Newhurst Energy Recovery Facility, Shepshed, Leicestershire Proposed modifications to the approved design Volume 3 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY July 2014 SLR Ref: 403.04097.00005 Biffa Waste Services Limited
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Executive Summary... i Introduction... 1 Application Submission Package... 1 Planning and EIA... 2 The Site... 2 Land Use... 3 Sensitive Receptors... 4 The Proposed Development... 4 The 2012 Approved Scheme... 4 The Revised Scheme... 5 Policy Background... 7 Alternatives... 8 Air Quality... 9 Landscape and Visual Impact... 10 Transport... 11 Noise... 12 Geology and Water... 13 Ecology... 14 Cultural Heritage... 15 Socio Economic... 16 Climate Change... 17 Cumulative Impacts... 18 Conclusion... 19
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Newhurst site has an approved waste management capacity of up to 375,000 tonnes per annum established through two planning permissions. The first, which was implemented in February 2012, is for an integrated waste management facility (IWMF) with a handling capacity of 375,000 tonnes per annum. The second is for a modern waste fuelled energy recovery facility (ERF) with a handling capacity of 300,000 tonnes per annum. Biffa is now moving to the next stage in the delivery of the ERF. As part of this process, consideration has been given to the detailed engineering design of the ERF, bearing in mind that the initial design is some 5 years old. This design review has identified scope for further performance efficiency improvements which would enable power production to be optimised whilst still remaining within the approved planning capacity for the site. The changes proposed would increase the anticipated power output by some 57%. The proposed design changes are mainly in relation to the internal process lines and do not require any changes to the high quality architectural building design in terms of its size and height and no changes to the approved external finishes. The facility would still provide the same significant economic benefits. With an investment of approximately 250 million the facility will result in 40 full time jobs and around 300 jobs during construction in addition to significant economic benefits to local service providers. The proposed changes are summarised below: replacement of the original two process lines with a single process line. With improvements to the chosen technology, it is possible to install a single line capable of processing up to 350,000 tonnes per annum of feedstock within the approved building envelope. The new design would enable the power output from the site to be increased from 21MW to 33MW, an increase of some 57% for a corresponding increase of only 17% in fuel feedstock. There is also an increase in energy efficiency of the plant. The proposed increase in throughputs from 300,000 tonnes per annum to 350,000 tonnes per annum is still well within the currently permitted approved maximum capacity of 375,000 tonnes per annum for the Newhurst site and would not result in a requirement to increase the HGV movement restrictions on the site. having a single process line means that only one flue stack would be needed. the change in the internal arrangements means that the flue stack would be moved slightly such that its base is within the building envelope. provision of additional cooling fans to improve process efficiency. the use of a single process line releases space inside the building such that the office and ancillary accommodation would be housed within the main building rather than being in a wing on the side of the building. the canopy roof over the IBA storage and maturation area is no longer required and processed IBA would weather better without it (IBA processing would still be carried out within the building envelope). The IBA maturation area will still be i
screened with green walling. External maturation and storage is standard practice at other operational ERF plants. minor changes to the internal site road layout. These changes require Biffa to submit a new planning application to Leicestershire County Council to vary the approved scheme. The current planning permission is subject to some 41 conditions; however, only Condition 2 (which lists the approved documents and plans) needs to be varied to accommodate the proposed changes to the ERF. In view of the provisions of regulations governing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), despite the limited nature of the changes, the planning application needs to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement. ii
INTRODUCTION 1. This document comprises a Non Technical Summary ( NTS ) and has been prepared by (SLR) on behalf of Biffa Waste Services Limited (the applicant). The NTS is part of a package of documents being submitted to Leicestershire County Council in support of a planning application to amend the design of the Energy Recovery Facility ( ERF ) at Newhurst Quarry that was approved by the Secretary of State on 28 June 2012 (ref. APP/M2460/A/11/2150748). 2. Land at Newhurst Quarry has the benefit of an implemented planning permission (ref. 2007/1987/02) for a 375,000 tonnes per annum landfill with associated front end treatment facilities (referred to as an Integrated Waste Management Facility, or IWMF ). Planning permission has also been granted (28 June 2012) by the Secretary of State for the construction and operation of an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) and ancillary facilities, comprising offices and welfare facilities, visitor centre, bottom ash recycling and maturation, access roads and weighbridge facilities, crew drop-off shelter, electrical compound, together with peripheral landscaping and security fence. 3. In the period since planning permission for the ERF was granted, consideration has been given to the detailed design of the ERF. This process has highlighted that some changes to the design need to be made to provide optimal efficiencies (both operationally and in terms of power output). APPLICATION SUBMISSION PACKAGE 4. This NTS comprises Volume 3 of a larger multi volume submission to accompany the planning application. In addition to the formal planning application forms and certificates, the full submission comprises: Volume 1: Planning and Sustainability Statement; Volume 2A: Environmental Statement (main text); Volume 2B: Environmental Statement (Technical Appendices) and Volume 3: A Non Technical Summary of the ES. 5. The NTS has been produced as a separate document to accompany the planning submission, being a mandatory part of the Environmental Statement ( ES ). This provides, in non-technical language, a brief summary of the likely significant effects that the proposed changes to the approved development would have on the environment. 6. Paper copies of the ES can be obtained from at the following address: Aspect House Aspect Business Park Bennerley Road Nottingham NG6 8WR 1
7. The ES, along with the other Volumes, are available in both paper and CD Rom formats, for which a charge of 200 and 25 is applicable respectively. A copy of the NTS is available free of charge on request. The application documents will also be available to download from the Leicestershire County Council web site. PLANNING AND EIA 8. The European legislation (the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive or EIA Directive for short) requires that, before granting development consent for projects authorities should carry out a procedure known as environmental impact assessment (or EIA ) of any project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment. In the UK, development consent includes the grant of planning permission. 9. An ES is a report of an EIA that is required to be submitted with a planning application. 10. Under the EIA legislation, the planning application for Newhurst is to be accompanied by an ES. THE SITE 11. Newhurst Quarry forms part of the Charnwood Quarry complex, lying approximately 5km to the west of Loughborough town centre and 1.5km to the south of the centre of Shepshed (measured to the nearest boundary of the quarry). More specifically, Junction 23 of the M1 lies at the north eastern corner of the quarry. 12. The quarry is bounded by the A512, offices of Hanson UK and a former tile works to the north; the M1 to the east; Ingleberry Road to the west and agricultural land to the south. The quarry area measures around 39ha; the vast proportion of this comprises the quarry void and associated mineral waste tips/screen mounds (which extend along the northern, western and southern edges of the void) and margins. 13. The application site (being the site upon which the ERF would be sited) is located along the eastern edge of Newhurst Quarry, and extends to around 15.5ha. It is broadly rectangular in shape, lying between the quarry void and M1 and extending up to, and including part of, the A512. Historically, it contained the aggregate processing plant for the quarry complex; however the processing plant has now been removed, with some concrete structures remaining. Mature broadleaf woodland exists along the north-eastern and eastern edges of the application site, whilst the southern and western edges are characterised by disused quarry workings and ancillary land. Figure 1 overleaf (being an extract from Drawing NH 2/1 in the ES) illustrates the location of the application site. 2
Figure 1 Site Location 3
Land Use 14. The application site is a former hardstone quarry with associated ancillary infrastructure. 15. As noted above, the site has the benefit of two planning permission for waste management uses comprising an IWMF and an ERF. 16. To the north and north-west of the application site, along the frontage of the A512, is a belt of industrial development, incorporating a Highways Agency depot, GLW Feeds, BOAL UK, Fred Sherwood and Sons (Transport) Ltd depot, Charnwood Bricks and Meggitt Polymer Solutions. Beyond this lie residential areas of Shepshed. 17. To the south of the application site, the area is more rural, interspersed with isolated farmsteads and properties. Immediately to the east is the M1 corridor, beyond which is an area designated as a green wedge in the Charnwood Borough Local Plan, comprising a golf course, Garendon Park (a Registered Park and Garden, refer to the section on Cultural Heritage below) and agricultural land, before the urban fringe of Loughborough is reached. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 18. The application site is predominantly free of international and national land use constraints; a geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located within the quarry void to the west of the main area of development. The application site is located within the National Forest, and designated as an area of particularly attractive countryside in the adopted Charnwood Borough Local Plan (see paragraph 29 below); this designation covers large tracts of land within the southwestern and southeastern parts of the Borough. 19. Figure 1 within this document illustrates the broad location of the application site whilst Chapter 2 within the ES (Volume 2) provides further information on the application site and its environs. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The 2012 Approved Scheme 20. Under the approved scheme, the ERF would be housed within an architecturally designed building appropriate to its surroundings. The main building would extend from 14m to 47m in height and covers a footprint of around 250m by 70m in plan, being approximately ovoid in shape and orientated along a northsouth axis within the site. Internally, the process would involve two process lines with a combined throughput of around 300,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum. Also within the building would be plant needed to generate electricity, along with plant to clean process air before it is emitted to the atmosphere via one of the two 96.5m high flue stacks. The design also allows for heat to be exported from the ERF to suitable end users (i.e. the plant is CHP ready ). 4
21. Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) would also be processed on site. This is the residue from the combustion of the waste and can be processed to produce a secondary aggregate. The IBA would be processed within a covered area to the north of, and contiguous with, the ERF building. 22. Finally, the approved scheme also included office, welfare and other ancillary accommodation within a separate wing to the main building. The wing links the car park with the main body of the ERF building. The Revised Scheme 23. Changes to the design of the ERF need to be made to provide optimal efficiencies (both operationally and in terms of power output); these changes are mainly in relation to the internal process lines. In considering the changes needed, particular care has been taken to minimise the change to the external appearance of the building, and in particular, ensure that its overall dimensions do not increase. In other words the building envelope has not changed from that approved by the Secretary of State and described above in paragraphs 20 to 22. 24. The proposed changes to the design are: to replace the two process lines with a single process line. With improvements to the chosen technology, it is possible to install a single line capable of processing up to 350,000 tonnes per annum; to have a single process line means that only one flue stack would be needed; to move the flue stack slightly such that its base is now within the building envelope. This would help shroud the continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) platform that is needed part way up the stack; to house the office and ancillary accommodation within the main building, with the wing replaced by a footbridge linking the building with the car park; to remove the roof over the IBA maturation and storage area to improve the weathering of the IBA (IBA processing would still be carried out within the building envelope); minor changes to the internal road layout; minor changes to the sub-station; and the provision of additional cooling fans. 25. The changes to the process line would lead to an increase in both the efficiency of the process and amount of energy (a proportion of which is renewable, and overall, considered to be low carbon) generated by the facility. The initial plant design was predicted to produce 25MW electricity, with 21MW for export to the grid after the plant has taken its own requirements. The new design would produce 37MW, with 33MW available for export. 26. All other aspects of the approved design would remain unaltered. As such, there are no changes to the process of treating the imported waste within the ERF, or 5
the nature of the residues. Allied to this, previously agreed mitigation measures, such as the improvements to the site entrance and off-site planting within Garendon Park, are retained within the current scheme. 27. A full description of the proposed development, including the processes to be undertaken, is included in Chapter 3 of the ES (Volume 2). Figure 2 below illustrates the architectural design and the proposed ERF and Figure 3 shows the layout of the ERF and proposed landscaping (being an extract from Drawing NH 3/12 in Volume 2). Figure 2 View of building (proposed) from car park 6
Figure 3 Landscaping Masterplan POLICY BACKGROUND 28. The Government is committed to a plan led system, with the Development Plan forming the basis of all planning decisions. Legislation confers a presumption in favour of development proposals which accord with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 29. The planning application will be determined in accordance with prevailing policies at national and local level. National planning policies are contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7
10 Sustainable Waste Management. Local policies translate national strategic issues into site specific proposals through the Development Framework, comprising: the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (adopted October 2009); and the Charnwood Borough Local Plan (adopted January 2004). 30. National policies on energy (contained in the National Planning Statements EN- 1 and EN-3) are also relevant to the proposed development. National energy policy and guidance indicates that obtaining energy from waste falls within the scope of low carbon and renewable energy, which forms an integral part of the government s overall energy strategy. 31. Land use constraints have been identified in paragraph 18 above. The application site is generally free from any international or national land use constraints; however, it is located within an area of attractive countryside in the Borough Local Plan, and the quarry is designated for its geological importance. These designations have been taken into account within the ES. 32. The Development Framework seeks to reconcile the development needs of society against safeguarding the environment and amenity of local communities. In so doing, the Development Framework sets out a series of policies which seek to guide developments in terms of acceptable limits and design, whilst ensuring interests of archaeological, cultural heritage, ecological interest and importance are protected, and that the local amenity and environment of communities are not derogated through pollution to air, land or water. 33. The Development Framework also seeks to provide guidance on the location of new development. The Core Strategy specifically indicates that Strategic Waste Management Sites will be located within the area between Loughborough, Shepshed and Coalville. 34. Through the EIA process, it has been able to demonstrate that the development proposals would not conflict with the stated aims and policies of the Development Framework. Allied to this, the generation of low carbon energy is consistent with the Government s aims of addressing climate change, as advocated in national planning guidance. ALTERNATIVES 35. As the development proposals seek, in essence, to amend an approved scheme for which planning permission has been granted following a thorough examination at Public Inquiry, it is not appropriate to consider alternative sites. Allied to this, the proposals are to a larger extent a refinement of the approved scheme and thus, with the exception of minor design iterations, no alternatives were considered as part of the EIA process. 36. If the planning application was not made (i.e. the do nothing scenario ), the ERF plant arrangement would be built as approved, and thus: 8
the slight reduction in footprint of the buildings (through the removal of the office wing) would not be realised; the removal of one flue stack would not be realised; the increase in the amount of low carbon energy that could be produced would be lost; the ability to divert additional residual waste (up to 50,000 tonnes per annum) away from landfill would be lost; and the ability for further savings of emissions of greenhouse gases, either as a result of diverting waste from landfill, or offsetting conventional energy supply, would be lost. AIR QUALITY 37. An assessment of the air quality impacts associated with the proposed design changes to the ERF has been undertaken. The assessment has focussed on the principal emissions to air, including: Air Quality Strategy Pollutants from vehicle exhausts; Air Quality Strategy and IED Pollutants from point sources (ERF Stack); dust and litter emissions during the construction and operational phases; and odours and bioaerosols arising from the operational phase. 38. The assessments of dust, litter, odour and bioaerosols during the operation of the ERF have been undertaken qualitatively and have found that the risk of significant generation of emissions during the operational phase is low. These issues would be regulated by the Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency. 39. The magnitude of short term impacts at the location of maximum ground level concentration for all pollutants is assessed as negligible. The magnitude of long term impacts at the location of maximum ground level concentration for all pollutants is assessed as negligible with the exception of nitrogen dioxide and cadmium. All short and long term impacts are regarded as insignificant when backgrounds are taken into account. Furthermore the assessment assumes that the ERF emits at the limit on a continuous basis and research indicates that this would not be the case. Notwithstanding these points, these issues would be regulated by the Environmental Permit. 40. The impact of emissions on sensitive ecosystems are not predicted to be significant as process contributions are a very small increase on current levels, typically less than 1% of the applied critical level or load when typical operating hours and emissions are considered. 41. The findings of an assessment of the effects of the development traffic on air quality indicate that impacts are considered to be neutral when compared to the previously consented IWMF and ERF permissions. 9
42. In summary the proposed ERF is not predicted to give rise to significant adverse air quality effects for either human or ecological receptors. The impacts from the proposed ERF scheme are predicted to be lower than those predicted for the extant scheme for which planning permission was granted and an environmental permit issued. 43. Overall, it has been concluded that the proposed design changes to the ERF would not lead to any significant impacts and that the ERF could still operate within the terms of the relevant planning conditions on the current consent. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 44. A landscape and visual assessment of the proposed changes to the ERF has been completed in accordance with accepted guidance, and is presented in Chapter 7 of the ES. 45. The assessment includes a baseline study of the existing site and its surroundings, a study of the landscape and visual characteristics of the development and an assessment of the residual landscape and visual impacts likely to be generated after mitigation has been considered and their significance. 46. The application site forms part of a disused quarry complex which has planning permission for a large ERF development, which the Secretary of State considered (in the decision letter 28 th June 2012) would result in an impact in terms of perception from within and impact upon the Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside (APAC) and the Charnwood Forest. However, he also considered that these would be quite localized and although there would be some urbanising impact, would occupy only a limited percentage of any view. 47. The approved ERF forms part of the dynamic landscape and visual baseline for the application site; the proposed development (changes to the approved ERF) are judged against the appearance of the approved ERF. 48. The overall size and scale of the approved ERF development would remain unaltered as a result of the proposed design changes. The proposed changes would result in very limited changes in the appearance of the plant, most notably the removal of one of the flue stacks. 49. With reference to the existing published landscape character assessments, the application site forms part of a Shepshed Urban Fringe Character Area and/or an Urban Fringe Landscape Character Type. The application site and its context are strongly associated with the urban fringe characteristics of the southern edge of Shepshed and bear little relation to the rural characteristics of Charnwood Forest. The character of the application site and its context is primarily industrial and this would certainly be the case once the existing approved ERF development is taken into account. 50. Overall this assessment has not identified any significant landscape effects as a result of the proposed development. The overall effect upon the Bradgate and Beacon Landscape Character Area as a whole is considered to be negligible to 10
slight, whilst the effect on Shepshed settlement would be negligible, based on the character areas described in the Charnwood Forest Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008). 51. Similarly, the assessment has demonstrated that there are no significant visual effects predicted on any of the viewpoints during the operational phase. Although there are several sensitive receptors in the study area (mainly recreational visitors/users, residents and to a lesser degree road users), most of the proposed design changes would be extremely small in scale and would involve modification to features which would already be present in views once the approved ERF is constructed. As such, the changes would be barely noticeable compared to the approved ERF Scheme. TRANSPORT 52. The ES has assessed the traffic and transport implications of the proposed development in accordance with recognised standards and guidelines issued by the Department for Transport. In particular the traffic and transport implications of the proposed increase in throughput from 300,000 tonnes per annum to 350,000 tonnes per annum has been assessed. 53. As previously noted, planning permission already exists for an IWMF which would manage 375,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum. The planning permission restricts HGV movements to a daily maximum of 286. This approved development forms the baseline situation on which any impacts resultant from the proposed development must be assessed. 54. Planning permission has also been granted by the Secretary of State for an ERF which would manage 300,000 tonnes per annum of residual waste. Condition 13 of this permission restricts HGV movements to a daily maximum of 242 per day. 55. The site generated traffic has been predicted and compared to both the maximum HGV numbers set for the approved ERF scheme and the maximum HGV numbers set for the approved IWMF. The comparison has shown that the proposed changes to the ERF would have no greater impact than the two previous permissions. 56. The access improvements with the A512 Ashby Road approved under the previous planning permission for the ERF would be constructed as part of the development proposals. The assessment has shown that the trip generation of the proposed development would be less than the consented IWMF and no greater than the approved ERF scheme due to less waste being delivered directly to the facility by collection vehicles. By virtue of this fact, must be acceptable in traffic and transport terms. 57. A review of personal injury accidents has been undertaken and the assessment concluded that there was no pattern of accidents that would be suggestive of a deficiency in the highway network that results in an unacceptable safety risk. This supports the view of the previous assessments submitted in support of the IWMF and ERF. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the total number of vehicle 11
movements generated by the proposed changes to the ERF is less than the consented IWMF and no greater than the approved ERF scheme, the safety performance of the junction is considered to remain unchanged and within acceptable limits. 58. As part of the development proposals, a staff travel plan would be implemented with the aim of encouraging staff to commute via sustainable modes of travel. 59. With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the ES, the residual impacts of the proposed development have been considered and the assessment broadly concludes nil detriment. 60. It is concluded that the development proposals would not discernibly or materially worsen the existing operation of the highway network and that, by virtue of this, the development proposal is acceptable in traffic and transport terms. Additionally it has been demonstrated that the proposals would operate within Condition 13 of planning permission APP/M2460/A/11/2150748 granted by the Secretary of State without the need to seek an increase in HGV vehicle movements at the site. NOISE 61. The ES has considered the potential for both the construction and operation of the proposed ERF to give rise to noise and vibration impacts at the closest noise-sensitive receptors. The assessment has had regard to condition 26 of the approved ERF permission that limits noise levels at such receptors. 62. The noise assessment (refer to Chapter 9 of the ES) has used measured background noise levels at four locations around the application site and made a series of noise level predictions based in accordance with British Standards and guidelines issued by the Government. The predicted noise levels have then been assessed against criteria in accordance with recognised guidance. 63. The assessment has found that the predicted construction noise levels are below the relevant noise criterion adopted for the assessment (which is based on published guidance). At worst construction noise levels would have a minor, barely perceptible impact at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. Vibration from construction operations would not have an impact due to the relatively large distances between the construction works and the nearest receptors. 64. During both the daytime and the night-time the predicted levels are below the prevailing background noise levels at all of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed. Moreover, the predicted noise levels produced by the operation of the proposed development give a positive indication that complaints are unlikely at all of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed. 65. On-site heavy goods vehicle movements would have no impact on the existing measured ambient noise levels at any of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed. 12
66. The cumulative impact of all operations would have no impact on the existing measured ambient noise levels at any of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed. 67. Even though it is not expected that noise emissions would at any point exceed any of the limits, a number of mitigation measures and management actions have been identified within the ES that would further reduce noise emissions from the site. 68. In conclusion the assessment has determined that noise emissions from the operation of the development would be well within the noise limits specified in Planning Condition 26 of the planning permission for the approved ERF development at all the nearest noise-sensitive receptors during both the daytime and the night-time. GEOLOGY AND WATER 69. The geological, groundwater and surface water regimes at the application site have been assessed with reference to information held by the British Geological Survey, the Environment Agency, Local Authority and others. This information has been supplemented with site specific investigation information and a site walkover survey. 70. Part of the adjacent quarry, which has been developed in rock dating back to the Pre Cambrian era, is designated as a geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS). 71. The assessment has shown that there is little groundwater present in the Triassic deposits beneath the application site. Incident rainfall and intercepted groundwater is discharged to the Shortcliff Brook. It is noted that there is limited hydraulic conductivity between the groundwater beneath the application site and that observed in the quarry. 72. The Shortcliff Brook flows eastward adjacent to the southern boundary of the application site. Near to the site the brook flows in a deeply incised channel, approximately 5m below the level of ground within the application site. The application site is not located within an area that is liable to flooding and this has been confirmed by site specific hydraulic modelling. A standalone flood risk assessment for the proposed development has been prepared. It is also noted that the Charnwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment shows the application site to be allocated for waste development. 73. The potential impacts of the proposed development upon the geological, groundwater and surface water environments have been identified and assessed, and where appropriate, mitigation measures (such as traffic management, containment, and sustainable drainage schemes) have been incorporated into the design of the development. The assessment has included consideration of possible impacts on water quality, flooding and water resources. 13
74. As with the approved ERF, the proposed development would not affect the SSSI and RIGS recorded in the adjacent quarry. 75. Mitigation measures have been proposed within the ES to ensure that the development and operation of the ERF would be in accordance with best practice guidance. 76. Overall the assessment indicates that the proposals would not have any significant adverse impacts upon the geological or water environments. It is noted that this is the same conclusion as the assessments completed in 2009 and 2011 which received no objection from statutory consultees, with respect to geology and the water environment. Finally, a number of planning conditions exist within the planning permission for the ERF aimed at safeguarding the water environment. The assessment has demonstrated that with the design changes to the ERF it would still operate within the terms of the relevant planning conditions on the approved ERF consent. ECOLOGY 77. An ecological impact assessment has been undertaken following published guidelines on the likely effects upon flora and fauna and is reported in Chapter 11 of the ES. 78. The assessment draws from ecological surveys undertaken between 2009 and 2014 of the application site and land immediately surrounding it. The survey undertaken in 2014 found that the habitat baseline remains largely un-changed from that existing at the time of the earlier planning applications, with the exception that some of the ponds previously recorded as holding water are now dry. The amphibian survey was also repeated and found great crested newts in more ponds than previously, including the concrete surface water drainage tanks located at the site entrance within the application site. The overall population recorded in 2014 was smaller than in 2009. 79. The application site comprises largely bare open ground, with mature broadleaved plantation to the north and east. To the south is a grassland bund covered in rough grassland, scrub and a ditch. 80. Ecological evaluation has identified the following receptors of ecological importance within the application site and adjoining land: mature woodland and plantation; great crested newts (Pond 9, 10 (study area) & 13 (within site); foraging badger; commuting bats; and nesting birds 81. The assessment of impacts upon ecological features within and around the application site has identified a range of potential impacts, i.e. habitat loss, fragmentation, hydrological, dust, noise and visual impacts; that could result from the construction and operation of the ERF. The impacts identified through the EIA process are similar to those identified for the approved ERF scheme. 14
The ecological receptors have been assessed against these impacts to identify the likelihood of significant ecological effects. 82. Mitigation measures have been devised to minimise the potential impacts upon habitats, birds and great crested newts. Specific mitigation and avoidance measures have been outlined for breeding birds to ensure that there are no adverse effects upon these species during vegetation clearance. Detailed risk assessments with working methodologies, where necessary, would be produced for construction activities at the site to minimise the risk to great crested newts at the site. 83. As with the approved ERF scheme, the implementation of operational good practice with regard to dust suppression, protection of surface water, minimisation of noise and visual disturbance would ensure that there are no significant adverse effects upon flora and fauna associated with the site whilst the development is progressing or operated. No residual impacts of the proposed development have been highlighted. 84. As with the approved ERF scheme, restoration and habitat enhancements would compensate in the long-term for the loss of habitat resulting from the proposed construction of the ERF. The development proposals would maintain and enhance a network of wildlife corridors throughout the site. All created and restored habitats within the site would be managed to maximise their biodiversity value. The restoration of the site would provide a range of habitats of local biodiversity importance, including forest heath. The long-term management of these habitats should ensure that habitats of ecological value are maintained at the site for the long-term. 85. Overall it has been concluded that the proposed design changes to the ERF would not lead to any significant impacts and that the ERF could still operate within the terms of the relevant planning conditions on the current consent. CULTURAL HERITAGE 86. An assessment of the potential impact of the proposed design changes to the ERF on cultural heritage features in and around the application site has been undertaken. This is reported in Chapter 12 of the ES. 87. The application site contains no designated heritage assets or parts thereof (these are world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, registered battlefields, registered historic parks and gardens, and conservation areas). 88. Designated heritage assets within 5km of the application site comprise eight conservation areas (all embedded within built-up areas), 103 listed buildings, six scheduled monuments and one registered park. 89. Amongst these heritage assets are three groups of features identified for detailed impact assessment: 15
Garendon Park, comprising the remains of a medieval abbey, and postmedieval, 18th and 19th-century parkland, buildings and structures; Holywell medieval farmhouse and outbuildings; and hillforts near Belton and at Beacon Hill. 90. Taking into account the difference of appearance between the approved and proposed schemes, and the historic environment data related to the application site and its surroundings, potential impacts have been identified and assessed on the possible surviving remains of the Charnwood Forest Canal and the Ashby - Loughborough turnpike within the application site, and three groups of heritage assets beyond it. 91. The assessment has found that the approved scheme would have a no greater than negligible adverse direct effect on the potential archaeological remains within the application site. Effects on Holywell Farmhouse and the Beacon Hill and Belton hillforts would be negligible and minor adverse respectively. Incorporating mitigation, the effects on Garendon Park and the assets within it have been determined as constituting less than substantial harm. 92. As noted from the conclusions of the landscape and visual impact assessment, the proposed design changes to the ERF would be barely noticeable compared to the approved ERF Scheme. Considering the effect on cultural heritage of the proposed development to be any effect resulting from differences between the permitted and proposed schemes, impacts are considered to be negligible beneficial or nil. 93. Overall it has been concluded that the proposed design changes to the ERF would not lead to any significant impacts and that the ERF could still operate within the terms of the relevant planning conditions on the current consent. SOCIO ECONOMIC 94. For the purposes of the socio economic impact assessment a study area within a radius of 5km from the application site was used to identify the key characteristics of the surrounding area. 95. Data was gathered from the 2011 Census for each ward within the study area. This data formed the baseline description of the study area and has been used to assess the potential for impact arising from the proposed ERF. 96. The construction phase of the development is likely to take place over a period of approximately 3 years, during which time it is expected that a total of some 300 construction workers would visit the site during a number of sub phases. It is anticipated that whilst some local suppliers and construction workers would be employed, the majority of construction workers would require specialist skills and so may reside in the area for a short period. Consequently, it is considered that in the worst case the construction phase may result in a temporary increase in the population due to the requirement for specialist construction workers. 97. During the operational phase, the ERF would employ some 40 permanent staff, and a mixture of employment opportunities would be available. It is anticipated 16
that the majority of the employment opportunities would be fulfilled by recruiting staff from the local area. Consequently, it is not anticipated that there would be an influx of new workers to the area for the operation of the ERF. 98. It is acknowledged that some people may choose to move away from the area as a result of the development; however this is unlikely to be any greater than for any other large development. Overall, it is anticipated that the proposed ERF would have no impact on the permanent population of the area. 99. With regard to land use, the study area comprised of a number of relatively densely population towns and villages. The countryside between the towns and villages is predominantly used for agriculture or forestry. The M1 motorway runs in a north / south direction through the area of which junction 23 provides access to the A512, which passes the site in an east to west direction. Consideration of the land use and potential impact of the proposed development found that the development would not affect the land uses in the area surrounding the application site. 100. Economic impacts associated with the development of the ERF are expected to be positive due to the new employment opportunities and requirement for services that are created, which in turn provide expenditure in the local area. Both the construction and operational phases of the development would lead to economic benefits. 101. The applicant recognises that in some cases travel to work by car is unavoidable, but would set out to encourage more sustainable means of travel such as car sharing, use of public transport and cycling. Due to the number of permanent employees at the ERF it is not anticipated that the development would result in an impact on local public transport services. 102. As well as considering the economic implications of the development, it has also been necessary to consider the purely social aspects and impacts of the ERF. Consideration has been given to crime, and it is noted that construction works often attract crime such as trespassing, theft and vandalism due to the remote nature of sites and presence of expensive construction equipment. Mitigation measures, such as fencing, CCTV, lighting, have been proposed to deter theft and vandalism. The potential for crime during the operation of the ERF is thought to be much lower due to the secure nature of the site. 103. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that the ERF would result in an increase in ill health in the surrounding area. Consideration has been given to the potential for the development to impact upon the air quality of the surrounding area and found that the proposed ERF would have only a negligible impact on air quality of the area and would not result in increased ill health. CLIMATE CHANGE 104. The ES has considered the implications the proposed ERF may have on climate change, and also the potential impact of climate change on the facility. 17
105. The Environment Agency life cycle assessment software Waste and Resource Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) was utilised to model the potential environmental impacts of the proposed facility. This has shown that the facility would result in an overall reduction in environmental impacts such as global CO2 emissions. This can be attributed to the generation of electricity from waste and the subsequent displacement of fossil fuel electricity generation. 106. Whilst the ERF would produce carbon emissions, these are less harmful greenhouse gases than methane, which would be produced if the waste was landfilled. 107. The ERF and offices would be powered by energy produced on site and the surplus energy would be exported to the National Grid. Recovered energy avoids the need to produce electricity from non-renewable (fossil) sources, which in turn reduces emissions associated with the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. 108. In accordance with Government guidance, the ERF has been designed to minimise energy use and carbon emissions during construction and operation. The site has also been designed to attenuate surface water runoff and ensure that the facility would not give rise to additional surface water runoff or down stream flooding, again in accordance with Government and Environment Agency guidance. 109. Finally, the ERF would have the potential to provide heat to existing and future developments in a 5km area around the site. There are a number of new developments proposed in the vicinity of the facility that could potentially be supplied with heat. Allied to this there are existing industrial operations that also be supplied with heat. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 110. The final chapter of the ES considers cumulative impacts and the inter relationship between individual environmental issues. In considering potential cumulative impacts it is important to note the extant planning permissions for waste management uses at Newhurst Quarry. 111. Cumulative impacts, which consider the proposed ERF with other developments in the area, be they historic, current or planned, have been considered in the context of other waste management facilities and uses of land. The only waste management facility in the vicinity of the application site is Shepshed Landfill Site, operated by Charnwood Forest Brick Ltd. This facility is not understood to accept waste on a regular basis. Planning permission has been granted for a change of use from an industrial use to a waste transfer, treatment and recycling facility on land adjoining Newhurst Quarry. As the application relates to a recycling operation and makes use of an existing building, then the likelihood of cumulative impacts would be minimal. That said, the application post-dates the permission for the ERF and thus the acceptability of any cumulative impacts rests with the latter application. 18
112. With regard to other land uses around the application site, none have been identified that would result in any cumulative impacts in terms of air quality, traffic, noise, surface water or landscape and visual amenity. 113. Finally, inter relationships between impacts looks at how particular elements of the development may interact. The approach taken in the EIA has been to assess how a particular type of effect (e.g. movement of HGVs) may become a source of impact that results in an effect to a completely different category of receptor (such as noise or air quality). 114. For the ERF, no significant impacts have been identified for any of the environmental topics considered as part of the EIA. Thus, no receptors are likely to experience any significant accumulated impacts from two or more sources. CONCLUSION 115. This non technical summary has outlined the findings of the environmental impact assessment of the development proposals contained within an Environmental Statement ( ES ). The ES accompanies a planning application to amend the design of the Energy Recovery Facility ( ERF ) at Newhurst Quarry that was approved by the Secretary of State on 28 June 2012. 116. The environmental effects of developing an ERF at Newhurst Quarry has previously been assessed in considerable detail and tested at a public inquiry. 117. The current planning application seeks to amend the design of the approved ERF scheme to provide optimal efficiencies, both operationally and in terms of power output. In considering the changes needed, particular care has been taken to minimise the change to the external appearance of the building, and in particular, ensure that its overall dimensions do not increase. 118. The environmental impact assessment has considered the likelihood of significant environmental impacts occurring from the proposed changes upon the site itself and its surroundings. The environmental issues addressed as part of the scheme have been identified through a combination of review of published data; desk based and site survey work; and consultation with the Council and other organisations. 119. The ES has not identified any significant impact from the proposed design changes. The overall conclusion is that, with the adoption of the mitigation measures embodied within the project design, any impacts identified can be maintained within acceptable limits such that the ERF (as amended) could still operate within the terms of the relevant planning conditions on the current consent issued by the Secretary of State. 120. In view of this, it is only necessary to amend one planning condition relating to the approved plans and documents. All other planning conditions can remain as imposed by the Secretary of State. 19