Dry Cargo Facility Combined Predicted Industrial noise Operational Traffic Noise Operational Rail Noise Cumulative noise Air Quality Dust from construction activities Potentially significant at Holme Farm and Mersey Estuary when undertaking works in Ecological Mitigation Area A Generation of exhaust pollutants from operational phase traffic The significance of emissions at all human sensitive receptors, on human health, and on ecological sites is predicted to be not significant Process emissions The significance of emissions at all human sensitive receptors, on human health, and on ecological sites is predicted to be not

16 Topic Identified Effect Significance of Effect Significance of Residual Effect Dust and odour emissions significant Cumulative: Inter-Project Effects Cumulative: Intra-Project Effects Cumulative Construction noise Construction emissions Operational noise effects Operational emissions Operational traffic noise Operational traffic emissions Dispersion of emissions Construction and Loss of residential amenity Summary of Identified Significant Effects 3.7 As presented at Table 3.2, the Project will not cause any new significant effects, beyond those identified for the RDF Plant in the ES Within the ES 2007, the only significant effect identified was the impact on some views (principally local footpaths and settlements with views over land-cover to the upper parts of the RDF Plant and stack). This was taken into consideration in the determination of the application and found to be acceptable when balanced with the benefits of the scheme. This proposed Project does not alter the significance of that effect.

17 3.9 The implementation of appropriate mitigation measures identified as part of good practice and to reduce significant effects to a level which are not deemed significant in EIA terms will be secured by way of planning conditions and planning obligations.

18 Appendix 1: Site Location Plan

19 Appendix 2: Proposed Development

20 Turley Office 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD T